THE PREFACE TO THE READER.  
THe Books are almost innumerable occasioned by an unhappy Heresy, that in the last age infected Germany, and after like a Leprosy, Overspread the greatest part of our Northern Countries. Too many are writ by Those, who stile themselves Protestant's, or of the Reformed Religion, not to speak of the Subdivisions as Arminians, Brownists, Anabaptists, or of their Followers, which crumble into as many Sects as men. Of These we have Writers, who with no little Animosity inveigh bitterly one against an other. Yet (because Self-interest will have it so) All of them closely join in a Foul dishonourable League against an Ancient Mother Church That made them and their Progenitors Christians.  
This hath stirred up the pen of many a learned man, not so much to confute their weak Discourses, as positively to Assert Truth which cannot be shaken, and to Vndeceive a poor sort of seduced People, who easily gained by sleek Words and the Specious Pretences of some (who have told untruth so long, that at last they almost Believe it Themselves) insensibly fall into error. To Vnbeguile these deluded Souls more, I have here cast my Mite also into the Treasury of these learned labours, and writ this Treatise. Wherein I both lay forth the Evidence of our Roman Catholic Religion upon undoubted Grounds, and make it likewise manifest That Protestancy, as Reform, which is only a fallible taught Doctrine, cannot be Resolved into God's Infallible Revelation, and thersore is no part of Christian Religion, But a mere Opinion only Upheld by Fancy.  
I undertook the small work you here see upon this occasion. About a year since, (so much it was when I writ this Preface) A friend sent me a Book with a surly imperious Title. The Nullity of the Romish Faith; or a blow at the root of the Romish Church. By Mr. Matthew Poole printed anno 1666. and only desired me to make a few Observations upon an Appendix by the same Author against a Converted Gentleman. Curiosity led me on to read the whole book, where finding little worth the Answering, I laid it aside for two or three months, till I was urged again to return some short Answer to the Appendix. But while this business gave me a little entertainment, We here (though at distance) Herd a noise of a Rational Account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion etc. by Mr. Edward Stillingfleet. The book I saw but lately, yet some Parcels of his Doctrine found the way to me by several Reports, and Letters also. Werupon, I laid Mr. Pools Appendix aside And was longer in this Treatise than I intended, or was indeed necessary to Answer the Appendix, which yet may have an Answer timely enough.  
By the way, as far as sure Principles can Guide one, and a few Glances at Mr. Pools Doctrine will reach to, I refute some weak ground's of His Nullity, which is as much as it deserves. That of Mr. Stillingfleet Merit's more, I mean a larger Refutation. Though to speak Truth, it is too tediously long and both says very much, and very little: Much in Generalities and cavilling at our Catholic Faith, But little in giving any Account of Protestant Religion as 'tis now reform, which yet was the only Thing I sought for, but found not in his writings, as I have often noted in this Treatise. Had I had his book sooner, or more time, I would have refuted some more chief points in it, but I hope Those have it in hand, that will bring the Author to a better account; for he who first Tell▪ s amiss must count twice, before He make a Right reckoning.  
I wave all along, as much as may be, an unnecessary Repetition of known Authorities drawn from Scripture, and Fathers (for that were Actum agere) and endeavour to ground my Discourse upon undoubted Principles. And my chief aim is, as I now insinuated, to make it evident, That Protestancy built upon Fancy, stands tottering without the Support os any acknowledged Principles, and consequently Falls of itself. To speak more plainly: When Sectaries go about, either to impugn the Roman Catholic Doctrine, or to establish their Own, They give you nothing that looks like a sure owned Principle, but quite contrary, tyre you out with long loose Discourses, which driven on to the very last, at most come to no more but to Guesses only, weak Conjectures, and the unproved Thoughts of those who make them. In a word, They never fall on Principles, nor can make their own Doctrine good upon any better Argument then by only saying, It is True, or cavilling at ours: As if't were the way for a man to Prove Himself honest, by saying his neighbour is not so; or enough to Establish Their House built upon sand to Assert that ours, once certainly settled on a Rock, is not Th' ancient building it was but hath been repaired, and otherwise Adorned. If all this were true (as it is most falls) what's their House the better, that's still upon sand? Or, their Religion sounder, that stands Vnprincipled without Scripture, Church, or Reason? I only say thus much in a Preface, and prove it afterward in the following Discourses, which I was advised to write in Latin, having now more use of That (I may thank my long Absence from England for it) then is allowed me of our Mother Tongue. But sapientibus & insipientibus debitor sum. I desire to satisfy all, and own as much to the Illiterate of my dear Country as to the Learned, and therefore shall Expose this Treatise in plain English (for I can speak no better) and hope upon that Account to find the Readers easier Pardon If I often Speak improperly, or now and then break Priscian's head in English.  
Sometimes as the matter requires, I am forced to make use of words that may seem harsh as Toys, Fancies, Trifles not worth the Answering etc. But 'tis impossible for me to use other language, if I'll call things by their right names, and give the world to understand what they are, Smother terms would look like Mockery (whilst Sectaries use harsher) rather than Civility. Believe what you will. I Profess seriously, all I say is without Passion, or Design to reflect Personally upon our Adversaries whom I pity and pray for, having no intention to reproach them, but to Reprove Heresy, To rail at any, but to convince by Reason.  
But I keep you too long at the Door, open and read without Prejudice, and if you be not satisfied with what I writ, of Charity give me timely notice, for my days are almost Don. In the other world I can make no Answer but to Almighty God, for the sincerity of my undertaking: whereby if any one soul reap benefit, I have enough; if none do so, my comfort is, that He who knows my good intention will be my ample Recompense, though infinitely above my desert,  
Farewell.   

A NECESSARY ADVERTISEMENT FOR THE READER.  
1. MAy it pleas Any one to read this Treatise, And either seek to profit by it, or vouchsafe to return an Answer, He will I hope, after a general thought, cast on what I intent to prove in the ensuing Discourses, take particular Notice also of a few Notes here set down which may perhaps conduce to His better satisfaction.  
2. Concerning the first. We need not to say much. My Intent is Chief to prove These four Things. 1. That Sectaries are Churchles, because They acknowledge no infallible Church on earth. Yet there are Infallible Teachers (and consequently an infallible Church) as is Demonstrated in the first Discourse. 2. That They are as Scriptureles as Churchles, and have not one syllable of God's Word for Protestancy. Therefore we treat in the second Discourse of Their mangling and misinterpreting Scripture. 3. That Their Proceeding is most Unreasonable in some chief controversies handled in the third Discourse. 4. We prove in the fourth Discourse, the Roman Catholic Church to be the only true Church of Christ, And there also lay Forth the improbability of Protestant Religion. All this is Don to make good what the Title briefly expresses. Viz Protestancy is without Principles of Scripture, Church and Reason. Now a word of what I would have you to Note.  
3. It is truly lamentable, to see how controversies in these our days are driven on to nothing but to endless quarrels. There is certainly some cause of so long a work, which might, methinks, be brought to a period with less Ado. And what is it, think ye? Is it because Christ's true Religion cannot be made evidently credible to Reason? No certainly. For, that Religion which hath stood invincible in the heat of so many persecutions, which hath converted whole Kingdoms and Nations, and drawn Millions of souls to it, must necessarily appear most evidently Credible to all rational men. Is it because a falls Religion cannot be Argued of Falsehood? No. It is as easy to convince an erroneous Sect of error, as to prove true Religion to be true. And Hence, I say, it is impossible to conceive any Thing like Religion, that can neither be Proved evidently credible, or manifestly Argued of Falsehood. The Reason is, Because the evident Credibility of true Religion (if one only be true in the World) takes off from the falls Religion all Prudent credibility, and leaves it uttely destitute of Motives founding credibility. In a word, The evident credibility of Truth makes Falsehood highly improbable. Whence I infer. If true Religion be made thus manifestly credible by Almighty God, Rational Proofs cannot fail to countenance that which He will have manifestly known. Contrariwise, such proofs must of necessity be wanting to a falls Religion, which God will have to appear both evidently Incredible, and Improbable to prudent Reason. The Catholic therefore that holds his Religion at least evidently Credible before He believes, and certainly true by his Act of Faith, cannot but have Proofs at hand which Do not only clearly evidence the undoubted Credibility of it, but also Dash and Discountenance what ever can be said in the Defence of a contrary Error. On the other side, The Sectary must of necessity want such grounded Proofs; And consequently whether he defends his own, or impugns the true Religion, All He saith will end at last in mere Cavils and wordy Fallacies. You have the Reason Hereof more largely laid forth Disc. 1. C. 8. Because God cannot permit in the Presence (as it were) of his true Religion a falls Sect to appear so much as slightly Probable, which ever is and must be inferior to Truth (or rather nothing) in the lustre and evidence of Credibility. Which is to say in other Terms: An Erroneous Sect cannot he made at all Credible to Reason.  
4. What then is the Reason, when the Catholic both supposeth and proves His Religion to be only true and Orthodox, that These strifes go endlessly on between us and a few Protestants? Scarce any Book, though never so solid and learned, is set forth by an English Catholic, but presently a Thing called an Answer sallies out against it. Exceptions are made by Sectaries, This, They say, Proves not, That Displeases etc. In a word, if we believe them, All is Answered, when, God knows, A prudent Reader see's the main Difficulties waved, And very often finds the very state of the Question gtosly mistaken. I'll say my thought freely, and humbly submit all I say to the prudent Censure of every learned Catholic. As long as Sectaries (without a just and rational Reproof, it's all we can Do) are permitted to continue still the strain of writing they constantly follow, which is to entertain the Reader with tedious Discourses in general of Christian Religion, when Protestancy is that which should be Proved, with mere conjectures, bare negative Arguments And unproved Propositions, with their own forced and violent interpretations when an Authority urgeth, In a word, with their Guesses and unworthy Cavils seasoned with jeers when nothing else will Do etc. whilst this is Don, The close way of Arguing is laid aside, They may talk on to the world's end, without fruit to Any but to the Printer only, that gains money by their Books. You will ask what Remedy Against this proceeding? An old Answer says much: It is: When they go about, either to prove their own Novelties, or to impugn our Catholic Doctrine, That we keep them from wand'ring to far from home, and Hold them close to Proofs and Principles (these are the Shollers' laws, our Rules and Canons) Do this, and you'll soon see their long Discourses Shrunk up to little, Their large volumes brought to a few sheets of paper. Now if they refuse to stand to Principles, we must leave them to Fancy, And show how they both Disgrace their cause, and themselves also.  
5. By this word Principle, or Principles, I understand in our present matter a strong rational, satisfactory, Intellectual light, that prudently forceth Reason to acquiesce in a Verity proposed: whether it arise from solid grounds of Reason, or from great Authority, matters little, so it be prudently Persuasive and forceably work on a well disposed understanding. judges Decide by some measure of it in their equitable Sentences, And Schoolmen should not want it in their Opinions. But, much more is requisite when we speak of Religion whereon salvation Depends; For here a far greater light a better Assurance (Surmounting mere Probability) is necessary, which cannot be darkened by Fallacies, or weakened by Trivial Fetches. You have the ground hereof Declared Disc. 1. C. 8. Because God, that leads us in this present state to the knowledge of His Revealed Truths, not by Enthusiasms or private Illustrations, but by prudent inducements suitable to Reason, always makes his true Religion so manifest by undubitable Signs, Marks, and Characters, that not only the learned, but the more ignorant may come (if prudence Guide him) to a clear Sight of it by certain Principles. We may, I think, proceed as securely by light enough laid out to Reason in this weighty matter, as we do in other great Verities. For example: All acknowledge Gods Divine Providence over the world, and Therefore have strong Principles to prove the Truth. We Christians say, That Christ our Lord And His Apostles taught most certain Heavenly Doctrine. Principles cannot be wanting to prove this our Christian Verity. We say, judaism and Mahometism are Falso Sects: The Assertion can be made Good by sure and undoubted Proofs. The only Question now under Dispute is, whether we Catholics or Sectaries profess and Teach the Ancient Orthodox Doctrine established by Christ and his Apostles, And without all Controversy certain Principles cannot fail in this particular, whereby the difference between us may be decided: Or if they Do fail, (which is not possible) every one may not only adhere without reproof to any Religion or none, as Fancy pleaseth; But, moreover may most justly blame Almighty God (And this is hideously impious) who commands us on the one side to embrace true Religion, yet on the Other, Leaves us in such Fearful darkness, That none after a diligent search can find out by sure Principles, what or where that Religion is which He will have us to believe, to make profession of, to live and die in. And this would be highly contrary to his infinite Goodness. Thus much premised.  
6. I say first. The Sectary, whether He takes in hand to establish his own Opinions, or to impugn any Doctrine of our Catholic Faith, shall never come to an Intellectual light that hath a likelihood of a sure Principle. The Reason is most evident in Catholic grounds (I say no more yet) Because Truth cannot be contrary to Truth: If therefore Catholic Religion be true, what ever the Sectary says against it, when he either Pleads for his own, or oppugn's our Doctrine, must of necessity be so remote from sure Principles, That his whole Talk, ultimately Resolved, will appear in its own likeness a mere cheat, and end in nothing but a fallacy; For it is not Possible to force Truth out of Falsehood, or to make that Probable which is Essentially improbable.  
7. I say 2. It cannot but be most manifest to every prudent disinteressed judgement, That Sectaries have nothing like sound received Principles to rely on, whether They oppugn our Catholic Doctrine, or Defend their own Opinions. To clear this Assertion from Cavils, you shall see what we propose. Be pleased only to take two or three sheets of paper (much more is not needful) And permit a learned Catholic briefly to set down in the first Pages of them, the Proofs he hath for his Catholic Doctrine in one particular Controversy now agitated (this short way of Arguing will do the deed) Then let the Protestant write all he can say for his contrary Proposition in the other Pages, And if you do not see a strange unequal Parallel of Proofs, And no Proofs laid together, call me what you will, I'll bear a just rebuke, yet fear not any. I say, pitch upon One Controversy now in Dispute. For Example that one long debated (we cannot now insist upon all) may be thought of. Viz. Whether Recours had to the Saints in Heaven by the Prayers of the living, be erroneous or true Doctrine? Next permit the Question to be truly stated, and then Hear what the Catholic says for Himself. He tell's you first the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Church also, whether Orthodox or Schismatical teach, as He believes. 2. He produceth Scriptures to prove his Doctrine. 3. He alleges Fathers both Greek and Latin quoted by every Polemical writer on this subject. Bellarmin furnisheth you most plentifully lib. 1. de Sanct. Beati cap. 19 The wit of man cannot wrest them to a sense contrary to our Catholic Position. 4. You will have His Reasons, and that one most concluding: Good men laudably pray for us here on earth: Ergo, much more the Saints in Heaven (because in a better state) can do that Charity. When the Catholic hath ended his Proofs grounded on these and the like undeniable Principles. Cast your thoughts a little on the Sectaries Contrary proofs, And mark well his Principles. Hath He any Church reputed Orthodox either now, or six hundred years agone, That expressly and positively defended his Opinion, and condemned our Doctrine? No, most evidently not any. Hath he so much as one syllable of Scripture, that plainly and positively Denies our Catholic position, and speaks for his? Not a word is found in the whole Bible to that purpose, much against it. Hath he Fathers so numerous and clear for his Novelty, as we produce for this one Truth, Saints can both hear and help us? Not one Father is express against us, or plain for his contrary Opinion. Parallel therefore a Church and no Church, Scripture and no Scripture, Fathers express for us, and not one against us: And judge you whether it be not evident to every disinteressed judgement, that Protestants want sound Principles to rely on in this Controversy. And as you see a Defect of Principles here, so you will find it in all other Disputes between us. Now if they say, They value not much of our Church Authority. I answer, They speak without Principles, For the sole judgement of our Church (had we no more) will be thought in any just Tribunal a stronger proof for our Doctrine, than their mere slighting of it can be without a likelihood of proof. If They say again, They can either Deny or explicate the Fathers we produce, I Answer, They are still out of Principles: For their Denial is weightles, unless They ground it upon a surer Principle, than that Authority is, which they Deny. Observe well. We have innumerable Fathers Greek and Latin express for the Invocation of Saints. Say therefore, What will it Avail the Sectary barely to reject these Authorities (because they are the words of men and not of God) Unless He Give you the plain word of God, or the Authority of an Orthodox Church (in place of them) whereon his Denial hath sure footing? If this be not done, He comes to nothing like a Principle, consequently the Father's Authority (most agreeable to the Church's Doctrine) is a clear Demonstration against him. If He Pretend to allege Fathers contrary to ours: I Answer, He hath not one express or plainly contrary. However, falsely suppose, He had one or two, The contest would then be, whether one that stands, as it were, alone opposite to the Church's Doctrine, or many Fathers that side with the Church deserve more credit? Here I am sure He will stand without footing on any certain Principle. If He tell you Thirdly, The Primitive Church prayed not to Saints: They are his own empty words. We prove the contrary, by the express Testimonies of most ancient Fathers, and the Tradition of our Church, whilst He remains speechless and without a Principle to ground his Assertion on. If He Object fourthly. His Reasons, chief two viz. Prayers to Saints lessens our Honour to Christ And, we cannot say how our prayers come to the Saints Hearing etc. I Answer. Here is nothing probable, for an Objection (as soon solved as seen) is far off from the nature of a sound Principle. We say therefore, if to pray for one an other Here on Earth lessens not Christ's Honour, there is no danger of lessening it by our recours had to the Saints in Heaven, now in a most Glorious and happy Condition. And thus, no less a Doctor then S. Hierom, Adversus vigilantium, Paris print 1609. pag. 590. Solves the Difficulty at those words. Dicis in libello tuo etc. Thou, Vigilantius, saith in thy Book, that whilst we live we may pray for one another, but after Death no Prayer is heard for Any. Here is the Objection. Mark S. Hieroms Answer. Si Apostoli & Martyrs adhuc in corpore constituti, possunt orare pro ceteris, quando pro se debent esse soliciti: quanto magis post coronas, victorias & triumphos. If the Apostles and Martyrs yet living in a mortal body, can pray for others, when they are solicitous for themselves: much more, can they do that Charity after their Crowns, Victories, and Triumphs. He goes on. Vnus homo Moses etc. That one Moses obtained pardon for thousands Exod. 32. And the first Martyr S. Stephen living, prayed for his Persecutors Act. 7. Et postquam cum Christo esse coeperint minus valebunt? And what, shall they be able to do less now, when they are glorious with Christ in Heaven? Meliorque erit vigilantius cams vivens, quam ille leo mortuus. And can thou, Vigilantius, a living Dog, be better than that dead Lion, (He alludes to S. Paul that prayed for others whilst he lived?) Tu vigilans dormis, & dormiens scribis. I tell thee, Vigilantius, waking thou sleeps, and sleeping writ's these things against prayer to Saints. Thus S. Hierom. And not only S. Austin lib. 22. de Civit. c. 8. (to omit innumerable others) Approves the Doctrine, but that worthy Bishop also, S. Greg Nyssen in his Oration of S. Theodore Martyr, Paris print 1615. page 1011. and 1017. confirms the Practice of it. Pray for us, saith S. Gregory (addressing himself by an earnest Petition to S. Theodore when the Scythians threatened a war to the Country) make intercession to him who is our common King and Lord. As you are a soldier fight for us and defend us, And as a Martyr speak freely for your fellow servants here. A few lines after. And if more Prayer be needful, assemble together the whole Choir of your Brethren Martyrs, and jointly intercede for us. Put S. Peter in mind, move S. Paul, and the beloved Disciple of our Lord S. john, that they be solicitous for the Churches, where once they wore Chains, passed dangers, and finally Dyed. Say now, what lessening is here of Christ's Honour by the prayer of this Ancient Saint and most learned Prelate? Or what answer can be returned to these three Authorities? The other Difficulty is as forceles: For if Scctaries can explicate how the blessed Soul of our Saviour in Heaven here's our Prayers, which I hope they will not Deny (I speak of his Sanctified created Soul) all Difficulty ceaseth in the present Controversy: How They hear is opinion (se Bell. cap. 20. n. Argumentum tertium) But That they Hear, is certain Doctrine.  
7. Now if Sectaries tell us They can so explicate These Fathers as to make their words insignificant to our Purpose: I would first learn, what can be said to S. Hierom, S. Austin, and S. Gregory now cited; But this is not all, for I am to assure them further, That their explications, when contrary to the Doctrine of a whole Church, as also to the obvious sense of either Scripture or Fathers quoted by us, are so far off from being Principles, that they merit not the name of mean probabilities; which Truth is more amply Declared Discourse 4. c. 4. n. 8. 9 Where I prove that no Interpretation of Sectaries can be Allowed of, unless it rely on an extrinsic Ground much surer than His Gloss is that interpret's, which therefore must be plain Scripture, The undoubted consent of Fathers, Universal Tradition, or such like convincing Principles. Hence I said, when the Catholic Interprets a dubious or Difficil Passage, He never makes his Gloss to be the ultimate Proof of his Doctrine, But supposeth that proved by stronger Principles distinct from His Interpretation. All is contrary with the Sectary, who makes His Gloss to do all, to be the last and surest ground of his Opinion, without the Support of any better Proof than his own word is. And thus much is evident in other Controversies now Debated between us, as you will see Hereafter.  
8. From this want of clear Principles, all the too manifest and most Discernible Faint proceeding of our Adversaries in matters now controverted, shows itself so openly, that one with half an Eye may Discover it. It is From want of Principles, That they now begin to be weary of Protestancy, and hold that a Faith Common to all Sectaries is sufficient to Salvation: if this may Pass, They need not hereafter to stand more for Protestancy than Arianism, or for any other condemned Heresy. For the same Principles (were there Any) would make both Sects equally Credible. Hence it also is, That you have them ever Cavilling at our Religion (and 'Tis the easiest thing in the world to Find fault, Yea, and to cavil at the verities of Holy Scripture itself, you see Arians do so) but still you find them wanting in that which concerns them most, which is to bring their Novelties to the grounds of either Scripture, or any Ancient Church Doctrine: Herein they are as mute, as Fishes, and say not a word. It is from want of Principles, That, when they explicate a Council or Father alleged against them, They are tediously long about little, that is in relating the circumstances to be as They would have Them, but whether they hit right is ever a matter of Dispute, and nothing like a received Principle. From hence it also is, That when They make such and such Doctrines to be In●o●ations (Praying to Saints Purgatory, or what else you will) The very last ground They standon, comes to nothing but Negative Arguments, weak Conjectures, blind Guesses, Fancy, and mere Uncertainties. It is From the want of Principles, That when we produce undeniable History for innumerable Miracles wrought in our Church, An odd Answer is at hand: They cannot believe them, as if, forsooth, Their Parole or mere Unbelief had force enough to make null all that is writ of this subject by most approved Authors. From want of Principles it is That they ever place against our clear Authorities no more but mere uncertain Testimonies, And pick out of our Writers all they can pilfer for Their Advantage, whereas, if they had a good cause in hand and sound Principles to rely on, They should beat down the Doctrine of long standing Church 〈◊〉 by undeniable Proofs, taken from Scripture, Councils, and consent of Fathers, whereof more presently. From hence it also is, That when a Doctrine pleaseth them, Tradition is approved of; But if it be contrary to their Fancy, than Tradition is of no account or value. For example. Prayer for the Dead is as well a universal Tradition of both the Greek and Latin Church, as to hold that Canon of the Sectaries Bible to be the Word of God, yet the one is admitted of, And the other set light by; And upon what Principle (Distinct from unproved Conjectures) Do They take and leave as they list? Finally, it is for want of Principles, That in lieu of solid Arguments in every Controversy now handled you have words in stead of Substance, margins painted with Greek and Latin, now a story told of a Pope or Prelate, now a jeer, now a jest in handsome language etc. And thus they hold on in their Merriments, Thoughtless, as it seems, of an accounting Day to come before a sever judge, and a long Eternity that follows. And to what purpose are these light Skirmishes and petty Doing in a serious matter whereon salvation depends, whilst God is dishonoured, souls are beguiled, Christ's sacred Truths also infinitely suffer, by them who will yet be named Christians.  
9 I call them here petty Do. For when on the one side I set before my Eyes our Roman Catholic Church (once founded by Christ) and therefore must hold it most Ancient and confessedly true. When again I find it of a vast extent diffused the whole world over, And as much renowned as largely Extended. When I see it glorious Evidenced by Miracles, powerful in the Conversions of Infidels, eminent in Sanctity, And most profound learning. When I consider How it hath stood invincible in the heat of all persecutions, and call to mind the Heresies vainquished by it Age after Age, To say no more now of other signal Marks wherewith it is made illustrious and visible to all. When (I say) I consider these Truths. Methinks evident Reason Tells me, that a few slight Cavils cannot much annoy or hurt it. No. Either clear Demonstrations, or (were it possible) more than Demonstrations ought to enter here, and shake this our strong Fortress, Or, if they do not, Common Prudence obliges me to own this for Christ's true Spouse, or to Grant, (which is hideously Against the Grounds of Christianity) that there is no such Thing as an Orthodox Church in the world.  
10. Now on the other side, when I cast my Thoughts on a Few late risen Company of Divided Sectaries, utterly Destitute of all prudent Motives, without Antiquity, Miracles, Conversions, or other Evidences of Credibility; when again I seriously ponder how slightly they go to work against us, How weakly They attempt with mere Trifles (remote from Proofs and Principles) to Vnroot (as it were) this strong Building of our Catholic Society, I stand astonished, and must needs say, They seem to be men not too thoughtful of Eternity, And never can wonder enough at Their boldness, whilst They dare, as they do, to take pen in hand, and presume to write against an Ancient Church, that made the world and their own Progenitors Christians. But what is Hitherto briefly hinted at, will be more largely laid forth in the ensuing Discourses.  
11. Now it is high time to end an Advertisement, and to tell our Adversaries my absolute Resolution. It is thus. Let who will pretend to Answer this Treatis either in part or whole, Nothing shall draw me to Reply, unless He that Answers come more closely to Principles, than I ever yet saw in Protestant Writer. It is a sin to trifle our precious time away in Cavils. I'll heartily thank any that may pleas to Answer upon Grounded Principles: but if He fail Herein, His labour will be lost and mine hereafter spared, All I shall Do (if I do so much) will be to tell him were He misseth in the Main point which is to come closely to Principles.   

THE INTRODUCTION.  
BEfore we enter upon the following discourses, I must need's have a word with Mr. Poole, whose Nullity, and Appendix (but chief the request of a friend) induced me to write this Treatise. It is very true, after one serious perusal of this Nullity, I had enough of it, and therefore judged it unnecessary, and indeed not worth the pains to answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or to follow the Author through his Mazes, and long wand'ring parergons. I return him undoubted grounds of true Religion (they are undeniable) which at least destroy his best Principles; and if I mistake not, this is fully as much as a Nullity deserves. However, if he desire more, he may probably have it in another Treatise. Now, if you ask, why I took this way of answering, if yet you'll call it an Answer, I'll tell you. My aim is not so much to meddle with this Nullity, as to speak for the Catholic cause, and prove something, which shall not be answered. Again:  
It is more than tedious, ever to be encountering a few old worn-out Arguments (set forth in new dresses) which have been confuted a hundred times over. Thirdly: No small part of this Nullity seems to be too trivial, while later Catholic writers are introduced speaking, as Mr. Poole thinks, disadvantagiously, and against our Faith. Now Sixtus Senensis says this, now Bellarmin that, now Stapleton a third thing, etc. And are these, think ye, doughty Do for such an Antagonist, that offers to strike at the very root of the Roman Church? Alas, what he citys thus, were all he citys true, is a Nullity indeed, and a mere nothing; for Church Doctrine depends on no man's private opinion: But, when we make an inspection into these Authors (as I have done on several occasions, and find them quoted by halfs, weighed out of their circumstances, mangled, and traduced to a sinister sense) we must speak truth, That cheats will go on their way, and rather play at small game, then sit out, or seem to do nothing.  
Had Protestants any thing like a good cause in hand, or Truth on their side, they would certainly plead more manfully for it, and never like poor people in harvest, go thus a gleaning up and down our Authors (known for professed catholics) who little, God knows, intended to favour Sectaries by such segments, as they are pleased to pick up, much less to furnish Protestants with armour against Catholic Doctrine. But what will ye? Sectaries can do no better. Yet I must tell you what they ought to do, whilst they embrace a Novelty, and cast of the old Religion. They should make the ancient Canons to roar against our Doctrine, they should confound and overwhelm us with undeniable proofs, drawn from plain Scripture, ancient Councils, universal Tradition, and the unanimous consent of Fathers: Of these we hear no great noise. Next (and this most concerns them) They should also positively prove, and establish every Article of Protestant Religion, as Protestancy, by such plain, open, and illustrious Authorities, than a Bellarmin, a Stapleton, a Maldonate and others might well follow the rear: But to vapour with a few broken fragments, I'll espied in these Modern Authors (and worse applied) without attending to their whole drift, antecedent and consequent, and think to defeat an Ancient Church with such trivial Do, is so slight a way of schirmishing, that it deserves not counterblow, but pity and compassion. That incomparable Author of the Protestants Apology, learns them anohter way of arguing, whilst he doth not only show the endless clashing of Sectaries amongst themselves, but moreover solidly proves our Catholic Doctrine positively, and this by the most satisfactory and undeniable Principles, that a lover of Truth can wish for.  
Thus these new men should defend their cause, and it is no fault of ours that they trifle it out, and do no better. We charge enough upon them, and could they well acquit themselves, they would certainly go more closely to work, and answer directly. We say, and will prove it, That, that Doctrine which they believe as Protestants, contrary to the Roman Catholic Faith, is evidently no part of any Christian belief, but a mere Opinion grounded on fancy only. We say, and will prove it, that this new Religion of Protestancy hath all the marks and characters of heresy following it, which can be thought on: not one is wanting; for, if Arius of old, who quited the ancient Roman Church, and banded against it, was, upon that account, both schismatic and heretic, our Sectaries are in eâdem nave, and have done so, their cause and case, in other matters, is the very same. 2. As Arius stood all alone at his first rise, opposite to the rest of Christians, and was opposed by all, so were they also both opposite, and opposed by all. 3. As he began without commission to broach his Novelties against the ancient Faith, so are they as wholly uncommissioned to preach Theirs: And here we give them matter enough to work on, and conjure them to produce their commission. 4. As Arius, supported by secular power, vented what ever he pleased without curb, or any superior law to check him, and therefore fell into desperate Extravagancies; so are our new men lawless also, and submit to none but their own fancy and self-judgement. Finally, as Arius, without warrant of the Church, interpreted Scripture as his own weak reason taught him, just so do our Sectaries: here only is the difference, That he had a plausible sound of Scripture-words for his heresy; Protestants have neither sound, nor syllable, nor sense through the whole Bible for one article of Protestancy, as Protestancy. This I shall make good hereafter.  
Here is charge enough drawn up against them; but by what satisfactory known and received Principles▪ which force reason to acquiesce (and we make a search after these) they can acquit themselves, or rationally answer, is a heavy difficulty. I'll tell you in a word (and remember it) they shall never answer by any thing that hath the look of a rational proof, or a received Principle. No: Their own sole proofles word, whereon the whole machine of Protestancy is built, upholds what ever they teach: They have no more. They say, 'tis true, they left the ancient Roman Church, because it left itself, but yet stick close to the Primitive Doctrine. Observe it: They are here both Accusers of us, and judges in their own cause. Their proofles word doth all, without reducing it to any known or certain owned Principle. Not one Council, not one Canon, no ancient Tradition, no consent of Fathers can they produce, whereby particular men are lycensed to rise up against an Ancient Mother Church, and condemn it of false Doctrine. They will tell you, that they stood all alone when Luther risen up, yet taught, forsooth, the true Gospel of jesus Christ: and we must believe them. Here is the last Propositio quiescens. They say so: To what we charge against their uncommissioned Authority to preach as they did, you have the like uncommissioned answer: The Lord sent them abroad, and the Truth they taught secures them. But of these weak wordy replies I have said to much in this short Digression.  
Let us now return to Mr. Poole: And I must say, all he hath vented in his Nullity or Appendix against us, comes to no more, but to a most weak assault of a feeble Adversary; for this man, who endeavorus to prove that both Church and Councils, and what else you can mention, are fallible, can never assume to himself, or tie to any Community he joins with the Spirit of Infallibility: For, if the infallibility of the Church of Rome must down; down, say I, also with the infallibility of the Protestant Church, of the Grecian Church, and of all other societies of Christians. With some of these Mr. Poole is listed, and therefore I cannot but hold him, and his Adherents, men of no more, then of a fallible Religion. Hence I argue: Suppose, which is utterly false, that the Church, or all Churches, all Councils, all Fathers are fallible, and that Christian Religion (as it is taught by these) is likewise fallible: Admit also, that I were to embrace one of these many fallible Religions, (which I shall never do) will not prudence dictate, if I have no other certainty than these mere uncertainties to rely on, that it is better to hold where I am, and stick to my ancient Religion, glorious with innumerable Martyrs, Doctors, Confessors, etc. then to give up my Faith to Mr. Pools post-nate fallible Religion, and false discourse? How therefore can this man so much as once endeavour, to draw me, or any, of my more ancient and universal Religion (though supposed fallible) to another new one, which lies sick of the same disease, totters, and reels as much as mine (if not more) and in a word is fallible? Of two evils the lesse is to be chosen. It is an evil without doubt, to have no Religion certain; yet, if I were to choose one of two uncertain Religions, and could by no certain Teacher learn which of them is worse (being both naught) I would either pitch where I list, and as my fancy leads me; or rather choose none at all, knowing well, that a ruin of all Faith, follows the renouncing of certainty in Religion. But of this more hereafter. In the interim,  
I would know of Mr. Poole, whether this strange and unheard of Proposition: Christian Religion, as it is taught and delivered by all Pastors, Doctors, etc. is fallible, be subjectively in him that speaks it, an infallible Assertion, or fallible? If the first, we have an English Pope (I mean Mr. Poole) who without either Scripture, Church, or Council, can speak infallibly in matters of Faith. If that formal Proposition be fallible, it falls of itself, without further proof, to nothing, and renders this sense: I. M. P. say by a fallible Assertion, that Christian Religion is fallible; which feeble Assertion (and the weaker it is, the worse it is for him) cannot at all startle me, or any, who upon the Authority of thousands more learned than he (to say no more) hold one Religion, and but one only, certain and infallible. Perhaps he will say, that though his Proposition be fallible, yet it is highly probable against the pretended Infallibility of the Roman Church, no other society of Christians laying claim to infallibility. Mark by the way what this Adversary drives at. It is to tell the world a word of comfort, viz. That Christ jesus hath now no certain and infallible Religion taught or learned in the whole Christian world; And to make this most fallible and false Proposition good, he back's it by another of his own, as false and fallible, viz. It is at least highly probable, that the Church of Rome is fallible. Pray you on what legs doth this high supposed probability stand? I'll tell you, it stands only on Mr. Pools weak thoughts, and unwarranted word, more you have not. For, never did any ancient Council, or universal Tradition, or the unanimous consent of Fathers hold it a thing highly probable, that either Christian Religion, or the Catholic Church of Rome is fallible. Doth the Scripture favour any where this wild Assertion? No, not one syllable is found to that purpose, we have texts enough to the contrary; some I shall quote on a fit occasion.  
You will ask what then is it, that Mr. Pools proves against us in the fourth Chapter of his Nullity? I answer, just nothing. His whole strain is thus: After much tampering with those convincing places of holy Scripture, usually alleged for the Church's Infallibility, and spoiling all with his fallible fancies, he goes negatively to work, and tell's us: Such and such texts (turned out of their genuine sense by his glosses) come not home, nor prove any Church infallible; and it is no wonder, for, as perverted by him, they are none of God's Scripture, but his own scribbled whimsies. Take here one instance for many, that text of S. Paul, 1. Tim. 3. 15. where the Church is styled the pillar and ground of Truth, seems plain enough, open, and significant for the Catholic sense. Now comes Mr. Poole with his glosses, page 86. and saith perhaps, here may be an Ellipsis, of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be writ for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and if so, Timothy was the pillar, not the Church. Again, The Church here spoken of, may be that wherein Timothy was placed, not the Roman. 3. The term of pillar, notes the solidity, not the infallibility of the Church. 4. It may note the Church's Duty, not her practice with a long, etc. Observe well. Upon these wretched fallible suppositions Mr. Poole seems to conclude, that those words are unconcluding for the Infallibility of any Christian society. Put I ask by what Authority must I suppose his Ellipsis, or that the Church spoken of was Timothy's Church, not the Universal? That the term pillar notes not the Infallibility, & c? Doth God speak thus in Scripture, or rather doth not Mr. Poole vent these wild Fancies without Scripture or any unquestioned Authority? This later is most evident; And can he think by such farfetcht glosses, either to rob the Apostle of his plain obvious sense, or to make me believe that his guesses hit right on God's true meaning, delivered in this text?  
If he reply, the meaning may be as he guesses. I answer, and it may not be as he guesses, Who is here to judge between us? Who can tell me, that Mr. Pools May be is a prop sure enough to build my faith upon? He is therefore to show positively by a Propositio quiescens; that is, by some cogent proof and undoubted Authority, that S. Paul's words must be understood as he glosses, and consequently is obliged to make good some one of these desperate Propositions. Christ jesus hath now no infallible Religion taught or learned in the Christian world. All Christian Societies are fallible. That holy and universal Church, mentioned in the Creed, is fallible, etc. But to wave such proofs, to lay hold on a Text in Scripture, and torture it as he pleaseth, and after the misusage to tell us, the Text proves nothing; is only to sport with God's Word, and say, that Scripture made no Scripture by whole heaps of fallible glosses, is proofles. The foundation is good, but the superstructure is naught. Give me the strongest place in Scripture for any Article of Christian faith, I can by piddling at the Text with unevidenced glosses, both so pervert and poison the words, that at last they speak haeresy. Yet on such unproved conjectures Protestant Religion stands, and can never have better footing, while Gods unwritten Word is rejected, and no infallible Teacher is allowed of, that learns us Truth.  
One word more, and I end. Had those two Gallants, Luther and Calvin, when they took upon them to reform the darkened world of Popery, thus alarmed their Hearers. My Masters: We Preach indeed a new Gospel upon the best conjectures we are able; but you must know, that all we say is fallible: How sick would such a saying have made the strongest stomach amongst them? For, if fallible, if uncertain Doctrine, it was none of Christ jesus Doctrine, and therefore stood in need of a more pure refining. And how know our Protestants, but that yet a new sort of People may startup, and make it their task to reform all the fallible Reformers, that have troubled the world since Luther's days? Had I no other just exception against our Protestants but thus much only; That they yet know not where about They are in their reformation, and because fallible, can never know, whether for example the thing they have in hand; be yet a mere Embryo of Religion, or of a more perfect shape, a new laid egg, or a hatched chicken; whether they themselves are yet only Novices, Proficients, or Masters in the trade of Reformation; I say, were there no more, This alone would fright me from ever being Protestant.  
Believe it, the Professors of an uncertain and endless reformable Religion shall never come to settlement, till they renounce the cheat and Believe as the Apostle teaches, ad Gal. 1. 8. Licet nos, etc. Altough we, or Angel from heaven preach otherwise to you then we have preached to you, let him be accursed; which is fully to say: Believe him not. And here by the way observe, how destructive these words are of an uncertain and fallible teaching, in matters of Religion; for admit (which Mr. Poole grants) that all Christian Communities, all Councils, all Fathers, all Tradition, etc. deliver only Fallible Doctrine, (that is, Doctrine liable to error) I only may not, but am obliged to disbelieve this Truth of S. Paul, and believe him, or, an Angel sent from heaven, if either of them preached contrary to this fallible Learning. Why? Doctrine that is fallible may be false; but the preaching of an Angel sent from heaven cannot be false, and therefore is more certain than Christian Doctrine, that may be false. But I am obliged to quit the less certain Doctrine, for the most certain preaching of an Angel; ergo I must relinquish Christianity, if an Angel preach against it. The reason is. The lesser light yields to the greater, probability submits to certainty, and my fallible (though highly probable) Assent cannot but yield to the infallible Assertion of an Angel, if he speak contrary to it.  
These few considerations premised, we must insist more largely on this subject, and demonstrate that there are living and infallible Teachers of Religion in some one Society of Christians or other; which is directly opposite to Mr. Poole, who holds, That no men are so highly privileged by Almighty God, as to have subjective infallibility, or, to teach infallibly; though, perhaps, they may deliver truth (as it were by chance) but not infallibly as Teachers. I say, as Teachers, for by what I can learn by Mr. Poole and other Protestants, They think all done when they tell us, That the objective Doctrine delivered in Scripture is infallible, (which yet they cannot know without an infallible Teacher, and therefore in saying this, they speak only fallibly:) but admit they know so much, they are never the better for it, unless they jointly own some Oracle, some certain Master, who by Divine assistance interpret's Scripture without error, and as exactly convey's into our heart's Gods written revealed Verities, when any doubt ariseth, as if the Apostles taught us. These Teachers are they (can we find them out) that circumscribe our ranging Fancies, and put a limit to our swerving Thoughts, while we often read, and seldom understand those great secrets which God hath laid up in the book of Sctipture, without them (as we see by too sad experience) our weak reason, and strong Fancies pervert all, and produce monsters of heresies out of Scripture itself, whereof more hereafter.   

