wordlig
2
ARTES
1837
SCIENTIA
VERITAS
LIBRARY
OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
RIRUS UNUM
TUEROR
31-QUERIS-PENINSULAM-AMŒNAM `
CIRCUMSPICE
+1εbmi
BX
1780
REASON
AND
RELIGION.
OR
THE CERTAIN RVLE OF FAITH,
Where the Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church
is afſerted, againſt Atheiſts, Heathens, lewes,
Turks, and all Sectaries.
WITH
A REFVTATION OF Mr STILLINGFLEETS
Many grofs Errours. By E. W.or
Author of the Book called,
PROTESTANCY WITHOVT PRINCIPLES
Poteram Omnes Propofitionum rivulos, vno
Ecclefiæ fole ficcare. Hier. contra
Lucifer. c. vlt. fine.
ん
​ཀམ
PRINTED AT ANTWERP,
Ty MICHAEL CNOBBAERT, in the Year 1672.
Permiffu Superiorum.
6-24.26 CNWO
English
Sothenan
1-10-214
3333
THE
PREFACE
TO THE
READER
R
Eligion, that choife Evangelical
Pearle. Matth 13. the best In-
heritance, and richeſt Treasure God
hath bequeathed to Chriftians
though found and Strongly guarded,
meet's yet with many who long
- fince, had their weak attempts pre-
uailed, would haue thrown it out of the world. Atheist's
deny à Deity, the only fundation of Religion, lewes oppofe
Chrift, the great Mafter of Truth, and Heretiques band
against an evidenced vniverfal Church, that large field
wherein this precious level is found. Thefe Aduerfaries we
encounter, and our deſign is both to vnbeguile and falence
them. In the first place we attaque thoſe groffer Ene-
mies, Atheists, Lewes, Turks, and Infidels. This done, we
enter vpon the main matter, and freindly treat with our Mo-
4 2
dern
THE PREFACE
dern Sectaries by the force of plain and undeniable Princi-
ples: If thefe ftand ( which none can shake) Proteftancy
fall's to nothing. I call this Treatife the Rule of Faith,
where you haue the Inducements, which lead to the know-
ledge of true Religion clearly propofed, and strongly Main
tained against all Oppofers, whofe cauils and Calumnies re-
pugnant to truth, will appear as they are vain and forceles,
after due ponderation of the Principles we rely on.
The prudent fearch after Religion is ever made and firft
begun with Reaſon, or à rational difcourfe, for I hold this
Principle indubitable. None can affent to the high res
uealed Myfteries of Faith, without previous euidence
had of their Credibility laid forth to reafon. Now
becauſe Atheiſts, Arians, and all Heretiques, hold what
they teach reaſonable, it is neceſſary to distinguish between
falle and true Reaſon, as alfo rigidly to Examin
what ever belongs to that whole Matter, which is amply
done in the 14th 15th. and, 16th. Chapters of the third
Difcourfe, where we prove that Religion is only Reafos
nable, which Heaven it felfe declares reaſonable, by fuch
viſible, fenfible, and illuſtrious Marks as haue gained Milli-
ons to believe in Chrift, and no other but God's Infinite
Power and wisdom, can produce. Herevpon, we lay forth
the fignal Marks of the Roman Catholick Church, clear
Cognisances of an Infinite Power and VViſdom, Mi.
racles
TO THE READER.
Facles moſt euident,Converfions of Nations wrought by Her,
Succeßion of Paftors,euer fince the Apostles preached, with d
Arict vnity of one Faith in all that Profeffed Her Doctrin.
VVe look next vpon this late rifen Proteftancy and find it
naked, vtterly ftrip't of all fupernatural Motives: No Mira-
cles, no Conuerfions, no vnity in Faith to countenance the
Nouelty, and therefore conclude that the 'Profeſſors of it who
feemingly stand for Reafon, and flight an euidenced Church,
are moft vnreasonable, and as dayly experience teaches,meer
Scepticks in Matters of Religion.
Clemens Rom. in Recog: D. Petri. hereafter
cited, gives this wife Counſel to euery prudent ſeeker after
Truth. Before all things examin well by the light of ratio-
nal Motiues; whether one that pretends to ſpeak in the
name of God, and call's himselfe à Prophet fent to preach,
proues himfelfe to be really fo. Thus much learned ( and
the knowledge is eafily gained, becauſe grounded upon eui-
dence) believe boldly all he teaches, though his Doctrin
be fublime, and feem's difficult to weak reafon. The
first converted Chriftians were thus induced by the
Lustre of our Sauiours glorious Miracles and other Sig-
nal wonders, to own him as he was, à great Pro-
phet, or the true Meßias fent from God, and afterward
belieued what euer Doctrin he taught, vpon his own
Infallible word. Apply what is here faid to the Ro-
an Catholick Church, you will find this great Truth
•
a 3
made
THE PREFACE
made manifest in the following Difcourfes. viz. That
as no Prophet, no Doctor, ever came neer
Christ our Lord in the wonders he wrought,
fo no Society of men fince the world flood
was, or is Comparable in Miracles and other
Cognizances of truth, to the Roman Catholick
Church. She as I now faid, and no other Society, shewes
you à Continued Succeßion of Paftors, of Princes, and Peo-
ple fince the first Plantation of the Gospel. She and no
other hath been always reverenced all Nations over,and was
neuer oppoſed by Orthodox Chriftians. She gives you à large
Catalogue of Innumerable Profeffors eminent in learning,in
wisdom, and fanctity of life. In Her the ancient Predictions
of Prophets, are literally fulfilled. Her vniuerfal extent far
and neer, is euident; The Conuerfions wrought by her,Eui-
dent. The Courage and Conftancy of Martyrs who dyed for
her Faith, Euident. Her ancient Poffeßion of truth (for
Confeffedly she was once Orthodox ) is undeniable, And this
is the Church, Gentle Reader, our Sectaries would deftroy,
This Oracle, though fignalized with fo many Illuftrious
Marks, and Indications proceeding from God, infpite of
Heaven, they iniuriously Calumniate as Idolatrous,and He-
retical, And Confequently make thofe Millions and Millions,
who both living and dying zealously fought to ferve no
other but the great God of Truth in this bleffed Society,
・Fools
TO THE READER.
1
Fools, Madmen,Idolaters,and Heretiques. Ifay Calum-
niate, for all they haue done hitherto, or can do for the
future, comes to no more but to à flat iniurious Calum-
ny, as is euidenced in the third Difcourfe. C. 19. whe-
re you are told, that whoever impeaches an ancient Church
(once acknowledged Orthodox) of Idolatry, and proves
not his charge, by clear and vndeniable Principles,Ca-
lumniates muft vniustly, and fin's damnably, Proteftants
do ſo, as is there largely proued, and the truth is mani-
fest in their own writings. They tell us the
Roman Catholick Church though once right in Faith,
changed Her ancient Doctrin, we iuftly vrge them to
prove the Affertion by fome vnquestionable Principles,more
convincing, or of greater weight and strength to perfwa-
de what they affert, then the publick judgement of all found
Chriftians living at that time,to perfwade the Contrary; And
Mark à Strange Proceeding, the Calumny it felfe is re-
turned upon vs, without either Proof or probable Princi-
ple to ophold it, but their own bare and proofles word.
VVe are told again, there was euer à Catholick Church
without blemish, at leaft in fundamentals, ( for that Ar
ticle of the Creed. I believe the Holy Catholick
Church was true in all Ages) VVe feriously demand
where, or in what part of Christendom that Orthodox
Church (distinct from the Roman Catholick) had its
i
}
being:
THE PREFACE
being at that time, when the Roman fell from Chriſt, and
became Idolatrous? There was fuch à Church which cen-
fured and condemned the fuppofed Roman Errours, or not;
If not, the world vpon thoſe fuppofed errors, was wholly
Churchles. Grant an Orthodox Church distinct from the
Roman, She certainly oppofed thoſe Imagined falfe Roman
Doctrins, which then began to infect the Moral Body of
Chriftians, and Confequently that Oppofition was a thing
as notoriously known, as loudly noifed fome Centuries fince,
as it is Notoriously known and noiſed, that our Sectaries
haue now espied thofe falfe Doctrins. VVe vrge them to
bring to light that publick known Oppofition of their Ima
gined Church, against the Roman Catholick Society fancied
à Changling, And what haue we? Deep filence from fome,
and from fuch as dare fpeak, falfe Suppofitions for Proofs,
unworthy Calumnies for an Answer. Pleafe to fe this Ar
gument fully handled. Difc. 2. C. 6.
તે
3
Time was, the world knowes well, when our Aduer-
Jaries auouched they could prove their Proteftancy, and re-
fute our Catholick Doctrin by plain and exprefs Scripture,
We come to the true Trial in this Treatife, and in lieu of
God's word, find their Books full fraught with meer far-
fetcht Gloffes. Not one Paffage I boldly affert, (and put
Sectaries to the Proof) fauours this Proteftancy, as it is
diftinguished from Popery, and the known Herefies of
form
TO THE READER
former Ages. Now that nothing from Scripture can be
alleged Contrary to our Catholick Doctrin, is manifest
pon this one Principle, which none shall overthrow.
VVhat Scripture faithfully interpreted teaches in thefe
weighty matters of Religion, fome Orthodox Church deli-
vered in foregoing Ages: For example. If Scripture deny
Adoration to Chrift in the Bleffed Sacrament, or Tranfub-
ftantiation, an Orthodox Church, which cannot clash with
the verities of God's word, in fome Age or other maintai-
ned these Proteftant Tenets, and published them to Chri-
ftians, But no Orthodox Church euer fided with Secta.
ries, or taught fuch Doctrins, Therefore their pretence to
Scripture against our Catholick Tenets is friuolous, and
implies no more but à falfe fuppofition for à Proof. And
thu ſtrain of turning bare Suppofitions into proofs, which
never go beyond the strength of their own unproued
Affertions, fo vniuerfally trancends all their Polemuks that
I ftand aftonished, to je men who will be accounted learned,
wholly bufied in doing Nothing. Reflect | befeech you à lit-
tle. They have been told, and I remind them of it again
in this Treatife, that whoeuer makes the Roman Church
Idolatrous or Erroneous,must hold the fuppofed Idolatry and
errour fo remediles an Euil, that none on earth can redrefs
either, becauſe all the Proofs or Principles whereby the
Reformation should be made, will euidently appear less pon-
b
derous
THE PREFACE
?
derous to Euince this Church guilty of errour, then Her
fole Authority is to perfwade the Contrary, viz. That she
neuer erred. VVherefore Sectaries Confeffedly fallible
men, defferatly adventure to reform vs, and cannot but
Spoile all they go about to mend, whilst they Euidence not
Whilst they plead not, by the Authority of an Antient Or-
thodox Church which taught that very Proteftancy they
teach now, and decryed thefe Suppofed Popish errours as
loudly as they decry them: But to do thus much is impoßi-
ble, as manifeftly appears by their own writings, For tell
me I beseech you, whoever yet heard Protestant in all tho-
Se weak skirmishes made against Catholick Religion, Say
plainly and prove it. Such à Church reputed Ortho-
dox fiue or Six Ages fince, taught as we teach, ſenſed Scrip ·
tures as we fenfe them, Chriftians then vniuerfally believed no
Real Prefence, No facrifice of the Maffe &c. Has euer
Proteftant,I fay, gon thus groundedly to work? No,Moft
euidently, No. I shall highly extoll the man that will dare
-to proceed fo ingenuously, but find none engaged in this
right way of Arguing. Its true, fome who leap over the
heads of all their more Immediate Ancestors, between
Luther and the three or four first Centuries, tell vs thofe
Primitiue Chriftians were good Proteftants like them. Ill
luck Say I that Proteftancy had, not to be intailed vpon
Some Succeffors in following ages, for most certainly fince
thoſe
TO THE READER.
thofe dayes, the world neuer faw Proteftant before Luther.
In à word the Affertion is à loud vntruth, an unworthy
begging of Question, and befides implies à fancied fuppofi-
tion for à Proof. To show this, we reduce thefe ranging
Spirits to a leffer compass, and oblige them to name but
one Proteftant, neerer their shameful Reuolt from our La-
tholick Society. Here they stand grauelled, as mute as
fishes, and are highly angry, because we touch them where
they are most weak.
This want of à Church to ground Proteftancy vpon,
makes their Polemicks to be as they appear, rambling,
faint, shallow, and fo dis fatisfactory,that great patience is
requiſite to peruse them. VVonder nothing, they can do no
better, Rebells they are against an antient Church, and
their handling Controuerfies may well be compared with
the proceeding of Rebells in à Common wealth, who cu-
riouſly mark, and diligently attend to what ever may frem
Welcome to your ignorant, feduced, and disgusted Multitu-
des, That, be it what you will, is fomented, that's laid
forth, and inculcated. It is no newes to tell you, that our
Minifters in England now for à long time, haue bad à
number of feduced 'People bread in their own rebellious
bofomes, and brought up in a spirit of Schifm, who
à
God knowes hue heard little, but of the Idolatry, of the
Superftitions, and wickednes of fome Profeffed Catho-
licks.
THE PREFACE
out
licks. O, ſay theſe Incendiaries, we will nourish this Po-
putar humour with food fuitable to its palate, we will write
Books of this Popish Idolatry, we haue tongues and can
poyfon with delight, we will lay forth in folio what we
conceive of the Roman Superftitions, and the wickednes of
Popes. VVe know well to Cauil, and how to enfnare the
vulgar, on vvhom we depend, when our Cauils are once
though neither reducible to Principles, nor fubiect
to the Cenfure of any ludge (for we own none) let them
shift for themselves. Our only care is to talk on, though
We prove nothing, And chiefly to be vary in one parti-
cular, It is never to mention any thing of à Church which
taught Proteftancy before Luther, meddle vvith that Mif-
chiuous difficulty Dve are vndon, for really vve have
no fuck Church. This in à word (and much vvorfe ) is
Proteftancy, as is amply declared in the following Treati
fe, vvhere you alſo have the diftinctive Cognisances of
Christ's true Church, the Rule of Faith, and the Proper-
ties of à Rule explained; vithall, an eafy vvay vvhere-
by to put an end to thefe vnfortunate Controverfies. You
haue moreover the Infallibility of the Roman Catholick
Church afferted, Faith refolued into its true Principles, Mr
Stillingfleets groffer Errours difconered, The Reasonable-
nefs of Catbolick Religion laid forth to every rational
man, And to omit other Questions (all cannot be hinted
at
TO THE READER.
at in the narrow compaffe of à Preface) you have this great
Truth proved. viz. That if the Roman Catholick
Church hath taught but one falfe Article, and obliged all
Chriftians to believe it vnder pain of damnation, there
neither is at this day, nor was before Luther any true faith
in the world. VVherefore Sectaries who haue made it
their chiefe bufines to impeach our Church of Idolatry, and
Herefy (and the louder they cryed, the more they thought
to destroy vs) have done their vtmost to ruin all the
Churches on earth, and proue themfelues thereby both Faith-
les and Churchles. But enough for à Preface. Open
and read. Approue or condemn, as reafon shall guide you.
In caſe you Condemn, pleaſe to say,VVhy, and shew me
where I erre in Principles. Pardon the faults of the
Printer which are many (he is à ftranger to our Language)
except against mine boldly, if you find any, but do it with
Charity, and ſtill, for this I muſt inculcate again and
again, Remember Principles.
Farewel.
AN
b 3
A N
ADVERTISEMENT
FOR
Mr STILLINGFLEET
Sr.
Lain dealing is the best, you shall haue it in
this short Advertiſement from à friendly Ad-
uerfary (no Enemy 1 affure you) who de-
fires to do you good, against your will. If
I be rightly informed, Both you and fome
others find your felves diffatisfied vpon this fcore, that
your Rational Account (as tis called) comprehending the
Grounds of Proteftant Religion, remain's yet vntouch't, or
not answered. Before I reply to theſe complaints, I
shall take the boldnes to request one fauour at your
hands (you will much oblige me by it) which is to point
out that Chapter or Paragraph through your whole Book
wherein the hidden treature of theſe Proteftant Grounds
lie, and to giue me in à few lines, one or two of them
plainly fet down in halfe à Sheet of paper. I fpeak of
Grounds for Proteftancy, as it is your peculiar Religion
diftinct from Popery, and all known Condemned He-
reties. Fob me not off, I befcech you, with any ge.
neral talk, Tell me not I must feek better and shall
find, For, Sr, I affure you though I haue made à dili-
gent Search after your Grounds, they are yet fo far remo-
ued from my fight, that cannot find one. Where-
fore,
AN ADVERTISEMENT
fore, becauſe you are more Conuerfant in your own
writings then others, and, Plus vident oculi
quam m oculus, [
beg to be enlightned by you. If you fail to do this, the
world will judge as I do, that you haue abuſed the Rea-
der with à Title, wherevnto nothing in your volumi-
nous Book anſwer's. I mean you haue no more touched
vpon Grounds for Proteftancy (as Proteftancy and
mark my words) then for Arianifm, or any other falfe
Religion.
In the perufal of your Book I fe what beguiled you.
You, Sr, thought to throw that little dirt (wherewith
fome haue furnished you) in our faces, was enough to
make your bad caufe Specious
bad caufe Specious, and to prop vp your
Proteftancy, as if forfooth to Cavil at vs, were to efta-
blish your Novelties. Know good Sr, that both Arians
and all other gone Heretiques, were as fierce in their
Cauils against the Church as you are, but did they
therefore either ground or eſtablish their falfe Doctrins
contrary to Gods Truths? It is à gross errour to think
fo; For as it is one thing foolishly to brandish à Sword,
and another fitly to vſe à Buckler, fo it is à quite diffe-
rent bufines flightly to impugn Catholick Religion, and
another to defend Proteftancy. The firft you haue at-
tempted like your old Heretiques, and with as ill fuccefs;
But the fecond, which is to maintain Proteftancy, or
to fettle that vpon folid Grounds, neither is, nor was,nor
euer shall be done by any, wherefore I tell you in this
Treatife (read it if you pleafe) This Proteftancy is
wholly vngrounded, God never revealed one Article of it
(as Proteffancy) nor did ever antient or modern Or-
thodox Church teach fo much as one of your Particular
Tenets,
FOR Mr STILLINGFLEET
Tenets, And for this reafon I fay, its falfly called the refor
med Religion, hauing neither Effence, nor the Properties
of Religion belonging to it.
Now for as much as Concern's your Clamours, be-
caufe you think your Book neglected, or not yet An-
fwered. First, give me leave to tell you, it is a great
Vanity to rife to fo high à conceipt of your felfe or of
your Book (as if you were the only Defender of your
Faith) and à greater to publish it to the world. what
think you, Cannot Proteftancy be impugned without
taking you or your work in hand? Its little wildom to
judge fo. A Souldier, good Sir, who intend's to inuade
an enemy takes
takes no directions from him, how to en-
ter his Country, much lefs bufies his thoughts about re-
mouingeuery ſtraw, or euery little block that lies in his
way, but marches on, as he thinks beft to compafs his
Defign. To ouerthrow your Proteftancy is our Deſign,
and you moſt vnreaſonably prefcribe, what we are to do,
That is, we muft either attaque your Fort and meddle
with your Account, or you think nothing is done. Why
fol befeech you? Grant, which is not true, that thoſe
who haue written fince your Account faw light, paffed
by it without much notice, they might well do fo, loo.
king on it as à Block not worth remouing, vnleſs, as I
fay, you will haue them to obey your Commands, and
affault what Outwork you pleafe. It is Sr, your Cauſe
we more mind,then your account. 2. Why do you (or fome
body for you) not only shamefully ftopp all the Preffes, in
fo much that ſcarfe a sheet of paper can appear in pu-
blick; But moreover, why haue you (when all liberty is
granted to ſcrible and print what you pleaſe) omitted to
Anſwer
AN ADVERTISEMENT
Anſwer thoſe Bookes, which directly impugn your Doc-
trin. That excellent Guide of controuerfies is the One,
and Proteftancy without Principles, the other: And you
haue done this with much vncivil fcornful Langua-
ge, with a meer forced Pish from the teeth outward at
the end ofa Preface, as if, forfooth, you would be thought
to Say; You Could Anſwer but vvill not, vubereas the naked
truth is (at leaſt wife men Iudge fo) you would answer but,
Cannot. Sr, believe me, it would have been much to
the purpoſe, and far more fatisfactory to your Proteftant
Brethren, had
you, when you faw your Proteſtancy
(to ſpeak moderatly) well shaken in thoſe two Books,
replyed to fome particulars, and shewed where either
the Principles were falfe, or their Difcourfes failed, But
you Cowardly quitted the field, fate down filent, bufying
your felfe with reprinting a few Sermons, whereof the
world had no need at all. And this (t'is thought)
was done to cloak your Lazines, your ignorance or
both, becauſe you could not Anfwer, yet we are called
on to quarrel with you, whilft you like a Priuiledged
Perfon exempt your felfe from medling with vs. That
is we muſt fpeak, and you fay nothing.
But, Sr, let vs come neerer the point and tell you truth.
Whatever you account fubftantial in your Book, hath
been anfwered by your two fcorned Aduerfaries, andif
any thing be yet wanting, it is amply fupplyed in this
Treatife. To conceiue what I would proue, pleafe to
Note. There are two wayes in anſwering a Booke.
The one is to follow an Author ftep after ftep, by exa-
mining ſeverally each piece of the VVhole: The other
is to Confider the Principles wherevpon the hole re-
lyes,
C
FOR Mr STILLINGFLEET.
lyes, shewing them either falle in themfelues, or not
connex 't with thoſe Conclufions which should follow
from them. Destroy Principles, you deftroy all. Thus the
Motion ofà Watch may be fpoiled two wayes, either by
difordering euery wheel in it, à part, or by breaking the
Spring. The faireſt Palace ever was, is ruine d, if either
you feparate euery ftone from stone, or if you vndermi-
ne the fundation and blow vp the whole Fabrick, though
many of the ftones ftrongly Cimented, cling yet toge
ther. The first way of anfwering by piece-meal, is te-
dious and obfcure, and as things are with vs (by reaſon
of the difficulty in Printing and transmitting Bookes into
England) almoft impoffible, The other is clear and eaſy,
both are fatisfactory to euery rational man, and I hold
the ſecond moſt neceffary, For, in all our Difcourfes the-
re muſt be ſome firm Principles laid wherevnto we redu
ce, and from whence wè draw what we Affert, which fe-
ueral wayes of difcourfing, Compofe the two different
Methods, Analytical and Synthetical, obferued by Philofo-
phers and Divines. Neither is the Foundation more
neceſſary to à houſe,or the weight to a clock, then Prin-
ciples are to a Difcourfe, which then is good, when the
grounds ftand firm, and the Deductions of the particular
Conclufion from them, clear: But if either the Principles
be falfe and alien, or the Deductions not Coherent, the
whole Difcourfe fall's to nothing.
Apply what is here fayd to your Account, or rather to
the Religion it Afferts, and you have all I would Say.
Your Account, Sr, was writ to vindicate Proteftancy, and
muſt ſtand vpon the fame Principles with that Nouelty,
therefore whatever shak's and ruin's the Principles of
Pro-
AN ADVERTISEMENT.
Proteftancy, neceffarily shak's, and ruin's the Principles
of your Account, But your Suppofed Principles or
Grounds of Proteftancy are broken, yea demonftrated no
Grounds at all, in the Book intiti'd Proteftancy without
Principles, where they arc proued either falfe, or no Prin-
ciples peculiar to your Religion, as it is diſtinct from the
Doctrin of other Societies, called Non-Protestants, And
confequently when true, they hauc no Connexion with
Proteftancy, nor can lead in any conclufion for you, And
where they are falfe, their falfity is laid before
before your
eyes, and an vtter fubuerfion of your Caufe, and Ac-
count with it, becauſe neither can ftand,when your fup-
pofed Principles are deſtroyed, or rather found never to
have had Being. And thus your Book is folidly An-
fwered. If you defire to fe more ruin yet fallen vpon
you, read this Treatife, and be pleafed to reflect vpon
thefe three things in your Account. The length of it,
The Obiections against Catholick Religion, and finally your
Principles for Proteftancy. We find two of them, but
miffe the third. The length mighty tedious, and ( too
often without fubftance) wearies à Reader, God help
him (fay 1) that vndergoes the druggery to turn ouer
all the vneuen ſtuff which lies heap't vp there. Your
Obiections, vfually borrowed from Mr Chillingworth
and fome other Proteftant Writers, are for the most part
common, and fuch as haue been answered ouer and
ouer: Where you think them peculiar to your felfe (as
they lay in my way) I have reioyned, and if fome be
omitted, that's only to Say, euery ſtone in
your Fabrick
is not touched, or medled with, But for as much as con-
cerns your Principles in behalfe of Proteftancy, I As-
C 2
fert
FOR Mr STILLINGFLEET.
fert Confidently, you haue none, and vpon this ground;
I fay once more your Account is anſwered.
Goe on therefore, and vilify the works published
against you as you pleaſe, call them Wool Jacks, Rats, Of
Flies, add more opprobrious language to gain you credit
among your fimple and too credulous Vulgar, with In-
telligent Readers you preuail nothing, who well percei-
ue, it Matters not to your Intent, if thoſe VVool facks re-
ceiue and break the force of your greatest shot againſt
our Church; if the Rats gnaw the beft ligaments wo-
ven in your Account, if but one of theſe flies enter your
throat, and bereaue you of breath ( fome report of à
grear man ftifled by à Fly) And truly it feem's by your
deep filence, or not anfwering fince thefe Books came
forth, that ſome of the greater fort haue halfe chok'd
you. But enough. To fay more after this ftrain, were to
rallie like you, and to offend the learned world, which
requires fubftance in theſe ſerious matters, without
contempt, flowting, and empty words. Had you, Sr,
gone the right way to work, you should either haue
kept in your difdainful language, or taken Proteftancy
without Principles in hand, Shewing, where the Author
miftook your Principles, Or whether his exceptions
were blamable, becauſe he thought them either Com-
mon, and not belonging to you, that is, wholly alien
from your caufe, wholly impertinent to Maintain Pro-
teftancy. This proceeding had been Satisfactory, but
difficult and aboue your force, Therefore you wifely
waued it, knowing well it was eaſier to give sharp
words, and fnarle ar your Aduerfaries, than to come neer
and bite, with pinching Arguments.
My
AN ADVERTISEMENT
I
"
My proceeding with you, Sr. is quite contrary,
Alight nor your perfon, but fay plainly where your great
miſtake lies in handling Controuerfies. You run head-
long into the deep Myfteries of Faith by the ill conduct
of your weak, or not well fighted reafon, and after à
few flagg ring thoughts ſpent in weighing, and mufing
vpon
the difficulties, which appear to you in the Myfte-
ries, you will needs tell vs what's true, what's falſe
and therefore boldly take, and reiect, as you like beft.
It is à perplexed way, Sr, which will neuer make, you
either Good Chriftian, good Diuine, or fo much as à
mean Proficient in Chrift's School. In following it,
you are juſt like one (as I tell you in the Treatiſe)
that takes wholfome Pills into his Mouth, chewes
them, find's them bitter, and ſpitt's all out. Hence it is
you ſpit at the Doctrins of Tranſubſtantiation, of Pur-
gatory &c. becauſe forfooth, they are diftaftful to ſenſe
and shallow reafon. And truly, Sr, it is wonderful
that you haue not long fince by this procedure, caſt
off the Doctrin of the facred Trinity, For most certain-
ly might ſenſe and weak reafon plead the Caufe here,
far greater difficulties would occur against that fublime
Myſtery, then euer Proteftants yet propofed againſt our
other Catholick Tenents. In a word, Sr, if you defire
fatisfaction in matters of Religion, bufy not your head
with the examination of the Diuine Myfteries Confidered
in themfelues, they are aboue your reach, but contrarywi-
fe,confider well, how, and by what means they are made
Credible to reafon, which is done as S. Auſtin, cited af-
terward, tell's you, by firſt finding out that clear marked,
and fignalized Church, whereby God fpeaks, This
c3
Oracle
FOR Mr. STILLINGFLEET.
Oracle once difcouered (and the Difcouery grounded
vpon Euidence, is cafy) Hear and Believe Her, She is wi-
fer then you, and never think to shake fo ftrong à For-
trefs, by devifing petty Arguments againſt Her Doctrin
(no fooner feen then folued) becaufe, forfooth, you can-
not Comprehend it.
But it is high time to end and I shall do fo, with one
word more of good aduice. Fooles they fay may fome-
times give à wife man Counfel. Sr, if you intend to
write any more, Confider for your own fake, what you
write, weigh things well in your thoughts, before they
paſs your pen. Haue alwaies this one reflexion in
mind. Its easy to Cauil, easy to talk much, but most labori-
ous to make ſure what you fay, by found Principles,
And Principles your Aduerfaries eucr haue an Fye to.
Had you complyed with this Aduice, the greateſt part
of your Account (if not all) might well have been fpa-
red. Never rely on the vain prayfes of your vulgar
Readers, all is not gold that glifters in their Eyes, nor
do they alwayes fpeak as they think. For as much as
concern's your felfe, shew, sr, rather the ftrength of à
Father in louing your works, then the weaknes of à
fond Mother that hugg's her Brats, though most defos -
med. I am told, you imagin it à great Acchicuement,
and your felfe the conquerour, in hauing gain'd onc pri-
uate man T. C. to follow your triumphant Chariot,
Abuſe not your fudgement there is no fuch matter, for
in good faber carneft by what I haue perufed in T. C.
his book rather ſeem's to be an answer to yours, then yours to his.
Abftain hereafter from opprobrious Language, left you
meet with fome ruffing Adverfary that will pay you in
your
AN ADVERTISEMENT
your own Coyn. Pleafe to vfe your Buckler better in
behalfe of Proteftancy, and tell me when your Negatiue
Articles are thrown away (s not revealed) what effential
Truth remain's vvithin the Compaffe of Proteftancy, reuealed by
Almighty God, and neceffary to Saluation. If you think it
the wifeſt Courfe, not to take notice of what is pro.
pofed against you in this Treatife, vouchsafe to clear
your felfe of the Contradictions charged vpon you.
And becauſe I find you much intangled in your Refo-
lution of Faith, and haue laid your miſtakes open to
publick view; when the Spirit of anfwering fall's vpon
you again, Anſwer 1 befeech you, to the difficulties
Obiected in the third Difcourfe, But aboue all Anſwer
to God with à hearty repentance, for the wrong you
haue done his Church, and own me.
Sr
Your friendly Adverfary.
THE
THE
CHAPTERS
IN ORDER.
THE RVLE OF FAITH
Wherein the infallibility of the Roman Catho-
lick Religion is established againſt Atheiſts,
Heathens, lewes, Turks, and
all Sectaries.
HAP. I. VVhether true Religion be in the world? The
Affirmatiue proued Againſt Atheiſts. Atheiſm, euident-
ly Shewd improbable.
I
CHAP. II. Reaſon reiects all fects or Religions not Chriſtian.
VVhether Gentilifm, Iudaifm; or Turkcifm, bee erroneous
ana improbable?
13
CHAP. III. Chriflianity as it ftands in oppofition to Lewes,
Turcks, Infidels and Heretickes, is the only true Reli-
gion.
CHAP. IV. Whether Christian Religion fince its firft Propagation
hath not been in like manner preferued pure, and further
Spread by Diuine Prouidence, aboue the Power of Natu-
re?
2I
25
CHAP. V. VVhether all called Chriftians Belieue intirely Chrift's
Sacred Doctrin? And whether meanes be afforded to arriue
to the knowledge of true Chriftian Religion ?
CHAP. VI. Of our Sectaries errour in their fearch after true
29
Religion.
THE CHAPTERS IN ORDER.
32
42
Religion. As alfo of Mr Stilling fleets inconfequent way of Ar-
guing.
CHAP. V H. More of this fubiect. Doubts concerning the feue-
ral editions of fcripture. None extant more pure, then the Vulgar
Latin. Abſtract from Churth Authority, there is no Certain-
ty of the best Edition. Sectaries Comparing the Prefent Copies
with the more ancient giues no affſurance. Aword with Mr
Stillingfleet.
CHAP. VIII. How neceffary it was to have one lection of Scrip-
ture in the Church. A word of the Sixtine and Clementine
Bibles. Of Mr Stillingfleets mistakes and inconfequences concer-
ning them. Obiections answered.
55
CHAP. IX. Proofs demonftrating that Proteftants haue not fo
much certainty of Scripture, as excludes à poffibility of reafo-
nable doubting. A word of Mr Stillingfleets weak difcourfe
with à Heathen.
67
71
80
A Difcourfe between à Heathen and à Chriftian.
CHAP. X. The first and easiest way to find out true Religion i
not by Scripture only, though all Chriftians had moral certa-
inty of the right Canon, and fenfe alfo, which is to say, the
meer owning Christs Doctrin, is infufficient to proue it, to all
fort of People.
CHAP. XI. The Proteftant takes away the only means to know
true Religion by. His proofs, whether He defend's Proteftancy
or impugn's Catholick Doctrin, are vnreducible to Principles,
and never goe beyond the weaknes of his own unproued Affer-
tion. Meer gloffes fupport all He faith, which is euidenced by
à brief handling one Controuerfy, touching the B. Sacrament.
Theodoret wrong'd by Sectaries, cleared. His Doctrin is moft
Catholick.
Theoderets Teftimony alleged aboue, Contains moſt
Catholick Doctrin.
d
85
94
Chap.
THE CHAPTERS IN ORDER
102.
119
CHAP. XII. A Digreffion concerning the Real Prefence. The
Fathers plainly affert it. Sectaries gloffes frivolous. The agree-
ment of the Church and Fathers make à Doctrin indubitable.
The Catholick's certain Frinciple. A word with Mr Stilling-
fleet.
CHAP. XIII. Mr Stillingfleet grofly abufeth the Fathers that
affert the Real Prefence. His unprincipled gloſſes are not only
dubions, and therefore worth nothing, but moreover highly im
probable.
CHAP. XIV. It is further proued that neither Scripture alone,
nor any other Principle diftinct from an Vnerring Church
can with certainty decide Controuerfies in Matters of Religion,
or Regulate Christian Faith.
138
CHAP. XV. The other mentioned Principles aboue,are inſufficient
to decide controuerfies, Or to Regulate faith.
CHAP. XVI. One word more of Mr Stillingfleets Gloffes, and
his unexcufable abuse of other Fathers.
CHAP. XV II. VVhy the Gloffes of Sectaries are impertinent
and weightles? Mr Stillingfleet misinterprets other Fathers.
Of his vnskilful Speculation concerning Idolatry charged on
Catholicks.
152.
159
180
CHAP. XVIII. The Proteftant after all his Gloffes can not
afcertain any, of true Religion. He would make Controuer-
fies an endles work.
CHAP. XIX. The last defigne of Sectaries Gloffes difcouered.
They end nothing. The clear way to end Controuerfies of Re-
ligion. A distinction between Authority and Principl❜d Au-
thority. Of the improbability of Proteftancy.
CHAP. XX. A word to one or two Obiections. It is further
proued, That Controuerfies are ended with Proteftants, who
haue no Effence of Religion, but falſe opinions only. 205
CHAP. XXI. Protestants granting Saluation to Catholicks by a
192
clear
THE CHAPTERS IN ORDER.
clear Inference drawn from their Concesion, end Controuerfies
of Religion. VVhat force their conceßion hath. VVhy they
granted fo much. The Argument is clearly propofed. Mr
Stilling fleet return's no probable Anſwer. A full discovery of
his fallacies.
THE
217
SECOND DISCOVRSE,
OF
The Church and Rule of Faith
241
•
CHAP. I. Neceſſary Principles premifed relating to the Contro-
uerfy now in hand, concerning the true Church And Rule of
Faith.
CHAP. 11. The Rule of Faith aßigned: The properties of à
Rule. Vhat is meant by the Church? Ancient Fathers
Affert that the Church is eaſily found out. Her marks
more clear, than Her Effential Doctrin.
248
CHAP. III. The Proteftant has neither Church euidenced by
Marks of Truth, nor true Doctrin made credible to reafon.
His whole Faith is built vpon Fancy.
256
CHAP. IV. The one and only true Church of Christ, was, is, and
shall euer be the Holy, Apoftolical, and Catholick Roman
Church. Her Antiquity and Conftant Perfeuerance in the
Ancient primitiue Doctrin, without Alteration, proue The
Afſertion.
CHAP. V. A fecond Reafon showing, That if the Roman Catho-
lick Church erred but in one Article of Faith, there is novo
¿ 2
266
no
THE CHAPTERS IN ORDER.
ई
276
no Fundamental Faith in the world. Vere Errour in this
Church, it is à remedilefs Euil,and cannot be amended by any.
least of all by Proteftants.
CHAP. VI. Other Exidences of the Roman Churches Perfeue-
rance in the Primitiue Faith, without change or Alteration.
VVhether wickednes oflife neceffarily induceth Errour into the
Church? The Donatifts and "Protestants Argue, and Err
alike.
285
i
302
CHAP. VII. Manifest and most vndeniable Miracles peculiar to
the Roman Catholick Church only, proue Her Orthodox,
withall show that She ftill retain's the Primitiue Doc-
trin.
296
CHAP. VIII. Miracles euident in the Roman Catholick Church,
No less induce All now to belieue Her Doctrin, Than Apo-
ftolical Miracles Anciently Perfwaded to belieue that Primiti-
ue Doctrin. The Denial of Miracles Imposibilitat's The
Conuerfion of Lewes and Infidels.
The Admirable cure wrought by Bleffe d S.Xauerius in the
Famous Citty of Naples, upon à worthy Religious Perfon
called F. Marcellus Maftrilli, à Noble man by birth, and
by Profession of the Society of Iefus. The Proof hinted at
aboue, reaffumed.
CHAP. IX. A word to à few Obiections, as alſo to Mr ftilling-
fleets vnworthy Exceptions against that euident Miracle
wrought at Zaragofa in Spain,
CHAP. X. Other Marks and Signes, peculiar to the Roman Ca-
thollick Church proue her Orthodox, And make Her Doc-
trin euidently credible. Theſe laid forth to Senfe and Reaſon,
diftinguish the true Church from all Erring Societies. Inferen-
ces drawn from the Doctrin Here deliuered.
312
321
333
Chap.
THE CHAPTERS IN ORDER
CHAP. XI. Christ and his Church made manifest to à Heathen.
No Prophet comparable to Christ, no Church comparable to the
Roman Catholich, Our glorious Chrift Lefs Exhibits à glo-
rious Church. He is proued the Only true Mias, And the
Roman Catholick Church His only true Sponse. Ho the
Heathen Difcourfes, if rational, And Prudent.
CHAP. XII. The Aduerfaries of the Roman Catholick Church
plead vnreasonably. A Difcouery of their fallacies. The cauſe
of all Errour concerning Religion. The only means to reme·
dy Errour.
342
353
377
Arguments drawn from what is faid. Reflections made vpon the
premifed Doctrin.
CHAP. XIII. Other Inferences drawn from the precedent Doc-
trin. Atheiſts and Hereticks Argue alike. The Motiues of Cre-
dibility lead to à total Belief of what euer the true Church
Propofes. A word of Mr Thorndicks Miſtakes concerning
the Church.
181
A VVord of Mr Thorndiks Miftakes diſcouered in His Book of
Forbearance.
387
CHAP. XIV. VVhether there be à Church of one Denomina-
tion infallible, not only in Matters miscalled Fundamental, but
in all and euery Doctrin She Propofes, and Obliges Chri-
ftians to belieue, as Faith?
CHAP. XV. Diuine Faith in this prefent State of things, neces-
Sarily requir's à Church infallible. The Reafon hereof. The
Church neither Defin's, nor can Define by Humane Autho•
rity only. Her Definitions, more than morally certain, are
Infallible. Sectaries Recourfe to Moral certainly in Mat-
ters of Faith, à moſt frigid Plea. Their Fallacy is difcowered.
Obiections Answered.
408
Other
THE CHAPTERS IN ORDER.
419
Other Obiections propofed by Sectaries, Solued, More of Mo-
ral certainty.
CHAP. XVI. Principles premiſed to the following Doctrin.
The Roman Catholick Church is à Church of One Denomi-
nation. She, and no other Society of Christians, is Infalli-
ble. Other Grounds of Her Infallibility laid forth. The In-
fallibility of Councils maintained against Mr Stillingfleets
Suppofed Truth and Reaſon. There are no principles whe-
reby Approued Councils can be proued fallible. Sectaries
Conuinced by their own Doctrin.
423
CHAP. XVII. More of this fubiect, Afurther Search made
into Errours called intolerable. Vyhether the Roman Catho-
lick Church muſt be fuppofed by Sectaries to haue already
Committed intolerable Errours, Or only, whether She may for
the future Err Intolerably? The Doctrin of Protestants pro-
ued Falfe, And most inconfequent.
443
CHAP. XVIII. Two Aduerfaries mainly Oppofit to True Re-
ligion. The laft and moft vrgent Proof of the churches In-
fallibility taken from the Necessity, the Nation and Nature
of true Religion. Mr Stilling fleets Obiections found weak and
weightles. Most of them already Propofed and Diffolued by
others. A short Reflection made vpon ſome few. 452
CHAP. XIX. Certain Principles, where upon the Churches
Infallibility fand's firm. The End of Diuine Reuelation is
to teach all Infallibly. Euery Doctrin reuealed by the faſt
Verity is no less infallible, then true. Its one thing to teach
Truth, another to teach Diuine and Infallible Truth. Secta-
ries Strangely ungrateful. A word of Mr Stillingfleets weak
Obiections.
465
THE
THE CHAPTERS IN ORDER
THE
THIRD DISCOVRSSE
CH
OF
The Refolution of Faith:
477
HAP. I. Some chiefe Contents in this Diſcourſe briefly
declared. Mr Stillingflects weak attempts against the
Churches infallibility and the Refolution of Faith. The Catho-
lick way of refoluing Faith, the very fame with that of the
Primitiue Chriftians. Of the mistakes which run through
Mr Stillingfleets whole Diſcourſe.
CHAP. II. Mr Stillingfleets 5th Chapter. Part. 1. exami-
ned, is found VVeightles. The weaknes of his Arguments dif-
couered. His Firft and chiefest Argument retorted and fol-
ued.
483
CHAP. 11 I. More of this fubiect. Obiections Anfvered. A
word to Mr Stillingfleets forceless Inftances. Motiues of cre-
dibility
euer Precede Faith. VVhether the rational Euidence
of the Truth of Chrift's Doctrin, can be à Atotiue to belie-
ue it.
493
CHAP. IV. More of Mr Stillingfleets Errours. Of that odd
kind of Faith he feems's to maintain, grounded on Moral Cer-
tainty. VVhat Influence the Motiues of Credibility baue
pon Faith? Other Parcels of his Doctrin Examined, and
refuted. Obiections Solued.
505
CHAP. V. More quarrels Answered. Mr Stilling fleets endea-
Hour to catch Catholicks in à Circle, demonftrated botb vain
and
THE CHAPTERS IN ORDER.
and improbable. His Obiections are forceleſs. Aword to an
unlearned Cauil,
516
CHAP. VI. Mr Stilling fleet folues not His Aduerfaries Argu-
ment: A word of his tedious Shuffing. The Motiues of Cre-
dibility both diftinguish the Church from all other Hetero-
dox Communitier, and proue Her Infallible. The Agreement
With the Primary DoƐtrin, no Mark of the Church. More
Miftakes and Errours difcouered. Of Mr Stillingfleets dou-
ble Faith who Belieues, but not vpon Diuine the Teftimony,
That the Books of Scripture contain Gods word in them:
Yet Belieues the Doctrin in those books, 10ļ be Diuine. 523
Whether ve Square Circles in our Refolution of Faith. The
other mentioned Points in the Tittle of the Chapter, diſcuſſed.
Vpon vvhat ground thoſe Articles called the fundamentals of
Faith are believed, in the Opinion of Sectaries.
CHAP. VII. Neceſſary Principles premiſed to the Refolution of
Faith. God can Speak in à Language proper to Himfelfe.
His external language is twofold. VVhen God fpeaks not
immediatly, He must be heard by his Oracle. VVhat the
exact Refolution of Faith implyes?
545
CHAP. VIII. The main Difficulty in the Refolution of Faith
Propofed. VVhat Connexion the Motiues haue vvith the Di-
uine Reuelation? Of their vveight and efficacy. God's own
Language not imitable by his Enemies. Faith tranfcend's the
certainty of all Motiues, The main Difficulty folued. Of our
great Security in Believing God, Though vve haue not Eui-
dence of the Diuine Teftimony.
534
CHAP. IX. the whole Progrefs of Faith Explained in order
to its laft Refolution. Of that which the Fathers Call the
light of Faith. Its vyholly different from Sectaries Priuate
Spirit. From whence Faith hath Infallible Certainty,
Obiec
THE CHAPTERS IN ORDER
Obiections Solued.
560
CHAP. X. The cafieft way of refoluing Faith, Laid forth in two
Propofitions. The euidence of Credibility further declared. Sec-
taries haue no Euidence of Credibility. It is as cuidently Cre
dible that God now ſpeak's by the Church, as that He did
anciently Speak by the Prophets.
570
CHAP. XI. Sectaries Obiections folued. The fallible Agree-
ment of all Concerning the Canen of Scripture, no Froof at all.
No vniuerfal Confent for the Sectaries Scripture, or the Senfe
of it. How the Church is both the Verity believed, and the
Motive, why we believe. Other Difficulties Examined. 580
CHAP. XII. The last Obiection Propofed. Whether the churches
Testimony may be called the Formal Obiect of Faith. Other
Notes and Chnfiderations, Concerning The Reſolution of
Faith.
588
CHAP. XIII. Protestants haue no Faith to refolve, And Ypon
that account are freed from à vicious Circle. Some yet are in
à Circle. Two Sorts of Sectaries refuted.
596
CHAP. XIV. The Mistakes of fome Sectaries in this Contro-
uerfy. Its neceſſary to distinguish between true Reason, and
fallacious Reafoning. Priuate Reafon liable to Errour. Prins
ciples prefuppofed to the Decifion of this Question. Reafor
eafily finds out true Religion, by a rational Euidence
pre-
603
vious to Faith.
CHAP. XV. From whence the Euidence hitherto mentioned
Proceed's? That Religion only is reasonable, which Heauer
declares reafonable. The Declaration is euidently made in be-
halfe of the Roman Catholick Religion .VVho is the mifled
Catholick_Religion
reaſoning Man ? Other Particulars handled. The readieft way
to Conuince Sectaries.
615
CHAP. XVI, Obiections folued. Sectaries pretending not to Se
the Churches Euidence, are either blind, or wilfully shut their
Eyes.
THE CHAPTERS IN ORDER.
625
Eyes. The Affertion clearly proued. A Parallel of the Fri-
mitiue, and the prefent Churches Euidence. How far Reaſon
may be fayd to Regulate Faith.
CHAP. XVII. A Digreffion Concerning Doctor Stilling fleets
Difcourfe, VVhere he treat's of the Protestants Faith redu-
ced to Principles. He is all à long quite befides the matter
handled, and Sayes no more for Proteftancy, than for Aria-
nifm, or any other Herefy.
639
CHAP. XVIII. The Doctors Inferences, proued no Inferences
but vntrue Affertions. Hauing anfwer'd his Principles and
Inferences, Satisfaction is required to fome few Questions
proposed.
652
CHAP. XIX. The fuppofed grounds of our Proteftants Refor
mation manifeftly ouerthrown. Proteftancy no Religion but
an improbable Nouelty. The conclufion of this whole Trea-
sife.
>
665
COVRTEOVS READER.
Y
Ou will foon perceiue by the many literal faults in this Treatife, that à
tranger to our language printed it, and that the Cortector vfed not dili-
gence. Such errata as theſe are (hane for haue. Sponfe for Spouſe, Profylite
for Profelyte Sufpence for Sufpenfe, fymtons for Symptons. Citty for Citie
Chriftans for Chriftians. Churh for Church wich for which, hanfom for
bandfome Religon, for Religion muft for moft, with many more like them)
I leaue to your charitable Correction.
Some greater faults are here noted.
Γ
↓
Γ
་
r.
P. 167,
r.
PAge. 2. For ciuillized Read ciuiliz'd. line 22. read an vniverfal. Page 3.1.33.
r. voluntarily.P 4 1.2 for nonne, r.none, p.s.l.14.1 ftrictly. p 10 1 3.r. Cri-
mes 1. 11. then. and 1. 27. for hem r, when. Synogogue, for Synagogue,
Cod for God, hypocricy, for hypocrify, diftinguiched for diftinguished, and the
like Errata following 1 omit. P. 12 in the Title. By reaſonable. r. by reaſon.P.
18. 1. 31. r. it hath p. 20. 1. 19 For Elifir. Eifi. and 1. 13.1 Alcoran. p.35. 1. 5.
dele. the.p 36.1 5.1 Concern. and 1. 23. r. Churches care. p. 58 1 31. г. per-
fected. p. 62.1 23.1.moμap 721.10.1.meaning.p.101.1.21.1. haue it, p. 104.
1.26. 1. full p. 107.)_21 1. Innumerable. p.116.1 2.1 faying. 1. 6. r. reply, and ↳
13.r. Fathers, p 122. 1 29. г. Mali. p.129. 1. 32 r. didom. P 144.1 6 r. is it p.
361. 1. 15. v. Say I is it. p. 164. l.1. Romanos and. 1. 2. 1. whoſe Faith.
1. 3. r.defperate. p. 173.14 dele: p. 174. 1. 20, r. Speculation. p. 179.1.3. г.
Apotheofes, and 1.16.1. fenſe, and 1.26.dele.à. p. 185 r. gleanings. p. 187. 1. 4.5
ſuſpence. p 189. 1. 20. r. decides. p.191. 1. 231 obfolete.p. 190. in Titulo, r,
aſcertain.p 199 1.15.1 gueffes.p. 200,1 1, 1.ftanding, and in the Title r. way.p.
214.1.7. Title, and 1.36 r.d-fcourfe: p. 224 19.1. Solution. p. 228. in marg:
r. Conceffion p.231 1. 3. Malsin the Church, and 1. 4 dele the word Church,
p. 236.1 3 read for very the name p.239.1 3.r.pen to paper p.136.1 23.5 hin-
ted at. p. 266. lin, vlt. r. Euident p. 275 in Marg. r. vnanſwerable. p. 276. in
the Title of the Chapter. r. world p. 335. 1. 12. r. Chrift's kingdom. p.341.1.8.
dele the. p. 343. 1. 25. r. Apoftafy Afterwards you haue Deuide for diuide.
Moffias for Meffias. Apoftacy for Apoftafy Fabrik for Fabrick Senfuallity
for fenfuality, Exceptor for Acceptor. I egardemain for leger. peccadilio for
peccadillo Cherubins for Cherubims. Seraphins for Seraphims. Numbertles
for numberless. Nauatiani for Nouatiani. Commifloned for Commiffio.
ned. Teit's for reft's banding for bandying,yets for yet rhus for thus. Chi
mera for Chimæra p. 369. 1. 5, r. blafpheme and Contemn. Parall'd for pa-
rallell'd. p. 390. 1 21, dele which, you haue moreover, rancked for ranked.
Phifitians for Phyfitians. phifick for phyfick. bountifully for bountifully.
aparition for apparition. limitated for limited, lewish for Iewish. traitorouſly
for traiterously. Afterward for afterwards. vpward for vpwards. Acquiefe
r.
r
for
Errata.
for acquiefce. All plain Errata and eafily correct:1, p. 506. 1. 11. for belieue,
r. beliefe. p.10.1.17 r. without fo, p.612. 1.16. for there. r, three. p. 626.
1. 4. dele commi. There are yet many, and very may faults in Orthography
an l interpunctions vacorrected, courteous Reader as you go along, vouchía-
te to correct them with your pen.
Diſc. 2. after p. 353, pleaſe to correct the Errour in the next Page, and
read p. 354. P. 341, 1.8. dele the. p. 383. in the Titler. Chap. 13. And p. 481.
in the Title for. 19 r. Chap. 1. p. 516. in the Title of the Chap, r.
Vale-
arned. p. 677.1. for thy r. this. and in the Aduertifement p. 7. 1. 24 r. Achieue-
ment. in the Preface.P. 9. 1. 17., tranſcend's,
THE
FIRST DISCOVRSE,
Of true Religion.
Toat
O attaine à clear knowledge of true
Chriftian Religion is the chiefe
Deſign of this whole Treatife. V Ve are
therefore in the first place, to difcufle
matters feriouſly with Chrift's profes-
fed Enemies, and to proue that the pro-
pagation of our Sauiours facred Doc-
trin, hath been à Diuine vvork aboue
the force of nature. Thus much perfor-
med, vve Shevv hovy Sectaries erre it
their Search after Religion, and euince
that it is not found by their priuate
pondering Scripture alone, much lesſe
by any vnprincipl'd Gloffes. Lafly, in
this Difcourfe, vve lay forth an eafy
vvay, vvhereby all thefe vnfortunate De-
bates concerning Religion, may come
to à happy period.
.The
THE RVLE OF FAITH,
Wherin the infallibility of the Roman Catholick
Religion is eſtabliſhed againſt Atheiſts
Heathens, lewes, Turks, and
all Sectaries.
CHA P.
A P. I.
VVhether true Religion be in the world? The Affirmative
proved Against Atheiſts. Atheiſm, evidently Shed
I.
improbable.
Concerning
T
He queftion may perhaps feem doubtful to many, upon
thefe grounds. Firit. Who euer admit's of Religion muft Different
either hold it true upon the Authority of others, or becaufe he is judgements
perfwaded it can be found out by his own fearch and induſtry. If true Religion
he relies on Authority, He meet's with as many Pretenders to
truth as there are different Profeffors of Religions on earth. The The moſt of
Iew pleads for his as the most ancient, the Chriftian for his, the men pretend
Turk for his, the Heathen for following the light of nature, and to it.
every one thinks well of his own way, and votes his own Religion
beft. If therfore à fearcher after truth relies on Authority, He
can no more (fay thefe) take the Chriftians word than the Hea-
thens, the Heathens then the Jewes, the Jewres then the Turks, the
Arians then the Catholicks, the Catholicks than the Proteftants, by at it the
and Confequently ought in prudence to reject all Religion.
The diffical
cheif.
2. On the other fide, if He chufe à Religion by the force of
his private judgement only, or own induftry, He is caft into à La-
byrinth and shall never find an exit. He is obliged in prudence
to make à diligent fearch into all the different Sects which are,
or have bin fince the first creation of things: He is carefully to
A
examin
2
Difc. 1. C. 1. True Religion proved.
True Reli
God.
>
examin the cauſes of them, the grounds they rely on,
the con-
nexion or coherence they have with one an other; He is to con-
verfe with the learned of thefe different Religions, or read their
books, and then to pitch by his own erring judgement on what
likes him beſt which perhaps may be worst of all. This task
you fee is immenfe and no leffe unfuccesful than laborious, mans
life is fpent, before halfe the work be done. Therfore it ſeems, none
can come to the certain knowledge of true Religion either by Au-
thority or reaſon. Ergo, faith the Opponent, there is no fuch thing
as true Religion in Being.
3. Contrariwife I fay. True Religion moft evidently is in the
gion is in be- world. The Affertion is grounded on this certain verity: God eter-
ing. The nally exifting by himſelf without caufe, and infinite in all perfection
reason of the is in Being, therfore true Religion cannot but bee alſo. For Grant
Affertion.
fuch à Being as God is, neceffary of himſelf without any fuperiour
caufe, it followes He is to be adored by all rational creatures effen-
tially inferiour to him, and not by any falfe, or mock-worship, but
Of the ado. in Spirit and Truth, for fuch an adoration only fuites his Divine natu-
vation due to re. This reafon is reinforced by the light of one indubitable Maxim.
Quod univerfis videtur, eft verum. What appeares to all, or at leaft,
to the moft Civillized Nations to be à Truth, is fo: for fuch à uni-
verfal confent of nature is the Dictamen and voice of God the Au-
thor of nature; But all Nations ever owned fome Religion, ther-
fore this agreement of God and nature is à Truth. The minor is evi-
All civilli dent (to fay nothing of Chriſtians) out of the very writings of Hea-
thens who affure us, though people are found fo barbarous as to
live without lawes, learning, or civil goverment, yet no whole
nation was ever yet heard of, but owned fome kind of Numen, ſome
facrifice, fome homage, fome worship due to à power either falfly
One difficul.
or truely judged worthy of Reverence and honour. Neither is the
ty removed, force of the Argument infringed by faying, many and very many
Nations erred in the Truth of Religion, which may feem as great
an Evil as to have none, for thus much is only proved at preſent
that the voice of nature more eafily ownes Religion then it profef-
fes one true; That therfore being the univerfal Teftimony or Ge-
zed Nations
own à Nu.
men.
neral
Against Atheists.
3
>
neral conſent of all, cannot be falfe. Hac teftimonia anima (its Ter-
tullians Doctrin which S. Cyprian borrowed from him) quanto vera,
tanto fimplicia, quanto fimplicia, tanto vulgaria &c. This general Truth
by how much more pure and fimple, by fo much it's more vulgarly known,
by how much more vulgarly known, by so much its more common, by
bow much more common, by ſo much it's more natural, by how much
more natural, by fo much it's more Divine. Omni literaturâ notius (faith
Tertullian) omni Doctrinagitatius, omni homine Majus, 'Tis à learning
more known and refolved in mans mind than all other learning,
greater then man is, and therfore à certain trnth fetled in all by the
Author of nature, God himſelf. Now that many err in the truth of The cause of
Religion, proceeds without doubt too often from want of inftru- Miſtaking
ction: fometimes from pride, ignorance, or Malice in the Teacher, true Reli-
which is the deplorable cafe of condeinned Hereticks: Sometimes, gion.
and this is moſt uſual,it comes from an obdurance of heart begot
by à cuftome of finning and tranfgreffing againſt the very light of
nature. For, this cuftome bring's à punishment with it, that it
darken's the mind notoriouſly, and makes reaſon à ſtranger not
only to weighty rational motives which forceably draw us to good,
but more over it fo ftupifies, fo dulls and indifpofeth à foul, that
the impreffions of grace (not wanting to the moft barbarous) touch,
as it were, on flintly rocks, and produce either â weak barren fruit,
or rather no penitential fruit at all. Would therfore the moft obdu-
rate Scythians, or any other uncivilized People yeild to the ordinary
grace allowed them for the avoiding of fin, known contrary to
nature: God who illuminates every man in the world, would give
more light, until they came to the knowledge of truths neceffary,
neceßitate medij, to attain faluation. For this is an undoubted Maxim
of Divines. God is not wanting in neceffaries, and, Facienti quod in
fe eft non denegat gratiam. He denies not grace to fuch as endeavour
by the ordinary means afforded them to avoid fin contrary to na-
ture, but if careles of that duty which nature obliges to, they vo-
luntariley plunge themſelves into an Abifs of horrid tranfgreffions,
the obdurance now mentioned followes: The powerful opera-
tion of grace lies ſtifled, and much deaded in ſuch hardned hearts,
A 2
and
4.
Difc. 1. C. 1. Atheiſts by reaſon,
and Confequently fenfe and love of pleaſures bear greateſt ſway
there, which makes reafon à ftranger to Gods truths, and from
hence groff errors concerning Religion take their rife and have their
origen. The objection above, purely fallacious, fuppoſeth thoſe
different Pretenders to true Religion to be all of equal Authority,
and cafteth mans weak and erring reafon on too long and laborious
à work. True Religion is known with leffe Adoe, then thefe Ad-
verfaries Imagin, as we shal shew hereafter, and folve the objection
in its due place.
4. I argue 2. from the affumed principle. God exift's Therefore
true Religion is, and diſcourſe thus. There are and ever have been
feveral Religions profeffed in the world, and all are not falſe, for if
all were falfe, God, whofe exiſtence we now fuppofe, would fee him-
felfe not at all adored in fpirit and truth, but rather Univerfally
ſcorned by an erroneous worship, as if men had been created for
this end to mock and abuſe their Creator; And this feem's contrary
From falfe to the light of reafon. Now further. All Religions are not falfe,
Religions, ergo, one onely is true, becauſe two or more which hold Contra-
one only true, dictions can not be true; and if one be true, every rational creature
i proved.
is obliged to follow that when 'tis clearly propofed, and to worship
his maker by à right way of Homage: but this obligation muſt fup-
pofe the truth of Religion in being, becauſe nonne can be obliged
to embrace à foolery, or to worship God by à meer nothing. You
will fay, one may be bound to follow an errour or an erroneous
Confcience, therefore the proof taken from this obligation, evin-
ces not the actual truth of Religion. Anfw. When we are bound
to follow an errour in à matter of chiefe Concern, the Contrary
truth, which all should affent to, fo really is, that we may be unbe-
guiled, and fet right; but if all Religions are falfe, there is none
true fuppofable, and Confequently the Univerfal errour of all is à
remedileffe evil. If therefore God requires à true exhibition of
worship from his Creatures He cannot permit all to err Univerfally,
and for this reafon true Religion is in being. You may reply.
God is independent of us all, and need's not our Homage, or
adoration. Very true, but man depend's upon God, and by the
inftin&
Convinced unreaſonable.
inſtinct of nature, is obliged to adore him in truth, which inſtinct
as we shall prove prefently, originally proceed's from the Author of
nature, and therefore God alſo obliges all to pay him the true tri-
bute of praiſe and no Counterfeit worship. Soine Perhaps, may
object. Religion ſeem's not Capable of à demonſtration, becauſe
that which is true de facto depend's on God's free Revelation, the
Credibility where of can be evidenced, but not the truth. I answer,
in the general affertion already made, we abftract from the particu-
lar proofs relating to true Religion; we treate with all, who own à
Deity, and fay, thefe (if God had not elevated man to fupernatural,
beatitude, or, omitted to reveal the fublime myſteries, of faith) had,
in that State been obliged to adore theyr Creator with no falfe ho-
mage and thus much reafon evinces, although we cannot (as the
objection proves) ſtrickly demonſtrate the truth of Chriſtianity, but
only its Credibility, whereof more, and very amply, hereafter. In
the mean while
Atheism
proved meft
5. Methinks I hear fome, who ftand much for reaſon, fay, that
Atheiſts (rational men) oppoſe all Religion, and why may not their
Plea be heard in fo weighty à matter? Anfw. Its not my intention
at prefent to combate too long with Atheiſts, they are utterley
overthrown by the learned Arguments of innumerable
grave Au-
thors I have other Adverfaries to treat with: However, becauſe ble.
their pretence is reaſon, obferve, how they deftroy not only Reli-
gion but reafon alfo, yea, and extuinguish the very light of nature
with it.
unreafona-
6. The ground of Atheiſm is this prodigious accurfed Principle.
There is no God, no fupreme Power, no Numen, no Providence (for The accurfed
acknowledge à God and Providence, reafon evidently concludes, Principle of
He is to be adored in ſpirit and truth, and this worship or Adoration Atheijm.
we call Religion.) This Affertion then, God is not, is à prime truth,
or the firſt verity with Atheiſts, wheron all their human actions
depend, by this fuppofed verity they are regulated during their mortal
life. Contrariwile, This Affertion. God is an eternal Being by him-
felf, is à prime Loud falshood with them, to be fcomed by every
one. Hence I
Hence I argue. That firft fuppofed verity. God is not,
de-
praves
6
Difc. 1. C. 1. Atheists by reaſon,
praves the will, extinguifeth the light of nature, makes men exe-
crable, enormoufly wicked, impious, facrilegious, takes of all fear
of future punishment and hope of reward, For if there be no God,
or no fupreme power to punish hainous offences, the moſt hideous
fins imaginable would ceafe to be pernicious, and confequently
every one might without check or torment of Confcience, if it
ferved his ends, kill and deftroy all he meets with. No wrong, no
open injuſtice, no Treaſon, no rebellion, can be invented fo mon-
ftrous, but may be done without reproof of Confcience, if
this Principle hath influence upon what we act. God who can neither
Atheism
punish, or reward, is not in Being. And thus you fee, how that firft
destroyes the Arch-truth of Atheiſts.
Arch-truth of Atheiſts. God is not, horridly depraves and vitiates
Light of rea- the will, makes it favage, and brutish, which ex terminis is evidently
Jon. fals, for Truth confidered as truth, is à perfection of the underſtanding,
and cannot per fe pervert nature, or wreft the will in man to all wic-
kednes. On the other fide you fee, that this Arch-falfity of Atheiſts.
God is an Eternal Being, by its own force and light rectifies nature,
makes men upright, juft, obedient, fubmiffive to lawes and gover-
ment; which is impoffible; for fuch à grand errour fetled in mans
intellectual faculty, is by it felf as wholly unmeet conftantly to pro-
duce fuch laudable effects, as Truth is to deceive, or cold water to
warm us. You fee. 3. that unleffe villany and wickednes be deemed
wiſdom, and virtue and juftice be accounted of as madneffe, Atheiſts
muft change the Propofitions and fay: God is,remains à fupreme Truth.
God is not is à fupreme errour, and withall Conclude, that the firſt
intellectual Truth cannot make men wicked, nor the firft errour
make them virtuous.
7. Some perhaps will reply againſt our first inference. Nature
it ſelf abhorres the impieties now mentioned, and that's the Atheiſts
Nature has Rile) although God were not in Being. I anfwer. Nature doth fo
her impf now, becauſe it receives thofe impreffions from God, the Author
fions from of Grace and nature, but deftroy this firft Author, Eo ipfo, you
abolish thofe
very firft lights of nature, and make it ſtupidly brutish.
truth canbe. The reafon hereof à Priori is moft convincing. Nature is endowed
known. with theſe firft lights, becaufe it receives them from an indefectible,
God. Wit-
bout God, no
and
Convinced unreasonable.
7
and unerring intellectual Being, for if this firft Power or Being, which
gives exiſtence and light to nature, could err, or be deceived in ſuch
univerſal Notions, nature which takes its Being from this firſt intel-
lectual power, would lofe thofe communicated lights, and fall to
nothing. For example. Here is à participated light, or à Truth
common to all rational men. Do as you would be done by, and nature
univerfally approves it. I ask why is this à fuppofed Truth? You
anſwer becauſe all agree in it. Be it fo. But I fay, if all thoſe who
agree in it, receive the light froin à power that is defective, ignorant,
or liable to errour this very confent of nature like that firft erring
Principle, cannot but be defective, and ignorant, becauſe no effect
exceed's the virtue or perfection of the caufe it comes from.
Dull Atomes
8. Will you fee this clearly? Suppofe that à Cafual meeting or
concourfe of Atomes made inan rational, as Atheiſts will have it,
and indued him with the Truth now mentioned, without the in-
fluence of à fupreme intellectual Power. This rational thing called
man, judges, diſcourſes, defines, and delivers, as he thinks, certainly
the first natural verities. Very good. But we inquire further, and knowledge
impart not
Ask from what caufe he had this power of judging, and defining to any.
truly? For, if he received it from one that's dull, ignorant or deceipt-
ful in all he judges, and defines, He cannot but participate of the
nature of that firſt Principle, which is dull and ignorant. Thus
much is clear. For if I receive my knowledge from one who is
diftracted mad, or falfe in his conceptions, and regulate my felfor
others by fuch à communicated light, all I know or teach by virtue
of that knowledge,tranfcends not the nature of that Principle which
is now fuppofed, ignorant, erroneous and deceiptful.
9. Summon therfore all the Atomes together which made man
rational, and imprinted on him the firft lights of nature, I demand
of thofe Atomes, could they Anfwer, How it came to paffe, that
à company of Dull infenfible things, void of reafon and difcours
could by meer chance, produce man intellectual, and not only
intellectual, but unerrable alſo in ſome Principles called natural ? I
fay all that this man judges is falfe, becaufe the Principle which gave
him being, (void of light and underſtanding) cannot indue him with
unerra-
8
Difc. 1. C.1. Atheists by reafon.
The reafon
why none
can judge
truely, if
God exift
mor.
unerrable Truths. For, Nemo dat quod non habet; No caufe gives
to its effects, what it precontains not. Infenfible Atomes therfore,
cannot make man fenfible, nor irrational Atomes, reaſonable, nor
ftupid Atomes, devoid of truth imbue him with the first true Prin-
ciples. Therefore man is no more to be believed in theſe firſt
lights of nature, than if Apes or Parots should ſpeak them, becauſe,
as we now fuppofe,they proceed not originally from any intellectual
Power, but only from meer duft or infenfible things, void of under-
ſtanding. The Sceptiks therfore erred not, when upon the fuppo-
The Sceptiks fition that God made not man, they concluded: we know nothing,
we judge of nothing truly, but what might be excepted againft, and
falfe fuppofi rationally oppofed. If therfore nature err's not in thefe firft Prin-
ciples, now acknowledged true and rational, afcribe it to nature, but
leave not of there, but fay thefe lights come from God the Author
of nature, who neither will, nor can deceive us. Here then is our
grand Principle. God and nature cannot err, therfore the verity and
certainty of theſe firſt known truths depending on God and nature,
are free from errour. And
errednot
upon one
tion.
An other
IC. Hence we have an other clear demonftration againſt Atheiſts.
EitherGod indowed man with reafon and theſe firft lights of nature,
or all of us, even Atheiſts may be juftly deemed mad, and befotted
demonftra with fooleries, but all (including Atheiſts) are not mad, nor erring
tion against in theſe firſt lights of nature, Ergo God indued man with thoſe firſt
Atheists,
lights. I prove the Major. It is perfect madnes in the judicative
power of man to deny the truth of thofe firft lights, but the truth
of them muſt bee denyed, in cafe we receive our judicative faculty
from à Power inferiour to God, for, if we receive it not from an in-
finite Being, we have it from fome inferiour erring caufe, which
may deceive. (Atomes for example) but neither atomes nor any
inferiour fallible Power, can tranfufe into us à certainty of not
erring in thoſe firſt lights. The reafon is given. The lights we
have, goe not beyond the perfection of that cauſe which imparts
them to nature; This caufe, what ever it be is inferiour to God, and
therfore cannot but be liableto errour,and may deceive us. Obſerve
this difcourfe well, for it is the ground à Priori, of the Churches in-
fallibility, wherof more hereafter.
11. You
Convinced unreasonable.
9
1 You haue other arguments moft concluding againſt
Atheiſts, but Icannot infift on all. Here is one and a
fpeculation of a great Diuine. A Being exiſting by it felf in- Afpeculatius
finitly perfect, or without mixture of imperfection, is ex conceptu Argument.
fuo formali, or, Apprehended vnder that Notion no chimæra, nor
impoffible Obiect (as impoffible obiects are diftinguished from
poffibilities) therfore it is poffible. I proue it. All Chima-
ras or Impoffibilities effentially imply imperfection, becauſe they
cannot be, and confequently vpon that account want perfection,
but this infinite Being conceiued by man wants no perfection
(I say conceived, for I neither yet proue nor fuppofe any thing,
but only ſpeak of an obiect thus reprefented to an vnderſtanding,
and fay that obiect is no impoffibility becaufe infinitly perfect,
without appearance of flaw or imperfection.) Now further; if fuch
an obiect ex terminis be poſſible, and not impoßible, it is of neceſſity
actually exifting, for if it haue not an actual Being, it wants per-
fection, and requires à more perfect caufe to produce it, which
is contrary to the nature of that which I conceiue, and form in
my vnderſtanding; But if it be actually in Being, I haue all I
feek for. Ens actu exiftens, an actual exiftency without any fupe-
riour caufe, infinitly wife, without blemish or imperfection,and
this we call God, the Origen of all things, Creator of Heauen
and earth. But I waue thefe fpeculations, moral arguments
without them haue weight enough, and could we fay no mo- Moral ár-
re but thus much only; That Atheiſts in à matter of Eternal fal- guments in-
uation (the weightieft point imaginable) deliberatly embrace that this matter
Doctrin which can neuer do them good, If true; and eternally way most.
damn them, if fals; it were enough. Obferue well.
Atheiſm true,the Profeffors of it dye like doggs, and ſo do all
others with them, thefe men therfore will not hereafter laugh
at Belieuers for adoring. à Deity; but if their Doctrin proues
fals in the other life, all true Chriftians may ſcorn their impudency,
or rather deplore their eternal mifery which will follow, not on-
ly vpon the account of Atheiſm, but for other enormous fins
committed againſt God and nature. Now if the Atheiſt faies he
B
Were
fol-
10
Difc. 1. C. 1. Atheists by reafon
followed the Dictate of his reafon, this ( were it fo) at most excu-
fes him from the fin of Atheiſm, but frees him not from damna-
tion, if guilty of other criems against the light of Nature. If he
fay again, he fully enioyes his pleafures in this life, whilft
Good Chri. thofe who belieue à God, liue in reftraint and fear. He pleads
ftians in Non-fenfe, for à good Chriftian, if we exclude fome horrid
this life ha- fins which nature ex ecrat's, may haue his dignities in à com-
me more con- mon wealth, his lawful pleaſures, and recreations as much as
any Atheift; herein he hath no preheminence before others,
Aibeifts.
nonor fo much content as is allowed good Chriftians; Ther-
fore on all accounts he is in à worfe condition them Chri- .
ftians, for he liues contemned here the whole world ouer
and can expect no happines hereafter.
tent then
Atheiſts
errors
>
12. Others argue and methinks very folidly. Though Gods
exiſtence were not demonftrable, Atheiſts may neuer the leff
be not only conuicted of error, but iuftly alfo look't on as
in à damnable ſtate, vpon the account of their Atheiſm. Here
is my reafon. The very rules of nature and ciuility oblige vs
to refpect all according to the outward appearances of their
qua-
lity and condition, when we haue no iuft reafons which ren-
der them fufpected. It would be open iniuftice to treat any
conuicted of one, either in language or actions like an inferiour fellow
whofe traine or garbe fpeak's him à Prince or nobleman.
I should certainly err in iuftice and morallity, should I deny
any one that reſpect which the Common reputation of his vir-
tues and accomplishments, hath gained him (though perhaps
not deferued) whem I haue no Conuincing proofs, that he
is not what he feem's. There is no Atheift of them all, but
would think him felf highly iniured were he flighted in this
nature, and with good reafon too,
for the meer poffibility
of being deceiu'd in à mans quality or virtues
fufficient warrant for any to deny him that honour, which his
virtues in all appearance challenge as his due.
though à
Deity were
not demon
firable.
>
can be no
13. I fay therfore, were the Deity fuppofed indemonftra-
ble, that cannot excufe the Atheift from performing thoſe
duties
Conuinced unreasonable.
duties which ſuch à Being, in all appearance, moſt infinite wife,
and omnipotent may challenge, of praiſe and Adoration
, pro-
portionable to his worth: For, if the Atheiſt exact's all punctilios
of refpect from others, which the exteriour garbe of his dignity
may intitle him to, he cannot without the higheſt wrong, and vio-
lating the law of nature ( Doe as you would be done by) deny to God,
after fo many fignal appearances of his dignity, the due respect
and honour, wherunto that fupreme excellence moft iuſtly laies
claime.
Wherin the
14. Now if you make inquiry after the appearances of that excellence of
fupereminent excellence in à Deity, they farr furpaffe all thoſe God appe-
other appearances which can poffibly concurr to create in any an ar's.
opinion of mans greatnes, virtues, or accomplishments. No
Monarch, no Prince, no Potentate, no nobleman can giue fo
many euident fignes of worth and excellence (duely laid claime
to) as God euidences of an infinite greater fupereminent worth,
due and proper to himself. Euery one knowes, that wifdom,
power, and worthy actions, enoble man; and beget in all à vni-
uerfal fame of excellence. What think ye? Doth not the crea
tion, the continual preferuation, and admirable Oëconomie of
this vifible world loudly ſpeak the wifdom, power, and noble
works of à Deity? Do not theſe raife in all´à vniuerfal fame of
his Being? Haue not all ciuilized nations (agreeing in the truth)
the very beft of philofophers in paft ages, and all Chriftians (the
moft wife and learned body of men which the world euer yet
faw) purchafed to God, vpon euident appearances, more immor-
tal honour and renown, than euer Prince or Monarch gained
fuitable to his ftate and dignity? If therfore to deny à Prince to
be what he ſeem's, when all imaginable appearances ſpeak him
Prince, be moſt iuftly deemed à crying iniury contrary to the
light of nature; much more to deny God his Being is à greater
wrong, when all the teftimonies of grace and nature proclaim
him God. One word more and I end this point. So many emi-
nent and figual miracles both before and after our Sauiours
comming, which could proceed from no other caufe but God, ei-
B 2
ther
12
Difc. 1.C. 1. Atheists by reafonable
ther euidently demonftrate his Being (as we shall feepreſently)
or make the truth fo apparantly credible, that,tis à degree of mad-
nes to deny it. The Atheiſt therfore, who without proof or
principle denies God, and depriues him of that refpect which
ought to be paid vpon outward ſigns and euident appearances of his
excellence, impiously oppofes right reafon, and fin's damnably;
Nor can the fuppofed indemonstrability of God, more excufe him
from damnable irreligion, then the poßibility of being deceiued in
any mans worth or accomplish'd virtues (whem apparent fignes
make them euident) from wrong and open iniuftice, as is now
faid.
15. Laftly the Atheist who pretend's to belieue nothing, be-
lieues (it's true differently) as much, yea and as hard things, as
The Atheiſts any Chriftian doth. The Chriftian belieues à God he neuer faw,
belieue and the Atheiſt an infinite ſeries of cauſes, or à ſtrange concours
differently of inuifible Atomes he neuer faw. The Chriftian belieues the
difficult foul he neuer faw to be immortal, the Atheiſt, who yet neuer
things then faw fo much, holds it vanishes into nothing. The Chriftian
Chriſtians, faith an infinite wiſdom rules the world, The Atheiſt fayes no
but more
A
'
>
but either fate or chance, (as much imperceptible to fenfe as God
is) Gouerns all. You fee therfore, how theſe men who pre-
tend to belieue nothing, belieue as much as any, for we all belieue,
but with this difference, that the Atheiſt imprudently judging
incredibilities belieuable faftens on them, and leaues to Chriftians
à belief of verities not only prudently credible, but moft true and cer-
tain. Mark their blindneffe and à iuft iudgment of God with it,
They reiect things credible, and in lieu of theſe pitch on moft
defperate improbabilities, and this ineuitably: for, not to belieue
credible verities forceth them to belieue the contrary, incredible foo-
leries. The Atheiſts arguments run all vpon fals fuppofitions
where of fee more In the fecond difcourfe. God they fay, feems
careleffe in gouerning the world, whilft He fuffers the innocent to
be oppreffed, and vniuft men to enioy mnch happineffe. Mark
firft, They fuppofe fome innocent, and others vniuft, wheras if we
deny God, there can neither be innocence nor vaiuftice, as is
now
>
Conuinced vnreasonable
13
now demonftrated. 2. They meaſure Gods infinite wifdom in
gouerning his creatures by their short fallible Conceptions.
and fuppofe him vnable to punish the wicked, and to reward the
iuft in a future life. But enough of this fubiect, moft amply
handled by others.
CHAP. II.
Reaſon reiects all fects or Religions_not Chriſtian.
VVhether Gentilism, Iudaifm; or Turcifm,
bee erroneous and improbable?
I.
W
EE here exclude profeffed Atheifts vowed enemies of all
Religion, And now treat with other Aduerfaries but
very briefly, they are either Heathens, Turks, or lewes, lift if
you pleaſe with Theſe all condemned Hereticks, as Arians
Pelagians, Donatifts and the like rabble of Aliens froin truth
who really deferue not the name of Chriftians.
2. The Gentils or Heathens that adored many Gods as
Mars, Iupiter, Apollo, and therfore plain Idolaters, ( becauſe they
make deceaſed men Gods) are now of no account in the world.
Turks, lewes, Chriftians and all other decry their vanity, or to
fpeak in S. Chrifoftoms worts:ipfius Chrifti virtute dißipati funt,
They are wafted, diffolued, and brought to nothing by the virtue
of Chrift our Sauiours preaching, Diuturnitate temporum perierunt,
Time has worn them out, we need fay no more.
>
>
3. Turkcifm which hath gained à great part of the world
and à far greater,
then. euer any particular Herefy gained, is
euidently no more but an open Tyranny. The fword, no word of
God, doth all. Power, and carnal pleaſures, which corrupted
nature eaſily embraceth, vphold this Religion. More cruelty
followes the Profeffors of it, then Iuftice, fidelity, or any moral
virtue; yet moral virtue, grounded in nature, euer accompanies
B 3.
true
Heathens
now, of no
MECOMMI.
[
14
Difc. 1. C. 2. Reafon reiects all
A demon-
Aration
against
Turkcifm
true.
>
true Religion. Again, and here is à Demonftration againſt
Turkcilin. Mahomet (who held himſelf à Prophet only, and no
God) appeared fome centuries after Chrift, yea and owned both
Chrift, and Moyfes to haue been great Prophets, fent from God.
Hence I argue. Iffent from God; the Doctrin they deliuered was
Therfore Mahomets Alcoran is falfe, which contradict's not
only Chriſts Doctrin, but that alſo of Mofes and the Prophets.
The contradiction is euident by the Alcoran: and the inference
Ergo,
The Alcoran contradict's God himfelf, fpeaking truth by
thefe Prophets, is as clear. Therfore either God contradict's him
felf, faying one thing by theſe Prophets, and reuoking it by
Mahomet, (which is impoffible) or Mahomet is à lyar. Yet more.
Let Mahomet iudge as he pleafeth of Chrift and the Prophets
He and his,are obliged to fatisfy one Demand: viz. What Doctrin
that was, wherby men were faued, before his preaching? And
I fpeak of Doctrin, not of Ceremonies or temporal pofitiue
Lawes. He will not fay, all from Adam to his dayes were
damned for want of true Doctrin, nor can he haue recours to
the Multiplicity of Gods owned by Heathens, thefe He reiects:
Therfore he muft acknowledge true Doctrin taught before his
being in the world, but this Doctrin, Mofes, Chriſt, and the
Prophets truely deliuered, or there was none taught in the world,
This faued fouls anciently, therfore, if belieued, it faues them
ftill; once it was true; therfore it is now and will be euer fo, But
Mahomet oppofeth him felf to this true reuealed Doctrin, ther-
fore He oppofeth God fpeaking by thefe Oracles. Hence I argue.
errour Very A Religion which began fifty ages after truth was taught in the
late, oppoſite world,and exprefly contradict's that taught truth, is falfe, Mahomets
Religion is euidently fuch, ergo it is falfe. I fay that contradict's
the ancient true Doctrin, to preuent an obiection which may ariſe
out of ignorance. For fome may fay: Christ our Lord long
after Mofes and the Prophets, deliuered Doctrin contrary to them,
therfore the Argument againſt Mahomet conuinceth not. I anfwer,
It is one thing to reueal Truth à new not anciently belieued
and an other to abrogate ancient received verities. Chrift, befides
cancelling
Mahomets
to ancient
truth.
Religions, not Chriftian.
35
cancelling the Ceremonial law deliuered more truths, then were
explicitly declared by the Prophets, but neuer contradicted any
Doctrin proceeding from God, by the mouth of his Prophets, as
Mahomet did. Hence S. Auftin and other Fathers Affirm, that
Chrifts Church reuerences the Doctrin of Mofes and the Prophets,
and that faith hath euer been the fame from the beginning of the
world.
4. The lewes who make their Religion most ancient, are
notwithstanding clearly conuinced of errour, and here is my firft
Argument. A People difperfed vp and down the world, that The Temes
à diſperſed
haue had now for 16. ages neither Effence nor Form of true Religion, People with
nor the effects or fruits of it, cannot profeff true Religion, and out effence or
confequently are not the lawful heires of the Prophets ancient Faith. form of
But the lewes are thus euidently difperfed, and want the Effence, Religion,
the Form, and effects of Religion, Ergo. I proue the Minor.
A facrifice effential to Religion which could not, according to
their law, be offered but in Hierufalem only: A Temple and
Prieſts alfo euidently fail them (for no Sacrifice no Prieft) Iudges,
Prophets and miracles, cognifances alfo of true Religion, which
neuer failed in their greateft Captiuities, now by the iuft
judgement of God leaue them, therfore the very Form and
order of Religion wholy reuerfed, manifeft this people, once,
Populum iam non populum, heretofore bleffed, now accurfed for
their obftinacy. And if we fpeak of other effects, or fruits
of Religion, their Thalmudick Fables, their vnfatiable auarice,
their cheating and Cozening others, their open Hypocricy ( for
gain They exteriourly profeff any Religion) now Catholicks, now
Proteftants, now Arians, or what you will. Theſe effects Í fay,
demonftrate à want of the very Soul, of the life of virtue, and
Religion in them: All which is manifeft to our eyes and
fenfes.
5. To add force to this moft weighty Argument. S. Cyprian
chiefly in his firft book Aduer. Iudas, shewes all along how Their
they were fortold by the very law and ancient Prophets of their dereliction
lofing Religion, and future dereliction, after Chrifts comming foretold in
viz,
fcripture.
16
Difc. 1. C. 2. Reaſon reiects all
viz. That Their firft lawes and carnal circumcifion were to ceafe,
and à new law with fpiritual circumcifion to fucceed. Ifay. S.
Mich. 4. That an other order and à new Teftament should be
giuen, Ier. 31. That the old Paftors were to leaue of their
teaching, and new Doctors come in their place Ier. 3. and. 31.
That no other but Chrift himſelf was to be the true Temple and
house of God, 2. Reg.' 7.That the old facrifices of lambes and beafts
should not be offered.Ifay 1. That the old Priesthood was to fail,
and à new Prieſt and king raign for euer. Pf 109. 1. Reg: 2. That
the greater People, the lewes, should become the leffe, and the
Gentils far leffer become greater Gen. 15. Ofee, 2. That à
Church once barren should haue more Children than the Syno-
gogue euer had.Ifa. 5. 4. vpon thoſe words. Iucundare sterilis. Thus
S. Cyprian through thoſe feueral short chapters of his firſt book.
And we fee all theſe prophefies literally fulfilled after the comming
of our Sauiour, and the eſtablishment of the Chriſtian Church.
Thoſe hearts are ftupid, and eyes blind, that perceiue not the
Jewish fynogogue vtterly abandoned. Yet more. If you will fee
this Chriftian verity amply laid forth, read the 9. chapter of Daniel,
the prophet
where the Holy Prophet after à large declaration of the Peoples
Daniels iniquities and à iuft affliction laid on them for their Sins, an
prediction. Angel told him that Chrift should come, and be flain, and v.26.
that thoſe were not to be his People,who would deny him.verfe 27.
He fortold the ceafing of their facrifice, and v. 24. denotes 4.
things: Forgiueneffe of fins infufion of Iuftice, fulfilling of
Prophefies, and the annointing of the Holy of Holies: All which
particulars litterally and moft exactly agree to our Sauiour, and to
him only. Thus the Prophet Daniel. But that which I would
haue euery one to ponder is the prediction of Chrift our Lord
Matth. 21. in the parable of the vineyeard, where speaking to
the chief Prieſts and Pharifies, he clearly prophefied of their ruin
and reiection before it happened. A certain housholder, faith the
Gospel, planted à vineyard &c. and let it out to husbandmen, when the
time of fruits drew nigh, he sent his feruants to receiue the fruits. Thoſe
husbandmen feaſed vpon the Seruants, Beat one, killed an other
The parable
of the
vineyard.
>
and
Religions, not Chriftian.
17
*
and ſtoned à third. Here our Sauiour clearly alludes to the flain
and ſtoned Prophets. Again this Housholder fent forth other
feruants more then the former, who were treated in like manner.
Laftly he fent his own Son to them, faying, they will reuerence
my Son, but, faith the Text, They apprehended him alfo, caft
him out of the vineyard and killed him, and thus the lewes abuſed
and maſſacred Chrift our Lord. Next our Sauiour propofeth this
queſtion to the elders amongſt them. When therfore the Lord of the
Vineyard shall come, what will he do to theſe husbandmen? They anſwer.
Malos malè perdet. He will bring thefe naughty men to naught,and
let his vineyard out to other husbandmen, that shall render him
fruit in due feaſon. Now followes the very life and foul of the The force of
whole parable. Iefus faid to them, haue you not read in Scripture, the that parable.
Stone which the builders reiected, the fame is made into the bead of the corner?
This is done by our Lord, and it is merueilous in our eyes; Ideo dico vobis,
Therfore I say to you: The Kingdom of God shall be taken away from you,
shall be giuen to à nation, yeilding the fruits therof. &c.
Priefts and Pharifies, faith the Gofpel, knew he meant them. The
kingdome therfore wherof our B: Lord fpake, and fortold should
be giuen to an other,appear's manifeftly Gods own glorious work,
laid open to our eyes and fenfes in the Chriftian Catholick
Church.
and
The Chief
6. Hence Tertullian lib. aduerfus Iudæos C. 8. drawes an
other forcible argument againſt the Synogogue, from the large Tertullians
extent of Chrifts glorious Kingdom, now eftablished. Obferue
well.It was prophefied, faith this learned Doctor, Daniel. 7. that
Chrift should reign euery where, not like à Salomon in the
Confines of Iudæa, nor like à Nabuchodonofor from India to
Æthiopa, nor like an Alexander of macedonia, who was neuer
Mafter of fo ample à Dominion as Chrift Iefus poffeffeth. No.
Chrifti regnum (they are his words) vbig porrigitur, vbig, creditur,
pbig, regnat, vbig, adoratur. The Kingdom of Chrift is extended
euery where, is belieued euery where, reigns euery where, and
is adored in all places. And thus, the Roman Catholick Religion
though neuer fo ftrongly oppreffed is euery where, whilft
C
Mahometifin
Difcourfe.
18
Difc. 1. C. 2. Reafon reiects all
potent in
miracles as
Chrift.
>
Mahometifme and Herefy are reftraind to fuch and fuch Dominions)
If Therefore the lewes own à Meffias Chrift our Lord
who hath founded fuch à kingdom, is the only true Meffias. I
proue it. Were he not, but that an other is yet to be expected,
God could not haue permitted thofe manifeft Miracles, fignes and
wonders wrought by him to haue introduced an errour in place of
the ancient true Religion, which the Lewes profeffed. Iudaifin
therfore would haue flood ftill vnshaken in its ancient vigour, had
not Chrift Iefus powerful works, brought it to an vtter ruin. But
thefe, (and its Chrifts own Argument,) Iohn 15. If I had not done
No propbet fo works amongst them &c.) far fulpaffed in worth, Maiefty, and greatnes
all the wonders of Mofes and the Prophets: For none of them euer
raiſed themfelues from death to life again. None of them reuiued
one like Lazarus 4. daies buried. None had the fea and Elements
at command like Chrift. None shewed fuch wonders at their death,
as our dying Lord did. None fed ſo many thouſands in the defert
with fiue loaues and two fishes. None cured any with the hemm
of their garments. None wrought fuch ftrange Converfions, as
Chrift &c. I paff ouer other fignal wonders related in the Gofpel,
as the Prophets miracles are recounted in the old teftament, and
briefly Argue. Where greater fignes and miracles, which cannot
but proceed from God, euidence Religion, there is true Religion.
But moft vndeniably, Chrift shewed. greater lignes and miracles at
the founding of his Kindom, then either Mofes or the Prophets
manifefted, therfore he taught true Religion, and by virtue of thoſe
wonders.reuerfed Judaifm, and made it improbable. I fay greater
and mark wel my Reafon. Had not Chrifts illuftrious works most
eminently furpalked thofe of Mofes and the Prophets, but been as
it were equal with thein, Chrift's glorious Kingdom could neuer
haue come to fo mighty à growth, to fo vaft an extent as now it is,
it could not haue wrought fuch ftrange conuerfions as we ſee it
done, the whole world ouer. why? A leffer or equal Euidence
for Truth can no more obfcure or leffen an other greater or equal
Euidence, then one candle darken an other, (as we fee the light of
the fun doth. )Therfore that euidence which made the Synogogue
The reafon
of our
fauiours
Large
extended
Kingdom.
credible
Religions, not Chriftian.
19
credible to the lewes, was to be taken away with a far greater
light of manifeft fignes. and wonders, shewed to Chriftians. For If
we fuppofe the Euidence equal in both cafes (feing no Religion
is manifeftly true of it felf without antecedent motiues) we
might all yet as fecurely profeff Iudaidin, as Chriftianity, and
Therfore our Bleffed Lord fpake à moft profound Point of
Doctrin, when he faid. Had he not wrought greater wonders amongſt
them, then euer any did, they would baue been excuſable and without fin,
which Doctrin implies this great verity, that true Religion where
euer it is, pleads moft powerfully for it felf, yea dead's and
vanquishes errour by à moſt clear Euidence of glorious works,and
Miracles. And mark well this Difcourfe, it is deftructiue of all
Herefy, as shall be proued here after.
>
? Excellent
7. Who euer defires more of this fubiect may vouchfafe to
read that excellent Epiftle of Rabbi Samuel Marrochianus then à
Conuerted Chriftian to Rabbi Ifaac an Ifraelite. You haue it
Tomo. 2. Biblioth. Patrum Collain print fæculo 11. pag. 421.
He writ the Epiſtle after the yeare icoo. 6. Centuries fince,
or there about: and it contains, 27. short chapters. The work
is admirable, and moft expreffe for Chriftianity. In the firft
Chapter he laies forth the horrid Transgreffions of the Tewes, The
their Idolatry and killing of the Prophets, and faith Gods wrath difcourfe of
was appeaſed for theſe fins, as Scripture affures vs, when our Marrachia-
people (faith he) were fet at liberty. But now we haue been nus
diſperſed and ſcattered à thouſand yeares and more, and Gods indignation conuerted to
yer fallowes vs euery where, nec in Prophetis promittitur finis, and there Christia.
is no end promiffed in the Prophets, be caufe of our wickednes:
And if you ask what enormous guilt that was? He anfwers in his
6. Chapter, pondering thefe words of the Prophet Amos c. 2.
vpon three crimes of Iuda I will Conuert, or as the Rabbi reads,
transferam, put away, but vpon the fourth I will not conuert
because they haue fold the iuft for filver. Pauca Domine. I tremble,
faith Marrochianus, when I read this fentence, for this iuft man
was not Iofeph fold into Ægypt, nor the fourth hainous wickednes
(which he proues manifeftly) but was the iuft Lord Iefus, whom
C 2
the
nity.
20 Difc. 1. C. 2. Reafon reiects all
c.
the lewes fold for filver, and here is the greateſt and moſt crying
'fin for which we are punished. In the 19. Chap. (I cannot
infift on all ) He faith, that Prophely of Zach: Č. 13. ftrike the
shepheard and his sheep shall be difperjed, was fulfilled, when the
Ifraelites finit that great Paftor of the Apoftles, lefus, then it was
that they, anciently his flock, were fcattered vp and down the
face of the earth, and that the Apoſtles fucceeded in the place of
our Prophets For fince that Time we Lewes haue had no Paftors, no
Prophets, no vifions, no facrifice, no obferuance of Mofes law, no Holocauft,
no form of Religion &c. Thus he difcourfes through feueral
Chapters, and in the laft, the 27. after he had declared what
great refpect the very Turcks and Saracens shew to Iefus Chrift
and his bleffed Mother Mary: Of Chrift, their Alcoram faith,
that He is the true Meffias, yea and preferr His Genealogy
before Mahomets, for Mahomets parents were Idolaters and had
their Origen from Agar the handmaid, Chrift deſcended by à
lineal fucceffion from Ifaac and the Prophets by à right line, to
the bleffed virgins birth. The Alcoran more ouer faith, that
Elifi (in the Arabick tongue 'tis lefus) knew all things, the whole
book's of Mofes, the fecrets of mens hearts, had power giuen
him to work Miracles, to cure all diſeaſes, to caft out Diuels
and therfore own him as à mighty great Prophet, and the true
Meffias. Much honor and refpect alfo is giuen by the Turks
to our bleffed Lady, as you may read in that Chapter. After,
I fay, à larger Difcours of theſe two fubiects our Chriftian
Samuel concludes, that the lewes haue been à deferted People
for à thouſand yeares, we may add 600 to them.
abandoned, yet daily increaſe by the force of armes,and Chriſtians alſo ſtrangly
propagate by the power and virtue of Chrift, both oppoſe vs.
Nos aurem mhil proficimus, teftimonium multorum ftit contra nos, we
Ifraelits yet aduance nothing, in fo much that the malediction
of Ruben light's vpon vs. Non crefcas, we are ftill, and shall be
ignominious, we profper not. Such is the iudgement of God
againſt vs. This and much more, Marrochianus deliuered Six
ages fince againft his Nation.
lewes
>
The Turks
CHAP. III.
Christianity as oppofite to lewes &c. 21
I.
CHẠP. I
III.
Chriſtianity as it ftands in oppofition to Lewes,
Turks, Infidels and Heretickes, is the
only true Religion.
T
The
He Affertion is an euident Inference out of the former
difcours, for if true Religion be in the world, and not
found amongſt Heathens, Turks, or lewes, Thofe only called
Chriſtians enioy that bleffing, or there is no Religion at all in
being. Though the Propolition ftand's firm on this fole proof,
yet 'Ile ftrengthen it with two Conuincing Arguments.
firſt. Where we euidently find the marks. cognifances, and
The firfi
fignes of true Religion, there it is,but Chrifts Doctrin only which Argument,
we call Chriſtianity is vndeniably manifefted by clear fignes and
cognifànces of truth, and therfore is the true Religion. I proue
the Minor. A caufe is best known by its effects, the tree by its
fruits, the fun by its light, Faith by its works, and the Exiſtence
of God by the emanation of his creatures. But no other
Religion whether it be that of Iewes, Turks or Heathens euer
shewed to the world the like effects of Truth, the like glorious
Miracles, the like aufterity of life, the like contempt of tranfitory
Goods, the like efficacy of Doctrin, or, brought fo many Infidels
from incredulity, fo many from fenfuallity to a holy virtuous life
à
as Chrift and his Apoftles gained foon after the firft promulgation
of the Gofpel: Therfore theſe moft illuftrious marks and cognisances
of Chriſtianity, as clearly conuince that God deliuered truth by the
Preaching of our bleffed Lord, and his Elect Apoftles, as any
effect in nature demonftrat's the caufe it comes from. The Marks
are manifeſt to our eyes and fenfes, and plead moſt powerfully
for our Chriftian Doctrin. No other fect falfly called Religion
has euidenced the like fignes, and this, I am fure no Chriftian
can deny.
C 3
2. A
22 Difc. 1. C. 3. Christianity, as oppofite to Tewes c
An Other
taken from
the miracu-
lous propaga
tion of
Chriftian
Religion.
That
2. A fecond argument is fo weighty,in the behalfe of Chriſts
facred Doctrin, that though we had no knowledge of God or
Prouidence vpon other Principles,that which I am now to propofe,
would make both moſt vndoubted. I I argue therfore.
Religion whofe Author, Founder, and chief Preferuer is God (we
here fuppofe with lewes and Turks the actual exiftence of à Deity)
is manifeftly the true Religion, for God cannot found or teach
falshood, but Chriftian Religion, as taught by Chrift and his
Apoſtles, had and has God for its Author, Founder, and
Preferuer, therfore it is the only true Religion. I proue the Minor.
A Religion drawn into à law of liuing holily, which Miraculouſly
began, and was fpred the whole world ouer, aboue the power and
force of nature,is manifeftly from God, and fubfift's by Diuine virtue
only, (Diuels neuer help't in fo pious à work) but our Holy Chri-
ftian Religion, was and is ftlll thus miraculously fpred and preferued
alfo,all Nations ouer,aboue the power and force of nature, therfore
it is from God, and fubfifts by his Diuine virtue. To proue that
it began miraculously, and was propagated aboue the power and
Four things force of nature, we are to ponder thefe four things.
Confiderable
fublime Doctrin of Chriftian Religion. 2. The condition of
thoſe firſt Maſters who taught it, and in what difficult circumſtances.
3. The Quality and number of fouls gained to belieue it. 4.
By what means they were induced to Affent. Obferue well: You
will find in euery particular à Prodigious work aboue the force of
nature, and no other but Gods powerful hand concurring with it.
in the propa-
gation of the
Gospel.
Thus it is.
1. The
3. When the world lay as it were in à dead fleep of fin and
ignorance thoughtleffe God knowes, of cafting, fo much as à
thought towards Heauen, or of louing any good, but what ſenſe
and corrupted nature liked of. A new Doctrin fad to fenfe, and
mighty difficult to reafon was. heard of. Bleffed are the poor in ſpirit.
Humility (carle heard of before, was then cryed vp for a great virtue: Wrongs
were to be forgiuen, lawes obeyed, iuftice obferued &c. But was fen-
fuallity only thus Croffed in its propenfions? No. A load of
high Miſteries befides, was laid on Reafon alfo, which feemed to
rack
Is the true Religion
23
>
7
rack and torture it. God one in effence and three diftinct perfons.
God an Infant born of à virgin. A Lord Iefus, true God and man
after à wearifome life Scourged by impious hands and finally Cruci-
fied.fuch(with much more) was the ftrange Doctrin of Chriſtianity.
How euer (and here is the Miracle or prodigious work) it got
ground, fpread it felf far and neer and though contrary to
fenfuallity, and aboue Reafon, yet millions of fouls fo firmly
belieued it, though auftere and hard, that innumerable haue dyed
for it. Now if this be not à wonder, or à prodigious work aboue
the force of nature, we may well conclude with. S. Auftin lib. 22.
de Ciuit. c. 5. This to be the greateſt Miracle of all, that God
conuerted the world without Miracles.
4. The. 2. confideration yet encreaſeth the wonder of this
admirable work. We know great effects require proportionable
cauſes of like ſtrength, and virtue. A weak child lift's not vp à
weighty burden, nor can à mean handful of naked men defeat à
puifant Army. Ponder well the Propagation of Chrifts Gospel,
and the Conuerfions of Nations to Chriſtian Faith, vifible to our
eyes, the work is without difpute, great, noble, and glorious.
But fay by what caufe, by what inftruments, or Minifters did
God effect it? Did he fend Angels from Heauen to preach a Trinity,
à Crucified Sauiour, &c. or force Chriftians to à belief of thofe
Mysteries by strength of arms; No. Rex nofter Pacificus, Our Diuine
Iefus is the God of peace. Non in Commotione Dominus. No
tumultuous ſpirit brought in his Doctrin. Caluins tragical pro-
ceedings in the late begotten Herefy was not heard of, when
Christ our Lord and his Difciples preached the Goſpel. Some
perhaps will fay that Gods great intention when he first laid the
foundation of Religion, was to deftroy Idolatry and to eſtablish à
Ty what
new law against Iudaifin, and therfore proceeded as the world infrunents
vſually doth, in weighty matters. He furely made choife of moft the Gospel
expert Aduocates, of the wifeft Philofophers, of the profoundeft Iudges, was dilated,
and moft eloquent Orators on earth, and by thefe pleaded for
Chriſtianity. 'Tis an errour, all was contrary: Our euer glorius
God did his own work by twelue poor Fishermen, ignoble,
ignorant,
24 Difc. 1. C. 3. Chriftianity, as oppofite to lewes &c.
ignorant,friendleffe and deftitute of all that the world makes account
of, yea, and he shewed this power more by thefe weak Inftruments,
and their fucceffors in after ages, than he did before whilft he liued
with them, to manifeft that the work was his Principally, and theirs
inftrumentally This Doctrin is fo fully deliuered by the great Apoftle
of the Gentils, that we need not S. Chrifoftoms Eloquent Difcours
on the fubiect in his fermon. Christ is God. To illuftrate it further
(though that alſo merits à ferious reflection) I will destroy, faith
S. Paul 1. Cor. 1. 19. The Wisdom of the wife, and reiect the prudence of
the prudent &c. Hath not God made the wisdom of the world foolish for
becauſe in the Wiſdom of God, the world did not by wisdom know God, it
pleafed God by the foolishnes of Preaching to faue them that beliene &c. For
that which is foolish to God, is Difer then men, and that which is the
infirm of God, is ſtronger then men. See your vocation, Bretheren, that
not many wife according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many
noble,
but the foolish things of the world, God bath choſen, that he may confound
the wile, and the weak things of the world, that he may confound the
strong; and the baſe things of the world, and the contemptible, God hath
choſen, and thoſe things which are not, that he might destroie thoſe things
Which are, that no flesh may glory in his fight. Which is to fay huma-
ne power had no hand in this glorious work, and therfore it is as
manifeftly aboue the force of nature, as if Chrift Iefus had ſent 12.
little Children to conuert the world, for 'tis no leffe à miracle to fee
ſo great à work done by 12. poor fishermen, then by 12. young
Children.
5. 3. Confider the number and quality of fouls gained to our
Chriſtian belief, and ask whether they were à few only, or of fo
flexible à temper as to credit any thing vpon hearfay. You will
anſwer they were not few. Witneffe the conuerfion of whole na-
tions, and if we Confider nature,no leffe. obftinate than numerous.
Incredulum illud genus humanum, faith Arnobius lib. 1. Contra Gentes.
Mankind moſt ſtubborn and incredulous, contrary to its former
The number liberty and education, fubmitted to the yoke of Chrift,which truth,
gained in
as this Author obferues, were it not as euident as day light, would
have been thought impoffible. Perhaps you'l fay (though many),
numerabl:.
they
Is the True Religion
25
they were yet fimple and ignorant and therfore eafily wrought on.
No. A Learned Dyonifius,à Clemens Romanus,and innumerable
other great capacities, called on, came in to the Church, fuch
choife ones,(God cooperating with his weak inftruments,) were
drawn out of errour and darkneffe,to the light of the Gofpel. Now
if you ask in the laſt place, by what means thefe conuerfions were
made? The Goſpel anfwers Mark 16. 17. By fignes and manifeft won-
ders from Heauen. Going into the world preach the Gospel to all creatures
&c. and them who belieue, theſe fignes shall follow. In my name
they shall cast out Diuels, speak with tongues, as the Apoftles did, in
the feaft of Pentecoft. They went forth, faith the Text, preached euery
Where, our Lord working with them, and confirming the word with fignes
Which followed. Signes therfore and Miracles works of Diuine virtue
without violent hands or humane induftry caft down Idols, outed
Iudaiſm, and induced Aliens from Chrift to belieue his facred
Goſpel. Theſe Arguments, as I now faid, fo forceably euidence
à power aboue nature in the eftablishing of Chriftianity, that if we
had no other Proofs for the Exiſtence of God, thefe alone without
difpute Conuince moft fufficiently, the being of à Numen aboue
vs, who has demonftrated his prouidence in laying the foundation
of Chriftian Religion, ſo ârmly.
CHAP. IV.
VVhether Chriftian Religion fince its first Propagation
hath not been in like manner preferued pùre, and
further fpread by Diuine Prouidence, aboue
the power of Nature?
I.
I
Anſwer Affirmitiuely and fay, that the Augmentation
or further growth of Chriftian Religion, is to be eſteemed
no leffe à work of prouidence and Diuine Affiftance, then its firſt
D
eſta-
26 Difc. 1. C. 4. Chriftianity Propagated
Chriſtiani.
ty further
Spread
aboue the
INTE.
eftablishment was. One reafon is. The Doctrin preached to
innumerable People not Chriftian in the Apoftles time, was the
ſame ſublime learning (of à Trinity, of the Incarnation, and other
difficult Myfteries) The ſtubborneffe and incredulity of thoſe who
force of Na- heard it(at laſt induced to belieue) were alike in them, as in the firſt
conuerted Chriftians, Propenfions to fenfuallity which they quitted,
as ftrong, and violent; The number of thofe after gained fouls,
you may hold far more, their wisdom not inferiour to the former,
and the quality of innumerable (witnes fo many Emperours, Kings
and Princes) drawn in following ages to Chriftianity,much exceeded
thoſe firſt conuerted by the Apoftles. Clear and manifeft miracles
(effects of Gods power only) haue been more numerous, in the
Centuries fince the Apoftles preaching, then before.
What euer
therfore proues the firft Propagation of the Gofpel miraculous, or
à work aboue the ſtrength of nature, as
as forceably conuinceth the
Truth we here plead for. Now if fome obiect! Theſe later
Preachers of the Church fent abroad to preach Chrifts Doctrin,
had much more of the humane learning, then thofe firft great
maſters of Chriſtianity, and therfore might well by natural Eloquen-
ce and humane literature gain many without Diuine Affiftance.
I anfwer, when the Poets perfwade me that Orpheus harp and
harmony tamed wild beafts and moued ftones, 'Ile belieue( and not
Sooner) that wolues became lambs, that the ftony hearts of Infi-
dels were foftned, and made fubiect to Chrifts facred law, by the
power of humane learning only. What? that natural knowledge,
got by induſtry, could vanquish Idolatry, obfcure Iudaifin,and draw
innumerable Heathens to deny fenfuallity, to liue à mortified life,
and belieue in à crucified Sauiour? is not only à Paradox aboue
expreffion, but à vaft improbability?
2. You know there are two things the world ftand's for, Pro
aris & focis, that is for Religion and earthly commodities. Religion,
you fee, hath the Preheminence. Imagin now, that à Heathen
Prince should fend the moſt Eloquent and learned Doctors within
his Dominions vpon this hard enterprife, To gain à forrein
Monark and People highly auerfe from him,his lawes,and comands,
Withall,
Aboue the force of nature
27
Withall; to abandon their old Religion and admit ofà new one,
without the leaft hope of any worldly intereft; Nay contrary,moft
afſured to loſe much, which nature seek's after; Would fuch à
Policy( think yee) take? or could theſe Doctors though neuer fo
Eloquent haue confidence to bring about their defigne, by wit
or learning only? No. You will iudge it impoffible to gain fo humane
much as one fole Prouince, when no motiue of earthly commodity learning, nog
enters, but much against it. Here is our very cafe. The Church able to Com-
uert fouls.
of Chriſt in ages following the Apoftles, fent abroad her Miffioners,
and Theſe commiffioned Preachers, haue not only deftroyed Altars
erected to falle Gods, moft obftinatly defended by Gentils, but
introduced à new facred Religion in place of them, mightily
oppoſite to fenfuallity and what euer the world loues: (here is the
tribute payd to Chrift) can we therfore think that wit did this work?
or perfwade our ſelves that à little breath drawn only from
natural knowledge, threw down thefe Altars? No.à Diuine virtue,
and that moft Powerful did the deed, God only wrought theſe
Conuerfions, no leffe admirable, then Euident to our eyes.
When S. Peter, as we read in the Gospel Luk. s. 4. launched
forth into the deep at Chrifts command, and drew vp great Multitudes
of fishes, both he and others ſtood amafed ar the Miracle: And
more iuftly may all admire the far greater multitude of men,
drawn out of à gulf of fin and ignorance then fortold, Ex hoc The draught
iam eris homines capiens, by the labours of thofe firft Mafters and of fouls out
their Succeffors. Say therfore, was the draught of fishes great, of perdition,
and all cryed à Miracle, And the draught of fouls out of miraculeus.
perdition far greater, and nature only did it? No certainly.
Belieue it, Had the Paftors of Chrifts Church toyled only
by that weak inftrument of humane knowledge, the Idols of
the Gentils would yet haue ftood, and all of them might well
hatte bemoaned their loft labour with S. Peter. Magifter per
totam noƐłem laborantes nibil cepimu. Maſter all night long, we haue
been hard at work, and got nothing.
3. And here briefly (to fay a word in paffing) is the true
reafon why our modern Sectaries are fo vnlucky in any con-
D 2
uerfions >
28
Difc. 1. C. 4. Christianity propagated.
2
,
>
>
uerfions, not only of Heathens, but of others alſo named Chriſtians,
to their new Religion. They launch forth, 'tis true, but without
commiffion, and therefore work not by the virtue of Chrifts
command wit alone and à little wordy learning doe all,
make à noife, and their books to fwell but draw none
of judgement to them, vnles liberty and à rich Benefice ( two
powerful Preachers to corrupt natnre) catch fome. The thing
is euident, for where haue we fuch fignal conuerfions wrought
by Sectaries without hope of any worldly fortune, as now (to
Of particu
lar Conuer. omit ancient times) our very dayes, and late ones too, shew vs?
fions. Where haue they one like that Generous and learned Queen
Chriftina of Sweeden, who quit à Kingdom to become Catho-
lick? Where haue they fuch à Prince as yet liues, the grand
Turks own Brother, not only Catholick but more
à
Religious man of Bleffed S. Dominicks order? Its needleffe
to giue you in this place à Catalogue of many German
Princes, true members now of the Roman Catholick Church,
who were not gained by any worldly motiue to abandon
Herefy (as they haue done) but ftrongiy called on by Gods.
grace, without delay obeyed the fummons, as now lately did
that great Commander in France Count Marishal Turene,
whofe glorious Conuerfion witneff his Profeffion of Faith, was
grounded on ferious thoughts relating to Eternity, and not
vpon any humane intereft. Thefe very few, but great changes,
before our Eyes with others innumerable known to the world,
are plain effects of fupernatural grace, and manifeftly shew
that more than wit or humane knowledge had à hand in
them.
4..
>
Hence I argue.
That Religon is from Cod
and therfore true, which He concurręs to, and propagates
Catholick by his fpecial grace and virtue? The Chriftian Catholick
Religion Religion only, hath been thus propagated by Gods fpecial
To add more weight to
and virtue, therfore it is true.
ted, therfore argument, I ask whether thofe Conuerfions wrought by
the Apoſtles them felues are to be held miraculous, that is
miraculous-
ly propaga
true.
grace
this
aboue
Aboue the force of nature
27
aboue the force of nature, or not? If you deny, blot out
thoſe words of the Gofpel, as moft vntrue Mark 16. 20. Domi-
no cooperante &c. Our Lord cooperating wub them, and fay all Apofto-
lical conuerfions were wrought by natural caufes only, And
grant next, Mahometifin and Chriſtianity thus far equal, that as
Mahomet driues all to his belief, by the ſword (the caufe isnatural)
fo the Church drawes all to it by wit, policy and humane lear-
ning, and this means is altogether as natural. Now if you fay thofe
firft Conuerfions were truely effects of grace, and wrought by
Gods fpecial affiſtance, This fequele is Clear: The like made in
after ages by the Church,far more numerous, as difficult and wholly
as glorious, proceed from the fame fountain of Goodnes, God's
Diuine grace and ſpecial Affiftance. And note, I fpeak here of real
Conuerfions, wrought in Belieuers vpon folid motiues(the Church
shewes you millions of them) not of hypocritical changes pre-
tended for God and Religion, when worldly intereſt has à hand hypocritical
in them. Theſe are as foon diftringuished by their falfe luftre, not Valuable.
Conuerfions,
as à comet from the fun, they laft not long, but fall like
blafing ftarrs. We meddle not with them. Thus much of à
short digreffion which makes way to an other querie, and 'tis
as followeth.
CHA P. V.
VVhether all called Christians Belieue intirely Chrift's
Sacred Doctrin? And whether meanes be afforded to
arriue to the knowledge of true Christian
I.
Religion?
Hefe queſtions largely handled in the other Treatife, are
Troon refolued vpon certain Principles. I fay therfore
firft. All called Chriftians belieue not truely and intirely Chrift
D 3
Sacred
30 Diſc. 1. C. 5. All called Chriftians, belieue
Means
know true
Religion.
>
Sacred Doctrin and proue it; If Hymenæus and Alexander
Timoth. 1. c.1. 20. once true Belieuers made shipwrack of
their Faith; if the Arians Monothelits, Pelagians, Donatifts,
aud fuch known Hereticks named Chriftians, haue fallen alfo,
and loſt true belief of Chriftian verities fufficiently propofed? This
ſequel js euident.
All of them though named Chriftians, haue not
Faith intirely good, nor indeed any Diuine Faith at all. See
the other Treatiſe Diſc : 3. c. 3. n. 4.
>
2. I fay. 2. All and euery one may with ordinary diligence.
come to the knowledge of the true Chriftian Religion, I proue
the Affertion. Diuine Faith, without which we cannot poffibly
fufficient to pleafe God, is determinatly neceffary to faluation, and confe-
quently the Religion where true Faith is taught, is alfo neceffary.
Therefore both thefe after Ordinary diligence vfed may beknown;
vnleffe we wil fay, that God first makes fuch things neceflary to
faluation, and then remoues them fo far out of fight, that none
can know by prudent ordinary diligence what thefe neceffary
things are. I fay neceſſary to [aluation not to difpute with
Melchior Canus and others of the neceflity of faith to the firft
iuſtification of à Sinner. This difficulty we waure, and Argue.
2. God as we now fuppofe with all Chriftians, yea with Lewes and
Turks alſo, is the Author of true Religion, which he reuealed
to the world, for no other end but mans happines, and eternal
faluation, therfore if he defires all to be faued by true Religion,
which is the final end therof, He cannot, vnles his Prouidence
fail, but afford meanes to know where it is profeffed, otherwiſe
(which ill befeem's an infinite wifdom) he would fet vs all on
work to gain Heauen by the belief of true Religion, and
withall leaue vs fo in darknes, that we cannot with all prudent
induſtry, come to the knowledge of it; which is to fay, He will
haue vs know the end of Religion, and yet conceal the meanes
leading to the knowledge of it.
3. Again I argue. 3. God who obliges not to impoffibilities,
laies à ftrait command on all to belieue true Religion(and not
to affent to any fals fect) therfore it may be known, and clearly
diftin-
not Chriftian Doctrin.
31
its
euidence.
diftinguished, at leaſt from the errours of infidels,lewes,and Turks.
Known I fay, but how? Not by its internal light immediatly, for
no Religion euer yet was its own felf-cuidence ex terminis, or pru-
dently got admittance, becauſe the Profeffors of it Cryed it vp as
true. Therfore the credibility of true Religion, which muſt be True Reli-
laid open to Reafon by force of Conuincing motiues, is made as gion is not
well difcernable from Herefy (deftructiue of faluation) as from own felfe
Turcifin, or Iudaiſm, yea, and may be no leffe clearly diſcouered
by its proper fignes and luftre than à true Miracle; for example,
that of S. Peter, from Simon Magus Sorcery. This cannot be
denyed, ynles God,as I now fayd, either command's inpoffibilities,
viz, to find that out, which cannot be found, or licenceth vs to
embrace any Religion called Chriſtian, whether good or bad,true
or fals (it imports not) becauſe the beſt, if it can be found, is no
more but à meer Probability, or like vncertain opinions in Philo-
fophy, which may be reiected or followed according to euery
priuate fancy. This execrable Doctrin of the indifference to any
Religion, learned in the Diuels fchool, is now à daies much in
the mouths of many, and, I fear, too deeply rooted in the hearts Nor à thing
of fome later Sectaries. But of this more here after. In the mean indifferent.
time you may conclude. If true Religion be in the world, its
made difcernable not only from Iudaifin but Herefy likewife
and if it haue this difcernibility it can be known, if known, it in-
duceth an obligation to be belieued with Diuine Faith, if it
grounds certain Faith Subiectiuely taken in him that belieues, it is no
Opinion, and confidered Obiectiuely it implies the higheſt certainty
Imaginable, fetled on God's Reuelation as is largly proued in the
other Treatife. Difc. 1. c. 5. n. 6.7.
CHAP VI.
32
Diſc. 1. C. VI. Sectaries errours.
I.
CHAP. VI.
Of our Sectaries errour in their fearch after true
Religion. As alfo of Mr. Stilling fleets
inconfequent way of Arguing.
>
Ne errour common to all condemned Hereticks, is in
the firſt place to find out true Religion by the book of
holy Scripture alone. A moft improbable way, as the ancient
Tertullian learnedly obferues lib de Præfcrip. cap. 9. 15. but
chiefly cap: 19. at thofe words often cited. Ergo non ad Scriptu as
prouocandum &c. The reafons of my Affertion well pondered are
moſt conuincing, 1. The Sectary laies hold of à book which
he fayes teaches truth, and yet knowes not in his Principles
nor shall euer know infallibly, whether the book he own's con-
tain's the Doctrin of true Religion, or ought to be valued as Gods
affured word, which is to fay in other terms; He learn's infallible
truths of à Mafter, before he hath infallible certainty of this
Maſters teaching truth, infallibly. That the Sectary wants infal-
lible affurance of his book is euident, for he faith,no word of God,
written or vnwritten, no infallible Tradition, no infallible authority
on earth, aſcertain's him of the Scriptures Diuinity. So Mr:
Stillingfleet in feueral places chiefly part 1. c. 6. Pag 170. Therfore
he, can haue no in fallible Affurance of the Doctrin contained in
Scripture, and confequently no Diuine Faith grounded on that
infallible Doctrin, as I shall shew hereafter. How euer, grant him an indu-
afurance of bitable affurance in à general way of fome books of Scripture, hee
their Bible, hath not yet fo much as moral certainty of that precife.Canon he
receiues, excluding other books which he denies as Scripture, For
no Orthodox Church, no vniuerfal Tradition, no confent of
Fathers, no definition of any Council, approues his Canon, or ex-
plodes thofe books reiected by him, therfore the fectaries Canon,
Sectaries
haue not
wherof
Sectaries errours
33
wherof there is fo Much doubt, can giue no moral affurance of
Gods reuealed verities, vnles it were without difpute à liquid truth,
that their Canon only is Gods word, which cannot be ſuppoſed,
whilft fo learned and numerous à multitude of Chriftians oppofe
it, as defectiue and imperfect. Yet more. Suppofe he giues
you the exact number of Canonical books, hee gain's nothing
becauſe the very Doctrin of theſe books is no more but à Tranfla-
tion, and therefore vnleffe the Tranflator or Printer,haue faithfully
complyed with their duty, and preferued the books in their ancient
purity, no Proteftant can affure himfelf or any, that what we now
read, is without change or corruption, pure in the very neceffary
points of Faith. If you fay you compare them with the ancient
Original Copies of the Hebrew and Greek; I anfwer;the very best
Originals men can light on now, are no more but meer Tranfcrip-
tions, and confequently may haue been corrupted by the Tran- Thebest
fcriber, the Printer, or Librarian. Therefore the Sectary hath no Originals
Moral certainty of the bare letter in Scripture, if he cannot shew now extant,
vs the hand writing or Autograph's ofthe Prophets, and Apoftles, are only
wherof there is no danger, becauſe he neuer faw any. Hence I tranfcrip-
argue. He who hath not infallible certainty of the very letter of tions.
Scripture, want's infallible certainty of the Doctrin contained in
Scripture, but the Proteftant hath no infallible certainty of the
letter of Scripture, Therefore he want's infallible certainty of the
Doctrin contained in Scripture: for no certainty ofthe letter, no An argu-
certainty of the Doctrin drawn from thence. But if he has not
But if he has not ment against
fectaries.
certainty of the Doctrin he can haue no infallible faith grounded
on it: Therefore Scripture alone is an unmeet means to teach him,
what either true Faith, or Religion is.
2. Mr. Stillingfleet to folve this vnanfwerable Argument Part.
1. c. 6. p. 196. faies, we beg the Queftion, when we require an
infallible Teftimony for our belieuing the Canon of fcripture, yet
grants fuch à certainty, as excludes all poßibility of reasonable doubting.
and Chap. 7. p. 211. declares himſelf further thus. Giue me leaue to
make this fuppofition, that God might not haue giuen this fupernatural
Aßiſtance to your Church, which you pretend makes it infallible; whether
E
Amen
34
Mr. Stillingfleets inconfequences
men through the vniuerfal conſent of perfons of the Chriftian Church in all
ages, might not haue been vndoubtedly certain, that the Scripture we haue
Was the fame deliuered by the Apostles? Ianfwer, if you take leaue
to make that fuppofition, licence me to tell you, you haue not
that certainty of Scripture which Diuine Faith both fuppofeth and
requires. And here is one reafon (to omit others infifted on here
after) Deny this infallible affurance of the books of Scripture, you
haue no greater certainty, that God endited thofe words we now
read, than you haue affurance that Ariftotle wrote his Topicks, or
Cæfar his Commentaries; And dare you, or any fay, that we receiue
Mr.Stilling:
answer, dif.
our Bible
vpon no furer ground? Or can you Imagin, if Chri-
fatisfactory ftians accept thefe: books vpon à Teftimony leffe then vndubitable,
it may not be fufpected that à thouſand gross errours haue entred
the Copies by the negligence, or inaduertency of fuch as tranfcribed
them? Belieue it. Were Ariftotles Topicks matter of Diuine
Faith, none would dy after the fallible conueyance of them to our
age,vpon this perfwafion; that nothing ſubſtantially firſt writ by
that Author, hath been changed or altered Since; and the fame
I affert of the Bible; vnleffeyou fay that the words of Scripture were
writ in fome celeſtial and incorruptible Matter, yet to be read by
all, or grant, which is truth; that as God by fpecial Prouidence
cauſed them to be writ pure, fo alſo he yet preferues them without
blemish, and now witneffeth the truth by the Teftimony of his in-
fallible Church, wherof more largely hereafter. At preſent I
will only answer your difficulty about that fallible certainty, which
you affirm, excludes all poßibility of reaſonable doubting, and ſay firſt.
The vniuerfal confent of perfons of the Chriftian Church in all
ages, neuer approued the intire Canon of your Scripture: for not
only the prefent Roman Catholick Church, but the ancient
councils alfo, receined books which you reiect. This truth is fo
manifeft that it need's no further proof,therefore your Canon want's
the approbation of the whole Chriftian world, and confequently
you haue-not fo high à certainty of Scripture, as excludes all poffi-
bility of reasonable doubting. I anfwer. 2. And it is à demonftration
againſt Proteſtants,who fay the whole Chriflian world for à thouſand
years
Mr. Sulling fleets inconfequences.
35
th
years at least, erred in Doctrin contrary to the verities of Holy
Scriptures, for, if we goe up from Luther to the 4. or 5. th age
after Chrift, you'l find none but condemned erring Hereticks and
Roman Catholiks, no leffe actually guilty (fay Sectaries) of theſe
profeffed errours: of praying to Sain's, of an vnbloody Sacrifice of the, the Afurther
real prejence &c. Thus much fuppofed, I both anfwer and Argue Argument,
against you. If the whole Chriftian world was for that vaft time taken
fo ftrangely infatuated, as to mantain errours contrary to Scripture, from the
when the true Doctrin therof no leffe concerned their eternal papists fup.
pofed errours
Saluation, then the true letter; it cannot poffibly be fuppofed vpon
any weak Probability( much leffe on fuch à certainty as excludes all
reaſonable doubt) that theſe beſotted Chriſtians preferued the letter
of Scripture pure and intire, whofe errours are now imagined moſt
groff against the Doctrin contained in God's word. Obferue my
reafon. It is much more eaſy to conceiue (if all held corrupted
Doctrin) that the very letter of Scrtpture was by negligence or
ignorance of theſe, Corrupters of Doctrin, alfo corrupted, then to
iinagin the records preferued pure, and Millions of Chriftians to
read them, and after the reading, grófly to miſtake Gods verities.
regiſtred in that book. And here I muft mind M. Stillingfleet of
his proofleff and inconfequent way in Arguing.
ments
retorted
3. You Sr. fay firft. The whole erring multitudes of Chriftians
before Luther preferued Scripture pure, yet forfooth, theſe filly
men taught one Doctrin after an other, contrary to Scripture.
They perufed the book interpreted it, yea preached it, to their own
confufion, and condemnation. You fay. 2. It is not poffible that Mr. ftilling-
theſe writings could be extorted out of mens hands by fraud or fleets argu-j
violence vnder their eyes,or fuffered to be loft by negligence: Yet
you make it not only poffible, but grant the Doctrin therof to
haue been loft and peruerted by fraud, negligence, violence, or all
together. You fay. 3. Theſe ancient Chriftians were profeffed
enemies to the corrupters of the Bible: yet you hold them dear
friends to the deprauers of Gods verities, regiftred in the Bible.
You fay. 4. The intereft of eternal Saluation made thefe Chriftians
careful to preferue the Bible in its firft integrity: And yet you make
E 2
them
36
Mr. Stillingfleets inconfequences.
againſt him.
them fupinly careles in preferuing the verities contained in Scrip-
ture, as highly neceffary to faluation. You fay. 5. The eternal
concerns of all Chriftians fo depended vpon the fafe preferuation of
theſe Sacred Records that if they were not true, we are all moft mi-
ferable. And I reply. The eternal concerns of all Chriftians as
highly depend's on the pure Doctrin of Scripture as on the outward
fecured Records; for what auails it to haue pure Records, and draw
poyfon out of them? You grant the whole world was miferably
infatuated with falfe Doctrin for ten whole ages, though it had the
letter of Scripture pure, and yet the purity of that book preuented
not the mifery of mifchieuous errours. You fay. 6. When once I fee
Whole Corporation content to burn the publick Charter, and fubstitute à
And further new one in its place, and this not to be ſuſpected or difcouered; When I
vrged shall fee à Magna Charta foifted, and neither King nor People be fenfible of
fuch à cheat, when all the world shall conspire to deceiue themfelues and their
Children: I may then fufpect fuch an impofture as to the Scripture, but not
before. Anfw. Ex ore tuo te Iudico, and retort the Argument in your
own words. When. I fee not only à whole Corporation but à
whole ample learned Church, waft or depraue the old Legacy of
Chrift facred Truths bequeathed to it,and a new learning ſubſtituted
in its place,and this change not to be ſuſpected and diſcouered:when
I shall fee that Magnum Depofitum of his Doctrin once committed to
the Church escare to be foisted, and neither King, nor Prelate, nor
People found, fenfible of the cheat: when all the world shall con-
fpire to deceiue themfelues and their children by teaching fals
Doctrin in place of Chriſts verities: Then I shall, and muſt in
pru-
dence fufpect an impoſture, à change, an alteration in the very
book of Scripture. This later you shamfully grant to haue happe-
ned, when vpon the pretence of hideous errours you abandoned
all other Chriftian Societies in the world, and vnfortunatly
made à Schifm with Luther from the true Roman Catholick
Church, therefore you may not only weakly fufpect,but muſt moſt
iuſtly fear the firft, which is,that you haue not true Scripture.
4.
Hence I fay, what euer Argument proues the book of Scrip-
ture hitherto prefcrued pure, proues likewife the Doctrin of the
prefent
Mr. Stilling: inconſequences"
3
Jayd.
Corrupters
prefent Church as faithfully tranfmitted and Conueyed pure from An inferenc
from what is
age to age to our very dayes. Contrariwife, if there were any
Principle (as there is none) whereby this Doctrin could be shew'd
falfe or ſtained; All might (if reafon haue place) ioyntly
acknowledge à non-affurance of the Scriptures purity; For that
Church which may lofe true faith and Corrupt Chrift's Doctrin, of Chrifts
may more eafily lofe or corrupt Chrift's Scripture, vnleffe you Dodrin may
grant, which is horridly impious, that Gods ſpecial Prouidence more Easily
had only care to keep à Bible incorrupt,and at faft,like one careless, Corrupt the
words of
permitted the Doctrin of that book(wheron Saluation effentially feripture.
depend's) to be extorted out of the hearts of all Chriftians for à
thousand yeares together. Ponder thefe truths Mr: Stilling: and
Confeffe ingenuouſly, if your Principles hold good, you haue
not fo much as any probable certainty of
your Bible.
•
#
5. Perhaps one may fay if the letter of Scripture be corrupted
the very foundation of Faith is shaken, but if fuppofed pure
and vnaltered, though all Chriftians, Papifts, and Hereticks erred
in the Doctrin therof, yet they may be reclaimed from errour
by the pure Euangelical preachers, now fwarming in England.
Pittiful. what no help then for à befotted world before thefe
late men appeared, who here fpeak at random? They firft tell vs
vpon à meer fuppofition without any femblance of proof, that
Scripture was euer preferued pure though all Chriftians abuſed
its Doctrin; wheras we contend vpon moft grounded reaſons,
that if all erred in the doctrin drawn from Scripture, the letter
cannot be fuppofed pure, becauſe à Church carelefly negligent in
the preferuation of Chrifts Doctrin, cannot be thought careful
enough in preferuing the true Records of his Doctrin: Now the
Anfwer without proof is, though all erred Doctrinally, yet none
of them maimed or marred the Bible, which befides à Moral
impoffibility, implies à pure begging of the Queftion. See more
of this particular in the other Treatife Difc. 2. c. 2. n. S. Again.
If theſe Euangelical men pretend to Conuince vs of our errours what
by à pure book of Scripture, they are obliged to shew vs fome fetaries are
one Copie at icaft, wherof we may haue fuch certainty as ex-
મે
E 3
cludes
obliged to.
38
Mr Stillingfleets inconfequences.
If God
A
>
cludes à Poßibility of all doubting. But this no Proteftant can do, who
affifted the reiect's all editions now extant except perhaps his own. The
Tranfcribers Vulgar latin,which Mr: Stillingfleet call's the great Diana of Rome,
offeripture, of high credit in the Church for à thouſand years, pleaſeth not
much more The Clementine and Sixtine Bibles, not different in any Material
be aſſiſt's
the Church point touching Faith, are vnderualued. Set theſe afide, I defire
Mr. Still or any Proteftant, to show me à Copy, whofe
Authenticalnefs is fo agreed on by the confent of all Chriſtians,
as may exclude reaſonable doubting of its purity.. It is vtterly
impoffible. Iftheſe men anſwer, we muft haue recourſe to the
Autograph's, or ancient Manuscripts of the Hebrew and Greek, I
deny their fuppofition, for thefe now extant, are no firft Origi
nals, in à word no more but Tranfcriptions. What greater
fecurity therefore, haue we of fuch copies then of the Vulgar
latin? vnleffe you fay that the Tranfcriber (who euer he was)
becauſe he wrote Hebrew, Caldee, or Greek, could not tell à lye, or
was determined to follow in euery Material point of Faith the
Hagiographers Copy moft faithfully. Grant this, and I Argue:
If God by fpecial Prouidence fo affifted the memory, the will,and
hands of theſe Tranfcribers, as to write nothing but what was
exactly found in the firft Original Scripture; with much more
reafon will He euer affift his Church to admit or approue of no
Scripture, nor Doctrin, but what is genuine pure, and
Orthodox.
,
To reinforce this argument. I licence Mr: Stilling: to
chuſe amongſt ſo many lections of the new Teftament as he
faith, are collected by Robert Stephen, one or two he likes beſt,
and then I demand whether that lection agrees with the vulgar latin
or differ's from it? If 't agree, there is no reafon to quarrel with
the Vulgar, if it be different in any material point, we are caft
vpon the greateſt vncertainties immaginable, for the difpute will
then be, whether that Copie which he followes,ought to be prefer-
red before the Vulgar Latin? And here, Sr. you and I must come to
clear Principles. Wee fay firft. The Vulgar latin tranflated, or
at leaſt Corrected at Pope Damafus Command by that learned
and
Mr Stillingfleets inconfequences.
39
3. Canils,
and profound Doctor S. Hierom, hath been read in the Church
The vulgar
without reproof, for à thousand years and vpward. None but one latin of long
Rufinus (and this only at the beginning whilft S. Hierom liued) vfe in the
excepted againſt it. S. Auſtin, all know.Lib. de ciuit. 18. c. 4. 3. Church.
highly commend's S. Hieroms great labours, and learning in the
three tongues. Not any in the enfuing ages found the work repre-
henfible, innumerable worthy Authors haue approued it. And
now, O ftrange time! à few Nouellifts whofe whole induſtry is
only to pull down, to build nothing, disdainfully call it Romes
great Diana. Be pleaſed, Sr. to anſwer and giue me as ſtrong à
proof for the Authenticalneff of that Copy you follow( if any diffe-
rence be) as I giue you for our Latin Tranflation? If you fay the S. Hierom
Copy you follow is not the fame which S. Hierom vfed, it is more defended,
then you know, He had as many lections, and perhaps more, againſt
than you haue ſeen, and can you fay which he followed, and
which he did not? Well. But fuppofe he made vfe of an other
Copy different from what pleaſeth you, the Queſtion is, whether
that be of leffe credit then yours? And this fole point cannot be
decided in your fauour by any probable Principle. If you fay
S. Hieroms Tranflation feem's contrary to the Authentick Greek
Copies. I anſwer firſt, you do not only auouch more then you
know, but vtter an improbability; for if there had been any Ma-
terial difference between his Tranflation, and the Greek he made
vfe of; innumerable learned Doctors in the Catholick Church
would haue efpied the errour, and difcouered it, before you were
born. Pray you remember your own difcours P. 215. and. 216.
where you ſay; you may be fufficiently affured that no Material
corruption is in the Books of Scripture without our Churches
Teftimony, becauſe Catholiks of old were alwayes as vigilant to
preferue the Scriptures purity, as Hereticks ready to depraue it:
For you ſay, when Marcion began to clip the Text Ireneus prefently
took notice and rebuked him, and fo did Tertullian, and Epiphanius
refpectiuely to others, who refcued Scripture from the violent
hands of fuch as attempted to falfify it. Lay then yours on your
breft and once ſpeak ingenuously, can you perfirade your felf, if
>
any
40
Mr. Stilling fleets inconfequences.
anthors
in the vul.
gar, had
shere been
any.
any
Catholick confiderable errour had been in our Vulgar Edition, either con-
trary to Faith or Good manners, that thoſe many worthy learned
would hane Catholicks in the ages after S. Hierom would not haue noted it,
nored errors and releafed it from Corruption? What? For à thousand years,
was there no Irenaus, no Tertullian, no Epiphanius, no Ambrofe &c.
that took notice of fo important à matter whereon the faluation
of fouls depended? Again (And this Argument euer pinches) was
there no Irenaus, no Tertullian, in all thofe ages, (when they faw
the Doctrin of Scripture go to ruin by thefe fuppofed erring
Papiſts, that reſcued the Doctrin from errour, as they did the letter
of fcripture from corruption?
7. You tell vs. 2. That among thofe multitudes of lections in
the new Teftament obferued by Robert Stephen, which were
perhaps occafioned in the general difperfion of Copies by the
Multitudes of Tranſcriptions,through the ignorance or careleſneff
of the Tranſcribers, there are none which ſeem material or intrench
vpon the integrity of Scripture, as à rule of Faith and manners:
They are therefore, fay you, but racings of the skin, but no wounds of
any vital part. And is it poffible? Can you find more then fuch
racings in the Vulgar Latin? can you difcouer à wound in any vital
part therof? I challenge you to fpeak to the cauſe in this particular,
but I know you cannot. Why therefore may not the Vulgar bee
admitted amongst the reft? The reafon of my affertion is. You
cannot find fuch à wound in the Vulgar, vnleff you produce à
Copy of Scripture more genuine and pure without Difpute, but
this, whether you haue recourfe to the Greek or any Latin tran-
flation will, be more doubted of by whole multitudes of learned
men, then the vulgar now read in the Church: Therefore you
cannot come to fo much certainty of any Scripture as excludes
à poffibility of all reaſonable doubting. Which truth feem's fo
euident ad hominem that it needs no further proof, but this only,
The Sectary faith, our Vulgar tranflation is not pure, we fay and
proue it, his English Bibles different from the Greek in the new
Teftament,are Corrupted, (fee many of theſe errours noted before
the Rhems Teftament), Therefore if the Proteftant reiect's the
n..?
Mr. ftillingfleets inconfequences.
41
now Authentick latin Edition he has no fuch certainty of any The vulgar
Tranflation extant, as excludes à poßibility of all reaſonable doubting, Latin
vnleff he makes his own parties opinion for what he faith vndu- rejected,
bitable and our contrary affertion improbable, which is foul Proteftants
play.
baue not
Se&aries
muſt
Certainty of
8. Some fectary may reply; He excepts not against the Vulgar any Tran-
Latin which is our Sixtine and Clementine Bible, as guilty of any flation.
Material errour, but of leffer faults only, and with fuch charitable
eyes hee look's on all other verfions Thus much integrity,I hope,
Mr. Stilling: allowes it p: 216. where he takes notice of à peculiar
hand of Diuine Prouidence in preferuing the Authentick Records of mu approme
the Vulgar
Scripture fafe to our dayes. By the way: it's pitty he omitted to latin Bible.
note alfo the like prouidence in preferuing the Doctrin of Scrip-
ture pure fo long: But hereof we haue faid enough already. All
therefore I note at prefent is. 1. If God shewed à particular
Prouidence in preferuing Scripture, pure to our dayes, the Vulgar
Latin according to Mr : Stilling: Cannot be guilty of any material
errour, for were it guilty, this peculiar Prouidence would haue
failed in the great moral body of the Roman Catholick Church,
which hath read this Scripture, and held it incorrupt for ten
whole ages; And Confequently Mr: Stilling: muft acknowledge à
want of fpecial Prouidence in order to the preferuation of all
authentick Records euery where. Grant thus much, and no
Sectary can haue fo great moral affurance of fcripture as excludes
all reaſonable doubting, for, if God hath permitted à whole
ample Church to be deluded with à Bible notably corrupted:
The Certainty of Scripture, which excludes all reaſonable doubting,
fail's the fectary, who either muft admit of an other latin Tranfla-
tion diſtinct from ours, or haue recourfe to the Greek Text, but
he approues of no latin Tranflation as totally pure and incorrupt,
(though S. Hierom obferues in his præface to the Gofpels.
Tot funt Exemplaria quot Codices, there are many of them) Therefore
He must haue recourfe to the Greek, which is vſual.
9.
Hence I argue. If God shewed not particular Prouidence in
preferuing our latin Edition from notable errour, fo diligently
F
reuiewed
42
Difc. 1.C. 7. Doubts concerning the
An Argu-
ment in
bekalfe of
our Latin
Ed:.100.
digrifion
Concerning
the different
Editions of
Scripture
feemtedious
by S. Hierom,and approued alfo not only by many learned Writers
in after ages, but by a whole Church; it is no leffe then temerarious
to allow greater fecurity to any Greek Copy; for can the Sectary
fay, that Gods peculiar hand of prouidence alwais fo attended the
Tranſcriber or Printers of the Greek Copies, that nothing could
be written but pure Apoftolical Scripture, and with any counte-
nance own à want, à defect,à fubtraction,of this peculiar prouidence
to à Scripture, approued of by à whole Church? Obferue well
the difficulty. Where Gods fpecial Prouidence is, there we haue
infallible affurance, you grant God's fpecial affiftance to thoſe
Tranſcribers of the Greek Copies, (otherwife the Authentick re-
cords had not come lafe to our hands) therefore you cannot ratio-
nally deny it to that Scripture, which the Church approues.
CHAP. VİL
If this More of this fubiect. Doubts concerning the feueral editions
of fcripture. None extant more pure, then the Vulgar La-
Latin. Abftract from Church Authority, there is no
Certainty of the best Edition. Sectaries Comparing
the Prefent Copies with the more ancient giues no
afſurance. A word with Mr. Stillingfleet.
to the Rea-
der, he may
paſſe to the
9. Chapter,
where he I.
will find our
Continued
He firft propofition. If the Proteftant reiect's our Vulgar
at
Edition as not Authentick, or as viciated in any material
Difcourfe point touching Faith and manners, He improbably pretend's to
haue fo much certainty of Scripture as excludes à poffibility of
against
Setaries. reaſonable doubting. To proue the Affertion I will here giue you
à few Poftulata vſually held indubitable by moſt learned men, who
haue writ large preludes ( called Prolegomena) to holy Scripture.
Neither Catholick nor proteftant shall rationally except againſt my
Luppo-
Editions of Scripture
43
fuppofitions. Firft it is Certain, that the greateſt part of the old The first
Teſtament was Originally writ in Hebrew, but whether that ancient ſuppoſition
Copy hath been euer fince preferued pure, chiefly after S. Hieroms
time, or notably corrupted by negligence or malice, is very doubt-
ful. Learned men ftand for the Affirmatiue, and none, I think,
can deny fome leffer errours when greater are pretended. You
may ſee theſe different opinions of Authors in Prolegomen: Ad Biblia
Maxima, And the particular fuppofed errours largely noted by
Salmeron Prolegom: 4. It would be too long à work to infift on
this fubiect, and not for me to determine what is true: All I
contend for here, is an vncertainty whilft great Authors are op-
pofite, and this is done to conclude, what I intend againſt
Sectaries.
>
>
2. It is again certain that the greateſt part of the new Teftament
was writ in Greek, but here we meet with the fame difficulty, and
inquire. Whether the Greek by chance or inaduertancy has been
corrupted fince the Apoftles time? This at leaſt (if not more) is The fecond
doubtful: Graue Authors hold the Affirmatiue. See Serarius in fupposition.
ſuppoſition.
Prolegom: Cap. 13. and Bonfrer, c. 14. and the errours noted. If
Proteftants deny them or think their own authority weighty
enough to Contradict our Doctors, the matter in Controuerfy,
is ftill doubtful. So much I plead, and no more. 3. It is certain
that all other Bibles are only Tranflations, or Tranfcriptions of The third.
the Original Hebrew and Greek. The Greek verfion of the 72.
interpreters out of the Hebrew (or as wee vſually ſpeak the 70. ) is
only à Tranflation wherin many doubts occurr. One is, whether
that Tranflation be the firft, For Clement Alex: and Eufeb: cited
Bibl: Max: ſe&t. 18. c. z. ſeem to hold an other more ancient
before the time of Alexander the great. How euer, admit, which
is perhaps true, 'the 70. verfion to be the most ancient, we haue
yet matter enough of Difpute concerning it,and one great Queftion
is whether at this day, that verſion be yet preferued pure, The
ancient Archetyps wherof, more probably are not now extant, but
when or where loft, remains vncertain. See Bib Max: fect. 18.
c. 10. Authors fay, it is corrupted through the ignorance or negli-
gence
F 2
44
Difc. 1. C. 7. Doubts Concerning the
The version
of the sep
tuagint.
Venerable
Bedes Ind
gement.
gence of the Librarians, or the Printers. See Bibt Max. c. 8. 9.
Reftat ergo. Whence it was, that thofe Laborious Doctors of
Alcala at the perfwafion of Cardinal Francifcus Ximeno
Archbishop of Toledo, and afterward, the Doctors of Louain,
making à diligent fearch after many Greek Copies, corrected no
few faults in the then extant tranfcribed Copy of the Septuagint, yet
this very correction was far from the purity of that ancient verfion,
which the Fathers vfed. See Bib: Max: now cited, where vpon
that other verfion of the 70. taken out of an Ancient Manufcript
of the Vatican Library, Anno Dom. 1585. Came forth by the
induſtry of Cardinal Anton: Caraffa, wherin moſt learned men
laboured nine whole years, and it was perfected about the be-
ginning of Sixtus 5. Raign. The greateft difficulty yet remains.
It is moſt certain,the verſion of the 70. Interpreters differ's ſo no-
tably from the Hebrew Text, chiefly in the computation of years,
or point of Cronology, that our venerable Bede, though a great
Scholler and one as humble as learned, ingenuously confeffeth
he cannot reconcile thofe Antilogies. See Bib: Max:
c. 8. fine. Who then can tell me when we find thefe lections
of the Hebrew and of the Septuagint oppofite to one an
other, which is to be preferred? Moft learned men ftand for
the Hebrew, as many for the 70. You may fee thefe diffenting
Authors quoted in Proleg: Bib: Max: Sect: 18. c. 11. and how
fome to accord them,fay, That the Holy Ghoft would haue the
Septuagint now to add to the Hebrew, now to diminish according
to his good pleaſure. See Bib: Max: cap: 8. fine.
3. But let vs proceed to à further matter of doubting. Long
after the Edition of the Septuagint, came forth three other Tran-
flations made by three vngodly men. Aquila, Symmachus, and
Theodotio. Aquila Pontinus, once à Gentil became Chriftian, but
Of other denying Chriſt, foon turned Iew learned the Hebrew language
three Tran- and too critically tranflated the Hebrew into Greek, almoft word
fations.
for word. His fpleen againft the 70. Interpreters was fo great,
that contrary to the verity of Scripture, He rendred fome places
ſpeaking of our Sauiour, moſt perfidiously and wreſted all to à
confufed
Editions of ſcripture.
45
and
confufed and finifter fenfe. Symmachus one of Samaria twife
circumcifed became at laſt à Profeffor of the Ebion Herefy,
Tranflated the Hebrew into Greek, not as Aquila did Veroam,
but rendred the fenfe more perfpicuoufly. Theodotion firſt Bap-
tized, then à Sectary of Marcions and Ebions errours, laftly à
Profylite, embraced Iudaifin (and therefore S. Hierome in 3.
Habacuc call's theſe three, now named, Semi-Chriftianos, half
Chriſtians) followed à middle way between Aquila and Symmachus
and tranflated Scripture with greater Simplicity, more agreable
to the 70. verfion.
Origens
great indu.
stry.
4. An other Edition aſcribed to Origen, not becauſe he made
à new verſion, but with an immenfe labour, to conferue the 70.
Greek pure, firft compoſed his Tetrapla or à Bible branched into
4. Columns. The firit contained the 70. verfion, the 2. Aquilas,
The 3. Symmachus his Tranflation. The 4. that of Theodotion.
Afterward this great Doctor , learning the Hebrew language,
made his Hexapla, that is à bible with 6. Columns. The firſt
contained the Hebrew Text, the 2. the Hebrew in Greek
Characters, the other 4. the Verfion of the 70. of Aquila,
Symmachus, and Theodotion. Now becaufe there were two more
Greek Verfions called the fift and Sixt Editions, Origen compofed
his Octopla, or Bible diftinguished into 8. Columns. If you will
haue more of the 5. Edition, called by fome Hierecuntina, or of
the Sixt named Nicopolitana, as alfo of the Lucian and Hefychian
Lections, read Bib: Max: in Proleg: Sect. 18. Cap: 9. and
Bonfrer. in Prol: c. 17. Thefe two later were only corrections.
of the 70. no new Tranflations. Concerning all thefe verfions relating to
many doubts occurr as you may fee in the Authors now cited,and thefe ver-
you will meet with no fewer concerning the Caldee Paraphras of fions.
the Teftament, called Targum. The Syriack verfion or old
interpretation of the new Teftament extant in that noble laborious
work of Arias Montanus called Biblia Regia, is not without blemish;
Se Serrar: c. 15. nor the Author of it well known, and I belieue
our Sectaries will not approue feueral Titles or infcriptions men-
tioning what was wont to be read on certain feaft dayes, as on the
F 3
venera-
Doubts
46
Difc.1. C. 7. Doubts Concerning the
veneration of the Holy Crofs, and in certain fafts, and the
Commemoration of faithful fouls departed this life &c.
5. To fpeak here of the many latin Editions and feueral
doubts concerning them, would be too long work for my defigne
(which is only to point at difficulties concerning both Originals
and Tranflations) That ancient one called by S. Auftin. Itala,
highly commended lib: 2. de Doctr: Chrifti. and read in the
The Itala
Church before S. Hieroms time, hath no known Author. The
version, more late amongſt Catholicks, are Santis Pagninus his verfion of
commended the old Teftament out of the Hebrew, firſt corrected by Arias
by S. duſtin, Montanus, though the Correction pleaseth not Bonfrerius, and
it was moft pittifully corrupted by that Runnagate Printer Robert
Stephen, wherof fee more in Bib. Max: Sect. 20. Cap: 2. and
Bonfrer: Cap. 18, Sect. 1. An other you haue of Ifidore Clarius,
which neither Canus nor others approue. A third, of Francis
Vatablus Doctor of Paris, and à found Catholick, but the
vngodly Robert Stephen corrupted that verfion, as you may read in
Bonfrer. and Bib. Max. now cited. I mention nothing in this
place of the Armenian and Gothick Bibles. Se Bib. Max. Sect. 20.
cap. 3. And am as filent of the Tygurin verfion printed anno
1539. by Chriſtopher Froſchonerus, à moſt corrupted Tranſlation.
by Hereticks, (wherof you may fee more in Bib. Max: now
cited cap. 3.) Read alfo if you pleaſe Serrarius cap. 18. 9. 1. Of
Sebaftian Munsters of Bliblianders, of Caftalions and the
Geneua Tranflations &c. You will find none of them of any
account, but with Sectaries only.
Reflection
>
6 Thus much briefly premiſed (for we haue not faid half of
what might be alleged) concerning the doubts and vncertainty of
various editions, I here appeal to euery diftintereffed iudgement
made upon
and ask whether it be not mighty difficult, or rather impoffible,
thefe doubts, to fay abfolutely by the force of our priuate fallible knowledge,
by witt or humane induſtry only: This book, This Edition is Gods true
fincere word, as it was writ by the Hagiographers? And here I
muft mind Mr: Stilling: of his not well confidered Doctrin,who
P. 196. feems to own fo great certainty of Scripture as excludes
the
Editions of fcripture
47
-
the poßibility of all reaſonable doubting, and pag 215. afferts. We
may be fufficiently affured that there are no Material Corruptions in the
books of Scripture, without your Churches Testimony. Good Sr. leaue
of theſe generalities, and tell vs plainly of what Edition you
fpeak? What particular verfion haue you, which muſt be
fuppofed fo authentick, or fo free from all errour, as may ex-
clude à poffibility of reaſonable doubting, before you haue the
Churches Teſtimony or toleration for it? Name one, and inuch 4 queſtion
is done. Will you follow the Hebrew and Greek Copies now proposed to
extant? You ſee moſt learned men, whofe knowledge and Sedaries.
Authority is not inferiour to yours, fay both are corrupted, and
thus much alone weakens the certainty you pretend to? Will
you admit of the 70. Tranflation as pure and Authentick? Be
pleaſed to reconcile the Antilogies, between that and the Hebrew
Text, or fay that the Septuagint, though euer of great veneration
in the Church, hath its errours. Will you plead for what
Aquila or Symmachus haue done? Theſe are euidently corrupted,
and in points moft Material touching Chrift our Lord. Will
you fay that all Copies, none excepted, all Tranflations whether
Greek or Latin now extant are pure Scripture in the Materials
of Faith and manners? It is highly improbable, and therefore
hitherto we come to no Solid Principle, to no certainty which
excludes the poffibility of reaſonable doubting. O faith Mr:
Stilling:to proue that no Material Corruptions ftained the Scripture
now extant, W. (that is Sectaries) diligently compare the prefent
Copies with the moſt ancient MSS. We obferue the citations of Offectaries
thoſe ancient Fathers who liued when fome Autograph's were Comparing
extant, and then (moft likely) we haue the pure word of God. Scripture
You compare? Pray you anfver? were there not others in the more ancient
Catholick Church before Sectaries troubled the world
as in- Copies.
duftrious in comparing Copies and Manufcripts together, as you
haue lately been? Was S. Hierom, think you, negligent in
this particular? Or did the Primitiue Church before S. Hierom
when it read that ancient Edition called tala, and preferred it
before all other Lections, fail to examin which Copy was beft?
>
Yet
with the
$
48 1. C. 7. Doubts Concerning the
Difc.
Great dili-
gence vsed in
the Cor
reting the
Vulgar.
DifcYet more.
. If we come to later times and ponder well, what dili-
gence what vigilancy, what induſtry attended the Correction of
the Sixtin and Clementine Bibles, Sectaries may blush at their Oſci-
tancy, and too fleight Cauils at our Vulgar latin. Read the
preface to Sixtus 5. Edition, Antwerp print 1599. with other refle-
tions made in Bib: Max: Sect 20. c. 4. and you will fee fo
great à care and induftry vfed in this correction, that humanly
Ipeaking more could not be defired.
>
7. Many Copies and old MS S. were at the Popes command
fought for, and brought to Rome Not only fome chief and
felected Cardinals in the time of Pope Pius the 4. but other great
fchollers alfo, profoundy learned in the knowledge of Scripture,
and skilful in the Hebrew, Syriack, Chaldee, and Greek, began the
Correction of the Vulgar Latin, and to accomplish the work
diligently examined thefe ancient books, thefe M ss, the beſt
Originals of Hebrew and Greek, and commentaries alfo of the
moft ancient Fathers &c. Speak therefore of humane induſtry, we
may boldly fay,our Vulgar Latin hath been reuiewed, and corrected
with greater care, than euer verfion was fet forth by Sectaries. But
if theſe men will ftill pretend to find any Material errour in
the Vulgar, I only ask by what more Authentick Copy can they,
fo much as probably hope to amend it? By the Hebrew and
Greek? Toyes. Difpute the Queſtion rigidly, there is leffe
afſurance of theſe fuppofed Originals integrity, then of the Vulgar
Latin fo induftriouſly examined not only by the beft Hebrew and
Greek Copies now extant, but alfo by other ancient M S S. and
commentaries of the Fathers.
8. I cannot therefore imagin what Mr: Stillingfleet'aimes at
when he tell's vs page.215. that Doctor Iames who had taken the
pains to compare not only the Sixtine Clementine Bibles,but the
Clementine Edition with the Louain Annotations, inakes it
appear, there are 10000. differences in the Louain Annotations
from the Vulgar Latin, and that thefe differences arife, from
Comparing (that is fure the Vulgar Latin)with the Hebrew,
mes oppoſed. Greek, and Chaidee-
Greek, and Chaidee- What would the man haue think yee?
Dokor Im
Will
Editions of Scripture
49
Rational
Will he fuppofe firft, that Thomas Iames hitt's right in euery
thing he faies? The learned Iames Gretfer whofe authority is euery
whit as good the whole world over as that of Mr. Iames. Tom. 1.
Ad lib. 2. Bell: pag. 1060. denies all this, with à Mentitur tertiò
Thomas lames, Decem millia verborum &c. Read Gretfer I cannot
tranſcribe all he hath. Again will he fay, that the Vulgar Latin
is to be corrected by the Louain Annotations, or thefe by the
Vulgar, if any thing were amifs in either? Or 3. If thefe pre-
tended differences arife from the comparing all with the Hebrew,
Greek, or Chaldee, can Thomas Iames be fuppofed to know
the last energy and force of euery Hebrew, Greek, or Chaldee
word (when there is controuerfy) better then the Authors of the exceptions
Louain, and Correctors of the Vulgar Latin? Here we may againſt Már.
come to an endles wrangling about the Genuine fignification of lames.
words, but decide Nothing. God help vs, if the knowledge
of true Scripture depend's on fuch petty Nicities, and fruitles
quarrelling. 4. And this is to be noted. Were thefe differences
more then are made by Mr. Iames, The queftion would then
be, whether they imply any Material alteration concerning
Faith or Manners, or introduce notable errour contrary to God's
reuealed verities, or finally bee meer verbal differences, grounded
on the obfcure fignification of Original words? If Mr: Stilling:
only pretend's this later, let him remember his own expreffion of
racings of the skin, and know, that there was neuer Tranflation in
the world, which may not be thus Cauilled at. If any Material
alteration be pleaded he both ſpeaks à lowd vntruth, and contra-
dict's himſelf, when he takes notice of à peculiar hand of
Diuine Prouidence in preferuing the Authentick records of Scrip-
ture fafe to our dayes. 2. He is to name that Authentick Copy,
either Original or tranflation, by the indifputable integrity
wherof, thefe fuppofed errours may bee cancelled, and Gods
pure reuealed verities put in their place: But to do this after fo
immenfe labour and diligence vfed in the correction of the Vulgar,
will proue no leffe than à vain attempt, or rather à defperate
impoffibility. Vpon this ground.
G
9. I fay
50 Difc. 1. C.7. Doubts Concerning the
9. I fay firft. Who euer denies the Vulgar Latin to be
Authentick true Scripture, hath, Eo ipfo, leffe affurance of any
other Edition now extant, and confequently,not fo great certainty
An Affertion of Scripture as excludes à Possibility of all reasonable doubting. I
prossed.
proue the Affertion. That man may rationally doubt of Scrip-
ture who reiects the ftrongeſt affurance imaginable, and makes
choiſe of a weaker, But this is done, if he doubts of, or denies
the Authenticalness of the Vulgar. The reafon is firft becaufe
He hath no other Edition, as is now faid, examined with
more care or greater induftry, and this ground's the higheſt
humane affurance conceiuable. 2. Becauſe the Vulgar is ap-
proued by God's Holy Church which giues infallible certainty.
if therefore the integrity of the Hebrew and Greek be not
vnqueftionably authentick, he wants that certainty which excludes
à Possibility of doubting, And Much leſs affurance hath the Sectary
of his own later iarring Editions of Scripture, which breed
nothing but confufion to the very Authors, and all who read
them.
in the
Vulgar.
IO. I fay. 2. If the Sectary hold's the Vulgar Latin Au-
thentick Scripture, yet makes it guilty of fome leffer faults
What if
and therefore endeauours to correct it by à more authentick
Leffer faults Copy, he caft's himſelf vpon meer vncertainties and, labours
be pretended in vain. The reafon is. To doe thus much, he muft fuppofe
that other Copy he would correct by, to be more pure than
the Vulgar, and this cannot be proued vpon any receiued Prin-
ciple. Now if you obiect. Authors Commonly deny not fome
obfcurities or leffer verbal faults to haue been in the Vulgar,
I anfwer that's nothing to the purpofe were all true, for it doth
not therefore follow, it can be corrected by any other Copy
which is more Authentick Scripture, A leffe authentick Bible
may help herein, when other lections are accuratly examined,
yet may be faulty in greater matters.
II. I fay. 3. No Tradition no Teftimony which is fallible
and may be fals, can giue fo great affurance of Authentick
Scripture as Diuine Faith requires, or that affurance which ex-
cludes
>
Editions of fcripture.
SI
cludes à poffibility of reaſonable doubting, which is to fay in other
words: The infallible Teftimony of the Church is abfolutely A Testimony
neceffary to aſcertain vs of Authentick Scripture. The conclu- in fallible, is
fion is directly againft Mr: Stilling: who page 226. makes the necellary to
certainty Chriſtians haue of the books of Scripture fo fallible, afcertain
that it may be falfe, yet enhaunfes the certainty of the Doctrin Scripture,
there contained to à note higher, of infallibility. We shall fee
the leuity of this diftinction fully diſcouered hereafter, and our
Allertion proued in à more proper place. All I will fay at
prefent, is. No man can be certainly affured of true Scrip-
ture vnles he firſt come to à certainty of à true Church inde-
pendently of Scripture. Find out therefore the true Church and
we haue all we feek for, I mean true Scripture with it, vnles
one tend's to à high degree of madneffe and Affert's, that
the true Church of Chrift cheated into an erroneous Bible, was
depriued of pure and authentick Scripture.
12.
>
>
And here I will propofe an Argument for the Vulgar
Latin which Mr: ftilling: shall not anfwer. In what euer
Society of Chriſtians we find faith intirely true, we haue there
Authentick Scripture: But from Luthers time vpward to the 4.
or 5. age faith intirely true was only found in the Roman
Catholick Church and in no other Society of Chriſtians
Therefore the Roman Catholick Church which read fo many ages.
the Vulgar Latin as Authentick, had true Scripture. I proue An argu-
the Minor, wherin only is difficulty. If the Roman Church ment prowing
erred for fo vaft à time in any point of Diuine Faith, there the Vulgar
was no faith intirely true the whole Chriftian world ouer, be-
cauſe all other Societies denominated Chriftians were known
condemned Hereticks, and confequently had not true faith
Therefore either the Catholick Roman Church enioy'd that
blefling, or we muſt grant à want of faith for ten ages the
whole world ouer. But if this Church had Faith intirely true,
it preferued alfo Authentick Scripture( for where true faith is there
you haue true Scripture ) If not, it followes that wee haue no
affurance at all either of the one or other. Therefore if all
i
G 2
Churches
Latin Au.
thentick,
52
Difc. 1. C. 7. Doubts Concerning the.
Churches vniuerfally erred in points of faith, no Church can
giue fo much affurance of authentick Scripture, as excludes
à Poffibility of reafonable doubting. See more here of in the
other Treatife Difcours. 2. c. 2. n. 8.
fo
13. Now we are to folue à difficulty which may arife
from our former difcourfe, where 't is faid. If one rely on humane
A difficulty
authority which is fallible and may be falfe, fo much miftruft,
propofed, and many doubts occurr concening the Originals and various Lections,
folued. that none can haue indubitable affurance of Scripture, How therfo-
re could the Church without moral certainty (and greater too)had
of the Authentick books, antecedently to the Councils declara-
tion, determin fo peremptorily, this Edition of the Vulgar to be
Authentick , yea and to preferr it before other Latin Copies?
I might here firft by the way demand, vpon what certainty can the
Sectary prefer his Edition (take which hee will) before the
Vulgar Latin? What euer moral affurance he has independently
of the Churche's Teftimony for his Bible,the Church has greater
for Hers. But to folue the difficulty pofitiuely. I fay the Church
The Catho- after all moral diligence, proceeded in this particular vpon an
like Princi- vndeniable Principle, which is, that God by fpecial Prouidence
ple afcer-
preferued as well Scripture free from Material corruption, as
Church Doctrin pure and orthodox: in both, wee Catholiks
rely on peculiar Prouidence, and all muft do fo
vnless they,
will rob Chrift's Sponfe of all the treafure she has, and violently
take from her not only Orthodox Faith, but Scripture alfo.
taining
Scripture.
>
The Church therefore in her Declaration depended not on à
meer Moral fallible certainty, which may be falfe, but vpon
infallible Tradition. This gaue indubitable affurance of the Scriptures
purity, free from all material errour. Here is her laſt Principle.
And thus you fee à vaft difference between the Church and
Sectaries. The Church plead's poffeffion of Authentick Scripture
vpon Gods gracious Prouidence, and hath it warranted by
indubitable Tradition, the Sectary reiect's this infallible ground,
and run's away, with no man knowes what Certainty, and in
doing fo, caft's himfelf vpon the greateſt doubts imaginable
concerning fcripture.
14. Perhaps
Editions of fcripture.
53
>
Sectaries
Cannot rely
14. Perhaps you will fay, Mr: Stilling: p. 213. relies in
this matter on the vniuerfal confent of all Chriftians and
Therefore includes the Teftimony of the Roman Catholick
Church. I anſwer firſt. Hee hath not the conſent of this
Church for all thofe Editions He approues, and Confequently
the greateft part of à vniuerfal confent fail's. I anfwer 2. He
neither doth nor can (remaining Proteftant) admit of the
Catholiks fureft Teftimony or Tradition, for our Church own's on the
in this moft weighty matter, an infallible certain Tradition, Churches
Mr: Stilling reiect's that, therefore he hath nothing from our infallible
Church which fauours his Affertion, drawn from the moft affured Testimony.
confent of all Chriftians concerning Authentick Scripture. And
here by the way, I cannot but take notice of this Gentlemans
weightles obiection Pag. 216. who grants, there can be no
certainty as to the Copies of Scripture, but from Tradition. But
think not to fob vs off (faith he) with the Tradition of the prefent
Church instead of the Church of all ages, with the Tradition of your
Church, instead of the Catholick &c. With the ambiguous teftimonies
of two or three Fathers instead of the vniuerfal conſent of the Church,
Since the Apostles times Anfw. I verily perfwade my felfe He The ſureſt
fpeak's not as he think's, for tell me vpon what furer Principle principle to
can men now poffibly be better informed of Church-tradition know
in all ages, then by the tradition of the prefent Church?
fee, He flights the Teftimony of two or three Fathers ( needed
we relief from them) and I am fure the vnanimous agreement
of all Fathers makes no where the confent of the Church in all
antecedent ages, contrary to our prefent Churches Tradition.
From whom therefore shall we learn? On what vndubitable
Principle can we reft, or fay fuch was the Tradition concerning
Scripture in pas't ages but from the prefent Churches Teftimony?
It is impoffible to pitch on any other Proof which is furer, or
half fo fure.
You
15. What followes is yet worfe. Fob vs not off with the tra-
dition of your Church instead of the Catholick. Good Sr. defigne you,
or name plainly that Catholick Church diftinct from the Roman
G 3
Catholik
Ancient ITA-
dition.
54
Diſc. 1. C. 7. Doubts Concerning the
Catholick in all ages, and (to vfe your own words) we shall
extol you for the only perſon that euer did any thing memorable
on your fide; but if you do not this, as I know you cannot
(for all other before Luther were profeffed Hereticks )'tis you
that iuggles and fob's vs off with meer empty words. He ftill
goes on thus, worfe and worfe. If I should once fee you prove the
Argument infallibility of your Church, the Popes fupremacy, Inuocation of Saints,
relorted.
the Sacrifice of the mass &c. by as an vnquistionable and vniuerfal tra-
dition as that is, wherby we receiue Scriptures, I shall yeild my felf vp
as à Trophey to your braue attempts. Contra 1. ad Hominem. If
A weak
Tradition
more and
Leſſe
vniuerfal.
16.
I should once fee you proue all Churches fallible, the Pope no
fupream head, No Inuocation of Saints, no veneration of Images, no
Sacrifice of the Mass &c. and the reft of your negatiue Articles: If
I could once fee you proue two Sacraments only, justification by fanh
only, Chrifts not real prefence in the Holy Eucharift, by as vnqueftio-
nable and vniuerfal Tradition as that is whereby Scripture is
receiued, we would yeild alfo to your braue attempts. Anfwer
this if you can, or for bear hereafter to weary à reader with
euident improbabilities. And mark well why I call them fo.
Haue we not à more vnqueftionable vniuerfal Tradition
for the books of Scripture, if Tradition be drawn from the
voice of all called Chriftians (whether Catholicks or Hereticks)
then there is for the very primary Articles of true Catholick
Faith? A Trinity for example, the Incarnation, the neceſſity of
Grace, Original fin &c. Yes moft affuredly, for innumerable
Sectaries admitted Scripture, and yet denyed theſe eſſential Arti-
cles, therefore as their Denial made the confent and tradition of
all called Chriftians leſs vniuerfal, for fuch Doctrins, fo their
admitting Scripture with others, heightned that Tradition, or
made it more general. Say now,
Say now, Sr. Had thofe Hereticks
argued as you do, how little would they haue gained? If we
should once fee you proue à Trinity, Or Original fin &c. by as vniuerfal
à Tradition as that is whereby Scriptures are received, we would acquiefe,
but this is not poffible, for both you and wee admit Scripture,
and confequently make that tradition more vniuerfal, yet we deny
your
Editions of fcripture.
55
·
>
way of
your primary Doctrins and therefore all tradition is not fo
ample for your Doctrins, as for the books of Scripture. Here
is your vnreaſonable reafoning Mr. Stilling: You know well
Hereticks who owned Scripture with vs, denied à Sacrifice of Mass An unreafo-
Inuocation of Saints and other Catholick Articles, and you'l haue nable
vs to take à tradition from theſe men, to vphold the Doctrins aryuing.
they denyed: Iuft as if an Arian should bid me proue à Trinity
from all Tradition, euen of his Church, when he admit's Scrip-
ture and denies à Trinity. If you reply, you vrge vs not to
bring in the tradition of all known Aduerfaries of the Catho-
lick Church for thefe now named Articles, but only the
vniuerfal Tradition of the Catholick Church in all ages, we haue
already anſwerd, that's beſt known by the prefent Churches
Teſtimony, no other proof can parallel it.
parallel it. And thus much of
the Authenticalneffe of our Vulgar Edition free from all material
Corruption. A further difficulty may yet be moued concerning
leffer faults and the preferring it before all other Latin
Copies.
>
CHAP. VII.
How neceffary it was to haue one lection of Scripture in
the Church. A word of the Sixtine and Clementine
Bibles. Of Mr: Stillinfleets mistakes and incon-
Jequences concerning them. Obiections
answered.
I.
N confiffion and various
Ote first. It was very meete to haue among fo much
confuſion and various lections of Latin
Copies, one
one
certain, approued and ſet forth by the mother Church, to the
end her Children might be vnius laby of one tongue and fpeak
one
56
Difc. 1. C. 8. Of the fixtine and.
One lection
one language in their reading, preaching, and publick expounding
of feripture, Holy Scripture. Note. 2. Though the Council of Trent fefs.4.
necessary.
declares this Edition of the Vulgar to be Authentick, and pre-
ferr's it before all other latin Editions, Que circumferuntur, which
are now abroad, it doth not thereby detract any thing, from the
credit and authority of the ancient Hebrew, and Greek Copies,
whereof Authors difpute (whether they be pure or no) whilſt the
Church is filent and defin's nothing. Neither doth the Council
reiect the Vertion of the Septuagint, or that ancient Latin Copy
called Itala, (read in the Church before S. Hierom) as Vnauthentik
in any material point: for this Argument is conuincing to the
contrary. As it is madnes to fay. Chrifts Church had not
true Scripture fince S. Hieroms time, fo is it à defperate impro-
bability to affert, She wanted that, in the ages before S. Hierom,
which
which is to fay: The Church had euer authentick Scripture.
Moreouer, shall we (think yee) iudge, that God, whoſe Pro-
uidence neuer failed, fuffered his own fpoufe to be beguiled with
falfe Scripture for 15. ages, and that now towards the end of the
world he will prouide vs of à purer book, by the hands and
help of à few ſcattered Sectaries.
The Church
had in all
ages true
Scripture,
I.
2. Note 3. Tranflations may be faulty three wayes chiefly.
More ambiguity and darknes may lye in à tranflated word
than in the Original, and this fault (if any) is remediless,
becauſe the latin, or à Vulgar language reacheth not alwais to
the full Energy and fignification of an Hebrew or Greek expref-
fion, wherof you haue fome examples in that learned Pre-
How Tran face to the English Rhems Teftament anno 1600. 2. Cor-
Sations may ruptions may creep into à Verfion by the inaduertancy or ignoran-
be faulty.
ce of the Tranflator, who is neither fuppofed prophet nor in-
fallible and thus Authors fay, that S. Hierom, though pro-
digiouſly learned, was not euery way infallibly fecured from
leffer errours, yet this Prouidence God hath for the good of
his Church that he will not permit any confiderable deprauation
to remain in all Copies. If therefore one be faulty, all cannot
be thought fo, and the faults of one, by carefully comparing it
with
Clementine Bibles.
37
with many, and à diligent infpection into other Copies, may be
corrected. See Greg. de Valent: lib. 8. Analy. C. 5. puncto
4. 3. dly Leffer deprauations often enter à verfion through the mistakes of
Printers Librarians &c. Of thefe you had many in the Vulgar
Latin before the correction of the Sixtine and Clementine Bi-
bles, and they are ſcarfe auoidable chiefly after feueral reimpres-
fions, as we daily fee in other books. Thus much premiſed.
3. Liften à little to Mr: Stilling: ftrange inconſequences and
groundles exceptions againſt the Corrections of Sirim and
Clement. He faith the one Bible differs from the other 25 Of Mr.
appears by thoſe who haue taken the pains to Compare them, Stilling fleets
in fome thouſands of places. A great number indeed. But the groundle fe
firſt queſtion will bee whether theſe Pain-takers ought to be exceptions.
belieued vpon their bare word, without further examination?
This, Sr. you fuppofe which cannot well pafs, before the parti-
culars come to the teft, and bear the cenfure of your Aduerfaries,
wholly as learned as you haue any. But ſay on. Are thefe fup-
pofed differences any more but like the racings of the skin ; or do
they giue any mortal wound to the Vital pars af Scripture? If you
only affert the first, you may not only Cauil at your English
Bibles, but also at all the latin tranflations vfed in the Church
both before and after S. Hieroms time, for they haue fome ver-
bal differences, which you may call petty and inconfiderable faults.
Now, if you affert that the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles are
Materially corrupted in paints of Faith and mamers, or to vfe your
phrafe, Vitally wounded, what is become, I befeech
I beseech you, of
that peculiar hand of Prouidence you own, in preferuing the
authentick Copies of religion fafe to our dayes? Or (which
much imports you to anfiver) by what other more authentick
Copy can you without endles difputes and vncertainties
correct the Vulgar? This one particular will give you work
enough, before you come to à certain decifion of the difficulty.
In ià word, becauſe I think, many know not too well, all that
concern's theſe two Editions of the Sixtine and Clementine
Bibles, I shall add here à few notes to improue their knowledge,
and perhaps your's alfo.
4. Learned
H
$8
Difc. 1. C.8. Of the fixtine ant.
4. Learned men, difcouered leffer faults in the Vulgar Latin,
and that which was found. 4. Regum. c. 14. v. 17. feemed à chiof
one. Vixit Amafias filius loas Rex Iuda, poftquam mortuus eft loas
Leffer faults filius Ioathaz Regis Ifrael 25 annis. For thus the Louain Bibles
diſcouered
anno 1572. and other Copies vfually read 25. annis, before the
in the Fulgar Correction of Sixtus. Yet Abulenfis vpon that place Quæft. 15.
Lasin.
-
noted the errour, and faid for that number 25-wee are to fubfti
tute 15 as appears. 2. paralip c. 25. And fo alfo the Hebrew text,
the Septuagint and Chaldee read, yet Michael Paludan : cited
Proleg. ad Bibl. Max: Sect. 20.c. 4. feem's to reconcile both theſe
lections, faying Amafias liued 25. yeares after the death of Ioas,
but raigned only 15. which helps little to our prefent purpoſe...
To amend this, and other flighter faults, the Church, as I faid
aboue, and you may read in the preface to the Sixtine Bibles,
hath vfed the greatest industry imaginable. Pope Pius the fourth
caufed not only the Original languages, but other Copies to be
carefully examired. Pius the 5th profecuted that laborious
work, but brought it not to à period, which Sixtus the 5. th did,
who commanded it to be put to the Prefs, as appeares by his Bull
which begins. Eternus ille celestium &e anno 1585, yet, not-
withſtanding the Bull prefixed before Sixtus Edition (then printed)
this very Pope (as the preface made anno 1592. tell's vs) after
diligent examination found no few faults flipt into his Bible, by
the negligence of the Printers, and therefore, Cenfuit atque decreuit
both iudged and decreed to haue the whole work examined and
Sixtus and reprinted, but his too fudden death preuented that fecond cor-
rection, which Clement the 8: th after the short raign, ofother
Popes happily finished, anfwerably to his Predeceffors defire
and abfolute intention. Whence it is, that the Vulgar now
extant, is called the Correction of Sixtus becaufe this Vigilant
Pope began it, which was recogniſed and prefected by Clement
the 8th and therefore may be deferuedly called the Clementine
Bible alfo.. Both are now read in the Church after Clement's
Recognition as authentick true Scripture, and makke vp the La-
tin Vulgar Edition.
How Cor.
rected by
Clement.
>
5. Some
Clementine Bibles.
59
.-
>
ne edition
5. Some obiect firft. If Pope Sixtus made à Brieue,whereby
the commanded his Edition fo accuratly recognifed, to be receiued
for indubitable authentick Scripture, and therefore free from
errours, How could he afterward find fuch faults as caufed him
sto intend à new impreflion of the whole work? Anfi: It is not
faid, He intended to do fo vpon the account of greater faults,
which effentially vitiate Scripture either in Faith or manners, for No fubftan
mention is only made in the Preface of leffer errata's Efpied,when tial errour
the work was done with this reftriction, Preli vitio. That is, of in the fixti-
Typographical faults, and thefe almoft vnavoidable, cannot
ftain the purity of an authentick Copy. But grant more, that
Sixtus who had Choice of various lections of Scripture, followed
perhaps leffe circumfpectly fome darker or more ambiguous Copy,
which Clement the S. th after à diligent fearch into other
Editions, brought to greater Clarity and therfore read's à
little differently. Nothing is yet fo much as probably alleged.,
caufal of any errour in Faith, or Contrary to the effential verities
of Scripture. For as Tannerus well obferues Tom. 3. Difp. 1.
9. 5. Dub. 2. n. 79. Where diuers lections vary, locus effe poßit
difceptationi & crifi. There may be place for Criticks to debate,
which is the beſt, or to be preferred, And n. 83. Certe, faith he,
in hoc genere tranfigendo etiam inter limites recti, magna poteft effe varietas
&latitudo. Certainly, in fuch kind of matters, there may be well
be variety and à latitude, within the compafs of what is right
Variety of
and true. And this Principle Sectaries muft admit, vnless they expreffions
deny truth to their own Tranflations, as they ought to doe. within the
For do not they vfually tranflate wagadóveis, Ordinances, we, Compaſſe of
παραδόσεις,
Traditions. They TeerCurégous, Elders, we Priefts. They dwax, truth.
-Images, we Idols ? And is it not euident that we follow the
obuious and genuin fignification of the Greek, as well in theſe
as in à number of other particulars? Whilft therfore Sectaries
differ from vs, they either err or, not, if they err; let them
correct what's amifs, If contrary to confcience they deny the
errour, they are forced to grant that, inter limites recti, with in
the limits of Truth there may be à latitude, à variety, or diffe-
>
H2
rent
60
Difc. t. C. 8. Of the fixtine and.
rent expreffions, and you will not find fo much between Sixtus
Edition and that of Clement, nor any Corruption deftructiue of
Faith or manners, but flighter differences only,
which alter
not the genuin fenfe of Scripture intended by the Holy Ghoſt,
if wee exclude Typographical faults, which hinder not the inte
grity of à Verfon.
6. Vpon thefe grounds, Mr. Stilling: obiections pag. 214.
Come to nothing, where he firft tell's vs, and truly, of the
infinite pains which Pope Sixtus took in his Correction, and
after So much adoe, shall we (faith he ) belieue that Sixtus neuer
liued to fee his Edition Compleat? Anfw: You muſt belieue it
vpon humane faith, for it is certain, God took him out of the
Mr. filling.
world before he ſaw it perfect, though his intention and aime
fleets was, to recall the whole work to the prefs again. Now this
obicitions, Recognition, His Succeffor Clement made, anfwerable to his
folued. wish and defign. Mr. Stilling: obiects 2. Sixtus his Bull now
extant( and therefore fufficiently proclaimed) inioins that his Bi-
ble be read in all Churches without any the leaft Alteration.
Anfw: This Iniunction fuppofed the Interpreters and Printers
to have done exactly their duty euery way, which was found
wanting vpon à fecond reuiew of the whole work, fuch commands
therefore when new difficulties arife, not thought of before, are
hot like Definitions of Faith, vnalterable, but may, and ought
to be changed according to the Legiflators prudence. What I fay
here is indisputable, for how could Sixtus after à fight of fuch
faults as caufed him to intend an other impreffion inioyn no al-
teration, when He defired one, and what he could not do,his
Succeffor Clement the 8. th did for him. Now whether the Bull
was fufficiently proclaimed, matters not, for had Sixtus liued lon-
ger, He would as well hate changed the Bull in order to the
particulars now in controuerfy, as amended his Bible.
6. Mr: Stilling: obiects. 3. All that Sixtus pretend's for the
Authenticalneffe of that Edition, is the agreement of it with the
ancient and approved Copies both printed and M S S. than which,
there can be no more firm or certain Argument of the true, and
genuin
Clementine Bibles.
61
How and
what Sixtus
presend's.
genuin Text. Anfir. After all his labour He pretend's this, but
with à caurion often repeated in the Bull, quoad eus fieri potest:
prout optime fieri potuit &c. That is as well as then could be &c.
The firm or certain Argument therefore is. The Church euer
preferued true and Genuin Scripture, which is either to be found
in the ancient approued Copies both. printed and manufcript, or no
where, Thefe, Pope Sixtus diligently fearched into, therefore his
Edition is true genurin Scripture, which no Catholick denies, if
by true and genuin Scripture we vnderſtand, not an Exclufion
of all leſſer faults, but of greater contrary to the purity of Faith
and Religion, and fo far Sixtus Edition is blamleffe, although
as Tanner now cited. n. 83. obferues, perhaps not altogether
fo circumfpectly done, nor euery way fit to the publick edifica-
tion of the Church, Wheris there is à latitude wishin the Compass of
truth, and integrity. And who euer read's Pope Sixtus own Bull
before his Bible, can force no more out of it but this truth
that many faults which had got into other Copies, are accuratly
corrected in his Edition, wherof no man can doubt; with all, Many fuiss
that it contains the Vulgar Latin Edition amended at leaft,in many
amended by
things, and confequently is authentick Scripture. Sixtus faith not,
he amended all leffer faults wheron Religion has no depen-
dance, but rather difclaimes bufying himself with ſo ſmall à
feruice.
Sixtus
8. Mr: Stilling: obiects 4. The vaft difference between the
Clementine and Sixtine Bibles lay in this,that Clement corrected
the Vulgar Latin according to the Original in aboue two thoufand
places, when the contrary reading was eftablished by Sixtus.
Anfw: Here is no proof but only three improbable Affertions.
Who affures you., Sr. of any vaft difference between thefe two
Editions? Or inform's you fo exactly of aboue two thouſand
different places? Or, why finally do you tell vs of à contrary
reading eſtablished by Sixtus? A reading, Good Sr, may be diffe-
No Contrary
rent,and yet not contrary in any material point of faith or manners, Reading in
and fo far Sixtus is defenfible. If there be any other difference or Sixtuske
Contrariety not touching on Faith and Religion, becauſe the ex- Edition,
H 3
preffion
62
Difc. 1. C. 8. Of the fixtine and
ruption.
+
preffion is longer or shorter, leffe clear in the one, and more
fignificant in the other verfion, this concern's vs not, both may be
right within the compass of truth, and without any material fault.
But faith Mr Stilling: if the Latin Copies be à fure Rule to iudge
of the authenticalneffe of the Text by, much more shall the
ancient Copies of the Original Hebrew and Greek be à furer Rule.
Anfw: Had we now the authentick true Copies of the ancient
Hebrew and Greek we should foon acquiefce, but Sectaries know
well this is more then doubtful, yea almoſt certain that both are
corrupted, how farr I fay not, but morally fpeaking the Hebrew
The Hebrew cannot but be corrupted by reafon of the great fimilitude in
text, ly many letters, and the accefs of points added by the perfidious
able to Cor. Maforeths after S. Hieroms age, which may change the fence
of Scripture, and very notably. See Gretferus Defens. Bellar:
Tom1.lib. 2. c. 2. I wonder why Mr: Stilling: is fo earneſt
for the Greek, which our English Sectaries vtterly leaue when
'tis for their purpofe. I haue told you enough already of Images
tranflated for Idols: Elders for Priefts: Ordinances for Traditions &c.
And might add more, that Beza thinks thofe words Tou Kaiváv
Luc. 3. 37. of Cainan to no purpófe in the Text, and therefore
leaues them out. Others when the Vulgar Latin makes for them
follow that, and not the Greek: Take only this one inftance
(Authors giue many-more.) The Vulgar reads Rom 8. 37. certus
fum enim I am certain: The Greek ETIOμal yas for 1 think.
or am probably perfwaded. Now fome to affure themfelues of their
Predeftination, read I am certain, with the Vulgar, not I am per-
waded as the Greek doth. It would be endles to tell you of
Luthers ill dealing with both the lections of Greek and Latin.
After the wicked man had perfidioufly added that particle, Solam,
to thofe word's Rom. 3. 28. per fidem, and read by faith only. Hee
omit's whole fentences of Holy Scripture in his Tranflation, as
that. Mark 11. 26.. If you will not forgiue, neither will your Father
that is in Heauen forgiue you, your fins. 1. Thefs. 4. 5. That you
abstain from fornication, is wholy omitted by him, and that whole
fentence alfo 1. Ioan. 5. 7. There are three that bear record in Heauen
&c.
Clementine Bibles.
63
&c. You will find no fuch Grofneffe in either the Sixtine or
Clementine Bible. Yet more. Luther is excellent in the mincing or
changing the proper fignification of words Ifay. 9. v. 6. to pleafe
the lewes, where the Hebrew Text giues the name of God El to
Chrift and the Greek 9's Luther read's in Dutch ſtafft
fortitude. To leffen the Bleffed virgins plenitude of grace, wheras
the Greek Luc. I. 28. reads Κεχαριτωμένη properly full
which as I am told,
of grace, Luther puts à Dutch word
fignifies one pretty well gracious and no more. You haue an other
notable corruption of the Greek Text Galat. 3. 10. But enough
of thefe abuſes, I cannot profecute half of them. See Tan. Tom.3.
pag. 319.
>
9. Mr Stilling: laft obiection is à flat Calumny, The Pope,
faith He, took where he pleafed the marginal Annotations in the A Calunny,
Louain Bible and inferted them into the Text. Anfwer. who for an
would not when he read's this difingenuous and fraudulent ex- obiection.
preflion, Where Hee pleased, but iudge,that the Pope without more
Adoe pick't what he lifted out of the Louain Annotations, and
made that Scripture at his pleaſure, which is an open flaunder.
In à word here is the truth. Thofe worthy Doctors of Louain
with an Immenſe labour placed in their margents, not their own
Annotations or Comments, but the different Lections of Scripture,
yet determined not which was beft, or was to bee preferred before
others, for they well knew, the decifion of fuch cauſes belongs
to the publick iudicature, and Authority of the Church. The
Pope therefore, omitting no humane diligence compared Lection
with lection, and thoſe lections, (which vfually differ moft incon-
fiderably, or very little, as I haue often obferued in perufing
the Louain Bibles) Clement made vfe of, and after mature
weighing all, preferred that which was moſt agreable to the an-
cient Copies. And here is all Mr: Stilling: Cauils at, which yet
was neceffary to be done, to haue one vniform Lection of Scrip-
ture in the Church approued by the fea Apoftolick.
10. Some
Some may yet obiect. We fay the correction of Sixtus
though in fome things faulty contains nothing material contrary
to
Anobieaica.
64
Difc.1. C. 8. Of the fixtine and
to Religion or manners: Clements Correction is only fo farr
faultless and no farther, for many hold both thefe Editions may
yet. be corrected in fome lefs and flighter errata's occafioned by
the Librarians or Printers. Nay, perhaps it is not yet
in euery
particular moft perfect, Therefore Clements pains was to no pur-
pofe, or amended little in the Sixtine Bible. That theſe leffer
errata's are found in both Copies, and may, if the Church pleaſe
be yet corrected, is granted by great Authors. Read the Proleg:
ad Bib: Max : fect. 19. C. 8. Gretfer. Tom. 1. lib. 2. Defenf.
Cap. 11. Bell. Salmeron. Vega. And others quoted in Bib. Max.
Anfw: The Proface before the Sixtine Bible reuiewed by Clement,
and Sixtus his own Bull, giue ground enough to folue this difficulty.
The preface declares the Edition of Sixtus and Clement to be
corrected Quanta fieri potuit diligentiâ, with as great diligence as
could be then vfed: yet to fay it is abfolutely perfect euery way,
reſpecting humane weaknes, is difficult. Howeuer it is to be pre-
ferred before all other Latin Copies fet forth to this day, as the more
pure, and better amended Copy. Again, 'tis faid. In hac peruulgatâ
lectione ficut nonnulla confultò mutata funt &c. In this Vulgar Lection, as
there are many things purposely changed, fo there are others which feemed
to be changed, left on fet purpose, without alteration. And you may fee
four reafons hereof in the following words of the Preface, Pope
Sixtus hls Bull fpeak's as clearly. Neg: enim ignoramus faith He &c.
We are not ignorant, but that there are many who thought, no
few words and locutions of this latin Edition might have been
tranflated by the latin interpreter, more property, more Elegantly,
more perspicuously, or more Copiously, meafuring, as it were, words
with words. Verum de bis, minuta nimium & angufta concertatio vi-
detur. But to infift on thefe, feems à ftrife too minute, or worth
little. Neg, enim tanti funt &c. Neither are they of fuch confequence,
but that the Religion of the ancient Church, and the Authority
of moſt holy Fathers ought to be preferred before fuch Niceties,
it being vnmeet and vnworthy, as S. Gregory faith. Vt fub Donati
regulus verba Calestis oraculs reftringantur. That the words of à
Heavenly Oracle pe tyed to the lawes or rules of à Grammarian.
Thus
Clementine Billes.
65
Thus, and much more Pope Sixtus. And hereby you fee the The difficul
weaknes of the obiection propofed. Sixtus corrected many faults ty› jolued.
in the old Vulgar Latin anciently vfed in the Church (Sixtus
neuer faid, He corrected all the leffer errata's ) Cle.nent purged it
of more, and reſtored that ancient Copy (fo farr as diligence could
do) to à greater integrity. Was not this work laudable and praife
worthy in theſe two worthy Prelates? Neither of them can be
taxed of any errour introduced contrary to faith, or the purity of
Religion, And we vrge Sectaries to ſpeak à probable word againſt
our Affertion.
II.
Faith.
11. By this and the precedent difcours you may learn firſt,
that Mr: Stillingf: ſpeaks at random when he tell's vs p. 213. of an
abundance of Corruptions in the Vulgar Latin, and yet cannot
find fo much as one Contrary to Faith and Religion. You fee. 2. Not one
Hee amufes and abufeth an ignorant Reader, whilft he afferts orruption.
there are fome thoufand of places wherin Sixtus and Clement differ, in thevulgar,
There is no difference at all in any one point that's effential or mate- Contrary to
rial, other differences which arife, either from the Printers errours,
or diuerfity of Lections, as long as we read what's true and the
Church approues,
approues, is neither lyable to Mr: Stillingfleets Cenſure
nor can be iuftly blamed. You fee. 3. That when Mr: Still: talk's,
of Thomas Iames his comparing the Sixtine, Clementine Bibles,
with the Louain Annotations, and then mentions ten thouſand
differences from the Vulgar Latin, which differences arife from the
comparing it with the Hebrew, Greek, and Chaldee, He vnderftand's
not Matters too well. Becauſe neither Sixtus nor Clement were
obliged to regulate themfelues by the Hebrew, Greeck, or Chaldee What these
Their induſtry only being to correct the old Latin(!rala) Lection, two Popes
called by S. Gregory the ancient Translation (moft Authentick Scrip-chiefly in.
ture) which, howeuer was done, both after à diligent ſearch into
the Hebrew and Greek, and à careful infpection alfo into other
Copies. And here by the way, you may perhaps difcouer à piece
of Mr: Stillingfleets cheat,about the ten thouſand differences men-
tioned aboue. Be pleafed only to perufe the firft words, of Gene-
fis where you will find à different found of words. The Vulgar read's
I
In
tended.