THE FIRST DISCOURSES OF INFALLIBLE TEACHERS, AND THE MOTIVES OF CREDIBILITY.  

THE FIRST CHAPTER.  
There Are infallible Teachers of true Christian Religion.  
1. BEfore I prove the Assertion, I would gladly learn of our Adversaries (who make all men fallible) whether, for these thousand years, the world ever had in it any Christians, who heard the infallible Doctrine of Christ truly taught, and infallibly believed it? If they disown such infallible Believers, they must jointly deny all infallible Faith, and consequently say, That though God hath revealed in Scripture innumerable Verities, yes, and for this end, to beget infallible Faith in our hearts, yet no man can lay hold on them, nor yield to them by any other assent, but what is fallible, and may be false. Methinks therefore, 
God's infallible Revelation requires an infallible assent of Faith.  an infallible Verity revealed to us forcibly requires an answerable and correspondent infallible assent of Faith in us: For to say, God speaks infallibly to me, and that I either will not, or cannot infallibly believe him, is in a word to tell him, that his certain Truths may lie close where they are in the book of Scripture, (they may rest there) without being laid up, or lodged in my hart as infallible owned and believed Truths. Most contrary are those golden words of the Apostle, 1. Thess. 2. v. 12. to this wild Doctrine: Therefore we thank God without intermission, because when ye received the word of God, which ye heard from us, ye received it not, as the word of men, but as it truly is the word of God, who (effectually) works in you that believe. Observe well: He who receives the delivered Word of God, as it is truly God's Word and not man's; He that hath in his hart the infallible Word of God, and, by the cooperation of Grace, yields an assent to it, as to the infallible word of God, cannot but believe what God speaks, and as he speaks: but God speaks infallibly, Therefore he believes infallibly; or if he reach not so high, but falters with an assent that is fallible, he Believes not God, nor his Word (as it truly is God's Word) who never did nor can speak any thing fallibly. Now, if on the other side our Adversaries grant, that Christians heard the infallible Doctrine of Christ, and believed it infallibly, They also must admit of a Subjective infallibility, at least in such Believers. And this truth Scripture clearly points at, in these and the like undeniable places, obvious to all: I know who I believe, and am certain. Let the house of Israël certainly know. Although we or Angel from heaven, etc. Faith is a conviction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or a strong argument of 
Belief that is infallible, supposeth infallible Teachers.  what appears not, etc. But these I wave, because known to every one. Let us now proceed to the Teachers of Christian Religion, and prove our Assertion.  
2. To go on clearly, I would know whether there have not always been, now are, and ever will be among These true and infallible Believers, some Pastors, Doctors, or Teachers, who, Authorised by Christ, are by Duty, both to instruct Christians, in case they swerve from Truth, and also to reduce Aliens from Christ, to a true Belief of his sacred Doctrine? Certainly, Mr. Poole will own such Pastors in the world; if not, what are Ministers for in England? Or, why doth He assume to himself this Office of teaching, whilst He endeavours to reclaim a seduced Captain from his Apostasy, as he calls it? And is it possible? What? After such an 
The harsh Doctrine of Sectaries.  acknowledgement, shall we hear this unheard, harsh, and most Haeretical Assertion: That all these Pastors, who are to unbeguile souls, may be beguiled Themselves, or teach false Doctrine? And that not so much as one, amongst them all, is so Highly privileged, as to instruct with certainty? If all are fallible, and none Teaches certainly, the Blind leads the blind, the Scholar is as good as his Master; at least, none can in prudence learn of any, if this persuasion live in him. He that Teaches me, may as well err as I, who am to Learn. If an unskilful Traveller inquire the way to an unknown place of one, knowing it no better than he that asks, He travel's on with no security, and This is our very case: Amongst so many Byways, so many mazes of Sects and Schisms, as now swarm in the world, and like cobwebs intricate thousands of souls in their journey, we are posting on as fast as Time can drive us, to a place yet unknown, a long Eternity. The directing thread, that safely draws us out of these Labirinths, is Sure, Firm, and infallible Faith; we ask to learn this of our new Doctors, and not one can certainly say, Such is the way: This infallibly is the Faith that winds us out of error, and most assuredly lead▪ s to Heaven: or, if any say so much, he speaks only Fallibly.  
3. And here is the summary of Protestants comfortless 
Protestant's doctrine comfortless.  Doctrine. They have Pastors that talk, but Teach nothing certainly: They have Infallible Verities locked up in Scripture, but none can open that Book, or convey them with Assurance into men's hearts: They hear God speak, but none of them certainly knows what he says: They have Christ's Promises of a Spirit of Truth ' abiding with some Christian Teachers (find them where they can) for ever, to the end of the world; but now, They must say, because all Pastors are fallible, That Christ keep's not his word, if all may deceive, and Teach both fallible and false Doctrine. Finally, they must own such Believers, as S. Paul mentioneth, Who receive the word of God, as it Truly is the word of God; but have not one Pastor, or Doctor, that dare show his face, and say he Teaches this word infallibly. Yet infallible Believers and infallible Teachers seem near Correlatives; the one, if Faith come by Hearing, staggers without the other, and 
Infallible Hearers of God's word suppose Infallible Teachers.  methinks when the Apostle saith, Rom. 10. 14. None can hear without a Preacher, he supposeth as well the Preacher instructing) infallible, as the Hearer infallibly instructed.   

CHAP. II.  
The Infallible Doctrine of Christ necessarily requires infallible Teachers.  
1. THe proof of my Assertion is more fully declared Chap. 4. n. 6. and relies on this Principle Infallible Doctrine taught only fallibly, under that notion of fallibly taught Doctrine, is not the Doctrine of Christ. We are of God, saith Scripture, john Epist. 1. cap. 4. v. 6. He that knows God, here's us; he that is not of God, heareth us not. Hereby we know the Spirit of Truth, and the Spirit of error. Which is to say in other Terms. He that here's an infallible Teacher, hath the Spirit of Truth; and he that here's not an infallible Teacher, wants this Spirit of Truth. Again, Epist. 2. v. 9 Every one that recedes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and remains not in the Doctrine of Christ, hath not God, etc. But every one, that Hears only a fallible Teacher, easily recedes, and remains not in the Doctrine of Christ; Therefore he hath not God, nor the Spirit of Truth in him.  
2. Upon these grounds I Argue further. Christ Doctrine, infallible in itself, is either now taught infallibly by some Pastors lawfully sent, or fallibly. If the first; we must own infallible Teachers of this infallible Doctrine. If the second, That is, if Christ's infallible Doctrine be taught only Fallibly, ex parte Docentis, it follows evidently, first, That though God speaks infallibly, yet no man hath certainty of what he saith. It follows secondly, That such a fallible Teaching of Christ's Doctrine, may be cavilled at, and disputed against. For, 
Doctrine taught Fallibly may be cavilled at, and disputed against.  all Doctrine taught fallibly, and which by force of its Proposal, or merit of the Doctrine, may deceive and be false, is liable to cavil, and dispute; Therefore this Doctrine may be also cavilled at, and disputed against. It follows thirdly, That really Christ's Doctrine (perchance perverted by a fallible and false Delivery) may not be Taught at all. The reason is: No other Doctrine is, or can be taught, but what is fallible, and may be false: but Christ's Doctrine is nor fallible, nor can be false; Therefore that Doctrine which is only Taught fallibly (as it is so delivered) is none of Christ's infallible Doctrine. Consequently, if any man would now utterly abjure all the taught Doctrine of the Christian world, he might do it without being an Haeretick. I prove it: He who only abjures and Denies Fallible Doctrine which may be false, neither abjures nor denies Christ's Doctrine nor any Christian Verity, which cannot be false: But all Christian Doctrine, that can be Taught (Sectaries say) is Fallible and may be False; Therefore he who Denies such a fallible taught Doctrine, denies not Christ's Doctrine, and cannot be upon that account an Haeretick. You will say: He who Denies all Christian taught Doctrine, certainly Denies some of those Objective Verities which are revealed in God's Word, and therefore is an Haeretick. Very true, if he be sure, That his Teacher delivers those Verities infallibly: But our Protestants say, Because all Teachers 
Infallible Doctrine taught only fallibly, implies no Denial of Christ's infallible Verities.  are fallible, none can have that Assurance from them, or any; Therefore their Doctrine, as it is taught fallibly, may be cavilled at, yes, and denied also without the guilt of Haeresy. The reason is. Whoever, only Denies the fallible Teaching of infallible Doctrine (yet not known for such) Denies not the Objective infallible Doctrine in itself, but the Formal fallible Delivery of it; and this, he may boldly say, is none of Christ's Doctrine.  
3. The substance of what I would here express, may 
No assurance can be had from men that Teach Christ's Doctrine fallibly.  perhaps more plainly be reduced to Form thus: A society of men, who can do no more but only Teach fallible Doctrine, which may be false, can assure none, that they Teach Christ's infallible Doctrine, which cannot be false: But all societies of Christians can do no more but Teach fallible Doctrine which may be false, (for all Churches, all Councils, all Fathers, all Papists, all Protestants, and Mr. Poole with them, are (as they say) Fallible in their Feaching;) Therefore not one amongst them can assure any, that he Teaches or Delivers the infallible Doctrine of Christ. I say, That he Teaches; for, if we meet with a Simplician That tells us, He builds his Faith and Religion, not upon any Preachers talk, but on the Objective Verities revealed in Scripture. I answer: Unless 
Objective revealed Verities no sufficient ground of infallible Faith.  he first learn of some Infallible Oracle, what Scripture exactly speaks in a hundred controverted places, he shall never by his own poreing on a Bible either arrive to the depth of God true meaning, or derive infallible Faith from those Objective revealed Verities. The reply supposeth, That all Truth couched in Scripture, is as easily understood, with the unclasping of a Bible, as the sun is seen at noonday. If so, Ministers hereafter may (for the most of men) shut their books, stop their mouths, and preach no more.  
4. Some yet perhaps will say: One may preach the infallible Doctrine of Christ, though himself be fallible in the Delivery of it, which feem's manifest; for every Catechist, or Preacher, though he delivers the infallible Doctrine of Christ, yet delivers it not infallibly; why therefore may not Ministers in England teach, as those do, infallible Doctrine, though, ex parte subjecti docentis, they Teach it fallibly? I answer first: Ministers in England have no Infallible Church to recurre to, in case They err; for their whole Community is fallible. The Catholic Preacher hath a sure Oracle to rely on; an Infallible Church, that unbeguil's him if he swerve from Truth, which is a mighty Advantage and a great 
The Advantage of an infallible Church.  Disparity in the present question. Now if you say Sectaries may as well rely on infallible Scripture for their Direction, as we do on an Infallible Church; I deny the Supposition, and shall show hereafter, That not so much as one Article of Protestancy can be proved by Scripture. Again: No man calls into doubt the Objective Verities contained in Scripture, known as such: But here is the difficulty, whether the new invented Interpretations made on Scripture by Sectaries be true or false; and if false, They have no Infallible Oracle to amend the Error as the Catholic Teacher hath.  
5. I answer secondly: S. Paul, methinks, lays foundation enough to solve the Objection, Rom. 10. 15. How shall They preach unless they he sent? Why therefore may we not assert. That every Catechist, every Preacher that hath a lawful Mission, and is sent by the Infallible Church to preach Christ's sacred Doctrine, if he preach that Doctrine which Christ and his Church approves of, is then, under that Notion of a Member conjoined with an Infallible Church, Infallible in his Teaching? Though all vulgar taught Doctrine is not such. Now Ministers, who are unsent men, and therefore divorced from this infallible Moral Body, cannot but talk, as they do, Fallibly.  
6. I would not have any to mistake my meaning. Know therefore first: I do not say, That this or that Pastor, purely considered as a Pastor, is infallible in all he Teaches. Nor secondly, That either Councils assembled, or particular Bishops, are by any intrinsic inherent quality elevated to a state of Infallibility. But thirdly, I affirm: That God, who, according to Christ's promise, will ever guide his Church in Truth, cannot permit All the Pastors and Teachers in it to swerve from Carholick Doctrine: For, if so, The whole Catholic Church might err, which is contrary to 
Pastors▪ lawfully sent teach Infallible Doctrine infallibly.  Christ's promise. Hence I say, fourthly: Every Bishop or Pastor, though not Personally infallible, yet when he is sent to preach Christ's Doctrine, and complies with his Duty, That is, when he Teaches Nothing, but what he hath commission to teach in the Name of God and his Church; such a man. I say, considered as a nember conjoined with an Infallible Church in the Delivery of Christ's Verities, may be said to teach infallibly; For upon this supposition, he doth not only speak Truth as it were by chance (An Haeretick may do so;) But more, as he speaks in the name of God and his Church, He teaches as the Church teacheth, that is, infallibly. The Reason is Manifest in Catholic Principles; Because the Holy Ghost ever Assists some Pastors in the Catholic Church to teach true Christian Doctrine, and 'tis as certain that Those he Assists teach it infallibly; Therefore a Pastor, Prelate or Bishop that Delivers Christ's Doctrine, as is now declared, teaches Infallibly. You will say, This Pastor, or that Bishop may, trough malice, ignorance, Objections answered. or both, swerve from Truth. I grant it; but then he teaches not as one of God's Ministers, not complies with his Mission. You will say again. Thus much at least follows out of this Principle, That a Bishop when he Teaches as lawfully sent, is at that instant as infallible as the Pope when he Defines in Council; or, to speak in Mr. Pools homely language, hath a Pope in his belly. I answer. Every faithful Bishop may have as Infallible Faith, as the Pope: what wonder is it therefore if, when he Teaches as both Pope and the Church teach, he be then said to Teach infallibly? Yet there is a great Disparity between the Pope and particular Pastors, Bishops, etc. For no particular Bishop can make any new Declarations of Faith obliging all Christians to believe; The Pope with a Council can do so. No particular Bishop, precisely considered as such, is infallible; For he may Teach to day as one lawfully sent, and to morrow err by ignorance, yea, and Malice also: But the Pope, considered as Pope and Christ's Vicar on Earth can never Define in Councils but Infallibly; and therefore his Assistance is in a higher measure certain, and supereminently Infallible.  
7. The last ground of this Doctrine (which great Divines 
The whole Church consisting of Pastors etc. is infallible.  assert) is, That the whole Church of Christ, which consists of Pastors and Hearers, of Teachers and Learners, Antecedently to Pope and Council Conciliarily assembled together, is infallible; For the Promises of Christ ever Assisting the Church, Primarily belong to this whole moral Body, which cannot err: Against this Church Hell gates shall never prevail, with it The Spirit of Truth shall re main forth ever, etc. Now this Infallibility cannot but remain and stand fast in the members of this mystical Body; not in Pastors only, for it avails little, that These teach infallibly, if none learn their infallible Doctrine: nor in Hearers only, because they learn not infallible Doctrine without a Teacher. Infallibility then accompanies both Pastors and Hearers. 
How Pastors and Hearers are infallible.  As therefore, These believing Hearers (conjoined in Faith with this infallible Church) are under That notion, infallible, (no Catholic can deny it:) so likewise these Believing Pastors, as conjoined in Doctrine with this unerring Church, and Teaching what the Church Teaches, under that notion, are infallible in their Doctrine. Yet, as. I now intimated, there is a great Difference between the Representative Church of a Pope and Council lawfully and Conciliarily assembled, and particular Pastors, Particular Christians, and Particular Churches; For, the Representative 
Particular Pastors may err.  Church, because of the powerful Assistance of the Holy Ghost, cannot swerve from Truth in its Definitions; but this Pastor, that Teacher, that Particular Church may swerve (altogether cannot) though under the notion of a Pastor sent to teach the Infallible Doctrine of Christ and his Church, he Teaches infallibly. Separate him from this moral Body, he looseth Assistance, and cannot but teach Fallibly, though he speak Truth by chance; consequently he is none of Christ's Teachers, for Christ never empowered any to teach Fallible Doctrine, that may be false. You will say, separate a Minister from the Truth of the Gospel, and he is also no Teacher. Alas, he separat's himself; For, he hath no Mission to preach as he doth, and moreover Professeth that he can teach nothing infallibly. But of this more afferward: In the interim.  
8. To cut of all reply to the Argument, I propose it thus. No man that is by nature liable to error, or wants God's special Divine Assistance in his teaching, and Positively renounceth all infallible Societies of Christian Teachers, can teach with certainty Christ's Infallible Doctrine. But all men, now at least in being, are by nature liable to error, want this special Assistance in their Teaching, and must (as Mr. Poole will have it) positively renounce all infallible Societies of Christian Teachers; Therefore no man can Teach with certainty, or deliver the Infallible Doctrine of Christ. The Major is evident: For he who by nature is liable to error, and hath not infallible 
Men wanting infallible Assistance to teach, cannot deliver Christ's Doctrine infallibly.  Assistance to Teach infallibly, or wants the Guidance of an infallible Society to Direct him, may as easily err and miss in his teaching, as hit right on the Infallible Doctrine of Christ. The Minor is granted by Mr. Poole; For all Churches; whether Roman or English, Arian or Grecian, are liable to error, want special Assistance in their Teaching, and ought positively to renounce all Societies of infallible Christian Teachers; Therefore, the conclusion undeniably follows, which is, That none can with certainty Teach the Infallible Doctrine of Christ. And from hence also follows an utter ruin of Christian Religion (yea and of Scripture too) as I shall hereafter Demonstrate. For if all Pastors, all Doctors, all Teachers of Christian Religion may err in the Delivery of their Doctrine, all Learners of it, may likewise err in Hearing it; and if so, we have no certainty, That God is now Adored in Spirit and Truth by either, Teacher, or Hearer.  
9 The ultimate reason, why a Total ruin of Christian 
The utter ruin of Christian Religion follows the fallible Teaching of it in a whole Church. What all Euangelical Preachers lakoured for.  Religion accompanieth the fallible Teaching of it, is thus proved. None can teach Christian Faith, that doth not Propose, or make Almighty God to be the Author of it, And therefore our Saviour, john 7. 16. told the jews, That his Doctrine was not his, but his Fathers that sent him, Yea, The Prophets also, and all other Evangelical Preachers, chief laboured in this, to persuade their Hearers, that God was the Author of that Doctrine they taught. Now say I: None can Propose or make God the Author of Christian Faith, that doth not own it as a Doctrine asserted by his Eternal Veracity infallibly revealing Truth (for this is the Formal Object of Christian Faith;) But He that only Teaches fallible Doctrine, which may be false, deserts this Formal Object, and can neither own God for the Author of it, nor his infallible revealing Verity: Ergo, he must own a fallible Authority to uphold this Doctrine, which is utterly Destructive of Christian Faith. The reason will be yet more evidenced, if you propose it after this manner. A Doctrine, which by force of all the Principles it hath is merely fallible and 
The last ground of this Doctrine.  no more, may be : But Christian Doctrine, as it is Taught by all Pastors and Ministers of the Word, etc. is thus fallible; Ergo it may be false: But, God never sent Christ our Lord, nor Christ his Apostles or any, to Teach a Doctrine that may be false; Ergo he sent none to Teach a Doctrine or Religion that is fallible. I prove it. He sent none to Teach any other Doctrine, but that which is founded, and intrinsically relies on his Eternal infallible Verity revealing Truth: But such a Doctrine can neither be false nor fallible. Therefore this taught Doctrine is certain and infallible: For, to grant that God sent Pastors to teach a Doctrine which relies on his infallible Revelation, is to say, He assist's them to teach it infallibly.   

CHAP. III.  
Other proofs for Teachers, and a Church Infallible.  
1. I Argue again thus. Supposing the promises of Christ made in Scripture, God's Goodness cannot oblige the whole moral Body of Christians to believe a falsity, or to contradict his certain revealed Verities. But if all Pastors and Doctors may err in their Instruction, whilst they teach Christian Doctrine, God would 
God cannot oblige us to believe a falsity.  as indifferently oblige us to believe a falsity, and contradict his certain Verities, as to hear truth when by chance it is taught, which is contrary to his Goodness. The first Proposition is evident, and confessedly true; For our Adversaries say, it is repugnant to all conceptions of God's Goodness to require of men, under pain of Damnation, to Believe something as infallibly true, which is really false. The other also is as clear. For if all Pastors, all Doctors, who have the charge of souls, may (because fallible) as well Teach false Doctrine as true, as easily err, as Deliver Christ's pure Verities, Christians are, by virtue of Gods Command already intimated, bound both to hear and obey them. Matth. 18. 17. If he will not hear the Church, that is, as S. chrysostom expounds, the Prelates and chief Pastors of it, let him be to thee as a Heathen, etc. Hebr. 13. 17. Obey your Prelates, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, your Guides, your Leaders and Commanders, and be subject to them; For they watch as being, to render account of your souls. Again, vers. 7. The Apostle commands us to imitate the Faith of these Pastors and Teachers. From these and other innumerable places of Scripture, known to all, I argue. What is possible may be reduced to Act, but it is possible, That all Pastors and Teachers may err, and Deliver false Doctrine to the Christian world; and in case they do so, I am upon these plain express Ordinances of God, obliged to Believe them. Therefore I must Believe them, although they Teach false Doctrine. And if so, God obligeth me to Believe a Falsity; or, which is a real Verity, I am forced to grant this undeniable Truth, that his Allseeing providence doth now, and ever will Preserve a Church, whose Pastors and Teachers are infallible in the Delivery of Christian Doctrine. Without this certain established Infallibility in some one or other Society of Believers, Christianity is no more but a mere tottering, reeling, and uncertain Religion; yet I must listen to it, whether Those who teach it, stand or fall, that is, whether they err or not, teach an imposture or Truth.  
2. To confirm this proof, I ask whether God, after he had delivered his own certain Verities infallibly, and made also (by his Divine Assistance) Those first Masters of the Gospel, his Blessed Apostles, infallible, in their Delivery of these Verities; whether then, I say in the ensuing ages he divorced himself from his 
A question proposed to Sectaries.  Church, and withdrew all Special Assistance from it, or, yet continued that gracious favour to some Pastors and Doctors of a Christian society? If he continued that care and providence for the Direction of some Pastors in Truth, Those, because so guided, are still infallible in their Teaching. Contrary wise, if he abandoned that charge, and deprived all Pastors for the Future of infallible Assistance, This woeful consequence follows. That Christian Religion, once strongly supported by God's unerring Spirit, ever since the Apostles Preaching, hath lost that Hold, and now stands tottering on no more steady ground, than what the weak, mutable, and erring Sentiments of men can afford it. Now how unmeet these are for so great a charge, Solomon Sap. 9 15. says enough: Cogitationes mortalium timidae, & incertae providentiae nostrae. The cogitations of mortal men are fearful, and our Providence uncertain; yet so it is, (and here mark the hideous crime of Protestants) who first Divorce Christ from his Church, and violently pull Religion 
How Sectaries transgress,  from its centre, which is God's infallible directing Spirit; and then make all the taught Doctrine of Christianity, to lean and rely only upon man's weak, timid, staggering, and errable conceptions. The proof is evident; for either it relies on God, and so is infallible, or upon Humane reason, and therefore as This is various, Religion cannot but be changeable. Let then the world judge (I appeal to no other Tribunal) whether Christians can be satisfied with this comfortless Doctrine. All they can now learn from any Christian Pastor touching Religion, hath only man's weak Thought, and Reason for it; but no certain Assurance that God speaks by these Pastors, Because all, and every one of them (left to themselves) are fallible.  
3. I must prosecute this matter further, wherefore 
Man too feeble to preserve Christian Doctrine in its purity,  I say this Truth boldly. It is above man's power and policy (weak and errable in his Conceptions) constantly and unchangably to support, or carry on Age after Age the profound Doctrine of Christ in its Primitive purity, without Divine Assistance. Wit alone (dazzled as we see in the search of the most obvious things in nature) is insufficient, either rightly to Penetrate these high Mysteries of grace, or with certainty to convey them unto us in that exact sense, as God once delivered them. The reason hereof is drawn from the sublime Excellency of Christian Religion, 
Because of its sublime Excellency.  which being (as all know) a Doctrine of Gods own incomprehensible Wisdom, a Communication of his deepest Secrets, cannot but transcend the force of humane knowledge; it cannot but lie, as it were, in a region above the reach of weak Reason only, and stand at a great distance from our fallible Discourses. Whence I argue thus. All light and knowledge, which flow from a fallible Power and capacity, cannot but be answerable to such a capacity, id est, Deficient, uncertain, and Fallible: But all the light and knowledge, which Christians now have from either Church or Pastors, concerning this sublime Doctrine of Christ and Gods revealed Verities in Scripture, flow, and are derived from no other, but from a fallible capacity, which is man's errable and weak understanding; and not from God's infallible Assistance (who say our Protestants) hath withdrawn infallibility from the Church: Ergo, This taught Doctrine cannot but be Deficient, uncertain, 
Fallible Doctrine is not Christ's.  and Fallible. Grant this, and none can prudently rely on it, none can know by any Principle, whether it be true or false, none finally can own it for Christ's certain Doctrine. Rob therefore the Church of its proper Dote, which is Divine Assistance; take from it the Spirit of infallibility, Cancel that Truth of the Gospel, I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy Faith fail not; Destroy that impregnable Rock, whereon Christianity is founded, Matt. 15. Tu es Petrus, etc. Though all the Pastors in the world were salomon's for wit, Augustine's for learning, Gregory's for vigilancy, Chrysostoms' for eloquence; yet they would be too weak, feeble, and fallible Instruments either rightly to illuminate 
Wit alone too weak to tamper with Religion.  us (by the force of wit or Learning only) concerning those High Verities revealed in Scripture, or exactly to Preserve them in their first candour, without change and Alteration. Alas! might wit alone tamper with God's Truths at pleasure, might it turn Religion into as many Forms or shapes as weak Reason often conceives, This too unskilful Master would, as Fancies and judgements are various, now build, now destroy, now add, now subtract, now make, now mar, and bring in more confusion into Christinianity, than the wisest men are able to redress. And  
4. Thus much we see evidently, not only in the old 
Man's with the cause of errors.  Philosophers, who, led on by their weak Discourse and guesses, grossly mistake in their Opinions concerning Beatitude; but in some learned Fathers also (witness a 
Examples of it.  Tertullian and Origen,) For, These two great wits of the world, because they left the Guidance of the Church, and relied too much on their private Judgements, fell, as we know, into deplorable errors. But most of all this misery is visible in all condemned Heretics, as Arians, Pelagians, and Nestorians (witty and learned enough) but Because wit too boldly entered into Divine Mysteries, and meddled with matters above its strength, these men lost themselves; and here was the sole cause 
God's special Assistance preserves his Curch from error.  of their Ruin and falling from Truth. Whence I conclude contrary to Protestant's (who have nothing to support Religion but their own weak and errable Conjectures) That unless God's gracious Providence particularly Protect his Church, and by special Assistance Preserve it from error; The very best of us all (though never so learned) left to our weak conjectures, and fallible Discourses, might most easily become Arians, Nestorians, Pelagians, Protestants, Socinians, now Christians, now no Christians, or what you will. Protestancy, and all Haeresy, which stand topling on no firmer ground then mere conjectures are, lead the way to these Downfalls, to no Religion, or any Religion, as Fancy best likes.  
5. To prevent therefore this great Evil, the wise Providence 
God's Providence over his Church.  of God (who well foresaw man's weakness and Instability) first Delivered his own eternal Truths infallibly; (none doubts of this.) Next, he caused these Truths to be taught infallibly by the first Masters of the Gospel, his chosen Disciples; here of also there is no doubt with our modern men. Moreover, Because his real Intention was, That not only the Primitive Christians, should exactly receive those revealed Verities from infallible Teachers; but others also in ensuing ages (for All souls were providently cared for) His infinite Goodness established a visible Catholic Church, whose Head and Pastors, guided, not by humane wit or Policy, but by Assistance derived from the Holy Ghost, should, by virtue of so special grace, Teach Truth infallibly, and preserve poor souls from error to the end of the world. Without this Addition 
Preserves Christianity from ruin.  of a perpetuated Assistance, as well in order to the Later, as first Believers, providence would not have done its work completely, Christianity ere this day (too unsteedily built) would have fallen to Ruin, and as often alrered from itself in the space of 1667. years, as our Sectaries have done in this last hundred. A more spiteful Blow therefore cannot be given to God, a greater Chimaera cannot be thought on, then to grant, as Sectaries do, that his All seeing wisdom first founded a Church upon infallible Teachers, and next to spoil all with this ungodly Assertion, viz: Afterward, when Christians as much stood in need of infallible Pastors for their Direction (because of emergent Heresies) than it was, He withdrew Assistance from them, Abandoned his charge, and left a whole Church to the wavering, timid, and uncertain Sentiments of mere erring men, who altogether, because by nature fallible, might as easily (without this superior grace of infallibility) have taught gross errors, as the Verities of Christian Religion. This sequel follows from our Protestants Principles, where you se enough (I say it once more) of their great sin and Haeresy,   

CHAP. IU.  
Replies to these Arguments are answered.  
1. ONe perhaps may be. God surely will never permit all the Pastors of Christianity to err and deceive the world: at least this is no Consequence, They may err, Ergo they do and will actually err, for many things may be, which never will be. I answer, and many things actually happen, Answer to Objections. which were never suspected would be: and why may not this diffused Error be one of them, who knows the contrary? In Protestants principles we have the greatest Presumption imaginable for this actual error of all: For, they say, That ample and ancient Church of Rome, and all condemned Heretics with it erred: set then these aside, it is impossible to design plainly such Christian Teachers as never the facto erred. 2. The very possibility (yes and facility also) of All falling into Error, makes the actuality of it fearfully doubtful, now men had been mad to lose both Lives and Goods, to die ignominiously on Gibbets, for any doubtful and uncertain Doctrine. The Apostle put other thoughts in the primitive Martyr's hearts, other words in their mouths: Scio cui credidi, & certus sum. I know who I believe, and am certain. No Hearers therefore, can certainly rely on any doubtful and uncertain Religion.  
2. The second reply. Admit that all Christian Pastors 
Second Reply.  teach erroneous Doctrine, yet no great mischief follows; for Those who hear them are either conscious of the Falsity; And if so, they are not to believe their Teachers, or, They err invincibly, which is a blameless Error, and Therefore cannot in justice be held an Offence. The first part of the Reply supposes some instructed Christians wiser than all their Teachers together, which is an Impertinency never heard of. The second touches not the difficulty; for here we blame not such as may, perhaps, invincibly err; But say, That the blame goes higher, and is unworthily cast on God, who obliges Christians to believe the Pastors of a Catholic Church, and yet gives them such disabled one's, that all of them may err universally, and teach Doctrine contrary to his revealed Truths. Here lies the mystery of iniquity, upheld 
Protestant's Mystery of iniquity.  by Protestants, and the ugliness of it appears in this wrethched Assertion: God will have me to believe a Catholic Church; yet this whole Catholic Church, that is all the 
They cast blame upon God.  Pastors, all the Councils, all the Fathers, Doctors and Prelates of this Church, may teach me such false Doctrine as God never intended I should learn. They may, if fallible, teach us, that Christ is not God, that Heaven is not a place of Eternal Happiness, nor Hell an abode of Eternal torments: Such Heresies have been spread by Those who went under the name of Christians; and why may not, I beseech you, all Christian Pastors abuse the world as much, if God's gracious ordinance, concerning the Church's infallibility, fail us?  
3. A third reply: It is one Thing to teach Truth, 
Teaching Truth infallibly.  and another to teach it infallibly: Put therefore the case, That Almighty God foresaw from Eternity, that though all Pastors of the Church, potentiâ antecedente, antecedently might err, yet some at least, ex suppositione consequenti, or, consequently, would not err, but teach Christian Verities faithfully. Suppose, I say, only thus much. We have sufficient Assurance of Truth actually taught in the world, without that Previous infallible Assistance we plead for, which seems here useless; for if either man or Angel Delivers a Verity, it matters nothing, whether it arise from a Fallible or infallible cause. Our Faith therefore hath strength enough, if it rely on Truth actually Taught, though the Teacher wants infallibility. I answer: If God foresaw, that all the Pastors of his Church would not err or teach false Doctrine, This Verity is either revealed to Christians; as a Divine Truth, or no: if not, we make that revealed, which is not revealed, and consequently can ground no Assurance on it: if it be revealed and known to us, this very Revelation, viz: All the Pastors of the Church shall not err, is an undoubted Principle, which, assented to by true Faith, is our Security, Because such a Faith supposeth the contrary Actual error of all essentially excluded by virtue of God's Revelation; For it is impossible that God tell us this Truth. All the Pastors of my Church shall not err in any age, and yet, in sensu composito of this Revelation permit them to err universally. Observe in one Instance the security we have by force of such a Revelation.  
4. Suppose, that God had revealed to Isaac, that his Father Abraham would not sacrifice him, and withal, that Isaac firmly believed that Verity; He had been as indubitably secured from dying at that time, as if Abraham's hands had been tied in chains, or wholly made impotent to give a fatal blow. Now mark the Application. As God's Eternal Prevision of abraham's not taking Isaac's life away, Antecedently supposed the cause thereof actually also foreseen (antecedently, I say, in a foregoing sign os nature) so likewise it is in our present case, when from Eternity he knew, that all the Pastors of his Church would not actually err, and revealed this Truth in time; His All-seing wisdom Previously, pro priori signo rationis, foresaw also the total cause of their actual not Erring, which cause (as I have already proved) was not the power of man's weak, variable, and mistaking Reason; But the most certain Principle of God's special and Divine Assistance. When therefore God (as the Objection supposeth) revealed that Verity▪ All shall not err, he did not only, by virtue of his Revelation, impossibilitate the contrary universal error, burr warranted more, that, all of them, because prevented by special Assistance, could not err. And this is what Scripture Energitically tells us, of Hell gates not prevailing against the Church, of Christ's Being with the Church to te end of the world; whereof more hereafter. In the interim you see; that Christian 
Christian Faith relies on Truth taught by an Infallible Oracle.  Faith doth not only rely on a mere contingent (or hap hazard) Delivery of Truth; but on Truth, taught by an Assisted and infallible Oracle, which All must assert, or grant, that although Christ himself, by a supposed Impossibility, had been fallible in 
No certitude of Truth had Christ, and his Apostles taught it Fallibly.  his Preaching, or the Apostles likewise fallible in Their writing Scripture, and only (because liable to error, had delivered God's Verities contingently, by chance, Christian Religion might yet have stood as firm and unshaken as now it is, which is a horrid, and an unheard of Haeresy.  
5. A fourth reply: We cannot prove by good reason (if we set aside some ambiguous Passages of Scripture, which only seemingly say the contrary) that the immediate Proponent of true certain Christian Faith (catholics say 'Tis the Church) ought to be certain and infallible. It seems enough, say some, that this Faith be taught upon a rational Evidence, which Evidence, finally resolved, comes to no more but to a Moral certainty. These (as I am informed) ground themselves on this Principle, That all the Assurance we can have of Christian Religion, hath for its whole Foundation moral Certainty only, and it seems a prop firm enough to support it. More it cannot have.  
6. The Objection contains two parts. To the first I answer: If Divine Faith be in the world, Reason 
Divine Faith must have an infallibie Teacher.  convinceth, that the object of it be propounded by a Certain and infallible Teacher, and then most, when Points fundamental lie under Dispute, and are in controversy. Faith therefore requires two things essentially, (to omit other Necessaries) an Object, which is God's Revelation, and a Proposition of this object made by some Teacher to Christians, which Doctrine the Apostle ratifies, Rom. 10. 15. How shall they hear without a Preacher. By virtue of this Proposition (whether we call it Cause, or an Essential Condition) the Elicite Act of Faith follows in a Believer, and intellectually lays, as it were hold, both on God's Revelation and the Thing revealed. Observe now well. God's Revelation (none doubts it) is certain and infallible. Divine Faith, which resteth on this Motive, and proceeds from Grace, is also certain and infallible. The only Difficulty remaining, concerns this Proponent of Faith's Object, and it is, whether He that Directs me, and endeavours rightly to settle my Faith upon God's infallible Revelation, do his work with assurance, fallibly, or infallibly.  
7. I say first. God's infallible Revelation avails nothing in order to Faith, unless Christians by their Faith lay hold on the Certainty thereof, or own it as infallible, and the assured ground of their Assent. The reason is. Because God speaks infallibly to Christians for this End, That his infallible Word may have influence into Faith, and support in with Certainty. If therefore this revealed Word be not Certainly Proposed (as it is) infallible, if it be not duly applied to a Believers understanding, under its 
The object of Faith must be infallibly applied.  own Notion of certainty, that strength of infallibility lies as it were dead, without Operation, and profits Belief no more, than Food doth a Body into which it cannot enter. The similitude is fit: For as Food, though apt to strengthen a Body, is just as if it were not, unless it be duly Applied; so Gods Certain Revelation, though most Proportionate to strengthen a Soul in Faith, yet in order to this Effect, it looseth all Efficacy, while a due Application of its infallibility is wanting.  
8. To illustrate more this necessary Truth; I say secondly. When a Revelation lies darkly in Scripture, as it often doth in High points of Controversy, according to the measure or degrees of Certitude, which the Proponent of Faith gives to the Revelation, and saith, God speaks thus, An Assent answerably follows with like Certitude in the Hearer, and not a stronger. If therefore the Proponent only say Doubtfully, I think God speaks as I preach, but am not Certain; 
God's Revelation is received according as 'tis propounded.  Doubtful also is the Assent given to this Preaching. If he say, What I teach is Probable, The Assent can be no more but Probable. If finally He truly say, I teach Infallibly what is revealed, the Assent Answers, and is Infallible. The reason is clear. For, as no Eye can see Colours in darkness before light makes them visible, yea, and according to the measure of light it see's them: so no Intellectual Eye can discover a dark Revelation, before he borrow light from his Teacher, and as The light is less or more, so He see's that object less, or more perfectly. A dubious and uncertain Proposal therefore, made of a certain Revelation, when it doth not Clearly manifest itself, is like a glimmering light, And neither doth, nor can apply the Objective infallibility Thereof with Assurance to man's intellectual Faculty, which yet seek's after Certainty in matters of Belief. This needs no proof. For he who proposeth only Doubfully a Revelation, which is Certain in itself, both in actu signato, and exercito, saith no more but timidly thus much: Perhaps I declare 
A timide proposal of Divine Revelation begets no more but a doubtful Faith.  what God speaks, and perhaps I do not: For my Declaration only Doubfully guesses at the Certainty of the Revelation, And it is against the nature of all Doubt to convey Certainty into any understanding. As long therfote as the infallibility of a Revelation stands remote from me, For want of an undoubted Application made by an infallible Proponent, it can no more transfuse Certainty into Faith, than fire, at a great distance, warm, That is, no more Then if it were not Certain in itself, or not at all in Being. Whence I conclude. That a certain Revelation (if obscure in Scripture) requires a Certain Proposition, Because It little avails me to know this truth, That if God speaks, he speaks infallibly, unless, hîc & nunc, in these circumstance when he speaks to me for my Salvation, I yield my certain Assent to the infallibility of his Word, which cannot be done, unless I have Assurance from my Teacher, that he speaks (as I ought to believe) infallibly. Upon these undeniable Principles I say, thirdly. Our 
Sectaries can have no Divine Faith.  Sectaries can do no more but doubtfully guess at what they Believe, and consequently (as Protestant's) never yet had, nor can have Divine, certain, and infallible Faith. I prove the Assertion. All Faith, which hath no other Certitude, than what is derived from Those, who propound the object of it (id est, God's Revelation) uncertainly and doubtfully, is no more but wavering, Opinative and doubtful. But the Faith of Protestants is evidently such, Because no man, or Society of men amongst them, can without doubt and fear infallibly say: God speaks as I preach, and I infallibly preach as God speaks; For, if he aver thus much with Truth, he Propound's the object of his Faith infallibly, and therefore is so fare infallible. If he do 
They cannot propose Faith infallibly.  not, his preaching must be finally resolved into his own timid, weak, and wavering Opinion, which weighed, comes to no more but this Levity. I hope well, and think I preach what God hath infallibly Revealed, yet am not certain, because all I say, (for aught I know) is fallible.  
9 If you will see this Truth farther Evidenced, do no more but ask of any Protestant, Why, for example, He believes that all the Churches on earth are fallible? That Christ is only figuratively in the Eucharist? That Faith only justifies? That there are two Sacraments and no more, etc. His first refuge perhaps will be to Scripture. But demand again. Whether Scripture in plain and Express Terms, Delivers these supposed Doctrines? If he be not more than impudent, he must say, No. All therefore he can reply, is, That the Ministers of his Church, after a perusal of Scripture, find these Verities contained there, and Propose all to him as things Certainly revealed, Therefore he believes them. Here we come to the trial of Protestants Faith, and mark well, How avoidable They are forced to grant, That when a pretended Revelation, 
Sectaries must own an Infallible Proponent.  is not manifest for them, But lies (if at all) very darkly in Scripture, it must be brought to light, and made more clear by some Teacher. Some one or other (if it have influence into Faith) must Apply it and Propose it to a Hearer, as Gods certain Word. Without this Application made by a certain Teacher, no Christian can (but most temerariously) admit of the Revelation, as Divine, and Certain.  
10. Demand therefore in the last place, Whether all the Ministers in England are able to propound certainly and infallibly the above mentioned Doctrines (darkly at least, and indeed, not all contained in Scripture) as Gods revealed Truths to any? The answer must be Negative. They cannot (for if they propose them infallibly, Ministers are infallible) Ergo, say I, none can Believe these Doctrines for Gods certain Revelation, Because the Proposal of them (absolutely necessary to apply the Revelation) is defective, weak, dubious and uncertain. The Faith therefore, which follows upon so unsteedy a Teaching, cannot but be answerably rolling, That is in one word, no Faith at all. And Protestants have no better.  
11. Some perhaps may say: Though Protestants have no great Certainty of the Doctrines above specified, because they are neither expressly in Scripture, nor Asserted by any infallible Teacher, yet their Faith in Fundamentals (universally held by all Christians) stands sure enough, and is infallible. Such Truths shall never fail, and so far the Pastors of the Church may, it is likely, be held infallible.  
12. Hereafter we shall treat more largely of Fundamental points, and Therefore at present will wave what is not pertinent to answer this Reply. And pertinent 
Why Doctrine of Protesta as Protestants is uncertain.  it is to say first: That not one Doctrine peculiar to Protestants, (as Protestant's) because neither expressly found in Scripture, nor Asserted by any infallible Teacher, can certainly be believed upon Divine Revelation. That these Sectaries teach not their own Protestant Tenants infallibly, is granted. That Scripture doth not in express Terms, without intolerable glozing, deliver one of them, shall be made, after a few pages, most evident; And thus, if this last Reply be to any purpose, it brings Ruin to that part of Doctrine which is called Protestancy. I say secondly, There is scarce one Article of Christ's Sacred Doctrine, so clearly expressed in Scripture, which may not, would men take the liberty, as Sectaries do, by wilful Glosses to alienate it from the Church's sense, be perverted. Arians have taught them this mode of Glozing, and they exactly follow it. Separate therefore the words 
Doubful words of Scripture, separated from the sense of an Infallible Interpreter, ground not Faith.  of Scripture from the Sense of an infallible Interpreter, we can Believe nothing, we have no more but a body without a Soul, guesses without certainty. And upon such uncertainties the whole Faith of Protestants doth and must rely, which is deplorable. And here ask them, when They appeal (as They ever do) to Scripture, What they mean by Scripture, which needs Interpretation, even in Points most Fundamental. Must we admit of their Interpretation? Why so, more than of others as learned as They? Why not as well on the present Church's Interpretation? This is as good (to say no more) as their fallible Guesses are. But of this Subject hereafter. I say thirdly. Never 
The Church in all her Doctrine equally infallible.  any Catholic Church hitherto held itself infallible in a few Fundamental Doctrines, and not in others. Therefore Protestants are more insolently bold, whilst they attempt to make this Distinction, than ever any Church yet was. What? That mere fallible Men shall be my Doctors, and ex tripod define, So far the Church holds infallible Doctrine, But no further, 'Twould be well nigh eight Degrees of madness in me, to believe them. Admit once of this: A new Haeretick may step out, and defend as stoutly, yea, and upon as solid grounds, that Scripture itself it not infallible, but only in a few Fundamental Matters, yet unknown to the world. If you say this sounds too harshly, and cannot be granted. Parallel I beseech you, your own wild Assertion with it, 
The Church is Christ's School.  and see whether that runs much smother. Thus it is. Christ hath erected a School, which is his Church, where Christians are to learn his Sacred Doctrine: But when they come to it, They find more than the half of its Doctrine doubtful, fallible, unsound, uncertain. Alas! Aristotle's or Plato's School can cfford us Topics, and uncertainties enough: I hope Christ's School can learn us better. Fourthly. Were the Church falsely supposed Fallible in the delivery of some Doctrine less Fundamental, it would be much safer to believe it, than Protestants, who may err in all they say, And then most, when being void of proofs, They stand trifling with a Distinction of Fundamentals, and not Fundamentals. Herein as in all other things, they are most fallible, and must I, think ye, credit men, that can say nothing certainly?  
13. Fifthly, and I end: Admit once of a Church with this half infallibility in fundamentals; our Sectaries, who so furiously oppugn that whole infallibility which we ascribe to the Roman Church, must Answer their own Arguments against us. For here we question them. as they do us. Where or in what 
Rational Queries made to Protestants.  Subject is that partial infallibility lodged? What Pastors designable are endued with it? How shall we make our Addresses to them in doubts and difficulties, if none know where, or who they are? What kind of infallibility is this? By whose assured Testimony can we learn what is de fide funaamentali, what not? What if these Pastors be divided amongst themselves in their Decisions of fundameetals, whose judgement is finally to be stood too, & c.? These and the like Questions, most easily answered by Catholics, when They give an account of their Belief (as I shall show in the Resolution of Faith) press so strongly upon Protestants, that not one of them shall ever have a satisfactory Answer. Perhaps to 
Protestant's pretence to a private Spirit.  solve them, some will recurre to the private Spirit, and say, This tell's them all Truth in these doubts. Contra. Ask only here: Whether this Spirit makes them or their Pastor's infallible, or can direct others to find out such infallible Pastors? If they reply: Those are such, as Teach God's Word purely; the Answer is impertinent, for we ask whether it Assists any to Teach Gods pure Word infallibly, And who they are? It may be others will say, that Christ never had since the Apostles time, any infallible Church on earth even in fundamentals, All therefore we have now to Direct us, is only the book of Scripture (without other Proponent) and every man's private Reason. Contra. It is Evident, That Scripture makes no man infallible, both Arians and Others read it, and yet grossly err in Points most Essential. Deny therefore a Church unerrable in Essentials, and say boldly, that as Arians have already erred in some Fundamentals, so others might before this day have wholly erred, and outed both Christ and Creed, with every Article of Christian Religion. For weak Reason alone, is insufficient. to Preserve Christianity in its Purity, as I have showed above, whereof also more hereafter.   

CHAP. V.  
A word with some later Sectaries concerning Moral certainty.  
1. HEre we come to examine the other part of the Objection proposed above, n. 5. And thus 
Mr. Stilling fleet.  some later men Discourse concerning the certainty of Christian Religion. They say first, (and most truly) That the ultimate Motive whereon Faith relies, is God's infallible Testimony, with all, That none can question the fallibility of this Revealed Testimony, when it is Sufficiently proposed, and made known to us. The only Question therefore is, How it comes to be made known, or, discovered in order to those things 
Protestant's Doctrine about Moral Certainty.  which are immediately Revealed. They say secondly. Moral certainty may be a sufficient foundation For the most firm assent, if the matter to be believed, be the infallible Truth of a Doctrine, upon suitable Evidence. Though we have now but Moral Certainty of that Evidence, The Assent may yet be firm to such a Doctrine, as infallible. They say thirdly: Moral Certainty may be as great as Mathematical and Physical, supposing as little reason to doubt in moral things as to their natures, as in Mathematical and Physical, as to Theirs. Here briefly is their Doctrine. Some further Explications of it, will perhaps more opportunely have place, while we make our Exception against it. And  
2. My first Exception is. These Authors do not sufficiently explain what they would have here understood by Moral certainty, wherein there is a great Latitude. One Degree of it excludes all Rational doubt. 
Degrees of Moral Certainty.  And thus we say: He, who never saw Constantinople, may yet upon the indubitable Testimony of so many witnesses, who have seen it, affirm without fear, There is, or hath been such a City in the world. An other Degree of this Certitude reaches not so high, As we see in School Opinions. Some Philosophers Tell you, it is Morally certain, That sublunary Bodies, as Fire and water, are composed of Matter and Form. That Accidents are really distinct from Substance and Motion, yet now there are some, that deny it, and hold, as they think, a contrary Philosophy more Morally certain. Therefore, when we come to apply this Moral certainty to Disputable matters, we do seldom or never agree about it. I doubt not, but These very men, we now treat with, will say (what They judge, God knows) that, That part of Protestant Religion, wherein it differs from all Christians, is upon Moral Certainty True, yet the Rest of the world opposes them, and Avouches it hath not so much as one Degree of Probability for it, That therefore, which is here meant by Moral certitude, must, if these Authors speak to the purpose, be a Certainty, whereof no man can Rationally doubt. Thus much supposed,  
3. I say first, (and by this Assertion you may discover the grand Cheat of these novelists) Christian 
A grand Cheat of Navellists discovered.  Religion as it is fancied, and variously Professed by innumerable, who go under that name and Notion, hath so little of this Great Moral Certainty for it, That it is an Haeresy to Allow it a mean Probability. Why? Arians, Pelagians, Eutychians, Donatists, Socinians, And all other condemned Heretics, called Themselves Christians, and professed some part of Christian Religion truly; But had They, I beseech you, a great Moral Certainty For the other part of their Errors and Heresies, falsely vented by them as Christ's Doctrine? You will say, No. But they had it for the Fundamentals of Christian Religion, whereof no man ever doubted, and thus much they Defend upon that Certitude. Admit of this as True, (though I hope, Prorestants grant, That Arians do deny Fundamental Doctrine.) What is it to the Purpose to tell us. All condemned Heretics, and Protestants 
These men wave the main Question.  with them, have Moral certainty for one Part of Christian Religion, whereof None ever doubted; And to give us nothing of this High Certitude for the other Part, which is in Controversy, and Specifically belongs to Protestants? Had these men therefore come home to the Dfficulty, They would not have here misspent time in Proving what needs no Proof, viz. That the General Doctrine owned by all Christians (as is a Belief in one God, or, of Christ a Redeemer etc.) Hath at least Moral certainty for it; But They should have showed, That Arianism, as Arianism, or (which had been to the Purpose) That Protestancy, as Protestancy, stands so firmly built on High Moral Certainty, That None can prudently doubt of 
Protestants under the general name of Christians persuade Nothing for Protestancy.  it. Now this They fraudulently wave, And only put us of, with a general word of the Certainty of Christian Religion, as if Protestancy, hid under that Specious name, had safety and Sanctuary enough; or, as if it were all one to say. The part of Christian Faith universally agreed on is certain. Ergo Protestancy, as Protestancy, goes along with it upon equal Certitude. Alas! This is that which only requires proof, and is the thing we Absolutely deny.  
4. Again, (And here is my second Exception) These Authors cannot apply their Moral certainty to the Faith of any Religion, that bears the name of Christian. At least, it is neither appliable to Catholics, nor Protestants. For proof hereof, Note first: That moral 
Two Reflections made on Moral Certainty.  Certainty taken in what Height you please, is an Act of the Judicative Power in man, subjectively settled in his Mind, who hath it, And ever falls on a Determinate Object, (for in Objects, à parte rei, there is neither Probability, nor moral Certainty.) Every Thing imaginable being either in itself Real and Stable, or not, independent of any Moral Assertion: As is clear, For should one say now: It is morally certain, that there is such a City as Rome in the World; Rome is, or is not, independent of what is asserted morally Certain. Note secondly. Though the greatest Moral certainty 
Moral Certainty may be False.  usually excludes a rational doubt in order to what is asserted certain; yet in rigour it may be false, And Therefore ever implies some weak Degree of Fear, of anxiety, and suspicion to the contrary. Had any one said a few days before the Burning of London (little then foreseeing that sad Disaster) that, That Noble City would not in so strange a manner be consumed with fire, He would have been thought to have uttered a Truth Morally certain, yet the contrary doleful Effect proved it untrue. And the like may happen now, while we upon Moral Certainty Say, Rome or Constantinople are Cities in Being. These Grounds supposed,  
5. I say first. Whoever, when he Affirms, that Christian Religion is only Morally Certain, and hath for the Object of his Affirmation, that which Essentially 
Moral Certainty only destroy's the Being of Christian Religion.  constitutes Religion, I mean true Divine and Supernatural Faith, highly wrongs Christian Religion, yea, and destroys the very Being and Essence of it. I prove it. The Certainty of Divine Faith, is as fare above, and distant from all the Degrees of Moral Certitude (which may be false) as Heaven is from Earth, and more. Therefore he who allows no greater Certainty to true Faith then Moral, which may be false, destroys both 
Certainty of Faith fare above Moral Certainty.  the Life and Essence of Christian Religion. That the Certainty of Faith fare surpasseth all the Degrees of Moral Certitude, is Demonstrable upon Principles, granted as well by Orthodox Christians, as by our Adversaries, who say, That true Faith dot not only affirm, That what God Reveals is most Certain (for thus much, supposing a God, we know by Science, were there no Faith) but by Faith we affirm without fear at all: God speaks Thus and Thus. He reveals that the Divine Word took flesh. That Christ died for us. That there is a Trinity of Persons in one Divine essence etc. Such Truths, we already own as Delivered by one, who neither can, nor will Deceive us.  
6. Hence I argue. The Sole and Adequate Object of Divine and Supernatural Faith, is God's infinite Veracity, which Actually speaks to us, and is liable to no error. Faith then, if it be Divine. Tends unto no other Object, neither is the now infused Habit of it, though fortified with a thousand Illustrations, enabled to Rest upon any other Motive in this present State. What therefore this Infinite Veracity actually Reveal's, that Faith lays hold on; It cannot believe more or less, Now I subsume. But this Infinite Veracity (when it is duly Proposed) Transfuseth more 
God's Veracity transfuseth more certainty into Faith, than the Motives of Moral Certainty can do.  Certainty into the Elicite Act of Faith, Then any Moral Certainty derived from inferior Motives can have; For all Moral Certainty is at least capable of Falsity, and may deceive us: Gods infallible Veracity cannot be False, nor deceive if Faith Rest upon that Motive; And if it Rest not there, it is no Faith at all. It is therefore absolutely impossible: if God speaks, and, I Believe him as he Speaks, That all the Power in Heaven can Falsify this 
Faith if it rest not on God's Veracity is not Faith.  Act, or Separate a most High infallibility from it. Contrariwise, There is no Moral Certainty, but may, by all the Principles it hath, be false and fallible, yea, and often is so.  
7. From this undoubted Ground. I infer also, 
Supernatural Faith more Certain than Metaphysical Science.  That Supernatural Faith is more Certain and infallible, than all the Metaphysical Science, which Nature can give us. It is true, Metaphysical Science hath more of the Evidence, and therefore excludes all indeliberate Fear or Doubt to the contrary (for no man can so much as indeliberately Doubt, whether a whole City be greater than one House;) But for Absolute Certainty, and Infallible Adhesion, Faith yet surpasseth it. The Reason 
The Energy of Faith's Motive.  is; Because the Infinite Veracity of God, which only supporteth Faith, Majori vi, with greater Force, Energy, and Necessity transfuseth into it a Supereminent Infallibility, supereminent, I say, and above all the Certainty, which Principles of nature can afford. As therefore this Infinite Veracity surpasseth all Created certainty, so Faith, which relies on it, goes beyond all Natural and inferior certainty. Upon this Principle we see first, How Divinely the Apostle spoke: Licet nos etc. Although we or Angel from Heaven preach contrary etc. Let him be accursed. And, how well St. chrysostom delivered himself, when He saith, Hom. 12. (pondering those words add Hebr. 11. Fides est Argumentum etc.) That he held them more certain, than the Things he saw with his Eyes. These Truths (and great Truths They are) cannot subsist, unless Faith be stronger in Certitude, than all the Principles in Nature, and consequently far more strong than Moral Certainty is, which may be false. Now with such an Assent the Roman Catholic Church Believes, Therefore a Faith only Morally certain Belongs not to it. If Protestants Disown it, They have no Faith, no, nor so much as a Belief Morally certain, whereof more presently. We see secondly. How the very Essence of Christian Religion is destroyed, if we make Faith no more but Morally certain; which is, what I intended to Prove.  
8. Perhaps, These Authors will tell us: When they 
Religion founded on Moral Certainty confuted.  Assert Christian Religion to be founded on Moral certainty, Their Assertion falls not immediately upon the Assent of Divine Faith, which is firm and certain; But rather upon the Object of it Antecedently applied to us Before we believe; whereof we can have no greater Assurance, than what is Moral. And it is no wonder; For, say They, There can be had no greater than Moral certainty of the main Foundations of all Religion, which are the Being of God, and the Souls Immortality. To quarrel therefore with Moral certainty is Madness, when the Foundation of all Religion is capable of no more. By the way, if this be Madness, I see very little Wisdom in some, who, to oppugn the Church's infallibility (proved as they suppose by motives of Credibility only morally certain) Ring out nothing but Peals of Impossibilities, and say it cannot be That the Assent to a matter Believed, Rise higher or stand firmer, than the Assent, which is given to the Testimony whereon we Believe. But the Infallibility of the Church is the thing Believed, upon the Testimony of Motives, at most but Morally certain; Therefore we cannot Believe this with a stronger Degree of certainty, than those Motives give us, which afford at most but Moral certainty. If this Discourse be good, I argue thus, Ad hominem. No greater certainty have Christians now Antecedently to their Actual Belief, that God speaks to them by either Scripture or Church, then that God is in Being; But the very Being of God is only known by Moral certainty; Ergo, that he speaks to Christians cannot be known antecedently to Belief, by any greater Certitude, than what is Moral, and may deceive them. How then, I beseech you, comes the Elicite Act of Supernatural Faith unto such a Height of Certainty, as not to Credit an Angel, if he Preach against it? Upon what Motive stands it so firm, when no other Certainty supports it, but only what is Moral, and may be false? The Medium is fallible, Therefore the Belief founded on it is no better, but Moral and fallible. Mark well your own Argument. 'Tis thus.  
9 The Motives of Credibility for Christian Faith, Because only known by Moral Certainty, cannot ground a certain Belief of any Church's Infallibility: Ergo, I say, The very Existency of God and his Revelation, Because only known by a Moral Certainty, cannot ground a firm Belief in God, or any Christian Verity, unless you say, that These Motives for Christian Faith, far surpass in Certainty all the certain knowledge we can have of God's Existency. I know not what these men can answer. My thought is, They must make Faith a mere Opinion, and allow it nothing of Certainty, or Supernatural infallibility, Though they seemingly speak otherwise, as if Moral Certainty might be a sufficient Foundation for the most firm assent. Would to God they would declare themselves intelligibly, And say plainly, whether this firm Assent here mentioned be only of the like Nature with probable firm Opinions taught in Schools? Or contrariwise (if this firm Assent be Faith) whether it doth not Supereminently surpas the Certainty of All other obscure intellectual Operations, which Christians now have on Earth? This should be explicated, but is not.  
10. Now to the Reply. Though an exact Answer 
An Answer to the Reply.  cannot be well returned, without entering upon an other question (the Resolution of Faith) which here lies out of the way, and Admit's not in this Place of a full and diligent Examination. I say first. No obscure intellectual Operation, which preced's Divine Faith, or is independent of it, can arise to those Degrees of Certainty which this Supernatural Act requires. Admit then, that the Existency of God (which is true) can be Demonstrated by natural Reason, Admit also, that those strong Motives for Christian Religion Antecedently known by Humane Discourse, demonstratively convince the Verity of it, yet because Faith (as I now said) Relies upon a Superior infallible Principle (Gods own unerrable Veracity) it far surmont's both these Certainties, and much more would it go beyond them, were they known as Moral Truths only. Why? A natural Discourse, whereby these Vetities are known, is Science; But no science gives the last, or least Degree of intrinsic 
No Science gives the least Degree of certitude to Faith.  Certitude to Faith; and Therefore Divines say: Gods Supreme Verity, which ever supports Belief, upholds it not as known by natural Reason; For if it did, Faith would be at last resolved into one natural Principle thus. I believe God to be the Highest Verity imaginable, not Because he saith so, But because I know this great Truth Scientifically, where you se, the last Analysis rests on an  Principle of knowledge, with which Faith, as Faith, meddles not.  
11. Thus much therefore is clear. Although the Motives of Credibility manifest (as they do) most undoubtedly, that God speaks to Christians, yet, when we bring an Act of Faith by a true Analysis to its Home and Centre, we find it ever Resting on God's Veracity only, as the last Stay and most certain Motive. Notwithstanding, 
Motives to Faith absolutely necessarily.  the Praeambulatory Motives avail infinitely to Faith, Because they indubitably point out that Society of Christians, wherein Gods Verities are certainly taught, and make this Discernible from all other Haeretical Conventicles. In a word, They show Christian Religion to be either evidently Credible, or as some later Divines will have it, evidently True in Attestante. And if this be so, the formal Object of Christian Faith is known, as it were Scientifically, either before, or when we Actually Believe, which seems grounded on those words of the Apostle: Scio cui credidi, & certus sum: I know, and then believe certainly.  
12. At present I wave this Doctrine, and say secondly. It is one thing to know Scientifically, and another 
Difference betwixt a Certain Belief and a Scientifical knowledge.  to Believe certainly. Both intervene in the matter now handled. Faith Prerequires a Science, and Moreover essentially includes Certainty. Thus it is. While one of Prudence ponders those strong and pressing Motives, which (as Light doth the Sun) gloriously evidence true Christian Religion (such are Miracles the long continued Consent of Nations, Sanctity of life, Efficacy in Doctrine, the blood shedding of Martyrs &c.) He knows, 
What and how these Motives convince.  that God cannot permit the world to be cheated into error by them. He knows, that his goodness cannot proclaim, as it were, and publish to Christians a Religion manifested by such evident convincing Marks and Signs of Truth, and afterward Signify a mere nothing. It cannot be, that God speaks in so powerful a Language, and deceives us; For who can persuade himself, That all the Miracles done by Christ and his Blessed Apostles, the eminent Sanctity They showed, and admirable Conversion wrought by them, (open to men's eyes and senses) were permitted like Charms to Delude the world? Yet this follows, if either no Religion answered to these great visible wonders, or, if such palpable convincing Signs could make a false Religion as Speciously Credible, as Gods true Religion is. Therefore Rich. de S. Victor. lib. 1. de Trin. c. 2. with just Reason Exclaims. Si error est quem credidimus à te decepti sumus. If it be Error we Believe, it is you, O God, who have deceived us: and He gives this Reason, jis enim signis etc. For by such forcible Signs, the Doctrine we believe is confirmed, which could not proceed from any, but from you alone. Observe now well. Two Judgements may ensue upon the Consideration of these exterior 
judgements upon these Signs.  Signs, which manifest Christianity. The one after this manner. God certainly Delivered his Eternal Truths by the Preaching of Christ, and his Blessed Apostles, who had no other Exterior Testimony for their Doctrine but Miracles, Sanctity, Conversions of Nations etc. I now see, saith this prudent Man, as evidently the like Miracles, the like Conversions with great Sanctity etc. in the Roman Catholic Church: If therefore it was Evident that God spoke to the first Christians by the wonderful works of Christ; it is as Evident, that he Speaks now to me by the Still continued Miracles of this Church. This Discourse, or Judgement, whereby he affirms, There are These wonders, 
Faith and Science Tend differently.  God speaks by his Church, is not Faith, but Science; Because it Relies on Motives, which Reason knows evidently enough. Now further. When He is thus disposed and prepared to Believe by so firm an Evidence, The other Judgement of Elicite Faith follows, which tends not into the Evidence of those Motives; for if it did so, under that Notion it would not be Faith; For Faith, as Faith, totally Relies on God's Sole Revelation, and for this, as the only Formal Object, a Christian Believes what ever mystery is Revealed after a due Proposal; as is already Declared.  
13. Some will say. The Elicite Act of Faith Scientifically knows not the Object whereon it Relies, and therefore cannot be Certain. Answer. It is a Catechresis, or an Abuse in Speech to say, That either Faith, or any other intellectual operation knows its Object; The understanding informed by these vital Acts knows, if we speak properly. Yet, if we go on in that vulgar Language, significant enough. 
Faith can no more Scientifically prove or know its Object, than Science, as Science, can believe its Object.  I say Faith, as Faith, no more Scientifically knows or proves its Object, than Science, as Science, Believes what it knows: This proves, That certainly Believes, whilst it Resteth immediately upon God's Revelation, which is most amply proved by the Preambulatory Motives now touched on. Neither can Faith Scientifically know or prove its Object, without losing an Essential Predicate, which is Obscurity. All therefore, who destroy not the very Nature of Faith, must allow it the greatest Certainty under heaven, 
Faith both obscure and certain.  and withal grant, as the Apostle doth, that it is Argumentum non apparentium, of a dark, and obscure Tendency.  
14. You will reply again. The Mode then and Tendency of Faith unto its Object is here supposed Obscure, and that Previous judgement of Credibility after all possible weighing of those Motives, which do manifest the Credibility of this Truth. God speaks by the Church, is no more but Morally certain; Ergo the Belief of that Truth stands still wavering upon Uncertainties. I answer. If these Motives have an infallible Connexion with Divine Revelation, That is, If they clearly convince, that God cannot but the facto speak to Christians, after so many Signs and wonders, The judgement Previous to Faith, is Metaphysically certain. However give it a lesser Certainty, we must yet say with the Prophet: Testimonia tua credibilia 
The Motives bring Reason to an invariable State of Believing.  facta sunt nimis; These motives well considered, bring Reason to an invariable State of Believing, in so much, That none can Disbelieve without Sin, and Madness. Again we must say, That Judgement which throughly penetrat's them, Evacuat's both Doubt and Fear to the Contrary, and far exceeds all Degrees of Probability, which gives Reason the Freedom to Alter an Opinion when Stronger Proofs come against it. But no Real Proof whatever, is capable to Overthrow 
No real proof can weaken this judgement.  the Certainty of this Judgement, though Fallacies may puzzle it. Call it then as you please Moral or Metaphysical Evidence, it hath proved its own Strength, for never Any without it, since Christianity began, either rightly believed in Christ, or Church.  
15. This Judgement therefore which like an Interior voice (supposing the Exterior Proposition of the Church) summon's us to hear, or, like a Light that discover's Gods own Language delivered by Revelation, makes the Language, once dark, clear enough to us. Now being thus manifested, we lay hold on it, and yield Assent to the Revelation for itself, and not for the antecedent Motives. And because this Revelation is without Dispute more infallible than any Truth in Nature, it cannot but Answerably, as I said above, impart and contribute a Stronger Certainty to Faith, than the most evident Principles do to any Science. Upon this strong Fortress then Christian Religion stands firm, which undoubtedly implies a greater Certainty then only Moral. And I think, our Adversaries will say so too; 
Sectaries own a Faith more than morally certain.  who, though They take the Canon of Scripture upon Moral Certainty, yet they Believe the particular Revealed Mysteries contained in that Book, with a far surer Assent than what is only moral. Moral Certainty therefore necessarily help's to Faith, though Faith 
Instances how moral certainty help's too Faith.  ultimately Relies not on it. Thus, you know, the will loves Good either Real or Apparent, yet need's not to love the cognition which represents goodness. For that is only conditio applicans, a condition applying the Object to the Power, but no Cause of Love. I may also adhere to a Doctrine in St. Austin for St. Augustine's Authority, upon the Moral certain Word of one who tells, me, This great Doctor saith so. Why therefore may I not, induced by far Stronger Motives to believe this Truth. God speaks by his Church, Adhere only to his Revelation without touching on the Motives, which serve well as Conditions to Apply that Object to the Power, yet want the Strength of a formal Object to support Faith? But more of this Subject in another Treatise, where we shall show that the Certainty of Faith (at least unevident in respect of the material Object) is not so much a Speculative, as a Prudent submissive and Practical Certainty.   

CHAP. VI  
Faith only morally certain, is no Faith. Protestants have no Moral certainty of Protestant Religion.  
1. LEt us here suppose (contrary to Truth) that all Religion, brought to a just Trial, comes to no more but to a High Moral certainty, which, Though it implies no absolute Impossibility of being False, yet is so strong, That none, considering the great Evidence we have for Christianity, can without madness Practically doubt or hold it otherwise then it is; most Morally certain. Put the case then, That we arrive to this Degree of Certitude only, you will ask, why is not such a Faith steadfast enough, and very sufficient to Salvation? Thus far, if I mistake not, some Neoteriks make Faith certain, and strip it of all further infallibility. I answer. A Faith only Morally certain is no Faith, and prove my Assertion. That whereon all Moral Certainty imaginable Essentially depends, is fallible, and may Deceive us. That, 
That whereon Faith relies is infallible. That whereon Moral Certainty depends is fallible.  whereon true Faith Essentially depends, which is Divine Revelation, is infallible and cannot Deceive: Ergo, what ever ground's a Moral certainty only, which may deceive, is as unproportionate to uphold true Faith, as Revelation owned as Divine, is unfit to ground a fallible Opinion. As long therefore, as the Object of pure Moral Certainty, becomes not God's Revelation, (which can never be) so long Faith cannot rely on it: Or, if it do rest here, it Mistakes its Object and calls tbat Revelation, which is none. The ultimate Reason of this Discourse stands 
Two sure Principles.  firm upon these two Principles. 1. All moral Certainty may be False. 2. God's Revelation, Because it is Infallible as God, Essentially excludes that weaker Degree of Certitude, and cannot be false; which is to say in plainer Terms: God neither doth nor can speak any thing, only morally certain.  
2. That all Moral certainty may be false is evident. For invent the strongest imaginable (as This is distinguished from Physical, or Metaphysical Certainty) and say what you will within that compass, Viz. Rome and Constantinople are now Cities in Being. Or, That when one in a large City sitt's imprisoned at noonday, and hears no body; yet saith. Most surely all the Inhabitants of this place are neither dead nor asleep. Such an Assertion, though most Morally certain, is capable of Falsity; For God may have destroyed all those men; or given them over to a strange unheard of drowsiness; That's not impossibility if it were so; Why? Because the Assertion only stands upon these Negatives, or some like Foundations. Never yet was seen such an Effect as this, Secundary Causes never yet concurred to so Universal a Sleep or Mortality. Here is the best Assurance which can be had, and yet it may be false. Contrariwise. Suppose that God Reveal's to the Imprisoned party this 
What God Reveals is always most Certain.  Truth, duly proposed. All the men of this City are not dead; His Belief resting on this Revelation is so Certain, that no power in Heaven can falsify it. Where you see a vast Disparity in order to Infallibility, between Faith and Moral certainty. The one 
Difference between Faith and Moral Certainty.  because of its weak motive may be falls, the other strongly upheld by Revelation cannot be falsified. Perhaps you will say. At least we know not, that God speaks to us, but only upon Moral certainty. Of this more presently. Here the Reply is not to the purpose; For all we convince now, is, That Faith (if any be in the World) must finally Rest on God's infallible Revelation, and consequently, That no Motive of Moral certainty hath Strength enough to support it. Now by what means it comes at last, to be settled in this Centre of God's infallible Veracity, is another question; Thus it must Rest, or, as our Adversaries confess, lose the Essence of infallible Faith.  
3. Briefly. We shall now make good the other Assertion in the Title, and show, Though Moral certainty were (as it is not) a prop strong enough to 
Protestant's Religion hath not Moral Certainty.  support Christian Religion, yet Protestants have no Degree of it for their Pretended Religion. I prove this Truth. By Protestancy, we must either understand those Prudential Motives, which induce men to Believe the Specifical and particular Doctrines of Protestants (such are Miracles, Antiquity, great Conversions &c.) Or rather the very Tenants and Doctrines actually believed by them. For example: That all Pastors may err in delivering Christian Doctrine. That there are two Sacraments only, or, what else you will. If we speak of Motives, this Religion is so naked, that it cannot show you so much as one, as is largely Demonstrated in the 8. 9 and 10. ensuing Chapters, whether to avoid an unnecessary Repetition, the Reader is remitted. Waving therefore at present a further Proof hereof, I Argue thus against the Moral certainty 
Protestant's Doctrine. without Rational inducements.  of their Doctrine. A Doctrine broached without Previous rational Inducements, (whose very Professors were and are no more but Fallible) and which at its first Rise, or Appearance in the World seemed a mere Paradox to the far greater part of Christians, and yet throughly examined, is held still by this far greater number (most knowing and learned) false, and improbable, cannot be a Doctrine morally certain. Protestancy is thus consestedly fallible, and both at its 
A Convincing Argument.  Rise was, and is Still Opposed, not only by the vast number of Catholics, But by all other Heretics also, as falls and improbable; Ergo, it is not a Doctrine Morally Certain. That a Doctrine so meanly thought of and universally Decried, cannot be thus Certain, is proved out of the very Notion of Moral certainty, which though not absolutely infallible, yet, when the Grounds and Motives of it are perfectly known, it passeth for an uncontradicted Truth, and free's men from Doubt, destructive of such a degree of Certainty. Thus we say morally. Rome and Constantinople are now Cities in being. All the inhabitants of China are not dead. These, And the like Assertions pass for current Moral Truths, without Opposition, without Contradiction. If therefore Protestant Religion 
The reason of the Argement.  were in such a measure Morally certain; That vast Multitude of Christians, whereof innumerable are Pious, Conscientious and Learned, could never hold it, as they do, false and improbable. No Verity Morally certain ever met 
A Verity Morally Certain was never so long and universally opposed as Protestancy is.  with such a strong Contradiction. If ye say, This Opposition ariseth out of Malice, ye speak not probably, and more justly draw on yourselves the like Censure, for beginning so strange a Religion. If you say again. These Learned Men penetrate not too well the Depth of this new Doctrine, you talk at random. Their Knowledge is not inferior to Yours; what you see, they see, and perhaps more. Charge not therefore Ignorance on them, whereof yourselves are more likely guilty.  
4. Yet some Replies may be here expected. One is. Protestants have moral Assurance of their Bible, Because all say it is God's Word; Ergo they have Assurance 
Moral Assurance of the Bible is no Assurance of True Religion.  of their Religion also. The Antecedent is bad, and the Consequence worse. Arians, Pelagians, and all Heretics are as morally assured of their Bible, as any Protestant. Have they, I pray you, as great Certainty of those pestilent Heresies proved, as they think, out of the Bible? You say no, Because they Interpret amiss, and you do not. Learnedly answered. But who makes your Interpretation better than Theirs? They have that Book, and spend their private Judgement on it; you have no more. Unless therefore your Book or Judgement be better than Theirs, You are Altogether as uncertain of your particular Doctrines, as They of Theirs. The Reason is: Because 
Protestant Glosses no more Scripture than the Glosses of Arians.  you have not one Sole Express Text of Scripture for Protestancy. You may add your own Glosses, and make it speak Protestancy; But these Glosses are no more Scripture, nor more morally certain, than Those of Arians, Pelagians &c. Therefore a moral Assurance of the Bible which is easily abused, gives no man moral certainty of sound Doctrine. But of this subject hereafter.  
5. A second Objection. As what is Falso, may be by error judged Morally certain, so often what is True, may not be held Morally certain. Therefore though Protestancy vows that High Moral certainty now required, yet it may be True. I answer. But if it want Moral certainty, it hath it not, which is all we prove at present. Again. Though it may be true (which is impossible) so also it may be falls. Now Protestants, I hope, do not believe a mere Possibility 
Sectaries can not believe the actual Truth of Protestancy.  only, nor the May be of Truth (for many Things are not which may be) but they Believe more, the Actual supposed Truth of Protestancy. And this they cannot do without Moral Certainty of that which they hold Actually true.  
6. A third Objection, and, 'Tis more to the purpose. Our Argument now proposed proves too much, and Therefore proves nothing, For its best Force lies in this one Assertion, viz. That a Doctrine or Religion, which is Opposed by the greatest part of Christians, as False and Paradoxal, cannot be Morally certain. If this Principle hold good, it if follows, That much, and very much too, of the Roman Catholic Doctrine, vows also moral Certainty, Because a very great number of Christians oppugn it as falls. Some deny the Pope's Supremacy, Others the Real Presence, Others Purgatory, Others Praging for the Dead etc. And Protestants, after their long study, deny all These at once; Therefore such Doctrines cannot be Morally certain.  
7. I answer first. This Objection, without doubt, Proves too much and impugns a Certain Truth of Christianity. For tell me, when the whole world, as St. Hierom saith, groaning under Arianism, saw that Haeresy far and near diffused: Did that Opposition weaken the Moral certainty which Orthodox Christians had then of a Trinity of Persons in one Essence? (And we only speak now of Moral Evidence Antecedent 
Ancient Motives never lose their Force.  to Faith.) If so, the Motives morally evident for the Belief of that Mystery ceased, or, at least lost their Ancient Vigour, which is falls. And one great Realon is; Because that true Doctrine of a Trinity had no first Rise, nor appeared like a new Paradox in 
Catholic Doctrine had no first Rise like Protestancy.  the world as Protestancy did, peeping out like an unknown Stranger, when Luther and Calvin first broached it. No, That Catholic Doctrine was universally believed by all faithful Christians, before Arians were born. The Motives therefore, which made it evidently Credible before Arius, continued firm (notwithstanding His Opposition) and still induced Christians to Believe as They had done formerly. Which Reason also holds good to our present purpose, And doth not only give an immense Disparity between the Moral evident Certainty of Catholic Religion, And what ever Certainty Haeresy can Pretend to; But also, Demonstratively makes both Protestancy and all Haeresy improbable. And this Truth I shall evidence, having first cleared the Fallacy which intricates the Reply now in hand.   