66
Difc. 1.C. 8. Of the fixtine and. &c.
In principio creauit Deus Calum & terram, and fo it is in the Chaldee
and Samaritan Copies. The Roman feptuagint: In principio fecit
Deus. Others afcribe this Lection to the 70. Deus creauit in principio,
Some out of the Hebrew read Creauit Iudices. Aquila read's. In
Capitulo fecit Calum. The Syriack. Creauit Deus effe Cali & effe terra.
An other Syriack. In fapientia Creavit. The Arabick. Primum quod
creauit Deus fecit Calum &c. Others, Creauit Elohim & Calos. Others
Lections
feeming
for in Principio, read, cum Principio. All which imply no more but
different are meer triuial verbal differences, and thefe perhaps with many like
not alwaies them through the whole Bible, made Thomas Iames number
disferent, swell vp to then thouſand. Moft petty and pittiful doings, whilft
Our fectaries
Spirit.
nothing appear's of greater confequence. If any defire à litteraf
expofition and reconciliation of thefe and other lections through
the whole Scripture, He may perufe the Author of Bibl: Max:
Comprehending ninteen great volumes. You fee, 4. If the Church
had true authentick Scripture before the corrections of Sixtus and
Clement (wherof no man euer doubted) shee has it ftill after the
Council of Trents approbation, much more free from leffer faults,
than formerly. You fee, 5. If the Sectary reiect's the Vulgar
Latin now corrected, he has no fuch affurance of any true Bible
in the world, as excludes à poffibility of doubting the Scriptures
integrity, and confequently, that Scripture ferues him not to find
out true Religion, or build true Faith vpon with fecurity. You
fee. 6. that all the exceptions fectaries make against the Corre-
ction of Sixtus and Clement, vltimately examined, empty themfelues
into no more but only into flight, torpid, and infipid Calumnies,
vnworthy men of iudgement and literature. You fee. 7. the Secta-
ries Carping at euery thing, is iuft like him who faid. Quicquid
dixeris impugnabitur. Had the Church not at all corrected thefe
leffer faults, the fectary would haue blamed it as negligent, and
looking to nothing, now it has done that good Seruice, it is found
fault with. fo it is. Quicquid dixeris impugnabitur. Help it who can.
I fay God help them who find fault, where there is none.
any defire to haue à folution to fome other Silly difficulties
againft the pretended folæcifins and Barbarifins of the Vulgar, let
If
him
Diſc. 1. Č. 9. Protestants haue no.&c.
67
him read Gretfer now Cited. Bib. Max, fect. 19. C. 4, and Ser-
rarius. C. 19. queft: 143. And thus much of à digreſſion.
CHAP. IX.
Proofs demonftrating that Proteftants haue not fo much
certainty of Scripture, as excludes à poßibility of
reaſonable doubting. A word of Mr: Stil
lingfleets weak diſcourſe with à
Heathen
I.
L
Et vs if you pleaſe fuppofe, that wee and Sectaries had
now in our hands the very Autograph's of the whole Bi-
ble, as it was once writ by the Prophets and Apoftles, or if you
would rather, Imagin the book drop't down from Heauen pure,
and euery way incorrupt. I fay the Sectary has not probable
affurance of Scripture, much leſs fuch à certainty as excludes à
poßibility of reasonable doubting. The ground of my Affertion is
this vndeniable Principle owned as well by Proteftants, as Catho-
licks. Viz Scripture folely confidered according to the exteriour
letter, vnleſs the true fenfe intended by the Holy Ghoft be had,
is no Scripture to the Reader. For example: Becauſe the Arian
read's that facred truth. My Father is greater then I, and ftand's
meerly vpon the bare found of words without the fenfe intended
by the Holy Ghoft, Hee hath no true Scripture. Whence it is,
that S. Auſtin ferm: 70. Temp. hold's Hereticks moft vnhappy,
becauſe they take the words without the fenfe, haue à body without Words
à Soul, the bark without the fap, the shell without à kernel &c.
S. Hierom alfo in cap. 1. ad Gal. v. 11. fpeak's to this purpoſe, no Scripture,
Ne putemus &c. Let vs not think, that the Gofpel lyes in the words
of Scripture but in the fenfe of thoſe words we read, not in the
cut-fyde but in the pith and marrow of it. There is no need of
1 2
quoting
without the
68
Difc. 1. C.9. Proteftants haue no.
quoting more Fathers. The Principle is agreed on by all, and
moft indubitable.
2.
Hence I argue. Nothing is more effential to feripture than
the fenfe deliuered by the Holy Ghoft: but the Proteftant, where
he is moſt concerned, has not fo much affurance of the fenfe in-
tended by the Holy Ghoſt, as excludes à Poflibility of reaſonable
doubting, and I proue it. He is moft concerned, when he oppofes
our Catholick Doctrin and ftand's vp in defenfe of his own
opinions, but in neither has he fuch an indubitable aſſurance of
the Scriptures fenfe excludes à poffibility of reaſonable
doubting, and this I fay is euident, For he cannot haue fo much
affurance if as weighty, yea à far more weighty authority contra-
dict's his fenfe. But it is clear that not only the prefent Roman
Church, but other particular Churches in former ages reputed
vies baue no Orthodox, contradict that fenfe the Proteftant drawes from Scrip-
Certainty of ture, (when he oppofeth Catholick Doctrin or defends his own
the fenfe. fingular opinions) Therefore he has not fo much certainty of the
But Secta-
>
Scriptures fenfe, as excludes the poffibility of reasonable doubting.
Now, that the fole iudgement of our prefent Catholick Church
(to difpute the thing no higher) is as great vpon all accounts, as
the iudgement of Proteftants, feem's vndeniable; And that the
Teftimony of our Church weakens the affurance of that fenfe of
Scripture which Proteftants lay claim to, is moft euident, as wee
fee in fchool opinions (when contrary to one an other) for no man,
whether Philofopher or Diuine, can prudently hold his opinion fo
certain as excludes à Poßibility of doubting when as many, wholly, as
learned yea more learned and numerous, after à full knowledge
had of it and long Study alfo, deny that certainty. Thus much
I fay is euident. Now if the Proteftant tells' vs, the Authority of
his party
weakens as much that fenfe wee make of Scripture, as
the contrary iudgement of our Church leffens his,Î anſwer.
The reply here is to no purpoſe For all I proue at prefent is, that
he want's this certainty, whether we haue it or not,is an other
quæftion, and clearly decided for the Catholik caufe in the other
Treatiſe. Diſc. 2. c. 9. per totum. Again,were all granted the obie-
ction
Certainty of fcripture.
69
ction would haue. Thus much (which is moft fals, ) only
folloves, that neither of vs know affuredly the fenfe of Scripture,
which touches not the difficulty now in controuerly.
A 2 Argu
ment r
3. My 2. Argument is fo demonftratiue that if the Proteft int
will pleafe to folue it, I'le neuer trouble him more with dif-
culties. To propofe it clearly, know only thus much. That Conning
when the fectary read's Scripture and would haue it to his pur-
pote, He either ouer reaches the Text,or fall's short of its meaning.
For example. To those words of S. Math. This is my body he adds
this, as good fenfe. This is à figne, or figure only of my body. Mark
well: We both read the fame words, but Catholicks deny that to
be Scripture, not becauſe we deny the words, but his fenfe we
fay is no fcripture. To that of our Sauiour. I am with you alwaies
to the end of the world. He adds, I am with you alwaies by à fitting,
but no infallible affiftance: We ſay this is no Scripture. To that of
S. Iames. A man is iuftified by works and not by Fanth only, He adds,
he is iuftified not before God, but before men, we ftill deny this to be
Scripture. And thus fectaries proceed with vs in all other contro-
uerted Texts of Holy writ. Whence I argue.
fo
>
additions,
Theſe Additions of à fign only, of à fitting Aßistance, of iustification
before men &c, are either the true ſenſe intended by the Holy Ghoft
or Sectaries fancy, but moft euidently they are not the fenfe inten-
ded by the Holy Ghoft, for this muft either be gathered out of Sectaries
many exprefs words of Holy writ which is prodigiously falfe, or gloffs and
muft ariſe from the Holy Ghofts infallible aßistance whereby Prote- not feripture.
ftants as people Illuminated aboue all othersgiue vs the true
meaning of Scripture, and this befides the Paradox, when à whole
learned Church contradict's the affertion, is moft deftructiue of
the Proteftants own Principle: For they fay, the Holy Ghoſt inter-
pret's by none, enlightens none, teaches none to deliuer the true
fenfe of Scripture, but fuch as do it infallibly, which Truth is moſt
vndoubted. They fay again, when they giue the fenfe of Scripture,
or interpret God's word, they do it (o fallibly, that it may be false, or
if they interpret infallibly, and cannot err, Eo ipfo, they are fo farr
infallible, which they vtterly deny. See Difc. 2. c. 9. n. 8. what
I 3
then
70
Difc. 1. C. 9. Proteftants haue no. c.
No more are
Brons.
then remains but that the fenfe of Scripture propofed to vs by fuch
fallible Teachers, is only the thought of their own fancy.
5. Some may reply. Proteftants after long perufing Scripture,
and comparing feueral Texts together, iudge the fenfe ofthefe and
their dedu other controuerted places by à lawful deduction, to be as they de-
clare. I anfwer firft. They shall neuer come to fo much as à
probable deduction, and I earneftly prefs them to make their ſenſe
good in the paffages alleged, when we now ftand to Scripture only.
Ianfrer. 2. fuch dark inferences drawn from comparing Texts
together not grounded on the very words, euer imply à mixture of
humane diſcourſe,which therefore is fallible and may be false. Whence
it followes, that Sectaries can belieue none of thefe fenfes by Di-
uine Faith, becaufe the laft Motiue or formal obiectoftheir Af
fent, is à fallible reasoning only, and this may erre. And here you
may learn how neceffary an infallible Interpreter of Scripture is
without which we are caft vpon meer vncertainties,and vnauoidable
improbabilities.
Noton? an-
cient Father
Clear for
fret ſtency.
The reafon
is given.
>
6. The Sectary may yet anfwer. To the comparing of Texts
together, He add's the fentiment of fome Fathers for his fenfe :
1 fay of fome, for t'is euident He hath not all,much leffe the Vniuer-
fal confent or Tradition of the Church in euery age. If this be the
reply, I may well oppoſe it in Mr: Stilling: own words
pag. 216.
Think not to fob rs off with the ambiguous Teftimonies of two or three Fa-
thers instead of the vniuerfal conſent of the Church fince the Apostles time &c.
But what will you fay, if he has not one clear Teftimony of à
Father for him? I boldly affert it, and vrge him to produce but
one. The reaſon is. What-euer Teftimony of à Father is alleged
for his fenfe, will be at moſt (ift come thither) fo notably am-
biguous that weighed with all circumftances, it may well haue à
Catholick meaning: That fenfe therefore muft ftand good without
conteft, when it anfwers to the iudgement of à whole learned
Church, and the Sectary hath nothing to draw it to his particular
opinion (neither vniuerfal Church nor vniuerfal Tradition) but
only à few ambiguous words capable of interpretation, and his own
fancy to boot. Nay I fay more, He hath not fo much as any little
appearance
How the Heathen difcourfes.
71
appearance of ambiguous words for his fenfe. Pray you tell me,
(and let Proteſtants shame me if they can) where has he any hint
of à Fathers doubtful words for his minc'd fitting aßistance only allo-
wed the Church, Pofitiuely excluding infallible assistance? For
iuftification by Faith only? For two facraments only? For à figne only of
Chriſts prefence in the Eucharift? yet theſe fenfes he vend's as
the genuin meaning of the Holy Ghoft, without proof or
probability, therefore fancy only plaies here. And thus you
fee the firft part of my Affertion demonftratiuely proued viz.
That Proteftants haue not fo much as a weak probable affuran-
ce of that which is the very life and effence of Scripture, I mean,
the true fenfe intended by the Holy Ghoft: Yet you know
Tertullian faith. Lib. de Præfcript. cap. 17. Tantum veritati obstre-idgement,
pit adulter fenfus: quantum & corruptus Stylus. A fals fenfe depraues
Scripture as much, as if the words were corrupted. Thus much
premiſed and fo fully proued, that fectaries cannot return à proba-
ble anfier, I'le add one confideration more to confirm what is faid.
A Diſcourſe between à Heathen and à
Chriſtian.
of
Tertullians
7. Imagin that a well difpofed Gentil Philofopher half pertiva-
ded of the truth of Chriſtian Religion, addreffes himſelf to the
moſt knowing Proteftant, or Arian (and not to diffemble the for-
ce of the Argument) to fome learned Catholick alfo. He find's
them ftrangely deuided about their Canon of Scripture, about their
Tranflations, and which is to our purpofe now, at high difference
concerning the meaning alfo. The Arian tell's him he hath the
true fenſe, ſo doth the Donatift, the Proteftant, and Catholick How men
likewife. The wife man is not fo foolish as to belieue any of them Christians
vpon their bare word, although Stentor-like they cry, this and no differ about
other is Diuine Doctrin. Therefore he concludes, if reafon may feripture.
haue place, This way of finding what he would know, without
the help of fome other Principle diftinct from Scripture, and the
fallible Affertion of particular men oppofite to one an other, is
called.:
t.
fo
72
VVith à Chriftian.
The
Heathens
Dejeourje.
The
Heathens
you
fo highly diffatisfactory and wholly infufficient, that it cannot fertle
him in the truth of Chriftianity. Nay, he may wel argue further.
If I, yet no Chriftian, cannot fo much as know theſe very books
to bee Diuine becauſe you (ay they are fo, when we Gentils and
Lewes (in part) hold them only humane; If I though I own them as
Diuine, can learn from none of you, what they fay (for I find
all at high contradictions about the fenfe) How will you induce me
by this your Bible only to become Chriftian? Or, how can you
when you difpute with one an other,fo much as propofe à probable
Argument out of Scripture in behalf of your different Tenets, For
none of you yet knor by Scripture only the true meening of it?
You firft fuppofe à fenfe and then argue, wheras you should clear
the fenfe and proue it, or your Argument fall's to nothing. For
example. The Proteftant find's in Scripture,that the Holy Eucharift
is called Bread, fuppofing Bread to fignify natural bread or at moft
bread deputed to à holy vie, the Catholick denies this fuppofition,
and fente alfo. Hee reads again in S. Iames c. 4. There is one Law-
gimir and iudge who can destroy and free. Ergo faith the Proteftant, there
is no other vifible iudge in the Church to end Controuerfies. As
odd an inference as if one should conclude, becauſe it is faid in
Scripture. Bee not yee called Mafters for jour Mafter is one, Chrift, no
other ought to be called Mafter, and therefore this fenſe and ſup-
pofition in alfo denied. And thus it muft needs fall out, whilft
the Sectary has not one exprefs word of Scripture for his nouelties,
wheras, faith the Gentil,the Texts feem clear enough for Catholick
Doctrin taken in an obuious fenfe, yet not fo clear, but that à
pecuish Gloffer may peruert all by his wilful fancy.
S. Yet the Gentil Argues. You Chriftians fay, there is true
Religon amongst you, and that God,the Author of it, hath allowed
means abundantly fufficient to knowit, Means I fay whereby not
Argument only Gentils, Turks, and lewes, but Arians and other Hereticks
Clearly pro- alfo, may
be reclaimed from their errours. Thus much you muſt
pofrå again ft
fiðaries. grant, or fay that Chrift hath left an vnbelieuing world vnder an
impoflibility of being conuerted. And if this be true, that is, if
meanes be wanting to know the verities of Chriftian Religion,
The
With à Chriſtian.
73
The Gentil may blamleſly remain as he is, and fo may the Turk,
Iew, and Heretick alfo. Now faith our Heathen. 'Tis euident,
Scripture alone without further light, is no meet means to reclaim
any of them, for the Gentil flights your whole Scripture, and can
that by it felf draw him off his contempt? Again The Benzij in
that vaſt Kindom of China pretend to an other Bible, writ long
fince by their fuppofed great Prophet called Confufius (and the book
is not like the Turks Alcoran ftuffed with fooleries) but as I am in-
formed, fome who liued long there and knew the language
well, ſay, it contain's moft excellent moral precepts tending to the
preferuation of iuftice and à Ciuil life. The lex denies the new
Teftament, The Arian and others the fenfe of our Scripture. Hor
therefore can Scripture alone proue efficacious to conuert thefe
aliens from Chrift, or be fuppofed à fit means obliging all to be-
lieue, when yet they know not without more light what they are
to belieue, or why? An other way therefore must be found out,
whereof more afterward. In the mean while.
>
fr.
9. I truely ſtand aftonished, when I confider how pittifully Mr jilia.
Mr: Stilling: endeauours to folue this moft conuincing Argument. fice return's
Read him who will. Part. 1. Chap. 6. from page 175. to P. 179. moprobable
and he shall find him tediouſly running on, but ner'e à whit more
forward in his iourney where he ends, then at the beginning.
Tis all à long à pure Petitio principy, and worse. The Queftion
moued, is, How the Proteftant can conuert à Heathen, or proue
infallibly that the Bible is Gods word. Mr: Stilling: Anferers, his
Lord Primate vndertakes not this task in the first place, nor offer's
to Conuince à Heathen that the Bible muſt be infallibly belieued
to be Gods word. No, but firſt, the excellency and reafonablenes
of Chriftian Religion Confidered in it ſelf is to be proued, by sbewing,
that the precepts of it are iuft, the promiſes ſuch as may induce any reafona-
ble man to the practiſe of those precepts, that the whole Doctrin is very
Wiſely contriaed, that nothing is vain and impertinent in it, that thojë
things which ſeem moft hard to believe in this Doûrin are not ſuch things,
as might baue been ſpared out of it, as though God did intend only to puz-
zie mens reaſom with them. And thus he goes on in his draught,
K
OF
74
How the Heathen diſcourſes.
He makes
àmcer fup-
pofition his
Broof.
Fuidence
of Credibi-
lity laid
forth to rea-
fon before
beliefe,
or Idea of Chriftianity, and fo proues the Truth of Chriftianity by
telling à Heathen, What it is, or what it teaches. The Heathen
moft iuftly except's againſt Theſe proofs (fo may à Chriftian too,
if no more be faid) and profeffes all this talk hitherto befides à meer
begging the Queftion, "feem's to him à
pure cheat and fallacy.
You proceed ftrangely, faith the Heathen, for what is à fuppofed
verity amongſt you Chriftians, you turn into à proof againſt me
that denies your supppofition. You labour to take my difficulties
away, by propofing to me thofe very things, which cauſe them.
Mark well.. You firft make the excellency and reaſonableness of
Chriſtian Religion in it ſelfe à fit medium to proue Scripture Gods in-
fallible word, wheras that fuppofed reasonableness of your Religion,
is as dark and obfcure to me, who am no Chriftian, as the infalli-
bility of your Bibles Doctrin. Therefore you proue one vn-
known thing by an other wholly as much vnknown. I deny both
your Bible and reaſonableness of your Religion, proue the one or
both, or you ſpeak not one word to the purpoſe.
10. You fuppofe. 2. à Principle which neither Catholick
nor proteftant euer yet owned. viz. That, that which you call Chri-
fian Religion is known ex terminis to be true by à meer declaration of
its Doctrin, wheras no Doctrin, euen the moſt Primitiue was euer
made difcernable from errour by à bare faying it was true, without
fome precedent Euidence of its credibility laid forth to reafon: And
therefore you are told in the other Treatife against Mr: Poole. n.
21. That if Chrift and his Apoſtles had appeared in the world,
and only preach't the high Myfteries of our Faith, or ſpoken as
you do, of the excellence and reaſonablenes of its precepts, or
promiſes, without further euidence, they would haue no more
drawn lewes or Gentils to their Doctrin then twelue little Children
could now draw vs to the belief of many other verities, (not yet
reuealed) had God infpired them to teach witho ut miracles, or any
other fupernatural wonders. My reafon is. As the Bible euidences
not it felf to be Diuine fcripture, fo the intrinfecal reasonableness of
Chriſtianity is no firft euidence to it felfe, both therefore muft
bee proued by Clearer Principles. Belieue it. Had Chrift and
his
VVith à Chriftian.
75
his Apoftles only infifted vpon the reasonableness of Chriftianity, the
very lewes would haue filenced them alleging greater preuious eui-
dence for their Religion, shewed by Mofes and the Prophets.
3. Saith the Heathen, becauſe you dare not meddle with the mo-
tiues of Credibility which you Scornfully call à Grand Salad too of
ten ferued vp by Papifts you fpeak at random,when you giue me no
other fatisfaction to my difficulties than by telling me, they are
worth nothing. You Affirm. 4. Nothing is impertinent in Chri-
ftian Religion. I anfwer. The belief ofà Trinity, of God made an
Infant; Your whole ftory of à Serpent tempting Eue, and of Samp- Mr.filling:
fon, with your Myſterious book of Apocalyps, feem to my bu- proofs found
mane vnder/tanding not only impertinent, but improbable. You tell weightlejs.
me. 5. of Chriſtian Religion agreeing with thofe books you call
the Bible, That is, you would fay, the Chriftian Doctrin of the
Bible agrees with the book, which is idem per idem and therefore
highty diffatisfactory, vnless you proue both the Bible and Doctrin
by further Arguments. You fay 6. The Heathen ought to belieue
fome thing befides that, he hath heard or feen vpon the report of
honeft men. He anfiers, he doth, fo farr, as thofe reports
inoue him to affent, and therefore denies not the matter of fact
that there was once fuch à perfon in the world as Chrift, but
becauſe you fay all this Teftimony is no more but moral, and
may be falfe, the Heathens belief goes no higher. Iuft fo the Turks
belieue there was fuch à man as Mahomet, the Chineſes fuch à
man as Confufius, but what get we, by iudging there were fuch per-
fons as thefe in the world? Doth it here vpon follow,all they taught, Nothing y
You lay. 7. proued.
was true or infallible Doctrin? No fuch matter.
The Heathen muſt belieue that Chriſt dyed, rofe again, wrought
many miracles, and fent his Apoftles to preach his Doctrin. &c.
He anfivers, theſe being Articles of your faith regiftred in Scripture,
you, Sr, either vrge him to belieue them, as you ought to doe cer-
tainly and infallibly, and this you cannot exact, for you belieue
them becauſe they are in Scripture, and yet you haue not proued
to the Heathen fo much as probably, that Scripture is of Diuine
inſpiration, Therefore you fuppofe what he denies, and pittifully
beg the Queftion.
K 2
11. Or.
yes
76.
How the Heathen difcourfes
II. Or. 2. You will haue him yeild an affent to them vpon
the humane teftimony of many Chriſtians which you fay is
fallible and may be falfe and that auail's nothing
>
for
thus the Turks belieue the Alcoran the Chineſes their bible
vpon the Teftimony of innumerable witneffes. You fay. 8.
None can question whether the Doctrin be Diuine, when the Perfon who
declared it to the world was fo Duuine and extraordinary à Perſon holy in
his conuerfation, wrought vnparalled miracles, rofe from death to life, con-
The question versed with his Difciples, and gaue euidence of their fidelity by laying down
Still begged their liues to atteft the Truth &c. Contra. 1. Replies the Heathen.
Here is again the fame Petitio principii, for either you belieue thefe
particulars becauſe Scripture record's them, and then you fuppofe
Scripture to be true and Diuine, which he denies, or becaufe falli-
ble men report them (you own no infallible tradition) and this
aduances not your cauſe at all, for the Turks and thoſe of China
talk as much of their Mahomet, and Confufius vpon fallible, and
perhaps falfe reports alfo (for yet the Heathen knowes not what
Religion is true) And next wonders why you ſpeak of miracles, of
power ouer euil ſpirits, of men laying down their liues &c. when,
you Sectaries either deny, or flight all the miracles euidently
done in the Catholick Church, as alfo the power She manifeft's in
cafting out Diuels &c. And if we mention Martyrs, Catholicks haue
more, who layd down their liues in defenfe of the Doctrin of this
one Church,than fuffered for Chrift, whilft the Apoftles preach't to
the world. You hint fome thing at miracles (like one half affraid to
meddle with fuch Motiues) and fay theſe wonders proue the truth of
Apoftolical Doctrin. Pray you Sr Anfwer? When you plead by mi-
racles Doe you only allow thoſe which Scripture relates, or others
alſo known by Hiſtory and humane Authority? If you rely on
the firſt, you ſuppoſe what now is in Queſtion. Viz. That Scripture
is infallible and of Diuine infpiration, If you own miracles
regiſtred in Ecclefiaftical hiſtory, and the liues of Saints, you haue,
as I now faid of Martyrs, à greater number wrought in the Roman
Catholick Church in the ages after Chrift, than were done whilft
he and his Apoſtles liued. Slight fuch à Cloud of witneffes as
atteft
By what
miracles
Sectaries,
plead,
VVith à Chriftian.
77
atteft theſe later wonders, and ſpeak no more (as you doe) of any
certainty grounded vpon the report of honeft men; Own them
vpon humane authority as morally indubitable, and you proue by
virtue of theſe Miracles, that the Doctrin of the Catholick Church,
is ſtill Apoftolical and Orthodox.
12.
Now here by the way I must lay open your fallacy,
when you recurr to miracles recounted in Scripture only, and
reiect others wrought by the Church. Thus I argue. Either you
fuppofe and belieue the Doctrin of Scripture to be Diuine, be-
cauſe you find the Miracles of Chrift and his Apoſtles recor-
ded there, (and propofe theſe as the firft Motiue, and induce-
ment of your belieuing Scripture) or independently of Scripture
Miracles, you proue the Doctrin to be Diuine; yea, and the
very miracles recounted there, to be indited by the Holy Ghoſt.
If you belieue the Diuinity of Scripture induced therevnto by
Miracles related in that Holy book, you aduance nothing, for
all you fay is, that you proue Scripture, Diuine because it recounts theſe
Wonders, which are as obfcure to à Heathen as the Diuinity, or the
faired Doctrin of Scripture is, Therefore you make à moft vicious
Circle, for you proue the Diuinity of Scripture by Miracles internal
to the book, and the Miracles themfelues (not otherwife known) by
the Diuinity of Scripture. Now if you lay you know the Scrip-
tures Diuinity antecedently, or before you recurr to Miracles
related there, Scripture-Miracles are vfeles to your purpofe, for,
if the fuppofition ftand, They are yet no more but obiects of Faith,
and therefore cannot ferue you as motiues and inducements to
belieue that very Diuinity, which is now fuppofed known aliunde,
and moſt ſufficiently without them.
13. One
One may ask, if God had neuer done any other Mira-
cles but fuch as Scripture relates, whether thefe are not fuff
cient to work belief in all? The Heathen anfwers negatiuely
and makes them infufficient, becaufe Scripture is not proued
Diuine by them. And all may anfwer fo, if Scripture be not
otherwife firft proued Diuine, before we haue recourfe to mi-
racles internal to the book. Howeuer, admit gratis they were
K 3
fuffi
A dilemma,
which for-
ceth Se-
aries to à
vicious Cir.
cle.
Miracles
related in
Scripture
Conuince not
à Heather,
78
How the Heathen difcourfes
A Good
Caufe ill
handled by
Mr:
Stilling fleet
fufficient, the moft you can inferr is, That, the Primitiue
Church which shewed them was Orthodox, but whether any other
Church yet preferues the fame pure Doctrin, may bee well que-
ftioned by à Heathen. And here in paffing, you may note à fin-
gular Prouidence of God, who age after age has illuftrated his
Church with moft manifeft and vndoubted miracles, whereof
more largely hereafter. Difc. 2. C. 8.
14. You fay laftly. That which God chiefly requires from à
Heathen is the belief of the Truth and Diuinity of his Doctrin.
He anſwers he is ready to do fo, when you proue the Doctrin
to be Diuinely inſpired, and infallible. But hitherto you handle
things fo faintly, that though the matter you treat be excellent in it
felf, yet your proofs( moft difatisfactory) come not home to con-
uince it. Your mishap is iuft like that of an ill lawyer, who has
à good cauſe in hand, but knowes not how to handle it. Your
whole Method is vnmethodical, your proofs proofleffe, your
iumbling moft intolerable. In à word, you giue no rational
account of the reaſonableness, of the Truth, of the Diuinity,
or of the infallibility of Chrifts Doctrin. Therefore faith the
Heathen, I'le fufpend my iudgement till I meet with à more
knowing Aduerfary, who I hope will not proue Truth by fimply
Jaying he speaks it, but Conuince it vpon vndeniable Principles.
15.
,
But our Heathen hath not yet done with Mr: Stilling:
for he faith plainly, Though all the proofs hitherto hinted at
might pafs, or were fuppofed valid, yet there is not one word
fpoken to the purpoſe, in behalf of Proteftancy. If you won-
der at the bold Affertion, ponder well his reaſon. You, Mr:
Stilling: haue treated all this while of the excellency and rea-
fonablenes of Chriſtian Religion, confidered no man knowes how.
Pray you lurk not in fuch General terms, but tell me particularly
what. Chriftian Religion is thus good, excellent, and reasonable?
If good and excellent, it must be now found in the world. Is
it Arianifin? Pelagianifin? Donatifm? Quakerifm? Thefe fects
profess Chriſtianity Are they all excellent and reaſonable? Affirm
it openly if you dare? Perhaps you will fay no. Is it Popery?
By
VVith à Chriftian.
79
Our Aduer.
MANY
Beli-
By no means. For may your word be taken, it mantains falfe
and erroneous Doctrin, and that's neither excellent nor reaſonable. Sary Cannət
Is it Proteftancy? Yes furely. This is the excellent and reafo- fay, which à
nable Religion. And is it poffible? Can you perfwade your felf mang fo
without further proof than your own prooflefle word, that the
gions is
perfect draught or Idea of Chriftianity lies fo fair in the new excellent and
Nothing of a few iarring Proteftants, which all other Chriftians reasonable.
in the world decry as falfe and improbable? Can you think
that à foul-mouthed Fryar as euer liued, and à Nunn facrile-
giouſly coupled together, layd the firft foundation of this excel-
lent and reafonable Christian Religion? Speak out, and tell vs what
you iudge, or hereafter leaue of to vent fuch improbable Pa-
radoxes? I fpeak of à Religion now extant in the world or
known. 4. hundred years agone to prenent your wonted fub-
terfuge of running vp to the Primitiue Church, à moſt vnrea-
fonable plea when you cannot fay probably what that Church
taught, but only by the Tradition of the prefent, which
moft cauflefly and vnworthily reiect. But hereof wee haue faid
enough in the other Treatife. Perhaps you'l reply. You de-
fend that Church which hold's Doctrin agreable to Scripture,
I marry, Sir, but where shall we find it out? Amongft you
Froteftants think yee? when you know not probably the fenfe
of ſcripture in one only controuerted Text, much lefs fo fully,
as excludes à poßibility of doubting, nor shall you euer know
whilſt you own à fenfe Contrary to the Roman Catholick
Church, as is already proued.
you
They own on
Church.
un known
CHAP. X.
20
Difc. 1. C. 10. By fcripture only, none
CHAP. X.
The first and easiest way to find out true Religion is not
by Scripture only, though all Chriftians had moral
certainty of the right Canon, and fenfe alſo,
which is to fay, the meer owning
Chrifts Doctrin, is infufficient to
proue it, to all fort of People.
I.
T
He Affertion may feem ftrange had we not an euident
proof at hand, and t'is thus. The lewes, Turks, and
Pagans (although all Chriftians now and euer agreed in fome
chief verities concerning Chriſtian Religion, as that Iefus is our
Bedeemer) reiect the Doctrin as fals, and foolish 1. Cor. 1. u. 23.
We preach Christ Crucified, à fcandal to the lewes, and à foolery to
the Gentils. Whereby you may well learn, how enormously Mr:
Stillingfleet erred aboue when he told vs, that the meer excel-
lency and reaſonableneſs of Chriſtian Religion carries with it its
The proof of own proof. Our Affertion is contrary, and grounded vpon this
Our Affertion Principle. The Mysteries of Chriſtian Doctrin confidered in
opposite to themelues, tranſcend all humane Capacity, and as the Apoſtle
faith ſcandalize weak reafon, Therefore the Myfteries meerly
stillingfleet. laid forth to à Iew or Gentile are no conuiction, becauſe they
are aboue the reaſon of the very beft Belieuers. Now if
you
fay, they ought firft to be belieued by faith without any preuious
inducement, This is the worft of fooleries, for none of the
Primitiue Chriftians, fo much as belieued Chrift or admitted
Apoftolical Doctrin, without rendring firft fome fatisfactory
reaſon ( diſtinct from their faith) why they reiected the ancient
Sinagogue and affented to that then new preach't learning. Some
Mr.
preuious
can Find true Religion.
Chriẞ's
Dofirin no
preuious light therefore, diftinct from thefe abftrufe Myfteries,
which God laies before the eye of humane reafon induceth all,
whether lewes or Gentils, to the true belief of Chriftianity, and
Confequently the meer fuppofed verity of the Doctrin only,
dark in it felt, is no abfolute mark or firft felf euident Principle,
whereby we are immediatly moued to belieue fuch high fecrets. Thererity of
Pray you tell me, should any one goe amongft fome vnciui-
lifed People, who either haue heard nothing, or very little of felfe Euid.n-
Chriſt, and only relate the ſtory of his facred Birth in à poor
ſtable, of his obfcure life from the 12.
year of his age till
he began to preach &c. Would fuch Barbarians, think yee,
affent to theſe ftrange things either by the force of humane
reaſon, or Diuine Faith, without further proof or motiue to make
all good? No certainly. Yet all is true and very true, yea,
and moſt reaſonable, but the verity alone is infufficient to per-
fwade any that 'tis true.
th
2. From this short difcourfe, whereof more in the fecond
part, thefe vndeniable inferences follow. 1. That Sectaries affert
they know not what, when they make the true Preaching of
the Gospel and right vfe of Sacraments to be marks of the true
Church. For the true Church (be it where you will ) hath euer
its marks antecedently fuppofed to the true preaching of the
word, which marks, firſt manifeft that myſtical body (at leaſt in
à general way as I shall prefently declare) and thus known by à
matural euidense, she propofeth the Myfteries we belieue. Here
is the reaſon à priori of my Affertion. That which is the first obiect
of our Faith cannot be the first obiect of our knowledge, the Mysteries of her marks,
our belief layd forth by the preaching of Gods word, are the first obiects before we
of Faith, (for theſe we belieue, and as belieued they are obfcure) belieue.
therefore they cannot be the first obiects of knowledge (if we speak ſtrictly
of knowledge) or marks preuioufly inducing reafon to belieue.
Whence it is, that reafon hath its euidence or prudent inducements
laid forth vpon other extrinfical Principles, before we belieue.
Belief therefore, whether you take it for the obiect affented to, or the
L
act
The Church
is known by
82
Difc. 1. C. 10. By Scripture only, none
An Obie
dien,
Briefly
folued.
The judge.
ment of Cre.
dibility, not
attained by
examining
the Mysteries
of Faith.
act wee affent by (being as I faid obfcure) can be no mark to it
felf or to the true Church we belieue in, for à mark is euer more
known than that obiect is whereof it is à mark, or which is
pointed at.
3. Some perhaps will fay. The Church is vfually defined.
An Affembly of those who profess the true Doctrin of Chrift, therefore
true Doctrin moſt effential to the Church, muft neceffarily be
known before we know the total effence of the Church. Ergo
true Doctrin or the preaching of the word is à mark whereby we
firſt find out the Church, and confequently the Church marked
with euident clear motiues, is no inducement to belieue true
Doctrin. The Argument is an euident fallacy. Firft becauſe the
Illiterate and fimple Chriftians belieue in the Church and haue
faith fufficient to faluation, though they neuer arriue to an explicit
belief of euery particular Doctrin taught by it. 2. They either
explicitly belieue all thefe particular Doctrins by Faith, and this
is impoffible, becauſe all of them were neuer propofed explicitly,
or, know them ex terminis to be Diuine Truths by humane rea-
fon, when they are propoſed, and this is moſt vntrue. For who
can fay that this truth. Chrift is God and confubftantial with his Father,
is à verity more known ex terminis by humane reafon, than the
contrary errour of the Arians is? You fee therefore the obiection
is forceles: For, as one who reades Ariftotle or Plato knowes
what is faid, or the fubftance of the Doctrin by the ſenſe of
their words, yet remains ignorant whether it be true or fals,
without further reaſoning and infpection, fo à Gentil that reads
our Chriſtian Doctrin in the bible may know much of its fenfe,
or what is faid, yet he muſt both difcourfe and reason well, before
All I read ( not euidently true
he come to this fetled iudgement.
ex terminis) is yet indubitably fr. Now this iudgement is not firſt
got by examining the particular verities which Scripture or the
Church teaches. No. There is à farr eafier way whereby reaſon,
after à further difcourfe concludes: that either God hath cheated
the world by the Miracles, the fanctity, The blood shedding of
Mar
can find true Religion
83
Martyrs, and all thofe conuerfions wrought by the Church, or
we muft grant, That, what the Church teaches is true, And
this general iudgement arifing immediatly from à due Ponderation
of the motiues of Faith (which is Science ) difpofeth an vnderftan-
ding to belieue this great Truth. God (peak's bis eternal verities by
that Church (be it yet where you will) which Christ Iefus founded.
And in this fenfe we fay, à general Notion or knowledge of the
Church manifefted by fupernatural fignes, is vfually neceffary to
the belief of euery particular Doctrin deliuered by it, and confe-
quently particular Doctrins can be no firft inark, or fign of this
Oracle. Thus much is here briefly hinted at to folue the obie-
tion. Hereafter, the whole Analyſis shall be moft particularly
difcuffed in its due place.
The true
Church is
known before
we can inID
the books of
4. A. 2. inference. True Religion is firſt found by its marks
and cognisances, before the pure and incorrupt books of Scripture
c.n be owned as Diuine. We come therefore to à knowledge of
thele incorrupt books by the help of that Chriftian Society where
true Religion is taught, and cannot first knew where true Religion
i, by the books of fcripture only. Ifay. First know. For without feripture.
all doubt when incorrupt Scripture together with the fenfe is once
admitted vpon the authority of Chrifts Church, we argue and
forceably as the Fathers anciently did, againſt Sectaries by Scriptu-
re: But all fuch arguments prefuppofe the Books proued Diuine,
and facred. The reafon of the inference is. Thefe Books only
contain à fumple narration of our Chriftian verities, which both
lewes and Gentils flight, therefore though we cry neuer fo loud
Scripture is Diuine, and written by the Holy Ghoſt, we effect
nothing with thefe Aliens from Chrift, vnless we first conuince
the truth by proofs diftin&t from Scripture it felf. And as little is
done, if Chriftians of à different belief difpute by Scripture,when No difputing
neither the Canon, nor the fenfe is agreed on.
For example.
Marcion produceth his Bible, The Arian his, and his fenfe, A third
à Scripture without S. Iames Epiftle, or that to the Hebrewes,Our and fenfe be
Sectaries Crowd in with their book, whilſt others as learned reiect
L &
their
only, without
the Canon
by Scripture
agreeden.
84
Difc.1. C. 10. By fcripture only, none
The ancient
Fathers per-
werted by
fellaries, end
not Contro-
uerfies.
I
their Canon, and much more that fenfe they force from it in à
hundred paffages. What is to be done in this Confufion? Muft
wee admit of Marcions Bible, or fubmit to our Sectaries Canon,
and new fenfe alfo? No certainly, it Cannot be expected. Perhaps
they will fay, we are to difpute the queftion, and rigidly examin
who hath the true Canon and fenfe of Scripture, They or wee,
This ends the difference. Very good. But fay on I beſeech you?
And firſt giue vs à fure Principle (à doubtful one in fo weighty à
matter help's little) which may bear vp the controuerfy, and at
laft end it, for vnless this principle be agreed on, the refult of our
difpute will be nothing but à fruitles wrangling. O the Fathers
and Antiquity well pondered cannot but decide the debate.
anfwer, may we iudge by the effect, the affertion is moſt vntrue:
For haue not we and Sectaries now read and pondered the Fathers
and Antiquity for one whole age, what can be alleged on both
fides, as well for the Canon as the ſenſe, hath been ſaid, and after
all, are we not ftill as much at variance as farr off from ending the
controuerfy, as when we began it? Say Now, but vpon à folid
Principle, who is in fault? The Sectary thinks wee vnderſtand not
the Fathers, and we are fure, he abuſeth them with farr fetch't
gloffes. He faith their words are clear for his fence, and
pro-
fels, the Contrary. Hitherto we come to nothing like à Principle.
The Controuerfy therefore driuen on no further, but to the ſe-
etaries bare, Tea and our, No, hangs yet in the ayre wholly vnde-
cided. The reafon is. Though the Fathers words be neuer fo
plain for our Catholick verities, yet after the Sectary hath laid
his gloffes vpon them, they are moft vnworthily made by him as
doubtful, and à matter of as great conteft, as the very ſenſe of
Scripture is, which both of vs would haue cleared by the Fathers
teftimony. That is. There is as much adoe ( may Sectaries gloffes
haue place) to vnderſtand, what à Father teaches concerning the
fenfe of fcripture, as to vnderſtand Scripture it ſelf, before we haue
recourfe to the Fathers. To recurre therefore to their interpreta-
tion in Controuerted matters whilft Sectaries as much darken that
we
by
can find true Religion
by their gloffes, as they obfcure the Scripture we difpute about, is
euidently à moft vnfit way to end any Controuerfy, vnless that
which is the very matter of Difpute between vs, can be fuppofed à
meet and fufficient means to end it, which is impoflible. Now if
the fectary blames vs becauſe we reiect that fenfe, he drawes from
either Scripture or the Fathers, and he alfo reiect ours, what haue
we but wrangling? Both parties hitherto only word it,and ſtand
chafing at one an other, without Principles. God therefore hath
prouided vs à furer and eafier way to end debates about Religion,
whereof more in the fequele Chapters.
CHAP. XI.
The Protestant takes away the only means to know true
Religion by. His proofs, whether He defend's Pro-
teftancy or impugn's Catholick Doctrin, are onreduci-
ble to Principles, and neuer goe beyond the weaknes
of his own inproued Affertion. Meer gioffes fupport
all He faith, which is evidenced by à brief han-
dling one Controuerfy, touching the B. Sacrament.
Theodoret wrong'd by Sectaries, cleared. His Doctrin
is moſt Catholick.
1. Ote firſt. If God as I ſaid aboue, once eſtablished true
Religion among Chriftians, He made it fo difcernable
from all falſe fects, that it may be found out by prudent reafon.
Omni literaturâ notius faith Tertull. lib. 1. de Teftimonio animæ.
Its more known then any other learning. For to fay on the one
fide, That an infinite wisdom hath planted true Religion in the
L 3
world,
The matter
in Diffure,
no meet
Principle to
end it.
86
Difc. 1. C. 11. Froteftants make
Proofs of
Iue Reli.
gion, exfy
and Con.
sincing,
The fetaries
proofs, as
dark as his
Dedrin.
One reason
of our Aſſer.
$107.
world, which shall not perish, and on the other, to affert it cannot
be proued or found out, is firft to caft à blemish on Prouidence,and
next to free all from the obligation of embracing it, becaufe none
can be obliged to embrace that which cannot be known by reafon,
or rational arguments. Note. 2. The Doctrin of Chrift which
effentially conftitutes true Religion, ftand's moft firm vpon indubi-
table Principles appliable to the Belieuers reafon. If therefore
à Want be found of fuch proofs, and doubts arife, whether Chrift's
Doctrin be taught or no; None can by doubtful or ambiguous
Principles only, abfolutly fay. This is Chrifts Doctrin, and Confe-
quently the proofs of true Religion anfwer to the weightines of the
matter, that is, they are clear, conuincing, and exclude à poffibility
of reaſonable doubting. Thus much ſuppoſed.
2.
I fay firft. who euer endeauour's to shew by arguments
what Tenents of Religion now held amongſt Chriſtians are pure
and Orthodox (when the matter is of Controuerfy,) and cannot
bring his proofs to à Clearer Principle, then the particular affertion
is which should be proued, argues improbably. The Proteftant
in all the difcuffed matters of Religion doth fo, that is, he neuer
goes beyond the ſtrength of his own weak affertion, but eludes all
by talk wholly as dark and weightles as the very Affertion is
is,
which should be proued; therefore he Argues improbably.
3.
To proue the Minor propofition wherein the difficulty lies.
Take à veiw of all our Proteftant Tenents as they differ from
Catholick Doctrin, or Conftitute this new reformed Religion and
ask, what Proteftant dare appear and venture to proue, That Faith
only justifies: The like I fay of his other negatiue Articles, of no real
Prefence, of no Inuocation of Saints of no Sacrifice of the Mass. &c.
I abfolutly affirm, He cannot make one of thefe Articles good
by any vndoubted Principle, or eftablish any of them by à proof
which is clearer, than that dark article is, which should be proued. One
reaſon is. Theſe Doctrins oppofite to the Latin and Greek
Church alfo, are not euidently known as truths by the light of
nature, or by any receiued Principle grounded on Reuelation.
No ancient Church reputed Orthodox held them
hundred years
7.
agone,
true Religion unknown.
87
agone, and Confequently no vniuerfal tradition is for them. The
only difficulty is, whether Holy Scripture or the Fathers gene-
rally patronize fuch Doctrins? And to fauour Sectaries all that's
poffible, we will here moue no doubt of the letter of their Bible,
but withall affure them, it will be impoffible to draw fuch new
learning out of that Book, and the impoßibility will be thus mani-
fefted. As long as thefe men cannot proue their new Doctrin to
be tranfinitted to them from as good and affured authority
their book of Scripture is tranfinitted (but vpon less fure grounds,
or less affured tradition) fo long their doctrin is naught and ſtands
vnprincipled. But this is fo, as we shall fee preſently. And you
may by the way note here the difference between the Catholick
The differen
and Proteftant. The firft,proues euery particular Tenet of his Faith ce bean
by as fure à Principle as he proues his Bible to be Diuine, (the the proofs of
Church affures him of both) but the Sectary euer fall's short in Catholiks
this and cannot giue you fo ftrong à proof for his particular Do-
&trin, as he doth for the very letter of his book, which he fup-
poſes teaches that Doctrin.
and Pros.
flapis.
4. But let vs come to the point which chiefly vrgeth, and
take one particular Controuerly (we cannot infift on all) and ask
the Proteftant. How he proues that the real prefence of Chrifts
facred body (as Catholicks affert) is not expreffed in the literal
ſenſe of thoſe words. This is my body. His negatiue affertion moft
euidently is not there in plain terms. We therefore vrge him to
make it good by à proof that's clear or more conuincing than his
own dark and yet vnproued Negatiue is. And is he not obliged think
yee to produce à ftrong proof indeed, when he hath fo many
powerful Aduerfaries to contraft with? 1. The clear words of
Chriſt now alleged.2. A long Catalogue of moft ancient Fathers
vfually cited by Authors oppofite to him. 3. The Authority of
the Greek and Latin Church, for both Churches mantain the
real fubftantial prefence to this day. 4. The express Doctrin
of general Councils, which define our Doctrin pofitiuely, and The grounds
condemn the figuratiue prefence of Sectaries 5. Euident Miracles of our Ca-
wrought in confirmation of the Myftery, related by authors of
moft
tholick Ts-
nets.
88
Difc. 1. C. 11. Proteftants make.
The Sectary
answers not
to any.
moft indubitable credit. Theſe are no flight grounds of our Do-
ctrin. Let vs fee by what ftrong receiued Principle the Sectary
endeauour's to weaken them, or (which is immediatly to my pur-
pofe) proues his new negatiue Pofition. Has he the express letter of
Scripture for his Negatiue: Chrift is not fubftantially prefent in the Eu-
chari? Not one word in the whole Bible is like it, much contrary.
Doth the fense of Scripture after all places are compared together
fauour him? No. What euer fenſe he drawes from thence fee-
ningly to his purpoſe, will be as obfcure and remote from the nature
of a proof or any known Principle, as his own improbable poſition is,
and therefore moft vnfit to perfwade it. Has he as vniuerfal Tra-
dition or the vnanimous confent of Fathers for his negatiue, (or for
that fenfe he would force out of Scripture), as he and we haue for
the letter of the Text now cited? Nothing at all. And to show
you how iuftly I propofe this queſtion, call to mind what Mr:
Stilling: exact's of his Aduerfary Part. 1. c. 7. P. 216. If I should,
saith he, once fee you proue the infallibility of your Church, the Popes
fupremacy, Inuocation of Saints &c. by as vnquestionable and vniuerfal
tradition as that is whereby we receive the Scriptures, I would extoll
you for the only perfon that euer did any thing confiderable on
your fide. Thus he fpeakes after this precaution giuen. Think
not to fob vs off, with the Tradition of your Church in stead of the Catho-
lik, with the ambiguous Teftimonies of two or three Fathers,
inſtead of the vniuerfal confent of the Church fince the Apoſtles
times. Your own words Mr: Stilling: shall here condemn you.
The Queſtion is whether your Negatiue, Chrift is not really present
in the Eucharift, as Catholiks affirm, be Orthodox Doctrin? We
exact as rigid à proof from you, as you demand of vs, but fob vs
not off with your own talk (Tradition you haue none) nor with
the ambiguous Teſtimonies of two or three Fathers, but giue
vs the vniuerfal confent of the Church fince the Apoſtles time, as
suflly require clear for your negatiue, as you demand of vs for the articles now
f Setaries. mentioned; Or if this be too much, giue vs but only the indu-
bitable ſentiment of any Church, reputed Orthodox, four or fiue
hundred years paft for this your fenfe and affertion, and I will
What we
applaud
true Religion vnknown.
89
I
applaud you as à moft fingular perfon. But this you shall doe
when you haue turned all faith out of the world; that is neuer.
fay therefore you haue no more but the ambiguous Teftimonies
of two or three Fathers ( nay you haue not ſo much) for this Nega-
tiue Doctrin; which vpon that account proue nothing, because thy
are as dark for your fence, as the Doctrin is, which
Which you would proue by
them.
>
you
S. Austin's
words fauour
not Sectaries,
5. For example. You may allege fome paffages out of S. Au-
ftin, chiefly that contra Adiinant. C. 12. Our Lord doubted not to
Say, This is my body when he gaue à fign of his body. The obuious
fenfe whereof without torturing the Text, is thus. Our Lord
gaue vnto his Difciples the Confecrated ſpecies and accidents of
bread, which were à fign of his Body there contained, and
doubted not to ſay, that what he gaue them under thoje accidents
was really his body. Let now any one probably inferr, that his
facred body was not then prefent vnder the accidents of bread,
becauſe S. Auſtin faith thofe accidents were à fign of his body
not abjent, for à fign or figure implies not the abfence of the
thing fignified by it. Well, but grant contrary to truth all
can wish, The words at moft are ambiguous, and therefore no fit
Principle to ground an article of faith, as is now noted. You may
next allege that known Teftimony in Theodorets Dialogues.
The Mystical fignes after the fanctification recede not from their nature,but
remain in their first fubstance, figure and form; are seen and touched as
before. I answer, Theoderet plainly fpeaks of the Myftical fignes More of
which are feen and touched, not of the inward fubftance of bread Theoderet
and wine, which are no immediate obiect of our ſenſes, thoſe lig- afterward.
nes recede not from their nature, but remain in their form and fi-
gure as before, and t'is Catholick Doctrin whereof more preſently.
But grant the vtmoft. The words are only dubious and therefore
infufficient to affure vs of an article of Faith, when contrary to the
receiued Doctrin of the prefent Church. I affert yet more.
Though any Father should fay, That the fubftance and nature of
bread and wine ceaſe not to bee, there is nothing yet concluded
againſt vs, for by thefe words (ubstance or nature, the outward
M
MAS-
}
90
Difc. 1. C. 11. Protestants make
Tertullians
fenfe, most
plain and
safy.
Maßinesse, or Corpulency of bread and wine may be well vnderſtood
which as Theoderet faies remain. The reafon is. In ordinary
Speech we often giue to qualities which flow from the effence or
nature of a thing the very name of the thing it felf. Thus we
fay an exceffiue heat is fire, à Maffy heauiness is lead, or à ſtone
wheras heat and heauiness in common philofophy, are only natural
qualities or properties diftinct from each ſubſtance, refpectiuely.
Such locutions, were they found, are at moſt dubious, but we ſtand
in no need of any far-fetch't gloffes.
6. Laftly Tertullians fpeech lib. 4. contra Marcio: cap. 39. ex
Cap. 21. Lucæ contain's no difficulty. Chrill taking bread into
his hands and diſtributing it to his Diſciples made the fame his body,
faying this is my Body; That is, à figure of my body. Obferue the words.
Made the fame his body, and all is clear? What did he make ſo?
I anfwer. That bread which in the old Teftament was à figure
of his body (according to the words of the Prophet. Mittamus
lignum in panem eius. Let vs put wood into his bread, that is à Crofs
into his body) he makes now in the new law moft truely and really
his body. Whoeuer read's Tertullian, will find this to bee the
genuine fenfe of his whole Difcourfe in the place cited, where
firft he ieer's Marcion. Faciebat ad vanitatem Marcionis vt panis Cru-
cifigeretur, Then faies, Marcion vnderftand's not, that bread in the
old Teftament was à figure of Chrift's body, as the Prophet Ierimie
fpeak's, Conijciamus lignum in panem eius, fcilicet, (They are Ter-
tullian's own words) Crucem in Corpus eius. That is à Crofs into his
body. See Pamelius his learned notes vpon this paffage, chiefly.
n. 662. and. 667. and you will eafily free Tertullian from all
ambiguity in Speech. There are yet other Authorities much wea-
ker produced by Sectaries, but thefe now quoted feem fufficient
for my
chief aime, whereof more prefently. In the interim I ex-
pect from thefe men à clamorous reply.
7. They will certainly tell vs the fense and explication now
A reply of given to thefe Fathers are no more but meer vnproned gueffes, or
thoughts of our fancy. I might firft anfwer. This fenfe imme-
diatly flowes from the plain words which we admit, according to
fectaries.
answered.
the
true Religion vnknown.
gr
the rigid grammatical fignification of euery particular fentence. But
let vs waue this, and ask, whether the contrary fenfe of fectaries be
any more but meerly their vnproued gloffes, or thoughts of fancy?
I ſay they are ſo, and confequently as dark, and wholly obfcure, as
that Negatiue Propoſition is, which should be proued by them.
They ftorin, and lay the fenfe is clear for them, I ftifly deny it, and
affert the conttary. They perhaps will vrge me to proue my fenfe;
I vrge them to proue theirs, which cannot be done by the Fathers
own words without à fùrer Principle; For, you fee, the words oc-
cafion the quarrel, but that which is the caufe of our diffentions.
can neuer end them, or bring vs to any acquiefcency, without à
further Principle. And thus we ftand Andabatarum more, winking
and fighting. The one faies. Yea, The other. No. without
fruit or further progress, and are yet farr from ending diffi-
culties.
8. Now here is that which I would haue all to reflect on, for
it is of mighty importance, viz. That controuerfies between the
Catholick and à fectary, cannot but be an endles work, if both
endeauour to decide them by Principles, and vary as much about
the ſenſe of thoſe Principles, (which are fuppofed to end the Dif-
pute) as we do about the very matter in queftion. This is euer
fo, whilft the fectary reiect's an infallible Church or her vniuer-
fal Tradition. Obferue well: The matter now in queſtion is
Whether Chriſt be really prefent in the bleffed Sacrament? We
allege his own Sacred words. The Sectary faies we miſtake the
fenfe, and confequently will not haue the difficulty decided that
way. To know the Truth, both of vs examin all the other paſſa-
ges in Scripture relating to the Myftery, both read the originals,
and the different verfions, both compare Text and text together,
nothing is yet ended; Still we ftand at variance about the fenfe,
which should decide matters between vs. Next we read the Holy
Fathers (for our Sectaries like not Tradition) they produce their
Teſtimonies; we interpret. We produce ours; They alfo inter-
pret. Obferue well I fay. Are we not as much at variance about
the fenſe of theſe Fathers, which are fuppofed à Principle to end
M 2
our
4 reflection
neceffary for
all that wri
te Contro.
uerfies.
How Difpu-
tes are made
endless,
92 Difc.1. C. 11. Proteftants make
A iußt paral.
lel between
Arians and
Protestants.
our debates, as about the very meaning of Gods word? And doth
not the matter in queftion ftill remain vndecided? Moft euidently
yes. Therefore, vnless fome other means be afforded whereby
we may come more eafily to the knowledge and belief of the
reuealed truth in this Myſtery, (may Sectaries gloffes haue place)
all are caſt into à labyrinth of feeking, without hope of finding
what God will haue vs to belieue. In à word the plain truth is
thus.
9.
Sectaries will haue vs to difpute of Religion, but on fuch
Terins as shall be fure neuer to end one difficulty. That is, they
will haue vs to reafon about matters of higheft confequence, and
with it deftroy the bift ground of all reasoning. I fay therefore. If
Religion were to be proued by Scripture only (add to Scripture the
authorities of Fathers) when euery one makes that fenfe of fcriptu-
re orthodox, which he conceiues to be fo, Religion ere this day
had been long fince deftroyed. For the Arian would haue his fense
paffe for truth, The Pelagian his, The Monothelite his, The
Proteftant his. All theſe different fenfes admitted, deſtroy the very
Effentials of Chriſtian Religion. And for this reafon I would fain
learn of any knowing man, What that owned Principle is, whereby
the Sectary proues the fenfe he giues of Scripture to be more
certainly à rouealed Truth, than that gloffe is which either Arian
or Pelagian forceth out of the very book which Proteftants read?
I affert boldly, they are all alike: Gueffes and meer fancies guide
them, and nothing els. The Arians fenfe is not clear, no more
is the Proteftants: The Arian has no vniuerfal Tradition for his
fenſe, no more hath the Proteftant. The Arian has no vniuerfal
confent of Fathers, no more has the Proteftant. The Arian has no
Church euer reputed Orthodox which owned his fenfe, no more
hath the Proteftant. Now ifthe Proteftant recurr to the Primiti-
ue Church, The Arian will go higher to the very Apoftles
preaching, and auouch that his fenfe was taught by thoſe firſt
Mafters of the Gofpel. I fay it once more, they are all alike,
there is no difference between them. The Arians glofs is as good
as the Proteftants, and the Proteftants wholly as bad as the Arians:
10. Hence
true Religion vnknown.
93.
Protestants
Condemned
ro. Hence I fay. 2. The Proteftant cannot aduance any thing
like à proof in behalf of his own new opinions, and he is as farr
from Principles, when he oppofes Catholick Doctrin. You haue
the reafon giuen already. No proof, lefs fure than the true fenfe
of Scripture, taught and deliuered by à Church confeffedly ortho-
dox. No proof, lefs firm than that Churche's authority and her
receiued Tradition, can indubitably afcertain any of Chrift's Sacred
Doctrin. But it is euident Proteftants want fuch proofs, when
they either plead for their own opinions, or impugn Catholik
Doctrin, And to make good what I fay, I appeal to their own
writings and ask euery iudicious Reader, whether he euer yet heard by their own
Proteftant whilft he afferts no Tranfubstantiation, (for example) No writings.
Sacrifice of the Mass no Inuocation of Saints, fay plainly and pofitiuely
vpon à folid ground: Such an ancient Church reputed Orthodox con-
feffedly denied Tranſubſtantiation, Inuocation of faints, the Sacrifice
of the Altar &c? Such à paffage of Scripture fenfed and interpre-
ted by that Orthodox Church, or general confent of Fathers
agreeing with known Scripture and Church Doctrin, decried theſe
Catholick Tenets, as we Sectaries do now?
as we Sectaries do now? Has euer Proteftant
I fay, gone thus plainly to work? No God knowes. Ile highly Sectaries
extoll the man that shall offer at it. What then is their ſtrain of handle con-
writing. All à long à meer cheat. They either argue negati- trouerfies.
uely. We find not, forfooth, Such Doctrins in antiquity (which is
falſe) and, though true, t'is to no purpofe; Or, they cite you
two or three ambiguous Teftimonies of the Fathers, gloss, and
fenſe them as they pleaſe, and then cry victory. Thus Mr: Stil-
lingfleet proceed's as you shall fee prefently. I fay, No fuch mat-
ter. An ambiguous Teftimony of à Father gloffed or fenfed by
you, is wholly infufficient to ground faith vpon, or to affert ab-
folutely This is Chrifts Doctrin, without an ancient Orthodox
Church, which indubitably maintaine'd the Pofition and that
fenfe you would draw from à Father. And mark well what I fay,
for we shall afterwards end all controuerfies by it. In the mean
time who is there fo far from reaſon, that can perfwade himſelfe
that I or any ought to reiect what my Church teaches, becauſe à
a
M 3
>
Sectary
In what
Manner
94
Difc. 1. C. 11. Proteftants make
Sectary offer's to draw fome few Fathers to à new fenfe which
no Orthodox Church euer heard of? When all know, or should
know, that no priuate mans opinion, no doubtful Text, much
leffe Sectaries gloffes added to an ambiguous fentence, can affure
me what Chrift's Doctrin is, which, as I faid, euer ftand's firm
vpon vndubitable Principles, or à Belieuer ought not to own it as
Doctrin truely reuealed.
II.
:
But before I prefs this point further, and shew vpon what
certain Principle the Catholick relies, when the Scriptures fenfe
(the like is of the Fathers) is debated, I muft needs entertain you
à little (becauſe it much auail's to my prefent purpoſe) with à few
known Authorities of Fathers which either conuince our Catho-
lick Doctrin of Chrifts real Prefence in the Euchariſt, or (we may
boldly fay) no truth was euer eftablished by thofe great lights of
the Church. I fay only à fe for it is not my intent to collect
half of what is vfually quoted by Catholick Authors, my chief
ayme being thus much at prefent, to make this truth manifeft.
ded in Citing That as long as Sectaries iarr with vs about the fenfe of Fathers and only
the Eathers. deliuer opinatiuely their contrary Sentiments, ſo long they do no more
but without fruit beat the aire and diſpatch no work. Recourfe
therefore muſt be had to à clearer Principle, whereof we shall af-
terward treat at large. Now as I promifed one Authority is to be
examined.
What is
chiefly inten
Theoderets Teftimony alleged aboue, Contains most
12.
Catholick Doctrin.
>
Whilft I was in hand with this Chapter à Gentleman of
our Nation pleaſed to tell me of à late little book, called to his
remembtance, The Rule of Faith, wherein one paffage of Theoderet
is much vrged and thought vnanswerable. After fome Diſcourſe
1 shewed him my notes in the other Treatiſe. Difc. 4. C. 7. n. 5.
where vnto He replied modeftly, Surely Theoderet faies more,
who either muſt fuppofc the very inward ſubſtance of bread not
changed
true Religion unknown.
1
AHI
changed at all, or his Conference with the Eutichian Heretick be- what fa-
comes forceleffe, and this the little book preffeth moft. Sr, faid ries would
I. It feem's very fttange, that your late book bring's again to force from
light fuch ftale obiections, long fince anfwered by one (to fay this au?Q=
rity.
nothing of many others) of our own Nation, the learned Bre-
reley. Pleaſe to read with me Theoderet's own words firft, and
Brereley afterward. We turned to Theoderet, Paris Print 1642.
Tom. 4. Dialog: 2. called Inconfufus Dialogus, and began with the
pag. 84. Next I produced Brereley of the Liturgie of the Mass
Colain Print 1620. dedicated to our late Soueraign Charles the
firft, then Prince of wales. Tract. 2. Sect. 8. P. 208. and fect:
11. page chiefly. 252. Hauing perufed both, the Gentleman
wondred his little book paffed ouer fo flightly the main thing
confiderable in this Dialogue, and that no word of anfwer was
returned to the obferuations of Mr. Brereley, adding, it would
do well to make the truth à little better known, which is my
intent at prefent.
>
13. Firſt, it cannot be doubted, but that the Eutychian
Heretick concealed vnder the name of Eranftes, held our Lords
whole Sacred body after his Afcenfion changed into his Diuinity.
Contrariwife, Theoderet called, Orthodoxus, oppugn's the Herefy,
and faith, Chrifts body remain's as it was before, true humane natu-
re most glorious, and not conuerted into the Diuinity. Again,
all who haue read the Dialogue know well, that the context to
our prefent purpoſe is as followes. After the Orthodox had pro-
feffed his belief of the Holy Eucharift to be the true body and
blood ofChrift, Eranistes the Heretick begin's his plea. In good time
has't thou mentioned these Diuine Mysteries, for from them I will she
thee, that our Lord's body is changed into an other nature. Answer the
refore to my question Ortho. I will answer. Eran: How call'st
thou that which is offered before the inuocation of the Priest? Ortho:
I may not (peak plainly, for it is likely ſome are prefent, not yet admitted
to the Mysteries. Eran: Answer darkly or anigmatically." Ortho : It
is yet, when offered, that meat which is made vp of (uch feeds. Eran:
And how do we call the other fign or Symbole? Ortho: That
Two Contra
y poſitions.
where the
Hereticks
feek's ad-
Ortho: Hantage,
is
96
Difc. 1. C 11. Proteftants make
Phat the
Orthodox
and the
Heretick
belieued,
is alſo à common name, which figuifies a kind of drink, or cup. Eran:
But after the Sanctification ho dos't thou call them? Ortho":
The body and blood of Chrift. Eran: And dost thou belieue that thou
receiues't the body and blood of Chrift. Ortho: OurW TIσTEUW SO I
belicue, Here vpon Eraniftes infer's. As therefore the Symbols
of our Lords body and blood are one thing before the Priests inuoca-
tion, andafter his inuocation are changed, and made other things,
euen fo the Lords body is changed into the Diuine fubftance.
14. Stay à little, Gentle Reader, and fpeak your thoughts
freely. Is it not euident from this part of the Dialogue (the
reft you shall haue prefently) that both the Heretick and the Or-
thodox did here fuppofe the verity of Chrifts real prefence in the
facrament, as à known Doctrin receiued in the Church? The
Heretick fuppofed it; otherwife he had been more than fensless
to haue proued his pretended Tranfubftantiation of Chrifts hu-
mane nature into the Godhead, by vrging à parity taken from
that other Doctrin of the Tranfubftantiation of bread, into
Chriſts body. His inference had been without life moft langui-
shing, had he drawn the false Doctrin of his conceited change
from an other as falfe. viz. From no real change made in the bread
after confecration. For how lame an inference would this haue
been? Bread in the Sacrament remain's, as it was before, fubftan-
tially bread, only deputed to à holy vfe, that is, not really changed
at all, yet from thence I will conclude that Chrifts humane
nature is really changed into the fubftance of his Diuinity. As
who should ſay. Becauſe bread is not fubftantially changed into
Chriſts body, I will infer that the humane nature is changed
into the Godhead, which is pure nonfenfe. And as great
Nonfenfe would it haue been, had he only fuppofed the extrinfick
facramental change of Proteftants or from thence drawn his inferen-
ce, that Chrifts body was really changed into his Diuinity:
For the moft which can be inferred out of this facramental change
only, is that Chrift's humane nature admit's in like manner of
fome new extrinfecal denomination.
The Heretially
rick juppoſes
À true
Change in
bread, accor
ding to the
Catholick
Principle.
>
15. Now that Theoderet or the Orthodox fuppofes alfo the
known
true Religion vnknown.
97
>
Theoderet
also supposes
real chan.
à
ge.
known Doctrin of the Church in this Mystery is manifeft vpon
thefe grounds. 1. You fee how he was prouoked by the Here-
tick to deny the real prefence and change of bread into Chrifts
body. After fanétification how do'st thou call them? Again. Do'st
thou belieue that thou takes the body and blood of Chrift &c? Ob-
ferue I beseech you. Might not Theoderet thus ftrongly pres
fed, haue quite ouerthrown his Aduerfaries argument,
had he
belieued as Proteftants belieue that the inward fubftance of
bread is not changed into Chrifts body? For vpon this fup-
pofition he should haue replied. Thou ask'st me what theſe things
are after fanctification? I anfwer they are fubftantially bread
and wine, though fignes of Chriſts body and blood. I answer, I take
not Orally the true body and blood of Chriſt, but bread and wine
only made à Sacrament. If therefore they ſtill remain bread, and
wine as before, I acquit my felf clearly, and render thy argument
forceleffe, for thou cans'r not infer, becauſe I and the Church hold
bread and wine, not fubftantially changed in the Sacrament, That
Chriſts humane nature is really and fubftantially changed into the
Diuinity. But Theoderet, as you hear, return's no fuch anfwer,
but pofitiuely afferts the contrary plainly enough. They are the bo-
dy and blood of Chrift. I receive that body and blood. &c. Though
he warily forbeares to exprefs the change too fignificantly, be-
cauſe perhaps of fome prefent, not yet admitted to the Myſteries.
Again. And here is my. 2. ground. Theoderet who was an
Orthodox Father, penned this Dialogue, and therefore as the lear-
ned Brereley obferues, neither could nor would haue propoun- Clear rea
ded the hereticks Argument vpon the Churches then receiued fons proue
Doctrin of Tranfubftantiation, (which we fee manifeftly done) that fuppoft.
had that Doctrin been then ftrange, vnknown, or reputed falfe.
Much less could he haue wrote as he doth. That the Symbols after
the Priest's inuocation are changed and made other things had our Secta-
ries Doctrin of no Tranfubftantiation been then taught by the
Church and reputed true. 3. Theoderet's great circumfpection
was needleffe. I may not speak openly, for it is likely fome are prefent
c. If he had belieued no other prefence of Chrift in the Sa-
N
crament,
tion.
98
Difc. C. 11. Protestants make
The Centu
rift's
Cenfure
Theoderet.
Theodoret's
Aertion.
crament, than that, which Proteftants call Sacramental: He might
well without fcruple in that opinion, haue declared their ſenſe, and
faid openly. The Sacrament before confecration was à plain piece
of bread, and fo it is fubftantially bread afterward. Thou fpea-
keft improperly Eranistes, whift thou fuppofeft the Symbols
changed and made other things. I tell thee, they are not changed
intrinfecally, but totally remain in their inward fubftance as they
were, only fignifying Chrift body and blood as they are deputed to
à holy vfe. Thus the Orthodox should haue both anfwered, and
excepted againſt his Aduerfary, had Proteftant Doctrin been in
thofe dayes owned by Chriftians, but he goes on in à quite
different ftrain, as is already declared. Hence I fay, this part of
the Dialogue is fo inuincible à proof againſt Proteftants in behalf
of the real Prefence that it cannot be anfvered, and therefore the
Centurift's with other Hereticks quoted by Brereley. pag. 111.
and pag. 258. hauing charged S. Chrifoftome with the Doctrin
of Tranfubftantiation, cenfure Theoderet vpon the fame fcore as
one that fpeak's dangerously in the matter. Theſe men it feem's,
faw no great force in the later part of the Dialogue which our
modern Proteftants fo much vrge, and followes thus.
16.
When Eraniftes had afferted that the Symbols by the
inuocation of the Prieft are changed and made other things,
and from that change inferred, that our Lords body after his
Afcenfion, was conuerted into the Diuine fubftance. The
Orthodox Anfwer's. Thou art caught in the netts, thou hast wouen,
For, the Mystical fymbols after Sanctification go not away from their nature.
For, they remain in their former effence, and figure, and form, and may
be ſeen and touched as before. But yet they are vnderstood to be those things,
Which they are made, and belieued and adored to be thoſe things, as they
are bolieued. Thus
Thus the Latin interpreter render's Theoderet's
words (you shall haue prefently an other Lection) though truely
to read them as you ſee here, after due reflection made vpon the
precedent part of the Dialogue, is fo fully enough to afcertain
euery one of this learned Father's meaning, that I wonder any
iudicious Man can fcruple at it. The genuin fenfe is. Thou
Eraniftes
true Religion buknown.
99
>
His whole
Eraniftes maintain's that the vifible circumfcribed body of our
Sauiour was after his Afcenfion fwallowed as it were vp, or totally fenfe decla
changed into his Godhead. To illuftrate this thy Doctrin, thou red.
takeſt à proof from the Myftical fignes or Symbols of the bleffed
Sacrament, and not only from the inward fubftance of bread, which
thou acknowledgeft changed. I tell thee thou art caught in thy
own net,the parity fail's there,for the Myſtical fignes remain toſenſe
as before in the fame exteriour form and fubftance, they are feen
felt &c. Dareft thou Eranistes fay, Chrift's facred body retain's yet
the fame exteriour form it had on earth? Has it yet in Heauen
the fame dimenfions, as theſe fymbols haue after Confecration?
Is it visible, or extended? Anfwer as thou pleafeft. Here is an
vnanswerable Dilemma for thee. Either thou maintains't that Adilemma,
Chris'ts glorious body is now vifible and extended as the Symbols
of the Sacrament are, Or, contrariwife,not fenfible, not seen, not ex-
tended. Grant the firft: Thou denies't thy own Doctrin, and
nuft affert that his whole glorious body is not conuerted into the
Godhead. Grant the fecond, or fay, it has not the fame exte-
riour form, the fame vifibility and extenfion, Thy inftance, and
proofs taken from the Symbols of the Sacrament, are Eo ipfo made
hull, and forceleffe, for thefe fignes keep the fame form as before,
they are perceptible to fenfe, extended &c. and thus thou art
both caught and conuinced.
17. By what is now faid you find Theoderet's diſcourſe moſt
folid againft the Heretick, who would needs infer, grounding
himfelfe vpon the change made in the Sacrament, that Chrift's
whole humane nature was conuerted into the Diuinity. Thus
much faith Theoderet, is euidently falfe, for theſe Symbols remain
in their exteriour form, vnaltered, but Chris'ts humane body with
thee remain's not fo, for all in it, the very exteriour is changed
into the Godhead : Therefore thy proof, taken from the fymbols Theoderet
of the Sacrament, not changed at all,is void of ftrength, faint, and only speak's
weightleffe. Now that Theoderet fpeak's only of the outward the
fymbols of the Sacrament, is manifeft. Firft by what is noted accidents
already, where he faith we are partakers of the true body and blood remaining.
of
N 2
Species or
100
Difc. 1. C. 11. Proteftants make
Theoderets
Text, du-
bious.
How the
Cardinal
read's,
of Chrift. 2. By his anfwer, to the Heretick, where he openly pro
feffeth, that though theſe fymbols are ſeen and handled as before
yet to the vnderstanding, and Faith, they contain the things we true-
ly belieue. That is Chrift's real body and blood. And thus much He
proues in the following words where he afferts, that they are to be ado-
red no otherwise than Christ's immortal body is now adored, fitting at the
right hand of His Father, for in both places, as you may read in the
text,
the fame word of Diuine honour is referred to Chrift in the
Sacrament, and now glorious in heauen.
18. You muft here haue à word of the other Lection already
hinted at which clear's all, and takes away the leaft shadow of à
difficulty. The moft eminent and learned Cardinal Perron pro-
pound's it, and proues it allo abfolutely the beft, by fix ftronge
Arguments Liu. 2. De L'Euchariftie Chap. 12. P. 539. Firſt
faith he There is certainly in Theoderet's Greek Text à dubious
form of ſpeaking, perhaps vfed on fet purpoſe becauſe of ſome Au-
ditors prefent, not yet initiated, or firſt inſtructed in theſe Myſte-
ries. The Original words are thus. μένα γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς προτέρας
οὐσίας καὶ τοῦ σχήματος καὶ τοῦ εἴδους, καὶ ὁρατὰ ἔτι καὶ ἁπτά α
That is. The fymbols remain in their former effence, and figu-
re, and form and may be feen &c. But read them thus faith the
Cardinal, by a Tranfpofition.μένα γὰς ἐπὶ καὶ τοῦ χήματος καὶ τοῦ
είδους τῆς προτέρας εσίας
ídous Tns πgorigas delas &c. That is For they remain, and, in
the form, and, in the figure of the firft fubstance, and all difficulty
ceafes. For by this conftruction Theoderet only fayes, the acci-
dents or ſpecies of bread and wine remain, intimating nothing at
all of any inward fubstance of bread remaining, nay, his whole
context fuppoſes the inward fubftances changed into Chrifts
body.
à
19. Ifthis Conſtruction be admitted, fo that the Genitiue cafe
solas, be as it is à Genitiue, and the other two follow in form of
Latin ablatiues, you haue this Connatural fenfe. Manent in prioris
effentia & formâ & figurâ. The Symbols remain in the form and figure
of their first effence, which preiudices nothing the real Transmutation
of bread into Chrift's body, but much confirm's it. But fuch à
Con-
true Religion unknown.
ΙΟΙ
Conftruction, add's the learned Cardinal, or Tranfpofition of
words is not only poffible, but very frequent in the Greek Lan-
guage, whereof he giues examples, and one out of Theoderet.
σώμα τα δεσπότε τῆς φύσεως. That is. The body of our Lord of the
nature. In lieu of faying. oua rus Dúrews To SEOTÓTOU. id, eft.
The body of the nature of our Lord,
20. The Cardinal maintain's the conftruction now giuen both
as the more elegant, and moſt agreable to Theoderet's whole con-
text, for many found reafons. Here is one taken from the Au-
thors very next words. But they are vnderflood to be those things
Which they are made, and belieued and adored. How Adored? As
they are truely belieued: That is, as containing the true body and
blood of Chrift. For were this not really fo, Chrift could not
be adored. For as none can adore one that meerly takes
him the Maiefty of à King, who is not; with an Adoration due
to that Maiefty, fo none can honour or adore Chrift in the Eu-
chariſt with an honour due to Chrift, when truely and really he
is not prefent, but faith Theoderet Chrift is to be really ado-
red in the Eucharift, and Confequently he is really prefent
there.
vpon
21. For the reft I remit the Reader to C. Perron who in
the following Chapters diffolues and moft clearly, what euer
can be obiected against his Doctrin. To end this point, be
pleaſed to reflect vpon this one particular. Had Theoderet faid.
The Symbols remain in their firſt effence, figure, and form,
and included in that very fpeech, as our Aduerfaries will haue the
very fubftance of bread, He had spoken moft improperly which ill
befeem's fo learned an Author, for vpon this fuppofition he fpeak's
as incongruously as if one should fay. Peter this very hour
Who is himselfe both Soul and body, remain's in him felfe, that is,
in his Soul and body. But if you read with the Cardinal Thus.
Car ils demeurent, & en la forme, & en la figure de la premiere fub
ftance. They remain and in the form, and in the figure, of the
firft fubftance of bread (before Confecration really formed and
figured by them) the Conftruction is good, the fenfe moft clear,
perfect, and without exception.
N 3
22. Thus
The reason
why be
read's fo.
One reflec
tion more.
The Cardi-
nals reading
clear's all.
102
Difc. 1. C. 11. Fathers affert
22.
anfwe-
Thus much I haue noted to fatisfy the Gentleman, and
hope neuer to hear Theoderet obiected hereafter against Tranfub-
ftantiation. If I doe, I shall fay an old obferuation of mine al-
waies prouęs true, and t'is, That the best Arguments of Sectaries
Printed and reprinted in their little books, are like old thread-bare
garments quite out of fashion caft off and reiected, I mean,
red ouer and ouer by Catholick Authors, yet Brusht vp, muft
appear as new, And this, less blamable, may pass (for they can
do no better,) but methinks it is intolerable, that they bring again
to light fuch worn-out ſtuff, as you fee now done in this particular,
and dare not inform the Reader, how often it hath been torn à
pieces. Yet the worſt of all remain's, Viz. That they build
their faith vpon fand, one dubious Authority of à Father (if yer
dubious) fupports it and feem's to theſe new ſpirits ground
enough, to foment Schifin, to maintain à rebellion againſt as
ancient Church, which neuer belieued as they do,
CHAP. XIL
A Digreßion concerning the Real Prefence. The Fa
thers plainly affert it. Sectaries gloffes friuolous.
The agreement of the Church and Fathers
I,
make à Doctrin indubitable. The Catho
lick's certain Principle. A word
with Mr: Stillingfleet
B Stilling feet's Milakes, turn befeech you to his count
Efore we produce thefe Teftimonies and lay open Mr¿
of Proteftancy. Part. 3. c. 3. page. 567. Where he treat's of
Tranfubftantiation and calls it an vnreasonable Doctrin becauſe re-
pugnant to fenfe and reafon alfo. It feem's contrary to fenfe
for
Difc. LC. iz. the real prefence.
103
Proteftants.
for fenfe tells vs, what we fee and taft is bread after confecration
and reafon vpon that fenfible fuggeftion, ought to conclude, it ftill
remains fubftantially bread. Obferue I befeech you, how the
Gentleman to maintain his proofs drawn from fenfe, is not only
forced to reiect the plain fenfe of Chrift's words according to
the letter. (This is my body which is giuen for you: This is the Chalice
of the new Teftament, wich is, or, shall be shed for you) But more Mr Silling:
ouer, how he is thrown into à deſperate quarrel wherein he will quarrel's
neuer come off hanfomly; For, he is engaged to make not only with all
the Profeffors of the Roman and Greek Church, who indubita- Chriftians,
bly belieue the Real prefence, more than ftupid (becaufe oppofit except à ferr
to that he call's fenfe and reafon) but befides, He contraft's with
à far greater moral body of Chriftians; I may rightly ftile it the
Reprefentatiue of all named Chriftians in the world, excepting à few
Proteftants. I'le shew you how. At this day there are in that
famous Temple of Hierufalem dedicated to the Holy Crofs (cal-
led the Church of the Sepulcre) Catholicks, Gracians, Abyßins
(thoſe moſt ancient Chriftians) Syrians, Maronits, Georgians, and
others. All haue their Altars in one and the fame Church, and all
(though different in fome Doctrinal points, and Ceremonies)
vnanimouſly belieue à true vnbloody Sacrifice, and with it the
real prefence of Chrift, after Confecration. No moderne fe-
taries haue place here witneffe Prince Radziuill in his Ierofoly.
Peregrin. Antwerpe Print 1614. Pag. 109. Nay, they are fo mean-
ly thought of, that when the Prince named Lutherans, Zwin-
glians &c. The party he conuerfed with, demanded whether they
were Chriftians. What Chriftians faid he? and haue no Pricft, no
Altar no facrifice offerred vp to god in this facred place, where
Chrift wrought our redemption? you may fee more hereof in the
following page of this Author. In the mean while shall any
fay that a Reprefentatiue, of fo many Chriftians are to be
deemed fooles vpon this account that they contradict ſenſe
and reafon? It is fo vaft à Paradox that though Mr: Stillingf:
should write volumes on this fubiect, He would neuer speak à
probable word against fuch à cloud of witneffes. You may add
à
here-
104
Fathers affert
The Chine-
Mot Cen-
cerr's the
herevnto if you pleafe, thofe many Chriftians conuerted to our
fes diuity. Catholick Faith in that vaft kingdome of China (à People, the
whole world knowes moft ingenious) All of them, as I haue
heard from two worthy men, à long time Millioners there (the
one is yet liuing) who reclaimed many from their errours, raiſe
moft difficulties before their conuerfion againft that one Myſtery
of our Faith, the Incarnation of the Diuine word, but after fatisfaction
receiued in this particular, they fubmit eafily to the belief of other
Catholick verities, and neuer Scruple in the leaft at the Mystery
of the Eucharift, as à Doctrin Contrary to fenfe and reason. And they
proceed moft rationally, for in real truth, there are incomparably
Certation greater difficulties in this one Myſtery of the Incarnation, to say
nothing of the Trinity, (might weak reafon decide the cafe) than
in the other. What? That God who is effentially immutable be-
comes man by à vnion betwixt the Diuine word and humane na
ture, which vnion toucheth fo intrinfecally on that Diuine Per-
fon, that we muſt truly fay, This word is now intrinfecally affe-
cted otherwife then he was before; and to conceîue all this done
without à real change (may the Common notion of mutation
ftand. Mutari est rem aliter fe habere) is à difficulty ſo great, (ſay good
Diuins) that it hath rack't many à ftrong wit, and yet can fcarfe be
well folued. Vtramque enim Subftantiam in vnam conueniffe perfonam.
&c. (They are words of S. Leo Sermo. 9. de Natiu. Dmi)
■ifi fides credat, fermo non explicat. That is the Myſtery is very
abftrufe. I verily belieue Mr Stilling: Metaphyfick will not
reach fo high as to giue fall fatisfaction herein, though he is
pleaſed to plead euidence drawn from ſenſe and reaſon againſt the B. Sa-
crament, as if forfooth, the full portion of both, were like à legacy
bequeathed him and à few Sectaries, whilft fo many Fathers, fo
many Schoolmen, foo many profound Doctors of our renowned
Church, muft haue no fmall share allowed in either, but are as
you fee cer
fee cenfured like men fensless, and vnreaſonable
Mr filling
fie: argues
mnprobably.
2. Say, I beseech you. Who can perfwade himſelf that thofe
three worthy eminent Cardinals, Bellarmin, Perron, and Richelieu (all
haue writ on this fubiect, and are famous the whole world ouer
for
the Real prefence.
105
for their great wisdom and learning) who dare, I fay, without à
meaſureless audacity, caft thefe ( could we vrge no more) into the
Catalogue of dull, fenfles, and vnreaſonable men? None would
haue ventured on fuch à vaft improbability but one who either
knowes not, or cares not what he faies. Now add to theſe the
confent and acknowledgment of the whole Orthodox world, you
may iuftly fay, it is much harder, or there is more violence offered
to mans vnderſtanding in conceiuing, that God who is effential
Verity (and therefore inclined to preferue the Church he founded
in truth) should permit all thofe millions of Chriſtians who haue
belieued the Real preſence, to be fo long deceiued in their Faith ;
than to fubmit vpon fo great authority, to the very mystery we belieue. Reafon mork
For by fubmitting to the mystery, we proceed rationally, and pru- rack'd, by
dently iudge, that an infinite power can do more than our weak denying,
capacities reach vnto; but if we fay, his Goodnes hath permitted ing the
the Church to be feduced by à gross errour age after age, or that Miftery.
ſo many Chriſtians haue been cheated into à falfe belief of fo high
à Myſtery; we force our vnderſtandings more, we clash with an eui-
dent Principle, and muft affert, that God has no care of his Church,
or of mans faluation. The blame therefore if we be in errour,
would at laſt redound to God, as I shall amply proue in the next
Difcourfe.
them belie
3. Thus much noted, Let vs look à little into the ftrength of
Mr Stillingf: weak argument, which muft run thus. What I fee
feem's, ar is bread to the Eye and taft, yet t'is not bread but
Chriſts facred body, therefore the Myſtery is contrary to ſenſe.
One diftinction ouerthrowes this lame difcourfe. I answer in à
word. What I fee feems, or is the inward ſubſtance of bread, I deny
it, What I ſee ſeems, yea really is, the outward accidents or ſpecies
of bread, I grant that. Therefore the Myſtery is contrary to fenfe,
I. deny the confequence. The Argument purely fallacious fuppo- Our Adver
feth the immediate obiect of our fenfe to be the inward fubftan- faries
ce of bread, which yet as euery Puny knowes is not fo in com- fallacy,
folued,
mon Philofophy, for the immediate obiect of the Eye is colour or
light, and fo much remain's after confecration, as well as other
O
accidents
106
Difc. 1. C. 12. Fathers affert
accidents doe, but theſe fenfible obiects are in known Philoſophy
diftinct from the inward ſubſtance of bread,which is not immediatly
vifible, tangible, or taftable. Mr Stilling: therefore gain's little by
this dreaming way of arguing. Now à word to his plea of
Reafon.
4. He may fay. Reafon tell's me there is bread ftill after con-
fecration. Why fo? furely the anſwer muſt be, becauſe ſenſe
vpon the diſcouery of its immediate obiects, colour, quantity &c. in-
duceth reaſon to conclude there is bread vnder thefe accidents. I
anfwer. Reaſon thus far would well conclude, were it not that à
ftronger Principle enters here, which ouerawes (as it were) weak
reafon and bids it yeild. Pray you tell me. Did not fenfe and
reafon alfo, affure Chrifts Difciples Matth: 14. before S. Peter was
feen walking on the water, that,that liquid fubftance could not bear
vp à weighty body without finking? yes moft affuredly: yet they
faw him walk, and reafon following the guidance of their eyes
checked that other natural difcourfe, and acknowledged à Miracle.
And thus weak reafon muft yeild in the prefent Myftery when à
eiples where ftronger Principle interuen's, and forceth it to fubmit. Thanks be
to God. Habemus firmiorem propheticum fermonem. 1. Petr. 2. we ha-
Faith ralies. ue yet à ftronger Principle to vp hold our caufe than weak difcour-
fe is, The fpirit of eternal truth. The express words of Chrift
which the wit of man shall neuer draw to any other fenfe, but what
we Catholicks own. 2. The conftant profeffed Doctrin of the two
Churches, Greek and Latin, yea, and I fay more, of all other
called Chriftians, as is now declared. 3. Might we here introduce
the known Teftimonies of moft ancient Fathers, They are fo nu-
merous, and fo fully fignificant, that would à Catholick ftudy to
fet down the truth of this Doctrin, he cannot do it in clearer lan-
guage.
StrongePrin-
upon our
5. Good God faith S. Chryfoftome. lib. 3. de Sacerd: Cap.
4. What a wonderful miracle is this? how great is Gods love towards
mankind? Behold who fitreth aboue with his Father, in one and the
fame moment of time is touched by the hands of vs all, and giueth himself to
fuch as are defirous to receive and imbrace him. Theophilact c. 4. in
26. Matth.
the Real prefence
107
Fathers
Speak in our
26. Matth. Bread is tranfelemented or transformed by an ineffable opera- The ancient
tion, although to vs it feem's bread. Because we are weak and haue
horrour to cate raŭ flesh, effecially the flesh of man, for this reafon bread
appears, but in the effence and fubftance it is not bread. Again, Chrift bokalfe.
faid not, this is à figure, but this is my body, for by an in:ffable opera-
tion, bread is changed &c. Indeed it appears Bread, but it is really
flesh. Yet more. How often do the Fathers,S. Cyril of Hierufalem,
S. Chrifoftome and others exhort vs not to come vnto the Eucha-
rift as vnto fimple bread and wine, for fay they, it is the body and
blood of Chrift according to our Lords affirmation. Although fenfe fuggest
the Contrary, yet let faith confirm thee. Iudge not of the thing by thy tast
&c. Again. know this and with full certitude belieue, that the bread
feen is not bread, though it seems fo to the taft, but the body of Chrift, and
that wine feen is not wine, though taft iudge it to be wine, but the blood of
Chrift. Though, faith S.Chrifoftome,what we fee, feem's to our fenfe and
thinking to be bread, Let Gods faying (This is my body) Master our fenfe
and reafon. Let ps doe this in all things especially in the Myfleries, not
regarding alone the things, which lie before vs, but holding fast to his
Words, For by his words we cannot be-coufened, our senses may be
deceived, his words cannot be vntrue, our fenfe is often tims beguiled
&c. Thus thefe Fathers known to euery one (to omit in nu
merable others) ſpeak and belieue, thus the Church of Chrift
fpeaks and belieues alfo, and both as you fee, ftand oppofite to
Mr Stilling: weak plea drawn from Senſe and Reaſon.
6. I might yet cite S. Chrifoftome. In. 1. Cor: hom: 24. Other Au
who faith. The kingly body in heauen, is ſet before vs on earth. We thorities.
touch it, and do not only touch it, but eate it. This body, the barba- Chrifoftom
rous Magi after à long iourney adored with fear and trembling. Thou Pachafsus
(add's the Saint) See'ft him not now in the manger, but on the Altar, Damaſcen]
not held in à womans arms, but by à Prieft prefent &c. Therefore in
his Oration of S. Perhilg: he explain's himſelffurther. Truly, this
table fupplies the place of the manger, for here also is our Lords body
laid. Pafchafius à latin author, who liued about the year 800.
is fo express for the real Prefence and Tranfubftantiation in his
book De Corp. & Sanguine Dm'i, that the Centurift's Cent. 9. C. 4.
O 2
Col.
108
Diſc.1.C. 12: Fathers affert
The Teſtic
mony of S.
Ignatius
Martyr,
clear.
S. Iuftin's
alſo moſt
fignificant.
is
Col. 215. Pretorius de Sacramen: Pag: 288. and other Sectaries,
charge him with the Doctrin of Tranfubftantiation and oral eating
of Chrifts body. No less plain and express is S. Iohn Damafcen.
lib. 4. Ortho. Fid. : whofe difcours on this fubiect though long,
moft fignificant. As bread, faith he, naturally meat, and wine, and
Water by drink, are changed into the body and blood of him that eates and
drink's. So this bread propofed, the wine and water also by the inuoca-
tion and comming of the Holy Ghost, are in à miraculous manner conuer-
ted into Chrifts body and blood, neither are they two, but one, and the
fame. Our Lord himself bath faid. This is not à fign of my body, but
my body. This is not à fign of my blood, but my blood. Hence Prætorius.
now citedP.288. reiects the Doctrin, and call's this miraculous
Tranfubftantiation held by S. Iohn Damafeen flight and fabu-
lous, fodo other Sectaries with him alfo.
7. There are yet more ancient authorities moft preffing to our
purpoſe, were it not Adum agere to fay again what has been fo often
noted. Firft the Teftimony ofS. Ignatius Martyr who liued with
our Sauiour and was Scholler to S. Iohn,feem's to me vnaníwerable.
Epift. ad Smirnen : not far from the beginning. They, faith he(that
is certain Sacramentarians) admit not Eucharifts, and oblations, because
they do not Confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Iefus Chrift,
Which flesh fuffered for our fins, and his Father graciouſly raiſed from
the dead. So Theoderet, 12. ages fince. Tom. 4. Dialogo. 3.
reads. And Iaac Voffius who followes the Florentine Copy, differs
little, or rather nothing at all. None can reaſonably call the
Epiftle into doubt which Voffius places before the other Epiftles
and the fenfe as you fee is moft clear.
8. The fecond authority as pregnant, is taken out of S. Iu-
ftin Martyr in his Apology for Chriftians, vfually called the 2.
Apology, Paris print 1615. Towards the end at thofe words. ov
γὰρ ὡς Κοινὸν ἀρτόν, ἐδὲ Κοινὸν πόμα, &c. For we take not this
Eucharist as common bread and common drink, but as Iefus Chrift our Sa-
uiour by the word of God was made flesh, and had for our faluation flesh
and blood; ſo also after the janie manner, we are taught, that the
food bieb by the prayer of the ward is by him confecrated with
thanks-
the Realprefence.
109
The fetaries
S. Iuftin's
true fenfe.
thanksgiuing, of which food our flesh and blood are by transmutation
nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Iefus Chrift which was Incar-
nate. And for proof hereof, he allegeth Chrifts own words.
This is my body. This is my blood. Thus S. Iuftin fpeak's who liued
not long after the Apoftles about the year 150. and nothing can
be more express in behalf of Catholick Doctrin. I know fome
Sectaries Câuil at the expreffion. Kata μeTaborýv. by tranfmuta-
Κατά μεταβολήν.
tion, and think luftin held the Eucharift to be food for the body, Cauil, an-
but his fenfe is clear, for he faith only, That the fame food which swered.
nourishes our bodies by real tranfmutation, is made after confecration
the very body of Christ, and therefore Gafpar Laurentius à learned
Caluinift in his Orthodoxus Confenfus. Pag: 368. tranflates Iuftins
words out of the Greek thus. Sumimus autem hunc panem & bunc
potum non vt Communem, fed eo modo quo edocti fumus, Iefum Chriftum
feruatorem noftrum, habuiffe pro falute nostra, carnem & fanguinem : fic
etiam cibum illum ex quo noftra Caro & fanguis aluntur, poft benedi-
ctionem ipfius, effe carnem & fanguinem Domini. That is in plain
English. The bread or food which naturally nourishes our bodies
is by vertue of Confecration made the facred body of our Incar-
nate Sauiour. Conformable hereunto, Gelenius alfo quoted in
the Annotations vpon S. Irenæus aduerfus Hærefes lib. 4. C. 24.
n. 26. renders S. Iuftins words. Sic per verbum precationis & gra-
tiarum actionis, facratam ab ipfo alimoniam, que mutata, nutrit no-
ftras carnes & fanguinem, IRius Incarnati Iefu carnem & fanguinem effe
didicimus. The Interpreter alfo I follow, fignificantly renders the
fame fenfe. Alimoniam, vnde &c. The food from whence, from
which, or where with, we are nourished, this very aliment is by
Confecration made the body of our Incarnate Iefus. Well, but
admit that Iuftine call's the Eucharift nourishment to our bodies.
›
he makes it not therefore Corporal food, but Spiritual, which
nourishes them to à ioyful refurrection or to immortality, and thus
the other Fathers, chiefly S. Irenæus now cited c. 24. verfus fi-
nem fpeakes. Quomodo, faith he, rurfus dicunt &c? How do
thefe Hereticks plead again, that our flesh shall come to corrup-
tion, and not take life from the body and blood of our Lord,
03
where
How feme
Fathers call
the Encha
rift Nourish-
mint to the
body.
110
Difc. 1. C. 12. Fathers affert
A Conuin
cing Argu-
ment.
which
Sectaries
Cannot
answer.
where with it is nourished? Again. Sic & corpora noftra &c. and
thus our bodies receiving the Eucharist, are not corruptible, hauing hope of
à lorful refurrection. But enough of theſe authorities. Whoeuer
defires more may perufe Cardinal Perron in his. 2. book of the
Holy Eucharift. Out of what is faid already, I argue.
>
!
9. Either the now quoted Fathers and the Church alfo, haue
moſt impiouſly betrayed Chrifts caufe in deliuering falfe Doctrin
contrary to ſenſe and reaſon, or worthily defended à Chriſtian
verity; Grant this fecond, we haue our intent. But if Sectaries
fay theſe Fathers cheated the world into à false belief, and impious-
ly erred in their expreffions: Ponder first, what à frontles impuden-
ce accompanies the reply. Next make this true inference. It is
impoßible, that ſuch à fuppofed vniuer fal errour should euer be raſed out of
the minds of men, by the force of any thing which has the likelyhood of à
receiued Principle. For, what proofs or vndoubted Principles can
poffibly outweigh the express words of Scripture, our Tradition,
the fentiment of the Church, and the iudgement of the Fathers
now alleged? Therefore if we be in errour the wit of man
cannot vnbeguile vs vpon rational proofs and Principles. And
here I vrge Mr Silling: to bring to light his contrary Principles
as full and fignificant (that is, Scripture as clear, Fathers as clear,
Tradition as clear,the Iudgement of fome owned Orthodox Church
as clear and vndoubted) for the opinion he hold's, as we now alle-
ge in the defenſe of our Catholick verity, Belieue it, if he fup-
pofe, as he certainly doth, the Church to haue erred fo grofly
for à thousand years, The Fathers to haue beguiled the world
with their miſtaken and moſt improper expreffions on this ſubiect,
when they meant no fuch thing; He ought to faften vpon found
What feat Principles indeed before we yeild; and muft not think to ouer-
throw our Doctrin or foile vs, with à few gleanings pick't here
and there out of antiquity, fet forth with à hundred falfe and fancied
gloffes. Volumes may be filled with fuch flight ſtuff, which comes
no neerer to Principles, than improbability to Euidence. Will
you hear in paffing one of his improbabilities? If à man, faith
he. P. 567. may be bound to belieue that to be falſe which fenfe iudges
ries are
obliged to.
10
the Real prefence
III
to be true (he means which weak reafon vpon the difcouery of fenfe
fudges true, for our outward fenfes make no iudgement) What affu-
rance can be had of any Miracles Drought to confirm the Chriftian Doctrin? A word to
Or what aſſurance had the Apostles of Chriſts refurrection, if their fight our Aduer
might be deceiued about its proper obiect &c? I am aftonished to read faries ftran-
this, and anſwer briefly. Chrift's Refurrection, (the like I fay of g demand.
Miracles) was moſt vndoubted vpon the diſcouery which fense and
reaſon made in the preſence of ſuch obiects, becauſe no contrary
Principle, fo much as weakly, ftood against that euidence, and
therefore reafon could no more doubt of what was obiected to fen-
fe, then I now doubt of writing theſe lines. But all is contrary in
the preſent Myftery. For here the vnanswerable words of Scriptu-
re, the Authority of my Church, the Clear Teftimonies of Fathers,
the voice and vote of Chriftianity force fubmiffions on me to belie-
ue the Diuine Reuelation, which is either certainly known vpon
thefe grounds, or we boldly fay, no Chriftian verity was euer yet
known vpon any fure Principle.
What, if
10. Perhaps Mr Stilling may roundly grant, that the Greek fetaries
and Latin Church erred in this Doctrin of the real prefence for
many ages, and confequently that innumerable learned Doctors
haue not only been befotted them felues, but moreouer haue ba-
fely drawn millions of Chriſtians into à damnable herefy of belie-
uing that to be Chrifts body, which really is not: Howeuer, he
will honour the Fathers fo far, as to afford them the fauour of his
gloffes. Contra 1. If the Church and all Chriftians erred fo vaft
à time in profeffing this Doctrin, Mr Stilling: is obliged to name
fome Churh reputed Orthodox. 3. or 4. hundred years paft (for
then there was a true Church in the world) which held his opinion,
or as exprefly denyed the real Prefence, as our Church, both then,
and now mantains it, and this will coft him more pains than to
writ an other Account of Proteftancy, for I am fure there was neuer
fuch Church on earth. Contra. 2. If He interpret's the
Fathers, He may as well interpret our Church Doctrin, and and Fathers
make all belieue, that we Catholicks hold not yet the real pre- peak alike
fence. Obferue the fame language in all. That wich in feen is not of this
bread, Mystery.
any
་
deny Church
authority
and explicate
the Fathers?
The Church.
112
Difc. 1.C. 12. Fathers affert
Sectaries
glofjes un-
principled,
worth No-
thing.
'bread, though it feem's ſo to the taft, But the body of Chrift. Our fenfes
may be deceiued, Gods word cannot deceiue vs. The bread indeed is
made the flesh of Christ, and the wine his blood &c. Thus the Fa-
thers deliuer their fenfe. and it is the Churches language alfo.
If therefore Mr Stilling: can fo gloss theſe words of the Fathers,
as to make them ſpeak Proteftancy, or not to deliuer our Catho-
lick Doctrin, I should not wonder, if in the next book ſet forth
he aduentures to draw the very Definitions of the Council of
Trent to his Proteftant opinion of no real prefence. If he did ſo,
I am fure his attempt would proue as vn fuccesful in the one cafe, as
in the other.
II.
Well. But permit him to interpret the Fathers, and tỏ
fall foule as he is wont to do, vpon our fuppofed Church errours;
what is the vtmoft that followes? Thus much only. Meer talk
without Principles. For I ask vpon what Principle may I or any
know, that his gloffes (which ftriue to dead the very, obuious fenfe
of the Fathers plain words) implie not altogether as little fatisfac-
tion, as little affurance, as the very Doctrin doth which he would
defend by it? Iffo (and fo it is moſt euidently) as his Doctrin
before his gloffes was improbable to the reſt of Chriftians, ſo his
interpretations goe no higher, but are euery whit as impro-
bable.
12.
I muft therefore tell Mr Stilling: that vnless his expla→
nation of Scripture and Fathers rely on à certain Principle distinct
from, and extrinfick, to his gloffes, they are worth nothing. For what
auail's it me to read his gloffes, when no receiued Principle vp-
hold's them but fancy? Reflect à little. I read in Scripture.
This is my body. My Church tell's me the literal fenfe is true. The
Fathers as you haue heard, and the Tradition of two Churches
confirm this fenfe: Now comes Mr Stillingfleet and firſt reject's
my Churches authority, then begins to ftrain the Fathers Tefti-
monies with his gloffes. Stay, Sr, fay I. I except against your glos-
fes, and iuftly ask whether they are true or Counterfeit Coyn?
If true, they ftand vpon Principles now briefly hinted at. Proue
this and I'le reuerence your gloffes, but if you fail (and fail you
muft)
Difc.1.C. 12, the Real prefence.
113
muft) your Doctrin and gloffes are both alike Counterfeit, and
thoughts of fancy only.
13. Hee may reply. When Proteftants cite, the Fathers
againſt the Real prefence,For example, That of S. Auftin, or Theode-
ret mentioned aboue, we Catholicks explicate them, and now
(which feem's foul play) we except againſt his Gloſſes, For,If we in- An Obiet
terpret, why may not Hee doe fo alfo? A word only in paffing con-
>
tion.
formable to what is noted aboue. If to decide this one Contro-
uerfy of Chriſt's Real Prefence, recourfe be had to the Fathers
and the two aduerfe Parties do no more but load fuch Teftimonies
as are alleged with their priuate interpretations, the Difpute will
neuer be ended, Becaufe priuate gloffes leaue the two Diffenters
as much at iarrs as they were before: God therefore, as I haue often
faid, affords an eafier means to know his reuealed Truths. Now
my Anſwer to the obiection is. The Catholick then only blames
the Proteftant's wilful interpretation, when it sham fully out-faces,
the clear words ofà Father, and when the Gloffer has no vndu-
bitable Principle diftinct from his glofs wheron to fettle his
Doctrin, as he has not in our prefent Controuerfy. Obferue
well. The Fathers fay, What wee fee is not bread, but Chrifts very
body. The Sectary interpret's. That wee fee is not common bread in-
deed, but Christs body Figuratiuely or Sacramentally. The Fathers
fay, it is not figuratiuely only, but really his body. So Theophi-
lact and S. Iohn Damafcen cited aboue. Had the Sectary who
Anſwered,
interpret's thus, an vndoubted Reuelation for his Gloss, deliuered raafongiuen,
by any Oracle of Truth, Scripture, Traditions or Orthodox
Church, there would be good reafon to giue him hearing, But
when we euidently fee, that the beft and only proof of his Doctrin
is no more, but the very gloss he makes, without Further Princi-
ples, we iuftly except againſt him, and hold fuch gloffes impro-
bable.
14. Now all is contrary with the Catholick who neuer in-
terpret's any Authority but when t'is dubious, and if it be fo, it
neither help's the Sectary, nor hurts the Catholick, and therefore ought
In reafon to be caft afide as either impertinent, or as weak and
P
force
and the
114
Difc. 1. C. 12. Fathers affert
Chriſt's.
Doctrin not
proued by
gloffes, or
any ambi-
guous Tefti-
mony.
forcelesse in all difputes of Controuerfies. The fundamental
Reafon already hinted at, is. The true Doctrin of Chrift, is not
proued by Gloffes or any doubtful Teftimony, but ftand's moſt
firm vpon known and indubitable Principles (or, if in order to
Chriftians it want's fuch fupports, it cannot pass for Chrift's Doc-
trin ). An ambiguous Teftimony therefore which ſeemingly oppo-
fes this true Doctrin Certainly Principled, is moft impertinently alle-
ged against any Tenet of our known and owned Catholick
Faith.
15. Vpon this one fole ground now clearly laid forth, I
confidently Affirm, all Controuerfies in Religion might be eafily
ended, would Sectaries pleaſe to lay Preiudice afide, and follow
manifeft reaſon. I'le shew you how. Write down firft the two
contrary Tenents of Catholicks and Proteftants. Christ is really
and fubftantially prefent in the Eucharist. Chrift is not really and fubftan-
tially prefent. Next examin well the Principles wheron thefe Con-
trary Doctrins rely or are fuppofed to rely. The Catholick
vrgeth firft, Chrift's plain words. 2. The Authority of his Church.
and faith, his Churches Doctrin is the very fame that Christ words
The Catho- literally taken, express. 3. He ponder's the clear Testimonies of
lick Princi- Fathers, and difcourfes thus. When I find the moft fignificant
ples.
Sectaries:
haue none
fuch.
expreffions of Fathers confonant to our Sauiour's plain words, and
to the owned Doctrin of my Church, I muft affuredly reft on
thefe, as indubitable grounds, or Confess, that There neither is
or was euer any Principle for the foundeft Article of Chriftian
Faith. Examin next the Sectaries Principles. Has He any words
in Scripture as clear as mine, or to this fenfe? This is not my body,but
à Sign only of it? Euidently No. Has he any Church esteemed
Orthodox by the Chriftian world, which without Controuerfy
taught this Doctrin of à fign only three or 4. ages fince? Name
fuch à Church, He will fpeak's to the purpoſe. Has he Fathers fo
numerous, fo express and clear, for his signe and figure only, as the
few Teftimonies now alleged are in behalf of Catholick Doctrin?
If he haue let him pleafe to produce them. I'le doe no more but
lay my Teſtimonies by them, and if after the perufal, or à iuft
Parallel
Difc.1.C. 12. the Real prefence
115
Parallel made of both, All the world iudges not thofe I quote, to
be moft conuincing( may the literal fenſe ſtand) and his both dark
and ambiguous, I will vndergoe any Cenfure. You haue heard
how loud and express the Teftimonies briefly hinted at, and innu-
merable more are for our Catholick Verity. I challenge Mr
Stilling: to Confront them with others as openly fignificant for
his opinion. I verily think he will neuer goe about to doe what is
defired, but fob vs off with killing flies, and no man knowes
what.
16. In the interim I Argue. I am either obliged to renounce An Argu
the obuious fence of theſe Authorities which I fee euidently Con- ment drawn
from our
fonant to the words of Scripture, and to the Doctrin of my Church; Catholick
or, by force of theſe Proofs am ftill to belieue as I doe. Grant Principles.
this fecond, I ftand on fecure ground: But, if I am obliged to
renounce the obuious fenfe of Chrifts words, my Church Doc-
trin, and the expreffions of theſe Fathers &c. Our Aduerſaries
are bound, if à fpark of Charity liues in their Hearts, to plead
by ſtronger Principles which may fettle me in an abſolute Renun-
tiation of my Doctrin, and withdraw me from the fuppofed er-
rour I liue in. Is not this iuftice and Charity think ye? And is
not the Compliance moſt eaſy? For, if their Doctrin be Chriſt's
Doctrin, and mine not, Theirs ftand's, as I now told you, vpon
clear and indubitable Principles, And Principles of that nature are
eafily laid forth to euery ordinary vnderſtanding. Now I fubfume:
But it is euident, the Sectary hath no fuch conuincing Principles,
which can oblige me to renounce the plain literal fenfe of Chrifts
words and the Fathers already cited. And this I proue. What euer
Principle obliges me to renounce, or to deny the plain literal ſenſe
of fuch words, muft giue affurance, that thofe expreffions literally why none
vnderſtood are dangerous, and apt to induce Chriftans into gross me from our
errour, for if literally taken, they do no miſchief, or be not apt to Catholick
induce into dangerous errour, why should I Deny their obuious Tenet.
fenfe, becauſe Proteftants will haue me do fo? But there is no
Principle fo much as meanly probable, whereby thefe expreffions
are proued falfe or inductiue into dangerous Errour; for were this
P 2
really
Can remoue
116
Difc. 1. C. 12. Fathers affert
1
Areply of
fectaries
answered.
really fo, fome Church or Author of Credit, would long fincé
haue noted their ouer much vehemency, in fayng more then was
true concerning this Myſtery, which none euer yet did. There-
fore I may ftill and without Reproof hold where I am, and adhere
to their literal Doctrin, which my Church teaches.
17. Some may teply. Sectaries vrge vs not fo crudely to reiect
the Fathers Teſtimonies, as only to moderate or rectify their fenfe
by the help of our Modern mens gloffes, which is à blamles pro-
ceeding, for we do fo with Gelafius and other Authors when they
feemingly make againſt our Doctrin, and Proteftants do no more.
Anfw. Proteftants do more, for their interpretations euer imply
à peremptory and abfolute denial of that very literal fenfe which the
Father words exprefs. For example S. Cyril faith. Catech.
Myftag. 4. He that changed water into wine by his fole will, hath alſo
changed wine into blood. The expreffion inuolues à parity, and
implies thus much. That as water was really changed into wine
at Cana in Galilee, fo wine was really and fubftantially changed
into Chriſts blood. Sectaries as peremptorily deny this real and
fubftantial change of wine into blood, as if one should now deny
the Real and fubftantial change of that water into wine. Confe-
quently they renounce both the parity,and open fenfe of the words,
And, (which is euer to be noted), wilfully do fo, when they
haue nothing like à fùre Principle diftinct from their glofs to ground
their denial on. Contrariwise, the Catholick in this debate denies
no expreſs ſenſe of any Fathers Teftimony, but only makes Inqui-
into the Signification of words, which are confeffedly dubious.
Take here one inftance Gelafius faith. The fubftance or nature of
bread and wine ceafe not to be. Firft I make no account of this
Gelafius, Author of the book De duobus naturis Christi. Contra
Eurich He was not that holy Pope fo called, but rather Gelafins
Cizicenus as Bellarmine notes de Scriptoribus Eccl: Howeuer
thefe two particles fubftance and nature may, ex placito, indifferently
fignify either the inward ſubſtance or outward Maßineffe of bread and
wine, for natural qualities which flow from an Effence, haue, or
often fuftain, as was noted aboue, the name of that Effence they
ry
و
come
Difc. 1. C, 13 the Real prefence
117
come from. Now the Catholick renounceth no obuious fenfe,
but only contends that Nature and fubftance may fignify, as is most of Gelafius
vfual, the outward corpulent forms of bread and wine which ceafe How much
bis authoritz
not to be, And he giues this fignification to thefe two words
› is worth..
becauſe scripture Church and the Fathers, wheron his Doctrin
irrefragably depends, forceth him to it, And he doth well when it
cannot be proued by any probable Principle that Gelafius relates te
the inward fubftance of bread and wine. Thus much may be fa
if that authority were worth any thing. Read, I befeech, you Bre-
reley, In his Lyturgy of the Maffe cited aboue pag: 259. you shall
find there this Authority moſt exactly examined, and that in very
truth, this Gelafius who euer he was, fpeaking againſt the Euti-
chians as Theoderet did,vndeniably defends our Catholick Doctrin
of the Real prefence and Tranfubftantiation alfo. Open the book
and read, you will be fatisfyed. I cannot dwell longer on thefe long
fince defeated Obiections.
18. There is yet an other Reply. Sectaries may fay, we fup-
poſe all this while Scripture and Fathers clear for our Catholick
Doctrin. The Suppofition is denied, becaufe they quote (t'is true
not many) but fome Fathers and Scripture alfo, to countenance
their new opinion. By the way here is occafion again, to reflect
on what is often noted. viz. We quote Scripture and Fathers,
and they explicate all; They cite alfo; and we do the like, and
if nothing but à Return of explications thus pass from one to the
other, we are as much iarring as we were before, without hope of
ending Controuerfies this way. Now my Anfwer to the first part
of the Obiection is. We Catholicks fuppofe nothing, but only. The answer
take the very words of Scripture and Fathers in à literal fenfe, and
fay their expreffions are exactly conformable to the Doctrin of the reply.
Roman Catholick Church, which was neuer cenfured by any
Orthodox fociety of Chriftians. Vpon thefe Principles therefore,
Scripture, Church, and Fathers we ftand immoueable. To that
which followes I Anfwer. Sectaries haue not one fyllable of Scrip-
ture in fauour of their Nouelty (and to omit à rehearſal of thofe
triuial Arguments drawn from certain paffages, where they conceine
P 3
the
to an ether
118
Difc. 1. C. 12. Fathers affert
An Argu
ment which
Sectaries
Cannot
folue.
How Secta-
ries endea-
your te folue
it.
the Sacrament is called bread the fruit of the vine &c.) I conuince
my Affertion by the pofitiue ground abready eftablished, which
none shall ouerthrow. If this be the true fenfe of Scripture, when
it fpeaks of the Bleffed Sacrament. Christ who is aboue in beauen is
not really prefent on the Altar, but in his fign only, Or, that the bread
after Confecration is really what it was before natural bread, only
deputed to à holy vfe; If this, I say, be the true fenfe of Gods word,
Chrifts Orthodox Church exprefly deliuered it to Chriftians as the
true meaning of the Holy Ghoft fome few ages before Luthers
Reuolt, for then their was an Orthodox Church on earth: But no
Orthodox Church then taught fo, or fenſed Scripture as Sectaries
do now, Therefore vnless that Church was ignorant and knew not
the meaning of Scripture, or Malicious, and concealed it from
Chriftians, our Sectaries fenfe is not Scripture. To confirm this
Reafon. All know, that the Roman Catholick Church then, as
well as now,abfolutly renounced the fenfe which Sectaries force out
of Scripture, and for that cauſe was not (fay they) Orthodox in
this particular Doctrin, but no other Church confeffedly Ortho-
dox, taught it at that time, Therefore, it was not thought the
Scriptures true meaning. All I would fay is briefly laid forth
thus.
19. The true Church of Chriſts euer deliuers the true ſenſe of
Scripture at leaſt in weighty and fundamental Matters,fo much Pro-
teftants grant, But, No true Church deliuered this their fenfe
three or four ages before Luthers reuolt, Ergo it was not the true
meaning of the Holy Ghoft, but à whimsy lately inuented. This
Argument I hold demonftratiue. You will perhaps ask, What is
that theſe men can pretend to, hauing neither Scripture nor Or-
thodox Church to rely on? I'le tell you in à word. They allege
firſt two or three weak and ambiguous Sentences of Fathers,
which the Catholick adınit's, not in the fenfe of Nouellifts, yet
according to the clear plain and obuious fignification of words, as
is now declared, and He prudently giues this fignification to am-
biguous words, becauſe the Doctrin he owns ftand's firm vpon
other indubitable Principles, Scripture, Church, and Fathers. The
Sectary
Difc. 1. C. 12, the Real prefence.
119
Sectary euidently wants fuch Principles,and therefore vapors as well
as he can with à few moft weak and vnconcluding Authorities.
The next thing relyed on, is much worfe and purely nothing but
fancy. He reads Scripture and thoſe euident Teftimonies of Fa-
thers (as manifeft for our Church Doctrin as it is clear that the
Church teaches it) and thefe, forfooth, he endeauours to obfcure
by à number of his own improbable gloffes, without the leaft
shadow of any diftinct Principle, which giues fo much as à Co-
lour to his fancied interpretations. You shall fee this truth moſt
manifeftly proued in the enfuing Chapter.
CHAP. XIII.
Mr: Stillingfleet grofly abufeth the Fathers that aſſert
the Real Prefence. His vnprincipled gloffes are not
only dubious and therefore worth nothing,
but moreouer highly improbable.
Li
7
T
Hough I am very loath to ſpend time on trifles and as
vnwilling to catch flies, as Mr Stilling is to kill them,
(T'is his own phraſe ) yet I muſt do ſo in ſome meaſure, or permit
à number of foule improbabilities to pass vnexamined, which are
laid forth in à pretended Rational account of Proteftancy. I shall
only entertain you with à few of the Groffer fort, wauing many of
leffer moment, and I doe thus much to defend à Chriſtian Verity
which my very Soul Adores, For I am well affured, If our belief of
Chrift's real Prefence in the Eucharift be an errour, Chrift and his
Church and innumerable Fathers alfo, haue deceiued vs.
2. One Authority alleged againſt Mr. Stillingfleet, you haue in
his own page 568. And t'is à known paffage of S. Cyprian de Cena
Dmi, or of fome other Author not much inferiour to him, if we
belieue Mr Fulk againſt the Rhem's Teftament. In 1. Cor. 11.
and
120 Diſc, 1. C.13. Mr. Stillingfleet abuſes
and Erafmus his Annotations vpon S. Cyprian, Bafil print anne
5. Cyprians
Authority, 1558. fol. 287. Mr Stilling: contend's it is of à later Date, yet
is pleaſed by an Addition of his gloffes to vnfenfe the words as well
as he can, and at laft make them to ſpeak Proteftancy.
examined,
Mr filling.
fleetsreaf
ning, not
folid.
His fecond
Argument,
more flight,
3. The Authors words are Thefe. This common bread changed into
flesh and blood giues life. The bread which our lord gaue to his Difci-
ples being Changed. Non effigie fed naturâ, not in outward form or
femblance, butin its inward nature or substance, by the Omnipotency of
the word, is made flesh.
4.. Mr Stilling: Afferts all this proues not Tranfubftantiation,
first, becauſe the Author Saith Christs words. Vnless ye eate the flesh
and drink the blood of the son of God, you shall haue no life in you, are
not to be vnderftood after à Carnal fenfe. Anfw: That's true,
yet your Inference, Sir, is moft improbable. The Principle you
nuft rely on, is. None are to think as the Capharnits did, witness
S. Auftin, that they were to cut into pieces Chrifts Sacred flesh,'
and eate that as we do Common meats, And your inference ill
deduced run's thus. Therefore the inward fubftance of bread is not
changed into his body. This inference, I fay, is null, for both thefe
are eternal truths and well confist together. Bread is changed into
Christs body, yet we neither cut that body à pieces or eate it, as the
Capharnits grosfly imagined.
5. He argues again and more improbably. This Author
(faith he) by the effects attributed to the Sacrament, calling it
food which nourished to immortallity, cannot poffibly be concei-
ued to ſpeak if Christ's Corporal prefence, because we Catholicks
confeßß Christs body remain's no longer in our body, then the Accidents of
bread and wine are there. I verily think the man was bufied with
other thoughts when he wrot theſe lines. For what ſenſe haue
we here? Christ's Sacred body really prefent giues grace and is.
no longer preſent then the Accidents of bread and wine remain
Ergo, bread and wine are not Really changed into his body. This
I fay is à moft improbable inference. For the effects of the Sa-
crament which imply the production of Grace, may and muft
ftand with Chrift's real Prefence, though that production of grace
Sacra-
the Fathers.
121
Sacramentally giuen, laft's no longer then his Bleffed body is vnder
the forms of bread and wine.
6. But an other doughty Argument is drawn out of S. Cyprian's
words, which Mr. Stilling: cites in his Margent. Sed immortalitatis
alimonia datur à Communibus cibis differens, corporalis fubftantia retinens
fpeciem, fed virtutis diuina inuifibili efficientiâ probans adeffe prefentiam. His third
And He vnworthyly renders them thus in English. That inmor- Argumens
tal Nourishment is giuen vs which differs from common food, proses
that it retain's the Nature of à Corporeal fubstance, but prouing the nothing.
prefence of à Diuine power by its inuifible efficiency. So that,
faith he,,what prefence of Diuine power is there, is shewed in
regard of the effects of it, not in regard of any fubftantial change
of the bread into the body of Chrift. Sr, I vtterly deny your
proofleffe, So That, and fay your deduction is more then improba-
ble. This Author faith exprefly common bread changed into
flesh, by the omnipotency of the word giueth life and immortal
nourishment, which is Diuine grace, and therefore the Diuine
power appeares in both, firft in the fubftantial change of bread in-
to Chrifts body, next in the effect, or production of grace in à
worthy Receiuer, and you improbably conclude, it shewes it felf
in regard of the effects only.
7. Like one half guilty of iugling you goe on. I know you
Will quarrel with me for rendring Corporalis ſubſtantia retinens (peciem :
By retaining the Nature of à Corporeal substance. Anfw: I do fo
indeed, and will proue you à cheat for your pains. Firft, becauſe
you make this Author fpeak nonfenfe, for if Corporalis fubftantia
retinens Speciem, may be Englished. By retaining the nature of a Cor-
poreal fubftance, you may as well render it by retaining the fubftance,
of à corporeal fubftance becaufe nature and fubstance are here fyno-
mima's, And if this be fenfe, we haue à pretty Tautology or rather
non-fenfe with it thus. It differ's from Common food, yet retains the
fubftance of Corporeal ſubſtance, or common food, and in real truth is
ftill natural bread or Common food. Wheras if we read. It differ's
from common food, yet retain's the outward forms or external Ac-
cidents of à Corporeal fubftance or common food the fenfe is good,
е
clear,
The fallacy
dejiometed,
122
Difc. 1. C. 13. Mr Stilling fleet abufes
What the
clear, and open to euery Reader. But we must go on. You
contend that the word Species in this place Signifies Nature or à
folid body, and not the external Accidents becaufe Species anno-
naria. Species largitionales, Curator Specierum, whereof we read in the
Ciuil law express the fubftance of things not the Accidents; and
fo S. Ambrofe muſt be vnderftood, when ſpeaking of our Sauiours
changing water into wine, he faith. Vt rogatus ad nuptias ague (ub-
Stantiam in vint (peciem commutaret. Now no man will fay, that he
changed the ſubſtance of water into the external Accidents of wine,
but into the nature of wine, Therefore Species may fometimes figni-
fy fubftance. Anfw: All this is true, yet nothing to the purpofe,
word Species for can you or any man proue, becaufe Species fignifies fomeri-
fignifies. mes kind, or fubftance that it alwaies doth fo? We read in Scrip-
ture. Daniel 13. Species decepit te. Ifa. 53. non eft ei Species neg
decor. Daniel 10. Species mea immutata 1. Tim. 3. Habentes
Speciem pietatis &c. Will you tranflate Nature or fubftance hath de-
ceived thee? There was no nature or fubftance in Christ of whom
the Prophet fpeaks. My nature or fubstance is changed. Hauing
piety in nature or fubftance All is ridiculous, and therefore though
Species may fometimes fignify fubftance or kind, vnless that figni-
fication hold vniuerfally, thefe inftances of Species annonaria and
Species vini proue nothing. You will ask perhaps, becauſe the
word is ambiguous, how we may know whether in our prefent
Controuerfy, species, fignifies shape, form, Accidents, or fubftance>
Anfw: This rule is certain, when the word species ftand's in oppo-
fition, or is diftinguished from an inuifible Nature or effence, it
muft of neceffity fignify the external shape or form ofà thing and
not the fubftance: So when the Apoftle exhorts vs. 1. Thefs. 5.
22. Ab omni fpecie mala abftinete vos. The fenfe is. Abftain not
only from inward malice. but (and here mark the oppofition)
The true
fignification
in this place,
gina.
from all Shew or femblance of euil. And when S. Ciril faith
Orat 4. MyЯag: vnder the Type or species of bread is giuen the
body of our Lord, he euidently diftinguisheth the Form or shape of
bread from its fubſtance. And ſo S. Cyprian doth in the words
alleged. Corporalu Subflantia retinens Speciem, retaining the exte
ziour
the Fathers.
123
riour shape or form of à Corporeal fubftance, and mote plainly thus.
The bread being changed not in its outward Form and femblance, but in it's
inward nature and fubftance by the Omnipotency of the word, is made
flesh.
8. Mr Stilling: again page 570. in his Anfwer to S. Cyprian.
This common bread is changed into flesh and blood, faith, we Protestanis
do not deny à Sacramental change of the bread into the flesh aud blood of
Christ, but only that fubstantial change which ye Papifts affert. Pray you,
Sr, tell me what is the Terminus à quo, and the Terminus, ad quem,
of this your myſterious change? You acknowledg fome thing Proteftants
changed into the flesh and blood of Chrift? Is the fubftance of bread the
cannot ſay,
terminus à quo, or that which is changed into the flesh? No, t'is what is
too plain Popery. Is bread made à sacrament, or à Sign of Chrift's changed into
body changed into the flesh of Chrifts? Euidently no, for neither Chriſt's
body.
the Sacrament, nor that which you call à Sign of Chrift's body is
changed into flesh. Note well the Emphasis of your own words, of
fomething changed into the flesh of Chrift and fay on Gods name what
it is? You may reply, you ſpeak only of à Myftical and Sacramen-
tal change. That's not to the purpofe now, the Emphaſis of your
words point at fomething created or increated, changed into the
flesh and blood of Chrift, tell vs plainly what that is, or in good earneft
your expreffion fal's too short of any intelligible ſenſe?
:.9. În cafe you run on trifling with your Myftical and Sacra-
mental change only,made vpon the accidents or fubftance of bread,
the Author now cited pofitiuely afferts more. viz. Panis non effigie
fed naturâ mutatus. The bread which our Lord gaue to his
Difciples being changed, not in Outward form, and appearance, but
in its inward nature and substance by the Omnipotency of the
word is made flesh, where 'tis plain your extrinfècal facramental
change paffing only vpon the accidents of bread, or on the fùbftan-.
ce (which you fay remains) is excluded, and à Real Conuerfion
of the inward fubftance of bread is pofitiuely afferted by S..
Cyprian. You Anfwer. Some great Criticks haue aflured you extrinfecal.
that the place is corrupted, and that the ancient Manu cripts, Change.
read otherwife. Non effigie nec naturâ mutatus, neither changed.
IR
S Cyprian
reiects the
Proteftants
124
Difc. 1. C. 13. Mr Stillingfleet abufes.
A Criticiſm
exploded.
in outward form nor fubftance. You fee to what defperate shifts
theſe men are driuen. Tis wonderful they cite not fome great
Criticks for à Contrary lection of Chrifts words. Hoc non eft corpus
meum This is not my body. Well. I fay firft, if thofe nameless
and vnknown Criticks err, and the Author fpeak fenfe as we now
read without the Critifcifin. (Non effigie fed naturâ mutatus, not
changed in outward form but in its nature) Tranfubftantiation
is afferted, and your contrary Doctrin is condemned. I fay. 2.
This Criticism is improbable, and not only turn's the words out
offenfe into pure Nonfenfe, but moreouer implies an impoffibility.
I'le shew you how. The Criticifm will haue vs read thus: Panis
ifte quem Dominus Difcipulis porrigebat non effigie nec naturâ mutatus
Omnipotentiâ verbi factus eft Caro. This bread which our Lord gaue
to his Difciples being changed neither in its outward form nor inward
fubftance, is by the Omnipotency of the word made flesh. Obferue
well. This bread remaining bread in outward she and inward
fubftance, is made the flesh of the Son of God. An vtter impos-
fibility. For no more can bread remaining bread in shape and
fubftance, be made flesh (factus eft caro) than Lots wife remaining
what She was flesh and blood in outward form, and inward
fubſtance, be made à pillar of falt. The Omnipotent power
of God cannot change one fubftance remaining what it is, into an
other. T'is true Luther faid Chrifts body was really preſent with
bread, but neuer thought of making bread remaining bread, to be
that other fubftance of Chrifts body.
10. Mr Stillingfleet tell's vs more. P. 572. that Substance and
nature with the Fathers (and we confess it) are not alwayes taken
properly but fometimes more largely for Accidents. Why therefo-
re may not thefe words. Sed natura mutatus in S. Cyprians Con-
text bear that improper fenfe? 1 Anfwer and ask firft. Why
may they not allo be taken properly? When they clearly de-
liuer à Doctrin conformable to à whole learned Church, and
your contrary forced gloss hath no Principle to ftand on but
fancy? Had you any ancient Orthodox Church, vniuerfal Tra-
dition, or the plain confent of Fathers for what you affert, you
might
the Fathers
125
The reaſon
why we
reiect is.
might ſpeak more boldly, and I would then fay S. Cyprians words
are falfe, but without fuch helps,to torture à Text as you do,to turn
good ſenſe into nonfenfe and this without proof or Principle is
more then intolerable. Now here reflect à little on what hath
been often noted. You fay, the words are improper and render
your fenfe. I ſay they are proper and fignificantly peak what
the Church teaches. Pray Antwer. By what Principle shall
you and I come to à decifion of this one difficulty? Hitherto, if
nothing be added, we haue no more but our two contrary,
iarring opinions. And are not Controuerfies, (may this ftrain
hold) made an endles work? To add more I Anſwer. 2. If
this Author ſpeak fenfe. Not changed in its out Dard form but in
nature. Your gloss is Nonfenfe. Obferue well. He fpeakes of
bread held in à Priefts hand, and faith firſt. This bread is not
changed in its outward form or Accidents. Then he put's his Ad-
uerfatue. Sed. but it is changed in nature and funftance If therefore
Nature here, fignifies as you would haue it, the outward form or
accidents of bread, you must read the words thus. Bread is not
changed in its nature and Substance yet it is changed in nature and
fubftance, which is non-fenfe. I proue it. Nature and fub-
ftance with you import the exteriour form or Accidents of bread,
bread is not changed in this exteriour nature and fubftance, faith.
the Author, yet you fay it is changed in this very nature and fub-
Hance. Yet more. S. Cyprian afferts à change in one thing, not
in an other. I ask what is changed
I ask what is changed, and what is not changed?
If the exteriour Accidents of bread,as contradistinguished from the Sectaries
interiour fubftance be changed, this interiour fubstance of bread, as cannot say
diftinguished from accidents, is not changed, and if, ( which is true), this
interiour fubstance be changed, the form and accidents of bread are not
changed. Take which you pleafe, and talk no more of your Acci
dental Sacramental change made after confecration, Far I ask again
what is thus Sacramentally changed? Are the outward Accidents
only changed or made à Sacrament? Grant this; and it followes
you haue but à very lean Lords fupper confifting only of à few
Accidents after your wordy Confecration, which reaches not to the
inward
L
Q 3
what is here
changed
126
Diſc. 1. C. 13. Mr Stillingfleet abuſes.
A briefe An-
Swer to à
weak obiec
tion.
•
S. Gregory
Nyffene
abuſed.
inward fubftance of bread, Confequently this inward fubftance is
not fo much as Sacramentally changed. For the Author faith, one
thing is here changed, and not an other. Imagin therefore, He
fpeak's of your extrinfick Sacramental change, you will neuer force
fenſe out of his words, whilft he laies à change on one thing
and excludes it from an other. For, if he faies the inward fubftan-
ce of bread is Sacramentally changed, he denies that to the outward
accidents, and if he fay thefe Accidents are Sacramentally changed,
he denies that Sacramental change to the inward fubftance of
bread. Let then nature and Substance fignify either the accidents
or fubftance of bread as you pleaſe, let vs alfo falsly fuppofe,
the Author ſpeaks of your Sacramental change only, you can
neuer make fenfe of his words. One thing is changed, but not an
other. By all now faid you fee, Sir, how flight your obiection
is, when you Argue. Either nature and fubftance in the Fathers,
are alwaies taken properly, or fome times not fo, but improperly
for accidents; if alwaies properly, we haue three Fathers (fay you)
againſt Tranſubſtantiation. If fometimes improperly, Nature in this
place though we read, Non effigie (ed natura mutatus, may well fignify
not fubftance, but the outward form or accidents of bread. I haue
now Anfwered, though Nature or Subftance may fometimes hauè
that fignification yet here it cannot, becauſe of the euident oppo-
fition betwixt that,and Accidents, and the ineuitable nonfenſe which
followes if nature in this place fignifies Accidents. But what à loss
of time is it to follow thefe vaft improbabilities? I muſt make
shorter work with the enfüing Authorities.
II. The, 2. Teftimony cited P. 572. is that of S. Gre-
gory Nyfs Tom. 3. Orati. Catech C. 37. and ſtand's thus in
Mr Stilling With good reafon do we believe that the bread being
Sanctified by Gods word is changed into the body of the word
of God. Again. The nature of the things we see being changed, Or
Transelemented into him &c. And Mr Stilling: Affert's thofe expres-
fions are vtterly infignificant for Tranfubftantiation, for faith he.
We Proteftants deny not à change in the elements after Confecra-
tion, but fay it is Sacramental, and you (Papifts) fay it is à Subftan-
tia!
the Fathers.
127
tial change. Anfw. And we follow the Energy of the plain gram-
matical fenfe. Bread is changed into the body of the word of God. Bread
is Tranſclemented, You infift only on an extrinfecal and Sacra-
mental change, which you admit in the water of Baptifin caft vpon
an Infant, yet you dare not fay that water is Tranfelemented, or chan-
ged into an other substance. This to your Confufion S. Gregory
affert's in our preſent Myftery, and you fay it ftill remain's to be
proued that the fubftance of bread is changed. What trifles are
theſe? I proue it by the very words, thus. Bread is à ſubſtance,
the Saint tell's you into what it is changed, into the very body of the
Word of God, Ergo he faith one fubstance is changed into an other. Here
is the proof. You yet goe on. The word μeria, is fre-
μεταποιε
quently vied by the Fathers and S. Gregory himself for an Acciden-
tal change, when T'is not capable of any other fenfe. So S. Gri-
gory fpeaking of the shining of Mofes face, faith it was μetamolncis Instances
à Change into that which was more glorious: Again, affir- impertinent.
ming, the foules of men μerineva, to be changed into that ly applyed.
which is more Diuine by the Doctrin of Chrift, he can furely
intend no other but an Accidental change. Anfirer. Had I no
more againſt Mr Stilling but the manifeft trifling I here See in à
ferious matter, that alone might moft iuftly difpleafe. Pray, Sir,
reflect. Doth S. Gregory by thefe Inftances of Mofes face chan-
ged into Glory, or by the Souls of men changed into that which
is Diuine, fo much as feemingly fauour the meer extrinfecal
change which you afcribe to the Sacrament? Euidently No. For
thefe changes were Real and intrinfecal in their refpectiue Subiects, And prossed
Glory was really in Mofes face, as light is now in the fun. This
fained Sacramental change in the Sacrament is only Moral, and
extrinfecal, Therefore fuch inftances are to no purpoſe. For can
you make this probable inference? Mofes face was intrinfecally
changed as the ayr is when it receiues light, ergo we haue the like
intrinfecal Phyſical change in the Sacrament, when by your Con-
fecration bread is made an outward Sign only of Chrift's body.
Doth that bread really shine like the face of Mofes ? Or will
any fay when à Counter is fet for à Crown, as bread with you
ftand's
impertinent.
128 Difc. 1. C. 13. Mr Stillingfleet abufes.
ſtand's for Chrift's body, that it is intrinfecally changed as Mofes
face was?
12. In à word the whole cheat is plain. You lay hold of the
word Accidental which is ambiguous, and may either fignify à Real
intrinfecal change made in Subiects as is now declared, (and this with
you has no place in the Sacrament) or meerly an extrinfecal acci-
dental Denomination, whereby bread is made à Sign or Sacrament,
And this you own, which God knowes, has no funilitude with the
Real changes where of S. Gregory ſpeaks. Could you make à right
Parity you should fay, That, as Mofes face was really changed
by à glorious light, and à Soule by Regeneration, fo bread after
confecration (made in trinfecally more glorious) is really changed
either in its accidents, or fubftance, or both; But this you cannot
pretend to. O, but it is made à Sacrament and now is what it was
not before. And you Sr, are made à Bachelour of Diuinity and
are not as you were before, is your face, your ſubſtance, or Acci-
dents fo really changed in you, that they appear intrinfecally more
glorious to men and Angels? Well, but perhaps the word
μεταποίησις
Meranоinois may be accommodated to à meer extrinfecal Acciden-
tal change, as when one of à common Citizen is made à Magiſtra-
Anfw. Whether fo or no it imports little, for in the in-
ftances now alleged, and in this Teftimony of S. Gregory, fuch
à fignification has no place, where the Terminus à quo, and,ad quem
(Bread is changed into Chrifts body) are Real, not only Moral, intrinfecal,
not extrinfecal. Yet one word more. I wonder extremly with
what face you can cite Suares, as if he fauored your late in-
uented Accidental mutation, for you fay he affirms, thefe expres-
fions of Fathers are more accommodated to that. Sr. I haue
read this learned Author in the place you quote. 3. part:
Suares abu Difp. 50. fect 3. and perufed alfo his 4. th Section, where he
fed. treat's largely of the Conuerfion of bread into Chrifts body,
and exprefly mantain's à Real action neceffary in this Conuer-
fion, and calls the change Real and Subftantial, and it muſt be
called fo, when the Terminus à quo, and ad quem are, as they are in
this Myſtery, Real and Subftantial: T'is true he cites Diuines
A reply
answered,
te.
who
the Fathers
izg
>
who fay, the Adduction of Chrifts body vnder the formes of bread is
fufficient to verify à Real change (Bread ceafing to be, becauſe of
Chriſts body preſent) without à new action or production termina-
ted vpon that body, and it is à probable opinion in Schools, but
as remote from your Accidental extrinfecal mutation as Heauen is
from earth, and to as Little purpoſe as an other wife queſtion is
when you Ask whether thoſe who are changed by Regeneration
may be faid to be Tranfubftantiated by it? Friuolous. Sr. when the Ter-
minus ad quem in conuerfions is fubftance, it beares properly the
denomination of Tranfubftantiation, or Tranfelementation; when its
meerly an Accident or quality, as in Regeneration, the denomina-
tion followes the nature of the quality produced, and is rightly called
an intrinfecal accidental change, but not Transubstantiation. Had
you reflected on what is here faid your pretty Criticifm where you
torture à poor Greek word and learnedly examin whether
Metasoxe18 in S. Gregory comes from the Noune solo or
from the verbe some might well haue been spared. I giue
you your Choife take whether you will, your caufe lies where it
was, nothing at all aduanced. But really I am weary of this ſport,
which is more irkſome to me, then to kill the flies you fo often
talk of. Howeuer I muft haue patience, and briefly fay à word
to one or two authorities more, pitifully abufed by you.
13. That known paffage of S. Cyril of Hierufalem. Catech:
Mystag. 4. occurr's next in your 573. page. The words are.
He (Chrift our Lord) changed water into wine at cana in Galilee by
bis fole will, and is he not worthy to be belieued that he changed wine
into blood? For if inuited to à marriage, he wrought then that ftupen-
dious Miracle (viz of changing water into wine) shall we not Confess
that much more he has guen his body and blood to the Sons of the
Spouse? Wherefore μerà ñάons mangoDogías let vs take with all certain-
ty the body and blood of Chrift And he giues this reafon. è Túze
γὰρ ἄρτου δίδοταί σοι τὸ σῶμα &c. For vnder the Type or Species of
bread his body is giuen thee, and vnder the type or species of wine his
blood is given thee, that by taking this body and blood of Chrift thou
mayst be made partaker of bis body and blood (xgisopógci zivóμsedα)
R
and
A question
answered.
The Tefti
mony of S.
Cyril of
Hierufalem,
All along
most clear
and fignifi.
Cant.
The Church
Speak's not
in clearer
serms.
Mr filling:
gloffes rm-
probable.
130
Difc. I.
13. Mr Stillingfleet abuſes
and fo we shall be Chriftophori, Carrying Christ when we receive his body
and blood into our members. Soon after he faith. Do not therefore
confider this as meer bread and meer wine, for it is the body and blood
of Crift according to his own words; for, although fenfe fuggeft
that it is bread and wine) yet let faith Confirm thee, and do not
indge of the thing by thy taft, but hold this moft certain by thy
Faith, that the body and blood of our Lord are giuen thee, fo that there
arife no doubt at all in thee. Again, towards the end of this 4.
Catechefis, he repeat's and moft energetically the verity he would
haue vs learn. ταῦτα μαθὼν καὶ πληροφορηθείς ὡς ὁ φαινόμενος
ἄρτος, οὐκ ἄρτος ἐςὶν &c. Knowing and holding it moft certain that the
bread which is ſeen by vs is not bread, but the body of Chrift; and the wine
which is seen by vs, although it seem to the fenfe of our tast to be wine,
yet is it not wine, but the blood of Chrift. Thus this ancient Father
and worthy Bishop fpeaks fo fignificantly, that the witt of man
shall neuer force on him any other fenfe but that which the
Roman Catholick Church taught in the Council of Trent, and
teaches to this day.
14. Now liften à little to Mr Stilling: gloffes and fay in
Confcience, whether they haue fo inuch as à feeming proba-
bility? Firft he tells vs it is euident (and it was for his purpoſe
to cry Euidence at the begining) that Cyrills defign here is to per-
fwade the Catechumens (from whom the Myfterious prefence of
Chrifts body in the Sacrament was wont to be concealed) that the
bread and wine were not meer common Elements, but defigned for
à higher vie, to exhibit the body and blood of Chrift to Belieuers.
Is this, Sr, your Euidence? Is it euident that Cyril here intended
to inftruct the Catechumens only? We read that the Saint was à
laborious Preacher and complyed with that Charitable duty euery
Sunday, and day in Lent. Surely all who heard him were not
Catechumens, and why may not thefe inftructions contain part
of that Doctrin he publickly deliuered to his Auditors? All you
can proue is that his firft Catechefs was to the lately Baptized,
but that this of the B. Sacrament concerned them only, is not
probable. Turn to the Edition of S. Cyril Paris print 1609.
You
the Fathers.
131
s Cyrill is
made to
miſſe of his
Ayme.
You will find after the Dedicatory Epiftle vnder this Title
De fcriptis Cyrill. That in his laft fiue Myftagogical inftitutions
hegaue folid food and explicated the Diuine Myfteries of our
Faith, of Baptifm, Cbrifm, the Eucharift, and that great Sacri-
fice of the Mass, which Certainly belong to Chriftians of riper
knowledge than Catechumens were. Again. I'ft be euident that
the Saint in this Catechefis concealed the Myſterious prefence of
Chriſt in the Sacrament, He miffed extreamly of his intent,
for no
Catholick can ſpeak now with greater clearity of the Myſtery, or
more fully expreſs the Churches fenfe then S. Cyril did aboue
thirteen ages fince. Yet one word. Say I befeech you what need
was there then of concealing this Myſterious prefence, i'ft be no
more but as you fay, à piece of bread deputed to à holy vſe, or
à meer fign of Chrifts body prefent? Such à Myſtery requires no
fecrecy at all, Catechumens might as well haue heard of it without
torturing their vnderſtandings, as now they hear of the Sacrament
of Baptifin. Laftly is it euident, that S. Cyril aimed at nothing
but to show that bread and wine were not meer common Elements
but things defigned for à higher vſe, or as you fay, to Exhibit the
body of Chrift to Belieuers? Tis improbable, Firſt becauſe you
add that to the Text which neither the words, nor the fenfe bear.
S. Cyril faith. Do not confider them as meer bread and wine, Then
he tell's you pofitiuely what they are. For they are the body and blood
of Chrift. Now your Gloss, defigned for à higher vfe to exhibit the
body and blood of Christ to Belieuers, firft Deads the very life of Cy-
rills words, and then run's into nonfenfe. I therefore Ask whether
this gloss : Bread and wine exhibit the body and blood of Chrift to Be-
lieuers, faies. Bread and wine really changed out of their nature, as wine to ex.
Water Was at Cana in Galilee, are after that change as really Chrifts body_hibit the
and blood, as that water was really wine after Chrifts Miracle? If body and
blood of
your gloss fay thus mnch, you are à plain Papift; if leffe, its none Chriji?
of S. Cyrills Doctrin, for the Saint deliuers this as fignificantly
and more fully,then I now express it. I well vnderſtand S.Cyrills
fenfe by his words, but for my life I know not what you mean. by
your particle. Exhibit. Tellus I befeech you? How do bread and wine
yea
R 2
>
Exhibit
What is
bread and
132
Difc. 1. C. 13. Mr Stillingfleet abuſes
Our Adur
fary is urged
to declare his
fenfe.
Exhibit the body and blood of Chrift to Belieuers? Do they only
mind vs of his body and blood? A Crucifix reprefenting our
Lord bleeding on à Croffe can well ferue for fo much. Do they
shew or point vs out à Real prefence of the fame body and bloodt
vpon the Altar which are now in heauen? Iffo; Belieuers haue
an obiect of Faith and that truth to faften on which the Church
teaches, but if your word Exhibit faies, or fignifies leſs then this,
or, only expreffes your euer yet concealed Sacramental prefence, you
cheat the world with ambiguous dark Term's, and in good earnest
know not what you fay.
15. Anſwer therefore? What is Chrifts body and blood to be Sacra-
mentally preſent, when really they are not vpon the Altar, but abſent in
Heauen only? The queftion deferues an Anfwer, For you, Sr,
Sr, di-
ftinguish between à Sacramental and à Corporeal Prefence, you
grant the firſt, and deny the fecond. That which you grant is à
Preſence of Chriſts body and biood diftinguished from the Catho-
lick Real (or as you call it) Corporeal Prefence: Vouchfafe to
enlighten vs à little concerning it, which you page 574. ſeem to
make real? There is, fay you, à Real prefence of Christ in and with
them (that is, in and with bread, andwine) to the fouls of Belieuers.
Very good. Giue vs I beseech you the total Obiect which theſe
Souls haue before them when they belieue à Real preſence of
Chrift in and with bread and wine vpon the Altar? Is this obiect Chrift
himself whom they pull, as it were, by Faith out of Heauen at the
time they receiue your piece of Bread? No. Chrift ftill in Hea-
uen, is yet Locally diftant and therefore not really prefent in and
With bread and wine, Vnless he be in two places at once, And Con-
fequently the Faith of thefe Belieuers has no real Obiect prefent
to faften vpon. Is it that Chrift is prefent in the Signes of bread
and wine, as Cæfar is in his Image? Pitiful. He is thus prefent
in euery Crucifix, though really diftant millions of Miles, This,
no way makes him actually there in and with bread and wine, as you
Affert. Doth finally this your Obiectiue prefence imply only
thus much, that Chrift by his power (though really abfent)
work's the fame effects in à worthy Receiuer, as if he were actually
there?
the Fathers.
133
there? No. For he works the fame effects, and (though ab-
fent) produceth grace by the Sacrament of Baptifmn as if he were
prefent, dare you Therefore fay he is in as peculiar à manner
Really prefent, in and with the water of Baptifin, as he is in this Sa-
crament in and with bread and wine? Yet more. Such à Moral The Sectaries
Prefence
contradi&'s
Prefence directly contradict's Chrift's words. This is my body. It Sacramental
directly contradict's S. Cyrills words. Though it feem to the taft to
be bread it is not bread, but the Body of Chrifts. It directly contradict's all Authe.
that vnanfverable Truth: As Water was changed into wine, so wine is rily.
changed into bloed &c.
16. And thus, Sr, you fee how impoffible it is to giue your poor
Belieuers any thing like à Real obiect, which may be called à true
Real Prefence, though I hold you obliged to help both them and
me to à clear Notion of it: Becaufe Chrift's Sacred body and blood
are Real things, you attribute to thefe two Real things à true real
Prefence in and with bread and wine (which cannot but denominate
them really prefent with theſe two Subftances vpon the Altar)There-
fore you are obliged to tell me, what that is A parte rei, which I
once more fay, is impoffible; For, as your Sacramental prefence
in your fenfe, is à word no man vnderftand's, fo your Doctrin is as
wholy vnintelligible. Yet I haue not faid all. In this your
diſcourſe of à Sacramental and Real prefence, you would fain take
fome aduantage againft vs by other words of s. Cyril. Do not confi-
der them as meer bread and wine, for they are the body and blood of No aduan.
Christ, according to his own word. Hence you infer, it is plain, tagegiuens
He speaks of à Sacramental prefence, for he doth not oppofe the body and blood Sectaries by
of Christ to the fubftance of bread and wine, but to meer bread, id est, That
they should not look on the bread and wine as naked fignes, but as Signa
efficacia or efficacious fignes. Anfw. Firft The Saint has not à
Syllable of either signes or Signa efficacia. Next, your Speculation
about meer bread, is à meer nothing. For meer bread, is bread
without Confecration, S. Cyril oppofeth the body and blood of
Chrift prefent, to meer bread, Ergo He oppofeth them to bread wit-
hout Confecration, but bread without Confecration, or meer bread,
is the very Subſtance of bread, Therefore he oppofeth the body and
R 3
blood
any other
words of S.
Cyril.
134
Difc. 1. C. 13. Mr Stillingfleet abuſes.
A meer
à word.
blood of Chrift prefent, to the fubftance of bread, vnless you can
find the Meerness (might one fpeak fo) or nakednes of bread diftinct
from its fubftance, which is not only improbable, but impos-
fible.
17. Vpon this folid and vndeniable Ground, it imports your
quibble about caule nothing, whether TúTOs in S. Cyril fignifies, Species, as it is
commonly rendred by Interpreters, or as you ſay, that which doth
figure or reprefent, for, as long as this verity ftand's vndoubted, that
vnder the Type or Species of bread Chrift gaue his own body, and
That, that body is oppofed to the very Subftance of bread, the ex-
preffion is fo clear and the fame with our Catholick Doctrin, that
were à hundred Gloffes more laid vpon the word Túños, All would
not do, nor rack it to any contrary meaning. You Reply S. Cyril
fpeak's of fuch à prefence as hath relation to the Receiuer. Speak
out Sir. What is it, that has relation to the Receiuer only? The
very body and blood of Chrift vnder the Type of bread and wine
(which are changed out of their nature as water was at Cana in
Galilee) Thefe fubftances of his body and blood, as really preſent,
work their effect in à worthy Receiuer, where you euidently ſee,
that the Real Prefence of Chrift's Sacred body and blood is pre-
fuppofed to the effect or to grace wrought in à Soul: Therefore
to talk of à prefence which hath relation to à Receiuer only, wit-
hout the true fuppofed real verity of Chrift body and blood preſent,
is no more then à peruerfe and an improbable Gloss, if S. Cyrıl
ſpeak ſenſe.
The change
made in
Chriſm
wholly diffe-
rent from
that in the
Eucharift.
18. Your next Gloss vpon theſe words. (It is not bread though
it ſeem to the taft to be bread but the Body of Chrift) is worſe if worſe
can be, For you only frigidly fay. Hereby is meant no alteration in
the Subftance of it, but only that it is not That common Bread, it was
before. Sir, the contrary is now demonftratiuely proued againſt
you. But you hope to help your felf by an Inftance which S.
Cyril hath of Chrifin in his 3. Myftag. Pag. 525. where he Seem's
to Parallel the change made in Chrifm, or holy oyntment, with the
Change of bread in the Euchariſt. By the way. If Chriſm be ſo
facred à thing, it is à shame you haue no more vſe of it in your
Church
the Fathers.
125
Church, but let that pass, and mark the Parallel and your own mi-
ftake with it. A change there is in both, bread and common
ointment, but as different in Themfelues as they are differently ex-
preffed by this Father. The one change is Real and intrinfecal inade
in the Subſtance of bread and wine, The change of common oint-
ment is not fo, but Moral, into à grace, or Gift or Chrift. S Cyrills
words take away all ambiguity. See, faith he, That thou think not this
ointment to be common or meer ointment, For as the bread of the Eucha-
rift after the Inuocation of the Holy Spirit is no longer common bread,
but the body of Chrift (here is the real change) So this holy ointment,
is no longer naked or common ointment after it is confecrated 'Amd xg1500
Xágioμa. but à grace or Gift of Chrift, and the Holy fpirit, which
χάρ ισμα.
operates through the prefence of the Diuinity. Here is the other
and à quite different change. Bread is made the body of Christ,
Chriſm his holy and Jacred Gift. The Parallel or parity therefore, as
I now faid, lies in this, That both bread and Common ointment
are changed from what they were (and this is enough for Cyrills
intent who only proues Chrifin to be à holy thing) but it fail's
when he pofitiuely and exprefly diuerfifies the nature of theſe chan-
ges, of bread into Christs body, of Common ointment only into à
grace or a gift of Christ.
à
And Hence, Sr, your Queftion, whether
we may not as well proue à Tranfubftantiation in the Chrifm as we
do in the Eucharift, is both fond and friuolous. We Anfwer
No, becauſe the real change of bread into Chrift's body fully
expreffeth Tranſubſtantiation, the Terminus à quo, and ad quem
being Real, and substantial. The other Change of ointment into à
Gift of Chrift, denotes à moral change quite different and no-
thing like the other, which is moft real.
19. Your next and laft Gloff. abufes S. Amb. De ijs qui ini-
tiantur. C. 9. who faith. Bread is no longer that which Nature has
framed it, but that which the Benediction of Confecration has made it.
You Anfwer. It is the body of Chrift, but not in our gross fenfe.
Pray Sr, Inform vs à little of your more quaint meaning? Say,
how bread is Chriſts body if it ſtill remains as fubftantially bread
after the Benediction, as water in Baptifin remain's ſubſtantially
water?
S. Cyrill's
words denote
the differen-
ce.
S. Ambrofe
next cited,no
less abused
then others.
136
Diſc.1. C. 13. Mr Stillingfleet abuſes
Had this
Aduerfary
So much
Authority
for by opi-
nion, as wee
Produce in
behalfe of
Carbolick
Dorin No
man Could
belieue any
thing.
water?
Doth the water wherewith an infant is washed, ceaſe to
be water becauſe it is à Sacrament? No certainly, yet bread if S.
Ambroſe ſpeak truth, ceaſeth to be that which nature framed it.
You endeauour to make Thefe words forceles, becauſe S. Chrifoft.
in Act: Hom. 23. faith of Baptism, l'ts virtue is so great that it ſuffer's
not men to be men, and then you wifely ask whether we will grant
it Tranfubftantiat's them? Friuolous. The Saint only speaks of
the virtue of Baptifm, which, as he obſerues makes vs fons of Adop-
tion, That is, it Changes à foul from the miferable ſtate of Sin into
à happy state of grace, and fo permit's not men once infected with
that leprofy, to be men as they were before, vnregenerate. And the-
refore, he adds in the enfaing words. The great power of the Holy
Ghost is that it Transform's our Manners and makes them compoſed.
What is here of any thing like Tranfubstantiation, or of à ceaſing
of that which nature hath framed? But enough and fully enough
of Mr Stillingfleets moft improbable gloffes, fo I muft and will term
them, vntil fome furer Principle than fancy giues them more
ftrength which shall neuer be.
20.
To end. I'le fay à great Truth. Had this Gentleman
twenty Cyprians, twenty Cyrills, twenty Aufins as clear and
express for his Opinion of the Sacrament, as the Teftimo-
nies now cited are fignificant for Catholick Doctrin: Had he
à Church reputed Orthodox which as indubitably mantain'd his
Opinion fiue or fix ages fince, as the Catholick Church then
held, and yet hold's our Catholick Doctrin, Finally, had he Scrip-
ture as plain for his Sign or Figure of Chriſts body, as it is euident-
ly clear for the Real Prefence, I verily think no prudent man
could or would belieue any thing of this great Myftery, And con-
fequently all might rationally doubt of euery article in Chriſtian
Religion: Becaufe Fathers vpon the Suppofition,are directly con-
trary to Fathers, Church, ftand's againſt Curch,and Scripture againſt
Scripture. Butnow when he hath not one Clear Teftimony of à
Father, much less the Sentiment of any Orthodox Church, nor fo
much as à word of Scripture contrary to our Catholick Poſition; I
muſt Conclude that his Gloffes already laid on theſe Fathers are
not only improbable, but more than highly improbable.
21. Per-
the Fathers
137
upon his ow
Gloſſes,
21. Perhaps Mr Stillingfleet may reply. His gloffes, T'is true,
becauſe they are the Sentiments of à fallible man, are indeed lyable
to errour; but He bidds me look well to my Refutations, and bewa-
re of fetting to high à value on them whilft I oppofe him, For my
Oppofition, (becauſe I may iniftake) amount's to no more, but to
à weake de gree of Fallibility,fo that, Hitherto He and I ftand vpon
equal Terms. Anfw. If the conteft be thusmuch only, whether
his Gloffes are not clearly refuted, the Iudicious Reader after à
due Ponderation of my Replies, is fo far to iudge between vs.
But here is not all, I muft Say more. Though I am as fallible in
excepting againſt His gloffes, as he is in making them, yet my Faith
depend's not vpon my Exuptions but vpon the Doctrin of my
Church, The express words of Scripture, and Fathers, Thefe obli-
ge me vnder pain of damnation to belieue as I doe, But all that
Mr Stilling: hath for his Faith, is only the vncertainty of his own No man
coniectures(ancient Church he has none, nor express Scripture, builds faith
nor one Clear ſentence of any Ancient Father) And will hee Dare
to oblige me vnder pain of damnation to belieue his Gloffes (or
the opinion he would mantain by them) vpon no other Ground
but his weak Coniectures? I appeal to his own Conſcience for an
Anſwer. Well. Be it how you will, thus much is euident (and
T'is the only thing I aime at in this whole Difcourfe) if Scripture
and Fathers be interpreted in high matters of Faith by two Ad-
uerfaries of different Religions, when no furer Principle is at hand
to rely on, but the fallible Gloffes of the One, and a contrary fal-
lible combating with thofe Gloffes in the Other, they may both
(as the world goes now) fit long at the fport, before one Contro-
uerfy be ended. Therefore God, as I faid aboue, has Prouided vs
of an eafier way to end thefe weighty difficulties, or, we may All
turn Scepticks. Some may fay; The old mode of the World was
to difpute by Scripture and Fathers, dare we reiect this way of
arguing as infufficient? Anfw. No truely: It is an excellent
way amongſt Chriſtians (though infignificant to Heathens) when
the Aduerfe Parties can Clear the fenfe of Scripture and Fathers
vpon certain Principles, But if the very fenfe of Scripture and Fa-
$
thers
Other means
to end Cette
trouerfies
then meet
Gloffes
138
Difc 1. C. 13. Scripture alone,
What Prin-
ciples Secta
ries Can
Pretend te,
difline from
an Infallible
Church.
thers be called into Queftion As now à daies it is by Sectaries,
We muft of neceffity haue Recourfe to an other more Clear,
eafy, and indubitable means of ending all Debates euer in vfè
among the Holy Fathers, Whereof more afterward. In the
Interim the enfuing Chapter may giue you entertainment.
CHAP. XIV.
It is further proued that neither Scripture alne, nor any
other Principle diftinct from an Vnerring Church,
can with certainty decide Controuerfies in
Matters of Religion, or Regulate
Chriftian Faith.
I.
His Affertion not ſlightly proued in the other Treatife.
Difc. 2. C. 4. I hold fo certain, That the wit of man
shall not rationally contradict it.. And to giue yet more light to
what is there faid, Be pleafed to exclude, or mentally only to caft
afide All thought of an vnerring Church, of her infallible Tradition al
fo,of the Definitions of General Councils, For all theſe (which
Sectaries hold fallible) are Effential to an vnerring Church, If any
fuch thing be in the world, whereof we shall Treat afterward.
Next look about you, And confider well what remain's to end
Controuerfies withall, or to regulate Diuine Faith. You haue
firft Scripture which à Pagan wholly and à Iew partly reiects, Yet
with fuch Aliens from Chrift, à Chriftian can argue rationally yea
and clearly conuince them, as I shall proue in the fecond Difcourfe.
After Scripture, you haue the fublime Myfteries of Faith, the Fa-
thers Doctrin laid forth in their Volumes, and the Hiftory of the
Church. Here are all the Principles imaginable left Sectaries, be-
fides their priuate Spirit, which can be no more à found Principle
to them, than the contrary Spirit is to Their Aduerfàries.
+
2. Let
no rule of Faith.
139
2. Let vs now See how weakly the Sectary endeauours to end
any Controuerfy by thefe Principles withont an infallible Church.
And be pleafed euer to attend to the Aduerfary he Treat's with.
If he attempt's to do good on à Heathen by Scripture, or bring's in
the Reaſonableness of Chriftian Religion, The Heathen, and
Iew alto laugh at his Folly, And,wish him to proue his Book to
be Diuine. If he proues that by the Vniuerfal Tradition of all
Called Chriftians, the Heathen perhaps will not yet quarrel with
him (as I may hereafter) about the Fallibility or Infallibility of
Tradition, but defires him to goe among the Chineſes and lay his
Bible down by That book which their fuppofed Prophet Confufius
wrote, full of excellent Moral Precepts. Thus much done the
Conteſt Begin's. The Sectary faith his Bible is Authorized by à
great Prophet, called Chrift. A learned Bonzius Anfwer's, and
his is alfo Authorized by à great Prophet called Confufius. The
Sectary faith all Chriftians own his book(vpon à neuer interrupted The Prote-
Tradition) to be indited by the Spirit of Truth, The Bonzius ftants Con-
replies, All China of à mighty vaft Extent age after age, hath the test with à
like perpetuated Tradition for his Bible. What followes but that Concerning
Thefe two Aduerfaries, perufe their Bibles? The Bonzius read's the Bible.
ours, and Reaſonably ask's, whether the Sectary can infallibly pro-
ue fuch ſtrange Myfteries as are regiftred there, (for example, à Tri-
nity, the Incarnation of the Diuine word) to be Truths Reuealed by
Almighty God? The Sectary anfwers. All the infallible certainty
he bath of these particular Verities laftly Relies only vpon Scripture it
felfe. For what euer Principle can be imagined diftinct from that
Written Word whether Church or Tradition, is Fallible and may decei-
ue. Iffo, faith the Heathen your Bible gain's no Credit with me,
Becauſe you proue the Mysteries contained there by that which
caufes my doubt, or is the matter in Queſtion, for you fay all I read,
is of Diuine infpiration becauſe your Bible relates them, and the-
refore make that à proof of your Doctrin, which is the Matter in
queſtion, or causes my doubt. O faith the Sectary read on with Hu-
mility and you will find, that the very Maicfty of the flyle, the Energy
of the words will quit you of doubting; And to eafe you of too
S2
much
Heathen
140 Diſc. 1. C. 14 Scripture alone,
The Hea.
against the
much pains, know we Proteftants hold That the Belief of à very
few chief Articles, or fimple Truths (as that Iefus is the Chrift: The
Diuine Word is incarnated &c) is faith enough to gain Heauen. Con-
tben except's
tra. Replies the Heathen. I fee no other Maiefty in the Style of
Protestants your Bible than in mine, and other pious books. The exteriour
plea.
Syntax or ioyning of words together is cominon to all fuch Wri-
tings. But aboue all I wonder why you talk to me of no man kno-
wes what fplendor shining in the bare Letter, when you fay that
shines not to Pagans, but only to thoſe who haue the Spirit of God,
and are the Elect amongst you. Now to what you Add of à few
chief Articles neceffary to be belieued and no more, I anfwer firft.
Your Scripture faith no fuch Thing, nor tell's me or you which
Articles are neceffary, which not, and if it did fo, you are only
where you were before in darkness, Since you proue not fo much
as one of theſe few Articles to be of Diuine Reuelation, but by the
book which records them; And this you do whilft I iuftly queftion not
only the book, but the Truth of this very article, which you ma-
ke Diuine, becauſe it is in your Bible. But enough of this fubiect at
prefent, whereoffee more C. 9. n. 7. All that is faid there and
further enlarged here, makes this Truth not only probable but de-
monftratiuely euident, That Scripture alone is no vniuerfal Means
to end Controuerfies debated between Christians and no Christians
(which is the only Thing we now infift on) yet Iefus Chrift hath left
fufficient means whereby fuch Aliens may be reclaimed from their
Errours, and attain faluation. Scripture doth it not for all, There-
fore à more fatisfactory way muft be thought of.
The Fathers
of no Autho-
rity with
Heathen.
3. Now if we begin to fpeak of the Fathers with à learned
Heathen, t'is labour loft, for He who belieues not the Diuinity of
Scripture will little regard the Fathers Authority. To tell à
Heathen of the high Myfteries of our Faith augment's his Diffi-
culties, puzzles Reaſon, and rack's his vnderftanding. To weary
him with à long narration of Ecclefiaftical hiſtory is moſt imperti-
nent, when as yet, He neither belieues Scripture, nor Fathers :
Yet this man may be conuerted to Chriſtian Religion if he follo-
wes Reafon, Vnless we fay which is intolerable to hear, That our
Lord
no rule of Faith.
141
Lord lefus will haue this poor man loft, or left without means to
attain Saluation by.
upon
licks,
4. The next Aduerfary the Proteftant may attaque shall be
if you pleaſe, à Roman Catholick (we will here to gain time
omit his Conteft with Arians and other Hereticks) And his whole The fetaries
endeauour if he goe Cloſely to work, muft either be to attempt
Eftablish his own Proteftant Tenets by Scripture, Fathers, and Anti- Catho-
quity, or forceably to diffwade all by virtue of thefe Principles from vain, and
the Belief of our Catholik Doctrin. I lay it is impoffible to do ei- why.
ther, Becauſe the Sectary has not in the whole Bible one clear and
exprefs Text for any one Tenet of Proteftancy as t'is reformed; Nor
fo much as one clear and exprefs Text against any one Doctrin of the
Roman Catholick Religion. Therefore, as Scripture cannot Pafs an
obligation on him to belieue one Article of his new Faith, fo it
cannot oblige him or me to disbelieue one Article of our Roman
Catholick Doctrin, For vpon this fuppofition, it neuer meddless
with the one, and often omit's to ſpeak of the other, in plain
open and fignificant Terms. For example, Scripture neither ex-
prefly denies Tranfubftantiation with the Proteftant, nor in that
plain open Term affirm's it with the Catholick : it neither clearly Saies
there are Two Sacraments only, nor in exprefs Words allowes of
Seuen: It neither clearly denies Purgatory, nor vnder that express
Word afferts it. How then can the Proteftant when he hath not
one clear fyllable in Scripture for what he hold's in thefe particu-
lars, nor à word againft our contrary Doctrins, euer probably ven-
ture to decide theſe and the like controuerted Matters by the plain
and expreſs letter of the Bible? It is impoffible. The Reafon is
it cannot determine that whereof it ſpeaks not clearly, nor become
an intellectual Rule,or Meaſure whereby we are to iudge what's true,
or what's falſe concerning theſe controuerfies, if it Meddles not with
them in expreſs Terms. I fay in express Terms: For what euer is
less then that, or not express, mnft either bee the Sectaries Gloss
or his fallible Deduction,I reiect both,and appeal to him who wrote
the original Book with all it's candor and fimplicity. If I find
Proteftancy there, well and good; If otherwife, no Gloss no De-
S 3
*
duction
י
Not one
Text in
Scripture
Mclear for
Proteflancy
nor one
againſt Ca-
tholick
Doctrin.
742
Difc. 1. C. 14. Scripture alone,
The Affer
tin, proud.
meer Conc
jectures
are Prote
fants only
proofs.
auction shall preuail with me to belieue the Nouelty vnder pain of
damnation, vnless he who tampers with à Text, firft, bid's ine be-
lieue vnder pain of damnation that he is an vnerring man, or that
his Gloffes or deductions are infallible, which I am fure is not God's
command. Again, IfI find-nothing plain and exprefs in Scripture
againſt my Catholick Doctrin (but much for it) I should be worfe
then foolish to change my ancient Faith-vpon the flight ground of
farfetch't Gloffes and fallible inferences.
5. Shall I fay yet more clearly what I here aime at? Some
Chriftians there are now in being who Belieue the true Doctrin of
Chrift fo firmly, that though an Angel preach't Contrary (Galat: 1.
8.) They ought not to be remoued from it; if therefore Proteftants
belieue their own Doctrin fo ftedfaftly, and fay that Papifts (for
example) err in the Belief of Chrift's true Doctrin, they are to
Euidence it by à more indubitable Principle, than that is which
the Apoſtle vnderftand's by the preaching of an Angel, But fuch à Prin-
ciple can be no other nor less certain than plain and open Scriptu-
re, How Therefore can the Proteftant fo much as weakly hope
to diffwade from Popery and perfwade to his opinions by meer
gueffes, weak inferences, weightles coniectures &c. without
plain Scripture? Now to shew you he hath no more but, gueſſes,
Let him pleaſe to Difcufs rigidly with me but one point in Con-
trouerfy by Scripture only. That of Tranfubftantiation wherein he
think's to haue moft Aduantage, may perhaps occurr, and like him
beft. I fay after All he can allege for his opinion, or againſt our
Catholick Do&trin shall be no more but meer Coniectures, improba-
ble Gloſſes, vncertain Topicks, false Suppofitions and the like; And are
theſe think you weighty enough to eftablish his Opinion which he
hold's to be reuealed Doctrin? No certainly. The Doctrin of
Chriſt ſtand's fo fure vpon certain known Grounds that an Angel
though he preach otherwife, is not to be belieued, and if it be not
thus ſtedfaſtly founded, it is not as I obferued aboue, Chriſt's Doc-
trin. How cafy were it for the Sectary to end much of theſe de-
bates by à due examination of this one Controuerfy. I vrge him
to it, yet you'l fee, he will refufe this Modeft Challenge.
6. Where
no rule of Faith.
143
6.
Wherefore I shall neuer comprehend why theſe mén trouble
the world as they do with writing Controuerfies. What is their
aime? Is it to draw any one Soul to Proteftancy, or only to give
à proof of wit, and show that they can fpeak againft God's truths
which an Angel cannot Diffwade from? Ir this later be intended,
the Arians of old did ſo before them, And the Diuel can do it much
better than either Arian or Sectary: If it be to conuert men to Pro-
teftancy, The Attempt is. defperate, vnless they come ftrongly ar-
med with plain, express, and Significant Scripture, Whereof there
is no fear at all; For had they clear Scripture againſt one ſort of
their fuppofed erring Chriftians (Papifts for example) they would
not fpare vs one whit, but moſt willingly Silence vs with Gods own
plain language. This we look for, but in lieu of it, what haue we?
Fancies, Coniectures, Gloffes, friuolous Difcourjes.. And thus forfooth
Popery muft down (I marry) and Proteftancy be thought the pure
and moft refined Religion..
*
7. By what is faid already you fee how vnluckily thefe men run Setaries
out of the way of all probable Arguing, whilft Scripture is made fo argue im-
clear, that by the light thereof, All Controuerfies now raiſed probably.
amongft diffenting Chriftians, can be determined.. Is it fo conuin-
cing and clear? Proue you no Purgatory, no Inuocation of Saints
by plain and express Scripture.. Is it fo conuincing and clear? Proue
you plainly that to deny Purgatory or Tranfubftantiation, is as ne-
ceffary to Saluation as to deny à Quaternity of Diuine Perſons.
Now if it be not clear in fuch matters. Why keep you à coile
about thefe Negatiues? Why do you threaten vs with God's iud-
gements for inantaining the Contrary Doctrins? Why haue you
not only made an vproar in the world about Doctrins meerly vn-
neceffary, but more (which may lay forrow at your hearts)why ha- Negatize
ue you shamefully feparated your felues from an Ancient Church, Opinions,
whereof your Anceſtors were members? And this is defperately the cause of
done for à Company of Negatiue Opinions, Though it import's not Sectaries
one ftraw whether they be belieued or no. Contrariwife, if Separation.
make the Belief of thefe Non-Articlès neceffary to Saluation they
muft be proued by the plain and exprefs word of God, which is
you
vtterly
144 Difc. 1. C. 14. Scripture alone,
of Sectaries
Simple
Truths.
vtterly impoffible, and therefore I faid right, that Scripture cannot
end Controuerfies between diffenting Chriftians, Catholicks for
example and Proteftants.
8. And thus much in effect our Newer men grant who talk
much of à few fimple Truths fufficient to faluation called fundamen-
tals. Is s not enough faith Dr Taylor in his. 2. Diffwafiue. P. 168.
That we are Chriftians, that we put all our hope in God who freely giues
vs all things by his Son Iefus Chrift? That we are redeemed by his Death,
that we are members of his body in Baptifm. that he grues vs his fpirit, that
We do no Euil, that we do what good we can &c. Is not this Faith vnto
Righteousneß, and the Confeßion of this faith fufficient vnto faluation ?
Obferue well. If ſuch à faith of à few Nouellifts, and the like
fimple Truths which no Arian denies vinder fuch general Terms
(and cannot be proued fufficient by plain Scripture) be enough to
Saluation, what need had Sectaries to Calumniate our ancient
Church, and expofe Chriftianity to the fcorn of lewes and Atheiſts
for lefler Matters (as they think) than theſe fundamentals, or few
fumple truths are? Do we difown any of them? No. We are
Chriftians as well as they, we put our hope in God,we fay all things
are giuen vs by his fon Iefus Chrift, we are redeemed by his
Death &c. Wherein then lies our Offence? O, we hold furange
Nouelties, Inuocation of Saints. Purgatory, Tranfubftantiation. I I deny
they are Nouelties, but be it as you will, They are out of the lift of
your fimple Truths, and in your Principles no more but Opinions
and can you haue fuch cruel hearts as to perfecute vs, banish vs,and
shed our blood for meer Opinions? Where is your 'Charity?
Again I argue Ad hominem. If to hold à Purgatory be only an
Opinion, your denying it is no more but an opinion alfo, There-
fore you cannot proue your Negatiue by plain and express Scrip-
ture, for if you do fo, it well be no longer an Opinion, but à reuea-
`led Tru, and certain Doctrin. Conuince this if you can and then
tell vs that Scripture decides all Controuerfies between vs, or laies
an obligation on vs to belieue more then These few fimple Truths are?
No Purgatory, for example, No Tranfubftantiation; or fay plainly,
that Scripture doth not put an end to thefe Controuerfies; which
Truth is euident by manifeft Experience.
?
2. I
no rule of Faith.
135
F
9. It is ftrange to fee how endleffe Sectaries are, and to no pur
pole at all, in quoting Fathers for the Clarity and fufficiency of
Scripture in allthings neceffary, but afterward fpoil all with à new
Scripture
Whimſey, For they make iuft fo much as they pleaſe(à few Simple Sayes not
Truths ferue the turn) to be Neceffary and fufficient. Here are how many
three infuperable difficulties. Firft. They fpeak without book, are neceffe.
For God neuer told them in Scripture how many or how few of y.
theſe Truths, are neceflary and Sufficient; Therefore if I admit this
Principle, the Proteftants fole Word muft fecure me, though I
know well, that their word is neither à neceffary, nor à fufficient
warrant for my faluation. Hence. 1. I vrge them to show by
plain Scripture the number of thefe fundamentals precifely neceffa-
ry. 2. I must tell them. If Scripture be clear in à few Funda-
mentals and fo much only be neceſſary and fufficient, this reafona-
ble Quæftion may well follow. What's the reft of the Bible good
for with them? Moft certainly the far greater part of it, where
it ſpeak's not of theſe few Neceffaries, may be caft away as vfeless
and impertinent. 3. Thefe Nouellifts Pronounce, and Proue
against themfelues, in all fuch Controuerfies as are now in debate
between them and Catholicks,For, if Scripture which tell's vs of all
Neceffary and Sufficient things to faluation(compriſed in à few fim-
ple Truths whereofthere is no ftrif now) omit's, whilft it mentions Sectaries
thefe, to ſpeak plainly in behalf of our Proteftant Opinions. No proue againſt
themſelues.
Sacrifice. No Tranſubſtantiation. &c. With what Confcience can
they tell vs(and They haue often faid it) that this Book alone can
decide theſe controuerfies, and recall vs from Popery to their new
mode of Proteftancy? I would willingly haue Satisfaction to this
one difficulty.
10. Well: To anſwer all they can pretend to out of the ancient
Fathers for the Clarity and fufficiency of fcripture in order to
things neceffary; be pleafed to obferue, that the learned Tertullian
againſt Marcion (but chiefly in his book de Praſcript: cap. 16. at
thoſe words. We are not to recurr to Scripture, wherein there is no
victory, or à very vncertain one &c.) And S. Auftin. S. Chrifoftome with
others, may perhaps feem, to à less diligent Reader, to be of con-
T
trary
146
Difc. I. C. 14. Scripture alone,
trary iudgements. Tertullian now cited, faies Scripture is infuf-
ficient to decide Controuerfies concerning Religion amongft Chri-
ftians. S. Aftin. De Bapt. Contra Donat: lib. 2. C. 6. plead's much
for it's fufficiency. I fay here is no Contrariety: both ſpeak well,
both deliuer Catholick Doctrin. Know therefore, that Scripture
Two parts of
is deuided into two Parts or Sections,as you may read in Sixtus Senen-
Scripture, fis. Lib. 6.Bibl. Annot : 152. Who cites S. Chrifoftom for it. The one
diflingui,
vfually called Pars Directa, or direct part treat's of the abftrufe My-
shed,
fteries of Chriftian Faith, and this (which is Matter of Conteſt be-
tween vs and Sectaries ) Tertullian reiect's, and hold's infufficient to
end difputes, And fo doth S. Auftin allo. Epiftola. 49. Ad Deo gratias.
The other named, Pars reflexa and the clearer which fpeak's of
the Foundation of Chriftian Religion, ofthe Extent of the Church
diffuſed the whole world ouer,of its marks and Signes, of its Perpetuity,
and infallible Aẞiſtance, of Nations flocking to it, &c. This part, I fay
(the book being once admitted as of Gods Diuine word) is fo
perfpicuous, and clear that it filences all Sectaries and euidently ſub-
uert's their Errours. But to tell me,it is clear and fufficient enough
to decide differences, when we diſpute with contentious men about
the particular Myfteries of Faith (the Trinity, for example, Tranfab-
fanitation, the number of Sacraments &c.) And the very fenſe of Scrip-
ture, which should end all, is not agreed on by the two diffenting
Parties; To affert this I fay, is not only à Paradox but à manifeſt
improbability contrary to all experience, And therefore I will extort
this confeffion from our Aduerfaries (may they pleaſe to anſwer)
that as they shall neuer proue one of their Proteftant Opinions,
fo, they shall neuer oppugn one Catholick Doctrin, by clear and
express Scripture.
S. Auftin's
Difcourfe.
with an
drian.
II. Some obiect S. Austin difputing againſt Maximinus an Arian,
who faith. Lib. 3. C. 4. 14. Sed nunc nec ego Nicenum &c. But now,
neither I ought to allege the Nicene Council, nor thou that of Ariminum, for
neither am I bound to the Authority of the one, nor thou to the Authority
of the other. Let vs contend by the Authorities of fcripture which are com-
mon Witneffes to vs both. Here two things feem clear. Firft. That
S. Auftin reiected the Authority of the Nicene Council, as Sectaries
do
no rule of Faith.
147
Obferus the
quetion here
proposed.
do now the Church. 2. That He held Scripture à fufficient Rule
to conuince an Arian. A word only in paffing. Dare the Sectary
offer thus much, or difpute with the Catholick for the fuppofed
Truths of pure Proteftancy, or his Negatiue Articles by Scripture only,
as he here fuppofeth S Austin did Argue in other Matters with
Maximinus? Twould willingly fee fome attempt made this way,
but am fure, He will not dare to do it. Becauſe he faith His Pro-
teftancy, or thefe Negatiues are not reuealed, but only à number of
inferiour truths which cannot be proued by Scripture. To what
purpoſe then is it to allege any Teftimony which makes Scripture
fufficient to decide Controuerfies, when the Proteftant ingenuou-
fly grant's he can proue nothing of his pure Proteftancy by plain
Scripture? Hence I Say all the Quotations of Fathers haled in to
proue the fufficiency of Scripture, help not the Sectary at all. Ire-
naus, for example, call's it the Rule of Faith. S. Auftin. A Diuine Setaries
Balance. Theophilus Alex: A firm foundation. Gerfon, A Sufficient and quote Fa-
infallible Rule. Moft true if we fpeak of the fcriptures Clearer part,
yea and of the obfcurer alfo, when it is interpreted by an infallible purpose.
Oracle. But what makes all this for pure Proteftancy, or for its
Negatiue Opinions? Doth Scripture regulate this new Faith,
whereof it is vtterly filent? Doth it weigh fuch Negatiues, or tell
vs what they are worth? Is it à firm Foundation to eftablish thefe
Fancies? A fufficient and infallible Rule which meaſures vs out,
No Sacrifice on the Altar, No purgatory, No Tranſubſtantiation? Toyes,
trifles. There is not à word ſpoken in the whole Bible contrary
to the oppofit Verities of Catholick Religion, or in behalf of Pro-
teftancy. Therefore though S. Auflin appeald to Scripture againſt
an Arian, and had his reafons for it, yet our new mens Plea is more
then impertinent, when after their Appeal they find not one fen-
tence for Proteftancy, or againft Catholick Doctrin. Now to
S. Auftin.
thers to ne
12. I fay first, The Saint reiected not the Authority of the
Nicene Council which he euer honourd, but only waued that as an
Why S. Au.
flin waued
vnmeet Principle in his conteft with Maximinus, who no more regar- the Nicene
ded the Nicene Definitions, than Sectaries now do the Council of Council.
T 2
Trent;
148
Difc. 1. C. 14. Scripture alone,
A clear
Conuiction.
What if S.
Aufiin had
argued from
the Direct
part of
Scripture?
Trent, Therefore as we Argue not from that Council againſt them,
fo S. Austin then argued not from the Nicene Definitions. Thus
our Catholick Witers haue anfwered à hundred times, yet we muft
haue this Crambe recocta ferued vp again,as à new vnfauory Obiec-
tion. I fay. 2. S. Austin by his Appeal to Scripture recurr's not
to the bare letter, which, he Saith, is à body without à Soul, but to
the true genuine Senfe Thereof, which he fuppofeth known in
that Scripture which we call the Reflex part, and yet is more clearly
known by the Vniuerfal confent of Chrift's vnerring Church:
For it is one and the fame thing with S. Auſtin, to belieue the
Churches fenfe of Scripture, and to belieue Scripture it ſelf, which
most manifeftly commena's vnto vs Church Authority. Had then the
Saint argued thus againſt his Aduerſary, He had conuinced him by
the Clearer Part of Scripture. Though thou excepteft against the Nicene
Council, yet thou cans't not deny, but that Scripture commend's à Church
founded by Chriſt, diffuſed the whole world ouer; what euer Therefore
this Church deliuers concerning the fenfe of Scripture, That is the fenfe of
the Holy Ghoft, And can be no other,for à Church which werues from the
true fenfe of Gods word, is no Church founded by Chrift. But the Vniuer-
fal Sentiment of this Church oppofeth thy errour, Therefore the true fenfe of
Scripture which this Church plainly deliuers, stand's oppofit to thee also,
And thus thou art conuinced by Scripture it ſelf.
13. Perhaps you wif ask whether if S. Austin had argued from
the Obfcurer Part only which treats of à Mysterious Trinity, one
God in Effence, and three diftinct Perfons, not fo plainly expreffed
there, He could then haue conuinced his Arian Aduerfary of errour?
None can better fatisfy the doubt than S. Auſtin himſelf. Lib. con-
tra Crefconium C. 33. where he fpeaks of an other Matter of
Faith. viz. of Baptifm conferred by Hereticks, which though not
clearly expreffed in Scripture, is yet held à true and valid Sacra-
His words are. Proinde quamuis huius rei certè de Scripturis
Canonicis non proferatur exemplum &c. Although no example of
this thing. (the validity of Baptifin by Hereticks) can certainly be
Shown by Scripture yet the Verity of thefe Scriptures is held by vs
in this particular. Cum boc facimus quod vniuerfæ iam placuit Ecclefia,
ment.
when
no rule of Faith.
149
?
when we now do that which pleaſes, or is agreable to the Vniuerfal
Church, which Church, the Authority of Scripture it ſelf commend's.
Vt quoniam, As that becauſe the Holy Scripture cannot deceiue
(whilft it commend's the Church) and euery one fear's to be decei-
ued in the obfcurity of this Queſtion: Eamdem Ecclefiam de illâ conſu-
lat. Let him confult the Vniuerfal Church of this particular
Which holy Scripture without all ambiguity Doth demonstrate. Thus S. Autin
moft profoundly S. Auftin. And he giues an Anfwer to the prefent himselfe
difficulty. viz. That if the Obfcurer Part of Scripture fpeak not Answers,
plainly in the debate betwixt him and an Heretick, the Heretick
is to address himſelf to the Church and learn by Her what the
fenſe of Scripture is. Without light borrowed from the Church,
we haue only words about theſe high Myſteries, but not fully ſen-
fed words, chiefly when we argue with contentious Sectaries,
whofe gloffes depraue the plaineft Paffages in Holy writ
as the
Proteftant doth Chrift's clear Propofition. This is my body. If there-
fore we go on in fuch à conteft with words not fully fenfed,
we may well end our lines, as S. Auftin notes, before we end one
Controuerfy.
,
14. And thus you fee, as the One Part of Scripture is à body
without à foul before it be receiued by the Church; fo the Other
Part is alfo, before it be both receiued and fenfed by this Oracle
ofTruth. Vpon this ground all thofe other Teftimonies vfually
alleged by Sectaries out of s. Auftin against the Donatists, Of Optatus
Meleuitanus, and S. Chryfoftom for the clarity of Scripture are clearly
folued, for here is S. Auftins Principle. The fenfe of Scripture intended
by the Holy Ghost, and the fenfe of Chrifts true Church concerning Scripture,
can neuer clash, but is one and the fame. If therefore I know the fen-
fe of the Church, I haue with it the fenfe of Scripture alfo, but with
this difference, That what Scripture often expreffes less clearly,
Chriſt's Church deliuers more fully, and Explicitly. Whence it followes
that if the Churches fenfe conclude against thefe Sectaries, the
Scriptures fenfe, where it is obfcure, is in like manner con-
cluding.
15. You may obiect Scripture is in the nobleft manner in-
fallible,
T 3
The fenfe
of Scripture
and the
Church al
waies the
ame.
fame.
1:0 Difc. 1. C. 14. Scripture alone,
An Obiec-
11072
anſwered.
}
fallible, For it hath its infallibility from God immediatly, and may
well be à diftinct Rule, or Principle, from that fenfe which the
Church giues of it. Why therefore should not Sectaries haue
recourfe to that first and nobleft Principle without relying on the
Churches interpretation? I haue antwered, becauſe they know
not (gueſs they may and mifs) what Scripture faies in à hundred dif-
ficult Paffages. Therefore they are to recurr to the Church, or
muft make vſe of their own fancies to fenfe it. The Argument,
purely fallacious, is much to this fenfe. Chrift our Lord when
he taught his Diſciples was in the nobleft manner infallible,being
Truth it felf, the Apoftles were only infallible in their teaching and
further Explanation of thoſe Verities they learn'd, by à Singular
Grace or participation of Infallibility. Why then should not
Sectaries rely only on the firft fure Principle, Chrift's own words
flowing from the Fountain of infallibility, without depending on
the Apoſtles Doctrin, not so eminently infallible? Now be plea-
fed to hear S. Auſtin pondering thoſe words. Pfal: 57. Alienati funt
peccatores &c. Where he makes this Parallel betwixt Chrift and
the Church, and folues the Difficulty. Ex veritatis ore agnosco
Chriftum ipfam veritatem. Taught by the mouth of Truth, I ack-
nowledge Chrift Truth it felf, ex veritatis ore agnofco Ecclefiam par-
ticipem veritatis. And by the fame mouth of Truth, I acknowledge
the Church partaking alfo of Verity. That is, I own the Church
to be, not Truth it felf, not Scripture it felf, but à Copartner of
Truth, with Chrift, and Scripture. I own it to be, not Infallibility
it felf, yet fo eminently infallible by à fingular grace or participa-
ted Infallibility, That to difpute against it is most infolent madness:
Witness the fame S. Austin. Epist. 118. C. 5. ad Ian: If he dare
to do ſo, Saith the Saiut, Serm: 14. de verbis Apoft. C. 18. or rush
violently against this impregnable wall of the Church, let him know
his doom. ipfe confringitur He is shattered in pieces. Hence
you fee first, that no mans priuate Iudgement can be contrary
to the Churches fenfe giuen of Scripture, without thwarting Scrip-
ture it felf. You fee. 2. That Scripture and the Church are not
two Principles, looking as it were different waies, but one and
the
no rule of Faith.
151
the fame, in order to our direction and regulating Faith. whereof
more. Hereafter.
Scripture
and the
Church in
16. In the mean while you may ask, why our Sectaries keep order to all,
fuch à Coile about the Clarity of Scripture concerning things neces- is one Frin-
fary? It is hard to fay what they driue at, For if all this pretended ciple.
clarity diffuſed it felf through euery paffage of Holy writ, worfe it is
for them, and to their vtter confufion. Obferue My reafon. The
more clear Scripture is made by Nouellifts, the greater is their
shame, whilft they cannot proue by it's fuppofed clarity fo much as
one Proteſtant Doctrin, nor probably oppugn one Article of our Catholick
Faith. Therefore nothing is gained this way: Nay all is lost by
Their cafting off Church Authority, when after that wicked Fact,
clear Scripture leaues them as Scriptureleffe, as Their own malice has
made them Churchleffe. It is true. I fee fome Colour for their Pre-
tence to Scripture, and thus it is. Like men lawleſfe, they haue
shaken of all other receiued Principles of Chriftian Religion.
Speak of à Church, She is fallible, and has actually erred.. Cite Fathers,
fome pitifully gloss them, others roundly reiect them as men meer-
ly Fallible. Mention Tradition, the very word is odious. Now
for ſtark shame, whilft they bear the name of Chriftians, it is hard
to throw away all Chriftian Principles. What's done therefore? Why Sea-
I'le tell you. They lay hold of a body without à Soul, I
the bare letter of Scrrpture without the Senfe, and this is all that's the bare.
left them. I say without the fenfe, whereof you haue feen enough letter of
already, for when the fenfe of God's word is controuerted between Scripture,
them and vs, and their fenfe run's contrary to the receiued Church
Doctrin, no probable Principle can make it defenfible, and vpon
this Ground I ſaid right, They are as Scriptureleffe as Churchleffe All
this is moft true, and I well vnderſtand it. But why thefe men la-
bour fo earneſtly to make the Bible plain, when not fo much as
one plain paffage is found there for Proteftancy, or againſt our
Catholick Doctrin, is à Riddle aboue my reach, I vnderſtand it not.
Let then as much as you will of the book be clear, whilft the
Clarity fauour's not one of our Sectaries forged Nouelties, nor
Contradict's one of our Catholick Tenets, it neither help's the
2
mean,
Proteftant
ries take
recourſe to
152
Difc. 1. C. 14. Other Frinciples infufficient
What weak
Reason
would em-
braces If left
to is felfe.
Proteftant nor hurt's the Catholick. In the next Difcourfe wé
shall treat of the Church, and more oportunely folue there à few
ebiections of Sectaries.
CHAP. XV.
The other mentioned Principles aboue are infufficient
to decide controuerfies, Or to Regulate
Faith.