CHAP. VII.  
How Sectaries err in the search made after Religion. Of their weak and Improbable Opposition. The Objection is more fully answered.  
1. Our Sectaries and all Heretics err grossly in a main Principle, which breeds nothing but Confusion to themselves, and Others. Thus it is. 
Heretics error in their search of True Religion. Some for Scripture only.  In their search after True Religion They run on, But how? Extra viam, in a wrong and mistaken way. Some will find it out by the Book of Holy Scripture, which few exactly read, and none can understand by his private judgement, These err, not knowing Scripture, And may, as St. Austin notes Epist. 40. ad Deo gratias, end their Lives, before they end Difficulties this 
Others fly to the primitive Church Doctrine.  way. Others fly to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church, and lose Themselves. For, what private man can now by his mere reading, Morally ascertain me, or any, of the indubitable universal Sense of that Doctrine? Whereas all, which the Church held then, was not writ: Of what was writ, part is lost, and much of what remains, is (as experience Teacheth) 
Others are for Reason only.  liable to Cavils and Misinterpretations. Others (and it is a Socinian jog) Decide all by weak Humane Reason, as, if forsooth, Wit alone were able to Fathom God's Incomprehensible Secrets. Others finally without 
Ohers' stay on the difficil Mysteries of▪ Faith.  further Inspection, stand poering on the material Objects or Mysteries of Faith, and after many a misspent Hour, ask at last of a very unskilful Master (their own weak Reason) what it Judgeth of these Mysteries? 
All labour loft.  If Reason, as it often falls out, finds them difficil, It Cast's them away, as mere Improbabilities. Thus the Arian rejects a Trinity, The Pelagian Original Sin, The Protestant Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist, Because they run into Dark matters, whick only puzzle Reason, and wave those further Considerations, which clear all, And make Faith, if not evidently certain in Attestante, at least evidently credible.  
2. I say therefore. The most easy way to find out true Religion, or the first unquestionable Evidence 
The way to find out True Religion is easy and evident.  which points it out, lies open, and is obvious to All, Before we either examine particular Mysteries of Faith, or enter upon Proofs, Drawn from Scripture, Councils, or Fathers. It is true, from these Grounds, we have irrefragable Arguments against all Sectaries; But can They think, that the wise Providence of God hath put, as it were, Religion so far out of sight, or set it at so great a Distance from us, That none can come to the knowledge of it, Before Scripture, Fathers, and those large Volumes of Councils are exactly examined, whic few read, and fewer understand? No certainly. True Religion evidenceth itself, and is 
True Religion evidenceth itself.  most Discernible from error by an other clear and conspicuous Light, which none can but see (unless he wilfully shut his eyes) Antecedently to the Perusal of Scripture, Fathers etc. This Light or Evidence we may rightly call Gods own persuasive Language, whereby he Speaks to Reason before we Elicit Faith, and rationally convinceth all of this general Truth. One Society of Christians There is, wherein my Eternal Truths are Taught, this I make manifest by evident Signs, by the Light of clear and undeniable Motives, whereof none can, but most unreasonably, doubt. So it is, saith Origen Hom. 30. in Matth. Ecclesia plena est fulgore ab Oriente usque ad Occidentem. The Church, like a Resplendent Sun, casteth out Lustre from East to West; and They are blind, who see not so clear a Brightness. Thus much premised.  
3. I Answer to the Objection above, and say. 
Sectaries groundless impugning Catholic Doctrine.  Though thousands more than Sectaries impugn part of the Roman Catholic Doctrine, yet as long as God demonstratively Evidenceth the absolute Credibility of that Church which teaches it, By such rational prudent, and pressing Motives, as have gained Millions of Souls to Believe, our Adversaries in banding against Church Doctrine, only bewray Malice, Ignorance, or Both, And do no more but cast dirt at a Sun, which providence (maugre Their weak Attempts) will have to Shine, whilst Christianity lasteth. So Urgent therefore, so Illustrious are these Motives (as I shall presently declare) for the total Belief of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches, That they do not only suppress and silence such weak Opponents, But also make Protestancy, and all other Sects improbable, and incredible. The reason hereof (most amply laid forth in the three next following Chapters) stands sure on these two undeniable Principles. First; That Church which Christ jesus founded, (and 
Christ manifest to All, and so is his Church.  his Blessed Intention was to gain the whole World to it) is so Eminently Glorious, so Clearly Marked with unboubted Signs and most Legible Characters of Truth, That the Simplest Man, if he follow Reason, may find it out, and Believe securely. No other but the 
The Roman Catholic Church only, Evidenced Credible.  Roman Catholic Church only is thus Evidenced. Se Chap. 8. 9 10. The second Principle. This Holy Church, which Age after Age (without any late rise, like that of Protestancy) hath stood constantly ever since Christ, and drawn whole Kingdoms and Nations to its Belief; was either on set Purpose raised up by 
It was not founded by Christ to cheat the world.  Almighty God, and conserved in Being, for so long a time, to Cheat the world into a false Belief (which is Impious to think) or must be owned, as it deserves, for the only undoubted most manifested, and gloriously evidenced Church of Christ. Se Chap. 8. n. 5. 6.  
4. You will say. Notwithstanding all the glorious Marks we can lay claim to, and grace our Church withal, very many Learned Men do oppose it. If then the Argument above have force This very Opposition of so many, Weaken's much, and takes of no few Degrees of that Moral certainty we stand for. Contra. Very many Learned men opposed both Apostolical and 
'Slight Opposition not Valued of.  Primitive Doctrine, Atheists band against God, and jews against Christ, the Arians yet impugn a Trinity. Are our Sectaries affrighted upon that Account, or weakened in their Moral Certainty of that Mystery, whilst They Believe it? No. Every Trivial and slight Opposition therefore, made against a Verity which strongly defends and powerfully pleads forsit , can neither daunt, nor discountenance it. The Opposition then in our present Matter (if to the purpose) 
It ought to be deeply rational and brought to certain Principles.  ought to be well Grounded and deeply Rational; grounded, I say, not upon what, This or That private person by his sole fallible bosom Thoughts, holds Reasonable (for so every Arian will make good his Haeresy) But the Opposition if rational must go further, and rest at last upon a Solid and satisfactory Principle, which well laid forth, gently forceth every Prudent 
Sectaries destitute of any Rational Proof against the Catholic Church.  and Disinteressed Man to Acquiesce and yield to it. But this cannot be done in our present case; for Sectaries are so utterly destitute of what ever looks like a Rational Proof or any received Principle, They are so disenabled to speak with sense against the known Evidence of the Roman Catholic Religion, That (And I do assert it boldly) They shall as soon turn Christianity out of the World, as rationally abate or lessen the plain and undisputable Evidence of this one Christian Society.  
5. This blessed Society therefore, stands thus upon firm 
Solid Principles for the Catholic Church.  Ground, upon solid and undoubted Principles. I show you, saith this Church, Those very Motives, which anciently countenanced the Preaching of Christ, and converted the world, And These plead for me. With what urgent contrary Proofs can you, my good Protestants, deface such Glorious Marks of Truth, or make them either Insignificant, or forceles Arguments? Is this weightily done by drawing a few trivial Glosses 
Sectaries trifle.  out of mistaken Scripture? By telling us of Council contradicting Council, By quoting our Authors wrongfully, By relating a story not worth the hearing of a Pope, or Prelate? Are these Manly proofs, think ye, or sufficient to Eclipse the Glory of the Ancient Church? Toys, Trifles, Frivolous. I show you again, 
Other Evidences of the Catholic Church.  saith this Church, That the most Wise of the World, the most Learned, the most Holy (Their Number is numberless) notwithstanding the Opposition made against me, have Age after Age (even before and after 
The most wise and Learned of the world, notwithstanding the Opposition made against this Church, lived and died in it.  your Haeresy began) Constantly professed my Faith, lived and died in it without Change and Alteration: Tell me, were These Millions of Souls, learned and unlearned for a thousand years and more, All mad, All besotted, all seduced by Fooleries? It is worse than Madness to say so. Here then is a principle, in moral matters, the Surest imaginable, for our Church. This Nubes testium alone, and of such witnesses (which is ever to be reflected on) makes it evidently Credible. And by what contrary rational Proof or received Principle, can our Adversaries enervate, or make null the Testimony 
All These wise and Learned cannot be supposed mad, or seduced by Fooleries.  of these innumerable Givers in of Evidence, who led on by Motives, which They thought Rational (and what passed for Reason amongst so many and such qualified Persons, aught to pass for Reason with all) Believed this Church and died in it happily? I'll tell you, had our Sectaries salomon's Wisdom, 
Protestants cannot Answer This one Argument.  They would yet be unable to satisfy This one Argument probably, much less to Evidence it forceles, upon either solid Proof or, any received Principle. The reason is. No proof can vainquish an evident Verity; But it is an evident Verity, that God Cheated 
No proof against Evident truth.  not the World by means of so numerous a multitude of Catholic Professors. It is an evident Verity, That all those Wise and Learned Catholics were neither Mad, nor, for so long a time, Deluded by Fooleries. He therefore, who, when rational Proofs fail, cannot 
If Sectaries slight such witnesses, They slight themselves much more.  speak a reasonable word against these Millions of witnesses, But slights and undervalues them; doth not only slight the greatest Authority on Earth, But also, if he be a Protestant, must slight Protestancy; if an Arian, Arianism. For these Sects have neither Authority, nor Witnesses comparable to those of the Catholic Church.  
6. For conclusion of this matter, be pleased to note, That as our Adversaries are destitute of rational Proofs (reducible to received Principles) whilst They impugn the clear Evidence of our Church, so they also want them in all other particular Controversies. For, whether They go about to oppose our Doctrine, 
Soctaries never come to Principles.  or to prove their own, You can never draw from them Proof brought to an undoubted Principle, as I shall most amply show hereafter. They are Opponents ('Tis true) when they tell us we have changed the Ancient Doctrine of the Church, brought in novelties, and I know not what. We hear such Talk, but where is the Propositio quiescens, or grounded Proof to make this Charge good? They say so, And that is all. And yet, if possible, They are worse at it, in proving Their own Doctrine. Take here one Instance, you shall have more hereafter. We demand 
A question proposed.  upon what rational Proof can These men Believe the Sacred Mystery of the Blessed Trinity, and deny the Catholic Doctrine of Christ's Real Presence in the Sacrament? Are they forced to Admit of the one, and 
Protestants believe one Mystery, reject another with out proof.  Reject the other by clear and manifest Scripture? Evidently no. Scripture is without controversy, more openly Significant, and Expressive for the Real Presence, then for a Trinity. Doth the Difficulty of the Sacrament rationally retard their Belief? The Trinity is yet a more difficil Mystery to Reason. O, but the Trinity was ever Believed by the True Church: So, say I, was The other Mystery also. But speak Reason now, And say, what Church was it which ever believed the Trinity? The Roman Catholic Church surely, For Arius and others impugned that Mystery. Now Protestants say this Roman Catholic Church erred in believing Christ's Real Presence; and if so, They are most unreasonable in relying on it for the Belief of a Trinity; For, if it erred in the Belief of one Mystery, it may as well have erred in the other. They may say, the best and most Ancient Fathers held a Trinity. Very true; And as evidently They believed Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist. But what will you say, if I infringe the Authority of these learned Father in this matter? I can do it (though not in Real Truth) most easily, being assisted by the Principles of Protestants, who tell us, that the whole Roman Church, That is, All the Fathers and Doctors of it, erred for a thousand years together in believing the Catholic 
If the Church had erred, the Fathers may more likely have erred.  Doctrine of the Blessed Sacrament. Whereupon I infer Those Ancient Fathers, who both learnedly defended, and piously believed a Mysterious Trinity, may more likely have erred in doing so, then, that a whole Church, for so vast a Time, hath patronised erroneous Doctrine, and falsely believed the Real Presence. Most undoubtedly, The wisdom and Authority of this long standingh Catholic Church, is, in true Prudence, of greater sway and value, than the sole Authority of those far fewer Ancient Fathers can be (though most Venerable, and worthy all Respect) that writ of the 
Sectaries who slight a whole learned Church may more rationally slight the Ancient Fathers.  Sacred Trinity. Those men therefore, who have the Boldness to slight so great a Church, cannot wtih so much as a colour of Reason Reverence more highly those Ancient Fathers. But enough of this Subject. Let us now go on to a further consideration of these prudent Motives, and see more particularly, what Religion gives us the best Evidence of Them.   

CHAP. VIII.  
A few Reflections made upon these Motives of credibility. No Religion hath Motives founding moral certainty but One only, which is the Roman Catholic Religion.  
1. NOte first. If God (as we now suppose) guides 
All Christians prrfesse not Christ's true Doctrine.  us by his Providence, and hath established true Religion in the world, it is as certain, that all who profess Christianity (for example Arians, and Pelagians) believe not entirely Christ's true Doctrine, as that some, blessed by so singular a Favour, both rightly believe, and profess it. It is again most certain, That 
How God leads us to the knowledge of true Religion.  if this wise Providence draws us not to the knouwledge of true Religion by Euthusias'ms, private Illustration, or the ministry of Angels; it leads us on by  Motives, suitable to Reason, by rational Inducements, or discernible Evidence: And, these we call known Signs, Cognisances of Truth, evident Marks, clear Characters, or plain speaking Language, which plead as it were in God's behalf, and as clearly show us where true Religion is, as These visible Creatures manifest a Deity, or, as that Star which brought the Sages to Bethlem, pointed out the Saviour of the world. None can Deny These plain Inducements of Faith; But such as deny those first and most clear Manifestations of Truth, which Christ our Lord and his Blessed Apostles evidenced, when by Their admirable Miracles, strange Conversions, Sanctity of life etc. They withdrew beguiled Souls from Error, and wrought Faith in Them, Before one Word of Scripture was registered.  
2. Note 2. (And it is the Reflection of a learned Author.) As no man enters on a Dispute with others, 
God, as it were, Disputes against Falsehood with rational Arguments.  but be hopes to get the better; so God, when he proposeth true Religion to Christians, engageth as it were in a Dispute with the Devil, and all those Sectaries who oppose it, And therefore cannot hope, But is sure to conquer and convince his Adversaries; otherwise it were folly to begin a Dispute; which would not end to his Honor. Now, if he convince, he doth it, 
And silences all Opponents of Truth.  by the Force and Efficacy of such powerful Arguments, laid out to Reason, as are able to silence all Opponents: For, strong rational Inducements perswasively work on Reason, And clear man's Intellectual power from all Mistrust and Doubt.  
3. Note 3. It is impossible (after the Establishment of true Faith amongst Christians) That God, either will or can permit a false Religion to be more Speciously evident to Reason by Force of rational Motives, than his true Religion is. For were this possible, He would oblige Reason 
A false Religion cannot be more Speciously evident to reason, than God's true Religion is,  by rational Inducements to embrace a falls Religion, which is highly repugnant to his Goodness. And, upon this ground I say more. It is impossible, That a false Religion equalise the true One, in the Evidence of rational Motives; For, if the evidences for Falsehood be equal with those other of Truth, God would stand guilty of arguing less efficaciously, in behalf of his own Verities. We 
Nor can equalise it in the Evidence of Credibility.  must then conclude, That God's true Religion, ever, most eminently surpasseth falsehood in the grace and lustre of those Motives which evidence it to Reason. And from hence it follows, That no man can in justice appropriate those rational Inducements, which draw reason to 
Rational Motives belong not to all called Christians.  find out true Religion, to all, who go under the name of Christians; For amongst these (whether Arians or others) you have false Religions; but the Marks, Motives and Cognisances of Truth cannot belong to a false Religion, unless God propose error as Speciously evident to Reason, as his own Revealed Truth, which is now proved impossible.  
4. These few Reflections premised. Let us look about 
Two Religions in Competition.  us, and cast a serious Thoughr on two Religions only, which as it seems, stand justling with one another, yea, and will needs come into Competition for Truth. The one is, the Ancient and long Continued Roman Catholic Religion. The other, is that late Novelty of Protestanism. Let reason, I say, go here impartially to work, let it make a diligent enquiry after the Rational Motives, which, as it were, plead in behalf of these two different Religions. Both are not 
Both cannot be True both have not the like Evidence.  true, and Therefore both cannot be evidenced by the like Marks and Cognisances of Truth, the One must yield to the Other. What do I say yield? The first appears like a glorious Sun Procedens & crescens usque ad perfectum diem, which, as Origen saith, casteth such lustre from East to West, that all eyes Behold it. The other of Protestancy, Reason finds so nakedly Poor, so destitute of Light, and Motives, That its mean Appearance makes it despicable, and not worth the looking at.  
5. Briefly then I Argue for the moral Evidence of our Catholic Roman Religion. A Religion, which, after the just Condemnation of so many undoubted and acknowledged Heretics, hath permanently stood Visibly victorious for 16. hundred years, And which never yet was 
Moral Evidence for the Roman Catholic Religion.  condemned by any known true Church of Error or Haeresy. A Religion, which hath drawn thousands of Infidels, and Aliens (from Christ) to its Belief. And which hath had Age after Age, whole millions of constant Professors, whereof innumerable were not only most Wise, Learned and Virtuous, But willingly also lost their temporal Fortunes, and courageously shed their Blood for it. Such a Religion, I say, which hath 
It hath gained innumerable Believers.  thus perswasively wrought on the Reason of so many Wise, and Learned etc. And, gained to it whole multitudes of Believers, and Martyrs, shows by this one admirable Effect (had we no other Proof) Strength and Evidence enough to convince the most obdurate Hart in the World. For, either (as I noted above) we must say, That all these Wise and Glorious Men were mad, as being induced by Fooleries to Believe, and die as they did; or grant, That They had clear and undeniable Evidence to warrant their Belief, for which we now plead. Nay, I say more: So general a Mistake and Delusion, 
God's Providence over his Church could not permit so general a Delusion.  is upon an other Account most impossible; For, that great Care and Providence which God had ever of his Church, could not permit (if true Faith were in the world from the fifth Age to Luther) so learned, so numerous, and precious a part of Christians as Roman Catholics were in those Days, to be led into a falss Belief by either trivial or foolish Motives. If we swallow down this vast impossibility, we must Conclude, 
Note well, a vast impossibility.  that, for so long a time, God had no true Church at all; For none, called Christians, were then in being But Catholics only, and known condemned Heretics. But of this particular most largely Hereafter. In the interim  
6. I propose a second and most convincing Argument. 
No Religion Ex terminis Evidently true or false.  No Religion, whether it be that of jesus Christ, or Mahomet, that of Catholics, or Sectaries, either is, or can be ex Terminis evidently True or False; neither can a bare Affirmation for its Truth, without farther Proof, force 
Convincing Arguments for Catholic Religion.  Reason to accept of it: Otherwise, every man might now begin a new Religion as he list's, and sufficiently warrant it by only saying, He speaks Truth. True Religion therefore must have its Evidence, and known Discernibility from Error, before it be accepted of. And now, because both Catholics and all Sectaries suppose, that the Religion, which Christ jesus and his Blessed Apostles taught, was indubitably and clearly evidenced by Marks, and convincing Signs of Truth. We are in the first place to ponder well those Motives, which made evident that first Christian and Apostolical Doctrine; and next to Consider, whether the very like Motives have not evidenced the Roman Catholic Faith Age after Age. Briefly. The greatest and most visible Evidences for that Apostolical Doctrine, were (to omit others) first, most known and unquestioned Miracles. (The Dead rose up to Life, the Blind saw, the Deaf heard, Devils were ejected out of possessed Persons &c.) 2. Admirable Conversions wrought upon Infidels and Gentiles. 3. An examplar Neglect of the World, conjoined with great Sanctity of life etc. But these Evidences are clear, 
Apostolical Evidences of Miracles, Conversions etc. are the Church's Evidence.  without dispute for the Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, and for no other Religion. Therefore if those primitive Miracles, that Efficacy of Doctrine, those great Conversions, that admirable Sanctity of the first Apostolical Men, perswasively induced Aliens from Truth, to believe in Christ, They are yet, as powerful and forceable to induce All, who follow Reason, to Believe both the Antecedent Church of Rome, and this modern Church also, now in Being. No tolerable Reply can be given to this Argument. Will our new Men deny eminent Sanctity to innumerable, who profess our Roman Religion? The contrary is evident, by all those apparent 
Evidence of Sanctity.  Signs, whereby Sanctity can be known in this mortal Life. Witness the Contempt of the World manifest in Thousands, the charitable Alms deeds of Seculars, the Austere and mortified Life of Religious, whereof more Hereafter etc. O, but all Pastors and Doctors of the Catholic Church are not Saints like the Apostles. Frivolous. No more were all the Primitive Pastors or People for 4. or 5. Ages after Christ so Eminently Holy, (do out Protestants arrive to that Degree of Sanctity?) Yet thousands then were, and are still without debate, Innocent, Holy and Virtuous.  
7. Again. Can Sectaries deny those prodigious Conversions of Nations, wrought by this Church upon Heathens and Aliens from Christ? If they do, All are upon Record, both Friends and Enemies attribute these Wonders to that Mother Church. Tell me, I beseech you, who converted our once most Catholic 
Evidence of Conversions.  England to the Faith it Anciently had, but Roman Catholics? Who reduced Germany, Polony, Spain, France, Denmark, Swedland, and the Low-Countries to the same Faith? They were Men united in Belief with the Roman Church. Who yet send Missioners to those remoter Parts of the world, to China, japony and other Places? This Church only doth God that Service, whilst our Ministers sit at home with ease, tied fast to their fine Wives, and fat Benefices. If Finally they doubt of our Miracles, They may as well doubt of the Sun's light at noon Day, so Conspicuous They have been ever in this Church, and are still to this present Age. Whereof more in the next Chapter. All I ask now is, Whether it be not morally certain, that the World had once in it such Men as were called Alexander, Caesar, Pompey, Cicero? yes. As great Evidence we have for most eminent Miracles done by this Church: Constant Tradition, known Records, 
Evidence of Miracles done by the Catholic Church.  undoubted History, convey them to us; All which none can Deny, without wilful Perverseness, And a High degree of Impudence. Yet suppose Men so impertinently bold, as to question some Miracles; whether for example, ever since the primitive Age any were raised from death to life? Whether Devils have been Cast out? Whether Sight were restored to the Blind, Strength to the Lame (All these are upon Record?) Yet 
Conversion of Nations a great Miracle.  they cannot deny that grand and convincing Miracle of Conversions, which is Proof enough, as St. Austin Learnedly Consider's lib. 22. Civitat. Cap. 5. Chief at those words. 
St. Augustine's Discourse.  Si rem credibilem crediderunt. If men, saith he, Believed a thing credible (he speaks of the Resurrection of the dead, and the like is of any other Mystery in Faith) videant quam sint stolidi, se what fools Those are, who will not believe. Si autem res incredibilis est. If the thing be incredible. This is most incredible, yea, and the strangest miracle of all, that, That which was deemed Incredible, gained Belief the whole World over. The Argument is convincing, and proves as well, that those after Conversions wrought upon Infidels by Roman Evangelical Preachers, were Admirable, and truly Miraculous. Millions have been converted by them. These numerous multitudes therefore of Believers were either drawn on by fooleries. If so; 
Fooleries could not induce Millions to contemn the world and become good Christians.  They were mad, And here lies the Miracles, saith St. Austin, Viz. That Fooleries could induce so many to Contemn the World, and become good Christians: Or, Contrariwise, They believed this Roman Catholic Church upon weighty rational Motives. If so; Why are not our Protestant's obliged to believe as they did, upon the same prudent Inducements. If They Tell us: The Church Taught an other Doctrine, when these great Conversions were made, than it Teaches now; They do not only most unlearnedly Suppose what is to be Proved (yea cannot be proved because utterly false) But also speak not one Word to the Purpose; For, both our Progenitors in England and innumerable others, were drawn from Error by Popish Preachers. And even in this present Age, the like glorious Conversions are, and have been wrought by these Blessed men's Labours, 
Why these Conversions are to be esteemed Miraculous.  and Theirs only. Now if you ask upon what Account such Conversions are to be esteemed Miraculous? This one Instance answers you. Imagine you saw a little Flock of Sheep or Lambs, sent into a Desert, full of ravenous Wolves, withal; That these Lambs, though at first many were devoured, yet at length rendered the Wolves so Tame, and so abated their Rage, that they became like Lambs, mild and submissive. Would you not say, that such a work were prodigious, and above the force of nature? This is our very case. Behold saith our Saviour, Luc. 10. I send you as Lambs amongst Wolves▪ And these you must subdue. It was done. Behold, saith the Roman Catholic Church, I send my Preachers still abroad to the Remotest parts of the World, and have changed Wolves into Lambs, That is, I have made Infidels, once Rebellious to Christ, Subject to his laws, the Vicious I have made Virtuous, and brought thousands of them to no other Religion, but Popery. This work, with the Assistance of God's Grace is done, Et est mirabile in oculis nostris, and 'tis admirable. Had our Protestants made such Changes, or drawn so many Infidels to their new Faith, they would have talked of wonders; But because Catholics 
Why Protestants flight Miracles, and Conversions?  gained them to the old Religion, all is Nothing. So it is. They have no Miracles, and therefore 'Slight them: No Conversions, and thersore undervalue them. A Strange proceeding. Those very wonders which induced the world to become Christian, Because they yet eminently appear in the Roman Catholic Church, must lie under Contempt; Those Ancient Proofs of Christianity are now proofles, Those Primitive Evidences of Miracles, Conversions &c. (the Church is in fault for showing them) cannot be seen by these later Men, who yet have Eyes to discern the Book of Scripture by its own Light and Majesty. And by the way mark the Paradox. The exterior words of a Bible (for of these 
A Paradox of Sectaries.  we only speak) are Evidences enough for Scripture; yet those glorious works now mentioned are (forsooth) no Evidence of this Church. The very Majesty of the style Ascertain's these men, that God Speaks by that Sacred Book; yet all the perceptible miraculous Majesty, which the Church shows us, cannot persuade them, that he speaks by this visible, audible, and most known Oracle of Truth. A Bible (well known, its true, upon other Grounds to be most Sacred) discovers its Divinity, and immediately proves who writ it, Yet a Church so gloriously marked, says nothing who Directs it. Is this Reason, or Religion think ye? Can Reason produce this unreasonable Thought in any, That the wise Providence of God hath permitted so eminent, so numerous, so pious, so learned, and so long standing a Multitude of Christians, as Catholics have been (and yet are) to be Cheated into Error, even whilst they evidence their Faith, by such Proofs and Motives, as Christ and his Apostles manifested Christian Religion? What? Shall we think that Miracles, Conversions of Souls, casting out of Devils, Sanctity of life etc. which were once convincing Arguments of Christianity, are now showed to countenance a Falsity? To judge so, is the most improbable 
Sectaries judge improbably.  Thought that ever entered a Christians Hart, yea, and impossible, unless we hold, that God can leave of to be Goodness itself, or, make Falsehood more apparently evident than Truth the whole World over: which is proved to be a gross error.  
8. Other Arguments we have for a greater Certainty then moral, previously Evidencing the Roman Catholic Religion before we Believe; whereof more in the next Chapter. It is now sufficient to say, That our Protestants grant thus much. First, because 
Protestants grant Evidence of Credibility to the Roman Catholic Religion.  the more learned of them allow Salvation to those, who live and die in this Faith; But most sure it is, That Saving Faith hath at least moral Evidence, and Certainty for it. 2. Whilst They talk of no man knows what Evidence manifesting Christian Religion in General, They only plead for our Catholic Faith, and speak not a word in behalf of Protestancy. The Reason is. If both these Religions are not True, 
Motives Evidencing true Religion inseparably follow that.  but the One only, The Motives which Evidence true Religion inseparably follow That, and cannot belong (as I have already proved) to the Other, which is false. Therefore They, or We, are obliged to show them. But Protestancy cannot show so much as one prudent Motive for itself, as will most clearly appear in the 10. Chapter: Ergo, what Evidence there is for true Christian Faith, Catholics have it, or there is none in the World for any Religion.   

CHAP. IX.  
A short Digression concerning the Shuffling of Protestants in this matter.  
1. HEre I cannot but reflect on the slight endeavours of some later Sectaries, who offer at 
Mr. Stillingfleets weak endeavours.  Much in an Empty Title called The Protestants way of resolving Faith; yet in prosecuting the matter, They handle it so unluckily, that no man here's a word more spoken in behalf of Protestanism, then of Arianism, or of what ever other Haeresy. Motives and Reasons they give none for Protestant Doctrine, as Protestancy, As They ought to have done in the first place, after so glorious a Title.  
2. To prove what is said, have patience to hear some few parergons. There are, say They, in the question of resolving Faith these three questions to be resolved. First, Why I believe those things to be true, which are contained in the Book called Scripture? 2. Why I believe the Doctrine contained in that Book to be Divine? 3. Why I believe the Books themselves to be of Divine Revelation? Mark here a Shuffling, and remember once more the Title. The Protestants way of resolving Faith. Is it so? Is it the Protestants way? Yes. Surely then the Questions here proposed, and the Answers returned are most Pertinent to help on Protestants in their resolving Faith, That is, to make Protestancy 
These Author's wave what they should Explicate.  evidently credible by clear and rational Motives. You will say, They are so. And I say, They are no more to that purpose (of Protestants resolving Faith, or giving of prudent Motives for Protestancy) then if such a Religion had never been in the world. I prove my Assertion. The Arian will say. I believe 
Arians believe Scripture as much as Protestants  those Things to be True which are contained in Scripture. I believe the Doctrine in that Book, to be Divine. I believe the Books themselves to be of Divine Revelation, and this I do upon as good Grounds, as you Protestants, if not on better. For if you admit of these Verities, upon the greatest Evidence, which things of that Nature are capable of, So do I too. But say, I beseech you, what more Advantage have you upon this Concession, for your particular Religion, than I have for mine? For, let these Books be True, let them contain Divine Doctrine, let us believe the Revelation in them to be Sacred, yet both you and I are to seek which of us hath the better Religion, and this cannot be decided by owing three Truths, whereof no Christian ever doubted. Why therefore do you, when it is your particular Task to resolve Protestant's Faith, never meddle with the Question? But wast time in proving that, which when it is proved, help's you no more than all other Christians, who are contrary to you in Belief. Will you see this clearly?  
3. I freely grant, that those things in Scripture are True, They are Divine, the Books themselves are of Divine Revelation. But next ask, What is this to Protestant Religion? Or, how, is the Resolution of Protestants Faith advanced upon the owning These Verities? Nothing at all. And the Reason is, for rhough all Christians acknowledge in general Scripture to be most Divine, yet they are at endless Disputes concerning the Doctrine of it. Now, no Man, I hope, 
To have Scripture in our hands gives no Assurance of true Faith.  will say, Because he hath this Book in his hands, or owns it as God's Word, that therefore He rightly Believes the particular necessary Doctrine in it. For, were this true, known Haeretiks would be as sound in Faith as any. To conclude then, The Roman Catholic inquires not here after any general Proof of Scripture (He proved that before Protestants were born) But he urges for Motives, 
What Catholics require of Protestants.  and rational Inducements, whereby Protestancy, as Protestancy, is evidenced to have any ressemblance with the Primitive Doctrine of Christ and his blessed Apostles. Known Marks and Cognisances of Truth, must manifest this particular Doctrine, And not a general talk of the Divinity of Scripture, which every Arian and Haeretick would own, were there no such thing as a Protestant in Being.  
4. They hold on in this proofles strain, and tell us how Moral certainty is Assurance enough, that Christian Religion is infallibly true. Be it so, it is nothing to the purpose; For we inquire not in this place after the moral Evidence of Christian Religion in General, which, as it professed by condemned Heretics, 
Protestancy unevidenced.  hath none; But we ask for the moral Certainty, whereby Protestancy is evidenced. This is not so much as spoken of, though the Title of resolving Protestants Faith requires a direct Answer to this Difficulty. They say again, There can be no greater than moral Certainty for the main Foundations of all Religion, and the chiefest is the Existency and Being of God. The Assertion is falss, as I could demonstrate, were it now pertinent to handle that question. But Let it pass. Give us, I beseech you, as much Moral certainty of Protestant Religion, as All acknowledge for the Existency of a Deity, and we are satisfied; But of this we hear not a word. We have Talk enough of the Moral certainty of Christian 
They Answer not to the difficulty.  Religion, which Answers not to the Title of resolving Protestants Faith.  
5. They say thirdly. Suppose, God gives the must infallible Evidence of any Religion, some who are bound to believe that Religion, can have no more than Moral certainty of it. Transeat totum, at present. What makes it for Protestancy? We here ask, Why Protestants believe as they do? Why They adhere to their new Faith, and prefer that Before all other Religions? Rational Motives Can be produced, or not. We hitherto hear of none, And therefore suspect, yea, know very well, there are none for it.  
6. They say fourthly. Moral certainty yields us sufficient 
Protestants altogether in Generals.  Assurance that Christian Religion is infallibly true. What Religion is infallibly true upon moral certainty. Is it Arianism or Pelagianism? No. Is it the Roman Catholic Religion? No. Is it Protestancy? Yes. Then produce Rational Motives which may ground a moral certainty more of this Religion, then of any other Sect, and we acquiesce. But this you cannot do.  
7. They say fifthly. Where there is evident credibility in 
And prove nothing for their Religion.  the matter propounded, there doth arise upon Men an obligation to believe. Very good! To believe, what. Give us this evident Credibility of Protestancy, and something is said to the purpose. Hereof yet we have no news, nor are like to have, and consequently Protestant's cannot be obliged to Believe as they do. After some other Parergons',  
8. They say sixthly. The last Resolution of Faith is not into the infallibility of the instrument of conveyance, but into the infallibility of that Doctrine which is thereby conveyed to us. Shall we eternally have these Empty words, and no Substance? You talk here of an infallibility of Doctrine, and we would have the Riddle expounded. Is it the Roman Catholic Doctrine? Or yours? Or Arianism? What for God's sake, avails it to hear a noise of infallible Doctrine, and not to know, who rightly professeth it? Your Doctrine therefore of Protestancy is to be Evidenced, this is all we look for.  
9 They say seventhly. If the Doctrine of Christ be true and Divine, than all the promises made were accomplished: Now that was one of the greatest, that his Spirit should lead his Apostles into all Truth. Very true. But what is this for Protestant Doctrine? We ask still by what Signs and Marks of Truth, do these new Men prove their particular Faith to be Apostolical? Here only lies the Difficulty, never touched on by them. Admit therefore at present, that they have in their hands the infallible Records of God's Word, they are far of yet from proving their particular Doctrine of Protestancy to be Scripture, or the infallible Word of God. This is the sole controverted Question between us.  
10. They finally end. Thus much may suffice in general concerning the Protestant way of resolving Faith. Very little, it seems, serves their turn, who hitherto never 
Loct labour to talk of Christian Religion in General.  meddled with that Resolution; But have lost their labour, by a talking in General of Christian Religion, which no more concerns Protestancy, than it doth the worst of Heretics. And after this manner They hold on in another Chapter entitled. The sense of Fathers in this Controversy; Where justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clemens 
Fathers cited to no purpose.  of Alexandria are cited▪ but to what purpose God only knows. Are they quoted to evidence any thing like Protestancy? No. The whole-Discours of these Learned Father's looks another way, and never medles with this Novelty. Read them as they are, either in These Authors (with all the Advantages of their Glosses on them) or rather in the Originals, as I have done exactly, you will find them so great Strangers to this new Haeresy; That they never thought of it. To transcribe again their whole Discourse would prove tedious, read justins' words in these Authors Part. 1. Chap. 9 page 264. and add to them the reflection made page 265. What part (say they) is there now of our Resolution of Faith which is not here in (that is in justins' Testimony) asserted? I answer, Nothing at all, as will appear by your own Questions and Answers wholly irrelative to Protestancy. Thus than you go on.  
If you ask why you believe there were such men in the 
justin makes nothing for Protestants.  world as these Prophets whereof justin speaks. Answer. The continuance of their Books and common Fame sufficiently attest it. Be is so, what is this to Protestancy? Can any one probably infer, Because He believes there were such men in the world as Prophet, Apostles, or Evangelists, Therefore he hath the true Doctrine of 
Weak inferences.  these Prophets? No. For both Arians and Pelagians yield Assent to that general Truth, and so do Catholics also; are all These right in Faith upon that Account precisely? Toys. No more than are Protestants. 3. If you ask, say you, why you Believe them to be true Prophets? Answ. The excellency of their Doctrine joined with the fulfilling of Prophecies, and working Miracles, abundantly prove it. Prove what for God's sake? No more but this, that those Prophets taught excellent Doctrine, and wrought Miracles; Doth it therefore follow that Protestants, Arians, and other Heretics teach such Doctrine, or work Miracles? No. Herein lies the Difficulty, not so much as glanced at, or touched on. And thus 
Nor Clemens Alex.  they run on to no purpose for many pages, with Testimonies drawn out of Irenaeus, and Clemens Alexandrinus, which no more relate to Protestancy then those first Words of Genesis do: In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth. Nay more. Clemens cited 
But Confutes them.  by these Authors, page 273. expressly confutes our Sectaries, whilst he requires two things necessary to attain to the true knowledge of true Faith in Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: the Enquiry and Discovery of it. The Enquiry is an impulse of the mind (say these men) for finding Truth out, by Signs which are proper to it. Discovery, is the End and Rest of this Enquiry, which lies in the comprehension of the things, which is properly knowledge. A most true and admirable Expression. Clemens according to these Authors, proceds thus. Now the Signs by which Truth is Discovered, are either Precedent, Concomitant, or Subsequent. The precedent Signs, whereby we discover Christ to be the Son of God, are the Prophecies declaring his coming. The Concomitant, were the Testimonies concerning his Birth. The subsequent Signs, are those Miracles which were published and manifestly showed to the World after his Ascension, etc. Most true and Divine Doctrine, which is entirely for the Roman Catholic Religion, and against Protestants. Why? We inquire after the precedent Signs, whereby their new Religion is discovered? We ask for subsequent Signs, which were publicly known to the world soon after the broaching of their new Faith, and yet cannot hear of any shown by these new men in confirmation of their Faith. Finally, we urge for Miracles and other Prudential Motives Evidencing Protestant Religion in the ensuing Chapter (but find none.) Read it, and give an impartial judgement.   

CHAP. X.  
Protestants have no rational Motives, whereby their new Faith is evidenced to be so much as probable.  
1. TO prove the Assertion, we here friendly demand, Whether, when Scripture, Fathers, and the best Authority of former ages Assert. That the Marks and Cognisances of Gods revealed Truth, are as follow. Antiquity, A Lawful mission, Unity, Efficacy of Doctrine, Universality, Miracles, Succession of Bishops, Sanctity, yes, and the very name of Catholic etc. My demand, I say, is whether our new Men will own these old Signs as lawful and approved Manifestations of Truth, or disown them? If this later; They are Compelled to show them unfit or forceles Arguments for the evidencing of Truth, and consequently are obliged to produce others more clear and persuasive for their supposed true Religion, which is impossible. On the other side, if they shall please to own them as lawful Cognisances of Truth, My Task is to prove, That they have neither the complexum of all these Motives together; nor, so much as one of them in particular for Protestancy.  
2. Antiquity (granted to Popery, for at least a 
Protestants want Antiquity.  thousand years and upward) Protestant's have not. Those two Brethren of Iniquity Luther and Calvin, first brought this Religion forth, as is evident by all known History. Before their days, no man can show me, so much as one Town, Village, or Household of Protestants.  
3. Lawful Mission (most justly and without dispute 
A lawful Mission is wanting.  challenged by Catholic Doctors) These two wretched men had not, (no more have their followers) Inquire after it, you will find them all unsent Preachers, contrary to the Apostles Doctrine Rom. 10, How shall They preach unless they be sent? They never had licence to talk as they did; But by their own Will and unknown Spirit, which as well authorized james Nayler to be Christ, as them to be lawful and Apostolical Preachers. Say, I beseech you, when the blessed Apostles first taught the Doctrine of Christ jesus, and by their preaching turned Idolatry out of the World, Did They only word it, 
Christ and his Apostles were sent, and shown their Mission.  or, without Commission talk of a new Gospel? No. As my Father sent me, saith our Saviour. joan. 20. so I send you; And They evidenced their Calling to the great Work they had in hand, by clear and undoubted Miracles, which proved forcible persuasive Arguments, and strongly wrought upon the most obdurate Hearts. Yer, fifteen hundred years after, our novelists appear, broach a new Gospel, aim at no les a matter then to pull down the Idolatrous Babel of Popery, (so they style our Ancient Church) and we must take their Word for all They say, though they neither show Letter-missive, or Patents to warrant their Doctrine, no, nor one miracle to confirm it. So destitute they are both of ordinary and extraordinary Mission. Some will say. Though they preach without Mission, they preach the Doctrine delivered in Scripture, and the Ancient Miracles (without need of new ones) were wrought to confirm Scripture-doctrin, which is now purely 
Sectaries word it, without proof.  taught in the Reformed Churches, and not in the Church of Rome. Thus most pitifully Mr. Poole pag. 195. where you se first, an unlearned begging the Question. 2. Every Arian licenced to assert for himself, what Mr. Poole too simply assumes here without Proof. 3. This is most falss Doctrine. For no man yet ever lawfully preached true Christian Doctrine (no not Christ himself) without a Mission: Sicut misit me Pater etc. For, when He Blessed Lord, first established the Doctrine of Christianity contrary both to jews and Infidels, He did it not by Words only without Commission, nor proved the Verity of his Gospel by the Ancient and long since pased Miracles wrought amongst the Jews, as these men do their Doctrine by the Primitive Miracles of Christianity (which belong not to them,) But He evidenced it, and confirmed it, by new manifest 
Protestants obliged to show undoubted Marks and Signs, when they preach a new Gospel.  Miracles, visible Signs and Wonders. And thus our Protestant's should have done, when they first published their new unheard of learning, and by it attempted to throw down that long standing Church of Popery. Undoubted Miracles, unquestioned Signs of Truth should, as we read of the primitive Apostles Mark 16. 20. Have followed them also. But in lieu of these what have you? Unwarranted talk, mere proofles Words of uncommissioned men. Miraculous words indeed, if able to subvert an Ancient Church, to pull down Popery, and build up Protestancy.  
4. Unity in Doctrine (most known and remarkable 
No Unity of Doctrine.  in the Catholic Church) they have none, witness those innumerable Sects which now swarm amongst them, and This new Faith hath produced of Arminians, Zwinglians, Brownists, Independents etc. And now our late Quakers are sprouted out of it, the last spring, perhaps, (though no body knows) of this Reformed Gospel. I need not to say much on this point. A serious thought cast upon the different procedure of a Catholic and Protestant, will lay 
The Blessing of Unity, and Curse of Division.  open the great Blessing of Unity in the one, and the contrary Curse of Division in the other. Observe well. Catholics you shall find like right Noble men, Standing upon a long continued Pedigree, on their Ancient Tradition, on their never interrupted Succession of Popes, of Princes, of Bishops, of People united in one Belief. You look on Protestants like new Upstarts, unfortunately divided in their very first Progenitors, Luther and Calvin, that begot them in discord, And this Spirit of Division, as a Ghost, doth, and will Haunt them to the world's end, if they last so long. Catholics you will find, like deep and silent Waters running together in one Channel, concentred in one Principle, settled on one Rock, the Church's Infallibility. You see Protestants, not only destroying both Rock and Centre, But also so giddily unconstant 
Sectaries unconstants.  to their own Tenants, that you have them at a stand not where, And this often shifting hath undone them. Once the 39 articles were points of Faith and Religion, now they are no more so. Once the Pope was Antichrist, now with many Protestants he is the first Patriarch. Once he was a horned Beast, now more than one of our New men take of his Horns, and make him Rational. Once Rome was the Whore of Babylon, now with most, it is purer, yes, and Orthodox in fundamentals. Once our Bishops were all Idolaters, unlawful Pastors; now They are so Legitimate, that our new men must either derive their Ordination from them, or have none at all. And thus unsteedily they dance up and down, say and unsay, Now yea, now no, as the Fancy takes them, And they must do so, until they have a firmer ground of Unity to set footing on.  
5. Mr, Pool page 201. to impugn the Unity of the 
Mr. Pools instance of Pagans and Devils against Unity is impertinent.  Church tell's us, That both Pagans and Devils had it; yet, in the very next page complains much of the want of Unity in his Protestant Brethren. Methinks unreasonably enough, For if Unity be so proper to Pagans and Devils, the more Protestants are divided, The better it is for them, Because further of from the Spirit of these agreeing Monsters. But, saith Mr. Poole, Unity without Verity is not to be regarded. I answer. Every one knows so much; But what is that to our present purpose, where we solely treat of Unity, and assert it, with the Nicene Fathers, to be a Grace or Dowry of the Church, a Badge or Cognisance of Truth? And this our Protestants must acknowledge, who I hope will grant some large Christian Society agreeing at least in Fundamentals, 
Protestants hold some Unity laudable in the Church  which they call the Catholic Church. I ask therefore, Whether such an Unity, extended to all Christians, be not Laudable, and a good Mark of Truth? If so; Why are Pagans and Devils introduced to slight the Church's Unity? If not. We have now not one laudable united Catholic Church in the whole world. What follows in Mr. Pools 203. page, 
Mr. Poles simple Objection.  concerning Divisions between Dominicans and jesuits &c Is so profoundly simple, that no man's patience can so much as hear it. Every Puny knows these differences are not in Faith, but Opinions only. I pass by such trifles.  
6. Efficacy in Doctrine (an undeniable Mark of 
No Efficacy in Doctrine.  the Catholic Church) our Protestants have not. Observe my proof. It is most certain▪ That these men came but late into the Vineyard of the Church (sure after the eleventh hour) and found it, as They say, in a Sad condition, overgrown with Weeds of Popish Errors, pestered with Arian, and Grecian Heretics, opposed by Heathens and Infidels. 
What our new Zealots should have done.  All these needed the Light of this new Gospel to shine upon them. And who would not have expected, before this day, greater Conversions wrought among so many straying Souls by these new Zelots? Popery ere now should have been dissipated, Arians reclaimed, Thousands of Infidels converted to Christ, David's courage long ago should have defeated some one or other of these 
Sectaries ill success in Conversions.  massy bodies, chief that of Popery. But the ill success they have had in such Conversions, proves them, if not downright Cowards, at least unlucky Combatants. Popery holds still its posture, maugre their weak attempts against it; And I never 
What one Blessed man did in the space of Eleven years.  yet heard of good done upon Arians, or other Ancient Heretics by these men's labour. Now touching the Conversion of Infidels, Strangers to Christ, the Assertion of Thomas Bosius Tom. 1. De signis Ecclesia lib. 6. cap. 3. Signo 20. is Remarkable, viz. That one Blessed man of our age, St. Francis Xaverius, reduced more to the Catholic Faith in the space of eleven years only, Then all the Protestants in the world (add to them what other Sectaries soever) have gained of Infidels to their Heresies, since the beginning of Christianity. My God Had the Blessed Apostles been as slow in rooting out Idolaty, as our late Masters yet are lazy about so noble a Work, the dumb Idols of the Gentiles would have preached against them, and still stood unshaken. But, God gave These first powerful Preachers and their Catholic Followers, a vigorous Spirit, the Efficacy of Doctrine, an illustrious Character or mark of Truth, which to this day the Church wears, and manifesteth to the world. Sectaries never had it.  
7. You will say they have yet gained many to their 
Few Infidels reduced by Protestants.  Protestant Profession. What History relates them, I beseech you, If we speak of reduced Infidels? If we mention others whose Progenitors, at least, were Catholics, you may boldly say it. They, with the help of Secular power, have perverted many a poor Soul by preaching Liberty, which corrupted nature as easily follows as a stone falls downward. Faith only justifies. Good works are of no value. Fasting is superstition. Mortification is Popery. The use of Pennace is needles. And yet worse, might modesty speak it, if the Wife will not &c. Tenants, more fit for Devils, than Doctors to preach; yet Christians have heard such Libertins' talk. 
How Haresy hath gained followers.   
8. May I upon this occasion say my Thought concerning those poor souls drawn from us to Protestanism, since the unhappy breach began in England? I conceive it thus. A certain indifferent careless 
A careless humour first brought in by Haeresy. Homebred Education.  Humour of having this or that Religion, Any or none (Haeresy first brought it in, and it tends to Atheism) got them some company. Homebred Education, that see's little abroad (As it must needs happen to them that live in an Ileland) has brought 
Pénal Laws. Ignorance perverse in some, deplorable in others. But above all Liberty increased the number.  in more. The Penal Laws, and the fear of losing a temporal Fortune, has forced in very many. Ignorance, peevishly perverse in Some, and deplorable in Others, greatly increased the number. But, above all that Liberty, now mentioned, to Do, and Believe what every man listeth (a Sauce that suits best with unsettled Stomaches, we may call it Luther's Ratsbain) hath alured innumerable. In one of these Classes, you will find them, except perhaps some of the more Learned (whose consciences I touch not) God only knows, what Gripes they feel, for misleading others, and wronging Themselves. But, what will ye? 'Tis Interest. Their fat Benefices, that timely follow the low fortune they were born to, holds them fast. It must be a powerful Grace, that can so much as stir them, much more that can draw them from their Haeresy.  
9 Set these Classes aside, the Churches in England would, I think, be very Empty of company. 
Sew of the more able are in love with Protestancy.  There are few or none among the Abler sort, that are much in love with Protestancy upon the account of Religion. Yet more. We find by experience, that when those First sort of men now named have some feeling of God, and Eternity, when the Second step out of England, and see the Practice of Catholic Religion in neighbouring Countries: When the Third, dare loose a little mammon for God: When the Fourth Hot Spirits are somewhat cooled, And the poor Beguiled get open their eyes: When the Fifth have done with Youth and Liberty (of the Sixth I say nothing but, God help them.) Experience I say learns us, That all of them draw nearer to Catholic Religion, so far at least, as to judge well and Honourably of it, 
Many at their death become Catholics, few or none turn to be Protestants  and we see not a few turn good old Papists, when they come to die (men deal then most seriously) Though I never yet heard of any, that had lived Catholic, desert his Faith upon Scruple, as not being in a right Belief, or die a Protestant.  
10. Universality, which the very name of Catholic 
Protestant have no universality, Of Time,  implies, and the Apostles Creed allows of, is no Mark of Protestant Religion. If we relate to time, Not one Age, ever since Christ came into the world, can produce so much as one slender Family of Protestants before Luther. This point hath been often 
Nor Place.  pressed, but never yet had Answer. For place, it is as meanly poor; For take this Religion in the greatest Latitude, as it is made up of all those jarring and dissenting People, that go under the notion of the Reformed Churches, it only creep's up and down in some few Corners of our Northern world, without Lustre or Glory. And if we speak more strictly of Protestants in England (I mean the 39 articled men) I believe a good large Village would hold most of them. Mr. Poole hath no good liking to the long Duration and Amplitude of Religion, and therefore disdainfully kik's at both with his Pagan-instance. Is it not pitiful to misspend time on such intolerable Trifles? I'll do so no more, And therefore am with good Reason forced to wave most of Mr. Pools Noobjections.  
11. To the Amplitude of Catholic Religion, we may here well anex the continued Succession of 
Protestants have no succession of Bishops.  Bishops, the Sanctity, and Purity of our Catholic Doctrine; both are marks of Truth and evident in the Roman Church. Protestants can lay no claim to succession, and therefore I challenge them as Tertullian did the Ancient Heretics De prescript. Cap. 32. Edant Origines Ecclesiarum suarum, evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suorum. Let them show us the Origin of their Churches, and declare the order of their Bishops. Let them say who they were? Where they lived? Who knew them? What good they did 
No Protestant Bishop or Pastor before Luther.  in the Church? Sustinete me, & ego loquar. Have patience, and ' Ill tell you. They had not so much as one Bishop, one Pastor, one Doctor, or one Preacher, before the days of unfortunate Luther, whereas, the Catholic Church demonstratively gives a Catalogue of her succeeding Popes, and Bishops, from Blessed St. Peter, to this present Pope who now sitt's in that Chair. And if you will know of what account this perpetuated Succession of Pastors is, read St. Austin Tom. 6. contra Epistolam fundam. cap. 4. In Catholica 
A continued succession of great account.  Ecclesia tenet me (saith the Saint) ab ipsa Sede Petri Apostoli, cui pascendas oves suas post resurrectionem Dominus commendavit, usque ad praesentem Episcopatum, successio Sacerdotum. The continued Succession of Priests until now, from the seat of St. Peter the Apostle, to whom our Lord after his Resurrection commended his Flock to be fed, holds me in the Catholic Church. And afterward. No Donatist can show such a Succession, no more, say I, can any Protestant. See more in his Book De utilitate credendi c. 17. at those words: Dubitamus nos ejus Ecclesiae gremio condere etc.  
12. Sanctity and Purity of Doctrine (which neither 
Purity of Doctrine  Infidel, nor Sectary could ever yet cavil at, But upon the account that there is too much of it in the Catholic Church) is pitifully wanting to Protestants. I prove it. As the Tree is known by its Fruit, so Holy Doctrine is best known by the Holy life of those who profess it, and the Saintly effects that 
Saintly Effects follow Holy Doctrine.  follow it. If we might insist on the first, tell me, where have our Protestants Their holy Hilarions, their retired Paul's and Antony's, their Gregory's, their Bernard's, their Malachies? Where have they Apostles Like St. Austin of England? Bishops of such Austerity as a St. Charles Boromaeus? Doctor's so profundly learned and humble, as St. Thomas of Aquine, and St. Bonaventure? Where are their undefatigable Missioners, sent for Conversions to the remotest parts of the world with a Blessed St. Xaverius? Where are their Mortified Religious, 
Sanctity manifest.  their Solitary Monks, their Tender Virgins shut up in Cloisters without hope of enjoying the world, or Friends any more? Such Holiness manifests itself in the Catholic Church; Protestants have nothing like it, and yet those two impure Founders of the new Gospel, Luther and Calvin, had far Les of Sanctity. Let every Conscience speak its own Thought, and say plainly, whether these Two now 
A parallel.  named, were Patterns of Virtue like a Renowned St. Benet, a Glorious St. Dominick, an Humble St. Francis, a Prudent St. Ignatius, who endeavoured (not to amend the Church ever sound in Doctrine) But only to better the world by their Incessant labours, by their Charitable works, and Blessed example. Heaven now crowns these Saints with Glory, and earth yet celebrat's their Memory with immortal Praise, whilst Luther and Calvin lie buried in Oblivion, only thought on for founding a Gospel upon Liberty, which makes all the Followers of it Libertins, and therefore we must acknowledge that Christianity hath been much worse 
Protestancy ruins Alt.  for their once being Christians. More Atheistical Principles have been settled in men's Hearts, since these two new Preachers came amongst us, more Fantastic Opinions vented, more Kingdoms undone, more Commonwealths ruined, more Innocent blood shed, after this Tragical Gospel got footing, than before were heard of for a thousand years together in time of Popery. And  
13. Here we may briefly touch something on those 
Sad Effects of this new Gospel.  sad Effects, which have followed Protestant Doctrine, And (setting Passion aside) friendly ask of any Impartial man, what good hath this new Religion done in the world? What amendment hath it made in Life and Manners? What Conversions hath it wrought amongst Heathens and Infidels? What Sanctity hath it yet shown us in the Professors of it? What Churches hath it built? What Hospitals hath it erected? What Universities hath it founded, either comparable to our Ancient or modern Catholics? All runn's on in a Contrary strain. Ruins, ghastly ruins follow these men where ever they go, to the Horror of those who have Eyes to see, and Hearts to deplore the sad Spectacles yet left of their impious 
Sectaries Sacrilege.  Sacrilege, and worse than Barbarous Reformation, viz. Of our Churches defaced, of our Cloisters demolished, of our Altars and Monuments pulled down (whilst yet they live on our Revenues) as if the very Memory of Christ and the Temples, where once he was Worshipped, were grown abominable to these new Spirits. And why all this Confusion for a new nothing? O Strange and Prodigious Spirit! what shall I say 
Impiety.  of thee? Thy Do are only to undo, thy Building to destroy, thy Piety is to profane Sanctified Places. Thy Light is to bring in Horror and Darkness, 
Rebellion.  thy Turning from Christ and his Church, hath Turned Kings out of their Thrones, Bishops out of their Sees, Religious out of their Cells, Nobles out 
Confusion.  of their Estates, Sense out of Scripture, Charity out of the World, and Men out of their wits. This Turning from Christ and his Church, hath Turned Unity into Schism, Peace into War, Religion into Policy, Virtue into Hypocrisy, Learning into Ignorance. Such are the known Effects of this late Doctrine, all upon Record, reserved to the final Sentence of our most impartial Judge in the Vale of josaphat, where it will appear, whether I have wronged these men in drawing up this dreadful Charge against them, or They themselves for such Impieties done before God and his Angels.  
14. Our Sectaries are wont to object against the Objection. Church's Sanctity, the Scandals, Pride and Luxury of Wicked men in it. St. Austin long since answered the Cavil. Amongst good Corn have Cockle, with wheat you have Chaff mingled, in a slorishing Kingdom you find Traitors, amongst married women (it is St. Augustine's instance) some you may have les Loyal. Are therefore all to be blamed upon the Account of some? 'Tis open Unjustice. Se St. Austin in his fifth Book 
All not blamable upon the account of some.  against Faustus cap. ultimo, and his 137. Epistle. Blessed be Almighty God (though the guilt of Sin lies heavily on many) yet great Sanctity is still eminent in the Church amongst all Sorts of people, whether, Princes, Prelaets, Pastors, Religious, Seculars, Rich, or Poor. Great Conversions we see daily, not only made from Haeresy to Faith, but also from Vice to Virtue, from a loser sensual Life to great Austerity. The Rich often voluntarily become Poor, The Proud Humble, the Avaricious Liberal, the Riotous Frugal, the Impatient Meek, the Secular Religious, and quit all they have in this tumultuous World to serve God in a quiet Cell. Such changes from Worse to Better are 
Evident changes from worse to better.  undeniably evident in the Catholic Church, which yet Erasmus his acute Eye could never see amongst our New men. Proffer mihi (saith He in his Epistle to Vulturius Neocomus) quem istud Euangelium ex commessatore sobrium etc. Give me the Man, whom this Gospel of a Gurmandizer hath made Sober, of Fierce and cruel hath made Tractable, of an Extortioner Liberal, of a filthy Speaker fair spoken, and of an unchaste liver shamefast, And I will show you many, who are grown Worse, than they were before▪ Thus Erasmus.  
15. Miracles, the most glorious marks of Truth, 
Miracles the most glorious Marks of Christ's Church▪  manifested in our Saviour john 15. 24. wrought by his Apostles Mark 16. 17. and amply promised to those who Believe in Christ, john 14. 12. The Roman Catholic Church hath from Age to Age undeniably Evidenced (and she only) if we speak of clear and undoubted Miracles; I mean of such as answer in Analogy and Proportion to our Saviour's works. The Blind se, the Lame walk, The Lepers are cleansed, the Deaf hear, the Dead rise etc. These are the Church's Miracles. Never had our Protestants, or other Heretics any like them. Read Coccius and Bellarmin of Martin Luther's and calvin's famous Miracles. The story is notoriously known. I wave it.  
16. Of Ancient Miracles, se Irenaeus advers. Haeret. 
Of ancient Miracles.  lib. 2. cap. 57 St. Ambros. Serm. 91. St. Austin lib. 22. de Civit. cap. 8. Theodoret in his 8. Books de curan. Graec. Affect St. Hierom against Vigilantius; Ruffinus, St. Gregory with 
Of Modern Miracles.  others. And for the more Modern, be pleased only to read justus Lipsius (a man of Credit and Reputation) in his 3. Tom, Antwerp print anno 1637. towards the end with these Titles Diva Virgo Hallensis, Diva Sichemiensis. It is but time cast away to say more on this Subject, most largely handled by our Writers, who produce their Proofs, answer to all contrary Cavils, and cite their Authors of unquestioned Authority, Both for passed and present Miracles.  
17. And here, because we mention Cavils, read first, I beseech you, those Sacred Words of our Saviour john 14. 12. Amen, Amen, I say unto you, he that Believes in me, the works that I do, shall he do also, 
Cavils of Sectaries against Miracles.  and greater works than those shall he do etc. Next he pleased to say whether he Cavils not, that Asserts these great Works and Wonders to have ceased after the time of Christ and his Apostles, when not only approved History relates them, but Reason also pleads strongly for their Continuance in ensuing Ages. For, had these Glorious marks of Truth failed in the Church as our Protestants would have it (Because they have none) 
Why Miracles continue in the Church?  Christian Faith ere this day (believe it) would have grown cold in the Hearts of thousands and thousands. Therefore to prevent Incredulity, the Wise Providence 
Miracles still necessary.  of God, rouseth them up, and quickens their Belief with these forcible Incitements, which neither Infidels can Deny, nor Heretics Own. Again. Miracles were necessary in the Beginning of the Church to demonstrate the Verity of Christian Religion against jews and Infidels; But there is the like Necessity of them still for these men's Conversion; All are not yet Reclaimed, nor will Believe Scripture without farther Evidence.  
18. The Cavils of Sectaries against Miracles are Objection answered briefly reduced to these Heads. Some say They are done by the help of the Devil. First, how know they that? 2. Such was the course and untrue Language of the jews against Christ, Luk 11. v. 15. He cast out Devils, and Devils helped him. 3. Why are not such Miracles wrought by Arians or other Heretics, who surely come nearer Devilish Doctrine then Catholics? They object again. We know not by Infallible and Certain Faith, that these Miracles, recounted in history, were done. I answer, No more did the Primitive Christians, who beheld Christ's Miracles, know them by Faith; For, they first saw them, and afterward Believed. We have therefore Indubitable moral Assurance of these wonders, and that's enough. They say▪ 3. Many Miracles are Feigned, and perhaps not truly related. To the first I answer. Gentiles might have in like manner Cavilled at Christ's 
The Gentiles might have Cavilled at Christ's Miracles as Sectaries do at the Churches.  own Miracles, and said they were Feigned, yea, and at true Scripture also, Because counterfeit Gospels have been writ. Know then, we speak not here of either Feigned, or Doubtful Miracles, But of such as are Clear, Visible, most severely examined, Attested upon oath, And manifestly proved, before they receive warrant from either Church or Prelate. We 
We rely on no doubtful Miracles.  have innumerable of These.  
19 To the second I answer. Though Miracles only recounted in History, are les assured than others approved by the Church, yet it is a degree of madness to deny them all; And if some only of those many be True, we have our Intent. By the way, pray you, observe a pretty Humour of our Protestants. If these 
Sectaries believe fables and deny Credit to Authentic History.  men read a Story (though never so Unauthentik) to the disgrace of a Pope, of a Prelate, of the Clergy or Religious, Praedicant, Clamitant, They noise it all abroad, and vent it openly in Print, as most precious ware, And all are bound to believe it; But when a very Saint, or a choice Historian writ's of a Miracle, Tell's the Time, the Place, the Circumstances, and make it morally Indubitable, That is decried as an Imposture, a Dream, a forged Tale, a mere Fiction and what not? Is this think ye Evangelical Sincerity? They object 4. Both Heathens and Heretics had Miracles amongst them (Mr. Poole I think somewhere Trifles with the Wonders of Heathens and Apollonius Tyanaeus;) Ergo They are not Signs of Truths. Observe first, how the Argument (if of any Strength) strikes with equal force at Christ's Miracles, as it doth at the Churches. I answer therefore with St. Austin: The few seeming Miracles of Heathens, or Heretics, 
The Miracles of Heathens and Heretics not comparable with those of the Church.  are not comparable to those of the Church, either in Power, Greatness, Continuance, splendour, or Majesty. These as far go beyond the other in Worth and Excellency, as the raising of a dead man to life surpasses the taking a little water in a sieve, or cutting of a whetstone asunder with a Razor; all sleight work fesible by Conjurers and the Devils help, and much of that nature, of those Egyptian wonders done before Moses. Whence it is that Blessed St. Austin little esteemed the Donatists' Miracles, and those of other Heretics. Aut falluntur, aut fallunt, saith the Saint, they either are deceived, or deceive. See him in his Hom. 13. in joannem, and more de Civitat. lib. 10. c. 16. and in his Book de Vtilit. cred. c. 16. Concerning the name of Catholic which Protestants never had, nor Those they Nickname Papists (a word newly coined with their Gospel) ever yet lost, Read St. Austin contra Epist. fondam. cap. 4. and de utilit cred. cap. 7. Christianus mihi nomen est (said the Ancient Pacianus (Catholicus cognomen, illud me nuncupat, istud ostendit. Christian is my Name, and Catholic my Surname, that indeed names me, but this declares what I am, And in both these we Catholics Glory.   

CHAP. XI.  
Arguments drawn from Reason against Protestants, upon the consideration of These declared Motives.  
1. WE have seen already both the Weakness and 
Two Churches very different.  Strength, the Obscurity and Glory of two different Churches, Protestant and Catholic. The first pitifully Naked, The other richly Adorned with such Noble Marks of Truth, as force Reason to give a final Sentence, and say, If Religion be in the world, it must be found amongst those Christians who demonstrate it Credible with most urgent and convincing Motives. But this Catholic Religion only does, and not Protestancy: For Protestants (I Assert it boldly) have not so much as one Rational Motive (much les the complexum of all now related) that works upon Prudence, and (Antecedently to their new Faith) makes them Believe as they do. If They have any such, my earnest petition is to hear of Them, or see them clearly laid forth to the Reason of other men; or, if They fail in this (as of necessity they must) let them Speak the plain Truth, Viz. That all They Writ and Preach, is lost labour, whilst they go about to draw Rational men to a Religion, for which there is no Reason. And  
2. Here I answer to the trivial Talk of Protestants (pretending to follow Reason in all they Believe) and once more Assert. They have nothing like a shadow 
Protestants have no shadow of Reason for their new Religion.  of Reason previous to their Faith, either for their new Religion in General, or any particular Tenent in it. To prove my Assertion, We must distinguish between the prudent Inducements that draw one to Believe, and the Elicit Act of Faith itself. These Inducement Precede Faith, and are properly the Object of Discourse. Faith solely relies on Gods Revealed Testimony, without the mixture of Reason for its Motive, The Previous motives well pondered, bring with them an Obligation of Believing, and not Faith itself: For no man saith. I am obliged to believe, Because I believe; But therefore I believe, Because antecedently to my Faith, I find myself obliged upon Prudent Reasons to believe as I do. Thus much supposed.  
3. Make a search into all the Motives imaginable, that may Prudently induce a Seeker after Truth, to embrace Protestant Religion, you shall find nothing proposed to Reason, That hath the Appearance of Reason in it. For example. Ask first in General, upon what Motive  to their Faith, do these men own Protestancy, as the only true and pure Religion? Why dare they so boldly prefer it before the Faith of the long standing Catholic Church, yea, or before that of their homebred Sectaries, of Quakers and Independents? Silence will prove the best Answer, They can Show no Motive at all. Perhaps we may hear them say, They reject the Ancient Church because of its Errors, and Novelties. If so, They first lamentably beg the question, and Suppose that▪ which is yet to be Proved. 2. They answer not to the Difficulty. For grant (which is utterly false) that the Church hath erred, we ask not here for Arguments to Refute those Errors, But inquire after Rational and persuasive Motives, whereby Truth is proved to stand on the Protestant side? A poor 
A poor Comfort, to learn that my Religion is not good unless Sectaries prove theirs to be better.  Comfort, God knows, it is for me, To hear from a Protestant, that my Religion is not Right, unless upon weighty Reasons He convince me that his is better. For, say I, If the old Religion be naught, This new one may be worse, and more erroneous. Sectaries are therefore obliged to bring in palpable Evidences, whereby their Religion is positively demonstrated Credible and only the best, which shall never be done.  
4. If yet, to answer the Difficulty, They take post 
Recourse to Scripture clears not the difficulty.  to Scripture for Proof of their Religion, They are out of the way, and at the Conclusion before they put the Premises. For in this place we make no inquiry after their formal act of Faith, nor the immediate Object thereof, (we know well their Answer) But only 
Protestants have no Motives to believe contrary to the Church Or contrary to the Quakers.  Ask for the Rational Motive (perceptible by all) that preced's Faith, and Prudently obligeth them to believe, contrary both to the Ancient Church and their own honest Quakers; And this (if the Reply be pertinent) must be evidenced, Before they talk of a new Faith grounded on Scripture. Had the Primitive Christians, when they left of Judaisme and Believed Christ, been Asked. Why they received Christ's Doctrine, and preferred that before their old Religion, They would have answered: The blind se, the lame walk, the dead arise etc. We behold strange Wonders with our eyes, which powerfully work upon Reason, and cannot but proceed from God. When therefore our Protestant's deserted the Ancient Church, and taught a new Faith contrary to it, certainly some visible Apparent wonder, 
A new Religion must have Signs of Truih and weighty Inducements.  some persuasive Sign of Truth should have ushered it in, and sounded the Trumpet before these new Preachers. All, convinced by Reason, should have cried out, Here is Antiquity, here is Unity in Doctrine, here we see the Pedigree of our Ancient Church Showed forth. Now, and not before, our Eyes behold most glorious and undoubted Miracles, God certainly speaks by these new men etc. But when we look about us, and find nothing to countenance this unknown Faith (which like a Stranger came amongst us) when we hear a Novelty preached without either Sign, Motive, or Inducement to make it Credible. When we see a new Religion brought 
Words only given.  in by uncommissioned men upon their bare parole, and unproved Fancies only: what can we think, But that both Arians, and Pelagians (yea, and all condemned Heretics) have evidenced as strongly their old Errors, by a verbal venting of them, as Protestants do now their new Gospel? For beside Words you have nothing to warrant it.  
5. Perhaps they will say, They are a part of Christianity, 
Old Motives no more for Protestants then for Arians.  and Therefore the old Motives belong to them. I answer. No more than to Arians or Pelagians, who went as well under the name of Christians as Protestants do. O, But their Religion now professed is the Faith of the Primitive Church. I dare swear it, the Arians, and our modern Quakers will yet 
A claim to the Primitive Faith, no received Principle.  say as boldly They believe exactly the very Doctrine which pure Scripture Teaches, But there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a vast distance between saying and proving what is said, by a Rational satisfactory and received Principle. I say therefore, their bare Assertion of holding the Primitive Faith (which we utterly deny) is so far from being either a probable or convincing Principle for this Religion, That it must be either further proved by Rational grounds, or, it is wholly Forceles and falls to Nothing.  
6. They say again: They have three evident Principles 
3. Principles of Protestants answered.  to ground their new Faith on. First, What God speaks is true. 2. God's pure and uncorrupted Word is in their hands. 3. They know what God speaks in this Word. I answer, the first Principle is certain. The second more than doubtful. The third, on which all Relies, and toucheth more upon their Faith, then on any Rational Antecedent Motive evidencing it, is demonstratively improbable: For, upon no Proof, upon no received Principle, By the light of no Rational Motive, can these men so much as meanly show, That They are better at knowing what God speaks in Scripture, than a whole ample learned Church, or, than Their own Ancestors both knew of old and believed for a thousand years together. These men long since deceased, held (and upon Scripture well understood) as firmly the Real Presence of Christ's Sacred Body in the Eucharist, as a Trinity of Persons in one Divine Essence. The first, Protestants now Reject, the 
Protestants Reject and Admit at pleasure.  other they Admit, And why. Upon what Conviction, upon what Rational Motive do they take and leave, assert and deny as they list? Press this and other like particulars home, instead of Reason or rational Proofs, you shall have Their own reeling sentiments 
Sectaries self-seeming no proof.  given in for Answer. And thus, forsooth, it is. They read Scripture, and verily it seems to them, It ought to be interpreted as they will have it. I Ask a Reason for this new Seeming, against the old received Sense, And that very seeming which is in question you have prooflesly returned for an answer. Observe well that I say here, and you will find Protestancy reduced to Fancy only.   

CHAP. XII.  
Protestants, for want of rational Motives cannot convert an Infidel to Christian Faith.  
1. IT hath often occurred to me: If by a supposed 
They have no way to Convince a Heathen▪  impossibility (Schoolmen sometimes Argue so, and profitably) Popish Religion were utterly extinguished, or, the Proofs thereof quite razed out of all men's Memory; yet, that Protestants with all they can in justice lay claim to touching Religion, should still stand in the world as now They do. This Thought, I say, hath more than once seized on me, Viz. How mean, how poor, how destitute and naked a Thing Protestancy would appear to be in the Eyes of either jew, or learned Heathen Philosopher; For all it hath (if yet it have so much) is a borrowed Bible from others, But no Miracles, no undobted Marks of Truth, no certain Tradition, no Succession of Ancient Bishops, no Pastors, no Doctors, In fine, no Rational Motives (if this Supposition stand) can enable these new Owners of the Bible, to say with Assurance: This Book is Gods own Word, and in This or this Sense God speaks by it.  
2. To clear the matter further, Imagine, That a learned Philosopher (no Christian) curious to learn 
A short Dialogue between a Philosopher and a Protestant.  what Christian Religion is (as we now Suppose it only among Protestants and other Sectaries) should for better satisfaction, Address himself to so wise a man as Mr. Poole, who I suppose will tell the Heathen, That God is to be Adored in a certain Religion. The Philosopher will Answer. I do so; For my Religion is to follow Principles of nature, to live a moral Life, to submit to the Government I am under, to do as I would be done by, And here is All. O, saith Mr. Poole: Sir, you have yet greater matters to look after, you must believe in Christ, if you will be saved. Who was this Christ, demands the Philosopher? Poole. He is God and Man, born of a Virgin, and one that manifested himself by a most Holy Life, wrought many Miracles, Dyed for us all, Arose from Death to Life, and afterward Ascended to Heaven. Phil. A strange Story indeed: But can you make the Story credible to my Reason? Poole. O Sir, it is undoubted; For this, and much more, is writ in a Holy Book we call Scripture, And you are bound to believe it. Phil. In a Book called Scripture? Here is no Reason, for I ask upon what Motive can you make All that is writ in this Book credible to me? And here (because I shall instantly press the point farther) my Demand only is, From Whom you received Scripture, and how long since it came to your hands? We had it, saith Mr. Poole, about a hundred 
When, and from whom Sectaries had their Bible.  years agone, partly from men that now are (supposed) forgot, (I think they were called Papists) partly from other Heretics as Arians, Grecians of no great Credit, (for they are contrary to us.) Phil. And is it possible? Dare you admit of this strange and Mysterious Bible, upon no stronger proof, than the Authority of Heretics and such beguiled men. Answ. We do so, For we have no better Testimony. Phil. What Professors of Christianity had you in the world before your time, That taught truly, and purely the Doctrine of your Bible? Poole. For a thousand years at least we know not of any. The best I can mention are the later Grecians, and yet They highly descent from us in points very fundamental, as I read in Leo Alatius against Hottinger, Arcudius, and other Authors. Phil. Tell me once more. Had you no Professors 
No Pastors, no Protestant Bishops.  of your Protestancy before these last hundred years, no Protestant Bishops, no Pastors, no Doctors, that handed unto you this Bible? Poole. None at all. Phil. That is pitiful, and makes me suspect your Religion. However, since these last hundred years, have you made any known and notable Conversions upon Infidels by Preaching the Doctrine of your Bible, or have you wrought undoubted Miracles in Confirmation of its Truth? Answ. We must Confess the want of great Conversions, and of known Miracles also. Phil. Satisfy me yet further in one doubt? When you are at variance amongst yourselves, concerning the difficil passages of this Book (which are many, 
No cert. judge to reconcile differences.  for I have read it) who have you to Reconcile those differences, in whose certain judgement do you finally Acquiesce? Answ. We acknowledge no infallible Teacher, no certain Judge on Earth, every man gives his private sentiment, concerning those difficulties, though not infallibly, And 'tis not in our power to do more. Phil. Here can be no unity in Doctrine. But 
No Commission to teach uncertain Doctrine.  say on, I beseech you: Tell me who sent you to teach these uncertain Sentiments of your Bible, from whom had you Commission to preach such unsettled Doctrine? You know that in Civil affairs, if one uncommissioned assume to himself the Title of Legate, or any Dignity in a Commonwealth, he is either Traitor, Tyrant, or both. You call yourselves Legates sent from God, you assume the Dignity of Priesthood, give me warrant for either, show your letters Missive; For if you cannot, I may as prudently believe Arius old Haeresy, as your new learning, Truly Sr, replies Mr. Poole, my Answer is: The Lord, I hope, senr us; I cannot say more.  
3. Here the Philosopher busies his thoughts, and question's Reason, whether he may in prudence ground 
The Philosopher's reflection.  his Belief in Christ upon a Mysterious and yet unevidenced Book, which above thousand years together, was never owned by any true Professors of Christ's, Doctrine? Whether he may do so upon the bare Word of these late men, who without Mission began their Preaching only a hundred years agone? Who have no unity, want Miracles, have made no Conversions, nor are able to tell him, what the Book saith in those difficil places that puzzle his understanding? It is impossible, saith he, to Acquiesce, without further Proofs drawn from Reason. Tell me therefore, good Mr. Poole, seeing Scripture, as you say, contains strange Mysteries above my Reach, and no few seeming Contradictions, which, standing in reason, rather affright, then invite me to accept of it, can you give me Assurance by good Motives or Arguments 
Protestants cannot prove the Holy Scripture. Not from Papists.   to the Book, That it is Divine, or writ by the holy Ghost, and not by Chance of Ignorance or Illusion? Answ. I can. First the Papists once owned this Book as Gods own hand Writing. Phil. O, never mention these men, They are now, as we suppose, forgotten. Surely you are able to evidence your Book, which is the sole Ground of your Faith, without Aid or Arguments borrowed from Papists. I'll do it therefore, saith Mr. Poole. The Spirit of God bears witness with my Spirit, that this book is Divine, and Gods Sacred Word. I am yet an Infidel, answers the Philosopher, 
Nor from the Spirit.  and know little of God's Spirit, much les of yours: my search is only after Prudent Motives, to which Reason ought to yield and accept of this Book as Sacred and Divine. Which, Sr. you are obliged to produce, and not wink and fight it out with me, by an unknown Spirit, which in Real Truth, warrant's as well a Jew, to make good his Talmud, or a Turk his Alcoran, as you your Bible. There is yet one Argument more, saith Mr. Poole, to prove the Divinity 
Nor from the Majesty of Style.  of Scripture independent of Popish Tradition. viz. The Majesty of the Style, the Sublimity of the Doctrine, the Purity of the Matter etc. These, and the great Reverence all bear to Scripture seem powerful Inducements to admit of it, as God's Word. Philosop. They are strong Fancies of your own head, and how void of all Reason, I will evidently demonstrate. 
Scripture not like the first Principles in Nature.  First, no man can Assert that Scripture is the Primam Cognitum, or, per se Notum, a Thing known Immediately by its own light, as the first Principles of Nature are, (which yet this Majesty proves or nothing;) for if so, I should see it, yea, and All without dispute, would admit of one, and the same Canon of Scripture. 2. As much Majesty appears in the Book of Wisdom, or Ecclesiasticus, which you Reject, as in the Song of Solomon, or, Ecclesiastes Admitted by you. 3. If contrary to our Supposition, we might once call to mind that now forgotten Church of Popery, There was no want (you know it well) either of exterior Lustre, Glory, Majesty, Conversions, Miracles, or, of Preaching sublime Doctrine, to set it forth: Yet this Glory and Majesty you scornfully cast of, as an Insufficient Proof for that Church; and here without either Conscience or Reason, you Adore a far lesser Exterior Majesty, and by it will Outbrave me with a Book, the Truths whereof are yet as unmanifested to me by Arguments drawn from Reason, as those very Writings are, which you call Apocryphal.  
4. And here by the way, observe your great 
Nor by the Purity of it, which is the thing to be proved.  Simplicity in arguing. You prove the Divinity of Scripture by the Purity and Majesty of it. The first is in question; For I, who have perused Scripture, and find no few seeming Contradictions in it, must have my doubts cleared, and that Purity evidenced by Proofs  to Scripture, before I believe it Pure. Concerning the Majesty of the Style, Learn your Error. Two things are to be distinguished in 
The Exterior Connexion of words, not the Divinity of Scripture.  Scripture. The Exterior Syntax or Connexion of the words we read, which solely considered is common to other pious Books writ by Holy men, without Special Assistance of the Holy Ghost; And here is all the visible Majesty that Scripture presents, either to our eyes or Reason, which therefore convinceth nothing. 
What makes Scripture Divine.  The other is (and herein consists the Virtue and Majesty of Scripture) That God by his firm Decree, and gracious Ordinance hath pleased to seal as it were, This Book, and own it as his Sacred Word. Now this signature, because External to the Letter or Syntax of Scripture, is no Object of Sense, nor your reason: For you do not evidence it by Antecedent 
None proves the Bible by his Faith, but his Faith by the Bible antecedently owned Sacred. The Reverence showed to Scripture▪ no proof.  rational motives. You may well say, it is the Object of your Faith, or Fancy; But, I hope, you will not prove the Divinity of your Bible by your Faith, but Evidence your Faith by your Bible, Antecedently proved Divine to Reason, by good Inducements. Hence I Answer to that weak Argument drawn from the Respect and Reverence, which all give to Scripture, And say, it carrieth not one grain of Weight with it. For, even Christians (much more Infidels) must first know upon Prudent Inducements, That the Bible is Sacred, before they Reverence it, and not prove it Sacred Because they Reverence it. For none proves this man to be a Prince, or Prelate, because he doth him Homage; But therefore He complyes with that duty, because he is Antecedently known or owned for a Person of such quality. Here, saith the Philosopher, are a few Exceptions against your Religion, and my Difficulties proposed. To solve them,  
5. Believe it, old Papists hitherto forgot, must 
Catholics prove their Religion.  show themselves and be remembered again. They, and only they, though we Imagine no Scripture written, are able by an Oral and never interrupted Tradition to Assure a Heathen of Christ our Lord, of the Miracles he wrought, of the Apostles he called to Found a Church, of the great Conversions they made. They, 
And the Scripture.  and they alone, can warrant Authentic written Scripture, and show who writ it, and how it was handed down by continued Professers of their Faith Age after Age, to this present day. They, and only they, do still preserve Unity in Doctrine, Reclaim Infidels, 
Show their Credentials.  Produce their Credentials for what they Preach, and teach. They only can show to all the World their Popes, their Bishops, their Pastors, their Doctors, who successively have taught and governed Christ's Flock, since the Beginning of Christianity. They, and only 
And glorious Marks of a long standing Church.  they, show you a Church, marked, and made glorious by innumerable, known, and undoubted Miracles, a Faith sealed with the Blood of innumerable Blessed Martyrs, Beautified with such eminent Sanctity and Holiness of life in thousands, as hath caused Admiration to very Infidels, and drawn in no few to follow the like Austerity. Such are the Inducements which plead strongly for the Roman Catholic Religion, and no other. They fully convince Reason, and prove, That if God (as I noted above) can conquer Infidelity and Haeresy by the force of prudential Motives, here they are seen; If ever he spoke by 
As God spoke anciently by his Prophets and Apostles, he speaks now by the Church.  the mouth of his Prophets, or Apostles, he speaks now by the mouth of this one, and only Society of Christians; yea, and he yet useth (as I may say) the same powerful Language: For if the miracles of our Blessed Lord, and of his Apostles; if their efficacious Doctrine, their Sanctity of life, their Blood shedding were Conviction enough to Infidels in those days, They are now as forceable in the Church, and as manifest to our Senses; Which caused that Blessed man Richard de S. Victore lib. 1. de Trin. c. 2. to exclaim: Si error est quem credidimus, à te decepti sumus. If it be error we Believe, it is you who have deceived us. jis enim signis etc. For, with such Signs this Doctrine is confirmed, which can proceed from none, but you only. If we speak of unquestioned Miracles, as are the Resuscitation of dead men, More since the times of the Apostles have been raised from death to life, then in the Primitive Age. To deny these miracles, is is to deny all History which supplies the want of senses in Those, who saw them not. To owm them, to disown Protestancy, and profess plain Popery. Our new men Therefore speak at random, when they talk of I know not what Abstracted Evidences for Christian Religion, and Tell us, that the Motives for Scripture are agreed on by all. I answered above. 
No Evidence for Christian Religion in general, nor for Scripture but by the Church.  There neither are, nor can be Motives for Christian Religion in general, if the word Christian compriseth all professed Heretics; For were it so, God would deceive us, and make Falsehood as credible as Truth. No Motives can evidence Scripture, unless they first evidence a Church, that indubitably gives us certain Scripture; Which is to say, in other Terms: All Motives, as well for the verity of Christian Faith as Scripture, are only to be found in the Roman Catholic Church, and in no other Society of Christians. If Protestants can prove their Faith, or Scripture, by so much as a likelihood of either These now Named, 
Sectaries are obliged in Conscience to make their Motives known.  or any better Inducements, They are obliged in Conscience to make them known, that men at last may see that clear Light of the Gospel, whereof they endlessly talk in their Pulpits. True Candour and Sincerity cannot but speak plainly to this Point without intricate Tergiversation, if so much as a spark of zeal lives in their Hearts, and Rational Motives do not fail them. We expect a candid answer.   