I He next Principle after Scripture, we named the Myſteries
of Chriftian Religion, which certainly cannot regulate
Faith, or determine Controuerfies concerning Religion. For à
Rule is the meaſure whereby we iudge what is true and what is falss,
but no man judges this by the Myfteries themfelues Beliened,becauſe
thefe propofed without further light, are not only obfcure but
highly Tranftend all natural diſcourſe, And therefore Reaſon would
reiect them, were it not curb'd and rectified by an other Superiour
moft certain and infallible Rule, diftinct from the Myfteries. A
further ground and more à Priori is. That man who Iudges of
Religion by the Myfteries belieued, makes, in real truth his own
fancy or weak reafon to regulate Faith, and is fure to erre. I'le
shew you how. Giue me one, as yet not fetled in any Faith,
that caft's his thoughts vpon all the different Religions now Pro-
feffed in the world, Iudaifm, Mahometism, and Christianity. He
call's them all to the Tribunal of his Reafon which is guided by
the Mysteries of each Profeffion, And is refolued to pitch on fo
much, as feem's fuitable to his Iudgement. Reafon certainly, if
it proceed Reasonably. will only pick out of euery one, fuch
Myfteries as are Facile, and no way torture an Vnderftanding.
Much may difpleaſe this Seeker after Truth in Iudaifm, yet per-
haps not all. The filth and Fooleries in Turcifm like him not,
+
yet
Difc. 1. C. 15. To regulate Faith.
153
Per-
Sectaries, are
yet fomething he may approue. Finally he fall's vpon Chriſtianity
and there find's thofe infuperable difficulties of à Trinity, the Incar-
nation, Original fin &c. Thefe fuite not with his Reafon, and con-
fequently are reiected, Therefore (if Chriftianity be true) à false
Religion cannot but haue more fway with him, than the vndoubted
reuealed Verities of Iefus Chrift. Thus much feem's clear.
haps you will ask why I inftance in an Vnbelieuer, who is yet to chufe
his Religion? When I should show that Chriſtians, euen thoſe we
call Sectaries, ought not to end Controuerfies or to regulate their
Faith by the apparent eafines, or difficulty of Myfteries within the
bounds of Christianity, whereof many are in difpute between them
and Catholicks. Anfw. I haue inftanced thus on ſet purpoſe
to lay open the great Errour of all Sectaries, who leauing the Thefe whe
Conduct of Chrift's Church run along with this fuppofed vnbeliever, yet belieue
For as he, after à confideration had of feueral Myfteries found in nothing and
the Religions now named, takes out of each what is eafieft, and like in
beſt likes his Fancy, or weak reafon; So Sectaries proceed, Though their Choife
they walk in à leffer compass, and for the moft part limit Themfel- Of Religion
ues to fomething taught by men called Chriftians, whether true
or falfe, imports not. Within fuch bounds they take and leaue
as freely what pleafeth, as any Vnbeliever doth, and vually throw
off Mysteries moft difficult to fenfe and Reafon. Thus the Arian
reiect's à Trinity becauſe it is à hard Myſtery, and not plainly
expreffed in Scripture. The Pelagian denies Original fin vpon
the fame ground, and Proteftants thunder against Transubstantia-
tion, becauſe the word is not in Holy Writ, and the Myſtery
feein's repugnant to their Reaſon. All therefore are alike as ill
Self-chufers with in fuch à compass as any Vnbelieuer, who ma-
kes a new Religion on his own head,guided by no other Rule,but
fancy,or what ſeem's to him reaſonable. The fole caufe of this Self-
chufing, is the Sectaries falling off from the conduct of Chrifts
vnerring Oracle, The Church, which tell's them what God fpeak's.
This vnfortunately flighted, They make him fpeak iuft ſo much
as they think fit, or feem's good to their weak and fallible Re
fon.
V
2. The
154 Dife. . C. 15. Other Principles infufficient.
Proteftants
-doe and must
except
against the
Authority of
Eathers.
2. The next Principle, Sectaries may lay hold on for à fuf-
ficient, or at leaſt à Subordinate and concurrent means to decide
Controuerfies, and regulate Faith, is the Authority of the an-
cient Fathers. Though Catholiks highly honour thefe great
Lights of the Church, And no way decline the tryal, yet they
think an eafier Rule can be affigned for all, and know well that
Proteftants doe and muft except againſt this very Rule. One ex-
ception is. The labour is immenfe to perufe exactly the large
volumes of Fathers (the like is of Councils) which can only be
done by the more learned of different Religions. Howeuer,
fuppofe the work performed by à learned Catholick and à learned
Proteftant, and that both diligently read the Fathers, The fatis -
faction giuen to the Generality of other Chriftians is very little or
nothing, who first muft Hear, what Thefe two men report, and
next credit their diffenting Iudgements. And can fuch iudgements
think ye thus at variance (as they haue been for à hundred years)
certainly regulate Diuine Faith in à Seeker after truth, or end
debates wheron Saluation depend's? It is impoffible. Again
Thefe Fathers with Sectaries, euen all of them put together, are
fallible and may teach Falfe Doctrin: Nay more, They haue
actually taught it, fay Proteftants, and grofly erred, whilft they
openly mantained à true Sacrifice vpon the Altar, prayers for the dead;
Inuocation of Saints, Tranſlation of Saints Reliques and their worship, Pil-
grimages to Hely places, Auricular Confißion to à Prieft, vn Written Tra-
fallible, and dition, vowed Chastity, the Hallowing of Altars, of Churches, of water,
teach Popery. bread, oyle, candles, And the great virtue of the fign of the Holy Cross.
&c. Theſe fay Proteftants, and innumerable others haue been the
foule miſtakes of Fathers, and Therefore Mr whitaker plainly
affirm's Popish Religion to be à Patched couerlet of the Fathers Errours
sowed together, And D. Humfrey highly blames Mr Iewell for his
fo bold Appeal to the Fathers, faying herein he gaue the Papifts too large
à Scope, was imurious to himſelf (And) after à manner (poiled himſelf, and
'the Church &c. The words of thefe two Sectaries are cited, as I
relate them, in the Proteftants Apology. Tract 1. Sect. 3. fubd.
14. Page (with me) 128. And neuer Aduerfàry could yet Tax that
because the
Fathers are
Author
:
Diſc. 1. C. 15. To regulate Faith
155
pas-
Author of à falfe Quotation, who alſo through the Seueral
fages of his book showes, how Sectaries afcribe the now named
and fuppofed errours to the Fathers. It would be tedious, to
expoſe all his laborious Collections on this fubiect to common
view again. Who euer defiers further Satisfaction, need's on-
ly to bring eyes, to open the book and read his Marginal
notes. Thus much premiſed.
>
to
› Fathers in
3. I fay. The Fathers that are not only fallible, but alſo
fuppofed by Sectaries to haue actually wronged Truth, can be no
Appendant or fubordinate much less any fufficient Rule of
faith for them, when theſe conceited Errours are fo numerous
That all along they ſtick moft Clofe to our Catholick Doctrin, Recourfe so
as is largely proued in the Proteftants Apology. Some perhaps Fundamen-
will fay we must haue recourſe to fuch paffages of Fathers as only tals most in-
treat of Fundamentals, and fo farr are vnexceptionably plain: fignificant.
Anfw. what need of this, when Proteftants fay there is no great
difference between vs in Fundamentals? But fuppofe this done
which yet cannot be done, whilft Sectaries remain in their wonted
Labyrinth concerning Fundamentals, what light haue we from theſe
Fathers to try controuerfies now in Agitation, when they grant
that Popery is made vp of the Fathers Errours? The final fen-
tence is paſt, the iuft Cenſure already giuen. The Fathers we-
re, as we are now, plain Papifts. I eafily grant all.
,
4. Shall I yet fay more concerning the trial of Proteftants
Opinions, or the fuppofed errours of Catholicks by Fathers,and
tell you? Sectaries haue no Gufto to it at all. And becauſe it
mainly import's firft, to diſcouer their want of Euidence and next
their fallacious proceeding in this particular, I will briefly do both
and remit all here noted to the prudent Cenfure of euery Iudi-
cious Reader. Thus it is. There is not one controuerfy now Proteftants
difputed, in which our Proteftants do fo much as offer to plead by
à General Conſent of Fathers, (and Mr Stillingf: likes not to be
fob'd off with Two or three Teftimonies) Read their writings of
the Real preſence of Prayers for the Dead, Inuocation of Saints, of à Fathers.
Sacrifice ppon the Altar, of the infallibility of the Church, and tell me
V 2
after
newer offer
to plead by
à General
Conent of
156 Difc. 1. C. 15. Other Principles infufficient
Empty words
giuen in
lieue of
Eathers.
after you haue perufed all, How many Fathers you find clear and
expreſs for Proteftancy? A fight of four or fiue would help much,
But hereof there is no danger, for you haue not one clear and
expres ( I fay more, not one fo much as probable ) againſt the In-
fallibility of the Roman Catholick Church, Againfe praying for
the Dead &c. And therefore wonder not that Mr. Stilling: Part.
3. C. 6. P. 641. where he treat's of Purgatory, talk's much of
the Fathers Fancies and Imaginations, And of an itching Curiofity
fome haue to know more concerning the future ftate of fouls,
than God has reuealed, But after all produceth not one Tefti-
mony either clear or probable againſt our Catholick Doctrin.
5. Do you defire to fee more of this want in behalf of Pro-
teftancy, And how little there is to countenance. the Nouelty?
Turn again, to Mr Stillinf: Part. 2. C. 1. P. 293. Where
you find à Title threatning ruin to vs all. The Roman Church,not
the Catholick Church. Say, I beseech you, who would not haue
expected after fuch à clap of Thunder, à whole Torrent of Fa-
thers to haue followed for his purpofe? But in lieu of thefe
what haue we? Marry, He tell's vs First. His Bishop makes
à great deal of difference between The Church, And A Church, and
fome difference alfo between à True Church and à right Church,
next he fall's foul on his Aduerfary, for his not well confidering
what the Primate had faid: Laftly (to pass by à few icers) he
fpeak's much of the Vniuerfal fpreading of the Churches Doc-
trin and Vnity thereof, which is due to the Roman Catholick
Church only, But after his long Difcourfe and the rapping Title
with it, you haue neither fentence nor fyllable of any Father
which fo much as meanly infinuates, That, that ancient Moral body
(as it comprehend's all Chriftians vnited in one Belief) is not
the only True and Orthodox Church in the world: Yet here
had been à moft fit place to haue pleaded by plain exprefs Au-
thorities (I'mean fuch as directly proue the Roman not to be the
Catholick Church) Belieue it, were there any fuch in the Fa-
thers Volumes, Mr Stilling: to make his margents glorious, would
haue brought them to light with à witness, But of this main
>
point
Difc. 1. C. 15. To regulate Faith.
157
point he is vtterly filent, becauſe he had nothing to ſay, And
therefore wifely Slip's afide to other By Matters, and leaues his
Title to shift for it ſelf.
of theftrai-
tes fecraries
are Caft
inie.
6. Hence you may well conclude that our Sectaries are dri-
uen into ſtrange Straits; when we vrge them to proue their Pro-
teftancy. We first call them to plain Scripture for à Final deci-
fion in this particular, but wanting where with all, they fit vs
right with à return of Antifcriptural gloffes. We prefs them
again to name any orthodox Church, which fiue or Six ages
fince profeſſed their Nouelties Not à word is Anfwered. We ma-
ke Inquiry after Councils held by Proteftants before Luther
for the Proteftant Religion.. Silence,deep Silence,not one is found.
Mention only Oral Tradition; they ſtorm at you, becauſe they
know Proteftancy has none We appeal to the authority of the
moft ancient Fathers, you fee how we are ferued, with words and
empty Titles Nothing is or can be alleged clear, Nothing expres,
Nothing probable. Finally, to leave them without all excuſe.
We call them again to an account, and Ask whether they will
haue their caufe tryed and iudged by their own Doctors, Luther,
Caluin, Zuinglius and the like? No fatisfaction is found here.
Luther condemn's Caluin more violently, than the Prelatick
Party in England doth the Quakers, and Send's the Affocia-
tes of Caluin to Hell, for denying the Real prefence of Chrifts Proteftants
irreconciably
body in the Sacrament, And Caluin is as fierce againſt Luther Contradict
in this particular. And thus all Sectaries haue oppofed one Proteftants.
another from the very beginning of this woful Reformation.
Some plead for our Catholick Doctrin, Others are contrary
as you may read at large, almoft in euery Page of the Prote
ftants Apology. We therefore know not what thefe Nouellifts
would or can belieue, whilft thefe endles differences about
Belief thus turn their heads, and make them to belieue iuft no-
thing, but what euery fancy pleaſeth. What à Religion haue
we here? View well it's exteriour, you haue only Horrour and
confufion to look on. Altars pulled down, Cloisters demolished,
Pious places prophaned, Stately Churches turned into fluttish barns,
V 3
by
158 Difc. 1. C. 15. Other Principles infufficient
teriour nor
exterioar
valuable in
proteftancy.
>
by à barbarous Reformation. Enter into the Interiour, or caft à
ferious thought on that which should effentially conſtitute Reli-
Neither In- gion, you find this Proteftancy à meer new Nothing, as Scripture
leffe as Churchles, without Tradition without the confent
of Fathers, or any Chriftian Principle to vphold it, yea (and
this vtterly ruin's all) without any Agreement in Doctrin amongst
themfelues. May we not Therefore iuftly deplore the fad con-
dition of Thouſands now within our once moft Catholick En-
gland, to fee à Thing which ftand's on no Principles but fancy,
moft earneſtly ſtood for, by men of excellent natural parts, and
thefe English too, whofe Progenitors (the world knowes it, fully
as wife as They) were all Roman Catholicks? But what will ye?
Good Reuenues, A merry life, à hanfom wife, and Self Interest
will haue it fo. And thus much of the want of clear Authori-
ties in behalf of Proteftants.
>
7. We are now to ſpeak a word of their fallacious, or ra-
ther open iniurious Proceeding with the Fathers. And to ma-
ke good what I am about to Say, you may pleafe to reflect
vpon the Notes in the other Treatise, Chiefly. Difc. 4. C. 2. n.
23. 24. Where you are told That the great work of Prote-
ftants, is not fo much to proue Their own Religion, as to
ſpend time in cauilling at ours, And by fuperficial Gloffes to
driue fenfe out of the Fathers moft fignificant Doctrin, and
then to tell the world, they are not for Popery. And (thus
(may their gloffes haue place) no Religion (neither theirs nor
Sectaries
ours) can be proued by the Fathers. This moſt vnworthy
proceed Procedure with thefe, great Lights of the Church lenghthens.
unworthily Proteftants books, And makes Mr Stillingfleets Account to
fwell into the bulk you fee. Might I here (by the way)
fpeak my thoughts concerning it; I verily belieue there was
neuer Book fet forth which leffe deferued it's Title, than
this. He call's it A Rational Account of the grounds of Prote-
stant Religion, yet if any one, after à diligent perufal of the who-
le Work, can show me but one Article of Proteftancy proued
by plain Scripture, by à General confent of Fathers, by any
with the
Fathers.
>
ancient
Difc. 1. C. 15. To regulate Faith.
159
ancient Church Doctrin, or vniuerfal Tradition, I do at this
prefent engage, to euince by my Anfwer, That he is grofly
mistaken. The faireft Occafion Mr Stillingfleet had to fpeak
home for Proteftancy, was. Part. I. C. 7. Where he treat's
of their way of refoluing Faith, yet euen here he fall's fo
vtterly from the Cauſe, that he faies no more for Proteftancy,
than Arianifm. See the other Treatife. Difc.. 1. C. 9. You
will ask perhaps wherein then lies the Subftance of his book?
I Anſwer in two things chiefly. First in à tedious wordy quar-
rel with Catholick Religion; ( His flurting at it is endleffe)
2. In à grofs Abuſe of the Fathers by his intolerable Gloffes.
Of neither shall he giue à rational Account to God at the day the fubfla.
of Iudgement. To proue what is here hinted at, Read I be- net of Mr
feech you the following Chapter, which I place here on fet Stilling:
purpoſe to lead in à further difcourfe concerning the Gloffes Account.
of Sectaries Withall to lay forth their emptiness and fraud;
And finally to show whither theſe. Vnprincipled, life-less. Whim-
feys, tend at laft. Thus much performed, you shall fee Prote
ftancy appear like it felf, à meer Nothing..
I.
>
CHAP. XVI.
One word more of Mr Stillingfleets Gloffes, and
his vnexufable abuſe of other Fathers.
Hough much is faid of this fubiect already, yet ber
T caule here is Occafion again, I shall briefly point at
two or three of Mr Stillingfleet's notorious Abufes. To profe-
cute all or the half he has, would make this Treatife as big as
his volume. We begin with that known Pallage of S. Hierome.
Epift. 57. Ad Damafum, where the Saint faith. The Church is
built vpon S. Peters See, and whosoeuer is out of the Communion of
that Church (whereof Pope Damafus was then head) is Prophane, an
Two imper
tinences
Conftitute
Aliens
160
Difc. 1. C. 16. Other ancient Fathers
S. Nierome
mauſed.
¿
Alien, and belongs to Antichrist &c. This in brief is the Subſtance
of S. Hieroms Doctrin. Mr Stilling: Part 2. C. 1. P. 311. Im-
putes not plainly thefe Expreffions to heat or flattery, although,
Saith he, it look's the more ſuſpicious, becauſe at that time S. Hierome
bad à great picque against the Eastern Bishops, And then tell's vs
to no purpoſe, what occafioned the Quarrel. Reflect good
Reader. Is this hanfom, to make à Saint and moft profound Doc-
tor to Speak in fo weighty à Matter againſt Truth, and his own
confcience, moued therunto by flattery and no man knowes what
Imagined Picques? Suppofe he earneftly ftood for Truth againſt
thofe Bishops,muft He Therefore be thought either to flatter or to
deny truth now, when he writ's to à Pope, his lawful Superiour?
Vpon what Principle doth this vngrounded calumny Stand? Pray
you Anſwer.
2. After fome Parergons, not worth the mentioning. Mr
Stilling: Saies. When S. Hierome Pronounces thoſe Aliens and Prophane,
who are out of the Communion of the Church, it either belongs
not to the particular Church of Rome, or if it doth, it makes
not to our purpoſe. What mean thefe words, The particular Church
of Rome? The fole Diocess of that Citty? No. S. Hierome
fpeak's of the Church built vpon s. Peter, or of all Churches
vnited in Faith with that see, where Damafus then fate, which only
(excluding Aliens, That is all heretical Societies) make vp the true
Vniuerfal Orthodox Church, as shall be demonftrated hereafter.
Well faith Mr Stilling: Suppofe I grant that S. Hierome fpake
of the particular Church of Rome (he means, or t'is Nonfenfe,
of all Churches of the fame Faith with the Roman) yet this co-
mes not home to the purpofe, vnless we Catholicks proue our
Church to be as Orthodox now, as She was in thofe Primitiue
times. We proue, Good Sr. Proue you on God's name, to
Mr Stilling:
whom prouing belong's, That this Church is less Orthodox now,
demand
empertinent. than formerly. Who euer ftand's in à known old path as we Doe,
ought not to proue he ſtand's there, (Olim poßideo prior poßideo
is his proof) but one that ſtart's afide, and takes to à new way
(as you have done should tell vs, why he left the other high
)
Road
Diſc. 1. C. 16. groſly misinterpreted.
101
Road wherein his Anceſtors walked? No prince proues his Right
and Title to à Rebel, but if any be fo vngracious as to rebel, that
man muft show why he did fo, or fufter for it. But of this fu-
biect fo much is faid in the other Treatife that I hold it vnans-
werable; More shall be added in its due place. In the mean
while you fee à pretty way of arguing, which run's vpon an idle
Suppofition. viz. That the Roman Church is altered from it
felf, fince S. Hieroms time. The improbable Suppofition is firſt
to be proued, before the Argument haue any force,till then we may
lawfully judge, that S. Hierom's Teftimony concludes againſt this
Aduerary. Pray tell me, If I, vpon à bare Suppofition, shonld af
fert that Mr Stilling: is no good Diuine, and thence infer, he is His falfe fup
vnfit to write Controuerfies, inight he not moft iuftly be angry, pofition not
and well deny my Affertion, becauſe the Suppofition whereon the proued.
Affertion ſtand's is not proued? No more, fay is t'is proued in the
prefent Matter. viz. That our Church Doctrin is altered from it felf
fince the primitiue times. Proue that vpon found Principles, and
you will doe more then Euer Proteftant did hitherto.
3. Hence all Mr Stilling: following talk of Paralogifms fall's
to nothing. It is he faith, our perpetual Paralogism, when the Fa-
thers are cited in praife of the Church of Rome although fometi-
mes their Rhetorick swell'd too high in their Encomiafticks, (They are
his words) That we will needs haue theſe praiſes to be vnderſtood
as well of that Church in our prefent age, as in the Fathers time
when it better deferued them; And he add's. As though, it were not
poßible for à Church to be eminent for purity of Doctrin in one age, and
to decline from it in another. Anfwer. All this is worfe than à
Paralogiſm or any captious way of reaſoning, for it tend's to non-
fenfe vnless the main Suppofition be proued, to wit, That the
Roman Apoftolical Catholick Church, once certainly pure in
Doctrin has or Can decline from her Purity in afrer ages. Mr
Stilling: knowes well that Catholicks, who hold their Church in-
fallible, make the receding from its Purity à thing impoffible.
How fenfles then is it in this place, where that Question of In-
fallibility is not handled, firſt to ſuppoſe our Church fallen off from
X
its
162
Difc. 1. C. 16. Other ancient Fathers.
I.
Still t'at's
Suppoſed
which
should be
Proued.
No other
Church
Catholick
but the
Roman.
its old Doctrin, and then to tell vs the Fathers Encomiums haue
nothing to do with it in this prefent ftate? I argue thus, and
Mr Stilling: P. 314. feem's to approue it. Vpon the Suppofi-
tion that the Roman Catholick Church has not fwerued nor can
fwerue from it's first pure Doctrin, The Fathers Elogiums are in
this age as due to it, as in any other. But the Suppofition muſt
ftand firmly built, as you shall fee hereafter, vpon fure grounds
and Principles. But contrari wife this way of arguing is Non-fen-
fe? I'le fuppofe vpon no grounds, the Roman Catholick Church
to haue erred, and then I'le do an open iniuftice and deny it the
due Commendations giuen by the Fathers. It is iuft as if one
should fay. I'le fuppofe à man hitherto reputed honeft to be
à thief and then I'le deny him iuftice, and hang him vp.
>
4. I ſay vpon no Grounds. And to proue my Affertion, ask?
With what Church then vifible in the world were Chriftians
obliged to Communicate, when all fee S. Hierome will haue them to
Communicate with fome Church? Mr Stilling: Anſwers with the
Catholick Church. Very Good. I Ask again, whether the
Roman Church, and all other Churches vnited in Faith with it,
were rightly called the true Catholick Church? Grant this you yeild
the cauſe, And Confess that Chriftians were then obliged to be
in vnion with the Roman Catholick Church. Contrariwife, if you
deny that to haue been then the true Church, you are caft vpon
endless difficulties, and here is one which cannot be folued.
Vpon the denial you, Sr, are obliged to denote, or name an other
Catholick Church diftinct from the Roman, more pure in Doc-
trin at that time, than She was, And that not only the Romans
but all others were Aliens and Prophane who eate not the lambe or
communicated not in faith, with your new found fancied Church in
the aire. I fay fancied, for to point at fuch à Church on earth
is as impoffible, as to proue known condemned Hereticks to be
good Catholicks, whereof fee more in the other Treatife. Diſc.
3. C. I.
,
5. Mr Stilling. to shift off the difficulty will perhaps fay,
When S. Hierome wrote This, The Roman Church was truly
Ortho-
Diſc. 1. C. 16 groſly misinterpreted.
163
rome, no
koman,
Orthodox, and that He accounted all Aliens and Prophane who
communicated not with it. Moft true Doctrin: But fee what
followes. Be pleaſed to fall lower to the third or fourth Age
after S. Hierome, There was then, I hope, à Catholick Church
in the world, wherwith Chriftians Communicated in Faith, but
moſt euidently there was not any Then reputed Orthodox, if we
exclude the Roman from being fo, For all other Societies name-
able, though called Chriftians were profeffed Hereticks; With In the ages
theſe no man was obliged to communicate, Therefore all were afer S. Hie-
either bound to Communicate with the Roman Catholick Church
Church, or with no Church at all. Hence I infer that the Orthodox
Fathers Elogium's giuen to the Roman Catholick Church were
but the
euer moft iuftly due, not once only, during the Primitiue times,
but now alfo and in all Ages: Withall I affert, That Mr Stilling:
denying this Truth, fpeak's his own fancy without proof, or
the leaſt appearance of any probable Principle. And he will be
as wholly vnprincipled, if I firſt ſuppoſe (as I may if my Creed
be true) That there is now at this very houre à true Catholick
Church on earth, and should next demand, where that Church.
is, in whofe vnion I muft liue and dye? Will He pitch, think
ye, vpon an vnion with the Arians, Gracians, Abyẞins Anabaptifts
Proteffants or Quakers? Light where he pleateth, he can only
vent his fancy without Proof or Principle. Now caft as it were
this fancy into à ballance with thoſe moſt weighty fignificant
Teftimonies of ancient Fathers, who pofitiuely prefs for com-
munion with the Roman Catholick Church, and you will fee
à ftrange vneauen Parallel (conceited whimfyes, And ftrong rea-
fonable Arguments, laid together). Yet wonder nothing, for
weak fancy is the ftrongeft Aduerfary Catholick Religion
hath
q
S. Cypriana
6. You haue yet an other Authority groſly miſvſed by Mr Teftimony
Stilling: Page 315. And t'is à known Pallage of S. Cyprian in propoſed.
his 55. Epiftle to Cornelius, where he complain's of certain factious
Schifmaticks, who dared to fail to the chair of S. Peter, and the Prin-
cipal Church from whence Prieftly vnity had its Origen, and carry letters
X 2
from
164
Difc. 1. C. 16. Other ancient Fathers
Laid upon
The Tefli.
mony.
from Prophane and Schismatical perfons. Nec cogitare eos effe Remanos
&c. not thinking them to be the Romans(whofe Faith the Apoſtle
commended) ad quos perfidia habere non poßit acceffum, to whom fal-
shood,vntruth, vnfaithfulnes, cannot haue Access. Thus S. Cyprian
And I put much force in thoſe words. Eos effe Romanos. Thofe
who then liued to be the Romans, prophetically commended by
the Apoſtle, which words taken in an obuious fenfe argue, that
true Faith should neuer part from the See of Rome. But Mr
Stilling: conceal's this force, and tranflates. Not confidering that
the Romans &c. No less energy lies in the other following words.
To whom vnfaithfulnes can haue no Access, which feem to exclude
à poßibility of falshood from the Roman Church.
7. Now liften à little to four ftrange Gloffes laid vpon this
Vain Gloffes one Text. Three of them are the Bishops, and one Mr Stilling:
laies claim to, The Bishops faies firft. Perfidia can hardly ſtand
here for errour in Faith. And why not my Lord? He An-
fwers. It properly fignifies malicious falshood in matter of Trust,
or in fact against the Difcipline And gouerment of the Church.
And I fay, it as properly fignifies Vnfaithfulnes, or Vntruth, And
therefore excludes errour in Faith from the Romans; yea it muft
haue this ſenſe here, becauſe its oppofed to the Faith of the Ro-
mans fo much commended by the Apoftle, which was true
Chriſtian Faith. Perfidia therefore fignifies the quite contrary,
that is errour in Faith. But grant the fenfe to be as the Bishop
gloffeth, it excludes at leaft from the Romans to whom S.
Cyprian wrote, à Poffibility of doing any thing againſt the Dif
cipline and Gouerment of the Church, or of being maliciouſly
falfe in Matter of Truft. If this be fo, much more are they fe-
cured by virtue of theſe words. (Ad quos perfidia non poßit habere
acceffum) from à poffibility of erring in Faith, for what auail's it
to haue à Church garded from vniuft dealing in Matters of
Truſt, if you make it lyable to Errour in the main Fffential,
which is true Faith, the very ground of Saluation, And Princi
ple cauſe alſo of ust proceeding amongst Chriftians? Perhaps the
fe men will fay. S. Cyprian in his Elogium refpected only the firft
Romans
Difc. 1. C. 16. grofly misinterpreted.
165
An other
Gloss refa
Romans commended by the Apoftle, not Thofe who liued in his
time. Contra 1. That is not only faid without Proof, but
improbably falfifies the Saints express words. Eos effe Romanos, as red.
is now noted. Contra. 2. If S. Cyprian only relate to the Ro-
mans whom the Apoftle taught, what need is there to keep à
coile about the fignification of Perfidia, when thoſe firſt Chri-
ftians had for their Inftructor an Infallible Apoftle. If therefore
S. Paul could not err in faith Perfidia, may well exclude all
misbelief or errour in Matters of Faith from that Apoftolical
Church. And here we make way to diſcouer the Bishops leuity
in his fecond Gloss.
>
8. Suppofe faith he, it be granted that, Perfidia, Signifies errour
in faith, or Doctrin, yet it belongs not to the Romans abfolu-
tely, but with à respect to thofe firft Romans, whofe Faith was
commended by the Apoftle. Contra 1. Vpon what certain
Principle doth this confident Affertion ftand? It belongs not ab-
folutely to the Roman Church? Proue thus much by à fure Prin-
ciple, and fomething is faid to the purpofe. But without à folid
Probation we look on it as à whimfey only, or à thought of
fancy. Yet more. What mean's his Lordship by thofe dark
words. With à refpect to those first Romans? Will he fay that the first
Romans were infallible in Faith and make thofe others to whom
S. Cyprian wrote fallible? This muſt be his meaning or nothing,
A fecond
For if both were equally infallible, or both alike fallible, he gains and third
nothing by the word, Respect, to the firft Romans. Therefore Gloss re
he muft hold that ancient Church of Rome to be more infallibly ected.
founded in Faith, than the later Romans were to whom s. Cy-
pin wrote; Admit this, He makes the Saint not only to flatter
à whole Church, but to fpeak Nonſenſe alſo. For in effect
he faith thus much. Your Anceftors the Romans, were fo
fecured from errour in Faith, that they could not decline from
Chrift's Doctrin, but you now are in à very tottering Condi-
tion, for you may fwerue from the Faith of your Anceſtors,
you may perhaps belieue as they did, and perhaps not, Howe-
uer I will footh you vp and praife you, as à Church impoffi
X 3
ble
165
Difc. 1. C. 16. Other ancient Fathers
>
ble to erre with, an Ad quos Perfidia habere non poßit acceſſum.
You are men fo faithfull that no Misbelief can touch
you. The
laſt Gloſs of the Bishop is thus. S. Cyprians Elogium leem's ra-
ther à Rhetorical infinuation than à Dogmatical Affertion. Mark
the proofles word, Seem's, t'is only à thought of my Lords fancy,
which I am fure feem's far from à dogmatical Affertion: What?
That à Saint and worthy Bishop should Rhetorick ut in fo weighty
à Matter? But enough of this nothing.
9. To make fomething doe at laft, Mr Stilling: Page. 317.
Mr Stilling: laies his Glofs by my Lord's, and has à good opinion of it. To
misinterpre- giue every man his due, it is better than any of the Bishops.
tation.
He fayes in à word, (after à relation of the preſent ſtate of
Rome at that time, when thofe Schismaticks, Felicißimus and
Fortunatus came thither ) that, Perfidia, may well denote the Fals-
ness and treacherous dealing of thofe two Perfons, who feemed
good Catholicks, but were not fo, and fought to ioyn in
Communion with Cornelius and the Catholick Party, but meant
it not. Now fuch Iuglers should haue no Accefs to the Prin
cipal Church, or to thofe Romans, whofe Faith the Apoſtle fo
highly extolled, ſo that Perfidia Refpects not the Romans, nor
excludes Errour from that Church, but laies falshood (as was
well deferued) on thoſe Schifmaticks. This I take to be Mr
Stilling: meaning. Contra. 1. The Glofs, euery one fees, vio-
Both Strai. lently ſtrained, makes the allufion between Fides and Perfidia
infignificant. 2. It is inconfiftent with the Authors whole
inconfiftent fenfe, who fpeak's (not of perfidious men but) of Falshood
with S. Cy- and Vntruth, which could not haue Acceſs to that principal
prians fenfe. Church. For it is euident, that perfidious perfons
Stilling: tell's the Story, actually had Accefs And therefore
could certainly haue it, when Fortunatus and Felicißimus came to
Rome. 3. Make the moſt you can of this Glofs it reaches no
further but to à meer far-fetcht Guess, and what is gained by
That? Can Mr Stilling: eftablish his Opinion of the Chur-
ches fallibility on no furer grounds? Can he hope to driue
me by gueffes and Gloffes, not only from the Obuious fenfe
ned and
>
>
as Mr
>
of
Difc. 1. C. 16. groſly misinterpreted.
167
of these words, but alfo from the clear Expreffions of innu-
merable other Fathers who ſtand openly for an infallible Church?
It is à difperate Improbability. Yet fo it is: Theſe feltcon-
ceited Gloffes and nothing els, Vphold Proteftancy in euery
controuerted Matter. The infinite number of them, and the
Stories Mr Stilling: tell's to no purpoſe at all, fo enlarge his
Rational account, That if you fling thefe away, you may eafily
put the remainder of that Book, into à fmal Decimo fexto..
*
fest Proofs.
10. Be pleaſed to obferue à little. We fay, and Chrift faid it
before vs, Hell gates should not preuail against the Church founded
by Diuine Prouidence, But fancied Gloffes difputes it at laftes oppo
fed to mani.
into à Poßibility of being peruerted by Hell, and Herely allo.
We fay, it is the Pillar and ground of Truth, but Gloffes laid vpon
theſe words muſt be thought fo ftrong as to shake it all in pie-
ces. We fay, Christ will be with hu Spouſe to the end of the world.
Hold there, ſay Sectaries, our Gloffes tell you, No, For this
pro-
mife was only Conditionally True, in all that fucceeded the Apoft-
les. A fitting Affiſtance we allow it, fuch as pleaſes our fancies,
But no more. We fay with S. Cyprian S. Hierome, S. Irenæus and
other Fathers, that the Church neuer depart's from what She once
beld; that in Her is the Rule and ſquare of Faith; that in Her, is
the Spirit of God, That She is the welspring of truth, The dwelling place
of Faith &c. But à companie of Gloffes fpoil all this Doctrin,
And fo rack the ſenſe of theſe clear Expreffions, that one may
boldly fwear, the Glofs and Text are fworn enemies.
CHAP.
168
Difc. 1. C.17. VVhy Sectaries Gloffes
CHAP. XVII.
VVby the Gloffes of Sectaries are impertinent and weight-
les? Mr Stillingfleet misinterprets other Fathers.
Of his Duskilful Speculation concerning
Idolatry Charged on Catholicks.
I.
M
Vch is faid in the Other Treatife. Difc. 4. C. 4. n.
8. of our Proteftants Gloffes, Here you haue à fur-
ther diſcouery of their weakness, And t'is the only thing aym'd
at in this, And the precedent Chapters. In à word thus I
conclude. That man who in Matters of Controuerfies defend's
à Docttin vpon no furer grounds then meer doubtful And vn-
An aſſertion certain Gloffes are, added to Scripture and the Fathers, (which
clearly laid feem contrary to his Doctrin) moft euidently ftand's vnprinci-
forth.
How Secta
ries proceed
to weaken it,
pl'd, proceed's weakly, and proues nothing. But the Prote-
ftant makes his weak, and doubtful Gloffes, charged on fuch
Authorities as are produced for our Catholick Tenets, the fole
Support, the only Proof of his contrary Doctrin, Therefore He
proceeds vnreaſonably, and proues nothing. You shall fee this
euidenced in the prefent Matter now briefly hinted at, of the
Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church. Mr Stilling: Afferts,
She is fallible. I ask how He prouęs the Affertion? What?
By express Scripture, vniuerfal Tradition, the vnanimous Con.
fent of Fathers, the Definitions of any ancient Church or
Council? Thefe are excellent Principles: Could He fettle
his opinion vpon all, or vpon any one of them we haue done
and muft yeild. But he proceed's ftrangely, and I muft needs
tell you How. The man hopes to weaken our proofs drawn
from the Fathers in behalfe of the Churches infallibility, And
thereby to eftablish his Pofition. She is fallible. I demand, how
can
Difc. 1. C. 17. are impertinent?
169
,
·
can our Proofs be weakned? His Anfwer muſt be (for he has
no other) I will fo tamper with thefe your alleged Texts that at
Haft I'le make them proue nothing for your Churches Infàlli-
bility, And. confequently I may hold my Contrary Pofition (of
her Fallibility) very well eftablished. The inference is worth
nothing, but let it pass. I Ask. 3. What is it he will tamper
withall, or how can he make null thofe manifeft Tits which
clearly lye open to euery eye caft on the Fathers, And euince,
(as we shall fee hereafter) that the Church is infallible? Mr
Stillinfleets ftrain through his whole book (For, Facta loquuntnr)
return's the beſt Anſwer. My Gueffes (faith he) And Gloſſes
laid on the Fathers when feemingly contrary to Proteftant
Doctrin Shall make them fpeak another language, no way fa-
nouring the Churches infallibility.
,
Euidence.
2. Here we come to the point, And demand in the laſt pla-
ce. Whether thefe Gloffes are fo clearly their Own Selfe - Eui-
dence, that by their very light they lay à Truth before an vnder- Their Glove
ftanding not to be contradicted.
For example. Whether S. fes no felfe
Cyprian in the Paffage now cited, gaue only, as Mr Stilling:
faith, à taft of his old office of à Rhetorician, And ſpake not dog-
matically? Is this I fay an vndeniable Truth? Moſt euidently
MO. For ſtretch it to the furtheft it can be no more but à moſt
doubtful and vncertain Gloss; I fay t'is highly improbable. Now
be pleaſed to reflect. The Allertion concerning the Churches
fallibility is no Self-euidenced Truth nor clear Ex terminus ( no
more is our contrary Doctrin of the Churches infallibility) To
giue it Therefore proof and weight, thefe Gloffes are caft vpon
the Fathers, who feemingly at leaft fauour infallibility; But theſe
very Gloffes which should do that feruice are as vneuident, as vncertain,
And donbtful as the very Doctrin is, They should enlighten and lend proof
too, Ergo they aduance not at all the Doctrin concerning the Churches fal-
libility. For, proofs which are as vncertain as the very Doctrin
is which should be proued, can neuer raife that to à greater
meaſure of certainty than it had before fuch proofs were thought
of. Pleaſe to mark what I ſay. The Doctrin of the Churches
A
Y
fallibility
175
Difc. 1. C. 17. VVhy Sellaries Gloffes
fallibility here fuppofed by Sectaries is vncertain, and for that rea-
fon lies in it's newidence, vntil folid Proofs clear it, or expel both -
the vneuidence and vncertainty, But theſe Gloffes when they ap-
pear, are as vneuident and vncertain as the Doctrin is, There-
fore they cannot raife, the Doctrin to any higher degree of,
certainty, than to meer vneuidence and vncertainty: I would haue
this noted, For it is à ground whereby I shal show hereafter Pro-
teftancy to be à moft improbable Religion, And Therefore will
deliuer it once more in thefe plainer Terms. If the Sectary has
no furer Principle, whereon to found his yet vneuidenced opinion,
The force of of the Churches fallibility then Doubtful Gloffes laid on Scrip-
ture and Fathers; (as euidently he has not) And Thefe Glofles,
which should proue that Doctrin be as deuoid of ſtrength as
remote from Principles, as vncertain, or doubtful, as that very,
yet vneuidenced Doctrin is; It followes clearly, That both the
Doctrin and the Gloffes fall to nothing but only fubfift by fan-
cy, which is à real Truth. From all now faid I inferr, that
whoeuer interpret's, muft haue his Doctrin firmly grounded
vpon certain Principles diftinct from his own interpretations (as
the Catholick euer hath) or nothing is proued.
our Argu-
ment more
fignificantly
expressed.
Our Aduer.
faries reply
refuted
3. Mr Stilling: may reply, His intention whilft he interpret's
thele Fathers is not to proue immediatly his own Opinion of the
Churches fallibility, but only to show our alleged Teftimonies
come not home, or want force to proue Her infallible. Now to
shew our proofs forceles in order to what we hold, is not to make.
good his contrary Affertion: For theſe two things are very diffe-
rent; To make null our proofs And to establish his own Doctrin.
Anfw. I grant they are different. But neither is, nor can be
done. Not the firft. Becauſe theſe Gloffes are no Self-cuidence
prouing, That the Fathers fenfe is rightly hit on: And Principles
diftinct from thefe Gloffes, whereby it inay be shown what Doc-
trin the Fathers deliuered in this particular, Mr Stilling: hath not
any fo much as meanly probable. To the fecond I Anfwer. If
He offer's not to proue his Tenet of the Churches fallibility by
the little ftrength thefe gloffes haue, I "auouch it boldly, All fur-
ther -
Difc. 1. C. 17, are impertinent.
171
›
ther Probations fail him, and for that reafon he is either forced to
make vfe of fuch poor ftuff to proue withall or muſt it down
filent, And grant his T'enct cannot be proued. He may perhaps
tell vs our Church has erred de facto, Ego it is fallible: And
here is his Principle. I Anfier its no Principle to me,
but an
Hereſy; And as Allerted by him 'tis as much, yea more, doubtful
than all his gloffes are laid together. He may reply. 3. His
Gloffes may at least be thought probable. I vtterly deny that,
And here is my ground. Solely confidered they euidence not
their own probability, But need further proof and probable Prin-
ciples to rely on; But fuch proofs are wanting to found Probabi-
lity vpon, Therefore thefe gloffes are fuppofed only, not proued proba-
ble. Had Mr Stilling: plain Scripture, any Orthodox Church, or
Fathers clear for the Doctrin maintained by him, He might well
talk of the ftrength of his Gloffes, but to make Gloffes probable,
when no probable ground fupports the Doctrin, for Whose fake
he Gloffes, is not only loft labour, but share's much of Non-fenfe.
Again. Were thefe Gloffes probable, (which I shall neuer
grant) our Anfwers to them are at leaft as probable; And what
gain's either Party to their caufe by skirmishing in the dark with
weak Probabilities only? Matters of Religion, which muſt ſtand
vpon fure Principles (or there is no fuch thing as Religion in
the world) would be inft like weak Opinions in fchools Tenable or
not tenable as different iudgements pleaſe to Opine, might. To-
picks, And probabilities only, iway in fo weighty à Čauſe.
4. Vpon this ground you haue Euidence enough, againſt
thefe pretended Probabilities of Sectaries (whereof more pre-
fently) Be pleaſed to obferue it. The Catholick faith. The
Roman Catholick Church is infallible. No, 'faith the Proteftant.
She is fallible. Here lies the contradiction. If both thefe Aduer-
faries Affert fo boldly, each of them (fuppofing that God hath
reuealed the one or other part of the Contradiction ) muſt ſoli-
dly proue what he Affert's in fo weighty à Matter. And can any
man perfwade himſelf, that an Infinite wisdom hath laid That
Truth whereon fo much depend's and is now reuealed to Chri-
Y ...2.
ftians
The Sea-
ries Gloffes
ſo
not so much
as Probable.
172 Difc. 1. C.17. VVby Sectaries Gloffes.
The obuious
truths of
Christianity
not proued
by Gueffes,
Proofs of
Chriflianity
260. Weak To-
picks.
;
!
ftians (whether it be the Churches fallibility or the contrary) in
fuch Obfcurity, or remoued it fo far from prudent Reaſon, That.
no man can find it out or proue it, but by the dark glimpfes of
weak Gueffes, of vncertain Topicks and Probabilities, which of
their own nature eafily throw men into errour? Grant thus.
much, We firft do iniury to Gods Reuelation. Next we are
left in fufpence, And know not what to belieue. And here
I ask whether Mr Stillingfleet will oblige me vnder pain of dam-
nation ftedfaſtly to belieue. the abfolute fallibility of the Roman ·
Catholick Church? If he doth, no weaker Principle then plain
Scripture can be my Security, And this I require of him. If
he recoyle and produce not plain Scripture, He is more than
imprudent, to force on me à new Faith contrary to the iud-
gement of à whole Church,.vpon no ftronger proofs than weak
gueffes are. Laftly, may Topicks auail here, we lay an impoffi-
ble obligation on our felues, whilft, all muft fay, God will haue
vs to belieue and with all certainty what he hath reuealed
in this particular, Yet when we come to examin the Grounds and
Proofs of our certain belief, All Proofs vanish away into Topicks
and vncertain.. fancies. Hence I conclude if the Proteftant
affirm's, as he doth, that our Church is fallible, He muft proue
the Affertion by indubitable Principles, And the like obligation
lies on the Catholick, who faith. She is infallible; And this by the
grace of God shall be proued in the next Difcourfe.
>
5. In the interim if you defire to fee more of much injury done
to the ancient Fathers, turn only to Mr Stilling: 3. Part. C. 3.
P. 58. Where he oppugn's our Catholick Doctrin of praying
to Saints, And you may well ftand aftonished at his Vnprinci-
pled Gloffes. He faith firft. The Expreflions of Fathers which
feem moft to countenance this Inuocation, are only Rhetorical
flourishes. Has the Affertion any probability think you? Read
only the Teftimonies alleged by Cardinal Bellarmin de Sanct:
Beatitudme. Cap. 19. By Cardinal Person (large vpon this fubiect) And
Cardinal Richel eu. Traite pour conuertir ceux qui fe font féparez de
L'Eglife. ib. 3. Chiefly Page 410. (It is not know my intent to
tran
Difc. 1. C. 17. are impertinent?
17 }
tranfcribe thofe many vnanfwerable Authorities alleged in behalf
of our Doctrin) And if after the perufal you fee not plainly that
both Mr Stillingfleet and his Lord doe grofly abuſe the Fathers,
deny me credit hereafter.
હ
་
•
Mr Stilling
again abu-
fetbike-
Fathers,
6. To conuince the firſt of vniuft proceeding, I'le only in-
Stance in one particular. P. 589. Where he faith that S. Gregory
Nyffen in his commendation of S. Theodorus the martyr, made vſe of
Rhetorick in his Apoftrophe to the Saint, without any folemn In-
uocation. It is vtterly vntrue. The words of S.Gregory are
Theſe. Paris Print. 1615. Page 1011. And 1017. when the
Scythians threatned ruin to the Countery! · Pray for vs, make inter-
ceßion to him who is our Common Lord and King, As you are à fouldier
fight for vs and defend vs, And as you are à-martyr, ſpeak freely for your
fellow feruants, A few lines after. And if more Prayers be needful
affemble together the whole Quire of your Brethren Martyrs, and ioyntly
intercede for vs.
Put S. Peter in mind, moue S: Paul and the belourd
Diſciple of our Lord, that They be foluitous for the Churches, where they
once wore chains, paſſed dangers, And finally dyed. Iudge, good Rea-
der, whether this recourſe made to à Saint in time of danger be
only à Rhetorical flourish, when the very words imply à moſt ſo
lemn and ferious Inuocation: Pray for vs, Make interceßion. Let
all the Martyrs ioyntly become Petitioners in our behalf in these our ne-
ceßities, are no flourishes but holy and hearty Inuocations. Yet
more. When all the Fathers in the Council of Calcedon. Act.
11. Tom. 2. Concil Part. 1. P. 340. No less publickly, in the Express for
preſence of the whole Council, than pioufly inuoked the Holy Innocation,
martyr Flavianus thus
Flauianus post mortem viuit. Martyr pro
nobis oret. Flauianas liues after Death; let that Martyr Pray
for vs. Can any one in Confcience think that this was only à
Rhetorical flourish? Or that the learned Theoderet acted only
à Rhetoricians part, when in his Hiftory of Saints He conclu-
des euery life, as Bellarmin obferues, with an earneſt Petition
that by the holy interceffion of thefe happy fouls, now in Bliss,
he might haue aide and diuine Affiftance? S. Austin was à good
Rhetorician, yet no man will fay, he made vfe of flourishes in
Y:3
that
174
Difc, 1. C. 17. VVhy Sectaries Gliffes
Doctrin at
leaft Collic.
ted out of
S. Aufin
Examined.
that plain and deuout prayer to our Bleffed Lady. Tom :9. lib.
Meditat: C. 49. Holy and immaculate Virgin Mother of God, Mother
of our Lord Iefus Chrift vouchsafe to pray for me to lim, Cuius meruisti
effui templum, for whom you haue deferued to be made à worthy
Temple: He mean's the Temple of her facred body, wherein
ber only Son our Sauiour, pleaſed to inhabit nine months toge-
ther, A whole volume would be neceflary to allege other Fathers
in confirmation of our Catholick Doctrin. But thefe few mani-
feftly proue that Mr Stilling: grofly erred, when he ſaid, that the
Expreffions of Fathers which feem to Countenance the inuoca-
tion of Saints, look only like Bloffoms, and pretty flourishes
in Rhetorick, Withall,that his fecond Aſſertion (viz. The Church
did not then admit of the Inuocation of Saints, but only of the
Commemoration of Martyrs) is no more but à dream, or à moft
improbable faying.
7. It is not now my intent, when I only touch à few, to tax
Mr Stilling: of many other gross miſtakes in this one controuerfy,
whereof I verily think his own Confcience accuſeth him (but I
leaue that to God). Howeuer, becauſe contrary to his vfual
manner he enters vpon à preculation, which I am confident he
vnderſtand's not, I will doe fo much feruice as to vnbeguile both
him and his Reader.
Mr Stilling: 8. Page 595. he faith. I cannot possibly fee but that kind of
Speculation, Worship which was given by the Heathens to their Damons, was defer-
fiole vpon the fame grounds that the Inuocation of Saints is now. Here
is all. Mr Stilling: fee's not the difference: Ergo, There is none.
Let that pass. Next Auguftus Cafar is brought in for an Inftance.
The Senate, faith he, decrees that Diuine honours shall be given to Au-
gustus, And we cannot think that by virtue of this decree Auguftus
affumed à Diuine nature or, became abfolutly God. No indeed. For,
no decree of à Senate can make à Sinner either God, or Saint.
But the Queſtion is, what honour the Senate intended to giue
that Roman Emperour? You fay it was Diuine. What that
Diuine honour was, decreed as due to him, neither you nor I,
Sr, know too well, nor doth it much import. vs to know at pre-
fent.
Dife. 1. C. 17. are impertinent
175
}
fent. Let that therefore pass alfo. We now come to the point.
Suppoſe, ſay you, that ſome Roman Catholick should belieue Auguftus
to haue been à Sunt: Next fuppofe the Heathen and Catholick to be at
their prayers together to Auguftus, you, demand wherein lies fo much
difference, That the one is Idolatry and the other not. Here, Sr, its
clear you vnderſtand not your felfe, For it's no more Idolatry
to worship one as à faint that's none,then to reuerence one for à -
Father (or prince) who is not fo. Idolatry is then committed
when we either adore à creature as God, or appropriate fome per-
fection to it which belongs to God. Should you therefore hold all-
Lohn Foxes (mifcalled) Martyrs, Saints, And then invoke them,you
would be vpon that account à falfe and foolish worshiper, yet no
Idolatrer, whilſt you Reuerence them as faintly creatures only
And attribute no perfection to them which properly belongs to
God: No more fay I,would the Heathen and Catholick Commit
Idolatry,though they reuerenced Auguftus and prayed to him as
à Saint.
9. This miftake diſcouered, I must tell you, Had you pro-
poſed the queſtion more ingenuouſly, And told vs, whether the
erring Catholick when he belieues Augustus à Saint and prayes to
him is to be fuppofed miſtaken by à Iudgement vincible or inuincible Full of
erroneous (The like is of the Heathen) you had folued your own miflakes, ·
difficulty, And might well haue Spared that after talk, which comes..
in Thus. Neither of them fuppofes Auguftus to be the Supreme God,
both the Catholick and Heathen look on him as hauing à middle kind of
excellence between God and man, the external actions are the fame in
both and their apprehenfions of his excellency being equal, the incli-
nations of their wills to teftify their deuotion must be equal too. Here
is à two fold fallacy on foot again. One lies in thofe vnexpli-
cated Terms. A middle kind of excellence. An other (and that's
worfe) in concealing the tendency of theſe fuppofed apprehen-
fions, or Iudgements rather, which may be either vincibly or inuin-
cibly erroneous: And marke well the diftinction for it diſcouers
your whole miſtake. Concerning the firft. I ask, what that
iniddle Excellency is, which must be equally applied to the ap-
prehenfion
196
Difc. 1. C. 17. VVhy Sectaries Gloffes
•
Inuincible
sgnorance
excuſes all
Crime.
prchenfion of the Heathen and the Catholick? Muſt both of
them be fuppofed to err. fo grofly, as to own Auguftus à Saint in
Heauen as the Patriarchs and Apoftles now are Or muſt the Ca-
tholick only judge fo? This later cannot be vnless you make the
Catholick moſt inuincibly ignorant. Howeuer, fuch an errour
is poffible, For as à inan by inuincible ignorance may judge one to
be à Prince who is not, in like manner He may be fo inuincibly
beguiled as to think Augustus, à Saint who is not, And fo may the
Heathen (though t'is very difficult) be deceiued alfo. Vpon this
Suppoſition of inuincible ignorance which you,Sr, neuer reflected
on,I Anfiver. Neither the Heathen nor the Catholick doe, or
can commit (we muft Still vfe your improper Phrafe) Formal Idola-
try, but material only, The reafon is euident. For though Augu-
stas be really no Saint, yet that middle kind of excellency now
mentioned, is vpon the Suppofition inuincibly apprehended by
both as if He were one, And confequently the apprehenfions
had of Cafars Sanctity, the inclinations of their Wills to Teftify
their deuotion to him, And external actions may be equal, yea
one and the fame in both, but without fear of any formal falfe Ho-
mage, becauſe inuincible ignorance takes off that formal Crime,
And thus far, if we fpeak of finful Veneration, there is no diffe-
rence between them. The inftance now hinted at clear's all.
•
10. One comes among vs from à ftrange Countrey nobly atten-
ded, demean's himſelf like à Prince, or fome great Perlon, and
though in real truth he is no more but à Counterfeit, yet He
imploies his wit fo well, diffembles fo dexterously, That all inuin-
cibly judge him to be what he is not, à Perfon of honour: They
apprehend à middle kind of excellence in him between à
great
Monarch and an ordinary man, Reuerence him accordingly by
their external actions, and inclinations of their wills, and therefo-
re commit (might one fpeak fo) fome kind of Ciuil material Ido-
latry, But are excufed from the formal offence, becauſe of their ig
norance, which is both inculpable and inuincible. Thus the
cafe is in our preſent Matter, whilſt the Ratio formalis of the
Heathen and the Catholicks Adoration is one and the fame, that
is
Difc. 1.C. 17. are impertinent.
17.7
is, whilft Sanctity, or what els you will, is inuincibly apprehended
in dead Cafar, which is not.
II.
Exclude then this cafe of inuincible ignorance, which
though diffembled by you, laies open the whole cheat, The reft
of your difcourfe comes to nothing. Obferue it. You talk of
à middle kind of Excellence apprehended in Cafar between Diuine
and Humane. You should haue faid plainly Firft. What this
excellence is as it ftand's in the Apprehenfions of à Heathen and
Catholick? You will hàue it. 2. To be fome thing which nei-
ther belongs to the Supreme God nor to à meer mortal man,
Therefore what euer you imagin, is no real Obiect in Caſar, not
any Excellence due to him. Whence it followes that all thefe Ap-
prehenfions, or iudgements rather, (for apprehenfions folely con-
fidered are neither true nor falfe) which attribute that middle Ex-
cellence to Auguftus are falfe in themfelues, becaufe not conforma-
ble to their Obiect. Now further: If falfe in themfelues,they are
either vincibly and culpably falfe, and Therefore ought to be laid
afide; Or inuincibly false, becauſe the iudgement is inuincibly de-
luded. Suppofe the firft cafe of vincible errour, what euer prayer
or Adoration followes vpon that iudgement is both à formal and How the
material Crime, becauſe fome kind of excellence is vnworthily worship
giuen to Augustus which belong's not to him. If fo; The Ca- may be
tholick and the Heathen continue in their Idolatry. Contrari- finful.
wife, if you fuppofe theſe iudgements inuincibly erroneous, which
can fcarce haue place in the Catholick vnless he be ſtrangely
ignorant, what euer Adoration followes vpon them is only à ma-
terial Offence without the Formal fin, as is now declared. Whe-
refore I verily think you, Sr, vnderftand not your felfe too well,
when you firſt ſuppoſe the Ratio formalis of prayer or Adoration
the fame in the Catholick and Heathen, And then tell vs, we are
not to enquire whether the Apprehenfion be true or falfe, but what the na
ture of that act of Religion is, which is conſequent vpon fuch an apprehen-
fion.
12. Sr, in cafe of inuincible ignorance, it little import's to in-
quire after the Truth or Falshood of the Apprehenfion, for neither
Z
the
178
Difc. 1. C. 17. VVhy Sectaries Gloffes.
What is to
be inquired.
The diffe
rence be
tween true.
and false
worship.
the one nofother (becauſe out of the reach of one erring inuincibly)
has influence into any act of Religion, Aand therefore there can be
no irreligious worship or formal fin grounded vpon fuch à iudge-
ment, if that Suppofition ftand. All then which ought to be
fearched into though omitted by you is. How, or in what manner
thefe misled iudgements tend vnto their Obiect? If blameably,
becauſe vincible they are finful, if inuincible and not in mans power
to mend, They cannot hurt any. In all other cafes except this
one of inuincible ignorance you muſt enquire whether the Appre-
henfion or iudgement be true or false. Suppofe then it be vincibly
and culpably falſe, it is apt to beget falfe Worship, And should be
laid afide. Suppofe it true: It only faies thus much. Dead Au-
guftus was à wife and gallant Commander (Here is all that can be
truely apprehended of him) But this iudgement, as it find's no
excellence in that dead Prince deferuing prayer or religious Vene-
ration, ſo it cannot incline the will to exhibit any religious duty
to him.
Si
13. And here we come to enlighten you à little, becauſe
you fay. You fee not, but that kind of worship which was giuen
by the Heathens to their Demons, was as defenfible vpon the
fame grounds, as the Inuocation of Saints is now. Can you,
Speak in earneſt? What Now? in this prefent ftate, when mens
judgements are cleared of errour and inuincible ignorance, can
you find no difference? The difference is moft palpable: For
that Deity is not in being, The Saint really is in Heauen. The
Heathenadores his Dæmon mifled by à false improbable Opinion
and Therefore commit's Idolatry, The Catholick worship's à
Saint, affured of the Truth by à iudgement moft certain, ˜And
therefore what He adores is worthy Adoration, vnless you can
Vnfaint thoſe who are in Heauen, or proue they deferue no Re-
uerence in that happy State. Finally, the Heathens iudgement,
becauſe vnreaſonable, and againſt the light of nature, if it own's
à Deity in Cafar, is culpably finful, and ought to be laid down:
The Catholicks Iudgement point blank contrary, ought not to
be put away. Now, Sir, if you fay. All the Heathens worship
4
of
Difc. 1. C 17. are impertinent
179
oftheir Demons or inferiour Gods,arofe from inuincible ignorance of
their Excellence (which is more then you can proue or probably
maintain) Here is yet the difference between them and Catholicks,
that Thefe are neither formal nor material falfe worshipers, The
Heathens were at leaſt materially ſo.
14. What followes in Mr Stilling: is not like his fpeculation any
choife Matter but vulgar only, refuted again and again. As. 1.
That the Rites of Canonizing Saints Anfwer to the Rites of
the ancient Emperours Apotheofis. 2. The Formal reaſon of
Idolatry lay in offring vp thofe deuotions to that which was not God,
Which only belong's to an Infinite Being. Let the Expreffion paſſe.
Catholicks, I am fure, offer vp no fuch deuotions to Saints as they Adoration
doe to God, knowing well to diftinguish by the internal Acts of very diffe-
their Will between the Supreme Excellence and all other power infe- rent.
riour to That. 3. Saith Mr Stilling: it is not poffible to conceiue
any Act which doth more express our fence of an Infinite Excellence,
And the Profeffion of our fubiection to it, than Inuocation
doth. Pitiful. He should haue faid, then fuch à particular In-
uocation doth, tending to an Infinit Maiesty: For we inuoke and
call vpon men now liuing to Affift vs with their Prayers, And
likewife Address our felues to the Saints in Heauen. Yet no
man can gather from fuch deuotions any thing like an acknowled-
gement of an Infinite Excellence in men now living, or the Saints in
Heauen. But enough of thefe weightles Arguments, to touch
them is to refute them. And thus much of this, And the other
former Digreffions. Now we are to à profecute further Two
neceffary points.
2
CHAR
180 Diſc.1.C. 18. Se&taries aſcertain none
1
Principles
Supposed.
I.
CHAP. XVIIR
The Protestant after all his Gloffes can not afcertain.
any, of true Religion. He would make Con·
trouerfies an endles work.
Ou haue been ofen told aboue, that Sectaries would
You
fain make controuerfies à long work, I muſt now giue you
the vltimate reaſon Thereof, And withal proue it impoffible to
know in theſe mens Principles, what is à Chriftian Truth, and
what not, Their Gloffes and impropable way of Arguing laies
all which can be faid in darknes and obfcurity.
2.
To proceed clearly. I fuppofe firft, that Chriftian Truths
as reuealed, or Contained in Chrifts Doctrin are infallible, and
ftand firm vpon infallible Reuelation. I may here alſo ſuppoſe.
2. That either we Catholicks, or our Proteftant Aduerfaries, euen
in fuch Tenets as we differ, Belieue and profess Chriftian
Truths. For example. Tranfubflantiation or no Tranfubftantiation,
is à Chriftian truth. The Infallibility of the Roman Catholick
Church, or Her fallibility is à Chriftian Truth, for they are Con-
tradictories held by Chriftians, Therefore the one or other muſt
be owned true, if maintained as Chriftian Doctrin. I fuppo-
fe. 3. That neither part of thefe Contradictions; Tranfubftan-
tiation, or no Tranfubstantiation (in like manner we difcourfe of
all other oppofite Doctrins) are held their own Self euidence or
manifeftly true Ex terminis like the first Principles in nature, If
Therefore affented to as Chriftian Truths by the one contrary.
Party, or the other; They must be proued by fure Principles
extrinf cal to the Doctrin which each Party embraceth.
•
3. Now you shall fee What work Sectaries make in thefe
Difputable Matters, And how nothing can be certainly known
by
Difc. i. C. 18. of true Religion.
181
>
by Them, or owned as à Chriftian verity. I would ſay, It
An Affer-
Can neither be proued in their Principles, That to deny Traxfub- sion Proued,
ftantiation (let this one inftance ferue for all) is à Truth, or,
that to hold Trenfubftantiation, is an Errour. Here is my rea-
fon. When Principles whereon folid proofs should fubfift are
not, Proofs muft of neceflity fail, But in thofe Controuerted
Matters Sectaries haue no Principles at all to Argue by
Therefore proofs must fail. The Minor is euidenced thus. All
imaginable Principles whereon Proofs can ftand in this conteſt,
muft either be infallible, or at leaft morally certain (Meer Pro-
bability want's ftrength to vphold à Chriftian Truth) But the
Sectary cannot proue by any either infallible or Moral certain Prin-
ciple, that his Tenet is à Chriftian Truth, And ours Contrary
to him is an Errour, Ergo. The firſt part of my Affertion feem's
euident. For you know what hauock the Sectary makes of all
infallible Principles, Scripture only excepted, (which I am fure
fpeak's not à word in his behalf, nor againft vs). All Churches
with him, All Tradition, All Councils, All Fathers alſo are fallible
and may deceiue. Therefore thus much is indifputably clear,
He cannot proue infallibly (I fay no more yet) that his Tenets
are Chriftian Truths, or infallibly, That ours contrary, are Er-
rours, For no man can more deriue an infallible proof from à
meer fallible Principle, than fetch gold out of dross or light
out of Darknes. Whateuer Therefore he plead's by next, is vn-
der the degree of infallible certainty. And what is it think ye?
O, He has Moral Affurance (and here is the Principle) that his
Tenets are Chriftian Truths, and Ours false or erroneous. Very Fallible
good. I ask (Though moral certainty auail's nothings, as we
Principles
ground nos
Shall fee hereafter) How he proues no Tranfubstantiation to be à
infallible
Doctrin morally certain, When the Contrary is exprefly defined in Dearing
three General Councils, And held by à learned Church? Has he
any Council fo renowned,as either the Latheran or Tridentine,which
euer owned his Negatiue, as à Chriftian Truth? Has he any Church
as Vniuerfally ſpread the whole whorld ouer as the Roman Catho-
lick is, which maintained his Doctrin three or four Ages fince?
Euidently
Za 3-
24
182 Diſc 1. C. 18. Sectaries afcertain nonė
*
Euidently No. Vpon what then, ground's He his Moral certa-
inty? I'le tell you in à word. All he can pretend to, or plead
in This Controuerly comes to no more, if it reach fo far, But
to two or three dubious Authorities, taken from thofe Fathers
who were Profeſſed members of the Roman Catholick Church; And this
little flender part He makes not only to ftriue against the
whole Church, but moreouer giues it ſo much ſtrength as to
Impeach That great Moral body of errour, And vtterly to ruin
the Doctrin which hath been taught age after age; That is to
Compared fay. The leffer Part, (or rather à meer fuppofed part) muft be
thought fo powerful as to make à happy war Offenfiue and De-
fenfiue againſt that whole Moral body whereof it was à member.
Is not this à ftrange Simplicity?
A part
with the
whole,
4. Be pleafed to take here one Inftance from Ciuil affaires
only. Suppofe you haue à Parlament confifting of three hun-
dred and three iuft, vpright, graue and moft intelligent Perfons
who firft treat of fome weighty Matter relating to the good of
à Kingdom or Common wealth, And after long deliberation
Enact what in prudence is thought beft in order to its Setle-
ment. Suppofe withall, that two or three of à different iudge-
ment withstand the Act, and hold what is concluded not well done.
Will any one think ye, not only afcribe à greater moral Certain-
ty to thofe three diffenting votes, Than to the other three hundred,
But more ouer decry the far more numerous votes( though of
Perfons equally wife) as vniuft, impertinent, and remote from
An Inftance the meaneft degree of moral Certainty? And this is done, (reflect
feriously) vpon no other ground, for no other reafon, but be-
cauſe Three are wilfully fuppofed, by à third Party looking on,
ſtrong enough to oppofe the greater Part. If this inftance like
you better, make vfe of it. Imagin that à Synode Confiſting
of 303. Proteftant Miniſters define as they think, What's beſt
to hold within the Compass of Proteftant Religion Imagin
alſo that three oppofe Them, Can any of that Religion allow
more Moral certainty to the three votes, than to the other
three hundred, if we refpect Authority meerly? Certainly no
5. Our
Difc. 1. C. 18. of true Religion.
193
our prefent
Authorities
not clear
5. Our very cafe is here fufficiently expreffed, and the in-
ſtances eafily applyed to our prefent purpofe. The Roman Ca- Applved to
tholick Church is, you know, à great Moral body comprehending purpufe
not hundreds, but thouſands and thoufands, whereof innumera-
ble are now and in paft Ages haue been moft iuft, vpright, pru-
dent, and without Controuerfy moft eminently learned. Theſe
vnanimously Enact as it were (whether in the Reprefentatiue of
Councils, or by the vniuerfal voice and vote of the whole Church,)
That Praying to Saints, prayers for the Dead, or which we now infift
on, the Doctrin of Tranfubftantiation, are not only Tenets morally
certain, But more ouer Articles of Diuine Faith. Our Aduerfa-
ries to oppofe this vnqueftionable certainty, produce three or four
imperti
Authorities not clear (as is fuppofed done in Parlament) but nently alle.
weak and ſtrained, and hope hereby to reuerfe, to vnuote, what ged.
theſe thouſands haue decreed contrary. Three or four witneffes,
And theſe at moft dubious, are here brought in againſt Tranſub-
Stantiation, to make our new mens opinion Morally certain,and
yet Theſe thoufands, moft wife and learned, though they clear-
ly vote and profess against it, cannot, forsooth, gain fo much
credit with a few Sectaries as to aduance the Doctrin to moral
Certainty, For here we waue the queſtion of infallible Affuran-
What Doings are theſe? What daies do we lixe in ?
The whole Catholick Church teaches as She euer taught, that
the very
Subftance of bread is really changed into Chrifts Sacred
body, And now (o ftrange times) one Theoderet though no way
oppofit is haled in, to reuerfe the Doctrin. One, muſt ftriue
againft, and conquer Thoufands. It is, we fay, à pretty feat to
kill two Birds with one bolt, But here we haue à greater ex-
ploit, Theodoret is fuppofed to leuel fo right with à darker ex-
preffions (if yet dark) That he deftroies the Faith of two
Churches at Once, the Greeck and Latin. Councils and emi- Aparallelof
nent learned councils, haue defined in our behalf, and one Authorities,
Tertullian, Though herein he fpeak's moft Catholickly, is pick't
out to plead againſt them. What's one againſt innumerable?
Tradition both Ancient and modern deliuers the Truth we Pro-
cè.
7.
pugn,
184 Difc. 1. C. 18. Sectaries afcertain none
with an
Addition.
A further
proof of our
Affertion
pugn, And an vnknown Gelafius, fet vp by Sectaries, muſt be
thought powerful enough to repeal and contradict our fore Fathers
Tradition. What Doings are theſe? Can the Sectary hope to
beate down that ſtronge Fortress which Hell gates could neuer yet
shake by fuch flight and forceless Armour? Alas, goe to ſingle vo-
tes, we oppoſe our lustins, our Cyrills, our Cyprians our Chryfoftoms,
clear and exprefs againſt one Theoderet were he doubtful. Now
adde to thefe The weight and graue Authority of our Church and
Councils, There is no Parallel no Comparifon betwixt vs. Yet
more. Suppoſe theſe few Authorities were clearly contrary to vs,
the Proteftant only has at moft three votes, as it were in Parlament
against Millions, and what gain's he by this? His pretended Mo-
ral certainty ftand's not firm like an vncontradicted Truth
againſt ſuch à Cloud of oppofit witneffes. And.
6. Here you haue à further reafon of my Affertion. As long
as this Principle ftand's fure in nature. A whole body is greater
than à Part, and à Part thereof leffe extended than the whole, So long
it will be indifputably euident, That the vote or voice of à whole
moral body( I mean of à Vniuerfal Church far and neer extended)
carries with it greater Moral.certainty ( For all this while we touch
not vpon Infallibility) than à ſmall and lender Part can haue, were
fuch à part found fo inuincibly ignorant as to contradict the whole.
All I would fay is. No more can à few particular members
(Though Angels for knowledge) conteſt with the contrary iud-
gement of our ample Church, Than three votes in Parlament,
with the Contrary iudgement of à whole Kingdom. No more
can the Authority of particular men equalize, much less furmount
in weight and worth, the Sentiment of à whole Moral body
than à hand, For example, furpass in bigness the whole man.
As the one exceed's in quantity and Extenſion, ſo the other doth
in weight and intenfion.
7 .
Hence you
fee firft. How poorly Sectaries play at finall
Game, when hauing no ancient Church of their own to recurr
to, They are fain to run for refuge to à Few Fathers profeſſed members
of our Church, And here like people picking Salads, gather vp fome
fmall fragments which now they clip, now mangle, now peruert,
Difc. 1. C. 18. of true Religion.
183
How Gloss, now dress after their new fashion, And at last ferue all
The new
fairly vp in the larger Margents of their little English Books.
mcde of
With theſe they flourish and vapour as if, forfooth, à finall Sectaries
parcel were able to contraft with the far greater Moral body, or arguing.
à few ſtolen gleaning (were all true they fay) fufficient to Vnuote
what euer this Oracle of Truth hath defined contrary. Leaue
of, I beseech you Gentlemen this Trifling, giue vs weight for
weight, meature for meafure, Plçafe to plead by found Princi-
ples or you lose the cauſe, Dodge not with vs, we deal nobly
with you.
tinent.
8. Wee giue you plain and exprefs Scripture. The Church is à
Pillar and ground of Truth. She is founded vpon à Rock &c. And you
Scriptureless men, return vs your fancied Gloffes. We quote
innumerable Fathers moft fignificant for our Catholick Pofitions,
And you fob vs off with obfcurities, with Criticisms and fuch
fimple ſtuff. We appeal to Tradition, you have none. We,
(And this mainly import's) show you à Church, à Vifible and à
moſt glorious Church, which time out of mind, Belieued as we
belieue, And would gladly know where your Orthodox Church was, The Seda
which four Centuries fince approued or published your Nouel- ries Plea-
ties, And you like men lofing your way, go wandring about till at ding imper-
laft you fall vpen Theoderet's Dialogues, And with one fingle
Paflage ill efpied and worse applyed, hope to vndoe the whole
Catholick caufe, It is not one nor ten Theoderets, though they
fpeak far more clearly than is done, That can preiudice our
Doctrin, whilſt you hate neither Church nor Councils for yours.
Thefe Principles we demand of you, but you haue them not.
Therefore you are caft into an impoffibility of writing Contro-
uerfies hereafter, For the few Shreds of Fathers vnluckily cut
out by you are too flight, to obfcure the greater Lights of our
Chriſtianity, of our Church, of our Councils, of our Tradition and
innumerable Fathers. Belieue it, had the Fathers you Quote fo
much Strength, as you imagin, others would haue read them
before your eyes were open, better Iudgements would haue
weighed what force they had, before your Luthers and Caluins ws-
A a
re
186
Difc. 1. C. 18. Sectaries afcertain none --
Doubtful.
Authorities,
of no weight
at all.
&
re in Being. But That wifer world now gone to Eternity waued
fuch Cauils, And knew well, That what à Titius or à Caus faies
may be right, And may be wrong, But what the Church of
Chrift Defines and teaches, cannot but be found and Orthodox,
if God fpeak's Truth. Here is the Principle whereon Chriſtians
fecurely relied in paft Ages, before our later Sectaries troubled
the world....
4.
7
Quous。
9. You fee. 2. in what à pitifull cafe Sectaries are, when no
more is alleged againft our Catholick Doctrin (And reft affured
They haue no more) but à few ſcattered Authorities now taken
from one, now from another ancient Father. Therefore I dif
courfe thus. The Authority is either exprefly plain againſt vs
(which I neuer yet faw in any Doctrinal Contest between the
Catholick and Proteftant) or Contrariwife, doubtful, and ambiguous.
If doubtful; it decides nothing, ror can the Proteftant though He
Vow's it Clear, make it foe, whilft the learned Catholick auouches
the Contrary; Hitherto both of them ftand vpon Opinions and
end nothing. Neither can the one or other yet abfolutly Say
by virtue of fuch à Paffage only. Your Doctrin is False, And mine
is True, For à Principle rationally apprehended dubious; deter-
min's none to an abfolute true iudgement, one way or other.
Let vs therefore fuppofe contrary to Truth, That the Sectary
produceth à Father indubitably clear againſt Catholick Doctrin.
Thanks be to God Thefe great lights of the Church are not ſo
fcarce with ys, But that we are able to confront that one Autho-
rity with the plain Teftimonies of other Fathers far more nume-
rous. And thus much I here engage to do, may it pleafe Secta-
ries to come to à iuft Tryal, and fully examin with me this one
point of Transubstantiation, now: hinted at: And if after the Con-
teft we do not only match our Aduerfary, but quite outvie him
with many more Teftimonies fully as clear and clearer, We may
then rationally ask what's one clear. Authority worth? I fay yet
more. Though we falfly fuppofe thefe particular contrary Au2
thorities to lie cuen, or equal on both sides, I inean, as pregnant
for the Sectary, as for the Catholick, yet neither lofe my caufe,
L
Difc. 1. C. 18. of true Religion,
187
what if
Authorities
nor he gain's his, Becaufe neither of vs can abfolutly fay vpon
Moral certainty, which Doctrin is à Chriftian Truth, And
which not. For in this conflict of Authorities Suppofed equal, were equal
both iudgements are left in fufpence. The one faith I quote on both fi-
clear Authorities for my Tenet: The other anfwers Hee doth fa dest
too, And Therefore hitherto ftand fo equally poifed That nei
ther may cry Victory; Neither can yet pretend to fo much
Moral certainty as excludes All reaſonable doubting, becauſe
both Parties muft doubt, whilft the Authorities of the one abate
the force of the other. What then followes from the Fathers
Teftimonies were they thus equally diuided; That is, if as
many clearly food for the Negatiue of no Tranſubſtantiation,
And luft as many clearly for the Contrary Pofitiue? I An-
fwer, This followes. That we and Sectaries must of neceffity,
(Will we know Truth) either appeal to à third certain concluding
Principle, or ftand doubtfully opining (as is often done in
ſchools) without à final Decifion, For, to Belieue any thing wes on
certainly as Catholicks belieue, if that Principle be excluded, or, arguing ous
to know any thing yet morally certain, as Sectaries pretend of doubtful
to know, is ytterly impoffible, Becaufe à Principle purely Principles,
probable, is euidently too weak, either to. Support any firm
Belief, or to ground fo much Moral certainty of à Chriftian
Truth, as excludes à poflibility of doubting.
10. You will Ask what then is there which may raiſe theſe
two Aduerfaries from that low degree of meer Opining to à
higher degree of certainty? I shall fully Anfwer the Queſtion
in the next Difcourfe, Here I fay in word. No Principle
can do this, But one only which the Sectary want's, And the
Catholick has to rely on, which is the Tradition, the Voice and
open declared Iudgement of Chrifts Catholick Church here on
earth. This faithful Oracle raifes vs from the fuppofed State
of our guefling Probably, to the highest degree of not only
Moral, but alfo of Infallible certainty, Though now we prefs
not that against our Aduerfaries. The Sectary Therefore who
difdain's to learn of this Oracle what Chriftian Truths are, shall
A a 2
Pneuer
what folls-
188 Difc. 1. C. 18. Sectaries afcertain none
What the
Plead,
neuer come to his Moral certainty, though the Suppofition alrea
dy made of Authorities equal ftood in vigour. Iudge then, I be-
feech you,
you, How defperate his Caufe is now,. How remote from
all fuch certainty. De facto, (whether he impugn's our Doctrin, or
plead's for his own opinions) when he hath nothing to rely on,.
but only à few dark and dubious Paffages of fome ancient
Fathers ?
11. I fay dubious Paffages, forin Truth (if fo much) they
are no more, And Therefore though we haue hitherto fuppo-
fed Authorities euenly laid on both. fides (To Show that no-
Setary can thing help's the Sectary out of his labyrinth) yet now I muft
tell the Story as tis, All he has in this world to plead, cer
mes only to à few misinterpreted Authorities, Aud with fuch
poor Gleanings, Churchless man as He is, he thinks to Out-braus
å whole Church, To decry Tradition, to vnfenfe the Fathers,
to rob vs of our right, And finally to throw vs our of the Poffes-
fion of thofe ancient Chriftian Truths, which both we and our
Anceſtors haue profeffed age after age without Alteration. What
think ye?
Haue à few rack't and tortured Sentences (Add to
them as many. Cauils, as many Criticiſms as you pleaſe) force
enough to do ſuch wonders? Can thefe gleanings,,mifinterpreted
as you haue ſeen, better inform vs of the ancient Primitiue Truths,
than the General voice, or vniuerfal conſent of à whole Church
now in being? It is improbable. Grant therefore (which I do
not) That we know not too well the fenfe of one Theoderet, or of
à Tertullian &c. The Catholick cleares his Doctrin, And drawes
it from furer Principles. viz. From the voice and open declared
Iudgement of his Church,. And moft deferuedly look's on the
Sectaries attempt as highly improbable, who will needs know
what Doctrin we are to hold now,.or, was anciently held amongst
Chriftians, by à Fathers Teftimony, when the very fenfe is fups
pofed doubtful, And lies in obfcurity. That is. He will know
more than can be known, He will force light out of darkness, And deriue
the moral certainty of his Doctrin from meer doubtful Principles, which
is impoffible. And thus thefe men proceed in all other Contro-
On what
Principle
the Catbo
lick Stand's
uerfies,.
Dilc. I. C. 18. of true Religion.
189
uerites, though Conftious, that à whole ample. Church decries
their Doctrin as false And the open abule of Fathers allo. O,
faith the Sectary, I little regard what the Church decries. Anf:
And much less do I regard what you cry againſt it, When the
whole ftrength of your Clamours vltimatly refolued, comes to no
more but to fancied Gloffes,. laid vpon ambiguous Authorities.
What in God's name would you be at? What can you pretend The Church
or intend? Shall clamours, Think ye, and your few clouded opposed to
Teftimonies force me to leaue my ancient Faith, when I euident- Sedaries
ly know, That the Church I liue in, call's louder on me and Clamours,
more rationally command's me.to Belieue as I doe? This audi-
ble known voice of Chrift's Church dull's your clamours, infi-
nitly Outweigh's your Gloffes, your gueffes, And the doubtful
Sentiment of any priuate: Father..
12. The Sectary may reply. I haue now fuppofed, without
Proof, the Fathers abuſed by him, whereas, if the Suppofition
hold's, its only doubtful whether it be fo or no. Anfw: Thus
much is only ſuppoſed doubtful, That neither of vs can learn by
words precifely obfcure, what Doctrin to embrace, or what to
reiect, Before à furer Oracle ſpeak's and decide, the Controuerfy.
Catholicks ſay this Oracle is the Church, The Proteftant who has
no Church to recurr to, ftand's trifling with his obfcure Pas-
fages, hoping at laft to make fomething of nothing, to hammer
out of dark ſentences the Clear Moral certainty of his new
Doctrin Though contrary to the whole Church, And thus He
abufeth both Fathers and reafon alfo, Becauſe as I faid iuft now,
A doubtful Principle yeilds not fo much certainty. If He fay. 3.
His quoted Authorities are fufficiently clear to ground the Mo-
ral certainty of his Doctrin againſt the Church, it is à deſperate,
improbable Speech, For Moral certainty(which should pass as an
vncontradicted truth) moft euidently lofeth that force, when à
whole Church manifeftly contradict's it.. But hereof enough is
Said in the other Treatife. Difc. 1. C.. 6. n. 3.
13. You will ask perhaps, What is to be done if we meet with
à Father fo clear and exprefs against Church - Doctrin that he
Aa 3
cannot
190
Diſc. 1. C. 18. Sectaries affertain none.
*
4 doubt pro
pofed and
feliped.
What Au-
thorities can
be quoted
a
cannot poffibly be brought to Catholick ſenſe, I Anſwer.
Suppofe thus much, which I think was neuer yet heard of in
any
Contest betwixt the Proteftant and Catholick, I'le abfolutly
deny the Authority and adhere to Church-Doctrin; For, as the
whole body is greater than à part, fo the iudgement of a whole
Church is the ftronger Principle here, and ought in reafon to regu-
late and bear fway, before the fentiment of any priuate man, who
by weaknes or inaduertancy may flip afide into Errour, I fay
through weaknes or incogitancy, for if he obftinately oppofe the
Church, He is no Father in that, But an Heretick.
-
14. Whoeuer reflects well on what is noted already will fee,
I hope, How neer we are to an End of difputes with Prote-
ftants if the Conteft arife from the Authority of Fathers. Here
is the Ground of what I am to Say. All the Authorities which can
be quoted in Points now Controuerted are either plain,or efteemed
plain for Catholick Doctrin both by the learned of our Church
and Sectaries alfo, As is amply proued aboue: Or Contrariwife,
are at moſt fuppofed doubtful, I Affert it boldly, the Sectary
has not one plain Teftimony for him in this debated Matter of
Tranfubftantiation, And if one or two were granted plain that's
nothing to contraft with à whole Church and innumerable other
Fathers,
15. Hence I Difcourfe. In cafe Authorities be Clear for
Catholick Doctrin, the Sectary oppofes vs improbably, if he
feek to establish his Nouelties vpon à Principle which plainly
teaches what we teach, And quite ruin's his contrary Opinions.
If the Authority be doubtful, I haue faid enough already. viz.
That,that giues no Moral certainty, but leaues you where you were
before in à ſtate of doubting, Obferue now. All you get from the
Proteftant when the Fathers plainly teach Catholick Doctrin,
is either to deny the Authority, as the Elder, And perhaps wi-
How Setta. fer Proteftants haue done, or, after Mr Stillingfleets new Mode,
vies Shiftoff to Gloff them. All you get when à paffage feem's dubious,
Authorities, is to fquife more out of it than it has. Whence it is, That you
euer find the Sectaries Doctrin (when He tampers with à Text
ſeemingly
Dife. 1 C. 18. of true Religion
19 r
feemingly doubtful) to ouerreach, or to goe beyond the ſtrength
of his Quotation That is, He fpeak's plainly what he would haue
you belieue, And the more plainly he peak's, the further be run's
from his Authority, which Therefore check's his Boldness, And ·
Tell's him. I fay no such thing as you Teach. Take for example
thoſe words of Thecderet. The Mystical Symbols remain after Con-
fecration &c. O, faith the Sectary the meaning is, the inward Sub-
ftance of bread remain's. Hold, Sir, there; That's more then
the words allow of Mystical Symbols may as well, yea far better,
fignify the exteriour Accidents, than the inward Subftance of
bread, Therefore yon ouerreach the Text, And abuſe your Au-
thor.
taries,
Slight,
12. Thus much premifed. We shall come to our laſt inten-
ded Demonftration And by the grace of God Euidence, How
Controuerfies may be ended, Though indeed, the Sectaries intri-
cate way of handling, Matters, makes them feem to à vulgar Rea-
der à work without end, For fay. I befeech you? What can
be more flight or more remote from Reaſon, than after à long
Profeffion and quiet Poffeffion had of our Catholick Verities, To
fee à few Sectaries (late Strangers to Chriftianity) ftep in amongſt
vs, And after ſo many Ages ftrutt vp and down in à corner of
the world, As if They, forfooth By their bringing to light again The proes-"
nothing but à liſt of old abſolete worn-out Herefies, could now dure of Sec-
Afcertain Papifts, How much of their Doctrin is Orthodox, And
How much not? And this (ò, ftrange Boldnes!) is done vpon
no other Principle, than vpon à few mifconftrued words of lome-
few ancient Fathers, without alleging plain Scripture or the Au-
thority of any Church, for this moft vncouth, and ftrange Pro-
ceeding. What can be more flight than to follow the leffer
Light (or rather no Light at all) And to preferr That before the,
Luminare maius, which hitherto has illuminated the whole world?
What can be more flight than to ftand gueffing at the fenfe of
Fathers, To Glofs their plaineft Teftimonies, when thefe gueffes
and Gloffes are unprincipled and haue no more Support, than
the fancy of him who makes them? You shall now fee
whither
192
Difc. 1. C. 19. The clear way
What Seta-
vies aym at
by their
Gloffes.
whither thefe Gloffes tend, And an End put to Controuer
fies.
CHAP. XIX.
The last defigne of Sectaries Gloffes, diſcouered. They
end nothing. The clear way to end Controuerfies of
Religion. A diftinction between Authority
and Principl'd Authority. Of the im-
probability of Proteftancy.
No
A
Ote. When Sectaries Gloss Scripture or Fathers clear for
Catholick Religion, and after much tugging violently for-
ce fome piece of their new Doctrin from Paffages leffe clear,
Their aym is to keep vs off from the last found Principles of ending
Controuerfies. Mr Stillingfleet, like one haunted with two con-
trary Spirits, has à rare Talent this way, Now He charm's à
darker Paffage out of all obfcurity, And makes it fpeak Prote-
ftancy; So he giues light to Theoderets Mystical Symbols: Now He
does the contrary feat, And caft's as clear words as euer Father
vttered into ſo much darknes, That it is hard to know what is
faid. Take here one inftance, You haue it in his Page. 217.
Where he Interpret's that plain paffage of s. Auftin. Tom. 6. contra
Epift. Fund: C. 5. I would not believe the Gospel vnless the Authority
of the Church moued me therunto, And to obfcure this moft má-
nifeft and profoundly well expreffed Truth, The Gentleman
fpend's three whole pages in Gueffes and coniectures, And all
is to Vnfay what the Saint had moft euidently Afferted. Firſt,
forfooth, he tell's vs, What the Controuerfy was which S. Austin
then difcuffed. 2. What Church that was which moued him
to belieue the Gospel, Here He Gueffes and Miffes. 3. In what
And
way and manner, the Churches Authority did moue him,
in
Difc. 1. C. 19. To end Controuerfies.
19]
S.Außin
in this particular Mr Stillingfleet err's grofly, who will needs per-
fwade vs, That s. Auftin belieued not the Diuinity of Scripture vpon very clear,
the Churches Authority, But only the Authenticalness of the wri- made obfisso
tings of the Apoftles and Euangelifts: As if to belieue the Authen- re.
ticalness of the Gofpel, could be feparated from belieuing that
very Golpel to be Diuine. Its à whimfy As shall appear afterward.
In the mean while you fee How all theſe Coniectures laid toge-
ther (I medle not with them at prefent) are incomparably lelle
clear than S. Austin's plain words, Yet I muft fo far put out
my eyes, as to eſteem them the only light to regulate my judge-
ment by, and Confequently make Non-fenfe of S. Auſtins clear
Expreffion. Is it not reaſonable think you, Before I do fo, To
ask firft by what Principle I may know That thefe Coniectu-
res hit right?
2. Now here you haue what I wish the iudicious Reader fe-
riouſly To reflect vpon. Suppofe one should follow Mr Stil-
lingfleet through all thofe windings and Turnings wherewith he
encumber's this one short Sentence of s. Auſtin, And Antwer ſtep
by ſtep to euery Paragraph in order. Suppofe Hee that vnder-
takes fuch à Task should in like manner proceed through all The
Gentlemans Rational Account (as 'Tis Called) And attend to his
difcourfes, reply to euery particular of his endles Gloffes, laid on
Scripture and other Fathers. Suppofe Thirdly, He should rigidly
Examin euery circumftance related in the Stories of that volumi-
nous Book (Doe only thus much and you draw the book dry
For befides cauils you haue no more) How many volumes think
ye would This way of Anfwering bring forth to the world, be-
fore the whole Account were Anfwered? And when all is done,
Much, God knowes, is not done to end Controuerfies with Sa-
tisfaction. Thus the conteft goes on.
3. Mr Stillingfleet like one affraid to meddle with found
Principles begins to Gloffe, His fuppofed Aduerfary, becaufe
no better ſtuff is giuen to work vpon, goes not yet deeper into
difficulties, But turn's to the Scripture and Fathers, Read's and
Iudges by His own Reading That much is interpreted amifs in
Bb
this
What the
Reader is
defired to
reflect on.
194
Difc. 1. C 19. The clear way
Much Con-
wes this
WAY.
-
this Rational Account, Therefore Vngloffes as faft as Mr Stillingfleet
Gloffed, And hopes He doth very well. Mr Stillingfleet.difcour+
fes; This Aduerfary doth fo alfo, But finds, or pretends to
find (I fay no more yet) His difcourfes vnfound at the bottom,
fusion folla. And too weak to bring in à good Conclufion. Mr Stillingfleet
relates his Stories, fet forth with à number of circumftances.
Our fuppofed Aduerfary diſcouer's (As he thinks) many à Flaw,
many à Miftake, much jumbling, much diforder in the Narra-
tion of his Circumftances. Reflect well good Reader. Doe you
not ſee here à ſtrange Confufion? When after the vemoſt done
by theſe two Aduerfaries, You haue two quite different Doctrins
raiſed from the fame Authorities of Scripture and Fathers? And
that after the recourfe of both to Hiftory, You haue two as diffe-
rent Stories told you, as rea, and No. In like manner after Their
long difcourfes, You haue two contradictory Conclufions drawn
out, And laid before your eyes to read. Vpon what. Principle
(if no more be Said) can the yet perplexed Reader come to fo
much certainty of our Chriftian Truths, as is neceffary to Sal-
uation? By what means shall He know, whether of thefe Two,
relates the truer Story, Gloffes, or difcourfes better? O, He
muft perufe Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, Scripture alfo, And the Volu-
mes of Fathers And then iudge. Pitiful: More than half the
world want's means to doe this, And He who is able to comply.
with that laborious Task, muft at laſt truſt to his own Iudge-;
ment, Howeuer, giue me one who will conform Himfelfe to
what he Reads, and not draw all to à preiudicated Iudgement,
That man will find out Catholick Religion.
The Catho
licks Prin-
siple far
more easy
and plain.
4. Be it how you will, The Catholick has à better And far
more eafy Principle to rely on in fo weighty à Matter, whereof
we shall Treat largely in the next Difcourfe. The Sectary has
no other Ground to fet footing on, But his own priuate Fancy.
And here is the true Reaſon why he loues à life to ftand dal-
lying with you vpon Authority and History. Goe no further, He
is fure to haue fome Reply at hand, For it is eafy to trifle à
long time, whilft you only giue him this Authority And that
Parech
Difc. 1. C. 19. To end Controuerfies.
195
>
·Parcel of Hiſtory to quarrel with. The one, as we haue feen,
He wreft's to what Senfe he pleafes; On the other He can put
fo fair à Varnish by concealing fome Circumftances, and ium-
bling others together, That the eyes of à vulgar Reader are ca-
fily dazled. In the mean time He warily waues (And is well con-
tent to doe fo) The laft found Principles which only can end
Controuerfies. Wherefore, Methinks one cannot fit the Secta-
ries. Humour better, than to attaque him with Authorities,
And next leaue the Gloffing them to his fancy, To recurr to
Antiquity, And permit him to put an other face on the whole
Story. Thanks be to God the Catholick Writers of our own
Nation (to fay nothing of others) who handle Matters inoft pro-
foundly, And in real truth haue already brought thefe debates
to à Period, giue no fuch Aduantage to Sectaries, But relying what Seca-
on found Principles, as learnedly reiect thefe Gloffes, as our newries would
men wilfully make them without Principles. Yet this is Truth. be at
As nouellifts can do no more But Gloss without Principles, So
aş I ſaid now, They are well enough content if the Catholick
will doe fomething like them, And only interpret or diſcourſe
vpon Authorities; And this I call the less, or not the last plain
way of Ending debates. Goe no further, they think Themſel-
ues fafe. For example. Read S. Auftin in the place now cited.
I would not belieue the Gospel &c. Ponder His whole Context, at-
tend to his learned Difcourfe, Mark well how He both difputes
and proues: That he would not belieue the Gospel as Gods Diuine
Word but vpon This folid ground, That the Authority of the Church,
then when he wrote, moued him to belieue fo. Defcend yet to
other particulars taken from his moft Connexed way of Arguing,
Allege all plainly against the Sectary which hath been done and
moſt laudably again and again by Catholick Authors, Yet after
all, you fee Mr Stillingfleet begins new Quarrels as fiercely, as if
nothing had been ſaid, And if one should vnrauel what he hath
wouen in his three pages, would not he, think ye, to prolong
theſe vnfortunate Strifes poffibly find fomething to except againſt
you? And muſt not you to vnbeguile the Reader once more
Bb 2
reply,
196
Difc. 1. C. 19. The clear way
The cleareft
way of en-
ding contro-
Merfies..
The Sectary
ss urged.
reply, And except against all his new Exceptions? How long may
controuerfies not yet brought to the laft plain Principles, run on
without ending? A shorter way Therefore must be thought of
And thus it is.
5. Take only that Pofitiue Doctrin which the Proteftant plainly
makes his own dogmatical Affertion, when he either Adds his
new Gloss to an obfcure Authority, or caft's one clear for Catho-
Lick Religion, into darknes. If you will haue Scripture, Quote
that Paffage of the Apoftle. The Church is the Pillar and ground
of Faith. This is my body,
This is my body, or what els you like beft. If Fathers,
Cite s. Cyril of Hierufalem. S. Iuftin Martyr, or any other quoted
aboue in defenfe of the Real Conuerfion of bread into Chrifts Sa-
cred Body. This done.. Firft confider well, what Church fpeak's
moft Conformably to the obuious Senfe of thefe Authorities..
2. Diftinguish exactly between the Sectaries Gloss, which con-
tain's his Doctrin, And the plain words of that Authority which
he Interpret's; Withall, Ponder how little thefe two look like
one another, How little their Gloss. This is à sign of my Body,
hath to doe with our Saviours clear Expreffion. This is my body.
3. Stay not too long vpon the Energy of à Teſtimony Though
plain in your behalf, nor weigh ouer much the Circumſtances:
wherein it was fpoken, For though both be well done, yet This
fitt's the Sectaries Humour, Who waits for fuch BJ-Matters, And
in his Anſwers (as I haue often obferued) To shift off what
mainly vrgeth, will giue you work enough, with his Suppofitions,
his May bus, And endles Winding.. What is then to be done when
he fuppofes his coniectures or Gloffes to be true Doctrin? This.
way Fam fure is very folid.
6. Propofe with all moderation Thefe following Queftions..
Haue you, Sir, any Orthodox Church.euer fince Chriftianity be-
gan (I am fure you haue no exprefs Scripture) which without dif
pute as plainly deliuered the Doctrin contained in your Gloss,
as you now plainly Teach it? Haue you any Orthodox Council.
which without Exception as Clearly defined it, as you now As-
fort it? Haue you any Tradition, which by à continued Succes-
1
lion
Difc. 1. C. 19. To end Controuerfies.
197
fon Age after age conueyed vnto you the Tenets you pretend to
find in fome few Fathers, And now publish to the world as Chri-
ftian Truths? If you ground your Gloffes or Doctrin on fuch
excellent Principles, we Catholicks are certainly in Errour, And
ought to conform to your reformed Gofpel, But if you fail
(and fail you muſt) to doe thus much, if you only giue vs empty
Gloffes without further Proofs, we look on them as flight things
caft off by the Orthodox world, as both vnprincipled and vnpa
tronized. Therefore Scriptureless as they are, Churchless as they are,
they fall of Themfèlues to nothing, And bring vtter ruin to your
new Machin of Proteftancy.
as
his Church
and Councils
which
7. I doe you no wrong
you no wrong when I draw
your Gloffes Topoint
you off
to an Orthodox Church. (The world was neuer without one).
Say therefore, in Gods name, where,, or when was fuch an Ortho-
dox Chriftian Society in Being that pofitiuely taught no Tranfub- taught Pro-
Stantiation, No facrifice of the Mass, No inuocation of Saints &c? Where tostancy.
or when were your Councils which pofitiuely defined theſe Doc-
trins &c? You may Anfwer, and truely. You haue indeed
neither Church, nor Councils, Nor Tradition Express for theſe
your Negatiues. Very right. Therefore I wrong you not in faying,
your whole Caufe fubfift's vpon Coniectures, cauils, And Gloffes,
Becaufe now you caft your felues into an Impoffibility of pleading
by any better Principles than meer gueffes are. Thus much fup-
poled, Say, I beseech you, What auail's it, if, when an Authority
is plain for Popery, that you can by à nimble glofs darken it? Or
if obfcure; You haue A Fiat lux, at hand, and can charm it into
fo much Clarity as may fuffice to dazle the eyes of à vulgar Rea-
der? What Satisfaction haue I here, or what gain you by this
Proceeding, when you know we haue more witneffes ready to
atteft, yea to dye for our Catholick Verities, than you haue hairs
on your head, or Gloffes in your book? What gain you to your
caufe could you miflinterpret all the Fathers that euer wrote,
when you without the warrant of any Orthodox Society haue yet
à whole learned Church Her Councils and Tradition againſt
you? And all the ftore of Ammunition left you to attaque this
Bb 3
great
198
Difc. 1. C. 19. The clear way.
without
giuen
them no fa. great Oracle of Truth, is very finall; no more, God knowes, butà
tisfaction is flash of lightning borrowed from the Ignis fatuus of your far-fetcht
Gloffes. Glofs on, Cauil on, coniecture on to the worlds end
As long as no known or Owned Principle diftinct from Gloffes
and coniectures Support's them, You only beat the aire, or, (to
yfe à pretty late phrafe amongſt you,) lapwing-like Pew moft
when furtheft from the neft. I mean, you are then moft fierce.
to end Controuerfies, when you are furtheft off from Principles,
which only can end them.
How Secta
gies ought
to plead.
>
8. Thus then you should proceed had not God and Truth
filenced you. I, E. S. B. E. declare to you honeft Papiſts
That in the Sixth or feauenth age after Chrift, His true Orthodox.
Church, pofitiuely taught no Tranfubftantiation. Such à Council
either in former or later Ages exprefly defined fo. Then, and
before alfo, Church Tradition was vniuerfally for my Doctrin,
And thus much I can make good to the learnedeft Romanift
among you. Wonder not Therefore when you quote your
Iuftins, your Cyprians, your Chrisostoms, feemingly contrary to my
Church Doctrin, That I interpret all, I am forced to doe fo, or
against conscience must defert my old Mother Church, Her Councils
and Tradition likewife, From which You haue too licentiously
fwerued, to fide with your lustins and I know not who els. Could
the Sectary plead after this manner His Gloffes would haue
force, But he neuer meddles with the First main Business, That
is, neuer ground's his Doctrin vpon any thing like à fatisfactory
Principle, But, as if He minded to tire Ones patience, run's on
headlong with Gloffes, When he has no Principled Doctrin to Gloss
for. Iuft as if One should tell his neighbour, Sir you lye, And,
this I auerr to your face, Though I want where withall to proue
my Saying true. In all thefe Controuerfies Sectaries are fo pertly
vnciuil, as to giuç the Lie to à whole Church, And what fupports
the Boldnes? Haue they any other Church more Orthodox,
Councils more learned, Tradition more vniuerfal to proue we lye,
than our Church, our Tradition, And Councils are which fay we
Speak truth? Nothing at all like them. We here challenge
them
Dife. 1. C. 19. To end Contronerfies
199
them to speak to the caufe and controuerfies are ended. What
then remain's to plead with? Plain Scripture? Not à Dord. Fa-
thers plain? Not one. O yes, Tertullian is drawn in to help at à
dead lift, fo is Theoderet, And one or two more. Very true.
But he is a gloffed Tertullian, à gloffed Theoderet &c. Separate
then theſe Gloffes from the Fathers genuin Doctrin, giue them
the Sectary to manage, you fee him in open field compleatly ar-
med ready to encounter Church, Councils, Tradition, And all the
other Principles of the Catholick world. Are not Gloffes think Gloffes
ye ftrong and prodigiouſly powerful, which haue not only force to frangely,
plead againſt à whole Church, But more ouer to implead her of powerful
with Secta
palpable errour? This Church is fuppofed to haue changed Her ries.
ancient Doctrin, And Sectaries will reform it not by recurring
to any other more Orthodox Society of Chriftians, But by meer
gueffes and Gloffes. That is. The Fallible Gloffes and guefes of men
confeffedly fallible, must reform à Church which bold's-Her felfe in-
fallible, And proues it alſo..
S
1
?
9. Thus it is, Chriftian Reader. I fpeak plainly, And can
defend my Affertion.
Affertion. Befides meer begging the Queſtion in all
Difputes, befides Cauils, And weak coniectures, The Sectary
hath no more left him to oppofe our Catholick Tenets, but
meer vnprincipled Gloffes. I neither word it nor wrong Prote-
ftants in faying thus much. Perufe if you pleaſe their writings,
chiefly Mr Stillingfleets Account, you will find (when the Churches
Infallibility, or Tranfubftantiation &c. Happen to be handled, That
Gloffes laid on the Authorities vfually quoted for Catholick Doc-
trin, euer take vp the moft room. And which is worfe, yea
pitiful in à Rational Defender of Proteftancy: You shall neuer fin
through this whole Book (waue Caurils coniectures and Gloffes)
one found Principle laid plainly forth, nor fo much as hinted at,
in behalf of any Proteftant Article. What think ye? Shall Yet Mot
Chriftians, who would fain haue à Church to liue in, fee the weak and
old Houfe of God pulled down by vnhandy Gloffers, before feeble,
They haue à better built vp, And well fetled on good Fòunda-
tions? Pulled down. What fay 12 Alas our Gloffers haue not
+
trength
200
Difc. 1. C. 19. The clear why.
The Conclu
fion against
Sedaries.
ftrength to vntile it, much less force to demolish that long flanding
Fortress. Yet Gloffes chiefly, And t'is à fad thought for the Sec-
tary, fupport his vndefenfible Schifin made in the defperate quar-
rel againſt that Church which gaue his Anceſtors Baptifm. Thefe
only (there is no more) muft plead in behalf of his inhuman and
barbarous Reformation; Thefe finally muſt anſwer before an
Impartial Iudge at that great day of Doom for all his merciless.
cruelty practifed vpon the deceaſed, and ſome yet liuing Gatho-
licks. Sad thoughts, I fay, they are to goe to bed with, to rife
with, to banquet with, which like Ghoſts will haunt him to his
dying day, And lay Torment at his reftles hart in his greateft
iollities, And more in the houre of death.
10. After all you fee the Concluſion and an end put to Con-
trouerfies. If no Orthodox Church vphold's this Proteflancy, or any ar-
ticle of it. (which is euident). No Councils nor Tradition can ſupport
it. If no Councils mor Tradition fuppart it. It has no Principled Doc-
trin. If no Principled Doctrin, No Moral certainty. If no Moral
certainty, (for meer groundles Gloffes cannot giue Any againſt
all the Powerful Motiues of our Church) there is no Probability
in it. If no Probability; The whole Reformation must be reduced to fancy
only. There we found it, And there leaue it.
11. Now, if any except againſt our cafting off Proteftancy
from the meaneft degree of Probability induced to Iudge otherwife
vpon this, ground, That many learned men defend it. I haue
Anſwered aboue. Meer Probability is infufficient to Support Chriftian
Truths. Here I both answer and Ask. 2. where were the many
learned Defenders of this new Faith, when one Luther ſtood
vp alone againſt the whole Chriftian world, And firft broached
his Proteftancy? If at that time there was no Authority nor
reafon for the Nouelty, Process of time hath gained it neither.
Look then into its Rife or Firft beginning, you'l find it vn-
found at the bottom, yea vtterly improbable vpon this certain
Principle, That the Singular Doctrin of one disgusted Rebel aga-
inft à whole Church and Thouſands more pious and learned then
Himſelfe, can merit no Belief, but deferues (what it has), to be
Anathematized.
13. We
Difc. 1. C. 19. To end Controuerfies
201
12. We muft yet infift à little vpon this Point, And lay forth
the Vanity of our Aduerfaries pretence to Probability, which
done, you shall fee controuerfies are ended. Sectaries May fay. Protefancy
If their own Authority makes not Proteftancy Morally certain,
improbable.
it cannot but raiſe it to à high degree of Probability. We deny
this, And shall preſently Ask, why their Authority more aduan-
ceth this Religion to Probability than the meer Authority of
Arians bring's Arianilin to Probability? At prefent we do not
only oppofe the voice and vote of the Roman Catholick Church
againſt this Plea, But the Authority alſo of Gracians, Abyßins and all
other called Christians, who with one vnanimous Confent decry
Proteftancy as improbable. Compare therefore votes with votes,
Authority with Authority, There is no Parallel, For, for one that de
fend's it, you haue hundreds, yea Thoufands that Contradict the
Nouelty. Thus much is indifputably Euident, if we precifely
Confider Authority as it were in Abftrate, or oppofe the Votes
of diffenting Parties against it. But here is not all. We muft
goe further, And diftinguish well between à bare Authority, and
à rational grounded Authority. For this is an vndeniable Truth.
Reaſonable Principles euer precede, or are prefuppofed, when Reli-
gion is pleaded for To the confequent Authority of those (whether
many or few) that Teach, or Profess it. Hence all fay. If the
firft conuerted Lewes to Chriftianity, Had not had moft weighty
Inducements propofed to reafon before they deferted Iudaifin and
belieued in Chrift The change had been moft imprudent; Nay,
all had been obliged, as is proued in the 4. Chapter, To hold
on in that Profeffion ftill without Alteration. So neceffary it
is to haue rational grounds laid firm in the Foundation of Re-
ligion, before the Profeffors allow it either Moral certainty,
fo much as Probability. Thus much premifèd.
or
13. We draw Sectaries from all Self-Voting, or further plea-
ding by their own Authority, And force them in this Conteſt, if Sectaries
Proteftancy be defenfible, not to fay, but to proue by Principles, drawn off
distinct from their own bare vores, Thefe two Propofitions. 1. That their own
God who is Truth it felf, And once laid his Truths the foun- Silfe voting.
Cc
dation
το
节
​▼
202
Difc. 1. C. 19. The clear way.
:
What the
dation of the Roman Catholick Church, permitted that faithful
Oracle to become Traiterous, to teach Idolatry, to tell the world
loud Lies for à thoufand yeares together. And that all this hap-
pened, when there was no other Orthodox Church on earth to
vnbeguile Thoſe poor deluded Chriftians. The fecond Propofi-
tion to be proued, is. That thefe Millions of fouls learned
and vnlearned who firmly belieued this Church And dyed
happily in it, were All mad, All Idolaters, All befotted and feduced
Setary is to by Fooleries. And (which is à Paradox aboue Expreffion)That
à knot of late vnknown Nouellifts pretending to Reformation
dare now attempt to teach men more learned than Themfelues;
To make theſe fuppofed mad, wife, The Idolatrous, Orthodox; the
befotted, Reasonable; The Seduced, right in Faith again; And that
this was
and is yet done vpon à meer proofles Suppoſition,
(that we are mad and befotted) which ftand's on no Principles
And for that reaſon is contradicted by the vaft number of moft
knowing Catholicks, And the whole Multitude of Chriftians Be-
fides.
Proue.
>
14. When thefe two Propofitions are made probable vpon
good Principles, Wee shall liften to our Sectaries Authority, But
if they fumble herein, Only talk and proue nothing, Wee reiect
their vngrounded Authority And fay, The more votes they mul-
tiply without Proofs, the less weight they haue. You shall yet
fee how weightles Their Authority is, might we here infift longer
vpon one Matter of fact which ends all Controuerfies. In à
word. All know the great Controuerfy between Proteftants
The difficul- and Catholicks comes to this. Whether they or we teach
ty propofea Apoftolical Doctrin? Whether they or we lay forth the gen-
between Ca- uine fenfe of holy Scripture? Neither Party faw or heard the
tholicks and Apoftles Preach. Neither pretend's now to Enthuſiaſms, or pri-
Protestants. uate Reuelations concerning that Doctrin: The whole caufe the-
refore is to be tried, and decided by Witneſſes of foregoing Ages,
fuch Teftimonies and Tradition muft clear this Matter of fact.
A pretence to Scripture only without precedent lawful Paftors
without Doctors, without Witneffes teaching that fenfe and
Doctrin
Difc. 1.C. 19. To end Controuerfies.
203
Doctrin which the one, or other Party ftand's for, is here both
vieles and impertinent. If then The Proteftant makes his Doc-
trin Apoftolical, His fenfe of Scripture, Orthodox; The Catho-
lick replies. Be pleafed to giue in your laft Euidence, produce
your Witneffes; your Paftors, And Doctors Four Ages fince,
That taught as you teach, And fenfed Scripture as you fenfe it.
My Church (add's the Catholick) euidently demonftrates à con-
tinued fucceffion of Her Paftors that taught as I belieue, (as
shall be proued hereafter) And shewes as clearly à Succefion of
the fame Doctrin and Faith with thefe Paftors. Her Antiquity
is vndoubted, and her pleading Peffeßion in preferuing the true
Senfe of Scripture and Apoftolical Doctrin, is as great as any
King on earth can shew for the Poffeffion of the Crown he
weares. Now, faith the Catholick, Wee examin your pede-
gree of Paftors and Doctors, And after fome few Afcents by à The first
Retrogradation come at laft to the year 1517. There we find, plead by
and moft euidently, à Luther, or Caluin To be the firft men in Principles
the world that profeffed Proteftanifm, that interpreted Scripture
as you interpret, or owned your Religion. With thefe late
Runagates you muft ftop, No man on earth can aduance or
bring your Genealogy further, Therefore to fpeak in the words of
the Ancient Opratus Meliuitan. Lib. 2. Contra Parmen: At that
time, you were fons Without Progenitors, fucceffors without à Pedegree
New Teachers without commßion, Proteſtants indeed, but without
Principles.
15. Hence I argue and it is à demonftration againſt Secta-
ries. If neither Church, nor Councils, nor Paftors, nor Doc-
tors, nor any Orthodox Chriſtians in forgoing Ages euer owned,
or fo much as heard of Proteftancy before one vnfortunate Fa-
therles Luther broached it; If no Antiquity, fo much as once
mentioned one Profeffor of that Religion; if no Tradition han-
ded to Luther the new Faith he taught (all which is without
diſpute manifeft) Proteftancy moft enidently is vpon this very
account both an Inwitneſſed and an Vnprincipled Religion, And not
only improbable, but in the highest degree improbable. But
Cc 2
no
the others
not.
204
Difc. 1. C. 19. The clear way,
ble as
no Authority can releafe an vnprincipled Nouelty from its own
intrinfick, miferable and effential state of improbability, Therefore
our Sectaries votes( of no weight at all) cannot make it probable.
And thus Controuerfies are ended, becaufe an improbable Re-
ligion (And for this reafon improbable, becaufe vnprincipled) is
not defenfible.
16. To add more to this Difcourfe I Ask, whether one Arius
oppofing the whole Church reprefented in the Nicene Council,
Protestany defended probable Doctrin or no? You will antwer No. Very
as improba...
good. Yet he quoted Scripture (and might one infift vpon the
Arianifm, exteriour letter or found of words) more plain and exprefs in the
behalf of his Herefy, than all the Proteftants on earth can pro-
duce Fathers plain and Expresss for their Nouelty of Proteftanifin.
I would fay. Neither Theoderet nor any other Father, ſpeak's half
fo clearly to the Doctrin of No Tranfubftantiation. No Sacrifice of
the Mass &c. As thefe words (to omit others). My Father is
greater then I, (may the exteriour letter regulate here) feemingly
expreſs an inequality between the Father and the Son. Now if
the feeming clear found of Scripture made not Arius his Doctrin
probable againſt the Church Then, much less can the more obfcu-
re Teftimonies of fome. Fathers, make the Doctrin of Proteftants
probable againſt the Church Now. And if we ſpeak of follo-
wers that Arius gained in his tine, There is no compariſon, He
had more than euer England had Proteftants in it.
>
17. One may yet reply. The Nicene Fathers cited plain
Scripture againſt Arius. Very true, And fo do Catholicks
againſt Proteftants,For, Chrifts Sacred words. This is my body,
are as fignificantly plain againſt Proteftanifin, as any Text thoſe
The Arians Fathers then vrged, or yet can be vrged againit Arianiſm,
not Conuin- But this you fee did not the deed, nor was then the laft con-
ced by Scrip- uiction, And why? Here is the reafon. Becaufe as Proteſtants
ture only.
now wilfully Gloss this plain Pallage of Scripture and many o-
thers, So the Arians then wilfully Gloffed all thofe Scriptures al-
leged by the Nicene Fathers, And yet hold on in that ſtrain to
our very dayes, as you, may, read in Crellius and Volkelius.. Yet
more.
Difc 1. C. 19. To end Controuerfis
205
more.
1
As the Arian Party then only Gloffed but without
the help of any antecedent Church Doctrin known to the world,
or vniuerfal Tradition to fettle their Gloffes on; So our Prote-
ftants now do the very fame, There is no difparity betwixt them,
They Gloss, 'tis true, but giue vs Churchtes Gloffes. Finally,
as thofe Fathers at that time did not only reiect the Arians
Gloffes, but eftablished alfo their own Definitions vpon Scrip-
ture interpreted by the known deliuered Doctrin of the then
prefent, and the more Ancient Church (for they repreſented
both) And thus ended that Controuerfy, So we Catholicks
proceed againſt Proteftants, And bring all debates to the like
laft period. The Church, or nothing, muft end them. Without
recourſe had to the known and owned Doctrin both of this
preſent and precedent faithful Oracle, They and we may inter-
pret Scripture long enough, They may Cauil, And we may
hold on in our Anfwers to the end of an other Age, without
hope of ending fo much as one Controuerfy. But of This
enough is faid already.
CHAP. XX.
A word to one or two Obiections. It is further proued,
That Controuerfies are ended with Protestants,
who have no Effence of Religion, but
falfe opinions only.
I.
S
>
Eetaries may obiect firft. We Suppofe all this while
But proue not The Orthodox world to haue hitherto
maintained the Doctrin now taught by the Roman Catholick
Church concerning Tranfubftantiation, Inuocation of Saints &c.
Therefore our Difcourfe leem's vngrounded. I anfwer. The
Reply is not to the Purpofe in this place, whilft we only press
Cc.3.
Sectaries
How Come
uicted
206 Difc. 1. C. 20. Proteftancy has no Effence
The first
Olication
Sectaries to giue in Proofs for their Contrary Pofitions. This
wee fay They Cannot doe: Now if wee bee as farr of From
Proofes, or Cannot ground our Tenets vpon vndubitable Prin-
ciples; Controuerfies are ended without more Adoe; Becauſe
both of vs, (if the Suppofition hold's,) haue no Articles of Re-
answered. ligion to Propugn, But weak opinions, which (whether true or
falfe) import not Saluation: Nay, the Truth of them, could it
be known, is ſcarfe worth any mans Knowledge. I Anſwer. 2.
Our Proofs (to fay no more now) Stand firm vpon Charch
Authority, once at leaft owned Orthodox, on our Councils, and
ancient Tradition neuer yet repealed, nor excepted against, But
by Hereticks only. May it pleaſe our Aduerfaries to come
Cloſely to the Point and plead in behalf of their Tenets, by
the Authority of any like or better Church than ours is, We
haue done, and muft yeild; But this they know is impoffible,
And therefore neither will nor can Anfwer our Difcourfe. If
they fay our Church, (where its contrary to Proteftancy) has
erred, Vrge them to proue the Affertion by any Principle, either
equal to(or ftronger than) our Church Authority is, And you
will haue them driuen again to their Gloffes, or to fome few
gleanings of Fathers, In à word to no Principles.
A fecond
Obiection
Propofed.
2. They may obiect. 2. We haue took much pains to
proue Nothing against Proteftancy, For we know, fome late
Profeffors namely Doctor Brambal and Mr Stillingfleet, ftifly main-
tain thefe Negatiues of No Tranfubftantiation, No Sacrifice of the
Mass, No Inuocation of Saints &c. To be only pious Opinions or in-
feriour Truths, Neither reuealed by God, nor Effential to Proteftant
Religion, Therefore whilft we vrge them to ground fuch Ne-
gatiues vpon plain Scripture, vpon the Authority of an Ortho-
dox, Church, Councils, Tradition &c. They tell vs we meddle
not at all with the Effentials of Proteftancy, But only diſpute
againſt Opinions, And, Contrary to iuftice, force them to pro-
ue meer opinions by Scripture, Church &c. wich is more then
we can prefs vpon them, or doe our felues, For haue not wee
Catholicks many Opinions in Schools, which none pretend to
ground
}
Difc. 1. C. 20. Nor Principles.
207
ground vpon
fo ftrong Principles as we fettle our Articles of
Faith on? Yes moft affuredly: Opinions then and Articles
of Faith cannot but be very differently Principled. And thus
the Proteftant difcourfes in the prefent Matters, Here faith He,
is the only difference, That Catholicks lay Claim to more Ar-
ticles of Faith, And the Proteftants to Fewer. Our morë nu-
merous Articles, ouer and aboue His fundamentals, He calls
opinions, Holds vnprincipled, And hopes to fettle his fewer
articles or the Effence of his Religion vpon Excellent folid
,
Grounds.
3. Hence it followes, that all Controuerfies hitherto agitated
between vs come to no more, but to à flight skirmishing about
different opinions only; For we and they agree in the Effence
of Religion. Vnlucky opinions furely, Cries the Sectary (and He
would feem to figh as deeply as we, But has not felt fo much
Smart) which haue caufed endles Broiles, ftrange confufion, and
à Shameful Schifm in the Chriftian world. Thus much I con-
ceiue fome later men, who exprefly teach the Doctrin would
haue vs learn, And becaufe it is à new inuented way of defen-
ding this falling Proteftancy, I hold my felf obliged, Firft to
diſcouer the whole fallacy of the difcourfe, Next to shew how
Proteftants themfelues put an end to all Controuerfies. This
done the Obiection is foon anfwered.
Point's
at à diftine.
tion between
Faith and
Opinion.
4. The fallacy lies here, That Proteftancy is fuppofed to
haue an Effence when really it has none, but is wholy made vp of
worfe then false opinions. The false Suppofition ftands glo-
rioufly in Mr Stillingfleets empty Title. A rational Account of the The fallacy,
grounds of Proteftant Religion. The man furely imagins Proteftan- difcouered.
cy to be à Religion (which implies an Effence,) yea and groun-
ded too. I fay the contrary, it has no Effence, and confequently
No grounds. To proue my Affertion, Doe no more but caft
out of Proteftancy all the Negatiues it has, which confeffedly are
no Effentials. And next fix your thoughts on the little which
remain's And is called Proteftancy. You will fee the Effence
after thefe Negatiues are gone, dwindle to nothing. Moft
>
furely
208
Difc. 1.C. 20 Proteftancy has no Effence
1
An other
Sectarian
pretence of
believing the
Creeds.
furely this is not its Effence To belieue thefe Negatiues, pious opinions,
or inferiour Truths, For if God neuer reuealed the Negatiues,
He neuer reuealed to any, That the Belief of their fuppofed piety con-
fututes the Effence of Protestancy. An other Effence Therefore muft
be found out, if it haue any, And may be it is this. Belieue the
Creeds or à Doctrin common to all Chriftians (our Aduerfaries hint at
both) and you baue the whole Effence of this Religion, Yea, and
Faith enough to attain Saluation: And thus they reduce their
Faith to fewer Articles than we doe. I might Say à word in
paffing, And reduce all true Chriftian Faith to à shorter com-
pendium. viz. To one only Article of The Apoftles Creed.
1- belieue the boly Catholick Church. That is, who euer own's the
true Church of Chrift, and firmly adheres to all She teaches
afterà due Propofal made of her Articles And dies in that
Faith; fuch à man iointly belieues both the Church and Creeds
alfo. But if he run away with one half only, or Talk of Creeds,
as Sectaries doe, without à Church, And exclude from His Belief
that Church which approues the Creeds, He feparates that which
cannot be ſeparated, And is à Self-chufer, In à word he neither
belieues Church nor Creeds, And confequently has no Chriftian
Faith.
,
5. Hence I fay. This very Affertion. I belieue the Creeds in
the fen'e of Sectaries now explicated, is fo far from being à Prin-
cipled Truth, That it is no more but an Errour or à proofles
Proteftant Opinton, As bad or worfe as any of the Negatiues are.
If therefore they make it an Effential Article of Proteftancy,
Wee prefs them according to their promife, to giue à rational
Account of it before God and man, And here our Queries aboue
come in again. Haue you, Gentlemen, any Diuine Reuelation,
That this half Faith of belieuing Creeds, after your bold rece-
ding from the Church is fo fufficient for your Saluation and
mine, That more is not required? Did euer Orthodox Church
exprefly teach this to be fufficient? Did euer ancient Council
define fo, or vniuerfal Tradition deliuer the Doctrin? Speak
plainly plead by all, or any one of thefe Principles, And I haue
done
Dilc. 1. C. 20, Nor Principles.
209
done. But tis impoffible. Perhaps you will fay All Antiquity
and the Fathers likewife highly commend the Apoftles Creed as
à short Abridgment of our Chriſtan Faith. Anfw: So doe we as
highly, But know there are different 'Lections of it, whereof
you may read in your own Doctor Vshers Diatrika. De Symbolu,
London Print. 1647. Sent to his friend Ioannes Veßius. We
know again, (may Credit be giuen to S. Hierome. Epiſt: 61. Ad
Pammach.) That this Creed was not writ in Chartâ & atramento
but in tabulis Cordis, And Therefore we must truft to Tradition
for the beſt Lection. All other Creeds euen that afcribed to
S. Athanafius ( A Græcis interpolatum dreffed vp à new by the Greeks,
Saith Dr Vsher) "The Church either made or has approued.
If then I must build my faith on theſe Creeds, I cannot diuorce
it from the Church. For, Propter quod vnumquodq, tale, eft illud
& magis tale. If I belieue my Creeds, much more muft I belieue
the Church which either made or Authoriſed them.
and the
6. In à word here is all we demand, And If Sectaries can
Anfwer they speak to the purpofe. Let them but nanie any The Beliefe
Orthodox Council, Nay, one ancient Father that faies, Faith of Creeds
is then fully and fufficiently Catholick, if one belieues the Creeds, Church,
Though at that very time He pertinaciously reiect's the prefent inseparables
Church we liue in, Or will not hear that Doctrin which She
teaches aboue The express Doctrin deliuered in the Creeds, Let him,
I fay, do thus much And he fpeaks to the purpofe, But it can-
not be done, Becauſe both the Ancient and modern Church
condemn's all who flight Her Doctrin, though not exprefly con-
tained in the Creed. In this oppofition therefore, That which
the Sectary would make the Effence of his Religion is only his falſe
opinion, and in real truth hath neither Moral certainty, nor fo
much as Probability, As is already proued. He may reply. All
he pretend's,is, That the Creeds compleatly contain Matter enough
of Chriftian belief, (To Add more is vnneceffary), And Saies
withall, Hee flights not that Ancient Church, which either com-
pofed or approued the Ancient Creeds, but blames the Later
Church which hath turned meer Opinions into Articles of faith,
Dd
And
210 Difc. 1. C. 20. Troteftancy has no Eſſence
Falfe Opi
nions fuppo-
Jed the Es-
Sence of
Proteftancy.
Particular
Proofe
Thereof.
And impoſed them on Chriftians to belieue. Anfar. Thefe
men it ſeems will hold on to be vnlucky in All They ſay. We
are now inquiring after that Doctrin which effentially Confti-
tutes Proteftancy, And here they obtrude vpon vs their Prote-
ftant Opinions for Antwer.
>
7. To affert Therefore Firſt, that the Ancient Creeds expli-
citly contain Matter enough of Chriftian Belief is à Proteftant
opinion only, largely refuted by our learned Writers. See the other
Treatife Difcourfe. 3. C. 5. To affert that the Church in
after
ages. added Vnneceffaries aboue the explicite Doctrin con-
tained in the Apoftles Creed, Impugn's the moft Ancient Councils.
of the Chriftian world, And is no more but à Protestant opinion.
To affert. 3. That the Ancient Church was right in faith,
And the prefent Church not, or, That She hath impofed meer
Opinions to be belieued by Chriftians in place of Articles of
Faith, is à flat Calumny an improbable opinion, which neuer
yet was nor can be grounded vpon any rational Principle.
And can theſe opinions think ye which all Catholicks reiect,
pass for the grounded Effence of Proteftancy? They muft, or it
has no Eff nce at all. And mark well, As they proceed with vs
here, fo they doe in all other Controuerfies. They tell vs not
only the Crieds, but Scriptures much more contain all things
necellary to Saluation, That's only their Opinion. They tell
vs, The Belief now, and that of the Primitiue Chriftians for the
first Three, or Four Centuries, is one and the fame, It is their
Opinion meerly, And demonftratiuely vntrue. They tell vs,
They own à Church before Luther, but to fay where, or when
it was diftinct from the Roman Catholick, or as They Imagin
much larger than the Roman, is only an Opinion, and moft
improbable. In a word They are euery where fo narrowly con-
fined, That whether they build or deftroy, Impugn our Religion
or offer to eftablish their own, They neuer get out of the reach
of Their own tottering improbable Opinions.
8.
And becaufe I find this ftrain runs through Mr Stilling-
flects whole Book, He cannot furely be iuftly offended, if for
my
Difc. 1. C. 10. Nor Principles.
211
pery,
the
my better Satisfaction concerning his Rational Account, I require
his rational Anſwer to one Queſtion which I hold very reatona-
ble. Thus I propofe it. You, Sir, defend à Religion called
Proteftancy, You allow it fome effential Doctrin diftinct from Po-
and all condemned Hereticks. Your Title fuppofeth this
Doctrin well grounded (The grounds of Protestant Religion) An-
fwer I beseech you, giue me firft without fumbling that Doc-
trin peculiar to Proteftancy, which effentially makes it à Reli-
gion. Giue vs the Specifical difference of it, ift haue any? And
Next, Ground this Doctrin (be it what you will) vpon
vndubitable Authority of fome known Orthodox Church, Or-
thodox Councils, or vniuerfal Tradition, but Fob vs not off
with your vnproued Opinions, Tell vs no more of belieuing
Creeds only, The Scripture only, the Four first general Councils
only without more (thefe Onelies we except againft) Yet doe you
only thus much as I now require, (T'is eafily done, if your caufe
be good,) And I will recall what euer I haue written againſt
And craue pardon for my rashneffe. But the Catholick
knowes well becaufe Herefy can haue no grounded Doctrin,
This task is impoffible. I am now to shew the Proteftant the
impoffibility of it alfo.
you,
>
A question
propofed so
Sectaries,
9. Imagin one who belieues the Creeds, as the Sectary pre-
tend's to doe, yet fo, That interiourly And from his very heart
He abiures and flights all thofe Negatiue Articles called the
opinions of Proteftants. (I fpeak not here of his exteriour de-
meanour nor Countenance his diffembling i'ft be fo) My Que-
ftion is this. Whether fuch à man haue internal, effential,
fufficient faith to make him à true belieuing Proteftant?
He hold's himſelf one vpon this conuincing Reafon, That he
firmly belieues what euer the Profeffors of that Religion main-
tain as both effential and fufficient to Saluation. Befides He
knowes well, No obligation lies on him to belieue by Faith, the
Negatiue Articles of Proteftants, neither can he, becaufe God Articles of
has not reuealed them. Such à man therefore hath compleatly Faith.
effential Faith enough, and is à true belieuing Proteftant, or if
Dd 2
he
Sectaries
muft maks
meer Ops-
nions their
212 Difc. 1. C.. 20. Proteftancy has no Effence
ļ
The difficul
ty farther
arged.
he be not yet got fo high, or haue not the Proteffant Faith com-
pleatly, neceflary and fufficient to faue him,. He muft help it. out
by belieuing fome one or other Proteftant Opinion, And Con-
fequently the Belief of Opinions muft either conftitute him ef-
fentially à Proteftant, Or He will neuer be one, yet this is moft vn-
true, for God obliges none. to belieue. vnreuealed Opinions as
Articles of Faith..
IO.
*
We must goe yet further. Suppofe this man belieues
the Creeds, The Roman Catholick Church and euery particular
Doctrin She teaches, iuft fo as the beft Catholick Bélieues,
And whereas before He only flighted the opinions of Prote-
ftants,now in place of them he firmly adheres to the Contrary
Catholick Pofitions, viz.. To The Popes Supremacy. Tranfub-
ftantiation. An vnbloody Sacrifice. Praying to Saints worhiping of Ima-
And in à word to all that the Church obliges me to belieue.
ges,
This man in heart is certainly Catholick. I Ask whether he is yet
à true belieuing Proteftant? In our Sectaries Principles, Hee is.
For firft he belieues his Creeds or Doctrin Common to all Chri-
ftians, And there is the Effence of their fauing Faith. O but
all is fpoiled by believing the Church, And what euer Doctrin She
teaches. Why fo I beseech you? why should this fpoile all, if
in Confcience, the man Iudges Her Articles to be reuealed Truths?
A Catholick you fay may be faued., Though he beliëues thus
much, Therefore there is no reaſon to damn this man vpon any
Account of his want of. Faith, For.the Faith of His Creeds faues
him, And the beliefe of our Catholick Articles ruin's not that
Faith. Ergo. Again. You must fay, His abiuring your Nega-
tiue Opinions doth not Vnproteftant Him, if he belieues the Creeds,
why then should the firm adhering to. our contrary Pofitiue. Ca-
tholick Articles (which you call opinions) make him less Pro-
teftant? You may reply. If He hold's them only as opi-
nions, He is ſtill Proteftant, But we now fuppofe He belieues
all as Articles of Faith. Very good. This then followes, ine-
uitably. Not to belieue them as Articles of Faith, befides Owning
the Creeds, effentially makes him Protestant, Ergo, This alfo follöwes
1
3
To
Dife 1. C. 20. Nor Principles.
2 13
To beljene ſome one Negatiue, or more then the Creeds For-
mally express (Add to them the common Doctrin of all Chri-
ftians, The four General Councils &c.) is effentially neceffary
to Conftitute him Proteftant. Now This very More which is
nothing but à Sectarian Opinion effentially enters in to make
him Proteftant, or Hee shall neuer bee one. Thus much I
intended to proue, and I hold it proued demonftratiuely.
II.
You haue what I would fay, plainly laid forth in this
vnanswerable Dilemma. He who iudges all the Negatiue Articles of Adilemma,
Proteftants false, And belieues the Contrary Pofitiues taught by our Ca-
tholick Curch As reuealed Truths, is yet Proteftant, or not. If not;
the belief of fome thing els (Truth or vntruth) is eſſentially requifite
to make him Protestant, But the belief of That(be it what you will)
now fuperadded 10 Conftitute him à Belieuing Proteftant, is no Truth
reuealed by God, But only à Proteftant Opinion, without which he
wants the Effence of that Religion, Ergo most euidently the Belief of
Opinions effentially conftitutes him à belieuing Proteftant, Confequently
fome Doctrin which God has not reuealed makes him Prote-
ſtant, And the belief of his Creeds is not Faith enough to make bun
one. Thefe Inferences feem euident, if not,
if not, I petition Mr
Stillingfleet to diſcouer where the fallacy lies.
what is
intended
12. Now on the other fide, if fuch à man as belieues his
Creeds, the Roman Catholick Church, And all the Articles She tea- Prouing
ches iuft as I belieue them, be notwithſtanding effentially Pro-
teſtant ſtill, He is both Proteflant and Catholick together. Catholick againſt
He is, whilft He Affents to all without Referue which the Series,
Roman Church teaches; And he is alfo Proteftant, for He be-
Treues his Creeds, And what euer our new men require as effen-"
tial to their Religion. Wherefore vnless The not- belieuing their
Negatiues, or his fubmiss yeilding to our Pofitiue Contrary Doctrins
deftroy that effential Faith of his Creeds (which is impoffible)
He is in thefe Principles, both at once Catholique and Pro-
teftant.
13. And thus you fee How Our new inen end Controuer-
fies, For now in their Principles, There is no more quarrel
Dd 3.
about
214 Difc. 4. C. 20. Protestancy has no Effence
what our
Aduerfary
is obliged to
about Religion, The whole conteft being purely brought to this,
whether Party Opines more fecurely, iuft as the Thomifts and Scotifts
(worthy learned Catholicks) difpute whether Schoole teaches the
better Opinions, Though if the Suppofition ftand, it will be
difficult to find out difputable Opinions between vs.
14. Be it how you will, Mr Stillingfleet muft of neceffity
change his Tittle [The grounds of Proteftant Religion] For now
Proteftancy with him confifts with Popery, or rather is Popery,
And Popery, If we speak of Religion, is confiftent with Proteftancy:
The Effence and grounds of the one and the other cannot but
be the fame, if (which is euer to be noted) Proteftancy as Pro-
testancy hath not one true effential Article of Orthodox Faith peculiar
to it felfe, For hauing none, The Abettors of it muft either
bee Catholicks, or Profess no Religion.
15. And here by the way you may note the difference be-
tween vs. As the Catholick own's all which the Church defi-
nes to be de Fide And neceffary to Saluation, So contrariwife,
the Proteftant own's nothing within the compass of His Articles
to be de Fide, or in like manner neceffary, For both He and
I may boldly renounce what euer he hold's as Proteftant without
danger of lofeing our Souls. And hence it is that Opinions
only, and false ones too, effentially conſtitute this whole Reli-
gion. I fpeak here of Articles proper to Proteftancy, For to be-
lieue the Creeds, the four General Councils, to Affert that the Sa-
craments giue grace to the worthy Receiuer, that Faith and re-
pentance are neceffary, or what els can be thought of, as Matter
of Diuine Faith, All, I fay, and euery one Conftitute the effence
of Catholick Religion, and are known Doctrins of the Ro-
man Orthodox Church, in fo much that the Proteftant has no
proper, Special, or peculiar Tenet of Religion left him at all
(which is true) to propugn. And for this reafon He is obliged
hereafter, lure humano, & Diuino to write no more Controuer-
fies of Religion, wanting Matter to write of, And no less obli-
gation lies on him to leaue off all further quarrelling in behalf
of his improbable Opinions. I would willingly fee this plain
diſcoufe anfwered.
16. Some
Difc. 1. C 20. Nor Principles.
215
16. Some perhaps not penetrating the force of it, may A weak
Reply. The old ftrife is now on foot again: For as we call reply, an.
the particular Tenets of Proteftants, Opinions, and improbable (wered.
alfo, So they in like manner fay, All that the Catholick Church
maintains aboue the Common Doctrin of Chriftians or the Ar-
ticles of the Creeds &c, are only Church-Opinions, as improba-
ble as Theirs. The Doctrin of Tranfubftantiation feem's as impro-
bable to them, as No Tranfubftantiation to vs. Inuocation of Saints
more improbable, than not to trouble Thofe bleffed Spirits with
our Prayers &c. Anfw. The reply fetled vpon no Foundation
is more than fimple, For either thefe men Cauil becauſe we call
their Negatiue Articles, Opinions, or Term them improbable
Opinions. Sectaries themfelues call them Opinions, that's vnexcep-
tionably plain, Though they know well that the Church neuer
fpeak's fo meanly of her contrary Pofitiue Doctrins. The only
difficulty remaining is, whether they are improbable or no? And
this ftands moſt clearly euidenced already vpon an vndeniable
Principle. viz. That when Luther firft broached them, They
were oppofite to the whole Orthodox world, And for that cau-
fe were then as improbable and Heteroclite as one Rebels vote
is againſt à whole Kingdome, or as Arianifin was against the
Vniuerfal Church. Now fince that time they haue gained no
more Probability than Arianifm, And fo the old Improbability
ftill clings to them. And for this reafon the Sectary is to find out
à Catholick Church which defended his Negatiues, or any one
ſpecifical Tenet of Proteftancy, as Ancient, or, reputed as Ortho-
dox, as our Church then was, or is now: Thus much done we
will allow more to his Opinions than Probability. But to doe
it is Impossible.
17. Thus the first part of the Obiection aboue is folued. who are te
To That is added of our preffing Sectaries to proue their Nega- prout the
tiues by plain Scripture. I anfwer, we iuftly exact fo much Protestants
proof of Mr Rogers and his Complices (the greater part of Pro- Negatines.
teftants I think) who hold them Articles of Faith: Thefe are
to produce their Scriptures, And only vrge Doctor Bramhal
and Mr
216 Diſc. 1. C. 20. Proteftancy has no Effence &c.
How Catho.
and Mr Stillingfleet that call them inferiour truths or pious Opinions, to
fettle thefe Negatiues or any Tenet of pure Proteftancy vpon fo
much as any thing like à Probable Principle, And here we ex-
pect their laft Propofitio quiefcens for Probability, But this cannot
be giuen, whilft we know, The true Church of Chrift decries
them as improbable, and Heretical errours.
18. It is very true (and that's next obiected) Catholicks haue
opinions in ſchools differently Principled from Articles of Faith,
but t'is nothing to the purpofe, when the diffecence betwixt
thefe and our Sectaries Tenents, is, that Catholick opinions, if
lick Opi-
probable, are euer reduced to probable grounds, our Sectaries
nions differ opinions contrary to the voice and iudgement of à whole Church,
Protefancy. can haue no fuch foundation And for this caufe we iuftly im-
pugn them not as Falſe Opinions only, but as Herefies. Now to
the laft Plea of Sectaries making fewer Articles of Faith than
the Church doth, The Anſwer is eaſy. It belongs not to them,
God knowes, wholly vnknown to the world one Age paft, To
giue vs now à right meaſure of Faith, The attempt is no less
vain, than prodigiouſly bold. But Say on How will they
Abbreuiate? By what Rule? By what law? By their impro-
bable opinions.
Here is all. Well therefore may they La-
ment thefe vnlucky Opinions, which haue ruined many à poor
Soul and giuen infinit Scandal to the Chriftian world. Va bomi
gi illi per quem Scandalum venit.
>
CHAP
Diſc. 1. C. 21. Proteflants granting faluation &e. 117
CHAP. XXI
Proteftants granting Saluation to Catholicks by à clear
inference drawn from their Conceßion end Controuer-
fies of Religion. VVhat force their conceßion bath.
VVhy they granted fo much. The Argument is
clearly propofed. Mr Stilling fleet return's no
probable Answer. A full difconery of
bis fallacies.
I.
S
Ome may think the particular Matter now hinted at too
largely handled being ſcarce worth halfe the labour here
fpent vpon it, And They iudge right, Should I once fo much as
offer to proue, as Mr Stillingfleet fondly Imagin's, the Ro-
man Catholick Church à fafe way to faluation becauſe Prote-
ſtants Say fo. Far bee it from mee to entertain fuch à Thought,
For whether They fide with vs, or not, Wee haue abfolute
Certainty of our Faith independently of Their fuffrages, or
Certainty
Voting vs in à Secure way to Heauen. Wherefore Should of Faith
Sectaries recoile, And fay wee are all damned (as fome haue
done) wee regard it not, That would no more Leffen the Cer-
tainty wee now haue of found Faith, than Their Cafual Gran-
ting vs Saluation in the way wee are in, Heightens it.
24. 'Tis true, were it doubtful ( or no more but Probable )
whether Catholicks Could bee faued in their Religion, The
agreeing of Sectaries with vs might ferue for fomething, But
now, when the Certainty of our Doctrin Stand's, as wee here
Suppoſe moſt fecure vpon an Infallible Principle (which is
Church Authority) The Proof taken from the Agreement of
both Parties is an Impertinency, And in real Truth, De fubiecta
E e
#3013
Abfolute
without de
pendence of
Sectaries.
218 Difc. 1. C. 21. Proteftants granting Saluation,
An Argu
went against
them upon
their Con
ceffion.
non (usponente, That is, Not to bee supposed, if (which is euer to
bee noted) wee should goe about to ftrengthen our Catholick
Doctrin, becaufe Heretiques Agree with vs.
3. Howeuer,though the Agreement, Confidered in it felfe, bee
no more but à fallible Proteftant Opinion, yet laid by the other.
indubitable Doctrin of the Catholick Church 'Tis à Truth as
afferted by them, And ties their tongues fo faft, that They shall
Neuer hereafter fpeak à probable word against our Catholick
Faith. Again, the Conceffion preffes Sectaries Ad hominem
who admit Scripture vpon the General Agreement of all Called
Chriftians. If therefore They argue well: Both you Catholicks and
Tree Proteftants bold these books Diuine, Ergo, They are fo. Wee
Argue as ftrongly Both Parties. alfo grant faluation to Catho-
licks, ergo They are fo fecure, that it is impoffible to plead againſt
the Truth, Though as I faid now, The Sectaries Conceffion
heightens not one whit our Certainty, whereof you may fee
more n. 20. In the Interin pleaſe to know, The only reason why
I difcufs this Controuerly more at Large, is; firft to diſcouer
Mr Stillingfleets grofs fallacies, Next to Show that Proteftants,
are forced at laft to Put an End to Controuerfies, Seeing
the moft Learned that euer wrote, ingenuously acknowledge the
Roman Catholick Faith, to bee à fafe, fecure, and abundantly
fufficient Means to attain Saluation, which is to fay, A true be-
lieuing Catholick Cannot bee Damned vpon the Account of
Wanting Faith, if other Chriftian Duties bee Complyed with.
4.
Now if you Ask what forced Sectaries to grant thus
much to Catholicks? I anfwer it was no kindness God knowes,
But ftark shame (to touch here. on no other Motiue) which ex-
torted the Conceffion from them, For would not both Heauen
and earth haue Clamour'd had They damned all their own
Anceſtors, all the learned and ignorant of the Roman Catho-
lick Church far and neer extended, for want of Diuine Faith.
Yet this followes, Becaufe without Faith it is impoßible to pleaſe
God. And thus they ftand perplexed. Allow fauing faith to the
Roman Catholick, Their Plea is ended, Deny it, They fend
•
millions
Difc. 1. C. 21. To Catholick, end Controucrfies 219
millions and millions of Souls to Hell. Thus much premifed.
I Argue.
5. That Faith which the Roman Catholick Church and Pro-
testants alfo iointly own as fufficient to bring à man to Heauch,
is intirely perfect, And cannot be rationally oppofed by either
Party. But the Faith of à true belieuing Catholick is fuch à
Faith, Therefore it is entirely perfect, And cannot be more ratio-
nally Oppofed. Now further. If it ftand's thus firm, vpon
Church Authority (That's the certain Principle) And the Conßion
of Aduerfaries As an ouer-measure (though weightles) it cannot be
rationally excepted against by either, both Parties owning it fuf-
fiçient, to Saluation. Therefore All controuerfies concerning
Faith are clearly ended in behalf of Catholicks, Vnless meer Ca-
uils may pass for rational Arguments,
:
2
6. It is truly Pitiful to fee how vainly Mr Stillingfcet. Part.
3. C. 4. Page. 611. ftriues to. Euert the force of this short
Difcourfe. Sometimes The difficulty is not fo much as touched
by him. Sometimes Hee mistakes the Queftion, And euer beggs
it, Now He run's away with halfà Principle, which lead's in à
lame Conclufion. Now falfe Suppofitions pass for Proofs. Now
Proteftant Opinions enter in, as found Doctrin. Here he wrong's
our Catholick Authors, There He contradict's himfelfe. In à
word you haue nothing through His whole fourth Chapter But
I know not what ftrange Confufion, Thus He Begins.
The Ground
of our Dife
in.
7. Proteflants confess there is à Pißibility for some to escape (Dam- The Aduer-
nation) in the Communion of the Roman Church, But it is as men may
faries dif
efcape with their lives in shipwrack, But they (Proteftants) vndertake course.
to make it euident, There can be no danger, if they obferue the Prin-
ciples of Protestant Religion. Mark first How ftrait hearted The man
is, in granting as little as may be, viz. A meer Poßibility, And of
fame only to be faued in the Roman Faith, hoping Thereby to
remoue his own Ancestors and Millions of Pious Chriftians as
far from Heauen as à Poßibility concerned by Him, is from an
Actual Being. I know other Proteftants peak more roundly And
fay abfolutely, Saluation may be had in the Roman Catholick
Ee z
J
Church,
220 Difc. 1. C. 21. Proteftants granting Saluation
Proved
weak and
unconclu-
ding.
The Reli-
gion which
Jaues Some
Church, becauſe, it is à true Church in Fundamentals, And that
the differences between them And vs are about leffer Matters, or
meer Opinions &c. See Mr. Thorndicke in his Book of forbearan--
ce. page 19. Therefore Mr. Stillingfleets, lean, bare, and remote
Poßibility of Saluation, is only his own particular Opinion.
Howeuer though he fee's not the Confequence, Wee haue enough
to conclude againſt him. I'le s'hew you how.
>
8. There is, Saith he, A pofibility of being Saved in the
Romam Catholick Faith, That is Catholick Religion has in
it à Poßibility of bringing men to Heauen, if there be nothing
wanting on Their parts. Very Good. This Poffibility intrin-
fecal To the Religion is now as actually in Being, as the Reli-
gion it Selfe, But the Religion is actually in being, Therefore
this Poßibility infeparable from it, is alfo Actual, And lies not
in the Series of things yet producible, as Creatures doe which God,
if he pleaſe may Create to morrow. And thus you fee, Foßibi-
lity ftand's here not oppofite to non-Existency, but to an Actual
impoßibility, Therefore when I fay, Catholick Religion now exi-
sting can poßibly faue All, I fay with the fame breath, it cannot pof-
fibly damn Any. Unleſs you'l Grant it can faue All and damn fo-
me, which is impoffibile...
9. Hence Mr. Stillingfleets pretty Put off, of Sauing Some, and
not all, is moſt inconfequent Doctrin; For clear the Religion
Can fave all. from all actual effential Errour, it can as well Saue all, as fore,
And ifit be tainted with any effential Errour, The whole Religion
is naught, And can fave none. But of this more in the next Dif
courfe. Chap. 5. 6. where I shall proue that Catholick Reli-
gion is either intierly Good, totally Orthodox, or worth not-
hing, And confequently if vpon à fuppofed impoffibility There
were but one effential errour in it which I through invincible ig-
norance know not, yet Affent to, That invincible ignorance
would ( Tis true) excufe me from Sin, But it cannot free the
Religion from being falfe and forged in it ſelf?
10. What followes in the Objection of our narrow efcaping dam-
nation in Catholick Religion, as men doe with infinet danger in
Ship-
Dife 1. C. 21. To Catholicks, end Controuerfies 221
Shipwrack, is no more but Mr. Stilling fleets own improbable Af
ſertion, not worth refuting, And His reafon is far worſe. Pro- Our Adver.
teftanis, forsooth, vndertake to make it euidentį, There can be no dan- faries im-
ger, if they obferue the Principles of Proteftants. To make it evident. probable Af
What à vaft ouerlashing is this. Sir, make your Affertion only ferson.
Morally certain, Nay, but fo much as meanly probable, And
May I haue the honour to Anſwer, yo will foon difclaim Eui-
dence. In the mean while, I look vpon it as à meer Vanity worth
nothing, And fo is all the reft in your next page. 612. Where
you bid vs iudge, whether it be wiſdom, in fuch à point as faluation
is, to forfake à Church in which the ground of Saluation is firm, to fol-
low à Church in which it is but poßible one may be faued, but very proba-
bly be may doe worse. All this is worse than your own improba- Hic glotions
ble Opinion, You here Suppofe without Proof, that the ground bragging.
of Saluation is firm in your Proteftancy, And therefore shamfully
begg the queſtion in euery word you speak. Yet thus you
go on.
II.
Saluation,
His Lordship fill afferis the Proteſtants way to be only the
Safe way to
and that in the Church of Rome,
there is -
only à limited pofsibility of it. Anfw. Enough is faid
already of the Poßibility. Here you begg the queftion again,
you run away with half à Principle, And only tell vs, what his
Lordship Afferts. What fecurity haue I from his Affertion?
There is yet more of this ftuff. Proteftants confeſſe, there is Salua-
tion pofsible to be attained in the Romam Charch; but they ſay with all,
that the errours of that Church are so many and fome so great, as weaken
the foundation, that it is very hard to goe that way to Heanen, especial-
ly to them that baue had the truth manifefted. Here is nothing but
words. We only hear what Proteftants prooflesly Thinke and
Say. What am I wifer for that? Thefe falfe Suppofitions, This His falfe
manifeft begging the Queftion fall of Themfelues without further fuppofitans.
refutation.
-
12. Were it worth the while,I might Afk whether thefe fuppofed
errours fo far weaken the foundation of Catholick Religion, that
Saluation cannot be had in it? His Lordship Anfrets. I graut
Eez
fabsia-
His begging
the question.
222 Difc. 1. C.21. Proteftants granting Saluation
Nothing but
Confusion in
¡he Riplies
of Sectaries,
>
faluation to Romanifts, Eut not as they are Romanifts, but as They are
Chriftians And believe their Creed &c. Pitiful. Speak, plainly. Will
The Belief of Roman Catholick Religion damn them or no?
If it Damn's them The Belief of their Creed's cannot fiue
them. (Vnless you both damn, and faue them at once) Contra-
rywife, if the Belief of the Creeds faues them, Roman Religion
cannot Damn them, for now vpon the Suppofition it deftroies
not that fauing Faith of the Creeds, But ftands well with it here,
And therefore cannot damn any hereafter. What followes is
yet worse, if worfe can be. You, Sr, Say. Page. 613. Il is
Lordship dares not deny à poßibility of Saluation for the Roman Catho-
lisk, but he is far from Afferting it of those, who either know the
corruptions of that Church, and yet continue in them, or of fuch who
Bilfully neglect the means, whereby they may be conuinced.
·
,
13. Here is firft à falfe Suppofition for à Proof. of known
Corruptions, And à pure begging the queftion befides. Here is.
2. The half Principle of his Lordships bare faying laid hold on
without more, which inferr's no Conclufion, But only thus much,
That my Lord fpake ( and perhaps not) what he thought, Or if
Hee did fo wee Catholicks are not of fo eafy Faith, as to belieue
him. Here is 3. A pretty piece of Non-fenfe in thofe words.
But he is far from Aflerting it of those who know the Corruptions of
that Church &c. As, if forfooth one truely Catholick could
know and own any Corruptions in his Church And yet remain
Catholick. Theſe two things are inconfiftent, To remain Catho-
lick, And to iudge this Church corrupted in any point of Doctrin.
Such men My Lord may lift among his Proteftant Belieuers.
In à word His Propofition is de Subiecto non fupponente, And fo is
alfo what crowd's in next, of Those who neglect the means afforded
by Protestants fufficiently Propofed &c. Here is again the falfe Sup-
pofition, not proued, wee neuer yet heard of any fuch means, nor
shall here after, I am fure your Rational Account afford's no-
ne.
14. You add preſently à defperate word And t'is, That his
Lordship Speakes of fuch Catholicks whofe meer ignorance excufeth, when
the
Difc. 1. C. 21. To Catholicks End Contronesfies. #33
Innumerable
Mt8.
the Fun lamentals are held &G. Ergo you and your Lord damn dil
the learned of our Church That intierly belicued the Catholick jend to Hel
Faith for à Thousand years and vpward. You Damn our B.des,
Our Bernards, our Dominicks, our Brunees, not to be lifted amongst Learned
the Ignorant. You Damn more ouer all the learned Catholicks
who haue liued (fince your Herefy began) in Italy, Germany, Spain,
France, and in ober parts of the world. Bethink your ſelf well,
whether this can pass for either Catholick or Charitable Do&rin?
And neuer more raile at vs vpon the account, That we Condema
you, For, for one we condemn, you damn Thouſands. Compare
the ignorant, amongſt you (late beginners) with the ignorant of
our Church Paft and prefent; The learned amongst you with the
learned of our Church confeffedly Popish for à Thousand years
and vpward, There is no parallel in the number. If then
damn many, why may not we condemn the late rifen fewer Multi
tudes among ft you, wilfully diuorced from the Mother Church.
Again we damn not your Perfons. No. One Supreme Iudge Catholicks
only, is to Pronounce the final Sentence vpon vs. all, But we damn none,
condemn your Herefy, And fay-as You ought to fpeak of the Arians,
Pelagians, Macedonian's &c. (and all fuch known Renegados) That
you haue no better Faith than theſe. Look you to the Confe
quence.
ſt
you
15. Your next Deinand is. When we grant à poffibility of
Saluation to thofe of the Proteftant Chvrch in café of inuinci-
ble ignorance, How we dare deny it where there is à preparation of
mind, to find out and embrace the most certam Way to Heaven? What's
this? Are you yet only in Preparatiues to find out, and embrace?
Is one whole Age gone, And Truth not yet found out among
you? The Catholick firmly belieues, A better Religion cannot be
found than that is He now embraces, And you are Still in à ſtate
of feeking, and preparing for it. Sr, à meer Preparation to take
Phyfick in à mortal infirmity cures none, no more can à Prepara-
tion to belieue, if one meet not with the right Faith, faue any.
Good Phyfick actually applyed, cures the body, And Faith actual-
ly informing the foul faues vs.
16. It
but Cop.
den Her.
Sy.
Seŭavies are
yet preparing
to belieue.
224 Difc. 1. C. 21. Proteſtants granting Saluation.
Our Aduer.
fary waues
the main
dificulty.
16. It is not now my intention to difpute that cafe of inuincible
Ignorance, great Diuines fauour not the Opinion. See our learned
Countriman Thomas Southwell, Analyfis fidei Difp. 3. Cap. 9. n.
150. And Michael de Elizalde de forma vera Religionis inuenienda.
Quest:37. n. 596. The reft which followes of men being faued
by The Terms of Goſpel (A language I vnderſtand not) And of our
Stalking to the intereft of the Church of Rome, is vain Talk
(euery Arian will fay as much) But no clofe Arguing.
17. Page. 614. You offer at à Salution to our Argument
already propofed. It is most fafe for Saluation to take that way which
All parties agree in. To this you neuer directly Anfwer, But whol-
ly waue the difficulty. Firft you tell vs again without Proof of
the Errours and corruptions in our Church, And fay it is hard to
conceive there should be that Faith and Repentance, which you
make neceffary to Saluation with fuch à multitude of errours. Sir,
Theſe fancied errours either deftroy Diuine Faith of the Creeds
and Fundamentals, Or do not. If deftructiue of Faith, You
contradict your Self, And falfify your own Propofition which
faies. Catholicks may be faued in their Religion, For without Diuine
faith no man can be faued. If theſe Suppofed errours deſtroy it
not, Faith (The ground of Saluation) is apt of it's own nature to
produce in à Soul Contrition, Repentance, pious Conuerfation, The fear
and loue of God &c. Vnless we wilfully hinder fuch holy effects
of Grace. And here you haue an vnanſwerable Dilemına.
•
18. Suppoſe theſe mifcalled errours deftroy Faith, There is
no Poffibility of Saluation at all; Suppofe they deſtroy it not But
A dilemma. confift with it, much less can they vnroote Repentance, Piety,
the loue of God, and the other virtues which bring men to Hea-
uen. The reafon is euident. Effential Errours, were There any,
ſtand directly oppofite to Chriftian Faith, which is true, there-
fore in the first place they muft shake, or rather deſtroy that
ground of Saluation, before they reuerfe Repentance and other
Chriſtian Virtues. Now if you fay we haue indeed à kind of
Faith, but fo defectiue that it beget's no Repentance no piety &c.
You speak only your fancy, deftroy the very Effence of Faith
>
And
Difc. 1. C. 21.To Catholicks, end Controuerfies. 225
And Confequently the Catholick muſt at laſt be damned for
want of Faith, or, if you make the Errours fo minute as not to
rafe out Sauing Faith, that ſtands in being ſtill, fo do other Chri-
ftian virtues Tikewife, and Saluation with them. The Argument
is conuincing.
Our Aduer-
19. Page. 615. You are wholly befides the Queſtion, And
fall vpon particular cafes impertinent to our preſent purpoſe.
You firſt inueigh bitterly againſt Death-bed Repentance, where
you deliuer intolerable Doctrin. 2. You vniufly Calumniate, faries imper-
As if Catholicks taught Repentance not neceflary before death, tinenties,
whereas the world knowes, both Doctors in Schools, and Prea-
chers in their pulpits moft Zealouſly inculcate the great danger of
continuing in Sin, and delaying Repentance. Sr, thefe difficul-
ties worth examination, And throughly Canuafed by others,
are in this place impertinencies, Therefore though you would
lead me aftray, yet I'le not follow you, But press you to Anſwer
directly to the point in hand. Giue me à man, For example,
An humble S. Francis, who liued euer à Penitential life, and
delayed not Repentance vntil death (there haue been innumerable
in the Church profoundly humble and penitential) the Queſtion
is, whether you dare damn fuch vpon the Account of wanting
true Faith, true Repentance, the fear or loue of God &c? Damn
fuch And you deny the poffibility of Saluation to all Catholicks,
Saue then, And you grant that true Repentance, piety and other
Chriſtian virtues are confiftent with Catholick Faith. And thus
I remoue you from your particular cafe of Death-bed repentance,
For although all fuch were Damned (which is hideously impious
to Affert) Yet you fee our Queftion has à large extent in or-
der to millions of other Belieuers, who liued pioufly all their life
long. Now if you Say that Doctrin which holds Saluation
poffible to one who euer liued à lewed life, and only repent's
at death is perniciously impious, you only vent your Opinion,
And here is an other impertinency.
·
20. Page. 617. You come to that which is the proper
bufiness, And t'is to examin the ftrength of our Inferences.
Ff
Protestants
226 Difc. i.C. 21. Proteftants granting Saluation
An Infiance Proteftants grant we may be faued, And the Church afferts it also. To
brought in. this you fay his Lordship return's à triple Anfwer, Who firft be-
gins with the confeßion of Protestants. This was the way of the Dona-
tifts of old, which would bold as well for Them, as the Church of
Rome. To proue the Affertion you inftance in one particular
of Baptifm. Both Catholicks and Donatifts granted Baptifm was true
among the Donariifts, but the Donatifts denied it to be true Baptifm
among the Catholick Chriftians, Therefore on this. Principle the Dona-
tists fide is the furer fide, if the Principle be true. It is the safest ta-
king that way, which the differing Parties agree on. Anfw. 1. Here
is no Agreement concerning the main point of Saluation, For
the Catholicks and Donatiks ieintly and vnanimoußy neuer openly
Confeffed that Catholicks could be faued, as now we and Pro-
To no purpo- teftants by one confent fay it. But let that pass. 2. The Ca-
Se.
tholicks and Donatifts agreed that Baptifm adminiftred by Here-
ticks was valid and good. That's true Doctrin. But both par-
ties neuer agreed, that it was lawful for à Catecumen to take
Baptifm from the Donatifts, vnless in Cafe of neceffity. See s Austin
Lib. 1. de Bapt. c. 2. 3. O, but thus much followes. The
Donatifts Baptiſm is more fafe than that of Catholicks vpon this
Principle, That both Parties agree'd fo far, and it is fafeſt to take
that way wherein differing Parties agree, confequently the Catho-
licks Baptifm is less fafe, becaufe the Donatifts denied it to be
A Paralo-
red.
true.
21. Anfr: This whole Difcourfe is à meer Paralogifm; the
Fallacy lies here, That the Opinion of diffenting men is fuppo-
gifm anfme. fed to Add more fecurity, more certainty to Church-Doctrin,than
anſwe
the Doctrin it felf deriues from that Oracle of Truth. I fay
Contrary. As fuch Opinions, when true, Add no more weight
or certainty to that Doctrin than it had antecedently from the
Church, So if false; They make not the Doctrin less certain.
Take one inftance, God reueals this Truth. The Divine word
affumed Humane nature. One preaches the Truth but Adds no
degree of certainty to the Doctrin in it ſelf, which in the higheſt
degree was moft certain, before his Preaching. An other falfly
The Funda
mental
ground of
ar Anfper.
( 25
Difc. 1. C. 21. To Catholicks, end Controuerfies. 227
(as Arius did) oppofes the verity, it is not Therefore less cer-
tain in it ſelf because He contradicts it. And thus we difcourfe
of our Church Tenets, indubitably moft certain vpon Church
Authority, whether Hereticks deny or grant, (That Matters not)
the Doctrin ſtand's firm ftill as before, And as we fee by daily
experience neither rifeth higher in certainty, nor fall's lower in
the iudgement of Catholicks, becauſe Sectaries fide with it, or
bend against it.
22. Thus much proued The Paralogifin is at an end. The
Catholicks held The Donatifts Baptifin valid; fo they would haue
done had theſe Hereticks duely Miniftred it, and with all (which
is poffible) afterward denied it valid, So independent Church
Doctrin is of diffenting mens opinions. The Donatifts again
flighted our Catholick Baptifm, the Church regards it not, For
as the Opinions of the Goodnes of their own Baptifm heightned
not the Churches certainty concerning it, So their Contrary Opi-
nion of its infufficiency made not the Truth less certain to the
Catholick. Apply what is here noted to our prefent cafe, and
you will fee the like Conclufion. Proteftants Say, we may be
faued in Catholick Religion. The Opinion is true, But as afferted
by them is no more but an Opinion, which therefore Add's not
one grain of more Certainty to Catholick Doctrin, For had they
denied vs à pofsibility of Saluation, as now by meer Chance they
grant it, Catholicks would haue giuen as little care to That, as
They now doe to their many other falfe Opinions. So it is?
Church Doctrin as I now faid, neither fall's nor riſeth in certain-
ty, vpon the account of our Sectaries Opinions.
23. You will Ask what then gain we by the Concefsion of
Proteftants when it giues vs no more Affurance in this particu-
lar, than we had before from the Church? I haue anſwered abo-
ue. We gain thus much, That they cannot rationally impugn
any Catholick Doctrin without contradicting Them felues, For
if confeffedly, This bring's men to Heauen, the Religion is found,
And implies no effential Errour, The concefsion then, as I ſaid,
ferues well as an Argument ad Hominem to stop the mouths of
Ff 2
Sectaries,
Searies St-
ding with
us neither
Leffens nor
increases
our Ceriain.
ty.
22S Diſc. 1. C. 21. Proteftants granting Saluation
1.C.21.
What their Sectaries, And showes withall, That they end controuerfies For its
Exceffion horridly vniuft to difpute againſt à Faith which all grant faues
Serues for? fouls. We pretend no more, nor can pretend it, And here is the
Reafon.
The Seas-
ries Argu.
ment taken
From the
Eucharist.
23. No Catholick (nor indeed any other) doth or can belieue
à Chriftian Verity vpon this ground or Motiue, that Sectaries fay
its true, for their faying fo, is neither Gods Reaelation nor the
Churches Doctrin, But à meer Opinion as taught by them, But an
opinion (chiefly theirs) is to weak to ground any faith vpon, There-
fore if I belieue, as I do, Saluation moft fafe in the Roman Catho-
lick Church, I belieue it vpon à Motiue totally diftinct from the
Proteftants Affertion. It is true, their Affertion or fiding with.
vs may induce one to reflect on the great power Truth has in
working vpon men moft refractory, Though it Adds no new
degree of certainty to Catholick Doctrin. I haue infifted lon-
ger vpon this point becauſe it vtterly deftroies what euer Mr. Stil-
lingfleet can fay againft vs, vnless he will quarrel vpon this fcore,
that I here fuppofe my Church Doctrin moft certain, which
is not the Queſtion now, But may well be fuppofed in all good
law of difputation, And shall, God willing, be proued in the next
Difcourfe.
}
24. Page. 619. you proceed to à fecond Anfwer of his
Lordship, And Argue thus. If that be the fafeft which both
Parties agree in, the Principle makes much for the Advantage of
Proteftants, And why? We Catholicks are bound, Say you, to
belieue with you in the Point of the Eucharift, For all fides agree
in the faith of the Church of England, That in the moſt bleſſed Sa-
crament the worthy Receiver is by his Faith made Spiritually partaker
of the true and Real body and blood of Christ, truly and really &c.
Anfw. 1°. If we belieued As you do, The motiue of our Faith
would be, As is now faid, quite different from the Motine of
your Opinion, And foit is de facto in the belief of euery Catho-
lick Myftery. But I waue this, And fay Your Principle is ill
applyed, For you and we agree in iuft nothing concerning the
Eucharift, but thus far only, That what we fee look's like bread.
We
Difc. 1. C. 21. To Catholicks, end Controverſies. 229
We fay that very Chrift who was born of the Virgin; and fuffe-
red on the Cross is really and fubftantially prefent vnder the form's
of bread after true Confecration, You by à ftrange fancy lay hold
of Chrifts Prefence exifting in Heauen, And think thereby to make
your felues partaker of his real body. We fay Chrift is rruly worth no-
and really in two, and more places at once, you make this vtterly thing, and
impoffible. We put the real Prefence or local being of Chrift why?
in the very Obiect before our eyes vpon the Altar, you put it
in your faith, or Fancy rather. Hence your queftiou afterward
viz. Whether we do not allow any real and Spiritual prefence of Chrift
befides the Corporal (you mean the Real) manducation, is foon anfwe-
red, For we diftinguish what you confound together, And fay, if
by theſe Terms Spiritual Prefence you would exclude the real obiectiue
Preſence of Chrifts facred body, we diffent from you, And abfo-
lutly hold that Real obiectiue Prefence, which may be rightly cal-
led Spiritual becauſe by it Chrift is placed Totus in toto, totally in the
whole hoft and totally in euery part of it. Contrariwife, if you make
it only à fancied Prefence of Chrift, or fay, Hee is not really vn-
der the Forms or Accidents of bread, wee leaue that lean Sacra-
mentarie Doctrin to you, vtterly disauow it, and ſtill diffent
from you.
25. The whole cheat lies hudled vp in thofe vnexplicated
words. The worthy Receiuer is by his Faith made ſpiritually partaker
of the true and real body. &c. As if, forfooth, your two terms. The fallacy
Faith, and Spiritual, could make vs agree in one Tenet, whereas difcouered.
we moſt vary about this very Faith and the obiect of it, And alfo
diſclaime your fancied Spiritual Prefence. Hence we fay, you ha-
ue neither true Sacrament, nor true Faith, nor receiue worthi-
ly, nor really partake of Chrifts true body, nor of any benefit
of his Paffion. We fay you feed not fpiritually, but only taft
natural bread. This is our Doctrin concerning your mifcalled
Eucharift, we allow you no more, and Therefore vtterly diffent
from you.
26. You add preſently à great vntruth, And I wonder you
could ſpeak it without blushing. The greatest men of our Perswa.
F f z
I
fsorr
230 Diſc. 1. C. 21. Proteftants granting Saluation
Our Aduer-
Jaries Mim
Stake.
Other in-
ted.
fion as Suarez and Bellarmin (fay you) affert the belief of Tranfubftan
tiation not to be fimply neceffary to Saluation. Ignorance or, Malice
or both had certainly à hand here, For they fay no fuch thing.
I Afcribe much to the firft, moued thereunto by your following
words. And that the Manner of it is fecret and ineffable. Dear Sr,
were Chrift really prefent without Tranfubftantiation as Luther held,
The manner of his exifting with bread might yet be fecret and
ineffable, But would this inferr à denial of his ineffable Prefence?
All that Catholick Authors fay, is, That the modus exiftendi or
Manner of his exifting in the Sacrament, is fecret and ineffable
euen with Tranſubſtantiation; do they Therefore hold the verity
not fimply neceffary to Saluation, or boggle at the Doctrin of
Tranfubftantiation? You belieue à Trinity of Perfons in one Di-
uine Effence, it's hard for you to exprefs the Manner how God
is one,and three diftinct Perfons, yet you belieue the Myſtery
And hold that belief neceffary to Saluation. Diuines eudeauour
to explicate the Manner of Chrifts ineffable Prefence in the Eucha-
rift, but when all is done you haue no more from Them but Opi-
nions, And fo it fall's out in the other Myſtery of the Trinity,
where Schoolmen vary in their explicating Quomodo, How God
can be one in Effence And three diftinct Perfons, Yet they hold
the belief of the Myſtery after à due Propofal abfolutly neceffa-
ry to Saluation, And thus they diſcourſe of Chrifts ineffable Pre-
fence in the Eucharift. The Quomodo, or Manner of his being
there is difficult And cannot be clearly laid forth to weak Rea-
fon; yet that perplexeth not our Faith whereby wee 'fubmis-
fively yeild to what God fpeakes without further curiofity.
27. Your other inftances. Page. 620. are quite befides the
bufiness. Chrift you fay, inftituted the Sacrament in both kinds
The Primitiue Chriftians receiued in both. What then? Ergo
Stances refus Chrift commanded both to laicks, is no Confequence, nor agreed
on by Catholicks. 2. Both Churches, ſay you, Agree that the Eucha-
rift is à Sacrifice of duty, of Praise, of Commemoration &c. You
know, we abfolutly deny your Suppofition, and ſay you haue
no true Sacrifice, confequently neither praife God, nor Com-
memorate.
Difc 1. C. 21. To Catholicks, end Controuerfies. 231
memorate Chrifts Paffion,but grievoufly offend him in your taking
à bare piece of bread, Here is no Agreement. And thus we ſpeak
of your Mafs or Liturgy, For there was neuer Mafs in the
without à true Sacrifice, you haue no Sacrifice, Ergo no Maſs
Church. The groffeft errour therefore is that you haue raſed
out the Sacrifice, moft effential to à Liturgy.
matter is,
28. Page, 621. You fay. His Lordship Anfwers truly,
that the Agreement of differing parties is no Metaphyfical Principle, The Conin-
but à bare contingent Propofition which may be true or falle, as the gent propoſs-
tion.
to which it is applyed. Antw. A contingent Propofition;
What's this Sr? If you mean that the Proteftant party vented it
by chance, I'le not quarrel with you, But out it is in print, And
applied to the Poffibility of Saluation, which you allow Catho-
licks. Let this conceffion ftand, it cannor but be true vnleſs
you fay, Both parties err in the Affertion, And then we are not
only out of the Queftion, but highly blame you vpon this account,
That all your pains in difcuffing fo largely the matter hitherto, has
been to no purpofe, For one line might haue ended All, had you
plainly Said. We Protestants fouly erred when we granted Saluation to
Catholicks in their own Religion. Be it how you will. I fay this
Propofition. Saluation may be had in Catholick Religion, is So true,
that it cannot be falfe, becauſe the greateft Authority on earth, the
vniuerfal Church of Chrift own's it as an vndoubted verity, and
could this posibly be à falshood, neither we nor Proteftants can
belieue any thing which the Church teaches, as is amply proued
in the ſecond Diſcourſe. &c. For to what purpoſe should I be-
lieue the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Creed or any thing els, when
that Church which proclaims thefe as Truths, may after all damn
me? The very uglines offich à thought carries horrour with it,
And ſtark shame decries it, as Abominable. Your Lord and
you fay next. The consent of disagreeing parties is neicher Rule nor proof
of truth, No man can refolue bu Faith into it, but Truth rather is, or
should be the Rule to frame, if not to force Agreement. Anfw. All this
is very right, Therefore we neuer make your confent either Rule
or proof of any Catholick Verity, much lefs do wee refolue our
Faith
Is fo true
that it can
not be falfe.
232 Diſc. 1. C. 20. Proteftants granting Salvation.
Other In
flances pro-
weight
leſſ.
Faith into your Agreement; Church Doctrin Stands firm without
you, it was true before you were in being, And the euidence of
it forced you to confent with vs. Now a word to your other
two or three inftances. And.
29. In real truth, Sr, I much wonder you ſaw not their Lame-
nefs, before you thrust them into your Page 621. And that
you would fain allow them Strength to weaken this Truth. We
and Proteftants Agree thus far that Catholick Religion can faue vs, &c.
I fay Contrary, The inftances are fo remote from your defign,
That they proue juft nothing. One is. The Orthodox Chriftians
agreed with the Arians, that Chriſt was oflike nature with his Fa-
ther, But added, Hee was of the fame nature, Ergo, Say you, it
is fafeft to hold with the Arians. To hold what I befeech you? You
Anfwer, that Chrift was of the like nature. Very good. That
Likeness either excluded the fame nature or included it; Grant the
firft, you make the Fathers Hereticks, which is impoffible, For
they held the fame nature common aud Confubstantial to the Fa-
ther and Son. If their conceffion (which is true) included the
fame nature, The Orthodox party and Arians agreed not in the
fame hypothefis, confequently your inftance is to no purpoſe at
all. In à word this euer and vnexceptionably holds good. The
Doctrin which Hereticks lewes and Turks agree in with Catho-
licks is moft true (fo you and we agree about faluation now dif
cuffed) but it doth not follow, that fo much only, or that no more
is true. Your want of reflecting vpon this Only or, no More makes
all your inftances impertinent And your inferences Ergo, It is fa-
Catholicks fest holding with the Arians moft vnconcluding; For though the
Doctrin be true when the Arian fide with the Church, yet it de-
riues no abfolute fafety from that confent of Hereticks.
That's truth
wherein
and Here-
ticks agree.
30. Vpon thefe grounds all the reft which followes fall's to
nothing. Some diffenting parties (Say you) agree that there ought
to be à Resurrection from Sin, and that this Refurrection is meant in di-
vers paffages of Scripture, But they deny the Refurrection of the body after
Death. Ergo it will be the safest to deny the article of the Resurrection.
Again: Diffenting parties, as lewes, Turcks, and Sectaries agree with
Catho-
Diſc. 1. C. 21. To Catholicks, end Controverſies. 233
Catholicks, that there is but one God, Ergo by virtue of this Principle,
men will be bound to deny the Trinity. Laftly. Diffenting parties Agree
fully with vs That Christ is man; but Hereticks deny His Godhead.
Therefore it will be safest belieuing that Christ is meer man, And not God.
Anfwer. With much wearifomness do I read theſe more than
pitiful improbable inferences. Not one of them arifes from Pre-
miles which lead in any thing like your Conclufion. Reduce but Premises put
one to right Form (one ferues for all) and you will fee your which infer
folly. Thus it is. That Doctrin in which Catholicks and Hereticks no Conclu-
top,
agree is safe and true Doctrin; Catholicks and Hereticks agree in this
Doctrin that Chrift is man ( but not man only) ergo that is fafe and true
Dodrin. Here is the utmoft your Premifes can infer, And I grant
all. Chrift is truly man. So I grant the Doctrin of à Refurrection
from fin, of one God only to be moft found and Catholick, But
here is your grand miſtake and open fallacy with it. You feem
to perfwade the Reader, that becauſe Hereticks agree ſo far with
the Church, Therefore it is fafe to deny what euer other Do-
etrin She maintains. Sr, She maintains the Truths now mentio-
ned, yet not only Thofe But many more And herein there is no
Agreement, confequently no good conclufion for you vpon any
agreed Principle. For thus much only followes from thence, That
So far as we Agree, fo far true Doctrin is taught. Apply this to our
prefent matter and all is plain. You and we agree thus far, that
Saluation may be had in the Roman Catholick Religion. Moft
true. We diffent from you concerning the Charge of Superfti- Anather
tions and grofs Errours impofed on vs, from this you can infer fallacy dif-
no Couclufion againſt vs vpon the Principle of Agreement, now
Suppofed in the other Doctrin of Saluation, which goes on roundly
without all contradiction. I would fay. We agree about Salua-
tion and that's à Truth; we differ in other points, here we muſt
difpute vpon other Grounds, And lay that agreed on Principle aſide
for immediatly it lead's in no conclufion in fuch matters.
31. Shall I now tell you where your whole Fallacy lies?
It lurk's in that pretty Term, Safeft, For you thought to infufe
into it this Senfe. So much Doctrin as we and Hereticks agree in,
G S
is only
coucred,
234 Diſc. 1. C. 20. Proteftants granting Saluation.
is only the safest, But no more, As if we Catholicks held,what euer
other Tenet is out of the compaff of that agreed-on Doctrin im-
plies both Vnfafety and Vncertainty. You grofly miſtake. We
hold euery other Point of Catholick Religion wherin you and
we diffent wholly as Safe and certain, as That is we both agree
in; For I tell you once more, our Safety and certainty depend nor
vpon any Hereticks confent. If then you would rack That Prin-
The Princi- ciple (we and Arians agree) to this untoward fenfe, So much Do-
ple of Agree. Etrin precifely is the fafeft we agree in, And no more, Or, That
ment abufed our maintaining that agreed-on Doctrin to be fafe, excludes other
Catholick verities from being So, Wee neither agree with the A-
rian nor any other Heterodox, But utterly difclaim The Prin-
ciple and confequently fay, you can draw no Conclufion at all
from it againſt vs. Senſe the Principle and all is clear. Here-
ticks and we agree, That Chrift is man, That fenfe contains
certain Doctrin. O, but the meaning may be; He is fo purely
man that he is not God. Giue it this fenfe, we agree not, but
reject the Principle as Heretical, which therefore inferr's nothing
like à conclufion againſt vs. All is contrary in the other agreed
on Principle Concerning the Saluation of Catholicks, For that
as I faid now, Though it ferue not immediatly to end other de-
bates, touching Purgatory, Praying to Saints &c. yet it drawes with
it à long train of notable confequences. For if we may be faued,
we haue true Faith in our Church, true Hope, true Chatity,
true Repentance, And what euer is neceffary to attain falua-
tion.
More of Mr. Stilling fleets Miftakes briefly
difcouered.
32. I'le only briefly hint all the reft which followes from your
Page 623. to the end of the Chapter, To touch them is enough
to take off the little ftrength they haue. You afk firft. Why you
ought to belieue that which both Parties agréé in. I Anfwer becauſe
you
Difc. 1. C C-21To Catholicks, end Controuerfies. 235
.
21. you
muft belieue in fome Church, which is either your own or Two que-
the Romam Catholick Or Both, Both grant the Catholick may lions anfwe-
be faued, what would you haue more. You Ask again, if the red.
confenting parties may agree in à falsbood what euidence haue jou but
that the agreed on Principle, is one of thofe Falshoods? I haue anf
wered. 1. If the Principle, bee fuppofed falfe you might haue
roundly ſaid ſo at the beginning, and fpared all your fuper-
Auous labour spent to no purpofe in this fourth Chapter. I
Anſwered, 2. The true Church, euen when Proteftants con-
fent to it cannot Agree in à falshood, for the true Church ſpeaks
truth, And He or They who fide with it cannot fwerue from
truth in that. You fay. 3. It ought to be à fafe Principle indeed,
and no vncertain Topical Argument, which men should venture their
fouls vpon. Anfw. If men must be faued in the true Church (be
it yet where you will) And in this we All agree, none can in
confcience call the Doctrin of it Topical or vncertain, as shall
be proued afterward. In the mean while Say I beleech you, Church
what fafer Principle haue you to rely on in this weightly matter Doctrin
of Saluation, which will not be more Topical Than that is Mifcalled
which the true Church teaches, And you approue. You know, Topical.
or should know there was neuer any true Church fince Chriftia-
nity began, which denied Saluation to the Romam Catholick.
Nay all Orthodox Chriftians euer granted it. You fide with
all thefe Orthodox Chriftians and what greater Authority can
there be on earth? Yet this Principle muft be called by you To-
pical and vncertain. Say then what's more certain? Will you lea-
ve the voice and vote of all Orthodox Profeffors and run to Scrip-
ture? Alas, The whole book Saith no where fo much as fee-
mingly, That you Proteftants are in the Safe way of Saluation,
And we Catholicks not. What euer Argument therefore is
drawn from Scripture, will be à leffe fatisfactory Principle (yea
none at all) And infinitly more Topical in order to saue you,
Than what the church teaches, and you hold with it, is, to
fave vs. Now if you let goe this Principle of plain Scripture, as
you muſt (or I'le vrge you lo produce that plain Text which fawes
Gg 2
.
20143
236 Difc. 1. C. 21. Proteftants granting Saluation.
Jou, and Damn's Catholicks) you haue nothing left to ftand on but
meer Mifinterpretations and Gloffes, which indeed merit not fo
much as very name of Topicks.
Answer so
33. You fay 4. Heathenifm if our Principle hold, will be
An Obiection proued the ſafeſt way to Saluation, For fome of you (Catholicks)
saken from agree That many of them may be faued without any explicite knowledge
Heathenism had of Chrift, But they deny you can be faued by it. Anfw: Here the
Sedaries
own Cathe.
dicks à part
of the CA-
abolik
old fallacy is on foot again, And à pretty Antilogy with it, For
if the Heathens deny we can be faued by an explicite knowled-
ge of Chrift, They muft certainly haue fome explicite knowledge
of him; Or if they haue no fuch explicite knowledge, How can
they deny Saluation to vs by Chrift? They cannot deny what
they neuer heard off. But let this pass. I Aufwer. 2. You
are quite befides the Queftion and once more out of our
Principle, For you ioine together two opinions only. viz. what
the Heathens and fome Catholicks hold in order to the Salua-
tion of fuch Aliens. And We in the conteft with
And We in the conteft with you, make
vfe of à Doctrin which all the Orthodox Churches on earth
haue euer taught: This is more certain than any opinion can be,
and only (in order to the inference about the Saluation of Catho-
licks) Add your opinion to it. 3. After you haue faid all, you
only conclude thus much, that à Heathen may be faued without
any explicite knowledge of Chrift. The Conceffion fo far is good
vpon the Opinion of Catholick Doctors, but doth it follow from
hence that fo much only is true, or that no more Doctrin is Safe?
This you ought to infer or you proue nothing.
34. Page. 623. You only tell vs what his Lordship faies.
viz. That the Roman Church, and the Church of England are but two
diftinct members of the Catholick Church, (pread ouer the face of the
earth, Obferue good Reader, our Aduerfaries both here and els
where often make vs à part, at leaft, of the Church Catholick.
Vpon that Conceffion I argue ad Hominem, they are certainly to
talk no more of any danger of damnation for want of Faith, but
grant freely we may be faued, or in real Truth They furpafs
Mahumet in malice. For if Mahumet who held Mofes and
Chri
Difc. 1. C. 21. To Catholicks, end Controuerfies, 237
Chriſt two great Prophets neuer dared to damn thofe millions of Mahomet
fouls that belieued in them, And had liued from Mofes vntil the more fauou-
wicked man fet forth his Alcoran, much less can thefe men who rable then
hold vs Chriſtians, and part of the Catholick Church damn thofe Sectaries.
innumerable profeffors of this great moral body for want of
Faith, who haue been fince the. 5. or 6. age vntil Luther ap-
peared in the world. You next put vs to our proofs. If we
can proue that the Roman Church is properly the Catholick Church it
Self, we are to Speak out &c. Sr, though we are not to prouet
that we keep in the Kings high way where the world has feen
vs fo many Ages, But might moft iuftly force you (late ftrag-
lers) to proue you haue taken à better path; Yet what you defi-
re is fo amply euinced in the other Treatife vpon feueral Occafions-
chiefly Difc. 3. C. 1. 2. 3. That none of you hitherto haue
dared to Anſwer. The proof briefly is reduced to this plain
Difcourfe. Three dayes before Luther shamefully deferted the
Roman Catholick Communion, there was à true vifible Church
on earth, but that only was the Roman Catholick Church for all
other Societies, name which you will, were erroneous and here-
tical. Ergo the Roman Church, or none, (for Proteftants were The Roman,
not then in the world) was the true Faithful Orthodox Church the only
Catholick
of Chrift, And is fo Still after our Sectaries late Reuolt from
Church,
it.
>
35. You Cloy our ears again with his Lordships feuere Sen-
rence concerning the Leaders of our Church, who refufe to hear,
Her Inftruction, And his Charity extend's fo far as to think
them all loft fouls, though many that fucceed them in thefe Errours,
without obstinacy, may be faued. Anfw: His Lordship neither is
nor was, nor Shall euer be the Iudge of the liuing and the Dead,
Therefore we little heed his heauy Doom, The man has his al-
ready. But fay I befeech you? Where was the Church before
Luther whofe Inftruction the Catholick Leaders refufed to hear?
was it your English Church? Alas, it was à thing, neuer heard
of in thoſe Dayes. Was it the Church of Arians, Pelagians, and
Auch like comdemned Hereticks, muft our Leaders be damned for
Gg 3
net
238 Difc. 1. C. 21. Protestants granting Saluation.
The Church
Catholick?
A queftion not hearing theſe? No certainly. Say then for Gods fake
Proposed where was the Church, they should haue haue harken'd to and
Concerning, refufed to hear? Here, Sr, we vrge you, may we vfe your own
Phrafe to speak out, to pronounce, and proue. Again. How dare you
with any Conſcience ſuppoſe, that ſo many learned, moſt pious
and virtuous Prelates, Paftors, Doctors, Religious, went againſt their
own Confciences to lead Themfelues and millions of Souls into
Perdition whereof innumerable gaue all they had to the poor,
fome built Churches, Others founded Monafteries, others Vni-
uerfities, Others, who might haue liued like Princes in the world,
shut themfelues vp in Cells to gain Heauen at laft, yet thefe, for
footh, must be Milleaders with you, And damn themfelues and
Desperate whole Millions for nothing. The Diuel in Hell hath not
malice enough to harbour fuch à thought, And I verily perfwa-
de my felf that neither the Bishop that's gone, nor you, Sr, when
you wrote your Account, where fo far infatuated, as to Iudge it
Iudge it pro-
bable. Your Papers fpeak not alwaies your own Confcien-
Doctrin.
A meer
impertiner.cy
ces.
ì
36. You Still run on with nothing. Many, Say you, hold
the Foundation it felf Doctrinally, who hold it not fauingly. Moft true.
But the fault is not in the Doctrin, but in their want of com-
plying. And what's this to our prefent purpofe? whilft we only
Affert with you That Catholick Religion can faue vs, If our li
ues be anfwerable to it.
37. You fay again Page. 624. Our Leaders are loft because
they most dangerously withhold from others the plain and vndoubted
Word of God, And therefore deferue the fame Anathema which. S. Paul
Pronounces against an Angel, in cafe he teach any other Doctrin. Anfw.
Do you speak in earneſt Good Sr? Fauour me fo far, That you
and I may debate this one point, and end it by plain Scripture,
If you show me vpon found Principles indeed, That we teach
any Doctrin Contrary to the plain word of God I am gained to
your fide, And shall acknowledge you Conquerour, But no fear
of this. You Say moreouer, if you Proue vs guilty of any gross
dangerous and damnable Errour, That, will be aboundantly fufficient to
Jour
Difc. 1. C. 21. To Catholicks, end Controuerfies. 239
Conditional
infigni-
your purpoſe, that Our's cannot poßibly be any safe way to faluation.
Anfw. Very right indeed. But thefe ifs end no Controuerfies: Propofitions,
Set, once more pen paper and proue vs guilty of damnable Er- here :
rour, and you'l damn ſo many, that very few of your Proteftants ficant.
will be left in à ftate of Saluation. I'le make the Affertion good
hereafter. In the interim you Tell vs, Wee palpably beg the Queſtion
Whilft we suppose the whole Church is on our fide, and against you, which
is à notorious falshood. Sr, words are but wind. I shall by the
Grace of God Euidence this Truth fo notorioufly in the next
Diſcourſe, that you, if reafon may haue place, muft confeſs, Ca-
tholicks are the only Orthodox Church, And Confequenly grant,
that Controuerfies are ended between vs.
THE
240
THE
SECOND DISCOVRSE
OF
The Church and Rule of Faith
H
Ere wee come to handle à ma-
in Matter in Controuerfies,
And firft Euidence the true Church
by Her Marks and Glorious Mira-
cles. The Roman Catholick
Church is proued the only Ortho-
dox Society of Chriftians, and Ru.
le of Faith alfo. V Vee Euince Her
abfolute Infallibility, and shew by
Reaſon, That if She hath taught
but one falfe Doctrin, and obliged
Chriftians to belieue it, there is now
no true Faith in the world.
CHAP.
Difc. 2. C. 1. Principles premifed relating c. 24x
CHAP. I.
Neceffary Principles premifed relating to the Contro-
werfy now in hand, concerning the true Church
And Rule of Faith.
He first Principle. God whofe eternal defigne
is to bring man to true Faith in this short
pilgrimage, and after to endles Happines, af-
ford's means to acquire both, And hath as Principles
well laid open the means whereby true Faith presuppoſede
may be attained, As made our final End known.
2.
The ſecond Principle. Thoſe want the means leading to
the laft happy End, who are Aliens from the true Church of
Chrift, or Separated from that Catholick Society. The Affer-
tion is to plainly deliuered not only by moft Ancient Fathers, But
by the more learned Sectaries alfo, That it is needleffto produce
many Teftimonies. S. Cyprian. Lib. de unitate Ecclefia? Saith.
Quisquis ab Ecclefia feparatus est &c. Who euer is feparated from
the Church is ioyned to an Adulterefs, And diuorced from all
the Promiffes of the Church. He comes not to the reward which
Chrift has promiſed who leaues the Church of Christ. He is an Alien,
Prophane an Enemy, and cannot haue God for his Father, who bath
not the Church for his Mother. S. Auftin. lib. 4. de Symb. C. 13.
Speaks fully this fenfe Citing thoſe laft words of Cyprian. And
Lib. 4. de Baptis. C. 17. Saith. Out of the Church there is no Sal-
uation. Yet more: Epift. 152. Whoeuer is or shall be separated from The Fathers
this Catholick Church, although he thinks himſelf to liue moſt lauda-
bly, For this one wickednes alone, that he is disioyned from the vni- preduced.
ty of Chrift, shall haue no life, Sed ira Dei manet fuper eum, But
the wrath of Cod remains vpon him. S. Fulgentius Lib. de
Hh
fide
Testimonies
242
Diſc. 2. C. 1. Principles premifed relating
Sectaries
Confent.
tholick
Truth
D
fide ad Petrum, C. 39. Hold this most certain and no way doubt of it,
That an Heretick or Schifmatick, baptized in the name of the Father of the
Son and Holy Ghost, if he be not in Vnion with the Catholick Church
Although be giues neuer (o great Alms, And shed his blood for Chrift, yet
he cannot be faued. I waue other excellent Authorities known to
euery one verfed in the Fathers, And need not to take more pains
when Proteftants themfelues own the Doctrin. The Ark was à
type of the Church, faith Perkins, in Symb. Colum: with me. 785.
extra quam omnes interibant, out of which Ark All dyed, and all-
are damned who are out of the Church. Again In Caput. 9. ad
Galat. Those who are not members of the visible Church are
not members of the Catholick Church. Humfred. Ad Ration. 3.
Campiani. We condemn all who are not aggregated to the visible
Church of God. Finally Caluin, the Mafter of Sectaries. Lib. 4.
Inftitu. C. 1. 4. makes it abfolutly neceffary to be in vnion
with Chrifts vifible Church.
>
3. The ground of this Truth is ſo ſolidly laid down in Scrip-
ture, that none can contradict it, For here the Church is called
The Ground the Kingdom, the Body, the Inheritance of Christ, purchaſed at à dear
of our Ca- rate, the effufion of his facred blood, A City built vpon à Moun-
tain. The House, the Temple of God, the Hierufalem, the Pillar and
firmament of Faith, &c. Whereby it appears, That whoeuer is out of
this Kingdom, out of this Citty, out of this houſe and Tem-
ple of God, whoeuer is not à member of this Myſtical body
or shares not in this purchased Inheritance, or in à word out of the
true Church (be it where you will, I yet define nothing) is in
à damnable condition. A fad thought for all Sectaries, becauſe
it is certain, that Chrift has not compofed his Church of fuch
Members as rightly belieue the reuealed Doctrin taught by the
true Church, and of fuch as oppofe it. Vnity and Diuifion in
Deifion in points of Faith ase inconfiftent in the fame Orthodox Church,
Barb base and deftroy the effential forme of it, which is one Faith. Now
no place in
if our Aduerfaries talk of à vnity in Fundamentals, they are.
the imit not only euidently convinced of Errour in the other Treatife
But vpon this very Account become Separaters from the Church,
Ynity and
Classy ak
་
and
Difc. 2. C. 1. to the prefent Controuerfie. 243
and without Principles Affert that which neither Church nor Scrip-
ture teaches. Who euer hold's not the Catholick faith entire shall
Perish eternally, faith S. Athanafius in his Creed, but an entire Belief
excludes all diſtinction between fundamentals and others, as is ma-
nifeſt. I little value fome Proteftants Gloffes made vpon this Text,
for Gloffes with me are weightles, when they ftand vnprinci-
pled.
4. The 3. Principle. What the true Church of Chrift teaches
concerning the fente of Scripture, That's the fenfe intended by
the Holy Ghoft, and Confequently moft true. The reafon is. Truth
cannot be contrary to truth, The Church and Scripture neuer Clash,
But alwaies fpeak one and the fame verity. This Sectaries muſt
grant, who define the Church to be an Affembly of men profißing
the pure Word of God, Therefore it cannot deceiue or teach an Errour
contrary to that pure word, Or if it doth fo, it coa/eth, eo ipfo, to be
God's Oracle, And the true Church of Chrift.
The Distin
ion be
tween Fun-
damentals
and others,
5. If theſe men ftill go on trifling with their wonted diftin-
ction, of Fundamentals, and not Fundamentals, And allow à
Perfect vnity of Doctrin between the Church and Scripture in
things abfolutly neceffary to Saluation,but not in others. This is to
define,and not to define,to build and deftroy, to teach and cheat in
one breath, For à definition, which makes known the nature of à
Thing, muft ſtand in its open fenfe without reftraint, and exactly friulous.
agree to the thing defined. Mark now. Chrifts true Church is the
Thing defined; and the Definition charged with endless reſtrictiue
Terms, is drawn to Non-fenfe, fot it tells vs, the Church is an
Affembly of men profeffing the pure Word of God, But how
far? In à few fimple Truths, called fundamentals, in others it
may err, and profess as much falshood as you pleaſe against the
Verities of Scripture, So that the true Church, not defined at all
is made by thefe, à fair and foul Spoufe at once; fair in à
few vnalterable neceffary Truths, but foul, vgly, and deformed
(becauſe erroneous) in à hundred other matters. Mark the
Paradox, and call it à flat Herefy, which feparat's him who affert's
it from the Catholick body. Thus it is. Chrifts Church is true,
Hh 2
and
>
244
Difc 2. C. 1. Principles premifed relating
Church
Do&rin
clear in the
Churches
Definitions.
and falfe, pure and vnpure, right and wrong, louely and hateful
together. The Inhabitants of this Citty of God, of this Tem-
ple and fafe dwelling place, are in it by belieuing à few fimple
Truths, And at the fame time out of it, by belieuing more
Falfities. This is Mr Stillingfleets ſtrange Doctrin, who think's
there is no Church now in the world of one Denomination free
from Errour. To what defperate improbabilities doth Herefy
driue men?
6. The 4. Principle. The receiued Doctrin of Chrifts
Church, chiefly in all points of Controuerfy is euer as clear,
and often more clear, by what She teaches, than it is in any ex-
prefs words of Scripture. The Affertion is vndubitable. For
who fee's not, but that the whole Catholick Doctrin of the
facred Trinity, of one God and three diftinct Perfons, of the Fa-
ther improduced, the eternal Son begotten, and of the Holy
Ghoft proceeding from both, is more plainly deliuered in Church
Doctrin, than in any fentence, or fentences of Holy Writ. The
like I fay of the high Godhead in Chrift, which the Arians deny;
Of Original fin, reiected by the Pelagians, and other Articles
of our Chriftian faith. And thus much is euident againſt Sec-
Not alwaies &taries, for do not they make their own Doctrin, of their Cana
fo inferipts or Sacrament, when they call it à Sign, à Figure &c. more plain
re,as Secta than any words are for it, in Holy writ? And will they not alſo
grant (T'is an Argument ad hominem) that our Catholick Tenet
of this facred Myſtery, laid forth in the Council of Trent. Sess..
13. Can. 1. is more expreſs and plain Popery than lies couched
in Chriſts own words This is my body, Though the Popery is
there clear enough to euery Reader? Yes moft affuredly, For
if our Doctrin ftand as plain in Chrifts words, as in the Chur-
ches Definition drawn from thence, Sectaries cannot (as they
do) admit of the one and fcornfully reiect the other. There
fore they muft fuppofe Scripture more dark and obſcure, than
either their own, or our Churches Doctrin is. And hence it
followes that the very Arians were not fo much Hereticks.
vpon the account, that they oppofed any moft clear and exprefs
ries grant.
fentence
Difc. 2. C. 1. To the prefent Controuerfy 245
fentence in Holy writ (for really it's hard to find one manifeftly
express againſt them), as for contradicting plain Church Doctrin,
or the true fenfe of Scripture deliuered by this Oracle of truth.
Their Hereſy then proceeded firft from fome words in Scripture -
feemingly clear in their behalf, as, My Father is greater than 1. 2.
From no Text fo manifeft, but that ſtill place was left them to
Gloffe as they haue done, and in their Judgements with fome Why the
appearrance of truth, yet Hereticks they were and fo deferue- accounted
dly accounted of, for contradicting the Church's clear Doctrin. Heretiques.
Be it how you will, thus much I am fure of, They neuer man-
gled or miſuſed any paffage in holy Writ, when contrary to their
Hereſy more shainfully, than our Proteftants now mangle and
abuſe our Sauiours Propofition. This is my body.
་
Arians were
7. By all you ſee this Principle well grounded, Whateuer
Clarity Scripture hath chiefly in Matters of controuerfy (aud clarity helps
much in the Rule of Faith) Gods true Church, which cannot but
Speak the Scriptures fenfe, in euery particular, deliuers it most clearly,
Wherefore S. Austin told Manicheus, Tom: 6. contra Epift: Fundam.
C. 14. That if hee was to belieue the obfcure Mysteries of
Christianity, Hee would affent to them vpon the weighty Au-
thority of People and Nations celebrated and ſpread abroad, By
the confent of all learned, and vnlearned, which confent implies
the vniuerfàl Agreement of the Catholick Church, And to efta-
blish this Doctrin more firmly, He affures vs. Tract. 18. in loan:
That all Herefy which intangles fouls and caft's them into Hell, S. Auftins
proceed's from this one mifery, that Good Scripture is not rightly Iudgement.
vnderſtood by them. Hence alfo Hee told vs aboue, Lib. I. concerning
sontra Cre/con. C. 32. That if any doubt arife concerning the ob- Scripture.
fcurity of Scripture we are to haue recourfe to Chriſts holy
Church, and receiue from Her fatisfaction. To which purpoſe,
S. Cyprian fpeaks moft pioufly. Lib. de Vnit: Ecclefiæ. illius lacté
nutrimur Spiritu eius animamur, adulterari non poteſt ſponſa Christi. We
are nourished by the milk, we are animated by the Spirit of this
faithful Spouſe of Chrift, which cannot play the Harlot, or be-
come an Adulteress.
•
Hh 3
る
​The
246
Difc. 2. C. 1. Principles premiſed relating
What the
Rule of
Faith im.
plies?
.>
and
8. The laft Principle. The Rule of Faith is plain, or its
own Self-euidence, apt of its own nature to conuince the moſt
obftinate Aduerfary, whether Iew, Gentil or Heretick, And for
this reafon muſt bec immediatly credible by it Self, and for it
felf, otherwiſe it muft fuppofe an other diftinct Rule yet more
plain, more euident, more conuincing and more inmediatly cre-
dible, And that Rule à third, à fourth, And fo in infinitum, which
is impoffible. Again, the Obiectiue Rule we Shall now fpeak of,
Anfwer's to the thing regulated by it, which is true, certain
and Diuine Faith. This Rule then must not only be true
certain in it felf, but alfo certainly applyed to Belieuers, For à cer-
tain Rule in it felf dubioufly applyed to an vnderftanding, auail's
only to leaue all in Sufpence and lead's none to any further Acqui-
efcency, but to à wauering and vncertain Opinion, And this is
neither ſuitable to firm Belief, nor to the Rule it felf, which
ought to eſtablish vs in Gods reuealed truths, without doubt and
helitancy. Grant this Notion of à Rule to be exact( and none
shall iuftly except againſt it) All we haue faid aboue of the Scrip-
tures Infufficiency, to regulate Faith, or to decide controuerfies,
is no less than à Demonftration againſt Sectaries, Whereof fee
more in the other Treatife? Difc. 2. per totum. Scripture
Certainly is not plain in all things neceffary to be belieued, for
were the true fenfe of it (which indeed is only Scripture) as plain
and indifputably clear for the Arians or Proteftants in euery
particular controuerfy, as their Doctrin is plainly deliuered by
them; Or contrariwife; were the ſenſe of it as plain and indif
putably clear for the Catholick Doctrin in Matters of debate, as
the very Doctrin is taught by the Church, All Contention would
ſoon ceaſe,becauſe either They,vpon the Suppoſition, muſt become
Papiſts, or wee turn Arians and Proteftants, Or finally be forced to
deny plain Scripture. A moft conuincing Argument.
>
9. The difficulty therefore is not (and Sectaries feldom touch-
it) whether Scripture be true, were the fenfe known or out of
Controuerfy, but what that true fenfe is, which lies in obſcurity,
and cannot be known, without à certain Interpreter. Here is
the
Difc. 2. C. 1. to the prefent Controuerfy
247
-
Sectaries
the only Queſtion debated between vs and Sectaries. One may The only
Reply. It is no good obiection to fay learned men differ about
difficulty
the fenfe of Scripture, Ergo it is not fufficiently plain, becaufe à concerning
great wit may wreft the plaineft words God euer fpake to à fini- Scripture.
fter fenfe. Contra. 1. But who knowes, when two learned Par-
ties conteft in this Matter, which.of them is the finiſter Wrefter?
Contra 2. When à whole Society of men as the Arians were,
and Proteftants are now, Tamper with à Text, which touches
an effential point of Faith, And diffent from others as learned
as Themfelues about the meaning, The fenfe cannot be fuppofed
more clear for the one than the other, without an other Rule
certain and Definitiue. Pray you fay. Is the fenfe of thoſe words.
My Father is greater than 1, indifputably clear for the Arian? Or
the fenfe of Chrifts words. This is my Body without controuerfy
clear for the Proteftants Doctrin concerning the Sacrament, when
à whole learned Church oppofeth both? Euidently No. There-
fore our Nouelliſts muſt grant, that Scripture is not only obfcure,
in thefe two places, But more; That à Iudge is neceflary to nowledge an
aſcertain all of its true meaning, as well in thefe, as in à hun- Obfcurity in
dred other Paffages. Again, if Scripture want this clarity, it Scripture.
cannot be its own Self-euidence, much less conuince an obdurate
Aduerfary. Nay I fay, though it were clear and the fenfe thereof
agreed on by all called Chriftians, yet both Tewes and Gentils
fcorn the Diuinity of the book, And fay if't be of Diuine infpi-
ration, That muſt be proued by à certain Rule extrinfecal to Scrip-
ture, Therefore it is not immediatly credible by it ſelf, or for it ſelf.
Laftly were Scripture plain in it felf, yet (And this vtterly ruin's
Sectaries) The certain Doctrin of it, can neuer be applyed indu-
bitably to any vnderſtanding, For our Nouellifts fay, becauſe all
Teachers of Chriftian Doctrin are fallible, none can make an in-
fallible Application of it to any, or teach that Doctrin infallibly,
which is in it felf infallible. See more hereof in the other
Treatife. Difc 1. C 2, and C. 4. N. S.
must ack-
CHAP..
248 Difc. 2. C. 2. The Rule of Faith aßigned.
Chrifts
Church is
the Rule of
Faith.
CHAP. II.
The Rule of Faith aßigned: The Properties of à Rule.
VVhat is meant by the Church? Ancient Fathers
Affert that the Church is eaſily found out.
1.
Her marks, more clear, than Her
Effential Doctrin
He true Church of Chrift in this prefent State mani-
feftly demonftrable by fignal Marks and Motiues, is the
only plain, certain, Self-euident Rule of Faith, apt to conuince the
moft obdurate: Vnbelieuer. It is immediatly credible, and the
Doctrin of it certainly applyed to à Seeker after truth. Theſe
Affertions ſtand firm vpon 3. Principles.
2.
1. Chrift Iefus has prouided Chriftians of à clear and
eafy Rule, otherwife All are left in darknes, and know not what,
or how to belieue.
3. 2. Nothing affigned by Sectaries, Bee it Scripture folely,
or what els Imaginable, Carries fo much as à weak probability
of being à Rule fo plain, eafy, and fatisfactory as the true Church
is.
4. 3. All the properties of à Rule exactly agree to the Church
of Chrift and to Her only. 1. The Rule of Faith is plain,
fo is Church Doctrin and much more plain than Scripture; I
mean, we eaſily vnderſtand what the Church teaches though the
Doctrin in it felf be difficult. 2. A Rule is its own Self-euiden-
ce, ſo the Church is, taken with the Marks, and Motiues whereby
She is demonftrated. 3. A Rule is apt to conuince, the moſt
obftinate Aduerfaries; Chrifts Church has euidently don fo, wit-
ness the innumerable Conuerfions wrought by Her vpon lewes,
Gentils,
Difc. 2. C. 2. The Properties of this Rule. 249
A
Gentils, and moft obdurate Hereticks. 4. A Rule muſt be cer-
tain, and certainly applyed to Belieuers; what Chrifts true Church
teaches is fo, for She is Gods own Oracle, as shall be proued here-
after, and teaches her Children infallibly. The Truth of thefe
particulars will be more fully laid forth in the fequele of this
Difcourfe. In the mean while, two things are to be cleared. The
firſt, what we vnderſtand by the Church of Chriſt.
and by what means She may be known? Thus much done, we
shall eafily find out thoſe Chriftians, who are Members of this
happy Society, or effentially conftitute that vifible moral Body,
called the Holy Catholick Church.
ments,
'
2. How
What &
5. Concerning the firft. We fpeak plainly, and vnderſtand meant by
by the Church à vifible Society of true Belieuers, vnited in one the Church.
profeffion of Chriftian Faith and the communication of Sacra-
vnder the Conduct and Gouerment of Chrift's lawful
Commiffioned Paftors. I fay no more yet, hoping no Sectary
can iuftly quarrel with the Notion of à Church, expreffed in
fuch general Terms, And therefore waue at prefent that other
worn-out controuerfy agitated by Prorėſtants. viz. Whether the
Predeftinate only make vp the true Church, or
the true Church, or great Sinners alſo
may be included, That is not at all to our purpofe now, when we
only feek after à Society of Chriftians vnited in the true Faith of
Iefus Chrift, who owne à due ſubmiſſion to lawful Commiffioned
Paftors, whether thoſe who teach, or are taught, be Saints, or fin-
ners, concerns them, t'is true, but not our prefent Queſtion. Of
fuch Belieuers there cannot be two or more Churches, but one
only; And to auoid all confufion, or the mingling of different
Queſtions together, we here moue no doubt concerning the Head,
or chief Authority of this Church, but immediattly Ask, whether
ning of the
there is now, and has euer been, fince Chrifts time, à vifible diffu- question
fed Society of Chriftians, who haue faithfully belieued the Ortho- proposed.
dox Doctrin of Chrift, and vpon that Account well merit to be
called the Profeffors of the true Catholick Church ? Of this
Vniuerfal fpread Society our Sauiour fpake moft clearly,or of none.
Hell gates Can not prenas against it. The Spirit of Truth abides with
Ii
it
The $7.
250
Difc. 2. C. 2. The Rule of Faith aßigned.
it to the end of the world &c. I think no Sectary will deny fuch
à Church.
6. The only difficulty now is to find out this Orthodox and
Farge diffufed Body of Chriftians, vnited in one true Faith, and
the fincere Worship of God. And nothing is more confonant to
reaſon, more exprefs in Holy Writ, or more clearly afferted by
the ancient Fathers than that the true Church laies forth Her
own euidence or clear Difcernibility whereby She is diftinguished
from all Heretical Sects, That is, She lies manifeftly open to all
eyes, and Cannot but bee moft eaſily known. She is à Citry
built vpon à mountain : The light of the world: A Tabernacle placed in
the fun. Ipfa est Ecclefia faith S. Auſtin Epift: 166. In fole pofita,
The Church is placed in the fun, Hoc est in manifeftatione omnibus nota
vfque ad terminos terra, That is, She is known by Her own apparent
and manifeft Euidence all the whole world ouer. And becauſe
no one Father touches this point with greater Energy than S.
Auftin, Hear yet more. Tract: 1. m. 1. ioan Poffumus digito &c..
3. Auftins.
Iudgement
we can point at the Church and demonftrate it with à finger,and
concerning They are blind who fee it not. Lib. 2. contra Crefcon: Cap. 36.
Extat Ecclefia. The Church is in Being apparently clear and con-
fpicuous to all. Again, Lib: 2. Contra Peril: C. 32. Neminem la-
tet vera Ecclefia. The Church of Chrift lies hid to none. And
Lib: Contra crefcon: C. 63. The Church fo clearly prefents it felf to
all ſort of men euen to Infidels, that it ſtopp's the mouths of Pagans &c.
See alfo this great Doctor, pondering thofe words of the. 30.
Pfalm. Qui videbant me foras fugerunt &c. Obſcurius, faith Hee
dixerunt Propheta de Chrifto, quam de Ecclefiâ &c. The Prophets haue
fpoken more darkly of Chrift, than of the Church, And I think
this was done, because they faw in fpirit, that men would make Par-
ties against the Church, and not contend so much concerning Chrift
ready to contend about the Church. Christ almost euery where was
preached, by the Prophets in fome hidden or couered Mystery, Ecclefia
apertè, but the Church was pointed at fo clearly that all might fee
it, and thofe alfo who were to bee against it. I waue other
Authorities, for tis tedious to proue à Manifeſt Truth, or here
The Chur.
ches Eui-
dence.
tob
Ju
Difc. 2. C. 2. The properties of this Rule. 251
to tranſcribe plainer Teftimonies relating to this fubiect. Thus
much premiſed.
is.
7. I fay firft. Though Church Doctrin be more clearly ex-
preffed by the Church chiefly in all Matters of Controuerfy, than
in Scripture; For example: you know the Church deliuers the
Con/ubstantiallity of the eternal Son, with greater clarity than Scrip-
ture expreffeth that Truth, Yet no man can proue to reafon
this clearer Doctrin to be immediatly true, vpon this fole ground,
(Mark my preciſe words) that the Church teaches it. My meaning
The Church yet not manifefted to bee God's Oracle by
marks extrinfecal to its Doctrin, leaues Reaſon ſo in fufpence that
it Cannot fay. This is the Oracle which teaches Truth, or, that the
Doctrin of this not yet euidenced Society is Diuine, and Ortho-
dox. The Affertion is fo amply proued aboue that it is needles
to press the Arguments further in this place. All I fay now, is,
that we diſcourſe in like manner of Scripture and Church Doctrin
precifely confidered as Effential Doctrin, not yet made Credible by
fignes and Motiues. As therefore the Verities of Scripture, are not
known to be Diuine Ex terminis, becauſe I read them in that Ho-
ly book, But muſt haue them proued Diuine vpon à certain Prin-
ciple diftinct from Scripture, So the Verities of the Church are
not known Ex terminis to be certain, before I proue the Church by
Clear Motiues to be the Oracle of Truth whereby God fpeaks
to Chriftians. what I Affert is euident in Chrift our Lord and
his Apoftles, when they firft began to preach, For neither lew
nor Gentil belieued that Sacred Doctrin vpon their bare prea-
ching, Nay, It fcandalized the one, and feemed à foolery to the
other, But when they faw it confirmed by Euident Signes and
Wonders, by eminent Sanctity of life, by vndeniable Miracles,
and other Signal marks which the Author of Religion laid open
to Reaſon, Both lewes and Gentils, were gained, moued to be-
lieue by Such Inducements no less prudent than forceably perfwa-
Lue.
S. The reafon of all à Priori giuen aboue, euinces thus much:
None can indubitably and immediatly own the Doctrin of either
li 2
Church
An Affer.
tion concer
Dotrin,
ni e Church
The Do&rin
of Scripture,
or The
Church, not
Proued tras
by Saying its
re
252 Difc. 2. C. 2. The Rule of Faith assigned.
The reafon
of our Affer.
tion.
Church, or Scripture as true. and Orthodox but by one of thefe
two means. Either the light of natural Reafon difcouers that
Truth, Or it muſt be known by Faith. Reafon alone, too weak
to comprehend the Sublime Myfteries reuealed in Holy writ or
taught by the Church, boggles at all, And, left to it felf, reiects.
at leaſt the harder Myfteries, as is manifeft in both lewes, and
Gentils. Now to know them by obfcure Faith is wholly im-
poffible, vnless one haue fufficient Affurance before hand, groun-
ded on other prudent extrinfecal Principles, That both Scripture,
and the Church teach Diuine, and certain Doctrin. To know
thus much, the Rational man muft difcourfe And in this prefent
ſtate of things, firſt find out the Church, by her Marks, and
Signes vifible to all. If reafon complies not with this duty, the
Faith we draw from thence is no Faith, but, à precipitous
foolish Credulity. For who can prudently affent to the high
Myfteries of Chriftianity, vnlesse Reafon firft fee it is prudent to
do fo? This is what the Apoſtle deliuer's in few but moſt pithy
words. Scio cui credidi, & certus fum. That is, I firſt know why
I am to belieue by Reaſon, and then ſtedfaſtly belieue without fur-
ther reasoning. But enough of this in the Chapter cited
aboue.
9. The. 2. Propofition. If the Doctrin of Christ's Church.
preciſely confidered according to its Effence, bee not ex exterminis
manifeftly true, or proues not immediatly that the Church is.
Orthodox vpon Her own meer faying that She teaches Truth;
It is euident, She must be proued Gods Oracle by Motiues, ex-
trinfecal to Her Doctrin. Now theſe Motiues purely confide-
red as Inducements to belieue, are not Articles of Faith, but fenfible,
The Church reasonable, and of fuch weight, that they powerfully incline euery
first proued well difpofed vnderſtanding to this rational affent. As God ancient-
Orthodox by ly spake by Mofes, by Chrift, and his Apoftles, So he now alfo fpeak's
by his own true Church, And lead's men vnder her fafe Conduct
to Saluation.
rational
Motimes.
10. The ground of my Affertion, is no less euident, than the
Poſition it felfe. Firſt, Chrift himſelf neuer proued his Doc-
very
trink
Diſc. 2. C. 2. The properties of this Rule. 253
trin true by meerly faying it was fo, but confirmed it by fignes
and wonders which made it immediatly credible as is fayd already,
So alfo did his Apoftles, And fo doth the true Church to this
day. 2. Vnless Chriftians haue thofe prudent Inducements pre-
uiouſly applied to reafon before they belieue the Holy Catho-
lick Church, The wife prouidence of God muſt be fuppofed fo
neglectiue, as not to let men know after à prudent and diligent
fearch, which or where his true Church is, Though Scripture
Compares it to à glorious Sun, moſt viſible to all And the Fa-
thers fay, they are blind that ſee it not. 3. All thofe Millions
of Chriftians who belieued the true Church, who liued and dyed
happily in it, (innumerable shed their blood for the verities of
it) were not à People mad nor befotted vpon this Account, becan-
fe They proceeded iuft as the Primitiue Chriftians did, that al-
waies belieued vpon Rational Motiues. Thefe Motiues then firft
enlightned the reafon of the moft ancient Chriftians, And reafon
afterward preuented by grace, fubmitted to all the Church teaches.
But much more of this hereafter, becaufe of greateſt Confequence,
though it fecm's Sectaries haue little regard to the Euidence of
Chriſtianity Drawn from rational Motiues:
II.
11. The. 3. Propofition. The Marks of Chrifts Church
manifeft to all, are more fenfible and clear than the effential Doc-
trin is, marked by thein; They are peculiar to the true Church
only, and diftinguish Her from all. Heretical Communities; Fi-
nally taken all together, and not by Piece-meal, conuince this
truth. That God (peaks to Chriftians by the Church. Euery part
of the Propofition proues it felf. Firft à Mark is more clear
and fenfible than the thing marked by it, For, who euer had ſeen
our Bleffed Sauiour walking here on earth, and obferued his
holy life, whoeuer had heard his facred words, and feen his Mi-
racles would haue faid, his Sanctity, words, and Miracles, were
more clear and euident to all, than his Doctrin was of being God
and man. Therefore the firſt Chriſtians belieued that great My-
ftery induced by euident works, and wonders. 2. Thefe Marks
are peculiar and proper to the true Church only. You haue
Ii 3.
the
As the Pri-
miiue
Chriftians
more indu➡
ced to belie.
ue, ſo are
wee.
254
Difc. 2. C. 2. The Rule of Faith aßigned.
prudent
Motives.
The force of the reafon hereof in the other Treatife. Difc. 1. C. 8. 1. zo
Becauſe it is not poffible, if à true Church be now on earth
that God can permit à false Society to equalize it, much less to
furpass it in the luftre of fuch Motiues as forcibly perswade to
difcern between That, and all heretical Communities, For were
this done, Falshood would be made as credible to reafon,as truth
And God would be guilty of Arguing less efficacionfly in behalf
of his own Church, againft lewes, Gentils, and obftinate Here-
They diffin.
guish the
true Church
from falfe
Communi
ties.
ticks.
12.
Obferue well the Strength of this Argument. I fay in à
word. If an Arian could truly Affert: I haue as many forceable.
Motiues, And marks of truth belonging to my followers and Doc-
trin, As the now fuppofed true Church of Chriſt can shew for
it felf, could he fay with truth I will euidence the like Anti-
quity, the like Perpetuity, the like lawful Miffion of my Paftors,
the like vnity in Faith, the like conuerfions of Heathens, wrought
in and by my Church, The like fucceffion of Bishops prea-
ching my Doctrin from Chrifts time to this day, The like fan-
Atity, the like miracles, as any Church on earth can demonftrate:
Could an Arian, I ſay, (or Iew either) ſpeak all this with truth, no
Orthodox Chriftian could argue the one or other of Falshood in
Doctrin: For grant thus much, Thefe very men might much
better handle and interpret Scripture than Proteftants do, vtterly
deſtitute of all ſuch Marks. The Iew, if the falfe fuppofition ftand
would draw the old Teftament to his fenfe, and fo would the
Arian the new; And who could reproue them could they shew
you à Church bearing thefe fignes of diuine Authority? Hence,
Sectaries that only Gloss Scripture, and neuer had any thing
like au euidenced Church which taught the Doctrin they now
maintain, and fo earneftly Gloss for, are moft reproueable, And
vainly attempt to draw any prudent man to à belief of their No-
uelties.
13. By all you fee how important it is to haue à Chriftian So-
ciety clearly marked, and diftinguished from falfe Communities,
with euident Signes, and rational Motiues before we recurr to
Scripture.
Difc. 2. C. 2. The properties of this Rule. 255
Scripture. All faith depends on this greater Euidence laid forth
to reafon, as Shall be demonftrated towards the end of this Dif
courfe.
14.
-
I would haue euery one ſeriouſly to reflect on what is
now faid, and once more to know, That Chrifts Church like à
glorious Sun euidenceth Her felfe by the Luftre of fignal
Marks, though her eſſential Doctrin belieued by obfcure Faith,
appear's not Euident. Find me then out à Church euer in being
fince Chrifts time, vnited in one Faith, glorious in Miracles and
conuerfions of Heathens, wherein Bishops and Paſtors lawfully
fent, haue preached Chrifts Doctrin age after age; Giue me à
Church which was neuer cenfured or taxed of Errour by any
Society of known Orthodox Chriſtians, She, and she only,is Chrift's
true Spoufe, All other late rifen Affemblies, are Conuenticles of
Satan; And thefe Marks do not only diftinguish Her from all
One only
fuch Conuenticles, as is now noted, but Collectiuely taken conuince Church
this Truth, That God fpeak's to Chriftians by this Oracle, whe- Shewesthese
reof you haue more in the following Chapters.
15. In the Interim we must enter vpon à further difficulty
and next enquire, which among fo many Congregations as now
are and haue been in the world, is the only manifefted true
Spouſe of Chrift? For all, as I faid aboue, make not one Church
vnless Chrift hath compofed this myftical Body of fuch members
as rightly belieue, and of others that iniuriouſly oppoſe his facred
Doctrin. Now because the chief controuerfy is between the Pro-
teſtant and Catholick, The first pretend's to à Church which
teaches Chrifts Doctrin; The Catholick vtterly denies the Pre-
tence and pleads for his Own Oracle euidenced by prudent Moti-
This I fay being the Conteft, we are in the first place, to
vnchurch the Proteftant, and then proue by vndeniable Argu
ments, where and with whom the true Church of Chrift is.
ues.
Marks.
CHAP.
256 Difc.2. C.3. Proteftants proued Churchles
Questions
Proposed
80 Sectaries,
CHAP. III.
The Proteftant has neither Church euidenced by Marks
of Truth, nor true Doctrin made credible to reafon.
His whole Faith is built pon
I..
·Fancy.
He Marks of the Church, as is now faid,are fo clear to
Treason,
they
reaſon, that they make the Oracle manifeft to all ſort of
people, to the learned and vnlearned, to lewes, to Infidels, and
much more to Hereticks who pretend to belieue in Chrift.
All of them are alike concerned, and obliged to make à fearch
after the true Church, and when t'is found to belieue it.
•
-
2. Now to find it out, I Afk, whether our English Pro-
teſtants (with thefe we chiefly difpute) like well of the marks
already hinted at, or will reiect them? I propofe my doubt with all
candor. Will they dare to fay That their Church, as it deliuers
Proteftants Do&rin, or, as it is now reformed in England, was
euer fince Chrift time In Being, and viſible to the world? Can
they produce à Succeffion of Bishops, or Paftors, that taught
Proteftancy Age after Age, without intermiffion? Can they show
what Conuerfions thefe Proteftant Paftors wrought vpon Heathens
to their faith, fiue or fix Centuries fince? Can they produce in-
dubitable Miracles, done by ſuch Paftors? Moſt euidently No.
Therefore our later Proteftants reiect theſe, and the other like
Motines,as flight and impertinent,to euidence their Church (which
yet fay they,teaches Chriſts Doctrin) and Wilily do ſo, becauſe they
haue none of them. Well. To leaue them without excufe,
to filence them for euer; Here is an vn anfwerable Dilemma.
Either the marks now kinted at are admitted or, reiected. Sup-
poſe them owned as clear cognifances of the true Church, or of
Her Orthodox Doctrin, we moft juftly urge Proteftants to proue,
what
Diſ. 2. C. 3. Proteftants proued Churchles. 257
what I know will neuer be made probable. Viz. To shew That
they had à Church three or four Ages fince inuefted in the
fignes, and marks, now mentioned. On the other fide, if
which is uſual, fuch marks be flighted as unmeet to manifeſt
the true Church, it muſt bee granted, They haue no euidenced
Church, and Confequently no true Doctrin with it. Hence I
Argue, Who euer belieues, in an uneuidenced Church, defti-
tue of all Signes and marks of truth, belieues in no true Church;
The Proteftant belieues in fuch an vneuidenced Church, There-
fore he belieues in no Church: But he who belieues in no
Church belieues à Doctrin more than improbable, or abfolutely
falſe, And this is fincy or worse than fancy,
Anjwer.
3. What anſwer think ye do Sectaries return to this Argu-
ment? A ftrange one indeed. They tell vs the only Mark of They return
the Church lies not in any external Notes, but appear's in the noproble
written word of God, and the Purity of Scripture. So Alftedius.
Lib. de notis Ecclefia C. 29. Whitaker Contro. 2. 9. 5. C, 17 and
Mr Stillingflect here and there, fee's well pleafed with the
fancy. Contra. 1. The Church had her Marks before Scrip-
ture was written, what euer fenfible Signes Then diftinguished that
holy Society from ail heretical Conuenticles, makes it yet known
to the world and Still as clearly point's it out, For, the writing
of Scripture nothing at all obfcured, the exteriour luftre of thofe
Signes or prudent Motiues. Contra. 2. A Mark which
makes an obfcure thing known is euer more clear and fenfible,
than that is which is marked by it. The Church, Say Sectaries, The Church
is obfcure and muſt be firft known by Diuine Scripture, But this
more clearly
very Diuinity of Scripture, is more obfcure than the Church manifefted
(For it is not its own Self-euidence, nor known ex terminu to than Scrip-
be Diuine) Therefore vnleſſ this Diuinity be made manifeft by turo,
an other light, it cannot giue to all the first notice of the Church,
which appeares More clearly to fenfe and reafon, by its own
Signes, than Scripture doth.
>
4. Hence it followes. 1. That, Scripture, which should
first mark out the Church, cannot do it; being more obfcure
Kk
than
258
Difc. 2.C.3.Proteftants proued Churchles.
Of what
weight
pleading
Tradition is
The Heathis
exceptions
against Tra
dition only.
>
of
than the thing marked by it. It followes. 2. That the Church
thus marked, is its own Self-euidence, not Farther demonftrable.
to Reafon. Who euer therefore depriues the Church of her ex-
ternal Motiues, or takes from her the glory of Miracles
Antiquity, Conuerfions, &c. Shall long grope in the dark,
before Hee find's either Church, or Scripture You will fay.
Scripture known by the vniuerfal Tradition of Chriftians, may
well mark out and firft difcouer the true Church, Tradition
being à thing moft known, and Senfible to all. Contra. This
very Tradition either fuppofes à Church fignalized with other
rational Motiues, or excludes them; And imports no more but
the bare Confent of Chriftians, that accept of Scripture as Gods.
Diuine word. Grant the firft; we haue all that's wished. Plead
only by the Second, or tell à Heathen (who may be gained to be--
lieue the Church) That all Chriftians vniuerfally: own Scripture
as Diuine, and mention nothing of Miracles or other Motiues
manifest in the Church, He will foon reply. The Chineſes
haue alſo vniuerfal Tradition or à general confent of à People
largely diffuſed for their Bible; The Turks haue it for their Alco-
ran, yet fuch à Tradition alone is no Mark of God's word or
the true Church. Why then should it be à mark to Chriftians,
if no more be faid?
ས་
5. And the Heathen eaſily makes his Plea good by this con--
uincing Reafon à Priori. Before this vniuerfal Tradition was,
before you fo many Chriftians agreed in the Belief of your Bi-
ble, the Doctrin Thereof was made credible vpon other Motiues,
Theſe Motiues are not now extinguished, or of leffer account.
becauſe you haue agreed on the Scriptures Diuinity; Nay they
must be prefuppofed to haue been before you agreed, For this
Agreement is not the cauſe of the Bibles credibility, but an effect of the
fame. That is. Therefore fo many Christians haue agreed by à vni-
uerfal Confent, that Scripture is Gods word, because it was made credi-
ble to Reaſon Antecedently, to an Agreement fo vniuerfal, But the
ground of this Agreement was no other but the Authority of
the Orthodox Church glorioufly euidenced, by the Luftre of
her
Difc. 2. C. 3. Proteftants proued Churchles, 259
her Signes and Motiues &c. This Principle alone, vtterly ruins
Mr: Stillingfleets; Refolution of Faith, as shall be made clear in
an other place.
6. Again faith the Heathen, you Proteftants difcours not
probably, you iuft proceed as one doth who laies Colours be-
fore à blind man and bid's him iudge of them. You fày, that
both I and lewes are blind, and cannot difcouer the light which
lies in the Scriptures Diuinity. If this be fo, how can you ima-
gin that I may find out the true Church by the light of Scrip-
ture (though admitted vpon Tradition) which I can no more look
on than an owle on the Sun, at Noon-day? Neither will it help
you at all, if you Say. Scripture interpreted both Mark's, and
manifeft's the true Church, For I muſt firſt know that Scripture
is Diuine, before I giue credit to any Inrerpreter, And though I
were aſcertained of that Diuinity, yet Lam ftill to feek whether
your Interpretation, or the Arians be better, and this I cannot
know without à fure Rule extrinfick to Scripture, And all fallible
Interpretation. Yet the Heathen hath not done, but pinches the
Proteftant shrewdly. Admit, faith he, that Scripture Mark's out
the Church, and giues vs the firft Euidence of it, when it tells
VS. The Church is à Cirty built vpon à Mouutain, and founded on à
Rock, That all Nations shall flock to it. That Chrift will be with it
to the end of the world; That it euer had, and will haue Paftors, Vifi- He clearly
ble, and audible, till we all meet in one Vnity of Faith. That it is the convinces
Pillar, and ground of Truth &c. Can you, my good Proteſtants, Sectaries.
show me fuch à Church belonging to you three or four Ages
fince when, you had not one fingle man in the world profeffing
your Proteftant Religion? Where was then your Proteftant
Citty viſible on à Mountain? What Rock ſtood it on in thoſe
daies, when it was not in being? What Nations, what lewes what
Gentils did it then conuert to your Nouelties? How was
Chriſt then with it, and taught it all Truth, when there was no
fuch Church to learn his Doctrin? Giue me à Catologue, of
your Viſible Paſtors at that time, or tell me how your Church
was then à Pillar, an Oracle of truth, whilst all it teaches now is falli-
ble, and may be falfe?
Kk 2
7. Hence
260 Difc. 2. C.3. Proteftants proued Churchles.
An Argu
meni urawn
from what
is now jaid.
7. Hence I argue. What Scripture faith is true; Scripture
here fpeaks of à Church founded by Christ, of an Ancient, Vihi-
ble Society, of Her perpetual Pastors without interruption, of à
Church conuerting Nations &c. Therefore it fpeak's Truth, and
points at à fure Oracle marked with the notes we plead for, who
euer then admit's Scripture, must ioyntly own theſe Marks and
Signatures of the true Church, But yee Sectaries admit Scripture.
and haue no fuch Marked Church, with Antiquity, continuance
of Paftors &c. Ergo you are not members of the true Church,
which muft neceffarily be found in fome other Society of Chri-
ftians.
8. Here by the way, we muft preuent à triuial Obiection; For
fome less knowing Aduerfary may reply. Wee deftroy our own
Ground, and now proue the Marks of the Church by Scriptu-
re, whereas we fuppofe the Scripture firft proued to be of Diuine
Inſpiration, becauſe the Church manifefted by her Marks and
Motiues faith fo.
>
9. I Anfwer we proue the Marks of the Church, and the
Form of her effential Doctrin alfo by Scripture, But how?
Vpon à Suppofition, that the Book be firft proued Diuine by
Church Authority, Thus much done, it is an excellent Principle,
But not Primum indemonftrabile, its own Self Euidence, Or firft inde-
monftrable Principle. This Truth is clear, For no man goes.
about to conuert à lew by alleging Paffages out of the new Tefta-
ment, or to draw à Heathen to Christianity by any thing writ
Scriptwronot ten either in the old
or new Scripture. As therefore that
the first in man would not be well in his wits, who hopes to conuert à Pro-
demonstrable teftant, by meerly alleging the Definitions of the Council of
Principle, Trent which he flights, fo he would be as fenfles, did he hope to
conuert à Heathen by Scripture only, as much vnderualued by
him, as the preſent Definitions of the Church are by Prote-
ftants. Hence you fee how Scripture is à Principle against Sec-
taries, who admit it, and reiect an infallible Church. By Scrip-
ture we Argue and conuince them of errour, might the words
Thereof bear their proper fenfe without fancied Gloffes, Yet if
We
Diſc. 2. C. 3. Proteſtants proued Churchles.
261
we make à right Analyſis it is not the first indemonftrable Princi-
ple, but, Per Modum fuppofitionis only, that is, it must be either fup-
pofed or proued Diuine.
IO.
were ſo there
I fay yet more. Though both the Iew, and Heathen,
owned Scripture as it truly is, à Book indited by the Holy Ghoft,
yet they haue but made one ftep, as it were, towards Chriftia- Though it
nity, For when fuch men look well about them, and find Scrip- yet remains
ture differently fenfed by fo many iarring Heads as haue it in their à difficulty
hands, by Arians, Socinians, Quakers, Protestants, &c. (Catholicks not to bee
diffent from them all) where can, I beseech you, thefe half Chri- folued.
ftians, whether lewes, or Heathens fecurely relt ?
With whom
can they rationally vnite Themfelues? whofe fenfe muft they
belieue and own as the vndoubted meaning of the Holy Ghoft?
To doe any thing prudently in fo weighty à Matter is impoffi-
ble, Vnless they firft come to the knowledge of Chrifts true
Church, which as well Afcertain's them of the Scriptures fente in
all Controuerted points of Faith, as it doth, of the Book's
Diuinity. Now further. It is not poffible to know the true
fenfe of Scripture but by the Church, it is not poffible to know
the Church, but by her Marks, (the effential Doctrin Thereof
no more mark's it felf as true, than Scripture Doctrin denotes
its own Diuinity) The Sectary therefore that rob's the Church of
her Marks and the external Glory of Miracles, Conuerfions, Perpetuity
&c. is guilty of three hainous crimes at once.
11. Firft he makes the Conuerfion of à Iew to Chriftianity Setaries
moft impoffible. I'le show you how. The Iew Admit's of the make the
old Teftament and drawes from euery paffage which ſpeak's of Conuerfion
Chrift and the Church, à Senfe quite different from that which of lewes,
impoffible.
Chriftians own. The Proteftant´admit's both the Old and New
Scripture, And as we may Suppofe, is at à hot difpute with à lew
concerning Chriſtian Religion. First faith the Iew, Lay, Sir,
your New Testament afide, which is no Principle with me, Be-
cauſe it neither euidences it Self immediatly to be Gods word,
nor can you proue it Diuine vpon any fure ground extrinfecal to
the Book. Therefore we must Argue by à Principle common
Kk 3
to
262 Difc.1.C.3. Proteftants proxed Churchles.
The Affer.
tion, proued.
to vs both, The old Teftament only. You read There, I read alfo, You
know the Original language,fo do I,You compare Text with Text,
I doe the like, You Glofs, and I Glofs against you, Yet after all
is done, you draw one fenfe out of this very Scripture, and would
proue Chrift to be the true Meffias, I draw from thence an other
quite Contrary, And fay He is not. My demand is, whether Chriſt,
whom you Adore, hath prouided men of better means (Than
your Gloffes and mine are) whereby we may certainly know what
the fenfe of this Scripture is? If he haue done fo, it can be
nothing but à Church manifefted by Supernatural Signes and
miracles, (for God now teaches none by Angels or Enthufiafins)
if the guidance of à Church be wanting we are all left in darkness,
And know not what Senfe to make of Scripture; and this ill be-
ſeems the Goodnes of à Sauiour, who, as you fay, came to enligh-
ten the world and teach all truth, which is not done, For he
leaues Reafon in Darkness and Teaches not where his true Church
is. It may well be the Proteftant will except againſt his Aduerfà-
ries Gloffes, but He is foon filenced, for Saith the Iew, you,
good man, when you treat with Papifts interpret Scripture as you
pleaſe, and why may not I proceed fo with you, And vſe the like
liberty?
12. The fecond crime committed by the Proteftant, who de-
priues the Church of Her external Signes, is, that he Eclipfes
that great light of the world (which as Origen faith shines to
all) And make it as Obfcure, as fome Proteftants make their
Church inuifible before Luther. What I fay is certain, For no
man can find the Church by reafon, when all rational Motiues are
ries are guil- taken from it, And held impertinent to illuftrate that great moral
Body. Hence you fee the third fin of Sectaries relating to Scrip-
ture. This Book alfo lofeth all credit with Chriſtians, becauſe
it Euidenceth not its own Diuinity, nor can any Signaliſed Church
tell vs, it is Diuine, or certainly declare the true fenfe thereof, to
either learned or vnlearned.
What Secta-
ty of.
13. My laft argument againſt the Proteftant is no Topick,nor
bare Probability, but à plain Demonſtration. The Title faith;
This
Diſc 2. C. 3. Proteftants proued Churchles 263
This reformed man has no Chriftian Doctrin made credible to
The laft
Reaſon, whilſt he belieues as Proteftant. To proue the Affertion, conuincing
Three Principles are here Suppofed. First, that the Markes of Argument.
the Proteftant Church or of its Doctrin lie (as thefe men will
haue it) in the Purity of Scripture only. 2. That their Church
Doctrin is either contained in the 39. Articles, or implies fo much
as all called Chriftians Belieue, and no more, Though plain He-
reticks in many particular Tenets. 3. That this Proteftant Com-
munity as it Teaches, is either the whole Church of Chrift exclu-
ding other Societies, or only à Part of the vniuerfal Church.
Thefe Principles Suppofed, you haue my Demonftration.
>
14. Scripture Marks the true Doctrin of Chrifts Church
but it neither mentioneth nor marks out the Doctrin contained
in the 39 Articles, for our newer men call thefe inferiour Truths
only, And hold them not Regiftred in God's word. Neither doth
it Affert fo much as darkly, that à Mixture of Truth, and Fal-
shood, (fuch as all Hereticks haue owned and do own) is the
Doctrin of the true Catholick Church; Leaft of all, That à
Doctrin common to Arians, Proteftants, and Catholicks, is fuf- Scripture
ficient to Saluation. Laftly, it faith no where, that the Proteftant disowns.
Church containing that reformed Doctrin, is by it Self the Proteftancy.
whole true Church of Chrift excluding all other Societies, nor
ſo much as à Part of it, And this I proue.
15 If as reformed, it be à Part of the true Catholick Church,
the Profeffors of it haue now, and had before Luther fome
Partners who ioyn'd with them in the belief of their reformed
Doctrin, But before Luther, they had not one fole man in the
world that belieued as they belieue, and fo wanted fellowship,
becauſe, neither they, nor their Partners were at all in Being: Now
at this inftant, they haue no Society of men, called à Church,
(run ouer all the world) which fide's with them, or hold's either
the. 39. Articles, or à Doctrin common to all Chriſtians, to be the
true Doctrin of Chrift, or of his vniuerfal Church. All this I fay
is euident. And.
16. Hence you fee, in what plight theſe men are,
who pre-
rend
264 Difc. 2. C. 3. Proteftants,proued Churchles.
A clear
inference
against
Sectaries,
tend to à Church marked and made euident by Scripture, and
when they haue that facred Book in their hands, it is impoffible
to find fo much as one Sentence or fyllable in behalfe of Pro-
teftancy. Thofe other exteriour Signes of Conuerfions, Mira-
cles, Antiquity &c. are of no Account with them, And were
they otherwife, moft euidently they belong not to the reformed
Doctrin of the English Church. Here is à piece of fad ne-
wes for Sectaries, who haue à Church neither Spoken of in Scrip-
ture, nor manifefted to Reafon by one Supernatural wonder. So
vneuidenced à Thing it is, And Confequently vpon à double
Account, no Church at all.
2.
17. The Sectary may reply. When he Afferts Scripture
Marks the true Church or Her Doctrin, the meaning is not
that it fpeak's exprefly the Tenets of Proteftants, but only
Saies, it is à fufficient Repofitory of all things neceflary to Saluation,
and deliuers fo much plainly. What euer therefore is not plain-
A Reply
ly taught in fcripture ceafeth to be neceffary. Contra. 1. Pro-
Answered. teftants granting thus much, may feek long before they fiud
Their particular Tenets, becaufe Scripture deliuers none of them
either exprefly, or by any clear Deduction. Contra. The
Iew and Heathen regard not the plaineft Truths in Holy Writ
before the book be proued Diuine, The moft plain Verities auaile
nothing with them, Yet God hath afforded means to draw
them to Chriſtianity. But it feem's our Sectaries in all their
talk of the Scriptures clarity, neuer reflect on thefe Strangers
from Chrift, nor point at the means whereby their Conuerfion
may bee wrought. Contra. 3. The Arian and the Orthodox
as highly differ about the fenfe of plain Scripture, as the Pro-
teſtant and Catholick, about the fenfe of Chrifts own words.
This is my body, And thefe differences either touch on
fundamental Matters or there are none fuch in the whole
Bible. Contra. 4. The Proteftant only tells vs what he
faith of all things neceffary contained in Scripture, and ſpeak's
his own Sentiment boldly, without either proof or Princi-
ple.
>
>
18. Some
Difc. 2. C. 3. Proteftants proued Churchles. 265
18. Some obiect firft. God can endite à Book in as plain An Obie-
words as any man can ſpeak, and t'is not fuppofed, that he affec- tion folued.
ted obfcurity in his own Scripture, already written. Contra. I.
If Scripture be not obfcure. How is it That Chrift told the Sa-
duces they mistook the true meaning of it? How is it, that
thefe Proteſtant Pillars Luther and Caluin, fo grofly contradic
one an other in their Commentaries made vpon holy Scripture,
And this in points moft material? How is it that innumerable
others called Chriftians Profeffe to reuerence, to Read, to
ſpend the greatest labour vpon Scripture, and when all is
done draw out of it plain Contradictions in points, as is
now faid, moft Fundamental? Contra. 2. We queſtion not
what God can do, but fay he hath not endited Scripture plain,
de facto. S. Peter. Epift 2. 3. 16. Speaking of S. Pauls
Epiftles, is my warrant. In which, faith he, Certain things are
hard to be vnderstood, which the vnlearned, and vnftable depraue, as
also the rest of Scripture, to their own perdition. And the words
relate not only to the Myfterious Matters whereof the Apoft-
le wrote, but to his Phrafe and forme of writing alfo, Therefo-
re the Greeck Copies haue both in which things, and in
which Epiftles, And all Expofitors hitherto, euen S. Austin, haue
acknowledged an obfcure way of ſpeaking in S. Pauls Epiftles,
chiefly in that to the Romans. Yet we are not to ſay that
God affects Obfcurity (the word is vnmeet) but fpeak thus:
preſſed
His prouidence purpofely would haue Scripture deliuered in
fuch à dark manner, that all might baue recourfe to à liuing harshness,
Oracle, (His true Church) which fpeaks more plainly, and
cannot fwerue from any verity in Scripture, No offence is gi-
uen to pious ears, In à word you haue à Verity expreffed
with out harshness. See S. Austin lib. 2.
See S. Austin lib. 2. de Doct. Chrift: c.6.
And S. Ambrofe Epift. 44. Again vote Scripture moſt plain,
what gain Sectaries by the Clarity, when they neither haue
plain, nor obfcure Text through the whole Bible for their
Proteftancy?
a
19.
Hence we Anfwer to an other petty obiection. Scrip-
LI
ture
Truth ex-
without
266 Difc. 2.C.4. The Roman Catholick Church.
ture (fay fome) relates many Things not neceffary to Salua-
tion, Therefore it cannot be fuppofed to omit things necef-
fary. Contra: 1. Ergo it ſpeak's fome things of
pure Protes-
ftancy, or nothing in that Religion, as reformed is necef-
fary to Saluation. I would willingly haue an expreſs Text
for this reformed Nouelty, and theſe few difficulties folued.
Contra. 2. Though the whole Bible were without difpute
moft plain, or told vs all things neceffary, yet this neither moues
Iew nor Gentil, nor drawes any to Chriftianity without fur-
ther light, as is already proued. We haue shown aboue how
Scripture contain's all things neceffary in the Reflex Part the-
reof. It is now our Task and intent to Mark out the true
Church of Chrift (the only Rule of Faith) which decides all
Controuerfies Concerning Religion.
CHAP. IV.
The one and only true Church of Christ, was, is, and shall
euer be the Holy, Apoftolical, and Catbolick Ro-
man Church. Her Antiquity and Conftant
Perfeuerance in the Ancient primitiue
Doctrin, without Alteration,
proues The Affertion.
I.
Tis hard to illuftrate à manifeft Truth, becauſe what euer
I
reaſons are brought to light for it, furpaſs not much the
Euidence of the thing you would make clear. Who euer goes
about to proue by Arguments that the Sun is the moſt luminous
Body in the Heauens will haue much to do, becauſe that's eui-
dents to our fenfes, and fo is the true Church of Chrift, faith
S. Auſtin,
Difc. 2. C. 4. is The only true Church
267
S. Auſtin, digito demonftrari poteft, She can be pointed at with
your finger. Origen adds Hom. 33. in Matth. She is like à fun,
cafting her beams from one part of the world, to the other.
Howeuer becauſe we now treat with men who either fee
not, or pretend not to fee, I will giue them all the Euidence
gathered from demonftratiue Signes which à heart can wish for.
>
>
>
or
denotes the
true Church
2. I fay firft, before we come to more conuincing Arguments.
Antiquity is à certain Note of Chriſt Church. The reafon is.
As God was before the Diuel, and Truth before falshood, So
the Orthodox Church, whether you take it from Adam
from the firſt preaching of Chriftian Doctrin, was before all Antiquiry
Sects and Herefies. The Roman Catholick Church only which
Chriſt founded, and is fo much extolled by the Apoſtle, has
this Precedency. It was, when the Arians were not, we know
their firſt Rife, it was when the Pelagians were not, we know
their Beginning, it was when the Donatifts were not, their
Origen is as well known, as that of Proteftants, which firſt
pee-
ped out with one unfortunate Luther, fomething aboue an age
ince. Might not then the Roman Catholick Church, more
ancient than all theſe Sectaries, haue moft juflly queftioned,
each of them at their first appearance, as the learned Tertullian.
Lib: de Frefcrip. did thoſe of His time? Qui estis vos? who
are you new men? Vnde & quando veniftis? From whence
came you? Vbi tam diu latuiftis? Where haue ye been hid fo
long? No body yet faw you, or heard of you. I waue the
Teftimonies of other Fathers, (chiefly of S. Austin and S. Hierome)
though none preffes this Argument drawn from Antiquity with
greater efficacy, than Optatus Meliuitan. Lib: 2. contra Parme-
nian. They are known to euery one. But this Mark muft not
goe alone.
The Church
once true
3. I fay. 2. Antiquity, and à neuer interrupted Continu-
ance of the fame Viſible Society Age after Age, and the fame
Doctrin vpheld without change or Alteration, clearly euidences neuer Chan-
Chrifts Church. This Scripture ftrongly Afferts. Ofee. 2. whe- ged her
re the Church is faid to be efpoufed to Chrift in Sempiternum Doctrin.
L12
for
268 Diſc. 2. C. 4. The Roman Catholick Church
Authority
and.
Reafon proue
the Affertion
S. Auffins
Iudgement.
The proba
sion urged.
för euer. Math: 16. Hell gates shall neuer preuail against it. Math.
28. Chrift will be with it to the end of the world. vpon which Paf-
fage, S.Hierome ſpeaks moft clearly. Qui vig, ad confummationem
faculi &c. He who promised to be with his own Disciples to the end of
the world, both showes that these bleffed men shall euer liue (in their
fucceffors) And that he will not depart from the true Belieuers. Videtur
ficut luna &c. They are words of S. Ambroſe lib: 4. Hexam. The
Church may be feen like the moon eclipfed, but neuer perishes,
She may be clouded and ouer caft with darknes, but cannot fail..
The reafon is. If Chrifts Church could fail, not only all me-
mory of his facred Paffion with the other Myfteries of our Faith,.
but the whole Scripture alfo would for that time of her fuppofed
Deficiency haue been no obiects of Belief. None could then
haue faid with truth; I belieue the Holy Catholick Church, or haue-
had Access to it, becauſe it was not then in Being. Now further..
As the Church cannot fail, fo She cannot Alter from her felf
or change Chrifts Doctrin. For if She did fo
She were no
more Orthodox, Chrift could not own Her for his Spouſe..
Ponder S. Auftins Difcourfe on this fubiect in Pfal: 101. Exiftunt
qui dicunt &c. There are some who say. This is not the Church of all
nations which once was. No. That's gone, and thus they Speak, faith.
the Saint, because they are not of the true Church. O impudentem
vocem, illa non eft, quia tu in illa non es. O impudent ſpeech, it is not
the fame Church it was, becauſe thou art not in it.
ideo non Sis. look to thy felf, least thou be not, for the Church
will be, although thou were not in the world. Then he de-
cries this Doctrin of the Churches failure as moft abominable
deteſtable, and pernicious; And in Pfalm. 60. pofitiuely Afferts
the permanency of it to the end of the world.
>
Vide ne tu
"
4. Hence I argue. But the Roman Catholick Church only,
hath euer continued in being without interruption and neuer
changed, or Altered the Doctrin which She firſt learned of Chrift;
Proteftancy which began one only Age fince, moft euidently
wants this continuance, and euery year put's on à new counte-
mance. Therefore the Roman Catholick Church, and not that
of
Diſc. 2. C. 4. is The only true Church. 269
is an
of Proteftants, is the Spouſe of Chrift. That the Roman Ca-
tholick Church ftood permanently in being euer fince Chrift, is
as demonftrable, as that Proteftants were not before Luther.
The Viſible perpetual Succeffion of our Popes, of our Bishops
of our Paftors and of our Catholick People in all ages,
irrefragable Proof. Neither do Sectaries much cauil at this Perfo-
nal Succeffion, or the exteriour Permanency of our Church (for
that's euident) But here is their Plea. This Church (fay they) What Sect-
once Orthodox changed from her felfe, forged new Articles of ries obiect.
faith, Contrary to the primitiue Doctrin, Herein lies the great
Charge. Now if I demonftrate, that the Roman Catholick Church
once confeffedly Orthodox, hath euer fince been Vifible in the
world, and neuer fwerued from the pure Primitiue Doctrin in
after Ages, She is certainly the Church of Chrift ftill without
Alteration. You will Ask how can this be euinced?
5. Some may think 'tis beft done by Paralleling our pre-
fent known Church Doctrin with that of the Primitiue Times.
Very good. But by what means shall we come to à right Pa-
rallel? One may Say. Make A diligent Infpection into the
Records, and Writings of thofe worthy Fathers, who liued in
the firft Ages, And all is done. I Anfirer. This Rule precifely
confidered help's nothing. For what if thofe Fathers neuer
medled with moſt of the Controuerfies, now agitated between
vs and Sectaries? And t'is no wonder at all if they did not, For
may not à new Sort of Hereticks rife vp to morrow, whofe Er-
rours neuer entred into the thoughts either of the Fathers, or of
any man now liuing? Again, What if moft of thofe ancient
Writings be loft, (many certainly are) we are at à Stand. But
finally, what if doubts arife concerning the fenfe of thoſe few
preferued copies yet extant? can Sectaries Glofles or ours either
determin what's right Orthodox Doctrin by them? No. The-
refore as I faid aboue, no man can come to à full, exact, and fatis-
factory knowledge, of the Primitiue Truths, but by the voice and
Tradition of the prefent Church. Reiect this voice of the pre-
fent Church, we are caft into darkness, we may difpute long but
L1 3
end.
By what
means o
may come to
the primi-
tine Doring
270 Difc. 2. C. 4. the Roman Catholick Church
An Argus-
end nothing. Now becauſe it lies not in my way to Treat of that
excellent Rule of Tradition, learnedly handled by others, I'le giue
you three Conuincing reafons, And proue my Affertion. viz.
That the Roman vniuerfal Church, once Orthodox, neuer changed the Pri-
mitiue Doctrin. To show this, Two certain Principles are to be
reflected on.
6. Firft. God had alwaies an Orthodox Church on earth
founded by Chrift, which was, and is pure without mixture (at
leaſt) of notorious damnable Errours, and which neuer taught
Chriftians any shameful, false Doctrin; for had it done fo in any
Age, it had then ceafed Eo ipfo to be Chrift's pure Church. The
Catholick 2. Principle. Proteftants confess, (and t'is à certain truth) that
Church til the Roman Catholick Church continued Orthodox without No-
pure in
table errour, for the first three or four Centuries.
ment pro-
wing the
Roman
Doctrin.
One reafon
vrged,
7. Hence I argue. If this Church once pure, abandoned
Chrift's Doctrin in after Ages, or forged new Articles of faith
contrary to the Primitiue verities, that Change was Notorious, shame-
ful, and damnable, as we shall fee prefently. But it is not pos-
fible, that She euer made fuch à shameful, Notorious change, And
here is my Reaſon: Had She done fo, Chrift in that Age when
this fuppofed Alteration began, would haue had no Orthodox
Church on earth free from gross and culpable Errour, and Con-
fequently his own pure Church would wholly haue been abo-
lished.
8. You will Ask how I proue this? I Anfwer moft euidently.
Begin if you pleaſe from the third Age, when the Roman
Church was pure, And defcend to Luthers dayes, you will
find all the known Societies of men called Chriftians, to haue
been either Orthodox Belieuers, Or grofly erring in Faith, yea
plain condemned Hereticks, And fo reckoned of by Proteftants.
Such were the Arians, Neftorians, Pelagians, Monothelits, Donatifts
&c. And all others nameable, excepting Roman Catholicks.
But thofe gross erring men, euidently taught not Chrifts pure
Doctrin without notable Errour, much less conſtituted either
à Part, or the whole Orthodox Church, which Chriſt eſtabli_
shed
Difc. 2. C. 4. is the only true Church
271
shed in truth, Therefore if the Roman Catholick Church went
to wrack alfo, if She erred notoriously with thefe known erring
Societies, the Orthodoxifm and Purity of the whole Church ceafed
to be in the world. And this is impoffible.
а
9. Here in a word is all I would fay. Chrift had euer à
Church Entierly pure on earth, for he founded one pure, which
should alwaies continue in that integrity laid in Her very foun-
dation; But no errour was laid in the foundations of the Roman
Catholick Church once Confeffedly pure, therefore no noto-
rious Errour ftained it in after Ages; Or, if any fuch errour
fouled that once fair Spoufe of Chrift, this Sequele is euident:
There was at that time no pure Church in Being, vnless our Nouel-
lifts pleafe (and perhaps they may do fo in time) to make Arians,
Donatifts, and fuch à rabble of men, more Orthodox Chriftians
than their own Progenitors were, and all the Roman Catholicks
are now, the whole world ouer.
IO.
You fee I infift vpon notorious Errours, And do fo on fet
purpoſe to preuent à Reply of fome newer Sectaries, who fay the
Church of Rome hath indeed Her Errours, But not fundamen-
tal, or deftructiue of Saluation. And will you know the reafon
of this trifling? Here it is. If they fay She was not Orthodox -
in fundamentals, there was no true Church in being for à thou-
fand years before Luther, and this no Chriftian dare Affert, And
if they make her Orthodox in euery Article She taught, both
Herefy and Schifm fall's shamefully vpon Proteftants, Who dare
not grant they abandonned à Church Entierly pure and blamless,
when they left it. Hence à middle way was wifely (or rather moft
fimply) thought of: Our Church, forfooth, muft be what Prote-
ftants pleaſe, partly true. viz. in à few Fundamentals, and partly
falfe in other Matters of less concern, which thefe inen, elected
by God, were to reform, and tell exactly what was amiss, or
how far it hath erred, &c. And therefore name themfelues the
Reformed Church. Well. Let this whimfy pass, largely refuted
in the other Treatife, and in paffing take notice of à pitifull
Church indeed which Chrift had by thefe mens own Confeffion
.
ten
hy wee
infift upen
Notorious
errours.
272 Difc. 2. C. 4. the Roman Catholick Church.
ten whole ages before Luther. It was à meer deformed Mon-
fter made vp of Linzy wolzy ftuff, of tawny Colours, of fome-
thing, and nothing, in à word of Truth and Falshood. But here is
not all.
II.
11. I am to proue much more, if Proteftants Principles ftand
firm. viz. That neither we nor they, had any Orthodox Church,
in fundamentals before Luther, and Confequently no true Church
was in being for ten whole Ages. Now moft euidently, Secta-
ries had nothing like à Church, for they were not in the world,
And it is as euident, if their Charge hold good againſt our
Church, it had bin much better neuer to haue appeared than to
fee it turned into fo many vgly shapes, into fuch an vnfashio-
ned Monſter as thefe new men make it. In à word this ancient
Catholick Society, if Sectaries fay right (and Mark euer the Sup-
pofition) erred notoriously in the very fundamentals of Faith, and
neither believed in Chrift, nor Creed, and therefore there was no Or-
Principles. thodox Church before Luther, nor yet is, to this day. If I euidence
not this vpon the fuppofition now made, neuer Credit me here
after. To doe it, pleaſe to obferue that by à fundamental Er-
rour in Faith, I vnderſtand à Doctrin, which if falfly taught,
contrary to Chrifts verities, is as damnable to thoſe who teach it,
as the Arians errours are at this day damnable to Arians. Hence
I Argue.
Faith totally
ruined in
Sectaries,
The Affer
tion mani-
feftly proued.
12.
What euer Society of men forges new Articles of Faith
contrary to the Primitiue Doctrin, or tell's the world à loud
lye, that God reuealed fuch things as he neuer reuealed, but vt-
terly disowns and yet execrat's, And more ouer obliges all Chri-
ſtians, after à fufficient propofal, to belieue fuch falfities vpon Di-
uine Reuelation, and this vnder pain of damnation, doth open
iniury to Gods Infinite verity, Affert's that which Eternal Truth
neuer taught And therefore fins damnably, or err's in the funda-
mentals of Faith. But Proteftants, fay, the Roman Catholick
Church long before Luther did fo, ergo She finned damnably
and erred in the very fundamentals of Faith. That She did fo
is euident vpon their own charge, For this Church taught an
*
vabloody
Difc. 2. C. 4. is The only true Church 273
vnbloody Sacrifice neither Chrift nor the Primitiue Church taught fo:
It defines Tranſubſtantiation to be an Article of Faith, Chrift and
his Primitiue Church neuer did fo. It maintain's Purgatory,
Praying to Saints &c. Chrift neuer deliuered fuch Doctrins,nor
the Primitiue Church belieued fo. Now further. Thele are
all loud Lies if Sectaries fpeak Truth, and our Church obliges
all Chriftians to belieue them as truths reuealed by an infinite
Verity vnder pain of damnation, which yet, as they fuppofe were
not reuealed. Therefore She firſt openly iniures Gods Veracity,
which can be no light Offence, but mortal and damnable, And
confequently err's in the very fundamentals of Faith, Therefore
vpon that account is now no Orthodox Church, nor was fò be- wherein the
fore Luther. And here briefly is the vltimate reafon of all that's Sin of all
Said. The enormous Sin of all Hereticks paft and prefent con-
fifts in this only, that they pertinacioufly charge, or faften vpon
God à Doctrin Hee neuer taught,this alone makes them Hereticks,
but the Church of Rome, fay Sectaries, hath don fo, ergo She was,
and is yet Heretical.
Hereticks
Confifts.
13. If this Argument which I hold demonftratiue conuince
not, I will propofe an other and then briefly folue one or too
Obiections. The Arians who deny à Trinity of Diuine Perfons,
are guilty of à fundamental Errour. All grant it. Ergo the Ro-
man Catholick Church was, and is as guilty, or rather more guilty
if Proteftants doe not Calumniate. I proue it. The Arians
errour related to à fublime and fpeculatiue Myftery which tranf-
cend's all humane Capacity, But one fuppofed Errour of the Ro-
man Church (as Sectaries tell the Story) is worſe and more
gross, to wit, à plain, palpable and practical Idolatry. Why? She
Adores à piece of bread for God, wherefore if Idolatry was euer
in the world, She commit's that grieuous Sin And errs damnably, An other
But no Sin can be greater, no Errour is more deftructiue of Chri- Argument
ftian faith than Idolatry; If then our Church be guilty of Vrged.
that crime, She is far enough from being fundamentally Orthodox.
>
Here is the Argument.
14 One may Anfwer, it is only the Sectaries Opinion (which.
Mm
is
274 Difc. 2. C. 4. The Roman Catholick Church.
Enour and
fo, fall be
mily on
Sectaries.
is fallible and may be falfe) that we are Idolaters. What then?
You Nouellifts hold the opinion, you print it, you publish it, and
perfwade Thouſands, and Thouſands poor beguiled fouls, we are
Idolaters, and they ludge fo of vs, And as long as that Iudgement
and's immoueable, they cannot own vs Orthodox Chriftians in:
Fundamentals. But let vs come more clofely to the point, and
ſpeak of the thing in it felf.
15. Here is à Dilemma. We are Idolaters, or not; Grant
the first; We err in the fundamentals of Faith, and were no Or-
thodox Church either before or after Luther. Contrarywife, if
we be not Idolaters but only Adore the Sauiour of the world,.
really and fubftantially prefent, vnder the Forms of bread and wine,
Ye Gentleman, do not only hideoufly calumniate à whole An-
cient Church, And fin damnably, But more ouer Err in à funda-
mental point of Faith, For, if the Second part of the Dilemma.
fubfift's. viz. That we Adore not à piece. of bread, but that
very Chrift fubftantially prefent ( vnder the Species of bread)
who dyed on à Cross, The whole errour, the whole Sin, you
charge on vs, fall's heavily on your Selues. You firft tell the
world à plain lie and fay God neuer reuealed Chrift's real Prefence,.
in à confecrated Hoft as the Catholick Church belieues, whereas.
vpon the Suppofition now made, He has reuealed it; Therefore
you contradict God, you iniure an infinite Verity, which is à
hideous fundamental errour. Of fuch confequence it is to Tax:
à whole Ancient Church of falfe Doctrin, That to fay fo, is à flat.
Herefy, and the Calumny without repentance is damnable.
16.
2. You oblige all you teach, and this vnder pain of Dam-
pation, not to fall down or Adore Chriſt, ſubſtantially prefent in.
the Sacrament, yet vpon the fuppofition (which is euer to be
minded) he is really there and claims the highest honour the fu-
premelt worship, as moft due to his facred Perfon. This you
dcornfully deny, and both err and fin damnably. One may
Anſwer you adore Chrift in Heauen, and that's enough. Contra..
He merits Adoration whereuer he is prefent, for if he should vitibly
appear to any of you all, you would (if Chriſtians ) fall down
and:
Difc. 2. C. 4. is the only true Church.
..275
and Adore him: Here he is in the Sacrament vpon the Suppofition,
and you disdainfully deny him homage and veneration. This in
à word is all I would fay, and it is an vnanfwerable Dilemma
alfo.
rable
Anvnswe
17. If you Accufe vs iuftly, we are Idolaters, and were no ble
Orthodox Church before Luther, if your Accufation be, as it is, Dilemma,
moft vniuft, you Sin damnably, you vnchurch à pure Church
and err fundamentally. I proue it. Who euer should Say this
very houre: The pure Primitiue Church of the first Age was
guilty of Idolatry, befides à damnable fin, err's fundamentally,For
he makes à Church tainted with falshood, which God faid was
euery way pure, And for that Reafon contradict's Gods Veracity.
You Sectaries lay the fame foul Afperfion on à Church, which the
Suppofition now makes pure and Orthodox, Therefore you fin
damnably, err fundamentally, and vnchurch your Selues by it.
IS. I would willingly fee this Dilemma Anfwered, and with
all haue euery Reader to take notice of à iuft Iudgement of God
fallen on Sectaries, whofe whole labour hitherto hath been to
charge errour and Idolatry on vs, and the higher they went in fuch
Accufations, the more they thought to destroy vs; neuer reflecting A ist Iud-
that in doing fo, They haue done their vtmoft to deftroy all the gement fal-
Churches in the world by Calumnies, and Confequently to ruin en on
Them felues; For moft euidently if their was no true Church in the Secarico,
World before Luther, they are no members of it at this day, but miſera-
bly Churchles. Grant the first, the ſecond is an ineuitable Confe-
quence.
M in 2
CHAP.
276 Diſc. 2. G. 5. If the Roman Church has erred
The Church
is traiterous
if falfe in
one Article,
CHAP. V.
A fecond Reafon showing, That if the Roman Catho-
lick Church erred but in one Article of Faith, there
is now no Fundamental Faith in the world.
I.
VVere Errour in this Church it is à re-
mediless Euil and cannot bee amended
by any, least of all by Proteftants
y
Ome as was faid aboue may obiect. The Roman Ca-
tholick Church before Luther was right in à few funda-
mentals for She belieued in God, in Chrift, owned à Trinity &c.
So far, and à little further perchance She may be reputed Ortho-
dox, yet erred in other Matters which Sectaries defire to amend,
and fo to ſettle Chriſtian Doctrin again on it's old foundations.
Obferue how I muft labour to make that an Heretical Society
vpon our Sectaries Suppofition, which was and is the only true
Church in the world; And therefore fay. If our Church hath
erred but in one only Matter of Chriftian belief, She is Traite-
rous, difloyal to Chrift,and can be belieued in nothing. To proue
the Affertion, Suppofe an Embaffadour fent to à forraign ftate
with this deep Charge, that he vtter nothing in his Princes name
but fo much only as he is commiffioned to fpeak. Suppofe again,
the man declares fome few truths to the ftate as his Lord com-
manded, But withall forges twenty other vntruths on his own
head, and ftifly affirm's his order is to deliuer all he faith in his
Mafters name. Would not fuch à man think ye be à Traitour
vpon à double account? Firſt becauſe he exceed's the bounds
of his Commiffion and deliuers that he had no order for, But
chiefly becauſe he ſpeaks vaft falfities, wholly Contrary to his iud-
gement who fent him.
2. The
Difc. 2. C. 4. There is no true Faith in the world. 277
2.
The Application in eafy. The firſt Teachers of the Gof-
pel were legates fent from God to à great State; the whole world,
For in omnem terram exiuit fonus eorum. They taught euery where
and well for fome short time our Chriftian Verities, as the Prince
who fent them Commanded, But their Succeffors, the Paftors and
Doctors of the Roman Catholick Church in after Ages, had, Say
Sectaries, the ill luck to mifcarry, to turn Traitours, for, befides à
few fundamental Truths vpheld no man knowes how, They did
not only exceed their commiffion in deliuering Doctrin to all
Nations which Chrift their Mafter neuer allowed of, but more
ouer; forged of their own heads twenty vnitruths. Purgatory, Praying
to Saints, Tranfubflantiation &c. And ſpake all in their Princes
name, Said alfo they had Commiffion from Chrift to teach fo.
This fact, if the Charge be true, is Treaſonable, they iniured Chrift
And confe-
and his Verities and betrayed their truſt; But à Church fo per- quenily not
fidious cannot be Orthodox. Therefore if Sectaries do not Ca- Orthodox.
lumniate, Chrift had no Orthodox Church in the world before
Luther which I intended to proue, and Confequently Proteftants
are yet no true Church at all.
3. I fay moreouer. If the Roman Catholick Church hath
taught falle Doctrin but in one onely Matter of Chriſtian belief,
She can be belieued in nothing, yea I may rationally fufpect her
falfe in all She teaches. Iuft fo it is. If the book of Scripture
deliuer's one Doctrin falſe which Chriftians now belieue, I can-
not credit it in any thing. The reaſon is: One and the fame
Motiue of my belief duely and equally applied, euer moues to
an equal Affent, or to None at all. For example. I belieue
Chriſt dyed for vs, becauſe Gods word faies fo, Here is the Motiue
of my Affent: I belieue alfo that he afcended into Heauen, becau-
fe the fame word of God ſpeaks it, here is the fame Motiue.
Imagin now by à fuppofed impoffibility, that this latter Article
is Gods word, but fallt; I cannot belieue our Sauiours Death vpon falfe in one
the Motiue of God's word, For if this word be falfe and once Article
deceiue, it may as eaſily be falfe and deceiue me twice, And there merits no
is no poffible means to quit me of my errour, Becaufe whoeuer beliefs.
Mm 3
endeauours
A Church
278 Difc. 2. C. 5. If the Roman Church has erred
endeauours to do that, is of less Authority than God's word,
which is now fuppofed to deceiue me. If therefore the Firſt
Verity can reueal an vntruth, none can belieue either man or
Angel fpeaking of the high Mysteries of our Faith, and Confe
quently All muft ftill remain in Errour.
4. Apply this Difcourfe to the Roman Catholick Church
which pretend's at leaſt (I ſay no more yet) to be Gods Oracle,
and to peak in His name. She ſpeaking in his name affures
me, that Infants are to be Baptized, I belieue Her vpon her word:
She alfo tells me, there is à Purgatory, but we must now fuppofe
with Sectaries, it is à great vntruth, if fo; I cannot poffibly belieue
Her in the other Doctrin of Infant Baptifm. For if she deceiues
me once She may well do it again, and which is to be noted,
There is no means left vnder Heauen to vnbeguile me or to draw
me out of my fuppofed Errour; for who euer attempts to do
that, is of less Authority than my Church, which is ſuppoſed to
teach, to err in Her teaching, and ftifly to maintain the Errour.
Scripture cannot help here, vnless it be clear vpon an indubita-
ble Principle, that the fenfe of it, and Doctrin of my Church
can differ in points of Faith, which must be proued, and not Sup -
poſed. If Fathers be alleaged Seemingly contrary to this known
Doctrin, my duty is to explicate them, and rather to draw the
Fathers to what the Church teaches than to renounce Her Au-
thority, and adhere to the dubious and yet vnknown Senſe of
any Father.
5. Now here is à short confideration For Sectaries. I faid,
A Reflection whoeuer fuppofeth the Roman Catholick Church to haue erred
for sectaries. muſt ioyntly own it fo remediless an Euil, that all the men on
earth cannot help or remoue the fuppofed errour from this Church.
The reafon is. All the Proofs and Principles (fetting plain
Scripture afide whereof there is no danger) which may be thought
pertinent to impeach Her of errour, will fall infinitly short and
proue less ponderous, less fubftantial to perfwade that She has
erred, than her fole Vote, and own Authority (whilft she anathe-
matizes the falshood) is to perfwade the contrary. Viz. That
1
She
Diſc. 2. C. 2. There is no true Faith in the world. 279
Secaries
She neuer erred. Hence Sectaries, confeſſedly fallible men who
>
may eaſily ſpoil all they goe about to mend, aduenture defperatly Attempt
to reform the Church,when the very Principles they should reform desperate
by (were there any fuch in being) are incomparably of less weight, and why?
ftrength and force than the Authority of this Church is, which
faith She cannot erre. Howeuer She muſt be reformed (and here
is the wonder ) before they know whether She has erred, or haue
the leaft affurance of their own half accomplish't reformation.
Who then fee's not, euery attempt made againſt our Church this
way to bee, as really it is, à folly, an vnaduiced Enterprife no less
impoffible, than in the higheſt manner improbable? Mark what à
task lies on them.
6. Firſt they are to proue She has erred, which was neuer yet
done 2. To giue in Principles whereby they will reform. 3. To
Shew themfelues well fetled in à perfect Reformation. 4. To
euince that all thofe innumerable learned men of our Church
from the Fourth to the prefent Age haue been ſtupidly blind,
bereaued of iudgement and befotted with Errour.
5. Wheras
other Chriftians both more aged and moſt learned elpyed none
of thefe Errours, They are to proue that God made choiſe of
fuch vncommiffioned men to perform à work fo long neglected
by the Orthodox world. But of thefe particulars enough is faid
in the other Treatife.
7. Hence two things follow. Firſt, that Sectaries only lofe
time, when by alleging àfew dark Teftimonies of the Fathers they
offer to ouerthrow any Doctrin of our Church. Alas, what this
Oracle pofitiuely defin's is à ftronger Principle than twenty du-
bious Authorities of Fathers (if any fuch were) in appearance
contrary. It followes. 2. That the Roman Catholick Church
muft of neceffity be either owned Orthodox in all She teaches, oF
cannot be belieued in any thing.
8. Wherefore I fay à great word. If this Church hath de-
ceiued the world in teaching à Purgatory, for example; neither
We nor Sectaries can certainly belieue, that Chrift was here on earth or
Redeemed vs. For Ask, why belieur wee this great Myftery? If you
Antwer
What they
are to prome
280 Diſc. 2. C. 5. If the Roman Church has erred
One Errour
in the
Church
Destroyes all
Faith.
The Vltima-
te reason
of the
Affertion.
Anſwer Scripture reueal's it , you are Queftined again. How
know you that Scripture is Gods word which Ex terminis euiden-
ces not it felf? You muſt Anſwer Vniuerfal Tradition and
all the Churches in the world haue owned the Book for Gods
word. Very good. But The Church hitherto fuppofed moft
Orthodox, among fo many Heretical Societies, and Her Tradition
likewife haue actually deceiued all; For She is now Imagined to
haue taught the false Doctrins of l'urgatory, Tranfubftantiation &c.
Therefore you cannot belieue Her, or any Tradition, for erring
in one point of Faith, She is not belieuable in any (This prin-
ciple ftand's firm) Much less can you trust to the Doctrin or
Tradition of known Heretical Churches, whether Arians, Pelagians
or others, For all thefe haue erred and moft grofly, Therefore you
haue no certainty of the verities contained in Scripture, nor can
you belieue this one Prime Article. Chrift dyed for vs, by Diuine
Faith.
9. Let therefore the Sectary labour all that's poffible to con-
tract the fundamentals of Faith into the shorteft room Imagi-
nable, let him mince them almoft to nothing, let this one Arti-
cle. Iefus is the Chrift be Faith enough for all: 1 (ay if the Ro-
man Catholick Church (peaking in the name of God, as She pretends to
Speak, hatb taught but one falfe Article, and obliged Chriffians to belieue
it vnder pain of damnation, (Purgatory for example) none can now
vpon any Motiue known to the world firmly belieue That lejus is the
Chrift. So pernicious, is one known errour of the Church, that
it ruins's all belief of other Articles, nor can fuch à Church be
more truſted in any thing She fpeaks, than Scripture relied on,
were it falfe in that Article. Iefus is the Chrift.
10. The reafon à Priori is. All Faith is at laft reduced, or
finally refolued into Gods Diuine Reuelation,whether he fpeaks by
this or that Inftrument, by this or that Oracle, imports nothing.
The difference of the Oracle he ſpeaks by, diuerfifies not faith
which alwaies tend's to one Center, and refts on one fure Ground,
Gods Veracity. If he ſpeaks by à Prophet that's his Oracle
If by an Apoftle he is made an Oracle, If by the exteriour words
of
Difc. 1. C. 5. There is no true Faith in the world. 281
of Scripture, they are Oracles, if by the Church, She is his Oracle.
Now further. Suppofe any of theſe affumed Oracles fpeaking
in the name of God declare à falfe Doctrin to Chriftians, the
Fallity Vltimatly redound's to God, who own's them as Oracles, yet by
them teaches the world Falfities. It fall's out here; As ifà Prince
should fend à Legate to à State who fpeak's in his name, and
cheat the whole State by his Embaffy: would not all deferuedly
vpon the Suppofition, more impute the Cheat to the Prince than
to the Legate that fpeaks in his name? The parity is exact and
proues, if either Scripture, Prophet, Apoftle, or Church fpeaking
in the name of God deliuers falfe Doctrin, God himſelf deceiues
and therefore Ruch. de S. Vict. Said well in this fenfe alſo. si
error eft quem credimus &c. If we belieue an errour, T'is you, Great
God who haue deceiued vs, But if God can once deceiue, either
immediatly By Himfelfe, or mediatly by his Oracle, The whole Syfte-
me of Chriſtian Faith, is desftroyed. What I fay would bee true,
Although He should make à folemn proteftation of Speaking
Truth, For euen then he cannot oblige me to belieue, becauſe he
may deceiue in that very Proteftation, and deliuer à falfity, if the
fuppofition hold.
?
Article She
II. Here then is the final Conclufion. As fubiectiue Faith in
à Belieuer is Indiuifible,That is, it is either wholly good or wolly naught
None can haue à piece of Faith without the whole vertue, (an Could the
Arian cannot belieue Chrift to be à Redeemer, if He denies the Church pro
Trinity) So if one Matter of Faith propofed by the Church be pofe one falfe
really Contrary to what She defines, None can belieue any
thing She teaches, For, the meer Poffibility of deceiuing Chriftians can bee be
in one Article, impoffibilitates the Belief of all She propofeth. nothing.
And this proues the Church abfolutly infallible not in fome points
only, but in all and euery Doctrin, whereof you haue more in the,
15 16 and 17 Chapters following.
12.
Some may reply. I fuppofe all this while the Church
made fo ftedfaftly God's Oracle as not to err in any Doc-
trin She propofes, which is Petrio Principy or à begging of the
Queftion. Contra. And Ye Gentlemen whilft you impeach
Nn
Her
lieued in
282 Diſc. 2. 2:
C. 5. If the Roman Church has erred
Her of Errour Suppofe Her Instrumentum diuulfum, an Oracle.torn,
as it were, from Gods Special Aßiſtance, iuft as if I should Suppo-
fe the words of Scripture feparated from the Spirit of truth.
You fuppofe Her à fair fponfe, yet make Her à.harlot, when and
as Often as you pleafe. You acknowledge fome Church or
other (find that out where you can) to teach Truth, yet you like
petulant Schollers will forfooth be fo wife, as to tell her where she
miffeth in Her Leflon and correct Her for it; And you haue
done it to the purpoſe, For you haue deftroied Her Monafte-
ries, rob'd Her Altars, prophaned Her Temples, abufed Her Chil-
God deceives dren, banished fome, and hang.d. vp other. Are not theſe fine
Doings? Contra. 2. I fuppofe nothing but what is manifeft,
that Chrift euer had à Church on earth (once more find it where
you can) and that God. fpeaks to Chriftians by this Oracle, which
he will be with to the end of the world, And againſt which Hell
gates shall neuer preuail Now I fay, if this Church which God
(not I) makes his own Oracle, and promiſes to teach Truth. by
it, can deceiue but in one Matter of Faith, God himself deceiues vs,"
And this Church ceaſeth Eo ip/o to be Catholick, yea, and God to be
the Eternal Truth. For it Matters nothing, if he can deceiue,
whether he do it by Scripture, or the Church. Solue this Argument
if
if the
Church
Con Err.
you can.
13. You may fay. 2. The whole ground of this Difcourfe
à. Fallacy and comes only to thus much. If à man once tell
à lie he must be thought à lyar in all he fpeaks.. So it is. The
Church ſpeaks an vntruth in fome things, Ergo it doth fo, or
may do fo in all, feemes no good confequence. Contra. If an
Embaffadour once be found in an Vntruth when he ſpeaks in
his Princes name, I think few Monarchs or States will no more
belieue him in like occafions, Than giue credit to one conuicted
of periuery when He fivear's, vnless what he fwear's bee proued
priuate man true independently of his Oath. But let this pass. The disparity
erring, and between à priuate man and the Church is moft notorious. The
the Church. Firft confidered as one fingle and priuate, hath no Commiffion
to fpeak in Gods name, or to teach the whole Chriftian world
The difpars
ty between à
what
Diſc. 2. C. 5. There is no true Faith in the world.
once,
what is, or what is not Chrift's Doctrin; The Orthodox Church
is impowred to do this, or to teach nothing, if then She err's but
the Errour makes Her infamous, redound's to the Dammage
of all Chriſtians feduced by Her, yea and to God himselfe, as is now
declared. Hence I fay the Church cannot teach truth by halfes,
as Sectaries would haue Her, or now Hit right, now mifs. She
cannot be Orthodox in à few main Matters called Fundamental,
and erroneous in others. No. She is either Gods Vice-gerent in all
She deliuer's as points of Faith, or in nothing. She muſt when
she pretend's to ſpeak in Gods name truly do fo, or She cannot
fpeak, nor pretend to ſpeak, but must be filent. This Verity is
further laid forth in the Chapters now cited, where we treat of the
Churches Infallibility.
>
14. In the mean while, if any Should Obiect The Church
vainly pretend's to be fo far an Oracle of Truth, as not to impofe
on us falfe Doctrin And then demand, from whence She had this
Priuiledge of Infallibility? I Anſwer. Whoeuer trifles with fuch
obiections in this place, ( to be folued hereafter) little vnder-
ftand's the force of our Arguments. Mark I befeech you. It
is now à fuppofed Principle (Sectaries will haue it fo) that the
Roman Catholick Church hath forged new Articles, and impo-
fed the beliefe of them on Chriftians which God neuer Reuealed.
Grant thus much, She iniures God, fin's damnably, And there-
fore is no Orthodox Church, But if She neither now be Orthodox,
nor was fo ten Ages before Luther, There was not then, nor is
yet any true Chriſtian Church in the world, and confequently Prote-
ftants baue no Churcb. The more erring Therefore they make the Roman
Catholick Church, the more are they Churc leffe. This is what I
Prefs and exprefs at prefent, and would willingly haue my Argu-
ment folued.
whether out
whole Dif
courfetend's.
15. There is yet an other Obiection ſcarfe worth the paper,
you shall haue it, fuch an one as it is. Proteftants talk much of Aweightless
Papiſts Blindnes, And to free the Roman Church from damnable Obiection.
fin or formal Fundamental Errours, may perhaps fay She hath
indeed erred before Luther, and ftill is Idolatrous, But may be
N 112
excufed
284 Diſc. 2. C. 4. If the Roman Church has erred &e.
Touching
upon the
Ignorance
of Catho-
licks Solued,
excufed vpon the Account of inuincible Ignorance. Anfw. What's
this? Do we hear talk of inuincible ignorance in à whole learned
Church? Pray, where shall we find knowledge if ignorance haue
place here? Such ignorance may perhaps be in fome particular
men, But to Tax à whole Church with it, is not only to make
fo many Councils, fo many profound Doctors as haue taught
the world worſe than Idiots for à thousand years, but it is to iniure
Chriſt, to tell Him he has indeed eftablished à Church, yet mark'd
it fo obfcurely, remoued it fo far out of the Sight of Chriftians
that the moſt learned of all could not difcouer the Truths it taught
for ten long Ages, though all Antiquity Affures vs that Chrift's
Church is one of the moft manifeft things in the world. Again,
Suppofe our Church were blind and inculpably ignorant, who
for Gods, fake muft open Her eyes now, and vnbeguile Her?
Muft à few late fcattered Sectaries Doe the wonder, that are to
look to their own vincible ignorance, And therefore (if learned)
Sin vpon that account damnably. 3. If our Church may be
excufed vpon the fcore of ignorance, excufe alfo the Arians less
learned, the Pelagians, the Donatifts &c.. And fay there were neuer
any formal finful Hereticks in the world, yea.lewes, and Turks
may thus be acquitted of formal Sin, and Errour likewife. But
aboue all free, I befeech you, our Sectaries from further pains-
taking, as alfo from the leaft hope of amending Matters, were
there any thing amifs, for you may well reft affured, if ignorance
hath caft this learned Church into fuch an Abyffe of Errour, it
is not to be expected that the far weaker knowledge of Prote-
ftants, can draw Her out of it. I wonder men of Modefty dare
offer to impute ignorance to the Roman Catholick Church, And
prefume to teach more learned then Themfelues.
CHAP.
Difc.2. C.6. More of our Churches &c. 285
CHAP. VI.
Other Euidences of the Roman Churches Perfeuerance in
the Primitiue Faith without change or Alteration.
VVhether wickednes of life neceffarily induceth
Errour into the Church? The Donatifts and
Proteftants Argue, And Err alike.
F
I Argue. 2. God had euer à true Church preferued free
from Errour for fo many Thoufand years as paffed between
A fecond
Adam and Chrift. It ftood all that vaft time inuincible against Argument
Herefy, and was neuer ftained with falfe. Doctrin. The Truth
is indubitably owned by Chriſt our Lord, who came not to change
fo much as one iota of Doctrin taught by the Prophets, but only
to perfect it by reuealing other Verities, not explicitly known
before. Now Mark à ftrange Paradox auouched by Sectaries.
They fay boldly, That our Chriſtian Catholick Roman Church
which certainly God Himfelfe eftablished, And enriched with his
own Verities, only continued Orthodox for Three or Four Ages,
and then (Ở difinal time) left off to be what it was; loft Chrifts
reuealed Truths, became the whore of Babylon, Apoftated from
it Selfe, and cheated the world into falfe Doctrin. What faies
the prudent Reader? Is it Poffible that the Ancient Church of
the Patriarchs and Prophets ftood without change or blemish for
4. or 5. Thousand years, and Chrift's own Spoufe became fmut-
ched and vgly within the compass of three or 4. Ages? Is it
Probable that the leffer light of the Synagogue lafted fo long,
And the Glorious fun of Chrift's own Church, appeared dark
and Eclipfed foon after The world had Caft an Eye vpon Her?
And this, to encreaſe the wonder happened then (Sectaries muft
Nn 3
Lay)
Drawn from
à moſt im-
probable
Affertion of
Sectaries-
286 Diſc. 2. C.6.More of our Churches Continuancè
1
An Argu
mment
against
Sectaries.
fay) when euidently There was no other true Church on earth,vn-
less you will take in Artans, Pelagians &c and fuch
open Hereticks
to make vp à Catholick Society, moft vnfit (all know) to teach
Chrifts Orthodox Doctrin. I wish Proteftants would well
der the force of this one reafon, And return an Anſwer.
pon-
2. My laſt Argument is à Demonftration againſt Sectaries,who
fay. There was alwayes an Orthodox viſible Church fince Chrifts
time: For this Article of our Creed was euer profeffedly true in
all Ages. I believe the Holy Catholick Church. They ſay again,There
was a time when our Roman Catholick Church once Orthodox,
began to innouate, to bring in new Doctrins of an vnbloody Sa-
crifice, of Tran/ubstantiation, of praying for the Dead, of Purgatory
&c. Now be pleaſed to obferue the Demonftration. When
the Roman Church began thefe new fuppofed Doctrins and actual-
ly erred, There was at that very time an other Orthodox Church
in the world, or was not; If not, Chrift had then no Orthodox
Church on earth, and Confequently that Article of our Creed
was falfe. I believe the Holy Catholick Church, For no man can truly
belieue in à Church which really is not. If contrarywife they
own à pure Orthodox Church to haue been on earth when the
Roman began to erre, That (becauſe Orthodox and pure) was cer-
tainly à Society of Chriftians diftinct from the then fuppofed fal-
len and falfe Church of Rome.
3. Hence I argue. Eirher that Orthodox diſtinct Church,'
fentible of Gods caufe and the Honour of Chriftian Faith, vigo-
rouly oppofed, cenfured and condemned thoſe imagined errours
of the Roman Church now fallen, or Carelefly let all alone, and
omitted that Duty. If it omitted that duty, it was no true Church,
For if true, Her Charge was and is, (She hath à command from
Chift to do it) to crush, and fuppress falfe Doctrins, when they
firſt riſe vp, or begin to infect the body of Chriftianity. This
duty that Church neglected, and for that caufe was not Orthodox.
Clear and Moreouer, the Roman is alfo Suppoſed actually drawn from Truth,
Conuincing. Condemned Hereticks made vp no Church. We had then in
thofe daies à ftrange world indeed, when Chrift the Supreme
Head
Diſc. 2. C. 6. In the Ancient Faith.
287
>
Head looked down from Heauen and faw his Myſtical body
the Church pitifully Corrupted, when he caft an eye vpon
poor Chriftians, and found them all Churchless.
4. If Sectaries own fuch an Orthodox Society, which oppo-
fed and cenfured the Roman Errours, that muſt be à Truth as
Notoriously known to the world as it is now fuppofed, that the
Church of Rome had Errours Notoriously known. And Here I
defire the Iudicious Reader to reflect on what I Shall propofe, And
wish our Aduerfaries to Anfwer. Can they Imagine the Errours
of the Roman Church openly difcouered fo many Centuries ince,
and judge that no Orthodox Chriſtians then liuing. (who beheld
Truth run to ruin) made.Oppofition against them? The Errours,
Lay Proteftants, were palpable (for our new men efpy them now)
yet no Orthodox Chriftans are heard of to this day, who then
ftood vp for Gods caufe, and defended the Ancient truths of Chrift
againſt this fuppofed erring Church, This yet lies in darkness
The Fault muſt be noised as both criminal and publick, And
yet there is no newes at all of fuch as lent à helping hand to
་
redreſs it.
5. Again, Can it be imagined that the Roman Catholick
Church which Age after Age condemned innumerable Hereticks,
3
and.
And giues in an exact Catologue in order as They rofe vp, ( The Sectaries
ſe particulars are exactly known) And yet that no Author, Friend Paradoxes
or Enemy Can bee found, who giues fo much as the leaft hint
of any found Chriſtians that condemned the now decryed Errours
of this one Church? Finally (and here is the wonder) muft
we fuppofe our Church to haue grofly erred à thousand years
fince, when yet all good Chriftians were filent and reprehended
it not, And that now after ten-whole Ages are paft, And Millions
of Souls damned for want of Faith, A company of iarring Pro-
teftants Can probably begin to talk of them, to Reproue, to Argue, vaft impro
and offer to fettle Chriftianity right vpon its old Fundations? babilities
No thought of man can fall vpon more defperate improbabilities,
yet they pafs as current among Setaries. But of this point more
hereafter in the 13 Chapter.
6: Dow
288 Diſc. 2. C. 6. More of our Churches Continuance
What Secta
vies are
obliged to
doe, but
Cannet,
6.
Now here is the Conclufion, and the true Trial of this
cauſe. It is poffible that our new men, who pretend knowledge
in Antiquity, name an Orthodox Church which openly Protefted
against thefe fuppofed Errours before Proteftants were in Being.
It is poffible to tell vs when this Church ſtrongly Acted againſt
the Roman Errours. It is Poffible to fay what became of that
Orthodox Church at laft, whether after it had done that great
work and Cenfured the Roman Doctrin, It quickly diſappeared,
Or ftill remain's in the world. It is I fay, Poffible, that Secta-
ries Euidence thefe particulars of moft high Concern, or impos-
fible, If the firſt can be done, we Catholicks ought to Reform.
But I muft vnbeguile the Reader, and abfolutly Affert. All the
Proteftants who now are, or shall bee hereafter, Shall.as foon de-
ftroy all Chriftian Faith as name any Orthodox Society, any
thing like à true Church which cenfured theſe fuppofed Roman
Errours, Therefore (And it is an euident Demonſtration) Our Ca-
tholick Church once true, continued fo in all Ages, Or there
was none in the world Orthodox, The Articles She maintained
then, and yet defend's are no Errours, but Primitiue Verities.
And thus the whole Plea of our new men Concerning Errours
entring the Church de facto, ends as it deferues in à flat Calumny.
What do they think to bring Errours to light now, whereof the
moft learned Churches in the world neuer took notice before?
Will they ſpeak of falfe Doctrins when all Orthodox Societies
faid nothing of them? Dare they accuſe and condemn à Church
which Millions of Souls fo highly reuerenced that the beſt of
Chriſtians liued and dyed happily in it? Nothing can be more
exotical. Wherefore I fay, when our Nouellifts can work this
Perfwafion into mens minds, That Crowes once white, turned
black in time (though no body muft fay when) Then, and not
tempt impof- before, they may perhaps hope to make vs mad, and induce
fible.
All to belieue, that our Church Anciently pure became tainted
in time with gross Errours, though when or in what Age this
deformity appeared they know not, nor Can euer know, becauſe
the Change is de fubiecto non fupponente, not fuppofable.
Their At
7. One
Difc 2. C. 6. In the Ancient Faith
289
The Votes of
7. One may reply. Though the Sectary cannot point at an
Orthodox Church which condeinned thefe now Suppofed Roman
Errours, yet he has plenty of witneffes to ground his Affertion
vpon, For in paft Ages, many, though reputed Hereticks, vehe-
mently decryed the Doctrins of our Church as Noucitus Swer-
uing from the primitiue Truths. Anf: Very true indeed. For
thus Arius of old decryed Confubftantiality and the Supreme
Godhead in Chriſt, Pelagius, Original fin, The Monathelits two
wills in our Sauiour, Humane and Diuine, Luther an vnbloody
Sacrifice, And the Diuel after all, if you'l belieue him, will oppo-
fe euery Truth which Chrift taught. But what is all this to the
purpoſe? which yet to my great wonder I find vrged by fome?
Is the Authority of thefe condemned and conteffedly known
Hereticks, precifely confidered, to be parallell'd with à Church
which was neuer condemned by Orthodox Chriftians? Muft
the condemned Party be heard when it Accufes, And the Innocent without
or neuer cenfured Church be Suppofed guilty, after the whole Proofs,
world held her blamless and has iudged well of Her condemna- weigh:less,
tions past vpon Hereticks? Compare I fay, the Authority of
the Church time out of mind proued Innocent, with the Au-
thority of Hereticks known moft guilty, There can be no Pa-
rallel, may we precifely refpect Authority. Wherefore if the
Oppofition of Hereticks hath any force, Their charge againſt
the Church muft ftand vpon Strong proofs and found Princi-
ples diftinct from Their own voting Her Delinquent. Theſe Prin-
ciples we ſeek for in all our Diſputes with Proteſtanrs, yet hi-
therto neuer heard of Any, and belieue it, Wee hold their own
Authority of no greater weight than that of Arians, or, of any
other condemned Hereticks.
>
Aduerfiries
8. Others, quite driuen off all ground of rational Arguing
will needs faften Errours vpon our Church, becauſe, forfooth
in fuch an Age the 9.th For example after Chriſt, or The-
reabout, fome Popes were less good and People much debauched.
Then, moft likely, was the Nick of time, Say thefe, to bring pimple Plea.
in Iranjubftantiation, the Popes Supremacy and what other Errour
о
O o
you
An other
290 Difc. 2. C. 6. Mure of our Churches Continuance.
reiected and
proued un
reaſonable
it
you will. Anfir. A moft pitiful Plea, not worth the paper
blot's. I shall not fo much refute it, for it merit's not thelabour,
As Shew how it deftroyes the Belief of all Chriftian Religion.
9. Pray you confider Chriſtianity in the greateſt Latitude
Imaginable. Call Arians, Donatists, Proteftants And Catholicks alfo
Chriftians. Grant, which is true, that there have been very
wicked men amongst thefe different Profeffors. I fay if this Argu-
ment haue weight. Some few Popes, and many People were not good for
one Age chiefly, Ergo debauchery in manners more then probably
brought in falſe Doctrins vnder the Notion of Christian Truths, A lew
or Gentil may Argue as well, and infer that Viciousness of life
hath deftroyed all Truth among Chriftians, if euer They had
any. For why should lewdness haue less force to Subuert all
Truth taught by the Church of Rome than fome only? It hath,
fay Sectaries, brought in much Errour, Therefore, faith the Iew,
it may as well haue corrupted all Chriſt Doctrin.
10. To reinforce this Argument, I told you aboue, if the
Church of Rome, had but once propofed one Article to be
belieued by Diuine Faith, which is falfe, She is not to be
credited in any thing. If you Reply, it is euident That though
falfe in many Tenets, She yet taught fome Articles true, As that
Chrift is our Redeemer. The Iew Anfwers, and fo do I too, She
Taught and teaches fo ftill, but that This is Truth, if debauchery
of life bee ineuitably connexed with falfe Doctrin, shall neuer be
made Probable, For this Church is either entierly found in
Doctrin, or Entirely deluded. One may Say. Scripture is eui-
dently plain for fome Primary Articles of Chriftian belief. Anſw.
The lew fcorn's the Reply, and maintain's this Truth, as I alfo
do. If it be once proued that the Church of Rome impofed on
the Chriftian world Falshood in place of Truth, Tranfubftantia-
tion, The Sacrifice on the Altar &c. She may as eaſily haue cor-
rupted the whole Bible and made that Book falfe in à hundred
important Paſſages, whereof enough is faid in the other Treatife.
No true Church Therefore, no. Probability of true Scripture.
Let vs now proceed to others called Chriftians the moſt
II.
known
Difc. 2. C 6. In the Ancient Faith 291
>
reiected.
known Arch-hereticks, you will haue the fame Conclufion. Arius
for example, à ftubborn proud Fellow had many Affociates like
Himfelf, yea and certainly taught fome Doctrins falſe, There-
fore, Saith the Iew, All He deliuered was falfe alfo. The Di-
uel learned Luther to broach His new Gofpel, and the mans
enormous Vicioufness is known to the world by as credible Au-
thors as Platina or No: de Clemangis, who make Popes and
People fo impious, Therefore all that Luther taught cannot
but bee vpon the Argument propofed, moft iuftly excepted againſt Another
as pernicious Doctrin; For grofs Errours like à Torrent follow Simple Ar-
Deprauation in manners. Caluins Pride, Deceipt,and Coufenage, gument,
to fay nothing of that hidious Sin for which he was branded
are vpon Record, And all know what Rebellion, what tragical
Doings enfued vpon the wicked mans Apoftasy. Who then can
harbour fo much as à good thought of any Doctrin He taught
euen that Chrift dyed for vs? Hence, faith the lew, if Wickednes
of life and Errours in Doctrin be fuch infeparable Companions
And all Sects or Religions nameable haue had Profeffors wicked,
Farewel Chriftianity, yea and Chrift Himſelf alfo. For, if
the Impiety of fome, lead's Erroneous Doctrins into à whole
Moral Body, that one crying Sin of Iudas might more eafily haue
corrupted the Firſt Apoftolical Colledge fmal in. Number, Than
the incomparable leffe defects of Popes depraue the great Moral
Body of the Church. O, but Chrift fecured the other Apoftles
from Errour. Anfw. So he doth his Church, And the lew
will as foon belieue the one as the other, who Argues thus.
12. Chriflianity was neuer Without Sin, Ergo neuer Without Errour,
if the Argument hane force. When Therefore theſe new men Say Wickedness
Gods Prouidence feem's equally concerned to preferue the Church oflife Com-
from things equally Pernicious (But viciousnes of life is as perni- pared with
cious to Christianity, and as deftruct ue to the End of it, as Errours in the loffe of
Doctrin) They know not what they Say. The Argument is euery
way defectiue?
13. First its vtterly False, that Wickednes is fo pernicious
as Errours againft Chriftian Doctrin, For Errours deftroies Faith
002
the
Faith.
292 Diſc 2. C. 6. More of our Churches Continuance
Particular
Abuſe can
not vnkal.
low the
Gaurch
Sectaries
argue like
Heretickes
of old.
ཏྭཱ་
the ground of Saluation, and immedeatly oppofeth Gods Infinite
Veracity, Wickednes in Manners deftroies Grace and other Super-
natural virtues, yet leaues the Foundation vnshaken. Again.
By what law do thefe men Suppofe that God preferued not his
Church Holy in thofe dayes? Doth it follow becauſe fome
were wicked that She loft all Sanctity? Will they Say if the
English Church had euer Sanctity in it, All vanished into Smoak
in the late diffentions and deplorable Tumults? There were
neuer fuch Doings at Rome in the worst of daies as England
then Shewed to the world. O but there were then many Holy
and Godly men that fuffered. Be it lo at prefent, I loue not to
recriminate. For one of yours Holy, we had Thouſands in that
Age you except againſt the whole world ouer, in England Germany,
Spam, France, Denmark &c. moft humble, pious, virtuous and
profoundly learned. What do you think, that à few Abufes in
İtaly not half fo bad as you make them, can Vnhallow an ample
Church? Yet here lies the Strength of your weak Argument.
The iniquity of fome, chiefly of Popes and Prelates ruins not
fanctity only, But moreouer induceth Errour into the whole
Moral Body of Chrift.. You iuft proceed, as if One should at-
attempt to proue that à goodly Building, which yet viſibly
ftands fair to the Eye, and firm on Sure foundations, is all shat-
tered and pulled down, becauſe you can lead à man to the By-
places of it and show him in it fome Naftiness. The Inftance
is moft Pertinent. You find filth Here and there in the fair
Houſe of God, and though there be more of it before your
own doores, yet your Church muſt be fuppofed Holy and Ortho-
dox, And ours contrarywife falfe and impious.
14. But I wonder nothing at this lame way of Arguing.
LeD dress of life in fome (not in all forts of men as is vainly Sup-
poled) Vnjanctifies the Church, and bring's in Errour &c. For iuft fo
Hereticks of old Argued against Catholicks. Read S. Auftin.
Tom. 7.ad liter Petiliant lib. 2. Through his feueral Chapters
chiefly. Chap. 39. Petilianus obiected as theſe men do And
I will Anfwer as S. Austin did.. There is no bitternes in hony, nor
dross
,
Difc. 2. C. 6. In the Ancient Faith.
293
$
dross with pure gold, Saith Petilianus. We Donatifts are the purified
gold, you Catholuks full of bitternes and dross. &c. 8. Auſtin Auſwer's.
This is to Vapour like à mad man, And to proue nothing. Atten-
dis zizania. Thou attends't to the Cockle only, and not to the wheat ( As
Who should fay though some be, yet all are not wicked) Thou confiders't
the Seed of the Enemy fowen in the world, and regards't not the feed of
Abraham in whom all Nations shall be bleſſed. Quafi vero ros iam
fuis maſſa purgata. Thou talks't as if ye, forsooth, were only the pur-
ged Mass of men, the sweet bony, the pure gold, the refined oyle, and
none but you. It is not ſo.
It is not fo.There is much naughtines among
,
you, And the faint showes wherein it was.
against the
› Dinatifts.
15. In like manner one might eafily lay forth the lewdnes,
the Hypocrify of no few Sectaries were it not that S. Aust tea-
ches vs to vfe better Arguments, and therefore C. 32. Saith. How S. du.
Pacifcamur ergo &c. Let vs agree on this. That thou netther Obiect to fin argues
me our wicked men, nor I thine, to Thee. This bargain once made,
thou will haue nothing to Say againſt that feed of Abraham, now
diffuſed ouer all Nations. But Petilianus, I shall press thee with an
infoluable Argument, and Ask, Why yee Donatifts haue impiouſly
Separated your Selus from the feed of Abraham, or that Catholick
Church wherein all Nations are bleffed? And thus we vrge Pro-
teftants.
16. Again. Chap. 51. Petilianus obiected. Ye Catholicks
lay Claim to S. Peters Chaire the See of Rome, I call that,
faith he, in the words of the Prophet, Cathedram Peftilentia. The
See of peftilence. And do not Proteftants ſpeak thus irreuerently
of the Roman Chaire and Church alfo? Both Argue alike.
S Austin Anfwers. Hac non vides? Dos't not thou fee that all
thou alleges't here is à meer lying Calumny? For though thou
may reproach fome, yet all are not guilty of the Crimes imputed
to them. I will auouch more, Adds the Saint.
Adds the Saint. Si omnes per
こ
​totum orbem cales effent quales vanißimè Criminaru &c. If all the Bishops
the whole world ouer were as bad as thou fanciest, what wrong hath the
Chair of S. Peter, or the Church either, done thee? If thou perswade
thy Self, that those who deliuer the law, do not exactly comply with it
003
>
know,
294 Dif. 2. C. 6. More of our Churches Continuance
>
know, that our Lord Iefus fpeaking of the Pharifies, long fince filenced
thee. Dicunt & non faiunt. They fay but do not. If then
thou woulds't diffame either Church or See, becauſe men in
works are not anfwerable to their words, thou knowes't not
what to fay but only to reproach without Reaſon. Thus and
much more Bleffed s. Auflin, and He ouerthrowes our Aduerfaries
whole Plea by it. Though I verily hold them no fuch ftran-
gers to common reafon, but that they faw well the Argument
The Sectary already propofed enormously impertinent, to proue either the
fee his Argu. See of Rome or that Church impious or erroneous in Doc-
ment void of trin.
Cannot but
force.
Why fecta
ries bring to
Light fuch
fimple
Stuffe.
17. The true Reaſon of foyfting in fuch fimple ftuff, is an
itching to Cauil,becauſe they can not clofely difpute againſt Catho-
lick Doctrin vpon rational Principles, hauing none to vrge againſt
VS. What remains but to fcratch (it is à late ftrain got in
among them) and to rub vpon old foares, the perſonal defects
of others abroad, whilſt God knowes, they haue more feſtered
wounds to look on and launce in their own Brethern at home?
Thus I fay, they muft nip and taunt or write no more Contro-
uerfies, Though it is done to their own Confufion, For ſuppoſe
all were true which is faid of lewd and wicked men in the Church
(as in real Truth the half is not) yet the impiety of theſe men
neuer came to that height as to make vpon fuch Cauils, the
pure Spouſe of Chrift à Harlot; on Frontlesly to impeach Her of
Errour, or quite to defert Her as our Nouellifts haue done moſt
shamefully. No: Though wicked, they know well, that Cockle
growes vp in the fame field with good Corn, and that the Sin
of fome may ftand with the Sanctity of many in the Myftical body
of Chrift. The Harueft, as the Gospel, and s. Austin teach,
is to Winnow all, and to Make the Separation. But enough
and more then enough of this flight and forceless Obiection.
18. I haue yet one word to fay of errours wrongfully Charged
on vs. Were this Suppofition true that the Roman Catholick
Church had Apoftated fo shamefully in any Age, as Sectaries Ima-
gin, Had She been made of à beautiful Spouſe à harlot, Had
She
Difc. 2. C. 6. In the Ancient Faith.
295
She fallen from the primitiue Truths into falfe Doctrin,
And
confequently Cheated Chriftians into Falfities for à thousand years
together; Chriſt Iefus our Lord had been obliged by virtue of A Reflection
his promiſe already made in Scripture to haue appeared Again, for Sectaries.
To haue fent an Angel from Heauen Or to haue vfed fome
>
other extraordinary means to establish his Church à new, to raiſe
vp the walles of his now Suppofed ruined Hierufalem, which he
built fo flightly, that it all fell down in the short Compass of
three or four Ages. I fay All, For, if the Church be falſe in one
Article, I can trust it in nothing. The Promiſes in Scripture of
Hell gates not preuailing againſt the Church, of Chrift's being
with Her to the end of the world, are manifeft, Yet now vpon
the Suppofition, Hell and Herefy haue deftroied the whole
Building, and He Bleffed Lord, look'd on, faw his own work
defaced, yet after all his Engagements of preferuing it in Being,
repaired nothing. Thefe are harsh Heretical Paradoxes vn-
fit for Chriftians to hear, yet the Sectary (will he nill he) muft
own them to his Confufion.
-
19. To eftablish more this great Truth, That the Doctrin
of our Church is at this day the fame with the Primitiue, I might
well Argue from the Confeflion of our Aduerfaries, Luther
Chiefly and Caluin, who grant fo much in many particulars, As that
of Merit, of Free Will, Limbus Patrum &c. But withall fay Anti-
quity erred no less than we do now, And therefore Caluin pro-
feffeth he followes none of the Fathers but S. Auffin, Though
when He pleaſes, he is ton bold with the Saint and fcornfully
reiect's his Authority alfo. See Bellar de notis ecclefiæ lib: 4.
Cap. 9. I might alfo show that our Sectaries Nouelties, for the
greateft part, are nothing els but à Lift of old long fince difties are,
perfed and condemned Herefies now brought to fight again, and
knit together in one bundle to poifon the world wishall, They
haue renewed the Herely of the Donatifts, who taught that the
Church of God had perished throughout the world except in
fome few obfcure Corners. They renew the Herely of the
Arians teaching it vnlawful to offer Sacrifice for the dead. They
What Sefta.
ries Nouel-
renew
296
Difc. 2. C. 7. Manifeft Miracles, proue
What is
meant by
Miracles
Why Mira
cles are
wrought.
renew the Herefy of the Eunomians, faying that by Faith only
man may obtain life Euerlafting. You haue with Thefe men the
Herefy of the Iconomachians in breaking down the Images of
Chrift our Lord and His Saints, reuiued again. Of the Berenga-
rians denying the true Body and blood of our Lord Iefus Chrift
really prefent in the Eucharift, as likewife of the Vigilantians
that flighted the Inuocation of Saints, denying Honour due to
the Relicks of holy Martyrs. But I need not to infiſt vpon thefe
and many more reuiued Herefies, they are things Vulgarly known.
to all, largely laid forth in the writings of our Catholick Authors.
Se Bellar now Cited.
I.
CHAP. VII.
Manifest and most undeniable Miracles peculiar
to the Romans Catholick Church only, prone
Her Orthodox, withall show that
She ftill retain's the Primi-
tiue Doctrin.
BY
power
Y this word Miracle, or Miracles, I vnderſtand à fuper
natural work done by Almighty God aboue the
and force of Nature. For there is no doubt, but that God, who
created. Nature, has within his boundles Omnipotency Superemi
nent effects of Grace, which far furpass the little Might of all
Creatures made by him. Theſe are finite; The Author of them
infinite, And can do more.
2. 2. This Principle is certain. God hath wrought innume-
rable Miracles, not only to Teftify He can do more then Na-
ture, bnt with this express Defigne alfo, that by the Manifefta-
tion of fuch wonders, All may come to the knowledge of thote
Oracles
Difc. 2. C. 7. Our Catholick Church Orthodox. 297
Oracles whereby He ſpeaks, and Reueals moſt ſublime Myſteries
far aboue the reach of our weak Reafon. Now whether theſe
Oracles be Prophets, Church, or Apoftles, feems one and the fame
thing, If they be equally Manifefted by miraculous Effects, and
fpeak in his name who Affumes them to teach the world.
3. I fay manifefled Oracles by Signes, And fay it for this End,
That all may reflect vpon the depth of Diuine wifdom, which
may on the one fide Seem too rigorous in obliging vs to belieue
oft Difficult Myfteries, neither feen by Eye nor heard by eare, They facili.
Were it not, That on the other fide, the burden is leffened and our tate Faith.
Faith much facilitated by the Euidence of moſt prudent and
conuincing Motiues, For t'is à great Truth. Non fine teftimonio
reliquit Semetipfum benefaciens de Calo. His Goodnes fo fauorably
condefcend's to our weaknes, that though he remoues not Vne-
uidence and Obfcurity from the Myfteries belieued, Yet he makes
them all fo euidently Credible to prudent Reafon ( Benefaciens de
Calo) by the Luftre of Signes and Wonders, That the man
who belieues not after à Sight had of fuch glorious Marks,
ftand's guilty before Gods Tribunal of damnable Sin.
And lead to
4. The third Principle. Miracles eminently great in num-
ber and quality (for example the raifing of the dead to life)
Chiefly, when wrought by Perfons of Singular virtue to Confirm
our Chriftian Faith, are from God, and euident Signes leading
to the knowledge of true Religion. None can doubt of the
Affertion, feing Chrift our Mord. Matt. 11. When Queftio-
ned whether He was the true Meffias, proued the Affirmatiue by
his Signal Miracles. The blind fee, the lame walk, Lepers are Clean-
fed, the deaf hear, the dead rife again &c. Which is to fay in the know-
other Terms. Thefe wonders fpeak in my behalfe, and plainly ledge of true
Teſtify that I am the Meßias; For only to fay, I am à Prophet fent Religion,
from God without prouing the Truth to Reafon by Signes and
wonders Conuinces nothing, Induces none to Belieue. Therefore
Ioh. 10. Chrift remitted the vnbelieuing lewes not to the Eui-
dence of his Doctrin, (for really no Doctrin of Myſteries
aboue Reaſon, though moft true, is or can be its own Self-eui-
PP
dence)
298
Diſc. 2. C.7. Manifeft Miracles, proue.
His Miracles.
They were
Signes of
Fals apoft.
beskip.
Our Sauiour dence) But to his inanifeft Miracles. The Works which I do in the
pleaded by name of my Father, Thefe giue Teftimony of me. Again. If you will
not believe me belieue my works. Bleffed S. Paul might haue Long
preached the Sublime Doctrin of Chrift, and without Fruit,
vnless Miracles had confirmed it, which he call's the Signes of his
Apofileship. 2. Cor. 12. And How long think ye would Nabu-
chodonozer haue remained in his Idolatry vnless He had beheld
that prodigious Wonder wrought by God vpon the three Ifrae-
lites in the fiery Fournace. Daniel 3. But when he faw them
walk in the flames nothing hurt, He cryed out. Bleffed be
the God of Sydrack Miſack and Abdenago, who hath sent His Angel
&c. Miracles therefore are powerful Inducements to Beliefe,
which Truth might be yet more largely demonftrated by the
Wonders of Mofes, of Elias of the Prophets and Apoftles, But
thefe I waue and briefly take notice of our Sauiours facred
words Iohn 15. if I had not come and spoken to them, they should
not haue finned, but now they haue no excufe of their fin &c.
And to show, that Speaking only was no fufficient Conuiction,
The Text add's. If I had not done among them works which no other
man hath don, they should not haue finned but now they haue feen,
and hate me, and my Father &c.
Why the
lewes were
taxed of
Incredulity?
5. Three things follow from hence. Firft That eminent
Miracles of their own Nature are Marks of Chrift's Doctrin
and true Religion. 2. That Our Sauiour moft iuftly condemned
the lewes of infidelity, not fo much for reiecting his word or
Preaching, as for not belieuing after they had feen it confirmed
by Wonder's from Heauen, For t'is Said plainly. Had
they not seen they had not finned. A Doctrin Therefore atteſted by
Miraculous fignes, and wonders renders the Vnbelieuer guilty
of Infidelity: Confider it alone, deuefted of fuch Marks, what
haue we? High Myfteries preached, But without Proofs antece-
dently laid forth to Reaſon; Truths taught, but yet vnknown
whether fo or otherwife. In à word we haue the Decrees of
great Monarch obliging all to fubmiffion, but without his Seal,
or Signature,
à
6. And
Difc. 2. C.7. Our Catholick Church, Orthodox. 299
6. And Hence it is that our bleffed Lord impowred thofe
first great Mafters of the Gofpel Matt. 10. not only to teach
his Sacred Verities, but to teach Perfwajuely, by the vertue of
Miracles. Goe and preach, faying the Kingdome of God is at hand
Cure the fick, raiſe vp the dead, cleanle the Lepers, Cift out Divels &c.
And they did fo. Mark 16. 20. They went abroad, preached euery
Where, God Cooperating with them, and confirming their Dodvin by
Signes Wich followed, Or to ſpeak in the words of S. Paul. Heb. 2.
God Withal Testifying by Signes and wonders and diuers Miracles &c.
A third fequele. If the lewes had not finned by reiecting Chriit
and his Doctrin (which then was new) in cafe he had not wroughties are
Why facta-
greater Miracles amongſt them than euer Any did before him, blameable ?
How highly imprudent think ye, How notoriouſly culpable are
our Sectaries who belieue the new opinions of one wretched
Luther or Caluin, without fo much as one Miracle wrought, to
make them probable?
7. A fourth Principle. True Real Miracles are Still neces
fary in the Church and fortold to be fo, by Truth it felf. Ioan 12.
Amen, Amen, I ſay vnto you, he that belieues in me, the works which
I doe he shall doe, and greater works than these shall he doe. I say
purposely, True real Miracles, mindful of s. Chrijestoms profound Dif
courfe vpon theſe very words in his Book againſt the Gentils.
There have been, faith the Saint certain Mafters (you may call them
Impoftors) who had their Difciples and talk't much of Wonders
whilſt they liued; but none of them euer came to the impudency S. Chri.
as truely to Propheſy of Miracles to be done by them after death. foftoms ex-
No: A lugler may do something strange, whilst he is on the Stage, But
take bim off the Theater, Throwe bim out of this life, The cheat appeares,
He is worth nothing.
8. All is contrary in our Sauiour, who here foretold of grea-
ter Wonders to be wrought in after Ages by his true Belieuers,
Than He had done in this Mortal life. And if we Speak of
great Conuerfions (which all moft iuftly account Miraculous)the
Truth is Euident, For our Bleffed Lord conuerted but few, in
Compariſon of thofe who followed in the Church after his Death.
Pp 2
(A pa-
cellent Re-
flection.
300
Difc. 2. C. 7. Manifeft Miracles, proue
The Apost-
(A parallel of other Miracles we shall fee preſently). Yet more
les wrought And t'is worth Reflection whilft Chrifts Difciples conuerfed
the greatest
Miracles
after
Christ's
Afcenfion.
Why Mira
sies are now
Neceſſary?
Two other
Reasons
alleged,
with Him, the Gofpel record's little of their Miracles, But after
his leauing this world Signes followed them, They caft out Diuels,
raised the dead, spake with new tongues, conuerted Nations, laid hand
on the Sick, &c. And the like Supernatural effects haue been
vifible in the Church through all Ages after the Apoſtles. So
true are the words of Chrift. Greater Things shall be done. And
the meaning is not, that euery true Belieuer should work Mi-
racles, (For fo Chrifts promife would not bee truly fulfilled,
because All do them not) But that fome choiſe elected of his Church,
as it happened in the Primitiue times, Members of this Myſtical.
Body, should haue the Priuiledge.
9.
One Reaſon of my Affertion is. If Miracles, Gods own
Seals and Characters, were Neceffary at the first preaching of the
Goſpel to induce all to belieue Chrifts Doctrin, or to diftin
guish his Truths from the Errours of lewes and Pagans, The
like Neceffity is for their Continuance in after Ages, not only
in refpect of Infidels, but erring Chriftians alfo. For, no fooner
had Chriſt founded his Church, But the Diuel raiſed vp his
Chappel by it, Peftiferous Hereticks from Simon Magus, haue
been in euery Age his Chaplins. All of them Pretended to
Truth, with an Ecce bic eft Chriftus, Loe we preach Chrift. In
this Confufion of Sects, it was abfolutly needful, to Mark out
that happy Chriftian Society which taught fauing Faith and
Shewed where God was adored in Spirit and Truth. Now no
Mark can be more Palpable or more attractiue, than the Glory
of indubitable Miracles, Chrifts own Cognifances, and the Cleareft
Euidences of Apoftolical Doctrin.
-
10. 2. Miracles are neceffary in the Church to ftirr vp Chri-
ftian Faith, and Deuotion with it, which would foon grow cold,
were it not that Diuine Prouidence frequently quickens both, by
theſe exteriour Signes and wonders. Wherefore, as His Goodnes
works inwardly and plyes our hearts with Grace, fo outwardly
alfo (to Teftify that nothing is wanting). He moues vs to Belieue
༡་
by.
Difc. 2. C.7. Our Catholick Church, Orthodox
by no less vifible Inducements than Thofe were, which firſt made
the world Chriftian.
11. 3. The Continuation of Miracles Clearly appeared in the
firft fiue Centuries after Chrift, And as Authority makes them
indubitable, So reafon alfo proues them neceffary vpon this very
Account, that the Conuerfion of Infidels ftrangers to Chrift, was
not wrought on à fuddain, or all at once, But fucceffiuely Age
after Age, If then Miracles were neceffary to conuince our
Chriſtian Verities when Chrift and his Apoftles firft preached to
vnbelieuing lewes and Gentils, no man can probably iudge them
Vfeless in after Ages, when the like Barbarous, the like Ignorant
and vnciuilized Nations who neuer heard of Chrift or Scripture
became Chriſtians, Induced, to ſo happy à change, not becauſe
they heard truths Taught, But becauſe they faw all confirmed by
Euident Signes and Wonders.
One Reason
12. Reflect I befeech you à little. Were not the Natiues of
thoſe vaſt and remote Regions we call the Indies (whether Orient
or Occident) à People as ignorant of our Chriftian verities and
as much auerted from Chrifts Doctrin, when S. Francis Xauerius,
and other laborious Miffioners first preached There, as any Na-
tions were to whom the Apoftles preached Chrift? Yes moft further illu-
certainly. In both cafes the difdain and ignorance may well be rated
paralled. Imagin now that S. Xauerius had only opened his Bible;
And told the ruder People of the high Myfteries of Chriftian
Faith, would this think ye, though neuer fo fpecioufly laid forth,
haue gained credit? No. But when their eyes beheld Miracles,
and glorious Miracles accompaning His laborious Preaching, The By an In.
deaf, dumb, blind, and fick inftantly cured. When they faw flance of
the Sanctity, the Aufterity and Innocency of His virtuous Life. Miffioners
When they heard him indued with the Gifts of tongues. fent to
When they knew that after à noble contempt of the world,
The bleffed man fought nothing but God, And fearing neither
death nor dangers Couragiously trauelled from one end of the
world to the other &c. Then it was they began to look about
them, to open their eyes more, to Renounce Idolatry and fub-
Pp2
mitr
preach
302 Difc. 2. C. 8. Of what weight Miracles are
mit to Gods truths, moſt manifeftly euidenced by glorious Mira
cles. Then it was that the Saint (Gods grace concurring) con-
uerted Thouſands and Thoufands, All which is vpon certain
Record, and witneffed by thofe who haue written the wonders.
Howeuer grant that s. Xauerius wrought but one or two Miracles
(when many more cannot without impudency be denyed him)
our Affertion fubfists, that Miracles are neceflary, for the reclai-
ming of Infidels, And if he did none at all, This as S Außin an-
ciently obferued vpon à like occafion, is the greateſt Wonder
of all, That he conuerted innumerable Heathens to our Chri-
ftian Faith, without Miracles.
CHAP. VIII.
Miracles euident in the Roman Catholick Church, No
less induce All now to belieue Her Doctrin, Than
Apoftolical Miracles Anciently Perfwaded
to belieue that Primitiue Doctrin. The
Denial of Miracles Impoßibilitat's The
Conuerfion of Lewes and
Infidels.
1.
I fay firft. Clear and Vnqueftionable Miracles, of the
I
like Quality with thofe which Chrift and his Apoftles
wrought, haue been euer fince, moft gloriouſly manifeſt in the
Roman Catholick Church, And in no other Society of Chriftians,
I hope none for Proof of my Affertion can expect that I write
Volumes, or bring to light again in this short Treatiſe ſo much
as the hundred Part of thofe prodigious wonders which are vpon
Record in the liues of Saints, in the death of Martyrs
and Ecclefiaftical Hiftory. Baronius large Tomes giue you innu-
merable
>
•
Diſc. 2. C. 8. in the Roman Church.
303
merable in euery Century, And Bellar: Lib 4. de notis Eccle : C. 14°
Hint's at à few from the first Age to the 15. I muſt waue this
longer work, and briefly Argue thus.
Indubitable
2. Chriſt Spake Truth in the Text now cited. Iohn 14. 12.
Prophefying of future glorious Miracles to be wrought by those prho be
lieued in him. But the indubitable Miracles wrought in the Ro- Miracles
man Catholick Church only, through euery age proue that Pro- euince
phely exactly fulfilled, or effectually Euidence the Verity of it; Chris Pro.
Therefore none can doubt of Miracles done in the Roman Ca- phey fulfil-
led.
tholick Church, if Chrifts Prediction be true, and this Propofi-
tion be alfo proued. viz. That, This Church only, hath effec-
tually manifefted the truth of that Prophefy, or shewn fuch
Wonders as haue proportion with Chrifts own glorious works,
and the Apoſtles.
3. Now to clear the Truth, Here is my Principle. When I
read à Prophefy in Scripture, I fubmit to it by Faith, but when
I See it actually Accomplished or made manifeft by real viíible
Effects And both Senfe and vndoubted Hiſtory diſcouer ſo much
euidently, Reafon, grounded on Senſe and Hiſtory, Can not but
prudently affent to the Verity. What I would fay is clear in all
the Ancient Prophefies of Chrift, and his Church. Take this
one inftance. The Prophets, Daniel chiefly and Ejay, Foretold of
the large Extent of Chrifts glorious Kingdom here on earth, of
whole Nations flocking to his Church, of Her teaching thofe
Truths which were belieued from the Beginning; But when all
faw with their eyes innumerable Heathens gained to our Chriftian
Faith, and heard of other Conuerfions conueyed to them vpon
certain Relation (for few or none of vs faw the latter Conuer-
fions wrought in China, Iapan, and the like remote places) when
I fay Authority neuer Queftioned giues vs certainty hereof,
Then all bless God, And conclude, That what the Prophets fortold
of great Conuerfions, hath been wifibly fulfilled, And that Chriſts
Church is dayly more and more enlarged, Anfwerable to thoſe
Predictions.
4. Hence I difcourfe further, and Affert, that the glorious
Miracles
The Princi.
ple whereon,
is grounded.
our Affer ion
304 Difc. 2. C. 8. Of what weight Miracles are
Fathers,
produced
witneſſes of
Miracles.
S. Hieromes
words.
S. Ambrofe
an lye wit.
uess.
Miracles which fand vpon indubitable Record, and haue been
done in the Roman Church only, moft notoriously Euidence
without Diſpute the actual Accomplisment of our Sauiours own
words. The works which I do, he shall do alfo and greater than these
shall be do. If you Ask how I proue the Affertion? I appeal
to Senſe and certain Hiftory. Senfe firft faw thefe Miracles done,
and certain Hiſtory which Supplies the want of Senfe, conueyes
them to vs, though innumerable are liuing at this Hour, who haue
been eye Witneffes of Miracles. Now here we might enter
vpon à long work and Recount what the Fathers and Hiftorians.
both ancient and latter, haue of this Subiect. Read if you pleaſe
theſe few.
5. Irenans Bishop and Martyr who liued about the year
180. lib: 2. Cap. 57. And faies. The number of theſe Diuine
works which God hath manifeſted in his Church the whole
world ouer, are numberles. A little before, He mentions thefe
particulars. Some cast out Diuels, other Prophesy, others lay their hands
on the fuck and cure them; yea and raiſe vp the dead, who lined with vs
for many years. Tertullian of the fecond Age Lib. ad Scapul: And
Eufeb. lib. 5. giae you à large Catologue of moft glorious Mi-
racles. The like doth S. Bafil. Lib, de Spir: S. Speaking of that
worthy Bishop of Neocafarea. S. Gregory, deferuedly called Thau-
maturgus, for the wonders he wrought. S. Athanafius and s.
Hierom relate the Miracles of S. Hilarion, S.Martin, And the fames
Hierome. Lib. aduerfus Vigelantium c. 4. Saith that the Signes and
wonders manifefted in the Temples of Martyrs proue mightily
beneficial, both to Belieuers and the Incredulous. Refponde (they
are his words) Quomodo in Vilißimo pulucre &c. Anfwer, Vigi-
lantius, how it is that we fee fuch Signes and virtue prefent in à
little vnualuable duft, and dead mens ashes? S. Ambroſe, an Eye-
witness of Miracles wrought by the Reliques of S. Geruafius and
Protafius Epift. 85. for proof of them, Appeal's to fenfe and the
Iudgement of others. You haue known, faith tle, Nay you haue feen,
many diſpoſſeſed of Diuels, many when they touched the garments of
Saints, free'd from their Infirmities &c. S. Auftin Lib. 22. de Ciuit:
C. 8. &
Difc. 2. C. 8. in the Roman Church. 305
C.8.& 9. Is large in relating the Miracles wrought by the glo- s. Austins
rious Martyr S, Stephen; And Lib. Contra. Epist. Fundam. C. 4 5. Euidence.
Saith, That the true Church of Chrift is proued and demonſtra-
ted by Miracles. Our Venerable Bede à great Scholler, à worthy
vertuous man, And highly efteemed the whole Chriftian world
ouer, certainly deferues credit, when. Lib. 4. Hiftor. He re-
count's the Miracles of the glorious S. Cuthbert Bishop of Lindes-
fern and of others within our England. Are any fuch feen now
à dayes wrought by Proteftant Bishops? No God knowes, Their
new Faith is à great ftranger to all old Miracles.
6. Fall if you pleafe lower and read S. Bernard in the life of
S. Malachy à worthy Bishop of Ireland, what wonders haue we
there? The ancient Miracles of the Church, Saith S. Bernard,
were apparently, manifeft in S. Malachy. He had the gift of Pro- S. Bernard
phely, Cured the suck, changed the minds of men to the better, and raised in the Life
vp the dead. Now if you will hear of S. Bernards own Miracles, ofs. Ma-
Read Godfridus who liued with him. Lib. 4. C. 4. and wrote lachy.
His life, you haue innumerable. Tis hard, faith Bellarmin,to
Recount all, And as numberles are the known Miracles of thofe
two admirable, Saints Bleffed S. Dominick and the Seraphical S.
Francis, Founders of two moft glorious Religious Orders. S. Fran-
cis, To omit his other certain wonders, was Himſelf à Miracle of
Auſterity and Pennance. The like was S. Dominick, who as we
read in his life raiſed three dead men to life. And for three you
haue more reuiued by an other of His holy Order, I mean that
admirable Saint Vincentius Ferrerius. So the pious and learned S.
Antoninus Arch-Bishop of Florence Recounts in his Hiftpry. 3.
Part lib. 23. And who dares fay that fo great à Doctor And moſt
modeſt Prelate, was fo Frontless as to write that we read, not
long after the death of S. Vincentius, without Affurance and Cer-
tainty. The whole world would haue decryed the Folly, Had it
been à Fourb, an Impofture; or à fabulous Story.
7. By what is now faid of Theſe and other infinit Operations
of grace which I am forced to omit, you may inferr firſt. That
the Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholick Church are not
Q1
inferiour
306 Disc 2. C.8Of what weight Miracles are
.
Our Sa-
uiours Pro-
led in the
Churches
Miracles,
C. 8. >
inferiour to thofe done by the Apoftles, And confequently if our
Sauiours Prophefy was feen manifeftly fulfilled in thofe firft Apo-
phefy falfil- ftolical Wonders, it hath been alfo as effectually accomplished in
thefe latter of the Church. I fay, in the Roman Catholick Church,
For all thofe now named, whom God priuiledged with the Grace
of working Miracles, were of the fame vnion in Faith with this
Church, and no other. It followes. 2. That Humane Faith
when no iuft Exception comes againft it, But the fool-hardy Spirit
of vnbelieuing Heathens and Hereticks, giues Mortal Affurance
of Miracles. The Miracles of our Sauiour euidence this Truth.
He raiſed Lazarus from death. Iohn 11. A Touch of his garment
cured the infirm woman. Matt. 9. He reſtored fight to à blind
man. Iohn. 9. Obferue I beseech you. All Iewry beheld not
theſe Wonders, But fome only, Yet they were wrought for the
good of All, and without doubt proued conuincing Arguments
of Chrift's great power to innumerable, who actually faw them
not, But only heard of them, and Affented to what they heard,
made Credi humane Authority prudently credible. Therefore our Sauiour
Suppofed That humane Faith (aud this before the writing of
Scripture) was à Sufficient Means to conuey to others à Moral
certainty of his Miracles. I fay yet more. If God euer efficaciouſly
intended to worck à true Miracle fince the Creation of the world
by any of his creatures, Humane Faith was, and yet is the First
and moſt Connatural way of Conueying it to the knowledge of
others. Who therefore excepts againſt this vfual courfe of Pro-
uidence deftroies à Principle of Nature, and can belieue nothing
of Supernatural Effects, but what he either fees with his own
eyes, or find's regiftred in Holy Writ.
Miracles
ble upon hu-
mane Au-
thority.
vpon
8. Ask now. How many Auftins, How many Chryfoftoms,
how many Cyrills, how many Bedes and Bernards, haue vpon
their Credit, and Reputation affured vs of Miracles wrought in
the Roman Church only, like to thofe in the Primitiue Age? They
are numberless. Did Chrift our Lord reſtore life to the dead,
fight to the blind, health to the fick? The Profeffors of our
Catholick Church, by his virtue, haue done the very fame, and
the
Difc. 2. C. 8. In the RomanChurch
307
Authority
the Miracles are more numerous. But now, and here is the chief
demand. Were our Sauiours glorious Works made Credible to
thouſands no Eye-witneffes vpon Humane faith and Authority, alleged.
before Scripture regiftred them? So it is. Behold we haue our
Auftins, our Iustins, our Bafils, our Bernards vnexceptionably plain
for the Churches Miracles, and none can without Impudency, and
the violation of all humane Credit, probably Cauil at what the-
fe haue written. None can without making very Saints Impoftors
and guilty of that enormous fin of grofly deceiuing Pofterity,
pare away fo much as any fubftantial parcel of what is Recorded.
Therefore vnless all humane Faith perish, its defperate rashness
to deny moft glorious Miracles to haue been in the Roman Ca-
tholick Church, which was my Afſertion.
9. And to confirm it more. I Ask why do Sectaries to dif
grace our Miracles, introduce, I know not what Stories of the
Heathens wonders? Are thefe credible or no? If not; reiect
them boldly as Impertinences; If Credible, it feems humane
Faith is of fome weight with Sectaries when they read of the
Heathens fopperies, though of no Account for true Miracles
wrought by the Church of Chrift. Again, this Faith is much
worth with thefe men, when to lay à foul Afperfion on à Pope Sectaries in
or Prelate, they fill their Books with à hundred petty Stories, Confequen-
whether true or false imports little. Herein their eafy Be-
liefe ſwallowes all, But if à Father or Choife Hiſtorian mention
à Miracle, its à Fourb, à dream, à fiction, and what not.
10. One word more and I end. A meer pretended Humane
Authority, which really is not, And therefore nothing worth,
is shamefully made vfe of to patronize that crying Sin of Secta-
ries Schifin. Our Church, Say they, Changed Her ancient Faith,
the Charge at moſt relies on Hiftory or Humane Faith, God
neuer told them fo. For example. The Lateran Council firſt
brought in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation, ſome Pope or other
firft inuented Purgatory &c. Suppofe all this were as true, as t'is
hideouſly falſe, Hiſtory or nothing muft make it good, and yet
in our preſent cafe it is no warrant for known Miracles. Thus
Q9 2
Faith
ces.
308 Dif. 2. C. 8. Of what weight Miracles ave
Faith rifeth and fall's in value as our New mens fancy pleafes.
Belieue it, had bleffed S. Ambrofe (cited aboue), in lieu of that
Miraculous Cure wrought on à blind man at Millan, when Him-
ſelf was preſent (and innumerable of that Citty faw the wonder)
related à ftroy preiudicial to either Pope or Clergy, How often
think you would that haue been told and reiterated in the Writings
of Sectaries? But now when Hee fpeaks of à fupernatural
Work of grace, done at the Reliques of the holy Martyrs Gerua-
fius and Protafius, not à word is faid. No, all paffes in Silence,
as if Chrifts own Marks and the Churches glory (vndoubted
with Secta. Miracles ) deferued no Memory, but Contrarywife Scorn and con-
Humane
Faith now
Valuable
now not
Caluins
Miracle.
Sectaries
lewes and
Turks dif
claim Mira-
cles.
tempt.
II.
>
I faid in the Affertion, that the grace of true Miracles
(meaning fuch as exactly Anfwer to our Sauiours glorious works)
is proper and peculiar to the Roman Church only. The proof
hereof is eaſy. Firſt, Sectaries pretend not to work Miracles,
For they fay, that power ceafed long fince, though I might here
mind them of Caluins great wonder, and really it was à ſtrange
one, For whereas God's Saints reftored life to the dead, this
great Sinner, hauing perfvaded one Bruleus of Oftun to fain him-
felf dead, depriued the poor wretch of his life Or, rather God
to lay open the fraud and Hypocrify of both the one and other,
turned the Fiction into à Verity, for really Bruleus who Counter-
feited himself dead, to get Caluin the renown of working Mi-
racles, was after all the Minifters long prayer, found dead indeed.
The ſtory is known and writ not only by Hierome Bolsec in Vita
Calvini. C. 13. But by others alfo. And here I wish Sectaries to
giue fome credit to humane Authority.
**
12. Now as Proteftants difclaim Miracles, fo do the lewes
alfo, for they neuer had any after our Sauiours Comming Tis
true, that Pond vpon Probatica. Ioan. 5. Or as many will haue
it, the Pond it felf, fo called becauſe the Sheep ordained to Sacri-
fice were washed there, continued Miraculous, whilſt Chriſt our
Lord preached, But foon after ceafed, And fo do all other
wonders amongft that abandoned People. The Turks who ſay.
God
Diſc. 2. C. 8. In the Roman Church.
309
God gaue Mahomet the fword and Chrift the Power of working
Miracles, pretend to no fuch fupernatural effects at all. No
more in Iuftice can Heathens or the Donatifts lay Claim to any,
whoſe wonders were but trifles, compared with the Glorious
works of Chrift and His Church. None of them all conuerted
whole Nations to Chriftian Religion, none of them raiſed vp
the dead. None of them after death wrought any Miracles.
See Tertullian writing of the Heathens. In Apolog: C. 22. 23.
And s. Auflin againſt the Donatifts. Homil. 13. in loan. De Viilit.
Crelent. C. 16. As alfo Lib. 10. de Ciuit. C. 16.
}
and modern
13. I fay. 2. If the Miracles of Chrift and the Apoſtles ra-
tionally proued againſt Lewes and Gentils, the Credibility of Apo- The ancient
ftolical Doctrin, The very like Signes and fupernatural effects Miracles
moft euident in the Roman Catholick Church, as rationally compared
proue againſt Sectaries the Credibility of our now profeffed Ca- together.
tholick Doctrin. I would fay. Church Miracles conftantly
wrought in all Ages fince Chriſtianity began, are no less effica-
cious to draw Sectaries to the Belief of our Church Doctrin,
than thoſe the Apoftles wrought were to induce lewes and Gen-
tils to the belief of Apoftolical Doctrin. Here is one Proof.
The fame Signes and Marks of Truth when equal in Maiefty,
Worth, Quality, and Number euer diſcouer to Reaſon the fame
Truth, For, God can no more deceiue by ſuch works of Grace
than by his own Diuine word. Interrogemus ipfa Miracula faith
S. Auftin. Tract: 24. in Ivan: Quid nobis loquantur de Christo. Let
vs ask of Miracles what they fay of Chrift? Habent enim ji intel-
ligantur, linguam fuam. They want no tongue to ſpeak with
their Language is plain for Chrift. Iuft fo Say I and proue it,
Church Miracles Speak as planly for the Church. Wherefore if
the Roman Catholick Church moſt clearly giues in euidence of
Her Miracles equal in worth, quality, and number with thoſe
wrought by Chrift and his Apoftles, it followes, that as thoſe
firft Apoftolical wonders were fufficient to conuince lewes and
Gentils of the Truth of Chriftianity, So thefe latter alfo wrought
in the Church are of like force, and no less efficacious to
Q93
Coll-
>
310
Difc. 2. C. 8. Of what weight Miracles are
What the
pon
conuince Sectaries of what euer Doctrin She teaches. Now
Apostles did, der well what the Apoftles did. They cured the fick, difpoffed Di-
the Church uels, raised the Dead, conuerted Nations, &c. But thefe very Mira-
dork.
cles haue been done in the Roman Catholick Church, yea and
greater too, Ergo we haue the like Euidence of Truth in both
the primitiue Age and this, Confequently with it the fame
Truth. The Euidence hath been partly laid forth already, and
shall be further proued prefently. The Sequel is vndenia-
The like op-
poſition ma-
de against
Chriſt's
Miracles
and the
Churches.
ble.
14. I fay. 3. No otherwife, nor vpon any better ground
can the Sectary Oppofe the Miracles of our Church, than lewes
and Gentils haue oppofed and yet doe oppofe thoſe of Chrift
and his Apoftles. Obferue well. Will the Setary Say our
Miracles are wrought by the Diuels power? So the Lewes Ca-
lumniated Chrift own Glorious works. Will he Say, they are
only fained by poor deluded or bold-lying Catholicks? So the
Lewes fpeak of Chrift's own Miracles to this day. Will he Say
that fome Miracles auouched true, haue been afterward euidently
Counterfeit, and why may not thofe the Church glories in
be rancked with fuch? Contra. And why may not Chrifts
own wonders be alfo lifted with them? The Argument, if of
any force equally concludes againft both; For if the Forgery
of fome proue all forged, Chrift's own Miracles no more eſcape
the Cenfure; than if one should ſay, ( t'is S. Auſtins inftance) all
women are naught, becaufe fome haue been fo. Let then the
Sectary show vpon good Principles That Church Miracles haue
been forged, and he fpeak's to the purpoſe. In the interim, he
may well think, his bold incredulous Humour makes none for-
ged.
15.
One may reply. There is à vaft difparity between our
Sauiours Miracles regiftred in Scripture, and thofe we plead for,
only attefted vpon humane Faith. I Anfwer in order to Chri-
ftians there is à Diſparity in the Teftimony, But that fall's from
the purpoſe now. Firſt becauſe Chrifts Miracles were known
and admitted vpon humane Authority, before Scripture was writ-
ten
Difc. 2. C. 8. in the Roman Church.
311
ten. 2. And chiefly, becauſe both lewes and Gentils as much
flight our Scripture teftifying thofe wonders, as the Miracles them-
felues, And make little account of either.
both lewes
and Here-
ticks con-
16. But when they read theſe things in Scripture, and more-
ouer hear what Miracles God hath Conftantly wrought in euery
age (yea alinoft euery year) in his Church, and yet continues that
fauour to our prefent dayes; When they hear and read of the winced.
Miracles which that one facred houſe of Loreto Euidences, the
publick Monuments and Teftimonies whereof are vndeniably
Authentick, and able to conuince the moſt obdurate Gentile.
When they read or hear of the continual Miracles done at the
Reliques of S. Iames at Compostella in Spain the infinite number
of Pelgrims reforting thither from all parts of Christendom
(befides Records) bear witness of thofe great Benefits.
Benefits. When
they read or hear of that perpetual Miracle feen in France, ex-
hibited to all mens eyes in the Sacred Viall of S. Mary Magdalen,
wherein the precious Blood gathered by that penitent Saint at
our Sauiours Paffion is yet perferued, and Vifibly boyl's vp on
the very day hefuffered after the reading of the Paffion. A whole
Nation teftifies this, thoufands and thouſands haue feen it, and
Spondanus. ad An: 1147. Saith, he beheld the viole in the Church
of S. Maximin.
Miracles
>
they are
Convinced.
17. When again, they hear or read of the vndoubted Miracu-
lous Cures wrought vpon the blind, the lame, and all fort of di-
feafed Perfons by the Interceflion of our Bleffed Lady at Mon- By what
taigu,(English vfually call the place Sichem The euidence whe- particular
reof is fo vndeniable without difpute, that luftus Lipfius in luo
Apricolli to the Reader, moft iuftly faith. They are not men
(but rather beafts) or purpofely shut their eyes, that See not
thofe Miracles as clear as the Sun, For, Saith He, many of them
haue been manifeft to our eyes and fenfes. And Erycius Puteanus
fpeak's as fully the fenfe of his Predeceffor. See his Præface
ad Afpricol. Hec ifta &c. These very Miracles which the Mother of
God began to work at Montaigu this very Age we live in, are so mani-
feft, fo many and most ftupendious, that if any doubt of them, Poterit
& de
312
Difc. 2. C. 8. The glorious Miracle
Miracies
related,
& de vniuersa Numinis potentiâ dubitare, He may as well doub
of all the power God hath, They are plain truths, rigorously and
Two certain moft feuerely examined, teftified by Eye-witneffes, and now vpon
Record &c. I am forced to omit innumerable latter Miracles,
(The work would be Immenfe to recount but halfe) yet one moft
certain, and no less famous then certain, you haue here fet down.
Another truly wonderful, followes in the next Chapter. Senfe,
Experience Reaſon and all humane Faith goe to wrack, if either
be boggl'd at. Thofe iudgements are peruerfe, Thole hearts
harder then ftones, that dare deny them Credit.
Marcellus
wounded.
The Admirable cure wrought by Bleffed. S. Xauerius in
the Famous Citty of Naples vpon a worthy Religious
Perfon called F. Marcellus Maftrilli, à Noble
man by birth, and by Profession of the So-
ciety of Lefus. The Proof hinted at aboue,
reaffumed.
iS. In the year 1634. The Vice-Roy of Naples Count Mon-
terey, pleaſed to keep à Magnificent Solemnity at his own Palace
in Honour of the euer Bleffed Mother of God. Amongſt
orher Altars richly adorned to fet forth the Feftiual day, The
care of one Altar was committed to F. Maftrilli, who ftanding
on the lower ſteps of à ladder, and cafually looking vp at one
that took of Tapiftrie nailed to à higher part of the wall, met
with à fad Accident. Behold à Hammer of two pound weight
fell directly vpon the Temples of his head, ftruck him down, left
him fenfeless, and grieuouſly wounded. In this Peril, Firſt taken
vp by the hands of others, Hee was prefently carried in à Couch
to his own Colledge. Doctors of Phyfick and Surgeons without
delay called for, fearched the wound and found it Mortal. Forth
with,
Difc. 2. C. 8. Of Saint Xauerius.
313
with, à burning feauer following vpon the hurt, fo increafed the
danger in that noxius aire (à great enemy to wounds) and vnfea-
fonable winter time, That all left hopeless, despaired of Marcel-
lus Recouery. Befides his mouth by the Contufion of Nerues His wound
inaged
was fo clofed vp, that the poor Patient could take no fuftenance. Defperate
To help That, The Doctors (neceffitated to vſe violence) forced and why.
it open, and thruft an Inftrument down towards his ſtomach,
hoping thereby to clear the paffage and fit it to receiue fome
nourishment. But with little good fuccess For the Cruel
Remedy becanie an vnfpeakable torment to the afflicted Patient.
Soon after followed ftrong Conuulfion fits (plain Symtoms of
death) and befides à Dead Palfie, which wholly took away
the vſe of his left arme.
>
19. Whoeuer defires to fee more of this defperate danger, And
how neer Marcellus was at deaths doore, may pleaſe to read Da-
niel Bartoli in his fecond Part of Afia. lib. 5. at this Tittle L'Im-
perio de Toxongum. Page with mee 441. and. 442. And alfo
Michaël de Elizalde. Forma vere Religionis. Quft: 27. N. 478.
P. 329. who liued at Naples, and wrote this Miracle not long
after it happened. In this condition Marcellus continued many
dayes, despaired of by the very beſt and moſt expert Phifitians.
Wherefore the Conclufion was to implore the mercy of God Death ex-
in his behalfe, to commend him as the manner is, to the prayers pected.
of the Community, and finally to adminifter Extrem vnction
For his obftructed Mouth and breft full of Clottered blood,
hindred the taking the Holy Eucharift, or laft Viaticum. The Doc- The Doctors
tors prudently aduiced to prepare him for death, For they found gaue Mar.
him now paſt all hope of Recouery, Nay, all of them with cellus ouer.
one Confent abfolutely Concluded, Marcellus could not liue till
the next morning.
20. Now here begins the Miracle. The 3.4 of Ianuary four
houres within night, The Fathers that watched with dying Ma- The Mirac's
ftrilli, obferued Hedid not only moue and turn Himfelfe to the begins.
wall, but heard him ſpeak alfo; which feemed to them à wonder,
For before Hee lay fpeechles not able to vtter à word, much
Rr
less
314
Difc. 2. C. 8. The Glorious Miracle
With S.
Xane ius
less to moue his weak body. But what followes clear's all, The
motion came from à ftronger hand, And thus it was.
21. S. Xauerius appeared in à pilgrims weed very Glorious
to Marcellus, And with à Smiling Countenance.demanded, whe-
/pparition, ther He would rather dye at prefent, Or according to his former
defire bee fent Miffioner into the Indies? In paffing pleaſe to
know,the virtuous man euer languished after that Miffion, Though
hindred from it by Superiours, becauſe of his tender and weak.
Conftitution.
Marcellus
:
22. Marcellus Anſwered I am ready to doe whateuer God
pleaſes; Yet according to my former purpofe, may that be gra-
teful to the Diuine will, and granted by Superiours, I am in heart:
prepared to dye à Martyr for Chrift amongſt thofe Indians. Xaue-
rius herevpon pronounced the form of à vow which the fick man
(as the words were ſpoken by the Saint) repeated after Him. By
this vow He obliged himfelfe to renounce Country, Friends, and
whateuer is in the world to bee fent to the Indian Miffion. You
haue the Form of the vow in Bartoli now cited. Page 444. In the.
next place à Relique of the Holy Cross and fome others alfo
which Marcellus had about his neck, were applyed by the help
of S. Xauerius to the wound in his head. Still the Fathers pre-
fent heard Marcellus fpeak for à long time together, fome thought
them words of à diſtracted brain, others iudged Otherwife. Af-
ter thefe and many other Circumftances related by the Authors.
S. Xauerim already quoted, Xauerius Spake to this Senfe. Marcellus bee of
Comfortable good Courage, you are now perfectly cured, Your defire is granted, you
shall goe to the Indies and there dye à Martyr. This faid the Saint
difappeared..
bis vow.
Reliques
Applied to
the wound.
words.
The Miracle
mo♬ Eui.
dent.
23. Without delay at all, Marcellus loock'd on as à dying
man reuiued, inftantly fate vp in his bed, called for his cloaths,
Yea, faith Elizalde, Exilit è lecto leap't out of his bed, And with
à ftronge Cheerful voice faid. I am well, I am perfectly Cured, And
fo it was indeed. For the Mortal wound caufe of His Malady"
quite Clofed vp, appeared no more, And which is à wonder,
the hair of his head cut of by the Chirurgeons to facilitate the
cure,
Dilc. 2. C. 8. Of Saint Xauerius
315
cure, was reftored as formerly. So Elizalde teftifies. n. 480. Re.
ftituri Capilli ad Vulneris Curationem erafi. His Paleness and weaknes,
went away, Colour, ftrength and agility returned in that very
Inftant. What need I fay More? Marcellus à Moment before
at Deaths door, becomes found, healthful, and perfectly well.
Made
known to the
Community
and weyfe'd
abroad.
Thoſe who attended Him called together the Fathers of
the houſe many in number, to bee Eye-witneffes of the wonder.
All came with ioyful hearts, and Firft proftrate on the ground
with much deuotion gaue immortal thanks to God for the cure,
then Embraced Marcellus who took à little ſuſtenance, which he
had wanted for à long time. That done, the Superiour com-
manded him forthwith to write down exactly euery particular hee
had heard or feen that night, and to fubfcribe all with His own
hand. Hee did fo. The next morning, when whole Multitudes
came to pray for Marcellus foul (the Hun ble man was indeed
much beloued and honoured all Naples ouer) They found him
perfectly recouerd, faying Maffe at. S. Xauerius Altar. Pre-
fently the Miracle manifeft to all Eyes was foon diuulged through
the whole Citty and held fo indubitable, that fome thought it
needless to giue His Eminence the Lord Arch-bishop Informa-
tion of it. Howeuer that was done and moft exactly. The
Doctors, the Surgeons, the Fathers, and other Eye-witneffes alfo Examin'd
of the wonder were affembled before His Eminence, and All vpon upon Oash.
Oath folemnenly taken, auouched boldly without doubt without
hefitancy the naked Verity, and vndeniable Truth of the Mira-
cle. Now if any would bee further informed of the great Seue-
rity vſually held in the Sacred Congregation of Rites at Rome,
when Miracles are brought to the Teft before that high Tribunal,
Though the whole world knowes the rigour, you may by the
occafion giuen of this one wonder, read Elizalde. N. 485. This
Short Relation permit's mee not to infift vpon So many large
particulars. In lieu thereof, bee pleaſed to hear what F. Eli-
zalde (one learned and à great Diuine) fpeak's of his owne
knowledge. n. 481. Much to the fenfe, as followes.
25. I Was faith Hee in Spaine When this great Miracle was wrough!
Rr 2
316
Difc. 2. C. 8. The Glorious Miracle
A learned
mans Teti.
mony Con
cerning this
Miracle,
whilst he li-
med at Na-
ples.
Marcellus
by S. Xauerius, And although I am of an Humour incredulous enough
not easily drawn to belieue fuch wonders, yet vpon the feueral Teſti-
monies which came in great number from euery part of the world,
I found my felfe euen then conuinced of the Truth. Now I haue liued
at Naples well nigh three yeares, and Conuerfed with many, who were
in the Colledge at the time of this wonderful cure, And with one parti-
cularly (à man vpright and iust) that was in the Chamber when Xauerius
appeared to Marcellus. I haue attentiuely confidered what euery one faid,
and after à diligent inquiry made, perceiue (as it euer falls out in à
point of Truth) no difference amongst them, but Contrary wife, find all, vnius
labij Speak the fame, agreeing in one Relation. But let rs omit our
own Witneſſes. Italy, Spaine and the other parts of the Chriftian World
neuer questioned the Miracle, but held it certain, and most prudently
did fo, For ſcarfe any thing can be more Authentick remaining
within the Limits of humane Faith. Vpon this certainty it was,
that His Catholick Maiesty familiarly treated with Marcellus à long time
together, defiring his prayers, and bountifully offered all Affiftance
in order to his further voyage, fo likewife did the Dukes and Princes
of that Court. Nay, all fort of People came flocking to the pious Paffen-
ger, as if Hee had been one fent from Heauen, or raised from the dead.
Happy were they that could speak with him, touch his garments, or
receive any little (mall trifle from Hus hands. Thus all reuerenced
the Holy man. So great Renown the Miracle had gained euery
where. Much to this fenfe Elizalde writes. Let vs now go
on.
26. Soon after the Miraculous cure, Marcellus began his long
iourney towards the Indies, and in the year 1638. arriued at
Nangalaque in lapan, where taken prifoner, Hee firſt endured that
bis Martyr ufual and cruel Torment of water (known to euery one) but
dome firan.
came out found, not hurt at all. The ftanders by aftonished at the
ge, and
Miraculous. Spectacle, prefently commanded the Executioner to ftrick of his.
head. The Barbarous man attempted to doe it, but on à fud-
dain made ftrengthles, wholly benummed, was not able to moue
his hand. Where vpon Marcellus faid, delay no longer, but in Gods
name doe thy duty. The fatal blow at thofe very words was gi-
uen, And The Virtuous Marcellus became à Martyr and dyed
for
Diſc. 2. C. 8. Of Saint Xaverius
317
for Chrift, according to the Prophefy of S. Xaverius.
27. Now here I Ask what iuft exceptions can Sectaries
make againſt this Miracle, attefted vpon oath, rigedly examined,
Miracle.
and vniuerſally belieued? Will they fay Marcellus was indeed woun- No iuft ex-
ded (for that many Seculars faw), yet the wound was but flight, ceptions
not mortal and perhaps no more but à rafing of the skin? Say again the
fo. The Doctors and Surgeons had been worfe then beafts,
to torture the poor Patient as they did by forcing down into
His Stomack the Inftrument already mentioned. Belides bur- Cauils
ning feauers, Conuulfion Fits, Palfies( of themfelues mortal) vſually
answered,
enfue not vpon flighter hurts. Will they fay The Aparition
of the Saint to Marcellus was either an Illufion, à dream at
moft, or à distemper of à dying mans fancy? That indeed
might haue fome colour, had wee not Euidence againſt it. For
what can bee Anfwered to the ftrange effect, the Miracu-
lous cure, I mean, which fo fuddainly followed in one short
Moment of time? This (clear Self-euidence) fpeak's truth and
proues that God had à hand in the cure. None can Cauil
at it, none can contradict it. Perhaps fome will fay. All was
à fourb, à cheat, and Fiction, The Fathers, Doctors, and Surgeons
by compact fained one Mortally fick that was not, to gain
Iefuits the renown and Glory of à Miracle.
>
28. What's this? who are here accufed and condemned?
Giue eare à little Gentle Reader. A flat Calumny will haue
vs to belieue That All thofe venerable Fathers, thofe expert
Doctors, Thole experienced Surgeons, with others alfo who
beheld the Miracle, All I fay, Though they called God to
witneffe by Solemn Oath taken vpon the facred Gofpel, That
the cure was real and Miraculous were notwithſtanding worfe
The just
then very Villains, forfworn, baſe, abiect, and periured Perfons. falsely accus
And this wee muft Affent to, vpon no other proof, but be- fed.
cauſe Malice likes well to Calumniate euer itching to decry
God's own Glorious wonders. Beſides wee muft belieue
thofe high Tribunals where the Miracle was moft rigidly exa-
mined, and after examination vnanimoufly approued, to haue
Rr 3
>
been.
318
Difc. 2. C. 8. The Glorious Miracle
Tribunals
Condemned.
Ly reiected.
The Miracle
proued true.
been ſo notorioufly vniuft, fo impiouſly partial, and wickedly
mifled, as to oblige Pofterity to own vpon humane Faith, à Lie,
an Impofture, In à word, that to be Gods Glorious work (à true
Miracle) which really was not. Is it not impudency think yee
to harbour fuch defperate Thoughts? The Diuel himfelfe
(though Father of lies) would be ashamed to calumniate fo
boldly, without fome Colour or apparence of proof; Yet here
we haue not any.
29. Now I'le proue the Sectaries Affertion to bee à flat Ca-
lumny, and withall further euince the truth of the Miracle. S.
Xauerius, as wee haue heard, afcertain'd Marcellus of his cure, and
likewyfe Prophelyed, that Hee should goe to the Indies and there
dye à Martyr for Chrift. I know Malice may Cavil here, And
deny all. But Mark what followes. Vpon the Affurance of
this Prediction Marcellus Himfelfe, the Reuerend Fathers alfo
and others relyed, when they fo Confidently gaue out, That
The Calum hee should lofe his life at Iapan, and dye à Martyr. Reflect I
befeech you. Had it not been in the higheſt meaſure impru-
dent, nay more than à foolish Prefumption of thoſe Fathers
to haue filled all mens eares with that Prophetical Speech, vpon
meer future vncertainties? The performance whereof, (all know
well) was liable to à thoufand Difafters and Cafualities, in that
immenſe voyage from Europe to the furthest parts of the world. Speak
impartially. How eafily Might Marcellus (none of the ftrongeft
Conſtitutions) haue dyed in the way? What if Pirates had fei-
zed on the Ship, and caft him ouer board? What if the Veffel
had perished by Tempeft with the virtuous Man, and other
Paffengers? How much fcorned would the Fathers haue been,
who certainly were neuer ſo ſtrangely befotted as to expoſe
themfelues and the reputation of their Order to à publick con-
tempt vpon meer Contingencies and weak Coniectures. Hence
I infer, They had by virtue of S. Xauerius Prophefy à
high Moral Affurance of the euent, The Prophefy fpoken
fome years before Marcellus his Martyrdom, was true, And
the real Effect of his death proued it true, neither Diuel nor
Mortal
Diſc. 2. C. 8. Of Saint Xauerius.
319
to come.
Mortal man could certainly foretel Things fo remote, and yet God wrought
God therefore was the Author of that Prediction, the Miracle,
And Confequently His Diuine power by the means of the
Saint, wrought the Miracle.
30. Its high time novv to reaffume vvhat I began vvith,
and faid above. When lewes and Gentils read our fcriptures
which with them may well deferue as much credit as Humane
faith giues to Cæfars Commentaries or any other Hiftory; When
they find in that Sacred book how ftrangely Chriftianity was
firſt eſtablished, and introduced by the virtue of our Sauiours
glorious Wonders. When they fall lower and fee (though
till vpon Humane Faith) an euident Continuance of the very
like Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholick Church through
euery Age. The Conuiction is by good law fo ftrong, the
Proofs for vndeniable Miracles fo manifeft to the dulleft Gen
tile, that He may as well deny (as Lipfius Saith) the Sun to
shine as doubt of thofe moft glorious vifible wonders vnque-
ftionable, in this one Society of Chriftians. And this hold's
true, Although no more but Humane faith refting on moft
Certain Authority inform's vs of thefe Miracles, For fuch à Faith,
as great Diuines Obferue, often comes to fo clear à degree of
Certitude, that you may well call it an vndubitable kind of Euiden-
How certainly do we hold (it is S. Auftins Inftance. lib. 6.
Confess. C. 3.) that we are born of fuch and fuch Parents? How
certainly do we belieue and vpon humane Authority, Saith Suares,
Tom. I. de Incarn : Difp. 31. Sect. 2. That Titus and Vefpafianus
deſtroyed Hierufalem? And can any Cordial man Queſtion, if
He lay preiudice afide but that true and moft glorious Mira-
cles haue been as certainly wrought in the Church,
as that
thoſe two Emperours deftroyed Hierufalem, or that ſuch are
our Parents? I appeal to euery ones Confcience for An-
fwer.
il.
>
31. By all now faid vve fee firft, that vvhat euer can be
propofed againſt our Churches Miracles, hath like force againſt
Chrift's ovvn glorious works. And I challenge Proteftants to
hint
The Proofs
hinted at
aboue, vrged
The weight
of humane
Faith.
320 Dif. 2. C. 8. The Glorious Miracle &c.
Sedaries
iustly repre-
benjible,
And why.
hint but at one Argument which doth not equally ftrike at
both. We fee. 2. How Hideous à Sin Sectaries commit,
who Scornfully flight all thofe known and moft euident Mi-
racles wrought among Chriftians, fince the Apoftles times:
By this their vnworthy Procedure, they rob Chrift's Spouſe of
Her greateſt Glory, falfify His own facred words, Prophefying
of greater wonders than he did, And finally make the Conuer-
fion of levves and Heathens to Chriftianity impoffible. For,
giue me à naked Church vvithout Signes, without Marks,
vvithout Motiues inducing to truth (and the moft conuin-
cing Signe of all, is the Glory of Miracles) Nothing re-
main's propofable to à poor Infidel that's meet to conuince
his Reafon, But the bare letter of Scripture, or the effen-
tial Doctrin of the Church, vvhich folely confidered more
affrights weak Reafon, (naturally auerfe from high Myfte-
ries) than brings it to any Submiffion or Acquiefcency. I
fay therefore the fin of Sectaries is grieuous, Whilft Miracles
are flighted, by doing fo, they flight the Church, yea Chrift
himſelf, and haften apace to Atheiſm.
CHAP.
Difc. 2. C. 9. Obiections against &c.
320
I..
CHAP. IX.
A word to à few Obiections, as alſo to Mr ftilling-
fleets vnworthy Exceptions against that
euident Miracle wrought at
Zaragofa in Spain.
He obiections are as few as fallacious, and cannot be
as
otherwiſe, when, as t'is faid, All of them proue as much
(that's iuft nothing) againſt our Sauiours own Miracles as againſt
thofe of the Koman Catholick Church. To fee this truth inani-
feſted and difficulties vanish into nothing, be pleaſed to afford à
little Attention.
None of vs all know
certain circumſtances,
Miracles, when there-
2. The Sectary may Obiect first.
what ſtrange effects nature can produce in
nor what Povver the Diuel has to work
fore Scripture forwarn's vs. 2. Thefs. 2. Of Antichrifts great
Prodigies, as allo of Falſe-Chrifts and falfe-Prophets appearing
with Signes and wonders. Matt. 24. We may iuftly fufpect, if na-
ture alone cannot doe fuch works, that the Diuel had à hand
in moſt of our Church Miracles. Contra. 1. And You fee
firſt, the Argument Equally oppugn's Chrifts own Miracles, li-
cenceth both lewes and Gentils tofflight him as à falfe-Prophet,
and his glorious vvonders alfo. Contra. 2. Not one of thefe
Falfe-Prophets once raiſed,the dead to life, nor after their own
death did any thing like à Miracle, as the departed Saints of
Gods Church haue done moft frequently by à touch of their
Reliques only, which Truth of ( mighty vveight ) deferues Refle-
xion, and refutes what euer Donatift, or Coniurer can lay in
behalf of counterfeit Miracles. Contra. 3. And obferue well
S s
the
One chicc-
tion.
Found weak
and friuo-
os.
322
Diſc. 2. C. 9. Obiections against
Church
Miracles
aboue the
power of
Dinels,
the Obiection. None knowes what nature or the Diuel can doe &c.
What then I beseech you? May one inferr from our not kno-
wing the Diuels power that this euil Spirit hath actually wrought
all the Miracles recorded in Scripture, and Ecclefiaftical Hiſtory?
To Affert this we muſt not only know how farr his power reaches,
but more haue Affurance alfo Of his actually doing fuch Won-
ders. And thus much (manifeftly improbable) neither is nor
can be afcertained vpon the weakeft Principle within the compass
of nature or grace. We vfually fay, the Diuel appear's with à
Clouen foot, That is, you may eaſily diſcern his Villainy, And we
know he neuer caft's out euil Spirits like Himſelf from poffeffed
Perfons, which yet hath been done and frequently in God's
Church. He can, it is true, if we belieue Hiftory take vp the
Deuided Parts of à dead man and act with them for à while,
But there is no fuch Motion, no fuch Operations in the dead
affumed Corps, as haue been feen in many Miraculouſly restored
to life. Be it how you will, We are fure God can doe, yea and
hath done great Miracles, when therefore all imaginable Circum-
ftances forceably induce vs to belieue that they are his own glo-
rious works, it is I hope more wiſdom to Afcribe them to an
Omnipotent Power, than to Father them vpon Diuels.
3. Some who plainly fee, its à degree of madness to doubt
of fo much humane faith as Teftifies of Miracles wrought in
the Roman Catholick Church grant many haue been done,
But then Obiect. 2. God did them to manifeft that Chrift is
the true Meffias, or to work à Belief in vs of fo much Doctrin
only as is Common to all Chriftians, but not to confirm our
Popish Errours, of Praying to Saints, Purgatory &c. Contra.
This Argument alfo impugn's our Sauiours great Miracles, which
were not wrought (one may fày) to confirm all the Doctrin he
taught, but à Part or parcel of it only. Contra. 2. If Mira-
cles Mark out à Doctrin common to all, or confirm fo much
truth And no more; It feem's ftrange, that Arians, Pelagians and
Proteftants work not Miracles as frequently as the Church
doth, For theſe men own à Doctrin common to all Chriftians,
yet
Difc. 2. C. 9. Miracles, Solued.
323
yet
teaches.
show none of thefe wonders. Contra. 3. There is not one Miracles
Doctrin taught by our Church, (and held erroneous by Sectaries) truly alleged
which is not sealed, Signed, and Attested by euident Miracles. We for every
haue innumerable for Chrifts Real and fubftantial Prefence in the Doctrini he
Eucharift; As many for the Inuocation of Saints, as alfo for the Church
Honour due to holy Reliques. Innumerable proue that third
place of Purgatory &c. All theſe (may good Authors deferue
Credit) are vpon vndoubted Record. And what iuft Exception
haue Sectaries againſt fo great Authority? I'le tell
you. Their
own incredulous Humour. Here is all. Whereas, could they
ſpeak to the cauſe, they should giue vs weight for weight, and
Oppoſe what we Allege (in behalf of Miracles) vpon grounded
Principles. That is, they Should euince pofitiuely that our Au
thors are meer Cheats, and fain´ Stories, when we read of Mira-
cles wrought in confirmation of praying to Saints, the Real Pre-
fence. And this in all law of Difputation they are obliged to
do vpon folid Proofs indeed, diftinct from their own Incre-
dulity, or à meer Saying, Such Records are falfe. But do what
ye will Sectaries can neuer be driuen to difpute vpon Princi-
ples.
S. Auftin
Speak's no.
thing for
4. A third Obiection. S. Austin. Lib. de Vnit: Ecclefia. Saith.
We therefore fay not, we belieue because so many wonders are done all
the world ouer in holy places, for what euer we find in this kind. Ideo
funt approbanda quia in Ecclefiâ Catholicâ fiunt, are to be approued
becauſe they are wrought in the Catholick Church. Hitherto,
Hitherto, alleged
the obiection is of no force, For the Saint only Saies, No against Mi-
new Miracles ought to gain certain credit, But fuch only as are racles
wrought in the Church, or fuch as confirm Her Doctrin, or
finally haue the Churches Approbation. Now becauſe he difpu-
tes againſt the Donatifts, and fuppofeth the Church known
vpon other grounds expreffed in Scripture, Her Vnity Chiefly and vni-
uerfal extent ouer the world, before thefe latter Miracles were heard
of. Let us, Saith S. Auſtin, waue this Plea of Miracles (you
Donatifts allege yours, and I mine) and Argue by Scripture only,
and fee what Church Scripture commend's antecedently known,
Ss 2
before
Sectaries.
324
Difc. 2. C. 9. Obiections against.
How the
Sains plea.
ded against
the Dona
tifts.
Why Hee
Daned the
proof of Mia
racles with
the Dona-
gifts.
before thefe latter Miracles came to our knowledge. Which
is to fay, though the after Particular Miracles added to others
formerly done, may much ftrengthen our Faith, yet abfolutly
Speaking, Faith depend's not of them, Becauſe the Church we belieue
in is fufficiently manifefted by Her Vnity, Perpetuity, and Vmuer-
fallity expreffed in Scripture. Hac funt caufa nostra documenta, hac
firmamenta. Here in lies all we haue to Say, Whilft we conteft
with you Donatifts that own Scripture with vs, yet Cauil at our
Miracles. Who euer read's this one Chapter exactly And dra-
wes any other fenfe from the whole Context than what is now
briefly hinted at, will much oblige me may he pleafe to diſco-
uer it.
5. One yet may Obiect. S. Auftin Saith more, and it ſeem's
much againft vs. Non ideo ipfa manifeftatur Catholica quia hac in ea
fiunt. The Catholick Church is not vpon that Account manifested to you
Donatifts, becauſe theſe Miracles are wrought in it. I Anfwer. 1.
The words vnderftood as Sectaries interpret Euert as wholly
the Miracles of our Sauiour, who faid. If you will not belieue me,
belieue my Works. 2. The Sectaries fenfe impugn's alfo the exprefs
Doctrin of S. Auftin. de Viilit. Credendi. C. 17. Where He Afferts
that Hereticks are condemned by the Maiefty of Miracles. Befi-
des, Their fenfe is nothing to the purpofe, becaufe in this very
Paffage He ſpeak's of latter Miracles known to S. Ambroſe at
Millan, And Saith, Hee will no more infift on Thefe, than permit
the Donatifts to talk of their Falfe-vifions; For the Church is.
fufficiently manifefted without them vpon à Surer Principle (the
Holy Scripture) which the Donatiſts admitted, and therefore
whilft They pretended to Miracles as well as S. Auftin did, Hee
prudently waued that Difcours, and Argued by Scripture only,lea-
uing Miracles to their own worth and weight. I Say to their
evvn vreight, which is gathered from this great Doctors Dif
courfe.
6. Our Lord Iefus, faith be, arose from the dead, and manifested Himfelf
to his Diſciples and offered bis facred body to be touched by their hands,
Jet, leaſt that might be thought à fallacy, he iudged it meet to confirm
bia
Difc. 2. C. 9. Miracles Solued.
325
The trus
his Reſurrection more Principally by the Teftimony of the law, the Prophets
and Palms, showing All things were now accomplished in him.
Whence I inferr, as the touching his Sacred body was Proof
enough, though not the chiefeft of his Refurrection, when Scrip-
ture was at hand to make that moft manifeft; So Miracles allo
wrought in the Church manifeft that Oracle but not Principally Reason
to the Donatifts, who ought to haue belieued more firmly the ginen.
Churches Doctrin vpon that one potent Proof of the Apoftle.
1. Tim:3. 15. The Pillar and ground of Truth, than for all the
latter wonders done in the Church. Yet theſe haue à mighty
force and are ftronge Inducements, fo far as Motiues can reach
but not the chief and Principal cause of any mans Belief, or Affent. Read
then S. Austin's words thus. The Church is not made manifeft
by her latter Miracles to à Donatift who Cauils at fuch wonders,
but Principally by Scripture which he admit's, and will like Prote-
ftants be tryed by, You haue the Saints full Senfe and à great
Truth with it, whereof there can be no doubt at all, when. Lib.
Contra Epift: Fundament:. C. 4. 5. He Demonftrat's the Church
by Her Miracles.
>
7. To end this point between S. Auffin and the Donatift, as
alló between Catholicks and Proteftants, I fay all Controuerfies
are fully tried and happily ended by Scripture only. But how?
Not becaufe any can pretend to find euery Tenet of Faith clearly
fet down in fo many express Terms of holy Writ, For the Pro- How Scrip-
teftant pretend's not to fo much in behalf of his Doctrin, But ture decides
thus the Orthodox difcourfes with S. Austin. Scripture euidently all Contro-
points at the Church of IESVS Chrift known by Her Marks and ma- uerfies,
nifest signes, by Her Antiquity, Her large Spread ouer the Whole world,
by the Succeßion of Her Pastors and Doctors, Miracles, and the like Sig-
nal Motiues. Thus much once clearly laid forth in the written
Word, that Holy Book remit's him to the Church Clearly
marked, commend's Her, faith S. Austin, and command's him to
hear and learn what euer She teaches.
8. Whence it is, that our profound Doctor Difputing the
Cafe, whether the Baptized by Hereticks were to be rebapti-
Ss3
zed,
326
Difc. 2. C. 9. Obiections against.
zed, laboured not to decide the Queſtion by any exprefs words in
holy Scripture (wholly filent in this particular) But contrarywife
teaches, that the Church which is diffufed all ouer (and no
Party of Donatifts shut vp in à corner of Afrique) was to giue
Sentence herein, For She is that great Oracle, which Scripture
commend's. Read Lib. 2. de Bapt. C. 4. And de Vnit: Eccles. C. 22.
Thus briefly you ſee the true difference between the Proteftant
and Catholick, The firft has not à word of Scripture for his
Tenets, much less any Orthodox euidenced Church. The Catho-
The Catho- lick relies on à Church ſpread the whole world ouer, known by
licks ftronge Miracles, Conuerfions &c. And Scripture command's him firmly
to belieue what euer She Propofes as Faith.
bold.
A fourth
Obiection
folued.
Qui vos audit me audit.
Whoeuer hears the Church hears Chrift, And in this Senfe Scrip-
ture manifefting Gods own Oracle, which cannot but propofe
truth, end's all Controuerfies.
9. A 4th Obiection. Iulian the Apoftata as S. Gregory Na-
zian. Orat. 1. in Iulian: And Theoder: Lib: 3. Hifto. C. 3. atteft,
droue away Diuels with the Sign of the Cross, Therefore wic-
ked men can doe Miracles. And why may not Almighty God
for Reaſons beft known to his infinite wifdom do ftrange won-
ders, and permit an Arian to Say, All are wrought to Confirm
his falfe Doctrin. Contra. Both Parts of the Obiection equally
impugn the Primitiue Miracles of Chrift and the Apoftles. To
the firſt I anſwer. An Heretick may work à Miracle to proue
Catholick Doctrin, but neuer to make his own Falfe Opinion
probable. The Reafon is. God who is Truth and Goodnes
it felf, can no more deceiue by his oven VVorks, than by his ovvn
VVords. Sicut humana confuetudo faith S. Austin. Epift: 49. verbis
Diuina potentia, etiam factis loquitur. As man fpeak's by words, fo
God fpeak's by his works. But the Works or Wonders now
Spoken of becauſe fupernatural proceed from God, And as is
more deceiue fuppofed deceiue, Therefore it ill befeem's an Infinit Truth and
by his oven Goodnes to do them. Vpon this Ground I fay likewife, Di-
by by words. uine Prouidence will neuer permit his own glorious Works
(Seals and Signes of Truth) to be abufed by wicked men. But
Cod ean no
Works then
of
Diſc. 2. 327
2. C
C 9. Miracles Solved.
10.
of this particular I intend to ſpeak more largely hereafter.
Wee now Come to Mr. Stillingfleets Cauils you haue
fome of them. Part. 1. C. §. p. 134. And 135. Where he doth not
fo much, impugne Miracles as would haue them done by fuch
Perfons as he likes well of; Popes for example, that pretend to
infallibility. And if (which is eafy) we produce many wrought
by Holy Popes, His next Querie perhaps may be. Why all
all of them are not Miraculous men alike? In à word I like
not to fearch into the depth of Gods fecret Counſel, And there-
fore briefly difcourfe of perfons fauoured with fuch Graces, as S.
Auftin doth of different Places. Tom, 2. Epift. 137 to his Clergy
and people at Hippe, where he propofeth this Queftion. Quare
in alijs locis bæc miracula fiant & non in alijs: Why are Miracles done
in fome places and not in others? VVe haue known some wrought at
Millan: In Africa though full of Saints Bodies, not fo? He return's this
wife Anfwer grounded on the Apoftles wotds. 1. Cor. 12. Non om-
nes Sancti &c, All faints haue not the Gift of curing diſeaſes,
difcern not fpirits, ita nec in omnibus memoris Sanctorum. &c. So God
who divides his Graces according to his own beft will, doth not
theſe wonders at the Memory of euery Saint. And who dare en-
ter into his fecret Counfel, or afk why he doth fo? Why raiſed
he three dead men by S. Dominick, and not one we know of by
S. Auftin? Dividit propria unicuique prout vult, He is Lord and di-
ftributes his own fauours as he pleafeth. And thus we Anfier Mr.
Stillingfleet who next Saith fome thing of Miracles done in Corners.
What can the man mean? Are all the wonders wrought at Loreto
Compostella, Sichem and other places feen to innumerable, and
All vpon certain record to be callid Corner Miracles? Be pleafed to
hear worse yet.
all
11. Page 135. Think not faith Mr. Stillingfleet VVe are of ſuch
eaſy faith, that the pretended growing out of à leg in Spain, or any of
your famous Miracles wrought by your Priests in Italie will perfvvade vs
to believe your Church infallible. Again, after his Talk of Diuels
doing no feats when Oppofers are by, He utters this fcornful lan-
guage. It is an eafy thing for à Stump to grow à leg in its paffage from
Spain
Mr Stilling-
fleets Cauils
answered.
And first
why God
works Mira-
cles by fome,
and not
by others.
Mr Stilling-
fleets unjust
exceptions
against the
328
Difc. 2. C. 9. Obiections against.
Miracle
wrought at
Zaragofa.
Testimonies
of that Stu-
pendious
Miracle,
à
Spain hither, For fama crefcit eundo. And in deſpite of Truth, caft's
out too much bitter venom to obfcure à Glorious work of
God, wrought by the Interceffion of our Bleffed Lady vpon
young man at Cæfar Augufta or Zaragofa in Spain (where you haue
her miraculous Statua Set on à Marble Pillar And for that reafon
is called, Neutra Sennora del Pilari) It is one of the moft euident
and cleareft Miracles vvhich I belieue hath been done in the
memory of any man now liuing. I haue the whole Printed
Relation by me both Latin and Dutch, vvritten by Peter Neurat
Doctor of Philick, and dedicated to his Excellence Don Fran-
cifco Marquis of Caretto and Grana, Embaffador Extraordinary
from the Emperour to His Catholick Maiefty. The Subſtance
whereof is thus.
12. Ego ab Cafaraugusta Venio &c. I come from Zaragosa and
bring tydings of à Miracle not heard of in any age.
A young man had
his leg cut of and buried, which was Miraculously restored again, by
the Interceßion of the most Sacred virgin. My Lord, I here present you
with a Gift it is not mine, but our Bleffed Ladies, to whom immor-
tal thanks are due for the fauour. Giuen at Madrid 1bid. Mart.
Anno 1642. I haue befides the Licence of the Vicar General,
Don Gabriel de Aldama appointing the whole Narration to be
Printed, which begins. Nos el Licenciado Confultor del Santo of
ficio &c. Subfcribed.
Lic. D. Gabriel de Aldama.
And vnderwritten. Por fu mandado
Martin de Lual Notario
13. Yet more. I haue the Atteftation of Hieronimus Bri-
zids, who had order from the Vicar General to pervfe and
cenfure the vvhole Relation prefented to the faid Vicar, Den
Gabriel de Aldama. Legi(faith he) libellum de ftupendo Miraculo no-
ftro feculo inaudito Diua Vaginis de Pilari, quod verum effe ftio &c. I
base read the little book, concerning that stupendious and ftrange Mi-
racle
Difc. 2. C.
9.
Miracles Solued.
329
racle in this our Age of our Bleſſed Lady of Pilari, which I know to
be true, I knew the youth at Cafaraugusta, or Zaragosa, when he had but
one leg, and there begged Almes at the Church door, I saw him after-
Doards at Madrid, whither he came at the command of hu Catho-
lick Maiefty, and saw him going on both leggs. I saw the Mark,
Which the Blessed Virgin bad left, where the leg was cut of, And not
only 1, but all the Fathers of the Imperial Colledge bebeld this (I might
add vpon certain Relation innumerable other Eye-witneſſes and
of noble Men too, then in the court of Spain) I knevv the young
mans Parents, I knevv the Chirurgion that cut of the leg. Giuen at
Madrid. 12. Mart. 1642. Vnderwritten.
Hieronimus Brigids.
> thelick
Maiesty.
14. We may add herevnto the Approbation of F. Iofeph Crefpo, The licence
Prior of S. Martins Monaftery in Madrid, who knew, as he faith, of His Ca-
this Miracle to be most true, and witnelled it vnder his own
hand. 4. Martij. 1642. Laftly. Facultas Regia, or his Catho-
lick Maiefties Licence, is thus annexed. Signata à D. Auguftino
de Arteaga & Cannizares, Scriba Camera Regia. You shall fee
fently how rigidly the Miracle was examined, and afterward
approued by the Lord Arch-Bishop of Zaragofa. The parti-
culars whereof are briefly as follow.
pre-
VUAS ?
15. This young man called Michael Ioannes Pellicer about nine- Who this
teen years of age,
was born at Calanda à Village in Aragon,Son young man
to Michael Pellicer à Husbandman, and Mary Blaſco, Inhabitants
of that Village. Whilft he ferued his Vncle Iames Blasco, His right
being in à Cart loaden with wheat, by chance fell down, and leg broken.
one of the wheels ran ouer his right leg, and broke it. His
Vncle and Friends being poor Conueyed him firſt to the Hof
pital at Valentia, where remedies were applyed, but without
fuccess. Thence brought to the great Hofpital at Zaragosa,
Hee was Committed to the care of Iohn de Estanga à moft ex-
pert' Surgeon and publick Profeffor of Phifick, who finding the
legw holly rotten cut it of four fingers below the knee, and bu-
Tt
ried
He was
Carried to
the great
Hospital at
Saragofa.
His leg cut
offing hs.
3:30
Difc. 2. C. 9. Obiections against
Was Mira
culously re-
florea.
ried it. When the wound was fome what healed; the lame man
went on Crutches to our Ladies Church, and there both beg-
ged Almes, and earneſtly implored the Bleffed Virgins fauorable
Affiftance. He was well known to all there for the ſpace of
two whole years. In the year of our Lord 1640. He went
back to his Parents at Calenda, and going vp and down as well as
he could begged fuftenance for Himſelf, and poor Parents.
16. On the 19. day of March. Anno 1640. well wearied
with gathering vp Hay fitting with his Father, Mother, and
two others, he laid afide his crutch and went to bed. About
à 11. of the Clock that night, his Mother entring the chamber
where he was, found one in the bed with two feet, and fufpecting
him to be fome fouldier (for then à whole troop lodged in the
Village) prefently ran to her Husband who came in, knew his fon.
well, wakened him out of fleep.
17. On à fudden the yet not too well awaked youth, brake
forth into theſe words. I dreamed I was in our Ladies Chappel of
Pilari, and annointed my leg with the oyle of the Lamp burning there.
The poor Father ouerioyed replyed Render, my Child, immor-
tal thanks to God, our Bleffed Lady hath reftored thee thy leg..
Hitherto, the youth before his Father fpake reflected not on the
Miracle. All this noyfed abroad, drew in many Eye - witneſſes
that night, and the next day more, who accompanied the young
man to the Church, where, to the end all might behold the
cle diuulged. Miracle, His foot, which yet ftood much wrefted to one fide, came
before à Multitude of people to its ovvn natural Pofture, and
thoſe who faw him the day before wanting one leg, obferued him
now walking ſtrongly on two, found and whole.
The Mira-S
18. Thus much noted by à publick Scribe and ſpread abroad,
foon after called the youth to Cæfaraugufta, Where he had his
Iudges affembled, witneffes examined, Lawyers pleading and the
was rigidly whole cauſe mofl rigidly difcuffed. All which performed, The
moft Illuftrious Lord Arch-Bishop of Zaragofa, D. Petro Apao-
The sentence laza, publickly gaue Sentence the 27. day of April. Anno 1642.
finally given that the reftoring of that leg was à Work aboue the force of na-
examined,
ture,
Difc. 2. C. 9. 'Miracles Solued.
33 €
19.
nature, and therefore might without doubt be deferuedly eſtee-
med, A prodigious Miracle. Thofe who attefted the fame, after
due examination, and fubfcribed their names were as follow.
Don Antonio Xauirre Prior of S. Chriftina. D. Ioannes
Perat official of the Metropolitan Church at Zaragoca. Don Subſcribed
Virto de Vera Archdeacon there. Don Ioan Plano à Frago by many.
alfo Official. D. Philip Bardaxi Interpreter of the facred Ca-
nons. D. Didacus Chueça Canon of Cæfar augufta. D. Mar-
tinus Irribarne Canon and Reader there. F. Bartholomeus
Foyas Prouincial of S. Francis order. F. Antonius Ortin Pro-
uincial of the Minims of S. Francis de Paula. D. Dominicus
Cebrian, the firft Reader of Diuinity at Zaragofa. The fen-
tence giuen, was published and declared by great Doctors of the
Canon and Ciuil law, D. Aegidius Fufter; and Michael Cypres à
publick Notory alfo. It was figned by D. Antonius Albert Zaporta
the Apoftolical Notary, and chief fcribe of the Ecclefiaftical
Court at Cæfar Augufta, D. Thomas Tamayo de Vargas the
Kings Hiftoriographer of Spain and the Indies has published it Spanish
in his Annals extant in the Spanish language, Printed at Al- Annals.
cala.
Published.
And now
extant in the
the Relation
20. The Relation end's thus. Videant hæretici an hoc tam fa-
cilé &c. Let Hereticks look well to it, whether they can as easily
flight this, and other ftrange Miracles done in our time among the In. The end of
dians, as they fcorn the restoring of S. Iohn Damafcens hand at the
Intercession of our Bluffed Lady. This we norr (peak of, is Teftifyed by
Eye-Wien Jes. Both Spaniards and French vvere Spectators. The vrhole
cause lafted long vnder à moft feuere Examination, and finally to make
the Glorious vvorks of God knovvn, Sentence vvas luridically pronounced
by à vvorthy Arch-Bishop as is novy faid. Quod fi rei tam nota con-
tradicere aufint. And if Sectaries jet dare contradict so manifest à
Verity. Quis illos &c. who is there that vvill not look on them.
As impudent, and lift them among incredulous lewes?
21. Yet our Mr Stillingfleet, forfooth, Shifts all off with à
Ieer. It is an eafy thing for à Stump to grovv à leg, in its paffage
from Spain hither. What will not this man write to his petty
Tt 2
purpofe
332
c.