CHAP. XIII.  
Protestancy for want of Rational Motives dishonor's Christ, and makes way for any new coined Haeresy.  
1. I prove the Assertion. That Religion highly 
Protestancy dishonor's Christ.  dishonours Christ, which must of Necessity confess, That a False erroneous Church is more eminently glorious, and better marked with all evident Signs of Truth, than that pure Orthodox Religion is, which Christ hath now established in the world. But Protestants must confess thus much, And to prove my Minor ad hominem, I need no more But two 
Proved by their own Principles.  certain Principles of their own. One is. The Roman Catholic Religion hath been at least for a thousand years Erroneous (yea some say Antichristian) it still contradicts the Primitive Doctrine, Holds an Unbloody Sacrifice, Transubstantiation, Purgatory etc. contrary to Scripture. Such Doctrines gave Sectaries just cause, as they say, to leave this Church, and Lash us so severely as they have done, to pull down our Monasteries, to Banish the Ancient Clergy, to Ruin those who professed our Religion▪ They were not mere Trifles, nor petty mistakes which made our kind hearted Countrymen to use us so unkindly. Here is my first Principle granted by Protestants. The second is as clear, viz. That their new Religion of Protestancy, as it stands now Reform, is the pure, true, and most Orthodox Christian Religion; For, set this and the Primitive Church aside of three or four hundred years' continuance, You never yet had (say they) any Society of men that taught purely Christ's Doctrine. No God wots, a Deluge of Popish Errors overran Christianity for a thousand years together, until these later men brought unto us the Joyful Tidings of their Refined Gospel.  
2. Upon these two undeniable Suppositions, you shall plainly see what an Eternal Disgrace, what Affronts Protestant's will needs put upon our Dearest Saviour (do what we can to hinder them.) He Blessed Lord founded a Church (it cost him dear, the Effusion of his Sacred Blood) and promised us an Indeficient glorious Church to be raised out of all Nations; yet after all these ample Promises, he hath 
A glorious Church promised, and an obscure one shown us of Protestancy.  given us a pitiful one indeed, no better a Thing then Protestancy, which is utrerly disgraced, obscured▪ dishonoured, and quite put down by the Majesty, the Miracles, the Antiquity, the Unity, the Sanctity of that Church which must now, forsooth, be styled False, Erroneous, and Antichristian. If this pass for current Doctrine, you have with it sport enough for the 
How Christ is dishonoured.  Devil (and Protestants only make it) Who upon their warrant, may most justly reproach both Christ and his Church, and thus powerfully plead at the bar of Reason. Saviour of the world. My false Popish Antichristian Church hath stood a thousand years in Error, 
How the Devil may plead and most rationally, if Protestants speak Truth.  yours of Protestancy only a hundred in Truth. Mine both is, and hath been Universally spread the whole World over, yours yet see's little out of some few corners in Europe. My Church hath had most learned General Councils, yours never any. Mine produceth a long continued Succession of Popes, of Bishops, of Pastors; yours not a man before Luther. Mine is glorious with those very Notes and Marks of Truth, which you manifested in your own Sacred Person, and induced Infidels to Believe you. Your late Congregation shows nothing like them. My false Church Fasteth, Prayeth, Contemplat's, Converts more than yours, it hath more Unity in Faith; Yours is Rend and torn apieces with Divisions. And Lo, great God; Here is that Glorious Edifice which you, after all your perfect Ideas of a Church, have erected; For this you died, and never shed your Blood to Establish my false erroneous Synagogue of Popery. Permit Reason to judge in this case, and say, whether the Devil be an ill Advocate, if Protestants avouch Truth, And stand to their professed Doctrine; That the Church of Rome (drowned in a Deluge of Errors) abandoned the first Verities of Christian Religion for a thousand years together, And that their Church, as it is now in Being, is the most choice, goodly, and only refined Religion in the world.  
3. My last Argument hinted at in the Title is 
Foundations laid of new Heresies.  thus. A new coined Haeresy, without Motives of Credibility, may be as well, or better defended by plain speaking Scripture, than Protestancy. It is, believe me, the easiest thing in the world to draw Haeresy out of the Words of Scripture. To make good my Assertion, Read first St. Hierom in his Dialogue 
S. Hieroms Reflection.  Adversus Luciferianos, Paris Print, anno 1509. at the very end of the Dialogue. This great Doctor then, to reduce some beguiled by the Luciferians, who held that a Bishop, or Priest, once Deserting their Faith, could never again be admitted into the Church, (which they endeavoured to prove by that text of St. Matthew cap. 5. v. 13. You are the Salt of the earth; but if the salt hath lost its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? Ad nihilum valet ultra, it is good for nothing hereafter &c.) St. Hierom, I say, to refute these, hath an excellent Reflection. Nec sibi blandiantur, si de Scripturae Capitulis videntur sibi assumere etc. Let them not flatter themselves if they seem to assume out of Scripture 
Of Errors drawn from Scripture,  what they say; For the Devil hath spoken things out of Scripture; Scripture (God knows) doth not consist in what we read, but in the sense of it. Otherwise, saith the Saint, Possumus & nos &c. I am able to coin a new Opinion out of Scripture, and say, That none are to be received into the Church that wear shoes, or have two coats; For that is Scripture.  
4. It were most easy to go on with this true Reflection of St. Hierom, and draw new Heresies every 
Particulars.  hour from Scripture. One will say: The Sabbath-day is to be kept Sacred in place of Sunday, and bring Scripture for it Exod. 20. 8. Another. That we are as well to abstain from Eating of Blood, or things Strangled, as from Fornication; it is a Decree of the Apostolical Council, and Scripture, Actor. 15. 29. A third: That Infants aae not to be Baptised, There is ground for it Matth. 28. A fourth: That we are not to Contend in Law, but quit our Coat, if any man will take it, and Cloak also, Matt. 5. A fifth: That no Euangelical Preacher is to carry Gold or Silver with him, or, have two Coats Matt. 10. 7.  
5. Suppose that a new Sect of men should rise up 
A new Sect of men rising up.  this year in whole Multitudes, and rigidly adhere to the exact letter of Scripture in these Particulars, is it possible to convince them by Scripture? It is impossible. And have they not, think ye, more plain Texts of God's Word for these Tenants, than Protestants have for pure Protestancy? Yea, most evidently; For they produce nothing but express Scripture, without Glosses. And do they not believe in Christ, and admit of every jota in Scripture? Yea, and therefore are sound in Fundamentals. Moreover. Do they not acknowledge both Christ and Scripture upon the same Tradition, or other Evidences, as Protestants do? Yea, and are ready, perhaps, to join in Belief with them, when they see Scripture as plain for any Protestant Doctrine. They only add a Superstructure 
Have as good a Church as Luther had.  of these Articles. And have They not as good a Church as Luther and Calvin had a year after their new Preaching? Yes, They swarm with multitudes of Followers, and multitudes make a Church. Why then is not the Belief of these men (all grounded in Scripture) as good as that of Protestants? I think it is (of two Evils) the Better, if more Words of Scripture can more advance the Worth of either Religion. But I tell you, and truly, That neither of them is good, because unreasonable; and they are therefore unreasonable, Because no man's Reason can in this present state of Christianity (whilst God Govern's us by the Light of Prudence) fall upon a Religion, or Believe a Church which evidently Appears 
A Religion without prudent Motives is no Religion.  naked, and destitute of all Rational motives, inductive to True Belief. Now Scripture alone, without the Interpretation of a Church evidenced by forcible Motives, is, what you please to make of it. And a Church not at all manifested by rational motives, is no Church, and Therefore cannot interpret Scripture. If you ask why we say, That Protestancy is so bare of Motives and consequently no Church? I have answered above. Because this Religion never had, nor shall have any such persuasive Inducements, or the like Signs of Truth for it, as Christ jesus and his Blessed Apostles manifested when they first taught the World, and by virtue of those Motives, gained innumerable Souls to Christianity. Look then about you, and find me out a Society of Christians, that is evidenced by such Signs as hold a strict Analogy with those of Christ and his Apostles, and you have the True Church. But this is the Roman Catholic Church 
What proved Christianity anciently, proves now the Roman Catholic Church.  only, and no other, as I have largely proved. Dare you therefore own the true Christ, and his Blessed Apostles who wrought Miracles, lived Holily, preached Efficaciously upon such Motives? You must also own this true Church, upon the like grounded Proofs. Were Miracles, Sanctity, Efficacious Doctrine etc. Rational inducements to Believe in Christ? They are now both powerful and persuasive to Believe this Church. To Deny, as I said above, all Miracles to this Church, even the greatest (as is the Raising of dead men to life) is to Deny Sense, Reason, History, 
The forceable Motives of Faith cannot be taken from our Church.  and all Authority; And to appropriate These, and other Motives to Protestants, is only an attempted Plagiary, which cannot be done. It is true, These men glory in a stolen Bible, (and 'tis all they can pretend to, besides the bare name of a fruitless and unevidenced Church) but the marks and Characters of a true Church They shall never have, nor take from us. And thus much of infallible Teachers, and the Motives of true Faith.    

THE SECOND DISCOURSES OF SCRIPTURE.  

THE FIRST CHAPTER.  
Scripture is useless, if none declare infallibly the sense of▪ it.  
1. WHen on the one side I consider the Sacred Book of Scripture, enriched with the deep Secrets of God's Divine Wisdom, I mean, the great Mysteries of our Christian Faith, which highly Transcend the Reach of human Reason: And 
A Mysterious Bible and Fallible Teachers, inconsistent.  on the other side, cast my thoughts on a Thing that talks of those Mysteries all alone in an English Pulpit, Professing himself fallible in all he saith, (as He must do having no other Oracle of Truth to teach him but a Mysterious Bible, and his own weak Reason) when, I say, I consider the vast Disproportion between such a fallible Master, and this infallible Mysterious Book, I cannot, for my life, Discover what either He, or his Bible (as 'tis used by him) is good for. It is most apparently useless and unprofitable in his hands, at least in all points of Controversies now debated amongst Christians, And thus much I will Demonstrate.  
2. To go on groundedly. Do not we see by too lamentable experience as many Strong Pretenders to Scripture, as there are or have been Sects and Religions in the world? All acknowledge the Book for 
All pretend Scripture.  God's Sacred Word, But, highly descent from one another, when they come to examen the particular revealed Verities therein concerning Religion. The Papists say this Book speaks for them: Protestants say 'tis on their Side: Arians deny all, and will have Scripture for them: The Donatists say it speaks Donatism: The Quakers Quakerism, the Puritans Puritanism, and so do all other Sects or Religions, even to the Bottom, call them yet as you please.  
3. It is most evident, That These Dissenting men speak not the Truth of Scripture; For they contradict one another, and in matters of High Importance. And, 'Tis as clear, They all speak not the Truths of Scripture Infallibly. What shall we do in this Confusion 
All deliver not the Truths of Scripture.  and robbing Scripture of its Verities? Shall every one be left to his own Spirit and Judgement of Discerning? If so, The Arian may be an Arian still, the Socinian a Socinian, the Donatist a Donatist, which is to say: Heretics may laudably Continue in Their Haeresy, without Restraint or Blame. Will you have an Arian take Mr. Pools word, that Protestants only exactly deliver God's Verities revealed in Scripture? The Arian laughs at so great a folly, and tell's Mr. Poole: Because we are both fallible Men, your Word, Sr, is as forceles to persuade me, That Scripture speaks what you would have it, as mine is, to work in you my contrary Opinion. What is next to be done? Shall we have Recours to the very Letter of Scripture, and hope to find Debates clearly decided between these two Disputants? It is impossible. For, the Letter of Scripture is the very thing 
Scripture les clear, Occasions dissensions, and therefore cannot End them.  they quarrel about; how then can it. when it occasioneth the jars, be a useful means to Reconcile them? For example. The Arian allegeth for his Haeresy, that Text of St. john c. 14. 28. My Father is greater than I, and concludes from thence that Christ is les than his Father, and consequently not the High God. So the Arians speak. Mr. Poole, to prove the Verity of Christ's Godhead, allegeth (and thought it no robbery to be equal with God) also that of St. john 1. 5. 20. This is the true God. Observe.  
4. Here are two seeming Antilogies (Christ is less 
Two seeming Antilogies.  than is Father, Christ is Equal to his Father) drawn out of two certain revealed Verities, which yet Scripture reconcils not: For the whole Bible no where expressly saith, That Christ according to Human nature is Inferior to his Father, and Equal to him in his Godhead; which, though a Catholic Truth, is not so fully expressed, as to gain an Arian to Believe it, who yet stands as much for Scripture as any Protestant doth. That is his Impertinency, saith Mr. Poole, Because he will not see Light put before his Eyes. Farewell, Sr, if you talk so idly. The Arian will storm as much at you, in not yielding to the Express letter of his Text, My Father is greater than I, as you do at him, in not yielding to yours, He thought it no robbery etc. 
Fallible interpretation dissatisfactory.  O, saith Mr. Poole, I'll explicate his Text. You explicate: And who are you? What is your Fallible explication worth? The Arian explicats your Text also. See the wicked Volkelius in his pestiferous Book 
Scripture explicated by Arians.  entitled De verâ religione, lib. 5. cap. 10. where he largely discusseth St. Paul's words: Qui cum in forma Dei esset, and saith first, that particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or, formâ, signifies not the same nature with God; sed speciem tantum & similitudinem, which similitude, He deposed, taking on him the form of a fervant, Quod in Altissimum Deum cadere nequaquam potest. Next he glosseth on thofe other words: Esse se aequalem Deo. Dei enim est, saith He, tempestatibus, morbis, morti, daemonibus imperare, ut nutui ejus sine morâ parêre cogantur. Dei est, ab hominibus religiosè coli atque adorari. Dei est, in rebus omnes hominum vires longè superantibus invocari. Vnde efficitur, Christum merito in Dei forma Deoque aequalem fuisse à Paulo dici, quod tantâ ab ipso potestate in omnes res Coelo subjectas donatus erat, ut mari, ventis, morbis, morti, denique summâ cum potentiâ imperaret, ideoque à plurimis divino honoris atque invocationis cultu afficeretur, quia, videlicet, summâ hâc auctoritate atque potentiâ quam in se perpetuò manentem, cum aliis quoque communicare poterat, signisque mirandis Deum tanquam, vera ejus effigies referebat. Thus Volkelius, whose Latin (to conceil his impiety) I english not. In the 11. Chap. of his fifth book, He explicates those words: Verbum caro factum est, and in other places confesseth, that Christ is truly the Son of God, Because God begot him in a particular manner by the Operation of the Holy Ghost in a Virgin's womb, and Because he honoured him with a Permanent power of working miracles, and other admirable Gifts above all other Creatures. Nay, he saith: He is true God, and Vnigenitus Patris (but not Altissimus Deus Creator, of Heaven and Earth) Because the name of God is common to creatures of a lower rank than Christ was, who by reason of his Singular Dignity, and Supereminent Endowments, is to be Adored before all other creatures, whether in Heaven or Earth; And therefore merit's the Title of true God, yet not Dei Altissimi, of the High God.  
5. I intent not, by giving you These impious Glosses of an Haeretick, any way to favour his execrable Haeresy (Though I profess ingeniously they are as good, if not better, than the best Interpretation that Mr. Poole gives of Scripture, against the Catholic Church) But only to show you, how useless a Book; 
These impious Glosses are laid forth only, to show Sectaries how Scripture may be abused.  sole Scripture is, with These men to end their Differences, yea, and what monsters are produced out of it, by those that pretend most to Gods written Word. And what is the reason think ye? That these Sole-Scripturists, These Arians, These Protestants, These Anabaptists etc. are so various, so opposite in their Tenants, begot, as they think, out of the true written Word 
From whence the abuse proceeds.  of God? Is it for want of wit, learning, or languages, They thus Differ? No. Is it for the want of Study and conferring one place of Scripture Clear as they think, with others Obscure? No, Both Arians, and Protestants have done this long ago. Is it that all these Sectaries go against their Conscience, or, wilfully draw God's Word to a pervers sense He never spoke? (let the Innocent cast the first stone at the Guilty) Truly I suspect it in Some, yet cannot judge that All are Conscious of so hideous an Impiety.  
6. The true Reason therefore is. These Sectaries, 
The true reason is given.  after the Rejecting of God's infallible Church, the Oracle of Truth, will, by no more than half an Ey of Human Reason, dive into the deep Secrets of God's Eternal Wisdom Obscurely revealed in Scripture (and herein they neither show Judgement nor Learning:) With this purblind Eye of weak Reason They go to work, They steer on their course, they judge, They Determine, They Define, They Pronounce their fallible Sentiments on these High Mysteries, which never the less Reason alone is uncapable to comprehend, or Master. Hence, 
Why Sectaries vary as they do.  They vary as they do. Hence it is, they weary themselves out with opposite frivolous Interpretations of God's Word (which is but one, whilst they are so divided in their Tenants.) Hence it is, That almost every year we have a new Religion broached in England. Such a jumbling we must expect, such endless Dissensions amongst them; And, 'tis a just Judgement of God for their Pride, who truly are not more but poor Scholars, yet Disdain to learn of a good Master, that's willing to teach them all Truth.  
7. I call it a jumbling; for, from Scripture (by Reason of its les clear speaking) arise these Dissensions, and though it be quoted a Thousand times, says no 
Endless Confusion about the sense of Scripture.  more now, Then it did sixteen hundred years agone, And therefore cannot end them, They next fall upon a doubtful conferring one Passage of the Bible with another: Several Versions and Languages are examined, much Ado they make, And all is to know what God speaks in such Texts, but without fruit; For their Differences are as High as ever, And neither Party gains or loses the Victory, Since Scripture alone, nor, the Comparing of Texts together, is able to draw either side, from their Preconceived Opinion. After the Conferring of places, They are hard at it, with Fallible Explications, when behold, express Scripture is cast away by these two Combatants; And now either the One must learn of the Other, what God speaks in Scripture by a human fallible Explication (which is no Scripture) or nothing is concluded. 
Arians and Protestants equally uncertain.  Who is then to be held the Master Interpreter, the Arian, or Protestant? Neither. And they have both Reason for it; For, neither aught to yield in their own Principles: The quarrel Therefore goes on, and is endless. If after Their fallible Explications of Scripture they proceed to Inferences: This follows, That follows etc. All is plain Sophistry, for 
Upon what unsteedy Foundations Haresy stands.  Scripture Vitiated with a falls Explication, can never Support a true Illation. And upon such unsteedy Foundations all Haeresy stands. Scripture not understood is the Ground; doubtful Collations of places, fallible Explications, falls Illations are the Superstructure: They have no more. And thus you see how useless a Book 
Why Scripture is useless in the hands of an Haeretick. A question propose, and answered.  of Scripture is in the hands of an Haeretick, who neither can tell me so much as Truly, much les Infallibly, what God speaks in These High controverted Points of our Christian Faith.  
8. But you'll ask how then happens it, that Mr. Poole and Protestants hit right in yielding an Assent to some Catholic Verities; for Example to a Trinity of Persons in one Divine Essence, and Contrary to Arianism 
Protestants acknowledge a Trinity by Oversight.  Profess the Son to be consubstantial with his Eternal Father in one Divine Nature? I answer. They light upon these Verities by an Oversight, or, as I may say, merely by Chance. By Oversight; For believe it, had Luter thought well On't, He might with more ease have denied These High Mysteries of our Faith, than the Real change of bread in the Holy Eucharist. By Chance: For, as by chance, They Stole 
Or by Chance.  a Bible from the old Catholic Church, so casually They took from her, Here and There (as it pleased Fancy) somewhat of her Ancient Tradition also. And upon This ground of Tradition, or, the infallible Doctrine of the Catholic Church, They Believe (as 
Unawares engaged in a Belief They labour in vain to find Scripture for it.  well as they can) These Sublime mysteries. Being thus unawares engaged in a Belief, They weary their Heads, and wear out their Bible to find express Scripture for it, (which cannot be found) Because, forsooth, they will Believe nothing upon Tradition, or the Churches infallible Doctrine. I say Express Scripture cannot be found, that Assert's Three distinct Persons in one Divine Essence, or, the Word to be Consubstantial with his Eternal Father; Therefore if they Believe these Verities, They must Ground their Faith, not upon sole Scripture, But on Scripture explicated by that never erring Oracle of Truth the Catholic Church: Or, on the Word of God not written, which we call Tradition. You see 
Sectaries must own the Church's Interpretation, or become Arians.  therefore, how our Protestants, though in Actu signato, they seemingly Reject Tradition, and the Church's Interpretation upon Scripture, yet in Actu exercito They own both, and must necessarily do so, or become plain Arians. Yet here they are pinched again: For, if they Believe these Mysteries upon Tradition, or on Scripture interpreted by the Church, They are neither Papists, 
In doing so They are neither Papists nor Protestants.  nor Protestants. No Papists; for Papists hold Tradition and the Church's Interpretation infallible. No Protestant's; For They profess to Believe no more than God hath expressed in his written Word, Though now they must leave that Hold, and believe upon the Catholic Motive, or renounce the Faith of these Articles.  
9 If Mr. Poole pretend express Scripture for these High Verities of Christian Faith, The surest way will be to produce it, without Remitting me to other Authors, or, Adding his fallible Glosses to God's Word; For every Arian knows well to Distinguish between express Scripture, and the superadditions of men's Glosses, fallible Explications, Interpretations etc. Now, if 
When Sectaries interpret Scripture truly They borrow light from Church Doctrine.  in this particular Mystery of the Trinity, Mr. Poole Interpret's Scripture truly, it is not, God knows, His skill that doth it; No. The Reason is, Because be borrows the Truth from the Church's Interpretation of Scripture, and so fights against an Arian with another's Weapon. Where, by the way observe a strange proceeding of Protestants, who, when They dispute 
A strange proceeding of Protestants.  out of Scripture against an Arian, They'll have the Church's Interpretation good against him, and His naught against them: And, when they Dispute by Scripture against Catholics, They will have the Church's Interpretation forceles against themselves, and Their own wretched Glosses powerfully strong against the Church. Were there ever such Do in the world before these days?  
10. But we have not yet said all concerning Scripture, Interpretations of Scripture, Inferences out of Scripture etc. Wherefore Because we are gone so far, Pardon a further trouble, of giving you a few more Notes on this Subject. They will show you, if I mistake not, upon what rottering Principles the Grand Cheat of Protestant Religion stands, for want of Infallible Teachers.   

CHAP. II.  
The Fallacy of Protestants concerning Scripture, and the Interpretation of Scripture, is discovered.  
1. WE have almost seen enough how Sectaries, either through Malice, Ignorance, or both, make Holy Scripture a Book that proves all Religions, Like Wittingtons' bells, It ring's out what Fancy will: For in Scripture, is Arianism, if we believe the Arians: Here is Protestanism, if we believe Protestants: Here is Quakerism, if we believe Quakers: Here is what you will, and 
All Heretics lay alike claim to Scripture, and the sense of it.  what you will not; And it must be so, whilst These men have a Bible in their hands, and Construe all as they pleas, Gloss as they pleas, Interpret as they pleas, without Limit or Restraint. It had been much better, Methinks, if such Sole-Scripturists had never read Scripture in these debated Points of Religion, then after their reading, to see it made a Book that only begets Dissensions; so grossly wronged and abused it is. Yet no Body is in fault: Pure Scripture cries the Arian, pure Scripture saith the Protestant, nothing but Scripture saith the Puritan, And there is no Redress for these Evils. All run on in their wilful misunderstanding Scripture, not one of them will yield to another, nor (which is worst of all, and plain Perverseness) Seek after a means (which is yet offered them) to come to a right understanding of it.  
2. Truly, I have often wondered at our Protestants, (men, as they say, of a more Sober Temper then your Quakers and Puritans are) How it is possible 
Protestant's Plea for Sole Scripture.  (after they know right well, with innumerable Holy Fathers, this Plea, or pleading sole Scripture, to be nothing else but an old Trick of all condemned Heretics) That, they can lessen themselves so much (had they no other motive to retard them) as to tread the Footsteps of such unworthy Sectaries, and patronise a Doctrine which cannot but breed Dissensions to the World's end. This it is: Sole Scripture is the Rule of Faith. Sole Scripture speaks plainly in all things necessary to 
Their false Doctrine.  Salvation. On these two Hinges chief Protestant Religion turns about, and will do so, until God at his good pleasure, judge it time to turn it out of the World. Two Cheats they are, and great Ones, as I shall Demonstrate.  
3. Mr. Poole to mend the matter, having supposed, 
Mr. Pools three Positions.  that sole Scripture is the Rule of Faith; withal, That there is enough said in Scripture to end all Controversies, were men humble and Studious etc. Seems in the 7. Chap. of his Nullity page 226. to ground Protestant Religion on these three Positions. The first is. That the Books of Scripture are and may be proved to be the Word of God. 2. That in the Substantials of Faith, those Books are uncorrupted. 3. That the Sense of Scripture may be sufficiently understood in necessary Points. There is no Arian, but will most easily admit of these three Propositions; How then (were they all True) can they more establish Protestant Religion than Arianism? For, a Principle common to two Advers parties cannot (considered merely as a Principle agreed on by both) more Advantage the cause of One, than the Other. If therefore an Arian Assent to these Propositions, they ground no more Protestant Religion, than they do Arianism. 
Mr. Poole wants a fourth Proposition.  The Truth is, Mr. Poole is highly wanting in a fourth Proposition, which, if proved, would have done him more service than the other Three. And it should have been to this Sense:  Scripture speaks plainly all Doctrine necessary to Salvation, Certainly it ought to teach Protestancy plainly. I mean the particular Tenants of Protestants, as these stand in Opposition to Catholic Doctrine: For if these be necessary to Salvation, Scripture hath delivered them plainly; or if it have not done so, We must Conclude, They are not necessary to Salvation. Thus much premised, we will show you in the ensuing Discourse how slippery and fallacious Protestant Doctrine is, as it Relates to Scripture, and Interpretation of Scripture.  
4. The first proposition. No infallible Church, no 
No Infallible Church no certainty of true Scripture.  Assurance of True and uncorrupt Scripture. To makes my Assertion good against Protestants, I will only propose this plain Question. From what men of Credit and Integrity, had the first Protestants Their Bible? It 
From whom had Protestants their Bible?  was not dropped down from Heaven into their Pulpits, with Assurance of its Purity, or Certainty, that no Change was made in it contrary to Truth since the Apostles Times. Were they jews, Infidels, Turks, Arians, or Grecian Haeretiks that gave them Scripture? Too perfidious to be trusted in a matter of such Consequence. Too unfaithsul either to preserve true Scripture by them, till Luther quit his Cell, or, then to put into his hands a Bible Uncorrupt in every Point. Were they Catholics? Let our Adversaries shame the Devil, and speak Truth, 'Twas from them They had their Bible, together with the Originals. But these Papists, These very Catholics (if we may credit 
Catholics in Protestants Principles cannot be relied on for Scripture.  Protestant's) had not only Corrupted the Writings of the Ancient Fathers; But also through Malice, or Ignorance, Had grossly erred a thousand years together, and Changed the Ancient Doctrine of the Primitive Church. They had Secretly wrought into men's hearts a falls Belief of the Chutches Infallibility, of an unbloody Sacrifice, of Transubstantiation, Invocation of Saints, and such like errors. Admit of this Supposition, who is there amongst Protestants, that shall dare to look on his Bible with good Assurance of its 
If Papists erred in Doctrine, They might more easily have erred in corrupting Scripture.  Purity, or say, it is the Word of God, and not corrupted by These erring Papists? For, These men who erred in Doctrine, might as well have insinuated errors into the Book of Scripture: They had time enough to do it. These men, who changed the Ancient Primitive Faith of Christianity, might as perfidioufly have Altered the Bible. They wrought secretly a falls Belief into men's hearts concerning an unbloody Sacrifice, Transubstantiation etc. And why might they not as cunningly have foisted into Scripture Words and Sentences suitable to such supposed errors? Believe 
It is easier to corrupt ● dead book, then to pervart innumerable living▪ men.  it, it is much easier to corrupt a dead Book, then to pervert so many living Christians, and bring them to a Belief of so palpable, hideous, and erroneous Novelties.  
5. Here then is my Dilemma. Either, the Catholic 
A Dilemma.  Church had erred when Luther and Protestants took the Book of Scripture from it, or was pure in Doctrine. If pure, Most wicked were They for deserting it. If the Church had then erred, or was corrupted in Doctrine, Neither Luther, nor any Protestant can have Affurance, that they read yet True Scripture; For all the Certainty They can have of this Book, is miserably uncertain, and at last Comes to this doubtful judgement: It may be we have true Scripture: It may be, and more likely, not. God only 
An unanswerable Argument.  knows; All depends on an Erroneous Church, that gave us Scripture, which might as well (in the vast compass of a thousand years) have guilfully changed this our Book from its Ancient Truth, as cheated Christianity into a falls Belief.  
6. Some may yet say. All now Agree, as well Catholics as Protestants, upon the Verity and Integrity of Scripture; Therefore its needles (for many Books at least) to Question this point farther. I answer. 
Protestants destroy the very Ground of Certainty.  Catholics agree well, Because they take this Book upon the Warrant of Christ's never erring Church, which cannot Deceive them. But Protestants, who Ruin this Ground of Infallibility, destroy with it all Certainty of scripture in order to themselves. Their Agreement therefore is no more but Verbal, whilst the Principle which supports a Real one, is shaken a pieces by them. Hence you see How Mr. Poole speaks at 
Catholics Confession no Proof of the Truth of Scripture to Mr. Poole.  random, when he Tell's us, He knows Scripture to be the Word of God, Because Catholics confess and acknowledge so much. I answer first, Their Testimony with him is worth nothing: For They had, before he was born, lost all Credit by introducing falls Doctrine into the Christian World (and why not, say I, as well a falls Bible?) Such Doctrines He dares not admit of upon the Testimony of Catholics, yet 
With no colour of reason do Protestants Admit of a Bible upon the Church's Testimony, and reject her Testimony in other matters.  He will Kiss their Hands, and Take from them such a Bible, as They are pleased to give him. 2. The Testimony of Catholics in this particular, is with him Fallible, and may be Falls; But a Testimony that may be falls, can never give any Assurance of True Scripture, which of necessity must be had, or none can ground Faith upon it. 3. Mr. Poole is pitifully out in all he saith; For, he neither Doth nor can Admit of Scripture upon the Confession or Testimony of Catholics. Why? Catholics hold Scripture to be 
The Church holds her own Testimony Infallible. Mr. Poole rejects this, therefore he makes null the Church's Testimony to himself.  the Word of God, Because the Infallible Church of Christ Assures them it is God's Word. This infallible Testimony of the Church Mr. Poole utterly Disown's, and Therefore he must of necessity by his own Principles, Reject the Catholic Testimony.  
7. Other perhaps will say, That God by Special Providence ever preserved Scripture pure in all Essentials, Though He permitted the Church to deceive Souls, and lead them into Error. What an Antiscriptural Assertion have we Here? How is God Affronted? What a lame and half Providence is granted him? 
Sectaries affront God by allowing him no more Than a half Providence.  What, no more but only to have care of a Book, to secure That from falsehood, and in the interim to Permit his own immaculate Spouse, his Church (which Scripture should instruct) to play the Harlot, to Deceive the World, and err Damnably? O, but what ere becomes of the Church, we must (say our Protestants) have True and incorrupt Scripture, or, no man can know what he is to Believe. I answer. And we must either have a True and incorrupt Church, or none can be Assured of True and incorrupt Scripture. 
It avails little to have Verities shut up in a Bible, if the Church erred in delivering them to Christians.  Say, I beseech you, what doth it avail Christianity, to have the Pure letter of Scripture closed up in a Bible, and preserved from Error, if Christians Universally had been, as it were Deserted by Almighty God, and permitted (before Protestants appeared in the World) to Err in the very Substantials of Faith delivered in Scripture? Yet it was so. For confessedly, not only those Ancient condemned Heretics, as Arians, 
Protestants say all Christians erred for a thousand years.  Pelagians, Donatists, and the Later Grecians, but also that great moral body of Catholics (if our Protestants say true) Erred in the very Fundamentals of Faith, Since they Taught, as they do still, their Church to be Infallible, an unbloody Sacrifice etc. Gross errors therefore Reigned amongst them, whether we suppose the Scripture Pure, or corrupted. Imagine then (which is utterly Falls, Though Heretics cannot prove it falls) That our Scripture had been corrupted, They had then Erred because the Book was falsified. Suppose again (which is True) that Scripture is not corrupted, you have still the same Effect, which is Error in Doctrine drawn out of the very Words of pure Scripture. The Reason surely is, Because the Church did not rightly understand Scripture; if so, you see, how Scripture not understood, as easily begett's Errors, as 
Error equally prejudicial whether it be caused by a false Church or falsified Scripture.  if it were corrupted. What then matters it in Reference to poor beguiled Souls, whether these great supposed Errors arise from Scripture misunderstood, or Scripture corrupted? Error is Error, and alike Prejudicial in both cases. I say therefore: It is as great an Evil to have a Church (that should teach Truth) to deceive the world, in bringing in a Deluge of Errors to the Ruin of the Ancient Primitive Faith, as to have a Bible corrupted. For, 'tis Error, and falls Doctrine wrought in men's Hearts, That undoes them. Now whether That be caused by a falls Church, or falsified 
What Sectaries ought to fear.  Scripture, it imports little. Our Protestants Affirm the first, and may justly Fear the second. God (say they) permitted the Church to Err, and he may (say I) as well have permitted it to Vitiat Scripture. They say, Errors Insensibly grew up in the Church; And, I say, they might as Insensibly have crept into Scripture. Be it how you will, from this Old erring Church, Our New men suppose, They received pure, sincere, and uncorrupted Scripture, just as the Holy Ghost writ it. A mere Impossibility; For, never greater Chimaera was fancied, then to couple a Falls Church and True Scripture together, ●●, True Scripture and a Universal falls erring Church.  
8. Some perhaps may say: The Arians, Donatists and other Heretics, had and have still True Scripture, though they erred in Doctrine. I answer, No God a mercy to them; For, if They have True Scripture, They may thank an unerring Church that preserved it uncorrupt, before Heresy began, and after. But grant me 
No assurance of true Scripture if all Erred universally.  once, as our Protestants do, that both Heretics, and Catholics likewise universally erred in Doctrine most Fundamental, no man can now have Assurance of True Scripture. O, but the Unanimous Voice of all Christians, Affirming Scripture to be the Word of God, and pure without corruption, is a Weighty moral Proof for its Integrity. I answer none at all: For, if no Society of Christians unerrable and sound in Doctrine had that book in Custody, The old Papists might (for aught Protestants know) have either by Chance or Fraud changed words in Scripture. For example, Those words, Matt. 26. This is my body, from what they once were, This is a sign of my body, and the Cheat was to maintain their Doctrine of the Real Presence. But you will ask how could this be done? I have told you, By Malice, or Inadvertency. But when could it be done? I answer in that 
Can Sectaries say when Papists first became Idolaters, They might be informed concerning these Corruptions?  very Age, Year, or Month, when these Papists first began to be Idolaters, and worship a piece of Bread for God. Then it might well be done. Name that age Exactly, and you have all. Our new men Answer, This Idolatry was brought in amongst us; But they knew not When; it began with such Secrecy and Silence. This Text of Scripture therefore, I say, might have been corrupted with like Secrecy, Though no man knows when. And here by the way observe a strange Paradox of our Protestants. So notorious a known 
A Strange Paradox of Protestants  Novelty, as this supposed Idolatry is, which might most justly have Struck Terror into all men's Hearts, Visibly entered a Church diffused the whole World over, yet none, neither Friend nor Foe saw it, cried out against it, or Has left it upon Record. And one single Particle of Scripture cannot be changed, but all must know it. How can these two Consist together? You will say, The Primitive Church was Pure, and so preserved true Scripture. How do our Protestants know so much, if it was Fallible? Thus much of an Argument ad hominem, which I desire Mr. Poole to Answer, not to mistake, As he may do, if he think my endeavour is to prove Scripture corrupted in any Substantial Point (no! 'Twere Blasphemy to say it.) The Argument therefore proceeds from the Protestants falls Supposition (yet true with them) that the Church is fallible, and has erred; Then, I say, None of them can have Assurance of their Bible, or, of True incorrupt Scripture.   

CHAP. III.  
All substantials of Faith are not plain in Scripture without an infallible Teacher.  
1. HEre is my second Proposition, And nothing can be more evident, might he Evidence of a known Truth prevail with Wilful men. Arians, we see, are against Protestants in the Essentials of Faith, Protestants against Catholics, and They against Both. All of them Acknowledge Scripture to be God's Word, 
Sectaries deny the Plainess of Scripture.  yet every one in practice Denies the Perspecuity and Plainess of it: For if plain, Why stand they at Variance with one another about this Plainess? Protestant's Doctrine is plainly delivered in the 39 Articles: The Arians Doctrine is plainly in Their Writings: The Catholic Doctrine most plainly in every Catechism. No Advers party impugns these Doctrines for want of a plain Expression, but for want of Truth. It is quite contrary in Scripture; for He were a Devil that should mention the want of Truth in God's Word; yet you see most Learned men vary about this Clearness, seek for it and cannot find it. Though I have partly given the Reason Hereof, yet, Because the matter requires it, I shall now add a word more for a further Explication.  
2. All know that the Objective Verities writ in Holy 
Objective Verities, and the belief of them different.  Scripture, and the Belief of those Verities in a Christians Hart, are to be distinguished. By the first God speaks to us. By the second we yield Belief to his Word. All know likewise, That if my Belief be true Faith, it must say Exactly, and express that in ment, which God speaks in Scripture, neither more nor les. And this is Saving Faith, not the 
Objective Verities not saving Faith.  Objective Verity as it lies in Scripture; For if that could save us, it would be enough to put a Bible in ones Pocket, And say here is the Faith that saves me, Though I know not what is in it, or Believe Amiss. Thus much is clear without Dispute in an Orthodox, and an Arian, whilst they turn to that passage of Scripture and Read, I and my Father are one. Both of them have the same Objective Verity before their eyes, But the One only hath the True Belief of it in his Hart. Observe now, How darkly Scripture speaks in this one great Fundamental Article, And how easily we may swerve from 
One Instance of Scriptures Obscurity.  this Revealed Truth, without an Infallible Interpreter: For, the words precisely considered, may either signify unity in Affection, as appears john 17. v. 21. 22. or a Consubstantial unity, and in this Indifferency to several 
Sectaries gloss; The Church Interpret's.  senses lies their Obscurity. To Clear all, and make them speak a Full sense, the Arian superadds his Gloss, and draws out of the Text (as also from that other john 1. 5. 7.) no more but a Unity in Affection only, which is Haeresy. The Catholic Interpretation teacheth a Consubstantial Unity, or Onenes in Essence, and 'Tis true Faith, yet is no more formal express Scripture, then that of the Arian; For, Consubstantiality is not where Formally read in Scripture: However, it is believed and ground's our Faith, whilst the Arians Gloss is rejected. And why hath it this Preference think ye? Why is it better than the Arians? No other Reason can be rendered but a most True one, Viz. That the Church doth not only fully Express the Objective Verity darkly couched in Scripture, But also Delivers this Full and clearer sense Infallibly: For I say, If the Church's Interpretation 
If the Church's Interpretation were as fallible as the Arians, Christians might follow either as they please.  were as fallible as the Arians, Christians might indifferently Adhere to Either, yea, and changeably now take one, than the other as they please. A greater Probability can balance nothing in this or the like particulars, as I shall largely prove hereafter. In the mean while, by what is now said, we may learn first. Though Scripture in this and other Mysteries hath its Darkness, yet by the good Providence of Almighty God we are provided of a Sure Interpreter, which is absolutely Necessary: For if Every one interpret according to fancy, Haeresy is easily Drawn out of God's Word; And if none interpret Faithfully, the Scripture still lies hid in Obscurity, which makes it (for that part) a Useless Book to Christians. 
The necssity of an infallible Interpreter.  Learn farther, That None can ever know exactly by Human Industry, or his Sole pondering the Bible (let him be another Solomon for Wisdom) what God hath Revealed in these difficil Mysteries of our Faith, without an Infallible Interpreter. To prove my Assertion I'll give you one Instance.  
3. Suppose that two or three most learned Heathen Philosopher, well versed in Languages, and all Human Literature, had this Book of Scripture put into their Hands, and were persuaded by the  
An instance of Philosoohers reading the Bible.  Authority of all Christians, that God here speaks his Eternal Verities: Withal, That if they read the Book, and by their Sole reading (without Recours to any Interpreter) possess the True sense of it, They have True Saving Faith. Well: They read it, and with as much Humility as any Protestant can do, yet 
If They ask of none but Their own judgement, error follows.  Ask of none, But their own judgement what it means, in the more difficil Passages. Tell me, I beseech you, (And here I appeal to the moderate judgement of every Christian, whether Catholic, Arian, or Protestant) What Faith or Religion would these Philosophers produce out of Sole Scripture, Solely Read, and pondered by them? My Thought is ('Tis no more but a Thought) That the Result of their Reading would end in Coining a Religion different from all Others now in Christendom. I am very confident, They would never pitch upon Protestancy, no, nor 
Their doubts would be Endless.  upon any Sect now extant. Alas, they would Doubt and Stagger at every hard passage in Scripture, yea, and by the very Instinct of Nature (if they owned Scripture for God's Book) would humbly Supplicate Those, who gave them the Book, to lay open the Mysteries therein, and Assure them of its meaning in a hundred Places; yet none can do this good office for them, But One only Society of Christians that lays claim to Infallibility, and proves it Demonstratively, if Faith be in the World.  
4. Be it how you will: thus much I conclude. Our Protestants are in the very same Case without an infallible Interpreter, as the Philosophers are with 
Sectaries are in the very same case without an Infallible Interpreter.  no Interpreter: These make Scripture speak what They think it speaks, right, or wrong, And Protestants do the like, whilst They give their sentiment on Mysteries above their Reach without an Infallible Teacher. Pray you Reflect. Had Christ jesus, and his Apostles never Taught any thing by Word of Mouth, But only thrown the Book of Scripture amongst Christians 
Strange Confusions Had Christ and his Apostles given to Christians a Bible without an Interpreter.  when They left the World, and commanded them to make that use of it, which every Private judgement thought best, what a Religion, think ye, should we have had at this day in Christianity, any or none, or a thousand different ones as good as none? God only knows, I do not; Yet will say, This is out very present Condition, if an infallible Interpreter of Scripture be Rejected. We may wrangle to the 
Dissensions would have followed without hope of union.  World's end, but agree in nothing; Dispute, but conclude nothing; we may raise Difficulties one against another, But alloy none. And thus the contest must run on, without Redress or Remedy. All Appellation here to Antiquity, to Councils, Fathers 
Appellation to Antiquity remedies nothing being fallible with Protestants.  and Tradition help's nothing, Because they are Fallible, And were they otherwise, we vary as highly about the Sentiments of Fathers in every debated point of Controversy, as we do about Scripture itself.  
5. We see thirdly: How utterly impossible it is for a Protestant to draw, from the Objective Verities revealed in Scripture, the True Sense and meaning of God's Word in any controverted point of Religion. The Reason is. Scripture never speaks plainly and expressly the Protestants Sense in these debated Controversies, (observe it in All, and you'll find it so.) What do they therefore to help themselves? They first Reject an Infallible Interpreter, and next (as the Arians do) superadd their own Fallible glosses to make 
Sectaries make Scripture to speak what They would have it say, not what God speaks.  Scripture speak, not what it Truly says, But what They would have it say, And thus they think Scripture cleared, and Their Work done. Take here one Instance for many. Catholics and Protestants have been at Variance a hundred years and more about these Sacred Words Matt. 26. This is my Body. The different Senses drawn from them are Contradictory, And therefore cannot be True. This is my Body, Really, saith the Catholic, and here is my internal Faith. No, saith the Protestant: This is my Body figuratively, or a Sign of my Body, And this is my Belief. 
Arians and Protestants vitiate Scripture after the same manner.  Mark I beseech. Just as the Arian saith: I and my Father are one, and superadds his Gloss, of one in Affection, so the Protestant here vitiates the Text by his Gloss, and adds to Scripture (what God never spoke) a Trope, a Figure, a Sign, and I know not what. And after This Injury done to the Words, He Believes not for Gods Express Word, But, for his own far-fetched and dear bought Interpretations, which are no more Scripture then if he should tell me, That, 
An Example.  That text of St. Matthew cap. 3. verse 17. This is my beloved Son, were to be forcibly stripped of its Verity, and, misinterpreted Thus: This is only a Sign or Figure of my Beloved Son. No more doth Scripture, through the whole Gospel, warrant in the least, an Improperty of speech in the one Text now cited, then in the other. I little Regard The Protestant dscourses and glosses contrary to this Mystery of Faith, (let us have plain Scripture) much les their Inferences, which are all Human and Fallible. O, but to say, that Christ Body is Really Present under the Species of Bread, yea and in a thousand places at Once, is an unintelligible Mystery! Why more Unintelligible than a Trinity of Persons in one Essence, or the unchangeable Divine Word seemingly Changed when he took Flesh upon him, and became an Infant? These are Higher Mysteries and greater Difficulties, If Human Reason might be judge, and give a final Sentence. But I'll tell you once for all. That man shall never be a Proficient in Christ's School, that will undertake to conquer, 
High Mysteries not to be pried into by our weak discourses.  as I may say, the great Difficulties of Faith, by Examining the High Mysteries of it; If he go so to work, he is cast into a Labyrinth, and can find no Exit. All therefore he is to do, is, to Learn and Examine whether God, the Infallible Truth, hath Revealed and taught us these Mysteries by any unerring Oracle: Next 
How we are to submit in matters of Faith.  He is to Captivate his understanding, And humbly Submit to him (without further search) who neither can be Deceived, nor will Deceive us. But enough of this Digression.  
6. We see thirdly: Though Protestants Anathematise 
The whole Religion of Protestants is nothing else but addition to Scripture, or subtraction from it.  all that Add to God's Word, or Take from it, yet I'll tell you, Their whole Religion (as Protestancy) is either made up of no Scripture at all, or, is nothing else but a mere Addition of their own Glosses to Scripture, or, finally a wilful Subtraction from it. To the Words now cited, they add a sign, a figure, and God knows what more. Is this Scripture? When St. james 2. cap. 24. Dogmatically teaches, that a man is Justified by Works and not by Faith only, our New men tell us, the Apostle speaks not of Justification before God but before Men. Is this Scripture? When St. Paul Rom. 2. 6. plainly affirms, That God will render to every one according to his Works. Calvin and Beza Assure us, He will do so indeed, if there were any such, But the Mischief is: None can do a Good Work before God. Is this Scripture? No. These, and such like Interpretations Our Adversaries do not own for Scripture, yet They must own them as Tenants Essential to their Religion: Ergo I say: Mere Fallible Glosses, which are no Scripture, make up Protestant Religion as Protestancy. And hence 
Doctrine of the 39 Articles as Protestancy not Scripture.  it is that their Doctrine delivered in the 39 Articles stands there with all Clearness (that is, you know what they say) But when 'tis Brought to the Test, and is examined by Scripture, you may seek long, before ye find a word like it, as 'tis Protestancy.  
7. You see lastly: That the Interpretations which Protestants give to those Texts of Scripture cited by 
How Sectaries abuse Scripture cited for Catholic Doctrine.  Catholics (for their Doctrine) are mere Human Extrascriptural and Anti-scriptural Glosses of their own Fancy. We cite the Apostle 2. Thess. 2. 15. For Tradition beside the Written Word: For the Real Presence, This is my Body Matt. 26. For justification by Good Works, that of St. james 2. 14. For a Sacrifice to be continued to the World's End, Malac. 1. 11. For Extream-Vnction, james the 5. 14. For the Verity and Infallibility of the Church, that of St. Paul 1. Timot. 3. 15. And what, for God's sake, have we from our New Men to these plain Passages speaking Popery, But a Return of mere Mock-fool Glosses, Hatched in their own Heads, which have so little Shadow of Scripture in them, That with force they drive the very life and sense out of God's Word? And They proceed so unluckily, 
Sectaries make Scripture clear where 'tis obscure, and obscure where 'tis clear.  That where Scripture is clear, They make it obscure, and where it is obscure; They will seem to make it Clear by superaded glosses. What can be more clear for our Catholic Doctrine of the Real Presence than those words of St. Luke 22. v. 19 Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis datur: This is my body which is given for you? Yet with their Glosses they so Torture the Text, That every Particle in it suffers Violence. In so much that jacobus 
Scripture tortured by Sectaries.  Gordonus observes, in his first Tome of Controversies, printed anno 1612. Controversia prima de Verbo Dei cap. 26. n. 11. pag. 121. No fewer than two hundred different Glosses, have been added by Protestants to Obscure the plain sense of Christ's own Words. Some, as this Author notes, abuse and misinterpret the Pronoun Hoc, Others the Verb Est, Others Corpus, Others meum, Others the Relative quod, Others the Proposition pro, Others the pronoun, Vobis, Others finally the Verb Datur. Yet after all this perverting and woeful mangling of God's Word, we must Believe that our Protestants speak (forsooth) Scripture, and nothing but clear Scripture. On the contrary side, we have seen more than enough in the Beginning of this Chapter, how Vainly They cry up the Clarity of Scripture in Mysteries most difficil, not fully expressed in God's Word. What man in his Wits can say, That any Scripture▪ through the whole Testament Speaks half so clearly of the Consubstantiality of the Eternal Son with his Eternal Father, as the Text now quoted is for the Real Presence? Yet those Scriptures must be Clear, for that Christian Verity, and this Obscure, for the Real Presence.  
8. To conclude this point, Methinks it highly imports, when we deal with our Adversaries concerning 
How to proceed with Sectaries when They Explicate Scripture.  Their Explications of Scripture, That we do not so much (at least in the first place) make it our Work Positively to Disprove them by other Texts, and Authorities (which our Writers usually do, and laudably) as to put them to the Proof of their wild Glosses, which seems most Reasonable: For Asserenti incumbit probatio. When therefore They go about to Obscure Scripture where it is plain, with new Interpretations (the world never heard of) bid them not only Interpret, but Prove Their Interpretations: For example, That the words of our Saviour now cited must be alienated from their  Sense, and tortured as they are by Protestants. Proceed thus with them, put them to the Proof, and you'll soon see them at a Nonplus.   

CHAP. IU.  
Sole Scripture without an infallible Interpreter can be no Rule of Faith. Protestants have no Scripture for their Religion, as it is Protestancy.  
1. MY first proposition Draw's Proof enough from the precedent Chapter; For if Scripture be Obscure, and speak not clearly all Verities revealed in the book, it cannot Regulate Faith without an Interpreter. But 'tis more than evident, that it speaks not clearly many Verities Concerning the Highest Mysteries of Religion; Therefore it cannot Regulate Faith relating to These Mysteries, without an Interpreter. I prove the Minor. Scripture which solely considered according to the Exterior Letter, both may, 
The bare letter of Scripture may and doth easily beget error.  and Doth, as easily beget Error as Truth in the Intellectual Power of man, Speaks not clearly. (Whence it is that St. Austin Tom. 10. Serm. 70. de Tempore, styles Heretics Infaelice's, Unhappy, Who only look on the Sound of words in Scripture, which is, saith he, like a Body without a Soul.) But it is as clear, That the bare Letter of Scripture (without a sure Interpreter) begets Errors, And therefore an Arian Because He Regulates his Belief by the mere Sound of that Text john 14. My Father is greater than I, Errs damnably. And the like All other condemned Heretics have done in their respective Errors, drawn as they thought, from Scripture. Ergo it is evident, that the Letter of Scripture speaks not Clearly in this one most High Mystery, And therefore cannot Regulate Faith, without an Interpreter. Now further. If this Interpreter 
A fallible Interpreter as useless as no Interpreter in points of Faith.  be fallible, He is as Useless to Christians for the Regulating of Faith, as if he were no Interpreter, For He may Deceive them, And if we be deceived, it much imports not, whether the Error proceed from Obscure Scripture misunderstood, or misinterpreted by an other. An infallible Interpreter therefore is necessary in this Weighty matter, that Assures us of what God hath spoken, of such and such Particular Mysteries. And here we Rest securely, and have a most certain Rule which Sectaries want.  
2. Again I argue. If Sole Scripture be a clear Rule of Faith, it can Regulate without Glosses, yea, and without a Preacher too. Why therefore do our Protestants charge that one Text above cited, This is my body (the like we may say of many others) with so unnecessary a burden of their Interpretations? Are 
Are Sectaries afraid that Christ spoke too plainly?  They afraid that Christ spoke too Plainly, and therefore Add their Glosses to Obscure his Words? None will own such an Impiety. Then I say: They are Added to Clear an Obscure Passage, consequently, They 
They gloss to make Scripture clear.  must acknowledge an Obscurity in this Scripture, before their tampering with the Text, and glozing it. Well. But when They have glossed all they can, I ask what is it that Regulates their Faith in this particular? 
Their glosses regulate their Faith, not the words of Christ.  Do Christ's Words as he spoke them, or, as They interpret, Regulate here? Not the first: For it is most evident, that Christ's own Words without the Protestant Glosses, can never beget in any Understanding that determinate Belief, which these men have of the Blessed Sacrament; For, the words of Christ say plainly, This is my Body that is given for you; Which pondered to the day of Judgement, can never yield this forced, repugnant, and farfetched Sense, This is a Sign, or a Figure of my Body. Yet such is the Belief of Protestants drawn from this Sentence, by their Interpretations. Wherefore, we must conclude that They Believe not for Christ's Sole Words, But for their Additional Glosses, which is to say in plain English, Their Overplus of Glosses Regulates Faith, not Gods Express and most significant Word. Some will say this Passage now cited, must be interpreted as They will have it, Because Scripture in other places seems to favour their Interpretation. I answer candidly. Let them 
They cannot cite one Text out of Scripture in favour of their Glosses.  but produce so much as one plain Text out of the whole Bible, for the Alienating of this Sentence from its proper Sense, without Glosses (which are no Scripture) and I'll proclaim them conquerors. Here is plain dealing, but Remember well, I call for Scripture only.  
3. I told you just now, That as these Glosses are useless, if sole Scripture be a clear Rule of Faith, so are Preachers also, yea and all the large Commentaries which Luther and Calvin have writ on Scripture. Why? God's Word speaks clearly without a Preacher: 
If Scripture be Clear, there's no need of Teachers.  Away therefore with Preaching, and Commentaries. IT is enough to thrust a Bible into men's Hands, And bid them read it, For there is True Doctrine, and plain Doctrine, but more is not required to Regulate Faith, than 
The Reason.  Truth and Clarity; Ergo, Ministers may hereafter well spare their labour of Preaching, and 'tis better they did so, Then to be in danger of perverting Gods true Word, by their fallible Talking.  
4. To conclude this matter, we have already amply proved, That it is not the Bare Letter of Scripture which Regulates Faith, Buth the exact and true Sense of it (Ne putemus, saith St. Hierom in cap. 1. ad Galat. v. 11. Let us not think, that the Gospel lies in the Words of Scripture, but in their sense. Non in superficie, sed in medullâ, not in the Outside, but in the inward Pith and Marrow of it, none in sermonum foliis etc.) But, no Protestant, with so much as any colour of Reason, can lay a more just claim to the true Sense of Scripture, when He and the Church stand at Variance, 
Protestants as uncertain of the true Sense of Scripture, as Arians are.  Then an Arian, a Pelagian, or a Donatist can do, when They draw Scripture to Their Sense. All of them are alike, guided by mere Guesses, and first Read, next Think, than judge, and lastly Believe. Believe what? What Their Private judgement Tell's them, and here is the last Rule of their Faith, 
All of them guided by guesses. Three parts of Protestant Religion.  whereof more in the next Chapter. In the interim, you may Resolve a Protestants Belief into these three broken Shreds, or Fragments. The first part is that, wherein They hold with Catholics: And here they have the true Sense of Scripture interpreted, yet no True Faith, for want of Submission in other Points. The other part is that, wherein They agree with Ancient condemned Heretics: And herein, They have neither the True sense of Scripture, nor true Faith. The last part is proper to Themselves as Protestant; And here they have not so much as the Letter, or a Word of Scripture for them: much les any true Sense, or Faith grounded on Scripture. And  
5. Upon this occasion I come to mind Mr. Poole, 
The want of Mr. Pools fourth Proposition.  of the Want of his fourth Proposition, viz. That Scripture speaks plainly the particular Tenants of Protestant Religion, as Protestanism. And must Tell him: He shall never find in the whole Bible, so much as one Article of Protestant Religion (as it stands in Opposition to Catholic Doctrine) grounded on Scripture. And, Because The man may not perhaps like of too great a burden, I'll only urge him to Prove these three Protestant Assertions. 1. That there are two Sacraments 
Three Protestant Assertions for Mr. Poole to Prove.  and no more; But let him not think to turn me of, as he doth the Captain, with mere empty and insignificant Words, Appendix page 34. Scripture is plain enough in describing the nature of two Sacraments. He should have added; And 'tis plain in describing the number also, and given good Scripture for both, which cannot be done. 2. That Faith only justifies. 3. That, after he hath better pondered the Text of St. Peter 2. 3. 16. He prove by Scripture, the Plainess of it in all necessary Points to Salvation. A fourth proof, concerning the Canon and Certainty of Scripture, would choke Mr. Poole: But I'll not give him so undigestible a pill, may He pleas to satisfy the three former Demands by Scripture only, without Glosses and ungrounded Inferences drawn from what he thinks to be God's Word, But is not.  
6. Some perhaps may ask why all this time, whilst we have Discoursed of Scripture, of its Certainty, of its Sense, and Regulating Faith etc. None of Mr. Pools Arguments against us are taken notice of? Hath he none, or do I Dissemble them? I answer. The man hath nothing like an Objection. To prove Scripture to be the Word of God, He Relies on the Confession and Testimony of Catholics. This 
Mr. Poole hath nothing like: Arguments.  we have Refuted above. To prove it uncorrupt in the Essentials of Faith, He Tell's us, that by looking into the Nature and quality of those Various Lections, which are pleaded as Evidences of Corruption, we shall quickly find them to be in Matters of les Moment. It seems They are little, Because Mr. Poole without Proof will have them so. I could show him great ones in the Protestant Bible, But let them pass, And be pleased to note how poorly he shifts of the Difficulty That Presses. The Difficulty is concerning the best Originals, which Protestants have hitherto met with (none of them I believe ever yet saw the Autograph, or Handwriting of either an Evangelist or Apostle) These Originals, I say, cannot be proved Uncorrupt, if that Church which had them in Custody for a thousand years, brought in a Deluge of Errors into the Christian World. Finally to prove, that a Protestant hath a Sufficient Assurance of Understanding the Sense of Scripture in things Necessary to Salvation, He allegeth God's Promise, john 7. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the Doctrine whether it be of God: But Protestants do Gods will (thus much must be added, or the Proof stands on one Leg) and Papist Do not Gods will; Ergo Those have Assurance of the true Sense of Scripture, and These have not. Here is the doughty Argument, and that which follows is as weightles. Protestants, saith He, have the Assurance of Reason (Papists have no more) and if that will not do, They have the Assurance of the Spirit which God promiseth▪ Luk 11. Here is work enough for another Chapter: Yet in passing I cannot but reflect on a mistaken quotation 
Mr. Poole misquotes Sixtus Senensis,  in Mr. Poole page 230. where he citys Sixtus Senensis, And both errs in the Annotation and Doctrine of Sixtus, concerning the Clarity of Scripture. Sixtus Therefore libre 6. Annotat. 152. (not 151. as Mr. Poole Quotes, §. Quod autem, Answering an Objection of St. Chrysostom, plainly Afferts, that when Scripture is said to be clear, 'tis not to be referred to the Whole Bible, but to a Part of it only, wherefore, saith He St. Chrysostom divides Scripture into two Classes; The One contains the hidden and abstruse Mysteries of Gods deep Wisdom, And this part is not clear at all (thus much Mr. Poole conceil's.) Altera sectio. The other Section, or Part of it, compriseth the First and chiefest Principles of all things to be Believed, and Chief Precepts of living, And so much is clear. Observe well. The first and Chiefest Principles of things to be Believed, infer no Clarity in every Particular revealed Mystery: For He that believes this one Principle of Faith, That the Church is Holy and the Pillar of Truth, Hath a First great Principle, and may learn by it all Truth. If you please to see how Mr. Poole abuseth Sixtus, read him in the page now cited. It were most easy to Take him tripping in other Citations, But that is not my task at present. This only came in by Chance.   

CHAP. V.  
The Reason of private men, and their private Spirit, cannot interpret Scripture.  
1. MR. Poole told us above, That Protestants have the Assurance of Reason for the Sense of Scripture. Happy They, if they were the only Reasonable men in the World. But why are not Papists as Reasonable? Why should the Pelagians, the Arians, or Honest Quakers be left out of the list of Rational men? Or, if These would Monopolise the Assurance of Reason to Themselves for their Sense of Scripture, Why are They not to be Credited upon their Parole, as well as Protestants? For their proof is to say, They have it (crede quod habes & habes) and so will an Arian or Quaker say too. Admit 
Were Reason allowed of to sentence the Sense of Scripture, we must know whose reason hits right.  therefore (which is falls) that Reason be allowed of as Judge, or an justrument to sentence the Sense of Scripture, where it speaks obscurely, We are nothing Advanced, nor one whit the Wiser, unless we know whose Reason it is, that hits right on the Sense. Now, all of them, most evidently do not so (unless we impiously say, that God hath revealed Contradictions in▪ Scripture) Because these men's Reason draws contradictory Senses out of Scripture, and in 
All do not Interpret Scripture truly.  High Points of Faith also. Say then, good Mr. Poole, whose Reason must yield, and to whom? Must an Arians submit to yours, or yours to an Arian? 
Whose Reason must yield, and to whom whilst we vary about the sense?  Must mine bend to yours, or yours to Mine? Or may we all hold on to the day of Doom, as Divided in Faith, as we are in judgements concerning the Sense of Scripture? Allow once of these Endless and Eternal jars in Religion here on Earth (which this one Principle of Following private Reason establisheth) and you may seek for another Heaven than Christ hath promised to the Children of Peace Hereafter, That is, for none at all. God forgive these late Tumultuous Spirits, the True cause of our woeful Dissensions. But let us go on. And  
2. Pray you tell me, when Protestants say They have the Assurance of Reason for the Sense of Scripture in controverted Points of Faith, E. G. The Trinity; what signifies this word Reason with them? Doth it import a Formal Discourse, much of that nature as Schoolmen use, when they establish their Tenants in Divinity? 
Sectaries are to say what this word Reason signifies.  If so; the Principle of this Discourse must be admitted of, and owned by the two Advers parties, when by Reason only They plead for the True sense of Scripture, And the Conclusion of the Discourse must 
If a formal Discourse, two Advers parties must agree on a Principle.  be drawn from Premises founded on This received Principle. Thus much supposed, I might here ask first: Upon what known and admitted Principle Do our Protestants ground a lawful Syllogism, whereby They prove, That Their Reason hath ever the good luck, the singular Privilege to fall right on the True sense, whilst 
No Principle to prove that Protestants reason hits right.  Others as learned as They swerve from it? If here They talk of the Unction teaching Truth, of the Spirit etc. They will be urged again for a Principle to prove, That these Favours singularly belong to Them, and not to Others who Dissent from them. But we will wave this Argument, And only note, how in all those Disputes which our Protestants hold either with Catholics or Sectaries (take for an Instance the Arians) the True sense of Scripture is so far of from being a 
The sense of Scripture when Two Sectaries dispute is Ever the thing in Question.  received Principle by both these Litigious Parties, That it is ever the Thing in Question, and must be proved by another owned and admitted Principle, if the Discourse stand upon solid ground.  
3. One example will give you more Light. Mr. Poole Assaults an Arian (a far weaker Adversary than a 
'Tis proved by an Instance.  Catholic) with a Scriptural Proof, for that High Mystery of our Faith, the Sacred Trinity, and argues thus▪ Scripture saith john 1. c. 5. 7. There are Three, that bear record in Heaven, the Father, Word, and Holy Ghost, and these three are one; But the Sense of this Scripture, saith Mr. Poole, is, That God is one in Essenced, and Three Distinct Persons: The Father unproduced, the Son Produced, and the Holy Ghost Proceeding from Both. Ergo we must admit a Trinity. Observe well. The Arian Admit's the first Proposition, or the Words of Scripture, And here is the only Principle agreed on by these two Disputants; But utterly denies the second, Viz. The Sense drawn out of these Words, And tell's 
The Arian admit's of the words of Scripture, but denies Mr. Pools sense.  his Adversary, that this Sense is the very Thing in question; but no received Principle, And therefore must be proved, not supposed against him: Proved I say, and by Sole Scripture, which yet cannot be done, Though we turn to all the Texts in the Bible. Most justly therefore may the Arian tell Mr. Poole: If his Faith fall upon such a Determinate Sense now given, He Believes it, either Because His private Judgement moulds Scripture to that Meaning, or, Because He takes it upon the Authority of a Church, which he professedly Disowns, and will not Believe.  
4. In reference to what is here said, note first. That as the True sense of Scripture is supposed, and not proved against an Arian by force of Scripture in this particular Mystery, so much more, it is ever supposed and not proved, when Protestants dispute against Catholics. The reason is. Their private Judgement 
Protestants first frame to themselves a Sense of Scripture, and then triumph.  first makes what sense they please (which is no received Principle) and afterward They vapour like conquerors, as if sole Scripture did the deed, and defeated us. Upon the great Assurance I have of This my Assertion, I challenge Mr. Poole (or any Protestant) 
They have not one Text of Scripture against the Roman Catholic Faith without the mixture of Their private judgements.  to produce one Text against the Roman Catholic Faith, which, without the Mixture of Their private Judgements, or unadmitted Glosses, speaks so much as Probably against it. The more plausible place they insist on, is That of St. john cap. 6. Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood etc. For communion under both kinds, which nevertheless must have twenty Glosses, and as many self judgements upon it, before it can put on a likelihood of a proof against us.  
5. Note 2. That whilst the Sense of Scripture lies under dispute, and is not agreed on by the two Parties 
Why Protestants lose labour when They argue by Scripture.  at Difference, For example a Catholic and Protestant, It is but Labour lost in the Protestant, to Assault his Adversary with Texts of Scripture: For, the Catholic Answers, Olim possideo prior possideo, I have ever believed the sense of God's Word to be such as you know we Catholics own, And can you my Antagonist, 
What the Catholic answers.  persuade yourself to drive me out of the Possession of my Ancient Belief, by your Sole private Judgement, or, Those new Glosses you father on Scripture? If so: A worthy Gentleman, who by right of his Ancestors for a thousand years and upward now quietly possesseth his lands, May be turned out of House and Harbour, upon the private Judgement of some New upstart Fellow, That Tell's him, He verily thinks the Ancient Writings for his Lands, are not well Understood; Therefore he will first do him the favour to explicate them according to his private Opinion (though contrary to the Sense hitherto received) which done, he will drive him out a doors, and make him a Beggar. This is our very Case.  
6. Contrariwise, when the Sense of Scripture is 
How we may argue from Scripture.  agreed on, we may Argue as Schoolmen do, and draw from it Theological Conclusions; which though often Various amongst Divines, yet the Principle admitted (I mean the Sense of Scripture) remains unquestioned, and is maintained without Contradiction. Without Such an agreed on sense, which either Scripture (as it often doth) Deliver's plainly enough, or, The common consent of Learned men makes Highly probable, or, The Church of Christ declares certain. 'Tis to no more purpose to Dispute out of Scripture, then to speak Arabic to an Illiterate Peasant. Yet, the lose Behaviour of our Protestants is such, that it leads them (without the guidance of these Lights) first to Fancy 
The Fancy of Sectaries  a Sense of their own, and then draw strange Conclusions from it. So Mr. Poole. After he had by his own Interpretation, perverted that Text of St. Paul, The Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth; might well say, The Church is not proved Infallible. Thus much is noted, if the word Reason signify a formal Discourse.  
7. Perhaps Protestant's may reply (For in Truth it 
Another Acception of the word Reason, refuted.  is the hardest thing in the world where to have them in their Answers) That Reason here imports not any Discourse at all, But an immediate clear Light Transfused into their Mind, when they read. Scripture (like a Beam shot from the Sun) whereby their Eyes as perspicuously discern the most Abstruse Sense in it, as men do the Sun by its Light, or the first known Principles of nature by Their own Indisputable Evidences. Is this Reply think you rational, that draws not so much as a Dram of Reason after it? For, if their new Faith hath set new Eyes in their head, It hath not, surely, plucked out their Neighbour's Eyes, who yet, I hope, may see what is discernible by All. None then ever questioned the Suns-shining at Noonday, or Writ Commentaries on the first natural Principles; Yet we see These new Sectaries not only highly at Variance about the Sense of Scripture; but also God's Church (which hath Eyes as well as They) as highly opposite opposite to them. However, the Church must be Counted Purblind, and They only sharp-sighted, though the Light they fancy may licence any Haeretick to say what he pleases: For, as They Set 
Light set up against Light.  up their Light, so an Arian may set up his against it, And swear 'tis the Clearer of the two for his sense. And who can gainsay him?  
8. From this Discourse it follows, that the Assurance of Reason, whereof our Protestants talk so much, is a most insipid Word; For it does not signify a Formal Discourse for want of a known and received Principle, Nor, That quicker immediate Light (●f all Fooleries the worst) now refuted. I'll go farther, and say, 
No Christian by Reason only can dive into the Mysteries of Scripture.  That no Christian by the force of Reason only, when he reads These difficil Mysteries in Scripture, can so much as once fasten a prudent certain judgement, either upon the Thing revealed, or the Ratio credendi: Not upon the Thing revealed, For that Transcends the Capacity of Reason; nor upon the Motive, why he Believes, For by the force of Reason only, he cannot know exactly (Guess he may and miss) that God speaks expressly in such a sense. Therefore, if upon his own Half-sighted and too daring Conceit, He will proceed to a settled judgement, and say positively what God speaks, He tells the Story before he knows it, And consequently highly offends against Reason: For Reason dictates, that we must first Learn, Before we undertake to Teach, or, rashly enter into the deep Secrets of God's Divine Wisdom, without a certain and infallible Doctor.  
9 Therefore before we come to the Assent of Divine Faith, A master, an infallible Proponent is necessary, who without Ambiguity assures us that God Speaks, and in such a determinate Sense. This once admitted, Reason hath no place at all in the very Elicite Act of Faith, or, if it enter, it spoils Faith, as I shall presently declare.  
10. I'll therefore Explicate myself further, and 
The Different Operation of Reason in a Catholic, and in a Protestant.  withal show how Reason goes to Work in a Protestant, And how differently it Proceeds in Catholics. The Protestant hath no more but the bare Letter of a Bible before his eyes, And toil▪ s hard with that one weak Instrument, his own Reason, to find out God's Sense Therein. He Read's, he Humm's, He Pausses, He Expound's, He interpret's, and afterward, Believes what he thinks is True. Marck well. He 
Sectaries know what they think, but know not why They believe.  knows what He Thinks, but yet knows not, upon any Rational Inducement, or, solid Motive  to his Thought, that God speaks as He Thinks. Question him in any Particular, and you will find, what I say, most True. For example. Why, when He reads Those Words, This is my Body, he believes Christ's Sense to be: This is a Sign or Figure of my Body. Ask him where is the Rational Inducement that leads him to own this sense? If Rational, He is able to give an Account of it to others? If herein he show himself unacountable, He doth not only expose his Belief to the contempt of unbelievers, but to Those thousands of believing Christians that oppose it. Nevertheless 'Tis so. For he can render no other Reason for this 
The proof is given.  new coined Sense, But that after the reading of Scripture, pondering the Words, examining the Difficulties, and conferring places together, He is wrought into a Persuasion, That God Speaks just as he Thinks, and no otherwise; where you first see, That all the Reason he hath, walks, round in the compass 
The Reason of Sectaries laid forth.  of his own weak Head, without Showing so much as a Resemblance of any suitable Evidence of it to others, who notwithstanding know Reason as well as Herald You see secondly, That such a man Acts 
How They proceed.  more the Part of a Pope, than ever any did that Sat in Peter's Chair; For he positively Defines what Scripture saith, without the Extrinsecal Help either of Ancient Tradition, or the Continued Sense of the Church. Never Pope defined so at Random.  
11. And upon this Occasion I say more. When 
Of the sentiments of Fathers expounding Scripture.  the very best of Fathers, whether a St. Austin, a St. Hierom (or who you will) differently (as it often happens) expound and Interpret Scripture by their Private judgement, grounded upon unevidenced Principles, or upon mere conjectural Probabilities; Their private Sentiments can Advance us no further, But to an Opinion only (which therefore I may, without offence, Reject) and never bring us to a settled Act of Faith. Yet, a far more unevidenced private Judgement in a Protestant doth all, And (as the only Light he see's by) serves him both to apprehend that God Speaks, and in what Sense he. Speaks. Upon so great a want of Evidence his whole Faith depends. Hence we see thirdly. If Faith be a discursive Act, as some of our New men hold, That is, an Act founded on a Rational objective Inducement, which inclines the Mind to judge as they do, and Believe as They judge, it 
No Protestant can say why he Believes as he doth.  is impossible for any Protestant to Answer the question why he believes (that God speaks and in such a Sense) by the Strength and Light of his own judgement: For stead of the Rational Objective Inducement, which ought to 
He only returns you the subjective Light of his own judgement for Answer.  incline him, and we inquire after; He returns only the Subjective Light of his own Internal judgement, which being only a fallible Act, clears nothing without some kind of further Evidence, nor Answers the Question, why he Believes? Unless this be the WHY, That, because he thinks his own Thought true, He is pleased to believe as he thinks. Where you find the reason most unreasonable, Because it is Vnresolvable into either Rational Motive, or any known and received Principle.  
12. We see 4. Though we Allow to Protestants as much of the private Spirit as their Hearts can wish for, whereby They are, as it were, pushed on to Judge 
The private Spirit supposes, but proposeth no new Motive of Faith.  and Believe: Yet this Spirit being only (As They say) The Operation of Grace, chief fortifies the Power that Believes; But proposeth no new, or further Rational Motive of Belief: For it must suppose the total motive, Antecedently proposed, discernible by more than one only, Before it can either push, or work to any purpose. 
Protestants say it.  And this is what some Protestants Assert, Viz. That the Operation of the Spirit is more by way of Efficiency (ex parte subjecti credentis) in order to the begetting Faith, than suppletory of the Rational Inducement, That objectively moves, and draws men to Believe. Be it how you will 
Protestants cannot prove that the Operation of Grace is their peculiar inheritance.  (though indeed our Protestants have an odd Spirit) They cannot show probably, That the Operation of God's Divine Grace is more their peculiar Inheritance, than others, who Believe contrary to them. But of this hereafter. In the Interim note, That in the Discourse hitherto, we inquire not so much after the Reason of Protestants for the Canon of Scripture, as for its Sense in Points of Controversy. Whereof you will see more in the next Chapter.   