Difc. 2. C. 9. Obiections against
Mr Stilling.
fleets cheat,
and open
fraud.
What's re-
quired of
Him?
purpoſe ift come in his way? What will he not pare away
and add to à Story remote from the knowledge of the vulgar
(His book is full of fuch fraud) Will he not think ye, fay any
thing before the illiterate and ignorant, in the high Myſteries of
Faith, whilft he blushes not to cheat and deceiue his Reader in à
matter of Fact Notoriously known to the world? If he thinks-
I haue forged this Relation, Hee shall haue the very indiuidual
Copy I made vfe of fent him, the Bulk is not big. If he doubt's
of the Authority of thefe witneffes already produced, and fay
yet all is à Fourb, I'll fay as eafily, I am fooled in belieuing
there is fuch à man in the world as Mr Stillingfleet whom I ne-
uer faw, And next will force him to exchange Principles with
me à little. You Sir fay its à fourb, à pretended, no real Cure.
I fay Contrary, The Cure was real and à great Miracle. Proue
now you Your Affertion vpon as good Humane Authority as I
haue proued mine And we come to Principles, fit to decide
in the preſent Matter. Fail to do this, your Affertion hath not
fo much as one leg to ftand on, befides fancy, or fomething.
worſe.
CAHT X
Difc. 2. C. 10. Other Marks of &c.
333
CHAP. X.
Other Marks and Signes, peculiar to the Roman Catho-
lick Church proue her Orthodox, And make Her Do-
Etrin euidently credible. Theſe laid forth to Senfe
and Reaſon, distinguish the true Church
from all Erring Societies Infe
rences drawn from the Doctrin
Here deliuered.
1.
Ery little may fuffice, concerning the first part of the
Title, our Catholick Authors hauing done the work to
my hands whilft they treat moft largely and learnedly, of the
Amplitude, and Vniuerfallity, of the Roman Catholick Church,
of the continued and Succeffion of Her Bishops, Paftors, and peop -
le, of Her Vnity in one and the fame Faith, of Her Sanctity, of
the efficacy of Her Doctrin in conuerting whole Nations to Chriſt,
which S. Auſtin juſtly hold's miraculous. The Largeneſs of this
great moral Body (rightly called by Sectaries à growing Religion
which no perfecution of Tyrants could hitherto fuppres) For time,
extends it felf without difpute to all paff'd Ages fince Chrift,
if we ſpeak of place, the growth fucceffively, was fo great, That,
In omnem terram exivit fonus eorum, it hath been preach'd with im-
menfe fruit to all Nations, Anſwerable to that of the Royal Pro-
phet. Pfalm. 2. where the eternal Father fpeaking to Chrift our
Lord, as man, giues him an ample Kingdome, fpread all ouer for
his Poffeffion. Ask of me and I will gue the Gentils for thy Inheritance,
and thy Poßeßion, the laft ends of the earth,
And The Larger
2. Hence we firft diftinguishthe Church of Chrift from the lewish
Synagouge, limitated to one time, (till the comming of our true
Tt3
Mellias)
eff
of the
Catholicks
Church.
334
Difc. 2. C.10. Other Marks
shes Her.
fromall false
lets.
:
Meffias ) And to one place alfo, For the Sacrifice effential to that
Religion, could not be offered but in the Temple of Hierufalem
only. We diftinguish both Church, and Doctrin likewife from
Diflingui. Mabumatism, Nestorianism, Eutychianifm, and other Herefies in
the Eaſt, which neuer got any confiderable footing in theſe Wc-
ftern
parts of Europe Finally we diftinguish it from Lutheranism,Cal-
vianism, and Protestanism, à confufed Mixture of both and other late
Doctrins. Thefe and their diffenting Heads ftay in our Nort-
hin Climats, without fruit or Progrefs made into Afia, Affrica, Gree-
ce, or the like remote Countries, wherefore fome doubt not to
auerr, and moſt truely, That the Holy Orders of S. Dominick,
of S. Francis, and of the Society of Jefus are further fpread, more
diffuſed through the world at this day, than all the Sects or Subdi-
uifions of Proteftants euer yet were, or I think will be. But the
Kingdome of Chrift's Church, as Tertullian Cited aboue. Chap.
The Ampti. 1. n. 6. well obferues, Vbique regnat, reignes euery where, and is
tude of
euery where belieued, Nor can thefe latter Sectaries now in an
Christ's
aged world, hope to Propagate further; For if S. Auftin. De Vnit.
Keingdome, Eccle. C. 14. Thought it enormously improbable, that Donatiſm
then fo early, could diffuſe it felfe the whole world ouer, much
lefs can our confined Proteftants very late Teachers after fo many
Centuries, when Herefy euery where lyes à gafping, Hope to draw
forreign Nations to à Belief of their Nouelties.
Proteftancy
increaſes
mot. And
why.
3. The reafon à Priori is. A greater extent, à further increaſe
feem's inconſiſtent with the very Nature of thoſe who profeffe this
Religion, For once liuing in the Vine, and drawing Nutriment from
thence, they wilfully cut them felves off, and feparated from the
Church, Therefore as S. Auſtin ſaith they lie where they are, Withe-
ring, and dying,without Luftre, or any Enlargement. Again, as they
began this new learning without Gommiffion to teach,So they can
fend none hereafter Authoritatiuely, to fpread it further. Hence
I Argue, That Church only is Chrift's true Spoufe which euer
was from the firſt Rife of Chriftianity, and fucceffiuely got Poffef
in the four Parts of the world, But thus the Roman Catholick
Church was, and is Still diffuſed (here is Chrift's promiſed Inheri-
tance)
Diſc 2. C. 10. Of the Catholick Church. 335
tance) Therefore She is the only true Church. Contrarywife,
the narrow, confined, and iarring multitudes of Sectaries fcatte-
red vp and down in à few corners in Europe, All late Beginners,
and shameful Defertors of this Ancient Society, neuer had fo am
ple an inheritance, and Confequently Their pretence of being
the true Church of Chrift is more than improbable.
The fuccef-
Sion of Law.
ful Paflors,
urged.
4. VVe may yet fubioyn to the Amplitude of our Religion the
euer viſible and neuer interrupted Succeffion of Bishops, and
Paftors, in the Roman Catholick Church from Chrifts time.
A Mark no leff euident to ſenſe, than openly deſtructiue of He-
refy. This fucceffion long fince Prophefied by Daniel. Cap. 2.
Christ Kingdom shall neuer be difsipated, and foretold by the Apoſtle
Ephef. 4. 1, He gaue fome Apostles &c. Sett's forth the Glory of it.
VVe need not in this place, to weary the Reader with the known
Authority of S. Auftin pofitiuely Afferting. Contra Epift. fundam.
C. 4. That the Succeffion of Paftors from, S. Peters time held him
in the Catholick Church and the Argument is more fully urged
again. Lib. de utilit. Credendi C. 17. VVee need not tell any
with S. Cyprian. Epift. 76. That, that man is not in the Church,
nor can be thought à Bishop who fucceeds to none, but hath
his Authority and Origen from himſelf. Theſe and other for-
ceable Teftimonies we waue, and urge Sectaries, as the ancient
Tertullian did the Hereticks of his time; Lib. de prafc. Evolvant ordi-
nem Epiſcoporum fuorum &c. Let them vnfold the Catalogue of
their Bishopr from this day to Luther, and from Luther vpward,
and here we call not for Huits, VValdenfes or fuch like men, but
for à continued deſcent of Bishops, and Paftors, Lawfully ordai-
ned, and commiffioned by Authority to preach Proteftancy; VVe
call indeed but hear of none, before the daies of that vnfortu- baue mons.
nate Luther. Therefore as I faid aboue, they are fons without
Fathers, they would be thought fpiritual Children, but are fo
vnbegotten that no body own's them.
5. Reflect à little, Gentle Reader, and ceafe not to wonder
at the greateſt Paradox, I think, that euer entred into the
thought of man. Holy Scripture Afcertains vs, that Prouiden-
ce
Protestants
336
Difc. 2. C. 10. Other Marks
}
maintened
by Sectaries,
ce hath appointed Bishops to gouern his Church, Paftors and
A Paradox Doctors to teach till the Confummation of Saints, for the edifying
of Chifts Mystical body. The Roman Catholick Church gives
in Her Catalogue of Bishops, and Paſtors, euer ſince Chrift.
The firft Apoftolical Paftors receiued their learning from an In-
fallible Maſter, God and man, Thefe conueyed it to their Suc-
ceffors, They to others, till this very age, And to proue that
They both kept and faithfully conueyed the fame Doctrin wit-
hout Change or Alteration, you haue not only Church Autho-
rity, the greateſt on earth, but more Gods own feal fet to this
Doctrin, Chrift's owne fignes and Marks, Miracles, vndeniable
Miracles, Conuerfions of nations &c. Now ftart vp à knot of late
vnknown ſtrangers called Proteftants, without Bishops, without
Paſtors, for 1. Ages, Thefe pretend to haue receiued new letters,
new learning from Jefus Chrift, That is an other ſenſe of Scrip-
ture, than was formerly deliuered, This Letter is read, This
learning is published to the world. VVe Afk what lawful Paſtors
taught it four Centuries fince? VVhat ancient Church owned it?
They Anſwer none. VVe demand again, To haue at leaſt à
propofed to fight of God's Seal fet to this Letter, fome vifible Marks of
Chrift, Miracles for example, to make the doctrin accepted.
They haue not any. Ergo lay wee The letter is forged, the Doctrin
is falſe, uneuidenced, improbable.
Demands
Sectaries.
No Answer
gisen
6. All that's pleadable againſt this Difcourfe is, That our Do-
&trin once confeffedly Orthodox, was changed by the Church in
after Ages. Anfw. VVe are both willing and ready to difcufs,
and that moſt rigidly this particular with Proteftants, but before
hand give them one Caueat. Viz. That no Topicks, but found
Principles enter here, or be the laft Probation. If then wee pro-
duce and moſt euidently, à lift of our Bishops and Paftors euer
fince Chriſt, as Witneſſes of our Faith. They are to do as much,
and produce as many for Proteftancy. If we, as we do, euer
force Sectaries to name fome known Orthodox Society of Chri-
ſtians, that condemned our Doctrin in any Age, they are obli-
ged to vnbeguile vs, and show vs where, or when, or by whom,
we
Difc. 2. C. 10. of the Catholick Church.
337
What fecta-
ries are
we were condemned. If finally we vnexceptionably euidence
moft glorious Miracles to haue illuftrated our Church, euen after
Her fancied Falling from the Primitiue truth, after she became
the whore of Babylon, our new men muft either deny her fuch
Miracles (if fo, we vrge them to ground the denial on Principles forced to
equal to our contrary Probations) or will certainly be forced grant.
to confefs, That God Wrought Miracles in à Church, which bad brought
in shameful Errours and quite forfaken the Primitiue Doctrin. Obferue
well the force of our Argument. Its improbable to ſay, That
God fauoured this Church with the Glory of Miracles, Had
She falfifyed His reuealed truths. And it is as wholly impro-
bable to deny Her the Glory of Supernatural wonders. Sectaries
worn-out Obiections are not worth taking notice of. Some
oppoſe the Greeks, though now not of the Church, pretending
to à Succeffion. We answer if the Pretext be true, Their cauſe
vpon that Account is better than Proteftants, But withall ſay,
though Succeffion bee euer.neceffary to demonftrate the
Church, yet it followes not, where we haue it, There is the Church,
For Other Errours may vndoe all, And de facto Vnchurch the
Greeks, guilty and condemned in three General Councils.
See Bellarmine de Notis Ecclefia. Lib. 4. Cap. 8. 6. fecundo.
7. Enough is faid aboue, and in the other Treatife alfo. Difc.
1. C.10. n. 4. 12. of the Vnion and Sanctity of our Church.
Vnion in Faith the greateſt Bleffing hearts can defire, afferted
by S. Hierome Epist. 57. ad Damafum (Those are prophane who
eate not the lambe in the Roman Catholick Church) And innumerable
other Fathers, knit's together this whole Moral Body amongſt
fo many different Nations, different judgements, different man-
ners, different Education, different times, different places, from
one end of the world to the other. All belieue as the Pope
himſelf belieues, or is no Member of this Church, And here
is our Glory. Wheras, if on the other fide, we caft à forrowful
thought vpon all the Hereticks who from the beginning rent
themfelues from the Roman Church, we shall find Diuifions,
and fubdiuifions (Foreruners of Ruin) endlefly following, which
V v
ar
Vnity à
Mark of the
Church,
Vsterly
destroyed by
Sectaries.
338
Difc. 2. C. 10. Other Marks
Mr. Thorn-
at laft deſtroyed them. From one Luther, as Bellarmin now
cited obferues. Cap. 10. à hundred Herefies fprouted vp, And
fince his time there are more added to that number in our
once moft Catholick England. He that can take meaſure faith
dicke true Mr. Thorndicke, in his late little Book of Forbearance. P.33.
Obferuation
how much of common Chriftianity is loft by thefe Divifions
in thirty years time fince our troubles began, euen among
them that call them felues Godly and Saints, will easily belieue
that it (he means Chriftianity) hath not long to live in that Ifland,
vnlefs Diuifion be put to death.
Englands
Diuifion
remedilefs
vvithout
returning to
the Roman
Catbolick
Church.
S. A iuft iudgement of God vpon them, pointed at by
the Prophet Ifay. Cap. 19. 2. I will make the Egyptians to run
against Egyptians, and à man shall fight against his Brother: euery
man against his friend, Citty against Citry and Kingdom against
Kingdom. Such confufion fuch an Abomination of defolation we
fee now ſtanding in that once holy Nation (Hee that reads
let him vnderstand) which might iuftly draw teares of blood
from Compaſsionate Eyes, Were it not that as S. Hilary
notes, Bellum hæreticorum pax eft Ecclefia. The Diffenfions
of Hereticks brings peace to the Church: This fome what
affwages our Grief, and ftint's our teares. But the Euil
is defperate and incurable, do what Sectaries can, without
returning to the Church of Rome which caufelefly they haue
forfaken. And thus much Mr. Thorndicke feem's to Affert ૐ.
though I know not very well what he mean's by the Roman
Catholick Church. He Adds more. P.127. We (They in England)
are in the State of Schifm in spite of our teeth, Though we are to
clear our felues of the crime of fchifm vpon the Terms ferled. S. no
Terms excogitable shall clear you from that crime, or
bring you to Settlement, But à perfect Revnion with the ancient
and prefent church of Rome, Whereof enough is faid both
in this, And the other Treatife.
or euer
9. To fpeak in this place of the Churches Sanctity, whether
we confider the Purity of Doctrin, or the Eminent Holynes of
innumerable profeffing her Faith, would require volumes. I fay
in
Difc. 2. C. 10. of the Catholick Church.
339
Catholick
in à word, neither Heathen nor Sectary, though cauils are raifed Sanctity
againſt the Orthodoxifm of our Doctrin, could yet iuftly tax Eminent is
it of too much liberty giuen to Chriftians. We, contrary to the Roman
the inclination of nature,faft when Sectaries feaſt;we humbly confefs Church.
our Sins to à Prieft, they shake of that obligation. Our Church
forbid's Marriage to the clergy allowed to Minifters. We in
fpiritual Affaires fubmit to one Supreme Head of the Church,
They acknowledge no fubmiffion to any in points of Belief,
but to their own Fancy. We are vnited together in one Ancient
Catholick Faith and execrate all Divifions, They are endlefly
deuided in their Nouelties. We fet à high value vpon the pious
laudable works of iuft men, They eſteem all as fordid and finful.
We fay God inforceth no man to Sin, they as Caluin confeffes,
make him both Author and caufe of it. I might yet inftance
in à hundred other particulars, But t'is needles. The whole world
fee's that Catholicks, ftrengthned by the Grace of God, contrary
to their intereſt, and natural Propenfions, euen for conscience fake,
Profeſſ and practile more Aufterity, Pray more diligently, faft Not fo with
oftner, obferue the lawes of the Church more exactly, And
finally doe greater works of Charity than Sectaries either think
neceffary, or hold Themfelues obliged to by virtue of their Reli-
gion. I fay by vertue of their Religion which binds to nothing but only
to Believe (though no man knowes what) and confequently giues
fo much liberty in other matters that it makes the Profeffors
thereof Libertins. Moft vniuftly therefore doe our new men
call Proteftancy the reformed Religion, (valefs by an Antiphrafis
or contrary way of speaking) when God knowes, it reforms
nothing, but contrariwife allowes more then enough relaxation
to Corrupted nature. Whence I infer A thing fo Indulgent as
Proteftancy is cannot be from God, who will haue us to curb
Senfuallity, and vpon that account the Profeffors of it feem very
vnfit to reforme the Doctrin of the Church, were any thing
amifs, whilft the y leaue manners fo notorioufly Vnreformed,
releaſing all from the burthen of fuch Duties, as Chriftians haue
practifed from the Beginning.
V v 2
10. Be
Sectaries.
Protefancy
mifcalled, à
Reformed
Religion,
340
Difc. 2. C. 10. Other Marks
The truth
10. Be pleaſed to reflect à little. We haue, thanks be to
God, in the Romam Catholick Church many Holy Religious
Orders, as Benedictans, Dominicans, Franciſcans &c. All had their
declared by feneral Founders moft eminent in Sanctity and neuer medled
two inflances with mending Church Doctrin, knowing well that was found
and orthodox, But contrariwife endeauored to better the world
by their Prayers, Preaching, inceffant labours,and virtuous Example.
Suppofe now any of thefe had called their Order à reformed
Religion and brought Chriftians by that Reformation to greater
Liberty to more Senfuality, than was practifed before Their
Prayers and Preaching; Would not all moft deferuedly haue
accounted their Labours mifpent and worth nothing? Suppofe
again that any one would begin to Inftitute à Religious Family,
with thefe or the like Iniunctions. All of them may Marry,
prouided they keep Coniugal Chastity, All may faft but when the
humour takes them, All may profefs Pouerty, but experience no-
thing of the hardship. All may obey but in greater matters only,
not in others, freely left to their choife. Would not fuch à
Founder vainly pretend to Reformation, that laies no
Chriftian Duties on any? Would not euery man look om
him as One that peruerts Religion, and laugh at his folly? This
is the cafe in our Proteftants mending matters. Therefore I
fay once more the Reformation is not from God, but à humane
and very fenfual Inuention. Enough is noted already both here
Conuerfion and in the other Treatife of the Efficacy of our Catholick Doctrin
of Nations à Demonftrable to our Eyes and Senfes, in the Conuerfions of
great Mira- Nations to Chrift. Maximum Miraculum Saith S. Thomas 1. Con.
dle.
á
more
Gent. C.6. It is the greateſt of Miracles, and à manifeſt Teſtimony
that God Afſiſteth this Church to doe ſuch wonders. We paſs
now to conſider fome Truths, grounded on the Doctrin already
deliuered.
11.
One is (and it giues comfort to euery Soul) that
our Lord IESUS Chrift though Abfent from vs, liues yez
as it were Vifibly, shewes himſelf Manifeftly, Acts ftill Miraculously
in the Myftical Body of our Catholick Church, and the
feuera!
Difc. 2. C. 10. Of the Catholick Church.
341
with the
feueral Members Thereof. His Power appeares in Her Miracles, Chrift:ur
His Wifdom in the learned, the certainty of His Doctrin in the Lord works.
Churches Infallibility), The Antiqnity of his Truths in Her yet in and
tong continuance. His Mercy appeares in the Charitable, His Church.
Obedience in the Perfect Religious, His Pouerty in thoufands
who haue left all for his loue, His Submiffion in the humble, his
wearifom labours in the painful Miffioners, His Retirement in Her
the Ermits, His Patience in the mortified, His Purity in Vir-
gins, the Efficacy of his Diuine word (laft mentioned) in the
Efficacy of the Churches preaching, His Holy life appeares in
Her Sanctity, and finally his Sacred death in innumerable glorious
Martyrs. Frame then à right Idea of our Bleffed Lord, we be-
hold his admirable Perfections Shining in the Church, And con- The Church
templating the Church, we fee to our vnfpeakable Solace Chrift expreſſes our
Iefus, as it were, yet liuing working in it and by it.
>
Sauiours
perfections.
12. A fecond truth. As Things in Nature are
not firft
known by that we call Their interiour Effence, but by outward
Marks, Qualities, and Effects, whereby we eafily diftinguish
one from an other, à Lyon for example from an Elephant, (but
doe not fo eafily, faith Ariftotle, diftinguiſh their different effen-
ces, known to few). Juft fo we Difcours at preſent and fay the
true Church is firft euidenced by her Marks, Signes, and Mo-
tiues, Miracles Antiquity Conuerfions &c. which being obiects
of fenfe lie open to euery eye and Collectiuely taken make, as
I faid aboue this beautiful Spouſe as difcernable from
Heretical Societies as one Creature is from another by its
outward Form and known Proprieties. I do not Affert that
The Church
the Motiues lead to à Scientifical knowledge of the Churches Ef
first known
fential Doctrin; no: For this we believe by Faith, And know by Her
not Scientifically; Yet they plainly Mark out the great Oracle, Marks.
whereby God fpeaks to the world, And therefore wonder not, that
Sectaries ftriue fo earneftly to Obfcure the euidence, Their de-
ſign is to take from vs the cleareft Principle which muft end Con- Why Secta.
troverfies, For caſt once off à Church manifefted by Antiquity, resend
Miracles, Conuerfions &c. Nothing remains to regulate Faith,
>
V v 3
but
AHOUT IS
342
Difc. 2. C. 10. Other Marks
obfcure the
Churches
Luftre.
What these
Motines
Speak.
can
but the dark and yet vnfenfed Letter of Scripture, which is
moft grofly abuſed by the one or other diffenting Party who
force vpon it quite contrary Senfes. And by what means
any one come to the knowledge of Him or thefe that abuſe it,
if Church Authority be excluded or decide not in this moſt
weighty matter? VVe need not faith Mr Thorndicke (in his
Book of Forbearance. P. 2.) The Herefics of the Primitiue times to
tell vs, what irreligious pretenfes, may be fet forth in Scripture Phrase.
Our own Fanatiks would furnish sport enough with the Foolerics they
pretend as from Gods Spirit because they can deliver their Nonfenfe in
the Phrafe of Scripture: Again. This two edged fword of holy Scrip-
ture, may proue an edged tool to cut their shins with, who take vpon
them, and haue not skill to handle it. Much better were it lay I,
were the Abuſe or ill handling of the Book only found a-
mong à few Fanaticks, But the euil is fpread further, you
Gentlemen are all alike, whether Fanaticks or Proteftants, that
handle, gloff, and interpret Scripture by Priuate reaſon, con-
ttary to the Iudgement of an uniuerfal euidenced Church.
13. A third Truth. The Church thus manifefted by Her
Marks which are Obiects of Senfe, and induce reaſon to iudge
that She only is Gods Oracle; Catholicks neuer call into doubt
Her Effential owned Doctrin, nor feek for further Euidence the-
reof, becauſe there is none in this prefent State, But humbly
fubmit to all she Teaches. This Euidence then once attained,
which arifeth from the Churches Marks, And hath drawn Mil-
lions to belieue her Doctrin, We next turn to our Bible, and
learn there, that the Language of theſe Motiues (for etiam factis
loquitur Deus, faith S. Auftin aboue, God fpeaks by his works)
and the Language of his own written word is one, and the fame.
That is what thefe Inducements point at, God exprefly deliuers
in holy Scripture. Obferue an exact parallel.
14. The Antiquity of our Church, and here is one fenfible
Mark we plead by, giues Affurance that the firft Founder was
our Lord Iefus Chrift; No Sectary call's this truth into Que-
ftion, and the Gofpel confirms it, Luc. 24. 48. Beginning from
Hieru-
Diſc 2. C. 10. Of the Catholick Church.
343
Church
fulfilled.
Hierufalem &. Her Conftant Perfeuerance, vifible in all Ages, God reueals
proues Her indeficiency And this is manifeft in Scripture. A in Scripture,
Citty placed on à Mountain Hell gates shall not prevail against Her.
Omnium etiam infidelium oculis exhibetur (auth S. Auftin. Lib. Con.
Crefcon: C. 63. The Church is fo well feen by all, that the very
Pagans cannot contradict Her. She showes you à continued
Succeffion of her Popes, Bishops, and Paſtors from the begin-
ning, and Scripture alfo Ephef. 4. 11. And he gaue (ome Apostles
&c. long fince foretold it. She giues in à clear Euidence of
Her Miracles through euery age, Our Bleffed Sauiour prophe-
fied it should be fo. Iohn. 14. 12. Maiora borum facient. They
shall work greater wonders. None can deny moft Miraculous
Conuerfions of Kingdomes, and Nations to Her Faith, and the Prophesies
Prophets euery where Proclaim the truth. Many Nations shall of Chrift's
flock to Her. Zachar. 2.
Zachar. 2. 11. She Shewes how Her Doctrin
was propagated through the whole world, And therefore is called
the Vible Catholick, or Vniuerfal Church, Scripture allo Confirm's
Docete omnes gentes. Teach all Nations. Dominabitur à mari
vĺg, ad mare. She shall raign from fea, to fea. Finally to
fay much, in few words, which might be further amplifyed. Is
it truc (which the Church demonftrates) that Hereticks, as Arians,
Neftorians, Pelagians, Eutichyans, Lutherans, and Caluinists, once Pro-
feffed Catholicks, shamefully abandoned Her Vnion, and for that
Cauſe iuftly deferued the reproachful name of Hereticks, and Se-
paratifts? Scripture Foretell's vs of the Breach and Apoftacy.
John. 1. 2. 19. Ex nobis prodierunt. They left vs, went out from
vs. for bad they been of rs they would baue remained. And thus both
Church and Herefy are visibly pointed at by clear Marks, and
Gods written word alfo. Videndum (it is the Expreffion of Optat.
Mileuit. Lib. 1. à little after the middle) Quis in radice cum toto orbe
manferit, quis foras exierit? We are to fee who They were
that continued in the root, with the whole world, and who parted
from it. We are to fee who erected another Chair diftinct
from that which was before. Call theſe and boldly, Hereticks
ftraglers from the Church, and the Verities of Chrifts Gofpel.
it.
And
344
Diſc. 2. C. 10. Other Marks
Sectaries
Vrged to
Answer.
Sectaries
Granelled
at Euery
Question.
And here by the way, we vrge our Nouellifts, to point at à viſible
Orthodox Society, which the Suppofed erring Church of Ro-
me abandoned, as clearly as we lay forth to them the time, the
place, the circumftances, not only of their own impious Reuolt,
But of all other more ancient Hereticks from this Catholick
Society. Could the Sectary do thus much, Hee might ſpeak
more confidently.
15. To end the matter now in hand You fee by what is
faid already, If Chrifts words haue weight. Math. 18. 16. In ore
duorum vel trium Stet omne verbum; That Truth ftand's firm vpon
the Teftimony of two or three vnexceptionable Witneſſess, Wee
here introduce two Teftimonies in behalf of our Church which
none can except againft. Gods own voice fpeaking to reafon by
Miracles and the Motiues now mentioned, is the One, And his
own facred reuealed word, which moft fignificantly teaches what
thefe Motiues ſpeak, is the Other. Hence I fay Sectaries cannot
difpute againſt this Church, without proofs drawn from Motiues
as ftrong, and Scriptures as clear as are now alleged in our behalf.
We prefs them again and again to giue in their Euidence, and
feriouſly demand whether Proteftancy was confeffedly founded by
Chriſt, Or, but once owned Orthodox by any found Chriftians,
As all acknowledge the foundation of the Roman Catholick and
the Orthodoxifm of it, to haue been eftablished by Chrift our
Lord. We further enquire after à vifible Succeffion of their
Paftors, after their viſible Miracles, their viſible Conuerfions, made
in foregoing Ages. Nothing is anſwered, nothing is or can be
pleaded, nothing in à word is returned probable. Therefore
Proteftancy is an vneuidenced Religion, no Motiues counte-
nance the Nouelty, no Scripture fpeaks for it, and Confequently
cannot but be in the higheft degree improbable.
16. A fourth Truth. A Church which weares as it were
Gods own Liuery and beares the Signatures of Divine Autho-
rity in Her Miracles, Prodigious Conuerfions &c. fo far Eclipfes
the falfe luftre of Heathens, lewes, and Hereticks, that reafon
concludes. In this one manifefted Oracle it is, that Eternal Wiſdom
deli-
Difc. 2. C. 10. Of the Catholick Church 345
defiuers his Diuine Truths, Or, there is no fuch thing as à reuea-
led Truth, taught in the world. This iudgement moſt ratio-
nal, once well fetled in an vnderftanding without further debate,
ends all controuerfies of Religion. So forceable and perfwafiue
is the language of God's own glorious works.
then His
vvords.
17. Imagin I befeech you that God should now lay the
Heauens open, and euidently declare to the whole world in moft
fignificant and clear words, That the Roman Catholick Church is Gods works
his own faithful Oracle, and exactly teaches thofe truths he reuea- fpeak no
led. All, whether Heathens, lewes or Hereticks, would fubmit, less plainly
and, if reaſonable yeild Affent to fo great an Euidence mani- to reaſon,
fefted by words. And what shall his own glorious works of Mi-
racles, the known language of Heauen, euer fpoken fince Chri-
ftianity began proue less perfwafiue than words, but once only
deliuered? interrogemus Miracula faith S. Auftin cited aboue,
Quid nobis loquantur &c. Ask of Miracles what they ſpeak of
Chrift, demand alfo what they fay of his Church. Habent enim
linguam fuam. They are neither dumbe nor filent Orators.
Works therefore fpeak, and can Anfwer both for Chrift and hist
Church. S. Paul. Rom. 1. 20. drawes euidence of Gods in-
uifible Perfections, of his Power and Diuinity, from the Crea-
tion of the viſible effects in Nature, And shall not Chriſtians
think ye find euidence enough in the works of grace, ( I mean
in Miracles and other moſt Signal Marks) manifeft in the Ca-
tholick Church, which make it highly Credible That he fpeak's
his eternal verities by this one Oracle? The Euidence in both
cafes well penetrated feem's much à like, call it moral, phyſical
or what you pleaſe, whereof more preſently.
All walk in
Darkness
without an
Euidenced
18. From this Difcourfe it followes, That à Church demon-
ftrating Gods own Seal and manifeft Caracters of Truth, ſo exact-
ly teaches Truth, that none can rationally contradict Her Doc-
trin, though often difficult to weak 'Reaſon. The ground of
Affertion is. Renounce once fuch an Oracle, we are caft into Church,
confufion, and haue no other Maſter to teach Chriftians, but the
obfcure Myſteries of Faith, (far enough, God knowes, from
X x
my
any
346
Difc. 2. C. Other Marks
The true
Cauſe of
our Sedaries
•ndles
Diuifions.
any Self-euidence,) and the yet not fenfed words of holy Scriptu-
re, becauſe the Church which only can, and muft interpret, is
vpon the Suppofition reiected. In this two fold Darkness of
obfcure Myfteries, and vnfenfed Words, weak Reaſon toyls as our
Sectaries haue done à whole Age, But with what ſucceſs think
ye? S. Peters night labour return's the true Anfwer, Totâ nocte
laborantes nibil cepimus, All night long vve haue took much pains,
yet got nothing. Such is the Fate and Folly of our modern
Sectaries, that will vvalk in the dark without the Guidance of
à Church, And Her infallible Tradition. Here alfo we haue
the true caufe of their endles Diffentions and multiplicity of
Religions, which almoſt euery year are coyned nevv. All Pul-
pits faith Mr Thorndicke. P. 5. fo ring of this multiplicity
That novv no Religion ftand's to be the Religion of that King-
dom.
>
19. A fifth Truth. The Sectary that Profeffeth himſelf à
Chriſtian, and ſeriouſly ponder's the Marks, the Signes of Diuine
Authority openly ſeen in the Roman Catholick Church, ftand's
fo conuicted of wilful Errour, that practically he is either to re-
nounce Chriſtianity, or obliged to belieue this euidenced Church.
I proue him Firft conuinced of wilful Errour vpon thefe grounds.
The Sectary confeffeth, or he is no Chriſtian, That this Argu-
ment is efficacious againſt the lewes. Chrift our Lord did grea-
ter wonders, shewed more manifeft Miracles, than all other
Prophets wrought in the time of Iudaifm, and from hence He
inferrs, or (shall neuer proue it) that Chriſt is the true Meffias.
Therefore this Argument is equally preffing againſt Proteftants.
The Roman Catholick Church only has euidently done greater
Wonders, chiefly in the Conuerfion of Nations; She has shewn
more manifeft vndoubted Miracles than all Proteftant Profeffors
in the world, Ergo She is the only true Church, becauſe She
beares the Marks, doth the works, and wonders of that great
Lord that laid Her foundations firm. Whereas Contrarywife
Lick Church this naked Proteſtancy, has no reſemblance of à Church, But
lies in Obſcurity, vneuidenced, only known by its own Monftruo-
What euer
Argument
Proues
Chrift to bee
the true
Moflias
prowes also
the Cathe
SYNS.
firy
Diſc. 2. C. 10. Of the Catholick Church 347
fity vpon this Account, That two hideous Rebells begot it in
Pride, and brought it forth in Diuifion to no other purpoſe,
but to fright all that look on it. Again the Sectary, if he be
Chriſtian, muſt hold this Argument Valid againſt the lewes.
All the Prophefies in Scripture fpeaking of the true Meffias,
exactly agree to, and were amply fulfilled, in the Perfon of Chriſt
our Sauiour, and in no other. But the like Argument hold's as
ftrongly in our cafe. For all the Ancient Prophefies of the true
Chriſtian Church whereof we read in the old Teftament, As of
Her Continuance, Visibility, and Nations flocking to Her only agree,
and are exactly fulfilled in the Roman Catholick Church, And not
fo much as one appeares in this naked Nouelty of Proteftancy,
Ergo the Roman Catholick Church and not that Fatherles Progeny
of Proteftants, is the only true Catholick Oracle of Iefus Chrift.
20. Laftly this Argument is ftronge against the lewes and
Proues them deferted by Alinighty God. Since Chrift came to
Redeeme vs, This abandoned people lie vnder contempt, and are
beſt known vpon the Account of their open iniuftice, Where-
fore God to fet à vifible Mark of his wrath vpon them, has not Cods
only ſcattered them vp and down fome few corners of the world, wrath. Set
but alſo permitted them to Deuide and Subdiuide into feueral upon levves
Sects, and Factions. But the fame Argument is as forceable ries.
againſt Proteſtants, For firft, the whole Chriftian world abroad
flights the men as Innouators, and their Doctrin alfo as Nouelties.
Arians, Semiarians, Gracians, Abyẞins deteft Proteftancy, and as
highly contemn the Authors of it, as the far extended Church
of Rome condemn's both the one, and other.
A viſible
Mark of
and Secta-
21. 2. No Iniuftice euer done by Iew, except that one wicked
fact of crucifying Chrift our Lord, is comparable to the open The open in-
clamorous wronge of Proteftants, who without law or right yea iuftice of
contrary to all confcience,violently vfurpe the Ecclefiaftical goods Protestants.
in England, and worfe than Robbers on the high way appro-
priate all to Them felues, which neither God nor man intended
for them. Theſe Reueneues were giuen by Catholicks for the
Orthodox Paftors and Teachers of our Ancient Religion, that
X x 2
law_
348
Difc. 2. C. 10. Other Marks &c.
Diuifions
more
among ft
fectaries
then le
mes.
lawfully and quietly poffeffed them for à thouſand
years, And
now behold à Robbery done but one age fince, turn's the true
Owners out à doores, And ferues, forfooth, to intail Church Li-
uings vpon Luthers Progeny, open Rebels againſt the Church.
The world neuer heard of greater Iniuftice.
22. Now laftly if we fpeak of different Sects, and endles
Diuifions in points of Doctrin, Moft vndoubtedly the Diffen-
tions are greater, the Sects more numerous amongft Proteftants-
profeffing Chriftianity, than among the very lewes that profeſs
Judaiſm. A iuft iudgement of God, A clear Mark of his Indig-
nation, fet vpon both. The Sin of the one for deferting Chrift,
hath ſcattered that People vp and down the world, And the Sin
of Sectaries, for their deferting an Ancient Church, hath more
fcattered and diuided them into endles erroneous, and moſt iar-
ring opinions. Vpon thefe grounds therefore, That Proteftants-
belieue not an Oracle figned with the Marks of our Lord Iefus
Chrift; That they reiect à Church clearly Prophefied of in ho-
ly VVrit, That they lie hid in vneuidenced Conuenticles, And
broach Doctrins flighted the whole world ouer; That their open
iniuftice and robbery cryes to heauen for reuenge, Practically I
fay, They renounce Chrift, Church and all Chriftianity with it.
Thus much of the Churches Euidence againſt Sectaries, we now
proceed to à further confideration..
CAHP. XE
Diſc. 2. C, 11. Chrift and His &c.
349
CHAP. X I.
Christ and his Church made manifeft to à Heathen. No
Prophet comparable to Christ, no Church comparable
to the Roman Catholick. Our glorious Chrift Ie-
Jus Exhibits à glorious Church. Hee is proned
the Only true Meßias, And the Roman
Catholick Church His only true Spon-
fe. How the Heathen Difcour-
fes,ifrational, And Prudent.
C
Hrift and his Church are fo eafily-laid forth to à Heathen,
what the
Heathen
would Le.
That grant once the Exiftence of à Power Omnipotent and
Infinitly wife in the Gouerment of this world, the main work is
done, Reaſon if it contradict's not Euidence, foon finds out the A Deity
One and Other. Now if as S. Cyprian Difcourfes, it be à moſt ſuppoſed
hainous Offence. Eum nefcire velle quem ignorare non poterant, not to
know God, whom all cannot But know, In like manner fay I,
it muft needs imply à Supine negligence in our preſent State, when arn is easily
Chriſtianity is diftufed all Nations ouer, not to come to the true learned.
knowledge of Chrift and his Church, whilft neither can be concea-
led. The Heathen then that Own's à God, and defires to ferue
him, is fuppofed to demand of Chriſtians, How or in what way,
due Honour may be rendred to that infinit Being. For Antwer
pleaſe to bear in mind thefe Principles, rightly called three ſtronge
Euidences.
2. Firft. True Religion whereby we yeild Honour and due
Submiſſion to God, euer beares the Enfigns of it's Author, And Three prin
showes by certain Marks, it proceeds from God. No lew nor ciples.
Gentile, no Heretick can deny the Principle, deliuered in the-
Xx 3
fe
350 Diſc. 2. C. 11. Chrift and His Church.
"
of the
Greater ra-
tional Eui-
dence for
GodsTruth.
fe general Terms, though Difputes may arifes concerning fome
particular Motiues. 2. A greater Euidence of Credibility in
Religion, is à certain Matk of its Truth, For whoeuer, whether
Heathen, lew, or Chriſtian, own's that matter of Fact of Mofes,
preuailing againſt the Egyptian Magicians, Or, of S. Peters Mira-
cle, fet againſt that of Simon Magus, See's well by the force of grea-
ter Euidence, That the Prophet and Apoftle maintained Truth
againſt theſe Sorcerers. A third Principle. If there be not à
greater excefs of rational Euidence, or à ftronger Conuiction in
behalf of true Religion, than fdr Sects vnorthodox or falſe, God
is fruſtrated of his End, And can oblige none to embrace true Re-
ligion; For this Obligation neceffarily ceafeth if à Spurious Faith
could match the Orthodox Religion Or Outuie it in thoſe glo-
rious Wonders which God euidences, And hath manifeftly ap-
propriated to His own reuealed Truths only. See more Here-
of in the other Treatife. Difc. 1. C. 8 Thus much premiſed.
3. VVe here Reprefent in the firft place, our Glorious Lord
Jefus Chrift, the great Mafter and Author of Catholick Reli-
gion, and Aſk what credit the Heathen giues to that holy book
we call Scripture, or to one Part thereof, which recount's the prodi-
gious wonders wrought by our Sauiour. Wil he own them?
vpon Humane faith( for we urge him not yet to belieue infallibly )
as Authentick, or as well deferuing Credit as Cæfars Commenta-
ries, or any other receiued Hiſtory? If he grants;
we Infer.
Theſe Miracles, far aboue the Power of nature, were Gods own
works, and manifeftly teftifyed that none fince the world began,
whether Heathen, Iew, or Heretick, euer paralleld Chriſt our
Lord in the like VVonders. Now, if he wholly flights the
Authority of that Book, we proceed further vpon Euidence
enough and lay before him thoſe manifeft Effects, which in â
the manifeft fhort time followed, our Sauiours Preaching, moft apparent in
Signes of
the firſt Propagation of the Goſpel, and continual encreaſe of it.
Herein, the Marks, the Enfigns of à Diuine Power clear to
fenfe, fpeak openly, without contradiction. viz. That no an-
cient Prophet, no Heathen, no Iew, no Heretick euer oppo-
The Heathen
conuinced by
Gods power.
fed
15
Difc. 2. C. 11. Euidenced to Heathens.
351
>
fed fenfuallity ſo ſtrongly as Chrift our Lotd did, yet he gained
Millions to fubmit to his law. No Prophet, no Heathen no
Heretick, preached more difficult Myfteries, Yet as the World
fees, He hath drawn whole Kingdoms and Nations to belieue
his Doctrin. And if you go on, or Ask by what Inftrum n s
this admirable work was happily accomplished? The Anfiver is
ready. Twelue poor Fishermen, friendles, vnlearned, defpi-
cable in the eyes of worldlings, were the chief Oracles. Thefe
made the incredulous, Belteuers, Strangers to Chrift, his own
Domesticks, Lofty Spirits, Submiß to his law. No Heathen can
doubt of fuch known Effects, fignal Euidences, of Gods po-
wer, cooperating with Chrift, and the firft Euangelical Preachers.
But becauſe this Argument is moſt fully handled, in the 4. and
5. Chapters of the firft Difcourfe, I petition the Reader to return
thither, And once more to perufe that Difcourfe, which I hold
vnanswerable, and moſt conuincing for our prefent intent!
4. To add yet more in behalf of our Glorious Redeemer,
and the verity of Catholick Religion (for proue the one, you
pro ue the other) I Propoſe à fecond Queftion to the Heathen,
and Ask, Whether our Bleffed Lord, who called himſelf the
long expected Meffias, and the true Son of God, Spake Truth,
or contrarywife, moſt impudently Affumed to himſelf that ſo
high Prerogatiue? Grant the firſt. He was indeed the true Son
of God, and the wonders he wrought, were Gods own works,
Therefore Chriftian Faith ftands firm
, vpon Eternal Truth ma-
nifefted by moft glorious Signes. Say. 2. That Impoftor like,
Hee falfly made himſelf the Son of God, when he was no mo-
re but à Cheat. It followes firft. That either God pofitiuely
intended to draw the world into grofs Errour by his Perfidious
Preaching (which is horrid to think) or we muſt grant, that his
Gracious Prouidence long before this day, should by one euident
Sign or other, by fome Notorious Mark of dishonour, haue made ma-
nifest the Legardemaine, the Imposture of this ſuppoſed Deceiver. It
followes. 2. That the lewes who crucified our Bleffed Lord inftly de-
ferued vpon that Account Renown and Honour, yea, the highest Re-
compence
An vuanf-
werable
Dilemma.
Reflect Gëtle
Reader
upon theſe
Confequen
ces.
352 Difc. 2. C. 11. Chrift and His Church
Chrift ho.
noured the
lewes con-
temned.
not.
compence, For it was à laudable fact to comdemn à Counterfeit, fø
openly wicked as dared to cell Himself the Son of God, when Hee was
Perkin Warbecks difguife, was but à Peccadilio compared
to this shameful coufenage. The fin of Mahomet who neuer
made Himfelfe God but à Prophet only, came not neer the
Malice of this one fuppofed abhominable loud Vntruth. It fol-
lowes. 3. That our fuppofed Impoftor (I haue à horror to pro-
nounce the word) deferuedly merited, And yet merit's for His vn-
excufable Hypocrify, eternal Reproach, contempt and ignominy, in the
juft judgement of God, men, and Angels. Hence I Argue.
5. God is jutt, and hath Prouidence ouer the world, But
our juft and wife God neuer fince Chriftianity began, Ser Mark
or Sign of Ignominy, vpon our Bliffed Sauiour, as he hath done vpons
other impoftors. Our juſt and wife God euer fince that wicked
People nailed him to à Croſs, hath been ſo far from honouring
them or rewarding Their impious Fact That, moſt viſible,
and feuere Punishments haue proued the only Recompence
and beſt Reward. The Temple ruined, their Difperfion followed
vp and down the world, where they liue contemptible, chiefly
infamous for Hypocrify, and Auarice. (Se alfo this Argument
more enlarged aboue Chap. 2. n. 4.) Our moft juft God, hath
not only taken of all Marks of Ignominy, but euidently to our
Senfes declared by real Effects His innocent Lamb our louely
Sauiour worthy of Honour Benediction, and Glory. So true it is,
We read. Apocal. 5. 13. Dignus eft Agnus, qui occifus est &c. The
iuft Tribute of Prayfe and Glory is vifibly paid him (fo Prouiden-
ce hath ordained) not only by Kings, Princes, Learned and
vnlearned, by all Nations far and neer, But by the very Turks
alfo.
2
6. And is it poffible (reflect I beseech you) that God who
is no Exceptor of Perſons, could haue punished fo dreadfully
theſe abandoned lewes, had they done well, in crucifying our
Lord Jesus? Is it poſſible, that his iuft, and wife Prouidence,
could euer haue crowned à Counterfeit with fo much Honour,
Luagement, and renown, as our Sauiour hath gained, or permitted A cheat
God's iuft
not
Difc. 2. C. 11. Ewidenced to Heathens.
353
>
not only to be Reuerenced as the true Son of God fo long
(though he was not) but moreouer to draw fo many Millions.
and Millions of Souls into errour as belieued in him for
fixteen Ages and more. The Paradox is fo defperate fo
highly improbable, That one would as foon deny both God
and Prouidence, As once feriouſly harbour it in his thoughts.
Obferue my Reaſon.
+
Saviour
7. The Light of nature dictates, abftracting from Authority
Rom. 2. 9. That as on the one fide, Shame, Ignominy, and
Confufion purtue horrid Workers of iniquity, So on the other, Proe
Glory, Honour and renown infeparably follow the manifeftly Innocent.
declared juft, and innocent. But Shame, Confufion and
>
Ignominy, Gods luft Signes of indignation, yet viſibly follow that
wicked race of People, the Authors of our dear Sauiours death,
contrarywife, Glory and renown, euer fince he dyed, haue been
his due reward, and own inheritance. Therefore if God fpeak's, And the
as He doth, by these signal Effects of Iuftice, The Lewes fo long lewes
feuerely punished, ftand like guilty Criminals in that high Tribunal Crimiyal,
of Heauen, There fentenced anfwerable to their Defert as Workers
of iniquity; And our Holy Lord Iefus, fo long honoured the
whole world ouer, receiues the contrary Sentence, And is by
viſible effects there proclaimed juſt and Innocent. A Domino
fa&tum eft istud &c. It was not chance but à Signal work of
Prouidence, that the Stone theſe Builders reiected, became fo
glorious as to fupport the nobleft Fabrik God euer made.
•
A trke
Application
8. Apply what is is now faid to the Roman Catholick
Church, We shall fe an exact Parallel of proofs, deliuered in
the fame Terms. Christ our Lord called Himfelf Eternal Truth of this whole
in all he taught. Our Church ftil's Herfelf, Gods own Oracle, Doctrin.
in all She teaches, Now whilft fo high à Prerogatiue is claimed,
She either fpeakes Truth or lies moft impudently. Grant the
firſt. Viz. That this Church ſpeaks Truth, she is to be belieued
in all she teaches, Say fecondly, she falfly makes Herfelf
"Gods own Oracle, when she is not, Diuine Prouidence which
cannot diffemble,nor Deſign to ruin Souls by the falfe Doctrin
YY
of
374
Difc. 2. C.11. Chrift and His church.
To the
Roman
Catholick
Church.
She flou
rishes.
Made
renowned,
9
of an infatuated Oracle, would long before this day, haue either
deſtroyed Her, or marked Her out as à Cheat by fome euident.
Sign of Juftice, as he hath marked other falfe Oracles (lewes
Turks, Infidels, and Hereticks) with Contempt, ignominy; and
Difgrace. The fin is fo hideous, that it well deferued à greater
Punishment, and would haue been inflicted vpon this Church
alfo if the Suppofition ftand: Vnleff as is now faid, we Affert
(which is abominable) that Gods exprefs Will was, that She
should poyfon whole Nations for fo many Ages with corrupted
Doctrin. But All is contrary. To our vnfpeakable comfort the
Roman Catholick Church fail's not, She keep's her Pofture ftill.
She flourishes euery where euen amongſt thouſands and thou--
fands that dare not (intereft will haue it fo) Profeſs Her Doctrin,
And without any leaft Note of infamy proceding from God,
(what Diuels or Malice inuent or vent against Her, we heed not)
Teaches not only, the moſt pious and learned in this neerer
world, But the wifeft alfo of the whole Vniuerfe. Thus we
difcourfed of Chrift our Lord, and the Argument hold's as
Atrongly in behalf of our Church.
>
9. Again. Hath God whofe Counfels are juft, Crowned
our Sauiour with Glory and Renown? Has he alfo who knowes
well where to inflict Punishment, manifefted his Wrath vpon
an vngracious People that condemned Him? Ponder I befeech
you firft, How vifibly Prouidence has made his own Spouſe the
Roman Catholick Church, Renowned, And wonder not, the
Son of God paid dear for the Renown, and gave his life for
it. Vt exhiberet ipfe fibi gloriofam Ecclefiam. Ephes. 5. 27. That
he might exhibit and prefent to Himfelf and the whole world
à moft glorious Church. All this, I fay, vifibly Appears, to our
eyes and fenfes.
IO. Ponder. 2. Where and vpon whom, God hath Set Marks
of ignominy, and inflicted moft rigorous Punishments. What
vpon lewes only, that oppofed and condemned Chrift? Are
lowes and thefe only Marked and Chaftifed? No. Thofe rebellious Spirits
alfo, Thoſe firſt Renegados, I mean the chief Arch-hereticks
Heretiques.
than
Difc.2. C. 11. Euidenced to Heathens.
355
that oppofed and condemned his Church, Vile, and abiect in
life, dying, felt Gods heauy hand of Iuftice. Manichaus was
flead à liue. Montanus hanged Himself. Arius voided out his
bowels and filthy foul together, in à Priuie. God ftrook Iulian
the Apoftata dead, and the ground opening fwallowed vp his
carkaffe. Nestorius wicked worm-eaten tongue brought the wretch
to à miferable end, And Iohn Caluin confumed with vermine,
difpairing dyed like an other Herode or Antiochus. I need Sewerly
not Here relate any thing of Luthers fudden death after his
merry fupper. Kead Bellarmin. Lib. 4. de notis Ecclefia C. 17.
where you haue theſe, and other more fearful Examples of
Gods Seuerity.
II.
11. Finally muft we fay, that our Lord Iefus is proued
no Impoftor vpon thefe reafcns, That no falfe Prophet fince
the Creation purchaſed the like vniuerfal Fame, None euer had
fo vniuerfàl an Applaufe, or the like Tribute of praife paid
Him? Is it true That euer fince Chriftianity began, the
powerful hand of Prouidence hath not only refcued our Holy
Iefus from all Reproach (iuftly merited) but moreouer by
fignal Effects of indignation, made his Enemies contemptible?
Nothing can be more manifeft. You may then boldly Conclude
in like manner. The Roman Catholick Church is as demon-
ftratiuely proued no Cheat but an Oracle of truth, vpon the
fame grounds. Her vniuerfal vifible Extent, the continued
Succeffion of Her Paftors, the Conuerfions, and Miracles wrought
by Her inuite all with à loud Venite Adorem, incite all, not
only to behold and Praife this magnificent Building, but alfo
to Adore the Founder of it; For, if it be true as was faid aboue,
that the viſible works in nature point at God the only Author
of them. Cæli enarrant gloriam ejus, The Heauens declare. his
Glory. It is alfo clear, that thefe vifible Effects of grace,
Miracles, Conuerfions obuious to euery Eye, fet forth the glory
of the Roman Catholick Church. Now how deferuedly she
hath gained this Renown, let the world judge.
12. Wisdom, faith Salomon, built Herself à boufe. Prouerb.g. Where
Y y 2
Pillars
•
Punished.
The renown
of the Roman
Catholick
Church,
356
Diſc. 2. C. 11. Chrift and His Church.
Pillars fland firm, à Table is plentifully furnished, Victims are immolated
&c. The whole Paffage. S. Cyprian. Lib. 2. Epift. 3. Applyes to
the great Sacrifice of the Altar offered vp vnder the Forms of.
How gained bread, and wine. I waue the Application and vrge only an
euident truth, And Tis, that Our Church built vpon Chrift the
Corner-Stone, vpon thoſe ſtronge Pillars the Apoſtles, hath ſtood
firm fixteen Ages, and here is Her Glory. For if Glory
(witnefs S. Ambrofe) be nothing els, but Clara cum laude notitia.
A clear knowledge with Fame and Renown,The long Continuance
and ample extent of this Church, could we fay no more,
hath juftly purchaſed Her à large Renown the whole world
ouer. Now mark where the contempt lies, which is à bafe
Heretiques Efteem of a thing vnworthy value. All know the Arians built,
defpicable. the Pelagians built, the Donatifts and other Hereticks built,
but their vnfteedy difordered Houfes foon fell down, and came
to nothing. What faies Reafon when Ruins are compared with
this long ftanding Edifice?
Other ad-
Mantages in
the Church.
>
13. Next caft à ferious thought, vpon the Inhabitants of
this houſe of God. You will find all vnited in one Faith
adoring one lefus Chrift, louing one Mother his fpoufe, looking.
on one laft End, Their hope and Happines And if through
frailty differences doe arife abating charity, our Aduantage is far
aboue all other Societies in the world: Wee haue à fupreme
Paftor (God be euer bleffed) that can command and like à
Father exhort to peace, in Abrams language. Ne fint quafo jurgia
&c. Iarrs.muft not be in the houſe of God, Fratres enim fumus,
For we are all Children of one louing Mother. Here is the
Churches Glory. Wheras on the Contrary fide, nothing but
Diſcord, and that remedilefs, the known euil of Lucifers, pride,
And in the higheſt points of Faith, infeparably hant's the
rambling Fancy of fuch, as haue wilfully diúorced themfelues
from this one vnited Society. And Here is matter enough of
Contempt, and Compaffion alfo.
14. In the last place confider well the vaſt multitudes who
are, and haue been Domefticks in this houfe of God. In the
very
Dife. 2. C. 11 Euidenced to Heathens.
357
very Entrance we meet thofe Candidat aternitatis (as Tertullian
fpeaks) Nouices of Eternity, the newly admitted by the Sacrament
of Baptifin, and no Society of Chriftians can show the like
number. Here we haue Cherubins admirable in Knowledge, The Inhabi.
Doctors I mean, profoundly learned, Seraphins inflamed with tants of the
Diuine loue, that reft in the height of Contemplation. Here house of Gods
we find Penitent Souls bewailing their fins, innumerable Martyrs numberiles.
shedding their blood for Chrift, numberless laborious Miſſioners
trauelling far and neer to propagate. His facred Gofpel. Here
finally we haue (for tis long to recount all) Abrahams glorious
multiplyed Starrs. Gen. 15. 5. Kings and Queens, whole kingdoms
and Nations profeffing the Faith of this one Church. The Gentils
Walk by Her light, and Princes in the brightnes of Her rifing. Lift up thy
eyes and fee, faith holy. Ifaias, All theſe affembled together: And
if you Ask what the duty was, and yet is of fo many conuened
Multitudes? The Royal Prophet, that long fince forlaw in Spirit
à continual Oblation offered vp, Anfwers? Pfal. 9. 1. In templa
ejus omnes dicent gloriam. All in this Temple and facred Houfe
shall inceffantly render praife, and glory to God, the Author
of So noble à Structure, Therfore Pfalm.86.2. He rightly Concludes.
Gloriofa dicta funt de te O Civitas Dei. Glorious things are ſpoken
of thee, O Citty of God: Thou begans't In Hierufalem, wa'ft
afterward extended to all Nations, becams't permanent, and
becauſe permanent, Glorious. Thus that whole Pfalme, ſpeaking
myftically of Chrifts Holy Church. Thefe are Truth's not only
proued, as you fe by Scripture, but alfo euident (and this I
vrge) to our eyes, and fenfes. Now next confider thofe feat-
tered, diffipated, and iarring Multitudes of Heathens lewes
and Hereticks, And let reafon, if à fpark of it liue in any,
iudge, whether this be not euident without Difpute. Viz.
That as no Prophet euer came neer to Christ our Lord in glory and A Parallel ·
renown, So no Society of men fince the world flood, was, or is, com-
parable to our glorious Roman Catholick Church
happy pnited moral Body appear as they are
sible..
Yy 3
>
All other befides this
abiect, and contemp-
15. And
of Chriſt
And Hie
Church,
$
358
Difc. 2. C. 12. Chrift and His Church.
How the
Heathen is
Conuinced.
The efficacy
of Church
Motiues,
15. And thus we Euidence Chriſt our Lord and his Church
to à prudent Heathen, not firft by making the intrinſick Reaſona-
bleness of the effential Doctrin the main Proof of its verity, as
Mr Stilling: fimply Argues, abcue. Diſc. 1. C. 9. (For it is truely
ridiculous to draw the Pagan to belieue à Doctrin, as reaſonable
and Diuine, whilft yet he knowes not, vpon any rational Induce-
ment, whether it be from God, or no) But this way takes effectual-
ly. When you lead him on by à clear light extrinfecal to the Doc-
trin, when you fet before his Eyes, fuch Marks, Signes and won-
ders as cannot but proceed from God, Miracles Conuerfions &c.
When you Shew him How ftrangely the Doctrin of Chrift and
his Church, though fublime and difficult, was miraculouſly Spread
the whole world ouer, when you Demonftrate how manifeftly
Diuine prouidence hath Age after Age Honoured Chrift and his
Church, and feuerely Chaftifed the profeffed Enemies of both.
When finally you make it manifeft that there is no Vnion, no
Form, no fashion of Religion in any Society now on earth, but in
the Roman Catholick Church only. Then the Heathen, if rea-
ſonable and defirous to learn Truth, muſt confeſs that God fpeaks
Truth by this one Catholick Oracle only, Or there is no fuch thing
as à reuealed Verity taught in the world.
16. Out of what is faid already I infer firft. If that Maxim
of Philofophy be vndoubted, Frustra fit per plura &c. It is need-
les to multiply many proofs in behalf of à Verity, when one
moſt clearly conuinceth it. This Argument alone, drawn from
the glorious Marks of our Catholick Church, which cannot but
proceed from God, proues Her his own faithful Oracle, With
thefe Signes we haue the thing fignified. Thefe in à General way
fettle in euery reaſonable vnderſtanding this fundamental Truth.
God fpeak's to the world by his euidenced Church. I fay in à General
way. For as the vifible works in nature, proue this General
Truth. Ipfe fecit nos &c. A mighty power made `vs
vs, we made
not our Selues, though as yet none comes thereby to an expli
cit knowledge of many Perfections in God; So the Marks and
Motiues manifeft in the Church, conuince this General Truth
alfo.
Difc. 2. C. 12. Euidenced to Heathens
359
alfo. That the fame Power which made Nature giues being
to theſe, the fame Power which preferues nature, preferues theſe
glorious Signes for our inftruction, And Confequently it follo-
wes, That as the viſible world is proued Gods own work, ſo this
vifible glorious marked Church is proued his own Oracle,
Though yet neither the Heathen nor any knowes euery parti-
cular Doctrin, which God teaches by the Church. In like man-
ner great Diuines affert, that Chrifts own Difciples owned firſt
our bleffed Lord as the true Meffias, and à great Prophet. Ioan.
1. 41. Inuenimus Meßiam We haue found the Meffias, before
they learned the other high Myfteries of his being the natural
Son of God, the fecond Perfon of the Bleffed Trinity, the
Redeemer of Ifrael &c. fee Suares. 3. Part. Tom. 2. Difpu. 31.
Sest. 4.
>
17. A fecond Inference. The General Truth now fpoken of
well established. God teaches the world by à Church Signed with
Supernatural wonders, All further difputes ceafe concerning the
particular Doctrins She teaches, though fublime and aboue the
reach of our weak Capacities. For none, whether Heathen,
Iew, or Heretick, can boggle at à Doctrin which God reueal's,
But God, faith prudent Reafon, reueal's fuch and fuch Truths,
The Incarnation of the Diuine word, the Trinity, Original fin &c. by à
Church which moft preffing Motiues euince to be His own
Oracle, Therefore it is my duty to Submit and belieue euery
Doctrin She propofes.
18. The Ground hereof feem's clear. For as there can be
no endles Progrefs or going on in Infinitum in the intrinfecal for-
mal Obiect of Faith, becaufe Faith at laft reft's vpon one
fure Principle, An infinite Verity, So we can haue no endles Pro-
cefs in the extrinfick Lights, and Motiues, whereby we are in-
duced to fix à firm Belief vpon that one fure Principle. Therefore
in what euer Society of men Reafon finds thefe Motiues, it reft's,
without further Enquiry after ftronger, which cannot be found
But moft euidently reafon finds them in one only Oracle the
Roman Catholick Church (as is now proued) and prudently
refteth
How reaſon
difcourfes
upon these
Euident
Molines.
360
Difc. 2. C. 12. Chrift and His Church
atly Credi
ble as the
Scripture not refteth there as vpon lights which immediatly manifeft the Church,
fo immedi- and make Her Doctrin euidently credible. Scripture, t'is true,
is the obiect of Faith, but not fo immediatly credible as the
Church, for independently of Scripture, I can belieue the Church
as the firft Chriftians did before the Book was written, but men
generally in this prefent State cannot belieue Scripture without
the Churches Teftimony, As is already, and shall hereafter be pro-
ued more at large.
Church.
↓
19. A third Inference. Who euer pretend's to à Doctrin
reuealed in Scripture and hold's it of Faith, has either à Church
which teaches it euidenced by the Marks of our Lord. Iefus
Chrift, or He publisheth à falshood. Which is to fay in other
Terms. If the euidenced Church of Chrift pofitiuely own's
not, or reiects fuch à Doctrin, that Doctrin, Eo ipfo, is fpurious,
forged, and not de Fide. Hence it is, that when our Bleffed Lord,
Commiffoned the Diſciples to Preach his facred Verities. Math.
28. 19. Goe and teach all Nations. Hee fent them abroad with
the Characters, Marks, and Enfigns, of his own Preaching.
Mark 16. 2. Our Lord Working with all, and confirming the word
With Signs that followed. And here by the way, I can neuer fuffi-
ciently admire the open folly of Sectaries, that wholly Churchlefs,
will yet needs perfwade vs into new opinions vpon their own bare
word, That they teach truth. It is impoffible. Nay I fay more,
Although (which is falfe) they should fpeak Truth, they ought
not (Churchleſs as they are) to be liftned vnto. For fuppofe one
should prefent himſelf as an Embaffadour from à Prince to à for-
reign State, but without Credentials, or Authentick letters iuftifying
'his Embaffage, no State can or will admit him, though he ſpeaks
truth. He muft not only do ſo, but show his Authentick Com-
miffion that he ſpeaks truth, deliuered by the Princes own or-
der, or he is fent back vnreceiued in the quality of an Embaſſa-
dour. In like manner I fay. No more can any one effentially
vncommiffioned pretend to teach Chrifts Doctrin, whilſt he is
An Instance not fent to teach by Chrifts own euidenced Oracle, than this vn-
commiffioned Legate to ſpeak in his Princes name. Many à
A lawful
Miffion re-
quired to
teach our
Chriſtian
aruths.
ነ
man
Difc. 2. C. 1. Euidenced to Heathens.
361
man knowes the law well, and is fit enough to pronounce à iuft
Sentence, yet fitt's not on the Bench nor giues it, becauſe he
is not Authoriſed to do fo. And thus we difcours of all He-
reticks, no members of the euidenced Church, though, as I faid,
they deliuer truth by chance, they yet deferue not the hearing,
wanting power and Authority to teach it.
>
Here
20. S. Cyprian Epist. 2. Speak's very pertinently to our pre-
fent purpofe. Quod vero ad Naaatiani perfonam pertinent &c. For
as much as concerns Nouatians Perfon, I would, dear Brother,
haue you know in the first place, we are not to be curious con-
cerning what he faies, when he teaches out of the Church. s. Cyprian
Quisquis ille eft, & qualiscunque eft, Chriftianus non eft, qui in Chrifti Confirm's
Ecclefia non eft. Whoeuer, or of what condition foeuer he be, the Doctrin.
is no Chriftian that is not in the Church of Chrift. And
hence S. Auſtin in his frequent Difputes with the Donatifts,pres-
feth this point moft efficaciously, Lib. de vnit. Eccles. Cap. z. Que-
ftio inter nos verfatur, vbi fit Ecclefia vtrum apud nos aut illos?
lies the main Bufinefs, where the Church is, whether with vs or
them? Again, Epift. 163. Queritur vtrum veftra an noftra fit Eccle-
fia Dei. We demand whether yours or ours be the Church of
God, which muſt be known, faith Optat. Mileuit. Lib. 2. By
Her Marks, and Characters. And therefore we faid aboue, though
S. Auftin made vfe of Scripture againft the Donatifts, it was
not done to decide euery particular Controuerfy by the bare
and obfcure words of that holy Book. No. The profound How Scrip-
Doctor aymed not at fuch impoffibilities, his whole drift being ture mani-
to teach the Donatifts à great Verity, which we all fubfcri- fests the
be to. viz. That Scripture once admitted as Gods word, wit-
hout Difpute clearly demonftrat's the Church by Her vifible
fenfible Marks, Antiquity, Miracles, Conuerfions, Digito demon-
ftrari poteft, We can point at Her with our finger Saith S.
Auftin. The Church therefore thus manifefted we haue enough,
and rely on Her as à faithful Oracle in euery Doctrin She
profeffeth. Se Cardinal de Richelieu. Traite pour conuertir ceux
&c. Lib. 2. C. 7. §. Ceft encore. Where he exactly renders
S. Au-
Zz
Church.
362 Diſc. 2. C. 11. Chrift and His Church &c.
The Hea.
shens pru-
dent Dif-
fourfe.
and Cona
elußton.
S. Anftins meaning conformable to what we deliuered. Dife
I. C. 14. n. 10.
21. The laft Inference. If all are bound to embrace true
Religion, All haue alfo with the obligation means to know,
where it is taught, But the means to know this lies not in the
effential Verity thereof, for that is no Self-evidence, or mani-
feftly true ex Terminis. The means to know it is not found, in
the high Myſteries of Faith, for theſe ( far aboue the reach
of humane vnderſtanding) remain yet in darkness without More
light. Scripture alone makes not its own Diuinity known
and though it did fo, And the Heathen owned it as moft Di
uine, yet when he euidently diſcouer's that diffenting Chriſtians
Sense the book quite contrary waies, he has not the means to learn
what true Religion is, or where it is taught. Thus then He muft
Diſcours, or belieue nothing.
D
22. God that's Truth, reueal's the Verities of true Religion.
If fo; fome vnited Society of men teaches what euer God re-
ueal's, for Angels are not our Doctors. I find, Saith the Ra-
tional man, great Signes of truth amongst the Chriftians, and after
many à ferious thought Caft vpon à Matter of higheſt Goncern,
I find alfo that all thofe Signes, as Antiquity, Vniuerfallity, *
vifible Succeffion of Paftors, euident Miracles, which cannot but
proceed from God; belong to one only Chriftian Society, the
Roman Catholick Church. I fe moreouer à ftrange benign
Prouidence held forth in preferuing Her from innumerable
attempts of Aduerfaries. No Iew, no Heathen, no Heretick
can show the like Signal Marks and Proofs, of Gods loue,
as this one Catholick Oracle demonftrat's. Therefore all other
Societies are falfe Sects mifled by erring Prophets, accor-
ding to Chrifts own Prediction. Math. 24. For there shall rife fal-
fe Christs, though they clamour neuer fo loud. Ecce hic eft
Chriftus. Loe we preach Chrift, and his truths. Thus Reafon
teft's fatisfied, yet becauſe the Heathen fee's whole Armies
banding against the Church, and rationally hold's their Ar-
guments
-1
Diſc. 2. C. 12. Fallacies of the 25c.
363
Arguments like theer caufe very weak, He is defirous to haue
the Fallacy of fome chiefe Aduerfaries laid forth to his reafon. For
your Satisfaction be pleafed to read the following chapter.
CHAP. XII.
The
The Aduerfaries of the Romam Catholick Church plead
Dnreasonably. A Difcouery of their fallacies.
caufe of all Errour concerning Religion.
The only means to remedy
· I.
T
Errour.
,
He enemies of the Roman Catholick Church are chiefly
reduced to thefe four Claffes, to Atheifts Heathens,
Lewes, and Hereticks. A word briefly of their fallacies in order.
Some Atheiſts there haue been (and perhaps Lucian was one), that
to caſt off all thought of Religion more exprefly denyed Diuine
Prouidence, than they did the Exiftency of à God. And à chief The Atheifte
Argument to omit others of leff weight, is much to this fenfe. Plea.
A Numen Infinitly wife and powerful, shewes his careful Proui-
dence in gouerning the world, But an euident Principle oppofes
this careful Prouidence, and no contrary Principle of equal
ftrength Seem's to establish it, Therefore reafon well denies Pro-
uidence. Now here is the euident Principle. The Oppreffion
of iuft men, manifeft to our eyes, the preuailing of the wicked
againſt the iuft, of Turks againft Chriftians, to fay nothing of
other much vifible Confufion and Difcorder; proue à neglect of
Prouidence, and no contrary Principle half fo ftrong or euident
conninces it; none counterpoifes the weight of this clear proof
now hinted at, ergo Reafon, reafonably denies Prouidence.
Thus the Atheist. The Pagan Argues, That Religion is falfe
Zzz
which
364
Difc. 2. C. 12. Fallacies Of the Church.
How the
Heathens
and lewes
Argue
Principles
promised
to folue the
JeObie.
Aions.
which holds Myſteries ridiculous, and impoffible, but Chriftians
teach that God is one Effence and three Perfons. Both feem im-
poffible. The Lewes vapour againſt à crucified Sauiour, and fay
its vnworthy God to become man, and to dye ignominiouſly
vpon à Croff. Laftly our modern Sectaries that own Chrift, co-
me limping after the reft, and except much againſt the Romam
Catholick Church. She, Say they, has changed the ancient-
Articles of the Primitiue Faith and introduced Nouelties in lieu
of them, She maintains errours contrary to fenfe in Her. Doctrine
of Tranfubftantiation; And much more feem's amifs.
2. I fay firft. All theſe and the like Arguments are meer vn-
found Paralogifms, and proue iuft nothing againſt Prouidence,
againſt Chriſt, or the Romam Catholick Church. Before I dif-
couer the fallacies be pleafed to note. 1. That God whofe exi-
ftence we haue proued. Dift, 1. C. 2. is à Being incomprehen-
fible, and far tranfcend's the reach of our narrow Capacities. The
very Gentile Philofophers owned the truth agreeing in this Prin-
ciple, That humane reaſon is as weak to know what God and
diuine Myſteries are, as an owle is to behold the Sun at noon-day.
Note 2. Reaſon in man, often too bold enters into Diuine Myfte-
ries, though conſcious it walks in à Labyrinth not ſo much as
half-fighted in the ſearch it makes, and this leſs than Half-infight
into Diuine truths, is the cauſe of Atheifin, of all Herefy and
the moft grofs errours now raigning in the world.. The Apoſtle.
2. Tim. 3. 7. Point's at the mifled. Semper difcentes. They are al-
waies learning, but neuer come to the knowledge of truth. No-
te 3. Reafon in the inueftigation of Religion and Diuine verities,
may tend two different waies, Directly, and Reflexly. Direct rea-
fon, as is now faid, fall's vpon fome great Myſtery in faith, finds
it harsh, yea moft difficult to be vnderftood, and What follows?
The faint man with his feeble reafon either reiect's the Myſtery,
or remain's fo perplexed in the fearch that he can refolue nothing.
His procedure is iuft like à man vnfkilful in Muſick, that hearing
one Note alone which feem's harsh, flights all without more Adoe,
whereas he should liften to the whole Harmony before he iudges.
3.7.
I
Difc. 2. C. 12. Aduerfaries diſcouered.
365
In like manner we often proceed with God by à Half-pondering
Diuine Myſteries. Contrariwife, reflex Reafon labours not to
Conquer difficulties by it felf, or any half confideration but pru-
dently waues that way, and has recourfe to à furer Principle, wher-
of more prefèntly. Thus much premiſed.
4
3. A fecond Propofition. The fallacy, of Atheifts in their
Arguments againft Prouidence, chiefly arifes from this; That
the direct ludgement of weak reafon runs headlong into Myfteries
The fallacy
confidered only by halfs or in themfelues, without attending to
of Atheists
the Solution, moft eafily attained by à Iudgement which is re- Difcour.ed
flex and Prudent. For example. The Atheift denies Prouiden-
ce becauſe iuft men fuffer, and the impious Preuail againſt the
iuft, and hence inferr's negligence in God: Here is one harsh
vntuneable Note to his care, but reflect's not Firſt, That, that which
he calls Nature is as negligent, and much worſe left alone
without God.. He reflect's not. 2. That if God were fuppofed
to Rule the world, there would yet be fools enow to find
fault, and think ſome thing amifs in the Gouerment. He re-
flects not. 3. That if God be an intellectual Being infinitly
wife, his thoughts are as far aboue our thoughts as the Hea-
uens aboue earth, And therefore aduentures defperatly to re-
iect Prouidence which his shallow head neither doth
doth, nor
can Vnderſtand. Finally He neuer reflect's, that to deny all
diuine Forefight caft's Reafon into more Mazes, than to grant it;
For deny it, we muft ſay, That this admirable and well orde-
red work of nature Gouern's it ſelf. The Sun, Moon, and Starrs,
moue themſelues. We muft fay, That the vaft and fwift cir-
culation of theſe Celeftial Bodies depend on no Superiour caufe;
vnless we faine many vnknown inuifible Gods, or Genii, Eter-
nal of themfelues And fay Theſe run about with the Heauens,
and regulate that admirable Motion. But to Affert this without
Proof offer's more violence to our intellectual Faculties than to
own one powerful Being, effentially wife, and therefore vigi-
lant ouer all Hee Gouern's. In à word you fee here, this great
Fabrick of Nature (fome rightly compare it to à Clock or Watch)
→
་
223
and
What they
are forced
to
• grant
against
Rafon.
366 Diſc. 2. C. 12. Fallacicus of the Churches
The abuje
of liberty
redound's
not to God,
Liberty is
left to act
without
compulſion.
4
not to be
and find in it nothing like confufion, but contrarywife à louely
Order, à Harmony moft gracious befeeming God, Yets fay the
foolish of the world, we ate to diuorce it from his facred Proui-
dence: That is, the Clock can moue, the wheeles can turn about
without à Superiour hand that winds all vp and orders all. And
why I beseech you? Mark the reafon of fuch as haue no Rea-
fon. Free Cauſes, men I mean indued with Liberty, abuſe li-
berty oppreff the iuft, raife tumults, breed confufion, and
Scramble who can get the greateft heap of duft together; Ergo
faith the half ey'd Atheiſt, (refpiciens ad pauca) there is no care
had of vs, which is to fay. Men comply not with their Duty but
abuſe their own Free will, Therefore God is blameable becauſe
he either makes them not meer Animals, Brutish, or forces not
Virtue vpon them againſt their wills. Its an Errour.
Thus much then concern's God. To indue rational Creatu-
res with Liberty to command the right vfe of it; but
refponfable or held neglectiue, if They abufe it. No, this
touches them (for T'is their own work) that doe Euil. Let then
the Euil remain where it is (Prouidence can forgiue, but notfor-
get) And ſeriouſly confider the louely Harmony, the recreatiue
Order vifible in the works of Nature (here is Gods own admirable
Oeconomy) doe only thus much, and reaſon ſo euidently diſco-
uer's à depth of Wiſdom in theſe works, that it cannot but ex-
claim with the wife man, Sap. 14. 3. Tua ô Pater prouidentia gubernat.
Your Prouidence, ô Father, gouerns all. This done caft your
thoughts again as much as you will vpon the Monſters in natu-
re, which man freely beget's, and freely bring's forth. What fol-
lowes I beseech you but rhus much only? That God, after fo
many menacings fo much Terrour laid before vs if we transgrefs,
leaues liberty to its own free choife, and will feuerely punish the
Offenders; But that Spurious Progeny of euil Works he own's
not. Therefore no Argument can haue force againſt Prouidence
this account, That liberty is permitted to act as liberty re-
quires, without Compulfion. Were God forgetful or negligent;
Would he not, or could he not punish fin now, or hereafter, A-
ypon
theift
Difc. 2. C. 12. Aduerfaries difcouered.
367
theiſts might vapour more boldly, But hereof there is no danger,
for nature it felr leaues this deep impreffion in all (let who will
Gouern it) that one fupreme Regent hates Iniquity, and that as
he often doth vifibly in this life, So he will more rigidly take
Reuenge in the future. Mihi vindica: & Ego retribuam. Rom. 12.
19.
And this confideration alone of both prefent (moft clear)
and future Punishments, fo blunt's and dead's the Atheifts Plea,
that their beſt Arguments fall to nothing, and are indeed refol-
ued into pure Non-fenfe. This confideration alone, that God
will reward the vniuft ſufferings of the Virtuous, is comfort enough
for them, and euery rational prudent Creature..
5.
-
We are next to difpatch the main buſineſs with theſe Ad-
ucrfaries, who defire to haue as ftrong Proofs in behalf of Pro-
uidence, as they allege against it. I will therefore for the bet-
ter Satisfaction of all, produce three moft conuincing Arguments.
One is; The Deity we all Adore is not inexorable, but, as clear
and manifeft Experience teaches, and moft known Hiftory in
all Ages relates, hear's often the Prayers of iuft men in time of
Tribulation releafing them from fudden danger, when no huma-
ne Power can help in the Exigency, Innumerable after earneft
Prayer and hands lifted vp to Heauen, haue found fpeedy Af
fiftance, fome in the peril of Shipwrak efcaped, others thrown
to hungry lions haue been left vntouched, others caft into rhe
fire not fo much as fcorched, volumes might be writ of fuch
particulars. Therefore there is à Supreme Numen, that has care
of vs, the Sun, Moon, and Starrs hear not, nor can lend ay-
de in fuch preffing Neceffities, And to recurr to no man knowes
what invifible Spirits, is, as we now faid, lefs intelligible and
far more difficult, than to own one powerful Being of Himfelf
that both can and doth relieue at his good Pleaſure.
6. 2. The knowledge of future things Sublime and aboue
the reach of all Creatures, Argues à Power Omniscient, and
Omnipotent. The reafon is. The Prenotion of what's to co-
me, not yet limited to any Being in it felfe, nor as yet deter-
minately exifting, neceffarily arifes from an Infinite Knowledge
and
One clear
proof of Pra
nidense,
368 Difc. 2. C.12. Fallacies of the Churches
The knosp-
ledge of fu-
ture things
prones à Po-
wir Omni-
fcient.
and efficacy of light, which extends it Selfe to what euer can be
known; for that power which comprehend's things future, much
more comprehend's all paft and prefent, and therefore has an
infinit Extent, which we call Omniscience. Now I fubfume. But
an Intellectual power is in being, that by virtue of his own light
knowes future Truths wherof none can doubt, becauſe he has
actually communicated part of his knowledge to others, For
example, to the Ancient Prophets, who moft exactly fortold
things to come relating to Christ our Lord, and the Glory of
his Church; Such Secrets highly Diuine, they had not as men
nor were they known by any Principle within the bounds of Na-
ture, therefore God Omnifcient imparted all; And he did fo not
in vain, but for this great End, That mortals may fee how an
infinit Goodneſs condefcend's to inform vs of Truths whereby
he manifeftly tender's our Happineſs, And this alone demonftrat's
Prouidence. That the Prophets foretold truths to come is
euident by the books of Scripture, writ whole ages before they
happened, and the Euent vifible to our eyes, proues the veri-
ties of the Predictions. What haue your Aftronomers who
more often mifs then hit in their Predictions comparable to
theſe Prophefies in Scripture? Nothing at all, if (which defer-
ues reflection) we confider the Eminency, the Depth, and high
importance of the Myfteries reuealed.
7. My laft proof taken from one Manifeft Abfurdity, is
no less than demonftratiue. Suppofe Prouidence be denyed,
it followes, That thofe Millions of men who fince the worlds
Creation adored God, whereof innumerable were wife, vpright,
and holy, haue all been befotted and ftupidly beguiled in A-
A third and doring that which is not. Nay more, This alfo is confequent,
That à few abiect, ignorant, and defpicable Atheiſts, are only
indowed with the light of à Truth, which once eſtablished, ma-
kes Virtue odsous, Honefty, and Goodnes highly contemptible. I pro-
ue the confequence. If Prouidence be à chimera, All our acts
of Reuerence, of Fear, Obedience, Religion and Gratitude ten-
dered to God, effentially bleffed with that fore-feing Power
most con-
wincing
Proof.
are
Difc. 2. C. 9. Aduerfaries difcouered.
369
are diffonant to reafon, and in themfelues abominably finful.
Contrarywife, All acts of Contumely, of Blafphemy, and Con-
tempt of Prouidence, are confonant to reaſon, and moſt lau-
dable. The more therefore, we blafpheme, contemn Diuine
Prouidence, the more laudably we operate, and as highly merit
praiſe, as one doth that contemn's an Idol fet before him to
worship. For Prouidence, Say Atheiſts, is an Idol, Ergo to adore
it is madneſs, to contemn it, moft Praiſe worthy. Thefe and
other like Sequels are fo harsh, fo Abominable, and contrary to
the light of nature, that I think the boldeſt Atheiſt now liuing,
dare not in à ferious moode own them as Truths. And thus
And thus
much briefly of reafonable Arguments in behalf of Prouiden-
ce, to oppofe that flight Plea of Atheiſtical Spirits already Pro-
pofed, and diffolued.
8. The third Propofition. As Atheiſts plead fallaciouſly
againſt Prouidence, fo Heathens lewes, and Hereticks follow
cloſely the like Strain in euery Argument propoſed againſt
Harsh fe
quels gran.
red by A-
theifs.
the Myſteries of Faith taught by Chrift and his Church. Atheists and
I would fay. As the Atheiſt run's headlong with his weak Heretiques
Iudgement vpon Difficulties, fo theſe now named, erre as he argue à like
erreth. They make Direct Reaſon to ſee more than it can
fee, to Comprehend Myfteries incomprehenfible, and quite
caft affide that Prudent reflex Reafon, which allayes all, and
giues moft Satisfaction. For example, The Heathen Com-
prehend's not that great Myftery of the Trinity, and there
tand's puzzled. Good caufe, fay I, for if à Cockle shell
contain's not the whole Occan, why should thy shallow head
comprehend the Trinity? Were this poffible, either thou
must be God or God leaue of to be what he is. The
Tew vnderftand's not how God became man, and dyed igno-
miniouſly vpon à Crofs. Obferue à ftrange Stupidity faith Di-
uinely S. Chrifoftom. Lib. Quod Chriftus fit Deus, towards the
end. Theſe Aduerfaries of Chrift read of contempt and Dif-
grace, and credit all. They read in the fame Scripture of our
Saui ours Admirable Miracles and belieue nothing. Here is want
>
A a a
of
370 Difc. 2. C. 12. Fallacies of the Churches
The Affer
sion proued.
>
of Reflex Reaſon. The Heretick boggles at the Doctrin of
Tranfubftantiation, and wonders that à Church made vp of
fallible men can be held infallible. And from whence comes
this boggling? What cauſe is there of wonder? He Anfwer's.
Tranfubftantiation feems contrary to Senfe and Reaſon. Very
good. I Ask again, to what Reaſon is it oppofit? Grant gratis
the Vtmoft, it only feem's contrary to that not wel-fighted
Reaſon which more often beguils than learns vs Truth, or which
loſeth it ſelf in the Search of deep Myſteries, where it can
find no Exil. But Anſwer I beseech you? Is the Doctrin op-
pofite to that Other wife Prudent iudgement, whereby all know
or should know, That reafon is neuer more reasonable, than when
it leaues off reasoning in high matters aboue reason? No certainly
reasonable? For deny once this one clear Chriftian Principle, or fay that's
only belieuable and no more which weak reafon Approues;
We deſtroy the very Effence of Faith and can belieue nothing.
The Doctrin of Gods Free-acts, of à Trinity, of the Incarnation,
of Tranſubſtantiation, and the other like Myfteries is quite re-
nounced, if ſo much only gain's belief, as weak reaſon (puzzled
in the Myſteries) fee's Reaſon for..
When
Reafon is
>
9. I fay therefore. This Direct purblind reafon caft's vs vpon
What effects Difficulties, Reflex reafon folues them. The firft makes vs meer
weak reafon Scepticks yea (and followed) Atheifts too, The fecond good
produces.
How the
reflex and
prudent rea-
fon proceed's.
Chriftians: The Firſt remains in darkneſs, the ſecond finds light.
The firſt would turn all faith into Science, the fecond faith,
No, si non credideritis non intelligetis. Vnleſs you belieue you
shall not vnderſtand. The firft, though no more but à handmaid,
would rule, bear fway, and command, the fecond curb's that
petulancy, and bids Her Obey. Now the only difficulty is to
show what is meant by Prudent reflex Reason, and of what confe-
quence it is in matters of Faith.
10. Briefly this reafon ftands not long vpon the Myſteries
reuealed but, leaues off that loft labour and relies wholly, on
the Authority of one Mafter, that reueals them. Hence Clem.
Rom. in Recogn. D. Petri giues this wife counfel. Ante Omnia, &c.
Before
Difc. 2. C. 12. Aduerfaries difcouered.
371
Before all things examin well by rational Motiues, whether he
be à Prophet that ſpeaks, This done, ponder no more but belieue
boldly all he Saith.
And wonder nothing at the principle, for
it is far more eafy to find out the Prophet by his marks, and
fignes, than to vnderſtand the fublime Doctrin he teaches. S.
Irenæus! Lib.9. C.9. 1. fpeakes conformably. Non enim nos aliter
difcere poteramus quæ funt Dei, nifi Magister nofter verbum exiftens homo
factus fuiffet. We could not otherwife learn thofe Secrets God
has reuealed, vnlefs our great Mafter, the Diuine word, had
been made man. Which is to fay, the Reaſon we call reflex
and prudent, moft eafily finds out the Mafter that teaches truth,
and hauing once found him it relies on his word, whilft direct
Reaſon ſtayes intangled in difficult Myfteries, and learns nothing.
Hence alfo it is, that S. Thomas and others moft profoundly.
Obferue à notable difference, in our proceeding when we harken
to God, and to man. When we treat with man, we rigidly What man
examin the things he fpeak's, and if found abfurd, or impoffible, Speak's is to
reiect them; We obferue the coherence of his Difcourfe, and be exami
judge whether it be confonant or diffonant to reafon. But
to proceed thus with God, who can neither deceiue, nor be
deceived, is Impudence; Enquire then no more but thus much
only, what God faies, and reſt Satisfied, his own fole word,
is warrant enough.
:
>
II. We come now to apply this Do&trin more home.
The Primitiue Chriſtians, after à prudent ſearch, found out by
euident fignes, and wonders, the great Mafter of the world
Chriſt our Lord, and were commanded to hear him Matth.17.
5. Ipfum audite. And becauſe he proued Himfelf by manifeft
fignes, to be à Doctor and Prophet fent from. God, They
belieued the Doctrin he taught, upon his own word, though
very fublime and aboue weak reafon. Now here is à Point
of confequence worth our ſerious ponderation.
I 2.
ned, what
God faith,
not.
Can any one imagin, that our great Doctor of truth An applica-
left vs all comfortles, or fo deftitute in his Abfence, without
Paſtors without Prophets, withous liuing Oracles that yet ſpeak
Aaa 2
in
tion of the
Doctrin.
372
Difc 2. C.12. Fallacies of the Churches
There is yet
à teaching
Oracle
The Plea of
Sectaries
roiected.
>
Goe and teach all Nations. Luke. 10. 16.
And to theſe Paftors he promifes
And the
in his name and deliuer with all certainty thofe Verities he
taught, and will haue euer taught? Reflect Í befèeck you. This
great Mafter faith No. Iohu. 20. 16. As my Father fent me, so I
fend you. Matth. 20. 19.
He that hear's you hears me.
hu prefence and continual aßiſtance to the end of Ages. Matt. 28. 20.
I will be with you euer to the end of the world.
very excellency, the very nature, of Diuine Learning requires
this Affiftance, and muft, if Diuine, depend on an Oracle which
cannot but fpeak in Gods name Truth, and Truth only. For
how is it poffible to conceiue the vaft moral Body of Chriftians,
of fo different tempers diffuſed the whole world ouer, knit firmly
together in one fauing Faith; if no certain Oracle laies forth
that learning, which God has reuealed, and will haue all to
belieue.
13. The Sectary may Anfwer, Scripture is his Oracle, he
needs no more. Contra. 1. Chriſtianity had à liuing Oracle
before Scripture was written, did then that Oracle ceafe to be
becauſe Gods truths were committed to paper or parchment?
Contra 2. And mark I beseech you, how vnwarily weak reafon
(already reiected) works mifchief to it felf, and others. Reafon
reads Scripture, and when that is done, it fett's endles iarrs in-
compoſable debates not only between man and man, bnt, which is
worfe, between God and man; Therefore Scripture thus handled
can be no Oracle that vnites all in one Faith. Thefes Iarrs between
man and man are manifeft, for the Arians, Pelagians, Proteftants,
and Catholicks read the book, and you fee what fighting there
is about the Senfe, which only indeed (and not the bare letter)
is Scripture. Now that fome of thefe many Contend alfo with
God, is vndeniable. For God approues not all theſe different
fenfes becauſe contradictory, Therefore fome draw à falſe meaning
from Scripture, and thefe Some (let the fault light yet where you
will) oppofe the true Senfe of the Holy Ghoft, yea act ftifly
to their Eternal shame, againſt that noble perfection in God, his
vndeceiued Verity and this I call contention or quarrelling with
God
Diſc. 2. C. 12. Alwerfaries difcouered.
373
God (Truth it felf) which as you fee, our Sectaries. will haue
goe on without redreſs, becauſe they allow of no Doctor no
Teacher, no Oracle, that can end the Strife, or reduce the erring
Party to due fubmiffion.
The true
14. I fay therefore, And here is my laſt Propofition. The
Roman Catholick Church, which prudent reafon eaſily find's teaching
out,
and no other Society of Chriftians, is Gods own Oracle, Oracle
What she teaches, we learn ; what she reiect's, we reiect, Her name`d,
Definitiue word is our warrant, without further dubious fearch
made into the Myſteries propofed. The proof of my Affertion,
depend's on this brief difcourfe.
15. God obliges all poor and rich, learned, and vnlearned,
to embrace true Religion, And confequently afford's means
to find it out, being à matter of fo much weight as concerns
Saluation, But the Neceffary means to find true Religion, is
to come to the knowledye of that Oracle which Propofes and
teaches truth with all certainty, For no man teaches Himfelf
but learns, if wife, of à better Mafter; Scripture you fee Ends
not our Controuerfies. The Myfteries of Faith are not our
Doctors, becauſe theſe in themſelues obfcure, are belieued after
Reafon has found out Gods liuing Oracle, Therefore all Chri-
ftians must own à Teacher, an Oracle of truth eſtablished by
Almighty God, commiffioned to enlighten and to inftruct the
world. How shall they hear faith S. Paul Rom. 10. 15. without
à Preacher. Obferue well à teaching Oracle is to Propofe
Euangelical Doctrin. But how shall they preach vnless they they be The Church
fent? Here you fee the Miffion and commiffion of Euangelical Commiffio.
Doctors plainly pointed at. Now further. As none can but ned to teach,
own fuch an Oracle, fo all muft likewife acknowlegde it fo infruct's
Visible by Marks and Signes, fo obuious to fenfe and prudent
reaſon, that the moft fimple may difcern it from Heretical Com-
munities; For this Oracle teaches the pooreft fort of men
therefore Prouidence has made the euidence thereof plain, and
fuitable to the meaneft capacities.
>
16. Here we See again the difference, between the effential
Aaa 3.
Doctrin
all.
374
Difc. 2. C. 12. Fallacies of the Churches
How pru
dent reaſon
difcourfes.
The Chur-
ches clear
Euidence.
>
Doctrin of the Church, and the Churches outward luftre manifeft
in Her Signes. The firft is not got by long Paufing vpon the
Myſteries of Faith, nor by rigidly examining the things reuealed,
as we difcufs Doctrins probable or improbable in Schools. No.
The Chriftian faith not, I will either Know how God can be
one Effence and three diftinct Perfons, How the Incarnation is
poffible, or I will belieue neither; For goe this way to work,
he doth like one that takes wholfom Pills and chewes them,
but finding much bitternes foon fpits them out. Thus then
he should proceed guided by à Reflex prudent difcourfe. My
only fearch is to find out that Oracle whereby God fpeaks to
Heathens, lewes, Chriftians and Hereticks, There is fuch an one
manifefted, or none can Belieue any thing. This once found,
I examin no more, nor intricate my felf in the Myſteries pro-
pofed, but will humbly Submit to all that's taught. This wildom
I learn from the Primitiue Chriftians, who moſt eaſily knew that
Christ our Lord was the true Meffias, and one fent from God
by the Wonders he wrought, though they little
yet vnderſtood
the depth of thofe Myfteries he deliuered, and obliged all to
belieue. Thus much Premiſed.
17. I Proue that the Roman Catholick Church is God's
only Oracle. And firſt Her exteriour Marks and figns giue in
as clear euidence of Her being the only Diuine Oracle, as the
wonders which the Apoftles wrought euidenced them to be
Diuine Oracles. With this luftre we haue à Church moſt viſible,
and difcernable, from all vnorthodox Communities. None can
Parallel Her in known Miracles, in Antiquity, Perpetuity, Con-
uerfions &c. 2. This Church hath taught the world euer fince
Chriſtianity began, and no Orthodox Society but She only is
nameable, which deliuered the Sincere Doctrin of Chrift; For
hint at any, they are manifeftly proued condemned Hereticks.
3. She was neuer cenfured in any Age of errour by fo much
as one confeffed found Chriftian, Nay I fay more (and haue
proued it aboue) She is fo infallible, that if she erred but in
one Article, She then ceafed to be Gods Oracle. 4. This Church
showes
Difc. 2. C. 12. Aduerfaries difcouered.
375
fhowes the Miffion of Her Paftors, and deriues Her Comiffion
to teach the world, from God, and our Lord Iefus Chrift.
18.
The firſt Miſſion concerning the teaching of the new
Teftament Originally came from Almighty God, that fent his only
Son our Sauiour to preach. Iohn. 14. 24. The word you haue beard
is not mine but his that fent me, the Fathers. Luke 4. 14.
He (ent
me to Euangelize to the poor. Now Chrift our Lord, fent the other
Apoftles. Mark 16. 1. Going into the whole world preach the
Gospel to all creatures. Theſe firſt Maſters, had their Succeffors
lawfully commiffioned, they fent others age after age, in fo much
that the Miffion of Orthodox Paftors legally authorized to ad-
miniſter Sacraments, and to preach Gods word, neuer yet failed
in the Roman Catholick Church fince Chrift's being vpon earth,
nor shall fail hereafter to the worlds end.
י
>
19. Theſe Truths well weighed, And after many ferious thoughts
found as they are vndeniable, Prudent reafon account's all that
can be obiected againft our euidenced Church, worfe than folly.
And here is the ground à Priori of the folly. Thefe Aduerfa-
ries that Oppoſe vs, quite miſtake the right way of Arguing
(were there any) For, whereas they should firft find out Gods
great Oracle which teaches truth, and obiect that againſt vs, They
wholly waue this matter of higheſt Importance, And, fo far as weak
Reaſon can work, draw Arguments from the dark Myſteries of
Faith. One finds difficulty in the Trinity and reiect's it, Another
in the Doctrin of Tranfubftantiation and hold's it impoffible.
That is, weak reaſon, as much fet's vp its own light againſt God,
as if one should offer to extinguifh the Sun beams by the dim
light of à candle.
20. Obferue I beseech you à ftrange Procedure. We eui-
dence à Church, we proue Her Gods Oracle by the Characters,
Signes and Marks manifeftly laid open to all mens eye we
fay this manifefted Oracle which has drawn Millions of fouls.
to the Catholick belief cannot beguile vs. Our Aduerfaries
one the other fide Say (notwithſtanding this reafonable Euiden-
ce) God fpeaks not by Her, Because the Mysteries are bard and abo-
Setaries
milake the
right way
of arguing.
ne
376
Difc. 2. C. 12. Fallacies of the Churches
They plead
most fimply.
ue Reaſon; whereas indeed the quite Contrary should be inferred,
viz. Becauſe they are myſterious God fpeaks by fo euidenced an
And here is the Reafon of my Inference.
Oracle.
- 21. Had the abftrufe Myſteries taught by the Church been à
humane Inuention only, and not from God, the fuppofed Inuen-
tor of them (who euer he was) had been worfe then mad to Pro-
pofe to many, to our shallow Reafon. He should rather haue
followed the ſtrain of all other Hereticks, and with the Arians
The reafon denyed à Trinity, with Proteftants caſt of Tranfubftantiation,
But this you fee is not done, The Church fpeak's truth plainly,
becauſe She knowes there is an other light, à ftronger Euidence
which leffens, facilitates, and conquer's thefe feeming Difficulties.
If therefore there be euidence enough of Credibility for this one
Propofition. God (peaks to all by this known Oracle, Reafon pleads
no more, but yeilds to one that cannot erre.
of their
weak plea-
ding.
The Candor
of the Euan.
gelifts wri-
sing our Sa.
uicurs life,
22. It may perhaps appear Strange, if One confider with what
plain Simplicity the Holy Euangelifts wrote the Gospel of Iefus
Chrift, where they feem to fumish the lewes with Arguments
againſt our Sauiour. They declared how He was contemned,
reproached, Scourged, haled from Tribunal to Tribunal, and fi-
nally Crucified. Here the Aduerfaries of Chrift Exclaim, and
Ask what's more Difficult? Could God poffibly (Say they)
permit his only fon to be thus abufed, when 'tis writ, Maledic-
tus qui-pendit in ligno. Curfed is the man that hang's on à Cross?
The Euangelifts feared not the Obiection, but, related the Story
as it was. Nor did they to gain their great Mafter applaufe
Couer or diffemble his Sufferings as Policy might haue done,
had humane Wiſdom only made the Book. No. They pro-
ceeded candidly; And why all this Sincerity think ye? The An-
frer is eafy. They knew well, that the Victory which our
Sauior gained after all theſe ſufferings, The Renown he purcha-
fed vpon the Cross, the Miracles he then and formerly had
wrought, were fo forceable Euidences of his being the true
Mellias, that no contrary Humiliation, euen to death it ſelf, could
obfcure that greater light and rational euidence of Truth. Therefo-
re
Difc. 2. C. 12. Aduerfaries, difcouered.
377
re whole Multitudes beholding the wonders at his facred Paffion
after the Centurion had cryed out, This man indeed was inft re-
turned, knocking ther brists. Luke. 23. 48. And in his life time,
ſaid. Quid facimus? What do we doe? This Christ works fo
many wonders, That if we diſmiſs him, All will belieue in
him.
Arguments drawn from what is faid. Reflections
made upon the premiſed Doctrin.
23. Hence I Argue. If the euident Light of our Sauiours
glorious Miracles was fufficient to vanquish Incredulity, and to
work à Belief in all of his truely being the Son of God, not-
withſtanding the difficulty of the Myſtery; It followes clearly
that the vndeniable Euidence of the Roman Catholick Church
already laid forth, is as fully fufficient to vanquish the Incredulity
of Heathens, lees and Hereticks, And to work this Perfwafion
in all (notwithſtanding the high Myfteries propofed) that She
is Gods Oracle. For here is my Principle, and moſt vndoubted.
That as the Verity of Chriftian Religion is to be learned from
that known Oracle which bear's Chrift's Enfigns, without diſpu-
ting the Sublimity of the Doctrin, fo the fallity of à Doctrin is
proued, (Not by the difficulty thereof), but, is clearly gathered,
from the Nullity of an vneuidenced Church, which teaches it.
An vneuidenced Church therefore is no warrant of true Doc-
trin.
24. And here you haue briefly the fundamental Reaſon
why no Heretick, can probably oppofe the receiued Doctrin of
our Catholick Oracle, or defend his own contrary to it, whilſt he
is Churchless, I mean fo long as he giues in no Euidence
of an other Church diftinct from the Roman Catholick, as An-
cient, as vniuerfal as She is, as glorious in Miracles as She is, as fa-
mous for Conuerfions as She is, as Vncenfured as She is, as com-
Bbb
mifio-
Christ, and
Hi Church
preuaile
against In
creduling.
The
reason why
no
Heretick
the Clerck.
can oppose
Church.
378
Dif. 2. C. 12. Fallacies the Church.
Sellaries
Euer decline
the Sentence
of an Eui-
denced
Church
miffioned to preach, and teach the world, as She is, I fay whilst
no fuch qualified Church can be euidenced, which contradicted
our prefent Catholick Doctrin, and maintained that of Sectaries
fo long the Proteftant cannot defend his own opinions, nor ra-
tionally oppofe our Catholick Tenents. For here, as S. Auſtin
anciently obferued difputing with the Donatifts, lies the main.
Bufinefs and it decides all Difficulties. Virum veftra, an nostra fit
Ecclefia Dei. Whether yours, or ours, be the Church of God.
Let then this one point, worthy Debate, be rigidly examined; And
'tis eafily done may the euer acknowledged Marks, and Sig-
nes, of the true Church haue weight with Prudent reaſon, We are
all without more Difpute reunited in one Ancient Faith.
?
24. And who can (if his caufe be good) decline this modeft
Offer? When t'is known, that thefe publick Signs haue fix'd
and established this publick Iudgement in all through the Chri-
ftian world. That à Church fo vndeniably Ancient, fo Miracu-
lous, and drawing Souls to Her, cannot but be Gods Sacred O-
racle? But Sectaries in all their Polemicks waue this worthy
Queſtion concerning an euidenced Church, and vnworthily to
the great Wearifomnes of euery Reader, ftand pitifully trifling
with à few long fince defeated and worn-out Controuerfies. I
(ay trifling, For is it not more then flight and friuolous, now to
flurt at the worshiping of Images, now to pelt the Pope, now to
quote à half fenfed Sentence against Purgatory, now to miſrelate
And trifle
à Story, now if à wickednes lie in à Corner to rifle that, Now to
sime away. talk, as if men were mad, of the Roman Churches Idolatry..
Here to iibe at our Ceremonies, there to attaint the Spotles Re-
putation of Chrifts Spouſe? Say for Gods fake to what purpoſe
is this? when the Knowledge of that Vnum neceffarium which
cannot but be known. viz. Here is Gods euidenced Oracle fo
clearly ends all Debates, fo iuftly determin's what's true,
what's falfe, in thefe and the like particulars, that none can, vn-
leffe led on with à Spirit of Contradiction withſtand the iuft Sen-
tence of this One euidenced Oracle.
and
25. If the Sectary reply, notwithſtanding the Churches Eui-
dence
Diſc. 2. C. 12. Aduerfaries, difcouered.
379
What the
most ancient
Chriftians
dence, many things She teaches appear doubtful to him. I haue
Anſwered. Difc. I. C. 18. Proofs only doubtful, yea though
Probable alfo, (which is not) want pith to gainfay an Euidence
owned by the publick Wiſdom of the Chriftian world: But the
greateſt Part of the Chriftian world Alwayes owned thefe Truths.
Firft. That God has, and euer had, à Church Visible on earth. 2. owned,
That his Church may be known by Her Marks,Signes and Moti-
ues, and that the moft meet Signes to Diftinguish Her by, are an-
fwerable to thofe, manifefted in Chrift our Lord. 3. That rhe
Roman Catholick Church only, Euidently shewes thefe Signs,
and by Virtue of them demonftrat's Her felf to be Gods own
Oracle. Here you haue my Principles already laid forth, And
à Petition with them to Proteftants, to infringe or weaken but
One of them, vpon Scripture-Proof, vpon the irrefragable Te-
ftimony of Fathers or by Virtue of any Principle which may
appear probable to the vniuerfal Senfe or rational Confent of
fuch as haue been owned Orthodox fince Chrift liued on earth..
But to do this is vtterly impoffible.
,
·
Support of
26. Defcend now if you pleafe to particular Controuerfies,
you shall euer find that nothing but the twilight of weak Rea-
fon, meer Doubtfulness I mean, fupport's Proteftant Religion.
It is doubtful ſay theſe Aduerfàries, whether Purgatory be, or Doubts and
no. It is doubtful whether Praying to Saints be Orthodox Cauils are
Doctrin. The Popes Supremacy ouer the whole Church is the only
Doubtful, and Queſtionable. Very Good, let theſe Propofi- Protestancy.
tions pass yet as doubtful. Perhaps Purgatory is not, Perhaps it
is. Perhaps inuocation of Saints is Orthodox Doctrin, Perhaps
no, For neither the one, nor other confidered in Themfel-
ves is à Truth Euident Ex terminis or fo mnch as Morally
certain. Now here is the iuft Trial. The Proteftant pofiti-
uely denyes Purgatory. I pofitiuely Affert it. Both Propofitions
are hitherto fuppofed doubtful, Therefore He who maintains truth
is obliged to raiſe his Propofition from that low State of à
poor Perhaps or doubting, to à higher Degree of certainty. The
Bbb 2
>
Catho-
380 Difc. 2. C. 12. Fallacies of the Churches &c.
The Affer.
tim decla.
red and
proued.
>
Catholick ſpeaks plainly and Argues thus. Gods euidenced Ora-
cle which beares the Marks the Enfigns of Chrift Iefus
and taught the world from the Beginning, obliges all as well
to belieue à Purgatory, as à Trinity of Perfons. I cannot
therefore, Saith he, without à Forfeiture of all Reaſon and ſtri--
uing againſt the Publick wifdom of the Chriftian world, Own
this à faithful' Oracle in the Propofal of the one Myftery, and
hold it Perfidious or Traiterous in the other.
in the other. Here is the
Catholicks Euidence. Now Mark well. The proofs of the-
Proteftants Propofition, (There is no Purgatory) are euer as remo-
te from. Certainty, as miferably dubious, as his very Affertion is. I'
fay no proof goes aboue the Strength of one poor deficient and
Weak Perhaps. If he allege Fathers Contrary to Purgatory, or any
other Catholick Tenet His own reafon yet in à cloud-tell's.
him. Perhaps, He hitt's on the true Senfe, Perhaps not. If he
plead by Scripture he neuer get's aboue the degree of doubting,
If he take recourfe to Hiftory or any other Principle what euer,
He shal find himfelf at the end of his labour, where he was at
the Beginning as doubtful in his Proofs as in his Affertion..
And why? He hath no euidenced Church to rely on.
more of this hereafter. See alfo: Difc. 1. C. 11.
>
But
CHAP..
Difc. 2. C. 13. Inferences drawn from c 381
I..
CHAP. XIH.
Other Inferences drawn from the precedent Doctrin.
Atheiſts and Hereticks Argue alike. The Moti-
ues of Credibility lead to a total Belief of
what euer the true Church Propofeth A
word of Mr Thorndicks Mištakes
concerning the Church-
He firſt Inference. All that's pleadable in Behalf of
T
Proteftancy or any particular Tenet thereof, is not only
doubtful but highly improbable, vpon Thefe two Principles.
Firſt, that à Church euidenced by the very fame Marks and Mo-
tiues which Chrift our Lord Shewed to the world, reiect's the
Nouelty, (And no Authority on earth can Conteſt with an Oracle
fo clearly Manifeft. ) The other Principle. No Society of Chri-
ftians fignalized with the like Motiues as the Roman Catholick
Church Demonftrat's, euer maintained fo much as one Tenet
of the Proteftants Doctrin. Here the ingenuous Reader is de-
fired to reflect à little how we proceed.
2.
I proue my Catholick Doctrin by the Publick Authority
of an euidenced Church, (That's my Principle) And our Ad-
uerfaries to Oppofe me come armed with two or three maim'd
dark Sentences, of the Holy Fathers and think this enough to
caft Popery out of the world. No fuch Matter my good Coun-
trymen, There is yet much more to do, before you ſpeak pro-
bably. You explode Tranſubſtantiation, Purgatory, Inuocation of
Saints. We Ask whether you euer had à Church as Euidenced,
as Ancient, as vniuerfal, as Commiffioned to teach as ours,
which publickly maintained your Tenets and cenfured The
Roman Catholick Doctrin? Show vs fuch à Church vpon folid
Principles the work is done, you giue weight For weight, Euiden-
ce for Euidence, and may Speak boldly, Nay I fay more, you may
Bbb 3
well
Two Princi.
ples.
The Seca-
ries oppofi-
tion agains
the Church
is null
And why?
382
Difc 2. C. 1. Inferences drawn from.
The Atheists
Way of ar
guing paral
I'd with
that of Se.
Baries,
A Church
clearly cui-
denced can.
not be ex-
cepted
against.
well triumph, For vpon the Suppofition, we are vanquished;
But Fail to do this (and fail you muft) you are filenced, yea,
impoffibilitated to write more Controuerfies. Se more of this
Subiect aboue., Difc. 1. C. 19.
3. A fecond inference. The Atheiſt and Proteftant plead
alike. That is. As the one Argues againſt God, iuſt ſo the
other doth againft Chrift's Church. All know the more an-
cient Atheiſts offer'd not pofitiuely to Demonftrate the Non-
exiftence of God, for there is no Principle to ground that
Senflefs Affertion vpon, But chiefly excepted againſt the Proofs
drawn from the vifible works in Nature and thought thefe fo
wreak to Euince à Deity, that there might well be none. Thus
our Sectaries proceed. For ftark shame they dare not deny à
Church of Chrift, Yet their whole labour is fo to obfcure Her
Euidence, that no man can poffibly find out the Oracle by sig-
nes, Miracles, Conuerfions, and Antiquity. Therefore as the A-
theift in effect denies God, or at leaft ftand's doubtfull of his
Being, So the Sectary, to parallel him, becaufe He denies
the Churches glorious Euidence, cannot but remaine doubtful,
whether there be any fuch Oracle or no. Again as the Atheiſt
bewrayes his folly in giuing the Lie to the vniuerfal Iudgement
of mankind, when he Saies the works of Nature proue not à
Deity, So the Sectary run's the fame Carreer, betrayes his fol-
ly, and giues the Lie to the whole Chriftian world, when he
faies, the Manifeft works of Grace, vifible in the Catholick
Church conuince Her not to be God's Oracle.
4. A third inference. The fole Euidence of the Ro-
man Catholick Church viſible by Her Marks, fo clearly con-
uinces and carries on the whole Catholick Caufe without excep-
tion, So utterly vanquishes the Proteftants Plea of Errours en-
tring into this great moral Body, that it is highly improbable,
yea à flat Calumny to impeach Her of any. Here is
my reaſon.
Meer doubts, or crafy Topicks can not reuerfe Euidence,
But the Churches Antiquity, Her vaft extent, Her Progrefs,
Her Miracles, Her Conuerfions and the other like Signes, are
ex
Difc. 2. C. 10. The precedent Doctrin.
383
x fenfatis, fenfibly and vndeniably euident; Therefore all im-
pleading Her of Errour is more than improbable, vnleſs She
has erred in shewing fuch Marks as haue inade the world Chri-
ftian. Now further. If this Euidence ftand's firm, Her Do-
etrin is made euidently Credible by it, that is, fo worthy of
Acceptance by diuine Faith, That Reafon, after fo much Light
feen, is obliged vnder pain of damnation to yeild Aflent to the
Doctrin. For, as none can prudently belieue, before this Eui-
dence be attained. (Qui cito credit levis est corde, Ecclef. 19. 44.
One too quick in belieuing is not wife) So none after t'is
had, can without damnable fin Difbelieue.
5. Hence I Argue. The Doctrin of the Primitiue Church
was made euidently credible to reafon (That is) worthy of all
Acceptation in the three or four firft Centuries, or was not;
If not; none could then belieue, with diuine Faith; For the
Euidence of credibility neceffarily preceed's Faith, And as Faith
in it felf is ſtrong, moft certain, and victorious ouer Incredulity
(lohn I. 5. 4 This is the victory which ouercom's the world, our
Faith), So this preuious Euidence, anfirerably brings Reafon
to fo firm à State of belieuing crtainly, that nothing Propofa-
ble can Eclipfe that clear and manifeft light.
6. Contrary wife, if thoſe Primitiue Chriftians had the Eui-
dence we ſpeak of, and were thereby obliged to belieue, We Ca-
tholicks are Moft fecure, for the very fame Euidence ftill conti-
nues to this Age in the Roman Catholick Church. Miracles go
on, Conuerfions of Nations go on, the Succeffion of Paftors
goes on, The fulfilling of Prophefies goes on, Sanctity of life
in Thouſands and Thoufands, is manifeft to our eyes and fen-
fes, Euery day the Church growes older, and which is enough
to conuince the moſt obdurate Heretick, the louely vnion, the
vnanimous Confent, of fo many Nations though different in
tongues, in manners in Education, (confpiring, and openly
Profeffing one and the fame faith,) hath not only gained our
Church à publick Reputation the whole world ouer, but inore-
The Primiti
ue euidence
of Credsbili-
17.
Is yet mani.
Roman CA-
fest in the
tholick
Church.
Quer
384 Difc. 2. C. 13. Inferences drawn from
ce.
quer proues this great Truth, That she, and none but she, is
Gods Sacred Oracle.
7. If then (and here lies the force of my Inference) it had
been à flat calumny and more than vaftly improbable, to haue
The force of taxed the Apoftolical Primitiue Church of Ertour after fo great
the inferen Euidence laid forth to Reafon in Her. Marks and Signs, it is no
lefs finful in the Proteftant now, no lefs vngodly at this day, to
accuſe the preſent Church of corrupted Dectrin, whilſt She frees
her felf from the Calumny, by giuing in the very fame Euidence.
of Credibility. For here is my irrefragable Principle. The like
full euidence of motiues lead's reafon to draw Thence à moft firm
and certain Faith. Deftroy this Euidence in any, that proues
Himſelf to be Gods Oracle, you muſt deny it to Chrift our Lord
when he preached, To the Primitiue Church alfo, and finally to
the Modern Catholick Church. Do fo, All Faith perishes; Grant
it to both the Ancient Church and this now in being, All plea-
ding againſt our Catholick Doctrin is meer Vanity.
An Obie-
Ation Propo-
Jed.
8. The Sectary may reply. Though the Euidence we infiſt
on hath ſome weight. Yet it followes not, that all the Doctrin
our Church teaches is made euidently Credible, For he can iuft-
ly except againſt the Doctrin, relying vpon other folid Grounds,
and moſt approued Principles. Scripture, for example, the Au-
thority of holy Fathers, the Records of Antiquity, the Form of
the Primitiue Church, are his Principle, and by thefe he hopes
to proue our Churches Doctrin Falfe, which done the Euidence
we build vpon, fignifies nothing.
9. I am very willing to folue this Obiection, the Anſwer I ho-
pe,
will show vpon what vnſteedy foundations Proteftancy ſtand's.
To proceed with all clarity. This is Queſtionable, whether we,
or Proteftants, teach the Doctrin of Iefus Chrift. And becauſe
it is here impoffible to defcend to all particular controuerfies, we
will fall vpon one only much debated (one ferues for all ). Viz
whether Tranfubftantiation, or no Tranfubftantiation, be Ortho-
dox Doctrin. The truth yet lies in darkness, there is no Self-Eui-
dence either in the Affirmatiue or Negatiue, T'is yet no more but
doubt-
Difc. 2. C. 13. The precedent Doctrin.
385
liest
doubtful, or à meer Perhaps, whether the Proteftants or we
Speak Truth, Gods reuelation which only can giue certainty is here the
yet
obfcure to vs both, and as little euidenceth it Self, as the Ve- difficulty
rity we enquire after. By what means then can we raife our felues
aboue this ftate of Doubting to fo great à degree of certainty, as to
Say without fear. Tranfubftantiation is Orthodox Doctrin.
contrary, is not fo.
And the
>
He
Catholick
Peoceed's.
10. The Catholick (to waue in this place other proofs) recur's
to his Church, And faith this Publick euidenced Oracle, as well
raifes him to à State of certainty for his Tenet, as the euidenced
Primitiue Church raifd the firft belieuing Chriftians from their
doubts to Security. For the like full euidence alwayes lead's to
a like certainty of Belief. The Proteftant, hauing reiected our How the
prefent euidenced Church, hopes well, and will needs find
Hawes and falfity too in Her Doctrin, not by confronting Her
Euidence, or denoting an other Church, As ample, as ancient,
as miraculous, as She is, which held his Doctrin, for this
though it should be pleaded, (if we come to à clear Deciſion,) is
vnpleadable, becaufe the Proteftant has no fuch Oracle. What's
done therefore? I'll tell you, and you may iuftly wonder.
shaks of this clear Principle of an euidenced Church and pretend's,
(though there is no fuch matter) to launch into the vast Ocean
of Scripture, Councils, volumes of Fathers, ancient Records and thinks
to carry on his caufe this way. Here He pick's vp one dark Senten-
ce of à Father, and triumph's with that, There on another. He-
re vpon the least hint giuen he Snarles at one piece of Popery, way.
there at another. Here he guesses, and there he miffes. In à
word the man is bufily idle, doth much, and iuft nothing, run's
on, but is out of his way, utterly loft, without the guidance of
God's euidenced Oracle which only can draw him out of the La-
byrinth. And if you Ask, why he is out? I Anfwer his Errour
lies here, that both in this aud all other Controuerfies, he makes
his falfe Suppofitions to pafs for proofs againſt euidence.
II.
<
You shall fee what I here Affert Made Good. To proue
no Tranfubftantiation the Se&ary read's Scripture, Fathers, An-
Ccc
tiquity,
The Seary
takes à
Comrary
386
Diſc. 2. C. 13. Inferences drawn from
tiquity, or what els you will. Be it fo. He read's but not alone,
For the learned Catholick bear's him companie and read's alfo.
Mark now. The One after his reading gloffes, fo doth the ot-
her. The One compares Paffage with Paffage, fo doth the ot-
her. The One difcourfes, So doth the other. But when all
is done and here lies the mifchief) the Proteftant impofes one
fenfe vpon the perufed Teftimonies, and the Catholick another
Which lea- quite contrary. This dayly Experience teaches. viz. That we
wes him in
State of
doubting,
differ not fo much about the words we read as about the fenfe of
Scripture and Fathers. Therefore this alſo is Euident, That the
Proteftant aduances not his Doctrin (if yet he get fo high) aboue
the degree of gueffing only, whilft he pleads by his gloffed
Scripture, and Fathers, For as long as the Catholick, wholly as
learned and confcientious as He is, and an ample Church befides,
oppofes his far-fetch'd Senfe out of the Fathers, He cannot
without Impudency, and making à falfe Suppofition to pass for
his Proof, cry it vp as certain: Now further. As the fenfe he
drawes from Scriptnre and the Fathers is no more, but at most
doubtful, I fay improbable) fo his Affertion concerning no
Tranfubftantiation, or what euer els he holds contrary to the Ro-
man Catholick faith, is wholly as much wauering, or purely doubt-
What ener is ful: But that which is only doubtful and no more is too weak
doubtful
either to ground any Chriftian Tenet vpon, or to Contraft with
the Roman Catholick Church, whofe Doctrin is indifputably ma-
de euidently credible. Therefore unleſs à weake Vncertainty can
reuerfe Euident Credibility, the Sectaries Plea againſt the Church,
is not only improbable, but highly improbable.
grounds not
Faith.
>
12. To conclude this Point. Here is an vnanfwerable Dilem-
ma, It is poffible to Denote, and point at another Church
(which without difpute taught Proteftant Doctrin and oppofed
ours ) as Ancient, fas large, and euery way as Euidenced to ſenſe
and reafon, as the Roman Catholick Church is, Or it is not pof-
A Dilemma. fible. If poffible, controuerfies are ftrangely ended, for proue
me once fuch à Church, I lay plainly. There is no fuch thing
true Faith in the world worthy defenfe. Why? Becauſe if the Sup-
pofition
Difc. 2. C. 13. The precedent Doctrin.
387
pofition hold's two different Churches euidenced à like, equally
as ancient, as efficacious in Doctrin and glorious in Miracles,clash
with one another, Say and Vnfay, approue, and condemn. The one
condemn's Proteftancy, The other Popery, One will haue Tran-
fubftantiation belieued, The other not, which is as wholly de-
ſtructiue of Chriſtian Faith, as if Scripture it felf should plainly
Speak Contradictions.
nor
ced For
far
Ch
ma
Profianey.
pleading for
13. On the other fide, If the Sectary can neither name,
point at à Chutch (euery way as cuidenced as the Roman Catho- No edy
lick) which exprefly propugned Proteftancy and oppofed Popery,
He shall neuer utter probable word against any one Article of our
Catholick Faith; For throw an euidenced Protestant Church out of
the world, All that is allegable in behalfe of its Doctrin, or againſt
vs,will either End.in à flight diſcharge, of à few fcattered vnweighed
Sentences of holy Fathers (no fooner read than Anfwered) or, as
we dayly Experience, in grofs Miftakes, and bold Calumnies laid
on our Doctrin. And can theſe think ye extinguish the viſible Lu-
ftre of our Church, can theſe leffen the euident Credibility of Her
Doctrin, or bring fo known and owned an Oracle into open dif
grace, or publick Difreputation? It is impoffible. The moſt vi-
gorous Abbettors of Proteftancy may not only blush to Afſert it,
but will be bafled did we once liue to fee the happy day, when our
iuft cauſe might be propofed, and heard in à Publick Difpute, befo-
re Learned and impartial Iudges.
A VVord of Mr Thorndiks Mistakes difcouered
in His Book of Forbearance.
14. Though I Honour Mr Thorndick, and hold him much
more wife, Learned, and moderate, then fome late voluminous
Writers haue been, yet becauſe Truth will out, I muft not diffem-
ble but Speak truth, And therefore Say in à word. His whole atte-
mpt against the Roman Catholick Church is weake, And the feebleneff
Ccc 2
of
388
Difc. 2. C. 13. Inferences drawn from
Church
Motiues ei.
ther proue
that Oracle
pure in all
She teaches,
or in No.
sking.
of it Cannot but appear to euery Reader that penetrat's the force
of the Principles already eftablished. My wish indeed was to haue.
Vnderſtood his meaning better in fome particular paffages, For he-
re and there, he feem's to me à little obfcure, yea, to build with
one hand and to Pull down with the other, How euer by what is
clear we haue enough, and may well refute his Errours.
15. Page 19. In the Book now cited He takes leaue to bla-
me all thofe who declare in behalf of the Proteftant Church,.
that it depart's, or Separat's from the Church of Rome. For, Saith
he, feeing it hath bin granted in, and by this Church, euer fince the Refor-
mation that there is, and alwayes was saluation to be had in the Church of
Rome as à true Church, though corrupted; I am very confident, that no
Church can Separate from the Church of Rome, but they muſt make Them-
felues thereby Schismaticks before God. I grant. 1. Such are Schifma--
ticks as leaue this Church, I grant 2. Saluation was, and will
euer be had in this Church, Yet fay. 3. It is Calumny, yea à
plain Contradiction, to grant Saluation attainable in this Church,
and to impeach Her of Errour or corrupted Do&rin. The Ca-
lumny is vnqueftionable becauſe the Marks, the fignes and exte-
riour Euidence of our Church already infifted on, either proue
her Gods Oracle as found and faithful in all She teaches as.
the Primitiue Church was, or conuince nothing. What then
can thefe Aduerfaries ayme at? Will they grant Her no lefs
illuftrious in Marks and Motiues which induce to faith than
the Apoftical Church was, and yet make Her à Monſter, à
harlot, and prefidiouſly falfe in propofing Faith Haue fo
many learned Doctors Age after Age taught Her Doctrin, fo
many Martyts shed their blood In defenfe of it, fo many Saints
wrought glorious Miracles to confirm it and after all can
it vpon no proof but vpon à vain and moft vniuft Suppofi-
tion be called falfe and vnorthodox? Nothing can be mo-
re extrauagant. You must therefore either deny the Euidence we
plead by, (which is vndeniable) or own this Church entirely found
in euery Doctrin propofed, as Faith. Whence it is that when
Lewes, Gentils, and Hereticks, conuert themfelues to Catholick
>
Religion
Difc. 2. C. 13. The precedent Doctrin.
389
Religion, drawn thervnto by the light of euident Motiues,
they frankly belieue no Part, but all Church Doctrin without
Exception. And the Reafon of belieuing thus Wholly and not
by halfs, is giuen aboue. C. 5. 6. where we Demonftrate, that
if the Roman Catholick Church has erred in the propofal but
of one Point of Faith, and obliged Chriftians to belieue that
vnder pain of Damnation, She is not only traiterous to Chrift,
and therefore can be belieued in nothing, But moreouer
this prefent day there is no true Faith profeffed in the Chriftian
world. Contrarywife, if She be true and vnerrable in all teaches,
She is to be belieued in euery Article without referue.
16.
at
The Reaſon
of belieuing
entirely, and
not by balfes
The Contra
difion exin-
Now to the double Contradiction in the words alleged.
It is granted Saith. M'. Thorndicke that there is, and alwayes
Was Saluation to be bad in the Church of Rome as à true Church,
though corrupted. I Anfver this is implicatory. For if true,
She is not corrupted in Doctrin; or if corrupted in Doctrin
She is not true, Vnless one makes by meer fancy à Chimera
of the Catholick Church and fayes à true Church may be
corrupted which is impoffible, for truth excludes corruption:
Therefore no Orthodox Chriſtian euer owned à Church partly
true, partly falfe. You Sr, fay. 2. Saluation may be had in this
Church. Very good. Ergo Her Faith is found able to produce
in euery foul Repentance, the loue and fear of God, and what
euer els is neceffary to acquire Heauen, Or if it want this Effential
Perfection and bring not men to à fecurity of Saluation, it is
no Faith at all, and confequently Catholicks mnft be damned
for want of diuine Faith, hauing no true Church to belieue in.
See more. Difc. 1. C. 21. 1. 7. Finally, wheras you Affert. No
Church can Separate from the Church of Rome, but they must make
themſelues thereby Schiſmatieks before God, The Inference Sr, is true,
but moſt clear against your Selfe, And proues that both you
and the Proteftant Party are Schifinaticks before God and man
For this matter of Fact, Viz. That you Separated from, Proteftants
and rebelled againſt the Roman Catholick Church is as euident, proued Schif
as That England, once Catholick, communicated with Rome in maricks.
too.
ced against
this Author.
Ccc 3
Points
350
Difc. 2. C. 13. Inferences drawn from
Qne clear
Inference
against Mr
Thorndick.
Another In-
ference as
clear.
Points of Faith, in the vfe of Rites, Liturgies, Sacraments, And
afterward diuorced it felf from that Communion. Reply, or
tell vs you had cauſe to do ſo, and fo far only receded from
this Church, as She receded from Her Ancient purity, You
make again à falfe Suppofition your Proof, your felf ludge in à
cauſe you haue nothing to doe with, And the louely Spouſe of
Chrift loyal and perfidious,
perfidious, Chaft and à harlot with one
breath.
4
17. Yet one word more. You fay the Church of Rome
is à true Church wherin Saluation is had
had, though corrupted.
Hence I Argue; Either you in England are now at this inftant
feparated from this Church, as it is True, or not; If feparated
from it, as true, the Reformation belongs to you only, you
are to cancel your own Errours, according to the form of
Doctrin in our Church, for She, if true, is fo far pure that
she cannot be reformed. And thus much you ſeem to grant
P. 33. It is out of loue to the Reformation, that I infift vpon fuch
à Principle as may ferue to re-vnite vs with the Church of Rome; being
Well affured, that we can neuer be well reunited, with our Selues otherwiſe.
That not only the Reformation, but the common Christianity must needs
beiloft in the Diuifions, which which will neuer baue an end otherwise.
What is this to fay, but to wish the English Church reformed
by the Roman Catholick? Therefore fomething (if theſe quoted
words bear fenfe) is amifs, not in the Roman, but in the En-
glish Church, which needs Reformation. Now on the other
fide, if you fay the Roman Catholick was and is à true Church,
and that the English alfo is altogether as true as she, or hath
not ſeparated from the Roman in matter of true Doctrin; it fol-
lowes ineuitably, if the Suppofition hold's, that neither of them
needs Reformation in matter of Truth (for here we fpeak not
of Rites and Ceremonies which are alterable.) To what purpoſe
then is it to talk of reforming either Church, in point of Truth,
when both are Suppofed fo true, that neither can be reformed,
nor differ, if true in faith, from one another?
18. Perhaps you may (yea and muft) reply, if your Difcourfe
haue
1
Difc. 2. C. 13. The precedent Doctrin.
391
>
haue fenfe. Though they are true in Doctrins called funda-
mental, yet both haue their leffer corruptions, and theſe need
Reformation. This is all that can be Afferted, For if both are
falfe in fundamentals neither of them at this day is the Orthodox
Church of Chrift, and confequently both the Romaniſts and
English wanting fundamentals, are People effentially Churchlefs:
Now vpon the Suppofition of leffer corruptions only not fun-
damental, you haue à dreadful Inference againſt Proteftants, And
as true, as dreadful. Viz. That their firft Separation from the
Roman Catholick Church was damnably Sinful, though She were
here falfly fuppofed to haue erred in fmaller matters; This, I
Say followes, not only becauſe the Ancient Fathers exprefly teach,
No Reformation can be of fuch Importance, as to counteruaile
the danger of Diuifions, And that all things should be rather
tolerated than to confent to Schifim in the Church; But vpon
this other account alfo, that the Renolt of Proteftants from our
Ancient Church hath laid fuch à vifible difgrace vpon à noble
Kingdom, That none but the powerful hand of God, with the
wildom of our Gracious Souereign and the States concurrence,
can take it of. The Nation, we fee with our eyes, is ftrangely
diuided, hideouſly diſcompofed, Religion is of the hinges, and
men generally are fo tranfported into Extrauagancies; that none
can fay what the Religion is which England Profeffes at this
day, There are fo many Sects, fo many Diuifions, fo many
Tub-Preachers, fo many woemen-Gofpellers, fo many Quakers,
to many Fanaticks, fo many Leuiathan-Monſters, that you may
read and fee without turning to the Bible, à Babylonian Con-
fuſion, amongſt them. Would Popery, Sr. think ye, (you are
as I vnderftand moderate, and learned) had that continued, laid
England vnder fuch à publick Difgrace as this. Rabble of men,
and Fanaticks haue done? Let the world iudge.
19. Now if you Ask, from whence came this fearful Diforder,
which to my forrow makes our Country ridiculous to forrain
Nations? I anſwer. The firſt Rent, the firſt Rupture, the firſt
Schiſin of Proteſtants from the Catholick Church, occafioned.
all. i
A third In.
ference.
Touching
upon the do-
leful Diui.
fions in Eng-
land.
J
392 Difc. 2. C.13. Inferences drawn from
The Origen
of all these
Lamentable
Diuifions.
The Fana-
ticks Argu-
(I
all. Here is the Source, and Sole Origen of thefe vnfortunate,
Reuolutions. Wherefore this Argument propofed by à Fanatick
against Proteftants is vnanfwerably conuincing, Ad bominem.
fay ad hominem; not that I approue Fanaticifim). As ye Proteftants
without recourfe to any other iudge but your Selues vpon your
own Authority quitted the Roman Catholick Church, and thought
your Fact reafonable; So we Fanaticks, without recourfe to any
but our own tender Conſciences, (knowing you began à Re-
formation not yet compleat) leaue Proteftancy, And hold our
fact as reaſonable as yours: And thus others by your firft Example
may reform Religion to the worlds end. Yet all of vs (may
ment against theſe men Say) make but one true Church, For if M. Thorndicke
Protestants. Page. 9. Anfier's pertinently to that demand. Where his Church
was before Luther. There it was, faith be, where it is. The fame
Church reformed, which was depraued afore. If this Anfwer I fay
be good, Pray you why should Fanaticks, Nay why ought the
Arians,
and worst of Heretickes be excluded from being of
one and the fame Catholick Church? For the Church feems
to Sectaries an ample field, and embraceth all called Chriftians
though differently reformed. The only difficulty then is, to
find out him,or fe Thofe, who among fo many diffenting Reformers
(the whole world ouer) haue happily made the best choife, in
mending Religion. The Proteftant you fee reform's the Catho-
lick, the Puritan, the Proteftant, and the Quaquer will reform
all at once, vntil fome new Sectary peep out, that bring's in à
better Fashion. And is it poffible, shall all thefe vnreformed
People reform one another? This difficulty cannot be folued
in Proteftant principles.
All feclanes
will reform,
and none can
do it.
The Church
which re-
form's other
erring So.
coeties must
not need any
reformation.
20. I fay in à word. It is impoffible to reform any erring
Society of Chriftians, but by the Rule Doctrin and Authority, of
fome one Church, which must be owned fo pure, that She can-
not be reformed in what She teaches. The reafon is clear.
For à fallible and deformed Church, can no more help to reform
another like wife fallible or unreformned, than the blind lead the
blind. Hence methinks Mr. Thorndick, who hold's Proteftancy
as
Difc. 2. C. 13. The precedent Doctrin.
393
as fallible, and as much out of order as Popery, Speak's little
to the purpoſe Page. 11. where he faith. There is no Power in this
Church and Kingdom (he mean's England) to reform it ſelf in matter
of Religion, but only by that Form, and to that Form which may appear
to have been held by the whole Primitiue Church before the Corruption
came in, which we pretend to reform. I cannot but finile at this word
Appear. Pray you Sr, Say to whom muft it Appear ? What?
To you or me, or to any priuate fallible man? You talk as
if, forfooth, the Primitiue Doctrin were fo apparently Manifeft
to People, that euery one by opening Books and reading Au-
tiquity, may with à wet finger clearly diſcouer the true and Or-
thodox Form of Religion, Wheras the contrary is euident, For
haue not we and Proteftants (to omit others) now for à whole
Age perufed Councils, and Fathers, and after all, do we not
fee with our eyes, that what feem's Orthodox Doctrin to one
Party, feem's not fo to the other? It appears manifeftly to me,
that the Primitiue Fathers, fo openly maintained an vnbloody
Sacrifice vpon the Altar, that the wit of man cannot without
violence, wreft them to à contrary fenfe; doth the Truth appear
ſo to Proteftants? It appeared to S. Cyprian Epift. 55. ad Cornel.
Diffentions
and to me alfo, That Herefy and Schifm, take their Origen arifes after
from this, That the fraternity of Christians answerably to Gods com- the perufal
mand, Obey not one Priest (and one ludge) who is Chrifts Vice-gerent of the primi-
inthe Militant Church on earth. Will Sectaries read and vnderſtand time writings
this as I doe? It feemed clear to S. Hierome cited aboue,
That one out of the Roman Catholick Church, wherof Pope
Damaſus was then Head really belonged not to Chrift, but to Antichrist,
and Therefore ought to be efteemed an Alien from the house of God,
Perfon vnclean, and prophane. Will the Proteftant after his reading
theſe words own the Doctrin pure and Orthodox? No he
dares not.
*
21. What then is the Refult, though we read thefe and à
hundred other Paffages in the ancient Records fo Plain for Po-
pery? Experience tell's vs, nothing els enfues but an endles conteft
about their Senfe, and croffing one an other with contrary gloffes.
Ddd
This
394
Difc. 2. C. 13. Inferences drawn from
Conuince
not Sectaries
or
The plainest This is all that can appear to Mr Thorndick. Wherefore Vnleſs
Authorities Recourfe be had to better Principles then to meer Appearances,
Difputes may goe on till Dooms day, without Satisfaction
fruit to any. Be it how you will. My hearty wish is, that Mr
Thorndick, who hitherto Stayes in Generallities, would pleaſe
fully to fet down that whole Plat-form of Religion, which he
conceiues exact, and fuitable to the Primitiue Church. Were
this done (which will neuer be) I am confident, His Extract or
Draught would appear fo imperfect, and mishapen à Bufiness in
the iudgement of Catholicks and Proteftants alfo, That as the one
Party cannot, but look on it with disdain, fo the other would
reiect it as vnworthy Acceptance.
what is re-
quired
of Mr
Thorndick
A New Re.
former of
Religion in
thefe old
dayes of the
world.
2
22. Beſides,would it not feem à new wonder to Strangers abroad,.
Yea and as ridiculous as wonderful, were they told, that after fo
much labour ſpent about reforming Religion in England, we haue
yet at prefent à thoughtful Gentleman there, that's very bufy in
Setting forth the laft and beft Edition of Protestancy Reformed, which
perhaps may proue worfe than any other gon before. Naught
it muft needs be, for this Reafon, That the means he would re-
form by, has no Proportion with the defigned End. For by
the light of à few dead Manufcripts, written 14. or. 15. Ages
Since, He offer's now to amend all the Churches in the world,
though the
very fenfe of thefe Writings which muft be the Rule
of his Reformation, is neither well known to Himſelfe, nor yet
agreed on, by thofe diffenting Churches he would reform. What
think ye?
Were this fenfe yet to be learned, (the want whereof
caufes endles Errours among Sectaries, ) would not common Pru-
dence rather take it from à liuing Oracle, which has taught the
world time out of mind, than from à late Nouellift that Profes-
fes himſelf fallible, and Therefore may moſt eaſily Mifinterpret
appear ridi- the beſt Records? This liuing Oracle at leaft promiſes infallibi-
aslous to all. lity (Which Shall be proued prefently) And therefore is à Surer
Principle to rely on, Then The Fathers Sentences long Since
Written, whilſt Sectaries make Their fenfe and true meaning à.
Matter of Conteſt.
would
22, Yet
Difc. 2. C.
13. The precedent Doctrin
395
Questions
proposed to
our Aduer
23. Yet one word more and I end. Mr Thorndick will Re-
form the prefent Roman Church Corrupted, by the Primitiue
fuppofed pure for the firft 4. or. 5. Ages. I muft needs de-
mand firft, whether that Primitiue Church, the Rule of his Re-
formation was infallible, and pure in thoſe pretended fundamen-
tals only, neceffary to Saluation, though not in other Doctrins of
Jeffer Moment? Or. 2. Whether She (becauſe fallible) as much fary.
needed Reformation in fmaller Matters not called fundamental >
as this prefent Church is fuppofed to need? Or. 3. Whether
She was fo entirely pure in euery doctrin, little, and great, that
She could not be brought to more Purity, or be better Reformed?
Grant the firft. viz. That the Primitiue Church was vnerrable
and pure in fundamentals only, not in others, The prefent Ro-
man Church is as good as She was, For our Aduerfary own's
Her à true Church wherein Saluation may be had, and thus far
She needs no reforming. Grant. 2. that both thefe Churches,
becauſe fallible, might erre, and perhaps haue erred in leffer Mat-
ters, not named fundamental, The Priinitiue can be no Rule of
Reformation to the prefent Church, becauſe that Primitiue is alike
errable, alike reformable, And for ought men know, as much out
of the way of truth in Non-fundamentals as the preſent Church
is; Therefore I faid aboue, if the blind cannot lead the blind, à
Church wanting Reformation cannot reform another fick of the
fame malady.
辘
​24. If finally it be Said, the Primitiue Church was fo infal-
lible, fo pure euery way, both in great and little Matters, that
She could not be more reformed in the firft 5. Centuries for exam-
ple: We haue à Church once entirely pure, And then vrge our
Aduerfary not barely to fay it, But to proue vpon indubitable
Principles, Scriptures, Fathers, or the General Confent of Chriflians,
that She continued not wholly as pure in the fixt, feuenth, or
eight Age, and fo downward to our dayes as She was before.
To shew à Deficiency in this Church once confeffedly true, in
after Ages, will be more than an Herculian labour, when it is
demonftratiuely cuidenced aboue, That nothing but à Church
Ddd 2
equally
*
Herein Sa-
sisfaction is
most requi-
red.
396 Difc. 2. C. 13. Inferences drawn from &c.
Afuppofition
made à
Froof.
what we
intend to
proue.
>
>
equally as Ancient as Vniuerfal and glorious in Miracles
as the Roman is can probably impeach Her of the leaft
Corruption. Mr Thorndicks Miſtake is, that he makes (as Sec-
taries vfually do) à falfe Suppofition his Proof; He fuppofes
our Church corrupted in Doctrin, and then will amend it ac-
cording to his fancy by the Primitiue, whereas he knowes,or ought
to know, that we Catholicks deny His Suppofition, and fay both
are vnerrable, and withall Affert, that no Authority on earth
can better inforin vs of the Primitiue Doctrin than the prefent
Koman Church which hath fucceffiuely handed it to vs Age
after Age. Howeuer to take away all ambiguity and further
Difpute in this Matter, you haue next, three following Chapters
which I hope will giue Satisfaction to the rational Reader. Mo-
re shall be added hereafter.
>
CHAP. XIV.
VVhether there be à Church of one Denomination in-
fallible, not only in Matters miscalled Fundamen-
tal, but in all and euery Doctrin She
Propofes, and Obliges Chriftians
to belieue, as Faith?
I.
S the Answer to the Queftion aym's at à clear and ea-
Aly way of ending Controuerfics. Concerning Religion,
fy
So the following Difcourfe tend's to fettle one great truth in the
minds of euery one. viz. That both the Ancient, and preſent
Roman Catholick Church is not only infallible, But that the
Aduerfaries of Her infallibility deftroy the very Effence of Chri-
ftian Religion, And deferuedly merit vpon that Account, The
name of Schifinaticks and Heretiques alſo.
2. To
Difc. 2. C.14. There is à Church of too
397
c
2. To make good what's now Afferted, à few Postulata or
Principles muſt be premifed. One is. That Church which
Promiles, and proues Herfelfe infallible in Doctrin doth not only
facilitate, but giues alfo abfolute Security to Faith, For fuch à pon thefe
Church Participat's moft, and comes neereft to that firſt Diuine Principles
Apoftolical Spirit, which confeffedly was infallible.
3. A. 2. Principle. Whereas nothing hath, or ought to
haue, à ftronger Influence ouer the minds of men than Reli-
gion, So nothing can diſcountenance it more, than à ftedfaſt
Perfwafion of its Fallibility, and Confequently, of it's easily being
Falfe. This Perfwafion Cut's of all Chriftian Affurance, and
driues men to fo cold an Indifference of embracing this or that
Religion, That it much import's not which to take to, any or
none.
4. A. 3. Principle. The means or influence whereby Chrift
preferues his Church infallible, needs not to be explicated by
any Supernatural quality, perfonally inhering in the Teaching Re-
prefentatiue, or intrinfecally eleuating the conuened Frelates to à
State of Infallibility; for t'is enough, that the fafe Conduct of
Almighty God, who is alwaies vigilant, and Affifts by his exteriour
Protection, fo fecures the Church from errour, that She neither
can be miſled, when she teaches, nor miſlead others. Yet I deny
not but that an interiour Motion of Grace may
be, yea
, yea and of-
ten is in the hearts of fuch as are Affembled together in God's
name, and Affifted to define infallibly. Diuine Faith, Tis true
actually elicited, euen after the permanent Habit infuſed, requi-
res à Supernatural Motion of Grace, But hereof we speak not
at preſent.
5. A. 4. Principle. When it is enquired Whether the
Church Diffufiue be infallible, the Querie is not, whether the
Motiues inducing to diftinguish that Oracle from others, De-
monftratiuely and with all Metaphyſical certitude, euidence like-
wife Gods Reuelation relating to the Myfteries Belieued; For
this might lead vs to enquire whether Faith be euident in Arte-
ftante, That is, fo Vnexceptionably manifeft, that all may clear-
Ddd 3
ly
following
What the
Churches
Infallibility
requires.
398 Difc. 2. C. 14. There is à Church of one
The One-
ftion stated.
ly Infer from the Reuelation clearly known, That the Myſteries
belieued, are euidently true. We now meddle not with that
Difficulty, though great Diuines patronize the Affirmative, But
only Ask, Whether the Doctrin of Chrift's Church be fo in-
fallibly Certain, that it cannot be Falfe or deceiue any. Catho-
licks own à triple infallibility neceffary to Faith. The firft
proper to God's Reuelation, no Proteftant denies that. The fe-
cond belongs to the Church, either Diffufiue, or Reprefentatue in
General Councils, whereby we learn, and that infallibly, thofe
Truths which God reueals. The third infallible Affurance ne-
ceffary to Faith, all Orthodox Chriftians haue, that belieue the
Infallibility. Myfteries reuealed vpon the Diuine Teftimony, Propofed by
A threefold
Chrift's Church.
6. A. 5. Principle. If, (what is moft vndoubted) Diuine
Faith eſſentially relies vpon Gods infallible Verity ſpeaking by
one or more men fent to Teach, (who proue their Miffion and
Demonftrate the Credibility of the Doctrin delivered) it neceffa-
rily followes, That, that firſt infallible Verity beget's in euery true
Belieuer, no less perfect Faith Than what is moft certain and in-
fallible. Wherefore as it is the indifpenfable Duty of euery
Mans Duty belieuing Chriftian to acquiefe in, and reſt vpon God's infallible
grounded on Veracity; So it is an indifpenfable Promife, That we haue Chriſt
prefent with à Church which teaches all Truth, And therefore
cannot but Propofe the Obiect of Faith infallibly. The firm
Promife irreuokably iffued from Power and Goodnes it felfe,
Matt. 28. 20. I am with you alwayes to the end of the world. Iohn.
14. 16. I will Ask the Father, and he will give you an other Com-
forter, the Spirit of truth to remain with you for euer.
Hell gates
cannot preuail against the Church. Thus much premifed.
Christ's
Premife.
7. The Difficulty now agitated is. Whether the Roman Ca-
tholick Church and Her approued General Councils be fo fe-
cured from Errour, That She cannot fwerue from that firſt Sup-
port of Truth, (I mean God's infinit Veracity) But muft when
She teaches, Teach that exactly which God hath reuealed, and
will haue after à fufficient Propofal, Vniuerfally belieued. secta-
ries
Diſc. 2. C. 12. Denomination, Infallible
399
ries fay, She may, Yea actually has fwerued from God's Reue-
lation, and in great Matters too, though not perhaps in the what Pro-
Primary Fundamentals, (as they are Called) or in Fundamentals teftants as
Simply neceffary to Saluation, And they were forced to this wicked fert,
Doctrin vpon three naughty Motiues.
8. Firſt to giue Scope, or rather to inuite Libertins to hold
or deny fo much of Chriftian Religion as pleaſeth their fancy;
And do we not fee the liberty effectually laid hold on in En-
gland amongſt Phanaticks, and fuch giddy People? All this gid- And why?
dines came firſt from the reformed, or rather the deformed Nouelty
of Proteftancy. They do it. 2. to make Controuerfies Endles,
For deny the Churches Infallibility, Cauils go on; Grant
Her infallible Difputes are ended. 3. This is done, to quit
themfelues of an İnfamy iuftly laid vpon them, of being both
Schifinaticks and Heretiques at once, which shall neuer be claw'd
of, do what they can. For thefe vnfound reafons, or peftilent The Catho
Motiues rather, The Church forfooth muft needs be fallible. lick Affer-
Catholicks on the other fide, maintain the contrary, And fay tion.
there is à Church fo Infallible, that She cannot err in any thing
She teaches, as Faith. And thus much God willing shall be
euinced in the following Difcourfe. But to do it exactly, I am
briefly to lay open to all that haue eyes, The Abiect, the Defpe-
rate and Defolate condition of à fallible Church. You haue
here my firſt Propofition.
9. A fallible Church is effentially Constituted, in à State of publick. A fallible
Rebellion and Hostility with it Self, Wages war against Infidels without Church is
hope of conuincing, or conquering any: And therefore cannot be Chrift's in à State
Orthodox Church. To declare further what I would fay know of rebellion.
firft, That Sectaries own à Catholick Church much larger than
the Roman Catholick, And make Themelues Part of it. Con-
ceiue now (which though very hard is yet poffible), that the
Reprefentatiue of this great Moral Body meet's in à General Co-
uncil, and difcuffes the Queftion now in hand. Viz. Whether
there be à Church of one Denomination Preferued infallible by Diuine
All-
400
Difc. 2. C. 14. There is à Church of
Affiftance? Part of the Reprefentatiue, and theſe are Proteſtants,
Oppofe the total Infallibility of euery Church. Part (Catholicks
I mean)Say one Church is infallible, and that is the Roman. The
Difficulty propofed can be decided, or not. If not; This great
No means to Reprefentatiue meet's to no purpoſe, but only to make more
Strife in the world. If it can be decided, God has prouided
means whereby the truth of fo weighty à Matter may be known
But there is no fuch means left, vnlefs fome one Church or o-
ther (or all together) be owned infallible, Therefore an endles
Hoftility goes on, in this fuppofed Reprefentatiue.
usite it.
me One
Church
be Infallible
+
10. That all means fail may Sectaries Votes haue place, is
indiſputably Euident. You shall fee it clearly. The Catholick
Without fo- Party Appeales to Scripture, alleges thefe and other like Paffa-
ges. He who bear's you hears me, and from thence infer's, Who
euer hear's the Church hear's Chrift, an Infallible Teacher.
The Church is the Pillar and ground of Faith, and hence concludes,
She is infallible. The Spirit of Truth shall remain with the Church
for euer. Paftors, and Doctors, are appointed by Prouidence to preferue
the faithful from Wauering in Faith, and all erroneous Circumuention.
Hell gates cannot preuail against the Chutch &c. What can be more
The Scriptu. Significant, if plain words haue fenfe for the Infallibility of fome
One Church? Yet all theſe and many other Teftimonies fo
shrink to nothing, (may Sectaries Gloffes ftand in force) That
no man can fay what God ſpeak's in theſe Scriptures or know
the Truth now debated. Viz. Whether any Church be infallible or not,
This means failing of its End which ought to compofe our
Strife, Hoftility is as vigorous, as when the Difpute began, for yet
we know nothing certainly.
16.
And Fa-
thers Speak
fignificantly
the Chur
ches Infalli.
bility,
II. Paffe from Scripture to Fathers, We haue there moſt
pregnant Expreſſions. The Church cannot be adulterated. Cyprian
de Vnit Eccle: VVhat She once received from Chrift, She euer hold's.
Idem. Epist. ad Corne. She is a pure Virgin in Faith, and cannot be
deceived or feduced, nor ouercome with any Violence, being vpheld by
Her Virginal integrity. Fulgent. Epift. ad Probum. Cap. 5. Her Faith
is,inuincible, euen to the Powers of Hell. Eufeb Cafar. Frapar. Euang.
lib. 1.
Difc. 2 C. 14. Denomination,infallible. 401
lib. 1.C. 3. If any fear to be deceiued by the obfcurity of à Queftion,
let him Confult that Church concerning it, which the Scripture Demon-
Strat's without any ambiguity. S. Auftin. lib. Contra crefcon. C. 33.
What think ye? Is not the Churches Immunity from Errour
clearly established? No fay Sectaries, For though we cannot
confront thefe Paffages of Scripture and Fathers, with others as
fignificant for our Plea of Fallibility; Yet we do, and muſt deny
Their plain Senfe, We do, and mult fay, The Roman Church
has been adulterated, otherwife we are Schismatic'ks. We muft
fay, that though once pure She loft what she had receiued; And
therefore is now no Virgin, but à Harlot. VVe muft Say, Her
Faith is Vincible, That it is not fafe to confult Her in dubious
Matters, for She can return no better Anfwer, than what is fal-
lible and may be falfe. Thus Sectaries.
I 2.
Hence it followes firft, That our great fuppofed Repre-
fentatiue, made vp of Proteftants, Catholicks, and all other called
Chriftians ftand's without redreſs in an open Rebellion, in à pu-
blick Hoftility with it self, And confequently taken in its whole
Latitude is not Chrift's Church, Because the Church of Christ is es-
fentially founded in Vnity, This fuppofed Reprefentatiue, torn as you fee in
pieces with inteftine Diuifion is not one, And therefore moft defolate,
For, Omne regnum diuifum in fe defolabitur. And here by the way,
I take leaue to tell Sectaries, T is but Folly to talk as They
doe, of à Catholick Church wider than the Roman, Or of à
lawful Reprefentatiue poffibly to be conuened in Vnity, out of
the Body of all named Chriftians, For as fuch à Church(con-
fidered in the largeſt Extent) which ftands diuided in Faith is
not Orthodox, So fuch an affembled Council, made vp of fo
many iarring Belieuers (confidered vnder that notion of Hofti-
lity and Rebellion) can be no legitimate Council. The rea-
fon is. Christ neuer owned à Church profeffing more Faiths
than one, nor lawful Councils confifting of other Members than
Orthodox Chriftians. You will then fay Hereticks, are not to
be admitted into Councils lawfully called. I Antwer they are
admitted, but how? Freely to difpute, not to Teach; to pro-
Eee
pofe
Sectaries de
my all, or
muſt own
themfelues
schifmatiks.
Two Mifta-
·kes of Setta-
ries.
what Here-
ticks baue so
doe in
Councils.
402 Difc. 2. C. 14. There is à Church of one
Strange fe-
quels if the
Church be
fallible
How the
Heathen
difcourfes.
1
pofe difficulties, but not to Regulate Faith, to acquiefe in the
Churches Definitions, but not to define, remaining Here-
ticks.
13. You fee.
2. That à Church fallible in Her Defini-
tions concerning Faith, vainly attempt's to reclaim Infidels and
Hereticks from their Errours. Wherefore the Nicene Fathers
Condemnation of Arius might haue been iuftly excepted againſt
and pleaded reuerfable vpon this ground, That what they defi-
ned (becauſe fallible) might be as far from Truth, as the very Er-
rours they Cenſured, and defined againft. Nay I fay more: IF
that Council was then fallible, it lies yet at the mercy, not only
of Arians, but of all Chriftians at this day, to admit, or reiect,
the Nicene Cenfure, or rather, if Prudence haue place, to fus-
pend their Iudgements and fay, no man knowes what to belieue.
into fuch darkness, vpon fuch Hazard, and indifferency, Chri-
ftians are caft, if God's Church or that Council could err. One
inftance may giue you fome light:
14. Imagin à Heathen at that time, when Arianifin feemed
profperous, and carried much vogue in the Eaft, well inclined
to embrace Chriſtian Religion, VVithall Suppofe the man firm-
ly fetled in this Iudgement, That Catholick Religion (much
refembling Arianifin ) was fo fallible, that both the one and other
might be falfe. Say I befeech you How indifferent would this
Iudgement haue made the Heathen, to either Religion? Nay
would it not, had intereft fwayed neuer fo little, haue drawn him
more to Arianiſm? Yes moft affuredly. For thus he might
haue diſcourſed, and prudently. VVhat, they call Catholick Re-
ligion and Arianifm are much alike, both fallible both may be
falfe. My Intereft now when Arianifin flourishes, carries me
thither. T'is true, I meet there with fallible Doctrin which
be falfe (God knowes how things are) but the mischief
may
is I can find no better amongſt Catholicks, nor in any other So-
ciety of Chriftians. Now if all I can learn be no better but.
fallible, and perhaps falfe Doctrin too, I may as well learn that
from the Arians as from Catholicks, or rather ought to fufpect
•
•
all
Difc. 2. C. 14. Denomination, Infallible. 403
And Con
cludes
all Chriftian Religion of Errour, becauſe none of that Pro-
*feffion can affure me infallibly, what God has Said. But fuch
Doctors faith the Heathen who may as eafily teach me to against à
iniure an Infinit Verity, and afcribe that to God he neuer fallible
reuealed, as lead me to acquiefce in his reuealed truths, (were Religion.
any fuch truths in being) deferue no Credit, Therefore I neither
can, nor will belieue any thing.
>
One obiec
zion
15. Before we make à further Step to one or two Propo-
fitions which decide this Controuerfy, à few difficulties are to be
cleared against the precedent Difcourfe. One is. Hoftility cea-
fes in the ample Council now mentioned, would all, which is
eafy, Agree in one Truth, That Chrifts Church is infallible in
Fundamentals only, or fundamentals fimply neceffary to` Saluation.
Anfw This is to fay If that were done (which neuer was
nor can be done) à Reunion' followes. Alas, it is not yet
agreed on by all nor euer will be ( vnless fome quit their Errours)
which and where, Chrifts true Church is. It is not yet nor can be
agreed on, How many or few thefe fundamentals are, For though
Catholicks and Proteftants Vnite in à belief of the Trinity,
and call that à Fundamental Article, The Arians ftand out, and
oppofe both. The means then here thought of, is ſo far from
ceaſes not
eftablishing Vnion that it increaſes Diuifion, And fo it will euer but encres-
fall out whilft à Church of one Denomination, is not acknow- fes by the
ledged infallible in euery Doctrin She teaches, and obliges Chri
ftians to belieue vnder pain of Damnation. Se more hereof a-
boue. Chap. 5. n. 5.
*
16. A. 2. Obiection. Diffentions in Councils (witnefs tho-
fe at Bafil and Florence) or the Accefs of Hereticks cannot les-
fen their Power, or Anull their Definitions, Therefore our Plea
taken from the Hoftility in à moſt ample Council Euinces no-
thing. Anfw. I grant the Antecedent and fay, Though Here-
tiques and diffenting Chriftians meet together, yea, Though fome
too bufily aduance opinions diffonant to truth and Orthodox
Doctrin, Yet God's gracious and watchful Prouidence, which
drawes good out of Euil, And often conuert's War into Peace,
Eee 2
will
answered.
Hoftility
Sectaries
Means,
404 Difc. 2. C. 14. There is à Church of one
The Argu.
ment taken
From Hofli-
lity Conuin
ces.
The Reafons
and Proofs
of my As-
fertion.
will with all Affurance effect that fuch à Council either break
vp and Define nothing, Or, if à Definition iffues forth that only
shall be defined which is certain, and infallible. Thus much is
granted. Yet I deny the Confèquence and Say, The Argument
drawn from Hoftility Conuinces. Here is my reafon. That Ima-
gined Reprefentatiue confift's, as we now fuppofe, of Arians, Pro-
teftants, Catholicks, Socinians and all other called Chriftians, For
thefe, as fome think, Collectively taken, make vp the diffuſed.
Church of Chrift more ample than the Roman, Or, if ſo many
Conftitute it not, Let Sectaries pleafe to tell vs what Chriftians
are to be excluded, or preciſely how many are the Members of
this diffuſed Catholick Body? In the mean while vouchfafe
to Confider the force of my Argument,grounded vpon an impla-
cable Hoftility.
་
17. This whole diffufed Moral Body euidently maintain's
Contradictions. For example, Chrift is the highest God, Chrift is not
the highest God. Our Lords Sacred Body is fubftantially prefent in the
Eucharift: That Body is not fubftantially prefent. As therefore this
large Society of Chriftians, now fuppofed but one great Church.
holds contradictions, So it muſt be granted, that the Reprefenta-
tiue of it alfo hold's the fame Contradictions, Or, ceafeth eo ipfo
to Repreſent the whole Diffufed Moral Body.
18. Hence one of theſe three Sequels ineuitably followes.
The firſt. If this Reprefentatiue ftill continues to Reprefent
(which is euer to be noted) and proceed's to à Definition, an-
fwerable to the Sentiment of the large Moral Body in Diuifion,
it neceffarily Defines the Contradictions of thofe Churches to
be Orthodox Doctrin, and were this done There is More then
Hoftility enough, For thus impoffible Contradictions, are both
Definable and Belseuable. Or, it followes 2. that our imagined
Repreſentative break's vp, and leaues all points in Controuerfy
as Wholly vndecided as they were before; And this which implies
an endles Hoftility, would, I think, be the Reſult of that Coun-
cil, And vpon that Account appear à ridiculons Reprefenta-
siue. Or. 3. This followes. That fome one Part or other in
the
Diſc. 2. C. 14. Denomination, Infallible.
405
the Repreſentatiue muft lay down Arms, and acknowledge one
Church of One Denomination abfolutly infallible, in whofe
Sentence all are to reft. VVithout this Acquiefcency in one
Orthodox and Infallible Church, Errours in Faith goe on as s. Auftin
we ſee hitherto in à remedileffe condition. This truth S. Auftin. Speak's
Lib. de fymb. ad Catechum. C. 6. Saw well, where He fpeak's what we
profoundly to my prefent purpofe. Ipfa est Ecclefia fancta, Eccle- Alfert.
fia vna &c. She, and she only is the holy the one Church, the Catho-
lick Church, which fights against all Herefies, she may fight, but cannot
b: foiled. And Might I here Digrefs à little, I could Demonftrate
That neuer Herefy yet of any Fame in the world appeared fince
Chriſts time, but it was Crushed cenfured, and condemned by one
only Oracle the Roman Catholick Church, to whofe Sentence.
the very beft of Chriftians dutifully Submitted, relying on our
Sauiours fecure Promife. Hell gates cannot preuail against that
Oracle.
19. A. 3. Obiection. Scripture alone though all Churches.
were fallible, is fufficient to teach infallible Faith neceffary to
Saluation. Anfw. Of all Obiections propofable, this is leaft
worth. For had Scripture that fufficiency, it may, I hope, be
yet Enquired, VVhether the Church alfo, which cannot clash
with Scripture, has the like Prerogatiue of infallibility. Scrip-
ture was infallible when the Apoftles preached, and yet their
Preaching was as infallible as The words they wrote. But here
is not my greateſt Exception. I fay scripture and all the Ve-
rities in it goe to wrack if the Church be fabllible, For grant
this, we haue no infallible Certainty of the Scriptures Canon, of
it's fubftantial Purity or Immunity from corruption, of it's true Scripture
Senſe in à hundred controuerted paffages. VVe cannot belieue
that Chriſt is God, or That his Afcent into Heauen was real,
and not à vain Vifion. We Cannot belieue what Sacraments
nor know the number of them without the Church. Therefore
vnlefs this Principle ftand ynshaken. It is immediatly more certain
that the Church, manifefted by Her Marks is Gods own Oracle, Than
That Scripture, Setting Church Authority afide is Gods word, we can
Eee 3
are,
believe
without the
Churches
infallible
Testimony.
lo feth force.
406 Difc. 2. C. 14 There is à Church of
one
The Affer.
tion is pro-
ued.
A Reply an-
[wered.
The Sectary
Convicted
of Errour.
belieue nothing. For who fee's not but that very Book would
foon haue been out of credit, had not God by pecial Affiftance
preferued as well it's Doctrin pure in Mens hearts, as He prefer-
ued the words in Velume or parchment, And this by the means
of à watchful liuing Oracle his infallible Church.
20. Again, and this Reafon conuinceth. Were Scripture iudged
fufficient to teach Saluifical Faith compleatly, independently
of the Church, Or were the Church (when that Iudgement is)
held not only errable but actually erroneous, How can any ha-
uing thefe two iudgements (Scripture Infallibly reaches Faith com-
pleatly). The Church because erroneous fail's in this Duty) Account
himſelf à Heathen or Publican (as our Lord Saith) though he
abfolutely refufe to hear the Church? His refufal Certainly is pru-
dent and defenfible vpon this ground, That Scripture doth all,
learns him enough, Therefore none can oblige him to hear the
Church, which may mislead and Propound falfe Doctrins, For
no man in his wits will liften to à Fallible Oracle, whilft he has
another at hand, that teaches all Truths infallibly.
21. If you reply. Such an one is at leaſt obliged to hear
the Church in Fundamentals, but nar in others. The Intelli-
gent Perfon Asks, whether Proteftants who lay that obligation
vpon him of belieuing fundamentals only, own that affertion (o
infallible, that to belieue the Distinction is an Article of their Faith?
If they fay it is à fundamental Article and that he is obliged to be-
lieue fo, Proteftants doe not only maintain one infallible fun-
damental Point peculiar to themfelues, difowned by the Roman
Catholick Church (for She certainly reiect's the Diftinction )
but moreouer now become infallible Oracles, in à Matter of
greateſt Importance, which cannot pals, becauſe they are Pro-
feffedly fallible in all they teach, Therefore may truth haue pla-
ce, the Dictinction giuen between fundamentals, is both Vnfun-
damental and fallible Doctrin, And fo without More we are freed
from all Obligation of belieuing the Church, for that Diftinc-
tion failing to be à fundamental truth, The Church is abfolut-
ly fallible in fundamental Doctrin. Well then may we not hear
Her
Difc. 2. C. 14, Denomination, Infallible
407
Her at all, without any Note of being looked on as Heathens,
and Publicans.
22. Some perhaps, great Patrons of Chriftian Liberty, and
freedom of mind in matters of Faith, may obiect.
, may obiect. 4. The
Church cannot exercife Her Authority ouer mens Iudgements,
Libertins.
or oblige any to an internal Affent, Her power being limited
and to thus much only, as to order and regulate the Exteriour A Reflection
for this end, that Vnity and peace May be preferued without made upon
publick Diffention. Anfw. Theſe men certainly neuer fay their Chriftian
Creed. I belieae the holy Catholick Church, that is in mind inte-
riourly, I giue Affent to all the Catholick Church teaches, Now
if this Doctrin ftand, They may well not yeild Affent at all to
any Doctrin the Church teaches, but like Hypocrits may
outwardly be fair Catholicks, and inwardly foul Hereticks, And
this is, to Profefs one thing, and belieue another. Chrift is
ashamed of them. Luke. 9. 26. and fo is the Apoftle alfo
Rom. 1. 16. VVho blushed not to preach as he belieued,
And to belieue as he preached. But enough hereof is faid in
the other Treatife..
CHAP
408 Diſc. 2. C. 15. Divine Faith requires
-One Princi.
ple premised.
The perfec-
tion of
Faith.
CHAP. XV.
Diuine Faith in this prefent State of things, neceffarily re-
quir's à Church infallible. The Reafon hereof. The
Church neither Defin's, nor can Define by Humane
Authority only. Her Definitions, more than morally
certain, are Infallible. Sectaries Recourfe to Mo-
ral certainty in Matters of Faith, à most fri-
gid Plea. Their Fallacy is difcunered.
Obiections Answered
Ne Principle eſtablished aboue. N. 6. Proues the firk
part of my Affertion. Diuine Faith which is à firm Affent
to what euer God (peak's So vltimatly reft's vpon his Infallible Veracity,
That if à true Belieuer yeild Affent to him as He speaks, and be-
caule He speaks, All the power in Heauen cannot Separate In-
fallibility from that Belief. Herein confift's the Perfection of all
Diuine Faith, That without fweruing, it tend's vpon
à Verity
Infallible, and without Hefitancy hold's that infallibly true, which
the infallible Verity Reueal's. A leffer Perfection than this is not
Faith, And à greater the Apoſtles had not, if we precifely ref
pect the Motiue of their Affent, Hence all muft Diftinguish à
twofold Infallibility, One intrinfick, and infinit, proper to Gods
Verity, The Other anfwerable to à creatures Capacity, (finit,
t'is true), yet Infallible, and fuch the Apoftles Faith was.
Thus much Suppofed, not easily gainfaid by Sectaries,
the infallibility of one Church which we fay is the Roman Ca-
tholick, Stand's firm. And here is the Reaſon. As Faith re-
lies vpon an infallible Verity that reueal's Truth, So it alſo reft's
2.
vpon
Difc. 2. C. 15. A Church infallible.
409
pon an infallible Oracle, which (without danger of Errour) -
Applies and Propoſes that very Truth yet obfcure, to Belieuers,
For it little auail's to haue à Verity infallibly Reuealed, if à
fallible Oracle which may both Miss and Miſlead, be our beſt One ground
and only Guide, or Proponent. The Church therefore which of th
Saith Indubitably, I Propofe what God Reueals, muſt be infallible,
anfwerable to the Infallibility of Diuine Reuelation. Ruin the
One or Other Infallibility, Faith can be no more but an vncertain
Affent, And confequently no Faith at all.
>
3. To Reinforce this Reaſon. Pleaſe only to caft à ſerious
Thought vpon fuch as haue been iuftly reputed Hereticks, and
vpon their Procedure. The Arians after the reading Scripture
denyed the high Godhead in Chrift, His Eternal Coufubftantiality
alfo to the Father, And erred. The Pelagians reiecting Original
Sin, fwerued likewife from the Verities of Chriftian Religion;
fo did the Monothelits that impiouſly bereaued Chrift of his two
Sacred Wills, Diuine and Humane. The true Church All know
condemned, and yet condemns thefe Tenets as Heretical. Right
fay modern Sectaries, And it was well done. Very Good. If
Well done, herevpon enfues another troublefon Queſtion, and it
is. Whether that true Church, whilft She condemned theſe
Errours and defined the contrary Truths, proceeded Doubtfully,
Probably, vpon Moral Certainty only, or Spake as Gods Oracle ought
to fpeak, Infallibly? If She Defined doubtfully, it is yet alfo
doubtful whether Chrift be the high God, and Confubftantial to
his Father, Valefs Scripture (now fuppofed God's word) in
expreſs Terms clear the doubt, and raiſe the Doctrin to abfolute
Certainty, which moft euidently is not done.
4. The whole Conteſt then is, VVhether the Church or
Arians Interpret Scripture better, For the Obiect of my Affent
when I belieue the eternal VVord, Confubftantial, being not Ex-
press Seripture, but an Interpretation only, it followes, if the
Interpretation which the Church giues be fuppofed doubtful,She
wrong's the Arians, and all other Chriftians, whilft She obliges
them to belieue the Myſtery otherwiſe than only, Sub dubio or
Fff
doubt-
Churches
Infallibility.
The reaſon
reinforced.
If the
Church de.
fines doubt.
ful.
410
Difc. 2. C. 15 Diuine Faith requires
She wrongs
both Arians
and All
Chriftians
The Secta.
vies Plea of
Moral Cer.
tainty exa-
mined.
A queſtion
Propoſed to
Sectaries,
doubfully, which is not to belieue at all. Again If the Churches
Definition get à Step higher, to à degree of Probability and no
more; The Arians Opinion for ought we know yet, may be as
tenable as the Contrary Doctrin now fuppofed Orthodox, And
Confequently the real Confubftantiality of the Son to his Father,
is no more any Obiect of Faith, but meerly à difputable Matter
like this or that Opinion in Schools, earneftly toffed to and fro,
But neuer ended. Doubts therefore, And meer probabilities
reiected, too weightles for Church Definitions,
5. We are next to look à little into one only Refuge left
Sectaries, called Moral Certainty. T'is à dark cloud, they are la-
tely got into, our Endeauour shall be to diffipate it. They may
fay. When the Church condemned Arianifin (the like is of
any other Herefy) and defined the Eternal Word Conſubſtantial.
The Definition (much aboue Probability) though not abfolutely
Infallible, was yet fo morally Certain that no man can, but moft
vnreaſonably, doubt of its Verity. In paffing, I may without
Offence take notice of Sectaries Inconfequences, and Ask, if Mo-
ral Certainty be at leaſt had from Church Definitions, when She
interpret's Scripture, though the Doctrin be not formally expres-
fed There, Why are not Her Definitions euery whit as Morally
certain againſt Luther and Caluin, though what She Defin's be
not in express Terms Gods word? I would alfo as willingly learn,
why Proteftant Doctrin is not eſteemed ouer all the world fo
Morally certain as thefe Ancient Catholick Definitions are? But
let theſe Queries, not eafily Anſwered pafs, We come to the main
difficulty, and demand.
6.
Whether this Pofitiue Doctrin. Chrift is the Highest God,
and Conſubſtantial to his Father be à Fundamental Article of Chri-
ftian Faith finally refoluable into the Diuine Reuelation, And ad-
mitted as moſt Fundamental by Proteftants? I verily perfwade
my felf they will Say it is: If not, This followes ineuitably,
that there is no fundamental Article in our Chriftian faith. Vpon
the fuppofed Conceffion I Argue. But If the Church be falli-
ble, this Pofitiue Doctrin. Christ is Confubftantial. is no Article
of
Difc. 2. C.15. A Church Infallible
41 I
of Faith becauſe it cannot be refolued into an infinite Verity
infallibly Reuealing Truth, Therefore it is only à Moral humane
Perfwafion at moft, which may be falfe.
>
proues Faith
Certain.
7. The Proof of the Minor, will beft appear if we Ask
why Sectaries belieue that pofitiue Doctrin? They cannot An-
fwer, Scripture exprefly Teaches it; For most euidently that's not
fo. Will they fay the Mystery may by good Difcourfe be de- There
Anſwer
duced from Scripture? I Could wish to fee à clear Deduction
yet fear it.
fear it. Howeuer Suppofe that done, new Doubts ariſe con-
cerning the certainty, of the Deduction, which can be no more
but morally certain, moft infufficient to ground Diuine Faith.
The true Anfver therefore must be, or none. The Nicene Coun-
cil, The both past, and Prefent Church faithfully interpreting
Scripture, Definitiuely deliuered the Doctrin, and vpon this
ground we belieue the Myſtery.
The Char-
8. Now here we come to the main Bufinefs, and Ask again
whether God fpeaking by this Church as his own Oracle, Pro-
poſes that Doctrin and obliges all to belieue it, Or, Contrary-
wife, whether the Church diuorced as it were from Diuine Affi-
ſtance teaches vpon Her own humane fallible Authority, And
obliges all to belieue the Myſtery? Grant the firft, The Defi-
ches Infalli.
nitions of the Church are infallible, becaufe an Eternal Verity_bility fur-
Speaks infallibly by Her. Say fecondly, That the Church wholly ther euinced
Vnafsifted, teaches and Defines vpon Her own fallible humane
Authority, the Doctrin we learn from Her of the Incarnation,
of the higheſt Godhead in Chrift, of his being Confubftantial, of the
Bleffed Trinity, of Original Sin, beget's no Faith, Becauſe if the
Suppofition hold's, that Affent relies not at all vpon an Infallible
Veruy fpeaking by the Church Aßifted, but vpon à weak and
fallible Human Authority which cannot fupport any certain Be-
liefe, For it is moft prepofterous to Say, that men meerly falli-
ble, as all are left to Themfelues, can Affure vs, what that Doc-
trin is, which God Reueal's Infallibly. Now we Come to this
Moral Certainty.
9. And one Perhaps will fay, Such men, though fallible,
Fff 2
may
412
Difc. 2. C. 15. Diuine Faith requires
:
The Chur
ches Defini.
tions More
then Moral-
by Certain..
The Nature
of Moral
certainly
briefly bin-
ted at.
may at leaft giue Moral Affurance of the truth of the Doctrin, and
that's enough. Contra. 1. Moral affurance which euer implies
fome weak Degree of fear of the contrary may in rigour be falfe.
But the Church, which obliges all to belieue Her Doctrin vn-
der pain of Damnation fpeak's without fear, and Saith boldly.
God reueal's as I teach, Therefore her Doctrin if falfe, is the
Diuels Doctrin. But none can fay, That the Nicene Definition
againſt Arius was the Doctrin of Diuels But Contrary wife à
Truth reuealed by God, and Belieuable Fide Diuina, Ergo it was
infallible, and more than Morally certain. Contra. 2. God
Speaking by the Church giues greater Certainty than Moral, And
if he do not speak at all by Her, the Definition now remoued
from Infallible Affiftance Vphold's not Faith, as we shall fe pre-
fently, nor can it be prudently iudged morally certain.
>
10. Though much be faid in the other Treatife. Difc. 1. C.
4. 6. againſt this Pretence to Moral certainty (Sectaries cafually
light on it becauſe, forfooth, they brook not the word. infat
libility) yet here we muft wholly weaken that Plea. I fay The-
refore, could the Church (as She cannot) Define or teach wi-
thout Gods fpecial Affiſtance, Chriftians would either not attain
to fo great certainty of Her Doctrin, as is Moral ; Or if no grea-
ter could be had, That certainty would not be Diuine Faith. Euery
one knowes Moral certainty to be à kind of knowledge, where-
by men iudge fuch things are, or are not, without great
great Hefi-
tancy or any reaſonable caufe of Doubting, It is viually grounded
vpon fome vulgar Perfwafion, or common half owned Euidence,
which the moſt of men truft to prudently, When no furer can
be had. Thus we fay. All People in Common Conuerſation ſpeak
not alwayes contrary to their thoughts. Some mean well in their Pro-
ceeding. Rome and Conftantinople are now Citties in being. Thefe
and the like Affertions may in rigour be falfe, Yet our fudicatiue
faculty without Violence readily yeild's to all, induced thereunto
by à Perfwafion vulgarly receiued whereby we fay, That as fuch
things are Commonly reported, So they alſo are vſually belieued,
and Commonly true. In à word the greatest part of Moral cer-
tainty
Difc. 2. C. 15, A Church Infallible.
413
tainty may be rightly ftiled à kind of half Suppofed Euidence,
current in the world which may Deceiue, yet eafily deceiues
not.
>
Faith.
II. Now be pleaſed to reflect. The fublime Myfteries of Areflection
Faith, remote from all vulgar Apprehenfions and half owned Eui-
dences, are neither vifible like Conftantinople, feen by innume-
rable Eye-wittneffes, Nor affured vpon any either Fallible or de-
ceiuable Authority, nor finally belieued vpon à meer hnmane pru-
dential Difcourfe only. No. They lie in à higher Region
aboue our natural knowledge in the Abyfs of Gods infcrutable
Wiſdom, and the more remote they are from Senfe Or any
Half-euidences, the more they ftand in need of an infallible Pro- No Power
ponent, Whereby All reft Afcertained of their being Eternal deceiuable
Truths. Hence I Argue. None but God aboue who Reueal's, can ground
and an infallible Church which Propofes the Myfteries can giue
Affurance of their being Diuine Truths, or fay abfolutly They
ought to be belieued anfwerably to their Dignity, as Diune. Now
further. But if God reueal's them as his own Truths for this
End, that all belieue them infallibly, the Church cannot but
Speak in the name of God, and independently of this Vulgar
humane knowledge, Propoſe them alfo infallibly as Diuine, Or
if: She could turn vs off with no more but à Moral Perfwa-
fion of their feeming Gods truths, yet may not be fo, The Strength
of Faith vanishes into à diffatisfactory Topick, into à meer
Perhaps thus. It may be we Beliene Truth it may be not. In à
word we belieue not as the Apoſtles did, infallibly.
12.
}
Hence none, I think, shall euer comprehend how this
Whimfy of Moral Certainty got into our Proteftants thoughts,
For had Chriſtians agreed in that Certainty, or had they faid:
Becauſe the Myfteries of faith are propofed fo weakly, We
can belieue with no Stranger affurance but Moral, They muft haue
receiued and learn'd that Doctrin (not from their own fancy)
but from fome Superiour Power, fome known Oracle that taught
fo, which either reuealed, or propofed the Myfteries as only
Morally certain, and no more. But to point at any fuch Ora-
Fff. 3
deas
The infufi-
ciency of
Moral
Certainty.
414
Difc. 2. C. 15. Diuine Faith requires
Faith only
Morally cer
tain relected
by all that
taught
Christianity
of Moral
certainly.
cle is impoffible, And here is the reafon. All know, that God
an infallible Verity, cannot Reucal any Truth only Morally
Certain. Chrift our Lord taught his own Verities infallibly, fo
alfo did the Apoftles who were Strangers to this low and half
lame Affurance. No ancient Chriftians nameable profeffed à
lefs certainty (of Faith) than infallible in the Church which
taught them. The Roman Catholick Church you fee for con-
uincing Reafons, laies claim to diuine Affiftance when She Tea-
ches; and diſclaims this petty kind of Certainty, which may be
falfe: From whence then came the Perfiation of that certainty
into mens Heads when neither God, nor Chrift, nor Apoftles nor
Ancient Chriftians, nor any Orthodox Church euer fauoured
it ?
13. The true Anfwer is, Inimcus homo hoc fecit. An old Enemy
to decry the Infallibility of Gods own Oracle conueyed the
The Author fancy into à few Sectaries, Though when they haue it, it beco-
mes wholly vfeles to end Controuerfies. Obferue my reafon.
If theſe men Difpute with à Iew, will they fay that Chriftian
Religion, taken in what latitude you pleaſe, is not abfolutely
infallible, but only à little More morally certain than Iudaifin?
Or if they Argue againſt vs can they be fo shameleſs, as to allow
Moral certainty to Proteftancy and deny it to Catholick Religion?
They must do fo, and here is the reafon. Moral certainty is
neuer appliable to two Parts of à Contradiction, The One muft
of neceffity be made morally Improbable, (fo if all iudge in this
in all Dif- Inftant that Conftantinople is à Citty in being, the Contrary is
It is feles
to Sectaries
putes.
Morally improbable) if therefore Sectaries hold Proteftancy Mo-
rally certain and the Roman Catholick Doctrin not, This beco-
mes in their Opinion Morally improbable. Dare they fay fo
much with any Countenance? If they doe, our Difpute begins
à fresh, we come to the Trial of their Affertion, and will show
when it pleaſes them to hear, that their high challenge to Mo-
ral certainty, is far from being probable. At leaſt this is Eui-
dent, That whilft we moft rationally except againſt it, its only
an vnproued Suppofition and ends no Controuerties.
14. To
Difc. 2. C. 15. A Church Infallible
415
'
14. To diſcouer yet more the Vnweightines of this weak An Inftance
certitude in Matters of Faith. Imagin if you pleaſe Firſt. (it is
in this preſent State an impoffible Suppofition yet giues light to
what I would fay) that the Church had not Propofed at all the
abftrufe Mystery of the Sacred Trinity, As it is already fignifi-
cantly Defined. Suppofe again that twenty learned men, (but
fallible) after à perufal of Scripture had endeauored to bring
Themfelues and others to belieue it. viz. The Father of himself Prouing
Eternal and vulgotten, the Son Coequal and Eternal, begotten, The holy Moral
Ghost Eternal alſo and proceeding from Father and Son. All three Certainty
infufficiens.
Confubftantial, one in Effence, in Power, in Wiſdom, in Omnipotency, only
distinguished by their Relatiue Oppofitions. I fay notwithstanding;
This their Affent would only haue been à weak Opinion not
morally certain, and though hundreds more had Sided with thete
Twenty vpon the like Ground, none could haue belieued the
Trinity with Diuine Faith. The reafon is, Becauſe whilſt men
meerly fallible (and as fallible) Propofe an incomprehenfible
Myſtery far aboue the reach of humane vnderſtanding, The
Propofal (relying vpon à deceiuable, Or an vnafsifted Power) can-
not bring Faith to it's own Obiect, Gods infallible veracity. The
Refolution of this fuppofed Faith clear's all. For Ask why They
belieue the Trinity? It is Anfwered they verily think and per-
firade Themfelues that the Myſtery lies couched in Holy Writ.
But Ask again, whether that Thought or Perfwafion be not fal-
lible, they Anfwer, affirmitiuely. Ergo, Say I, their Faith which
cannot goe beyond the ftrength of that weak Propofition, is allo
fallible and confequently not Diuine.
15. Here you fee first, the abfolute Neceflity of an infallible
Proponent in Points of Faith, which Sectaries haue not, And
therefore can belieue nothing Diuinely; And truly Catholicks
would be in as bad à Condition (yea really no Catholicks) An Infallin
could the Church only guefs at thefe high Myfteries, could She ble prepo-
propoſe them vpon à humane errable Authority only, Or in à neat,
word, Define Fallibly. You fee. 2. Vpon what ground the necessary
faith of à Catholick is infallible, For being demanded why He
belieues
416
Difc 2. C.15. Diuine Faith requires
Sectaries
haue no
faith moral.
ly.certain.
An Obiec
tion.
belieues this, or any other Myftery, his Anfwer is, God reueal's
them. Queftioned again who giues him fo much Aſſurance ?
A fatisfactory Reply is at hand. He belieues fo, becauſe an
Affifted Church, which cannot Err, Propofes all Her Myfte-
ries infallibly. Take away Diuine Affiftance, She is errable and
may deceiue euery one She teaches.
16. One may here demand whether the Proteftants Belief
of the Trinity, or of any other high Myſtery growes vp to fo
much Certainty with them, as is Moral? Anfw.1. It import's
little whether it do or no, So long as their Faith is meerly fal-
lible. I Anſwer 2. If we Speak rigoroufly, Their Belief is not
morally certain. Here is my reafon. Their own Diuining in
fo abftrufe à Matter cannot raiſe the Affent fo high, And if they
would borrow, as it were, Certainty from the Catholick Church,
and Apply that to Themfelues, They know well this Oracle Ow-
nes no other Certainty in the Belief of reucaled Truths, but
what is infallible and cannot be Falſe.
2
嗜
​17. By what is faid already we eafily Solue à common Obiec-
tion.
Moral certainty ſeems often equiualent, yea wholly as Satisfacto-
ry to reaſon, as that is we call Phyfical, For one that neuer faw
Conftantinople can no more Queſtion the Being of fuch à Citty,
than doubt of the fun's shining at Noon day. Anfw. All is
most true, but nothing to the purpoſe, For, that certainty The-
refore equalizes phyfical, becaufe (Originally grounded vpon à
fenfible vifible Euidence) it is taken from innumerable Witneffes
who haue ſeen the place, This makes the cominon Report indu-
bitable, and conueyes vnto vs à certainty as firm, as if we faw
Conftantinople with our Eyes. But the Myſteries of Faith lie,
as is now noted in à higher Region, and are neither propofed
nor conueyed to vs by the help of any vifible or fenfible Eui-
Aurance, dence; And were they in fome low degree morally certain vpon
humane Reports, that would neither match, nor be fo ftrong as
natural Euidence is. Wherefore God interpofes his own Affi-
ſtance and raiſes the Propofition of thefe Myfteries and our Be-
Moral Cer-
tainty.
grounded on
Senfible
Euidence
giues not
Faith any
lief
Difc. 2. C. 15. A Church Infallible.
417
lief of them, to à yet higher Degree of certitude far aboue either
Moral or Phyfical, For whether we confider them as Truths reuea-
led by an infinit Verity, or propofed by the Church Diuinely Aß-
fted, They stand firm vpon infallible Principles. And thus we
haue their Truth indubitably conueyed, And the Conueyance
you fe, admits of nothing but Infallibility. I fay the Truth, For
without doubt there is à ftrong vifible and fenfible Euidence
in the Marks and Motiues which Denote Chrifts Church,and
make Her Doctrin in the highest manner indubitably Credible, But
hereof you shall hear more partly in the Obiections, But moft
amply in the third Difcourfe.
18. To end this point concerning Moral Certainty. I Ask
(and for Anfwer appeal to the Iudgement of euery rational man)
what cold comfort would it haue been to the Primitiue Chri-
ftians, had the Nicene Fathers after à refolute Definition iffed
forth, whereby the Confubstantiallity of the Diuine Word was Affer
ted, and à Peremptory Anathema Pronounced againſt all that
belieued it not, Declared themfelues and Senfe in this frigid man-
ner? It is fo indeed Defined. But we only mean thus much,
That the Doctrin is morally certain and may be falfe. Would
not Arius think ye haue flighted the Definition? And might
he not haue Argued to the purpoſe Thus? If no man can
hold himſelf happy for being actually in Errour, He cannot
Certainly think himſelf out of the danger of an vnhappy Sta-
te, if he be expofed to the danger of Errour, But the Moral
certainty you defend thruft's you vpon the danger of being in
Errour, Therefore your Condition is none of the fureft, Nay
it is as bad as inine, For the worst that can befall my Doctrin,
which I pretend Scripture for, is, That it may one day proue
falfe, and fo may yours too (Good Fathers) if in the leaft degree
fallible.
19.
:
Hence You fe firft, That the Definitions of Chrifts eui-
denced Church muft either be owned infallible, And then meer
Moral certainty hath no place, Or Hereticks may endlefly ca-
ail at Her Doctrin and boldly fay., nothing is taught nothing
Ggg
can
Moral Cer-
tainty in
Faith à
most frigid
Plea. And
why?
418
Diſc. 2. C. 15. Dixine Faith requires
To encept
against the
Churches
Infallibility
destroyes
Faith.
The Secta-
vies Para-
dex.
Inferences.
What euer
makes
Faith true
makes it
Anfallible.
can be belieued infallibly. If you Reply. Many cauil and except
against the Churches Infallibility. I anfwer. This is to fay,
Exception is made againſt à Truth which either muft ftand
vnshaken, or Faith (made no more but à tottering Opinion)
is deftroyed. And Mark in what à Diftrefs poor Chriftians are,
who Ask. Domine quo ibimus? Lord whither shall we goe to
learn Eternal truth? Proteftants will needs draw vs from à Church
hitherto held infallible, And to afford à better prouifion of Truth,
remit vs to Themfelues, who confeffedly are fallible in all they
Teach. A Paradox beyond Expreffion. The Church is fuppofed fal-
lible, and Protestants are really fallible.. Where then is our Security?
From whom shall we learn Truth? From no body. But more
of this hereafter..
*
20. You fe. 2. There is not one received Chriftian Princi-
ple fo much as feemingly fauourable to Moral certainty only
which may be fals, or which forces. That vpon the Churches
Definitions. Whereas, on the contrary, Scripture Councils, and
Fathers Pofitiuely Averr Church Doctrin to be infallible. You
fe. 3. To pretend to true Faith or to true Religion diuorced
from Infallibility, Deftroyes Both, For although euery Truth be
not infallible, yet Truth and Infallibility infeparably meet in Faith.
Wherefore this Inference inuiolably hold's good. My Catho-
lick Faith is true Ergo it is infallible. For Faith relies vpon
And is vltimatly Refolued into God's infallible Veracity, which
(with the Concurrence of other Principles requifite) Transfufes
into it à Supereminent infallibility aboue all natural Certitude.
That Therefore which makes Faith true, makes it alſo Infallible. Now
further to, our prefent Purpofe. God as we here Suppofe re-
uealed the Confubftantiallity of his Son Infallibly, But the Myſtery
lies dark in Scripture, The Church impowred to Propofe exactly
eternal reuealed Truths, Anfwerable to Her Truft and the weigh-
tines of the matter, fpeak's not like one faint hearted, Forsooth,
Morally ſpeaking Christ is the highest God. The word is Confubftan-
tial, But Afferts it without all Peraduentures, And ftrik's Arianilin
dead with one only Definition. And thus Faith ftand's firm
vpon
Diſc. 2. C. 15. A Church Infallible.
419
vpon à double infallibility, the One infinite and Effential to God's
Verity; The Other, the infallible Propoſition of an Aſſiſted Church,
For as She Propofes the obfcure Myfteries of Faith, ſo we be-
lieue. Whereof more prefently.
Other Obiections proposed by Sectaries,Solued. More
of Moral certainty.
21. One, though enough broken already, muft appear again
in our New mens Terms, or nothing is done. Thus they Dif
courſe. If Chriftian Doctrin be in fo high à Degree Morally
Certain, As it is Certain that Cæfar, Pompey and Cicero were
men once in Being, None can reaſonably doubt of the Doctrin,
And why may not Such an Affurance Content vs, without our
pretended Infallibility? I read this in Mr Stillingfleet more then
once, And had I not feen it with my own Eyes, I Should ne-
uer haue thought, That One Profeffing Knowledge in Diuinity
could haue erred fo enormously. To lay open the foule Mi-
ftake.
22. All know the Certainty we haue of Cæfars once being
in the world was firft grounded vpon à Viſible clear Euidence
for Innumerable faw the man, heard him Speak, whilſt Heliued
on earth. The Verity euer fince conueyd down from Age to
Age Continues ftill to our dayes, And here is all the Moral
Certainty men can haue of Cæfar, of Pompey, or of any other
fo remote from vs. Pleaſe now to obferue. As Cæfar and
Cicero were ſeen by many Eye-witneffes, So Chrift our Lord
was both heard and feen by Innumerable when he Preached,
and fuffered on the Crofs. The Euidence to thofe Spectators
was Senfible and Phyfical, To Lewes and Gentils now,its Moral,
who vpon à
à Vniuerfal report Say without boggling, There was
once à man in the world called Chrift, as they fay, There was
ence One, Called Cæfar. But (and here we Come to difcouer
Ggg 2
Mc
Safaries
Mistaks
concerning
Moral cer
tainty.
420
Diſc. 2. C. 15. Diuine Faith requires
To Say
Christ was
upon Moral
certainly
is not to be
lieue in
Christ.
Mr Stillingfleets Errour) Do Thefe Lewes and Gentils therefore
belieue in Chrift, or Affent to his Sacred Doctrin by Faith, be-
caufe they Judge vpon Moral Certainty, He was once on earth?
Is this Truth, I fay, As it is grounded vpon à Common Report, or
Morally Certain the Obiect of Faith? It is more then ridica-
lous. For grant That, All the Lewes in Europe at this Day
may be well thought to Belieue in Chrift, becauſe they haue
Moral Certainty of his once Being in the world.
23. To Belieue in Chrift Therefore, is not to Say, fuch a
man once had his Being, he Preach'd, and fuffered (for this lay
open to Senfe) But implyes Much more. viz. To Affert in-
dubitably vpon Diuine Reuelation. That the Man called Chrift
Iefus was truely the Higheſt God, The only Meffias, The Re-
deemer of Mankind, Confubftantial to his Eternal Father and
finally to Affent to Euery Doctrin he taught. Thefe and the
What is to like Truths ( neither viſible nor fenfible, like Cæfar ) are Obiects
of Diuine Faith, far enough remoued from Phyfical and Moral
Certainty, And we firmly Affent to All, not becauſe they are ſeen
with our Eyes, or Scientifically known, Or finally Conueyed.
vnto vs vpon the weak Support of Moral certainty, But becauſe
God an Infinite Verity has reuealed them.. Here is our Ground.
Now This Reuelation being not euidently known by virtue of
any Principle in Nature, muſt be Belieued (together with the
Obfcure Myſteries, Attested) by an Act of Diuine Faith..
belicue in
Chrift.
Faith is
more then
morally
Certain
A Conuin
sing venson
hereof.
24. And Hence it followes, That as no Obiect (as feen or
Euidently known) Can terminate Supernatural Faith; So no Mo-
ral Certainty can be effential to it, Or vphold it. The vltimate-
Reafon hereof is moft Conuincing, and Briefly thus. What euer
God reueal's (as it is reuealed) is Certain and Infallible Doctrin. Whe-
refore, He or those that take from this infallible reuealed Doctrin, its own
intrinfecal Certainty, And make it no More but Morally Certain wrong
God the first Verity, and iniure all Chriftians, who are to learn it
as Infallible, But Sectaries do So, That is, they vnnaturely turn
Gods infallible Doctrin out of its own intrinfecal Certainty, and
Say its only Morally Certain to vs, Therefore they wrong
that
Diſc. 2. C. 15. A Church Infallible.
421
that firſt Verity and abufe all Chriftians. This Principle alone
Proues the Churches Infallibility, And vtterly ruin's the Prote-
ſtants Pretence to Moral Certainty, whereof you Shall haue More
hereafter.
Were
Doctrin only
Morally
certain,
Sectaries get
gain No..
thing.
25. Now to deal fairely with Mr Stillingfleet, let vs at pre-
fent falfely Suppofe Moral Certainty à fufficient ground of Faith,
what Good for Gods fake get Proteftants by that? Can They Church
tell vs where the Church is, whofe Doctrin muft be reputed
only morally certain? The Arians call themfelues à Church,
fo do the Græcians, the Proteftants likewife, and finally fo do
Catholicks. Are all theſe different iarring Doctrins Morally
certain? Euidently No. For the Profeffors of them maintain
Contradictions, vtterly Destructiue both of Moral and all other
Certainty. Some One Society therefore teaches it, For more
than One (if diuided in faith) cannot, This One muſt be Signali-
zed and pointed out, which no Proteftant can do, For if he na-
me his own Church he hath the whole world againſt him, and
will be forced to proue his Affertion vpon indubitable Principles:
And if he point at the Roman Catholick Church, he ruin's his
own caufe, For two oppofite Churches cannot teach Doctrin
morally Certain. Now if he can point at no Church of One
Denomination teaching Doctrin Morally certain, This certainty
is only an infignificant word in the aire, appliable to no Chri-
ftian Society.
26. A fecond obiection. The Motiues of Credibility though.
commonly held only Inducements morally certain, fo Denote the
true Church, that all may find it out, Therefore though Church
Doctrin were only morally Certain, and not Infallible, it may
fufficiently lead to belieue that Doctrin which God has Reuealed.
Anfw. Here is neither Parity nor any Inference confequential,
And the want of diftinguishing between the Credibility of Reuea-
led Doctrin and its Truth, breed's the Confufion. The Moti-
ues then only make the Doctrin euidently Credible, and remit vs
to the Church which teaches Truth, She propofes the Doc-
trin, and vpon Her Propofition Faith relies which therefore
Ggg 3
>
mult.
Faith relies
not vpen
Motines in
ducing to
Beliefe.
422 Diſc. 2. .
C.15Diuine Faith requires &c.
whether the
Churches
Propofition
may be
Call'd the
Object of
Faith?
4
C. 15. muſt be infallible, not vpon the Motiues too weak to Support
Faith. In à word here is all I would fay. God Reueal's truth
infallibly, the Motiues in à General way manifeft the Church
where truth is taught, the Church thus Signalized Propofes Truth
infallibly, And vpon Her infallible Propofition (not for the Mo-
tiues) Chriftians belieue Infallibly.
27. A third Obiection. If the Churches Propofition be in-
fallible, or if God ſpeaks by the Church As he anciently did by
the Prophets and Apofties, And She likewife Speak's in his na-
me. Whateuer this Oracle Propofes may be called the Voice
of God, and Confequently the Formal Obiect of Faith. I An-
fwer no hurt at all were it fo, For perhaps in this prefent State of
things, few Articles of Faith are, or can be belieued indepen-
dently of the Churches Propofition. At leaſt it is very easy to
fay. I Belieue the Sacred Trinity because God anciently Reuealed it to
the Apoftles, and alſo becauſe the Church now Testifies that the Mystery
Was anciently Reuealed. Howeuer we here waue this Doctrin and
Say. The Churches Propofition, though abfolutely infallible, is
not properly ſpeaking the Formal Obiect of Faith, Though
much may be de Nomine. First, becauſe it is meerly Accidental,
not Effential to Faith, to be propoſed by the Church, by this,
or that Oracle, For Chrift our Lord at his firft Preaching was
not the Church, yet he Propoſed Articles to be Belieued, and
moft Infallibly. 2. Diuines by the word Formal obiect, vfually
vnderſtand the Ancient infallible Reuelation made to the Prophets
and Apoftles, And not the Churches Propofition, which though
it be an Intrinsick, Effential, and Neceflary Condition complea-
ting, and Applying the Ancient Reuelation to Belieuers, yet Princi-
pally it Terminates nor Faith. Now to be an effential Condition,
nothing at all impairs the Churches Infallibility. Thus much is
faid to folue the Obiection, though the Matter, t'is true, is ca-
pable of higher Speculation, but Sectaries like not Speculatiue
Learning.
28. A fourth Obiection. The Churches Infallibility feem's
chiefly Afferted vpon this Ground, that She is to be Heard, and
Obeyed,
Difc. 2. C. 15. The Roman Catholick Church&c. 423
The Difpa
Obeyed, which proues nothing. For Iudges, Gouernours, and Pa-
rents are to be heard and obeyed, though all are fallible. Anfw. rity between
A moft filly Obiection. The very Matter, wherein Thefe and Gouernours
the Church are to be Obeyed Shewes the difparity, For No Ciuil Comman
Magiftrate pretend's to regulate Faith, or to Define what God ding and the
Reueal's. This the Church, and She only is impowred to do, fining.
To crush Herefies as they rife vp, and to eftablish without Er-
ring the contrary Truths, which cannot be effected (the matter
being fo Sublime) without the infallible Afsiftance of the Holy
Ghoft. Now we are to Proceed to the main Buſineſs in hand, -
CHAP. XVI.
Principles premiſed to the following Doctrin. The Roman
Catholick Church is à Church of One Denomination.
She, aud no other Society of Christians, is Infallible.
Other Grounds of Her Infallibility laid forth. The
Infallibility of Councils maintained againſt Mr Stillin-
gfleets Suppofed Truth and Reaſon. There are no
Principles whereby Approued Councils can be proued
Fallible. Sectaries Conuinced by their own Doctrine-
I
Church de
E here firſt Premife three certain Principles One;
W that the Doctrin of all Churches feuerally Deno- One Princi-
minated from their Authors, as Arianifm from the Arians, Pro- ple, impor-
teftancy, from Proteftants, Chriſtian Verities from Chrift our Lord, ing the
is not in the whole (or totally confidered vnder One Notion of Difunion
Chriſtian Doctrin) either True or Infallible, For in this whole diffu- in Eaiih
fed Body, We euidently find Contradictions. The Arians con-
tradict Proteftants, Thefe Set against Arians, And the Catho-
་
lick
...
424 Diſc. 2. C. 16. The Roman Catholick Church
Another
Principle,
The prefent
Church pro-
sed by her
Signs as in.
fallible as
the Primi.
time.
Different
wayes of
Teaching
infallible
Doctrin.
lick Church Oppofes both. Therefore All of them maintain
neither One, nor true, nor infallible Catholick Doctrin, And con-
fequently infallibility ceafes in the VVhole, when the feueral Parts
ſtand in an implacable Oppofition with Oneanother.
2. A. 2. Principle. If all Churches which Contradict One
another are not infallible, One only, and of one Denomination
muſt be infallible, or none at all can be fo. For example. Ca-
tholicks, and Proteftants, teach Contrary Doctrin (the like is of all
other diffenting Societies) both Parties cannot be infallible, The-
refore the One is fo, or Neither. Now further. Proteftants
diſclaim the Prerogatiue of teaching infallibly, whence it followes
First, That the Roman Catholick Church enioyes that Priuiledge,
or there is no fuch thing on earth as an infallible Church. Se-
condly this is Confequent, It is the fame to Say. The Roman
Catholick Church is infallible, as to Say, that God yet Preferues an in-
fallible Church in Being. This I Affert, not only becaufe Prote-
ftants quit all Pretence to infallibility, but vpon this ground
chiefly, That no other Society nameable can Parallel this One
Oracle in Her Marks and Signs, Illuftrious Miracles, admirable
Conuerfions, Sanctity, the blood shedding of Martyrs. By theſe
Signs the Infallibility of this prefent Church is no lefs rational-
ly proued, than the Infallibility of the Primitiue Church in the
Apoftles time. Here I l'etition our Aduerfaries to giue à pro-
bable Disparity.
-
3. A. 3. Principle. One may teach true Chriftian Doctrin,
and yet not Propoſe it as infallible. So all do that hold the De-
finitions of the Church only morally Certain. One again may
teach infallible Chriftian Doctrin, and yet not teach it infallibly,
And thus Sectaries teach the General Truths of Chriftianity, of
one God, and of one Christ. The Doctrin, obiectiuely attefted by
Diuine Reuelation is in it felf infallible, But thefe Nouellifts
for want of Diuine Aſsiſtance, teach it not infallibly, And the-
refore Confefs themfelues fo fallible that they may fwerue
from Truth. Finally, One may teach, true and infallible Chri-
ftian
Difc.-2. C. 16. proued infallible.
425
ftian Doctrin with this Addition, That he Teaches it_Infallibly,
And theſe three Perfections now named, were moft Eminent in
the Preaching of Chrift and His Apoftles. They Taught true
Doctrin, They taught infallible Drin, and moreouer taught it infallibly,
In fo much that their very formal Teaching was not liable to
Errour. Thus much Premifed, here is my Affertion.
4.
The Roman Catholick Church is Gods infallible liuing
Oracle, and teaches not only Chrifts true and infallible Doctrin,
But moreouer Deliuers it fo infallibly that She cannot err. The
Proof of the Affertion wholly depend's vpon à Difcourfe in the
other Treatife. Difc. 1. c. 2. and in the Appendix. P. 2. 3. 4.
Whence I Argue. If once you annul this one Principle, that à
Church which pretend's to teach Chrifts Sacred Doctrin, teaches
it fo fallibly that She may Deceiue, it doth not only follow that
one Eminent Perfection in our Sauiours Preaching (who taught
infallibly) is vtterly loft, and now remoued from vs, But this is
alfo confequent, That no man can haue afſurance of ſo much as
of one Chriftian Verity at this day Propoſed or taught the whole
world ouer.
The Reaſon is. Whateuer Church teaches Chri-
ftian Doctrin fallibly, can fay no more but thus much timidly
That (as taught) it may by virtue of the Propofition be falſe, but à
Doctrin fo far remoued from infallible Certainty for want of à
due Application of its Infallibility, comes not neer to the Doctrin
of Chrift and his Apoftles, which was Applyed, Taught, and.
Propofed Infallibly. Therefore fuch à Doctrin if valued by the
merit of its Deliuery, Can be efteemed no more but à weak vncer-
tain humane perfwafion,not at all refoluable into God's infallible
Verity. For though God own's à Doctrin obiectiuely True
and Infallible (becauſe he Reueals it) yet he vtterly disowns fuch
à Propofal as diſcountenances that VVorth, and makes it look
like à changling, or diſlike it Self, ( That is) neither True, nor
Infallible, but contrarywife Poßibly falfe and fallible. And it nei-
ther is, nor can be more to Chriftians than fallible, if propoſed
Fallibly.
5. The Cafe is thus, As if one had à Gem of mighty Value,
and
Hhh
The Roman
Catholick
Church is
Goas infal
lible Oracle.
The Affer-
tion proued,
426 Difc. 2. C. 16. The Roman Catholick Church
and skilful Tewellers were appointed to Prife it, yet none after
An Inftance all Art and Induſtry vfed can know the true worth Thereof.
The Jewel may indeed be precious, and perhaps not. More the
moft skilful cannot Say. Put this cafe, the Owner would be lit-
tle enriched by fuch an vnknown treaſure whilft the worth is.
not known. And no More Say I, are Chriftians now en-
riched with Chrifts Precious Verities, whilft none can efteeme
of Their vltimate Value nor Say infallibly, They are Gods own:
infallible Truths? Moral certainty has, here no place, For the
Reaſons alleged aboue. Hence it followes, That as God Reueal's.
his verities of an Immenfe Valuation (True and infallible) So Proui-
dence has ordained that they be Propofed anfwerably to their
due Eftimate, truly, and infallibly, without which Their vnfitnes.
to ground Faith is more than palpable, as will appear by the
Refoluing any one act now held de Fide.. Pleafe to obferue..
We and Sectaries belieue the Diuine word Confubftantial to his
Father, the Church Propofes that infallible Truth, but as it is
now Suppofed, Fallibly, the Affent which followes vpon that
Propofition and should be Diuine, reaches notfo high, becaufe
it Anſwers not to the Strength of the infallible obiectiue Verity
in it Self (yet not afferted by any, as infallible) But to the weak-
nes of the formal Propofition, which is fuppofed fo fallible that it
may
be falfe. All then that à Belieuer can Say by virtue of that
weak Light is thus much. only, and no more. Perhaps the Diuine
Word is Confubftantial, perhaps not, For none doth or can auerr
the Truth otherwife, but as à thing doubtful or indifferent to
truth and falshood...
The Affer-
zion further
declared.
6. The Reafon à Priori of all now faid is. We neither:
know, nor belieue by external obiectiue Truths confidered in
Themfelues, but by our own Subiectiue internal Acts, as there-
fore an Obiectiue Truth appears in our own internal Acts, of
fo much worth it is to vs, And neither more nor lefs. Now
further. My internal Faith neceffarily depend's on two external
Obiects when I belieue any Myftery: The firft is Gods Reuela-
tion, The other the Churches Propofition: Neither the one or
other
Difc. 2. C. 16. proued Infallible
427
other is my true Faith, for that's inherent in me, if I belieue.
When therefore the Church after Her Propofition obliges me to
Settle my internal Faith vpon the Diuine Reuelation, I rational-
ly demand in what manner, Or how I shall fix it? Knowing well,
if God fpeaks he fpeak's infallibly, But my Scruple is whether the
Church can infallibly Affure me fo much? If She Anſwer's tru-
ly She doth fo, I ain fecure vpon this Principle, that an Oracle
teaches which cannot Deceiue. But if it be replyed, She is only
impowred to Propofe reuealed Truths fallibly, and I by my in-
ternal Affent clofe, as it were, with. That, or lay hold of the
reucaled obiect iuft fo as it is propofed fallibly, moft euidently
my Affent and Belief, is no more but Fallible.
7. In this Matter then as in all others, we are exactly to at-
tend to the Propofal of Obiects, for as they are laid forth to vs,
fo much weight they haue. For example. A real Good in it
Selfe is by miſtake Propoſed to me as an Euil, I adhere to that
Obiect as it is propofed, and muft Adhere to Euil, becauſe it
appear's fo to me.. In like manner, an infallible Truth, is Pro-
pofed not as it is in it Selfe, infallible, But difcoloured, and defa-
ced, by à viciated Propofition which is fallible; Therefore by
force of that weak Declaration it appear's no other to me but
weak and fallible: And none on earth can vnbeguile me, or
Propofe it with greater certainty, Becauſe all are now Suppo-
fed fallible in their Teaching.
We beliene
not by
Obiects but
by our inte-
riour Ads.
As things
are proposet
So they are
to all that
belicue.
8. One Inftance may yet clear my meaning. The Prote-
ftant reads Chrifts Sacred words. Matt. 26. This is my Body.
And Propofes what he conceiues to be belieuable by Faith, But An Intane
doth it fallibly. Imagin that the Roman Catholick Church alſo
could Say no more for Her Doctrin, or the Senſe of thole Words,
But as the Proteftant doth fo fallibly that all might be Falſe, it
is clear That none, whether Catholick or Proteftant, can haue
Certainty of the Doctrin, which Christ our Lord deliuered in
that one short Sentence. Why? Both declare their fallible Sen-
timents only and Fallibly concerning the Sacrament, So far their
teaching reaches and not farther. Therefore the Faith which
Hhh 2
should
428 Difc. 2. C. 16. The Roman Catholick Church
Scripture
alone makes
no man in-
fallible. And
why?
should be had of the Myſtery dwindles into nothing but into
à fallible Opinion, by virtue of that imperfect Teaching.
9. Hence we learn, that à Doctrin though infallible in Gods
word without more Help, makes no man (though he be à Pro-
digy of wit) an Infallible Teacher. The reafon is. Infallibility
Proceed's not from Scripture easily mifinterpreted, but immediatly
from Gods fpecial Affiftance, And this Afsiftance which fixes
an Affumed Oracle vpon Truth vnerrably, no malice can wreſt
to falshood. Now that the Book of Scripture as dayly Expe-
rience teaches, is horridly peruerted to à Sinifter fenfe, needs no
proof, For all know, what ruin Hereticks haue (to the vtter-
moſt of their Power) endeuoured to make of the chief Articles
of our Chriftian Faith, though they aknowledged Scripture to
be God's Diuine Word. There is fcarce One which remain's Vn-
peruerted. Some Deny the Neceffity of Diuine Grace, Others,
that great Myſtery of the Incarnation, Others an Equality in the
Diuine Perfons, Others our Sauiours two Wills, Diuine, and Huma-
Thus the Pelagians, the Antitrinitarians the Apollinarians-
and Monothelits taught and deceiued The world.
ne.
And whem
Scripture is Alleged in behalf of euery Orthodox Truth, All
you haue from them is à return of ouerthwart Gloffes. Grace,
How abused, muft fignify what the Pelagians pleafe, The VVord made Flesh
What Ca
what the Antitrinitarians fancy, and fo of the reft. Whence
it is Euident that Scripture Alone without more light, clears not:
fufficiently its own Truths, For here you se the moſt Primary
Atticles difowned and Confequently Scripture abuſed by Priuate
Spirits, which therefore makes none infallibly certain of God's
reuealed Doctrin.
*
10. We Catholicks require à further Help, One faithful
Oracle to teach, which in this conteft about the senfe of Gods
tholicks re. Word end's all Strife, and Saies both plainly and infallibly. Thus
quire befides and thus an Infinite Verity speaks in scripture: Yet sectaries are
offended with vs, becaufe we can affert without hefitancy. VVe
belieue infallibly what Truth it Selfe Reueal's infallibly: Nay more,
They are angry with God for hauing done them the greateft.
the bare
Letter of
Scripture.
fauour
Difc. 2. C. 16. proued Infallible.
429
fauour Imaginable. For to put à Period to theſe endles A fignal
debates raiſed among Chriftians, To teach all Infallibly by Mercy of
his own vnerring Oracle what may and ought to be belieued Cod makes
Infallibly, is à fignal Mercy for which due Thanks can neuer Sectaries
offendeds
be rendred. Difowne the Mercy, we liue and shall liue, in
à Spirit of Contention to the worlds end.
11. Now if you Ask why the Church, after She has pro-
pofed the Senfe and verity of Scripture, more eaſily beget's
infallible Faith in Her Children, Than the bare letter of
Gods word can doe without Her? I Anfwer. The facility (Di-
uine affiftance Suppofed) arifes from the Clarity of Her tea-
ching known to all Vniuerfally, whether Orthodox or others.
Whence it is, that few of our Aduerfaries fcarce moue any
doubt concerning the Senfe of the Churches vniuerfal receiued
Doctrin (for that's plain) but chiefly Queftion the Truth of
it. Whereas all is contrary in our conteft with the forenamed
Hereticks, For there is no Difpute whether Scripture be true,
The debate only being what it Saith, or what the Senfe of
Gods facred word is? Here we fight in darkneſs before the debated
Church Speak's and Declares Her Senfe, And if She be di- with Secta-
uinely Affiſted to teach truth, as is already and shall be more
amply proued in the fequele Difcourfe, that doubt alfo ceafes,
and vanishes into nothing.
,
what is
chiefly
ries.
12. In the mean while, Some may Object. 1. The greateſt
part of Chriſtian Doctrin is now agreed on
and Suppoſed
by Catholicks and Proteftanss both true and infallible, what
neceffity then haue we of any other Oracle befides Scripture,
to teach infallibly? Anfw. The Agreement is Null, and the
Suppofition deftroies it felf, if all that taught Chriftian Doctrin
fince the Apoſtles time teach it fallibly, For How could any AnObiection
agree in this, That fuch and fuch à Doctrin is both true Answered.
and infallible, when He, or They (yea all) that teach may
becauſe fallible, erre in their very teaching, and call that in-
fallible Doctrin, without Affurance giuen of its Infallibility?
Do Therefore all own the Verities in Scripture infallible (not
infallible.
Hhh 3
430 Difc. 2. C. 16. The Roman Catholick Church
The Sectaries
Suppofition
destroyes it
felfe.
Aunother
Errour of
Sectaries.
Sectaries
clearly con-
Hinced.
infallible ex Terminis) We muft ioyntly own with that, an Oracle
which Propoſes theſe Verities infallibly, or can belieue nothing.
And by this you Se the Suppofition deftroies it Selfe, For
to Suppoſe à Doctrin infallible, when none can Propoſe it
anfwerably to its Merit, as infallible, or infallibly, is as implica-
tory, as to Suppofe without Proof, the Starrs in Heauen equal
in number, and from thence to Inferr they are to be iudged
equal. The Parity holds exactly.
13. Obiect. 2. Whoeuer, though fallible Deliuers by
chance Infallible Chriftian Doctrin, Teaches the very fence that
Chrift taught. Anfw: Very true, But he giues no Affurance
That he doth fo, For à fallible Deliuery of à Truth
as yet
only Suppofed not Proued infallible, raiſes it no higher but to
fuch à State of Vricertainty, that one may iuftly doubt whether
it be Chrift's infallible Doctrin or no.
>
14. Obiect. 3. The fallible teaching of an infallible Verity
may well conuey vnto à Hearer that which God has Reuealed.
For why may not an infallible Verity, as Reuealed, though fallibly
Propofed haue influence vpon Faith, and work in Belieuers à
moft firm Affent? Anfw. It is vtterly vipoffible; For à fal-
lible teaching of an infallible Verity not yet Propofed as infal-
lible by any, neither Suppofes the Truth Certain vpon other prin-
ciples (and this is euer to be noted) nor makes it infallible. It
Suppoſes no Truth taught infalliby, for Proteftants Say None
now can teach fo, All Doctors being fallible And moft eui-
dently it makes not that Verity infallible, For the Verity (as
reuealed) was antecedently Infallible before this fallible teaching medled
with it, Which therefore can not make it Infallible. By what
is faid, you fe our Sectaries Suppofition of fome Chriftian Do-
ctrin acknowledged infallible is pure Sophiftry, for none can
Affure them fo much, if All that teach it be fallible. The very
Apoftolical Doctrin refpectiuely to vs now liuing lofes its
Infallibility, if this Suppofition ftands, That all Teachers are
fallible. Now we Proceed to à Second Argument and Dif
courſe thus.
15. If
Difc. 2. C. 16. proued Infallible.
431
15. If the whole Church (the like is of any General ap- The Chur-
proued Council) can err, She may not only traitorously betray ches tufalli.
Her Truft, But moreouer doe fo much Mifchief to Chriftians bility further
by vniting all in Errour, That they must remain in it, without proued.
redreſs or remedy, For if the Church may mistake, whilſt She
Teaches, No man on earth can be rationally Suppofed wifer
than She is, nor goe about to Vnbeguile the deceiued by Her.
The Euil here hinted at is fo Notoriouſly horrid, the Perple-
xity it caufes fo Great, that either Church Doctrin vnauoydably
becomes deſpicable, (whilft euery one may iuftly Quarrel with it)
Or this Principle muſt ſtand vnshaken, that the Church cannot
teach à Falshood.
Sectaries
16. Some Sectaries feing the Force of this vnanfwerable Ar-
gument, hold the Church Diffufiue infallible in fundamentals,
Yet neither name nor can name thofe Chriftians who conftitute
an infallible Church larger than the Roman, whereof enough
is faid both in this, and the other Treatife. In the next place
Oppoſe
their whole Strife is to Oppofe the Infallibility of the Churches of The
Infalliblity
Repreſentatiues in her General Councils, But methinks inconfe- of Councils,
quently, For what euer Reafon proues Immunity from Errour without
in that diffuſed Moral Body, Conuinces as forcibly the like reason..
Priuiledge in its Reprefentatiues, Which are not Conuened to
deceiue, But to teach God's reuealed Verities
2
17. Mr. Stillingfleet. Part. 3. C. 1.2. P. 506. After à larger
Prologue to very little Subftance, Tell's vs. It is not any high
challenge of Infallibility, in any Perfon, or council, which must put an
end to Controuerfies; For nothing hut Truth and Reason, can euer do
it, and the more men pretend to vnreasonable, wayes of deciding them,
instead of ending One, they beget many. I fay contrary. If the
Church and Her Councils .be infallible, Controuerfies are ended
without more Adoe For all know vpon that Suppofition,
What to belieue and what to reiect. And if they be not
Owned infallible, there is no fuch thing or things in being as
Truth, and Reafon, which can put an end to Controuerfies. To
explicate the Affertion is to proue it. T
18. Dos
432 Difc. 2. C. 16 The Roman Catholick Church
The Infalli-
bility of
Councils
afferied,
The weaknes
of two par.
ties pleading
fallibly.
18.
Doe then no more but caft away all thought of an In-
fallible Church, as alfo of Her infallible Councils. It is clear,
that euery Doctrin Taught fince the Apoftles time has been
deliuered Fallibly, Tis clear likewife, All that teach it at this day
(highly diffenting among them felues) Teach fallibly, Imagin
now that two aduerfe Parties, Ten learned Proteftants on the
one Side, And as many learned Catholicks on the Other, meet
together and ſeriouſly Difcufs this Point, whether Proteftancy
or Catholick Doctrin (as oppofed to Proteftancy) be the true
Religion? (the like is if any particular Controuerly fall vnder
Debate.) I ſay the Attempt to decide any one controuerted
matter is Vain and Impoffible, if both Church and Councils be
Suppofed fallible, And confequently Mr. Stillingfleets Truth and
Reajon are no more but meer infignificant Words. The Reaſon
is. Whilft fallible men plead for Religion vpon Principles as
fallible as they are that Argue, the Refult of that Difpute ne-
ceffarily carried on by Arguments and reafoning purely fallible,
can end in nothing but in diffatisfactory Topicks, if yet it come
fo far. But this is fo, and obferue well. The Proteftant plead's
for his Tenents, or oppugn's our Doctrin and doth it fallibly:
The Catholick Anfwers, and fallibly too; The Proteftant Re-
plies, but hath no infallible Principle to ground his Reply vpon,
no more hath the Catholick, if the Suppofition hold's, any other
Anſwer but what's Vngrounded, and Fallible. Say I beseech
you,do not both Parties, bufied in this Conteft vpon vncertain-
ties, run on in Darkneſs? Haue we yet the leaft hope of Satis-
faction? Or ſo much as the Truth we all feek for yet diſcouered
in this weak skirmish, Whilft Fallible men, and Fallible Ar-
guments, and Fallible Principles are the only Support of the
whole Difcourfe? Moft euidently no. All are left where they
were before in à deep Perplexity.
19. I Said iuft now, If we we exclude an Infallible Church, and
her approued Councils, Truth and Reafon vanish to nothing
and that no Principle remain's whereby theſe Conteſts of Reli-
gion can be ended. To proue the Affertion further. I firft vrge
the
Difc. 2. C. 15. proued Infallible.
433
Sectaries are
the Proteftant to name the laft certain Principle, or that vltimate
Judge in whofe Sentence he dare Acquiefe, and Say pofitiuely urged to na-
vpon this Principle we muſt both rely, This shall Define whether me the last
you my Aduerfary, or I yours, defend Truth. The man will not ludge in the-
for ftark shame name Himfelf nor any priuate Perfon on earth fe Debates,
for Iudge: He cannot recurr to an Inferiour Council and Oppo-
fe that, againſt One Generally receiued the Whole world ouer:
He will not adhere to à Schismatical and Heretical Church, and
plead by Her in defence of his Doctrin, against an Oracle neuer
yet taxed or tainted of Errour, Or if he doth fo, he gain's no-
thing, For all thofe are as fallible as the two Parties now in
conteft. Where then is the Sectaries Sure Principle, or laft Iud-
ge to ftand to in thefe Debates? Or whither will he goe to find
out his yet Vndiſcouered Truth and Reason? Will his refuge
be to Scripture? It help's nothing in this Cafe, not only becaufe
Scripture omit's to ſpeak either explicitly of the half of fuch And cannos
Controuerlies as are now agitated, But vpon this Account Chie- pisch on any.
Aly, That if the Church and Councils be fallible, the Book it
felf becomes à moſt fallible Principle to all, For neither Ca-
tholicks nor Proteftants, nor Arians, nor any, can Say with
Affurance, such and Such is the vndoubted senfe of Gods word
in Controuerted Matters, if the Churches Iudgement be ſet light
by,and look't on as fallible. Yet I'll Say thus much. Were the
Church fallible, Sectaries may well blush, firft to decry Her
Senfe of Scripture, and then to fet vp the far inferiour and falli-
ble interpretation of euery fingle Perfon against the Church?
Some may Reply. The grand Principle of Proteftants,
is, that Scripture in things neceflary to Saluation, appeares plain
to all who vfe ordinary Diligence to vnderſtand it, wherein cer-
tainly their Truth and Reason may be found. Contra. And I
Prefs not in this place the Vncertainty of the Principle, which is
as difputable as any other Proteftant Tenet, But Say more, it
is wholly improbable, Yea and deftroies Proteftancy. It is And why i
improbable, Becauſe it cannot be suppofed that any priuate man
or men, haue vfed full Diligence to vnderſtand the Scriptures Sen-
Iii
20.
The grant
Principle of
Proteftants,
reiected,
44 Difc. 2. C. 16. The Roman Catholick Church
fe, And that à Church of à thouſand years ſtanding hath neglec-
ted à Duty fo neceffary. But thefe priuate men whether Arians,
Proteftants, or Socinians, and the Church draw contradictory
Senfes from Scripture, And all thefe iarring Sectaries with their
different Senfes defend not truth, Therefore fome of them (let the
fault yet light where you will) haue not vfed Diligence, nor
righly vnderſtood God's word. The Queftion now is (and fome
Oracle muft decide it) where, or in whom, this Misunderſtan-
ding lies? Moft willingly would I haue this one Difficulty
folued and t'is worth the Labour, whilft euery one See's it is no
more certain, that the Proteftant hitt's on the Scriptures true
Senfe, than it is certain that the whole Church after a thousand years
Why Should Diligence, miftakes it. Can this think ye be euer cleared in be-
half of Proteftants by any proof, fo much as meanly trobable?
It is Impoffible. Wherefore I Conclude, Their Grand princi-
ple is rotten at the very root, fail's all that Rely on it. I will
fay it once more. If the Proteftant hath no greater Certainty
of his Senſe of Scripture than it is certain, That he hitts right,
and the Church Err's in her Senfe, His Belief after all induſtry
Church be. vfed ftands vnprincipled, refts on his own fancy, and is not recti-
fiable, while he iudges fo. Say the very vtmoft it is no more but à
meer hazard, whether he belieues, or no, and this deftroies Pro-
teftancy. Thus much of Scripture.
Sccaries his
right on the
Scriptures
Senfe.
And the
deluded?
21. The next thing pleadable in behalf of Mr Stillingfleets
Truth and Reaſon, may perhaps be the Authority of Holy Fathers.
It is weightles if the Church be fallible, or has Erred. And firft
Proteftants fay all Fathers are liable to Errour. I add more and
Affert, if that Church whereof They were Members taught or
can teach falſe Doctrin, it is à meer vanity to feek for certain
Truth, or any fatisfactory Reafon in the Fathers Writings. What
The Secta can Streams (the Fathers were no other) be Suppofed pure, and
vies pretence the Head fountain (Gods own Oracle) Poyfoned and infected?
improbable Did they hit right vpon our Chriftian Verities, when their only
Guide (Chrift's facred Spoufe) mifled Pofterity? Could they
Dedicate all their Labours to make an Oracle renowned, that
10. Fathers
afterward
Difc. 2. C. 16. proued infallible.
435
afterward whispered Errours into all mens ears? Theſe are Pa-
radoxes. I Say then, it is à ftronger and far more reaſonable
Principle to Affert, That the Church neuer erred nor can erre,
Than first to Suppofe Her erroneous, And next to find truth
in the Fathers, who were no more but Schollers, and fuck't the
milk of pureft Doctrin from the Brefts of this their Mother
The Catholick Church; If She therefore poyfoned them with fals
learning, both She and They yet poyfon vs; And confequent-
ly neither the Church, nor Fathers deferue credit, nor can be
prudently Belieued.
22.
dure of Sec-
reaſonable.
taries, un.
And here by the way I cannot but reflect vpon à ftran-
ge Procedure, vfual with Sectaries in All their Polemicks. First The proce-
they Suppofe the Church and Councils errable, yea actually
, yea actually
mifled in Afferting Purgatory, Tranfubftantiation &c. And to Rec-
tify what is thought Amils, Some few Gleaning of Fathers
(how little to the purpofe is feen aboue) are produced, and thefe,
Forfooth, muft ftand as it were in battail Array, fight againſt à
whole Church, and ouerthrow Her Errours. Is this, think ye
Reaſonable? Can it be imagined that God preferued his Reuea-
led truths in the Hearts thoughts, and words, of à few Fathers,
and fuffered his Vniuerfal Church, with fo many learned Coun-
cils (conuened after the Four First) to fall preſently into fo sha-
meful à Dorage,as Sectaries charge vpon Her? Were the Fathers
Then illuminated, and was the Church afterward darkened and
befotted? There is none fo blind, But muſt needs fe Himfelfe
out of Countenance by aduenturing to Defend à Tenet ſo highly
Contrary to all Reafon. Wherefore I muſt earneſtly petition the
Reader once more to reflect vpon the greateſt Folly which ,Me-
thinks, euer entred the Thoughts of men. Thus it is. The pri-
mitiue Fathers, (not many in number) Who wrote in the First To Say the
three or four Centuries in different Times and Places, ( peruſed
by few and vnderftood by Fewer) are Suppofed to Deliner truth, and
exactly the Catholick Verities, (What They fayd was True) that che
And an Ample Vniuerfal Church together with Her Learned Church de-
Councils known to All; fpread the whole world ouer for à Thou- ferted Trush
Iii 2
fand
Fathers
taught
436 Diſc. 2. C. 16 The Roman Catholick Church
Is worſe.
then a Pa
radox.
Clear Infe-
rences
against
Sectaries.
fand yeares and vpward, muſt be Suppofed fo Abominably finful,
fo Fearfully mifled, as to Defert the Ancient Faith of Thofe Fa-
thers, to Peruert God's Truths, And Finally to Bring into the
Vaft Moral Body of Chriſtians à Vniuerfal Mischiefe, à Deluge
of Errour, of Idolatry, And no man knowes what. If this be
not pure Phrenfy, there was neuer any.
23. The laft Principle to ground Truth and Reafon vpon, or
to bring Controuerfies to an end, is Vniuerfal Tradition, but
this alfo Fail's to vphold Truth, if the Church be fallible: For
who will, or can with certainty truft the Tradition of à Church
(or fo much as take the Book of Scripture from Her) were she
branded with this foul Note of hauing Publickly taught, and
wilfully impofed à hundred Doctrins vpon Chriftians contrary
to Gods reuealed Reuealed Truths. But more of this aboue..
C. 5. 6..
24. After all you ſe firſt, Truth and Reason brought to Ruin,.
Faith and Religion vnhinged, if the Church and Councils, be
Fallible. You fe. 2. Thefe Inferences Setled vpon vndeniable
Principles. The Church is infallible, Ergo Controuerfies are without
Perplexity ended. Contrarywife. The Church is Fallible :: Ergo Con-
tentions goe on without Redress, endlefly. Scripture as you haue heard
becauſe differently Senfed decides nothing, No more do the
Fathers (Say Sectaries) confeffedly fallible. Church, and Coun-
cils are reiected as errable when and as often as sectaries plea-
fe, Thoſe that Diſpute of Religion (Yet more Fallible) are not
to be Iudges in their own Caufe, and without à Iudge Their
beſt Arguments will be thought by all Prudent men, no more
but Vnconcluding Topicks, And really they neither are, nor
can be better for want of Principles, and fome Oracle Infal
lible..
Whoeuer defires to haue the Principle I Rely on further
eftablished by clear Inferences drawn from our Aduerfaries, needs
only to read M. stillingfleet from page. 534. to the end of that
2. Chapter. My Principle is. There is no poffibility of ending
ftrife touching Religion if the Church and Councils be falli-
ble,
Difc. 2. C. 16. proued Infallible.
437
ble, yet Mr. Stillingfleet and his Lord, Say they muſt haue
ſome end, or They'l tear the Church à funder. My Task
then is to show that theſe mens Doctrin Tears all in pieces,
and makes Controuerfis Endles.
The Sectaries
26. The Determination of à Council erring (fay our Aduerſaries)
is to ftand in force and to haue external Obedience at least peilded to
it, till euidence of Scripture, or à Demonstation to the Contrary, make Doctrin
the Errour appear, and vntil thereupon, another Council of equal Au- breed's Com-
thority, reuere the Errour. Here is their Pofition, which breed's fuſion.
nothing but Confufion among Chriftians, and licenfeth euery
vnquiet Spirir, interiourly at leaft, to Cenfure Church Doctrin
as abominable if He tudges it Erroneous, or Contrary to Chrift's
Verities. I fay Interiourly? And Tis hard to Silence and ob-
lige men to external Obedience, if this full Perfwafion remain's
ftedfaft in their minds. Gods truths are Ouerthrown, by an Erring
Church, or à mifled Council. There is no law humane or Di-
uine wich can bind to Hypocrify; But to iudge one thing.
Euidently fals, and to Profefs it as true is pain Hypocrify, To
auoide therefore this Sin all are in points of faith not to Speak
Contrary to Truth, or hoftility will of Neceffity follow Be-
tween the Profeffion of priuate men and their interiour Iud-
gements, which cannot but foment Rebellion in the Church whilft
People generally liue in fuch à Perfwafion that God's Truths
are wronged.
سا
And neceffa-
rily brings in
Diuijion
But here is not my greateft Exception. Pleafe to
mark thoſe other words. Till Euidence of Scripture, or à De-
monstration makes the Errour appear Or, another Council reuerfes the
Errour of the Former, And fay I befeech you, to whom muft
this Euidence of Scripture appear? To whom muft the Councils
Errour be Demonftrable? What to Priuate men and thefe It can not be
Fallible? If fo; the Contest will be whether theſe Priuate Er-
has the greater
ring men or the Suppofed Erring Council, has the
Euidence of Scripture, Or on which Side the Demonſtration
againſt the Errour lies? I fay if the Church and Councils be
fallible, There neither is, nor can be, any thing like Evidence
Lii 3..
>
or
faid to whors
the ſuppoſed-
Errours of.
438 Dif. 2. C. 16. The Roman Catholick Church
Councils
>
or à Demonſtration in either of the Contenders, Therefore an
must appear endles Difpute vpon meer Vncertainties muſt enfure vnleſs
Mr. Stilling fleet laies the Errour vpon whom he pleafes, and
makes Himſelf Vmpire in the caufe. You will fay he fup-
pofes the Councils Errours euidently known. Pitiful. To whom
I befcech you muft they be known? Its impoffible to return
an Antwer. Again if Suppofitions may once pafs for Proofs,
I'll goe the Contrary way, and either Suppofe all Councils
infallible (or maintain this Truth: Errours cannot be euidently
known) And why should not my Suppofition, be as good
as his? What then remain's but that we bring theſe Sup-
pofitions to the Teft, and Examin which is better? And here
the Diſpute begins again in behalf of what is Suppofed, which
can neuer be ended without an infallible Iudge.
28. It may be replyed. Thefe Aduerfaries proue not Coun-
cils fallible vpon any bare Suppofition, but only Say thus much:
If they were Fallible, the Peace of the Church may yet be
Preferued. Contra 1. Peace is infinitly better vpheld were Coun-
cils (as they truly are) owned Infallible, For fo euery one would
Acquiefe in their Decrees, as the Chriftian world has done hi-
therto. Contra 2. The Churches Peace is torn in pieces, Sedi-
tion neceffarily reign's, Debates are endles, if Councils be fal-
Councils be lible. To proue this.
Sedition
reign's if
fallible.
29. Call once more to mind the Affertion.
Viz. The Deter-
mination of an erring Council is to ftand in force, vntil there vpon, an
other Council of equal Authority Reuerfe the Errour. Obferue I be-
feech you.
Both thefe Councils are Suppofed fallible, and of
One Proof of equal Authority. The Second therefore cannot reuerfe the
the Afferiion Errour of the First, being as weak, as fallible, and of no more
Authority than That firft was. Or if thus by Turns one may
Annull the Decrees of the other, A third may be conuened
which recall's the Decrees of both, and à Fourth which Cashieres
all the precedent Definitions, And fo in Infinitum without Stop
or Stint. Hence arife endles Quarrels, not only between Coun-
cil, and Council (For euery one will Stand for its own Right)
*
But
>
Difc. 2. C. 16 proued Infallible.
4,9
But also among Chriftians, Who feing the Difcord are thrown
into à remediles Perplexity, and can neuer know what to Be-
lieue, or whom to Obey. You will fee clearly what I would
expres by one or two Inftances. The Nicene Council Defined
the Confubstantiality of the Son to his Eternal Father. So much
is vndoubted. Imagin now that an other like Affenbly as
fallible as the Nicene (for that with Sectaries was fallible) and of
equal Authority, had Defined the quite Contrary Doctrin, And
let this be alfo fuppofed (for in Proteftant Principles it is
Suppofable) that this Second corrected the Errour of the Firft.
What tumults think'ye, what an endles Rebellion would haue en-
fued there vpon in Chriftendom, had the One Council thus clashed
with the other? No man in Prudence could haue Belieued
>
,
or Obeyed either, becauſe both are Suppofed fallible, and of
equal Authority.
Further de
clared by an
Inftance.
nience of
Larring
Councils:
-)
30. There is yet one Inftance more Suitable to à Sectarian
Humour. Imagin only, another Council Conuened, as Lear- Another In-
ned, as General, and as fallible as Proteftants Suppofe the Coun- ftance She-
cil of Trent to haue been, And that this reuerfes all the Do- wing.
Atrin contained in the Tridentine, Offenfiue to our Nouellifts.
Would not this deſtroy the Vnity of the prefent Church? Would Ths horrid
not fome Side with the firft, fome with the fecond, or rather Incenue-
would not All (vpon the Suppofition) fcorn and contemn the
Authority of both Church and Councils? The like Inconue-
nience followes, were the Catholick Church as large as fome
Sectaries make it, or embraced all called Chriftians, If in that
cafe Two Councils repreſenting the whole Moral Body should
meet, and the later Tear in pieces the Decrees of the former
Would not Diffentions Grow as high, and as odious vpon theſe
Voting and Vnuoting Councils, as they are now in England whilſt
Prelatiks Preach One kind of Doctrin, and Fanaticks another
quite contrary? And is it Poffible, Do all Eyes fe the Hor-
rour of this contrary Preaching in One Iſland, and are they shut
vpon à greater more Terrible, were it true, That two of the
higheſt Tribunals in the Church could ſtand in open Hoftility,
>
and
440 Difc. 2. C. 16. The Roman Catholick Church
Se&taries
destroy their
own Princi
ples.
The Affer-
tion proued
Clamours,
no Proofs.
and the One band againſt the other? Thus much of Diffen-
tions and Tumults, neceffary Appendants to iarring Representa-
tiles.
31. But all is not yet Satisfyed. Our Aduerfaries Say
There can be no caufe of Tumults in the Church, if an Er-
rour be euidently Difcouered, For euery One ought to thank
God(not to grumble) when they ſe themfelues freed from fo great
à Mifchief: On the other fide, if the Errour be not Euident, All
are to ſubmit to the Councils vntil à Publick Declaration makes the con-
trary truth manifest, And thus the Peace of Christendom feem's
well fecured. Anfw. And we will firft begin with theſe laſt words.
If the Errour be not Euident or intolerable, all are obliged to submit to
the Council until (ome publick declaration &c. Hence I Argue. But
there neither is, nor euer was any Euidence of Errour produced
againſt one of our Catholick Councils (the Lateran, Florentine
or Tridentine for example) there neither is, nor cuer was, any Le-
gal Declaration more againſt thefe, than againſt the Firſt moſt an-
cient and purest Councils in Gods Church, Therefore Sectaries
by their own Principle are obliged to Submit to the Lateran, Flo-
rentine, and Tridentine, as well as to others. That there has not
been any Publick Legal Declaration made againſt them is manifeſt,
And here is my proof.
?
32. The clamours and Calumnies of Arians Caft vpon the
Nicene Council were no Legal Declaration against That, but
moſt Vncanonical, Ergo the clamours and calumnies of Prote-
ftants caft vpon the now named Reprefentatiues are fully as Illegal
and Vncanonical, yea and more forceles (if more can be) to De-
clare them Inualid, And befides clamours, we neuer yet had, nor
shall haue hereafter any Thing from Sectaries. The true Reafon
is. Go groundedly to work, There is not one Imaginable Prin-
ciple whereby the Nicene can be proued à more lawful Council
then the great Council of Later an was, fo much decryed by No-
uellifts: And ift were Poffible (as it is not) to Ouerthrow the
One by any folid proof, the Other Eo ipfo lofes all Credit and
Authority,
33. Hence
Difc. 2. C. 16. proued Infallible.
441
Calumniate
33. Hence Thefe and the like calumnies vented by Sectaries The Arians
in Corners. The Lateran and Tridentine were vnlawful Councils, and Prote.
Ouerawed by the Pope, they had not freedom. Their Votes ought to be ftants Cla--
accounted Surreptitious. The Conuened were not men of unquestiona mour and
ble Integrity. Some few by fair Pretences brought ouer the greater num- elike,
ber wanting ludgement, to fide with their Designs &c. Such corner-
Calumnies I fay, and I read them in our Aduerfaries (As eaſily
clattered out by Arians againſt the Nicene Fathers) can neuer pafs
for legal Declarations againſt Catholick Councils, whilft euery
Propofition want's proof, and euery word its due Weight: That
is, what euer can be faid to this Senfe ftand's Vnprincipled. The-
refore vnleſs all muſt be iuft ſo as Sectaries will haue it; Vnleſs
fals Suppofitions become conuincing Arguments, and à pure beg-
ging the Queſtion proue it, Or be able to decide our Differen-
ces, We haue Right to cry as loud They. Audiatur & altera Pars. A ludge is
Let Catholicks be heard alfo. And when they are heard and to decide all,
return their Anſwers before à lawful Iudge to euery particular, and not
thefe Calumnies will vanish, or rather appear like Themfelues, Clamours,
Forged and far-fetch't Improbabilities. Exclude à Iudge and à iuft
Sentence, Sectaries are where they would be in the old Labyrinth
of Quarrelling without Principles, or giuing any hope of ending
One Queſtion in Controuerfy.
Se&aries
mener legally
afembled.
34. Now to implead our Councils of Errours? and to pre-
tend Euidence for it, is more than à defperate Attempt, vnleſs as
I ſay the Corner-votes of à few iarring difperfed Sectaries ( neuer
legally Affembled ) haue Power to create à new kind of Euiden-
ce vnknown to the world. Pleaſe to reflect à little. It must,
Forfooth, be Euident That the Doctrin of Tranfubftantiation, or
Praying to Saints are Errours, whilft à whole vnited learned Church
Oppofes theſe vain Pretences and Defend's the Articles as Ca- Create a
tholick Verities. It was neuer yet heard, that Sectaries Scatte- new Kind
red here an there had Authority to impofe fuch foule difgraceful of Ewidence,
Names of Euident Errours, or Errours morally Certain vpon Doc-
trins fo vniuerfally receiued, when as I fay The moſt learned
Body of Chriftians that euer was,Vnuotes all they blow into the
Kkk
cares
442 Difc. 2. C. 16. The Roman Catholick Church &c.
Sectaries
decline
bosh ludge
and final
Sentence.
Our Aduer
faries
Dodrin.
eares of others, as meer Impertinences. Euidence, Good Rea-
der, and Moral certainty lofe force and neuer yet ftood in the
Sight or prefence of fo ftrong an Oppofition. I will yet fay
more. Though we abſtract from Church Authority, we Ca-
tholicks are able to maintain our Doctrin against Sectaries vpon
Tradition, the Authority of Fathers, ancient Records &c. But
Atill we require A laft Iudge to giue Sentence, whether they or
we abufe the Principles we plead by (For certainly the one or
other Party doth fo) But this, Nouellifts euer Decline and
will haue vs to Difpute without either Iudge or indubitable Prin-
ciples, and fo make, as is now faid, all Controuerfies endles,
which indeed is the only Thing they ayme at, and I haue vnder-
taken to proue againſt them.
35. Mr Stillingfleet. P. 539. fpeak's fo fully to my purpo-
ſe that more cannot be defired from an Aduerfary. He De-
mands, how it can be known when Errours in Councils or the Church
are manifest or intolerable, and when not? And Anfwers thus. We
appeal to Scripture interpreted by the Concurrent Senfe of the primitiue
Church, the common reason of mankind, the consent of wife and learned
men, Suppofing Scripture to be the Rule of Faith. And à little after.
If you Ask further. Who shall be Iudge what à neceffary Reason or
Demonstration is? His Lordship tell's you plainly enough from Hooker.
It is fuch as being Propoſed to any man and vnderſtood, the mind cannot
chufe but inwardly affent to it. Here you haue the Gentlemans
laft Principles And euery one when applyed to our preſent
Matter is as much Controuerted between Catholicks and Pro-
teſtants, as the very Queſtion now in Difpute. Obferue well.
36. The Queftion is whether the Lateran, Florentine, and Tri-
dentine Councils haue erred in their Definitions (the like may be
Lead's fill moued of all others) Protestants fay, they baue erred; Catbolicks
to dispute, Deny it. Both Parties Appeal to Scripture interpreted by the
Senfe of the Primitiue Church So far as that Oracle learns vs.
And if any Paffage be found there feemingly fauorable to Sec-
taries, Catholicks after the Conteſt of one whole Age haue been
more ready to clear all Doubts, To take of any thing like
but to make
no end of
Controuer
fees.
Imagined
Difc. 2. C. 16. More of Intolerable c.
443
Imagined Errours, Than Proteftants were euer yet able to lay
fuch foul Afpertions vpon either Church, or Councils. What
then is to be done? Muft we eternally Difpute concerning
that Senfe and end nothing? Muft we Commence new Quarrels
Sectaries
who began
about Matters ſo often debated? Muft the old Actum agere come the quarrel,
ouer and ouer again? Sectaries like that Sport well, but no Pro-
grefs is made this way. As yet we only skirmish in the dark.
Wherefore recourfe at laft is to be had to à lawful Iulge to fo-
me known Oracle or other, in whofe final Sentence all are to
acquiefe, If any lawful Iudge, or owned Oracle(Primitiue or
latter) Condemn our Councils of Errour, and we licence Secta-
ries to name either (Prouided they make not Themfelues Iudges,
nor their long fince defeated Arguments Euidences) We are in-
deed the guilty Perfons, and They the wife Reformers, But if All
of vs Decline this laſt Iudicature, and do nothing but hear our
Selues talk vpon Principles grofly misinterpreted, by the one or
other Party, Diffentions will goe on remedilefly to the great
Scandal of lewes and Gentils and controuerfies of Religion
cannot but proue endles.
,
CHAP. XVII.
More of this fubiect. A further Search made into Errours
called intolerable. VVhether the Roman Catholick
Church must be fuppofed by Sectaries to haue alrea-
dy Committed intolerable Errours, Or only, whe-
ther She may for the future Err Intolerably ?
The Doctrin of Proteftants proued Falfe,
And Most inconfequent.
I.
M
R Stillingfleet to find out Euident and intolerable
Errours in Councils Appeal's (as you Se) in the
K kk 2
་
next
Like well so
hear them.
felues talk
without
Principles.
444
Diſc. 2. C. 17. More of Intolerable
>
next place to the Common Reason of mankind, and to the Confent
of wife and learned men. None could haue more ruined his own
caufe, For this Dilemma is vnanfwerable. The forementioned
A Dilemma Councils haue either erred intolerably in Defining the Doctrins
of Transubstantiation, and of Purgatory, Or haue not erred into-
lerably. If not; Proteftants, as is now faid, are obliged by their
own Law to yeild at leaft external Obedience to them, which
is not done, For herein they haue made à Publick Reforma-
tion, and call fuch Doctrins Errours. On the other fide if
thefe Errours be intolerable you fe by their own words, We
muft haue the Common Reafon of mankind, the Confent alfo
of wife and learned men both ready to Oppofe and Condemn.
them: But this is enormoufly improbable vpon à clear Ground.
Do no more but Deuide the Moral Body of Chriftians now at
Debate into two Claffes, Catholicks and Proteftants, For one that
makes thefe Councils Illegal or their Doctrins intolerable, you
haue hundreds, yea I think thouſands, who auouch the Contra-
ry, and clear Both from that vnworthy Imputation. Therefore
vnlefs Proteftants engrofs the Gift of common Reason and Wisdom
to themfelues, and allow no little parcel of it either to the
Greek or Latin Church, They are to recal what is Said: And
if they will haue Reafon fo faft intailed vpon à few Sectaries,
That no, body els can share in it, There is no further Difpute:
All we fay is. God help Them.
Or à clear
Conuiction
of Prote-
Banis.
A Princi.
ple ill ap
plyed.
2. But what fay we to Mr Hooker who tells vs neceffary
Reafon or à Demonftration is that, which being propoſed to any man
and vnderstood. The mind cannot chufe but inwardly Affent to it. I
anfwer, the Principle, though good, is moft impertinently Ap-
plied to the controuerfy now in hand, For haue not, we (As is
already noted) Thoufands and, Thouſands in the Roman Church
moft learned and pious, who hear the Doctrins of the fore
named Councils propofed, and in Iudgement fo inwardly Affent
to all without fcruple, that they would dye for the verities the-
re defined? The Truth is manifeft. Therefore Mr Hookers
neceſſary Reaſon, or Demonftration has no place in theſe far
more
Difc. 2. C. 17. Pretended Errours.
445
more numerous than all the Proteftants are in England, and
confequently euery man Stand's not euidently conuicted of
our Councils Errours. Now if you fay fo many Thouſands
are fool'd, Know Sr, That no few of thefe fools, are wife
enough to difpute with you, and to Show you Speak at ran-
dom without Principles.
3. Thus much is faid of our Catholick Councils hitherto
conuened in the Church, now if we return to the old Sup-
pofition, and Firſt imagin all Councils fallible, and Secondly thin-
ke, that the latter, of equal Authority amends the Firſt, or à
Third the Errours of the Second, and fo in Infinitum,
I Say
it is Impoffible, either clearly to Difcouer the pretended Errours,
or to redress them, and this I Affert vpon thefe grounds.
4. One already hinted at, is, that none can by an inward
Affent (aud Mr Hooker requires that) own any fuch Euidence An Affertion
whilft the Council which makes them Errours, is as weak proued.
and fallible as the other was that Defined the contrary, and
Published all vnder the Notion of Chriftian Truths. No more
can I, were I yet to Learn reft Satisfyed, in what either of
thefe two iarring Councils Define (for the One is as bad as
the Other) than I am able to trust to two Minifters Talk,
if I heard them Preach quite contrary Doctrin at Pauls Church,
That is, no man can belieue either, vpon their fallible Autho-
rity. This Principle therefore Stands firm. An errable Council A fallible
is as unfit to Teach, or Vnteach another likewife Erring, in the high
and yet vnknown Mysteries of Faith, as One Wholly ignorant, of
an vncouth Path, is to direct à Stranger into it, For as Both
thefe are to learn the way from à third Guide more skilful, bigh My-
So both thefe Councils muft take their Inftructions from fome series of
third certain Oracle, Or remain, as they are, Ignorant. But Faith,
Sectaries remit none to any liuing certain Oracle, Therefore
they cannot but ftill Sit in Darkness (Tis Gods iuft Iudge-
ment vpon them) and blind as They are, lead the blind they
know not whither.
5. Again (and here is my fecond Reafon) Before the Dif
Kkk 3
couery
Council,
most un
meet to
teach the
446 Difc. 2. C. 17. More of Intolerable
Theſe Sup-
pofed Errours
in Councils,
Cannot be
diſcouered
by larring
Multitudes.
What if à
Council be
notin Being.
>
couery of thefe intolerable Errours we ought to haue à Lift
of them, and know How many or few they are, And who can
Afcertain vs of this? Are we to diuine at their Intolerableness
by our own priuate Iudgements? Or is fome wifer body to
inftruct vs, when there is no Council at hand to do it? Muft
all Chriftians difperfed vp and down the world write letters to
one another, Or inform themfelues whether the Errours be in-
tolerable ? And if fo, whether it be yet high time to cry out
againſt them? Or, is it enough to Ask our next Neighbours
what they think of the Bufinefs, and reft there? Perhaps fome
will hold them inconfiderable, Others of à violent temper hainous
not longer to be born with. And can fuch fumbling and
Confufion which teares the Vnity of the Church in pieces Pre-
ferue Her in peace think ye? Muft we firſt Suppoſe à learned
Council to haue erred, and next rely on vnlearned iarring Mul-
titudes to Proclaim, Cenfure, and Reuerfe the Errour? If this
way be not more than Vncanonical in matters of Religion,
there was neuer any.
6. You will Say, the next Council is to mend all the failings.
of the former. Anfw. Were this, as it is not Poffible, what
is to be done in the mean time, whilft there is no Council [in
Being? Muft the Church which Belieues the Definitions of
the former erring Councils and all Chriftians with it, Err on
fo long till this other Council Appears Or is euery priuate
man to refolue for himfelf what's beft to do in fuch Exigences?
Reflect I beseech you. How far eafier were it, to quiet all
might Councils once be owned infallible. Yet here is my leaft
culties arije Exception. I fay therefore to proue what I fayd aboue. If
Church and Councils can err notorioufly, There is no means
left on earth, either to diſcouer the Errours, or to amend
them.
When diffi.
One Point
7. The Affertion will be proued by fifting this one Point
to the Bottom. And Much light will be had if we leaue Ge-
Examined. neralities, wherin Sectaries alwaies lurk, and defcend to parti-
culars, Or lay forth the nature of fome imaginable Errours.
Call
Difc. 2. C. 17. Pretended Errours.
447
Call then Thefe if any be, horrid and intolerable.
8. To teach there is no God, no Chrift, no Redeemer, no Saluation.
I Ask whether the Councils in Gods Church can err thus grofly, The Naime
or are fo fecured by Diuine Affiftance, as not to Define fuch of horrid
vaft Abfurdities? If it be Anfwered, They are fo far at leaft Errours,
preferued infallible, I clearly Infer, No man can exclude à total
infallibility from Councils. If it be Anfwered, Poffibly they
may err in this Damnable manner. I infer Again. Ergo, Pof
fibly, Councils, Church, and all Chriftians may vtterly defert
Chriſt, become Atheiſts, Turks, lewes, Diuels, or what els you
will, that naught is. Can this alfo be granted.
intolerable
9. One may reply, it is indeed poffible, yet will neuer be.
Contra. Who hinders the Mifchief, I befeech you, if the Sup-
pofition may ftand? The Roman Catholick Church, Say S-
taries, is already Idolatrous, and long fince was Antichriſtian,
when fome English Proteftants made the Pope Antichrift. The Church
Why then may not Atheiſm, ludaiſm, and Turcifm infect likewife accused of
the Whole Moral Body of Chriftians, and Deftoy both Errours.
Church and Councils ? Grant this Poffible, there can be no-
more talk of after-Councils correcting the former, erroneous,
For the Church is now Deftroyed, Chrift our Lord muſt pleaſe
to appear again, or fend fome great Prophet to eftablish à
new Church more firm than the other was now ruined, or
we are left defolate, vtterly Churchles.
I.
A
I am verily perfwaded our Aduerfaries will think twice
on't, before they once grant thefe horrid Confequences, and
therefore muſt needs make the Suppofed Euident intolerable
errours not altogether ſo abominable, but lefs, or of à lower rank,
yet euident and intolerable. Remember that. And what may thefe a queſtion
be think ye? I would fain know whether any fuch foul propojed to
Doctrins have been euer taught de facto, or, becaufe Councils Sectaries,
are Suppofed fallible, whether they yet remain in à State of pof-
fibility, and only may be Taught? If it be Said they are not
actual but only poffible, Or may be intolerable hereafter, And
Sectaries vpon that Account abandon the Roman Catholick
Church;
4+8
Difc. 2. C. 17. More of Intolerable
Actual or
Poffible.
Conterning Church: Their Sin is now actual and more horrid than fuch
thefe Suppo. Errours are, Becaufe They defert à Church vpon fuppofed faults
ſed Errours
which only may be, yet neuer were hitherto. Now if for à meer
Poffibility offalfities, (neuer yet actually Diſcouered nor known)
The Roman Church is to be quitted, Proteftants ought to for-
fake Their own Religion, For they are all liable to Errour,
Yea, And may well hang vp the moft Innocent man in the
world vpon this fcore, That he may be à thiefe, Though as
yet he neuer Stole any thing.
None Con-
demned for
Errours
which Poffi-
bly may be.
cies.
II.
The Errours therefore, if we Difcourfe rationally, hi-
therto pretended againft vs are not in à meer State of Poffibi-
lity, But Actual, Euident, and intolerable. We inquire after them,
And ftill proceed vpon this wretched Suppofition, that both
Church and Council are fallible, or haue erred. When Enuy
has done its Vtmoft, you only can get à Lift of theſe or the
like Suppoſed Falshoods. Praying to Saints. The Real Preſence,
Worshiping of Images. Transubstantiation or fome thing of this na-
ture, which Catholicks maintaiu. Now truely, it is more than
extrauagant (and I know not with what Confcience Sectaries
do it) to Decry thefe as Euident and intolerable Errours, whilft
à whole learned Church defends them as Truths.
12.
,
What Saith Mr Hooker? Is the mind fo forced that
after à full Propoſal, it cannot chufe but inwardly Affent to All
Sectaries in as euident Errours? Toyes. Trifles. Millions, as we now
confequen- fayd, own them as Apoftolical Verities. 2. If Euident and in-
tolerable, they ſtrike at fuch Verities as Sectaries call the fun-
damentals of Faith, And confequently the Roman Church which
maintains them, has been Vnorthodox in fundamentals for à
thousand years and more.
and more. Will this be granted? Grant or
deny, here is an vnanfwerable Dilemma; They are fundamental
Errours (in our Sectaries fenfe) deftructive of Diuine Faith, or
not. If not; but only ſmaller matters, Proteftants Oblige them-
felues to forbear, and to expect the Churches Good pleaſure
vntil, fome other Council meet's, and Reuerfes what's Amifs.
Their Clamours therefore againſt the Churches Doctrin now
>
are
Difc. 2. C. 17. Pretended Errours. 449
are vnauthoriſed and moft illegal by their own Principles. Nor
haue they Power, as is confeffed, to Reform themfelues in leffer
matters, but only in things of à higher Concern, Euident, and
intolerable.
A clear s
aries,
13. Now if they be of this nature and confequently fun-
damental Abfurdities againft Faith, It followes, that there was ference
no Church right in fundamentals the whole world ouer for againfi Se.
ten Ages before Luther: Not the Roman; if the Suppofition
hold's, Nor any other Society of Chriftians for all thofe (name
whom you will) were more deeply plunged into fundamental
Errours. 3. And T'is the chiefeft thing I aime at. If Church
and Councils be owned fallible, can err, or haue erred, Our
Aduerfaries Suppofition of Errours Euident, and intolerable, is
purely chimerical, And therefore I faid iuft now, None can
know them as fuch and confequently no Power on earth
can amend them. I proue the Affertion.
>
14. First they cannot be known as euident or manifeft,
without Principles, as clear as the Errours are Suppoſed to be,
which therefore must be fo indifputable That the mind in-
wardly Affent's to them, as Mr Hooker Saith. A weaker light,
as Probability, or à mifcalled Moral Certainty, beget's Eui-
dence in none. Now here we Vrge our Aduerfaries to bring
to Light but one, or more clear Principles, whereby it may
manifeftly appear, that Transubstantiation or any other Catholick
Doctrin, is to manifeft à Falshood, That the mind conquered,
and conuicted with the Euidence, cannot chufe but decry it
as intolerable. Whither will thefe men run for Principles?
To Scripture, it's euidently abufed by the one or other Party,
but who is in fault? You will fay That's yet difputable
therefore far of from Euidence. Church and Councils, fup-
pofed errable, and erroneous, cannot tell you nor giue in e-
uidence against him or them, that abufe Scripture. Whither
next? To the Fathers? All are fallible, and their Senfe
In controuerted matters is made fo intricate when you hear
Them gloffed by the Proteftant, and vngloffed by the Catholick,
LII
that
Intolerable
Errours can-
not be proued
againt the
Church.
ke a trin-
By any thing
like à
eple.
1
450
Difc. 2. C. 17. More of Intolerable.
Scripture,
Church Fa-
thers and
all Princi.
ple fail Sec-
taries.
Facertain
Topicks, no
Principles.
A Strong
Argument
Cagainst
Sectaries,
that you would Swear they speak Contradictions, And can any
thing like euidence or certainty, grow from thefe contrary Glos-
fes, which as Experience teaches, breed endles Quarrels ?
15,
Other Principles we haue not any, except Mr Stilling:
fleets Common Reason of Mankind (the worst of all) for doe we not
fe, that Hereticks euery where make Themfelues and their own
Sects most reaſonable? Where we haue nothing like common
Reafon, but fo many different and diuided Sentiments of iar-
ring men difperfed vp and down the world.. If therefore Scrip-
ture, Fathers, and this Common Reafon fail to be Principles, our
Sectaries Suppofition of manifest or Euident falfities in the Church,
goes beyond all Moderation, and implies an Ouerlashing more
than intolerable.
15. Their
Their vngrounded Miſtake lies here, That Principles are
Suppoſed at hand, or ready at à call to Decide in this cafe of à
Councils Suppofed Errour, Whereas if both Church and Councils can,
or do Err, There are no such things in being as Principles. Topicks
at moſt, or an endles iarring vpon meer Vncettainties lead none
to an Euident Difcouery of Errours, Therefore I fayd right,
they cannot be known as Euident for want of Principles, and
if not known as fuch, no Power on earth can amend them.
Yet good Principles reach thus far at leaft, as to Demonftrate
that Proteftants grofly Miftake in their Glamours againſt our
Churches errours De facto, And here you haue my Principles ald
ready hinted at.
17. Either theſe fuppofed Errours are thofe vnchriftian Te
nents mentioned N. 8. And certainly Councils neuer transgres-
fed ſo enormously as to Define fuch diuellish Doctrins. Or.
2. They are only Poffible falfe Doctrins which may be Defined
if Councils can err, but yet are not taught. If So; All muft
Say, that as it is horrid to condemn à man for à crime he may
commit, though he neuer did it, So it is the higheft Iniuftice
to condemn à whole Church for Falshood's She may teach (if
fallible) though She neuer taught them. Nothing then remains
but to plead against our Church Doctrin de facto, as cuidently
and.
Difc. 2. C. 17. Pretended Errours
451
and intolerably Erroneous, and herein we will not fpare Sec-
taries one whit, but Vrge them, as we doe, to ſpeak home in the
caufe. Their Accufation is euident, we Prefs them Again and
again to iuftify it by Proofs and Principles as euident. What
muft thefe errours be decryed as Euident and intolerable, and
can none but Sectaries get fo much as à glimpfe of the Eui-
dence? Away with fuch fooleries. No man can hear them
with Patience.
confequens.
18. By what is faid already you fe, that The Doctrin of
Proteftants Shewes it Selfe as it is, not only falfe but moft In- Setaries
confequent. Mark, I befeech you the Inconfequence. Thefe Dorin, in
Nouellifts Define the Church to be an Affembly of men who Belie-
ue and Profefs the pure 'Verd of God, But fuch men (find them
where you can) as belieue and profefs the pure Word, which is
in it Self Infallible, are certainly infallible if they Belieue it as
God's infallible VVord, Therefore they muſt acknowledge an infal-
lible Moral Body of Chriftians that Conftitutes an infallible
Church.
By their own
Principles,
they should
19. In Lieu of Doing this, They Tear all in Pieces, and Firſt
Decry the Roman Catholick Church as Errable, Yea actually
erring, Next, and this Marr's their own Caufe, they withall
Profefs themfelues fallible: Whereas, had any thing like confe-
quent Doctrin entred their Thoughts, They should at leaft haue
made Prote&ants infallible, being as They Say, new commiffio-
ned Doctors fent from God, to amend the Churches Errours.
And belieue it their own Infallibility, had they cafually laid
claim to it, would as foon haue been perfwaded (That's neuer)
as now without Probability or any thing like à Principle, They
endeauour to proue the Roman Catholick Church Fallible. But
let this pals. Thus much I Affert. To tell vs on the One fi-
de, There is an Affembly of men who Belieue the infallible Word
of God, And on the other, To make all that Teach and Belieue
it, Fallible, liable to Falfe Doctrin, is not only to proceed The contra-
inconfequently, but moreouer to Expofe Chriftian Religion, to ry Dodrin
the Scorn of lewes and Gentils, yea quite to ruin Diuine Faith, ruins Faith.
LII 2
And
hold some
Society of
men Infallig
ble.
452
Difc. 2. C. 17. The most urgent Proof
Their pre-
tended Eui-
dence of
Errours is
euidently à
Fourb.
And finally to make vs all Scepticks, certain of nothing.
,
20. If it be replyed.. The, Councils, and Sectarles with them,
are at leaſt preferued infallible in things Called the Fundamen-
tals of Faith plainly reuealed in Scripture, I vrge them first to
giue in their Proofs for this half or partial Infallibility, which
will be more than ridiculous if once they. Appear in paper.
Again, if we are all infallible and fecure in à few Fundamen-
tals plainly regiſtred in Scripture, to what Purpoſe do Sectaries
keep à coyle about ſmaller Matters, called "Vnfundamentals
Which are neither intolerable or Confiderable, becauſe Small,.
Much leſs can they be Euident Errours, fo long as à whole
Church defends them as Truths, For this Euidence cannot but
faile Sectaries (or come to nothing) whilft the Church and They
ftand in Conteft about it. Be it how you will. Here without
à Iudge, we are got into the old Labyrinth again of an endles
Difpute, which can neuer Produce any thing like Euidence in
behalf of Sectaries..
CHAP. XVII.
Two Aduerfaries mainly Oppofit to True Religion. The
laſt and moſt vrgent Proof of the Churches Infalli
bility taken from the Neceßity, the Notion and
Nature of true Religion. Mr Stillingfleets Obiec
tions found weak and weightles. Moft of
them already Propofed and Diffolued
by others. A short Reflection ma-
de vpon fome few.
Here is à Knot of half-witted People who Say, though
Religion Seem's indeed neceflary to Preferue huma-
ne
Difc. 2. C. 18. of the Churches Infallibility 453
mad min.
me Society in peace, And to Ouer-awe vnruly Spirits, yet the Two Para-
best (were any Good) is no more but à meer Fiction, à forged doxes main.
tale, in fine an Errour. Thefe men make nature Monftruous, taince by
thefr half
and muft Confequently maintain two vaft Paradoxes. The one;
That humane Societies euery were (That is) All Kingdoms, and
Common-wealths ftand in need of Fiction and Errour to make
them happy. The Propofition is euident: For if peace,
Tran- Fiction and
quility, and the fubduing of vnquiet Spirits, be à true necefla- foolery cano
ry Happines to all, And theſe cannot fubfift without à. fained make no
Religion, It is manifeft that Fiction, Foolery, and Errour make man happy.
them happy, which is as much as to Say, à Conftant Sicknes
keep's the body in health, weaknes giues it ftrength, Pain and
Griefe eafe and refreshment. Certainly no less is errour diffo-
nant to à rational Nature, than Sicknes repugnant to health,
cold to fire, or heat to water.
2. The ſecond Paradox wholly as bad and clear, keeps Pa-
rallel with this other. It is now fuppofed that Religion which
is nothing els but Fiction, neceffarily conduceth to the Peace
of Kingdoms and Common-wealths, wherevpon their Happines
reft's more ſecure, And is better preferued than if this fiction
were not. Hence it followes euidently. To know and Profeſs
Truth, to quit our Selues of Errour and fiction, robb's vs of
Happines and makes humane nature miferable. The Inference.
is vndeniable, For if we be happy vpon this score that we liue in à
Dotage, we are miferable in cafe we get free of it or become Wife,
which is against the light of Reafon, For if God has endued
all with à defire of true Wiſdom and the knowledge of truth,
(whereof none can doubt) Man cannot be miferable if he POS- ble by being
feffes that Good which the Author of nature would haue him freed from
to enjoy. Hence it in alfo Inferred, that the vniuerfal Perfia- dotage.
fion of true Religion is no Dotage, no Deception but à
Truth, and that moſt notorious.
3. Now if you Obiect, fome liue without Religion, and
no few embrace à falfe one; you plead by cafes meerly Ac-
cidental, As if one should Say, Nature has made man Sociable
ill3
and
Nature is
not miſera-
454
Difc. 2. C. 18. The most urgent proof
Accidental
Cafes meerly and given him à tongue to Conuerfe with others, But fome
made vfe of are dumb, others abufe their faculty of fpeaking, Therefore
to no purpoſe man is no fociable creature. This is our cafe. Thoſe who
liue without all Religion, (if any fuch be) are the dumbe and
blind: Thoſe that Profefs à falfs Religion, like lying tongues
abufe Gods Gifts, the Abufe is Theirs not God's, who would
haue all to be veus laby of one Tongue and one heart in à
matter of fo high Concern. And thus much of theſe firſt Ad-
uerfaries Oppolite to true Religion.
Sectaries pa.
the other
Aduerfaries.
4. In the next place, I may well name our modern Se-
taries no lefs than Arch-aduerfaries of Religion who ma
ke the Church and all that teach Church Doctrin fallible.
My reafon is. A Fained and Fallible Religion, are neer Coufer
rattel'd with Germans. The one is à Fiction, The other at leaft may be
fo, And for ought any man can know, is no better. For there
is no Principle whereby it may appear fo much as probably,
that all the Chriftians who liued fince the Apoſtles time or
yet are aliue, haue not been deluded with fictions concerning
Gods truths, but rather are plunged into à deep Deluge of
grofs Errours, if the Church and Councils can Teach or be-
lieue falfe Doctrin, And here be pleaſed to reflect à little, How
neer theſe two Aduerfaries come to one another.
The Parallel
la id forth,
and proued.
5. The first mentioned account it Happines to remain in
Errour, and Sectaries like well not only the Poffibility but
more, à prefent manifeft danger of erring in this matter of higheft
Confequence. Actual errour pleafes the one, and à great hazard
of it contents the other. Humane nature, fay the firft, would
be miferable were men fo wife as to learn this Truth, that Re-
ligion is à Foppery, though it be fo, And we are all vndone
(Say Sectaries) could we acquire fo much Wildom in this pre-
fent ftate, as to be infallibly Afcertained that Religion is no
Foppery, which perhaps may be one.
perhaps may be one. Wherefore to weaken
all certitude They tell vs, That none can learn infallibly thofe
truths which God has reuealed, becauſe all Churches, all Councils,
ell Pastors and Doctors, whofe Duty is to giue Affurance of truth
art
Difc. 2. C. 18. of the Churches Infallibility. 455
are fo fallible, And that the very beft may erre and. oblige men
to belieue Errour. Here is all the comfort we inue from Se
laue
taries, Thus much premiſed.
Churches
6. We come to the fundamental Ground which proues our
Catholick Religion, and the Church that teaches it to be infal-
lible. I Said in the firft. Dif. C. 1. n. 9. fpeaking againſt
Atheiſts. If we receiue the firft lights of nature called general The funda
Maxims from any Power inferiour to God, They are all fallible, mental gro.
and may deceiue vs. This granted, which I think no Chriftian und of the
can deny, It is moft confequent to Affert, That if we receiue
the Supernatural lights or truths of Grace reuealed in Scripture
(vaftly aboue all huunane Comprehenfion,) from à lefs Power
than God, the wifeft of men inay liue in errour, and cannot
but be deceived. And thus both Nature and Grace neceffarily
depend on God.
r.
>
Infallibility,
Deduced
7. This great Truth is the Apostles Doctrin. Iacob. C. 1.
17. Omne Donum perfectum de furfum eft. Euery 'perfect Gift
comes from aboue, defcending from that Father of lights. God
from the
therefore, rightly ftiled the Father of light, or, as Diuines Speak, apostles
Prima veritas the firſt vnerring Verity, Pleafed to make known Doctrin
fome few of his Diuine truths in that Book of Holy Scripture.
Few I call them, compared with innumerable others, not at all
reuealed, which yet his infinite Wiſdom comprehend's, Howcuer
theſe few (often darkly expreffed in that myfterious Book
or in Terms leſs perfpicuous) Dazle the eyes of weak fighted
Mortals, and wonder nothing, The Apoftle giues the Reafon
1. Tim. 6. 16. becauſe all proceed from him, Qui lucem inhabi-
sat inacceßibilem, That dwell's in an vnacceffible light, none
can attain vnto. Yet truths they are, the firft vnerring Verity Treasures
Afferts it, and therefore ought to be eftemed treaſures. If trea- Communi
fures; Prouidence will haue them conueyed vnto vs by fecure cated.
hands, And if eternal truths concerning Saluation, God cannot
but will, and his Will is à law, That all be Propofed and
Taught as Diuine and infallible Verities, depending vpon none, How to bị
(if we vltimately bring them to their laft Center) but vpon the Valued,
firft
456 Difc. 2. C. 18. The most vrgent Proof
The main
Difficulgy
Proposed
first Truth only, who neither will, nor can deceiue any.
8. Now here is the Difficulty. Seing it hath pleafed Al-
mighty God for reaſons beſt known to Himſelfe, to leaue moft
of the high Myſteries regiftred in Scripture in no little Obfcu-
rity, Some exprefs his own Perfections of being one effence
and three diſtinct Perſons, Others relate to the admirable works
of Grace effected by his Infinite Power (Of this nature are
the Incarnation, and the whole Series of mans Redemption.)
The Difficulty I fay is to find out à trufty Interpreter, fome
faithful Oracle, which can when doubts occurr concerning the
darker Myfteries clear all, lay open the Book, and abfolutely
Affert. An infinite verity peaks thus, This fenfe and no other is what
the Holy Ghost intended. And this is neceſſary, becauſe Almigh-
ty God teaches no more immediatly by himſelf, nor will haue
Enthufianiſms to be our Doctors.
3. Moreouer the neceffity of fuch à fure Oracle (if Diuine
The necessity truth muft be learn'd) is proued vpon this ground chiefly. That
of an Infal
lible Oracle, thefe myſteries, as is now faid, haue both their Difficulty and
Darkneſs. Natural reafon left to it felf boggles at them, lewes,
Gentils, and Hereticks reiect the higheft. It is, Say they, mighty
hard to believe a Trinity, the Diuine word made flesh, God aud man
to dye vpon à Cross &c. What can Reaſon yeild fo far, or ſub-
mit to thefe as eternal Verities, when their laft and only Proof
is taken from à Book which we fe euidently fenfed different
wayes, and fo interpreted, that One in rigour may own the
Scriptures Diuinity as the Arians do, and yet fo farr fauour
Reaſon, as not to force vpon it the Belief of fuch fublime ſe-
crets, which offer violence to our intellectual Faculties. Thus
the Arians difcourfe.
Quineced
because the
Mysteries
are difficult.
f
IO. Now here. I iuftly appeal to the common Iudgement
of Mankind, and Ask whether our God of truth, who on the
one fide perfectly comprehend's the depth of his own reuealed
Myfteries, and on the other, penetrat's no lefs our shallow ca-
pacities (puzled as we fe in the fearch of the moft Qbuious.
things in nature) could make choife of men meerly fallible, and
diuorced
Difc 2. C.18. of the Churches Infallibility. 457
>
diuorced from Diuine Affiftance to interpret Scripture whilft
all of them none excepted, becauſe errable, may grofly miſta-
ke and change the pureft Verities which were euer yet reuea-
led, into Errours. What think ye, could God who from Eter-
nity forefaw, and yet fees his written Truths depraued, abuſed,
yea Herefies drawn from his moft facred words, Could this Al-
feing wiſdom I fay, put his own Sacred book into fuch Sacri-
legious han s, or like well that à few ſcattered and diuided Se-
taries should be the only beft Interpreters of it?
Committed,
II. I fay yet more. All the men in the world, confidered
meerly as nature has fram'd them, fallible, would commit the Prefumption
Sin of Prefumption, and wrong both God and his verities, did in this mat-
they venture fo far as to interpret Scripture by no other Rule ter eafily
or law but by their own weak Reaſon, and there vpon refolutely
define, that God is one pure Effence, and three real distinct Persons:
Original Sin is fuch an euil as the Orthodox Church teaches: Children
are to be Baptized &c. To deduce thus much from the bare let-
ter of Scripture, and to define euery particular refolutely, is aboue
the force of all natural knowledge. Thofe then who Interpret the
Truths of the firft Alfeing Verity that inhabits light not ſeen by
our natural eyes, muft be fpecially Priuiledged, and either re- Diuine Afsi-
ceiue illumination from the Father of Light, or thankfully take Rance necef-
infallible Aſſiſtance from the Holy Ghoſt the Spirit of Truth,
which is both promiſed and readily giuen to the Catholick
Church.
12.
If
Jary.
Hence I deduce the Churches infallibility, and Argue
thus. Either there is fuch à Society of men preferued by Pro-
uidence infallible in all they Define and interpret, or not.
you Affirm, The Roman Catholick Church alone has the Pri-
uiledge, for all others diſclaim Infallibility. If you Deny. The A further
higheſt Myfteries of Chriſtian Religion are things only fought Proof.
for, but not found, talked of, but neuer learned. In à word
Religion is à meer Scepticifin, the beſt that learn it ſeem iuft
like thoſe Schollers the Apoftle mentioneth. 2. Tim. 3. 6. Sem-
per difcentes &c. Alwaies learning, but neuer throughly inftructed.
Mmm
If
458
Difc. 2. C. 18. The moft vrgent Proof.
The Seta-
vits pretence
to their rea-
Ang Scrip-
ture, exa-
mined.
Arians alfo
read, and
Oppofe Pro-
testants.
So do Ca.
abolicks.
If I euidence not what is here faid fo manifeftly, That no Sectary
shall rationally contradict it, cenfure me at your pleaſure.
,
13. A few Queſtions will clear all, And firft Imuft Demand.
From whence has that we call Religion its truth? All An-
fwer from God the firft vnerring Verity. Very right. But we
Ask again, Where is the Mafter teaching Oracle which plainly
deliuer's thefe reuealed truths, or clearly Propofes the Myfte-
ries now named? Sectaries vfually tell vs, Their Oracle is holy
Scripture. Herevpon followes à third Querie more difficult
than all the reft. Viz. Who Afcertains you Arians, you Donatifs,
you Pelagians, you. Protefiants you Quakers ( All fallible) that you
rightly vnderstand what you read, and grofly depraue not Gods
Word, for without controuerly innumerable called Chriftians do
depraue it? Proteftants (à perfect Reprefentatiue of all the
other) shall Anfwer for all. O fay they, VVe read Scripture atten-
tiuely, we pray for light, we perufe the Originals, we compare Paffage
with paffage, and after much pains taken we both belieue the
higheft Myfteries, and moreouer perfwade our Selues, that the
new Model of Proteftancy is conformable, or (at leaft) not Dis-
fonant to Gods word. Here you haue their laft and very
beft Principle, For they will not hear of an Infallible Church.
14. Reflect Gentle Reader à little. Do Proteftants only
read, pray, perufe, and compare? No Certainly. The Arians
long fince haue done So, yet boldly oppofe Proteftants, and deny
the higheſt Myfteries of our Chriftian Faith. If then the Arians
Praying, perufing, and comparing proue no conuiction to Proteftants,
Why should the Proteftants praying or peruling Conuince the
Arians of Errour? Again. Haue not Catholicks (think ye)
of à longer continuance and far more numerous than Sectaries,
prayed and peruſed Scripture? None can doubt it.
And yet
they hold the whole Model of pure Proteftancy à Nouelty,
and openly declare it Heretical. Therefore vnlefs Sectaries ha-
ue à fingular talent in praying and perufing aboue all other
Chriftians, Vnlefs they can produce better Proofs for the Myfte-
ies of Faith against the Arians, and ftronger Arguments againſt
Carho
Diſc. 2. C. 18. of the Churches Infallibility 459
Catholicks in behalf of Proteftancy, than the bare letter of Scrip- sectaries
ture, And their own weak conferring Texts together, or praying Pretence to
vpon them, They do not only make Proteftancy ridiculous, but reading
moreouer, euery new whimfy defenfible; For was there euer yet Scripture.
Fanatique in the world that could not Say thus much? He
certainly both profeffes and teaches truth, becauſe he has à Bible,
read's that, perufes it and prayes earneftly. And will not any
Aduerfary retort the Argument vpon him and defend whateuer
foolery he fancies contrary.
15.
Belieue it, if this way of Arguing haue force the mea-
neft Quaquer in England, will make his caufe good against the makes Pro-
touteft Proteftant, and the Proteftant if he fay. I read, I Ponder teftancy
I pray,
proues his Religion euery whit as ftrongly againſt the ridiculous.
Quaquer. That is, neither proues any thing. Nay more, the
worft of Hereticks, may vpon this ground maintain his Errours
againſt the Orthodox Church (be that yet where you will) and
could the Church only fay, She reads Scripture, ponders it and
prayes, Her cafe would be the fame with the worst of Hereticks,
But befides reading and praying There are other Proofs,whereby
One Church only is euinced God's Faithful Oracle
gious true.
16. From what is now faid I Argue firft. A Principle
which makes falfe Religion true, yea all Religions though moſt
erroneous as credible as true Religion, is more than intolerable. The Sea
But this Principle of Proteftants, we read Scripture, we ponder ries Erinci-
and pray,
makes falfe Religions true, and all Sects though most ple makes
erroneous as credible as true Religion is, Ergo it is more than in- falfe Rels.
tolerable. The Minor as is now faid proues it felf, For euery
Heretick pretend's to read and ponder Scripture, but if you moue
à further Queſtion concerning the Senfe of what he reads, he
returns you his own fancy as the beft light he has, and makes
that his ludge. This and no other is the Proteftants Principle,
and the chief, if not the only fupport, of all Herely in the
world.
17. I Argue. 2. And hold it à Demonftration. To make
Religion à Scepticiſm eternally debatable, without hope of at-
Mmm 2
taining
4.60
Difc. 2. C. 18. The most brgent Proof.
Anot her
Conuincing
Argument.
attaining truth at laft, is wholly as ridiculous,as if two men should
goe to law meerly to wrangle, hopeles of euer hauing their cauſe
determined. But this Proteftant Principle. Vve read, Pray and
ponder makes Religion à meer Scepticifm without hope of euer
knowing it, or hauing truth finally decided (semper difcentes. they
are alwares learning but neuer well taught). Ergo it is more than
ridiculous..
18. To proue the Minor let vs first fuppofe, that either we
Catholicks, or Proteftants teach and profefs true Religion (both
certainly do not, for we hold Contradictions). Suppofe. 2. This
falfity, which our Aduerfaries will haue fuppofed. Viz. That
the Roman Catholick Church after all Her reading, and peru-
fing Scripture is as fallible in all She teaches, as Proteftants con-
feſſedly are in what they deliuer after their reading, Both teach
as they dee contrary Doctrin, Yea and fallible Doctrin, yet both tell you,
they teach true Doctrin. Say L befeech you, what man in his wits
can belieue Either vpon their bare Affertions, chiefly if we
Suppoſe them of equal Authority? when he find's the Reſult
of their reading, and perufing Scripture, to end in nothing but
in open Contradictions, and fees plainly that the oppofit Doc-
trin of the One Church, fo much abates the Credit of the other
teaching contrary, that in real truth both become Contemptible.
And hence I Said, that which we call Chriftian Religon would
is impossible. iuftly deferue Scorn, if no Church teach it infallibly.. But
here is not all. To difcouer more the grofs errour of Sectaries
in this particular,
To teach
Contrary
Doctrin and
true Doctrin.
A Doctrin
taught
fallsbly.
19. We are yet to Demand vpon whom this iarring Doc-
trin of the two diffenting Churches now fuppofed Fallible is to
be laid? Or whence it proceeds? Can it come from Gods fpe-
cial Affiftance think ye? It is impoffible.. Becauſe God teaches
no contradictions. Nay, if we confider it as contradictory, no
Spirit of truth can teach it. Therefore we muſt part the Doc
trins, and Afcribe to each Church its own particular Opinion,
And then (were that poſſible) Examin which is true.
20.
But here lies the Mifery. I fay boldly. There neither
is.
Dif. 2. C. 18. of the Charches Infallibility 461
But velies
upon mans
weak Vn-
v'n-
derſtanding.
is nor can be any appearance of certain reuealed truth in either Proceed's
Church, not only because all Principles fail whereby to difcern not from
à certain Chriftian ttuth from Errour,but moft vpon this ground, Cod.
That we muft now remoue the fallible taught Doctrins of both
thefe Churches, from Gods infalible Verity and his Special affi-
ftance alfo, and make them lean vpon mans weak and shallow
vnderſtanding. We haue no other Principle to reft on, if once
infallible Affiftance be excluded. But it is manifeft, mans shal-
low capacity communicat's no Certainty to Any, concerning the
high Myſteries of Faith, remoued from their Center (The firft
infallible Verity). Therefore all we can learn from fuch Tea-
chers, is no more but doubtful Doctrin at moft, or, if it reach
to an Opinion meanly probable, there is all, Yet you haue of-
No ground
ten heard, (and it is à Truth) that no Principle lefs then one less then
which is infallible, Can vphold our Chriftian Doctrin.
Whe- infallible
refore an vtter ruin of true Religion ineuitably followes vpon Supports ITHE
this Ground. As Duine Doctrin infallibly taught begers infallible Religion.
Fanh, So if taught doubtfully, it begets only à doubtful Affent,
which is no Faith at all. Now were thefe Doctrins reſpecti-
uely to each Church probable ( as I think neither would be if
the Suppofition of their fallibillty ftand's) we are only brought
to the old Scepticiſm again, and may difpute of Religion as we
doe of Probabilities in Schools, and fo if men pleafe, They may
as often change Religion as they change Opinions, or appa-
rel.
21.
Se&taries.
can pretend
Some perhaps will reply. Proteftants can certainly Say
more for themfelues then only to tell you They read Scripture,
and compare the Paffages of it together by the light of their
own weak reaſons, Could fo much indeed make them accom-
plished Doctors able to lay forth Gods eternal truths, it would
feem ſtrange, mighty bare, and diffatisfactory to Reafon. Anfw. to mother
Here is all you haue from them, For they neither do, nor can Principle.
pretend to more. Wherefore I challenge them again and again
to Say plainly what other Principle can be relyed on, not wholly
as doubtful, and as much controuerted as their very Religon
Mini 3.
is
462
Difc. 2. C. 18 The most urgent Proof
ture.
But to their is, when they either teach, or interpret Scripture, contrary to
own Compa. the Roman Catholick Church. Obferue their Procedure. If
ring Scrip.
à conteft arifes betwixt them and condemned Hereticks. The
Arians for example, All ends in à meer throwing Texts at one
another, And the fenfe must be iuft fo as each Party conceiues.
And do they not follow the fame ftrain in euery Controuerly
with Catholicks? One Inftance will giue you fufficient light,
and may well ferue for all.
22. They (Proteftants I mean) read thofe words of our
Sauiour. This is my Body. So do Catholicks alfo. They com-
pare Text with Text, and Senfe all as they pleafe. Catholicks
as wife and learned compare alfo, yet hold contrary Doctrin,
and difcouer no little fraud in thefe new mens Deductions,
Setaries feek and Criticifins. Say now plainly. Who is He that acts the
Sceptick's part? Who is He that would endlefly quarrel
to quarrel
but to End
nothing.
A Conuin-
cing Proof
of our Affer.
tion.
about the Senfe of Gods word? Is it the Catholick? No
certainly. He is willing to haue the caufe vltimately deci-
ded, He Petitions to haue thefe endles ftrifes remitted to the
cenfure of one Supreme Iudge, to à Church which manife-
fteth it felf by euident glorious Miracles (neuer yet cenfured,
by any Chriſtians but known Hereticks) and which finally has
taught the world euer fince Chrift left it. Dare Sectaries do
thus much? Dare they appeal to any Orthodox Church,
by whofe iuft Sentence thefe debates may haue an End? No.
They recoyle, and without liftening to any ludge but Them
felues, would ftil continue thefe Debates. Therefore they are
the Sceptifts. And to proue this, giue me leaue to propoſe
one Queſtion to the Proteftant (He is the man we now treat
with). Has he any Church fo free from Cenfure, of ſo long
Continuance, fo glorious in Miracles as the Roman Catholick
is. Has He any Council as generally receiued the whole
world ouer, as either the Lateran or Florentine which euer
interpreted Chriſts words or Senfed them as he doth? Moft
euidently no. Therefore I faid well, His reading and gloſſes,
and all he can Allege for himſelf, are nothing but His own
weak
Difc. 2. C. 18. of the Churches Infallibility. 463
weak thoughts as far remoued from the foundation of
truth, (Gods infallible Verity) as earth is from Heauen and
more.
re.
Sectaries
23. But its needles to Profecute this Point further, when
one only reaſon, which none can contradict giues Euidence
enough againſt Proteftants. I Propofe it thus. What euer
Doctrin they teach peculiar to Proteftancy, or maintain againſt
the Roman Catholick Church either proceed's from Gods
infallible aßiſtance, or wholly borrowes ftrength from their own
fallible Conceptions, after their reading and comparing Scriptu- teach Do-
Grant the firft; They teach infallible Doctrin, by virtue arin diuor-
of Gods infallible Affiftance, and confequently are the men ced from
who conftitute an Infallible Church. Say fecondly, that all
they teach deriues force from their own weak reafon (guided
only by the external words of Scripture, vnderftood as they
conceiue,) They teach as the Arians, and all Hereticks haue
taught before them, à learning which is not from God. Their And there-
Doctrin in à word, Diuorced from all Diuine Aide and Af fore not
fiftance, ftand's tottering vpon their own errable Sentiments, from God.
and therefore neither is (which I intended to proue) Chrift's
Doctrin, nor at all refoluable into that first Principle of truth,
God's vnerring Verity.
>
24. Shall we to giue fome clearer Light to the Contro-
uerfy hitherto handled compendioufly recapitulate à few of
thefe many reflections made already in the foregoing Chap-
ters ? And then more eftablish the Churches infallibility
vpon vndoubted Principles. To do fo, may perhaps benefit
the Reader.
Diuine Afsi.
ſtance,
briefe re-
25. Say therefore. Is it true that Chriftian Religion vltimately
depend's vpon God, the first vnerring Verity No man doubts it.
capitulation
Is it true that innumerable called Chriftians grofly misconceive those of what has
reucaled Truths, after their reading and perufing Scripture? It is no been Said.
lefs certain. Is it true, That the bare reading, and pondering Scrip- Sectaries
ture no more a certain's Protestants of the Verities there regiftred, than like Arians,
the Arians or any other Hereticks? The truth is vndoubted, For
from.
464
Difc. 2. C. 18. The most urgent Proof
Funaticism.
Scripture
wrelled.
Doubtful
faith.
Comparing
Texts, falls.
ble.
Scepticiſm.
No ludge.
Is it true
true,
,
Is it
from whom should they haue greater certainty. Is it true, That
ew.ry Fanatique recurr's to Scripture, as Sectaries do? Experience
proues it.
Is it true, That this (ole recourfe to Scripture wrested to
à finister Senfe, epohld's the most falje Sects in the world? Is it true,
That Christian Doctrin, doubtfully taught, beger's only à doubtful faith?
That the only support of Protestants in points of Religion
amount's to no more but to their own doubiful and bare pondering scrip-
ture, or to their various and fallible comparing Texts together?
That theſe men like Sceptuks would stand euerlastingly quarrelling
about the sense of Gods Word, and cannot be induced to hear any ludge
ſpeak in this cause of Religion but themſelues ? Is it true, That we
urge them to make choife of what Iudge they please, prouided they appeal
not to their owu Sentiments and Gloſſes, as muth controuerted as P10
No Orthodox testancy is ? Is it true, That they can name no Orthodox Church which
taught as they teach, gluffed Scripture as they glofs; No Council
rally received (Comparable either to the Lateran or Florentine) which
fauours their Interpretations forced rpon Chrifts words ?
That the Doctrin they propound confeſſedly proceed's not from Gods in-
fallible Aßiflance ? Is it true, That they affume to themſtlues_the_na-
me of Christians, and yet are ashamed to be called infallible FrofefforS
of the whole fyfteme of Chriftian Religion? Is it true, That they haue
done their vimoft to take from God's infallible Reuelation its own in-
trinſick nature of Infallibility, by making us no more but morally certain
in order to our Chriftian Faith? Is it true, That, that half Infalli
bility fome lay claim to, in à few yet vnknown fundamentals, appear's
euen to Proteftants, not any Doctrin owned by the Chriftian World,
nor can it appear otherwise, whilſt à whole vniuerfal Church decryes
it as improbable ? Is it true, That Thefe Nouellifts raiſe not their Do-
Erin any higher, but only to an endles Contest, whilft no ludge but
themelues must speak in the cause?
Church.
Nor Councils
Want of in-
fallibie Afsi-
ftance.
Fallible Pro-
ffors, of
fallible Do.
Arin
Diuine Re.
uelation
wronged.
Dodrin ne-
Her owned.
Endles Dif
putes.
gene-
Is it true,
26. Are all thefe things (I fay) more amply enlarged and
clearly proued already ſo vndoubted that no Sectary shall euer
rationally contradict them? If the Iudicious Reader find I ſpeak
truth, as he wifl, may Preiudice be laid aſide, I may boldly
Conclude. Who euer fee's not the deplorable Condition of
mifled
Difc. 2. C. 19. The last proofe of &c.
465
mifled Sectaries, who euer fee's not alfo an abfolute neceflity of
an infallible Church to fet them in the right way of truth Again
is wilfully blind, fupinely negligent, Yea vtterly Carelets of
Saluation.
CHA P. XIX.
Certain Principles, where vpon the Churches Infallibility
ftand's firm. The End of Duine Revelation is
to teach all Infallibly. Euery Doctrin revealed
by the fiaft Verity is no less infall ble then true.
Its one thing to teach Truth, another to
teach Divine and Infallible Truth. Se-
Etaries Strangly ungrateful. A
word of Mr Stillingfleets
I.
N
Ow wee
weak Obiections.
come to the laft certain Principles wher-
vpon the Churches infallibilit. ftand's moft firmly.
Here is one. The Doctrin which God reueal's, as it proceed's from
that first onerring Verity, is not only true but infallible. The Second
Principle. Scripture which makes none infallible is often abused by He-
reticks. The third Principle. Some Christians are jet in Being That Principles
both teach and learn this true Diuine, and infallible reuealed Doctrin. premiſed.
The Proof is eaſy: For vnlefs fome Teach and learn it, All Teach
and learn another Doctrin diftinct from that which God reuealed,
and this neither is, nor can be Diuine, but meerly humane at moſt,
and Perhaps à foolery. That therefore, which the Prophet
Afferts. John. 6. 45.
All shall be Docibiles Dei, docible or
saught of God, is not fo, For now if the Suppofirion hold's,
Nan
the
The Princi-
ple Proued.
466
Difc 2. C. 19. The laft Proof of
A Church
must be ack-
nowledged
abfolutely
infallible.
The Proof is
saken from
the End of
Diuine Re-
Helation.
Diuine re-
the whole Church (take it in what Extent you pleafe) is deluded
as the Apoſtle Saith Ephes. 4. 14 With the wind of Doctrin, in the
wickednes of men, in Craftines to the circumuention of errour.
brings ruin to Chriftian Religion.
>
And this
2. The. 4. Principle. This Diuine Doctrin is not only
true and infallible in it felf, but moreouer fo infallibly Propofed
by one vnerring Oracle, That all who will receiue it, are moft
indubitably certain of thofe very truths which God has reuea-
led, and therefore cannot err. Make good this one Propofi-
tion, We haue an infallible Church established, not only in à
few nicknam'd vnknown fundamentals, but in euery Doctrin She
teaches. Now the Proof is taken from the End of Diuine
reuelation which feem's moft Conuincing For fay I befeech.
you, Why did God impart truth and infallible truth to the
world? The end was not to improue his own knowledge,
being euer Omniscient. It was not that the Angels and bleffed
in Heauen should belieue, for Faith ceafeth in that happy State,
All there fe intuitiuely what they once belieued. The end the-
refore why God reuealed true and Infallible Doctrin was, That
we, yet Pilgrims on earth walking by Faith should yeild Af-
fent to it, and belieuc all as both true and infallible. But this
is impoſſible, if the Church which immediatly Propoſes the Do-
trin can clash with Scripture or with Gods Reuelation, and
peruert his Verities. Therefore She must be acknowledged
both true and infallible in euery Doctrin She teaches.
·
3. If any reply. It feem's fufficient that the Church teaches
Truth, though She neither propofes nor teaches it fo infallibly,
but that fome times She may fweiue from it, He deftroyes again
Chriſtian Religion. Be pleaſed to obferue my reafon. If the
infallibility of reuealed Doctrin be loft as it were in the way
between God and vs, If the Reuelation appear not as it is in it
10. infallibly. felfe infallible, when we affent to it by Faith, That is, if it be
not infallibly conueyed and applyed to all by an vnerring Pro-
ponent, as it fubfifts in its firft caufe, infinitly infallible,
Faith pe-
elation is
to be affented
}
rishes, we are caft vpon pure Vncertainties, and may iuftly
doubt
Difc. 2. C. 19. The Churches Infallibility.
407
doubt, whether fuch à Doctrin, feparated from that other Per-
fection of infallibility, be really true or no? To fe this clearly
laid forth, Pleaſe to make one reflection with me.
God's reusea-
4. May not either Iew or Gentil, well inclined to Chriftian
Religion rationally propofe this Queftion to the Proteftants or
to any? Has God reuealed any Doctrin which is only true.
and not infallible ? You will Anfwer, No, becauſe the fame led Doctrin
infinite verity which fupport's truth, is powerful enough to vp- is no less in-
hold alfo its infallibility. Say on I befeech you.
you. Can
Can you who fallible, then
pretend to teach truth (the worst of Herefiques haue done fo) true.
Atcertain me alfo, that you teach and propofe Gods infallible
Truths, infail bl? Proue your Selues fuch Doctors, and none
will cuer Queſtion further the Truth of what you teach, For
if you once make this clear, that you teach the infallible Doc-
trin which God has ieuealed, the truth infeparably connexed
with infallibility, is no more difputable but manifeftly Credible.
But if you turn me off, with à fair Story of teaching truth, and
Afcertain me not of your teaching it infallibly, euery rational
man will moft iuftly doubt of your teaching Truth. And here
is the reafon à Priori.
5. Euery Doctrin which is taught as à Verity, founded vpon
લે
God(the first Venit)) is no leſs infallible than true, Therefore who
euer Afcertains me of the one, muft ioyntly aſcertain me of the
other : Or if he will diuorce truth from that perfection of In-
fallibility, he giues me no more but at moft the half of that There is ra
paring in.
Doctrin which God reucal's. Nay I learn not fo much from
fallibility
him, feing God own's no truc Doctrin (men can teach natural from truib.
truths) which is not as eminently infallible, as true.
Now further.
If I be fob'd off with no man knowes what halfes of Diuine
Doctrin, That is, if the Proponent parts truth from its infalli-
bility, and no Authority in Heauen or earth licences any to Se-
parate what God has ioyned together, I only learn the faint Sen- when we
timents, or weak Opinions of fallible Teachers founded vpon beltene God's
fancy, which God difclaim's And (which is euer to be noted) reuealed
man by nature fallible can do no more, but only propoſe them
Nnn 2
રોડ
Doctrin.
468
Difc. 2. C. 19. The laft Proof of
Effince
as meer humane or doubtfull Vncertainties. But à humane
doubtful Propofition, though true, beget's, as is faid aboue, no
certain faith in any, Therefore who euer will not vtterly ruin
the very life and Eff nce of Chriftian Religion, muſt abfolutely
affent both to the truth and Infallibility of Religion, and con--
One Church fequently acknowledge an Infallible Oracle which teaches and
only Infalli. propofes Infallible Verities, Infallibly. But this is only the Ro-
man Catholick Church, as is faid aboue, for no other Society:
of men laies claim to teach Gods infallible truths, infallibly.
ble.
A certain
Principle.
>
6. To folue all Obiections againſt this Difcourfe, it will
much auaile to be well grounded in this fure Principle. Viz.
It is one thing to teach truth and another to teach Diuine and infal-
lible truth. Man by natural reaſon can teach truth, yet is in-
fufficient to teach Diuine, reuealed, and infallible Truth, this muft
come from à higher Power, either from Diuine Aßistance, or Su-
Whereton, pernatural illumination. If therefore the proteftant Should demand,
10 Sectaries Why we cannot belieue his Doctrin euen when he only Propo-
fes thoſe general Verities which all Chriftians admit (He neuer
offers to Obtrude vpon you his inferiour Tenents peculiar to
Proteftants). Anſwer. They are truths indeed,and infallible truths,
but not proued ſo, because he Vnaßifted teaches them. If he Ask
again vpon what foundation do we Catholicks lay the truth and
infallibility of that Doctrin we belieue and teach? Anfver.
Vpon this firm Ground, that Scripture interpreted by an Affifted
Oracle (the Chruch) which cannot beguile any, Propofes all we
learn, as true and infallible Doctrin.
are grestp.
ded,
Scripture is
obfcure.
7. If he reply. 3. Proteftants abſtract from the Churches
Interpretation and hold Scripture plain enough in all fundamen-
tal Doctrin neceffary to Saluation. Anfwer. He err's not
kno ring the depth of Scripture, which is fo dark, and vnintel-
ligible in the abftrufe Myfteries of faith, that vnleſs certain Tra-
dition and the Senfe of the vniuerfal Church caft light vpon it,
or impart greater clarity to the bare letter, The wifeft of men
will be puzled in what they read, or at moft guefs doubtfully.
at its meaning, And therefore may eafily fwerue from truth. To
fe what I fay, proued.
8. Imagin
Diſc 2. C. 19. The Churches Infallibility. 469
The mot
learn-d Phi.
lojaphers ig-
norant of
Tradition
and Church
8. Imagain only, that twenty learned Philofophers or mo-
re, who neuer heard of Church Tradition, or of her Generael re-
cetued Doctrin, had our Bible drop't down from Heauen with
Affurance that it contain's Gods infallible truths, prouided all
they read be rightly vnderſtood, but not otherwife. Suppo-
fe. 2. They perute that one Sentence in S. Iohns Golpel.
In the beginning was the Word, and that Word was with God.
Thus fame was in the beginning with God &c. Suppofe. 3. They
alfo confer the Sentence with all other Paffages in Holy Writ
relating to this Myſtery. Could thefe Philofophers think ye
by the force of their natural difcourfe only acquire exactly Doctrin.
the infallible truth of the Incarnation, iuft fo as the Church.
now teaches and belieues? No. Euery Particle would put
them ypon à further Scrutiny.
à further Scrutiny. What is fignified Saith one, Cannet Vn.
by this. In pricipio.
In the beginning? What is that Word
faith another, which was with God, or how was it with God?
Was it One real thing Effential to him, or meerly à breath
à Word terminated vpon creatures, withour which nothing
was made?
All know though the Arians had à Church to
teach, yet with that fure Rule of faith they mangled and mif-
vfed this very paffage of the Gofpel, Therefore difficulties much
more would moleſt theſe Philofophers, hauing no Oracle to
interpret, And as many would arife concerning other Scriptu-
res, relating to the (acred Trinity, Original Sin, and the like My-
teries.
derſtand it.
Sectaries.
9. Now here is my reflection, and I think euery Intelli- An applica-
gent perfon will speak as I doe. luft fo much as thefe Phi- tion made te
lofophers haue to glofs with and defcant vpon, So much Se-
taries may challenge, but no more, if we feuer Scripture
from the Churches Interpretation. Both haue à Body without
life, words without fenfe, difficulties propofable concerning
their reading, but none to Anſwer them.
10. The only difference between them is; That the Phi-
lofophers, yet ignorant of Church and Tradition haue no
Schoole to go to. Sectaries haue both, yet run as it were
Nnn 3.
from
470
Difc. 2. C.19. The last Proof of
them and
the Philo.
The differen from Schoole with half à Leffon, with one part (and tis
ce between much the obfcurer part) of Diuine Learning only, the bare
Texts I mean, of holy Scripture, shutting out the Churches
infallible Senfe. And what haue you in lieu of this light,
which hath hitherto illuminated Millions of Chriftians? The
weak and errable Sentiments of a few diivnited Sectaries. And
phers.
theys follo-
is this all we can rely on? Do we belieue the Trinity,
the Incarnation and other high Myfteries (fo obfcurely ex-
preffed in Gods word, that innumerable haue miftaken the
true Senfe) becaufe à Luther, à Cain, or their followers ex-
Whether Lu. pound it? Or is our Belief grounded vpon that Churches
Interpretation which has euer taught the world? The One
or Other muft haue influence vpon Faith, if we will belieue.
Church is to But moft manifeftly the firit (men only of yesterday, and fal-
lible) are not our Doctors, Therefore the Church is the only
Oracle which Afcertains vs of the Scriptures Senfe, of its Truch,
and infallible Doctrin alfo.
Ders, or an
Anczent
teach?
Sectaries
manifestly
ungrateful,
And why?
II.
Two things neceffarily follow from this Difcourfe. The
one. That Proteftants Shew themfelues ftrangely vngrateful, be-
cauſe they flight an Oracle, which has taught them all they
know concerning the Primary Articles of Chriftian Faith, for
in real truth the Churches Authority in Her expounding Scrip-
ture vpholds that true Affent they yeild to the Myfery of the
Sacred Trinity. So much is granted, Or not. Grant it. I
Ask. Why difdain they to hear this Church in other mat-
ters ? If you deny. Their Submiflion to this and the like
Myfteries wholly relies vpon their own fallible diffatisfactory
thoughts and gloffes. Here Some perhaps will retire to the
Primitiue Churches interpretation, and ground their Aflent vpon
Recourſe to Her Doctrin. Nothing is got this way, For the moft Primi-
the Primiti tiue expofition of Scripture was no more infallible, than what
ue Church, the latter Church or Councils haue Defined. But enough is
frinolous.
faid aboue, of this Chafing all Controuerfies vp to the Primi-
tiue Ages
12. The fecond Inference is. If God has not made Religion
Difc. 2. C. 19. The Churches Infallibility.
471
à matter of eternal Debate, If all are obliged to belieue by di-
uine Faith the very truths, yea the fame infallible truths which
God has reuealed, and no other of à lower or flighter Rank;
If he has reuealed them for this end, that all may be Alcer- 4 fecond
tain'd of their intrinfecal Worth, (That is,) of being both Di- Inference.
uine and infallible; If the whole Chriftian world remain's not
at this day in Errour, or is not caft vpon vncertainties what
to belieue; If both the truth and infallibility of all reuealed
Doctrin ftand's and fubfift's firmly ioyned together in God, the
first Verry (impoffible to be feparated there). And if Finally as
Tis there true and infallible, all are obliged to learn it: No-
thing can be more manifeft then that diuine Prouidence has e-
ftablished and impoured Some Oracle to teach and propofe
that very reuealed Doctrin vnder its own Nature and Notion,
as it is both true and infallible.
13. Thus much Suppofed and proued, All further Queſtions The Oracle
concerning the Oracle ceafes, For it neither is, nor can be ano- teaching
ther but the Roman Catholick Church which has charge to truth cannet
interpret Scripture faithfully, to refcue Gods truths from the lewd be queſtioned
mitufage of Hereticks. Clear therefore once that Sacred Book
from abufe, Learn what this one certain Oracle teaches, our
Faith is found, Catholice, and Apoftolical. But if Scripture by rea-
fon of its Obfcurity deceiues any, or the Church could deuiate
from the fincere interpretation of Gods truths there regiftred,
The Very life of true Religion is loft, Faith vanishes into er-
rour.
14.
Who euer ferioufly Confider's what is already faid in
this and the precedent chapter will find Mr Stillingfleets featte-
red Obiections against the Infallibility of Church and Councils
vtterly void of ftrength. Some worthy perfon of our Nation (who
he is I know not) in his Guide of Controuerfies. Dic. 3. has fo
broken and vanquished the little force they haue
that I may
well fuperfede all further labour herein. There is not one
Obiection propofed, but T'is either firft, euidently retorted vpon
Mr Stillingfleet, Or 2. Implies à pure begging of the Que
>
fion.
Mr Stilling-
fleets Ob-
ions
ie&ions
weighiles.
472
Difc. 2. C. 19. The last Proof of
He Speak's
not truth.
What can
ftion. Or 3. Impugn's all Councils. Or 4. Appears fo flight
at the very firft view, that it deferues no Anfwer.
be more flight then to tell vs as he doth. P. 58. That we
are abfolutely auerfe from free Councils, becaufe we condemn
all other Bishops but thofe of our Church without fuffering
them to plead for themfelues in any Indifferent Council. It is
hard to fay what the Gentleman mean's by free and indifferent
Councils, for he fetters all with fo many Conditions, that ne-
uer any was yet found in the Church fo qualified, as he would
haue it. Read him through his 1. and 2. Chapter, as alfo P.
You will fe what I affert, Manifeft. It is true, we con-
A Calumny 557.
for à Proof. demn all heteredox Bishops (and doth not Mr Stillingfleet re-
criminate, and condemn ours?) But to fay we fuffer none to
plead for Themfelues in à free Council is à flat Calumny,
Îefs that only be free which fome bodies fancy makes free, and
no other. A word now to one or two Obiections.
gument re-
torted.
cree,
VII-
AL-
15. If you (faith Mr Stillingfleet) require an Affent to
the Decrees of Councils as infallible, There must be an ante-
cedent Affent to this Propofition. That whatfoeuer Councils de-
is infallible. I first retort the Argument. If you require an
Affent to your Definitions in the Dort-Meeting, Or hold That
The first Ar. the conuened there deliuered true Doctrin. There must be an
antecedent Affent to this Propofition, That what foeuer thoſe
Dort-men taught is true Doctrin, before you own it as true.
certain vs of thus much, And you folue your own difficulty.
If this Inftance pleaſe not, make vfe of another. Your Minifters
in England pretend to teach true Doctrin, though not infallibly.
Say only vpon what antecedent Propofition the Truth of their
Doctrin is affented to by all, before it be belieued as true, and
we shall without labour Anfwer in behalf of our infallible Do-
Arin.
And clearly
Solued.
16. In à word thus Catholicks plead. This generall Propof-
tion is to be affented to, as both true and infallible. Viz. All
are obliged to Hear and Belieue the Pastors of God's Church when Lawful-
ly Commißioned to teach in God's name, and as the Orthodox Church
teaches.
Difc. 2. C. 16. The Churches infallibility
473
Another
Obiection
retorted, 484
Solued.
teaches. Flere is the Thefis or the vniuerfàl receiued Propofition.
But theſe Paſtors and Doctors when affembled in Council are
ftill aftors of the Church and lawfully commiflioned to teach
in God's name, both true and infallible Doctrin, Therefore they
are to be heard and belieued in all and euery Definition, pro-
ceeding from that Affembly, lawfully conuened. Here you ha-
ue the path fis as indubitably certain, as the Thefis.
17. A fecond Obiection you meet with in his Page 509.
What infallible Teftimony haue you (he means Catholicks) for this,
that Councils are Infallible? It is not enough for you to fay, That the
Testimonies of Scripture you produce are an Infallible Testimony for it:
For that were to make the Scripture the fole ludge of this great Coniro-
uerfy, which you deny to be the fole ludge of any. I firſt retort the
Argument and Ask.
What Teftimony haue you Sectaries( I do
not fay Infallible) But fo much as feemingly probable taken
from Scripture, whereby Councils (the greateſt Reprefentatiues
in God's Church) are made fallible Not one can be alleged.
18. Now my Anfrer briefly is. Scripture once admitted for
God's word (which our Aduerfaries will not reflect on) mani-
feftly conuinceth the Churches infallibility. To thofe exprefs The Catho-
and fignificant Paffages of holy Writ known to euery one (The
Church is the pillar and ground of Truth) you haue them already,
We add the fudgement of Fathers cited aboue (The guide of
Controuerfies. C. 3. P. 147. Produces more). Befides, Gods
Church which we hold an Infallible Oracle, interpret's Scripture
to this fenfe, and here are our aboundantly full Principles for
Her Infallibility. Come you Sr, now clofely to the point, con-
front vs if you can with as many Paffages of Scripture, as many
Teftimonies of Fathers, Or (and this we alwayes vrge) with the
Authority of any Orthodox Church which fauours your con-
trary Tenet of Fallibility, The Strife is ended. But hereofthe-
re is no fear at all. And thus you fe how Scripture is the ludge Setaries
when once admitted as Diuine, and faithfully interpreted, not
otherwile.
?
19. A. 3. Obiection. Page. 509. The Decree or Definition
Ooo
of a
lick Princi
ples for
infallibility,
haue none
for their
Tenet.
474
Difc. 2. C. 19. The laft Proofe of.
A third
of à Council receiues Infallibility from the Council before the
weak obiec- Pope confirm's it, or not. If not; The whole infallibility relì-
tion retorted des in the hope, and this fome Say is not de Fide vniuerfali..
If it arife from the Council before the Pope confirm's it (for
that act of confirmation followes the Definition) the Council.
is infallible antecedently to the Popes Confirmation. I first
retort the Argument. An Act of Parlament, or à law made
for all, receiues its force from the Conuened Members before.
his Maiefty Confirm's it, or not. If not, The whole Power
of making fuch à Law refides in His Maiefty, which fome will
fay is not fo. If it arife from the Parlament, before His Maie-
fty Confirm's it (and that Confirmation followes the Act) The
Parlament is impowr'd to make fuch Lawes, before His Royal
Affent. Confirm's them. Here is the very fame Form of arguing
(though in à different matter) and you fe the weaknes of it.
D
20. The true Anfwer to the Obiection is as followes. Euery
Doctrin definable may be confidered two wayes, firft as it Pro-
ceed's from God the moft fupreme Verity, and vnder that No-
tion, it is both true and infallible in it felf before the pope and
And folued. Council Define it, (And note, they can Define no other Doc-
trin on earth, but what God ratifies in Heauen). 2. It may be
confidered as the Doctrin of the Repreſentatiue Church infallibly Aßi-
fted to teach Diuine truths, And vnder that Notion it is called
Church Doctrin, proceeding from the Head and Members of one
myftical Body: The Head therefore Separated or folely taken
Defines not in Councils, The Members diuided from the Head
define not, But one and the fame Definition proceed's ioyntly.
from both Head and members vnited together. The Inftance
already hinted at giues light enough. If any reply, The Defini-
tion when the Council propofed it, was both true and infallible.
Iwery Doce Doctrin. I diftinguish the Propofition. It might be then Cer-
tain and infallible Doctrin in it felf (that's true) but as yet it is
neither known or owned as fuch or called Church Doctrin:
It was then the whole Councils or Churches true and infallible
Doctrin, I deny it. This is founded vpon both Pope and
trin true
in st felfe,
* not there.
fore Church
Dottrin.
Council
Difc. 2. C. 19. The Churches infallibility.
475
Council infallibly affifted, as is now fuppofed, and already pro-
ued.
21. I find no more in Mr Stillingfleet worth any notice
That which followes in his Page 510. ouerthrowes all councils
or proues nothing. What certainty haue you, Saith he, that
this or that Council proceeded lawfully? That the Bishops were
lawful Bishops? That the Pope who confirin's them was à law-
ful Pope? That fome By-ends or Intereft fwayed not many?
That all conditions were exactly performed &c. I Anfwer firft,
and Ask. What certainty haue you of any illegal Bishops, of
vnlawful Popes, of Intereft Swaying all.
Here becauſe you ac-
cufe, we put you to the Proof. I Anfwer. 2. That Certainty
which you or any has of no By ends in the four firft general
Councils, of their lawful Bishops, of no intereft fwayng &c.
The fame we haue of all the approued Councils in Gods Church.
To infift further vpon fuch faint Obiections, is only to loſe
time or (might one retaliate in Mr Stillingfleets own language)
meerly to kill flies to run after them, and make sport with them.
And thus much of the Churches Infallibility, (I mean the Ro-
man Apoftolical Catholick Church) to whofe Cenfure and in-
fallible Iudgement I do moft willingly fubmit my Selfe,and euery
particular in this Treatife.
>
Other Obiec-
tiens waned
as imperti-
nent.
O o ö E
[el]
THE
476
THE
THIRD DISCOVRSSE
T
OF.
The Refolution of Faith:
•
He fubiect here hinted at, is as
all Shollers know very Spe-
culatiue. Terms, according to my
little Skill in the English Tongue,.
often Fail to exprefs what is ne-
ceffary. Wonder not therefore, if
now and then you meet with that
which may feem Obfcure to à Vul-
gar Reader. My Endeauour Shall
be to giue the Difcourfe fo much
Light, as that Euery one may per--
ceiue the Aduerfary I treat with,
clearly refuted.
THE
Diſc. 3. C. 1. Carbolicks refolue faith as C. 477
THE FIRST CHAPTER
Some chiefe Contents in this Difcourfe briefly declared.
Mr Stillingfleets weak attempts against the Chur-
ches infallibility and the Refolution of Faith
The Catholick way of refoluing Faith, the very
fame with that of the Primitiue Chriftians.
Of the miſtakes which run through-
-Mr Stillingfleets whole Difcourfe.
I:
N the following Chapters, we firft remoue fuch diffi-
culties as may feem to obftruct the Cleareft Refolu-
tion, And all along difcouer Mr Stillingfleets Errorus. viz. Chiefly
thofe, moſt apparent in his 5. Chapter. 2. We examin what
Influence the Motiues of Credibility haue ouer Faith? 3. Ne-
ceffary Principles are premifed much auailing to Conceiue the
true Analyſis. 4. We Shew wherein the Main Difficulty lies in
this Refolution (Omitted by Mr Stillingfleet) and folue it. 5.
The whole Progreſs of Faith is Explained in order to its laſt
Refolution. 6. The true Analyfis is giuen in two Propofitions.
Here we alſo treat of the Euidence of Credibility, and folue
the Sectaries Obiections. 7. This queftion is propofed. VVhe-
ther the Churches Teftimony may be Called the Formal Obiect of Faith ?
8. We Ask what is meant by this word Reafon, And enquire
how far true Reaſon Conduces to end Controuerfies? 9. Pro-
teftancy is proued à moft vnreaſonable Religion.
2. Mr Stillingfleet. Part 1. C. 5. P. 109. offer's at much,
it is to diſcouer ftrange ill Confequences, yea grand Abfurdities,
if Faith be refolued by the Churches Infallibility, and feem's
fome what ouer-heated in carrying on the cauſe againſt his Ad-
0003
verfary.
What this
third Dif
ceurſe
Contain's,
Our Aduer.
faries bold
aduenturs.
478 Difc. 3. C. 1. Catholick refolue faith, as
verfary. Let any man (faith he) iudge whether this be not the most
compendious way to ouerthrow the belief of Christianity. There is har-
dly any thing more really destructiue to Chriftianity, or that has à
greater tendency to Atheism, than the Modern pretence to Infallibility.
The pnreasonablenes of it is so great, that I know not whether [
may abstain from calling it ridiculous. And much more to this
Senfe.
3. It ſeems by what I read in Mr Stillingfleet T. C. (whoſe
What bis Book I had not then feen) ſaid that Catholicks in this preſent
Aduerfary State, refolue their Faith after the very fame manner, as the
aferied.
Ifraëlits anciently, and the Primitiue Chriftians refolued Theirs.
If he faid that, he Spake à Truth not only defenfible, but fo
Sound and Irrefragable, that Mr Stillingfleet (to vfe his own pret-
ty Phraſe) like one vnder an Ephialtes Shall tumble, groan, tos-
fe this way and that, and yet not rid himſelf of the vexation.
Is Sound
Doctrin.
Wow the
Ifraelits
queltioned
about faith.
>
4. The Doctrin I find plainly deliuered, and the Inftan-
ces of the ancient Ifraelits and the Primitiue Chriftians, fo well
made vſe of for the Catholick Refolution by our learned Coun-
tryman, Thomas Bacon Southwell. Analysis Fidei. Difp. 4. and 5.
That here I muft needs infert fome Part of it, becauſe it much
auailes to Conceiue the eafieft way of refoluing Faith, And well
penetrated fo vtterly defeates what Mr Stillingfleet has, that
much more is not requifite to make void his forceles Obiec-
tions.
5. F. Southwel therefore, Analyſis Fidei now cited, chiefly
n. 18. Speak's much to this fenfe. Had one asked à true
Belieuer in Mofes his time after the Pentateuch was written,
Why belieue you that God is iuft, wife, faithful in his Pro-
miſes? Or (if you will haue one particular) why Adam fin-
ned in Paradife? He would haue anſwered Scripture Saith fo.
But if again demanded, How know you that Scripture is God's
Diuine word? Would he think ye haue Anſwered, I fe that
by the very light and Sparkling of the Letter? It is impoffi
ble as shall be proued afterward. Thus therefore He would
haue replyed. Mofes our great Prophet Affirm's it, or rather
God
Difc. 3. C. 1. The Primitiue Chriftians did. 479
God fpeaking by the mouth of Mofes laies that Verity open
to vs, And vpon that ground I belieue it. So we read. Deuter.
1. 3. Mojes (pake to the Children of 1racl all which God had com-
manded him to say to them. Now if thirdly Queftioned. How
Proue you that Moyfes was à true Prophet, or God's Oracle
He could not haue fatisfied by alledging. Scripture, without à
Vicious Circle, but would haue Said: This truth is immediatly,
and moft euidently Credible by it Selfe, for the Wiſdom, Sanctity,
and Power of working Miracles, manifeft to all eyes, proue to
Reafon, that Mofes is à great Prophet.
>
?
Would baue
anſwered ?
Catholicks
5. In like manner Catholicks proceed in their Refolution
of Faith. Demanded why we belieue the Mystery of the In-
carnation, it is Anſwered Scripture Affert's it. Ask again, why
we belieue the Diuinity of that Book called Scripture? It is
replyed. The Church afcertain's of That. But how do we
know that the Church herein deliuer's Truth? It is Anfwe-
red, if we Speak of knowledge preuious to Faith, Thofe admi-
rable Signes of Diuinity mentioned aboue, and manifeft in this
one Oracle. Viz. The Sanctity of life the Contempt of the world,
the continued Austerity of Pennance, the height of Contemplation in this pro-
apparent in thouſands and thouſands, And aboue all the glorious
Miracles moft illuftrious in this one Society of Chriftians proue
it an Oracle fo euidently credible, That we cannot, if prudent and
manifeſt Reaſon guides ys, but as firmly belieue what euer this
Oracle teaches, as the Ifraelits belieued Mofes and the Prophets.
Here is only the difference (And the Aduantage is ours) that Differenss
in Lieu of Mofes we haue an ample Church Inumerable aduania-
multitudes in place of one Seruant of God, The incomparable gious for us,
greater light, I mean, the Pillar and Ground of truth, the Catho-
lick Church diffufed the whole world ouer.
6. Anſwerable to this Doctrin the primitiue Chriftians re-
folued their Faith, after the Canon of Scripture was written.
Ask therefore why thefe firft conuerted People, whether lewes
or Gentils, belieued Chrift to be the true Meffias, the Son of
God, and Sauiour of the world? They might haue Anfie-
red.
fent State,
return the
very fame
Answer.
One only
480 Difc. 3. C. 1.
C. T. Catholicks refolue Faith as
The Primi.
tike Chris
stians way
of refoluing
Fauh.
Is Our Way
also.
Three Mi-
Cakes chief.
ly pointed at
Yet
red. We read this and much more in Holy Scripture. But
how know you, that theſe Scriptures are not fuppofitious or
fained, as fome Gofpels haue been? We belieue this, Say They,
Vpon the vndoubted Teftimony of thofe bleffed men the Apo-
ftles, who both taught vs, and wrote that holy Book.
more. How know you that thofe Apoftles were not Cheats
(for there haue been falfe Prophets and Apoftles) but men Au-
thorized by Almighty God to teach and write his holy Veri-
ties? Had they replyed, We proue this by Scripture it ſelf,
the Circle would haue been ineuitable. For to Say Scripture is
Gods word, because the Apofiles Affert it, and to Say the Apostles were
infallible Oracles of Truth, becauſe Scripture affirm's that, is to Proue
Idem per idem, And implies à moft vicious Circulation.
a
7. Their Anfwer then muft haue been, for there is no other.
The manifeft Miracles wrought by the Apoftles, Their eminent
Sanctity and Holines of life (our Lord working with, and con-
firming their Doctrin by manifeft Signes) proued them Gods
Oracles, True and faithful commiflioned Teachers. And thus
we difcourfe of the Church Whofe vndeniable Miracles, San-
city, and Conuerfions wrought by Her, conuince reafon of
this great Truth, that She only is Gods Oracle. All this is
faid fuppofing the Canon of Scripture already compleat, For if
we goe higher, and confider à Church (whether it be that of
the ancient Patriarchs, of the Ifraelits, or finally of the Chri-
ftians before Scripture was written) Faith muſt be refolued into
Diuine Reuelation by the means of fome liuing Oracle (Whe-
ther One or more it imports not) who manifefted themfelues
God's commiffioned Teachers by signes and Miracles. Where-
of more afterward.
>
4
8. This much premifed (And it is Very eafily vnderſtood)
you shall se Mr stillingfleets verbofe Obiections brought to
nothing, but to meer Cauils and Miftakes. Three Miftakes
chiefly, run through his whole 5. Chapter. Firſt he ftrangely
confound's the Iudgement of credibility neceffarily prerequired
to true Belief, with the very Act of Faith it Self, whereas the
Refolu
Difc. 3.
C.
481
19.
The Primitiue Chriftians did
Refolution of theſe two, haue indeed à due Subordination to one
The first
another, yet depend vpon quite different Principles. The Iud- breeds Cons-
gement of Credibility whereby the will moues and command's fufion.
the intellectual Faculty to elicite Faith, relies not vpon that
Obiect which finally Terminates Faith it felf, But vpon extrin-
fecal Motiues wihch perfwade, and Powerfully induce to belieue,
Super omnia.
9. Here is the Reaſon. The high Myfteries of Faith, the
Trinity, for example; Original Sin, and the like Tranfcend our
natural Capacities, or to fpeak with fome great Diuines are na-
turally Incredible, Therefore Prouidence hath by the force and
efficacy of extrinfecal motiues, raiſed them from that degree of
natural Incredibility, and made all moft credible to humane.
Reafon. And this no Sectary can deny, For before that Doc-
trin be belieued which he embraces, and before he reiect's the
contrary not belieued by him, He will tell you, He hath
Motiues and reaſons as well for the one as the other. Here is
all we require at prefent.
In the fecond
Inthe
Science and
Faith are
not.
10. Mr Stillingfleets fecond errour is, that he diftinguishes
not between the nature of Science and Faith. Science is worth
nothing vnleſs it proue, and Faith purely confidered as Fanth,
( mark well my words) is worthles, if it proue, For as innumera-
ble Fathers affirm, Fides non querit quomodo. Faith reafon's not,
nor Ask's how thefe Myfteries can be, but fimply belieues.
Science makes vfe of Principles, Per (e nota, known by them-
felues And then difcourfes, Affuming nothing but what is pro-
ned, wherefore no virtue, no validity, can be in the progrefs, or
end of à rational. Difcourfe, which was not precontained in the distingui
firſt affumed Principles. Faith, t'is true, has its Preambulatory shed.
Motiues, as we haue feen already, yet Scientifically drawes no Con-
clufion from them (and herein Mr Stillingfleet all along begui-
les himſelf, and the reader). The Motiues inducing to belieue
this Truth. God has revealed à Mysterious Trinity are morally certain,
yet there is à more firm Adheſion to the infallibility of that
Diuine Teftimony for which we belieue, than the extrinfecal
7
PPP
Motiues
Sufficiently
482 Diſc, 2. C. 1. Catholicks refolue Faith as c.
The third
also wants
à Diſtin-
Etion.
Motiues inducing to belief either do or can draw from vs.
And in this fenfe Faith contrary to Science, goes farr beyond
the certainty of all extrinfecal Inducements, as shall be prefent-
ly declared.
II.
Our Aduerfaries third Miftake lies here, That he diftin-
guishes not, between the humane and Diuine Authority of the
Church. S. Auftin Lib. con. Epift Fundam. C. 4. Speaking of
the firft, Saith. The profound wisdom of fo many Doctors, the confent
of Nations, the Antiquity, the continued Succeßion of Pastors &c. held
him within the Pale of the Church Catholick, yet this Autho-
rity precifely confidered as humane, and therefore fallible, is not
fufficient to ground Diuine Faith. I fay as humane, for though.
I belieue that the Church has euer been file, with à continued
Succeffion of Commiffioned Paftors to teach Orthodox Doctrin,
yet my Act of Faith no more relies vpon fuch motiues, confi-
dered meerly as Motiues, inducing to belieue, Than the Primitiue
Chriſtians Faith relied vpon the vifible Miracles, which Chrift or
his Apoftles wrought.
12. As therefore that firft Act of Faith, whereby they bel'e-
ued our Sauiour to be the true Meffias, was built vpon his in-
fallible Diuine Authority, manifefted by Miracles, Sanctity of life
&c. So that firft Act of Faith whereby euery one belieues the
Church to be God's own Sacred Oracle, is built vpon Her in-
fallible Diuine Authority manifefted by Miracles, and other fignal
Marks of truth, whereof Scripture plainly Speak's. Hell gates
shall not preuail against the Church. She is the Pillar and ground of truth,
What caused And fo much is faid aboue. C. 16. 17. that I know well Secta-
our Aduer- ries cannot Anfwer. The not reflecting vpon this twofold Au-
faries Errour thority which Mr Stillingfleet knowes Catholicks do diftinguish,
makes his Circle charged on vs fo irregular à Figure, that it
look's rather like à Rhomboides than à round Circle, as shall
appear prefently, with à further Difcouery of his other mifta-
kes. One thing I cannot but admire, and t'is, That though
his 5th Chapter be tedioufly long, yet the main and moft real
Difficulty
Diſc. 3. C. 1. Mr Stilling: fift Chapter &c.
483
difficulty concerning the Refoluing of Faith is fcarcely fo much
as hinted at. After à few Pages I will propofe the Difficulty,
and endeanour to folue it.
CHAP. II.
Mr Stilling fleets 5. th Chapter. Part. 1. examined, is
found VVeightles. The weaknes of his Arguments
difcouered. His First and chiefeft Argument
retorted and folued.
1.
I
Muft and will waue all this Gentlemans Parergons, all
friuolous excursions with his vnciuil language, and if I
touch in à word vpon his pretty conceipted Ieers fcattered here
and there, it shall only be Pertranfennam, as if I little minded
them.
2. Thus he begins. Page 112. The Infallible Testimony of your
Church is the only Foundation for Diuine Faith, and this Infallibility Our Aduer-
can only be known by the Motiues of Credibility (He means in this faries first
prefent State) Therefore this way of refoluing Faith is vnreaſonable, Argumeni.
because it requires an infallible Affent vpon probable grounds beyond
all Proportion or degree of Euidence, which is as much as requiring
infallibility in the Conclufion, where the Premises are only probable.
Anfw. Our Aduerfary Spoil's à good Difficulty by propofing
it lamely, He would fain fay fome thing like that which Ca-
tholick Diuines learnedly propoſe whilft they handle the Refo
lution of Faith, But fo fumbles and doth it by halfes, that He
reaches not home to the main Bufinefs.
3. I Say therefore firft. The Argument propofed if of any
force, deftroies all Faith euen the moft Primitiue. To pro-
ue the Affertion I Ask, whether the first Chriftians belieued
Ppp 2
infallibly
The difficul
y not fully
propofed.
484 Difc. 3. C. 2. Mr Stilling: fifth Chapter.
The Argu.
ment retor.
ted.
infallibly the Infallible Teftimony of the Apoftles Preaching,
with à Diuine Infallible Affent? Moft certainly they Did. Yet
the Infallibility of that Teftimony was not known (if we fpeak
ftrictly of Knowledge) but by Motiues of Credibility which
were no Obiect of their Faith (vnleſs you make faith to be Science)
but Inducements only to belieue. Ergo this very Primitiue Faith
was vnreaſonable, becauſe it was an infallible Affent built vpon
probable grounds, beyond all Proportion or degree of that
Euidence, whereby thofe pious men were moued to belieue.
Hence You Se, though the Motiues which illuftrate the Church
were in themfelues fallible, and not Metaphyfically conexed with
the Diuine Teſtimony, yet Faith grounded on that Teſtimony
cannot but be certain and infallible, and confequently muſt Tranſ
cend, or goe beyond all the degrees of Certitude appearing in
the prerequired Motiues. Mr Stillingfleet reply's. This is to require
Infallibility in the Conclufion, where the Premiles are only probable.
Anfy. He err's not knowing the nature of Faith, which Dif-
courfes not like to Science. For example. Make this Sillogifin.
Whateuer God reueal's is True, but God reueal's the Incarnation of the
Diuine VVord, Ergo that is true. The difficulty only is in the Mmo:
But God reueal's, which cannot be proued by another belieued Arti-
cle of Faith, wholly as obfcure to vs as the Incarnation is. I fay
proued by Reaſon, because the fame difficulty will be as much
moued again Concerning the Proof of that fecond belieued
And Shew'd Article, as concerning the firft of the Incarnation,and fo in Infinitum.
Proofies.
Therefore all rational Proofs auailing to beget Faith in any, muſt
of neceffity be extrinfecal to belief, and lie as it were in another
Region more clear (yet lefs certain ) than the reuealed Myſtery is,
we affent to by Faith.
Rational
4. Now to our Purpofe. We hold this an Article of Faith.
The Church is God's infallible Oracle, And therefore Say, antecedent-
ly to Faith it cannot be proued by Arguments as obfcure, or
of the fame Infallible certainty with Faith, For then Faith would
shes infalli- be fuperfluous, or rather we should belieue by à firm and infallible Affent,
before we do belieue vpon the Motiue of Gods infallible Reuela-
Proofs for
the Chur-
bility.
tion,
Difc. 3. C. 2. found weightles.
485
Haue not
the certain.
tion, which is impoffible. Hence it is that when we goe about
to Proue the Infallibility of the Church independently of Scriptu-
re, Yea, and alfo independently of all belted Church Doctrin, ry of Faith.
We muſt neceffarily Euince this rationally, by reflex Arguments
and Motiues extrinfecal to what we Belieue, which are not of the
fame certainty with Supernatural Faith it felf. Nor thefe Argu- what these
ments founded vpon the Motiues of Credibility can goe no Meriues
further (ftretch them to the vtmoft) But only to proue this great Proue.
verity. That what euer we belieue, either of Scripture, or of the
Church is moft euidently Credible aboue all things propofable
to the contrary, And this great light the learned at leaft haue
before they yeild an infallible Affent vpon Diuine Reuelation to
the very Doctrin of the Church, or Scripture either.
5. Í Say. 2. Mr Stillingfleet and all Sectaries, whilft They
Belieue with an Infallible Affent the moſt fundamental Articles in
Scripture, goe beyond all Proportion of that Euidence whereby
they are induced to Belieue. And confequently muft Solve their own
weak Argument, yet ftrong Ad bominem against them. If I
Euince not this Truth blame me boldly, And obferue my
Proof.
6. The Sectary belieues that Verity which. S. Iohn expres-
fes in this short Sentence. The word was made Flesh: That is, he
belieues the Incarnation of the Son of God with an Affent fo
infallible, that it cannot only be falfe, but that he would not
disbelieue it vpon any reafon Propofable, Though an Angel should-
preach Contrary, But neither this Act of Faith, nor its Formal
Obiect(the Diuine Reuelation) are ex terminis euidently true, Quoad
nos, yet muſt be proued Fundenly Credible to reafon
>
or Faith
becomes vnreaſonable, and rash, For, Qui cito credit luus eft corde.
Now further. None can proue this, by another Act or Article
>
Setaries goe
beyond that
Euidence
whereby
they are
induced to
beliens.
of Faith (no more its own Self-euidence than the belieued In- The Affer-
carnation is) All therefore which can be done, is to make it eui- tion, Proued,
dently Credible by Motiues extrinfecal to Belief, by vniuerfal
Tradition, and the Confent of innumerable learned men, who
haue both conueyed vnto vs the Words as Diuine Scripture,
PPP 3
and
486
Diſc. 3. C.2. Mr Stilling: fifth Chapter
Our Aducr.
and the genuine Senfe of them alfo. But this very humane
Tradition, this exteriour Confent of all, or what other Moti-
ues can be Imagined preuious to Faith, (becauſe fallible,) may
deceiue: Yet by the help of fuch fallible Motiues Mr Stilling-
fary Clearly
fleets Faith, if it reft's vpon the Diuine Reuelation is raiſed
Conuinced, higher, and ftand's firmer vpon that Ground, than the Euiden-
ce of his Motiues can induce to. Therefore he makes the
conclufion furer than the Premites, And goes beyond all Pro-
portion and degree of fallible Euidence, preambulatory to his
The Conui. certain Belief. What I Affert is manifeft. For by Faith he
dion Mani- Sayes the Incarnation is to infallibly true, that it cannot be fal-
foft. fe, Yet all the Motiues which induce him to belieue Say, Puf-
fibly it may be false, or exclude not à Poffibility of falshood.
And if this be not to Tranfcend all Proportion of his acquired
Euidence, nothing is to goe beyond it.
Another
most Con-
wincing
Proof.
Not to be an
swered.
>
7. The Argument will be yet more clear if propofed after
this manner. Mr Stillingfleet infallibly belieues the truth of
that Scripture now Quoted. I Ask by what means can he
know That this very belieued Truth is à Diuine Verity, or
Scripture The Anfwer may be, That's known vpon Tra-
dition, or the publique Authority of all, not only Chriftians
but others alſo, who haue conueyed the Book to vs. Very
good. But this Publick Authority, this Conueyance, or what
euer Tradition you will, is either of equal infallible certainty
with the Belieued Truth of Scripture, Or lefs and much weaker,
If lefs and weaker Mr Stillingfleets Faith goes beyond all
propotion and degrees of his preuious acquired Euidence,
And it be of equal infallible Certaintly (That is) If he be-
lieues as infallibly the Conueyance of thofe Words, For, or Vpon
Gods Diuine Teſtimony, as he belieues the Doctrin there con-
tained to be à Diuine Truth He makes one Article of
Faith the Proof of another, and euidently incurrs the Circle
obiected to Catholicks, as shall appear afterward, When we
examin his 170. Page, and refute his Errour concerning the Mo-
ral Certainty of Faith.
>
:
9. Now
Dife 3. C.2. found weightles.
487
Gods
in the Obie-
ction.
8. Now to the Obiection. It is not poßible, That the Affent
in matters of Faith rise higher, or stand firmer than the Affent to the
Testimony is, vpon which those things are b-lieued. Anſwer. Very
true. But know Sr, we Affent to matters of Faith
vpon
Diuine Teſtimony, and not for the Motiues which only induce
to belieue. So the Primitiue Chriftians belieued vpon Chrift's A Miftake
infallible Teſtimony, and built not their Faith vpon the ex-
teriour Motiues Euident to Senfe, which meerly confidered as
Moriues only made his Teftimony highly credible to Reafon. Viz.
That it was Diuine and infallible. Forexample. Some faw, Others One Infan
heard of our fauiours great Miracles, of his admirable Sanctity,
And then difcourfed. The Man that doth theſe wonders can- boggle as.
not but be one ſent from God. It is true, he preaches both new
and difficult Doctrin to our eares, But if he be fent from God,
we are obliged to Belieue him vpon his word,
And vpon that
Word Their Faith relyed.
ce which
> none can
9. Apply this Inftance to the Church, you haue all I would
Say. The Church is euidenced by Miracles, Sanctity of life
in Millions, by Conuerfions and the like fignal Motiues.
Here are the Inducements which proue Her Gods Oracle, and Clears all.
the Doctrin highly credible, aboue what euer all other Societies
called Chriftians haue Taught, Yet our Faith is not built
vpon theſe Motiues confidered as Inducements, but vpon Her
infallible Teſtimony. The Inftance now giuen Concerning the
moft Primitiue Belieuers is fo clear, That our Aduerfaries shall
neuer weaken the force of it, or shew the leaft Disparity.
10. And thus you fe all Mr Stillingfleets talk. P.113 Comes
to nothing. I defire Saith he to know, whether an infallible Af-
fent to the Infallibility of your Church can be grounded on thoſe Mo-
tives of Credibility? Anfw. And I defire to know whether an
A Question
Infallible Affent to the Apoftles Preaching, was grounded on anfered.
thofe Motiues which the Primitiue Chriftians faw or heard of and retorted.
before they belieued? what you fay, I'll fay. Briefly. Many
learned Diuines hold the Motiues of Credibility Metaphyfically
connexed with Gods diuine Teftimony fpeaking by the Church,
and
488
Difc. 3. C. 2. Mr Stilling: fifth Chapter
Shewed alfo
and if that opinion be true, the Motiues ground an Infallible
impertinent. Affent but that's Euidence, and no Faith, And therefore moſt im-
pertinent to your following Inference. If, (ay you, we affirm the
Motiues ground an Infallible Affent, there can be no imaginable neceßi-
ty, to make the Testimony of our Church infallible, in order to Diuine
faith. For, We Catholicks, you hope will not deny, bus that there are
at least equal Motues of Credibility to prue the Diuine Authority of
the Scriptures, as the infallibility of our Church, And if so, why may
not an Infallible affent, be giuen to the Scriptures vpon thole Motius
of Credibility, as well as to our Churches infallibility? Anfw. A
ſtrange kind of Argument.
No Motiues
make scrip-
ture cutaent-
by-credible.
Indepen.
dently of
Church Au-
thority.
II. Firſt, Sir, you know, or should know, Catholicks hold
with s. Austin, That no certainty can be had of Scripture without
Church Authority (How then do you fay, You hope we will not
deny &c). No Motiues as is proued aboue and in the other
Treatife alfo, immediatly make Scripture Credible, independently
of the Churches Tradition. No Miracles were euer heard of
which proued the book of Ruth admitted by you, more Ca-
nonical scripture, than that of ludith which you reiect. Did
any Martyr euer yet dye in defence of salomons Canticle (that's
Scripture fay you) and refufe to dye for the Book of Widom,
caft out of your Canon? Or was euer any ſoul ſooner conuerted by
reading the One, than the other? Theſe Miracles Sr, theſe
Martyrdoms, thefe Conuerfions immediatly illuftrate the Church,
and proue not à Part only but Her whole Doctrin to be
moft Euidently Credible, and worthy of belief, whilft you fe
your Signs of Diuinity and no man knowes what imagined
motiues in behalf of Scripture, as little Euidence the Books
you admit, as thofe you reiect, That is, neither indeed haue
any Self-Euidence in them, abftracting from Church Authority.
Your Euidence therefore is à ftrong fancy and nothing els.
12. But admit one had Euident Motiues for the whole
Canon or bare letter of Scripture, you haue not any ſo much
as probable for the Senfe (chiefly in Controuerted matters) which
properly is God's Reuelation, without the Churches infallible
Inter-
Difc. 3. C. 2. found weightles.
489
Interpretation. Speak, Sr, your Confcience plainly, What can
it auaile you or me, to know that the Book we read is God's No Motines
word (Seing innumerable falſe Religions by peruerfe Mifinter- for the Scrip-
tures Senfe.
pretations are drawn from thence) if that other Principle. Deus
ita dixit; God, or Truth it ſelf ſpeaks This and this particular
Senfe, lies in darkneſs concealed from vs. This Principle then.
God speak's this Senfe, being the very vltimate Refoluent and laſt
foundation of Chriftian Faith, muft, when that Senfe is Obfcure,
borrow light from no dark miſtaken fallible or doubtful Ora-
cle: But the bare letter of Scripture is dark, and grofly mifta-
ken by Heretiques, mans priuate Iudgement is fallible, our com-
paring the Scriptures Paffages together, is meerly Coniectural,
and dubious. Therefore if the certitude of Faith inuft rely vpon without the
what God has spoken (I mean the infallible Senfe of his facred
word) The Oracle which interpret's, can be no other but an Infallible
Infallible Church. And here I both Petition and vrge Secta- interpreta
ries to affign any other Surer Ground where vpon Faith can tion.
be built, feing all confefs we are obliged to belieue that Infal-
lible ſenſe, chiefly in matters they call Fundamental. This Ar-
gument alone could we fay no more, forceth euery rational
man to own à Church abfolutely infallible in Her expofition
of Scripture.
Churches
13. From whence alfo it followes firft, that Mr Stillingfleet
much mistakes Himſelf, when he Saith. Both fides I hope agree, Our Adure-
that there are fufficient Motiues of Credibility, as to the belief of Scrip- Sary mista
tures. I anfwer. There is not one firm Motiue for the true ken.
reucaled Senfe (and this only is Scripture) if we exclude Tra-
dition, and the infallible Interpretation of Gods Church. Bring
to light but one, and I am fatisfyed.
14. It followes. 2. That, that half Tradition owned by Se-
ctaries in order to the conueyance and deliuery of the Books
of Scripture, leaues them wholly Scriptureles, and as Faithles
as if they had no Bible, For it neither grounds faith imme-
diatly, because it is not God's Reuelation, but the fallible Confent of
men; Nor can it induce as à Motiue to belieue any one par- letter.
Q q q
ticular
The halfe
Tradition
for the bare
490 Difc. 3. C. 2. Mr Stilling: fifth Chapter
Not fuffi-
cient.
Sectaries
pernicious
Doctrin.
ticular Article of Chriftian Religion, without further certitude
had from the fame Churches infallible Tradition and interpre-
tation, concerning that moft weighty Point of the Scriptures
meaning. Reiect therefore this infallible Interpreter, All of vs
iuft like Arians, Macedonians, Donausts, defperatly rely vpon the
worft Guides Imaginable, our own fallacious and vngouernable-
fancies, and will needs learn of fuch giddy Teachers, the pure
interpretation of God's Word. Thefe we make our Oracles.
in lieu of Chrifts Church, and in doing fo, may eaſily afcri-
be to God à Doctrin he difdain's to own, and become He-
retiques by it. The very hazard men run in this wilful Courſe,
is an open Iniury to the Supremeft Verity, vnauoidable in our
Sectaries Principles.
15. And here by the way, you fe the Vanity of that per-
nicious Doctrin published by them, wherewith the world is
cheated. Viz. The Senfe of Scripture is plain enough, euen to the
vnlearned, in things neceffary to Saluation, in other matters not necef-
fary, à right Faith an vnerring Guide, an infallible Interpreter, Seem
vfeles and fuperfluous, As if forfooth, the Arians, Pelagians, Ne-
ftorians, had not grofly erred in Points moft neceffary, though
Concerning they read the fame plain Scripture, which we all read. Did then
of Scripture, that fuppofed Clearnefs nothing fecure them from Herefy in
Neceffaries? Why should it,I befeech you,refcue Sectaries (wholly
as fallible) from grofs errours in other matters, when the words
of Scripture are more expreſs againſt them, than againſt the
worft of Arians. But hereof enough is faid aboue.
the Clearness
16. It followes. 3. That no Chriftian has ftability in Faith
but the Roman Catholick, for the moſt which others, no mem-
bers of this Church, can know (if yet they know fo much) is,.
That the Books of Scripture are Gods word, but with this half
piece of imperfect Learning, they neither know nor can belieue
The Roman one particular Article of Chriftian Faith, becauſe that other
Catholick Principle, the laft Refoluent of all Belief, God speaks infallibly
only has Sta- this very Senfe, has no influence ouer their Affent, and therefore
bility in
is reiected by them as impertinent to ground Faith vpon. One
Faith.
>
inftance
Difc. 3. C. 2. found weightles.
491
inftance will giue you more light.
17. The Arian and Proteftant agree thus farr, That thoſe
words. Iohn. 1. 5. 9. Three giue Teftimony in heauen &c. are Di Both Arians
uine Scripture, yet fo vary about the meaning, and the diffe- and Prote-
rence is in à matter moft fundamental, that the One Affent's Restants
to the facred Trinity for thefe words, which yet the Other im- want à Sta
bility.
pioufly denies. Say now, vpon what infallible Principle doth
the Proteftants faith ftand more firm, than that of the Arian?
Will Mr Stillingfleet fay the Scripture is Clear? The Arian
takes him off that Plea, and endeauours to obfcure the paffage,
by adding to it no fmall number of his Arian Gloffes. Next And why?
he Argues thus ad hominem, and thinks no wrong at all done.
Can yee Sectaries belieue that your gloffes laid vpon, thofe
Scriptures which Catholicks produce againſt you, are ſtrong
enough to diuert, and peruert the Senfe or Interpretation of
their Vniuerfal Church, and shall my gloffes oppofite to your
Doctrin, haue no force to diuert or weaken the late, priuate,
inuented Senſe of à few Lutherans ? What law is there for
this? I call it late and priuate as it comes from you, for you
difdain to ground it vpon any Church Authority abfolutly in-
fallible, in all She teaches. Therefore it is your own Priuate
Senfe, and not the Churches. O but the Church of Rome in
this particular interpret's Scripture faithfully, though She err's in
other matters. Pitiful. That is, She hitt's right when You'l
giue leaue, and miffes when you think otherwife.
18.
How the
&
rian argues
against Se-
aries.
His Argu.
ment Con
One may Say again. The whole Orthodox world euer
proued the Mysterious Trinity from that alleged Paffage of
Scripture. Contra, Replies the Arian, I, and my Adherents who
deny the Myftery, hold our Selues as precious à Part of the
Orthodox world as you Proteftants doe, And hope we expound
Scripture by the help of our priuate Reafoning and comparing inces,
Texts together, as well as you. Why not I beseech you? Or
giue à Disparity. But fay on, And the conteft is ended. Ha-
ue you any Oracle, which more infallibly Aſcertain's you of that
Senfe of Scripture to be as you glofs, then we haue who giue
Q992
it
492 Difc. 3. C. 2. Mr Stilling: fifth Chapter &c.
it à quite contrary Interpretation, For hitherto we are both
alike, and expound all by our priuate Iudgements. Grant
fuch an Oracle (Diftinct from Scripture) whereby you haue
Affurance of God's meaning darkly expreffed in thoſe words,
you become plane Papifts; Own not Any Infallible, you caft
your Selues
vpon as great Vncertainties as we Arians are thrown,
who expound Scripture by our own natural Difcourfe. No
No Orthodox infallible Church therefore, no Stability in faith, no Stability
world, wi-
in faith, that fpecious word of an Orthodox VVorld Signifies no-
thing, For this I Defend, and haue Proued it, if all Churches
be fallible in their Definitions, there neither is, nor euer was
fince Chrifts time any fuch thing in being, as an Orthodox
VVorld.
thout an
Infallible
Church,
The distinct
Marks of
true Belie.
Hers, and
All Here-
sicks.
19.
7
It followes. 4. That as it has euer been the proper
Mark or Character of all faithful Belieuers to yeild Submiffion
to the Churches Doctrin, though weak reafon conceiues it dif
ficult, fo Contrarywife, ftubbornly to refift Church Authority
has euer been infeparably the Mark and Badge of all Hereti
ques, whether ancient or modern. With this virulent Spirit
they began to Oppofe God's Oracle, and held on for à time,
But as S. Auftin obferues at laft ended in shame Conterentur
faith the Saint, the battered Rock of the Catholick hitherto
ftand's firm, maugre that Violence, And their Scattered forces.
routed and broken, as experience tells vs, are brought to no-
thing.
CHAP. II
Difc. 3. C. 3. More of this Subiect c.
&c.
493
CHAP. III.
More of this fubiect. Obiections Answered. A word to
M: Stillingfleets forcelefs Inftances. Motiues of
credibility euer Precede Faith. VVhether
1.
W
the rational Evidence of the Truth
of Chrift's Doctrin, can be à
Morine to belieue it.
Hat followes in Mr Stillingfleets. 3. or. 4 next
Pages, feem's fo flight that the very moſt is refuted
by the grounds already eftablished, Yet to Comply with the
mans humour, we muft follow him further. How Saith He
can you make the Affent to your Churches Testimony to be Infallible, when
that infallibility is attempted to be proued only by the motiues of Credibility ?
I Anſwer. Iuft as you make the Affent of the Primitiue Chriftians
giuen to the Apoſtles preaching infallible, So I make the Affent
to the Churches Teftimony infallible. The Motiues are alike
in both Caſes, if not greater for the Church.
>
the
The first
Argument
retorted.
2. He Obiects. 2. If Diuine Faith, cannot be built vpon the Mo-
siues prouing the Doctrin of Christ, what fenfe is there that it should.
be built vpon thoſe Motiues which proue our Churches infallibility
Here is the old Miſtake again. I Anfwer therefore. Diuine Faith
is not built vpon the Motiues inducing to belieue, but
but vpon
Infallible Teftimony of Chrift, and his Church. The Motiues
ground the Iudgement of Credibility, The Infallible Testimony Sup- The Second
port's Diuine Faith. Now if by this word, Built, you mean no is à gross
more but rationally, To induce, I fay none in this prefent State Miflake.
can be induced to belieue Chrift's Doctrin reuealed in Scripture,
in cafe he reiect's the Authority of that euidenced Church
299.3
which
494
Diſc. 2. C. 3. More of this Subiect.
The third
retorted, and
answered,
A Discovery
of the whole
Fallacy.
Obiections
grounded on
Inftance.
which both Afcertains him of the Canon, and the Senfe alfo.
Hence, That other Obiection fall's to nothing. How can there
be an infallible Affent to the truth of this Propofition: Scriptures are
the word of God, when that Infallibility at the highest is but euidently
Credible? I Anſwer and retort the Argument. How could the
Primitiue Chriſtians Affent to the Apoftles preaching as infallible,
when that infallibility at the higheft, was but Euidently Credible,
before they belieued?
3. The whole Confufion lies, as is faid, in not Diftinguishing
between Faith, and the ludgement of Credibility. Infallibility the-
refore, whether we Affent to Chrift, to his Apoftles, or to the
Church (all taught one and the fame Doctrin) is the Obiect of
Diuine Faith, but none euer affented to any Doctrin thefe Ora-
cles taught, infallibly, without fufficient Euidence preuiouſly had
of its Credibility. And thus I belieue by Faith Scripture to be
God's word, becauſe the Church Saith fo, But if you Ask
why I hold all the Church Teaches to be Eudently Credible,
I
Euince not this truth by the Infallibility I belleue, But recurr to
thoſe Motiues whereby She is proued an Oracle as euidently Cre-
dible, as euer any Apoftle was, And confequently I belieue Her
Infallibility with the fame Diuine Faith, as I belieue the Words
of Scripture.
4. Page 114. He Obiect's. 3. We-Catholicks make by this
Day of refoluing Faith euery man's reason the only Iudge in the Choife
of his Religion. Why doe we more fo, I beseech you, than the
Primitiue Chriftians, who certainly had the very like rational
Motiues with ours, and no other, before they belieued? But of
this Subiect we shall treat largely towards the End of this Dif
courfe.
5. Page. 115. He Saith. If the Infallibility of the Church of
Rome, be à jure foundation of Faith, what will become of the Faith, of
all those who received Diuine Reuelations, without the Infallibility of any
Church at all? And he brings in thefe Inſtances. Firſt, of the Apoſt-
les belieuing the Diuine Authority of the old Teftament when Chrift
fuffered, which certainly was not Grounded on the infallible Testimony of
the
Difc. 2. C. 3. Obiections Answered.
495
the lewish Church, for at that time it confented to the Death of the
Meßias. 2. Of all that belieued the woman of Samaria ( no infal
lible Oracle) when She declared the Diſcourſe between Chrift our
Lord and her felf. 3. Of fuch as belieued our Sauiours Doctrin
and Miracles related by men honeft and faithful. Theſe, Saith
he, had no infallible Teftimony, but only à rational Euidence to build Farth
вроп, and confequently an Infallible Testimony of the Conu yers of Diuine
Reuelation is Fnneceſſary to Diuine Faith, which feem's vndoubted,
For very few in the firft Ages of the Chriftian Church recei-
ued the Doctrin of the Gofpel, from the mouths of perfons in-
fallible.
6. By the way I much wonder, Why Mr Stillingfleet omitted
to touch here vpon an other Inftance farr more difficult, which
both he and all other muſt ſolue concerning rude and illiterate
Perfons (chiefly if of no great maturity) who are induced to
belieue by the Teftimony, or Inftruction of their Parents, or of
fone other fimple Teachers. Thefe certainly may haue Faith,
without acquiring that full Euidence of Credibility whereunto
the learned reach, yea, and without any Difcouery of the Scrip-
tures rational Euidence, neuer perhaps heard of, much leſs vn-
derſtood by them.
Another in-
fance more
difficult.
eumstances
7. Now I Anfwer to the Obiection. None makes the
Roman Catholick Church in all Circumftances the only fure
foundation of Diuine Faith, For the firft man that belieued in
Christ our Lord before the Compleat Eftablishment of His Church, The Church
had Perfect Faith refting on that great Mafter of Truth, without in all Cir-
dependance on the Chriftian Church, For Chrift alone was not
the Church, But the fupreme Head of it. Faith therefore in
General requires no more, but only to rely vpon God the first
Verity speaking by this or that Oracle, by one or more men
lawfully fent to teach, who proue their Miffion and make the
Doctrin propofed by them Euidently Credible.
In like manner,
the Apoftles preached no Doctrin in the name of the new
Chriſtian Church, whilft our Sauiour liued here on earth, But
Teftified that he was the true Meffias by virtue of thofe Signs
and
was not the
only Foun-
dation of
Faith.
496
Difc. 2. C. 3. More of this Subiect.
The Miſtake
of the first
Inſtance.
Suppoſed
true its
forceles.
The Apoſtles
failed not in
Faith.
and Miracles, which had been already wrought aboue the force
of nature. Thus much Suppofed.
8. It is hard I think for any to Say, where the force lies in
that Inſtance of the Apoſtles belieuing the Diuine Authority of
the old Testament, which innumerable lewes then difperfed all Iury
ouer, and the other parts of the world (not at all conicious of
Chriſt's Paffion) moft firmly belieued. Why therefore might not
the Apoſtles belieue the Diuinity of the old Scripture vpon
the Authority of that Church, whereof there were at that time
many and very many Profeffors in other places diftant from
Hierufalem? Hence I fay the Belief of that Article neuer fai-
led, But was alwayes preferued entire in both Churches of the
lewes and Chriftians, for we all yet belieue the Authority of the
old Teftament, And Confequently its hard to Conceiue what
this Obiection aymes at.
9. Again, admit à total Subuerfion of the Jewish Church,
Had not the Apoftles our Bleffed Lord prefent who could
well Aſcertain them that he came not to Cancel any Diuine
Authority of Scripture (for this was impoffible vnlefs God be
contrary to God) but to fulfil, to perfect, and change the old
Law into à better State. O but the High Prieft and the El-
ders alfo erred in confenting to Chrifts death. Very true, and
the Reaſon is becauſe their Priuiledge of not erring, lafted only
to Chrift's comming and not longer, But hence it followes not,
that then there was no Iewish Church which belieued the Diui-
ne Verities of the old Scripture. I verily think, Mr Stillingfleet
miftook one Obiection for another. Perhaps he would haue
faid, that the Apoſtles loft faith of our Sauiours Reſurrection,
at the time of his Paffion
at the time of his Paffion, But this Difficulty is folued ouer
and ouer. Firſt it is Anſwered, that Article was not fufficiently
Propoſed to them, Therefore we read. Luke. 18. 34. They vn-
derstood none of these things. This word was hid from them. Again.
Had they failed in Faith ar that time, They were then as Bel-
larmin obferues. Lib: 3. de Ecclefia. C. 17. neither the whole
Church (but only material Parts of it) nor could that impro-
bable
Difc. 2. C. 3. ObieElions Anſwered.
49>
bable Suppoſed Errour, haue preiudiced one whit the Faith of
others, who firmly belieued in Chriſt.
The other
Instance
The Sama-
ritan
woman pro.
pofed what
She had
beard,
10. That other Inftance of the Samaritan woman is foon clea-
red, if we diftinguish between the Motiue, or the natural Propo-
fition of Faith which comes by hearing, and the infallible Ora-
cle wherevpon it relies, And Tis ftrange Mr Stillingfleet faw and
not the Diftinction. The Faith therefore of thofe other Sa-
maritans that belieued in Chrift vpon the wonans word, Vis
timately relyed vpon our Sauiours own Authority who had
conuerfed with her, And hence the Goſpel Sayes. Now De
Belieue not for thy Saying, for we our Selues baue beard, and kme™
that this man, in very deed, is the Sauiour of the world. Tis
true, had this woman, whom the Fathers Suppofe perfectly con-
uerted to Chrift, been made an Infallible Oracle in all she deli-
uered, as the Apoftles were in their Teaching, or the Church
now is. Her Teſtimony might well haue fupported Faith, but
becauſe thus much only can be euinced by Scripture, that She
zealouſly Propoſed what She had heard of our Sauiour, Her tefti-
mony alone might ferue well as à natural Propofition to raiſe Be-
lief in others, though infufficient to ground in them that Super
natural Affent, And her words had vpon this Account greater
weight, becaufe She confirmed them with à Sign aboue the force
of Nature. This man has told me all I haue done. I know ſome
Authors are of opinion, that this Samaritan called Photina firſt
reduced to the Faith of Chrift her Sifters and Children, which
done, She went into Affrica, and there Propagated the Chri-
ftian Doctrin with great Succeffe, till at laft both She and her Differe
Children were crowned with à glorious Martyrdom. The only Opinions
difficulty is, whether She be the fame with that S. Photinu whe- Conterning
reof à memory is kept in the Roman Martyriloge the. 20. day her.
of March, fome Greek Authors ftand for the Affirmatiue, Be it
fo or other wide, it imports little to our prefent Purpoſe. Who
defires more of this Subiect may read the erudite Godefridus
Henshenius. Tom. 3. de Santis Martÿ die. 20. immediatly after
the life of S. Ioachim.
Rrr
11. Con-
498
Difc.
•3. C.3. More of this Subiect.
Other In.
Bances
"Show'd for
seles.
In Dedrin
Commonly
receiusd.
II.
Conformable to this Doctrin we Anfwer to theſe other
forceles Inftances, and might fay with fome good Diuines, That
all Immediate Propounders or Conueyers of Diuine Reuelation
in fuch particular Cafes, need not ro be Infallible, For Faith
(as Thefe Diuines Teach) requires no more; But first that the
Obiect be truly reuealed, and Propofed to one vpon prudent
Motiues, Suitable to the firm Affent Hee muft elicite. 2. That
by the light of fuch Motiues Hee be induced to fix Belief vpon
the Diuine Reuelation, although that full Euidence of Credi-
bility which the Church Manifefteth and the more learned attain
to be not yet acquired by him. Thefe Conditions prefup-
pofed, Diuine Grace is euer ready to make that mans Faith
moſt firm and fupernatural, And confequently an Obligation
lies on him to belieue. But from this Doctrin which is Com-
mon, no fuch thing followes as Mr Stillingf. would infer. Viz.
That the Churches infallibility Seem's vnneceffary to vphold
infallible Faith, for may not young Beginners growing more.
mature (chiefly if folicited to abandon Their firft Faith) iuftly de-
mand to haue more full Satisfaction in all their doubts, and fo
much Affurance concerning that they once affented to, as not
to be remoued from it vpon any falfe Motiues or fallacious
Arguments, thongh neuer fo Specious? Such cafes (Say thefe)
fall out euery day.
12. But in this prefent State, none can clear thefe doubts,
none can Affure any that his Faith is certainly true, none can
bring the moft learned to à perfect acquiefcency in Belief
The Chur- but an Infallible Church, Therefore vpon this very Account
bes Infalli. Her infallibility is proued not only conuenient, but abfolutely
bility abfolu
tely neceffa. Neceffary. And hence it is, That Gods facred Prouidence. neuer
failed fince Chriſtianity began, to haue in readines Some one
or other infallible known Oracle, wherevpon faith might reft
moft Securely. The Apoftles had for their Mafter the beft
liuing Oracle, Christ our Lord. The Primitiue Chriftians learned
of the Apoftles. After them the Church perfectly founded did
fucceed, as the only Oracle wherevnto euery one may take
xy,
recourfe
Difc. 3. C.3. Obiections Answered.
499
recourſe for further Satisfaction when difficulties arife, Though
in fome particular Cafes, as is now Said, Her Motiues and
glorious Miracles, be not at the firſt laid forth moſt fully
to euery fimple Belieuer. Ceteram turbam, faith S. Aufiin, con
tra Epift. Fund. C. 4. non intelligendi riuacitas, fed credendi fimplicitas
faluam facit. That is. Candid Simplicity, makes thefe more How young
fafe, than curiouſly to fearch into the vltimate grounds of Be- Beginners
lieuing. The Reafon is, becauſe fewer Motiues (if yet prudent
and Conuincing) may well ferue to induce Beginners, feldom
molefted with Difficulties againſt Faith, than will conuince O-
thers more learned, who often ftruggle to Captiuate their Vn-
derſtanding, when the high Myfteries of Chriftianity are Pro-
pofed.
,
>
are drawn.
And both reà
13. Moreouer, many great Doctors maintain, that in the Two Solu-
particular cafes now mentioned, God by his fpecial Illumination tions more.
Supplies the want of the exteriour Propofition when that's de-
ficient or lefs conuincing. See Suarez. Difp. 4. de Fide fect. 5.
and this way alſo we eafily folue Mr Stillingfleets difficulties.
Laſtly it is noted in the other Treatife. Difc. 1. C. 2. n. 5. 6.
That whoeuer is lawfully fent to teach the Chriſtian doctrin,
and deliuers thofe Truths in the name of God and his Church,
if confidered, as à member couioyned with Christs infallible Oracle,
He may be Said to teach infallibly. The Reafons you haue
there giuen more largely.
ceived De-
arin
torted,
De
14. I am now to retort Mr Stillingfleets Inftances vpon him-
felf and show, That though he walk's neuer fo far abroad to
view the feueral Plantations of Faith amongst either Brittans or
Barbarians, he muft folue his own difficulties Thus I difcour-
fe. We now Suppoſe, All theſe Barbarians Conuerted to Chrift These In-
flances r:=
to haue had true Faith, and Confequently prudent Motiues to
belieue, before they firmly affented to the Diuine Reuelatlon.
We make Enquiry after theſe, and Ask: By what Inducements
were fuch as yet knew not our Sauiour, drawn to belieue in
him? Mr Stillingfleet return's the ftrangeft Anfwer I euer heard, what our
For he feem's to make his Motiues inducing to Faith nothing Aduerfary
but afferis.
Rrr 2
500
Diſc.3. C. 3. More of the Subiect.
but the rational Euidence of the truth of the Doctrin deliuered, and
Therefore grieuously complains. P. 118. That we destroy the
Obligation to Faith, which arifeth from the rational Euidence of Chri-
ftian Religion. If this be not pure Fancy there was neuer any,
and my Reafon is. That Suppofed rational Euidence, is either
the very fame with the intrinfecal Verity of the Doctrin deli-
wered, or à rational intellectual Light diftinct from the Doctrin.
His rational If it be the very fame, Thefe truths fimply Propofed. Chrift
Euidence of is God and man, Adam infected his pofterity with Original Sin. God
25. one Effence and three Perfons, are without more their own
Self-euidences, and confequently all the Miracles which Chrift
and his Apoftles wrought to fettle thefe, and the like Veri-
ties firm in the Primitiue Belieuers, were to as little Purpo-
fe, as if one should raife the dead to perfwade vs that the
Sun shines, or (if we fpeak of Moral certainty) that there
haue been fuch men in the world as Pompey and Iulius Cafar,
which is enormously vntrue.
Christian
Religion
Reifted,
Andretorted.
15. Contrariwife if he Saith, This rational Euidence ne-
ceffarily implies à preuious intellectual Diſcourſe grounded on
prudent Motiues, diftinct from the Verity of Chrifts Doctrin,
He firft cashier's his own fancied Euidence. And 2. muft
Anſwer to the Inftances propofed, And. 3. Affent to this
true vniuerfal Propofition. Viz. That neuer any belieued, or can
belieue (if we abſtract from priuate Reuelations) without Matiues
diftinct from Christs Doctrin, (fit to induce Faith) And an Infallible
Testimony to ground Faith ppon. Thus the Samaritan woman,
and thoſe who heard her Relation, being firft induced by pre-
cedent fignes to iudge that Chrift was à Prophet. I perceive
thou art à Prophet Saies the Text (and perhaps his Goodnes
added more interiour light to ftrengthen thofe Signes) firmly
belieued vpon his infallible word. Iefus faid to her I am be
(the Meſſias) that ſpeaks with thee. Neither can any Inſtance
be giuen where true Faith is, But you haue with that very
Neceſſary to Faith, Prudent Motiues Propofed to reafon, as Inducements, And be-
all Faith, fides an Infallible Oracle to ground it upon. O, but euery imme-
is
Prudent Mo
tiues and an
Infallible
Oracle.
diate
Diſc 3. C. 3. Obiections Answered.
501
diate Propounder of the Diuine Teftimony is not infallible.
Be it fo at prefent, What matters that? If he leads me to
one which giues me à clearer Euidence of Credibility, and
God's
proues Himfelfe by Motiues aboue the force of nature,
Oracle.
>
A Proof 14-
ken from the
Conuerfions
of Christ's
Disciples.
16. Some thing of this nature we haue in the firſt Con-
uerfion of Chrifts Difciples obn. 1. 44. Philip, Saith the
Text, meeting with Nathanaël told him.
We have found Iefus
the ſon of Iofeph of Nazareth, whom Mofes in the Lay and the Prophis
wrote of: Nathanaël wondred. What can there be any good from
Nazareth? Philip anſwered. Vent & ride. Come and fe.
Drawing neer He vnderftood that our Sauiour knew his Inte-
riour, where in there was no Guile, and beheld him vnder the fig-
tree before he was called: Thus enlightened by Signs aboue
the natural knowledge of man, forthwith that true Profeffion
of his Faith followed. Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art
the King of Ifrael. In like manner it may eafily fall out if
one not very learned treat with another wholly illiterate (yet The Appli-
morally honeft) that has heard little of Chrift or his Church,
He who would inftruct, Sayes no more But, Veni & vide.
Come I will bring you to an Oracle right able to teach you,
we call it the Catholick Church, She can show you who
laid Her foundations firm, She will conuince your vnderftan-
ding by the efficacy of fuch Motiues, (Miracles, Conuerfions, and
Sanctity of life) which far furpaſs the power of natural caufes.
Now after you haue feen and heard what I Say to be moſt
true Belieue not vpon my word (for I only point at the O-
racle) but vpon the Churches own Teftimony, She is without
Guile, and cannot deceiue you.
>
>
17. And here by the way you fe how differently the Se-
tary and Catholick proceed, in the Conuerfions of an Vn-
belieuer, whether Heathen or other. The firft only open's à
Bible, and without further Motiues but what are found the
re, bidd's him read the Book. This yet vnconuerted man Saies
the fenfe is dark, He vnderftand's it not. The Catholick on
Rrr 3
the
cation.
How diffe-
rently the
Catholick
Doctors, and
Series
proceed.
302
Difc. 3. C. 3. More of the Subiect.
In the Con-
מי
sertion of
Fatelieuers.
The Inftan-
ces of Barbe-
nians proued
forceles,
The reafon
bere sf.
,
the other fide, Propofès à Church euidenced by the very fame
Marks and Signes, whereby our Sauiour and his Apoftles were
manifefted to be Oracles lent from God. This Church both
proues that the Bible is of Diuine Infpiration, And mereouer
declares its Senfe in all controuerted Paffages. Finally after
Her Motiues laid forth, She remit's euery one to Chrifts own
words He that hears you bears me, and our Sauiour remit's vs
to his Eternal Father, for he Affures all. 1obn. 7. 16. That the
Doctrin deliuered by him was not his, but bis Fathers that (ent him.
And here is the laft ground of all Diuine Faith, which ftand's
faft vpon three ftrong Principles neuer yet at variance with
one another. The Church, Chrif our Lord, and God the firft Veri-
1. Confider I beseech you which of the two Teachers pro-
ceed's more rationally.
>
18. You fe moreouer thofe Inftances of the Brittans and
Barbarians brought to nothing, For ſuppoſe firſt, which ſome
Authors aflert, that S. Peter Prince of the Apofties Preached in
Brittany or England, Or that S. Paul, Simon Cananaw furnamed
the Zealous, Aristobulus à Roman, and S. Iofeph of Arimathia
performed that Apoftolical function there, (whether fo or no
I difpute not). Suppofe again, And herein all agree, that Eng-
land receiued the Chriftian faith very early, For it is as certain
that King Lucius and his Subiects, were conuerted by s. Damianus
and his Affociates, fent to preach by that holy Pope and Martyr
Elutheries about one hundred and eighty years after Chrift; As
it is indubitable, that the English Saxons were afterward Con-
uerred by s. Augustin and his followers fent by S. Gregory the great
in the fix Century, to do that moſt worthy and laudable Duty.
Vpon theſe Suppofitions you fec, that the firft Preachers were
Apoftolical men, and priuiledged by our Sauiour to work Mi-
racles, Mark. 16. 20. Thoſe others in the two following Con-
uerfions received their Commiffion from Popes, held à ſtrict
Vnion with the Roman Catholick Church, and finally made
their Doctrin euidently Credible by great Sanctity, and other
Signal wonders, as known Hiſtory recounts.
19. Some
Diſc.3. C. 3. Obiections Anſwered.
503
19. Some may reply. All thefe Conuerfions would haue
been eafily wrought, had thofe Preachers only made our Sauiours
Miracles known, and done none Themelues. I Anfver firit,
Done they were and preiudiced nothing, but rather highly aduan-
ced the Glory of our Sauiours wonders, Yea and as experience A Reply
teaches, yet notably facilitate the Conuerfion of Infidels euery Anfrered.
where, when God is pleafed to work them by his Seruants. The-
refore the Apoſtles were impowred not only to Testify that the
Meffias did Miracles, but moreouer to do the like themfelues,
And for this reaſon, Almighty God has euer hitherto prefèrued,
and will hereafter preferue that fingular Grace of working Mi-
racles in the Church. I Anfrer 2. None can haue infallible
Affurance either of our Sauiours Miracles, or of any other Ve-
rity recorded in Scripture, independently of fome actual lining,
actual infallible, and moft clear eusdenced Orale by Signes aboue the Prudent
force of Nature, which in this prefent State is the Church, And
therefore I faid à great Truth, That Diuine Faith had in all
Ages that neceffary Expedient of rational Motiues to induce it,
an Infallible Oracle to teach it, and finally to rely on.
20.
Motiues in.
duce to
Faith and
48 infalli-
ble Oracle
Support is.
An valear
Hence we eafily Antwer Mr Stillingfleets Queftion. P. 118.
What, Saith he, cannot men haue vnqueftionable Affurance that there
Das fuch à Perfon as Chrift in the world who dyed for us, if the preſent
Church be not infallible. Anfiv. You might, Sr, haue propofed à
wifer Queſtion. Know I beseech you That in the forenamed Pro-
polition. There was ſuch à Man as Chrift who lived in the world, and
dyed for vs, Two things may be Confidered. First, That the new Obiec
man called Chrift dyed on à Crofs, And this Verity, as we fayd tion answe
aboue, Once viſible, both lewes and Gentils yet Affent to vpon
Moral Certainty, but therefore do not belieue in Chriſt. The
Reaton is Manifeft (and it vtterly deftroyes your Doctrin) becau-
fe that Common report, or Moral Certainty is not God's in-
fallible Reuelation, which only can fupport Faith.
21. The fecond thing to be confidered is. That the man
called Chrift dying for vs, was the only Meßias, truly God, the
Redeemer of Mankind. Here you haue the hidden Verities of
Chritian
red,
504 Difc. 3. C. 3. More of this Subiect .
&c.
The true
Church
denoted.
The fubiect
biluy.
cChriftian Religion, the Certain Obiects of Faith Conueyed vn-
to vs, by no Moral Affurance but folely vpon God's Infalli-
ble Reuelation, whereof more preſently.
To the
22. Page. 119. He tell's vs firft. We cannot fay, what or
where that Church is which we fuppofe infallible. Nor. 2. What in
that Church is the proper Subiect of infallibility, Nor. 3. What kind
of Infallibility this is. Nor. 4. How we can know when the Church
Defin's infallibly. Here is very flight Matter to work on.
firft we Anſwer. The Church, which we do not barely Sup-
pofe, but haue already proued Infallible, is that diffufed Society
of Chriftians (vnited in one Faith vnder one Head) which is
moft difcernable from all Societies, by the fame euident Marks
of truth, that Chriſt and his Apoſtles manifefted to the world.
To the. 2. We haue both Anfwered and retorted the Argu-
ment in the other Treatife, where it is Said. The Church may
of Infalli be confidered, Firſt as it is Docens, or Teaching, And thus Her Repre-
fentatiue moral Body, the Pope, I mean and Council affembled
together, for the Reafons alleged. Chap. 17. is the proper Su-
biect of Infallibility: Again if we confider the Church as it is
Difcens, learning, or taught, All thofe diffuſed multitudes of Chri-
ftians that are vnited in one belief, and own due Submiffion
to their lawful Paftors, becauſe they belieue as the Church
Reprefentatiue teaches, may be rightly ftyled vpon the Account
whence In of their infallible Faith, the proper Subiect of Infallibility. And
muſt not our Aduerfaries who hold à Society of men infallible
in Fundamentals folue this Difficulty, and Declare in what Su-
biect that half Infallibility is lodged? To the. 3. we haue An-
fwered. Chap. 16. This infallibility which proceed's from the
Special Affiftance of the Holy Ghoft, is of fuch à Nature,That,
that Bleſſed Spirit will neuer permit the Church instructing, to
Define à falshood, nor the inftructed, Vniuerfally to fail in faith.
To the. 4. I Anfwer. Then we know the Church Defin's in-
fallibly, when She obliges all vnder Anathema, to belieue her Doc-
trin, and when the Doctrin is fo fufficiently propofed to her
Subiects, that it cannot be morally doubted of. But enough of
From
fallibility
Procetd's?
,
thele
3.
&c.
Difc. C. 4. The certainly of Faith c. 505
thefe Strengthles difficulties, examined and folued à hundred ti-
mes ouer. May better be expected hereafter? We shall fe that
in the following Chapter.
CHAP. IV.
More of Mr Stilling fleets Errours. Of that odd kind of
Faith he feem's to maintain, grounded on Moral
Certainty. VVhat Influence the Motiues of Cre-
dibility haue vpon Faith? Other Parcels
of his Doctrin Examined, and refu
1.
A
ted. Obiections Solued.
Fter Mr Stillingfleet had faid, All may haue vnqueftio-
!
nable Affurance of our Sauiours once being in the Mr Stiling
world, though the prefent Church were fallible, He tells vs fleets
again, that the Affurance of the matters of fact, which are the founda- Doârim.
tions of Faith, is neceffary, in order to the obligation to belieue, And
then add's. I mean fuch an affurance as matters of fact are capable
of, for no higher can be required than the nature of the things will bear.
He goes on in his Ignorance. Cannot we haue vnquestionable Affuran-
ce, that there were fuch perfons as Cafar and Pompey Without ſome infal-
lible Teflimony? If we may in fuch things, VV'hy not in other Matters
of fact, which infinitly more concern vs, though the Church_ftamp_not
her Infallibility vpon them? The man you fee would fay, That
thefe verities. Chrift dyed for vs, is our only Redeemer, truly
God and man, being Matters of fact and foundations of
Faith, are conueyed to vs vpon no higher certainty than Moral
only, For the nature of them, iuft like that Affurance we haue
of à Cafar, and Pompey, bear's no greater. Hence he alfo tell's
Sss
*
>
VS.
506
Difc. 3. C. 4. The certainly of Faith.
Explained
by himselfe
The Doc.
vs. P. 206. that Moral certainty, may be as great as Mathematical
and Phyfical, Suppofing as little reason to doubt in moral things, as to
their Nature, as in Mathematical and Phyfical, as to theirs. And
afterward. There can be no greater than this Moral Certainty, of the
mam foundations of all Religion. Reflect Chriftian Reader. But
trinis dan the Verities now inentioned. Chrift is our Redeemer: The only Meßias,
truly God aud Man, are the main foundations of Chriftian Religion,
And Conueyed to vs by moral certainty, Therefore Mr Stilling-
fleet laies the whole weight of Chriſtian Religion, hitherto held
infallibly true, vpon à certainty which may be falfe. By this con-
fuſed and vndigefted Diſcourſe, I, hope all will perceiue, what it
is to write Controuerfies, with half an Infight into Difficul-
gerous
Moſt erro.
weous,
A two fold
Probation,
ties.
2. I proue it first both indigefted and erroneous by this vn-
And Proued deniable Principle. No Authority in Heauen or earth deliuered
thefe Verities (Christ is the true Meßias. Christ is God and Man )
vpon Moral Certainty only, Ergo, None can belieue them with
fo weak an Affent, as is only Moral. The Confequence is clear,
For if no Authority conueyed or deliuered the Verities as Mo-
rally certain only, And I Affent to them with à Belieue only Mo-
rally Certain, my Affent is giuen to fome Authority which hath
no Being either in Heauen or earth. Or, Argue thus, and you
Conuince. If all Authority Imaginable, wherevpon Faith can
depend, Conueyed or deliuered thefe Verities both as Infallible
Truths, and infallibly, And I Affent to the Doctrin with à Belie-
fe not infallible, but only morally Certain, I leaue by my fallible
moral Affent, the true Infallible teaching and Conueying Oracles
of Chriſtian Doctrin, and belieue vpon à meer fancied Autho-
rity, which was neuer impowred to Conuey God's Verities to
any.
3. Now that all Authority (wherevpon Faith can depend)
AllTeachers deliuered the forementioned Verities Infallibly, is Manifeft.
of Chriftian God's Reuelation, was and is infallible. Chrift our Lord and
conueyed it
the Apoſtles taught thefe Doctrins Infallibly. The Orthodox
Infallibly, Church, Diſclaim's this petty way of conueying and teaching Chri-
Doctrin
>
ftian
Difc. 3. C. 4. More than moral only.
507
༣་
ftian Doctrin fallibly. Therefore No Authority can be concei-
ued, which deliuered fuch Verities (owned euen by Sectaries effen-
tial Doctrins) vpon Moral Certainly only, or Conueyed them
fallibly to Any.
4. Hence you fe firſt. This Dilemma cannot be Anſwered.
Either we belieue, That our Sauiour is the rue Meßias ( the like
is of all other Myfteries) becauſe God reuealed it, And becauſe A Diliman
Chriſt himſelfe, His Apoſtles, and the Vniuerfal Church euer
fince taught the Doctrin; Or Contrarywife, we belieue it vpon
fome other Authority Inferiour to, and diftinct from the Infal-
lible Teftimony of thefe Oracles. Grant the first, our Faith
ftand's firm vpon à Teftimony both Diuine and Infallible, and
therefore Cannot but be Infallible. Say. 2. We belieue
another Authority diſtinct from the Teftimony of the Oracles
now named, that mifplaced Aflent, becauſe not refoluable into
the firft Verity, is no Faith at all.
vpon
5. You fe. 2. Whoeuer attempt's to turn thefe high reuea-
led Verities out of their onw nature of being Infallible, Or
rashly prefumes, to conuey that Doctrin to vs vpon Moral cer-
tainty only, which God by Diuine Reuelation, Chrift our Lord,
The Apoſtles alfo deliuered and Conueyed, as moſt infallible
certain Doctrin, Becomes thereby à publick Corrupter of Di-
uine Truths vpon this account, that He transfigures what the
firft Verity has fpoken Infallibly, into weak Topicks and vn-
certain Moralities. The Offence is Criminal, and the wrong
done to God not pardonable, without à ferious Repentance.
A 2. Infe-
rence.
6. You fe. 3. That No Authority Imaginable vphold's this
pretended Moral Certainty of Sectaries in Matters of Faith.
And here I defire Mr Stillingfleet to Anſwer. Will he belieue
that Chriſt our Lord is the true Meffias, God and man, becau- No Aut ke-
fe All Orthodox Chriftians affent to the Verity? I Anfwery conces
uable up-
firſt. All theſe belieue the truth with infallible Faith!, and why he's
dare not he do fo alfo? 2. If he Affent's becauſe they Vniver-
fally confent to the Myſtery, He build's his Faith not vpon
God's Infallible Reuelation, but vpon the Affent of Others
Sss 2
which
508
Diſc. 3.
C. 4. The
The certainly of Faith
This preten.
ded moral
Certainty.
✩bere the
main diffi.
culty lies ?
Moral cer-
tainty more
rigidly exa-
mined,
Four things
19 be Conf.
dered,
which He faith Should only be moral, and fallible. 3. Will
he belieue the Verity becauſe Heteredox Chriftians Iudge it true?
That's neither God's Reuelation, nor Chrift's Doctrin, And Con-
fequently his Faith has no foundation. 4. Will he belieue for
the Motiues of Credibility preuious to Faith? Thefe confidered
as Motiues, are nor God's Reuelation, Nor fo much as Apofto-
lical Doctrin. Befides as we Shall fe prefently, Proteftants haue
no Motiues at all to rely on. Finally will He tell vs, He belieues
that Chrift was in the world and dyed on à Crofs, with the fame
Moral affent as He yeilds to the being of Cæfar and Pompey?
I haue Anſwered, that's nothing to the Purpofe, For Gentils
affent to fuch Matters of Fact (once Vifible and Senfible) by Mo-
ral Certainty, And yet are Infidels. That therefore which vrgeth
at prefent, Concern's the hidden and obfcure Mysteries of Faith, In the-
fe Moral Certainty hath no place at all. The reaſon is manifeft
For if as reuealed they ftand firm vpon God's infallible Tefti-
mony, No Power vnder Heauen can alter their own intrinfick
Infallibility, Or Conuey them vnto vs vpon weak Moral Cer-
tainty, yet Mr Stillingfleet boldly Affert's. There can be no greater
Certainty then Moral, of the Main foundations of all Religion. Iudge
good Reader, whether this be not à grofs Miftake, And whether
I wrong'd the man, when I told you his Difcourfe is vndigefted,
and highly erroneous.
7. Yet we haue not faid all. Wherefore becaufe Mr Stillingfleet
feem's highly to value This late inuented Nouelty of Moral Cer-
tainty, we will examin the Doctrin moft rigidly, till at las't the
whole fallacy be difcouered. To do this, my firft demand is
to what Obiect will He apply his Moral Certainty in this Mat-
ter of Fact? Chrift is the Meßias truly God and man. Thefe four
things and no more, can only be thought of. 1. The Matter
belieued. 2. The Diuine Teſtimony, which reueal's that Truth.
3. The Faith of thoſe who belieue vpon Reuelation, And. 4.
The Motiues whereby we are induced to belieue the Truth reuea-
led, becauſe God fpeak's it. Now all know firft, that in Material
Obiects purely confidered in themfelues, there neither is, nor
cana
Difc. 3. C. 4. More than Moral only.
509
can be moral Certainty, For every thing is, or is not, independently
of our Iudgements, where only Moral certainty is founded, there-
fore God, and all thoſe who fe things intuitiuely, are exempted
from this imperfect degree of Knowledge. 2. There can be no
moral certainty in the Diuine Reuelation, which proceed's from
an infinite Verity, for this without Queftion is moft Supereminent-
ly Infallible. 3. If that infallible Teftimony, or Reuelation be in-
fallibly applyed to Belieuers, and hath influence
their Faith,
vpon
it cannot but transfufe into it infallible Certainty, if God Speak's
infallibly, for this end that we belieue him infallibly, And if Faith reft
not vpon that Perfection of his infallible Teſtimony, it is no Faith
at all. Thus we Argued in the other Treatife. Difc. 1. C. 5.
n. 7.
8. It remain's, that we now Say à word of the Motiues which
induce to Faith, and examin what Influence they haue ouer it, when
we either belieue the Doctrin in Scripture, or the Churches Defini-
tions. Mr Stillingfleet. P. 203. Hauing firſt told vs, that the
Reuelation which was communicated to one, was obligatory to all concer-
ned in it, though they could haue nothing but moral certainty for it, Con-
cludes thus. By this it appears, that when we now Speak of the refo-
lution of Faith, though the vtmost reason of our Affent be that Infallibility,
Which is ſuppoſed in the Diuine Testimony, yet the nearest and moſt pro-
per R-folution of it, is into the Grounds inducing vs to belieue, That fuch
à teftimony is truely Diuine, and the refolution of this cannot be into any
Diuine Testimony, without à process in Infinitum. He would Say, That
à true act of Faith relies vpon two foundations, one remote,
the fuppofed Diuine Testimony, The other moſt proper and neareft, To
wit, the Grounds which induce to belieue, that fuch à Teftimony
is in being, or truely Diuine. And his reafon (if he has any)
muſt be, becauſe thefe grounds, immediatly Apply,or Conuey vnto
vs the fuppofed Diuine Teftimony. Now this Conueyance, or
Application of the Teſtimony, being made by grounds only Mo-
rally certain, It followes, that the Faith we elicit Anfwer's not to
the strength of the Teftimonies Infallibility ( confidered in it felf) But
to the weaknes of the Conveyance, and confequently can be no more,
Sss 3
but
The efficacy
of Diuine
Beuelation.
what In:
Motines
haue upon
fluence The
Faith?
Our Aduer.
far ies
Doctrin.
310
·Difc. 3. C. 4. The certainty of Faith
remoues
but only à Moral certain Faith, not at all Infallible. And thus you
Faith from fe, To lay Faith as low as may be, to remoue it from its own
Center, and faften it vpon no man knowes what moral ground's;
Finally to introduce a new, weak, and vncouth way of belie-
uing, is the beft feruice Mr Stillingfleet can do for God and Chri
ftians. But, Ad rem.
its own
Obiect
The Doctrin
refused.
Rational
Inducements
to Faith are
euer presup.
poſed to
Beliefe.
Church
Motines
Slighted.
à
>
9. I Say firft. Proteftants haue no grounds diftinct from the
Diuine Teftimony, whereby to diſcouer any one particular Truth
which God has reuealed. I proue the Affertion. Theſe fuppo-
fed Grounds, are either reduced to the rational Euidence of Chri-
ftian Religion, already refuted (as laid forth by Mr Stillingfleet) Or
to the Doctrin contained in Scripture, And this Saith He. Page
170. VVe belieue by Faith vpon à Diuine Testimony, which therefore is
not the antecedent Reaſon or ground, Why we belieue it, For no
verity Affented to by Faith, can (as affented to) be the preuious Rea-
fon of our Affent, or à rational ground inducing to belieue.
Therefore we faid, our Sauiours Miracles belieued by Faith, when
we read Scripture, are not the Inducements to belieue them, becau-
ſe an Inducement to Faith, is euer preſuppoſed, and not inuolued
in the Act of belieung. But it is needles to Say more of this, For
no man in his wits, if Queſtioned by either lew or Gentil, why he
belieues the Sacred Trinity, can for the laft Anfwer tell him, He
belieues ſo becauſe he belieues it, or becauſe he read's that Myſtery in à
book called Scripture. Now befides thefe proofles Inducements,
there are no other imaginable, whereby the Diuine Teftimony
can be Difcouered, conueyd, or applyed to Belieuers, but only thofe
known Catholick Motiues (as Miracles, Sanctity, Conuerfions.
of Nations &c) which illuftrate the Vniuerfal Roman Church,
And theſe Mr Stillingfleet ſcornfully call's, mute things, à grand
Salad too often ferued vp, found very dry and infipid. There-
fore he has no rational Inducement morally Certain for any
one Article of Chriftian Religion, much lefs for the Tenets of
Proteftants.
10. I Say. 2. If the Grounds or Motiues inducing to be-
lieue (let theſe be what this Aduerfary pleaſes) haue Infalli-
ble
Difc. 3. C. 4. More than Moral only.
Sir
>
ble connexion with the Diuine Teftimony, or conuince vpon
Metaphylical Certitude that God fpeak's the Truths we
belieue The Affent giuen to the Motiues is not moral,
but highly infallible. Contrarywife, if all Motiues preuious
to beliefe be fuppofed fo fallible, that they may deceiue, Faith be built on
neither is, nor can be built vpon them, Therefore Mr Stilling- Fallible Mo-
fleet Err's in Saying. The nearest and most proper Refolution of tines.
Faith is into the Grounds, inducing to belieue, that such à Teftimo-
my is Divine.
II.
To proue the Affertion, I demand, Whether God ob-
liges all to belieue his reuealed verities, vpon his vnerring
Teftimony, as the only Formal Obiect, or to belieue for Mo-
tiues extrinfecal to that Testimony, which though morally certain,
may poffibly Deceiue? Grant the firft, Faith ftand's faft
vpon its own fonndation, the Diuine Teftimony. Say. 2. It
is. iointly built on Motiues, as the neareſt and moſt proper
Obiect which in rigour may deceiue, it hangs, as it were, Vpon
two, Heterogeneal Principles, The One moft firm and Infallible,
The Other weak and fallible; Viz. Motiues which being fal-
lible, cannot but contribute as much Weakneſs to Belief, as
the infallible Teſtimony giues it Certainty, And fo theſe two
Principles, by their different Influence, Doe and Vndoe, build
and deftroy, wind on and wind off: The one imparts infalli-
ble Certainty, the other ftaikes it away, and makes Faith no
more, but à fluctuating, moral, and fallible Affent.
12.
Faith cannot
The Affer
tion prassed,·
To aduance this Proof yet further, I Ask Again (if
all Diuine Reuelation were by à fuppofed Impoffibility not
infallible, but only morally certain,) whether then Chriftians
could belieue the reuealed Myfteries, with à Faith as certain,
as they now elicite vpon Reuelation? Anfiver ; Tea. That
Perfection of infallibility, effential to Gods Reuelation, would
then be vfeles and impertinent to Support Faith. Anfwer, The Proof
N', or Say Faith, if the Hyporhefis ftand's, would not be Di- further ex-
uine and certain. I infer. Ergo, it is neither Diuine nor plained, con.
certain De facto. My reafon is. So far, and not further, Gods incesh..
infallible
512
Diſc. 3. C. 4. The certainty of Faith
1ll Confe-
quences de-
duced out of
Sectaries
Doctrin.
•
infallible Teftimony or the Diuine Reuelation has influence
vpon Faith, as fallible motiues Apply it to Belieuers, or giue
it leaue (might one fpeak fo) to Support that Affent, But
thefe fallible Motiues, which immediatly apply the Reuelation
to Belieuers, permit it not to raife that Act to any greater
certitude, than only moral which may be falfe, Therefore the
Reuelation de facto" communicates no more Certainty to Be-
liefe, than if it were only morally, and not infallibly certain,
For here is our Aduerfaries Principle. According to the Proofs
and grounds, whereby we diſcouer the Diuine Teftimony to be
in Being, We belieue, But all thefe Proofs and grounds Say
only Morally and Fallibly, that the Teftimony is now in Being,
Therefore faith alfo can be no more but only Moral, Fallible,
and liable to Errour.
13. Hence it followes firft, That neither the very Apoſtles,
nor any other Belieuers euer fince that time, had any furer
faith than only moral, which may be falfe. It followes. 2. That
the Truth of all Chriftian Religion, inuolues in it à Poſſibi-
lity of falshood, For being applyed or propofed to vs, vpon
grounds only fallible and moral, we are to iudge of it, accor-
ding to the Exigency and Merit of fuch weak grounds, And the-
refore can efteem it no better than fallible. It followes. 3. (And
this I would haue noted) That Faith in theſe mens Principles,
tend's not abfolutely into the Diuine Reuelation, but only with
doubt and fear, or meerly conditionally. For euery man may
rationally Say. Lord if you haue reuealed this truth. Chrift
is the true Meßias. I belieue it as vndoubtedly true, but the
certainty I haue thereof, is only Setled vpon Motiues which
may deceiue me, Therefore my faith can be no more but Hy-
Conditional pothetical or conditional, to this Senfe. If you haue reuealed it,
I belieue, if not I reiect it. Hence you fe, it were much better
(could not the difficulty be otherwife folued) to Say the Mo-
tiues preuious to Faith conuince with Metaphyfical certainty,
that God ſpeak's by his Scripture and Church, Than to make
the Reuelation fo ftrengthles that it can (becauſe weakned by
fallible
They make
Faith à
Affent,
*
Difc. 2. C. 4. More than Moral only.
313
fallible Motiues) contribute no other certainty to Belief, but
what is Moral, and may be falfe.
14. And thus much Mr Stillingfleet, could he proced con- This Aduer-
fequently (as he doth not) should Affert. For, if (as he faith) fary Pro-
confidering the Nature of things, moral Certainty be as great, ceed's not
or beget's as firm an Affent as any Mathematical, or phyfical Confequent-
certainty, what is it that fright's the man from allowing Infal- ly.
lible certainty to Faith? Or what gain's he to Subſtitute in Lieu
of that, another certainty which he call's Moral? For if theſe
two certainties be equally as ftrong, it is Senleſs to eſtablish
the One, and reiect the Other, but the truth is, in matters of
beliefe, moral certitude has no place, as is largely proued
aboue.
>
15. Againſt this Difcourfe one may firft Obiect. God can AnObiection
oblige all either to belieue what is reuealed, as infallible true to propofed.
vs, So that there can be no poffible Deception in our Belief.
Or. 2. He may oblige vs to belieue His reuealed Verities meerly
according to the efficacy of fuch Proofs, as intimate to vs that
God Speak's, And why may not Mr Stillingf. build his Faith
vpon fuch Grounds or motiues as the neareſt foundation, though
the vltimate Principle of belieuing be the Diuine Reuelation?
I haue partly Anſwered. Either thofe Motines conuince withall
Of no force
Metaphyfical certitude, that the Reuelation doth actually Exift, if the Moti-
and than the Difficulty ceafeth, for the Affent yeilded to them, wes be infal
is infallible ; Or contrarywife, They are as Mr Stillingfleet lible.
ſuppoſes, fallible, And may ftand with all their Luftre, though
the Reuelation really were not in Being. Speak So, It is most
clear, fuch Motiues cannot fupport Faith, For all which right
reafon can draw from them (if not abfolutely infallible) is thus
much only, That our Chriftian Verities according to Prudence, Iffallible,
are euidently credible. But by virtue of that Iudgement we they ophold
reach not as yet to the infallibility of the Diuine Teftimony,
Therefore if God obliges all de facto to ground Faith vpon bis
The reason
infallible Feftimony which cannot deceiue, He jointly Obliges vs not to
ground is vpon fallible Motiues, which may deceiue, and ſtand as Mr
Ttt
Stilling-
not Faith.
hereof.
524 Diſc. 3. C. The certainty of Fauth
C. 4. 4.
A fecond
Obiection
Solned.
A third pro
pofed by no
Sectary mo-
ve difficult.
Salued. The
ground of
the Solution.
Stillingfleet will haue it, although God had neuer reuealed any
Chriſtian Verity. Again. If we are obliged to free Chriftian.
Religion from all Poflibility of falshood, That is, if God will
haue vs to belieue it as abfolutely infallible, We cannot without
wrong done to his infinite Verity Say, he obliges vs, to fettle-
faith vpon Motiues only morally certain, or abfolutly fallible,
for thus He would oblige vs to belieue that as his own Truth,
which poffibly may not be Truth, but contrarywife, à lie, à
falshood, air Errour.
-
16. 2. Obiect: Now De facto, in this prefent State there is
no Difficulty, For all iudge though the Motiues be fallible, yet
God has reuealed our Chriſtian verities. Anfw. All do not iud-
ge fo, But admit fome do, They iudge fo by their infallible
Affent of Faith, terminated vpon the Verities as reuealed, But
antecedently to to beliefe, none can iudge they are infallible
reuealed truths, whilst Motiues only fallible ground that Iudge-
ment.
-
17. A 3: Obiection. Suppofe Eternal truth had neuer re--
uealed the facred Trinity (the like is of any other Myſtery)
Suppofe alfo that the whole Syftem of Motiues had then flood
in the fame vigour and force as now they appear to vs: Would
not God and prudence haue obliged vs in that cafe to belieue
as firmly the Trinity, as we now belieue it? I antwer. If the
Suppofition implies no Contradiction, as I verily think it doth,
(at leaſt many hold fo) Prudence would then haue laid vpon vs.
an Obligation of firmly belieuing; But what followes from hen-
ce? Thus much only, That poor Mortals not feing the depth>
of things would haue been invincibly deceiued; But Deception.
is remote from God, for his wifdom penetrat's all Truth, and
his Goodnes could not vpon the Suppofition haue obliged any
10 belieue à falshood, or that to be, which really is not, The-
refore he could not in the Cafe now fuppofed, haue afforded
Diuine Affiftance to make Faith fupernatural, becauſe the Ob-
iect by errour apprehended belieuable, really was uot. Thus
much is true, and God might haue obliged vs to judge, That
the
Difc. 3. C. 4. More than Moral only &c. 515
the Motiues would then haue made the Myfteries evidently cre-
dible (though they were not) yea, and perhaps further to belieue
Conditionally, As is faid aboue.
A
Obiestion
folved
18. A. 4. Obiection. This Propofition is true. We belie-
ue for the Motives, Or, we proue that God Speak's becauſe the Mo-
tiues apply and conuey the Diuine Teftimony to vs. I diftingui-
sh the Propofition. We belieue for the Mortues as Inducements,
to fettle Faith vpon another Obiect. Viz. God's Testimony, I grant 4 fourth
it. We belieue for the Motiues, That is, We ground our faith
vpon them,as either the neareft or more remote Obiect, Why we
belieue, I Deny it. Thus the will loues good, becauſe the vnder-
ſtanding apprehend's or conueyes good to it, yet loues not the by a clear
knowledge which conueyes it. Fire laid neer to fewel burn's, the inftance.
approximation burn's not, but is only Conditio applicans, ว neces-
fary condition applying heat which burn's. So we fay the Moti-
ues auaile to make it moſt credible that God ſpeak's, But no more
ground Faith, than approximation burn's, or the knowledge,when
we profecute Good, is the Obiect of loue.
19. And here by the way you fe Mr Stillingfleets conftant Mr Stilling:
Errour, who makes the Motiues inducing to Faith the foundation of Conftans
it; That is, in other Terms: He Confound's the Iudgement whe- Errour,
discouered's
reby we Affert, the reuealed Myſteries are euidently Credible
with the Affent of Faith it felf, And will needs haue the formal
Obiect wherevpon Faith is built, not only to be the Diuine Reue-
lation but the Motiues alfo, though they can do no more but
induce the VVill guided by reaſon, to fettle belief vpon the infalli-
bility of the firft Reuealer.
Ttt 2
CHAP.
516 Difc. 3. C. 5. Other weightless Canils
CHAP. V.
More quarrels Answered. Mr Stillingfleets endeavor
to catch Catholicks in à Circle, demonftrated
both pain and improbable. His Obiec-
tions are forceleſs. A word to an
vnleaaned Cauil.
I...
F
Rom the Page laft cited, to P. 123. I find nothing in
Mr Stillingfleet worth any larger Anſwer than is giuen
already. Here He tells vs, That many things in Christian Religion
are to be belieued before we can Imagin any fuch thing, as an infallible
Teftimony of our Church. It is hard to guefs at his meaning, for he
Hmeaning names not one Article, thus Affented to. Perhaps he would
obfcure. Say, That the Verities reuealed in fome books of Scripture, cal-
led Protocanonical known by their own proper Signatures or Moti-
ues,as the Harmony, Sanctity,and Maiefty of the Style,may be belieued
without the Teſtimony of an Infallible Church. If fo; I Anſwer:
firſt. All this Harmony or Maiefty, confidered only as Obiects
of Senſe, or as preuiousfly known by their Natural Euidence (thus
far and not fnrther they bear the name of Motiues) auaile not to
belieue any Verity in Scripture, if the infallibility of the Church be
reiected, And therefore we faid aboue, this Sanctity and Harmony
are affented to by Faith only, after the Church immediatly Eui-
denced by Her Motiues, Afcertain's vs that fuch Books are Di-
uine. I Anſwer. 2. Grant fuch Motiues may in fome weak man-
ner, and particular Circumftances conduce to belieue the Scriptu-
res Diuinity, yet in this prefent State, when we haue à Church
moft clearly manifefted, which both Afcertain's vs of Scripture
and the Senſe alſo, it would be no less than an vndiſcreet rash-
The Church
reiected, no
Maiefty in
Scripture
cangain
Beliefe.
7
.7.
nefs.
Difc. 3. C.5. Answered and refuted.
517
nefs to caft off her Authority, (being the moft facile and plaineft
Rule) and in Lieu of Her, to rely on another forrain, vnfit way
of Belieuing by Motiues, not half fo clear, and far lefs conuin-
cing.
2. Thus fome Diuines Teach, though à Heathen after à due
Confideration of the works in Nature, may come to belieue
that God will reward. Good, and punish Euil, yet none do Af
fert, That when our Chriftian Articles are clearly propofed to An Instance
him, by the Paftors and Teachers of the Church, For exam-
ple, That Christ dyed for vs. The dead shall rise again. God will
reward the tuft &c. That then if he reiect Church Authority, he
can belieue the forenamed Articles with Diuine Faith. This I
Deny, And the reaſon is, becauſe that way of belieuing, when à It is impru
more ordinary and facile is propofed,Seem's temerarious and im-
prudent, And fo it would be, should any now when the Church
giues vs full Affurance of the Scriptures Diuinity lay afide Her of Belitung.
Authority, and Say. I will affolutely belieue this or that Truth
to be God's word, becauſe I Difcouer apparent Signs of Diuini-
ty, in what I read.
3. In the next place, Mr Stillingfleet Quarrel's with à word.
The Roman Catholick Church, which, in his opinion, is iuft as much
as to Say. The German vniuerfal Emperour, That is particular and
vniuerfal together, for Roman reftrain's or marks out one Church,
vniuerfal, includes all. Anfw. It is à meer Quibble exploded by
the Fathers, particularly S. Hierome. Apolog. 1. aduerfus Ruffin.
not far from the beginning, who call's the Roman Faith the Ca-
tholick Faith. VVhat, Saith he, is Ruffinus his Faith? It is that
wherewith the Roman Church preuail's, or another founded in
Origens Writings? Si Romanam refponderit, Ergo Catholici fumus.
If he Anfwer's it is the Roman Faith, This Inference is good,
we both profefs the vniuerfal Faith. Therefore Roman and Fni-
verfal are here fynomimal or words of one Signification, which
the Apoſtle clearly Infinuates. Rom. 1. 8. Your Faith is renowned
the whole world ouer. Again. Epift. 16. ad Principiam Virg: circa
medium.. He showes that the moft ancient Saints addreffed them-
Ttt 3
felues
dent to re-
iect we
caſieſt
was
Ameer
quibble ex-
ploded by
Fathers,
518
Difc. 3. C. 5. Other weightles Cauils.
S. Hierom's felues to to the Roman Church, Quafi ad tutißimum communionis fu
express. portum, as to à place of refuge, or of mutual Communion
Teftimonies, which was General, Fublick, and belonged to all. Yet more.
Other Fa
·bers Speak
with S.
Hierome,
why the Ro-
man Church
was called
Vniuerfal
endeauour
more then
weak,
When
>
Epift: 57..ad Damafum, This great Doctor pofitiuely teaches, That
he was ioyned in Communion, with no other Society of men then
fuch as adhered to Damafus, S. Peters Succeffor, (where vpon the
Church was built) And that those who eate the lambe out of this House,
were prophane. Did he think ye ſpeak of any one particular Roman
Diocefs, and not of the vniuerfâl Catholick Church? It is con-
trary to his Difcourfe, and reafon alfo.
4. Se more of this fubiect in the Epiftle of S. Athanafius to
two Popes, Iulius and Marcus, Read alſo S. Cyprians Epistle. 52. n.1.
And S. Ambrofe, De obitu fratris, about the middle, and know
withall, The word Roman added to Catholick is not to limit the vni-
uerfal Iurifdiction of that see, Butto diftinguish Orthodox Be-
lieuers from Hereticks, who were profeffed Enemies of the Ro-
man Faith. If therefore we may rightly comprife vnder this word
Roman all other Chriftian Societies, paſt or preſent vnited in
belief with this one Mother Church, There is neither Bull nor
Solacifm in fpeech, to call the Roman (euer One and the fame in
Faith), the vniuerfal Church of Chrift.
5. Page. 127. To catch Carholicks in à Circle Mr Stilling-
fleet Ask's, why we belieue Scriptures to be the Word of God.
If we Affirm vpon this Ground, That the Church which is in-
Mr Stilling: fallible deliuers them fo to vs, He demand's again (and bidd's vs
Anſwer if we can) whether t'is poffible to belieue the Churches.
infallibility any other way, than becauſe infallible Scriptures Say,
She is infallible, which implies à plain Circle. Anfw. It is very
poffible, For feing Scripture demonftrat's not ex terminis its or
Diuinity, nor can be made euidently credible by any light inter-
nal to the Book, fome other infallible Oracle diftinct from it,
in à Circle. muft neceffarily afcertain vs, that the Book is Diuine, And the
Doctrin there preferued, is yet pure as the Apoftles wrote it.
But this Oracle can be no other but the Church which proues
Her felfe by Signs and Miracles to ſpeak in Gods name, indepen-
to ratch
Catholicks
dently
Difc. 3. C. 5. Answered and refuted.
119.
dently of Scripture, therefore the first act of Faith, whereby we
belieue in à General way the Churches infallibility, relies not
(as this Gentleman weakly fuppofes) on Scripture, But vpon
the Church it Selfe, as the most known manifefted Oracle. And
thus the Circle is eafily auoyded...
No Circle in
6. You will fe more clearly what I aime at, by one Inftan-
ce taken from the Primitiue Chriftians. Ask what induced them
to belicue the Apoftles Infallibility when they Preached ? All
Anſwer, They belieued fo, becaufe thofe bleffed men imme- the Primits
diatly proued themfelues commiffioned Oracles fent from God, ue Chriſtians.
and made their Doctrin euidently Credible by fenfible Signs Faith.
and Wonders which furpaffed the force of Nature. Very true..
In like manner we belieue the Churches infallibility, hauing
preuious Motiues as Stronge to belieue that Truth vpon her
Authority, as euer Chriftians had to belieue that S. Paul was
infallible, when he preached. If then there was no Vicious Therefore
Circle in thofe firft Chriftians Faith, there can be none in Ours, none in our
whilſt all of vs haue infallible Oracles, manifefted by Superna. Refolusion,
tural Signs to rely on: And Thofe firft now mentioned had them:
before Scripture was written. You will fay this Difcourfe feem's
to proue, we cannot belieue the Churches Infallibility vpon
the Scriptures Teftimony. It has been Anfwered. ouer and
ouer, fuppofing Scripture be one admitted as God's facred Word,:
we proue the Churches infallibility fo ftrongly by it againſt all.
Aduerfaries, who own the Book as Diuine, that none of them
shall euer return à probable anfwer to our alleged Teftimo-
nies.
9M
7. But what Saith Mr Stillingfleet. Is there no difference be--
tween the way of prouing à thing to an Aduerfary, and refoluing
ones own Faith? Anfwer yes. But we both refolue and pro- :
He. We Refolue the firft Act of Faith concerning Scripture How we both
into the Churches infallible Authority, and belieue that Book refolue and
to be of Diuine Inſpiration, becauſe this Otacle faith fo. Then proue the
we Argue vpon à Principle proued by vs, and fuppofed
(though not proued) by Sectaries. The Principle is. Scrip-
*
ture.
Churchesin
fallibility.
!
520 Diſc. 3. C. 5. Other weightless Cauils
Areply rem
torted.
1
Another Re-
ply, Answe
red.
ture is God's Word. We read the book which all Chriftians
Say is Diuine, And proue alfo from it the Churches infalli-
bility againſt our Aduerfaries Ex probatis & conceßis, That the
book is Diuine. Here is no danger of à Circle, nor any
fault in this way of Arguing.
8. Yet Mr Stillingfleet makes his Exceptions, and will
needs haue the Circle goe on againſt vs.
You proue, Saith
he, the Churches infallibility from fuch Paffages. Super hanc
Peiram. Pafce oues &c. But how come you to know infalli-
bly, that the Senfe of thofe places is as you belieue, For your
Aduerfaries deny any such thing as infallibility proued out of them I
may Anfwer firft, by propofing the like Queftion. How do
thefe Aduerfaries know that their contrary fenfe is exactly
the true Meaning of the Holy Ghoft? Will they tell vs
they think fo (here is all we haue from them) what am I bet-
ter for that ? When the Donatifts, Pelagians, and all Hereti-
ques can think as boldly as any Proteftant, And by their de-
luded thoughts vnfenfe, as we fe by experience, the moſt choiſe
and facred Paffages in holy writ. To whom then shall we re-
curr in cafe the Senfe be doubtful? I Anfwer to the Church.
O, faith Mr Stillingfleet Here we are got into à Circle again
and though his own words (fee them in the page cited, fine)
giue no force to his Probation, yet I'le help them on to all
the Strength his meaning is capable of. He should therefore
Argue thus. We belieue the Churches infallibility because the
true fenfe of Scripture fayes, she is infallible. Again, We belieue.
this very Senfe of Scripture to be infallibly true, becauſe the in-
fallible Church faith fo. I haue Anfwered. The firft Act of
Faith wherwith we belieue the Churches infallibility, is not at
all founded vpon the true sense of Scripture, as yet not known
(in illo figno) to be fo much as Diuine, but vpon the Chur-
ches own infallible Teftimony made by it felf, and for it self,
immediatly credible.
1
9. Now if we Speak of another Diftinct, confequent, and
more explicite act of Faith, when we believe the Churches in-
falli-
Difc. 3. C.5. Answered and refuted.
528
*
fallibility vpon this ground, That she declares the Scriptures ge-
nuin senfe which proues Her an infallible Oracle, There is no
difficulty at all, Becauſe this very Expofition or Interpretation
of Scripture brought to its laft Principle, is vltimatly refolued
into (and therefore again belieued vpon) the fame infallible Au- The ſenſe of
thority of the Church, or rather vpon Scripture and the Churches Scripture
Interpretation together, For thus iointly taken, They ground Faith, refolued,and
and not like two difparate Principles, As if we first belieued the belieued.
Scriptures fenfe independently of the Churches Interpretation, And then Vpon Scrip-
again belwued the Churches Interpretation to be infallible, because the ture and
Sense of Scripture known aliunde, or without Depending on Church
Authority, Saith she is infallible. This cannot be, if Scripture and
the Churches Interpretation Indiuifibly concurr to this lotter act
of Faith, whereof we now fpeak.
IQ.
Church Au-
thority
ioyntly.
Here then is à Dilemma that clear's all, and free's vs
from the leaft Shadow of à Circle. We either know (or be-
lieue) the Scriptures Senfe independently of the Churches in- The Affer-
fallible Interpretation, or receiue it vpon her infallible Autho- tion Cleared.
rity. Grant the firft, There is no danger of à Circle, for in
cafe that Truth were know vpon à fure Principle distinct from
the Church, it would be another new and as ftrong à Probation
of her Infallibility, as if an Angel fent from Heauen should
interpret Scripture to the Catholick Senfe, And then we might
Affent to the Churches Infallibility vpon two difparate Princi-
ples (which proue not one another). The one Ordinary, the
Churches own Interpretation, The other independent and ex-
traordinary, Should an Angel or Prophet fent from God, in-
terpret. Say. 2. We belieue the Senfe of Scripture vpon the This way:no
Churches own infallible Authority, There are no two imagina- two Propofs-
ble Propofitions to make à Circle of, whilft that Senfe internal tions to ma-
to the letter, can not be infallibly propounded otherwife, then ke à Circle
by the Church.
II. Page. 128. I find an vnlearned Obiection much to this
Senfe. We Catholicks deftroy all Poffibility of auoiding à
Circle, if we proue by the Motiues of credibilty no new Reue-
V v v
lations
of.
$22 Difc.
Difc. 3. C. 5. Other weightles Cauils &c.
iection in
effect folued.
Repeated
Again.
A weak Ob- lations Diftinct from the old; And this we Pretend not to, For
we only feek to euince by thefe Motiues à Diuine Affiftance
with the Church in euery thing She Defines, but this Affiftance.
cannot be proued from any other ground, but only from the
Promiſes made in Scripture, Therefore we are ftill in à Circle,.
For we belieue the Scriptures infallible, because of the Churches Testimo-
ny, and we belicue the Church infallible, because of the Promises in
Scripture concerning the Aßistance of the Holy Ghost with the Church,..
fo as to fecure Her from all Errour.. Here in Effect is the fame.
Obiection repeated again, Therefore I Anfwer.
Therefore I Anfwer. We belieue.
not in the firſt place the Churches infallible Afſiſtance moued.
therevnto by the Promiſes in Scripture, For this firſt General
Act of Faith wholly relies vpon the Churches own infallible Te-:
ftimony without depending on Scripture, becaufe Her Teftimo--
On nam ny is made moft Credible to reafon by conuincing Motiues,
before we belieue, that She is infallibly Aßisted. All muft Say:
what I now Affert, For before Scripture was written, The Pri-
mitiue Chriftians belieued infallible Affiftance granted the Apoft-.
les in euery Doctrin they taught, being induced to belieue fo
by the Signes and Miracles which thoſe bleffed men Euidenced.
In like manner we in this prefent State, anfwerable to the Pro-
cedure of theſe Chriftians, hauing the fame Motiues manifeft in-
the Church, may well be induced to belieue, That She both
now is, and euer was no leffe Affifted by the Holy Ghoft to
ſpeak Truth, then the Apoftles were, for as much as concern's
the Subftance and Verity of her Doctrin.
gen &
CHAP. VI
Difc. 3. C. 6. Mr Stillingfleet folues not c. 523
CHAP. VI.
Mr Stillingfleet folues not His Aduerfaries Argumeut:
A word of his tedious Shuffling. The Motiues
of Credibility both diftinguish the Church from all
other Heterodox Communities, and proue Her Infal-
lible. The Agreement with the Primary Doctrin,
no Mark of the Church. More Mistakes and Er-
rours difcouered. Of Mr Stillingfleets double Faith
who Belieues, but not vpon Diuine the Teftimony,
That the Books of Scripture contain Gods word in
them: Yet Belieues the Doctrin in those books, to
be Diuine.
I.
gument.
I
N the next place, Mr Stillingfleet labours to folue his
Aduerfaries main Argument, the Subftance whereof
is. As Chrift and his Apofiles proued themelues Oracles fent from God The fubftant
by their works, Signes, and Miracles; Again as the Primitiue Chri- ce of the Ar
ftians induced by fuch Signes belieued Chrift and the spusties vpon their
own Testimony to be infallible Teachers: So we hauing euer had the
very like Works, Signes, and Miracles manifeft in the Church, are pru•
denily induced to belieue Her as an Infallible Oracle, vpon her own In-
fallible Teftimony.
2. To folue this plain and preffing Argument, one of theſe what's re-
two things muſt be done: Either à Difparity is to be giuen quired to ſo-
between Thoſe firſt Signes and Miracles of the Apoftles, and lue the Dif.
the latter of the Church, or it muſt be shown wherin the In- ficulty.
ference made, is Defectiue or vnconcluding. Viz. That the Church
Vvv 2
euidenced
524 Difc. 3. C. 6 Mr Stilling fleet folues not
Nothing is,
or ean be
Answered.
Meer Trifles
returned.
More Parer.
gons in Lien
of à Solid.
Answer.
euidenced by Her Signes, is not proued God's infallible Oracle, as the
Apostles were proued by their signes, to be infallible Teachers. I heartily
wish, any would read Mr Stillingfleet through all his long Pages
of this Subiect, And afterwards Gratify me fo far as to Say, where
or in what Paragraph the direct Anfwer lies to either of thefe
Difficulties, I would Own it as à Singular fauour, in the Interim
giue me leaue to Speak truth. He Shuffles all along, Waues the
main Matter, and Anfwers nothing.
3. Thus he trifles. The Church of Rome is infinitly obliged to vs,
could we make all good we say. Our Attempt is Heroical and generous.
What, must men be as much obliged now to belieue your Church infallible,.
as that Mofes and Christ were fo? He Wonders nothing at the Seuerity
in our Cenfures of all out of our Church, if to deny our Churches infalli-
bility be an Offence of fo high à nature. Then he Asks. P. 129.
Whether the fame Motiues of credibility belong to our Church, by which
Christ and his Apostles shewed their Teftimony to be infallible ? We
haue Anſwered Yea, and proued the Affertion largely. Difc. 1.
C. 7. 8. 9. And here prefs him to refute our Probations; Or if
he hold's them not refutable, to giue à Diſparity betwixt the Apo-
ftolical, and our Churches Motiues..
>
4. But he run's on headlong, and to flight the Deuotion and
Charity manifeft in the Church, talk's of our Superftitious Cere-
monies, and burning of Heretiques. To what purpoſe are thefe
Parergons when à Categorical Anfwer to the main Bufinefs is
expected?? Is it only to giue à vulgar Reader Entertainment,.
or to withdraw all who perufe his Book from minding where,
and how he would Shift off the Difficulty? He shall not do it
for we will follow him cloſely, and therefore take notice of one
great folly. F. 130. Where he pleafes to Say. How much we haue
befooled our felues, in attempting to proue the infallibility of our Church,
in the fame manner as Christ and the Apostles proued their Infallibility.
And Mark his Proof expreffed in this proofles Propofition. In-
fisting, Saith he, on that of Miracles as the greateft Euidence of their
infallibility (he means the Apoftles) our Church cannot with any face
pretend to it. Is not this Heroical and generous only to Say we
F...
are
Difc. 3. C. 6. His Aduerfaries Argument.
525
are befooled and Faceles, When we haue conuinced in the Chap To say we
ters already cited, that the Church has wrought Miracles euery are befooled
way equal with thofe, which the Apoftles wrought? What Doings is no Proof.
are theſe? May men vapour thus with their bare Affertions
whilft we Proue, and ftil expect to haue the Arguments folued,
either by Reafon or Authority?
5. Page. 130. As if one ftill fought to diuert à Reader with
à deep piece of Learning, He tells vs Mans vnderſtanding becau- More Shif
fe finite cannot be in it felf infallible, without receiuing à partici- ting yet.
pated Infallibility from an infinite Power aboue it, And à tedious
Difcourfe followes herevpon known to euery one, but what is
all this Said, ouer and ouer, to our Difficulty?
to our Difficulty? Haue we yet
any Diſparity giuen between the Apoſtles Miracles and thoſe which
the Church Euidences, Or is our Inference already made, any way
infringed hitherto? Not à word is yet returned to either, and
therefore the Argument ftand's in its vigour without reply.
this
inspired, the
Church is.
fallibly
AffiRed.
6. Page. 131. He faith firft. The Apoftles deliuered not their
Doctrin from Themfelues but immediatly from God, and conſequently their
Teftimony must be owned infallible. Aufw. Neither can the Church The Apostles
without Diuine Affiftance deliuer her Doctrin as from Herfelfe, Diuinely
but from God. As therefore the Apoftles were immediatly In-
fpired to teach as they did, fo the Church is immediatly Affifted
by the fame Holy Ghoft to define as she doth,
and vpon
account her Teftimony must be owned infallible, For what euer
reafon or Authority afcertains the one, afcertains alfo the other.
And here we may come to Principles if our Aduerfaries pleaſe The Proefs
Let them euince (and t'is à Truth) that the Apoftles were fo
eminently priuiledged, I will lay down my Proofs by Theirs, and
Shew by as great Authority, that the Church has her Priuiledge
alfo of Diuine Affiftance.
7. He Adds. It being moſt vnreaſonable to think that God would
fauour fuch perfons (the Apoftles) with fo extraordinary à power, who
should falfify their Miffage, and deceive the world. Gentle Reader
confider à little. The Apoftles taught the world for à few
only. The Roman Catholick hath food inuincible, and taught
V v v 3
years
Millious
are equal
A paradox
526 Diſc. 3. C. 6. Mr Stillingfleet folues not
The Apofles
taught for a
Short time,
and Erred
not.
The Church
and
longer,
grofly erred.
Church Mo-
tines both
Millions of Chriftians for fixteen Ages, If then it be vnreaſonable,
yea impious to think, that God could permit thoſe firſt Bleffed
inen to falfify their meffage, and deceiue with errour for that short
time; Is it not I befeech you as highly vnreaſonable and impious
to ludge, that an Infinite Goodnes could permit the very Church
he founded, made glorious by Her Miracles and other Signal
Motiues (all which Proue her fauoured with à Power extraor-
dinary) to falfifie her Meffage, to betray Her Truft, and lead Mil-
lions of fouls into damnable errour, during the vaft circuit of à
thouſand yeares? Confider I Say, And blush at his boldnes, who
dare impeach this pureft Spouſe of falshood.
8. Page. 132. He goes on. These Motiues of credibility were
Wont to be esteemed only the notes of Diftinction of the true Church
from all others, and not rational Proofs of her infallibility. Anſw.
distinguish They both diftinguish and proue. The Apoftles were diftin-
and prone. guished from all falfe Teachers, and proued alfo Oracles fent
from God by their Signs and Miracles, The like we fay of
A fling at
Bellarmine
to no purpose.
3
-
t
the Church, whofe Marks and Miracles are not inferiour to
thoſe the Apoſtles manifefted, and far more Numerous. Shew
vs à diſparity if you can, or be filent hereafter.
9. Page. 132. I find nothing but firft leaue giuen Bellar-
mine, to multiply his fifteen Notes of the Church to fifteen hun-
dred. How comes this to the Purpofe? Or what need is there
of multiplying, when One of thofe Fifteen, (and Ile tell you
which it is) the Churches glorious Miracles, hath fo filenced Secta-
ries, that none of them all has hitherto attempted to return any
better anfwer than this. Bellarmine thou lies't? He Sales. 2. The
only certain Note of the true Church is its agreement with the Primary foun-
dation of it, in the Doctrin which was infallible, and artefied by mira-
cles vndoubtedly Diuine. This is à ftrange Note or Mark, which
cannot be diftinguished from the thing Marked, as the Motiues
of Credibility, manifeftly fenfible, are diftinguished from the Doctrin
belieued.
10. Anfwer therefore, Good Sr, is this Agreement with the
Primitiue Doctrin its owns Self Euidence, as à Mark should be
Of
Difc. 3. C. 6. His Aduerfaries Argument. 5i7
That's made
which Sec-
aries must
Or, do all diffenting Parties accord thus far, That anciently fuch
was the Primitiue Doctrin, but now is changed from it felfe into à clear
another new Learning? Moft euidently no. For the whole con- Mark
teft between the Church and Her Aduerfaries ( may theſe be
heard) is, whether of vs Profeffe the Primitiue Doctrin laid in the
firſt foundation of Chriftianity? This point then being yet dif
putable (for fo Sectaries will haue it) it is meer folly to make it
à Mark whereby to diftinguish truth from falshood. And there is
no clearing it from Improbability vnlefs you fay. Sectaries more
wife then the reft of the world can exactly tell vs, who thofe
Chriſtians are that now agree with the Primitiue Doctrin, and who
diffent from it, But others as wife as they, want faith to belieue
fuch bare Affertions without Proofs and Principles. In à word
there is no knowing what the Primitiue Doctrin was, nor can any
now haue infallible certainty of the Apoftles Miracles, without
à Church actually in Being, and Infallible.
IJ
•
Say,
is jet
disputable
and obfcure.
11. He faith. 3. If our Doctrin be repugnant to what was Originally
deliuered by the Founder of the Chriftian Church, our Society is not the Conditional
Chriftian Church. Anfw. No more. Sr, is Tours, if it be repugnant. Propofitions,
bere Proofless
But To what purpofe are thefe ifs, and conditional Propofitions?
when Proofs are expected from Accufers. Proue you if you
can, but doe it vpon found Principles, that our Doctrin is repug-
nant to that which was Originally deliuered, you are Conque-
rour, and we no more Catholicks, but, Sr, à hundred more of
your Volumes will neuer Euince this.
à
12. He demands. 4. whether we cannot conceiue à Church should
be Confonant to the Doctrin of Chrift, without being infallible? Anfw.
No truly. Tis impoffible and here is the Reafon, becauſe in
leffe fpace then one Age, there would be as many Religions in
fuch à Church, as there are Townes or villages in it, And per-
haps more. And is not this manifeft in England, where almoft
cuery year we haue à new Religion coyned? Therefore to
Imagin à Society of men vnited rogether in the belief of Chrift's
infallible Doctrin, without an infallible Oracle to teach, is à meer
Chimera. O, but euery Man in this fallible Society is bound
A fallible
Church
cannot be
Confonant
Doctrin.
to Chrif's
to
518
Difc. 3. C. 6. Mr Stillingfleet folues not
to take care of his foul, and to belieue the infallible Doctrin
of Chrift. I Anfwer. If to take care of his Soul neceffarily
implies the Belief of Chrift's infallible Doctrin, it is impof-
fible to take that care, becauſe he can haue no infallible Af
furance of Chrifts Doctrin, without à Church which teaches
it infallibly. Hereof enough is faid aboue.
>
13. Page. 134. He defires to haue fuch Miracles wrought
as may conuince Infidels, as to the point of the Churches
A Parallel infallibility. Anfw. He has all he can defire. The Blind fe.
of Miracles. The Dumb fpeak, the Deaf hear, The Dead rife up to life again
were our Sauiours own Miracles, and conuinced Infidels, but
theſe are our Churches likewife, as is largely proued. Difc. 2.
c. 8. What would the man haue more?
An Euident
Miracle
Aighted.
14. Page. 135. To his no little difgrace, without any Proof
at all, he fcornfully flights that euident and moſt known Mi-
racle wrought at Zaragofa in Spain. But enough of this aboue.
Difc. 2. C. 9. Here I can add, hauing it from à right Honou-
rable Perſon yet liuing, who heard His Maiefty Charles the
firft Say, in the prefence of many others. The cure of that
young Man at Zaragofa was certain. Some herevpon Propofing
à further Queftion, whether it could be thought à Miracle?
His Maiefty Anfwered be it as you will, the thing was
done, The leg cut off and buried, was certainly reſtored
again.
15. In the fame Page he Queſtions whether the Motiues we
produce belong only to our Church? But grant, Saith he,
they do belong, its hard to find the connexion between them
and Infallibility. We haue Anfwered to the firft. No Society
of men can shew the like Motiues, and therefore vrge Mr
The Conne Stillingfleet to produce his Euidence, That is, To proue they
xion between belong to any other Society, But to the Roman Catholick
and Infalli.
Church only. The other point concerning the Connexion,
bility exin- Nicodemus à Prince of the lewes. 1ohn. 3. P. 2. long fince cleared.
Rabbi we know thou art come à Maſter or Teacher from God, for
no man can do thefe Signs which thou dos't, vnlef God be with him.
Miracles
ced.
Was
Difc. 3. C. 6. His Aduerfaries Argument.
529
Was then our Sauiour proued by the works and the Miracles
he did, à Mafter fent from God to teach? And did theſe Signs
conuince reafon, that God was with him when he taught? None
can deny it. Therefore none can doubt', but that He was alfo
proued infallible by Virtue of His wonders, And confequently
the connexion between them and infallibility hold's good. But Thetrue [x-
the Church (and here is our Inference) Euidences the very like ference.
Signes aboue the force of nature, therefore reafon concludes
that She alfo is proued Infallible. Wherefore, Mr Stillingfleet
is either obliged to find à flaw in the confequence
giue à Disparity between our Church - Motiues, and thofe
other Primitiue, which he neuer goes about to do.
or to
>
16. I meet with nothing in His. 136. Page, but loud vntruths
concerning our Doctrin of Pennance, as if we indulged fin
here, and yet gaue men hope of Heauen hereafter. It is à
Calumny (euery one knowes we teach no fuch Doctrin) and
in this place à meer Parergon befides. I therefore flight it,
and take notice of another ftraying out of the way. P. 137.
where he Speak's thus. The Principles of any Conclufion, must be
of more credit then the Conclufion it self. Therefore if the Articles
of Faith, The Trinity and Refurrection be the Conclufions, And the
Principles by which they are proued be only Ecclefiastical Tradition, it
muft needs follow, That the Tradition of the Church is more infal
lible then the Articles of faith, if the Faith we haue of thofe Arti-
cles, should be finally refolued into the veracity of the Churches Te-
stimony.
17. This Difficulty not well digefted, either Proues nothing,
or makes euery Refolution of faith void, For fuppofe I be
lieue the Trinity becauſe God hath reuealed the Myſtery plainly
in Holy Scripture. I Ask whether God's Teftimony, fuppofed
the Principle of belieuing, be more infallible then the Trini-
ty, which is belieued vpon it, here called the Conclufion?
Say, The Diuine Teftimony is more Infallible, I'll Affirm
the very fame of the Churches Propofition, For what the
Church fpeak's, God fpeak's.
God fpeak's. Anſwer No. And giue this*
Xxx
reafon,
In-
Another Pal
vergon to dŝ
uert the
Reader
Euery Refo-
lution made
null by this
obiection.
53.0 Difc. 3. C. 6. Mr Stilling fleet folues not
How the
Churches
Testimony is
the Clearer
Principle.
The Miftake
diſcouerd
One ladiui-
fible tenden-
sy in Faith,
reaſon, Becauſe we belicue the Teftimony and the Myfte-
ry attefted, by one Indiuifible certain Act of Faith, which
tend's infallibly vpon both thefe Obiects at once, without
making Conclutions, The difficulty ceales. And hereby you fe
firft. How the Churches Teftimony is à Principle to the thing.
belicucd, For euery one knowes, that à Formal Obiect.com-
pared with its Material which lies in darkneſs, is the
is the greater
Light, and has the preheminence to be immediatly known For it
Self, and not for another: Whereas, the material Obiect would:
ftill remain in à State of obfcurity, and neuer be yeilded to,.
but by the Energy of its formal Motiue.. In this fenfe there-
fore, the vltima ratio affentiendi, or formal Obiect may be wel
called the more certain Principle, Though as I now faid, the
Affent be indiuifibly terminated vpon both Obiects infallibly.
:
18. You fe. 2. Where the miſtake of our Aduerfarie lies..
He Suppofes faith generated by Diſcourte. First that we be-
lieue the Trinity (for example) vpon one Principle. Viz..
The Churches Tradition or Teftimony, and then defcend lower
to belieue the fame Myftery vpon God's Reuelation diftinct
from the Churches Teftimony, As if, forfooth, the Churches
Teftimony were an extrinfecal condition. preparing all to belieue
vpon the Diuine Reuelation (This muſt be intended or nothing
is faid to the Purpofe) now we vtterly deny the Suppofition,
and Say when we belieue the Trinity, or any other particular
Myſtery vpon the Churches Teftimony, or rather vpon this
reuealed truth: God speaks fo by the Church, We then elicite not
two diftinct Acts one depending on the other, but with one
indiuifible tendency of Faith belieue at once, the Formal and Material
Obiect together, That is we belieue God fpeaks the truth by.
the Church, which is to fay; we Affent to it becauſe he ſpeak's.
it, by his own infallible Oracle..
true.
16
>
+
19. This one fyllog.fm clear's all. What the Church Saies is
The Church Saies God has reuealed the Trinity. Ergo that's
true. We refolue the Maior or first Propofition thus. What.
The Church faies is true. That is. What God fpeaking by the.
>
Church
Difc. 3.
C.6. His Aduerfaries Argument. 531
Church faith, is true.
But God fpeaking by the Church Saies
the Myſtery of the Trinity is, Ergo, That's true.
Where you
fee, we only Difcourfe (could Faith be fo generated which fome
Diuines Affert) from the Formal obiect, or from Gods Reue-
lation, to the Material belieued. Now Mr Stillingfleet makes
this Senfe of the Maior Propofition, (and here lies his Errour)
What the Church Sates of Her filf, not including Gods Reuilation, is The Erreur
an act of Faith and true, But the Church of her own fole more Clearly
Authority faith, God reuealed the Trinity. Ergo I muſt firſt pointed as.
belieue the Myſtery by one act of Faith vpon the Churches
Teſtimony, as à Preparatiue to belieue it better, vpon Gods
pure Reuelation, which is another.diftinct Formal Obiect from
the Churches Testimony. This Difcourfe is implicatory. Firſt
becauſe the Churches Teftimony, if feparated from the Diuine
Reuelation, can ground no act of Faith. 2. If which is true,
only cooperates with, or confummates the ancient Reuelation
in order to the Belief of any Myftery, it can help nothing to
bring in à Conclufion, wholly as obfcure as it felf is. That
word, Conueyance, beguiled Mr Stillingfleet, for he thought, if
the Churches Teftimony conueyes vnto vs the ancient Reue- What begui
lation, it muſt be excluded from being infallible, and much
led iky Ad-
more from being à ioynt Motiue with it. Herein lies his Er-
rour.
*
werjary.
Faith in
plies Obfcía
20. It is difficult enough, To Say what He would be at
in his two next pages. Some times he will haue no want of
Euidence in faith, as to the Reaſon inducing to belieue, And if he
means, That what we Affent to by faith must be evidently Cre-
dible before we belieue, its à Truth, but if he will haue the ve-
ry act of Faitla elicited to be euident, the Apoftle. Heb. 11. 1.
contradict's him. For Fauh is an Argument of things not appearing.
Sometimes again he faith, the Affent is not requried to what
is obfcure and Vneuident, And then to mollify the Propofition,
add's. à
But what is euident to vs And therefore credible. In à word, obfcure Do-
if he intend's thus much only, That the endence of credibili- Brin.
ty precedes the ineuident act of Faith, all is well. But by
Xxx 2
onc
rily.
532 Difc. 3. C. 6 Mr Stillingfleet folues not
the Trinity
cuident to no
Belieuer.
one Inftance we may guefs where he err's. The manner of
the Hypoftatical vnion, Saith he, to vs ineuident, wherevnto God
requires not our Affent, but to the truth of the thing it felfe. An-
fwer, good Sr, Is the truth of the Hypoftatical vnion in it
The truth of felfe, or of the Trinity euident to vs ?
vs? Where lies that E-
uidence? Or vpon what Principle is it grounded? Here-
ticks are found that for the very difficulty of thefe ineuident
Myſteries deny both, And the beft Orthodox Chriftians in-
genuoufly Profefs, they fo far Surpafs all natural capacities,
That ther is no affenting to either but only by an humble
fubmiffiue Faith, which effentially implies Obfcurity. If the-
refore what you fay bo true. We may lawfully fſuſpend our Af-
fent, where God gives not euidence of the thing Affented to, you may
Confequently fufpend your Affent, and neither belieue. the
Trinity, nor the Incarnation.
AnObiection
Propofed.
21. Page. 140. He demands why we belieue the Refur-
rection of the dead? We Anfwer becaufe God reueal's it.
But Queſtioned again why we belieue, that God hath reuealed
it ?
We Anſwer becauſe the infallible Church faies God did
ſpeak it, whereby it is plain that though our firft Reply be
from God's Authority, yet the laft Refolution of our faith
is made into the infallibility of the Churches Teftimony: For
though God had reuealed it, yet if this Reuelation were not attested
by the Church'es infallible Teftimony, we should not haue fufficient ground
to belieue it, Therefore the Churches infallibility must be more credible,
then the Refurrection of the dead.
22. To giue à Satisfactory Anfwer, pleaſe to hear what I
Answered by demand alfo. Mr Stillingfleet belieues that our Sauiour is
Scripture it the true Meffias, becaufe Chrift fpake the Truth with his
Gelfe.
own facred mouth. John. 4. 26. And if he belieues Scripture,
He Affents again to that truth vpon S. Iohns Teftimony, And
fo firmly belieues it, that if the Euangelift (or fome other of
like authority) had not wrote it, he could not haue belieued
S. Iohns Teftimony, or that our Sauiour Spake thoſe words.
Here is our folution. God long ſince ſaid the dead shall rife,
buc.
Difc. 3. C. 6. His Aduerfaries Argument.
533
>
but this Ancient Reuelation being remote from vs,
(if folely
confidered) cannot moue vs to belieue the truth, vnleſs an In-
fallible Oracle Afcertain vs that God once ſpake it, iuft as S.
John affures all that Chrift faid. I am the "Meßu. Ask now
why Mr Stillingfleet belieues, that our Sauiour vttered thofe
words? He will Anfwer, God fpeaking by S. Iohn an Infal-
lible Oracle Affirms it. So I fay God fpeaking by the
Church, an Infallible Oracle, affirm's the Refurrection of the
dead. O, but independently of Church Authority we know
the refurrection is reuealed in Scripture, Contrariwife we know
nothing of our Sauiours words, but from S. Iohns Teftimo-
ny. Anfw. we know indeed the Refurrection is afferted in à
Book called Scripture, But that the Aflertion is Diuine, or
vttered by Eternal Truth, we haue no more Infallible certain--
ty without the Churches Teftimony, Then if any vulgar Sa-
maritan, without Diuine Affiftance, had faid. Chrift spake those
words. I am the Meßias.
An Appli·a-
ton of the
Intance
clear in
Scrip.ure
Reuelation
and the
Churches
23. By what is now briefly touched you fe firft, That as
our Sauiours own words and S. Iohns reflex Teftimony vpon
them, concurr Indiuifibly to the Faith of theſe Aduerfaries; So
the reuealed Verity of the Refurrection in Scripture, And the The ancient
Churches reflex Teſtimony which infallibly Afcertains vs that
it is reuealed, may well indiuifibly concurr as one compleat Mo-
tiue to our faith
whereof more hereafter. I fay indiuifibly;
And therefore this Faith vltimatly refolued, relies not firft
vpon Scripture only, as our Aduerfary conceiues, without any
relation to the Church, and then reft's vpon the Churches
Teftimony, as vpon à distinct Formal Obiect, but by one fimple
Tendency it pitches on both together.
>
24. You fe. 2. Its hard to Say what Mr Stillingfleet would
haue, when he tells vs. This Principle. The Church is inful-
lible, muſt be more credible then the Resurrection of the Dead. If
he mean's, the Churches Teftimony is to vs in this prefent
State, the more known and nearest Motine, wherevpon the Faith
of that Article is grounded, we eafily Affent. But if he
Xxx 3
think's
reflex Teſti-
mony
Concurr ins
diuifibly to`
Faith.
We clearly
diftinguish
what our
Aduerfary
Confound's,
534 Diſc. 3. C. 6. Mr Stillingeet Solues not.
think's we muſt firſt Affent to Scripture, which afferts the Re
furrection and own that as Diuine, or the only Motiue of Faith
without all Church Authority attefting it to be Diuine, He err's not
An improper knowing our Doctrin: For we Say, no Scripture can be infalli-
ble aflented to as Diuine independently of the Churches Teftimony.
Again thoſe words. More Credible, are improper, if applyed to the
Formal Obiect of Faith, For the Formal Obiect terminates Be
lief, the Credibility whereof goes before, and is grounded on
the preuious Motiues inducing to belieue.
Speech.
Scripture
P
VVhether we Square Circles in our Refolution of Faith
The other mentioned Points in the Title of the
Chapter, difcuffed. Vpon what ground those
Articles called the fundamentals of Faith
are belieued, in the Opinion of
Sectaries.
25. In many following Pages we haue little but that the Chur
ches Infallible Teſtimony muſt be called the Formal Obiect of
Faith, whereof ſomething is faid aboue, And you shall haue more
hereafter.
26. P. 149.
P. 149. He thinks we Argue like men fquaring Circles,
when on the one fide we make Scripture obfcure, yet on the
other, giue it light enough to proue the Churches infallibility,
And then he talk's of an Apocalyptical key hanging at the Churches
Proued Di- girdle, able to vnlock all the Secrets in it. To the firft I haue
Anſwered. Thus much Suppofed, that Scripture is proued Diui-
ne, we haue fo great light from the feueral Paffages thereof,to
Infallibility. conuince the Churches Infallibility, that no gloffes of Sectaries
shall euer obfcure them. To the Ieer of the Claus Apocalyptica
I Anfwer. Some one, or other muft vnlock thole high ſecrets,when
uine Con-
uinces the
Churches
tis
Difc. 3. C. 6. Elis Aduerfaries Argument.
535
t'is euident innumerable Heretiques by à wrong key wreft Gods
word to moft pernicious Senfes. The Queftion is whether you,
Sr, or the Church muft rurn the key?
Tersand
our Argis.
men:
27. Page. 152. After thanks gain for our Colors fo ofrem fernet
vp, Those mute Perſons, the good Motiues of credibility; He is Brilque lers and
and in earneft refolute, to folue our Argument, Asking before empty words
hand: Whether it be not enough to be in à Circle our felurs, but mut
need's bring the Apostles into it also? Reflect I befeech you. We
faid aboue, that the Apoftles induced by the Signal works and
Miracles of our Sauiour, Affented to his facred Doctrin as moft
infallible. In like manner, The Primitiue Chriftians induced by
the works and Miracles of the Apoftles belieued them to be infal- The force of
lible Oracles. Therefore we alfo in this prefent State, hauing
Motiues and Miracles of the fame weight and Euidence in the Ro-
man Catholick Church, Belieue with à firm Affent of Faith that
She is God's. Oracle, and her Doctrin moſt infallible. The short An-
fwer to all this faith. Mr Stillingfleet) is, That the ground why the
Chriftians did Affent to the Apostles Doctrin as true, was because God Wholly
gaue fufficient Euidence, that their Testimony was infallible in fuch things, waned
Where fuch infallibility was requifite. Pray, Confider well, whether
this be not à gliding, or rather à plain running away from the
Difficulty? We haue vrged all this while the Parity between
the Churches Motiues, and thofe of the Apoftles, We haue.
proued and yet plead, That the Euidence is à like in both. The
Churches moſt manifeft Signes are. The blind fe. The lame walk.
The dead rife, Diuels are difpoffefed &c. And theſe termed by you
vnfauory Coleworts, and mute good Things, were the Apoſtles Signs
alfo. Are not you therefore obliged in all law of Difputation, what all
either to proue,and vpon found Principles indeed, That we falfly law of Dif
appropriate fuch Motiues and Miracles to the Church, Or, if you puting
cannot difparage fo illuftrious an Euidence, to shew à fault in this requires.
Inference? The Church is known as well by her Signs, to be an infallible
Oracle.
28. Now mark how we are put off with half an Anſwer. God
fay you, gaue fufficient Euidence, that the Apoftles Teſtimony
Was
・
536 Difc.
3. C. 6. Mr Stillingfleet Solues not
Nothing like
an Answer
giuen.
The main
point preffed
again.
which can-
not be
Answered.
·An Argu-
ment urged,
ad homi-
MIEMI.
was infallible. None doubt's it. But Say on, what want do you
find of the very like Euidence in the Church? Her Miracles
are as manifeft, Her Conuerfions as Numerous (and more) Her
fame as renowned, Her name as Catholick, finally might we vfe
your fcornful language, Her Motiues (no mute Perfons) fpeak
aloud, and Her Colewarts are euery whit as good, as thofe were
the Apoſtles ferued vp. To this you Anfwer not à word, but
firft tell vs with your Aduerfary, that the Apoſtles confirmed their
Doctrin with Signs that followed, by which Signes all their Hea-
res were bound to aknowledge them for infallible Oracles; And
it is very true. But we proue the like Signs accompanied and fol-
lowed the Church in all Ages, therefore her Hearers are alfo
bound to acknowledge Her an infallible Oracle alfo. In this
place you should haue fpoken to the Cauſe and Shewed, Why,
or vpon what Account, thofe firft Signs were fo powerful to Pro-
ue the Apoſtles infallible, And theſe latter of the Church leffe
pregnant to proue Her infallible. This, and t'is the main Point,
you wifely waue For it is vnanfwerable, and moſt frigidly tell vs
P. 153. You muſt be excufed as to what followes. viz. That those
fame Motiues moued the Primitiue Chriftians and vs in our respectiue
Times, to belieue the Church. And why not dear Sr? Giue vs the
Diſparity, and we haue done, but you cannot. If therefore it
be a bold Attempt to deny the Euidence of the Church we plead
for, which. S. Auſtin. Epift. 166. compares with the Sun mani-
feft to all, vsque ad terminos ad terra, To the laft bounds of the
earth, it is impoffible to weaken the force of our Inference, when
we Say. The Church is proued by her Motiues an infallible Oracle,s
You next Terme this Expreffion, The formal Obiect of faith), à Coc-
cym, whereby it appear's how little you are verfed in School-
Diuinity.
29. It feem's in the Page now cited, your Aduerfary vrges
this Argument, Ad hominem. If à Church be acknowledged
infallible in Fundamentals, The laft reafon why you belieue it in-
fallible, muſt reſt vpon this Principle, That the prefent Church
doth Infallibly witnefs fo much by her Tradition. To this you
return
Diſc. 3. C. 6 His Aduerfaries Argnment.
537
return à moft diffatisfactory Anfwer, in thefe words. VVñen you Ask
vs (Proteftants) why we belieue fuch an Article to be fundamental, as
for an instance. Chrift will gue Eternal life to them that belicue him, The Secta-
we Answer not because the Church which is infallible in fundamentals ries Ap/wer,
Deliuers it to be fo, For that were to Answer Idem per Idem; But we
appeal to that Common Reason which is in Mankind, whether, if the
Doctrin of Christ be true, This can be any other than à fundamental
Article of it, it being that without which the whole Design of Chri-
Stian Religion comes to nothing.
30. Good Reader ioyn here two things together. Mr Stil-
lingfleet believes (and Mark the word) fuch an Article to be Fun-
damental, not vpon Scripture or Church Authority, for neither
makes the Diſtinction between fundamentals and not fundamen-
tals; And again, before he has proued by any infallible Autho-
rity that fuch à Diftinction in his Senfe ought to be made, He
brings in the common Reafon of mankind to ludge in à matter,
which Catholicks Say is de Subiecto non fupponente, not capable of
Iudicature, Becaufe there are no Things in being as he call's
fundamentals, diftinguifàble from others, of à lower Rank. More-
ouer (And take notice of this) He belieues fuch an Article to be
à truth becaufe God reueal's it, and belieues it to be à Fundamen-
tal Truth vpon this Motiue, that Common reafon hold's it fo.
Doth not therefore this one act of Faith, rely vpon two hetero-
geneal Formal Obiect? As Faith; it is built vpon God's Vera-
city, as Fundamental Faith, it ſtand's tottering vpon
reafon.
,
mans fallible
What followes is as bad or worſe. It is fufficient, Say you,
31.
That the Church doth deliver from the Confent of vniuerfal Tradition
the infallible Rule of Faith (which to be fure, contain's all things Fun-
damental in it) though She neuer meddles with the deciding what Points
are fundamental, and what not. Pray you, Sr, Anfwer. Who shall
dare to meddle with thofe fundamentals, were they Suppofable in
your fenfe, if the Church doth not? What must your priuate
Judgement or mine, decide here? Quo iure? by what law or Au-
thority? whilft Scripture faies nothing, and you will not permit
Yyy
the
highly diffa.
tisfactory
and why?
Faith
ftand's not
pont wo
different
Morine
Diuine and
humane.
Worse Dos-
trin yet.
538
Difc. 3. C. 6. Mr Stiling fleet Solues not
Their broken
kind of
Fasth.
The main
Point con-
cerning
Scripture,
examined.
is
the Church to meddle in the Bufinefs, were there any ſuch thing
to be meddled with, Therefore you leaue all to mens priuate
Opinions, to make what they pleafe fundamental, and exclude
from Fundamentals euery thing which likes them not. And here
your fumbling way of Belieuing no man knows what, whilft
the Church tells you, that euery thing She Propofes, as an Ar-
ticle of faith, is Fundamental. This impregnable Principle we
eftablish in Lieu of your loofe Faith, and broken way of Ar-
guing alfo. Laftly you are out in the main Suppofition, that
Scripture only is the Rule of faith, But hereof enough is faid
in the firft Difcourfe.
>
32. The next Thing I meet with worth any Notice, is. P.
158. Wherevnto we alfo ioyn his. 170. Page. It feem's D. Lawd
before Mr Stillingfleet wrote his Account, was vrged to giue à
fatisfactory Reply to the Queftion. VVhy, or vpon what ground
Proteftants belieue the Books of Scripture to be the VVord of God?
and its fenfe, Scripture alone Sayes not which Books are Canonical, much
leffe declares their Senfe in matters controuerted. Sectaries reiect
the Churches Infallible Authority And fay, She is not to tell vs.
which Books are Scripture, or, what their fenfe is, though ad-
A reafona mitted as God's word. Is it not very reafonable think ye to
ble Demand, demand vpon what Ground thefe men ftand, when either they
belieue Scripture to be the word of God, or giue an Affent to
the particular doctrins contained in the book? For clearing
thefe difficulties, you shall haue Mr Stillingfleets own word's
The fubflan-
ce of Mr
Stilling fleets
Answer,
P. 170.
33. This Queftion, Saith he, how we know Scripture to be Scrip-
ture, may import tvvo things. First, how we know that all those
books contain God's word in them? Or fecondly how we know, the
Doctrin Contained in thefe Books to be Diuine? If you then ask me,
Whether it be neceffary that I belieue with fuch à Faith, as is built
vpon Diuine Testimony, that theſe Books called Scripture, contain the
Principles of the Iewish and Christian Religion in them, which we call
God's Word, I do and shall deny it (viz. That This belief is built on
any Diuine Teftimony) and my reafon is, because I haue fufficient ground
for
Difc. 3. C.6. His Aduerfaries Argument. $39
for fuch an Affent without any Diuine Teftimony. But if you ask me
on what ground, I belieue the Doctrin to be Diuine which is contai-
med in those books; I then Answer affirmatiuely, on à Diuine Testimo-
ny, because God hath giuen abundant Euidence, that this Doctrin was of
Diuine Reuelation.
?
No-
Drewes an
ill Confe-
quence afte-
rit.
34. Here are two Affertions. The firft is, That the Books
of Scripture contain God's Word in them, And this cannot believed
vpon any Diuine Testimony. Thus much granted, It followes
ineuitably. Though one should pertinaciously reiect the who-
le Canon of the old and new Teftament, or abfolutely af-
firm, Thefe Bookt, and all the particular Sentences contained in them,
are not God's written word, He could not yet for fuch à per-
uerfe Denial, be accounted an Heretique. I Proue it.
ne can incurr the guilt of Herefy, but he who denies à Truth
which God has reuealed, or which ftand's firm vpon à Diuine
Teftimony. But he that denies the Books of Scripture to con- Heresy not
tain God's Word in them, renounceth no Truth reuealed by incurred,
Almighty God, For, Saith our Aduerfary, this is no reucaled though ons
Truth, nor ftand's firm vpon any Diuine Teftimony, Therefo- denyed the
Books of
re he is no Heretique. Now further, if he may without the
Scripture to
fin of Herefy deny thefe Books to be Diuine, Seing God be Diuine.
neuer faid fo, It is impoffible to belieue the Doctrin cherein
contained to be Dinine, vpon any Diuine Teftimony, yet Mr Stilling-
fleet thinks he may.
で
​35. My Reafon is. No man vnderftand's by the Books
of Scripture which contain the Principles or Doctrin of the lewish
and Chriftian Religion, to be meerly the Paper or Couer of
the Books, but he muft vnderſtand, if he rightly conceiues What is to
what Scripture is, the very Principles and Doctrin contained in be vader-
thoſe writings. For example. Here is one Principle in the food by the
old Teftament. Gen. 17. 4.
ham and his feed for euer. Another in the New. Ioan. 1. 14.
The Word is made Flesh. Anfwer I befeech you?
Can any
man truly affirm, that thefe two Principles (the like is of in-
numerable others contained in Scripture) ftand not firm vpon
God made à Conuenant with abra-
Yyy 2
.
God's
Books of
Scripture?
540 Difc. 3. C. 6. Mr Stillingfleet folues not
God's infallible Teftimony, when T'is manifeft, the whole
Chriſtian world is obliged to belieue them, with à Faith groun-
Principles of ded vpon the fame infallible Teftimony, that reuealed them?
Religisn de. It was Therefore no little Ouerfight in Mr Stillingfleet to
Eyed. Speak here of the Principles of the lexish and Christian Religion,
contained in a Book called Scripture, And pofitiuely to Affert
theſe cannot be belieued vpon à Diuine Teftimony. This
certainly is not Defenfible.
An Anſwer.
20 fuch as
bere diflin
guish
Between the
bare words
and the fen.
fe.
Words are
Diuine.
>
à
>
>
Now
The
36. Some may yet Reply. Two things are here to be
confidered. First the bare letter or outward words of Scrip-
ture, and theſe we belieue not vpon Diuine Reuelation, but
haue them from vniuerfal Tradition or the confent of Na-
tions. The fecond, is the Senfe or Diuine Doctrine which
theſe outward Signes or exteriour words Conuey to vs.
this Senfe or the interiour Doctrin of Scripture, as contradiftinct
from the bare outward letter, we purely belieue vpon the Di-
uine Teftimony, cafting the Affent giuen to the Words vpon
other forrain Principles. I belieue Mr Stillingfleet elswhere
Saies fomne fuch thing as this, or muſt ſay it. Contra. 1.
meer outward words though pure, are no Books of Scriptu-
re And as feparated from the Senfe and interiour Doctrin,
are neither Principles of the Iewish or Chriftian Religion,
nor in rigour God's Word, For God neuer fpake nor infpi-
red others to write words, but he iointly conueyed with them
his own Senfe, and Doctrin alfo. And Methinks its very hard
to belieue this Doctrin. This is my beloved Son as God's fa-
cred words, and not to belieue thofe very words to come from
God, vpon the fame Diuine Motiue which Support's the Do-
Atrin. Mofes, faith our Sauiour. Iohn. 5. 47. Has written of
And if you will not belieue hus Writings, how will you be
lieue my Words ? Thefe outward Signes therefore, the very
words of truth, called by the Apoſtle. 1. Theff. 2. 13. Verbum
auditus Dei. words of hearing, or heard, are in very deed the
VVords of God; and confequently may well, where none can
rationally doubt of their Purity, be affented to vpon the
me.
fame
Difc. 3. C. 6. His Aduerfaries Argument.
541
fame Diuine Teftimony, with the Doctrine contained in
them.
The First
pernas Spea-
king is the
Veritas
Obiect of
Faith.
37. The Reafon is. God would have been the fame Ve-
rity he now is, although he had reuealed nothing, that there-
fore which moues or determin's Belieuers to affent to the
truths reuealed is not only his increated Authority, but the
fincere external Reuelation with it alfo. Thele Two iointly
concurr as one Motiue, whence it is that the Firft Verity, as
Spearing, or Reucaling may be rightly called the Formal Obiect
of Faith. I know Diuines vary about this Queſtion. Whe-
ther the external Propofition be à partial Mottue with Gods
internal Verity, or only à neceffary condition whereby that Ve-
rity, (the vitumate ground of faith) is applyed to Belieuers, here-
in much may be de Nomine: But none of them all Say, The
exteriour Reuelation is affented to vpon one Principle which
is not Diuine, and that the Doctrine conueyed by it is be-
lieued vpon another moft Diuine and infallible. This is à no- What Seta-
uelty. Neither do I fee, how Sectaries can find that Lustre,
that Maiesty and Diuinity, fo often talk'd of in the pureft words
of holy Writ, if they be not owned as God's true words vpon
his Diuine Teftimony.
>
ries should
grand.
38. Let vs now briefly examin Mr Stillingfleet's Pro-
pofition, without depending on what he teaches or muft
teach, concerning the belief of words feparated from the Do-
arin. VV'e belieue, Saith he, the Doctrin contained in the Books of The Dofrın
Scripture vpon à Diuine Teftimony, because God has giuen abundant in it filfe
Euidence, that this Doctrin Tras (or is) of Diuine Reuelation. Here examined,
are three things Diftinguishable. The Doctrin Believed, The In-
carnation for example. The Testimony reuealing the matter be-
belieued, and finally the Euidence whereby that Teftimony is
brought to light. Now all our difficulty is concerning the E-
uidence of this Diuine Teftimony wherevpon we belieue any
Myſtery, and we Ask from whence Mr Stillingfleet takes his
Euidence (He has you fe abundance of it) wherewith to prone
that God euer Said. The Diuine word was made flesh?
Yyy 3
39. The ..
542
Diſc. 3. C. 6. Mr Stillingfleet folues not
The Dinine
Telimony,
not its own
Self euiden-
62.
39. The Queſtion feem's reaſonable, becauſe this Teftimo-
ny which all ought to belieue, and confequently doth Exist, is
not it's own Selfe euidence, nor can it be euidenced by another
Teftimony of Scripture (wholly as obfcure to vs) that God ſpa-
ke that Truth, For fo we should goe in infinitum and Proue one
dark Teftimony by another equally as dark. Infallible Tradi-
tion not written, and the infallible Authority of the Church
our Aduerfaries reiect, And may Say, Both (though admitted)
are Obiects of faith, and confequently vnder that Notion appear
as little Euident to vs, as the Scriptures Teftimony is, we de-
fire to proue. Therefore whateuer is rightly called Euidence in
this matter, whereby all would diſcouer an obfcure Teftimony
(not yet proued God's word) muft of neceffity be extrinfecal
to the Teftimony it felfe, and if extrinfisk, no other Euidence can
the Euidence Poffibly be had, but that which arifes from the known Moti-
of its Credt. ues of Credibility, For by thefe the Church is proued an Ora-
bility must cle no leffe Infallible, then thofe firft Mafters of Chriſtianity
were. Wherefore Mr Stillingfleet is conftrained whether he
will or no
if he giues in any thing like Euidence, to make
vſe of theſe good mute things the Motiues of Credibility, which
he fcornfully call's Coleworts too often ferued vp, or shall neuer
proue that God once faid. The Diuine word is made flesh. Which
is to Say, He must first euidence à Church, before he Proues those words
Therefore
be taken
from extrin.
fick Motiues.
dition no
Sufficient E-
uidence.
Diuine.
>
40. It may be replyed; His Euidence for the whole Book
of Scripture and euery particular fentence in it, is taken from
the fallible Tradition of all called Chriftians, and others alſo
TallibleTra- no Chriftians. I say fallible, For he owns none Diuine or In-
fallible. Contra. I. The Scripture was acknowledged Diuine,
before men agreed fo vniuerfally that it was Diuine, Tradition
therefore, which is rather an Effect of our Chriftian Beliefe
concerning Scripture, then à proof of it, prefuppofes fome other
more clear foregoing Euidence, whereby the Book was ancient-
ly owned as Diuine. This we enquire after, and very rea-
fonably; becauſe the Chineſes haue à vniuerfal Tradition for
their
Difc. 3. C. 6. His Aduerfaries Argument.
543
their Bible, and the Turks for their Alcoran one alfo gene-
ral, yet fuch à humane, fallible and weak Tradition proues
not thoſe Books to be Diuine. Contra. 2. And here is an
An Argu
Argument ad Hominem. If Mr Stillingfeet belieues the Tefti- ment ad ho-
monies of Scripture Infallible, vpon fallible Tradition which minem.
may be falfe, he makes his Conclufion concerning the belief
of euery Paffage in Holy Writ, far more fure then the Pre-
miles are which lead in the Conclufion, And this Doctrin he
reiect's aboue as improbable. Contra, 3.
༣ He has neither vni-
uerfal Tradition for the Proteftants Canon of Scripture (difow-
ned by more then half of the Chriftian world) much leffe fal fallible
for its true Senfe, wherein diffenting Chriftians fo much vary, tradition for
that none of them all can Say vpon humane or fallible Tra- their Serip-
dition, what the true meaning of the Holy Ghoft is
confequently this very Tradition, as alfo Mr Stillingfleets dou-
ble Refolution of Faith into the Books of Scripture, and into
the Doctrin, or Sense, come iuft to nothing.
and
Sectaries ba
ue no vniuer-
ture.
41. Page. 158. He Argues the whole Church confift's of
men fubiect to errour, That is, All the Parts are liable to
miftake, Ergo the whole Church cannot poffibly be infallible,
A fallacious
in and of it felfe. Anfw. Lay open thefe couered Terms
› Obiection
In and of it felfe, The Argument lofes force. I Say the- Solued.
refore, Men meerly confidered as nature has made them
fallible in order to belieue Supernaturally, haue In and
Of themelues no immunity from errour, yet taken vnder ano-
ther Notion, as they constitute à Curch, they are infallible.
That is. There was, is, and will euer be à Church Teaching
and à Church Taught, Infallible, So that all shall neuer err in
Faith. You may eaſily reioyn. This or that man
theſe or
thofe Multitudes may wilfully abandon Chrift's Doctrin. Too
true God knows: And if fo, They are no more members of
the Church, but Heretiques or Infidels. Again. If you run
ouer the reft of Chriftians remaining Orthodox (whether Pa-
ftors or People) and Say thefe may alfo fall from Faith
I Church
Anſwer Some may, All cannot, becauſe God has promiſed euer cannot.
,
;
to
Some may
err All the
544 Difc. 3. C. 6. Mr Stillingfleet folues not &c.
The fallacy
difcouerid,
They rightly
use the
Means, be
caufe antice
denily made
Infallible.
remoued, we
proceed to
the Refolu
to preferue à Church in Being, I mean faithful Teachers and
faithful Belieuers, to the end of the world. And muft not
Sectaries acknowledge thus much, who hold à Church infal-
lible in Fundamentals, which vpon that account cannot whol-
ly err?
42. Mr Stillingfleet Anfwer's, Though the Authority of
the whole Church be not Diuine, yet she cannot err in Fun-
damentals, because she is
, because she is tyed to the vje of means. Say, Good Sir,
who tyes Her to this infallible vfe of Mean's, if the whole
Moral Body and euery Member of it be fallible? Grant that
God by his fpecial Alliſtance ties Her faft, She is for that rea-
fon infallible, and muft Vfe the means: Take from Her di-
uine Aſſiſtance, and Say She is only guided by the erring Con-
ceptions of fallible men, She may eafily fwerue from the Means,
and reuolt from Chrift. And thus the fallacy is cleared. You,
Sr, Suppofe the Infallibility muſt be taken from the right vfe of
means, whercas the contrary is true. Viz. Therefore She rightly
vses the means, because She is antecedently preferued infallible by Di-
uine Aßistance. You fuppofe again, that all the Parts of this
Affifted Church are fallible, And we Say no, For as long as
they continue members of it; So long as the Paftors lawfully com-
miffioned teach in Chrift's name, and the faithful belieue their
infallible Doctrin (There will be euer fuch à Church on earth)
So long they are all infallible. If any fall from Faith, whether
few or many, Thefe, eo ipfo, ceafe to be Members of this My-
ftical Body, yet the Church fail's not, for the failing of fome,
infer's not à poffible Failure in all. The want of this Diftin-
ction caused your errour.
43. And thus hauing remoued fuch weak difficulties out of
Difficulties the way (thought great ones in that 5th chapter) which to an
an vnwary Reader may feem to Obftruct the Catholick Refo-
lution of Faith, We will in the following Diſcourſe, firſt Pre-
miſe fome Principles much auailing to conceiue the eaſieſt
Refolution, and next declare where the chiefeft difficulty lies
which Mr Stillingf. has not done, and finally endeauour to
tion.
folue
Difc. 3. C. 7. Principles premiſed to c. 545
folue it, without the leaft danger of any vicious Circle. After-
ward we shall proue that Proteftants haue no Faith at all to
refolue.
CHAP. V I I.
Neceffary Principles premifed to the Refolution of Faith.
God can Speak in à Language proper to Himfelfe.
His external language is twofold. VV ben
God Speaks not immediatly, He must
be heard by his Oracle. VVhat the
exact Refolution of Faith implyes?
I.
He first Principle. God who is an Infinite verity
Tand fpeak's not to ftones, can by à Diuine Langua-
God's proper
Language
Known te
ge proper to himſelfe, fo make his interiour mind and fincere
meaning known to rational creatures, that all vpon hearing His
voyce may without heſitation indubitably, Say. Thus God ludges,
this he Speak's, which granted. All are obliged both readily and
firmly to yeild affent to fo great à Maiefty for his own Authority.
The reafon hereof is clear. If God can fpeak to Mortals, and all,
for this end that he be vnderftood, there arifes an obligation
in euery one to belieue him without fear or doubt, Or in cafe
it be impoffible after all humane induſtry vſed, to learn what he
1peak's, none can abfolutely belieue him.
2. A. 2. Principle. Then (and not otherwiſe) this external
Language is certainly known to come from God, when it is ſpo-
ken in his name, and fp fairely appear's by its own Signatures,
Luftre, and Wonders, to proceed from him, That all muft con-
fefs an infinite Goodnes cannot permit, either Diuel or falfe
Zzz
Prophet
546
Difc. 3. C.7. Principles premifed to
How this
Diuine
Prophet to vſe the like way of Speaking, I mean by Signs pecu-
liar to God, and withal to vtter à falshood in his name: For
Language is were this poffible, we infringe the greateſt Euidence which
Chriſtianity has, and muft Say, though Chrift onr Lord and his
Apoftles Significantly fpake to all in God's name by their won-
ders, and Miracles, Yet neither lewes nor Gentils could be obli-
ged (after à clear diſcouery of them) to belieue that they were
fent from God, To teach the world.
known to
proceed
from Cod?
By one
Example,
Geds imme.
diate way of
Speaking,
3. Now becauſe this external Language is twofold, Firſt
Priuate and Immediate. 2. Publick and Mediate, both for our better
Satisfaction are to be declared. Concerning the firft. Imagin
that one like another Mofes were in à Defert, and faw à Bush
burn, yet not confumed, Drawing neer he hear's one Speak out
of the flame, and Asking who it is? it is Anfwered. I am God
that ſpeak's, and command thee to belieue and deliuer to all what.
I Say, And to Euidence that I am God, I fore-tel thee now things,
declared, which shall happen in thy dayes. Befides thou shall fee thefe
wonderful Signes to confirm this Truth, that I Speak. Put thy
hand into thy bofome, it shall become leperous, and prefently
pure again, Caft thy rod vpon the, ground I'll make it à Serpent,
and without delay turn it into what it was before. And if theſe
Signs moue thee not, look into the next Thicket, there is one
lies dead, barbaroufly flain by his Enemies, this man I will raiſe
vp to life, and thy own eyes shall fee the Miracle. For theſe
wonders therefore, thou muft belieue, I am God who ſpeak's,
and know it belongs to my Prouidence not to permit ſuch à fig-
nalized Language to pafle from me, vnleſs it were mine. Thus
we haue Gods priuate and immediate way of fpeaking.
The langua-
ge known to
proceed from
God; And
shy?
4. Herevpon this retired man leaues his Solitude, goes abroad,
and publisheth to all what he has heard and feen, but yet gain's
no credit. He then tells his incredulous Auditors, God has fent
The way of
him as à Meffenger to ſpeak in his name, and proues his Com-
Speaking by miffion by working ftrange Wonders. He cures the fick, difpof
feffes Diuels, raifes the Dead, which done, the moft obdurate hearts
Affent to what he teaches, and belieue he is no Impoftor, but
another.
à Mes-
Difc. 3. C.7. the Refolution of Faith.
547
à Meffenger indeed fent from God, For none, as that Prince
amongſt the lewes argued aboue. Iohn. 3. 1. can ſay he comes
from God, and work fuch wonders, vnlefs God be with him.
And this is God's publick way of fpeaking by another.
5. A. 3. Principle. Whoeuer grant's that God can ſpeak
to man by an Oracle diſtinct from himſelfe, muſt alſo (if fo
great à Maiefty pleafes not to impart his truths immediatly) hold it
Obligatory,to hear the Mediate Language of that Oracle, where-
by God fpeak's.
what
obliged to, if
we are
God Speak's
not imme
dially.
6. Imagin now, you had an earneft Seeker after Truth, à
meer Stranger to Chrift, yet thoughtful of à long Eternity, that
look's about him, and is refolued to find out what God has ſpo-
ken by the beft Oracles. He read's Ariſtotle, Plato, and the
like ancient Philofophers, And ponders all moft diligently. What How à Zes-
followes? Some few Sparks of light he finds there, but fo mix'd lous Inquirer
with darkneſs and errour, that the ill Luftre of it, leaues him after itush,
quite diffatisfied. Perhaps he may hope to learn more from Ma- proceed's?
homer's Alcoran. Worfe Succefs here. For no fooner has
he the Book in his hands, but the impudent lies, the horrid Im-
poftures, the filth and contradictions difcouered there, fo difquiet He meet's
his troubled foul, that be curfes the Book, And rightly Conclud's first wish
fo foul à language, could neuer come from God. Inquiring prophane
moreouer who this Mahomet was? He learn's, he was à Coun-
learning.
terfeit, an Ignorant, an vnpure and moft cruel man, onely pray-
fable in this, that he owned One God, Though he neuer ado-
red him in Spirit and truth.
Fall's next
on th Hely
7. Thus much done, our Zealous Seeker, hears of à Book
called the Holy Scripture, highly reuerenced by Chriſtians.
He reads and reioyces, for now he meets with à language Scripture,
beſeeming God, graue, Simple, familiar, yet withall ferious. The
Doctrin and Preceps of the book appear alfo moft facred, But one
doubt occurr's Concerning the ftrange Miracles and wonders in the doubts
old and new Teſtament. So doth another in no few Paffages, which occurr
there Seem fo obfcure, that He vnderſtand's them not. Howe-
uer, by what is difcouered, moft happy Man were He,
Zzz z
could
any
548 Difc.
3. C. 7. Principles premiſed to
He feek's
Satisfaction.
any Afcertain him of the truth of all now peruſed, And indubi-
tably proue it to be God's own infallible word.
8. In this reftles condition, He propofes the Doubts to one
or more of Caluins followers, and Ask's how they proue the
Scriptures Diuinity? They tell him the Queftion is as imper-
tinent, as if he should demand, how light my be known to be
light, and not darkneſs, white to be white, and not black. Much
diffatisfied with the Anfwer, wholly as bad as that other Proof is,
And repaires taken from the priuate Spirit; The inquifitiue Perfon hauing
heard of a known Chriftian Society called Catholicks, addreffes
himſelfe to fome of the learned among them who pretend to
Speak in the name of Chrift and the Church, And affure him
that God is the Author of Scripture. This yet reaches not home,
and though it were further anſwered, the Church pofitiuely tea-
ches fo, yet he may iuftly demand.. How we proue the truth of
the Churches Teſtimony?
to Catho-
licks-
He liftens
to God's
own langua-
ge Spoken
by the
Church:
9. Here whilft Sectaries are filent,. We proceed as the folita-
ry Man did, and euidence God's own Language fpoken by one.
only Oracle. That is, We lay forth the Motiues mentioned aboue,
which illuftrate the Church and moft prudently conuince, that
God ſpeak's by this Oracle. The Motiues are her vndeniable
Miracles, the eminent Holiness of life in thoufands, the Sanctity.
and Vnity of her Doctrin, witneffed by the confent of ſo many
different Nations, who all agree, and will agree in one and the
fame Faith, to the end of Ages. We Add hereunto the Con-
ftancy and fortitude of Martyrs, thofe admirable Conuerfions
the Church has wrought, Her amplitude extended the whole
world ouer, and yet to giue more light, We. Ask whether euer
fince the firſt Creation of things, fuch multitudes of Profeffors
fo well vnited in one Faith, fo wife, fo learned, ſo pious and
virtuous, can be found in any other Religion not Catholick? Who
more exactly complied with the Law they liued vnder, or yeil-
ded à readier Obedience to it, then thofe doe and haue done
that make Profeffion of the Roman Catholick Faith. The In-
genuous man faith No, and the truth is manifeft. The Heathens
fo
Difc. 3. C.7. the Refolution of Faith.
549
fo notoriouſly tranfgreffed the Law of nature, that few and very No Motines
few obferued it. During Mofes Law the Church was but little, found in any
yet the Peoples fins were great, And if we compare the Learning, other Reli-
Wiſdom, and Piety of the lewes, with the eminent Knowledge, gion but the
Virtue, and Piety of thofe who profefs the Catholick faith, there Catholick.
is no Parallel. Mention modern Sectaries, diuorced from Chriſt
and his Church, what are they? Men of yeſterday, truely Law-
lefs, in à word à very fmall difioynted company. Their Cri-
tical learning appeares in their Writings, and the virtue they ha-
ue, is beſt known by their works. Nothing hitherto of God's
Language. I mean, no rational Motiues illuftrate this Reli-
gion.
10. Thus you fe Firft. How à Seeker after truth may by
prudent Induftry learn, that the Doctrin contained in Scripture,
is Gods own Sacred and Diuine word. But. 2. To be Affu-
red hereof, an Infallible Oracle, euidenced by Supernatural Sig- The laft
nes is to atteft the Verity, for fo Prouidence has ordered, That Affurance
God's own moft fublime and Diuine language, must be conueyed to vs by ginen.
another more plain and easy. The Motiues which illuftrate the
Church are this plain exterionr Language; Induced by them, we
hear the Church fpeak, And vpon her Teftimony belieue that
other facred Language of God, deliuered in Holy Writ.
II. A. 4. Principle. The Refolution of Faith is then exact-
ly made, when all the Caufes or conditions wherevpon it de-
pend's, are plainly laid forth, vntil we fall vpon the very laft Cau-
fe or Motiue of our affent, giuen to the Diuine Reuelation. Brie-
fly. The final Caufe of belieuing is, that in this our short Exile
we liue virtuouſly, as Faith requires, and after enioy eternal
Happines. The material Caufe or Subiect of Faith is Man's
vnderſtanding. The intrinfick Formal caufe is no other but Faith
it felfe, which as truely makes à foul belieumy, as vifion receiued
in the retina of the Eye, denominat's it feing. Thus far there
is no great difpute, nor much can be queftioned concerning the
refolution of the very Formal Act of Faith (as diftinguished
from the Obiectiue) which is made by à reflex Contemplation vpon
Zzz 3
it, as
what the
Refolution
of Faith
implies ? and
when exact.
ly made?
550 Difc. 3. C.7. Principles premifed to &c.
An eafy dif.
ficulty
Solued upon
this Princi-
ple, That God
cannot cheat
the world.
it, as it tend's in to all thofe caufes and Conditions, whercon
that act depend's. The only difficulty therefore remaining,
concern's the Formal extrinfecal Motiue which all Say is
Gods Diuine Reuelation.
>
12. Now one Queftion may be. From whence haue we
Catholicks greater affurance, of our Doctrin, or why Say we
That, that ftand's firm vpon the Diuine Teftimony, and re-
iect the Arians and Proteftants Doctrin as à Nouelty, or not
built vpon the fame foundation whilſt all of vs pretend to
Scripture? The Arians fay Chriſt is not the higheſt God. We
affert the contrary. Proteftants teach the Church is fallible.
We the contrary. In this Oppofition of Iudgements, who
can certainly Define what God has fpoken? To this (and
it is the leaft of difficulties) we Anfwer. God who cannot
deceine has giuen fo many Diuine and manifeft Signes, in
behalfe of the reuealed Doctrin which the Church tea-
ches, that none can Queſtion the Truth, vnless he will either
fay: An infinite Wifdom cannot declare his own Interiour
mind by clear exteriour Signs; Or which is worfe; That he
has eftablished an Oracle, and fet it forth with ſtrange Su-
pernatural wonders, only to make à fair Appearance, though
the final End be to cheat all that belieue it.
}
13. Now here is the only Queftion. Whether thefe A-
rians, or Proteftants, haue any better euidenced Oracle by
more, (or equal) Signs and miracles, which teaches their Te-
nets, then the Roman Catholick Church is, that Teaches.
Could fuch´an Oracle be euidenced, They might talk
of the Afſurance of their particular Doctrins, but till this be
shown, which will neuer be, filence muft proue the beſt An-
fwer.
ours.
CHAP. VIII.
Difc. 3. C. 8. The main Difficulty in the c. 551
CHAP. VIII.
The main Difficulty in the Refolution of Faith, Pro-
pofed. VVhat Connexion the Motiues haue with
the Divine Reuelation? Of their weight and ef-
ficacy. God's own Language not imitable by his
Enemies. Faith tranfcend's the certainty of all Mo-
tiues. The main Difficulty folued. Of our great
Security in Belieuing God, Though we haue not
Euidence of the Duine Teftimony.
>
I.
T
>
folue
The Difficul
ty common
The laſt Refo-
to all.
He real Difficulty in this matter which Mr Stil-
lingfleet hitt's not on, is fo common to all Chri-
ftians, that Sectaries are as much, yea more obliged to
then the Catholicks. Thus I propofe it.
lution of faith, is made into this Obiectiue Truth. God has
reuealed the Incarnation (the like is of any other Diuine My- None knowes
ftery) but the Reuelation appear's, and muft appear Obfcure Euidently
to him that belieues, For T'is neither its own Selfe-Euidence, the Mystery
nor can be euidently applied by any other Medium, efpecially of the Trini
if the Motiues of credibility, haue not infallible connexion nity in i
with the Diuine Teftimony. Thus much fuppofed, which none
can deny, it followes, that the intellectual Faculty, when the
Reuelation is obfcurely propofed, ftand's as it were houering,
and cannot, for as much as yet appear's, be more inclined.
to affent infallibly, then to diffent.
2. If you Say, the Will after à full Sight of the Reucls-
tions credibility, can determine the vnderſtanding to aflent fuper
Omnia, or Infallibly, t'is Anfwered. This feem's impoffible.
Firft
Selfe.
The ground
of the diffi
culty.
552
Difc. 3. C. 8. The main Difficulty in the
The will
Seem's to
Firſt, becauſe the Motiues whereby the Obiect is made cre-
dible, can ſettle in vs no other iudgement, but This. God's
Teftimony and the thing attested by it, are moft prudently thought
to exift, or appear fo highly credible, that it is the greateſt
folly, not to belieue, But this Iudgement, you ſe, neither rea-
ches to the Verity of the Reuelation in it felfe, nor to the mat-
ter reuealed, therefore Faith cannot as yet, be elicited.
3. Again. The will cannot moue the vnderſtanding to af
fent to an obiect, Sub ratione veri infallibilis, vnder the Notion
help nothing of an infallible Truth, vnlefs manifeft reafon firft conuinces the
inthu parti- intellectual Power, that it Exifts, and is infallible. But all
cular.
the reafons preceding Faith, bring with them no fuch Conui-
&tion, for all are here fuppofed fallible, Therefore if the vn-
derſtanding yeild's an infallible Affent to that, which is not ra-
tionally conuinced to be infallible, it proceed's temerariouſly,
and doth more then it can do, for it goes beyond the limits.
of Prudence; faying. This is infallibly so, though it has no reaſon
to iudge it infallible. The force of what is now faid, will beft
appear in this Syllogifm. A Truth (though really à truth) Pro-
pofed or repreſented, as obfcure, cannot moue the vnderſtan-
ding to an infallible Affent, but the Diuine Reuelation is
one Syllogifm propofed and reprefented as an obfcure truth, Ergo, it cannot
moue the vnderſtanding to an infallible Affent.
The whole
difficulty
propoſed in
The ludge-
ment of lear.
ned Diuines,
4. To Solue this preffing Argument many learned Diuines
afcribe, and Methinks moft reafonably, fo great an Euidence
to the Motiues of credibility, fo ftrong à connexion between
them and the Diuine Reuelation, that it's impoffible to ſeparate
what God has conioyned. Viz. The Truth of his Reuelation, from
the euident appearance, or rather the real Exhibition of fo many
glorious Miracles, ſo much blood shedding for Chriſt, ſo great
Sanctity, such innumerable conuerfions wrought vpon Millions &c.
Thefe and the like Signal wonders, taken atlogether, God can-
not permit to be done in his name, and with all their Circum-
ftances to confirm à Faith which tend's to no other end
but Holiness of life and euerlafting happines, vnleſs the Di-
uine
Difc. 3. C. 8. Refolution of Faith.
553
uine Teftimony were really in Being, as thefe Signs con-
uince.
I
VVhere in
5. To illuftrate more this neceffary Truth, be pleafed to the force of
confider à little, wherin the weight of our Church Motiues Churn-o-
lies, and firft behold them as they are Pofitiues Signes, Mira- tines lies.
cles, Sanctity, Conuerfions fo pofitine, that neither Iew nor
Gentil can deny one of them. 2. Carry well in mind this ne-
gatiue Truth alfo. The want of Arguments to the Contrary.
would Say Nothing like à rational Proof can be alleged a-
gainft them, but what equally difcredit's the admirable Wonders
of Chrift, and hie Apoftles. Add herevnto. 3. That no So-
ciety of men, be they Heathens, Lewes, or Hereticks haue hi-
therto shewen or shall hereafter shew Signes Comparable to
tbefe in confirmation of any doctrin appofite to that, which
the Catholick Church teaches.
6. From what is here hinted at, and the Principles already
laid, I Difcourfe farther. God can fpeak to creatures in à Lan-
guage worthy himſelfe, and fo proper to his own great Ma-
iefty, that no falfe Prophet can forge, counterfeit, or perfectly
imitate it. The Affertion feem's manifeft, For if his own Lan-
guage be forgeable, or imitable by Enemies, It is impoffi-
ble to judge by any Sign, whether he, or the Diuel fpeaks.
Nay, it followes clearly, that God Cannot speak at all in
à Language worthy himfelfe, or powerful enough to gain
Belief, For if His voyce be not diftinguishable from that of
an Enemy, How Shall men yeild à furer Affent to God
when He fpeaks, than to an Impoftor that peak's like
him?
Cod's exte
riour
voyce,
net Imitable
by the Diuel,
or any falfe
Prophes.
Something.
7. Thus much fuppofed, thefe two things follow ineuitably, Church Mo-
and in right Order. Firft. Something is certainly fignified by ties cer-
thefe Marks, and fignal Motiues manifeft in the Church, and tainty Speak
confequently they are either God's Voice, or the Diuels: Take
which you will. If God's own Voice (for etiam factis loquitur
Deus, Saith S. Auftin) it is fo clear and difcernable by it felfe
from another cogging Gypfie Language, that all may know it
proceeds
Aaaa
554
Difc. 3. C. 8. The main Difficulty in the
what follo-
wes, if the
Language of
the Motines
be an illufion
proceed's from God: Or if this cannot be known, it auails him not.
to speak, when the language he vtters, cannot poffibly be diſcer-
ned to be his. Contrarywife, if you fay The whole Aggregation
of Motiues are à meer illufory language of God's profeffed Ene-
mies, you vndoe all, you deftroy the Euidence of Chriftianity,
you annul our Sauiours moft glorious Miracles, and render the
Apoſtles admirable wonders, not only infignificant, but contem-
tible to lewes and Gentils. Let therefore the man appear in pu-
blick who dare boldly Affert. All the illuftrious Motiues and mar-
kes of the Catholick Church (which as I faid certainly fignify fome-
thing) are the Language of Diuels, or falfe Prophets, when it is
Christianity euident they induce to belieue à Doctrin moſt Pious and facred.
If you Affirm, Chriftianity goes to wrack.. Say no, or acknow-
ledge fuch fupernatural Signes to proceed from God, we haue
enough, the very Luftre of ithem fo difcountenances and abashes
Herely that it appear's, as t truely is, in the higheft meaſure im-
probable.
God either
Speaks by
them, or
Perishes.
The Conne-
xion afferted
followes ;
from bence.
Faith not
Euident,
ast
8. Hence we fee (T'is the fecond inference, and the chiefeſt
thing I aym at), an infeparable Connexion between theſe fuper
natural signes, and the thing fignified, I mean between the Motiues
and the Diuine Reuelation: For if it be certain, that fuch Signes
proceed from God (which is indubitable, vnleſs either Diuel or
falfe Prophet fourge them) None can doubt, but that God's in-
teriour. Reuelation actually exift's, as the Motiues Morally Eui-
dent, do Conuince.
9.
*
You will Say, If the Motiues haue an Infallible Conne-
xion with Gods internal Reuelation, that very Reuelation, and
Confequently the Myſtery Reuealed, muft alfo appear euident
in Themfelues, to all Belieuers, And fo faith would be Euident.
though the I deny the Confequence, becauſe the Affent giuen to that Conne-
xion, which implies the higheſt Moral certitude conceiuable vn-
der the degree of moft ftrict Euidence, is Science and not Faith, For it
faies no more but thus much. The Diuine Reuelation, not ſeen
in it Selfe, but only by the light of external Signs, is, by virtue
of thefe Signes, made euidently Credible, Now this euidence, Faith
Metines
baue an
Effential
Connexion.
Difc. 3. C. 8. Refolution of Faith.
555
as 'Faith leaues, Or laies afide, And firmly adheres to the Diuine
Reuelation only for it Selfe, as Contradistinct both from the Moral
Euidence of the Motiues, and their apparent Connexion with the
Reuelation.
The nature
and tanden.
cy of Faith.
IO. The reaſon is taken from the Notion of Faith, which es-
fentially tend's obfcurely vpon its own Obiect, as the moſt ancient
Fathers affert, whoſe words, becauſe known to Euery one, I
waue at preſent, and will only mind you of what fome Proteftants
teach. Faith,Saies one, and the Twi-light feem to agree in this Properly,
that à mixture of darkness is requifite to both; with too refulgent light,
the one vanishes into knowledge, as the other into day. Thus much
granted, t'is clear, that no Euidence of the Teftimony affented to,
can moue to Faith, not only becauſe we should in the cafe of
Euidence be neceffitated to belieue, But vpon this account alfo,
that the certitude of Faith, taken from the Supremeft Verity, is of à
higher Strain, and far furpaffes all the certitude we find in Nature,
or in the Motiues inducing to belieue: For were it poſſible, as it
is not, that thefe Motiues, and all the preuious Proofs leading
to Belicfe, could deceiue, it is yet more impoffible, that God's in- The excel
finite Veracity deceiues any. Now by Faith, we lay hold vpon this lence of is
moft Supreme,or, All-comprehending Infallibility proper to God alone, furpaffes all
not communicable to any creature. And in this fenfe, Faith created Cer-
far tranſcend's the Certitude of the forementioned Connexion,
which is known to be Infallible by Natural Difcourfe only.
II. It is true, The more euident thefe Motiues appear
the better they induce to belieue , yet for that reafon haue
leffe to doe with the very act of Faith, which as
I fayd
reft's vpon,
and laies claim to no lower à Verity then the
moſt Pure and Supreme only, And if it reft's not here, it is no
Faith. I fay, Supreme and Pure, and for this reafon alfo, we ex-
clude the connexion between the Motiues and Diuine Reuelation, upon the
from the Formal obiect of Faith, becauſe the Connexion implies most pure
à Complexum, or Mixture of two things known Scientifically, and and fupreme
therefore is vnmeet to ground Faith. One may replie. The Verity.
exteriour words of Scripture taken with the Diuine Teftimony
A
Aaaa 2
>
are
titude,
Faith relies
556
Difc. 3. C. 8. The main Difficulty in the
The Same
thing known
and belieued
How we
trust God
by Faith.
Church
Motines
proued
effications.
A Collec
tinely taken,
moſt Con-
mincing.
are Obiects of Faith, therefore thefe Motiues affented to vpon the
fame Teftimony can, alfo terminate Faith, For we all belieue
that the Church is Holy and Vniuerfal.. Anfw. Very true, be-
caufe the fame thing can be Strum & Creditum, both known and
belieued vpon different Motiues known by the force of reaſon,
which fee's the Connexion between the One and the Other, and
belieued alfo vpon pure Reuelation. Thus we know the Exi-
ftence of God by the works manifeft in nature, and withall be-
lieue it vpon his own fole word, or the Diuine Teftimony.
12. Vpon thefe Principles we Anfwer to another Obiection..
To belieue, Say fome, is to truft God whom we belieue, which
is iupoffible, if his outward words, or exteriour Signes be ne-
ceffarily connexed with his interiour fpeaking. For how can
we truft, when an abfolute Affurance, is had of his Teftimony?"
Anfw: This is done very eafily, when the Affurance giuen is ex-
trinfecal to the Teftimony, and far inferiour to the Supereminent
Infallibility of God that ſpeaks. Now this Motiue only, and no
leffer certitude ground's fupernatural Faith. In à word we truft,
becauſe we tranfcend all created Certitude and rely vpon the moft
Supreme Verity, by an Obfcure Affent of Faith.
13. Others, Obiect. 3. We fuppofe all this while, the Mo-
tiues inducing to belieue more perfvafiue and efficacious, then
can be euinced by reafon: For why may not God feparate the
exteriour appearance of à Miracle from the reallity of it, And
So permit the Diuel to delude vs all? I Anſwer. 1. This Cri-
ticifim firft reuerfes the moft glorious Miracles which Chrift euer
wrought. I Anfwer.
2. Though the appearance and reallity of
à Miracle be feparable, yet the euident Signes of Sanctity mani-
feft in innumerable, The Euident Appearance of whole Nations
conuerted to the Catholick Faith, are infeparably conioyned with
the reallity of interiour Sanctity, and real interiour conuerfions.
Now in the weighing thefe Motiues, One is not to be thought
of fingly, but pondered with the reft; Altogether indubitably
euince, that God fpeak's by them: Or if you Still Deny, Say
I beseech you, whofe language they are? I Anfwer 3. The
abſolute
Diſc. 3. C. 8. Refolution of Faith
557
obfolute Power of God cannot permit (If He pofitiuely intend's
not to lead all into errour) That à falfe Miracle be wrought and God cannot
done in his name, to confirm à Doctrin fuitable to his Good- cheat any by
nes, and the increafe of Holynefs. In this Cafe therefore, The à faile
Miracle must be real without guile and deceipt, For were this Miracle.
coufenage poffible, God could haue no language proper to Him-
felfe, Contrary to what is already proued. Thus much premi-
fed.
The Diffi-
culty folued
another way
14. We are to folue the Difficulty another way, perhaps
more plain and eaſy, And therefore diftinguish with Diuines,
à Twofold certitude in euery act of Faith. The one (called the Cer-
titude of Infallibility) arifes from the fupernatural Principles which
concurr to the very act of Belief, And thefe not liable to errour,
can neuer operate but when the Diuine Reuelation really is.
This certitude may be had, though we no more experience or
know it by any reflex Confideration, than One who is directly 4 10-fold
moued by the Holy Ghoſt to write à Truth, need's to know that Infallibility
he is diuinely affifted; And it implies not only the meer Truth of explained.
the A, but moreouer an infallible Determination to truth; The other
called, Certituto adhafionis: or à firm Adheſion belongs to the
Belieuer, and is not grounded on Euidence, as it fall's out in
Science, but vpon moft prudent Motiues propofed to Reafon
(which clearly diſcouered) the Will by her pious Affection
commands, and deterinins the intellectual Faculty to Affent in-
dubitably, For, corde creditur ad Iustitiam. Rom. 10. The Heart or
Will can thus further and incline the mind to yeild, when t'is
euident credible, that God fpeak's, and eternal Saluation de-
pend's vpon an affent, which is giuen without fear or heſita-
tion.
من
The be art or
will furibers.
our Affent.
15. S. Bonauenture eminent for Sanctity and Learning. 3.
Distinct. 23. art. 1. Queſt. 4. fpeak's moſt pertinently and pro-
foundly to my prefent purpoſe. Eft certitudo speculationis, &
eft certitudo adhafionus &c. There is, Saith he, à fpeculatiue certi S. Bonauen-
tude and à certitude of adhesion, or of cleauing faft to what we
belieue. The firft has refpect to the intelictual pover, the other to
Aaaa 3
the
tare.
558
Difc. 3. C. 8. The main Difficulty in the
Both clearly the pious Affection of the will. If we speak of this firm adheſion, it ✯
diflinguishes far greater in faith, then in Science, because faith makes him that be
and
lieues more certainly to adhere to the truth reuealed, then Science doch
to any thing known. Hence we fe, that men truely faithful, cannot
by Arguments Torments, or inticements be inclined to deny in words
à beleued Verity, which none in his wirs will doe for à thing be
knowes, vnless it be vpon thus account that faith dictates, he is uot
Explain's to Lye. Stultus etiam effet Geometra &c. A Geometrician would be
this twofold very vnwife, who for any certain Conclufion would vndergoe death (as
Infallibility. thoufands haue done for their faith). Whence it is that one truly
Faithful, though highly learned iu natural knowledge, would rather
loſe it all, then dery one only Article of Faith, fo strong is his adhe~
fion to truth belieued. What this great Doctor Alferts, need's no
Faith noSpe further Probation, For if it be certain (as all confefs) that Faith
culatine ope-
ration.
is no fpeculatiue knowledge grounded purely vpon Euidence,
(difcouerable in the Diuine Reuelation) it muft of neceffity be
à practical Affent in order to the effects now mentioned, of fuf-
fering, and dying for Diuine Reuealed Truths, when occafion
is offered: Now that fuch an Affent may be elicited vpon Pru-
dent Motiues has no difficulty, whilft we fe condemned Here-
tiques by meer pertinacy, ſo Stifly faſtened to their Errours wi-
thout Motiues, that it is very difficult to make à Diuorce be-
tween Herely, and their Phanfies.
Hereticks
without Mo
siues, affent
to fooleries.
VVhat force
the will
bath.
16. One may obiect firft. The vnderstanding cannot pra-
ctically Affent to à thing as indubitably true by any Command
of the Will, when this Power is vtterly vnable to change the
nature of Motiues, or to make them appear otherwife then they
are, That is, highly Probable, vet vncertain. I Anfier (to omit
that Heretiques without Motiues, pertinacioufly affent to meer
fooleries) The Will can with another Help (whereof more pre-
fently) Supply the inefficacy of thofe intellectual Lights, which
prudently euince this truth. It is euidently credible that God (peak's
by the Signs laid before mee. God's peculiar Language, his Seal and
Signature appear more clearly in these Euidences, than in any Princes
commißton fent me, when I fee his own Seal and Hand writing. O,
but
Difc. 3. C. 8. Refolution of Faith.
5:9
res, we
we are
but yet we haue not Euidence of his Teftimony. No thanks
to thee poor Creature, to Affent had'ft thou Euidence.
Know therefore His Maiefty is too far aboue vs all, to hu- As reafona-
mour fuch à Curiofity. As reafonable creatures we are obli- ble Creatu.
ged to ſubmit our iudgement to his, though it be not euident
Obliged to
he Speak's, for this Duty the higheft Power imaginable re- fubmit
quires of vs (who infinitely furpaffes all created Excellence)
That, vpon à moſt credible Appearance of his speaking, when nothing
makes the contrary probable, we yeild an Affent anfwerable to his
fupreme Excellence, that is firme, certain, and Infallible. Who
then dare ftand trifling in fo weighty an Affaire as concern's Sal-
uation? Or, who dare tell our glorious God? Lord, I find my
felf obliged to belieue, And Se great Soueraign the Signes and.
feales, Witneffes of your Speaking, Yet becaufe all poffibly may
be counterfeited, I will, like one little Loath to yeild, deal both
warily and Sparingly with you, You shall haue no other faith
from me, but what is faint and meagar; In fine,
In fine, à poor mile-
rable and moral certain Affent. Is this think ye to proceed
Nobly with God? No. If we belieue, our faith ought to
fuite his great Worth and Dignity, or really we belieue not
at all.
+
-
pon à Cre-
dible appea-
rance of
God's Spea-
king.
Two Cer.
17. From what is Said, Two things follow. 1. That our
Security is greater whilft we belieue God, induced by moft pru-
dent Motiues, though we fe not the Euidence of his Teftimo-
ny, Than to belieue the moft euident Affertion of any man
liuing, efteemed one of the very beft Reputation. The reafon
is. If God fpeak's, I am certain he deceiues not, And there-
fore cannot miftruft his Veracity, But If man fpeak's, whom tainties com
I know liable to errour and deceipt, The main ground of Cer- pared soge-
tainty fail's, For though I hear his voice and haue euidence of ther.
his words, yet neither giue me abfolute Affurance of Truth.
18. The Queſtion therefore is? Whether I may not mo-
re prudently belieue God who cannot deceiue, though I want
cuidence of his Teftimony, than to belieue man, that by errour or The differen
miſtake may deceiue, when I haue only Euidence of his outward ce, declares?
words,
560
Difc. 9. The Progress of faith
3. C.
Faith quite
different
from Science
Faith comes
3. words, which are feparable from Truth? In the one cafe words
are euident, And I haue with them fome degree of moral certainty
concerning Truth, In the other, I haue infallible certainty of
truth (If God ſpeak's) and the higheſt moral Affurance imagi-
nable of his fpeaking, before I belieue.
C. >
19. It followes. 2. That Euidence in the formal Obiect
affented to, is inconfiftent with Faith, which implies à prudent,
and withall à moft infallible practical Affent in order to an
appreciatiue Efteem of the will, and thofe effects, mentioned by S.
Bonauenture. Therefore it is of à quite different nature from
Science, whoſe tendency is Speculatiue, and fees clearly the
Obiect affented to. But I know fome will yet require further
Satisfaction in this hard matter. I shall endeauour to comply
with their wish, in the next Chapter.
CHAP. IX.
The whole Progrefs of Faith explained in order to its
laft Refolution. Of that which the Fathers
I.
Call the light of Faith.
Its wholly diffe-
rent from Sectaries Priuate Spirit.
From whence Faith bath Infalli-
ble Certainty. Obiections
Solued.
FAgain. 7. The.
Aith faith the Apoftle. Rom. 10. 17. Comes by Hearing,
Again. V. 14. How shall they hear without à Preacher?
by hearing. But how shall they preach vnless they be fent? All then muft hear
the Diuine Verities and belieue what they hear taught, by men
lawfully fent to preach. Now becaufe God has been pleafed
to
Difc.
561
3-
In Order to its Refolution.
to ſpeak by different Oracles, anciently by his Prophets, by Chrift
our Lord, his Apoftles, and finally by the Church (all together
make vp but one School as it were of Diuine learning) His One great
whole endeavour euer was in all ages to haue this truth Taught Truck to be
by theſe Oracles. viz. God is the Author of the Doctrins which all heard.
are obliged to belieue, and to make thus much highly Credible
He neuer fent as I faid aboue, Prophet, Apostle, or Christ himself to
teach, but iointly Authoriſed them to show the Royal Signes
and Seals of his own Soueraignity, Miracles I mean, and other
Supernatural wonders, whereby they were proued commißioned
Oracles, to ſpeak in the name of God.
>
proced's
Faith.
2. To our prefent purpoſe therefore. None can belieue, What ne
vnless he hear. Which is to Say That Viâ ordinaria before the ceffarily
Hearer elicites Supernatural faith, à natural Propofition of the
Myſtery reuealed, neceffarily precedes that Affent. Yet more. Anatural
He that Teaches is not barely to Say. Vnleffe you yeild affent, propofition
you will be damned, But he muft alfo propound fome Motiue of
prudent credibility with the Myftery, which Motiue, fo far
furpaffes all the Power in nature, that it manifeftly appear's to
be God's work, or his own vaimitable language, as is already
noted.
3. Beſides it is not fufficient that the Preacher tell's vs, God
is the Author of his Doctrin, clearly confirmed by Miracles,
but he is to make the Affertion morally certain either by wor-
king à Miracle Himſelfe, as Chrift and the Apoftles did, or in
want of that, to bring in ftrong Arguments and witneffes, whe-
reby it may appear, fuch fupernatural Wonders haue been done,
to confirm that God is the Author of his Doctrin. Now this
Moral euidence by witneffes, is equiualent to the feing of Mi-
racles done before our eyes, which fall's out in all euidence
called Moral, For I am now no leffe affured by moſt credible
witneſſes that Cardinal Altieri was clected Pope of Rome, then
ifI had been prefent at his Election. After this natural Propo-
fition made of any Diuine Myftery, fome apprehenfions of its
Verity (or credibility rather) eafily follow in the Hearer, which
Bbbb
alfo are natural.
4. Thus
of the
Mystery.
tie aboue
the power of
with a Mo-
Nature.
Moral cusi.
dence by
winees.
562
Difc. 3. C 9. The Progrefs of faith,
13.
4. Thus much done by the Preacher, One defirous to learn
The prudent truth difcourfes, and perceiues fo great à Concern as Saluation
Judgement depend's vpon his belieuing the Myſtery propofed, that at laft
of Credibili he is brought to this prudent Iudgement of credibility. God can-
not deceive the world by such exteriour Signs, as are here proposed by this
Preacher, therefore I ought in prudence to yeild my Aflent,and
belieue. Now here enters another Principle, wholly neceffary
to make Faith certain, which may well be called the last hearing
of Gods Voice, or his powerful Inuitation to belieue with full certitu-
de, and it confifts in an interiour illuftration of Grace imparted
werful inui- to à foul, whereby the Obiect of Faith with its credibility, is
repreſented another way, more clearly then before, yet fo, that no My-
ftery is feen euidently.
God's po-
tation to
belieue.
The will
preueated by
grace Com-
mand's,
The intellec-
tual Faculty
Obeyes and
belieues.
5. Herevpon, the VVill preuented with diuine Grace begin's
to work by her Pious affection, after that preuious iudgement
had of the Myſteries Gredibility, and the interiour Diuine illu-
ftration, which is the laft fpeaking of God to à Belieuer. The
Will therefore affectioned to the Happineſs propounded, moues.
the vnderſtanding to elicite moft certain Faith, Super omnia. The
Vnderſtanding Obeyes, and forthwith belieues by an infallible
Affent the truth of the Myſtery, though not feen euidently.
6. Hence you fe, This infallible Affent proceed's from à
Twofold Voice of God. Firft from the Motiues preuious to Faith,.
The Twofold whereby its euidently credible that God fpeak's, though the
voice of God Motiues were fallible; But the laft Voice of his Diuine illumi-
nation, which reprefent's the Reuelation more indubitably than
meer Motiues can doe, takes all doubt away, And we come to an
abfolute certitude in Faith, vpon this interiour facred language
of God, called by the Fathers, Alta Doctrina, à high learning.
Caleftis Doctrina, The Language of heauen, which opened Lydia's
heart. Act. 16. 14. And made her to attend to fuch things as
S. Paule deliuered. And might I here fpeak à word in paffing,
I can auouch in all Chriftian Sincerity, rhat treating with many
reconciled to our Catholick Faith, I haue heard fome Ssy (and
it was à fingular comfort to me) that fuch Miracles, ſo ſtrange
The last
voise called
high lear-
wing
Conure
Difc.
In Order to its Refolution. 563
3.
C. 9.
Conuerfions, as the Catholick Church has made, Her long Conti-
nuance, Maugre all attempts againft Her; The eminent Sancti Giues certæ-
ty of innumerable who profefs her faith, appear to be Gods inty to Faisl
own glorious works; But befides theſe outward lights, which
conuince much, God (Said thefe) feem's to Speak to our very
hearts; and tell's vs.
Truth only is taught by this Oracle, and
vpon fo clear conuiction, we find our Selues obliged to belie-
ue. But as S. Auſtin profoundly obferues. Lib. I. de Praxeft.
Sanct. Cap. 8. Valde remora eft à fenfibus carnis hee Schola, in quâ
Deus auditur & docet- The School where God is heard and tea-
ches, is very remote from flesh and blood.
tion.
wardly
7. Anfwerable to what is here noted of God's interiour voice
by Illumination, the illuminated S. Auſtin. lib. 11. Confefs. Cap.3. S. Auflis
peak's moft fignificantly, Where he defires to Hear and vn- confirm's
derftand, How God in the beginning made Heauen and earth. Our Affer.
Scripfit hoc Moyfes, Scripfit & abijt &c. Mojes wrote this, but he his
gone from vs. Now he is not before me, for if he were. I would hold
him faft &c. And for your fake intreat him, to lay open these things.
I would give good care to bis words. If he spake in Hebrew, I could
not vnderstand him, but if Latin, I should know what he said. But
how should I know that he Speaks Truth? And if I knew fo much, Truth in.
should I know it from him? The Saint Anfwers. Intus viig reaches.
mihi, intus in Domicilio Cogitationis &c. Inwardly, where my most fe-
cret thoughts dwell, Truth verily spoken not in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, or
any other babarous Language, without mouth or tongue, without à ruft-
ling noife of words, would tell use. Mofes (peak's Truth. Et ego ftatim
certus, And I preſently made certain (Mark wherevpon his laft
certitude is grounded) would confidently Say to that bleſſed man.
You speak truth. Thus S. Auſtin, who in the 8. Chap. now ci-
ted, call's this light à fecret Grace, giuen by God to take away
the hardness of hearts in Matters of belief. And his Doctrin
is confonant to theſe, and like Expreffions of Holy Scripture.
2. Cor. 4. 6. He hath shined in our hearts, to the illumination of the
knowledge of the Glory of God. Efa. 54. All shall be taught of God.
Matth. 16. Flesh and blood hath not reuealed it to thee, but my Father
Bbbb 2
Which
Certainty
ariſes from
that inte-
our lear
ning.
Scripture
Speak's fully
this Senfe.
564
Difc. 3. C. y. The Progress of faith
The Holy
Fathers In-
ferences.
Chiefly S.
Auſtins.
The illustra
tion of grace
Supplies the
Inefficacy of
Motiues,
And add's
more Clarity
which is in Heauen. 1ohn. 1. 2. 27. His vnction teaches allthings.
John..6. 44. No man can come to me, vnliffe the Father that fent
me, draw him. Iohn. 10. My sheep hear my Voice. &c.
8. From theſe and many other Paffages, The most ancient
Fathers, (eſpecially S. Auftin and our Venerable Bede) teach
that none can Hear, and Affent to the exteriour Propofition
of the Diuine Myfteries, vnlefs at the fame time the light of
Grace work's interiourly, and propofes all after another way
more efficaciously. Read S. Auftin towards the end of this
8.th Chap. at thoſe words. Cum ergo Euangelium prædicatur &c.
Where he tell's you, when the Gofpel is preached, ſome be-
lieue and others do not. Thofe, faith he who belieue, when
the Preachers outward words found in their eares, Intus à pa-
tre audiunt & difcunt, interiourly hear Gods own voice and
learn, what he teaches Others, who belieue not, Hear words
ſpoken by the Preacher, but hear not that interiour Diuine Lan-
guage, and therefore learn nothing.
9. Gant then first, That the Motiues inducing to Faith
were fuppofed fallible, becauſe perhaps we haue no reflex E-
uidence of their infallible Connexion with the Reuelation. Grant
alfo, that the exteriour Propofition of Diuine Myfteries, retain's
Obſcurity (which is true) yet this Secret, this perfwafiue illustra-
tion of Grace, (being as I faid the laſt hearing of God's Voice)
can on the one Side, fupply the inefficacy of the Motiues, And
on the Other, fo accomplish the Myfteries exteriour Propofi-
tion, that it brings faith to its full certitude. Do then the Motiues
Shine leffe clearly, or leaue Some Capacities, as it were, in à
wauering condition? The illuftration giues more light, and
driues doubt away. Is the Divine Teftimony, meerly confide-
red according to its outward propofal, obfcure? The Illuftra-
tion add's new clarity to it, and makes Faith moft certain, yet
ftill without Euidence. Et ego ftatim certus
Et ego ftatim certus; And by virtue of
this light, I fay confidently with S. Austin, what I belieue, is
infallible true.
10. To Illuftrate yet more this neceffary Point (I fpeak to
Catho-
Difc. 3. C. 9. In order to its Refolution.
565
Catholicks (Sectaries will not hear me). Read the Angelical Do-
tor. S. Thomas. 2. 2. queft. 2. a. 3. Where as his manner is, He
obiect's. It is dangerous to giue an affent to things when we
know not, whether that which is Propofed be true or falfe, as
it feem's to fall out in matters of Faith. Ad. 2. he Anſwers.
As man by his natural light Affent's to natural Principles, fo the vir-
tuous man by the Habit of Faith rightly iudges of what belongs to
that Virtue, And therefore, per lumen Fidei diuinitus infufum, By
the light of Faith duinely infufed, he affents to the Myfteries.
S. Vincentius Ferrerius alfo in his Sermon, vpon the funday
within the Octaue of the Epiphany, pondering our Sauiours An-
fwers to the Doctors Queftions in the Temple, fpeak's to our
purpoſe and very fignificantly. Chrifts words, Saith he, venie
bant ad Cor Doctorum cum lumine, came to the hearts of thofe
Doctors with light, and they Said. O verum dicit. The Child
(peak's Truth. Again. Chriftus loquebatur Diuinâ virtute, Chrift
fpake with à Diuine virtue, and all the Doctors vnderſtanding
him, affented. Pro certo verum dicit. Moſt certainly he ſpeaks
truth.
Thus. S. Vincentius.
IJ. The Principle whereon this Doctrin relies, All muft
admit. Viz. That an act of Faith is wrought in à Soul hy
the operation of God's Spirit, and therefore the Holy Ghoft
muſt not be excluded from that work, which none can doe
but He. Now what we Affert in this particular, is, that the
infallible certainty of faith comes from this interiour Illumi-
nation, as it more liuely fet's forth the formal Obiect affen-
ted to, or help's to à clearer Propofal of the Diuine Myfte-
ries.
I2.
And thus in à word we haue the whole Progrefs of
faith in this preſent State, explained. Firſt, à natural Propo-
fition of the Myſteries precedes: This beget's à natural ap-
prehenfion of their Credibility. After fome confideration, the-
re may ariſe an imperfect Iudgement of Credibility :
But,
should the Will offer as yet, to incline the mind to Affent
only vpon what appear's hitherto
hitherto, it could not moue to à.
Bbbb 3
Faith
The Angels
cal Doctors
Doctrin,
S.Vincentius
words, con-
formable.
Faith à
work of the
Holy Ghoft,
Difc. 3. C.9. The Progefs of faith
The whole
Faith which is an Affent Super Omnia, or moft certain. The-
Procedure of refore the illuftration or powerful Inuitation of Grace (by which,
Faith briefly as I faid, the Obiect appear's another way and more clearly)
baid forth, is infufed, whereof the foul is Recipient. The will now after
other Preparatiues, thus ftrengthn'd à new, command's boldly
the vnderſtanding to Affent vpon the fafeft Principles imagina-
ble. Viz.
Viz. Vpon God's infallible Reuelation accompanied with
his own Diuine light, which makes Faith to grow higher in cer-
tainty, than all the Reafon or knowledge in this life, can arife
to. For as S. Thomas obferues, Humane knowledge deriues
its Certitude from Mans natural Reafon, which may Err, but
be efficacy Faith has its infallibility, Ex lumine Diuina fcientia from the light of
Gods diuine wifdom, which cannot deceiue, and therefore is moft
certain.
The
of Dimine
Light.
licks Ac-
knowledge
tki Light.
>
13. Some may Oppofe. In this Difcourfe of the Diuine
illuftration, we ſeem to fauour Heretiques, who talk much of
their light. It is à ftrange Obiection, Saith F. Granado. Con-
All Catho- trou. 1. de Fide. Tract. 1. D. 5. Whilft all acknowledge this Light
to be, Gratia per Chriftum, à Supernatural grace purchaſed by
our Sauiour, which raifes vs aboue the force of natural Prin-
ciples, and moues to belieue moft firmly, And the Motiue
is, the Diuine Reuelation it Selfe, inuefted or appearing, in God's oDon
Diuine Illustration. To what is pleaded in behalf of Hereticks,
I Anfwer. Hereticks talk euery whit as much of their Faith,
as of their Light. Do we therefore agree with them in faith,
becauſe they Say, theirs is as diuine, as ours? No certainly.
light, makes For the like found of words, implies neither the fame real-
lity of things, nor any agreement at all. Why then should
we fauour the light they pretend to, which like their faith,
is à meer illution, and no more fymbolizes with the Illuftra-
tion of Catholicks, then their faith doth with true Faith?
Heretiques
Claim to
Faith and
peither Di-
wine.
14. I ground my Aflertion on thefe three Principles. S.
Paul Saith firit. No man can belieue vnleffe hee Hear's, nor hear
Without à Picacher, Therefore in this prefent ftate of things,
an exteriour Humane Propofition of the Diuine Reuelation
necef-
Difc.
1.3. C. 9. In order to its Refolution.
567
neceffarily precedes the true light of Faith, and that light is
not giuen to belieue, vid ordmariá, vnleffe one authorized to
Preach in God's name, Propofes the Reuelation fuitable to
the natural way of hearing other Verities, by our senses, Ima
gination, and humane vnderstanding. Otherwife, that would be pof-
fible which the Apoftle makes impoffible. Viz. To bear and
belieue without à Preacher. Now further none can be à fit Mi-
nifter to propound the Reuelation, but he that makes his
Propofition good by à Miracle, or fome fupernatural wonder,
otherwife à meer Impoftor, may as well gain credit by Saying
he fpeak's God's truths as the very beft of the Apoftles.
But no Proteftant, is able to doe thus much, none of them
all can fay with truth. God has reuealed my particular Doctrin,
add Seal that very exteriour Propofition with à Miracle, As
euery Preacher in the Catholick Church can do, Therefore
the illuftration he pleads for is meer Phanfy, and nothing
els.
>
The Preten-
ded light of
Hereticks
Proued as
illuſion.
First because
one of thei
can propound
their Do-
Arin, ar
warranted
by Superna
tural Signs.
15. Again, and here is my fecond Principle grounded allo
vpon the Apoftles words. How shall they Preach vnleffe they be
fent. Which is to fay. He only is fit to Propofe Gods Di-
nine Reuelation, who proues himfelfe commiffioned to Preach,
by Supernatural Signes and indubitable Miracles, For thus
Christ our Lord fent by his eternal Father, thus the Apoft-
les fent by Chrift, and the Church euer fince (all shewing
Wonders aboue the force of Nature) proued their Million,
withall euinced, That God only impowred them to teach as they
did. Now here is the main point we vrge. Could the Pro-. 2. They bass
teftant, who certainly neuer yet wrought one indubitable Mi-Commif-
countenance his Doctrin, giue in Euidence by fome fion to track.
>
one or other Miraculous work. That an Oracle fent him to
teach, He might fpeak more boldly, But this being impoffi
ble, The light he pretend's to, is iuft like his doctrin, An Sig-
nis fatuus, vain and void of all reallity.
16. 3. Our latter Proteftants feem to attribute no other
certainty to the very act of Faith, then what is moral, and
necef
568
Difc. 3. C. 9. The Progrefs of faith.
3. Their
Faith being
anly mora!
and fallible,
Cannot
Proceed
neceffarily confequent to à humane fallible Ratiocination, T' is
much like to the Affent we elicit, when we fay Cafar or Pompey
haue been in the world. If this Doctrin be defenfible, its im-
poffible to declare, how either Faith it felfe, or the illuftration
preuious, can proceed from the Holy Ghoft: For did the Spirit
of God work with à Soul, when it belieues, The certainty of
Faith, would without all doubt, goe beyond that affurance
Holy Ghost, which is only humane, moral, and fallible. Now wee Say quite
contrary, That Faith is an abfolute Infallible fupernatural Affent,
whereby all ought to adhere to Myfteries moft profound, or
aboue all humane Reaſon, And confequently, we deriue its cer-
The Catho- titude from God's Infallible Reuelation, inuested in his own Duine
licks faith
moft certain. light, and readily return him à double Obedience of our whole
interiour, of the Will, and Vnderſtanding together, and belieue
moſt vndoubtedly.
from the
A harder
Difficulty.
17. One may Obiect. 2. As none can difcern true Gold
from another mettal very like it, vnleffe there appear's in the
Obiects fome real Difference, fo it is impoffible to difcern à
true Reuelation, from one meerly apparent, or false, by any Diui-
ne light, vnleffe there be an Obiectiue diuerfity or difcernibility
diſcouerable between them, which cannot be affigned.
18. This Obiection (propofed by no Sectarie) is to the Pur-
Propofed by pofe. To folue it, I muft remind you of that Solitary Man Com-
no Sectary. miffioned to preach, after his Vifion had in à defert place, who
goes abroad, tell's what he had heard and feen in his own natural
Language, But gains not belief. He vfeth another Idiotifin,
Speak's in Gods name, and as one fent from God ought to
fpeak, That is, he euidences his Miffion by fupernatural Signes,
work's Miracles, or proues them wrought in confirmation of
his Doctrin: All now adore him as à Prophet, All belieue. This
Language fome Diuines rightly call an extrinfecal Form of ſpeech,
which is Supernatural Quoad modum, becauſe it contain's wonders
done aboue the force of nature, and proceeds from the Faith of
him that teaches, as alfo from the Belief of the whole Church
befides. Pleaſe to obferue. As mans natural speech, is apt
to
Difc. 3. C.9. In Order to its Refolution &c. 569
interiour
to beget in à Hearer à natural knowledge of his internal Con- The langua-
ception that fpeak's, and the thing ſpoken of, So this Super-ge of God,
natural Language is apt to beget in one well difpofed, à Super- whether
natural apprehenfion of his internal conception that ſpeak's, and exteriour, or
the Myftery likewife fpoken of. Now becaufe this exteriour
Language is God's proper Form of Speaking and moft peculiar to
himfelfe, it carries with it Ex natura rei, its own fignature, its own
Difcernibility, in fo much that its diftinguishable from all other Carries
wayes of fpeaking, which are falfe, or come not from the firft with it, its
Verity. And this peculiar mark of God's fpeaking, (very difco- on difcer
uerable) the preuious light of Faith perceiues, as moft different
from all other counterfeited Languages. And thus you haue
the Obiectiue Diuerfity fought for, fully pointed at.
19. Hence you fee firft, That none can propofe A falfe
Myftery, for example, the Incarnation of the Holy Ghost, inuefted
in all and euery due Supernatural circumftance, requifite to be-
lieue à reuealed Truth. Something appertaining to God's ex-
teriour Language, and the natural preuious Propofition, whe-
reof we haue now fpoken (though both Miracles and Miffion
be falfly pretended) will euer be wanting. You fe. 2. That when
two Myfteries are propounded together, the one falfe, the other
true, both in the fame natural manner, neither of them contain's
à fufficient propofal Inductiue to fupernatural Faith, nor can
God according to ordinary Prouidence,giue his Grace to belieue
in fuch Circumſtances, whilft the Preacher abuſes his function
and teaches things he was not fent to teach.
nibility.
Two Infe-
rences dedu
ced from
this Doctrin
Cccc
CHAP. X.
570
Difc. 3. C. 10. The Refolution of Faith.
In to what
faith is
refolued?
One and
the fame
Answer
CHAP. X
The easiest way of refoluing Faith, Laid forth in two
Propofitions. The euidence of Credibility further de-
clared. Sectaries haue no Euidence of Credibility. It
is as euidently Credible that God now speak's by the
Church, as that He did anciently Speak by the
Prophets.
I.
He firft Propofition. Faith which comes by exte-
Triour Hearing is refolued into the first Verity, fpea-
king by one or more lawfully fent to preach, who proue their
Miffion, and make their Doctrin euidently credible, by Signes
both prudent and fupernatural. You haue in this Affertion
firſt, Faith's Formal Obiect (God's increated verity) Specified. You
haue. 2. the Appendants requifite to beget Faith briefly hinted
at, whereof more preſently.
2. If therefore any Ask why we belieue this or that Diui-
ne Myſtery, The Incarnation for example? Some Anſwer the
belief is grounded vpon vnwritten, or Apoftolical Tradition,
Others vpon the words of Scripture, others finally recurr to
returned by the Churches infallible Teftimony. All of them fpeak but one
and the fame thing, comprifed in thefe few words. God Saith it,
Who cannot err, speaking by One or more, lawfully fent to
All.
Preach.
>
3. Inquire again. But from whence haue we A Turance that
God has faid the Diuine word was made flesh, for the Doctrin
to rs, is neither Euidently true, nor Euidently falfe?
nor Euidently falfe? I Anſwer
God Himfelfe giues infallible Affurance hereof, And who can
do
Difc. 3. C. 10. The Refolution of Faith.
371
Vpon what
Verity Faith
finally relies?
do that better then He? Here Faith precifely confidered, as an
intellectual Affent, finally reft's; In fo much that if you mul-
tiply demand's to the world's end, no other Anfwer can be retur-
ned but this only, Eternal Truth_bas (aid it or reucal's that he All further
Speak's this Verity. All further Queftions propofed and replies Answers
giuen, though different in found are really Synonimal. The impertinent,
reafon is, becauſe the laft Motiue of Faith can haue none be- the Reason
fore it Selfe, for to run on in Infinitum with Motiues and ftop hereof.
no where, is to make no Refolution at all.
>
rea-
An Obiec-
tion Propoſed
in the name
of à
4. I know à Heathen Philofopher may abuſe the Senfe of the
Apoftles words. 1. Cor. 1. 18. And fay we now preach foolery
indeed, Gentibus Stultitia. For what can be more deuoid of
fon, then to belieue moft infallibly, whilft the mind yet in dark-
nes doth fo, hauing by the very act of Faith no euidence why it Heathen,
beluues Infallibly. I Propofe this Obiection in the name of à Hea-
then, for no Chriftian, whether Sectary or other, can vſe it,
be-
caufe Chriftian Doctrin teaches, that none can be faued without
Faith, which as I now faid, is neither Euidently true, nor Eui-
dently falfe, ex Terminis, Therefore all that belieue are ineuita-
bly caft vpon à neceffity of chufing à Doctrin whereby Salua-
tion may be attained, though it be not like the firſt Principles
in nature, its own Selfe Euidence.
a
It is neither
meet for God
to gue, nor
man 10 baue
exidence of
5. Now to fatisfy the Heathen and quiet à mind too in-
quifitiue after Euidence, both haue what they ask, Euidence enough;
not of the Truth of the Myfteries in themelues, For as on the
one fide, it is not meet that Gods great Maiefty should im-
part fuch an euidence (who I hope may keep the like diſtance
from his Creatures, as Great Monarchs do when they intimate
their Command's by only shewing the Seal and fignes of Soue- the Myße-
raignity to fubiects) So on the other fide, it is not fit that man
haue euidence of the Myfteries, becauſe it is incompatible with
à perfect Subiection, with that merit and Obfequiousnefs which The reafon
God requires of his rational Creatures, who are to walk
hereof.
heauen by an humble and dutiful Faith, or shall neuer come
thither.
το
ries.
Cccc 2
6. And
5722
Difc. 3. C.10. The Refolution of Faith.
The peruer
ness of A-
theistical
Spirills,
•
>
6. And here by the way we may iuftly admire the Sau-
cinefs of fome half Atheiſtical Spirits, who find themfelues
puzzled in the fearch of the moſt obuious things in nature
(none of them can fay how or by what, one poore flies
wing is knit together) yet will forfooth, haue God to giue
Euidence of his own deep Secrets (the greateft Myfteries of
grace) or Cannot belieue. Experience teaches
how prompt
and ready euery good Subiect is to obey his Prince, at the
leaft beck, figne, or infinuation of his will, Though the In-
timation carries not with it ftrick euidence, yet in this mat-
ter of mans Submiffion to God, when both his glory and
our eternal Welfare are Concerned innumerable ftand ho-
uering and doubtful, Queftioning whether God requires firm
Faith from them, And why? Becauſe an Euidence fuitable
to their fancy feem's wanting..
>
>
year
7. Humour once fuch à Curiofity or giue them à greater
light of Euidence, the next thing required will be, that God
interiourly teach all by Himfelfe, without Church, Paftors
Doctors, or any.
or any. And if this ferues not the turn He muft.
either pleaſe to open the Heauens at à call, and (once à
at leaft) viſibly inftruct them, or there is no drawing fuch Spi-
Euidence of rits, out of à ftate of Incredulity. I Say contrary, the Euidence.
Credibility of Credibility apparent in thofe manifeft Signs and marks
enough.
which illuftrate true Chriſtianity (à great mercy of God he gi-
ues ſo much of it) is abundantly fufficient to induce the moſt
obdurate heart in the world to belieue with fuch an Affent as
fuites God's great Maiefty, that is, with à Faith moft firm
and Infallible. Obferue an vndeniable Euidence.
The Appea
rance and
Credibility
of true Chri.
Stianity.
8. It is euident, That euer fince the firft Plantation of Chri-
ftianity, there has been à Continued Succeffion of Paſtors and
Doctors, who taught the Belief of one God and one Sauiour
Iefus Chrift, with other Articles of the Catholick Faith. It
is Euident, that innumerable Profeffors of this one belief, haue
been eminent in Learning, wifdom, Sanctity of life, and Con-
tempt of the world. It is Euident, that the Predictions of Pro-
phets
Diſc. 3. C.10. The Refolution of Faith.
573
phets vttered whole Ages before our Sauiour preached, agree
only to one Chriftian Society known the whole world ouer.
The Vniuerfal extent of this great Moral Body is euident.
Vnity in Doctrin, Euident. Admirable Conuertions wrought
by this Church are euident. Vndeniable and moft glorious.
Miracles, Euident. The Courage, the Conftancy, the profound
Humility of Martyrs, and finally their bloodsheding, the laft
Teſtimony of loyalty (Authors worthy of credit number them
to eleuen Millions) are Euident. Here in few words, you ha- The Euiden-
ue before you no Romance, ro Furb, no fraud, but moft clear ce,indisputa
and indifputablé Euidence. Now ponder firft but feriously; And ble.
Ask whether God, after the fight of fo many illuftrions Marks.
Manifefted to all, could permit, thofe Millions and Millions The impoſſi -
who loued truth and heartily fought to ferue no other, but bility of de.
the great God of truth To be deluded, with meer Phanfies ception in
and fooleries? Were this poffible, might we not all, charge
plain Coufenage vpon an Infinite Goodnes, and moft iuftly
complain: si error eft quem Credidimus &c. If we belieue an
errour, it is you great Soueraign, that has deceiued vs.
>
this Evidence
1
terly deftitu
te of all Eus.
dence of Cre-
dibility.
9. In the next place caft your thoughts and ferioufly alſo,
vpon all Sectaries past and prefent fince Chriftianity began.
You will find (and here likewife we plead by Euidence) no
Succeffion of Paſtors lawfully fent to preach, no Conuerfions
of Nations wrought by any. No eminent Sanctity, no Vni-
uerfal extent of their Religion, no Vnity in Doctrin, and which Sectaries vt-
vtterly ruin's their Caufe, nothing like à Miracle among them.
How then dare thefe Nouellifts deftitute of all outward appea-
rances of Truth, or any thing like Euidence, goe about to
make their Religion credible by meer toyes and triffes? Thefe
I call trifles. Here to fnarle at à Pope, there at abuſes in the
Church. Now to fill Volumes with Criticiſins, now to patch
together à few broken Sentences of the ancient Fathers; That is
in à word, to be euerlaftingly quarrelling, and neuer to Propo-
fe ſo much as à probable Way how quarrel's may be ended.
new way of
Can fuch trifles I Say (and here in brief you haue the vtmoſt
haue the vtmoft Arguing.
Coco 3.
Secta-
Sedaries
i
574 Difc. 3. C. 10. The Refolution of Faith.
This euiden-
>
Sectaries can doe) extinguish the light, the Luftre, and Euident
Credibility of God's own manifeſted Oracle ? Let common
reafon Judge in this cafe. Now wee goe on in the Analyfis.
10. Hauing Said abready We belieue becaufe God has
ce explained, reuealed the Incarnation, (the like is of any other Myſtery)
the Analyfis,
and being impoffibilitated (if we ftand within the formal Term's
Enes on
Clearly. of Faith) to allege any further intellectual Motiue of belieuing
than this; The laft of all. God has reuealed, what I Affent to.
It neceffàrilly followes, that euery other Queftion relating to
the Formal obiect of Faith ceases here. But if it be demanded,
how the Vnderſtanding dares reft moft firmly on an Obiect
not euidently feen, wee paffe from that Power (without brea-
king off the Analyfis) to the Will and Say, she can by her pious
Affection command the intellectual Faculty to Captiuate it felfe,
in Obliquium fidet, and belieue moft vndoubtedly.
The Power
of the will
Ouer the
Vaderstan
ding
Manifeft
impiety not
to beliene.
What reafon
forces upont
Euery one.
II.
Now if another Queftion enfue's. How the Will can
bring the Intellect to fo much Obfequioufhefs? The An-
ſwer is at hand. It doth fo, becauſe God has shewed by all
thoſe moſt prudent and manifeft Signes already laid forth to
Reafon, that He is the Author of the Doctrin we belieue: In
ſo much, that it is not only the higheft imprudence imaginable
to disbelieue, but Wickednes to do ſo, in à matter of fuch
Confequence. 1 (ay Wickednes, for after à full fight had of the
rational Motiues inducing to Faith (feing none can arriue to
Euidence of the Myſteries) One of thefe three wayes muſt be
followed. To belieue nothing. To belieue meer Fooleries: Or finally
to belieue à Doctrin which God has diftinguished by Euident Marks
and Signatures, from Herefy and falshood. To belieue nothing
either is, or tend's to Atheifin, and that's Wickednefs. To be-
lieue Fooleries, nofwife man will hear of. Therefore all are
bound to belieue, and if fo; Faith muſt bee Euidently prudent
and rational, I mean fo manifefted by fupernatural Wonders,
that reaſon is proued vnreaſonable in cafe it denies Affent.
Now I Subfume. But thefe Supernatural Signes, One only
Society of Chriftians Euidences, and it is no other but the
Roman
Difc. 3. C:16. The Refolution of Faith.
575
Roman Catholick Church, Therefore she only propofes Faith
which is rational, and confequently obliges all to belieue her
Doctrin.
12. Hence you fee that euery one in the Choife of Religion, is
to ponder in the first place, thofe weightly Arguments which
make an Election prudent: And then it is prudent (not o-
therwife) when Signes from Heauen Gods own Marks, heigh-
ten the Religions Credibility fo far aboue all other falfe and
forged Sects, That thefe at the firft full Sight, appear (as they
are) horrid, gaftly, and contemptible.
One only So-
ciei, Propə-
Seth Faith
which ura-
tional.
What makes
an Election
Prudent?
13. If you will Difcouer more clearly, what I would haue
reflected on in this Particular. Be pleafed to compare Hea-
thenifm, Judaiſm, Turcifm, and finally serely with one glorious
Roman Catholick Church. Speak plainly; Can you find in thefe
any thing like the Miracles, the Conuerfions, the large Extent,
the Vnity and Sanctity of this one moft Euidenced Oracle ?
I need not proue the Negatiue (You cannot) for its Demon-
ftrable to fenfe. Heathenifm and Herefy, are now things of
Scorn the whole world ouer, Iudaism, t'is true once had its
Signes and Miracles, wherein it far furpaffed Herefy (which
neuer had,nor will haue any like it). Howeuer, Chrift's Il-
luftrious Kingdom, his Church Militant, vaftly furimount's that
Ancient and now decayed Luftre of Iudaifm. And thus much this rational
briefly of the Euidence of Credibility, which once had, Faith Euidence,
moft firm eaſily followes, and without it,none can belie-
ae..
No Society'
Comparable
to the Roman
Catholick
Church, in
14. A fecond Propofition. Faith in this prefent State is
refolued into the Authority of God; the fift Verity speaking by the
Church. This way of refoluing Faith is both plain and eafy, The Plainest
and very fuitable to the common Apprehenfion of euery one, refolution of
learned and vnlearned, who if Queftioned, why they belieue Faith.
any Diuine Myftery, readily Anſwer. Sic docet Santa mater
Ecclefia. So our Holy Mother the Catbolick Church teaches.
And they Anfwer well, For the Firft instrumental Principle
where into Faith is refolued, muft be fo clear and Co-
fpicuous
5.76
Difc. 3. C. 10. The Refolution of Faith.
Sectaries
endles La.
bour.
fpicuous à Rule, that all may eafily learn the Doctrin deli-
uered by it.
>.
The Affer.
15. The Affertion is plainly laid forth. Deut. 30. V. IL
tion Proued
The Commandment I command this day is not aboue thee, nor farr
by Scripture. off, nor fituated in Heauen that thou mays't Say : Who of vs is
able to aſcend into Heauen to bring it to vs? That is. To
know where true Faith is taught, we need not to weary
our felues with much Speculation, or expect that God in
Heauen, lay open the fenfe of Scripture by Enthufianifms or
any Priuate Reuelation. Nor placed beyond the Sea that thou
may's pretend: Which of vs can paffe our the fea and bring it to vs.
And hereby That endlefs Labour that euerlafting Inquifi-
tion made after Truth, proper to Sectaries, feem's reiected.
Originals must be examined, Paffages of Scripture compa-
red, Hiſtory fought into, Libraries turned ouer, Languages
learned, Yea, and the very particular Myfteries of Diui-
ne Faith, muſt be weighed by humane Reafon (and thus
they defcend into the Abyß of God's fecrets) before they co-
me to Satisfaction in Religion. All is toylfome, all diſfa-
tisfactory, all endless. A more short and eaſy way is at
hand For faith the Scripture. Iuxta eft fermo valde, in ore
tuo. The word is very neere thee, in thy Mouth and in thy
Heart to doe it. And the Apoſtle. Rom. 10. 8, Applyes this
very Paffage to the Word of our Chriftian Faith. Hence I
argue.
The Church,
is
>
>
16. But the Church is that firft Inftrumental Principle,
the first and moft eafy Rule which teaches our Chriftian Verities
Intrumen- Scripture teaches them not fo plainly, Therefore Faith may
talPrinciple. well bee refolued into the firft Verity fpeaking by the Church
and whoeuer refolues it without all dependance of this liuing
Oracle, put's the Conclufion before the Premifes, as we shall
fee afterward,
17. I proue the firft
proue the firſt part of my Affertion. 1. It is as eui-
dently credible that God fpeak's to all by the Church, as that
he anciently fpake by the Prophets and Apoftles, For we haue
the
Difc. 3. C. 10. The Refolution of Faith.
577
the fame fupernatural Signes manifefted in all theſe Oracles à The Cl
like, as is largely shown aboue, and Confequently haue with ches Euidest
them the fame Grounds of an Euident Credibility, But Credibility,
Euident Credibility, induced the Faithful to belieue thofe mani- parallel with
that of the
feſted Prophets and Apoftles, Ergo, the Churches Euident Cre- Apostles.
dibility, euery way Parallel, induces all in this prefent State to be-
lieue this Oracle. 2. God is equally infallible, Yea one and the A fecond
fame Verity, whether He ſpeak's by one fingle Perfon or many,, reafon
and muſt be heard with all profound Submiſſion, Prouided,
that the Oracle He fpeak's by, bee made immediatly Credible
by the luftre of Supernatural wonders as moſt euidently the Athird, and
>
Church is. 3. The Church, Antwerable to the Prophets and
Apoftles, is à Liuing Oracle, and vpon that Account able to Solue
all doubts which may occurr in controuerted Matters, but the
Clarity of à liuing euidenced Oracle, ready to decide all fuch
difficulties, makes the Rule of Faith eafy, and much auail's to
à clear Refolution. 4. Our Analytis into God's Veracity Spea- fourth re-
king by the Church, Stand's firm vpon that first Principal and in- fon
fallible Motiue, the Diuine T ftimony it Selfe, I call it Principal be-
cauſe the Church is only Inftrumental as we now faid, whereby
God ſpeak's: And this Refolution is made without any danger
of à Proceſs in Infinitum, or the leaft Shadow of à vicious Cir-
cle, as Shall preſently appear by giuing the laft Analyfis.
18. In the Interim, know thus much. To proue the ſecond
part of our Affertion. viz. That Scripture is not à Rule to
perfpicuous and clear in deliuering the very Chiefe Articles of
Faith, as the Church is in controuerted Matters, were to proue
à plain Euidence, For what can be more manifes't, then that
wee, and all Hereticks past and prefent, are at endless debates
concerning the true Senfe and meaning of thofe very words
we read in Scripture? Yet the Rule of Faith ( Sectaries confefs
it) ought to bee clear open and manifeft to all. I waue all fur-
ther difcourfe vpon this Subiect, and here adioyn our laſt Analy-
fis.
19
One demand's, why I belieue that great Myſtery of the
Dddd
Incars
The other
part of the
affertion is
manifest.
578 Difc. 3. C. 1o. The Refolution of Faith.
The last
ginen.
All De-
mands
answered.
*
Incarnation? I may well Anfwer firft.
God's own facred
Refolution Word, which we call Scripture Afferts it. The next Queftion
will be, Why I belieue this to be Scripture? I anfwer. The
fame God fpeaking by his own Oracle, the Church, affirm's it.
A third Queſtion followes. Why doe I belieue that God ſpeak's
thus by the Church? I Anfier the Ground of my Faith in
this particular, is God's own speaking and the very fame with that hee
fpake by the Apoftles. As therefore his Own word, vttered
by thoſe firſt great Mafters, vpheld the Primitiue Faith, without
any further ground, or Procels in Infinitum, So his own Spea-
Our refolus.
sien the fame king by this Oracle of the Church, vphold's mine. And I can
with that of go no further; For the laft formal Obiect of Faith, has none
the Primiti latter, That One word of Truth is enough to belieue vpon..
Again, as thoſe firſt pious Chriftians, had any moued à doubt
concerning their Inducements to Faith, would haue anſwered.
The blind fee. The lame walk ftrange Miracles are wrought by
cheſe bleſſed men, And therefore we both muft in Prudence, and
will belieue that God fpeak's by them; So I likewife bring.
The Motines to light the fame Signal Motiues Euident in the Church, and
He Chri-
tians.
alike.
how vve
proue by
rational
,
Say, I both muft, if prudence guides me, and Will belieue that God
fpeak's by this Oracle, known as well by Her Miracles and fu-
pernatural Signatures, as euer any Apoftle was known,
20. And thus you fee firft, as I noted aboue, How we paffe
from the Formal Obiect of Faith (God's own Testimony proposed by
the Church) to the Prudent Inducements of belieuing, where-
Why we be- vpon the Iudgement of Credibility (not Faith it felfe) is vlti-
lieue? And matly grounded. Now thefe Inducements being laid forth to
reafon, The Will command's an abfolute Affent, which reft's
vpon God's word, fpoken by this Oracle. You fee. 2. All dan-
ger of à vicious Circle auoyded in this way of refoluing Faith.
For when I belieue that God fpeaks by the Church, I refolue
not the Belief of that Truth, into another antecedent Reuela-
tion taken from Scripture, yet wholly obfcure, and no way fo
immediatly Credible as the Church is, (for if I did fo, à Procels
in Infinitum would neceffarily follow) But I belieue that word of
Trush
Moti nes
Difc. 3. C. 10. The Refolution of Faith. 579
The word
of truth
belieued for
Truth for it felfe immediatly, and reft there, As the ancient Chri-
tians relyed vpon the very words fpoken by the Apoftles, wi-
thout recurring to any former, or furer Reuelation. If there-
fore thofe happy Belièuers made no vicious Circle in their Faith it Selfe
(hauing no two Propofitions prouing one another to make à
Circle of) We in our belief are altogether as free, from that
faulty Circular way, in our Refolution. It is true, All of vs, if
Queſtioned about the Euidence of Credibility, moft bring to light
Motiues inducing to Faith, They theirs; We ours; both are à like
fignificant, both Supernatural, as is already explained.
The primiti-
and curs, the
ue Moriues,
fame.
are God's
Voice.
21. You may gather. 3. out of what is here and former-
ly noted, how eafy it is after à full Sight had of thofe fignal The illustri-
Motiues (and they more fet forth the Churches Glory, than ous Signs
any Traine of attendants can illuftrate the greateſt Monarch) apparent in
That the firft connatural Language which God fpeak's by the the Church.
Church, is this general Truth. There only his Specia! Prouidence
Directs and gouern's, where the illuftrious Signes of his own Soueraigo
nity manifeft, That he teaches by à Voice peculiar to Himfelfe.
But thefe Signes moft euidently, are feen in one only Society
of Chriftians, the Roman Catholick Church, Therefore he tea-
ches by this One only Oracle, And the neceſſary Leſſon he
will haue all to learn is; That he has called all to one Communion
of Faith in one Church, Euidenced by Supernatural wonders. This learn by
fundamental Verity we belieue, And it is the firſt Act of faith them.
we elicite, Or, that Primigenial Affent which connaturally arifes
from God's own voice deliuered to vs by this Oracle, without
depending on Scripture, if we make à right Analyfis. This
General truth once eftablished, and none can rationally contra-
dict it; We now proceed to folue à few Obiections.
what we
Dddd 2
CHAP. XI.
$80 Diſc. 3. C. 11. More of this fubiect.
1+
Sectaries
Obiections
CHAP. XI.
Sectaries Obiections folued. The fallible Agreement of all
Concerning the Canon of Scripture, no Proof at all.
No vniuerfal Confent for the Sectaries Scripture, or
the Senfe of it. How the Church is both the Ve-
rity believed, and the Motiue,why we believe.
Other Difficulties Examined.
1.
Speak here of Sectaries Obiections, knowing well, fome
Diuines who make the Churches Propofition moft in-
fallible (and herein all Catholicks agree) yet hold it infufficient
only, anfwe. to be the laft Principle, Whereinto Faith is refolued: For fay
thefe, it is only à neceffary Condition by virtue whereof
the ancient Reuelation is infallibly applied to vs. In this Strife
(purely Theological, and fome what as, I thinke, de Nomine) I
shall not long bufy my Selfe, being chiefly to attend to what
Sectaries do, or can propoſe againſt our Doctrin.
red
why Secta-
ries cannot
viz.
20 The firſt Obiection. If the Catholick after à prudent
Confideration had of the known Motiues already ſpecified, can
belieue what euer the Church teaches, and Confequently refol-
ue his faith into the Authority of God ſpeaking by that Oracle:
refolue their Why may not the Sectary as well vpon this one Iudgement.
All acknowledge Scripture to bee God's word, as eafily
belieue, and refolue his faith into pure Scripture, indepen-
dently of Church Authority? Anfw. Such à Beliefe and Re-
folution is impoffible, becaufe as we faid aboue, none can in this
prefent State affent to this general Truth. Scripture is God's Word,
or belieue fo much as any Verity in it, if the Authority of an
Infallible
Faith into
Scriptures
As Catho
licks Doe
into the
Church?
Diſc. 3. C. 11. Obiections folued.
581
Infallible Church be reiected. To the pretended ground taken
from the Conſent of all Chriftians owning Scripture for God's
word, I haue partly answered. That confent alone induces not any
to belieue one reuealed Article by an Infallible act of Faith,
if thoſe whole Confenting multitudes, be all fuppofed fallible.
Firſt, euery one knowes, the multitudes of Turks agree thus
far, that their Alcoran is God's word, yet fuch an agreement
though very Vniuerfal, induces no wife man to belieue any Di-
uinity in the Book, or to own its Doctrin as Diuine, and facred.
And this reafon hinted at aboue is, more à Priori.
2.
an effect,
3. The Agreement of all Chriftians, is truely an effect of
Faith, or rather of the Obiects Credibility antecedently prefup- The agree-
pofed Credible vpon other grounds, before men agreed fo vniver- ment of all,
fally in that Chriſtian truth: For this Caufal is good, Therefore Concerning
Chriftians agreed in that Truth, because it was previously made Credi- Scripture is.
ble vpon other found Motiues: And not the contrary. It is credible;
because all confpired in à Confent fo vniuerfal. Wherefore, if very
many, who now own Scripture to be Diuine, should leaue off
to iudge So, and reiect the Book or any Part in it as fabulous,
That would not diminish its ancient Credibility; And no more,
Say I, would the Addition of any new Confenters, who now
reiect it should, they agree with vs) highten one whit our Belie-
fe, or make the Truth we Affent to more Credible, than it was
before. And this proues, That the Original Credibility of Scrip-
ture is not grounded vpon any vniuerfai fallible Confent,
but ftand's firm vpon other ftronger antecedent Motiues.
Nay it cannot Originally depend therevpon, Seing that
Confent is an Effect of thofe other preuious Motiues, as S.
Auſtin often cited, fully and most amply declares. Be it how
will.
Not the Ori.
ginal Proof
of the Scrip
tures Cre-
dibility.
4. The greateſt Difficulty yet remain's, for if we enquire of The Searles
Sectaries, where we may find this common Confent, we haue Ples taken
but à very flippery Foundation to ſtand vpon? Becaufe not from any
only Heretiques of old, denied the greateft part of Scripture, fallible Con
vniuerfal
But, to come to thefe neerer times, the Machianellians and So- fent, is
Dddd 3
sittians groundle fin
$8.2
Diſc. 3.
C. 11. More of this fubiect.
cinians also called Chriftians, hold many things in that Sacred Book
fo far aboue all humane reach, that they Say, it is vnworthy God
to require from any à firm beliefe of them. Add herevnto the
multitudes of Heathens, lewes and Turks, who imcomparably
whole Mul- furpafs Chriftians in number; All thefe, you know, Vnanimou-
fly reicct our Scriptures. How then can the far lefler number
of Witneffes agreeing in one confent Plead fo much as probably
againſt fuch multitudes of Opponents, If no other motiue be
alleged in behalfe of the Scriptures Credibility, but only the
Confent of few, against many.
titudes
againſt
Sectaries.
Sectaries
plainly
Convinced.
5. But to filence all Sectaries hereafter, Who infift fo much.
vpon this vniuerfal Confent, we will here gratis fuppofe the Ar-
gument drawn from thence to be moft conuincing, Yet withall
Affert, it fo little aduantages the pretences of Proteftants, That
it vtterly ruin's their vndefenfible Caufe. For where haue thefe
men, any vniuerfal Agreement of Chriftians for their Canon
of Scripture? Where haue they it in behalf of their iarring
Opinions? Where for their Negatiue Articles? Where for
their particular Senfe of Scripture, which not only the Roman
Catholick Church, but others alfo reiect as falfe, vngrounded,
Obferue the and Heretical. If therefore this Common confent for the Bible
Proofs,
were more Vniuerfàl then it is, it help's not Sectaries, whils't
their fingular Opinions, their Canon aud Senfe, And in à word
their whole Religion (as Proteftancy) is fo particular to Them fel-
That the reft of Chriftians, ashamed to own it, will be no
Partners with them.
ues,
6. And thus you fee, where the Weaknes of this whole Plea
lies. They will haue à vniuerfal Confent for the bare letter of
Scripture, Let that be fo. Its nothing to the purpofe, if after-
ward, without any thing like à Vniuerfal agreement they mi-
finterpret the Book, and make it ſpeak what God neuer meant.
The Book of But this is done, and I proue it vpon an vndeniable ground thus.
Scripture Whilſt theſe men cannot name, or Defign à Church reputed
misinterpre Orthodox fiue or fix Ages fince, which as vniuerfally main-
nothing. tained their new Doctrin, as She then owned the old letter
ted Proues
of the
Diſc. 3. C.11. Obiections folues.
583
of the Bible, They misinterpret the Book, And gain no more But Seite.
by vrging that vniuerjal Conent for the meer letter, then the Arians, ries do So,
or worst of Heretiques gin. But to name fuch à Church for and tis pro-
their Nouelties is impofible, and confequently no lefs impoffi- ued.
ble, to refolue one Article of Proteftancy into God's Diuine
Teſtimony, expreffed in Scripture.
7.
Chutch is
both the
Truth belie-
And the Mo-
time alſo why
we belieue.
Sectaries!
must foluse
the difficulty
A 2. Obiection. Chriftians faith feem's not refoluable
into the Diuine Teftimony fpeaking by the Church, becaufe How the
the Church is Res credita, ot, the Material Obiect belieued, Wit-
nefs that Article of our Creed. I belieue the Holy Catholick
Church. Therefore it cannot be Ratio Credendi, or the Formal aed.
Obiect, which moues to belieue. I Anfwer firſt. Sectaries muſt
folue this Difficulty, For is not the very Doctrin contained in
Scripture according to them, the Res Credita, or the Material
Obiect beltened. The Incarnation I hope, whereof we read in
Scripture (the like may be faid of euery other Myſtery) is
the Truth belieued with fuch à faith as they haue. And the
very fame Word of God, wherein thefe Truths are contai-
ned, is alfo the Ratio Credendi, or Formal Obiect mouing to
belieue. For demand why they Affent to the Incarnation?
T'is Anſwered, becauſe God has reuealed it in Scripture. No
other Motiue can be pretended. Therefore the fame Scrip-
ture, differently confidered, is both the Material Obiect, or
Verity belieued, and likewife the Formal, which moues to belie-
ue. And thus we Say, The Churches Propofition, Or rather
God fpeaking by the Church, may well be the Truth be-
lieued, and à Motiue alfo why we belieue, wherein there is
no Difficulty at all. Take here one Inftance in known Phi-
lofophy which teaches, that light both terminates our Viſion,
and ſo conſidered, is the Material Obiect feen; withall, it mo-
ues the Power to fee it, and vpon that Account, is rightly By two la
stances we
called the Formal Obiect. In Acts of Faith you haue the li- ciear, what
ke Inftance. For example. When the lewes Affented to the is afferted.
ancient Prophets, vttering thefe words. Hec dicit Dominus &c.
Our Lord ſpeak's thus. They belieued that God fpake by the
mouth
584
Difc. 3. C. 11. More of this Obiect.
we belieue
the truths
Propofed by
the Church?
This general
Affent first
precedes.
mouth of thofe Prophets (it was one of the Materal obiects
Affented to by Faith) and they belieued alfo for thoſe Pro-
phets words (as God's own Voice) and had respect to them,
as to à Formal obiect, Why they belieued.
per-
And this
8. A 3. Obiection. If the Church be tfie Primum Cre-
How, and in dibile, or the firft Belieuable Oracle, whereby God fpeak's to all
what Order in this prefent State, We are to declare, how and in what
order, thofe Truths are deliuered by it, which all are obliged to
belieue And this cannot be done without Confufion, and
haps danger of à Circle allo
We haue partly Anfwered abo-
ue, where it is faid, That as the Apoftles after the Knowledge
had of our Sauiours Miracles, belieued firft in à General Way,
He was the true Meßtas; So we, in this prefent State, induced by
all the Motiues of Credibility already laid forth, belieue firſt
in General, That this Manifefted Oracle is Chrifts own Spouſe,
which infallibly teaches the right way to Saluation.
truth we Afſent to immediatly vpon the Churches Propofition,
or rather vpon God's Teftimony fpeaking by the Church, wi-
thout depending on Scripture ; Iuft as the Apoftles belieued Chrift
our Lord to be the true Meffias, vpon his own Teftimony_pro-
ued Credible by Miracles, and other Signal Wonders. Thus
far there is no Confufion at all, nor any danger of à vicious
Circle. Now further. This General truth admitted, we pro-
ceed to the Beliefe of other particular Verities propofed, and
herein alfo follow the Apoftles Steps and practife, who affented
to euery fingle Article which our Sauiour deliuered afterward,
vpon his own Word. Why therefore may not we alſo
belieue euery particular Article propofed by the Church, fpea-
king in the name of God, If (which is already proued) the fa-
me God deliuers Truth as well by this Oracle, as he did an-
ciently by the Prophets and Apoftles. No difparity can be
giuen.
Afterward
we defcend
to other par
riculars.
9. Hence I Say, whoeuer will make à full Propofition of
Diuine Faith, and giue à Satisfactory Refolution thereof, muft
both Propofe and Refolue it into God's Authority ſpeaking
by
Difc. 3. C. 11. Obiections: folued.
$85
by this one signalized and euidenced Oracle. And here in few
words is the vltimate reafon of our Aflertion. If we exclude
the infallible Authority of an euidenced Church, neither the
Canon of Scripture, nor any verity in it, nor its true fenfe,
which Heretiques deprauc, can be admitted as Gods infallible
word. Therefore S. Auſtin Spake moft profoundly, where He
profeffes: He would not belieue the Gospel Without Church Autbo-
rity. Hence it followes, That though one might belieue the
Myſtery of the Trinity, or the Incarnation, for the truths re-
uealed in Scripture, yet if à further Queftion be moued con-
cerning the Authenticalnefs of thefe very Scriptural Expreßions,
All, if they will finally refolue their Faith, muft rely on Gods
Teftimony ſpeaking by the Church, and belieue that very Do-
arin to be Diuine, becauſe She own's it as Diuine.
>
The reaſon
why faith
must be refo-
led, into
Gods Tefti
mony Spea-
king by the
Church.
IO. Thus we faid. Chap. 20. n. II. That the infallible
Authority of the prefent Church confuminates the ancient Re-
uelation, which long fince paft and remote from vs, cannot
moue to belieue, vnleffe Her Teftimony conuey's it to vs, and
in this fenfe compleat's it; And what way of belieuing or re-
foluing Faith can be more eafy, then to Say. I belieue the This way of
Incarnation, both becauſe S. Iohn wrote it, and becauſe God beliewing
fpeaking by the Church, faith he wrote it. Thefe two Indiuifi- mofleafy.
bly taken may as well make vp one total Motiue of belieuing,
as the Royal Prophets Tetimony, and. S. Peters infallible de-
claration added to it. Act. 2. V.25. became one entire total
Motiue to thoſe firſt belieuing Chriftians. Ifay Indiuifibly; And
therefore the Churches Teftimony concurres not meerly as an The Chur-
ches Tefli.
extrinfecal condition preuiouſly affented to, but iointly termi-
nates Faith together with the ancient Reuelation, as shall be my
meerly
Preſently declared. Herein alfo there is nothing like confu- Condition.
fion, but the greateſt Clarity, free from all danger of
cious Circle.
any vi-
II. A. 4. Obiection. The Motiues inducing to belieue
that God fpeak's by the Church, or that all ar called to ſeek
their Saluation in this one Euidenced Oracle, are Church Do-
Eeee
Prins
mony not
586
Difc. 3. C. 11. More of this Obiect.
How the Mo-
tiues indu-
cing to belie
Це
Erins. For we all belieue that the true Spoufe of Chrift is Ho-
ly, vnited in Faith, vniuerfally ſpread the whole world ouer &c. The-
refore they can no more rationally induce to belieue, that firft
neceffary Truth.. Viz. All are called to one Communion of
Faith, Than one Article of faith obfcure in it felfe, rationally
induce to belieue another, wholly as obfcure. We haue An-
fwered aboue. Thefe Motiues may be confidered two wayes.
Firft, as they are euidently perceptible by fenfe, and fo natu-
rally they precede Faith, and induce to belieue. 2. As attefted
vpon Gods own Authority ſpeaking by the Church, And in
of the
Chruch alfo this Senſe they precede not Faith, but are Articles belieued,
wherein there is no Myftery at all, if, which is certain, The.
fame thing can be both known and belieued by different Affents,
vpon diftinct Motiues.
Are Darins
In what fen
Je Scripture
was Com.
pleat to the
Primitiue
belieuers.
A 5. Obiection. Scripture when newly written, and propo
fed by the Euangelifts or Apoftles to the Primitiué Chriftians,
was to them fo total, and compleat à Formal Obiect to ground
faith vpon, that they needed no Authority of the Church to
compleat it more, Therefore it's ftill à full and perfect Mo-
tiue of belieuing, in order to all this very Age, independent-
ly, of Church Authority. The Obiection brings with it its
own Solution, For if thofe Holy Writers of Scripture were
Infallible (whereof no man doubt's) and propofed all they
wrote as Gods Diuine word, That very Propofition was ful-
ly as certain to them, as any Church Authority, whether paft
or prefent, can be to vs. Hence I fay, though Scripture was
then (That infallible Publication fuppofed) à full and compleat
Motiue to ground faith vpon; yet now it Cannot be fo Quo-
ad nos, or in order to Belieuers in this prefent State, without
more, not becauſe there is any want in Scripture, confidered in
it felf, But vpon another account that Circumftances are very
different, and notably changed fince thofe firſt dayes, For now
we haue neither Apoftle nor Prophet at hand, to Teftify or
Church au publish the Scriptures Diuinity; The ancient fignes of Credi-
bility which adorned thofe first bleffed men, and made Scrip-
Why not ſo
xow to us,
without
skority?.
ture
Difc. 3. C, 11. Obiections folued,
$87
ture moft acceptable, are out of our fight; Therefore God's
Church fucceed's with her Luftre, and Supplies, as it were
that want, or takes the place of thofe deceafed Prophets and
Apoſtles,
13. By what is here Said, you may easily vnderſtand the Two Terms,
ſenſe of thoſe two Terms, Quoad fe, and Quoad nos frequent- explicated,
ly vſed in this matter, though not free from Sectaries Cauils,
Who fay; Whateuer is Quoad fe, confidered in it felfe à For-
mal Obiect, muſt be fo in order to others, becauſe it is à
Relatiue, and cannot but haue refpect to our vnderſtanding.
Anfw. All this is true, after à full and infallible Propofition AReuelation
made of the Obiect, Otherwife moft certainly à Reuelation may be in it
may be in it Selfe both Diuine and infallible, though it ap- Selfe Diuine.
pear's not fo to all, for want of à dne application to Belie-
uers. Again, It may be in fome Circumstances à compleat
Motiue to ground faith vpon, and in another State ceaſe to
be fo. Many Verities in Scripture, when firft written and
propoſed by Apoftolical men, were compleat Obiects of faith
to the Primitiue Chriftians, yet are not by virtue of that Pro-
pofition now, fo to ys, Becauſe They neither write in this
State, nor immediatly Propofe the truths contained in Scriptu-
Hence it is, that the Church, as wee faid, Supplies that
defect, and compleat's by her Propofition thofe ancient Reue-
lations, which iffued from Chrift and his Apoftles. And for
this reafon Her Teftimony, Quoad nos, is more clear, more
known, and more immediatly Credible, than Scripture can
bee.
re.
Though it
appears not
foto all.
The Chur-
ches Tefti-
mony Clear.
14. 3. Difficulties may arife concerning the Scriptures Ca-
non, and fenſe alfo, which none can decide but the Church
only, and vpon that Account, Shee is more Credible and mo- And neceſſan
re immediatly known to vs, than the Scriptures abftrufe Senfe,
?ry for other
which is very often remote from vs, before God fpeaking by Reasons.
this Oracle, laies the truth open in clearer Terms. And what
wonder is here? Whifft Sectaries confefs, (to vnderftand the
true fenfe of God's word in matters moft Fundamental) other
Eece 2
Rules
$88 Difc.
3. C. 12. How the Churches Teftimony
what Secta.
ries ack-
nowledge.
God has
Spoken the
Same Verity
by different
Oracles,
Rules and means must be vfed. The Original Languages are to
be examined, feueral Paffages compared together, daily Reading
and pondering the different places with much Prayer alſo, ſeem
neceffary. What is this to Say, but that their reading, pondering
and comparing
are in order to them, means and Rules more
immediatly known, then the hidden Senfe of Scripture? Herein
then lies the difference, that we in Lieu of their fallible reading.
recurr to an Infallible Church, and Say her Teftimony is more
perfpicuous, eaſy, and clear to vs, than the dark Verities in
Scripture are to them, after all their pondering and compa
ring.
,
CHAP. XIT.
The laft Obiection Propofed. VVhether the Churches
Teftimony may be called the Formal Obiect
of Faith. Other Notes and Confide-
rations, Concerning The Refolu
tion of Faith.
I
A
.
6th Obiection. If God, (whereof no man doubt's)
once faid in Scripture. The Word was made flesh, its
needleſs to ſpeak the fame Truth again by the Church, Nay, this
feem's impoffible, vnlefs the Churches Teftimony be properly
the Formal Obiect of Faith. Anfw. The firſt part of the Obiec-
tion contains no difficulty, for it is certain God has ſpoken the
fame Verities by diftinct and different Oracles, by different Euan-
gelifts, for example. And why cannot he as well fpeak them
again, by an Euangelift and the Church? If the Church be
abfolutely infallible, for the Diuerfity of the Organs or Oracles
He fpeak's by, diuerfifies not at all his Sacred word.
2. Now
7
Difc. 3. C. 12. Moues to belieue?
5.89
A
1 quefiion
propojed.
2. Now to what is hinted at concerning the formal Obiect,
I Ask, whether this Affertion in Catholick- Principles be not de
Fide, and reuealed by Almighty God? Euery Doctrin propoſed by
the Church is true. The Catholick Anfwer's affirmatiuely, And
here is one Verity, as an Inftance for many. The Church is infal
lible, or cannot err. I Ask again, whether this very Propofition
made by the Church, may not be belieued vpon Her own Au- What ſome
thority, by an Act of Diuine Faith? Some Diuines Anſwer ne- Diuines
gatiuely, and Difcourfe thus. The Affent giuen to the Autho- answer.
rity or Propofition of the Church is not Faith, but rather an ex-
trinfecal difpofition to Faith, So that by one Affent we firft Say,
The Churches Propofition is infallible, and afterward by à true
Act of Faith, belieue the Truth propofed by Her, vpon God's
pure Reuelation contained in Scripture, or vpon Apoftolical Tradi-
tion.
·
,
3. Though this Difcourfe, which defend's the Churches
abfolute Infallibility, giues no aduantage to Sectaries, yet it ſeem's
difficult for two reafons chiefly. Firſt, if à firm and infallible Their An--
·
Judgement terminated vpon the Churches neuer erring Propofi- Seem's
Swer
tion, which fully declares Chrift- real Prefence in the Eucharift › difficult;
for example, Precedes the true belief of that Myſtery grounded
on Scripture, or Apoftolical Tradition, That very faith as grounded on
Scripture, would be à neceſſary obfcure act generated by the Dif
courfe, or ineuitably inferred from the Connexion between the
Churches infallible Propofition (not affented to by Faith) and the
Diuine Reuelation in Scripture. The Inference is clear. For the
Church Saies infallibly, Chrift is really prefent, And I Affent to that
Truth, but by no Act of Faith ( fay thefe) Yet from thence I eui-
dently inferr. That He is really prefent, and this is done befo-
re I belieue the Verity by Supernatural Faith. I think this cannot
be granted. Some Anfwer that preuious Iudgement is only à
condition difpofing to belieue,and not the Caufe or Motiue why inferred
I believe. Contra. Call it caufe, call it condition or what you upon that
pleafe, by virtue of that Iudgement, I Affent to the truth of the Indgement,
Myſtery in it ſelfe, and from thence muft neceffarily infer that
Eeee 3
God
What is
neceffarily
390 Difè. 3. C.12. How the Churches Teftimony
The Church
Credible.
This way
intricate,
God has reuealed it, before I belieue it by fupernatural Faith
And this is to Diſcourſe,not from the formal Obiect of Faith to
the material (which may be probably defended) but from one
Principle purely extrinfecal to Faith. viz. The Churches Propof-
tion obfcurely known, to the Diuine Testimony and the matter reuca-
led.
4. A fecond Reafon. God truely fpeak's by the Church
which is as well known by its own luftre and Miracles to be à
Diuine Oracle, as euer Prophet or Apoftle were known to be fo,
immediatly by their Signatures and Miracles. No Disparity can be ginen.
But theſe Prophets and Apoftles were made by their Marks and
Wonders, immediately Credible, therefore the Church hold's
Parallel, and is alfo by it Selfe and for it Selfe immediatly credi-
ble. And hence it followes, That the Churches Infallibility may,
and muft in à General way be belieued, before we come to an
infallible Belief of Scripture. For to Say, I muſt firſt belieue
by true Faith the Churches Infallibility vpon Scripture, And to
Say again, I cannot firft belieue that very Scripture to be Diuine
of belieuing, or to 1peak truth, But vpon the Ghurches Teftimony, feem's, if
implex and not impoffible, at leaſt à very implex, intricate and à difficult
way of Belieuing. I fay first belieue, For none in this preſent ſtate
can know the Scriptures Diuinity, without Church Authority.
5. For theſe and many other Reaſons I Conclude, that this
Propofition made by the Church. She is an Oracle teaching all
truth whereby men may attain Saluation, is à fufficient Motiue to
ground an Act of Diuine Faith vpon? The learned Suarez, to
omit many other Diuines. Difp. 9. de Fide. Sect. 9. n. 14.
Speak's most profoundly, and pertinently to my purpoſe. Ipfa
Ecclefia feipfam proponit vt veram, & quia &c. The Church propofes
Herfelfe as true, and because she is fufficiently and euidently propoſed, the-
refore she obliges all to belieue fuch à Verity, no less then other things ap-
pertaining to Faith: Iuft after that manner, as à true Prophet who fuf-
ficiently propofes truths reuealed to him by God, Confequently, Sufficiently
propofes himselfe to be true Prophet. Moreouer. Difp. 3. de Fide
Sect. 11. n. 11. Quod Ecclefia definit, Deus per Ecclefiam testificatur.
The Church
can ground
an act of
Diuine
Faith.
Diuines
seach So.
VVhas
Difc 3. C. 12. Moues to belieue?
591
scripture
accord's
VVhat the Church Defines, God teftifies the fame Verity by the Church.
Scripture is Confonant where the Church is called the Pillar and
ground of truth. The Fathers accord fo vniuerfally that à Volu-
me would not fet forth their expreffions. Take only thefe two
in place of many. S. Cyril. in Conc. Ephef. Tom. 1. de Nicanis Ancient Fa-
Patribus. They (the Fathers there) were infpired by the Holy Ghost thers Speak
not to recede from Truth. Non enim ipfi loquebantur &c. For they spake mist figni.
not (but Chrift our Saviour witneßing) it was the Spirit of God and the ficently.
Eternal Father that space in them. S. Greg. Lib. 1. Regift Epift. 24.
Is yet more fignificant, where he profeffes no lefs Reuerence to
the four General Councils, then to the four Euangelists.
6. Whoeuer read's thefe and the like Authorities cannot
but Say, the Voice of the Church as it Proceeds from that Oracle,
is the Voice of God, And therefore Diuine, certain, and infal-
lible, Or contrarywife muft grant, it's only Humane, fallible, and may
err. Speake for And it followes firft, that if the whole Church
should err in the moſt effential Points of Faith, God would
not be yet Said to deceiue any, becauſe his increated Authority
Speak's not by it, nor is engaged to refcue this his own Spoufe
from errour. It followes. 2. If any one denied, either Purgatory,
or Transubstantiation explicitly defined by the Church, and not
fo clearly expreffed in Scripture, He would not be guilty of He-
refy, though he peruerfly refufed to belieue thefe Articles, precifely
vpon this account, That the Church Defines them. The Inference is Reason alo
clear, for in doing fo, He denies not Gods Reuelation, becaufe proves the
the Churches Definitions (no Diuine Teftimony) are in à lower Affertion.
ranck, and much inferiour to all, that God has ſpoken. It follo-
wes. 3. We belieue the Churches Definitions by à very diffe-
rent infuſed Habit from that, whereby we Affent to the Truths
reuealed in Scripture, and to find fuch à fupernatural and Infalli-
ble Habit diftinct from Faith, when we Affent to the Churches
Definitions, feem's to me à new learning, vnknown to Anti-
quity.
>
7. Thus much and more well confidered, which might
be Said in behalfe of Chrift's glorious Oracle And this one
Principle
$92 Difc. 3.
C. 12. How the Churches Teftimony
Faith may
be refolued
into Scriptu
re and the
Charch to
gether.
Principle added, which all Catholicks grant. viz. That the
Church and Scripture Speak alwaies the fame truths, and can ne-
uer be at Variance,
8. Why may we not in this prefent State, refolue Diuine
Faith into the firft Verity Speaking by the Scripture (or Infal-
lible Tradition) and by his own Oracle the Church allo? For
example We belieue the Sacred Trinity, the Incarnation, Original
Sin &c. becauſe God reuealed them in Scripture, or firft con-
ueyed them by Apoftolical Tradition; But theſe Verities which
the Apoſtles and Euangelifts long fince made Credible, are now
remote from vs without the Churches reft x Testimony, whereby
The reafon. God afcertain's all in this State, that both Scripture is Diuine,
and that his Church fpeak's the very fame Verities in Scripture,
And confequently we Affent to euery particular vpon à Twofold
Motiue or rather, vpon this one Formal Obiect, 10ynily, and indiui-
fibly taken, becauſe Scripture and the Church Affert's them. Nei-
ther is there the leaft Difficulty in ioyning one reflex Teftimo-
joynt izdiui. ny with another former or anciently deliuered, whereof we
fible Motine haue examples in Holy Writ, For we all belieue, God made à
Couenant with Abraham of multiplying his Seed, becaufe
Eternal Truth faid fo fome Ages before Mofes. Again, we be-
lieue that Verity, becauſe the reflex Teftimony of Mofes reiterat's
the fame Verity, anciently spoken to Abraham. Gen. 17. 4.
Other Inftances of the fame nature you haue aboue, and more
are found in Holy Writ.
Scripture
and the
Church
make but one
An instance
How the
Church
geild's to
Scripture?
,
9. Thus much fuppofed, It's (Methinks) eaſy to Say ( ifall
be not de Nomine) how the Churches Teftimony may in one
Senſe be called the Formal Obiect of Faith, and not in another.
Confider it as Diuine, infallible, and God's own Voice, proceeding
from no humane Authority, but from the First Verity ſpeaking by
this Oracle, it well merit's the name of à Formal Oviect. Compa-
re it again with the Primary Reuelation, which it only complear's
in order to vs, and confequently prefuppofes more Ancient, more
excellent, and all things confidered more worthy, it muſt yeild to
Scripture, And may be called an intrinfecal condition, whilſt it De-
clares what anciently was Reuealed.
10. Now
Difc. 3. C. 12. Moues to belieue?
593
ture,
IO. Now if any Ask wherein the Excellence and Dignity
of Scripture confifts, when you compare it with the Churches
Definitions? Diuines anfwer. 1. Euery word and reafon in
Holy wrir is de Fide, but not fo, in the Churches Definitions,
where the Senſe only of the Definitiue fentence has weight, as
comming from the Holy Ghoft's Alliftance. 2. The Church The excellen-
has her limits, and Defines nothing but what was long fince re- ceanddigni.
uealed or neceffarily connexed with the ancient Doctrin, And ty of Scrip.
this account the Hagiogrophers are deferuedly called our
wpon
first great Teachers, who made firft euery Truth they wrote à
matter of Faith. 3. When she Church Defines or interpret's
Gods word, All is done for Scripture, and look'd vpon as the Compared
end of Herlabours. But what is performed for another, yeild's Church.
in worth and weight to that other it is done for, as S. Auſtin
obferues. Lib. de Magift. 9. Whoeuer defires more of this
Subiect may read Bellar. Lb. 1. de verbo Dei C. 15. and Serra-
rius, in Proleg. 6. 7. 9. 12.
with the
One Primary
of Faith,
grounded
II. To folue other difficulties propofed by Sectaries, pleaſe
to Note first. This Primary Act of Faith. All are called into
the Communion of one infallible Church, whereby God teaches the
true Day to Saluation, is grouuded immediatly vpon the Au-
thority of this Oracle, manifefted by her Marks and Super-
natural Signes, Although yet the Book of Scripture be not
admitted as God's word, Notwithstanding, when it is once owned en Church
as Diuine vpon Church Authority, I can belieue this Oracles Authority.
Infallibility, with another Act of Faith grounded on Scriptu- How Scrip-
re, yet if we make à fearch into the vltimate Principle, or ture also ter=
final Refoluent of that very Belief, We muſt as is faid aboue, mixatesikat
come at laft to Church Authority, whereby Affurance is giuen, Faich?
that fuch à truth is Scripture.
12. Note. 2. This General truth fuppofed of the Church
being immediatly Credible, or known by her Motiues as an Ora-
cle,which teaches the right way to Saluation, it therefore follo-
wes not, that euery other particular Verity (for example) the
Popes Supremacy, the Infallibility of Councils &c.) can in like man-
Ffff
ner
594 Difc. 3. C. 12. How the Churches Teſtimony
How other
particular
Truths are
serward.
ner be firft and immediatly Credible, or belieued explicitly, where
I Affent to that General Truth, For it is enough that fuch Par
ticulars, be confequently, or, afterward affented to, vpon the
Diuine Reuelation in Scripture and the Churches own Propofition,
as is already declared.
13. The Reaſon is, becauſe the Marks and Motiues mani-
feft in the Church immediatly induce to belieue, that She is
God's Oracle, conftituted by Prouidence to guide all in the
way of Truth., But how or in what manner this Duty is com-
belieued af- plyed with, muſt be learned by the Practife and Doctrin of
the fame Church, by Scripture, and Tradition alfo. Now that
it is moft Connatural to know firft in à General way The
Churches Infallibility, before we defcend to belieue euery Do-
Erin She teaches in Particular, you may well conceiue by the
Inftance giuen aboue of the bleffed Apoftles, who firft acknow-
ledged Chrift our Lord, as à true Prophet fent from God, be-
fore they belieued many other. Verities, which afterward were
taught by that great Maſter, and learned by them.
bedy of bri.
ftians united
in one Faith.
VVhat the
›
>
·
14. Note. 3. In the Refolution of Faith into Church Air-
VVe under thority, we vnderftand not in the first place the Church Repre-
Stand by the fentatiue, confifting of the Head and Members conuened in Ge-
Church, the neral Councils, but rather this whole large diffufed Body of
whole moral Chriftians vnited in one Beliefe all ouer the world, Wherein
the way to Saluation is laid forth to all. The Reafon of my
affertion is firft. Becauſe that more explicite and diftinct
Faith had of General Councils, Connaturally, as wee now faid,
Beliefe of
prefuppofes the other General Truth affented to. Viz. This
prefuppofesh? manifested Society of Chriftians is God's Church, and the only way to
Saluation, and the truth is affented to by Faith, antecedently to
the beliefe, of the Churches Reprefentatiues. 2. Becauſe all Ca-
tholicks affert, that the whole Moral Catholick Body confi-
The promiſes
in, Scripture fting of Paftors and Hearers; cannot totally err, or Swerue from
belong Pro- Chrift's Sacred Doctrin: Whence it is, That thofe Promifes
perly to the
of the Gospel. Hell gates cannot preuaile against the Church. The
vniuerfal
Spirit of truth abides with it for euer, moft Properly and Primarily
Church.
Councils
>
'
belong
Difc. 3. C, 12, Moues to helieue?
·3.
595
belong to this one diffufed, and vnited Society of Chtiftians,
To the Paftors as Teachers, to the Hearers as Schollers or Lear-
xers, And if the Firſt (according to Chrift's promife) teach in-
fallibly, the inftructed muft learn alfo infallibly, And thus the
whole Moral body guided and directed by the Spirit of Truth,
is that ſtronge Fortrefs wherevpon all muft rely at laft, if à right
account be giuen of Faith or the true Analysis be made.
Neither can what is now faid, Preiudice in the leaſt the in-
fallible Authority of the Church Teaching (I mean of the Pope
and Council affembled together) for this notwithſtanding
moft properly called the Church has and hold's the keyes
whilft it vnlock's the Myfteries of Faith, and laies open Ex- A lawfulRe.
plicitly our Chriftian Verities. Children teach not, Layicks prefentatiue,
teach not, weomen teach not, Therefore the Church Reprefenta- properly the
tiue properly teaches, although it be not firſt known, via Ana Church also
lytica, that is, when faith is brought to its laft Principles.
>
·
first made
Motiues,
Credible by
15. Note. 4. When Sectaries demand, where doth the Church
taken vniuerfally as one diffuſed Body, teach, that She is Infal-
lible, or, that She deliuer's Gods truths, Whilst yet, neither Scrip-
ture nor Councils which teach so, are reflected vpon, or known in All Oracles
that Priority of nature, when we belieue that great Moral Body sent by God to
is an infallible Oracle. If this I Say be demanded, I Anfwer teach, were
by propofing à like Queftion. Where did Moyfes, where did
the Prophets, or Apoftles explicitly and fignally Say at their first
Appearance. VVe are Infallible, wee are the fure Rule of Faith, and
because we say it, you Hearers are obliged to belieue. Not à
word to this Purpoſe. What then was done?
God Honoured And fothe
and priuiledged fuch Perfons with Miracles and other vifible Church
fupernatural Wonders; Thefe Euidenced, They actually taught was, and ir
the truth, and were credited vpon their Teaching, not becaufe yet.
they Said in Actu Signato, They taught it; but becauſe really
they did ſo in Actú exercito, and confirmed all by Signs from
Heauen, And thus the Church teaches to this prefent Day, and
gain's Beliefe.
FIff 2
CHAP. XIIL
596 Difc. 3. C. 13. Sectaries Faithlefs, haue
VVhat the
CHAP. XIII.
Proteftants haue no Faith to refolue, And vpon that
account are freed from à vicious Circle, Some
yet are in à Circle. Two Sorts of
Sectaries refuted.
I.
Proue the first part of the Affertion. The Prote-
ftants fuppofed Faith, is either reduced to the Belie-
Suppoſed
fe of their own Negatiue Articles, No Transubstantiation, No
Faith of Sacrifice of the Altar. No Purgatory &c. Or,to à Faith common
Proteftants, to all called Chriftians, which confifts in belieuing One God,
is ?
The Obiect
of this Faith
must either
be their Ne.
gatiues,
Orà Doctrin
Common to
all Chri-
Stans.
Their Nega
times no re
uealed Veri-
zies,
and one fefus Chrift, as à Redeemer. This, or fomething li-
ke it, muft be called Faith common to all, For to belieue
the Sacred Trinity, the Incarnation, with other great Myſteries
is no common Faith, becauſe many deny thefe Articles. Now
my Affertion is. What euer can be conceiued out of the
Lift of thefe Negatiues, or is not inuolued in that Common
Faith, ceaſeth to be an Article of Proteftancy, as Proteftancy.
For example. To belieue one God, is à Tenet common to
Tewes, Turks, and Chriftians, That's no Article peculiar to Pro-
teftants. To belieue the Sacred Trinity, and the Incarnation, is
common to Catholicks, Proteftants, and other Heteredox Chri-
ftians, therefore no fingular, no Special Proteftant Doctrin. Be-
fides thefe, imagin whateuer can be Imagined, you muſt either
pitch vpon things which no Chriftian has obligation to belieue,
or finally, vpon fuch Doctrins as Catholicks own, and are diſow-
ned by Proteftants.
2. Thus much Suppofed, it is demonftrable, That the Pro-
teftant has no Faith to refolue, who firft doth himſelfe fo
much luftice as to Cashiere all his own Negatiue Articles
from being truths fpoken by Almighty God, which therefore
SA
are
Diſc. 3. C. 13. No Faith to refolue.
597
,
are not refoluable into the Diuine Teftimony, becauſe God
neuer reuealed any of them. Again, his Articles common to
all Chriftians without more cannot be refolued into Diuine
Reuelation, vnlefs, he firft excludes with the Arians, The be-
liefe of The Trinity and Incarnation, as not neceffary to Sa-
luation, And afterwards proues by plain Scripture, or the Au-
thority of an Orthodox Church, that fuch an Abstract Doctrin
wherein Catholicks, and all Heretiques agree, is fufficient to
faue Souls. But to Euince either, by Scripture or any Church
Authority, will be wholly as impoffible, as to proue, that the
Negatiue Articles are Doctrins reuealed by God.
་
A Dodrin
Common to
all as vn--
tines.
Truths.
3. Vpon thefe grounds my Propofition ftand's fo firm, that
none can contradict it. For, if whateuer they doe or can be-
lieue as Proteftants, be euidently fuch Doctrins as God neuer re-
uealed, it's manifeft they haue no Faith to refolue, and confe-
quently are eaſily freed from all danger of à vicious Circle; found, as
But this is fo, For caft away Their Negatiues, All that remains their Nega-
as matter of Beliefe to them, can be no other but the Com-
mon faith now mentioned; Or, if they require more as necef-
fary to Saluation, That More will either be Confeffedly no Their parti
Doctrin reuealed by God, Or not peculiar to Proteftants. For cular Do-
example. Suppoſe the Proteftant layes Claim to thefe two Ar- arins no re-
ticles: Scripture Contain's all things neceſſary to Saluation. Or thus. uealed
WVhat Scripture Speak's plainly is the Proteftants Doctrin, and no mo-
re. I fay firft. Neither of thefe Articles are Confeffedly truths
reuealed by God, And this I affert, not only becaufe The Ro-
man Catholick Church denies them to be truths, in the Secta-
ries fenfe, But vpon this Account Chiefly, that it is impoffible,
to Show, where or in what paffage of Holy Writ, God euer
fayd plainly. Scripture Contain's All things neceffary to faluation:
Or that fuch Doctrins as are plainty expreffed there (without more)
Comprehend Matter enough to Saluation. This cannot paffe for an
indubitable Principle, whilft euident Experience tell's vs, That
fuch Verities as Sectaries hold clear and indifputable, are yet
to this day Controuerted, and not efteemed clear by many, tios, Others
Ffff 3 :
るこ
​who do nos
What Seca-
ries account
clear Veri-
·
598
Dilc. 3. C. 13. Sectaries Faithless, haue
Sectaries
clearly
conuinced by
their own
Principles.
Proteftants
who
4.
goe vnder the name of Chriftians. Obferue well.
What Verity can be more clear, then the Incarnation of
the Eternal word? Yet Arians deny it. What more clear, then
the real Prefence of Chrift in the Eucharift? Yet the Calui-
niſts reiect it. Therefore when we Come to Examin, which Ve-
rities are clearly expreffed in Scripture and which not; we are
thrown into à Labyrinth, whilft no other Iudge is made vſe of
but the bare words of Scripture, manifeftly peruerted, when Op-
pofit to the Interpretation of à Vniuerfal Church.
5. But here is my leaft Exception. We will Contrary to truth,
grant gratis, That Scripture Contain's all things neceffarily to Sal-
uation; Withall, that the plain Doctrin thereof, is matter enough
for Beliefe. The Sectary yet gain's Nothing, vnlefs He def-
cend's to the Particular Tenets of Proteftants (Mark my words) And
truly Affert's. These and these Doctrins are plainly fet down in Scriptu-
re. These, and thefe Doctrins I am (as Proteftant) Obliged to bi-
lieue vnder pain of Damnation, and no more. Thus much I fay ought
to be done which is vtterly Impoffible, And the Reafon is.
Either thoſe Doctrins layd claim to will not be plain express
Scripture; Or, if plain and exprefs, they ceafe eo ipfo to be the
particular Tenents of Proteftants. The laft reafon of all, reft's
vpon à Truth already proued, and T'is, That Proteftants haue
no Effence of Religion, and therefore haue no Faith to re-
folue.
>
,
>
6. In paffing, you may Ask. What Say we to fuch Pro-
teftants, as make the Negatiues now mentioned, Articles of their
Faith? Thefe we difpatch in à word, and vrge them to pro-
ue their Negatiues by Scripture, which is impoffible. But what
is to be done, if they Pretend to belieue the Catholick Doc-
trins (the Trinity, the Incarnation, or any other reuealed Myſtery)
vpon God's diuine Teftimony?
7.
Two forts of ftants. The older fort belieue the Scriptures Diuinity atteſting
Here we muſt diftinguish between Proteftants and Prote-
the Incarnation, For example, by virtue of à fecret and hidden
Diuine Spirit of God working in their hearts, this being the only
refuted.
light
Difc. 3. C. 13. no Faith to refolue.
599
le Spirited
men
>
plainly in à
Circle.
light
or means, whereby that Diuinity is laid open to their intel- The Priua-
lectual Eyes. Thefe ineuitably fall into à Circle, for they proue
Scripture to be of Diuine infpiration, becaufe the Spirit tell's
them ſo, And again they belieue this interiour light or Spirit to
be from God, moned thereunto by the very light or letter of
Scripture, not known at all to be Diuine, but by this hidden
Spirit, which is as much vnknown as Scripture, without their
light. But becauſe the recourfe to the Priuate Spirit in the
Refolution of Faith, is amply refuted by euery Polemick Au-
thor, And now much vnderualued by our latter Sectaries, I'll on-
ly briefly Propofe one Argument against all that Patronize
it.
A Conuin.
Primate
Spirit.
8. Either this Spirit is Scripture, or really diftinct from
Scripture. Grant the firft. Scripture; no Selfe euidence, is yet cing Argu.
belieued for it selfe only, and fo no more is Said, but that ment
Scripture is belieued becauſe t'is Scripture, without all further against the
Probation. If fecondly you diftinguish this Spirit or light
from Scripture, it followes that the Diuinity of Gods word
is Affented To, and belieued Vpon à Motiue, which is not
Gods word, For this fuppofed Light of the Spirit, not at
all contained in Scripture, is no reuealed word of God, and
confequently Scripture is belieued, for That, which is no Scrip-
ture.
>
Other refol
ne Faithin.
to the inter-
of Scripture.
9. The newer Sectaries with whom Mr Stillingfleet Sides,
fuppofe à fallible Tradition as à Preparatiue to receiue the:
meer Books of Scripture, which once owned vpon the account
of Tradition, The Refolution of their Faith is made into the
Diuine Light, which Shines in the very Doctrin of God's word,
That is, into the rational Euidence thereof. So Mr. Stilling. P.
226. And P. 222. Difcourfes thus. Though Tradition doth not
open our Eyes to fee this light, yet it prefent's the Obiect to vs to be
feen, and that in an vnquestionable manner. To giue his Doctrin Tradition;
more Luftre, he fet's it forth with the fparkling of à Diamond. Say thejo,
May not à man, Saith he, very probably belieue that à Diamond is fent Conuejes·
bim foom à friend, vpon the Teftimony of à Meffenger who brings it, and the Book,
་
yes
600
. 3. C. 13. Sectaries Faithlefs, haue
DiſcDifc.
How thefe
men differ
from the
Formar.
The Simili-
tude of à
Diamond,
Proofles
The Difpa-
rity plain,
between the
Diamond
and Scriptu-
re
This double
refolution
Suppoſed,
He
yet be firmly perswaded of it, by discerning the Sparklings of it?
He would Say, Tradition refembles the Meffenger that hand's
Scripture to vs, but the very innate Splendor and Sparkling of its
Doctrin is that, which Faith muſt be finally refolued into, wi-
thout regard had to Tradition.
10. This way of refoluing Faith differ's from the Former,
that it makes the pure Verity of Gods word confidered Obiectiuely
in it Selfe, the laft Refoluent, or the only Formal Obiect of be-
lieuing, whereas the more aged Proteftants fuperadd to that,
an internal vital act, called the Priuate Spirit, or an infufed in-
ftrinct of Grace, whereby the Scripture is clearly difcerned to
be Diuine, and into this Inftinct, as à Medium Cognitum, or the
only means to fee by (which both difcouer's the Scriptures Di-
uinity and it's fenfe) they refolue their Faith. This way being
already reiected.
II.
1
We now Argue against Mr Stillingfleet, and Say firſt.
The fimilitude of à Meffenger deliuering the Diamond is no-
thing to the Purpofe, For were that Diamond found in the
ftreets, à skilful Jeweller ( And who more skilful then Prote-
ftants, when they read Scripture) would foon know its worth by
his Art, and preſently tell you, whether the fparkling were Coun-
terfeit or no. Can the Sectary, as eaſily diſcouer the Diuinity in
Scripture by its innate Light and Splendor? Speak plainly. If
he can, Tradition no more conduces to its Sparkling, then if à
Boy firft put the Book into our hands, or were found by chance
in the Highway, For as the Diamond Sparkles by it selfe, wit-
hout dependance of the hand which giues it, fo the Scriptu-
re muſt do, if it haue that fplendor in it, whether Conueyed by
Tradition, or not. Nay, if another Scripture were now drop't
down from Heauen (were the Parity of the Diamond worth any
thing) All skilful and well spirited Proteftants might without
any Tradition, know it to be God's word.
12. Yet more. Our Aduerfaries maintain à twofold Refo-
lution of Faith. Firft into the Books of Scripture, and theſe Books,
fallible Tradition without any Diuine light feen as yet, Co
ueyes
Difc 3. C. 13. no Faith to refolue.
601
>
ueyes to vs, For Tradition
as they fay, is not Diuine. 2.
Into the internal light of the Doctrin contained in the Books,
And into this light of Doctrin they Refolue their Faith, not
into Tradition.
,
we Argue
13. Now here you shall haue an vnanſwerable Dilemma. The
Tradition which only Conueyes the Books, as Contradiftinct from
the internal Dorin, makes that very Diuine Doctrin to ſparkle
more, than it would ſparkle without Tradition; Or not. If against
not: The light, the Splendor the internal Luftre of that Doc- Sectaries
trin, Confidered as Doctrin, is, and muft be independent of Tra-
dition, and Shine as I now faid by it Selfe as à Diamond doth,
though the Books were found in the Streets. Contrarywife,
if the Tradition of the Books Augments in the leaſt, or ma-
kes the internal Doctrin there contained to appear more Di-
uine than it would appear without Tradition
without Tradition; That very
Tradition must be à ioint Motiue, wherevpon we belieue
the Diuinity of Scripture. I proue it demonftratiuely. That
which laies before the intellectual Eye of à Belieuer, the Lu-
ftre, light, and Sparkling of the internal Doctrin contained
in Scripture, is the true caufe, or à Partial Motiue at least, The force of
why He belieues that Doctrin, Tradition doth this, Ergo it the Argu-
is à Partial Motiue why he belieues the Do&rin
Or if it ment,
auail's not at all to diſcouer that Luftre of the Doctrin, the
pretious Diamond of Scripture, may be well difcouered and
known without Tradition. I would willingly hear what our Ad-
uerfaries can reply to this very plain, and as I think, no triuial
Obiection, without reminding vs of their killing flies.
>
14. To Say more in this place is needles, hauing proued
in the other Treatife that the Maiefty and fparkling of Scrip- what the
ture, lies not in the exteriour Syntax, or in any outward Con-
trne Maiefty
nexion of words (common to other pious Books) But Contra- of Scripture
rywife, in the Special Affiftance wherewith God directed the is.
Hagiographers to write, as alfo in his own Diuine Volition
which Seal'd and approued all that's Writ, as Verities iffuing
from no other fountain, but from Truth it felfe. Herein con-
Gggg
fift's
602 Dife. 3. C. 13. Sectaries Faithlefs baue &c.
The true
Excellence,
fift's the Dignity, worth, and Maiefty of Holy Scripture.
Now becauſe that Diuine Affiftance and God's inter-
nal Volition, whereby Scripture is approued as moſt facred are
no Obiects of fenfe; It neceffarily followes, that none can dif-
couer the true Excellence of that Holy Book by any Infpec-
not difcone. tion, though moft diligently made, into the Syntax or outward
rable by our words of it only. Hence I faid, Had. S. 1ohn not at all re-
corded that truth in his Gofpel. The word is made flesh, but
fome other without Diuine Affiftance, had left the Verity writ-
ten in Velume, The words and Truth alfo would haue been
the very fame, now and then, yet very different in their value,
if Confidered, as Proceeding from the Spirit of truth in the
one cafe, and from no Diuine Affiftance in the other.
exterieur
Senfes,
Though the
Maiefty of
Scripture lay
in the words
>
16. By this its plain, that the Maiefty of Scripture lies not
in any expreffion of outward words. Howeuer admit gratis it
did, doth that Majefty think yee, help any to vnderſtand its
true Senfe in Matters controuerted? Euidently no. For ma-
nifeft experience teaches that whole Multitudes of diffenting
Chriftians, both read and Reuerence the fame bare letter, Yea,
and haue the fame Majefty of words laid open to their view
yet ſo notoriouſly oppofe one another, and in Points moſt fun-
That would damental concerning the genuin Senfe thereof, that plain con-
not avail to tradictions are forced out of this facred Book, after their Rea-
underſtand
ding. But enough of this is faid aboue; And much more.
you haue of Mr Stillingfleets ftrange way of Refoluing the
Proteftants faith, in the other Treatife. Difcourfe. I. C. 9.
Where you may fee that Proteftancy is neuer medled with,nor
brought to any better Refolution by him, than Arianiſm or à
worfer Herefy. Yet I Say, he took the right Courfe, for in
real Truth, Proteftants haue no Faith to refolue, which truth
will better appear in the following Chapter where we examin,
whether true Religion Can be found out by Reafon.
the Sense.
CHAP. XIV.
Diſc. 3. C. 14. How Reafon leads to the c. 603
CHAP. XIV.
The Miftakes of fome Sectaries in this Controuerfy. Its
neceſſary to diftinguish between true Reason, and
fallacious Reafoning. Priuate Reafon liable to
Errour. Principles prefuppofed to the De-
cifion of this Question. Reafon easily
finds out true Religion, by àra-
tional Euidence previous
to Faith.
I.
Ome who endeauour to make à Friendly Agreement The Attempt
who Omit
the main
Buſineſs,
concerning
Religion
between Reason and Religion, wholly omit to difcuffe
of fome
the maineft point of all, which concern's Chriftianity. And T'is setaries,
in à word to tell vs, whether amongst thoſe innumerable Re-
ligions now fwarming in the world, (whereof certainly ma-
ny are falfe, and Only is true) men by the force of pru-
dent Reafon, can come to the Knowledge of the true One.
This is the Vnum neceffarium worth our knowledge indeed
For, what auailes it to hear of an Agreement between Rea-
fon and Religion, if I cannot by the light of Reaſon find
out that Religionwhich God hath eftablished? It would be but
à comfortles Word should One Say. Sir, There is à rich In-
heritance in the world belonging to you, but neither you, nor
I, nor any other after all diligence vfed, can tell you where,
or what it is.
2. This, and it is à grand Omiffion, may be well grounded
on another errour, thefe Authors Maintain, who first make, રે
The ground
of their
Religion according to their own Phanfy, and then offer to omiffion.
Gggg 2
Shew
604
Difc. 3. C. 14. How Reafon lead's to the
Their Diflin
damentals
and others,
Shew the Reaſonableness of it; Wheras All iuftly expect to ha
ue at leaſt in à General way, fome Hint of that full Doctrin
which Chriftian Religion comprifès, before we Cry it vp as
reaſonable, or yeild our Affent to it. Thus much neither is
nor can be done by any Sectary, And mark how we are left.
diffatisfyed.
,
>
3. After fome general Duties pointed at, which belong to
Etion of Fun. natural Religion, we hear of à. Diftinction between the Funda-
mentals of Faith, and Others. Then we are told, that All
the Fundamentals, are contained in the Apoftles Creed, And
improbable, that, if we go beyond the Creed for the Effentials of Faith
none can Say, where we shall ftop. Anfw. Sr, you are told
in this Treatife where the ftop is to be made, And there al-
fo, you will find this late Inuented Diftinction of Fundamen-
tals and no Fundamentals, caft away as vnfound Doctrin. All
I will Say at prefent, is, that you build vpon Sand, you make
à meer fancied Suppofition your Proof, in Calling That à
Reaſonable Religion, which the greateft Part of Chriftians-re-
iects, as both falfe and Improbable.
Why impro-·
bable.
Nothing lef
fe, and more
valuable in
Christ's Do-
Arin
The ground
of our Affer
2
*
4. What Scripture I befeech you, what Orthodox Church
what received Authority, Nay what Reafon, euer yet made à
few owned Verities (and the fewer the better) of Chriftian:
Religion, The whole, the full, and only Effentials of it? If
this once paffe for found Learning, I fe not why à Turk,
that Own's one God, and Chrift our Lord as à Very great
Prophet, May not as well account thofe two Articles the Ef
fentials of Chriftianity, as our Sectaries do their Few Funda-
mentals; For if we once begin to Diuide Chrifts facred Do-
trin into different Shreds, More and Leffe Valuable, Say I be-
feech you, where shall we ftop in the Diuifion? And thus
your own Queſtion is retorted..
5. You tell vs indeed, you take fome few Fundamentals
to be Religion, and can proue fo much Reaſonable. I Anſwer
you Miflake, For no halfe Pieces of Religion can be proued
reaſonable, without the whole entirely taken, and Aflented to.
Here
Diſc. 3. C. 14. Knowledge of true Religion? 605.
J
Here is the Ground of my Affertion, and it is amply Pro--
ued in this Treatife. Either All that Doctrin which Chrift.
our Lord taught, And the Church euer fince deliuered as
Faith, is Fundamental, Or Nothing at all can be Fundamen-
tal.
:
Diftinguis-
bing between
the Obrect of
Faiib.
Bealon, and
6. Other Flawes I find in this Gentlemans Diſcourſe, but
haue not time to purfue halfe of them. Here is One, and
of main Importance alfo. He neuer rightly diftinguisheth, be-
tween that Obiect wherevpon Reaſon reft's, And the Obiect
of Faith, Confidered in it felf. Reafon euer precedes Faith, A want of
and is grounded vpon thofe rational Motiues which Induce
to Belieue. Faith, precifely Confulered as Faith, relies vpon à
quite Different Obiect, God's pure Reuelation, and Cannot Dif-
courfe, For the Reaſons giuen aboue, not here to be repeated.
Only know thus Much in paffing, That the wrong done by this
Author to the Learned Perron, Veron, and Others, hath its O-
rigen from this Ouerfight, of not diftinguishing between the
Obiect of Reaſon, and Faith. Thefe Saith He, loudly declaim
againſt Reaſon, All know it very well. I Anfwer, they de-
claim againſt Reaſoning or Arguing, in the very intrinfick Aft
or Tendency of Faith (For Fides non querit cur, aut quomodo) is
moft true, and So you and the whole world muft do, if you
Belieue. They declaim againſt Reafon, or all rational Dif
courfe built vpon Manifeft Motiues Inductiue to Faith, is à
Calumny, and moſt vntrue:
·
لم
Perron and
Others Cauf
lefly blamed
TOUT.
7. Another Miftake. The Diuine Authority of Scripture, is to
be, proued by Reaſon, and only by it. Yet more.
The great Argue Another erà
ment for the truth of Scripture, is the Teftimony of the Spirit in the
Miracles wrought by Chrift and his Apoſtles. Sr, I thought ye alf
pretended to belieue the great Miracles of Chrift and of his A-
poftles by Diuine Faith, founded vpon God's Reuelation in
Scripture; This granted, the rational ground why you belie-
ue fuch Miracles, Cannot be your very Act of belieuing them,
But muſt be extrinfecal both to your Faith, and its Imme-
diate Obiect. alfo. What I Say is Manifeft, For Queſtioned
Gggg 3
by
606
Difc. 3. C. 14. How Reafon lead's to the
Euidence of
the Diuine
Teftimony
infer's eui-
dence, in the
thing atte
fed.
No Principle
gines Eui-
dence of the
Diuine Te-
Aimony.
+
by à lew, vpon what rational ground (I lay rational) you be
lieue the Incarnation, or any Miracle in Scripture, you will
not answer the reafon of our belieuing is your Beliefe, but
muft fall vpon prudent Motiues extrinfecal to Faith, Other-
wife you Confound again the Obiect of Faith, with that of
Reafort.
8. You Say moreouer. Though Reafon Cannot of it Selfe,
immediatly proue the truths of pure Reuelation, Concerning the Tri-
nity, for example, or the Incarnation, Yet it Demonstrates the Diuine
Authority of the Teftimony that declares them; And that way,
(Viz. by demonftrating the Teftimony) proues euen thefe Articles.
This Certainly is à Miftake; Firft becaufe great Diuines teach,
That if the Diuine Teftimony be demonſtrated, Or euidently proued
to exiſt, The Verity attefted by it is alfo euidently known. The-
refore who euer has euidence of this Truth. God that Cannot err,
Reueals the Trinity, muſt euidently infer The Trinity is, And So
Faith would be euident both in refpect of its Formal Obiect,
and Material alfo. But here lies not my greateſt exception.
་
>
9. I fay in à word, There is no Principle in Nature or
Grace which has force to demonftrate (and mark my word) That
God euer faid, The Mystery of the Trinity Exift's. And firft,
the Doctrin in Scripture, (no Selfe-Euidence) demonftrates not
its own Verities. The Beliefe of Orthodox Chriftians, termi-
nated vpon the Diuine Teftimony, is Faith, and vnder that
Notion, obfcure.
obfcure. Infallible Tradition you own not and
Though you did, it would Lay no Euidence of the Diui-
ne Teftimony before Reafon. Nothing then remain's, if you
feek for Rational Euidence, but that you recurr to the known
Motiues of Credibility, which Induce to belieue, Now, Sr,
Enidence of Thefe Motiues demonftrate not the Truth of the Diuine Teftimo-
Credibility ny,
But only make it euidently Credible. And here by the way
and Euiden- I muft needs reflect vpon another Miftake. You feem not to
ce of truth, diftinguish between Credibility, and Truth; Nor between Truth
Are to be die and Infallible Truth. A thing may be Credible which is fal-
-ftinguished, fe: As if three or four of good reputation, for ought I know,
Should
Difc. 3. C. 14. Knowledge of true Religion? 637
Should Confpire to inform me of the death of à Friend in
England, who yet liues, The Relation to me would be pru-
dently Credible, yet falfe. Truth implyes à Conformity with
its Obiect, and Cannot be falfe. Infallible truth in the pre-
fent matter of Faith, requires moreouer the Influence of Su-
pernatural Principles, whereby the Act of Faith is determined
to reft vpon its own Obiect, the First Verity. All theſe Par-
ticulars are largely explain'd in this Treatife.
10.
Thus much briefly noted (Though more might be faid)
we Shall Examin by the help of Good Principles, How far
Reaſon can proceed in Matters of Faith, And whether by pru-
dent reafon, all may Come to know, where true Religion is
taught and profeffed?
II.
Cardinal de Richelieu. Traitte pour Conuertir ceux &c.
Lib. 1. C. 1. well obferues with the beft Philofophers, That
when à Verity ſtand's fure vpon one clear, rational, and indu-
bitable Principle, its needlefs (though fometimes not amifs) to
bring in more Proofs. For, fruftra fit per plura &c. One folid
Ground is equivalent to many.
I2.
All debates
ded by Rea-
fon.
I am you fe engaged to anſwer the Queftion propofed.
Viz. How far reafon is to meddle in matters of Religion, concerning
And Say in à word. All debates in this moft weightly Affaire, Religion
may be decided and eafily, by Reafon only. But to clear the may be deci-
Affertion from Miftake, we are firft To diftinguish between à
nicknamed or mifcalled Reason, And that which really is Rea-
fon, There being no word more abufed, or fallacious than this,
which vphold's all the Herefies in the world, Yea and Atheifin
alfo. For Euery Atheiſt, euery Arian, Euery Donatiſt, laies
claim to Reaſon, And thinks his own Errour built vpon rea-
fonable Grounds.
13. I Say firft. The priuate Reafon of fallible men, con-
fidered as primate and fallible, Difcerns not easily between truth
and falshood, chiefly when the conteft is about this or that
particular Controuerly of Religion. The Affertion ftand's
firm vpon this indubitable Principle. None can prudently
acquiefce
This word,
Keaſon, abu-
fed by many.
608
Difc 3. C 14. How Reafon lead's to the
The weaknes acquiefce in fo weighty à matter as Religion is, to that which
of Priuate, of its own nature may probably bee clouded with Ignorance
and clouded and Errour (to fay nothing of paſſion) And for that caufe, feems
Reason
vnable to difcern between Truth and falshood, But the priua-
te Reaſon of falltble men confidered as priuate and fallible, may
be fo clouded, that it difcern's not between Truth and falshood,
Therefore Tis moft vnmeet to decide in particular Controuer-
Gies.
14. To confirm what I Say: Imagin that à Proteftant and
an Arian, were at an earneft difpute concerning That which
An Inſtance each Party belieues. Both plead by Reafon. What refult
Siaries,
know Our
think ye can follow vpon the conteft, whilft both the one
and other may iuftly auouch, Neither of vs
own Ignorance or weakneſs? Therefore vnlefs
Therefore vnless you with
whom I Argue can afcertain me, And I you, That our Rea-
fon is purely difintereffed, free from miftake, and all clouds
of Ignorance, We muft of neceffity quit this Tribunal of
our own priuate Reaſoning, and take recourfe to fome Iudge
that giues Satisfaction, And finally declares, whoſe reaſon is
more reaſonable.
15. One may Reply, And t'is the only Obiection of Se-
Єtaries. Were it poffible to find out fuch à iudge (as it is
not) the priuate Reaſon of theſe two Difputants, And of eue-
ry other particular Man, is, in points of Religion to ponder
well the Sentence giuen, T'is He, and no other, that muſt
The chiefeft
Obiection of conclude within his own Interiour, whether the Sentence gi-
uen be reaſonable or no, And confequently the laft Vmpirage,
the final Decifion of all in the choife of Religion, is brought to
euery Mans priuate Reafon. Here is the trne Rule of Faith, (Say
Propofed in thele) when that choife is made; For to fay Men are damned for
not following the Iudgement of another, whilft their own Rea-
fon hold's it not Reaſonable to do fo, is harsh Doctrin, dif-
fonant to the Principles of nature it felfe, And to all Euan-
gelical liberty. Wherefore though Atheiſts, lewes, and Turks
be Iuftly reprehenfible, becauſe they abufe the Principle of
their own
Terms.
follo-
Difc. 3. C. 14. Knowledge of true Religion. 609
following Priuate Reafon, yet Sectaries who vfe the Principle
with moderation, And euer belieue fomething within the com-
pafs of Chriftianity, feem not blamable. Here you haue the
Ground of all Herely.
>
Decision of
this Contre-
16. To Ouerthrow this falle Pretence, and to lay before
you à manifeft Truth, its neceffary to premife à few Poflulata,
before we come to our Second Propofition. I Suppofe firft,
with all Chriftians (Iewes and Turks accord alfo ) That God Principles
has eſtablished one true Religion only, The Verities whereof, premifed to
as reuealed by the first Verity, are infallible. I Suppofe. 2. The the
end why he reuealed thefe Truths, was that all Should belieue
them and belieuing, gain eternal Happines. Now feing the
Apoſtle. 2- Tim. 1. 12. fend's afore his Beliefe à meaſure or
degree of knowledge. Scio cui credidi; I firft know, it followes,
that all prudent Belieuers muft haue the Euidence of Credi-
bility, before they elicite Faith. I Suppofe. 3. That God's eter-
nal Defign in establishing Religion (which compriſes reuealed
Truths) was to haue it known or found out by ealy means,
obuious to the Reafon of euery one, learned or vnlearned. And
certainly its far more eafy, to know by fenfible Marks and Signatu-
res,where, and by whom true Religion is taught, than with an in-
duftrious and almost endleſs Scrutiny, to find it out by exami-
ning euery particular Tenet, contained in it.
uerfy.
17. The Ground hereof is clear, for true Religion cannot Two Reasons
but Shew its own facile, Obuious Marks, and rational Dif- shewing,
cernibility, Otherwife the Ignorant and Vnlearned, would be
exempted from all obligation of belieuing, feing none can Af-
fent to the high Myfteries of Faith, without Preuions Euidence
of Credibility, laid forth to Reaſon.
18 Now if you Keply, The learned in cafe of Ignorance
and obfcurity are to inftruct the illiterate, I Antwer, That's very
true, But if after all Inftruction they bring not the Learner to
à due Degree of preuious Euidence, The Inftruction void of fub-
ſtance becomes both vain and fruitlefs. Again. And here is
my fecond Ground. The Purpofe of Almighty God in foun-
Hhhh
ding
why true
Religion is
easily found
caſily
out,
610
Difc. 3. C.14. How Reafon lead's to the
The Secta-
ries way of
Seeking is,
+
long, tedious,
and diffa-
tisfactory.
>
ding Religion, was not to puzzle Mens wits with it
or to fet
them at endleſs debates concerning fo weighty à Concern, But
if it be not obuious and eafily found out by its own rational,
and clear. Indications reprefented to Reafon, There arifes (not
from Mans malice as now à dayes fali's out). But from the very
Nature of it, euerlafting Quarrels, which breed diſtaſt, and.
rather inuite all to loath, then to loue Religion..
>
-
Incum-
19. Hence I boldly Affert, could Religion not be known
without fo many Iniunctions, as Sectaries vfually lay vpon vs.
Were it not attained, before an exact perufal made of the Fa-
thers, and Councils large Volumes. Did it lye in Obfcurity,
till fuch and fuch Inferences were drawn out of Scripture. Had
it dependance vpon This and That Deduction framed by euery
fancy, that reads Gods word,, were Libraries to be turned ouer;
and Languages to be learned as neceffary to fettle all in Truth:
Could I Say, none come to the true knowledge of Religion
without fo much Adoe And fo many endleſs
brances, The moft of men might well Superfede all further Dif
quifition, and rightly Iudge, all further Enquiry too intricate
for them, being out of the reach of that wee call, eaſy and
obuious Reason. God I am fure, Difowns fuch Perplexity in the
Religion he founded, who tell's vs Deuter. 30. 11. His com-
mands (And what's more feuerely commanded then to embrace
The word of reuealed Truths) are not hid from vs, nor farr off. We need not to
afcend to the Heauens, or Cross the Sea to find them out.
VVord is neer to vs, in our mouth and heart &c.
enough aboue.
truth is
meer us.
3
No. The
But of this
20. A ſecond Propofition. Reafon clear from Paffion find's
out (and easily) True Religion by an vndoubted Euidence, be-
fore debates arife concerning particular Controuerfies. One Proof
of our Aſſertion is already hinted at. God obliges all to embra-
ce true Religion, and confequently afford's means to know it,
for to Say on the one fide, He will haue vs to belieue, and on-
the other, not clearly to giue light concerning what wee are
obliged to belieue is to affert that His Goodnes Abandon's
the
Diſc. 3. C. 14. Knowledge oftrue Religion. 611
the care of our Saluation, and leaues all in darkneſs Now fur- The Obliga.
ther. The clear obligation of belieuing arifes not from Faith tion of belie-
it Selfe, nor from the Euidence of the Myſteries affented to, for uing arifes
no man faith (as is often noted) I belieue because I belieue, or be- from
caufe 1 fee the Diuine Mysteries Euidently in Themfelues, but contra-
rywife Hee Speaks thus: I therefore belieue, because I find my felfe an
recedently to my Faith, obliged to fubmit to the Diune Testimony with
à moſt firm Affent, But that which laies fo ftrong an obliga-
tion on him, muft of neceſſity be à clear Iudgement grounded
vpon Obiectiue Euidence, nothing lefs certain, can auail in this
weighty affair concerning Faith.
21. I proue the Affertion. Whoeuer firmly belieues vpon
Gods infallible Reuelation müft antecedently Iudge, He cannot
err by belieuing; or, if He ludges he may err or be deceiued,
à
clear
Euidence,
known befɑ-
re we be.
lieue
it is impoffible to belieue firmly vpon the Diuine Reuelation. The Affer-
What I Affert is clear; For to Say, I will infallibly belieue tion Proued,
becauſe God Speak's infallibly, and withall to keep in mind this
Iudgement. I may be deceived by my Faith, is plainly to Say, I
doe that which my Confcience tells me cannot be done, The-
refore that preuious light muſt arriue to Euidence of the Obiects
Credibility, whereof more preſently.
22. Now you shall fee how the force of our Argument hin-
The Arga.
ted at, is drawn from the Obligation of belieuing. Ask
any whe-
ment taken
ther one thought ready to elicite Faith, hold's himselfe bound from the
to Affent with à firm Adheſion, becaufe God fpeaks; Or Con- Obligation
trarywife, ftand's as yet Houering and vncertain, what to doe, of belituing
In cafe he clearly fees his Obligation, that neceffarily implies
the euident Iudgement we plead for, And hence arifes à firm
Faith. But if He remains in à wauering Condition, ambiguous
whether to belieue or no, He can no more refolue to Affent
firmly vpon God's infallible Teftimony, than one in à Iourney
doubting which of two wayes to follow, can prudently preferr Further
the one before the other. A Iudgement then which bring's all
to an inuariahle State of belieuing, is abfolutely neceffary: And
kence Diuines Teach, that none can belieue before he finds
Hhhh 2
himfelfe
urged,
612
Difc. z. C. 14. How Reafon lead's to the
blamable
Sectaries
feem to
difown it.
himfelfe obliged to doe fo, And when Hee fee's clearly that obli-
gation, he is bound vnder Sin to belieue.
*
23.
A further Reaſon hereof is thus, and feem's very con-
uincing. Whoeuer belieues induced by à doubtful, or probable
Rash Faith, Ludgement, without that degree of Euidence now mentioned
may luftly fear leaft by his too forward Affent, He imputes to
God à falshood, reckoning that amongst the Articles of his ouer-
hafty Beliefe, which was neuer reuealed. This open wrong
Sectaries endeauour to auoyd, who before they belieue the
Verities in Scripture, Prerequire à high Moral certainty grounded
on Vniuerfal Tradition, whereby, Affurance is giuen that the
Books are Diuine. As therefore à meer probability would be
too weak an Inductiue, to lead in that Faith they pretend to;
So it would be in our cafe alfo, and Confequently all muft.
Come to à degrce of Credible Euidence, preuious to Faith, or
Faith cannot ftand firmly grounded..
24. Now feeing Euidence is neceffary. There difficulties may
Three diffi. Occur concerning it. The firft. What we vnderſtand by the
Calties, con- Euidence hitherto only. fpoken of in General Terms. 2. From
cerning this whence it proceeds? 3. What Chriftians haue it? Thefe par-
ticulars difcuffed, we shall eafily make way to our third Propofi-
tion, as alfo to the laft Decifion of the Difficulty propofed.
Eidence.
What this
Euidence
šemplies?
25.. Briefly, Euidence in this matter of Religion implies to
ftrong à light, fo great à Moral certainty. (at leaſt) That euery
well difpofed Vnderſtanding, may without fear or hefitancy bol-
dly Say. God founded this Religion. If this be errour, you great Soue-
raign haue deceiued vs. This or none is the fure way to Saluation. All
other Sects are improbable. And to this fenfe that ftout Champion
of Iefus Chrift F. Eduund Campian Spake vndantedly. Teftor
Dei Solium, & illud tribunal ad quoad ftabo &c. I call Heauen
to witness, And that high Tribunal where I shall once ftand
to giue an Account of all I haue faid. Aut nullum Calum eſſe,
aut nostrorum effe. That is. Either we Catholicks are right in
Faith, or There is no Faith. Either Heauen is Ours, or the
se no fuch thing as Heauen. The Euidence here touched on,
though
Difc. 3. C.14. Knowledge of true Religion? 613
Argument.
though called Moral, is not yet inferiour to Phyfical certain- Why Called
ty, but beares that name, becauſe the Nature and Tendency Moral ?
of it is fuch, And of fo great Conuiction, that it quit's euery
rational Man of doubt, and peaceably fettles the mind in à quiet
State, when the choife is made of true Religion. Arnob. Lib. 2.
Cont. Gent. Proues the truth here afferted by and excellent Ar-
gument à Posteriori. Nifi aperta res effet &c. Vulefs, faith he, Arnobius kis
Chriſtian Religion had been manifeft and more clear to all than
Dayclight, Incredulum humanum Genus &c. Mans nature moft in-
credulous and hard of beliefe, would neuer haue confented to the
difficult Myſteries of it. Hence S. Auſtin. Lib. de verà Relig. C. S. Auflin
2. Tells vs, none can doubt which amongft fo many Religions and s. Chri.
is true, And the only ſafe way to Saluation. S. Chryfoftom. Serm. foftom ac- 3
Quod Christus fit Deus. Saies more. Viz. That the Man is whol- cord.
ly ſtupid, Mad, and deuoid of fenfe, who fees not fo clear an
Euidence, or, goes about to Contradict it.
"
26. The Reafon hereof more largely handled in the other
Treatife. Difc. 1. C. 8. is taken firft from the Infinite knowled-
ge and power of Almighty God, who in founding Religion:
engaged as it were in à Difpute with Hell, Herefy, and all
Oppofers. He engaged; Therefore Hee is fure to Conuince,
otherwife it had been vain to haue Commenced the Difpute
(He began it not either to bee foiled, or to haue it end in
shame, or finally to leaue the matter doubtful).. Now further,
if He bee fure to Conuince and conquer, Hee doth it by the
power and efficacy of rational Arguments, laid forth to all that
haue the vfe of Reaſon, For, He Argues in Lehalfe of these: But
clear Arguments are potent Orators, and plead fo powerfully
that they induce Reafon to acquiefce, and quit the vnderftan-
ding of all doubt. Herein lies the Euidence wee enquire after,.
whereof more preſently.
The funda
mental
Ground, of
our Aſſertion
27. I Say Clear. For were the Arguments doubtful, all
would be left in Sufpence which Religion to embrace. Were Probability
they only probable (or more probable) then the pretended Argu- infufficient,
ments of Sectaries, of Arians (for Example) are, They deſtroy
Hhhh 3.
not
614 Difc. 3. C. 14. How Reafon leads to the &c
c.
The Strength
of this Eni
dence.
not eo ipfo Probability in Arianifin, or in any other falie Sect,
Therefore the Conuiction drawn from thefe Arguments muft
be fo ftrong, That one (as is now noted) may without Hefi-
tancy boldly Say firft. Induced by the force of Euidence, its
manifeft to reafon that God has founded one only true Reli-
gion. 2. Induced by the force of Euidence, I'ts manifeft, This
and none but this, is the Religion, He founded. 3. Induced
by the force of Euidence, its manifeft to reafon, that All 0-
ther Sects called Religions are falfe, And not only falfe, but
in the higheſt degree perniciously improbable.
28. Theſe Affertions Stand firm, vpon this one Principle.
The works in God Gouern's the world (whereof no Chriftian doubt's). He
nature speak giues Being to euery creature, His Power and Wiſdom are
Gods power moft difcernable by thefe works in Nature. And shall we
And Wisdom haue no clear knowledge think ye of his Wifdom, care, and
And shall
the manifest
works of
Geace be fi-
leni?
fingular Prouidence drawn from the Noble works of Grace,
laid open to all Mens View, and moft manifeft before our
Eyes, in that admirable Fabrick of true Chriftian Religion,
founded by him? Shall the works in Nature fpeak plainly
their Creator, And the Admirable wonders of Grace, be filent
of their Author? The common Senfe of all rational men
diſclaims the Paradox, And muft, if induced by Reaſon, ac-
knowledge an Euidence in that Oracle whereby God vouch-
fafes to Speak. But if à falfe Sect could either Surpaffe in
its Marks and Indications (or fo much as Equalize) The true
Religion, That Specious Euidence leading to belieue would
Ceafe, and be fo much Eclypfed that none could by the force
of Reafon Say. This is the way that lead's to Heauen. This is
the Religion which God founded, And confequently all might shake
of the Obligation of belieuing, feing none can belieue without
à preuious Clear knowledge had of what, He is bound to
Affent to. The Religion therefore, I am obliged to liue and
dye in, muft bee Clearly made difcernable by its Marks, from
all falfe Spurious Sects, or This obligation ceafes, whereof
enough is faid already.
CHAP. XV
Difc. 3. C. 15. One only Religion reafonable &c. 615
CHAP. XV.
From whence the Euilence hitherto mentioned Pro-
ceed's? That Religion only is reasonable, which
Heauen declares reafonable. The Declaration is
euidently made in behalfe of the Roman Ca-
tholick Religion. VVho is the misled
reafoning Man? Other Particulars
handled. The readiest way to
Conuince Sectaries.
I.
T remains now to Examin from whence the rational
Euidence here pleaded for
Euidence here pleaded for, proceeds? Methinks
1
That receiued Maxim in Schools. Qui dat Formam dat Confe. God who
quentia ad formam, Help's much to Anfwer pertinently; For founded Re-
if the Caufe that giues à Thing being, giues it alfo what's ligion
confequent or belongs to its Being, And if all Vnanimoufly
agree concerning the Caufe and Author of true Religion, This
neceffarily followes,
1
}
Euidence. -
2. The fame God and infinite Goodnes that founded Re--
ligion, laies alfo be fore vs the Euidence we Propugn. But Layes forth
an Euidence proceeding from fuch an Author (whole works its rational
are perfect) and is annexed to the Religion which Wiſdom
it felfe giues Being to, muft needs bee clear, and haue force
to Conuince the moft obdurate hearts; May Prudence Sway,
and Paffion be laid afide. To explicate what is here faid,
is to proue it. All know that God, who will haue vs walk
to our laſt End by obfcure Faith, giues no Euidence of the
Myfteries Confidered in Themfelues. For none knowes the
>
Trinity..
616 Difc. 3. C. 15. One only Religion reaſonable
It is called
ty.
Trinity, or that great work of the Incarnation by any Euident
the Euidence Principle clearly propofed to Reaſon, Therefore the Euidence
of Credibili wee feek after, muft bee Extrinfick to the Myfteries belieued,
which Diuines rightly call the Euidence of Credibility, and it is
is grounded, grounded vpon thofe vifible fupernatural works of Grace, which
an infinite Power only can produce, And vpon this ground I
Said, The fame God that found's Religion, laies before the Eye
of reafon its rational Euidence alfo.
On what it
Heauens de
claration.
Supernata
ral Signs.
3. Hence I boldly Affert (and T'is no lefs of fingular com-
fort to all Faithful belieuers, then of shame and Confufion to
lewes and Heretiques). That Religion only is reaſonable (and
brings with it an Obligation of belieuing) which Heauen t felfe
declares reasonable. That Religion only is reasonable, which Euidently
beares the Marks the Characters, and Supernatural fignatures of an In-
finite Power and Wisdom. That Religion only is reaſonable, which has
Publickly been approued by the publick ludgement of the very best, the moſt choiſe
approued.
and learned, who haue liued fince the Creation of the world. That
Admirable Religion only is reasonable, which by God's special Aßistance bath wrought
Conuerfions. Strange Conuerfions, giues in Euidence of vndoubted Miracles, preferues
Neuer Cen- vnity, and was neuer yet Cenfured by any known Orthodox Chriftian.
That Religion finally, is only reasonable, which Affures every one by à
preſent Vniuerfal Tradition of à Church diffused the whole world ouer;
VVhat God has Said, what Chrift hath taught, and what Doctrin the
Apoftles preached. Here is both Reafon and (in Tradition) the Ru-
le of Faith with it. Find me out then fuch à Faith, fuch à Re-
ligion as euidences theſe Illuftrious Marks, the Cognisances and
Signs of Heauen, that's only reaſonable, or none euer was, or
can be accounted Reaſonable.
fured.
That gives
Affurauce,
Who or what
Religion can
shew theſe
Masks and
Signst
4. We are now in the laft place to Examin, what Prophets,
what Teachers, or finally what Church, haue been Signalized with
theſe ſtrong pleading Teftimonies, with thefe Signs and Marks of
Power and VVs/dom? The Tewish Church had them in ſome meaſure,
when Almighty God. Exodus.9. 16. told Moſes Pofui te &c. I haue
placed thee my Seruant, vt oftendam in te fortitudinem meam, to show
My
Difc. 3. C. 15. which that is?
617
my Power and Might, And that by thee, my name may be ſpoken of through
the whole earth. Certainly Chrift our Lord manifefted yet far
greater Wonders. Iohn. 15. 24. If I had not done among them
works which no other Man hath done &c. Whilft the bleffed
Apoftles preached, none can doubt of their Miraculous Signs,
which Heauen Euidenced, and God himselfe manifefted by them.
Thus much ſuppoſed, and no Sectary can Queſtion the cer-
tainty of my Suppofition.
+
the Marks
5. I will come neerer home And to lay Forth the Evi-
dence of the Roman Catholick Church, Speak this great truth,
None but She, euer Since thofe Apoftolical times, hath had not
only the like Vnity in Faith, The like Supernatural Marks and The effis
wonders wrought in Her, by an Infinite Power and Wildom, of power and
But alfo more Miracles, greater Conuerfions, à greater number wisdom
of Belieuers, and Confequently à more Vniuerfal confent of
Hearts ioyned together in one Beliefe. In à word as full an
Euidence euery way, as the Apoftolical Church was made refulgent in
glorious withall. Therefore Reafon cannot but acknowledge, of the Ro-
that this Oracle euer fince thefe firft bleffed Men preached, is the man Catho-
only Marked and Manifeſted Church in the world. Deny the kick Church.
Euidence we Propugn; its own Senfibility and Vifibility Obuious
to all, that haue Eyes to fee, or Eares to hear, is our Proof,
And becauſe it ftand's vpon clear Principles both Senfible and Vi-
fible, we do here Challenge all the Heathens, all the lewes,
and all the Sectaries in the world, to bring to light any thing
like it, in behalf of that they call Religion. But there is no
fear hereof, For fuch an Attempt would be defperate, yea vt-
terly impoffible.
¡
The Euiden,
to because
Senfible, is
undeniable,
6. Now if on the other fide, the Euidence here pleaded be
granted the Church, Wee haue our Intent, For this Principle If granted.
ftand's firm. Where God preferues the fame Euidence of Credibility, we haue our
VVhere He fet's before all the legible Characters, the Publick Signatu- Intent.
res of his own Power and wisdom, There Reafon cannot but ac-
quiefce. By fuch lights and no other, it muſt be guided, and
take direction to find out Truth. Vpon thefe Grounds,
Iiii
7. I Say
618
Difc. 3. C. 15. One only Religion reaſonable,
By what
Reaſon true
Religion is
found.
True and
mifled Rea-
fon, diftin-
guished.
Who shofe
are that
follow reason
in points of
Faith?
By all fayd,
we better
understand
what is
meant by
Reaſon.
7. I Say laftly. True Religion is eaſily diſcouered by Ob-
uious reafon, And in this fenfe, Reafon Regulat's Faith, but,
know withall; That, that Mans Reafon only is reaſonable in
this weighty matter, which has for its Obiect the Signal Marks
of an Infinite Power and Wifdom now hinted at, and Argues
by them. Whoeuer therefore makes choife of Religion, and is
not induced to belieue by theſe publick Indications, which Hea-
uen manifeft's, err's grofly, is feduced, and Iudges falfly. And
thus we diftinguish between falfe and true Reafon,. The mifled
difcourfing Man makes his own formal Act, Reason, whilft he pit-
ches on à Doctrin, and auouches that reafonable, before he
knowes by any rational Motiue, whether God be Author of it
or no. So Sectaries proceed in euery thing they belieue, as Pro-
testants. Contrarywife, One that's guided by right and prudent
Reafon See's, before He belieues (Scio cui credidi) that weighty,
Obiectiue Euidence, whereby Millions haue been gained to
Chrift. Hence I Say. As that Man only belieues with Diuine
Faith, who Affent's vnto what God has Reuealed, Sa He only followes,
true reason, who is induced to belieue vpon God's own Euidence, laid forth
to Reafon. For I hold this Principle indubitable. The Author of
Religion, giues it also à rational Euidence of Credibility. Whoeuer
followes not that Light, run's aftray, and cannot belieue.
8. By all hitherto noted wee may yet more clearly Diſcouer,
what is meant by this word, Reason, in our prefent Controuerfy?
Briefly, it imports (as is already faid) an Intellectual light groun-
ded vpon the Euidence of Supernatural Motiues, which God
from the beginning of Chriftianity hath manifefted to euery
rational Vnderſtanding, and by it induced the wifeft of the
world, to become. Orthodox Chriftians.
9. A fecond Inference. By this eafy obuious Rule of Rea-
fon grounded vpon rational Motiues, All Controuerfies relating
to Religion are clearly ended. For find me out the foremen-
tioned Euidence of Credibility, Thofe fignal Marks, I mean,of
an Infinite Power and Wisdom, We haue with them the mani
fefted Oracle, whereby God Speaks to the world. Now who
euer
Difc. 3. C. 15. which that is?
619
euer refuſes to hear God's own Language spoken by fuch an Controuer-
Oracle, is of neceffity thrown into à State of perplexity, For fies ended,
thus, if reafon regulates, he muft Difcourfe. Shall I deny by reason.
this Euidence of Miracles, of Conuerfions, of Vniuerfalling to the
Roman Catholick Church? I deny that which the whole world
owns, and is vifible to Senfe. Shall I grant all, and Say its force- How Reafor
difcourfes in
lefs, or infufficient to induce to belieue that Oracle? I Deftroy this matter
the rational Euidence of Chriſtianity, yea of the Apoſtles Them- of Religion.
felues, And cannot belieue either Prophet or Apoftle, were ſuch
Meffengers fent now from Heauen to teach me.
For no par-
ticular Prophet, no Apoftle, euer shewed the like full Euiden-
ce of Credibility, as this one Oracle has manifefted to the
world, for fixteen Ages.
IC.
Controuer
10. A. 3. Inference. Sectaries neuer yet took, nor can Setaries
take the eafy, right, and Reaſonable way of writing, much follow no
Hefs, of Ending Controuerfies. This one Principle proues the probable way
Affertion. As the Truth of Chriftian Doctrin ftand's firm, when of ending
an Euidenced Church teaches it, So by the Nullity of an Eui- fies.
denced Church, you may, in this prefent State, eaſily gather
the vncertainty, and falshood of any Doctrin taught Contrary
to that Oracle. But moft euidently Sectaries haue no Euiden-
ced Church which euer taught their Doctrin, or oppoſed ours;
Therefore they are impoffibilitated to write much more to The Reafo
follow any short, eafy, or rational way of ending Contro- why they
uerfies, by an Euidenced, Oracle which yet as St Auſtin cited cannot.
aboue againſt the Donatifts faith, is, in the first place to be found
out. This found by her Marks, and Signatures (And Digito
demonstrari poteft Adds the Holy Doctor, its pointed out with
your Finger) all further Conteft ceafes, or might we speak in
Cardinal de Riclelieu's own words, lately quoted, Seems little
profitable, because The true Church cannot but Aſcertain all of true
Doctrin.
>
>
II. Hence you haue à
haue à 4th Inference. Sectaries who in all
their quarrelling Polemicks Still infift vpon particular Contro-
uerfies. The Real prefence, Tranfubftantiation, The Worshiping of
Iiii 2
Images
610 Difc. 3. C. 15. One only Religion reafonable,
Sellaries.
make known
the weaknes
of their own
Cauſe-
Sectaries
wanting an
Euidenced
Church,
7
Images &c. And dare not fo much as offer to haue their Pro
teftancy tryed by the Iudgement of any Euidenced Orthodox
Church, Publish to the world the weaknes of their vndefenfible Cause,
and plainly giue ouer to plead by Reason.
>
1.2. I'll tell you à Story for the fubftance very true, con-
cerning à Difcourfe between à Pert Nouellift, and à Catholick.
The firft would needs debate the Controuerfy of the Real
Prefence of Chrift in the Eucharift. The Catholick, though
not very learned, yet of à good Iudgement, willing to fee fome
effect of the Conference prudently demanded
vpon what
Grounds the Difpute was to be held on, and finally ended?
The other replied vpon Scripture; But faid the Catholick
what shall be done, If you and I agree not about the Senſe
of Scripture? Nouellift. We are if things be fo, to Appeal to
the Fathers. Catho.. But what if we vary as much about the
Senfe of Fathers, as about Scripture ? Nouellift. Wee are
then to recurr to the Primitiue Church, and examin what Doc-
trin She deliuered, relating to our Queftion in thofe purer
of Arguing times? Catho. O Sr, Wee are yet in Darkness, farr off from
the laſt found Principle, For how shall you and I, after our
priuate perufing thofe few ancient Records left vs, end our de-
bate, whilft you'l turn them to one Senfe, and I to another?
Nouel. Reafon shall end all. Catho. That I wish for But
quit me yet of one Scruple. What if your priuate Reaſon be
byaffed one way, and mine another? Or, what if you Iudge
that Reaſonable, which I doe not? Here the Nouellift like
one ftruck dumb, fpake not à word.
are driven
off all
grounds
>
>
13. Yet the Difcourfe might well haue gone on, for I
what is to
would haue further inquired, whether to do as all the Chri-
be ludged
ftians in the world, learned and vnlearned haue done
be not
reasonable? reaſonable? None can deny it. Then I would haue infer-
red. But all thefe Innumerable Chriftians, The very Apoftles
themfelues, and others haue vpon prudent Motiues Conftant-
ly iudged it reaſonable, to ſubmit to Myſteries aboue the
reach of humane Reafon, Ergo that muft pafs as à reaſonable
Principle
Difc. 3. C. 15. which that is?
621
>
Principle; But the Reafon cannot be taken from the very Act The Euiden.
of ſubmißion, For that is Faith, nor from any Euidence in the ce of Credi.
Myſtery belieued or obfcurely propofed, nor finally from bility, not ta-
Scripture alone for that Book Confidered in it felfe, is not its ken from
own Euidence, Therefore the Euidence of Credibility, Or the Faith.
Euidence Propoſed to Reason, is extrinfecal to what euer I be-
lieue, and fundamentally lies in the Marks, and Signatures of
Chrifts own manifefted Church.
-
5
14. Hence I Conclude with this Dilemma and hold it:
vnanfwerable. Either God has fet before all Mens Eyes An Oracle
(which now teaches truth) moft difcernable by clear Marks
and Motiues from all falle erring Societies Or omitted to
do fo. Grant the firft, Reafon is as much obliged to belie- A Conuin-
ue that Signalized Oracle now, As the Primitiue Chriftians cing Dilem-
were anciently bound to belieue the Apoftles. Say Contra- ma.
ry; There is no fuch Marked Oracle diftinguishable from er-
ring Sectaries, Reafon is left in à Labyrinth, and shall neuer
find out true Religion, Wherefore Proteftants who feemingly
ftand for Reaſon, and flight the Doctrin of our Euidenced Sectaries un.
Church, are the men amongst all other, moft vnreafonable, and reasonable.
as dayly experience teaches, meer Scepticks in matter of Reli-
gion.
15. A 5th. Inference. The readieft way to conuince à Se-
Etary (and one though no great Clerk may eaſily do it) is in
the first place, at leaft, to waue that long tedious work of hand-
ling particular Controuerfies (which depend vpon Authority)
and to plead by Reafon; Thus I would Argue, and haue often
done fo, with good Succefs. You as à Proteftant, lay claim to
à reaſonable Reformation, and confequently to à Reaſonable
Religion, Say I befeech you, from whence haue you the Mo-
ral Euidence, which makes this Reformation Credible to Rea-
fon? I speak not yet of it's Truth, for Euidence of Credibility e-
Her preced's the anouching of it true. We Catholicks proceed can-
didly, and propofe to the reafon of euery one learned and vn-
learned, the very Marks and Signs of truth, manifeft in our
Iiii 3.
Church,
How they
are easily
Conuinced?
Euidence of
Credibility is
first to be
laid forsh,
622 Difc. 3. C. 15. One only Religion reaſonable,
Sectaries
true, before
it be made
Credible.
Church, which Chrift our Lord and the Apoftles euidenced te
the firft Conuerted Chriftians. You fet vp à new faced Reli-
gion, and when that's done, put it out of Countenance, be-
caufe Reafon fees nothing in it, which has appearance of Cre-
dibility. You auouch it true, before you make it Credible, which
auouch their is to put the Conclufion before the Premiſes.
reformation] 16. One perhaps will Say firft. The reafon of your Re-
formation ftand's vpon this rational Ground, that wee Catho-
licks were deformed, or out of all right fashion in our Reli-
gion. Lamentable. And are you the doughty Doctors that
muft mend what was marred, and prefcribe à new Model of
Religion? Can you Say what is, or what is not Catholicifin?
It is too much Boldnes not only to teach more learned then
you Selues, But à high Iniury alfo, to make à meer suppoft.
tion (and very falfe too) to pals for à rational Proof.
know wee deny your improbable Suppofition, And you vpon
no Principle call it reafonable. Howeuer; Suppofe the falshood,
that wee are out of Fashion doth it therefore follow that
you are got into the right Mode of Religion? No truly,
If the Suppofition ftand's, wee are both out, And both need
à new Reformation.
They make
à falfe sup-
poſition, their
Proof.
besides the
matier now
>
You
17. Some may yet Reply. Sectaries regard not that new
coyned word of Euident Credibility (à Term wholly Popish)
They endeavour to proue the Truth of Proteftancy by Scrip-
ture and Fathers, And to do fo much, is more than to make
it Credible. Contra. 1. Were it poſſible (as it is not) to proue
They are fill the truth of Proteſtancy, That's befides the matter here in hand,
whilſt wee only Treat of ending Controuerfies by Reason. Now all
know that Authority, whofe Credibility muſt firſt be Euidenced
before it haue weight (precifely confidered as Authority) is not the
Reaſon here spoken of. For Example: I Affent to the Myſtery
of the Incarnation vpon Gods own Authority, that's Faith, but
no rational Inducement to belieue. What we demand of Secta-
ries, is to haue the rational Motiues which induce to belieue
this Protestancy, laid open before the Eyes of rational men?
agitated.
>
Herein
Difc 3. C. 15. VVhich that is?
623
Herein we require Satisfaction, but haue none.
IS.
Some Ortho-
dox Church
must base.
owned it,
Contra. 2. Could thefe men proue their Proteftancy by 1f the Re-
Scripture and Fathers, it should, Methinks, be very ealy to forma ion
point at an Orthodox Church which Six Ages fince, publickly could be pro
owned the particular Tenets of it. Here is my Reafon. What ued true,
euer Doctrin the Scripture and Fathers teach, the Orthodox
Church conceal's not, but openly Profeffeth. She is not asha-
med, if Orthodox, to teach what God has reuealed. Now fur-
ther. Had fuch à Church euer owned this Reformation, it
muft either haue been like an inuifible Ghoft, not perceptible
(which our Newer Sectaries Difclaim) or contrarywife difcer-
nable, by the like Marks and Signatures of the Apoftolical
Church, And if their Doctrin was euer taught by it, They are
to talk no more of its Truth, before Its Credibility be euiden-
ced to Reafon, by the Marks and Signs of that Church, which
is now fuppofed to haue taught pure Proteftancy. That is in
à word, They are firft obliged to Say plainly, what Articles of
Faith, Proteftants (as Proteftants) hold Effential to their Reli-
gion, And then to make fo much Doctrin, and no more, firſt
Credible, then true, by the known Authority of an Orthodox
Church. But This is impoffible. Hence.
19. And it is the laft Inference, whereby one grand Cheat
of our Sectaries is difcouered. Long haue we inquired but
without Satifaction, Where their Church was before Luther? The
Common Anſwer returned by fome latter Proteftants, making
little Account of an inuifible Church, is much to this Senfe.
Our Church was there where it now is and where it alwayes was,
The fame Christian Church as before the Reformation, Hauing loft no-
thing that made it fo. And if you Obiect. The Church in How our Ad-
England before. Luther was certainly Popish, now its Protestant, Herjaries
Ergo it is not the fame Church, They Anfier and vow it to be Shuffle,
the very fame, though it ceafed to hold Popery.
>
20. Much might be faid against thefe meer Empty words.
I'll here only entertain you with two Reflections vpon the who-
le Paralogifm. Firft it makes the worft of Herefies defenfible,
for
i
624 Diſc. 3. C. 15 One only Religion reasonable c.
They make
And their
>
For might not Arius haue pleaded in like manner. My Church
the worst of is where it was before, The very fame Chritian Society, though
Herefies de changed into Arianifm, as the ancient Religion in England, now
fenfible,
is into Proteftanifm. So alfo the Pelagians, The Macedonians, and
all other Heretiques could haue Argued, excepting perhaps à
few Donatifts, who confined the whole Church to their little
Part in Affrick. Again, As the Thing is reformed., it paffes
with Proteftants for à Part of the Catholick Church, There-
fore as reformed, its fuppofed à Piece of Reaſonable Religion (Se-
Reformation &taries pretend not to an vnreafonable Reformation) And i'ft
be So, before the Profeffors of it talk of the Truth of this Re-
formation, They are obliged to make it Credible, by fuch Mi-
racles, Signes, and wonders as an Infinite lower and Vidom (and
no other) Propofes to Reafon. But all is contrary. They be-
gin, and bring in à Reformation fo naked and ſtrip't of ratio-
nal Motiues, that none can Say. God himselfe declares it rea-
fonable, by any Signature, which may bee efteemed an effec
of his Power and Wiſdom, Or in à word Supernatural.
unreajona-
ble,
Becaufs
firip't of all
rational Mo-
tiues.
Sectaries fol-
low the
frain of
Condemned
Hereticks,
No Motines
Propoſed to
Beafon.
2
21. And here in paffing, You haue the true Reaſon, why
Sectaries in their Polemicks, keep clofe to the Procedure of
all condemned Hereticks. The Arians, for Example, neuer
went about to giue Reaſon the leaft Satisfaction, in behalfe of
their Rupture made with the Church, but leauing that Rational
way,
, pleaded by Scripture. So do Proteftants. Before they had
Shown any thing like à rational Euidence of Credibility, to
countenance that shameful Diuorce, They voted it luft. So do
Protestants. Wauing the Ancient Senfe of Scripture receiued by
the Church, they gloffed it after their fashion. So do Proteftants.
Tradition, that ftrong Tenure whereby the Church hold's Her
beſt Inheritance, or Deriues Chrift's Doctriu down from Age
to Age, The Arians flighted, And fo do Protestants. But All this
while, though we earneftly wish to hear of Motiues propofed
to Reaſon, whereby this Reformation may be made Credible,
we are turnd off with meer Talk, And neuer yet heard, or
shall hear of more Euidence for That, than the worst of Arians,
can
Difc. 3.
C. 16. Obiections folued &c.
625
can allege for Arianifm. Wherefore, I conclude, Proteftancy is
an vnreasonable Nouelty, and confequently no Religion, for
meerly to Say à Religion is true, and from God, before it be
made Credible by Supernatural Signes, Vphold's Arianiſm,
Donatifm, Quakerism and the greateſt fooleries in the world.
CHAP. XV I.
Obiections folued. Sectaries pretending not to Se the Chur-
ches Euidence, are either blind, or wilfully shut their
Eyes. The Affertion clearly proued. A Parallel
of the Primitiue, and the preſent Churches
Euidence. How far Reafon may be
fayd to Regulate Faith.
I.
A
Gainft our pleading Euidence of Credibility for
Catholick Religion manifefted by the Luftre of fu-
pernatural Motiues, One may firft Obiect. Euery Mans pri- why the
uate Reafon is to Iudge whether this Euidence Conuinces, or Ewidence of
no, And confequently the laft Iudgement belong's to the Tri- Credibility
bunal of priuate Reafon. I haue Anfwered. The Euidence is most
( vpon two rational Principles) is fo great that it cannot but Conuincing.
conuince, Firſt becauſe the Author of it is no other but God,
who certainly was no Impoftor when he fet before Reafon the
light of moft glorious Supernatural Signes, And by virtue of Two Reasons
them, hath induced both lewes and Gentils to belieue in Chriſt.
2. Becauſe, That which the moſt Wife and Learned of the
Chriftian world, haue Iudged Euidently reasonable, May vpon fo
great Authority, be fuppofed Reafonable. But All thoſe Vaft
>
Kkkk
Multitudes
626
Diſc. 3. C. 16. Obiections folued.
The ludge-
ment lorg
Since giuen,
now is not
reuerjable.
No other
Induce-
ments, exco-
gitable.
Sectaries
Man' mot
light, but
Eye-fight
They wil
fully Shut
their Eyes.
Multitudes Conuerted to true Chriftian Religion, haue Iudged
the Euidence of Credibility manifeft in the Church, both ra-
tional and conuincing, Therefore, it is fo.
2. Hence it followes. 1. That the, true Iudgement concer-
ning this Euidence, was long fince giuen, antecedently to the
weak Cenfure of this or that particular man, who now would
Cauil at it. 2. That all Exceptions made againſt it, are euident-
ly vnreaſonable vpon this ground, That thofe Thoufands and
Thouſands moft Wife and Learned, who owned the Euidence,
And haue been induced by it to belieue; muft (if Miſled) be
accounted not only temerarious, but alfo Mad, befotted, and
grofly Seduced by Fooleries. This cannot be Granted. Per-
haps you'le Say. Thoſe Wife and Learned belieued vpon
other Inducements, Diftinct from our Churches Motiues. Anfw.
Not one can be Afigued diftinct from thefe, if wee fpeak of
Motiues Propofed to Reason, as is proued already.
3. A. 2. Obiection. Sectaries for all this, Pretend not to fe
the Churches Euidence. I Anfwer; it is not for want of Light,
but for want of Ey-fight, That is, bebauſe they will be blind
Thouſands, As is now Said, as Wife and Learned as they, haue
feen the Light and followed it, Why then do They ſtumble-
in Darkneſs, when the fame Euidence is Set before their Eyes?
I haue no other Anfwer, but what Truth it Selfe Deliuers.
Ioan. 1. The Son of God, The Light of the world came amongst
vs, Et mundus eum non cognouit. The world would not know
him, Both Lewes and Gentils wilfully shut their Eyes, to rhe
Signal Marks of his facred Preaching, And fo do Sectaries at
this day, to the Churches Euidence.
What we
What we now Say
4. Some may Reply.
How Say, is only to
Preach, and not to Proue, For how can wee Eunce that
Sectaries Shut their Eyes to any Light of Euidence? Anfw.
Enough is proued Already, Howeuer to come closer to the
Matter, and to leaue them without all excufe, I'll Add one
word more, which shall be Conuincing.
5. Pray you Imagin, That fome of our Sectaries had liued
in
Difc. 3. C. 16. More of this Subiect.
627
>
ment drawn
in thofe happy Dayes, when the Holy Euangelifts fet forth the
Life of our bleffed Sauiour, And the Apoftles preached his
Sacred Doctrin to the firſt Conuerted Chrſtians: Would not
An Argu
They think
ye haue as readily belieued what euer Doctrin
thofe Bleffed men then wrote, and Preach't, As the other vaft from the
Multitudes who came flocking in, belieued? Yes Certainly, primilius
Their Obftinacy, though great; would not haue furpaffed that Euidence.
of lewes and Gentils, Thefe yeilded, after they heard ſuch Ora-
cles fpeak, And fo I think Sectaries would haue done alfo.
6. Now I Demand (and the Queftion is very pertinent)
vpon what Euidence of Credibility; By what prudential Moti-
ues laid forth to Reafon, could Thefe men had they then The Primi-
been in the world) belieued that S. Matthew (for example) wrote tine Euiden-
truely the Life, and Preached exactly the Doctrin of Iefus Chrift? ceof Creds.
bility, was
Did God Afcertain all men then liuing by priuate Reuelation, not, as fome
that the Euangelift was his Diuine Oracle Or, did He
Or, did He may Imagin
openly proclaim that Verity to the world by an audible Voice,
in the Aire? Was an Angel fent from Heauen to teſtify, that
S. Matthew deliuered Truth, and nothing but Truth? Or, was
the Holy Ghoſt ſeen in any viſible Form to fuggeft all He
ſpake and wrote And to fecure his tongue and hand from
Errour in euery Syllable, in euery leaft Iota? No. Although
God could haue done all this and more, yet wee read of no
fuch Wonders.
,
7. Say Therefore, Vpon what prudent Motiues, by what
Euidence of Credibility would Sectaries, had they then liued
been Induced (with lewes and Gentils) to belieue the Words
and Writings of this one bleffed Euangelift, or of any other
Infallible Oracle? The Gofpel Anfwers. Luk. 16. They went
forth and preached euery where; Our Lord working with them, Confir
ming the word with Signes which followed, And the Signes are known
to all. They caft out Diuels, raiſed the Dead, cured the Infirm, Suffe-
red perfecution, Conuerted Nations to the Faith of Chrift; which was
one, and perhaps not the leaft, among their many other glorious
Miracles. The great Apoftle Heb. 2. 4. Speak's moft figni-
Kkkk 2
ficantly
The Primi
tike
Euidence
explained.
628
Difc.
The Roman
Catholick
Church
only Shewes
the like
Euidence,
with an
Aduentage.
Particulars
infifted on.
frange Con-
Herfions.
3. C. 16. Obiections folued.
ficantly this Senfe. God withall teftifying by Signes and wonders, and
diuers Miracles and Distributions of the Holy Ghost, according to bis
Will. Here we haue the Apoftolical Euidence laid beforevs, And
by it the Doctrin they taught made Credible to Reaſon. Hence
I Argue.
S. But moſt certainly the Roman Catholick Church, and
no other Society, demonftrat's the very fame Miracles, the very
fame Signes and wonders, not one Excepted, as is largely pro-
ued aboue, And to raife Her Glory aboue that, which à short
time allowed not the primitiue Chriftians to Se, Hitherto ne-
uer wanted the tryal of à 1671 years Perfecution from Hea-
thens, Turcks, Heretiques, licentious Catholicks and Diuels
alfo, And yet, to Gods Glory be it, She keep's Her Pofture
Still, immoueable, Inuincible.
man
>
-
9. One word more. Had we liued in thofe happy Dayes,
wee should haue feen or heard of à great Conuerfion, wrought
by our Sauiour vpon one Zacheus, à Principal Publican, à rich
and à Sinner. A plain Miracle cries one of the Older
Proteftants, And therefore The Conuerfion comes in with an
Ecce. Behold the wonder. It this fo? was it indeed à Miracle?
Ecre. Behold Innumerable notorious Sinners, accuftomed to
vice Conuerted to the true Faith, and reclaimed from their
lewdness by the inceffant Labour of this one Roman Catholick
Society.
10. Again, Had we liued in thofe Dayes, wee should haue
ſeen or heard of à Couragious S. Stephen who fealed with his
blood, that very Doctrin which the Euangelifts wrote, And the
Martyrdoms Apoftles afterward Preached, We should haue feen or heard how
zealouſly the bleſſed man prayed for his merciless Perfecutors,
And from thence haue concluded, no other but God, gaue the
Martyr that Courage to fight on to the end, and Charity to
dye as Hee did moft Gloriousfly. Here caft your thoughts
Manifeft in again vpon the Roman Catholick Church in after Ages, and.
the Church. Bece, Behold, for one S. Stephen you haue had Thoufands, ar-
med with Courage, with Charity, and Conftancy, who as be-
hooued
Diſc. 3. C. 16. More of this Subiect.
629
hooued true Valiant Souldiers of Iefus Chrift, ftoutly shed
their blood for that very Doctrin She maintains at this
day.
Coutempt of
the world in
thoſe Primi-
tine tirnes.
11. Thirdly, had you liued in thoſe dayes, you would
haue heard à new Doctrin preached contrary to corrupted na-
ture, and the worlds Vanity, you would haue ſeen moreouer
whole Multitudes of Conuerts, repaire to the Apoftles, and
caft their wealth down at their feet, calling nothing their own,
but God only, who rich in Mercy was their Poffeffion; And
would you not haue Said, after to great à wonder, ſuch Pre-
achers were certainly infpired by the Holy Ghoft to teach,
And that thofe who complyed with the Doctrin, were faith-
ful Seruants of the moſt high God? None can doubt it.
Now. Ecce: Behold, the very fame Learning is yet, and has The like in-
the Church,
been euer taught in the Roman Catholick Church, And to
at this day.
proue by real Effects, of what Power it is, Thouſands
uerflowing with worldly Fortune flighted all, and to contemn
the Vanity retyred Themfelues; Some into Defert places, o-
thers to the Solitude of Religious Cells where rich in Vir-
tue, they liued and dyed happily. Thus much, for à hint
only.
>
>
0-
12. Beſides, wee haue in this ancient Mother Church, o-
ther great Aduantages of Holynefs and Deuotion, anfwerable
to the Practife of the Primitiue times. We want not thofe,
who earneftly ftriue to obferue the higheſt Rules of perfection,
and to follow the footsteps of the moſt bleſſed Saints, that
now are glorious in Heauen. We want not Means to reclaim
the moft obdurate Sinners; and to help on afpiring Souls in
the Exerciſe of mental Prayer, and Diuine Contemplation.
We want not Doctrin worthy of God, fet forth in the pro-
found Myfteries of our Faith, nor à dutiful Submiffion to
them by the greateſt Capacities of the world. We want not
our Fafts, our long Abftinences, and other Corporal Morti-
fications. Hardlodging, poor Fare, courfe Apparel, watchings,
And the like medicinal Aufterities weary not out, but proue..
delight-
Kkkk
3.
More Ad
Hantages yet.
Rules of Per-
feteon.
Imitation of
Saints,
claim fin-
Means to re-
ners,
Submiſſion..
1741
630
3. C. 16. Obiections folued.
Difc.
Fafts and delightfome to Innumerable, that might haue had both plea-
Austerities, fure and plenty in à fecular Condition.
13. By the little here briefly hinted at
, you may learn
(though à volume might be written of this Subiect) How ex-
actly the Roman Catholick keeps Parallel in euery particular
The Parallel with that Primitiue and moſt perfect Chriftian Society. The
Euery way, Euidence of Credibility is the very fame in both Churches.
The fignatures of Diuine Power and Wiſdom
illuſtrious in the Church at this Day, than when the Apoft-
les preached.
Exact.
A most pref.
fing Argu
ment drawn
From what
is Sayd al-
ready.
Sectaries Ob
ftinate.
are no lefs
14. Hence I Argue, And remind the Reader of my Pro-
pofition aboue, much to this fenfe. Sectaries either Se, or
will not Se the Euidence of our Church Motiues, already
fpoken of. Thefe Conuerfions, thefe Miracles, Thefe Martyrdoms,
Thefe Austerities &c. Appear to them no leſs clear Effects of
Gods Diuine Power now, than the very like Signatures or Mo-
tiues appeared to the firft Conuerted Chriftians, when the A-
poftles Preached. Say; They are no lefs clear, no lefs perfwa-
fiue now, Sectaries are as much obliged to follow this light of
Euidence, And to belieue the Church, as they would haue been
obliged to belieue the Apoftles, Had they been Eve-witneffes
of their Wonders, and heard them Preach. Say Contrary.
The Euidence of Credibility feem's much abated, from what it
was in thoſe Primitiue times, I'll firft vrge thefe Nouellifts to
giue à Disparity between that ancient Euidence, whereby
Nations were Conuerted, And this we now plead for, And if
none can be giuen (as manifeftly there is none) I must con-
clude they are either blind and Se not, what the whole world
has feen, Or which is à Truth, that they wilfully shut their
Eyes, and vpon that Account are peruerfly Obftinate.
>
15. Again, Becaufe fuch Miracles, and thofe other Signes
are manifeft in the Roman Catholick Church, and in no o-
ther Society of Chriſtians, I will Demand, what God (for they
are the works of his own Power) intended by them?
not,to delude his meaning think ye, to foole the world? To delude poor
Gods Inten-
tion was
any,
Was
Chri-
Difc.3. C. 16. More of this Subiect,
631
Chriftians? To Contenance and Colour falshood, by His
By Hú ad.
own admirable Wonders? Moft certainly, No. For, they ha- mirable
ue not only inclined, but obliged all to belieue Chrift's Doctrin wonders.
vnder pain of damnation. Again, Truth it Selfe can oblige none
to Erre, The very light of nature teaches, there neuer was, nor
will bee any neceffity for God to work Miracles, in Confir- He lowes
mation of Falshood, which He abhorr's, louing Truth for Truth, truth for
as well in others, as in Himfelfe.
16. Some, who for ftark Shame, cannot deny all our Chur-
ches Miracles, grant many, and withall Affent to the other
fignal Motiues already Specified. Yet. 3. Obiect. None of
them haue any neceffary Connexion with Truth. I haue An-
fwered aboue. This Argument either deftroies the firſt great
Euidence of Chriftianity, manifeft in our Sauiours wonders and
the Apoſtles, or becomes forcelefs. Befides, the Ground of it
hinted at, is null, For I haue proued already à neceffary Con-
nexion between à Real Miracle, and Truth, vpon this conuin-
cing Principle. True Miracles, as is now Suppojed, are, and haue
been wrought in the Church, And by no other but by the Infinite
Power of God (they furpafs the force of Nature) Therefore Wif
dom it Selfe either deceiues, equiuocates, and openly fpeak's
vntruth, when! He shewes thefe fupernatural wonders, Or this
Inference ftand's firm. A real Miracle and Truth are neceffarily con-
nexed.
17. Others Argue. 4. And more impertinently. Were All
that profefs the Roman Catholick Religion, holy and virtuous,
we might better plead for the Churches Euidence of Credibi-
lity, But many, and very many are great Sinners, and this
feem's much to obfcure Her Euidence. Now if we retort the
Argument vpon Sectaries, and tell them alfo of their lewd Li-
uers, that Daren Proteftancy, its eaſily replyed, (and very truly)
They haue no Euidence of Credibility to Obfcure.
fore We, who certainly haue it, and not They, are obliged
to Solue the Obiection. Anfw. That's quickly don.
folue it, I am once more to lead our Nouellifts to thoſe hap-
There
And to
py:
trush.
The ground
of chi Obie-
tion, worth
nothing.
Real Mira.
cles infer
trath -
Whether fin
and finners
can obſcure
the Euidence
of Credibili
13?
·
632
Difc. 3. C. 16. Obiections folued.
is negatiue,
and
Proued by
many Exam-
ples in the
Primitiue ti
mes.
>
>
The Answer Py Dayes of the Primitiue Age, and Demand, Whether all
then, were Saints? No certainly.
No certainly. We read of à wicked Iudas,
who betrayed his Mafter, Chrift our Lord. Say I hefeech you,
would that haue extinguished the luftre of Chrifts Glorious Mi-
racles or withdrawn them from belieuing in the true Meffias?
We Read alfo of à couetous Demas that abandoned S. Paul,
and returned to the world. Demas me reliquit, diligens boe facu-
lum, would his bad Example haue obfcured the Apoftles Won-
ders, or made the Beliefe of His Doctrin, lefs firm? Finally
we read of an inceftuous Corinthian, infamous for Luxury
would Sectaries think ye therevpon, haue been difmayed, or
giuen ouer the Practife of Virtue, becauſe he was naught?
Not at all. For if Wife, they know, that Cockle and Wheat
grow vp together in the fame large field of the Church, and
it will be fo (the Gofpel is my warrant) vntil the Harueft
makes the feparation. Say then, did thofe Iudafes, thofe Dema-
fes, thofe Incontinent Liuers dishearten any, or Eclyp's in the leaft
that Apoftolical Euidence We ſpeak of, when vaft Multitudes
were found faithful and eminently virtuous ? You will Anſwer
No. Why therefore should lewd Liuers at this day', Eclyp's,
or diſcountenance the Glorious Euidence of the Roman Catholick
Church, whilft we find in it, Innumerable iuft, Innumerable
The reful. ftrong in Faith, confident in Hope, Zealous in Charity, And
moreouer, which is euer to be noted, behold to our great Com-
fort, Gods own illuftrious Signatures moft apparent Age after
Age, in this one Bleffed Society of Chriſtians ?
Six Eclypfes
not
gent figns of
power and
Wisdom.
Another Ob
lection
>
18. Some to Oppoſe what we faid aboue, Obiect in the.
5. Place. The Church cannot be according to the Principles
of à Catholick the Rule of Faith, But contrarywife, the Ca-
tholicks own internal Judgement of Reaſon, muſt regulate, For this
makes the beſt Catholicks in the world, to belieue the Church.
If y
you will haue à Proof Hereof: Ask any knowing Orthodox
Chriſtian, Why he hold's the Church His Rule of Faith, He
cannot Anfwer, becauſe He belieues fo, but will preſently tell
you, He is affured of that truth by prudent Reaſon. Anfw.
No
Difc. 3. C.16. More of this Subiect.
633
Reajon, wi-
thout ratio-
nal Euidsn-
c,no Rule of
Faith.
No man, whether Sectary or Catholick, can make his own in-
ternal Iudgement, though fancied reafonable à hundred times
ouer, the Rule of Faith, Vnlefs more bee added. Now If you en- Pretended
quire after what I exprefs by this word. More? I Antier.
It implies an Obiectiue Euidence, fet before euery rational vnderstanding
Which laid hold on, makes à the tudgement Reasonable, without this
Obiectiue Light, or Euidence, euery condemned Heretick, may
nickname things, and call his own fancy Reaſonable, though
He hath nothing like à rational Motiue to fettle it vpon.
This is the main thing to be noted, in our preſent contro-
uerly.
grounded.
19. Now here is the whole Conteſt between vs and Secta-
ries. We ground our Iudgement of Credibility vpon fuch an
Euidence of Motiues as Conuerted the world, We fay, An In- The Catho
finite Goodnes cannot permit the world to be led into Er- licks ratio-
rour, by Euident Miracles, euident Conuerfions, and other both nal Enidence
Signal, and Supernatural Wonders. All this is Reaſon, and vn-
deniable reaſon, The Signs are Manifeft, Senfible, and Wifible.
In the next place, We vrge Sectaries to fpeak in behalfe of
Proteftancy, or to giue in the like Euidence for that Nouel-
ty? They recoyle, draw back, and talk (tis true) of Rea-
fon, but turn vs off with the bare word alone, hauing no ob-
iectiue Euidence to ground à rational Iudgement vpon. I
fpeak truth, And will defend it. No more can thefe men, if
you fet afide A felfe-wilful Perfwafion, fatisfy Reaſon why they
belieue as they doe, then the worſt of Arians tell you, why
they belieue Arianifm.
2
>
20. It would bee ridiculous in this conteft, to bring in
Scripture as à Rule of their Faith. For firft we here enqui-
re not after the Obiect of their Belief, But call for rational
Motiues, whereby they are induced to belieue Proteftancy.
2. We Say, Though Scripture were in à General way owned
The moſt immediate Rule, and the Senſe of it could bee known
by the priuate Reafon of fome men in the world, yet The Se-
tary gain's nothing vpon the Conceffion, becaufe He knowes
LI
not
Sectaries h
we none at
all.
Scripture
here not
pleadable,
63+
Difc. 3. C. 16. Obiections folued.
The Reafon, not, nor shall euer know vpon any fure Principle, That his
Reaſon hath the fingular Priuiledge to hit right on the Scrip-
tures true Senſe, whilft all His Aduerfaries (and they are very.
many) openly oppofe it, as improbable..
If the prote
fanı ab.
fracts from
what Doc
trin he likes
pot,
why may
not the
Arian do
the like ?
Dodrin.
21.
One may yet reply. For as much as The Sectary Be-
lieues, which is not much (For it lies in à few Fundamentals)
He has the faine Euidence of Credibility as we Catholicks haue,
And fo far ioyn's with vs in Beliefe: In other Matters of Con-
teft, He neither Belieues, nor Disbelieues, but Abftract's
from all. Contra. 1. Thus the Arians and all Heretiques pro-
ceed, who first chufe, and lay claim to fo many Tenets of
Chriftian Doctrin as pleaſes Fancy, and then tell vs,They haue
Reaſon to chufe, to Diuide, and feparate from the reft. We
demand (and here is the main Point) what rational Euidence
haue they to do fo? Who made Beggars ( For all they haue,
they took from the Church) fuch bold Chufers? Again, if
No Church they prefcind or abftract
or abstract, They are obliged to Defign an
fanours this euidenced Orthodox Church, which abſtracted like them, and
pofitiuely taught fo much Doctrin is precifely neceffary to Sal-
uation, And no more. This is impoffible.
This is impoffible. O yes. The Pri-
mitiue Church feem's to haue abftracted from many Doctrins
now taught by the Roman Catholick. Contra. Who tell's you
fo ? Your lame Negatiue way of Arguing? Wee read not of
Purgatory, nor of Tranfubftantiation &c. Pitiful. The euidenced
Roman Catholick Church by Her Conftant Tradition fpeak's
of both, and alſo pofitiuely auouches, that all now taught
was then Anciently deliuered, Here is our Principle, and wee
vrge Sectaries to oppofe it by producing the Authority of an-
other more ancient Church, which Spake then, as they ſpeak
now, Or which abftracted from fuch Particular Doctrins, as
they would abftract from. But this is Impoffible. Out of all I
Conclude, Sectaries haue no Euidence of Credibility for any
Doctrin belieued by them, and Confequently no true Faith at
all, but Opinions only, and thofe falfe too. Now we muſt
folue two or three difficulties of another Nature.
Sectaries
vrged to
mame the
Orthodox
Church,
which ab.
ftraded as
they do
mony.
J
L
J
22. A.
Difc. 3. C. 16. More of this Subiect:
635
Another
22. A. 6. Obiection.
Obiection. Reafon Affares the Catholick
that God ſpeak's by the Oracle of the Church. Ergo, his
Faith is vltimatly refolued into Reafon. I Deny the Confequen- obection,
ce, For if wee make à right Analyſis, The Act of Faith is not
yer in Being, in that Sign, or Priority of Nature, when Pru-
dence tell's Him. God speak's by the Church, The nature of that
Judgement, ferues only to induce the vnderſtanding to Faith
or to fix it vpon an vnuariable ftate of Belieuing, And Con-
ſequently must be refolued, into its own clear Principles, Pre-
urously penetrated, before the Catholick belieues. Faith followes,
and relies immediatly vpon its own Obiect, which is God's
Reuelation propofed by the Church, or by Scripture infallibly
interpreted. Now,
>
23. If you Obiect. 7. It is my priuate Reafon which
The equino.
makes me to belieue the Church. I Anfwer. The Propofi- cation difco-
tion is equiuocal, For it may either fignify, what I call Reafon uered.
independently of all known Obiectine Euidence, makes mee to belie-
ue the Church, And that Senfe is very falfe, Nay its impoffible, One fenfe
to hold euery internal Act, not refoluable into Obiectiue Euidence false.
in à matter of fuch Confequence, Reasonable. This as I faid
aboue Patronifes the worst of Herefies, and Atheifin alfo.
•
trne, when
the ludge.
ment is
grounded on
Evidence
24. Or Contrarywife, the Senfe may be. The Church The other
gloriousfly marked by clear and Conuincing Motiures, known
and applyed by my formal Act of Reaſon, makes it Reaſonable
and that's most true. Wherefore, euery rational Iudgement in
the preſent matter, muſt be fixed vpon rational prudent Moti- rational
・ues, diftinct from the Act we judge by. The Iudgement is no more
but Conditio applicans, à Condition, whereby the obiectue Euidence
`is laid hold on, and ſet before an Vnderſtanding. The Ground
hereof is clear, For we know not by Obiects extrinfick to our
Knowledge, but by vital Acts which interuene between the Intel-
lectual Power, and Obiects. Now if any Ask, why may not
this Iudgement miſtake and erre? I Anfwer firft, by Propo-
fing the like Queftion. Why might not the Iudgement of the
Primitiue Chriftians, when they faw or heard of the Apoftles
LIII 2
ایل
great
636
Difc. 3. C, 16. Obiections folued
Why this
Iudgement
cannot be
erroneous,
dered two
wayes
As prudent,
how it is
refolued.
great Wonders
›
>
haue alſo been à Miſtake or Errour? Solue
po-
the one, you folue the other. I Anfwer 2. The Iudgement.
cannot (if it pitch vpon what really is the Obiectiue Euidence )
be Erroneous, For no fundation of Errour, as wee now Sup-
pofe, Lies there; Therefore, none can be deriued from thence
into any vnderſtanding. A pure fountain yeilds no pudled water.
25. A. 8. Obiection. Faith is an Act of à reaſonable
S.
Faith Confi- wer, and confequently Conformable to Reafon, Therefore
Reafon regulates Faith, or is its immediate Rule. Anfw. The
Act of Faich may be Confidered two wayes. Firſt, as it is à
prudent reaſonable Submiffion to Gods Reuelation.
2. As its
terminated vpon the Reuelation propofed by the Church, or
any other infallible euidenced Oracle. Confider it vnder the
Firft Notion of à prudent Submiffion, it euer Implies, or ra-
ther prefuppofeth, the rational prudent Iudgement now men-
tioned, And this Iudgement preuioufly fet faft vpon fuch Mo-
tiues, as conuerted the world, may well be Said to denominate
the Act of elicite Faith, à rational Obfequiousness, Yea, and its
extrinfecal Rule alfo, as will appear to euery one, that makes
à right Avalyfis, or brings Faith to its laft Principles. But con-
fider again the very Act it Selfe, or precifely as it tend's vpon
the Diuine Reuelation propoſed by an Infallible Oracle, it rea-
fon's not at all, nor more proues; or Scientifically knowes its
Obiect (as Faith) Than Science as Science belieues. This Proues
that fubmiffiuely Belieues. Nor can Faith which euer prefup-
pofes its Obiect and Rule proued to Reafon, Scientifically
proue either, without loffing what is Effential to it, I mean
Obfcurity. Se more hereof in the other Treatife. Difc. 1. C..
5.. 2. 12, 13..
The refolu
tion of her-
wife, if con-
fidered as.
relies upon
the Diuine
Teftimony.
23
Particular
Controuer-
fies exami
ned by this
and that
particular
Authority
26. By all hitherto Said you fe, How the Priuate Reafon
of this or that Man may more eaſily fwerue, or loſe the right
way of Arguing, when à Difpute is held vpon particular Con-
trouerfies, then when its brought to the Cenfure and eafy Tryal..
of an euidenced Church. This Oracle Speak's clearly, Whereas
if the debate be of particular Points examined by Scripture, or
Authority,
Diſc. 3. C. 16. More of this Subiect.
637
ended
Authority, We find by experience that two Aduerfaries feldom not easily
or neuer agree vpon the Senfe of thofe very Authorities, they
would haue Matters decided by.
27.
,
You fe. 2. The Summ of all handled in this Chapter The fumm
to be as followes. The Catholick hold's his Faith infallible, of all bit her.
which effentially relies vpon à Reuelation Diuine, and Infallible. to handled,
Now becaufe God propofes not by Himfelfe or immediatly
His own facred Doctrin to Euery faithful Belieuer in particu-
lar, He hath established à Church, and made Her an Oracle briefly hing
to ſpeak in His name. She comes as it were between God ted at
and Belieuers; And conueyes vnto vs the true Diuine Doctrin
of the firſt reuealing Verity. Now becaufe, She is an Oracle im-
mediatly Credible by fupernatural Signs,which an Infinite Power
and Wiſdom Demonftrates, We luftly call Her the Infallible
Rule. Though Scripture faithfully interpreted, be our Rule.
alfo, but not ſo immediatly Credible. The Church once difcoue-
red, by the Euidence of an Affent grounded on convincing Mo-
tiues, Regulates Faith, plain Reafon preuiouſly refting vpon thoſe
Motiues, tell's vs, God fpeak's by Her. Here we reft, by this
Rule we are guided.
*
Ill
Church
Motines.
28. Hence you fe. 3. Whoeuer depriues the Church of
her Luftre and Signal Wonders (manifeft to Reafon ) ma-:
kes her Doctrin, and the very Scriptures alfo not worthy Be- 1 Confe-
liefe, dead's Faith, Eclipfes Gods reuealed Truths, and doth quences
the vtmoft to bring in Atheifin. In à word He makes Chriftian follow, the
Religion vnreafonable, which is vtterly to Deftroy it. what Denial of
I fay feem's manifeft. For Suppofe, we had, had no Mi-
racles fince the Apoftles times, no Succeffion of Commiffio-
ned Paftors, no further Conuerfions of Nations. No more
eminent Sanctity in this great Moral Body, after that firft Age;
No Martyrdoms no Generous contempt of the world.
Who I beseech you would, or Could haue certainly belieued,
either the Sacred Trinity, or the great Myftery of the Word
Incarnate, vpon the bare report of a few fallible vncommiffio-
à
ned Men or woemen that might Perhaps haue Spoken ( and
Perhaps
>
>
LIII
638
c.
Difc. 3. C. 16. Obiections folued
not with
Standing
most glorious
Motiues
Shewn, is
dulous
The world, Perhaps not) of theſe, and other fublime Myfteries, but without
rational Motiues. Appeal now boldly to the Tribunal of Rea-
fon, and Ask, whether fuch à Doctrin, appears not to all Pru-
dent men more than improbable? Whilft experience teaches;
that à great Part of the world both now, and in former Ages
much incre- alfo (though the Church euer shewed Her Selfe the only glo-
rious euidenced Oracle) remain's notwithstanding in à State of
Incredulity. What then would fo many Nations haue done?
How cold would Their Faith haue been? Who would haue
belieued, had all the After-Motiues of Faith perished, and no-
thing been heard of but high Myfteries mentioned
fupernatural Signs Confirming the Doctrin, In à word without
all Euidence of Credibility? Hence,
without
them, would
haue not be
lieued any
thing.
The fin of
Sectaries.
Enidence of
Credibility
not Separa
ble from true
Religion.
>
>
without
29. You Se. 4. The hideous fin of Sectaries, who do not
only rob the Church of her Glorious Marks manifed to Rea-
fon, and fo make Her Doctrin and whateuer Scripture teaches,
incredible; But to ruin all, They will haue the Mysteries of
our Faith talk't of, but not one Taught Infallibly, And the-
reby deſtroy Faith it Selfe. Thus Reafon and Religion go to
wrack at once.
*
30. You Se. 5. It is impoffible without fubuerting Chri-
ftianity, to Seperate the euidence of Credibility grounded on
Conuincing Motiues, from true Chriftian Religion. Where-
Fore I conclude, That as God has euer hitherto, affifted the
Orthodox Church to Teach Truth, So alfo he has, and will
preferue in Her the euidence of Credibility, whereby all Ratio-
nal men may find truth, And indubitably Affert. This and no
other, is the only Society of Christians, which teaches God's reuealed Veri-
ties, and can beſt inform vs of euery Doctrin the Church taught
in foregoing Ages.
CHAP. XVII.
Difc. 3. C. 17. The Proteftants Faith, not &c. 639
CHAP. XVII.
A Digreßion Concerning Doctor Stilling fleets Difcourfe
VVhere he treat's of the Proteftants Faith redu-
ced to Principles. He is all à long quite
beſides the matter handled, and Sayes no
more for Protestancy, than for Aria-
nifm, or any other Herefy.
I..
K Now Courteous
•
>
Now Courteous Reader, that when this Treatife
was vnder the Prefs and towards an end, there
came now very lately to my hands A Difcourfe concerning
the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome. A ftale worn-out
Cauil, by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Doctor, as I interpret, of
Diuinity, though in his Account he was only B. D. and the-
refore, hitherto named by me plain Mr Stillingfleet. The fault
(if any) is eaſily amended, He shall haue his due hereafter,
and be called Doctor. In this Difcourfe, which very candidly
I haue not read, nor I belieue euer shall; For the matter ap-
pear's very triuial, and look's like à Rapfodie, I find towards
the end of it à Flurt, and no more, at à Book Intituled
Proteftants, without Principles. I know, Saub be, no other Anfer
neceffary, not only to this prefent demand, but to à Book called Prote-
fants Without Principles, the falfity of which, will appear by what fol-
Lowes.
2. You may well imagin, I haften'd to this. What Follo-
Wes, And faw in the next Page, Six Principles agreed on by
hoth Sides. 1. That there is à God, from whom Man and all c-
ther Creatures had their Being. 2. That the Notion of God doth im-
}
The Occafion
of writing
this Chapter
The Doctors
quick Dif
patch,
Like one
Loaib to en-
gage.
plys
640
Difc. 3. C. 17. The Protestants Faith, not
Six Princi-
ples, remote
from Prote.
fancy.
A promising
Tille.
But the main
matter is
waned,
ply, that he is à Being abſolutely perfect. 3. That man receiuing his
Being from God, is thereby bound to obey his will, and fo on to the
Sixt, which, Methought, feem'd as remote from Principling
the Proteftants Faith, as if he had told vs. Adam was temp-
ted by Eue.
3. The next Leaf turned ouer; I found this Title, Con-
trary to Protestancy without Principles. The Faith of Proteftants re-
duced to Principles, with this Addition. These things (viz. The
fix Principles) being agreed on both sides, we are now to inquire
into the particular wayes which God has made choife of for reuea-
ling his will to Mankind. He should alfo haue faid. And Co-
cerning the Faith of Protestants (here lies the main Bulinefs) if
mankind be concerned in it, but this is waued.
4. Nay more is waued, whereon all depend's. Obferue I
befeech you. We haue here à fair Title.
The Proteftants faith
reduced to Principles, before we know what theſe men belieue.
Yet moſt certainly, we should firſt haue had fome light con-
cerning their Beliefe, before we hear talk of its Principles. We
should know how many Articles the Profeffors of it maintain
as neceffary to faluation, How many alfo they reiect as He-
retical ?
retical? We should know what it is, one may boldly re-
nounce as an Opinion, proper to Proteftants; And what it
is he must hold as Proteftant, or be damned ?
or be damned? All this I
Say and more, Should in the first place haue been fully ex-
plained, to the end we may haue fome hint of the Thing
Principled, before we are informed of its Principles. The Proof
of à Thefis euer prefuppofes the Thefis plainly fet down. You
neuer heard of any Tenet publickly expofed in Schools, to
The preten- the Examinatiou of others
ded Faith of
But euery Opponent knowes,
Protestants
what's Afferted. All here run's in à contrary Strain. A Faith
Cannot be is ſpoken of reducible to Principles, which is fo remote from
known. all humane vnderſtanding, that none shall, or can euer tell
me, what ie is. Or fpeak thus, And you fpeak truth. VVhat
euer the Protestant maintain's (as he is Proteftant) though called
Faith, may, without danger of our Souls, be boldly renounced by him,
Particulars
omitted.
All may ab-
iure that
Faith wi-
thout danger
of Saluation.
,
>
by
Difc. 3. C.17. Reduced to Principles:
641
by me, and the whole world befides.
The Conuincing Reafon of what I now Affert, is fo
groundedly laid forth in this prefent Treatife, that no Secta-
ry shall ouerthrow our Proofs. Read I beseech you, The. 1. They haue
Disc. C. 20. n. 7. and what followes, you find there à Sect no Effence of
Religion.
of men called Proteftants, but without the very Effence of Re-
ligion. Read alſo the. 2. Diſcourſe, you haue there in feue-
ral places, the whole Faith of Proteftants brought to à Lift
of meer falfe Opinions, or rather to flat Herefies. Their
negatiue Articles, of not Praying to Saints! Of no Tranfubstan- tines, difon-
tiation are cashiered by them. The Doctrin common to all called ned.
Chriſtians, without more, is à plain Fourb, unless they deny Dodrin
the facred Myfteries of the Trinity and Incarnation alfo, with
Arians. Their Pretence to belieue fo much of Catholick Do-
etrin as pleaſes their Fancies, is not fingular to them, but
common to others, no Proteftants.
Their Nega-
diſow-
Common to
all infuffi-
cient.
Where the
main diffi.
5. Now (and its euer to be noted) we enquire after the
fingular Faith of Proteftants as contradiftinct from Popery, And
all other known Herefics, And defire, That this Faith as it
is Peculiar, may be reduced to Principles? I Say the Redu- culty is? And
ction is vtterly impoffible, and the Reafon is beft expreffed what Shoald
in few words. Their Faith is Phanfy, They haue nothing like Faith be Answe-
to found on Principles. But to Se this proued, You are once
more wished, to read the Difcourfes and Chapters already quo-
ted, for I will not take fo much pains for the Doctor as meer-
ly to blot Paper, and repeat in this place, what is there Con-
uinced. Thus much Noted.
red?
7. Be pleaſed to hear two Propofitions, which come neerer
to our preſent matter. One is. VVhateuer Faith the Sectary
laies Claim to, as peculiar to Proteftancy (be it what you will) if Two Propoft-
contrary to the receiued Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church,
is not reducible to Principles.
8. Another Affertion. All the Principles, tediouſly made vfe
of by the Doctor (we may Suppofe him very conuerfant in
the beft) are wholly impertinent, And haue no more to doe
Mmm m
with
tions,
642
Disc
C 17. The Proteftants Faith, not
3.
The Doctrin
theſe Princi-
ples,
with the Faith of Proteftants, No more fupport that Nouelty,
then if one should tell you. Abraham begot Ifaac. If I proue
this, you'l Say, the Doctor has ventured vpon à defperat At-
tempt; If not, I difgrace my felfe.
።
9. To goe on and proue. We must first well diftinguish
contained in between the Doctrin contained in thefe Principles, fuppofed
to vphold the Proteftants Faith, and the Application or Infe-
rences drawn from it, in order to that end. The Doctrin is
fometimes true, fometimes falfe, and often (not well expreffed)
And the Ap- dubious. But the Application of it to Proteftancy, And this
plication are moft Concern's the Doctor, when true, is as remote from the
to be diftin purpofe, or no more Concern's the faith of Proteftants, then if
one should Say. God made the world, I fay when is true, for if
falſe or dubious, its wholly impertinent.
guished.
•
The first
Principle.
A meer pa-
vergon, to the
prefent Con-
trouerfy.
The reafon,
why it is im
pertineni?
10. Thus the Doctor begins (and pity me that I troubie
the Reader, and my Selfe alfo with meer Parergons, which re-
late not at all to Proteftancy) Firſt. An entire Obedience to
the will of God being agreed on to be the condition of Mans happines,
no other way is in it felfe neceffary to that end, than fuch, whereby
Man may know what the VVill of God is. Anfw. This general
Doctrin, though true, Support's no more the particular faith
of Proteftants (be it what you will) then the Faith of Arians, or
Pelagains. For all thefe and Catholicks likewife, may grant.
There is no other way neceffary to happines than fuch, whereby à Man
may know what the will of God is, yet muft withall acknowledge
the Inference, the Reduction, or Application to this or that par-
ticular Doctrin, wherein thefe Parties diffent from one another,
wholly impertinent, vnlefs more be Sayd. For Example, the
worſt of Heretiques hold with Catholicks. There is no other
way
to be faued but by Chriſt Iefus our Redeemer, But as the
Arian neuer offers, immediatly to draw from thence his Denyal
of à Myſterious Trinity, So the Catholick would be as far to
feek, should he aduenture, without more, to build the Infallibili-
ty of the Church, or the Doctrin of Tranfubftantiation vpon
that General owned Truth only. The Reafon is.. A Principle Com-
mon
Diſc 3. C. C. 643
Reduced to Principles.
17. 17.
mon to all, or more, Confidered as Common, ftand's firm, giues
light, T'is true, fo far as it reaches, but cannot poffibly extend
it felfe, to all the different Tenets Wherevpon Men fall, when
they vary and diffent among Themfelues. Here the Principle
becomes vfelefs without more light, or à new Supply of other
Proofs, which relate immediatly to cuery particular Doctrin, real-
ly true, or pretended to be fo.
II.
No applica
tion made of
the general
11. Thus you Se the Doctors errour, whilft firft he giues The Doctors
you à Principle common to all, And will next build the particu- errour.
lar Faith of Proteftants vpon it. I Say this is impoffible, For
à truth fo General, (as is now noted) giues no more Support,
or Light to Proteftancy, than to Arianifm. Had the D' better ex-
plained theſe General words. There is no other way than fuch, whe-
reby Man may know what the will of God is, And then adioyned.
But Proteftants in behalf of their new Faith, Teach and Proue fuch and
fuch to be the only only wayes, whereby Man may know the
Will of God, and Papifts cannot doe it; He had offered at fo-
mething, But in doing fo, He would Firſt haue receded from
the General true Principle, And next haue fpoken à loud
vntruth, becauſe Proteftants haue no fuch wayes. Now only
to tell vs, what all the world knowes, and to make that à
Principle for Proteftancy, is certainly more then à ftrange Im-
pertinency. Yet this Strain run's through all his other mif-
called Principles.
Principle.
I 2. Obferue it in the three following Paragraphs. Man,
Saith He, being framed à rational creature may Antecedently to any
The want of
external Reuelation certainly know the Being of God, and his depen-hobi's on
Application
dency vpon him. What's this to the Purpofe? All is true,
but the Truth is fo General, that it reaches not at all to the
Proteſtants particular Faith. No more doe the other two which
follow immediatly, as euery Reader will eafily perceiue, at the
firft view.
13. Perhaps the Fift in order may proue better. There can
be no other means Imagined whereby we are to ludge of the truth of
Diuine Reuelation, but à faculty in vs of difcerneng truth and falshood
Mmmm 24
413
644
Difc. 3. C. 17. The Protestants Faith, not
Another
Principle
proues no-
thing,
Valejs Secta
vies ſuppoſe
themfelues,
the only
upright lud
ges.
The Doctor
Speak's of à
way, but
zell's us not,
What Chri
flians follow
¿t?
The 7th.
Principle as
bad, as the
rest;
R
in matters proposed to our beliefe, which if we doe not exerciſe in lud-
geing the truth of Diuine Revelation we must be impofed vpon, by eue-
ry thing that pretend's to le fo. The Affertion Still too Gene-
ral Euinces nothing for Proteftancy, Vnlefs thefe words (If we
do not Exercise). (VVe must be impofed vpon) Signify that Prote-
ſtants only are to Iudge, excluding others, both Catholicks
and all called Chriftians. Say that Proteftants only can iudge,
you ſpeak à Paradox. Allow others -à Faculty in Iudgeing,
the Queſtion will be who ludges beft? Which is far from
being decided by this abftract Principle, Therefore as its worth
nothing, it concludes Nothing, without à further Application.
Now if you defire to Se how Reafon proceed's in Iudging
of Religion, Read the. 3. Difcourfe. C. 15.
14. The fixth Way or Principle. The Pretence of Infallibi-
lity in any Perſon, or Society of Men, must be Iudged in the fame Way,
and by the fame means that the truth of à Reuelation is. Say good
Reader, who can know what to do by force of Thefe Ge-
neral Terms, whilft neither Way nor Means in particular, are
fo much as hinted at? The Árian takes his way, The Pro-
teftant another the Catholick proceeds contrary to both.
Therefore vnlefs the Doctor can proue that Proteftants take
the right way, and All the reft of Chriftians doe not (and it
muſt be proued by à Principle diftinct from this General one)
He abuſes the Reader, and will feem to fpeak in behalf of
the Proteftants Faith, though he comes not neer it.
2
15. The. 7th. Principle. It being in the Power of God to ma-
ke choice of feueral wayes of reuealing his will, we ought to enquire
what way God has chosen? Anfw. Once more who are theſe
We, that ought to enquire? What, Proteftants only? Haue
not others before Sectaries were born, both fought and found
the true way to Saluation? But let this pafs. The Principle
too General concern's not Proteſtants at all, before it be shewn
vpon better Proofs, that they only haue hit on the right way,
which neither is proued, nor can be made probable.
16. The. 8th, and 9th. Principles only fill Paper, and concern
not
Difc. 3. C. 17. Reduced to Principles.
643
Se&taries ha-
ue not the
fingular gra-
not the matter now in hand. In the 10th. we are told, that
Cod can as well declare his Will by Writing, as by men Infallibly
aß sted. Anfw. All grant God can clearly declare his mind in
Writing, But the Queſtion is, whether this be done de Facto,
in the Holy Book of Scripture? S. Peter cited aboue, Sayes
no. Howeuer, fuppofe it done, A fecond Queftion follores, ce to under-
and T'is à hard one. Viz. Whether that fingular Priuiledge Stand Scrip.
ture before
of vnderſtanding Gods declared Will, expreffed in Scripture, all others.
can be granted Proteftants, before all others called Chriſtians,
and particularly before their Elder Brethren, the Roman Catho-
licks Affirm, The Paradox muft be euinced by à ftronge
?
Proof in deed. Say No ; or grant that others befides Proteftants
may as well vnderſtand it, as They, The Principle no more
Concern's them, them the reft of mankind. And thus you Se,
The Application of all true Principles to Proteftancy, euer Fail's,
and Cannot but faile.
17. The 11th. Principle is true, But touches Proteftants no
more, then other Chriftians. The 12th. Where t'is Sayd, we
are to Iudge by thofe writings (of Scripture) what the will of An untrue
God is in order to Saluation, is no Principle, but à falfe Suppofi- Supposition.
tion, in cafe the Authority and infallible Interpretation of the
Church, be reiected. But grant all. Ask again, who are thoſe,
We, that muft Iudge? What Proteftants only? Or others
with them? If all may Iudge, and differ, as is moft euident,
in the higheſt matters of Faith after the perufal of Scripture,
A new Queſtion enfues, Whoſe iudgement is finally to be
ftood to, which shall neuer be decided without introducing a
nother Principle, whereby all muſt ſay. Such an Oracle Iudges
for all.
18. Hence I briefly Anfwer to 13th, and 15th. Principles (The
14th. is à meer Parergon) In the firft we are told. It is repug-
nant to the Defigne, to the wisdom and Goodnes of God, to giue infallible
Affurance to Perfons in writing his will, for the benefit of Mankind,
if those writings may not be vnderstood by all persons who fincerly en-
deauour to know the meaning of them, in fuch things as are neceſſary
Mmmm .3
for
What follo-
wes, if all
dieffenting
in the high
matters of
Faith, may
Iudge?
646 Difc. 3. C. 17. The Proteftants Faith, not
Sincere
Seekers.
Who are the for their Saluation. Anfw. And mark, How remote we are yet
from Proteftancy? Grant thofe writings may be vnderſtood
by all who take the right Way, and endeavour to know their
mauing, Nothing followes, whilft the Doctor proues not by
another diftinct Principle, that Proteftants only are the fincere
Inquirers, excluding others, who after all endeauour vfed, Diffent
of Applica. from them. This not done, he turn's vs off with à general Pro-
Still want
tion
Euidenced
by this one
Syllogifm
Though the
Affertion
pofition, making no Application of it to his own particular
Caufe. You will Se what I would Say, by this one Syllogifm.
Thoſe writings may be vnderſtood by all who take the right
way, and endeauour to know their meaning, But Proteftants
do this, and Papifts do not. Here the Minor is euidently du-
bious (I fay abfolutely falfe) and therefore the Application
of the general Principle to Proteftants, fail's, But this failing;
or not applied home by another Proof; The general Propofition
no more Supports Proteftancy, then Arianifm or Pelagianifm.
Of this want of application which tranfcend's all the Doctors
Principles, when true, you shall haue more preſently.
19. In the mean while take notice of it again in the. 15th
Way. These Writings being owned as Containing in them the whole
Will of God fo plainly revealed, that no fober Enquirer can miss of what
is neceffary for Saluation, There can be &c. First its falfe, that the
An Vatruth. whole Will of God, is plainly reuealed in Scripture. And
Suppoſed.
had we no more, but Thus much only. Viz. The vaft multitu-
des of Chriftians who zealously defend that fenfe they Concei-
ue of Scripture, yet contradict one another in Points moft
Effential, Proues it falfe, whereof enough is faid in the feueral
parts of this Treatife. But let that Pafs. Suppofe it à Truth
The Propofitions or Proofs muft run thus. No fober Enquirer
can miss of knowing God's will, or of what is necessary to Saluation.
Now add this Minor. But the Proteftant only, is the fober En-
quirer, For No Arian, No Pelagian, No Quaker, No Papift fo-
berly enquires, excepting the Proteftant. Thus much muſt be Affu-
med or to the General Propofition Vnapplyed,help's the Proteftant
no more then others, that execrate his Doctrin; For if theſe
were fuppo-
fed true, it
helps not
Proteftants.
or
Difc. 3. C. 17. Reduced to Principles.
647
20.
>
-
Setaries
after their
long Enquiry
baue no
Fnion in
Faith.
or any of them, may be lifted among the number of fober En- The Reason)
quirers (its ridiculous to exclude all) and yet reiect Protefta- hereof
nitin, The general Propofition (for ought appears yet) may
be applyed as well by euery one to his particular Religion,
as by the Proteftants, to Proteftancy, Therefore it fignifies Iuft
Nothing, before à right Application be made by diftinct
Proofs to the One only true Religion. Some may reply
euery Man is to enquire, and Anfwer for Himfelfe. Pitiful
That's to Say we muſt alwaies be Scepticks, euer learning
and neuer well taught. Weak reafon and fancy are thus made
our Doctors, if this Principle be owned. Se Difc. 2. C. 17.
Per totum. In the Interim know, this long inquiring after one
whole Age, brings no vnion in faith to Proteftants, who are
as the world Sees, at endleſs Iarrs amongſt themfèlues.
The 16th Principle Oppofes fuch Men as pretend to
infallible Aßsistance, without giuing an equal degree of Euidence, that
they are so aßifted as Christ and his Apofiles did, by Miracles as
great,
as publick and conuincing, as these were. Anfw. This
Principle is quite befides the matter. Firft, becauſe Proteftants This Princi
ple is first
own à Church infallible in Fundamentals without giuing an
Euidence equal to that of Chrift and his Apoftles. Why then Proteftants.
may not fuch an Euidence as proues the Ghurch Infallible in
Fundamentals, be further extended, and induce All to belieue
Her Infallible, in euery Doctrin She teaches. 2. The Prin- Secondly,
ciple is falfe. We haue Apoftolical Euidence in the Church falfe.
euer fince thofe Primitiue times as is largely ptoued Dift.
I. C. 14. 15. 16. And Dift. 3. C. 3. Laftly it is no more
but à Proofles Affertion against the Church, which laies Thirdly,
claim to Infallibility, And cannot though it were true, aduan- though Sup
pofed trase,
tage Proteftancy one whit. Pleaſe to obferue my Reafon. Suppo- is help's not
fe the Catholick Church, and the Proteftant party were like one Proteftants.
another, equally fallible, vpon what Principle can the fallible
Proteftant Party plead better, or Say more for his Cause, then
the Suppofed fallible Roman Church in behalf of Her Doctrin? Both
of them, as is proued in the fecond. Difcourfe, would in this
>
>
cafe,
against
648 Difc. 3. C. 17. The proteftants Faith,not
Thereafon
bereof
cafe
be à Publick fcorn to Iewes and Gentils, whilft they
Out-braue one another, with the Meer Nothing of fallible Prin-
Conuinces. ciples, And (which is euer to be noted) can ſtand on no furer
Ground then what is fallible, and may be falfe, if no Church be
owned Infallible.
Nothing yet
for Prote
Stancy
How The
Churches
21. In the. 17th Principle we are told its abfurd, to pre-
tend the neceffity of an Infallible Affiftance, to affure vs of the
truth of Scripture, And at the fame time to Proue the Aſſiſtan-
ce from thoſe writings, from which nothing can be certainly dedu-
ced. Anfw. Here again is nothing for Proteftancy. For Sup-
pofe which is falfe; we proue not an Infallible Affiftance, Are
therefore Proteftants inà better condition then Catholicks?
But to ſpeak truth, the Doctor wholly Miftakes, we proue the
Infallibility Churches Infallibility independently of Scripture. Read Difc. 3.
is first
C. 5. In the. 18. Principle we hear talk again of the best
Means for vnderſtanding the Scripture, but whether we Catholicks,
Arians or Proteftants happily light on't, is not fo much as hin-
ted at by the Doctor, wherefore I Said aboue, theſe Genera-
lities proue nothing, without à neerer Application, made by
Proofs, yet more immediate.
Proued.
Se Яaries
gain nothing
by this ab
ftract Prin.
ciple.
22. The. 19th Principle. The Assistance which God hath pro-
mifed to those who fincerely defire to know hus will, may give them
greater Affurance of the truth of what is contained in Scripture, than
it is poßible for the greatest infallibility in any other perfons to doe, Sup-
pofing they have not fuch affurance of their Infallibility. Anfw. All
this were it true) is to fay Iuft nothing concerning Prote-
ftants, vnleſs they be fuppofed the only Men who fincerely
defire to know Gods Will, for if any other called Chriſtians
of à different Beliefe be as Sober Inquirers, or defire as
,
earneftly to know Gods vvill, as Sectaries, What gain they by
this remote abftract Principle? Now to Suppofe all other
Chriſtians negligent, in the Inquiry after God's will, and Pro-
teſtants only the zealous Seekers, comes neerer to à bold Pre-
fumption, than to any thing like the nature of à Principle. In
à word here you haue all. The Application to the Proteftant
Faith
Difc. 3. C.17. Reduced to Principles
649
Suppoſe
Themfelues,
theonly faber
Inquirers.
Want of
Senfe.
This Princi
pie concern's
not sectaries,
Faith is wanting. But what will you? The Doctor cannot Vnless they
be drawn to plead for his own caufe. Finally, fenfe is wan-
ting in that laft claufe. Suppofing they haue not such affurance of
their Infallibility. Which is only to Say. Suppofing the Church be
not Infallible, Catholicks cannot belieue Her Infallibility.
23. The 20th Principle. No Mans Faith can therefore be infal-
lible, meerly becauſe the Proponent is faid to be Infallible. Anfw. But if
the Proponent be both said, and Proued Infallible (and this is
amply proued) Faith with the Affiftance of God's Grace may
well, yea and muft depend vpon it, and be infallible. Howeuer,
let all here Said pafs. There is yet nothing drawn from the
Principle more concerning the Faith of Protestants then of the
Arians. Obferue well. Both hold the Proponent of Faith which
is the Church, Fallible; Make now the Inference.
Ergo the
Proteftants Faith feem's more found then the Arians, is à pure
Non-fequitur, not at all Deducible from this Principle alone, nor
indeed from any other.
More then
the Arians,
None can
infer, if
Taith be
infallible,
That there
24. In the three folloing Paragraphs. 21. 22. 23. You haue
only grofs Miſtakes, though if all were true, Proteftancy has
no aduantage by them. The Subftance of all is thus. If Diui-
ne Faith cannot be without an Infallible Affent, all other Infallibility
(He means in the Proponent) is rendred vfeles. Anfw. Why
fo I beseech you? The Apoftles Faith was certainly Infallible,
did that render our Sauiours Infallible Doctrin Infallibly propo- fore and
fed, vfeles? In like manner the Church teaches Infallibly, Infallible
The Faithful Man elicites Infallible Faith, grounded vpon Proponent of
Her Doctrin, Doth this make Her Teaching Vieles? When Faith, is
the internal faith of euery Belieuer fo neceffarily depend's vpon unneceffary.
an Infallible Oracle, that none euer belieued without fome one
or other, abfolutely Infallible.
$.
Were all
Proponents
25. But now Ad rem. Make hauocke of Faith as much
as may be, Deftroy Chriftian Religion, Say boldly (and falfly)
the Roman Catholick Church both is, and euer was fallible. of Fath
Say allò, Proteftants, Arians, Pelagians, and all the reſt are fallible. failible,
Speak once to the Purpofe and tell me (For here is the only
Nnnn
doubt)
650 Difc. 3. C. 17. The protestants Faith, not
The Prote-
flant yet
would not
be in à bet-
ter Condi.
tion then
the Arion.
Though all
were gran-
ted which
the Doctor
san ratio-
doubt) Why should the Proteftant with his fallible Faith, be in à
better and à more Secure condition, than the fallible Panft, or
the fallible Arian, with that faith they lay claim to? This the
Doctor neuer meddles with nor can the difficulty be folued
by him.
>
26. And Hence To rid my Selfe of the reft, which fol-
lowes (for really I am more weary of this Sport then the
Dreuer was at killing flies) you shall Se with what Candor I
Proceed. I freely permit the Doctor to make vfe of all his
following Principles, yea of the whole Thirty in Number, And
ſay notwithſtanding this ample Conceffron, He shall neuer
Proue or infer from any of them, So much as One true Tenet
peculiar to Protestants, which can be owned by theſe very men,
that pretend to belieue Proteftancy, an Article of Faith neceſſary
for (aluation. Here is my Reafon. The General owned Truths
nally desire (as that à rational creature may antecedently to any External_Reue-
lation, certainly know the Being of God &c) no more belong to
Proteftants, than to others. The Doctors falſe Principles, as
his 16. and 17. are, though Suppofed true, euince nothing for
Proteftancy, as is already Proued. No more do his other
Controuerted Principles, denyed by innumerable Chriſtians, proue
any thing. His obfcure Ones (and his 27 and 29. appear to
me of the darker fort) muſt be further explained, For truly
I vnderſtand not what is meant by thofe obfcure words. Which
reiection is no making Negatiue Articles of Faith, with the reft that
followes. Be it how you will, thus much I defend, that, whether
the fore mentioned Principles be True, Falfe, Controuerted, or
Obfcure; no Verity peculiar to Proteftants can be deduced from them,
abfolutely neceffary to Saluation.
Nothing, yet
proued.
The reafon
bereof, brie-
Lyginen.
>
27. I Say deduced, either by lawful Confequences, or by the
Addition of any receiued Principle, And I Speak thus, becauſe
Perhaps the Doctor may Antwer He intended no more at
prefent, but only to fet down ſome general Grounds, where-
vpon Proteftancy, by the ayde of further Proofs adioynable
though not as yet not inade vfe of, Can be eſtablished. If this
>
be
Diſc. 3. C. 17.
C. 17. Reduced to Principles:
651
feat
be his Reply, I Anſwer Firft. He has gone moft lamely to work, The Doctors
leauing the whole Matter vndertaken, halfe done halfe vndone, whole work
in à word incompleat. I Anfwer. 2. There are neither Proofs hitherto,
moſt imper-
nor Principles, to goe forward withall, I mean, whereby to Euince
the truth of one Pure Protestant Tenet, held by Sectaries themelues,
neceffary to Saluation, And I coniure the Doctor (who muft
hold his abftract Principles hitherto laid forth, very imperfect) He cannat
to aduance further, That is, to euince by fome other more goe on, and
immediate Proofs, the abfolute neceffity of Belieuing one Pro- Compleat is
teftant Article. This cannot be done.
28. The Reaſon why I Speak thus boldly, is the Verity hin-
ted at in the beginning, and proued aboue. Proteftancy as Pro-
teftancy has no truth in it, No Effence of Religion, No One Article Con
ducing to Saluation. And Hence it is, that the Doctor keep's
off at diſtance, Or rather run's on as you fe, partly by affuming
falfe Principles againſt the Catholick Church; Partly with Ge-
neralities, which relate no more to Proteftancy then to Aria-
nifm.
29. Now here in paffing you may well obferue The diffe-
rent Procedure of Catholicks, from Sectaries. The firft tell
you plainly what their Faith is. Befides the common Doctrin
admitted by all Called Chriftians, They giue you in particular,
à lift of theer Credends. The Real Prefence, Tranfubftantiation, Pur-
gatory, Inuocation of Saints, and in the firft place, of the Infal-
Libility of their Church, peculiar to Catholicks only. They more-
ouer Affert, without the Beliefe of thefe Articles after à due
Propofal made, none can be faued; And, here to omit other
Probations, taken from Scripture, Councils, and Fathers, They
ground their Beliefe vpon the Authority of God's own vniuer-
fal euidenced Oracle which hath taught the world from the
Apoftles Age.
>
30. The Sectary on the other fide, neither dares nor Can
name one Article, singular to Proteftants ( Mark my words) Or
Preach this Doctrin to any of his Hearers. Such and fuch parti-
cular Articles, you are, as Proteftants Obliged to belieue, as most effen-
Nnnn 2
tial
The vltima.
te ground of
my Aſſerzion
How diffe-
rently the
Catholick
and Seta-
ries Proceeds
652
Difc. 3. C. 18. The Doctors Inferences null.
tion
The Sectary tial Tenents of our Religion, or will be damned, if you reiect them.
cannot name He cannot build one peculiar Proteftant Article, vpon plain:
one Prote- Scripture, vpon ancient Tradition, or any other receiued
ftant Article,
Principle, much leffe Proue its Truth by the Authority of
judged by
him neceffa. à Church, which euer Shewed the Marks and Signatures, of
ry to Salua. God's Infinite Power and Wifdom. It may be, Some Sectary
will here Cauil at our Articles, and Say indeed, we plainly
deliuer them, but needlefly multiply too many. If this be Obiec-
ted, I Anſwer firſt. The Affertion is no Principle, but à meer
vnproued Suppofition.. I Anfwer. 2. in this place, it is an Im-
pertinency, where we only vrge the Sectary to name but one
Article, Iudged by him Effential to Proteftancy and neceffary for Sal-
uation, As we plainly giue in our Seueral neceffary Articles.
Thus much Comply'd with, We are as ready to Proue the
Truth of our Catholick Pofitions as to Euince vpon found:
Principles, the Sectaries falfe and Improbable.
A poffible
Canil anf
wered.
The first
Inference is
à meer
Tautology.
>
CHAP. XVIII
The Doctors Inferences, proued no Inferences, but
entrue Affertions. Having anfwer'd his Principles
and Inferences, Satisfaction is required
to fome few Questions, here-
after propofed.
I.
17
T followes, Saith the Dt 1. There is no neceßity at all
of an Infallible Society of men, to affure men of the truth
of those things, which they may be certain without &c. Anfw. Here.
you haue neither Inference, nor Principle; (In very reallity nei-
ther true Confequence, nor Confequentia) No Inference; becauſe, its
à meer Tautology, or à bare repetition of what the Doctor
had
Difc. 3. C. 18. Questions Prop.fed.
653
a hat Should
had formerly afferted, without Proof or Probability, And
Confequently far enough from the Nature of either
Principle or Inference.. Had the Doctor brought in any
thing like an Inference; He Should haue Said. Vpon fuch
and fuch grounds already eſtablished, It followes, that these and
thefe particular Doctrins of Proteftants are true, and immediatly betroued.
deduced, from this or that Principle, But he totally abandon's the
Proteftants Faith, and leaues his Fellow-fectaries as faithlefs
as they were before he wrote thefe Principles. The True In-
ference therefore, or all that followes, is, that he hath loft
his whole Labour.
>
>
may and
jet no
Inference.
2. The. 2. Inference. The Infallibility of that Society of men,
Who call themfelues the Catholick Church, must be examined by the
Same Faculties in Man, the fame Rules of trial, the fame Motiues
&c. Anfw. Here is no Inference but the fame thing re-
peated again, which for the fubftance lies in his 6th Principle. what Reafon
Now if we Speak of this Doctrin confidered in it Selfe, we is to examin
eafily grant, that the rational faculties in men, both
ought to examin by the Light of prudent Motiues, what
Society of Chriftians is Infallible, as alfo what Diuine Reue-
lation is made euidently Credible to Reaſon. But herein à
double Caution feem's neceffary. The firft. That Sectaries
affume not to themfelues, the fole Faculty of examining and
iudging, but leaue to others à share of it alfo. The fecond
Prouifo is, that Reafon in this Search, go not beyond its Bounds,
but pitch vpon that which is Reasons proper Obiect, I mean
vpon thofe Signatures of God's own Vifible Wonders, already ex-
plained. Theſe two Conditions obferued, All is well. Sectaries
will foon Se their Errour.
>
A twofold
Caution to
be obſerued.
Motiues,and
Miracles in
3. The. 3. Inference, deduced out of no Principle, falfly
Suppoſes but proues not the want of Miracles, and other No Want of
conuincing Motiues in Roman Catholick Church. It is lar-
gely refuted vpon feueral Occafions, in euery one of thefe the Church
three Difcourfes.
4. The fourth Inference (From whence it comes, I know not)
Nnnn 3
is
654 Diſc.3. C. 18. The Doctors Inferences null.
A Speech
like that of
lowes and
Arians.
led.
is thus. The more abfurd any Opinions are, and repugnant to the
firft Principles of Senfe, and reason, which any Church obtrudes vpon
the Faith of men, The greater reafon men will haue, to relect the
Pretence of Infallibility in that Church, as à grand imposture. Anfw.
Had à lew, who hold's it againſt Senfe and Reafon, to belieue
that God became an Infant; Or had an Arian that denyes the
Trinity, becauſe the Mystery feem's repugnant to his weak
Reafon, Spoken after this manner, None would haue much
wondred; But that à Doctor, who pretend's to belieue theſe
Fundamentals of Chriftian Religion, Cannot find roome enough
in his head for reason and Fat, in euery particular the Church
Teaches, argues fome little want, both of the One and Other.
But fay on, what is it he boggles at? O, à Confecrated Wa-
Senfe begui fer appear's to be bread, and is not bread, this is repugnant
to fenfe and reafon. Contra. Thofe two Angels that came
to Lot. Gen. 19. appeared to the Sodomits like mortal men
but were not fo:: Was not Reafon here, vpon the fuggeſtion of Sen-
fe beguiled? And are not both thefe faculties now rectifyed in
vs, by what we read in Holy Writ, which afcertain's vs they
were not men but Angels? Thus it fall's out in the Myſtery of
the Bleffed Sacrament. Wherefore I Say, Were it not that God,
Speaking by Scripture and the Church affures vs, that what we
fe, is not fubftantianly bread, the whole world would (guided by
outward Appearances) hold it bread, as thofe wicked Citizens
iudged Lots entertained Gueſts to be men, and not Angels, But
when eternal Truth interpofes his Authority, and tell's vs by his
own Oracles, what is here contained vnder the Forms of bread, is
God in this
not bread, but Chrift's Sacred body; Reafon yeilds vpon this moft
Mystery
interpafes his prudent Ground. It is the highest reason in the world to beiieue God,
Authority though by reason we know not how things are. Here is our Prin-
and unbe- ciple, not poffibly to be reuerfed, vnlefs the Doctor proues
guils reajon. his Contrary Doctrin by the Authority of another Scripture, or
fome other Church, more euidenced by Supernatural Wonders,
and Confeqnently more Orthodox, than the Roman Catholick
Church is. You may read the Firſt Diſcourſe. C. 12. n. 4.
How reči.
fyed?
where
Difc. 3. C. 18. Questions propofed.
635
where its Proued, that the immediate Obiect of Senfe Ceafes not
to be, in this Myſtery.
5.
A
hint gi
ced to Lewes
Wherefore I Infer, that if the Doctor would haue the
Infallibility of that Church reiected, as à grand Impofture, be-
caufe it obtrudes vpon vs Doctrins, in hu Opinion repugnant to and Arians,
Senfe and reaſon; He ought alfo by good Confequence, to to reiect the
Inuite both lees and Arians to reiect the Infallibility of Scrip- Scriptures
ture, as à grand Impofture, where it Speak's of the Incarnation, Infallibility.
and the Sacred Trinity, for certainly theſe Myſteries, are far more
aboue all Mens weak Reaſon, then this other of the Bleffed Sacra-
ment is.
>
6. The Doctors th and 6th Inferences deferue no fuch na-
mes, becauſe they are not deducible from any Principles, being ratus
only his own plain Affertions, and moft vntrue. Say I befeech Affentions in
you, From what Principles can He infer, That to disown à Church place of
Which teaches Doctrin aboue the reach of weak Reason, is not to Que- inferences.
stion the Veracity of God, but to adhere to that in what he bath
reuealed in Scripture? How can this be done, Whilft the whole No knowing
what Scrip-
world fee's, the holy Book of Scripture fo variouſly Senſed by tare Speaks,
diffenting men called Chriftians, that none can conclude vpon without an
any clear Principle, which fenfe is true, which falfe, without infallible
owing à Church Infallible? I Say, aboue the reach of weak reason, Church.
But not repugnant, as the Doctor fuppofes, For no Catholick
Verity can be repugnant to Euident reafon, though much aboue
it. In à word. That Doctrin is repugnant to Reaſon, from
whence two Contradictions clearly follow (now I vrge the Doctor
to giue vs any thing like à Contradiction in the Myftery already what's
mentioned of the bleffed Sacrament )That Doctrin is aboue Reason, Contrary to
which cannot be known by the ayde of natural Principles only, Reafon,
And thus the Myftery of the Sacred Trinity, of the Incarnation,
of Original fin, and Tranfubftantiation alto, are fo far remoued
from our natural faculties, that none but God only, can difcc-
uer them by his Supernatural Reuelation. The 6th Inference And what's
where the Doctor tell's vs,That the Church of Rome, neither
is the Catholick Church, nor any found Part or member of
abone is?
it,
656 Diſc. 3. C. 18. The Doctors Inferences null.
❤
The fir
Question
Proposed
Not one'
Truth res
uealed by
Almighty
God, taught
by Prote-
ftants, as
Proteflants.
Two De
mands
more.
One concer-
ning the
ordination
of the first
Proteftant
Bishops.
it, is his own bare Affertion, already proued à loud Vntruth.
7. Hauing now done with this Lift of Principles and In-
ferences, we may, I hope without offence, iuftly require the
Doctors Express, direct, and Categonal Anfwer to thefe few follo-
wing Queſtions.
8. The firft, and of main importance, though already plainly
fet down, may be thus. What that Effential reuealed Doctrin is,
now peculiar to Proteftants, and held by them neceffary to Saluation,
which diftinguishes that Religion as it is Protestancy, from Popery,
and all known Herefies? I Speak of Doctrin indubitably re-
uealed by Almighty God, or taught by any Vniuerfal Church,
which theſe men own as à Truth peculiar to themelues, and
neceffary for Saluation. If à Lift of fome fuch few Articles pecu-
liar and neceffary (mark my words) can without difpute be clear-
ly giuen in, Proteftants will highly aduance their own Caufe,
and moft eafily point out fome ancient Chriftians, that in for-
mer Ages belieued as they do now. But Contrarywife, if not
fo much as one reuealed Article of this nature, I mean peculiar to
them, and in their Iudgements neceſſary for Saluation, can be owned
or laid claim to. It followes euidently that Proteftancy as
Proteftancy, is no Chriftian Religion, becauſe in the whole Effen-
ce of it, you find not one truth reuealed by Almighty God, or taught
by any Vniuerfal Church.
>
9. In the. 2. place, Dr Stillingfleet who charges flat Idola-
try vpon the Roman Catholick Church, is defired to Anfwer
Categorically to theſe two Demands. The firft. If he acknow-
ledge with Dr Bramhal and others, that the firft Proteftant
Bishops receiued their Ordination from the Roman Catholick
Bishops, or will affert with Luther, that the firft Proteftants
had the Bible from the Catholick Church; My demand, I Say
is. Whether Mr Stillingfleet will roundly grant that the Pro-
teftant Bishops receiued their Ordination from Idolatrous Po-
pish Prelates, or that Luther and Sectaries had their Bible from
an Idolatrous Church? Affirm (and it must be granted) Mr.
tells
Thorndicke in his luft VVeigbts and Meaſures. Page. 7.
VS
Difc. 3. C. 18. Queſtions propoſed.
657
vs plainly. If it be true (Viz. That the Papifts are guilty of Ido- Orders ta-
latry) We cannot without renouncing Christianity, hold Communion with ken from
those, we charge with it. And what greater Communion Can Idolatrous
there be then to take Orders from fuch Idolatrous Prelates, and Prelats, ar-
the Bible from an Idolatrous Church? Again, in the Contents ges an
ungodly
of the firſt Chapter, Mr Thorndicke add's. They that Separate from Communi-
the Church of Rome, as Idolaters, are thereby Schifmaticks before God. cation.
This truth he proues very amply in the following Pages, And
>
in the 7. P. now cited, Concludes thus. So that, Should this Mr Thorn.
Church declare, that the Change, which we call Reformation, is grounded dick's lud.
vpon the Suppofition, to wit of Idolatry, I must then acknowledge, gemens
that we are the Schifmaticks.
Another
10. Moreouer, whereas the Doctor Charges the Church
with Idolatry vpon this twofold account Chiefly, That She adores Concerning
Chriſt in the bleffed Eucharift, and allowes the Veneration of holy worship and
Images, Mr Thorndicke. Chap. 19. in the Contents free's Her Adoration.
from both theſe Calumnies. The worship of the Host in Papacy
(Saith he) is not idolatry, and he Proues the truth in the Con-
text, because no Papift will acknowledge, that he honours the Accidents
of bread, for God. Again. Reuerencing of Images in Churches is not
Idolatry. Se the Probation hereof in his Page. 127. For it is not
now my Intent to debate theſe Controuerfies, but only to let
the Reader know, how clearly the old Doctor (and I think the
far more knowing man) Contradict's the younger; And this Two Doctors
is done not in Matters difputable, or agitated in Schools, but Contradict
in à Point of the higheft Concern Imaginable touching the very one another
effence of Religion. Wherefore he that Err's in à thing of fuch
weight (vnleſs inuincible ignorance excufes, incurr's God's Juft
Indignation, and Sin's damnably. If therefore Mr Thorndicke
clear's the Church (were She guilty of Idolatry) from that Crime,
He wrong's God, that hates Idolatry. But if our younger Doc-
tor lais an Afperfion fo abominable vpon the moſt ancient Mo-
ther Church, and thereby fend's to Hell all his own Anceſtors
with Millions and Millions of other Souls; T'is He, that
drawes God's heauy Iudgement vpon him, and for this loud
Oooo
Crying
The one of
other of the
Je
Doctors.
borrid Sin
ners,
658 Difc. 3. C. 18. The Doctors Inferences null.
A fecond
Demand,
contains two
things.
an open Con-
tradiction.
A Turk
errs not fo
far as he
teachastruth.
Idolatry
makes Sal.
uation im-
pofficle,
though the
Church tea-
ches fome
truths.
The Doctors
open Contra
dictions.
The Church
can faue her
Children.
She cannot
Save the m
Crying fin, befides Shame and Confufion, will haue many à for-
rowful thought ſaid to his heart, before he dyes.
II.
>
11. My Second demand Propofed to the Doctor, includes
theſe two things The firft. Whether the Roman Catholick
Church, which the D exprefly Saith, err's not againſt the Fun-
damentals of Faith; yet withall boldly auerr's, that She teaches
Idolatry, be not à moft open, plain, and manifeft Contradiction?
I Affirm it is. For to auerr on the one fide, that She err's not in
the Fundamentals of Faith, and on the other to fay, she teaches
Idolatry, which is à fundamental errour, is with one breath to
affirm. She Err's, and err's not, in the fundamentals of Faith. One
may reply, ſo far as the Church teaches truth, She err's not in
fundamentals. Anfw. No more doth à Turk who hold's one
God, err in that, yet becauſe the reft of his Religion is falfe, and
deſtructiue of Saluation, he can neuer get to Heauen by it. In
like manner I Say, Though the Church teaches twenty funda-
mental Truths, yet if She fpoil's all by maintaining one Point of
Idolatry, Her Condition is damnable, and can no more bring
any that belieues Her whole Doctrin to Heauen, then Maho-
metiẩm can, which owns the Belieue of one God.
蜜
​12. Hereupon you haue another manifeft contradiction, and
the Doctor shall neuer quit himſelfe of it. In his Rational
Account, He grant's à Poſſibility of Saluation to Catholicks,be-
cauſe they belieue in à Church found (though not euery way
fafe) in fundamentals: Here again, he taxes Her with the hor-
rid Sin of Idolatry, which inoft euidently makes Her Doctrin
damnable, and Confequently Saluation impoffible to thoſe that
belieue it; Therefore vnlels thefe two Propofitions which are
Contradictory, be true. There is a Poßibility of Saluation in this Church
to faue Souls. There is no Possibility in it to faue them, the
Doctors Affertions are as euidently Oppofite to one another,
if you should say. She can faue foules; And she cannot faue
them. Or, She is à true Church, and, she is not à true Church.
13. A third Queſtion. Whereas it is manifeft and granted
by Sectaries, that the Roman Catholick Church once was con-
feffedly
as,
Difc. 3. C. 18. Questions propofed.
659
A third
How plainly
: deal
feffedly Orthodox, at leaft for the first three or four Centuries, yet
as our Aduerfaries affert, failed afterward, and brought in ftrange Question
new Doctrins, yea flat Idolatry. We vrge the Doctor to fatisty grounded, on
Reafon in this one particular. viz. Why Proteftants deal not what Secta.
as Candidly with vs, as we do with them. I would fay. We accufe ries grans
them, for deferting à Church wherein their Progenitors had liued
for à thousand years, and as à luttle Method lately published, obfer-
ues excellently well, Speak open, and acknowledged Euidence; We tell
them who began this new Mode of Reformation, we exactly Point
at the time of its firſt Rife, we Shew how it was Propagated, what
Abetters it had, and omit no Circunftance, which may Conduce
to à plain diſcouery of the whole Nouelty. Sectaries on the other
fide accufe the Church of heretical, yea of Idolatrous Innouations,
and yet as the Method notes, their charge is ſo obſcure, ſo vtterly
unknown, that the very Accufers cannot fay, who firft publish'd
them, Or where they began, from what occafion they had their
Origen? who patronized them? Or who oppofed them?
14. Pleaſe now to mark, what my demand is in this place.
The Doctor and his Partizans fuppofe, theſe and the like
wicked Innouations, of an vnbloodly Sacrifice, of Adoring the Sacred Hoft,
to haue been evidently brought into the Church, Contrary to the Pri-
mitiue Doctrin. For that publick act of Adoration came not in
by night, but was à thing notoriously known, notoriouſly
practized. Is not therefore the Dr obliged, either to tell vs
plainly, when, where, and how, this vifible worship firſt began
That is, to proue by Euidence, what He fuppoles euidently innouated,
Or, to giue à reafon; Why when Catholiks euidently proue
the Sectaries reuolt from the Roman Church; Proteftants can-
not vpon the like Euidence Proue, that the Roman Church in
latter Ages receded from any former Roman Church, pure and
Orthodox? Obferue well the difference. We accufe them of
an actual Reuolt from our Church, (whether they had reaſon for
it or no, is not here difputed) The ground wherevpon our Accu-
fation relies, is euident and notoriouſly known. They accufe as
boldly as we do, But when their Proofs come to the Teft, all of
0000 2
them
with them,
And h=#
darkly they
with as ?
What the
Doctor is
obliged to.
we accuse
Enidence,
and gine in
660 Difc. 3. C. 18. The Doctors Inferences null.
Sectaries them dwindle into lame gueffes, falfe Suppofitions; in à word into
accuſe upon à meer Nothing, as will better appear in the next Chapter.
gueſſes and 15. Now here is à Point, I would haue euery prudent Reader
falje Suppo- to reflect on, for I hold it à manifeft Conuiction of our Sectaries
fitions.
open Injuffice. If, whoeuer accules à whole Kingdone (euer
A Point
known loyal) of Treafon againſt the Soueraign Power in it, ought
worthy to Produce no lefs then Euident Proofs in fo weighty à Matter.
Reflection. Much more ought he or they, who impeach à whole ample Church
of high Treafon, plead by Euidence, or fit down Silent. The
The Loyalty Loyalty of this Church to the moft Supreme Soueragn Christ
of the
Church
auidenced.
Of what
poor Condi.
tion her Ac-
cufers are.
The im
peachment
loud and
criminal.
But Proofs
anſwer not.
How the
Doctor may
gain
*pplause.
Iefus, is manifeft. She hath, as is noted in the Other Treatife, di-
lated his Empire, defeated his Enemies (perfidious Heathens)
gain'd him Friends, and innumerable Seruants. Her repute was
neuer yet ftained by any, nor Fame blemished, but only by Infi-
dels, Lewes, or known Hereticks. Now Start's vp à little late
Knot of inconfiderable Sectaries, who both Cauil and accufe bol-
dly, They impeach this Church of high Treafon, For, She hath
changed the true Doctrin of Chrift, and in place of it taught,
and yet teaches Plain Idolatry : She is therefore à Rebel against
that King, whom She hath ferued fo long, and moft faithfully.
Here is à loud and euident Impeachment, an abhominable Trea-
fon laid to the charge of à Spouſe, moft euidently Loyal. But
where are the Euident Proofs (anfwerable to this euident Accufa-
tion) againſt the already Loyal Euidenced Church? There are
none fo much as Probable, as shall be euinced in the following
Chapter, where I pofitiuely proue, that Sectaries moft iniurious-
ly Calumniate the Church, without Law, without Authority,
or any rational Argament.
16. If Doctor Stillingf. Shall pleafeto return à plain Anfver to
what is here briefly propofed,as alfo to the reft which followes Con-
cerning this very point, in the next Chapter, he will certainly gain the
applaufe of à fingular great Doctor,but if he Fob's vs off with his old
Raillery of killing Flies of Small Grains, Woolfacks, and fuch like ſtuffe,
the world will iudge (as to my knowledge many do already)That He
Cannot Answer, For thus they Difcourfe and Methinks reafona-
bly:
Diſc. 3. C. 18. Questions propoſed.
65
The Dr be-
is his
bly: Had he not found himfelfe more then à little in the briars,
that is inplain language vnable to Anfwer fuch Arguments as are
preffed vpon him, by thole two Authors he Slights, He would
moft indubitably before this day, haue replyed to what is Obiec-
ted, without mifpending time in publishing à triuial thread-bare
Cauil, as is now done, Concerning the Idolatry of the Roman weaknes in
Catholick Church, which deftroyes not only Catholick Religion, wruing dif
but Proteftancy alfo, as is amply Proued in the 2. Difc. C. 4th and ficulties,
5.th In this wauing of difficulties, and he is told aboue which
they are, he bewrayes too much weaknes.
17.
>
The fourth Demand is and it will giue the Doctor
fome trouble. Suppofe falfly, the Roman Catholick Church to
haue brought in that abominable Sin of Idolatry many Ages befo-
re Luther, It is euident that when Luther and Proteftants defer-
ted Her, She was far (if Idolatrous) from being the pure Spou-
ſe of Chrift, or any thing like an Orthodox Church in the very
Fundamentals of Faith. Herevpon à great doubt Occurr's which
ought to be cleared. It is. What other Church,neither Idola-
trous nor notably erroneous, fucceded in the Place of this
fuppofed reftiferous erring Roman Society? Such à Church
diftinct from the Roman, free from Idolatry and grofs Errour
muſt be pointed out, and plainly named, or it followes ineuitably
that the world was then without à true Church.
wrayes
which urge
what
ChurchSuc
ceded in
place of the
Roman, Sup-
pojed do
I
latrous ?
Chrift's
Promifes
made voyd,
ifthen there
was no Or.
thodox
Church in
18. Perhaps the difficulty may yet be more fignificantly Pro-
pofed after this manner. When Luther reuolted from the Ro-
man Catholick Church infected, as is now imagined, with Idola-
try and falſe Doctrin, There was then another Church in the
world pure and Orthodox; Or not. If not; All our Sauiours
Promifes of being with the Church to the End of the world
(He made no Promife of being with an Idolatrous or any
notorious erring Church) are falſe. Again, All that the Apoſt-
le writes. Ephes. 4. 11. of the Continuance of Paftors and
Doctors in the work of the Miniftery, for the edifying of Chrift's words also,
Myſtical body till we meete in one Vnity of Faith (moft Cer- and
tainly he Spake not of any delude or Idolatrous Paftors)
Oooo 3
>
are.
Being.
The Apoſtles
662 Difc. 3. C. 18. The Doctors Inferences null.
The Creed
falfifjed
What follo-
wes if then
there was
true
Church?
Luther and
Prouflants
made à new
Church.
err's in the
fundamen
als of Faith
are likewife vtterly falfe. Nay more, that Article of our Creed.
I believe the Holy Catholick Church ceafed to be true in thofe difmal
dayes, when the whole Roman Catholick Church made Idola-
trous went to wrack, and the rest of Chriftians (if not Idolatrous)
were all Profeffed Heretiques.
19. Contrarywife, if there was at that time another Orthodox
Church in Being, when Luther Separated from the Roman Catho-
lick Society; One of thefe two Confequences neceffarily followes.
Viz. That Luther and his Affociates (the Proteftants) either
made themfelues Members of that Imagined pure, Spotles, and
Orthodox Church; Or founded à new One vpon their own
Authority, neuer before heard of in the Chriſtian world. Now
further. It is moft impoffible to nominate any fuch Chriftians as
Conftituted à
pure Orthodox Church diftinct from the Roman
Catholick, Therefore Luther and Proteftants haue by their
own Authority made à new One, neuer before known to the
world.
à
20. There is yet a third Inference which methinks pinches
fuch Proteftants as Say They and we make but one Church
The Church, Orthodox in fundamentals. How can this Doctrin ftand, if the
if Idolatrous Roman Catholick Church teaches flat Idolatry? For vpon
this Suppofition She err's grofly in that fundamental Point of
Idolatry, And confequently Proteftants muft either leaue her as
horridly erroneous, or maintain Idolatry with Her. If it be re-
plyed though thus tainted, She yet teaches fome few Truths, and
Sectaries can exactly tell vs which and how many they are, They
improbable first argue vpon an improbable Suppofition, and fecondly make
Suppoſition.
the louely Spouſe of Chrift, beautiful and vgly, treacherous
and loyal, falfe and true together, whereof enough is fayd in the
former Difcourfes.
Sectaries
21.
The laft queftion propofed, is, that the Doctor giue
Satisfaction concerning the Mission of Proteftants, In à word we
demand who fent them to teach as they doe, that the Roman Ca-
tholice Church is fallible and Idolatrous? That man hath no free will.?
That the Body and blood of our Sauiour are not really in the bleſſed
Sacrament >
Difc. 3. C. 18. Questions propofed.
663
Sacrament, with à number of other Nouelties? Our demand A difficult
is grounded vpon the Apoftles words. Rom. 10. 15. How Shall Queſtion
they preach vnless they be fent. Say therefore, who commiffioned thefe Concerning.
men, who countenanced them to preach fuch Doctrins? Dare they the Misson
tell vs, that as their English Bishops receiued Orders from the of Sectaries.
Suppoſed Idolatrous Catholick Prelares, So alfo they had Com-
miſſion from them ( Idolatrous as they were) to teach Idolatry?
Grant this and they make their Miffion not only ridiculous,but has, nor can
They neuer
null alſo, and vtterly void of Credit. Whither will they run haue Com-
next think ye? Can they pretend to haue had their Miffion
from the Arians, from the Huffits, or Waldenfes &c? No cer-
tainly, For they teach not in all things as thefe Hereticks
taught, And befides neuer receiued Commiffion from them, or
from any men called Chriftians, to teach at all. Therefore they
are vufent Preachers and confequently in the Apoſtles Iudge-
ment ought no more to be heard, than the Arians or Pela-
gians.
mission to
teach Pro-
elancy.
The Affer-
tion proued.
22. Some Sectaries tell vs, its needles to Queftion their
A reply
Miffion, whilft the Teftimony of the Spirit affures them that answered...
they teach the true Doctrin of Iefus Christ. Here is firſt à
Suppofition for à Proof, becaufe The whole world, excepting
themfelues, deny what is now affumed, of their teaching truth.
Howeuer, admit gratis this falfe Suppofition, The meer fpea-
king truth,giues them no Commiffion to teach it, For Chil-
dren, Vagabonds, and Diuels alfo, may Speak eternal truths, yet.
are not therefore authorized to preach or made Chrift's
lawful authorized Minifters. The Reafon hereof feem's mani-
feft. To preach truth is an effect of à lawful Mißion, and not
the cauſe of it, Wherefore this Caufal or Inference
I teach truth, becauſe I am lawfully Commißioned to teach it, and
exactly Comply with my Duty; Not the Contrary. I teach truth,
therefore I am Authoritiuely fent to teach it.
>
>
is good.
To teach
truib argues
no Lawful
Miſsion.
23. By what is hitherto briefly noted, you fe in what The defpera-
cafe Sectaries are, who firft fuppofe à long interruption of Or- te condition
thodox Paftors in the Roman Catholick Church, and confe- of Sectaries, ›
quently
664 Difc. 3. C. 18. The Doctors Inferences null &c.
No Church
Orthodox or
Heretical,
quently neuer receiued Commiffion from them to teach, and
though (which is true) they continued Orthodox, yet thefe Ca
tholick Paftors neuer gaue them any Authority. Again, They
fcorn to receiue their Commiffion from known Hereticks, nor
can they pretend it, becaufe being in moft Effential points op-
Sent them to polite to Proteftants, Such Hereticks could not impower them
to teach Proteftancy. For thefe Reaſons Sectaries are obliged
to renounce all claim to that Miffion which is called Ordina-
ry,
becauſe No Church, No Society of Chriftians, whether
Orthodox or Heretical, fent theſe Nouellifts abroad to teach as
they do, their reformed Gofpel.
teach.
Some with
Luther plead
à Miffion
nary
24. Now if with Luther they challenge to themfelues à Cal-
ling and Mission extraordinary; Not by men, or from men, but by
the Reuelation of Chrift Iefus, Their Plea no lefs Proofles then
Extraordi- Prefumptuous, is highly improbable vpon this ground, that
neuer any fince the beginning of Chriftianity was fent as ex-
traordinary by Almighty God to preach, who made not his Doc-
trin Credible by manifeft Supernatural wonders. So Chrift our
Lord did, and the Apoftles alfo. Others that followed in the
after Ages, laid forth the Miracles and fignal Marks of the
Church whereof they were Members, and euinced by Signs the
Authority of that Oracle which fent them. But Sectaries who
traordinary, began with
began with Luther to teach extraordinary Doctrin, neither
plead by extraordinary wonders (hauing none to produce) nor
can fo much as hint at any Church, falſe or true, which commis-
fioned them to publish Proteftancy, Therefore they are vnlaw-
ful Miniſters, neuer fent to preach Chrift's true Doctrin, nor
fo much as their own falfe Nouelties of Proteftanifm.
They haue
neither ex-
nor Ordina-
ry Mission
CHAP.
Difc. 3. C. 19. Proteftancy euinced, improbable &c. 665
CHAP. XIX.
The fuppofed grounds of our Proteftants Reformation
manifeftly ouerthrown. Proteftancy no Reli-
gion, but an improbable Nouelty.
The conclufion of this whole
Treatife.
I.
I
Say the Suppoſed Grounds, for in very truth Proteftancy what Seca-
any real Ground to Stand on
hath
vpon what
is amply proued in the forecited Chapters, Howeuer, becauſe to?
Pretences are not wanting to fuch as Oppoſe God's verities, and
our Aduerfaries ſeem to build the whole Machin of their Refor-
mation vpon one Principle Chiefly, we will here in the first
Shew
you what they pretend, and vtterly deftroy
place,
I.
they would
build their
Reformation
The Prote
2. In à word. The main ground of our Proteftants late
Reformation, or the Chiefeft caufe why they deferted the Ro- fiants pre-
man Catholick Church, is beft declared in their own language. tence laid
The Roman Catholick Church (Say they) though once found forth.
and Orthodox, yet in after Ages turned from God, betrayed his
truths, brought in Idolatry and damnable Herefies. Hence it is
we boldly accufe her, hence it is we write againſt her notorious
Errours, and out of loue to our Souls leaue Her. Nos iuffu diuino;
Babylone Egreft, Saith Riuet, in Sum. Trac. 2. q. 2. 11. Z.
We, by God's command are gone out of Babylon (he mean's the Ro-
man Catholick Church) not fo much for her vnpurities, as for Her What Selfa-
Idols and Herely. More he hath in the following words, often ries Affers
accufing this Church of Idolatry and Herely, Confonant to i
PPPP
what
1
666 Difc.3. C. 19. Proteftancy euinced improbable.
The ground
of their
Doctrin
by this one
Syllogifm.}
what Mr Stillingfleet teaches in the feueral paffages of his Ac-
count.
3. To overthrow this whole Plea, I Argue thus. Whoe-
ver euidently impeaches an ample Church of Idolatry or Hereſy,
once vniuerfally acknowledged Orthodox, and proues not euidently
overthrown, the truth of his Accufation by clear and vnqueftioned Principles,
but defert's that Society without Euidence alleged against her Doc-
trin; Acts most vniuftly, Err's notoriously, and Sin's damnably. But
Proteftants do So. That is, They euidently impeach à whole
ample Church (once vniuerfally reputed Orthodox) of Idolatry
and Herefy, and haue alfo moft euidently deferted Her, without
Euidence alleged against her Doctrin, which can be grounded vpon
vnqueſtionable Principles, Ergo, They alt moft vniuftly, Err notoriously,
and Sin damnably.
4. The Maior Propofition ftand's firm vpon à Principle
hinted at aboue. Viz. That an euident Accufation in fo weighty
The Maior à Matter vtterly lofes force, vnlefs euident Proofs fupport it.
Propofition This may be further Confirmed by one Ratiocinations, in the like
proued, and Form of Arguing. Whoeuer should euidently impute to Holy
confirmed
What if one
difcourfed
of Scripture,
as Sectaries
do of the
Church ?
7.
>
Scripture (once vniuerfally receiued as God's Sacred word ) Ido-
latry and Herefy, or fo much as impeach it of flight and incredi-
ble Doctrin- as the Machiavellians and Socinians do, without
clear and euident Proofs, would be à moft defperate Plaintife
and Sin damnably, becauſe he endeauours to bring into publick
difreputation God's own truths, which the wifeft of the world
euer reuerenced as Sacred and Diuine. And though he should
plead (as Sectaries Difcourfe of the Church) or Affert that the
Book indeed was once pure and Orthodox, but afterwards fal-
ling into wicked hands, notorious Corruptions, falfe Doctrins
when or how no body knowes) clancularly got in, and ſpoild
its purity; Though I fay, He Should plead after this manner wi-
thout à clear demonſtration, or Euidence of Proofs, He would
yet be à moft vniuft Accufer, and Sin damnably. Ergo, He
or they that tax à whole Church once owned for God's Spouſe,
and moft certainly Orthodox, of notorious corrupted Doctrin
(with
Difc. 3. C. 19. The Conclufion,
667
(with an addition of Idolatry) are guilty of the very fame open
Iniuſtice, and Sin damnably. The Parity holds exactly.
5. The Minor Propofition. viz. But Sectaries impeach &c.
Sayes two things. First, that they euidently accuſe à whole Church, The miser
and haue euidently derferted Her, which is manifeft Ad oculum. Proued.
Secondly, that they haue done fo without Evidence of Proofs againſt
her Doctrin,grounded on vnqueftionable Principles; And this we
shall moſt eaſily demonſtrate, if our Adverfaries will pleaſe to own
with vs theſe following Principles, or any of them, as moſt vn-
queſtionable.
6. First the plain and express words of Holy Scripture, without Mix- Indubitable
ture of their particular Gloffes, or ours alfo. 2. The vnanimous Con- Principles
fent of ancient Fathers, but fell without Gloffes. 3. The clear Indgement ſuppoſed,
of any Orthodox Church whereonto we add the express Definitions of proofs minift
?
muß
low clafely
where upan
ancient approued Councils, and vniuersal Tradition received by all. 4. Ma- ftand
nifest Reaſon. No Principles can be better, or equalize thefe in
worth, Proofs if folid, muft ftand vpon One, or more of them.
7 Speak therefore its high time. Let vs not eternally word Sedaries are
it, but go cloſely to Work. We are here in à main Matter Con- vrged to fol.
cerning Saluation, can you D Stillingflect, or any Proteftant in
England, as Euiduntly proue that fuch and fuch an Article of Catho-
lick Religion is Contrary to all, or any one of theſe mentioned
Principles, as euery Grammarian can euidently tell you, that this
or that Solecitim is euidently againſt the Rules of Grammer? I
here boldly challenge you; vouchfafe to Antwer without tergi-
uerfation, if you can reioyn, you are worthy Doctors, if not,
be pleafed to furceafe from writing Controuerfies hereafter.
Yet one word more.
8. You fay Euidently, we are Idolaters, becaufe we Adore Chrift
in the Bleffed Sacrament. Hold on I befeech you, and proue
your Eaident Affertion Euidently by plain Scriptare, by the vnanimous
consent of ancient Fathers, by the known ludgement of any Orthodox
Church &c. When you pretend to haue done thus much (But
begin you first) I'll boldly Confront you, and demonftrate, that
the Scripture you allege is no Scripture, your fuppofed Fathers
PPPP 2
are
the main
∙point.
By Proofs
drawn from
ihe Princi.
ples already
Mem¡¡oned
668 Difc. 3. C. 19. Proteftancy euinced, improbable.
Sectaries
Proofs meer
Phanfies.
The minor
are falfe Oracles, your fuppofed Councils, your Tradition, and
laftly what you call Reafon, merit not fo much as the very Names
you giue them. All this is to Say in other terms, You grofly
abuſe theſe Oracles, you either Corrupt their very words (as is
moft vfual) or violently force from them à new peruerfe Senſe,
which God neuer intended to ſpeak by them; And Confequently
the Euidence you pretend to, is nothing But à ſtrong Illufion,
or au vngrounded Phanfy, not refolvable into the Clarity or Truth,
of any one of the forenamed Principles. Thus much premi-
fed.
9. 1 prove the Minor pofitiuely. If it be à manifeſt Truth,
Propofition that Chrift our Lord had an Orthodox Church on earth, for the
proued
laft ten Centuries; If it be alfo manifeft, that the Profeffors of
this Church (be it yet where you will) were either Idolaters
or damnable Hereticks, it is moft demonftrable, that Sectaries
cannot Euidently Euince the Roman Catholick Church guilty of Ido-
latry.
Whocuer
prones the
Roman
latrous,ruins
Church.
The reafon
hereof.
IO. The ground of my Affertion is. Whoeuer euidently
proues the Roman Catholick Church guilty of Idolatry, euinces
eo ipfo, That Chrift had no Orthodox Church on earth for à
ChurchIdo- thoufand years. To make this manifeft, Pleaſe to diuide the
Chrifl'strue whole Moral Body of men called Chriftians into three Claſses,
into Orthodox Belieuers (if yet there were any) into Idolaters, and
known Heretiques. This Diuifion made, I boldly Affert, you
may iuftly caft away that Clafs of Orthodox Believers, and call
all rhe Chriftians in the world according to Sectaries, Idolaters,
or known profeffed Heretiques. Catholicks you fe, are lifted
amongſt Idolaters, becaufe they Adore Chrift in the holy Eucha-
rift as the ancient Orthodox Græcians did; Thofe Græcians
yet of the Schifin, pray to Saints, that's plain Idolatry, Say Secta-
The ancient ries. The reft of Chriftians nameable the whole world ouer,from
Luther to the third or fourth Age, (whether Macedonians, Pelagians,
or Arians) were all profeffed Heretiques. Thefe and none but
thefe Imagined Idolaters, and known Heretiques (à Monftruous
heteroclite Progeny of men) effentially conftituted Chrift's Or-
and modern
Gracians,
fuppofed
Idolaters
b
L..
thodox
f
Difc. 3. C. 19. The Conclufion.
6.69
years,
re Hereticks
thodox Church. Therefore he who proues Euidently, that Ca- The reft we-
tholicks are Idolaters, and rightly (uppojes, All others called Chri-
ſtians to haue been Heretiques, Proues and rightly Suppoles, Chrift
to haue had no Orthodox Church on earth for à thouſand
The Inferen
which is à defperate Improbability, deduced from our Sectaries ce clear,
Principle, who blush not to charge an ancient Church with that Sedaries.
Shameful crime of Idolatry, though no Proof meanly probable
(as we shall fe hereafter) much leffe Euident, vphold's the Calum-
ny.
as
II. Some may here demand, why we require to haue theſe
fuppofed Errours and Idolatry of our Church euidently proued
againſt vs? Is it not enough to euince this vpon moral Certain
ty? The First Queftion is eaſily anſwered, by propofing another
of the like, nature. Would not theſe Proteftants iuftly require
Euidence from à new Sect of men, should it now ftart vp, and
pretend on the one fide to belieue in Chrift, yet on the other,
boldly impute errour and Idolatry to the holy Book of Scriptu-
re, as Sectaries do to the Church? They would certainly not
be fatisfied with leffer proofs then euident, Hence it is, that
we in like manner, exact neither Topicks, nor gueffes, but
clear Euidence againft the fuppofed errours of our Church; and
reaſonably do fo, Firft becaufe, She by God's Special Prouiden-
ce, hath hitherto preferued Scriptures pure, without Corruptions
in Doctrin. 2. Becauſe all muft own Scripture as both Diuine
and pure, vpon the Authority of Chrift's Church. Therefore
it as highly concern's Chriftians, to maintain the purity of Chrift's
Church, as to maintain the purity of Scripture, And Confe-
quently, if nothing leffe then "Euidence can bring that Sacred
Book into contempt
or Euince it of errour, Nothing leffe
then Euidence can caft à blemish on the Church, which giues
vs Scripture, and afcertain's all, that it is Diuine.
That other Pretence to moral Certainty is à meer whymfy
reiected aboue in the fecond Difcourfe. The Reafon there hin-
ted at, much to this fenfe, Conuinceth. A Doctrin in Mat-
ters of Religion Contrary to the Publick Iudgement of the whole
PPPP 3
Chriftian
12.
againſt
Why Eui
dence is
requires 2
An infance
Inſtance
taken from
Scripture
preues what
is required.
It as highly
to defend
the purity of
Chrift's
Church, as
the purity of:
God's writ-
concern's all
ten word.
670 Diſc 3. C. 19. Protestancy euinced, improbable.
The pretence
to Moral
Certainty
refuted.
A Do&rin
Contrary to
the publick
Judgement
of the world,
Cannot be
Morally
certain.
What may
well be cal-
led this pu-
blick lud-
gement !
ce concer.
That Sacred
Chriſtian world, cannot be morally Certain, But what Sectaries
Affert Concerning the Errours and Idolatry of the Church, is à
Doctrin Contrary to the publick Iudgement of the whole Chri-
ftian world, Ergo. I proue the Minor. One great part of the Chri-
ftian world, is the Roman Catholick Church, She ftifly oppofes
this loud Calumny of Idolatry and errours laid to Her Charge.
Add herevnto the Sentiment of the Chiefeft, and the most
known Arch-heretiques, Who, whilft they were in their wits
that is, before their wicked Apoftafy, Iudged as the Church Iud-
ged, and belieued as she belieued. This Vniuerfal Confent of
an Euidenced Church, together with the Sentiment of Her once
Orthodox Members (though afterward wilful Reuolters) I call
à Iudgement of Chriftians (0 publick, and vndoubted, that nothing
Contrary to it can be morally Certain. Giue me but one Inftance
of any Truth reputed Morally certain amongſt men, which euer
merited that name, when witneffes fo vniuerfal, fo numerous,and
well qualified oppoſed it, and I shall acquiefce, But this is Impos-
fible.
13. Here again fitly comes in, what we now Sayd of Holy
Scripture. Suppofe which is true, that your Chiefeft Arch-
hereticks once reuerenced that facred Book as God's Diuine
The Inftan
word, with the fame high refpect as the Roman Catholick Churchy
ning Scrip- euer did, and yet doth. Suppofe. 2. That Some Abetters of
ture, intro- thofe firft wicked men, whether Arians, Socinians,
or Others ,
duced again. should begin to charge the Book with falfe Doctrin, would fuch
à fuppofed Calumny, thinke ye, euer arriue to fo high Moral
Certainty, as to bring Scripture into open Contempt, whilſt à
whole learned Church defend's its purity? No the Calumny
would not be meanly probable vpon this Ground, that neither
Probability (much lefs Moral Certainty) can ftand in force, when
Witneffes of fo great worth, fo vniuerfal, and numerous oppofe
it. Apply what is here noted to the Church, and you will find
defend's its an exact Parity. Both She and her own Arch-aduerfaries, once
purity. maintained Her Doctrin as Sacred, and Orthodox, Now rife vp
à Company of iarring Sectaries, who will, forfooth, haue their
Book cannot
be iuſtly ca-
lumniated
whilst à
hole
Church
Charge
:
Difc. 3. C. 19. The Conclufion.
·671
No more can
à few iar-
ring Adver-
Charge of Idolatry and notorious Errours againſt Her, paffe for
à Moral certain Truth, The Affertion cannot arriue to moral cer-
tainty before the whole Body of Chriftians becomes mad, and
makes Scripture it felfe, no leffe an erroneous Book than the faries sufly
Church Idolatrous For here is my Principle. With one
moſt certain Affent, I hold the Church inerrable, and the Scrip-
tures Diuine: Deſtroy the Churches infallibility, or Say she hath
erred, you make Scripture eo ipfo, à Book of no credit.
14. A. fecond Argument. Thofe who exactly follow the
ftrain of all old condemned Heretiques, and as wickedly im-
plead the Roman Catholick Church of errour, are vpon that
account like them, that is, guilty of horrid Sin and Herefy. But
Proteftants do fo, Ergo they are guilty of horrid Sin, and Herefy.
The Maior is vnqueftionable, For if our Modern Sectaries exactly
cloſe with the mode of all condemned Heretiques, it followes
thas as thofe firft Apoftates for their malice, were guilty of He
refy, ſo alfo thefe latter are.
1.5. The Minor is eafily proued. Your ancient Heretiques
accufed as boldly the Roman Church then in Being of errour,
as our modern Sectaries do the prefert Church. They rebelled
againft it, and deferted it, fo do our Proteftants. They fought
to reform it, fo would our Proteftants. For example. The
Arians were as earneft to reform the Churches Doctrin concer-
ning the Confubftantiality of the Son with his Eternal Father;
The Pelagians as bufy, to cancel Original in; The Donatifts
as Zealous to perfwade men, that the true Church was not vni-
uerfally extended; as euer Proteftants were earneſt, buſy, and Zea-
lous, to haue this prefent Church reformed in her Doctrins
of Tranfubftantiation, of Adoring the Sacred Host, praying to Saints,
And what els you will. Now I Subfume.
16.
Calumpiate
the Church
A fecond
Argument,
taken from
the procedu.
" of old
Condemned
Hereticks.
Our Sect
æconfe
vies cenſe
like them,
rebel, and
mold
reform as
they did.
Therefore
their fin and
Apoſtaſy.
the very
fame.
Because all
tend to the
deftruction
But all thefe Accufers, all thefe rebellious Reformers
(as like, as like can be to one another) are wicked, and ayme
at the Ruin of Chrifts true Church, which is Manifeft, For had
euery one of them done what they defired, or reformed accor- of Chrift's
ding to their Capricious humours, There had not been at this true Church.
day
672 Difc. 3. C. 19. Proteftancy euinced, improbable.
difficult
queſtion
propoſed.
Our Secta
ries An/wer,
is an unpro-
ued Suppofi
tion,
And con-
tain's no-
thing but
what
your old
Heretiques
taught then
to Speak.
Another
Reply exa-
mined.
Sectaries are
urged to
pitch upon
Some parti
cular con.
trouerfy
day any Orthodox Church in the world. Now here in my Ques
ftion which certainly deferues à candid Anſwer. If all Hereti-
ques, ancient and Modern reform the Church according to their
particular Sentiments, moft euidently Chrifts true Church is de-
ſtroyed. Why therefore should I or any, if we were yet to feek
à better Religion, rather adhere to the Reformation of à fallible
Proteftant, than to that other, of à fallible Arian, or à Pelagian?
You Shall haue à Strange Anfwer.
17 We are told, when the Arians went about to reform,the
Church was pure, but now Her known corruptions force Sec-
taries, out of true loue to their Souls (at leaft) to reform them-
felues, If the Church will learn Her duty by their good exam-
ple, She may, if not; She muft remain in her errours.
Anfw.
Is not this more then ridiculous? Firſt to make an vnproued
Suppofition their Proof, and then to fay nothing, but what both
the Arians and other Heretiques haue put in their mouths, and
taught them to ſpeak. For did not thefe wicked men pretend
as dear loue to their Souls? Did they not Clamour as loud
against the Churches imagined errours in thofe ancient dayes, as
euer Proteftants haue done in theſe latter? Say therefore why
should the Proteftants Reformation be efteemed more fecure
and Orthodox, than what the Arians endeauored to introduce?
It will be hard to Anfwer, whilst this Principle ftand's firm. If
all reform, the Church is ruined.
>
18. Some may Reply. Proteftants without all doubt (who
haue diuorced themfelues from the Church) therefore clamour
ſo loud, becauſe they haue ſtrong Proofs at hand, whereby to
euince that, that once faithfull oracle,is now guilty of notorious er-
rours, which no Arian could then do. Anfw. Here is the main Point.
I would willingly be at, and haue examined to the bottom.
I therefore prefs thefe Nouellifts to pitch vpon fome one par-
ticular Controuerly (Tranfubftantiation, for example, or this
now debated point of Idolatry, in adoring the Confecrated Hoft)
and vrge them firſt, to Argue by the plain words of Holy
Scriprure. When all they can Say is faid, I will demonſtrate,
that
Difc. 3. C. 19. The Conclufion.
673
The found of
words in
Scripture,
more plain
for Arians
then for Pre-
teftants
Setaries
that the Arians produce Paffages of holy Scripture far more fig-
nificant (might we reft in the meer found of words) for their He
refy, than euer Proteftant alleged against Tranfubftantiation, or any
other Catholick Tenet. 'Tis true, your Arians make little account
of any Authority but what feem's to them plain Scripture, or
appear's deducible from Scripture (and this was the old Prote-
tant way) But our Newer men haue fome refpect to the Con-
fent of Fathers, and an ancient Church: Thefe, we preffe to
difpute cloſely in Forme and to make our fuppofed errours, or
their Contrary pretended truths known, by virtue of any one
receiued Principle. It is Anfwered, thus much is done in hitherto
their Books already fet forth. We Reply. All their Obiections Proposed
hitherto propofed, haue been as fully and clearly folued, as have been
either they or we, folue the Arguments of Atheiſts againſt God, folued.
and the fewes Cauils against Chrift, Or, if they haue any new
ones yet in ftore, which require further fatisfaction, it is certain-
ly moft eafy to propofe them in good Form. This done, I
will engage, they shall no fooner appear in publick, then haue à
full and fatisfactory refutation.
you
Obiections
Books not
answered,
reicaod.
what hath
19. We are told again, fuch and fuch Books published Sectaries
by Proteftants haue not been anfwered, As if forfooth, all Books pretence of
fet forth by Catholicks were refuted. In à word here
haue all. It is very true, the Cauils, The Icers, and tedious
length of fome books haue not been anfwered, with the like
Cauils, leers, and length, But what's this to our purpoſe, whilft we
vrge for Arguments, whereby it may appear to à difintereffed
Judgement, that Catholicks haue forfaken the ancient Orthodox
Faith, And that Proteftants now lately had the fingular Priuiled-red by Ca-
ge of ferling Religion right on its old firm foundations? All tholicks, and
Arguments hitherto propofed of this nature, or which tend to what not?
infringe any particular Catholick Do&rin, haue been diffolued
and torn in preces, ouer and ouer, Or, if, as I now faid, there
yet remain any vnanfwered, our Adverfaries may vouchfafe to
let vs hear them.
20.
Sectaries reply. We haue indeed offerred to folue
Q999
their
been answe
674 Difc. 3. C. 19. Proteftancy euinced, improbable.
C.19.
An other
plea of
Sectaries
Arguments
interualued
by them, as
forceless
Though
moft Con.
uincing.
their Obiections, as alfo to attaque Proteftancy with many. Ar-
guments; but as our Solutions are flight, fo our Arguments
againſt them feem light and forceles. Call me to mind one. or
two only.
21. They haue been told, If the Roman Catholick Church
be fallible, and Proteftants as fallible, lewes and Gentils may
iuftly Scorn Chriſtianity, when they fe à fallible Proteftant at-
tempt to fettle an erring Papift in the right way to Saluation,or
à fallible Papist to do the like on an erring Proteftant, whilſt
neither the one nor other can know infallibly, which is the right way
to Saluation. They haue been told. 2. To make Scripture alone
the fole Rule or Iudge in Controuerfies, encreaſes the Scorn of
thefe Aliens, from Chrift, who hold it more then ridiculous, to
appeal to à Iudge for the Decifion of their doubts, when none
of them after the appeal made, can Certainly know what the Iud.
Of Sectaries
unreafona. ge Speak's, or this Rule of Scripture regulates.. What I fay is
ble appeal to manifect, for So various and difcordant are all rhefe in their
Scripture Interpretations of God's word, that the Arians auouch it Speak's
Arianifm, Proteftants Proteftanifm, Papifts Popery, Pelagians Pelagia.
nifm, and fo of the reft. Imagin I befeech you, that two who
accule one another of high Treafon Should come before à
Judge and defire to haue the final fentence pronounced againſt
the Criminal perſon ( Both. I fuppofe are not guilty) The Iudge
fpeaks once, and no more, but theſe two at difcord agree not
reaſonable about the main point, which is the true meaning of his Senten-
proceeding
ce, may not Both return home as wife as they came, and
declared by contend till Dooms Day, vnleſs fome other Iudge break's off
one instance. the quarrel, and fayes plainly. Thou art the Traitour?
alone.
Their un-
This Dif
courſe
driuen
home, and
applyed to
these two
diffenting
Parsies
22 This is our very cafe, either we or Proteftants betray
Gods truths, The one or other Party Contradict's the first Ve-
rity, and boldly auerres, he Speak's what he never Spake. We appeal
to Holy Scripture and would haue our Debates decided by that
Oracle, Two or three Paffages ( He that bear's you hears me. The
Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth. He that hears not the Church,
let him be as à Heathen &c.) literally taken, denote the guilty Party,
But
Difc. 3. C. 19. The Conclufion.
675
But our Sectaries tell vs, we miſtake the Scriptures meaning, They Sectaries
vary from vs in the main Point concerning the very Senfe of our cast them-
Iudges Sentence, Is it not therefore euident, that they muſt felues into in
either recurre to fome other Tribunal for à final decifion, extricable
or Secondly ingenuoufly Confeffe, they are the men, who will difficulties
not haue the traiterous Party difcouered, Or laftly acknowledge,
Controuerfies can haue no End, and that God has not left any
means on earth, whereby the notorious Deprauers of his reuea-
led Truths may be known? One only Inftance will giue more
light to what I haue fayd.
what diffe-
rent fenfes
are made of
Chrifls own
words?
23. We and Sectaries appeal to Chrifts facred words. This is
my Body. We ynderſtand them literally and ftrongly plead our cau-
fe alleging for vs, not only the Authority of the western and ea-
ftern Churches, but, (if need were) of the Lutherans alfo.
They reiect all, yea Say, we grofly miſtake the fenfe of Chrift's
words, and therefore hold vs the Traitours that commit groffe
Idolatry, in the fight of God and Angels. Confider good Rea-
der, are not fuch Aduerfaries obliged to plead their Caufe before How the
this Iudge of Scripture by à Church as vniverfal, by witneffes as Catholick
Faithful, by an Authority as great, as we produce againſt them, plead's?
or to confeffe ingenioufly,This Controuerfy cannot be decided.
They may,
"Tis true Oppoſe the Caluinifts co Lutherans, but to
denote à Church either Latin or Greek, that maintained their
Opinion of the Eucharift, Shall neuer be made fo much as
meanly Probable. O yes, the Primitiue Church taught as they
teach. Contra.
4. Its vtterly vntrue, as is largely proued in the
firft Difcourfe. Again that's à thing yet in Controuerfy, and
therefore far from being à manifeft fentence againſt vs, yet their
Clamours againſt our Idolatry are manifeft, and as iniurious as
manifeft.
24. Theſe, and yet far more forceable Arguments propofed by
Catholick Authors against Proteftancy, our Aduerfaries call Flies,
Small Grains, gnawing of Rats &c. We wholly Contrary hold them
conuincing,and the caufe we defend moft iuft. Here both Parties.
Stick in the hight of their heats,Stiffe in their wayes,without yeilding
Q999 2
--
Sectaries
allege no-
thing for
their Senfe
676 Diſc. 3. C. 19. Proteftancy euinced, improbable.
A ludge
distinct from
Scripture
Proued afo
lutly neceffa
73.
Contention
is not the
to one another. Is it not therefore full time, and reaſonable think
ye, to appeal to fome Iudge diftinct from Scripture, by whofe juft
Sentence it may appear, whether we old Papifts, or our young.
Nouellifts are the guilty men, that impioufly oppofe God's.
truths?
25. You fe whilft the fenfe of Scripture and Fathers is not
agreed on, we are aduanced no further but only to quarrel, as if
Contention were the final end of writing Controuerfies. Or, as if an
eternal Debate were defired and after that, to haue nothing
last end of
decided. For this fole Reafon, A Iudge is abfolutely neceffary,
writing
Controuerfies though our Aduerfaries will hear of none, hauing an horrour to
admit of any Churches Iudgement, whereby the caufe now in
debate may be happily ended. Yet if we follow the Rule of
Reafon, what can be more Satisfactory then to appeal to Church
Authority in this weighty matter? We Catholicks ftand to the
Sentence of our own euidenced vniuerfal Church, She is our
ludge. Are not Sectaries therefore obliged (if their Arguments
againſt vs be thought folid, and their caufe good) to appeal
to the Iudgement of fome other Church, as euidenced by Mira-
cles, and as vniuerfal, as ours is, which once taught as they teach,
and publickly decryed our fuppofed Errours?
Catholicks
appeal to
one ludge,
Proteftants
are forced to
appeal to
another of
equal An-
thority, or
their Cause
is loft.
They cannot
pretend to
teach à
Doctrin,
which no
ancient
Church euer
taught.
Sectaries
proue them-
(alues, here
8sgues,
26. What we now propofe feem's reaſonable, becauſe Pro--
teſtants moſt certainly (as they defend Proteftaniſm) will not pre-
tend to publish à Doctrin (with à ftrict obligation laid on their
Partizans to acquiefe in it) which no Orthodox Church euer-
taught, or if any Church euer taught fo, This must be as clearly
euidenced, as it is euident, that the Roman Catholick Church.
taught Popery, feuen or eight Ages fince. Here in à word is the
true trial of their whole Caufe. Denote, Point out, or name.
an Orthodox Church which owned this Proteftancy fiue of fix
Centuries fince, Controuerfies are ended; But if it be (as it is)
moft impoffible to name fuch à Church, The Abetters of Pro-
teftancy only follow the ftrain and Method of all Condemned
Hereticks, and proue themfelues by their own procedure He-
retiques, That is, They plead againſt Catholick Doctrin, by
falſe
Difc. 3. C. 19. The Conclufion.
679
falle Calumnies, weak. Cauils, lame coniectures, vnfenfed Scriptures, and Calummies,
abuſed Fathers, without any Church Authority to rely on, And their only
thus all your ancient Heretiques haue Proceeded.
Defense.
Protefancy
proued an
Improbable
Religione
27. Wherefore to conclude I Say in à word. Proteftancy
as Proteftancy is à moft improbable Religion, or to speak more
plainly, no Religion at all. The ground of my Affertion will
be beft laid forth in thefe few words. No ancient vniuerfal Church,
no Orthodox Christians in any part of the world, euer taught Pro-
teſtancy, Ergo its improbable. Nay more; no Heretical Society
of men euer taught that whole Doctrin, Therefore it is an vnpa-
The ground
tronized Nouelty, reiected by the Vniuerfal Chriftian world, affertion
of our
whether Orthodox, or others.. And Hence it is, that whateuer
Proteftants can Say in behalfe of their own Tenets, or Contrary
to Catholick Doctrin, comes to no more but to improbable and
nproued Suppofitions. Obferue I befeech you.
}
28. They tell vs the Roman Catholick Church once true,de. Improbable
ferted the Ancient Faith, we vrge them to proue the Affertion,and Suppofitions;
with good reaſon, becauſe neither ancient Church,nor any found the only
Chriftian euer faid fo before themfelues. Andwhat Anfwer haue we? Proofs of
The very Calumny without more, and their own vnproued Suppofi-
Sectaries.
tions, ferue both for proof and Anfwer. We demand Again, Questions
?
when, or in what Age the Church became thus accurfed and propofed.
traiterous to Chrift? They fob vs off with fooleries, of beards when the
growing Gray, and weeds peeping vp in à garden inpercepti- Church
bly. Is not thy ridiculous? We Ask. 3. Seing the world was
failed?
neuer Since the Apoftles preached, without an Orthodox Chri-
ftian Society, what other pure Church fucceeded in place of
pure Church
the Roman now fuppofed Idolatrous, and heretical? None hi- fucceded in
therto has offerred to anſwer this Queftion, nor can it be An- place of Re-
fwered, vnlefs Sectaries admit two or three diftinct different man uppo-
Churches. The first Primitiue and pure, the fecond corrupted trous?
fed idola-
which came in when the Roman Catholick began her fuppofed How many
Idolatry, The third again pure and fpotless, which clofely follo-
wed the Roman fallen into Errour, And this is à meer chimera.
We laftly demand why this. Proteftant Reformation, should be
Qg99 3
more.
what other
different
Churches
will SeBa-
ries omm? ^
678 Diſc 3. C. 19. Proteftancy euinced, improbable.
why Should
the Prote-
ftants Refor.
mation be
beiter, then
that of the
Arians ?
For oné
weighty
reason it is
far worse.
The impro-
bability of
Protefta-
declared,
in à very
unequal
Parallel.
other is
headles.
more lik'd, more look'd on, or held any wayes better, then
thoſe precedent Reformations of their elder Brethern the Dena-
tifts, or Others? Will it be faid Proteftants came after the reft,
or in the laft place, and therefore think themfelues more skil-
ful, the only gifted men in this buſineſs of mending Religion?
Plead thus, I anfwer, They fpeak improbably, and are worfe
then all their Predeceffors vpon this very account, that hauing
feen the Malice, the weak Attempts, the vnlucky fucceffe of
defeated Heretiques in former Ages, will not learn by fuch woful
examples to be more wife and wary, then to run the Risque
with them and thereby to incurr God's heauy Indigna-
tion.
>
29. Whoeuer defires to make à further infpection into that
high improbability, which other Chriftians Charge Proteftancy
nism further with, may pleafe to compare à little our Catholick Religion
with this other late rifen Nouelty. If things be well weighed
(without Controuerfy fo euident that they need no Proof)
The firft will be found alwayes reuerenced, and neuer oppofed
The first re.
by Orthodox Chriftians; Contrarywife, the other will appear an
werenced the obiect of ſcorn, not only to the wifeft of the world, but alſo to
other fcorn'd innumerable that profeffe it againſt their own Confciences.
Theone hath The One hath an Ecclefiaftical Head for its Guide; The other
à head, the
is an vngouernable Body without head, or ioynts to tye
its iarring parts together. The One shewes you manifeft and
moft euident Miracles, The other (if euer nature wrought Mi-
racles) à Miraculous boldnes to deny the greatest wonders, God
hath wrought by the Church. The One teaches what it anciently
received, by à neuer interrupted Tradition; The other what is
fuggefted by euery Priuate Phanfy. The one is diffuſed the
diffuſed, the whole world ouer, The other only Creeps vp and down in à few
other hid in Corners of thefe Northern parts, in fo much that fome Reli-
gious Orders are further extended than Proteftancy. The One
hath had feueral Oecumenical learned Councils; The other ne-
uer any, learned or vnlearned. The one ftill retain's à ftrict
ynity in Faith, the other manifeftly is torn in pieces with Diui-
Tradition
teaches the
one, fancy
the other
The one far
and peer
corners.
Councils
and no
Councils,
Ynity and
Diuifions
fions
Difc. 3. C. 19. The Conclufion.
679
ons. The one giues you à large Catologue of its ancient visible Pa-
vifible Paftors, and visible profeffors, for full Sixteen Ages. The fors and in-
other cannot name one Proteftant Village, nor one Proteftant uiible,
Compared
man, before the dayes of the vnfortunate Luther.
togel her
à righ
dishonour
An Inter-
preter and.
no Interpre
ter
30. The one hold's its Catholick deceaſed Anceſtors worthy
reſpect and veneration, The other makes them all befotted Ido-
laters, and worfe then mad men. The one Religion Stand's Refpe and
firmly built vpon plain Scripture, and the Authority of an eui
denced vniuerfal Church; The other vtterly ynprincipl'd, has
not one word of Holy writ for it, nor either vniuerfal or par-
ticular Church, which euer taught Proteftancy. The one has Principles
à Myfterious Bible and à certain Interpreter, the other à meer and no
body without à Soul, the bare letter without life, words wi- Principles.
thout fenſe, and Phanfy to Interpret. The one refolues its
faith into God's infallible Reuelation, the other has nothing like
Faith to refolue. The one Religion Proues its truths Infalli-
ble, The other feek's for fallible Doctrin, and has found enough Faith and
of what is both fallible, and falfe alfo. An Ancient Poffes- no faith
fion vphold's the One, and à publick iniurious rebellion against and fallibs-
the Mother Church giues the other all the Right it hath. The
Profeffors of the one, proue God to haue been the Author of
it, who yet preferues it vnalterable and pure by Diuine Affiftan
ce. The Profeffors of the other fay plainly that God neuer
reuealed one Article of their reformed Proteftancy, and therefore
need no Diuine Affiftance to preferue it. The Profeffors of Assistance
the One, shew you à Church gloriouſly marked with Signes and no Di
and Wonders ( peculiar effects of God's Infinite Power and
Wiſdome) which make the Religion euidently Credible to Reafon.
The Profeffors of the other, in lieu of fuch Marks, Sem you
à bare Naked Nothing, without Miracles, without Conuerfions,
without aufterity, or any thing that appear's like à work of
God in it, and therefore is moft euidently incredible.
lity, à
An ancient
Poſſeſſion,
an open
vrong,
Diuine
wine Afsi.
Stance...
A glorious
exidenced
Church, and
A meer Na-
ked Nothing
31. Thus much for an Effay only which might be further paralleld,
enlarged, but its needles, for you haue euery particular proued
in the Treatife here in your hands. If our Aduerfaries hold.
them- .-
680 Difc. 3. C. 19. Proteftancy euinced, improbable.
What's re-
quired, if
our Aduer
jaries hold
their Caufe
wronged?
We exhort
with Bleſſed
S. Auſtin.
themfelues or caufe iniured, whilft we fo highly extol the one
Religion, and extenuate the other to Improbability, it will,
methinks, be very eafy to right Both, by shewing plainly (vpon
Sound and very found Principles) wherein our miſtakes lie, or in
what fubftantial Matter we haue erred. But ftill remember Prin-
ciples.
32. What I here propofe Seem's reafonable, and 'tis done
The fole End for this fole end (Almighty God knowes) that after our long
why we pro- Debates, it may at laft appear to euery one, on which fide Truth
pofe this.
ftand's. Now if vpon fo faire an Offer we haue nothing re-
turn'd, but Sectaries wonted ftrain of Cauils, trim'd vp with
pretty ieers. I, for my part, haue done and shall in place of
Arguing further, mildly exhort as Bleffed S. Auftin once did in
à like Occafion. De Vnit. Ecclefia. C. 19. fine. So au em non
poteftis, quod tam iufte à vobis flagitamus, oftendere, Credite veritati,
Conticefcire, Obdormifcite à furore, expergifcımini ad falutem. If you,
Sectaries cannot Conuince our Church guilty of errour, by
vndeniable Principles (this we iuftly require) Belieue Truth.
Let your weak Attempts and fury fleep, Surceafe from this fri-
uolous charging vs with Herefy, and Idolatry. You know
Gentlemen, you know full well, we are no Idolaters, your own
Confciences tell you your Plea is naught, your Caufe vnde-
fenfible, Expergifiimini ad salutem, Wake, open your drowſy eyes,
and look about you.
And appeal
totheir own
guilty Con.
Sciences.
After a long
draw fy Sleep
its time to
wake.
->
33. You fe our Noble England fet on fire by your vn-
fortunate diffentions concerning Religion, bring your teares to
quench the flames. You fe your Selues vpon your different
Engagements fome brain-fick with Fanaticilin, fome with no
man knowes what) worrying one another; Wonder nothing,
it muft needs be fo whilst you are out of the peaceable
Fold of Chrift's vnited Church. You haue been
long Prodigal Children ftraying from the houfe of God,
return with à hearty Peccaui, A render Mother ( the Catholick
Church) is willing to receiue you,and à good old Father,
Chriſts Vicar vpon earth, as ready to embrace you with open
>
too
armes.
Difc. 3. C. 19. The Conclufion
681
armes. You fe Atheiſm enters, and is rife among you; perni-
cious Leviathans, and other like Monsters range vp and down,
and poyfon innumerable. How Should it be otherwife?
Atheism followes vpon what you haue done, For thoſe who Se-
parate from the true Church, foon Separate from Chriſt alſo,
and cannot after that double Diuorce, long Continue Friends
to God. Wherefore once more Expergifiimini ad falutem, be
vigilant. Hora est iam nos de fomno furgere, it now high time to
wake. Your Concern is no lefs à Matter then eternal Saluation.
My earneſt prayer is, that Chrift our Lord, the Light of the world,
may break through the thick cloudes of all darken'd hearts
and with the radiant beams of Diuine Grace illuminate euery
Ad falutem, to endles Bliff and Happines.
one,
FINIS.
The Authors
hearty wish,
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
!
3 9015 06433 8901
A 554915
DUPL