CHAP. VI  
The new mode of Protestants Misinterpreting Scripture, which proves the Church's Infallibility, is more Amply Refuted.  
1. WE noted above, That it much Avails, when Sectaries take a liberty of glozing Scripture as they please, to urge them to a Proof of their Interpretations. By this close Dealing, we shall learn much of their Fallacious Spirit, and see, How they both abuse their Readers, and (which is worse) the Sacred Word of God.  
2. In the former Discourse we Handled that Controversy 
Scripture most significant for Infallible Teachers.  concerning the Infallibility of Pastors and Teachers in the Catholic Church. To prove the Verity, we allege such Express Scripture, That I dare affirm, the whole Bible speaks no where any Truth of our Christian Faith then This, in more plain, Catagorical and significant Terms, Might The words without patches of vain glosses, have their open and obvious Sense.  
3. For the infallibility then of Living Teachers we cite what Christ said, Luk. 10. 16. He that Hears you, hears me, etc. (or, as the Greek read's, and perhaps more significantly, Hearing you, he Hears me) and Argue thus. He who hears Christ speak, here's a Teacher 
Arguments for Infallible Teachers.  subjectively Infallible in Doctrine and Teaching, But He who here's those, who are pointed at by that particle, You, here's Christ speak (for hearing you, he hears me:) Ergo, he here's Teachers subjectively Infallible, in their Doctrine and Teaching.  
4. To this a Grandy amongst our Sectaries Answer's. 
The gloss of Sectaries  That Saying of Christ, He that hears you etc. was Absolutely true in the Apostles, who kept themselves to that which was revealed by Christ; But it was only conditionally true (mark the Gloss) in their Successors, id est, So long and so far, as you speak my words, and not your own. Observe, I say, the injury done the Text by a Selfconceited Glosser, And he speaks peremptorily (it was but conditionally true in their Successors) Who saith so Good Sir? Christ? Or you? Prove your Gloss, which Overreaches the Text, and All the Words which God ever spoke. Must I therefore be fooled into a 
How desperately fallible men go about to persuade that all Pastors are fallible.  falls Belief, And hold all the Pastors in Christ's Church Fallible, Because you a mere fallible Man, are pleased to tell me They were fallible, or, that All they had was only the Small allowance of a Conditional, but of no Absolute Infallibility? Evangelical Sincerity requires a proof of an Assertion so newly coined. Produce it 
A new Sectary may say that the Apostles were only conditionally infallible, but Their Suecessors absolutely infallible.  then and let it be plain Scripture. Unless this be done, Any New Haeretick may give the quite contrary Gloss to Christ's Words, And say, That the Apostles were only conditionally infallible, whilst living with Christ, They might be rightly instructed, in case they erred; But that the following Pastors of the Church were made Absolutely Infallible, Because they had not the Personal Presence of so good a Master to reclaim them, in case they swerved from his Doctrine. Thus much is said, and only said without Proof; And your Gloss, good Sir, hath no better Proof to enhaunse it, But your own Saying, which is not worth a rush. O, But they are strange kind of Sectaries, say you, who deny the Apostles Infallibility. They are so indeed. And as strange They are, who deny to the true Church Infallible Teachers. But this is not what I aim at. All I now say, is, That, if such Sectaries appear (perhaps amongst you in England) They prove Their Assertion as well by venting their 
Fancies vented without proof by both these Sectaries.  Glosses upon Christ's Words, as you do yours. You say, Those words were only conditionally True in the Apostles Successors, But prove nothing. They say, The Words were conditional in the Apostles Themselves, But absolute in their Successors, And prove nothing. You are here both alike, unless Luther's proof help you out. Doctor Martinus Lutherus vult sic habere, sic volo sic jubeo. You have not more. You reply, Where the Command is for preaching, Matth. 28. the Restraint is added. What Restraint? None at all. When sent as lawful Missioners to preach Christ's Doctrine Than They could deliver no Other Doctrine sent by Him, and as Members of the Church then founded. Herein they could neither go beyond, 
How far the Apostles and true Pastors are Infallible.  nor fall short of their Commission. I say as sent; For no man, God knows, saith that the Apostles or 70. Disciples, or the Pastors of the Catholic Church were, or are Infallible in every Ordinary matter, whereof they casually discoursed.  
5. Well. But the Message, These 70. Disciples were sent upon, required no Infallible Assistance; For they were not to deliver fully Christ's Doctrine, But only to prepare for it, By telling their Hearers, That the Kingdom of God is at hand. Here is also more than is probable, or, can be proved: For, is it probable, think ye, That these 70. sent to preach, reiterated nothing but these few words The Kingdom of God is at hand? Is it probable that They were so Toung-tyed, as to say nothing at all of this Kingdom, of Christ's Sacred Virtues, or of his Miracles, whereby He founded this Kingdom etc. Be it how you will, They were Infallible at least in the delivery of that Message: For had Christ (sent by his Eternal Father) Personally delivered the Message, He had spoken Infallibly; But, saith the Text, He who here's you here's me; Ergo these 70. were Infallible in the Message they delivered. You reply again. Though the Apostles and those 70. Disciples were supposed infallible Before An objection. Christ Ascension, yet nothing can be drawn from Hence for the Churches continual Infallibility. First, Because were Sent abroad by Christ, when there were no Infallible Writings, containing Christ's Doctrine. 2. They had sufficient Evidences of Miracles, in curing diseases and casting out Devils, to attest that Infallibility. To this second Answered. I answered above, That the Church hath the like Evidence of Infallibility by Miracles, Casting of Devils etc. The first Objection is Proofles, Because Infallible writings alone, make no man Infallible, as is evident in all known Heretics, who have Gods Infallible Word, yet most certainly pervert it. There is therefore as much need of an Infallible Teacher to learn us now infallibly, what that Written Word speaks in a hundred 
As great necessity now to learn us what Scripture speaks, as what Christ taught.  controverted Points, as then was necessary to declare the Substance of Christ's Doctrine, which he delivered by Word of mouth. I say the substance, for without all doubt, the Apostles and the 70. said explicitly, much more in their Preaching, then merely what Christ had implicitly, and in fewer words commanded them to Preach, yet They neither did nor could swerve in any Doctrinal Point. Therefore in the publishing his Doctrine, They had the Assistance of the Holy Ghost before his Ascension, Though it was then more amply confirmed, and promised anew, not only to the Apostles then living, But also to their Successors for ever.  
6. And this is what our Saviour Dogmatically 
God's Spirit with his Church for ever.  Teaches john 14. 16. of a Comforter the Holy Ghost, who shall abide with you for ever; which words (implying a continual abode) cannot bu● be understood in an Absolute sense. Yes, say They, He shall be with them for ever, But how? Mark the gloss, in regard of Consolation and Grace. A mere Guests. 
Not only for Consolation and Grace.  The only question is whether it hits right or no? For, who tell's you, Sir, That this and no other is the Absolute sense of Christ's Words? Why may They not as well import the Assistance of Infallibility, as that of Consolation and Grace. Prove your Gloss, and by Scripture; This we urge for. We Catholics say, without drawing further Proof from either Councils or Fathers, which you hold Fallible, That Christ's following words john 16. 13. When that Spirit of Truth shall come, he will teach you all Truth, taken in their obvious sense, warrants this Infallible Assistance for ever. Can your Fallible Spirit assure me of the contrary? You say, Yes: For these last Words are Restrained to the Apostles only. Here is another Gloss or Guess, as unlucky as the former: For who Restrains here, Christ or You? If you do it, you may as well restrain the Consolation of Grace to all the Apostles Successors, as Infallible Assistance.  
7. We prove both the One and the Other Blessing granted to the Church by our Saviour's own Words, Matt. 28. 20. I am with you always to the end of the world; and moreover Affirm, that the Consolation of Grace granted the Church (whose duty is to Teach us Truth) Benefit's little in order to that 
Consolation of grace nothing in a whole Church without Infallibility.  End, unless it be accompanied with the further Privilege of infallibility. For, what comfort hath Any (whether Learned or Illiterate) to Hear, that the Pastors of Christ's Church, have m●●h interior Consolation and Grace, if this sorrowful Thought afflict his hart? All and every one of th●se Pastors, notwithstanding the plenty of their Grace, may cheat him into damnable Error, and teach, There is neither God, Heaven, nor Hell.  
8. I might further show, How utterly inconsistent this supposed, and yet Vnexplicated Consolation of Grace 
The Consolation of Grace and want of Divine Assistance uncompossible in the whole Church.  is, with the Spirit of a whole Church which may Deceive us. But the thing need's not Proof, for it is evident, That God, who hath promised to direct us by his Pastors, cannot comfort them so plentifully with Celestial Inspirations, and Permit all to delude and cozen us with Pernicious Errors. Will he give them grace, Think ye, to Talk only, and not to teach his Verities certainly? To live holily (for his grace serves for some end) and Leave them to a Possibility of Corrupting his Spouse, his own Sanctified 
God Courts not his Church with comfort, and permitt's it to betray his Truths.  Church with falls Doctrine? This in a word is to tell God, That he court's the watchmen of his Church with Heavenly Consolation, who nevertheless may Betray his Cause, and give up his City to the Devil when they please; For here in They are left to their own wills and Fancies. God you know is Truth, and He loves Truth. Truth is that which he first established in his Church, And it Answers to that first Operation of Christian, which is Divine Faith, the ground of all Sanctity. To tell me therefore, That He comforts a whole Church by 
A Paradox of Sectaries.  Grace, and yet leaves it so tottering upon Uncertainties, That none can with absolute Assurance say, He either teaches, or here's Truth delivered in any Article of Christian Faith, is worse than a mere Chimaera, And makes our Bountiful Lord not only a very Niggard of his Graces, But also gives him a most high Affront. The Grace therefore of Consolation, 
The comfort of Grace supposeth the favour of Infallibility.  which he allows his Church, as a Church, ever implies, or supposeth that Arcb-favour of Infallible Assistance. Rob it of this Privilege, and other Graces, avail little.  
9 And here by the way, I must needs propose one question to our Protestants. It is, whether God, Supposing his Promises already made, can 
A question proposed, whether the Church can withstand an lose all grace?  according to their Principles, permit that the whole Church (Vnassisted by his infallible Spirit) lose, withstand, and reject what ever Grace he gives or hath given it? If they say, Yes, It is Possible. Then I Infer: God can permit that the Whole Church may turn Traitor, and become Impious; For a Church which withstands, looseth, or rejects all Grace, is traitorous and impious. If they say no, it is against his Goodness to permit such a Universal Impiety. They must acknowledge, That he cannot but preserve a Church for ever (whether consisting of Elect or no, we dispute not) in his Grace and favour, 
Truth as necessary to the Church as Grace.  and this infallibly. Ergo I say, He cannot buth Infallibly also (supposing his Promises) Preserve it in Truth by the special Assistance of his own Unerring Spirit, Truth being, as all know, as necessary to the Church as Grace is. And thus we see in notorious great Sinners, who, although they have a thousand Incitements of Grace to amend their lives▪ yea, better themselves by it in some particulars, yet as long as Divine Truth necessary to Christians is wanting, Their state is Deplorable. To conclude then, Here is my Dilemma. Either it is possible, That the whole Church, That is, All the Teachers, and Hearers in it, may abandon all Gods Revealed Verities, and neither Teach nor Hear one Word of his Truth or 'tis impossible. If the first be granted: 'Tis not only possible, that the whole Church may revolt from God and Truth, But may lose all Grace likewise. Grant this, and say next what will become of our Protestants Elect people, who Because Predestinated to Eternal life, cannot but have Grace? Observe well 
A Paradox of Sectaries  the Paradox. They cannot Lose grace, yet 'tis possible never to hear a Word of Truth; For all their Ministers are fallible. What kind of Elect are these who have Certainty of Grace, but no certainty of Truth with it? Now, if on the other side they hold it impossible, That the whole Church may desert God's Truths, They grant what we ask, And must say it hath the infallible Assistance we plead for. The Reason hereof I have amply delivered in the former Discourse Chap. 3. Because all the Human Science, Wit, or Learning in Nature alone, can no more Secure a Church 
God preserves his Church a● Sound in Truth as Sanctified by Grace.  from Error, Then give it Grace. God therefore doth, and will ever graciously prevent it with both these Blessings, And as Infallibly keep it Sound in Truth, as Holy and Sanctified.   

CHAP. VII.  
More of this Subject.  
1. BY what is said in this short Digression, you see how pitifully our new men mangle the Text now Cited: I am with you Always to the End of the World. Hear their Gloss. Yes say They. This Promise was made to the Apostles and their Successors, But in a different degree: For it was of continual and infallible Assistance to the Apostles; but to their Successors of continual and fitting assistance, but not infallible. The like is repeated afterward, 
Protestants trivial Distinction of Fitting and infallible Assistance.  when They ask, What we say to this? Marry, Sir, I say, it's nothing to the Purpose. For you neither declare what this fitting continual assistance granted these Successors (as distinct from the other, allowed the Apostles) is, nor can you declare these different Degrees. And though you did so, contrary to the 
They still run on in Generals.  Church's sense, you only vent your own feeble and fallible Sentiments without Proof, which I neither aught, nor can in Prudence Believe. To be plain Therefore, be pleased to Answer. Hath God Revealed to you what this fitting and continual Assistance granted the Apostles Successors is? No. Doth any Ancient Council or Unanimous consent of Fathers Mince These Words, and Dogmatise here as you do, or, only mention a Presence of the Spirit of consolation and Grace, excluding infallible Assistance? No. All is contrary, as I could demonstrate, were it here my task to prove Truth against you (but this is done by others) as 'tis to force you to prove what your Fancy only vents against it. And mark how Fancy goes to work. Christ saith, I am with you always to the end of the World: That is, saith your Fancy, He is present by his Spirit by a fitting Assistance, But not by an Assistance Infallible. This gloss, Not by infallible Assistance is your own; For neither God's Word, nor Universal Church, nor General Council, nor the Consent of Fathers, nor Antiquity ever uttered any Thing like it. Grant therefore it be Unreasonable, as you say, to put your Party to prove a Negative, Viz. That any of the Fathers denied this place to extend to infallibility, I am sure, it is most Reasonable to force you to a Proof of your own Affirmative: For you doctrinally Teach, That Christ in this place Allows no certain Infallibility to his Church. This, because positively asserted, is positively to be made good, by a more strenuous Proof than Fancy only. You say again. Those of your Party only delivered what they Conceived to be the Meaning of this, and other Places of Fathers, which do no more, then prove the Perpetuity of the Church. What They conceived weak fallible Men? Pray, 
Sectaries Conceits instead of Proofs.  what am I the better for their Conceits? Must I change my Ancient Faith, for the Rolling, and never agreeing Fancies of a few Ministers? Why may not an Arian or Pelagian (if sole conceiving can do it) as well gain me to his party, as a Protestant to His, who Thinks that the Church is Fallible? To that of the Fathers I Answer, Their indubitable owning a Church Perpetual, Evidently (could we say no more) supposeth a Church constantly True and Holy, And the Constant Truth of it implies infallible Assistance, as is already proved.  
2. Protestants may yet reply. They deliver what 
An Objection.  they conceive to be the Sense of Christ's Words: I am with you always etc. Catholics can do no more, and Mark well. As the words do not explicitly exclude Infallible Assistance from the Church always, so neither do They explicitly include it: For Christ saith not explicitly, I will be always with you to the End of the World by my Infallible Assistance. This then the case stands. They Restrain Christ's Promise, and we see to Extend it too far. They (we say) come to short of the Sense, by cutting of Infallible Assistance. We Catholics (They say) go beyond the Bounds, and add more to the Text than Christ Spoke. Both of us therefore are Glossers, and why is not Their Gloss as Orthodox as Ours? Here is a better Objection than any hitherto proposed; 
The Solution of it Ends all Controversies.  And, the Solution might easily end all Controversies, would Sectaries pleas to wave a few Self-conceipts, and prudently Acquiesce to Reason, whilst Truth pleads againsts their Errors.  
3. First then (though I press not much this Point) 
Sectaries have no Reason to prefer their Interpretations.  'tis evident, That we Catholics are the Elder Brothers, as Numerous at least as They, and (to speak modestly) as Learned. Why therefore when both They and We interpret Scripture, and stand as it were equally balanced, because 'tis yet supposed uncertain, who guesseth better, why is not, I say, Our Interpretation (could we prove no more) as good as Theirs, contrary to us? If They prefer Their Gloss before Ours, something of Weight, beside mere Fancy, must turn the Scales, and Balance more for them then us? We always ask for this greater Poise in controverted 
To these of Catholics.  matters, and can get no answer.  
4. Secondly: I must necessarily here Note an unworthy 
An unworthy proceeding of Sectaries.  proceeding of Sectaries with us, when we Produce Scripture, Fathers, or Councils for Catholic Doctrine. Their humour (and 'tis a a strange one) runs on thus. First They begin with their Glosses, and labour to pervert that Sense which the Catholic owns. And if after much Trifling they can Disguise this Sense, or Twine it of ●●om the Catholic Meaning, They hold the Work done, and cry Victory. Mark in our present matter Their Frigid way of Arguing (and it is alike in all other Controversies) That Text say They; The Holy Ghost will teach you all Truth, may be Restrained to the Apostles only. That other, The Church is the Pillar and ground of Faith, may have the Sense They allow, of, and no more. This Promise of our Saviour, I will be with you always etc. May exclude Infallibility▪ And when They bring the Close of a Point debated, to their own Self-seeming, it may be; They think all safe. Whereas 'tis most evident, that nothing is yet so much as probably concluded: For, as They say, The Sense of these Places now cited, May be as Protestants understand; 
The bare Saying of Sectaries stands for no proof.  so, I say, The contradictory Proposition is every whit as good. The Sense May be as Catholics▪ understand Who must Therefore, whilst we are Both yet supposed to stand, as it were, on equal Terms, Determine what God hath absolutely Revealed in these Scriptures? I say absolutely; For the question here is not what a Particular man may Imagine God to have Spoken, But what He hath de facto Spoken. The Reason hereof is clear. Because God Speaks not in so weighty a Matter as this is to Try men's Wits, or to Hear Them tell him. Lord such may be the Sense of your words; 
Faith relies not on what private men think God hath revealed.  Though I cannot say what it is; Nor can our Faith Rely on what we only Think He may have Spoken, But on what He hath actually Revealed, And we have means (thanks be to God) To know this Absolute Sense, as I shall declare in the 9 Chapter where the Objection is fully solved.  
5. In the mean time be pleased to reflect first: That 
Protestants Glosses as injurious to God's Word as Those of the Arians.  when mere Fallible men Peremptorily put upon Scripture a Sense, which They cannot so much as probably prove (But by their own Erring guesses only) to be the true meaning of the Holy Ghost (and this in a matter which Highly concerns Salvation) They plainly Injure Gods Sacred Word. Protestants are these fallible men, and do so; Ergo, they injure God's Word. The first Proposition is clear in the Case of Arians, who, Because They peremptorily give a Sense to those Scriptures which relate to the Real Unity of Three Persons in one Divine Essence (the matter is of High importance) and cannot prove it, But by the force of Their Erring Guesses only, They wrong both God and his Word. The second Proposition is as Evident; For 
The Proof.  Protestants absolutely say, The Scriptures now cited, include not (yea, positively exclude a perpetual infallibility allowed the Church) This sense (and 'tis a Point of highest Importance, For the clearing of it End's all Controversies) they cannot prove, But by their own Erring guesses only, And therefore injure Scripture, in saying God hath spoken that, which cannot be so much as probably proved, was Spoken.  
6. Reflect 2. It is not enough, that Sectaries tell us upon their own fallible Parole, That our Places of 
Sectaries come not home to the difficulty.  Scripture May be interpreted as they please, or, come not home to prove the Church's Infallibility; For Admit thus much Gratis, They yet convince nothing: Because it is one thing to say (and God knows only to say it) our alleged Scriptures (for example that of St. Paul, The Church is the pillar and ground of Truth) prove 
To say we prove not our Doctrine is not to say They prove the contrary.  not a Church Infallible, and a quite other, positively to Teach and prove it, to be Fallible. The most they can infer out of thi● Negative: Such places prove not, were all granted they desire, is that They give the slip to so many Texts of Scripture, or infringe so much force of our Proofs. Alas, This only is to pull, as it 
Their weak endeavour is to pull down, not to build up the Machine of their new Doctrine.  were, so much of a House down; But it doth not therefore follow, that They positively give in as good Texts to the contrary Sense, or, Build up the Structure of their new Doctrine concerning the Church's Fallibility. To pull down one Proof, is not to destroy all we can say (we have more Strings to our Bow then one) much les is it to build up an opposite Doctrine. The Machine these Sectaries would fain build, lies in this one positive Assertion. The whole Church is Fallible. This, say I, Fancy only Erects; For it stands unproped, 
Fancy doth all with them.  That is, it neither is, nor can, nor shall ever be positively proved. And hence  
7. Reflect 3. If Protestants, who rely totally on Scripture Proof, Positively Assert, as They do, That the whole Church is Fallible, They are obliged both in Conscience and all Law of Disputation, to prove what They say: For Asserenti incumbit probatio. Observe my reason. When Luther and Sectaries came amongst us, and troubled the world, They heard the voice of a whole Ancient Church against them, owning the infallible Assistance of Gods Directing Spirit, for which we now argue. The Church pleaded thus: Olim possideo, prior possideo. This Spirit of infallibility I long since have had, and yet, upon Scripture proof do Believe. Well. Now enter these Sectaries, 
They first reject Church Authority and then make Scripture speak as Fancy pleases.  and first Reject the Authority of this Ancient Church; next They fall aboard with our Scriptures, And because they are good at Guessing, They tell us: Verily, These Scriptures seem not to prove a Church Infallible, Because They are able to interpret all to a contrary Sense. To this we have Answered. Their seeming is no proof. Withal, That Catholics as Many and Learned as They, both can and do interpret them otherwise. Hitherto therefore, their cause is nothing Advanced. More than is necessary, And it is, That whilst They positively establish a new coined Doctrine of a whole Christian Church fallible, contrary to what Antiquity ever owned, I say, 'tis necessary, That they bring some Positive proof, and make good Their unheard of Assertion.  
8. And here we may have plain dealing if Sectaries 
Protestant have no Text of Scripture against an Infallible Church.  please. Turn then to your Bible, Gentlemen, and show me any Text like this. The whole Church of Christ, is not the Pillar and ground of Truth. The Holy Ghost will not ever Teach it all Truth. God hath placed Pastors and Doctors in his Church, But such as may suffer us to be carried away with every wind of falls Doctrine etc. Such Expressions we read in our Bible for the contrary Verity, Have you any thing like them in yours, to prove your opposite Asserted Doctrine? I say any like them; For I Press not to have from you the same Formal Words, But will be content with one plain significant Text (and we will stand to Scripture, Or if Scripture please you not, we will accompany you to Councils and Fathers) which so much as Meanly makes the whole Church of Christ Fallible? Such a Scripture, I tell you once more, you cannot produce. Ergo, you only vent your Fancies, you talk and prove not; you believe a Doctrine which you cannot show was ever Revealed in God's Word. You may perhaps trifle it out, and Tell us, as you are wont to do, of our errors de facto. It is nothing to the purpose: For 
What we desire of Sectaries.  we inquire not here after your proofles Assertions (They are Answered a hundred times over) nor ask, what you fallible Teachers say, but what God hath said in Scripture concerning the fallibility of a whole Christian Church. This we wish to hear of, before we credit your Talk, or Believe, for your saying, It hath erred the facto.   

CHAP. VIII.  
The new Mode of Sectaries misinterpreting Scripture destroys Protestant Religion.  
1. HEre we give you a fourth Reflection consequent to the former Discourse, which follows upon our Sectaries misinterpretation of Scripture. 'Tis worth the Readers knowledge, and if I mistake not, totally Ruins Protestant Religion. Thus it is. The whole Machine of Protestancy, as Protestancy, stands 
Protestancy stands topling on negatives.  topling upon supposed Objective Negatives, built up by Fancy only, without so much as one positive proof of Scripture to support it. If I evidence not this Truth (and consequently do not convince) That our Sectaries have no Faith, Deny me credit Hereafter.  
2. Observe well. No sooner do these Sectaries persuade Themselves, That they can Abate the force of our Scripture-proofs for Catholic Doctrine; But They 
How They proceed farther an Negatives▪  presently lay hold on the quite contrary Doctrine, And make that an Article of their new Faith. They say, we prove not a Church infallible; Therefore the contrary Position. The Church is fallible, is with them a certain Truth. They say, we prove not a third place of Purgatory; Therefore the Belief of no 
Mark Th●se Inferences.  Purgatory is an Article of Protestants Faith. We prove not Christ's Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist; Therefore the Belief of his Not-presence constitutes part of Protestants Doctrine. We prove not the Pope's Supremacy; Ergo, They Believe the Contrary etc. To show their Nullity of Faith, shall we here condescend to what They say, And contrary both to Conscience and manifest Truth, suppose with them, the Proofs for our Doctrines to be proofles? Be it so supposed at present. Pray you say next, What are They able to infer upon such a falls Concession? Marry thus much. If we prove no Purgatory, There is surely no such Place. If we prove not the Church Infallible, it is certainly Fallible, and so of the rest. I answer. This 
These Sequels are deeply Nonsense.  Sequel is Nonsense, and a pure Non sequitur. We prove not; Ergo, The contrary Doctrine is true. For how many Things are there both Actual and Possible, which men prove not, and yet are so? A young student in Mathematics cannot perhaps prove, that the Sun is greater than a Sieve; Is it therefore consequent That, that luminous body is not Greater? The Proof is naught, And here is all that follows. One thing than it is in our present Case, To say our Proofs 
Proofs may fall short, and yet not fall upon falsities.  for Catholic Doctrine fall short, or, are forceles; And a quite Other to say they fall upon falsities. Ergo no absolute Denial of these Catholic Verities is deducible from our not proving them. Yet upon this falls supposed negative foundation, We prove not, All Protestant Religion stands tottering as it doth.  
3. Be pleased to hear more of this Stuff. Let us also falsely suppose, as our Sectaries will have it, that These may be objective Truths and Verities: No Church is infallible: There is no Purgatory etc. Doth it follow, think ye, That they can believe These Negatives 
Every Truth is not a material Object of Faith.  with Divine and steadfast Faith, upon the Concession That they are now supposed Truths? No. It is a lame Consequence, and a worse Non sequitur Then the other. Observe my Reason. No Objective Verity, Although supposed True in itself, can be believed by 
A lame Consequence.  Divine Faith, Unless God hath positively Revealed it, or, is at least clearly Deducible from Scripture; So Sectaries Assert, and upon this ground, That Divine Faith besides 
Truths revealed by God are Objects of Faith.  a Material Object Believable, requires also (and this essentially) the weight of a Formal Object, which is God's Veracity to reveal that which is believed by Faith. Seclude this Veracity from the Motive and Formal object of our Assent, Though we yield to a thousand Verities, not one of them can be believed by Faith.  
4. Now I Assume: But the fallibility of Christ's whole Church, The not being of Purgatory, The not Existency 
That there is no Purgatory, no Real Presence etc. is no where Revealed by God.  of Christ Body in the Sacred Eucharist, and so of the rest, Are not where positively revealed by God; no, nor clearly deduced from any Text in Scripture. Ergo, Although these were Truths in themselves, yet they are not revealed Truths, or Truths spoken by Almighty God. Therefore they are insufficient to found Divine Faith. The Major is granted by Protestants. The Minor, viz, That these supposed Truths were 
Ergo, Cannot be Articles of Protestant Faith.  never spoken by Almighty God in Scripture, is so undeniably evident, That here I am forced to challenge Sectaries to produce so much as one Text, wherein God hath Positively said: There is no Purgatory, No real Presence etc. This they cannot do by so much as by a probable Deduction from Scripture, much les by plain Scripture itself. The Conclusion 
An Evident Conclusion against Sectaries.  therefore follows evidently. They Believe not what God hath Revealed, and consequently want Faith in the Articles they Assent to as Protestants. Nay, I say more. They cannot Assent to These Articles as evident Truths; For no received Principle either in Nature or Grace can evidence so much as the supposed objective Verity of These Doctrines. Shall I yet add a word, and say, That no Proof grounded upon weighty moral Reason, can evidence, these negative Assertions to be Truths morally known? Therefore though hitherto we have supposed them to pass for Verities, yet in real earnest They are unproved and no other, But the weak Thoughts of our Adversaries strong Fancy? Now here, If I mistake not, You see Ruin enough of Protestant Religion, 
And the Ruin of Protestant Religion, as Protestancy.  which stands upon a Fancied Opinion only, and not upon what God hath Revealed in his Sacred Word. No, nor can probably be made known by any received Principle.  
5. To conclude this point, I Argue thus. These Negative Articles, No purgatory, No Church infallible etc. Are either essential Pieces of Protestant Religion, or not. If not: There is no such thing as Protestant Religion in the world; For the Reformed part of it, is wholly 
An unanswerable Dilemma.  made up of such Negatives, No Purgatory, No Transubstantiation, No unbloody Sacrifice, No Praying to Saints, No Church infallible etc. Cast then these, and the like away, Protestancy dwingles to nothing. Now, if on the other side, They hold these as Articles of Protestancy, And say, They ought to be believed by Divine Faith, They are obliged to show (which is utterly impossible) that God hath Positively revealed them in Scripture. Therefore I say: Though we Admit of such Negatives as Objective Truths in Themselves, yet, so long as they are not proved to be positive revealed Truths, or, Spoken by Almighty God, Protestancy stands like a Starveling, void and empty of all revealed Truths, 
Protestancy as so, hath no one part of its Doctrine warranted by God.  And consequently, as it is, this New Religion, hath no one part of its Doctrine warranted by him, who upholds all Christian Verities, I mean God's certain Revelation.  
6. To see this Assertion more clearly Evidenced, Hear a little what our Sectaries Answer. Some tell us: They know right well, there is no Purgatory, Because God hath not revealed it in Scripture. There is no real Presence for the same Reason, and so they Argue for the rest of their Negatives. To this and whatever else can be proposed, we have answered. Though, These Suppositions are very Falls, yet Admit of them as True. Viz. Tha● a Purgatory, or Real Presence are not mentioned in Scripture: All that follows from hence, is, That God hath been, as it were, Silent, and omitted to speak of such Objects. That 
Protestants inferences, Still proved improbable.  is, as we now falsely suppose, He hath neither said there is a Purgatory nor Denied it. Now this Negative, God hath said nothing of such a matter, as it cannot Ground a positive Belief of a Purgatory, so it cannot Ground a positive Belief of the Contrary, or, No Purgatory. Whilst 
What both Catholics and Protestants are obliged to prove.  therefore the Catholic Believes a Purgatory, He is obliged to show that God hath Positively Revealed it: And if the Protestant Believe not Purgatory, He is also Obliged to show that God hath spoken Positively this Objective Truth, There is no such place. To say then: God hath made no mention at all of a Purgatory in Sçripture, and to infer from Thence a Belief of no Purgatory, is in plain Language to Say: I may Actually Believe that by Divine Faith, which God never Spoke. The most therefore, That can be Deduced from this Negative, were it True, God hath Omitted to Reveal a Purgatory, is, That no man yet knows, nor can know upon Revelation, whether there be such a Place or no. But to draw from it an Absolute Faith of no Purgatory, is (and I can term it no better) than the last of Nonsense. For, how many Things are there known to God, Which He hath omitted to Reveal? Can I Therefore, upon that Non-Revelation, Rush on them with my Faith, and Believe them for his not Speaking at all? Yet thus Sectaries Proceed. They have 
Protestants Believe Negatives because God hath not Revealed them.  good store of Negatives, But not revealed Negatives, And They will Believe them, Because God hath not Revealed them. Here briefly is my Discourse, if it Falter, or seem Faulty to our Adversaries; my humble Petition is, That they will Vouchsafe to unbeguil' me, and Friendly show me where the Fallacy lies. 
If this Discourse be faulty, my wish is to hear of the fallacy.   
7. Some perhaps will say. We have Fought all this while with Shadows, And supposed These Negatives, No Purgatory, No Transubstantiation etc. To be Objects of Protestants Faith. But we err, not knowing Their Doctrine; For, They are only Held Inferior Truths, 
One Reply refuted.  Approved by the English Church to mantain Union amongst Protestants, And not owned as Articles of Faith. Thus Two later Men, whom you may see largely Refuted Discourse 3. c. 6. n. 7. All I'll say at present is: Because Sectaries seldom Agree in Doctrine, it is impossible to Confute them all at Once. To my 
Sectaries agree not in Doctrine.  purpose then. There have been Certainly, And are yet Protestants (I think These the more Numerous) That Hold the now named Negatives, Articles of Protestants 
Some own these Negatives Articles of Faith.  Faith, And Against such our Proofs have Force: Others, that Deny the Doctrine, And exclude them from being Articles are in a worse Condition; Because upon the Supposition, They are Forced to grant, That 
Protestancy hath no Articles of Faith.  Protestancy, as Protestancy, contain's not so much as One Article of Divine Faith in it; For, the whole Reformed part of it is made up of pure Negatives. Consequently, if Any should utterly Abjure that Religion, He would not Abjure one Truth Revealed by Almighty God. See more of this subject in the place now cited, And 
Both are Confuted.  know, That our Adversaries will have Much to do, To come of Handsomely, whether They Grant These Negatives To be Articles of their Faith, or Disown them as Articles. This is fairly spoken, without Clamours, And 
Mr. Stillingfleet in his Preface to the Reader.  Believe it. Some who tell us, They have not Leisure Enough to kill flies, may sweat at it (take whether part They please) before the Difficulty be solved.  
8. They may Reply secondly, And Endeavour to 
A second Reply of Sectaries worth Nothing.  Prove at least one of their Negatives Thus. There is no Purgatory; Because God hath Revealed in Scripture two Places only, Heaven, and Hell, which seems Exclusive of a third Place. I answer, That word Only is neither Scripture, nor Revelation. Cast therefore that Particle away, and Propose the Argument as we ought to do, And it falls to nothing. Thus it is. God hath Revealed two Places, and these Eternal, it is most True. Ergo he hath Revealed the not Being of a Purgatory is Falso, and a mere Nonsequitur.  
9 They may Reply thirdly. Catholics Believe 
A Third at bad.  many things upon as pure Negatives; for Example: A Trinity of Three Distinct Persons in one Divine Essence, and no Quaternity, or, no more Persons than Three; yet this Negative is not Revealed in Scripture. To Help on this worthless Argument I Grant more: That not so much as a Trinity, of Distinct Persons, is plainly Revealed in Scripture; Doth it Therefore 
Catholics believe not upon Negative grounds.  follow, that Catholics Believe that Mystery and Deny a Quaternity upon Negative Grounds? No such matter. They Believe a Trinity and no Quaternity, upon the solid Positive Grounds of their Church Interpreting Scripture, upon a Universal Perpetuated Tradition, And the Infallible Word of God not Written. Protestants are destitute of such Proofs in the Articles they Hold. For, They neither have an Infallible Church, nor Tradition, Nor Written, nor Unwritten Word to Rely on. Therefore They Believe upon Fancy o●●y.  
10. To End This Matter, I will here Briefly (Because 
An Objection answered concei●●ing Novelties introduced i 〈…〉 the Church.  it is Consequent) Answer to an old Trivial Objection made by Sectaries against our Present Roman Church, which They Accuse of Novelties introduced since the First Primitive Ages, And weakly, as They are wont; Argue after this manner. Your Doctrines of Transubstantiation▪ of Praying to Saints, of an Unbloody Sacrifice▪ etc. Were not Taught for Three, or Four Ages after Christ. Therefore, say They, We may now well hold the Contrary, And Believe no Transubstantiation, no Sacrifice etc. I answer. Admit of this most falls Supposition, These Doctrines were not Taught. 
Sectaries found Faith on a Negative.  No Faith at all can be founded on this Negative, Before (which will never be) They Prove their contrary Doctrine Positively Revealed by Almighty God in Scripture. For, this Principle stands irrefragably Sure, No Revelation, No Faith; Although the Object Assented to be True. All the pains Therefore, These men take to reduce Their Reformed Gospel to the Model of the Primitive Church, is upon several Respects mere labour lost; But upon this Account Chief it 
They cannot show one of Their Negatives Revealed to any Ancient Orthodox Church.  falters most, That They cannot show one Negative believed by them to be a Revealed Truth to any Christian Society in the world. It is pitiful to hear how they fumble in this Discourse. We Ask how they prove, that the Primitive Church held no Unbloody Sacrifice (put this for one example, it serves for all.) Some Answer. They find no such thing as a Sacrifice registered in those Ancient Writings. Mark the Proof. They find it not, Ergo it is not to be found. Catholics as 
The Inferences of Sectaries unconcluding.  clear Sighted as others, find that Doctrine expressly Asserted; But, because Protestants are pleased to Deny all, They must, and, upon their Own word, be Thought the Men of more Credit. Well. But Suppose the Doctrine was not Registered in those Ancient Records; Is this Consequence good? It was not writ, Ergo it was not Taught. No certainly; Unless They show, all Taught Doctrine was then Writ, or Registered. But, let us falsely Suppose, that the Doctrine was neither Writ nor Taught; Doth it follow, that the Contrary of no Sacrifice, now believed by Protestants, was a Truth Revealed to that Church, or taught by it? No. Therefore they are here driven again upon the old Negative, And thus it is. That Church said nothing of an Unbloody Sacrifice, Which is Hideously Untrue; Ergo Protestant's can now Believe no Sacrifice, which is Hideously falls, and as unlucky a Sequel as This: That Church said not, whether the Moon be a watery▪ Body full of Rocks, Ergo, Protestant's can Believe the contrary with Divine Faith. You will Say we Trifle now; For, that Church was Perfect in Faith, and either held a Sacrific 〈…〉 Denied it. I answer in Real Truth, it Plainly and undeniably Held a Sacrifice, yet must withal Affirm, Though we Falsely suppose (And this falls Supposition must be vigilantly regarded) that it only Negatively abstracted from such Doctrine; yet, Protestants are far of from Proving it held Positively the Contrary, That is, no Sacrifice; which yet is Necessary to be Proved, if They believe no Sacrifice with Divine Faith.  
11. They may yet Reply. They are Able at least to Produce some Ancient Fathers Clearly Enough Asserting no Unbloody Sacrifice; Therefore they prove this Negative, and so they can do Others. I utterly Deny that clearly Enough, and say, They have not one Ancient Father 〈…〉 nor Council, nor any Approved Authority 
No Ancient Father against an Unbloody Sacrifice.  that positively Denies a Sacrifice, (All unanimously Taught the contrary as Luther himself confesseth) Much less have They Any, that makes this their Doctrine a Truth Revealed by Almighty God, or, ever taught by any Universal Church. Were therefore these supposed Authorities of Sectaries (which are none) and Reasons also for no Sacrifice, more Numerous and Strong then what the World hath Herd of hitherto; They cannot in Conscience suppose them Proofs, weighty enough to Beat down the contrary Asserted, And undeniable Doctrine not only of Fathers▪ But, of a Whole▪ Church. They cannot Suppose Them powerful enough to Build up such a new Negative of Protestant Religion, especially whilst They see before their eyes the Torrent of Antiquity against them, and our Answers returned to every Trivial Objection they make? O, But they can Solve all we Object. And, we must Take their Word, Because They say so. We also tell them, We Solve what they Object, and yet are not Believed. Do you not see here most pitiful Do, and Controversies made Endless by this Proceeding, when each Party saith what it pleaseth, and Gain's no Credit from the Other? A Judge, my good Friends, and an Infallible Judge is here Necessary to Decide Matters between us: But, thus far evident Reason judgeth, And Tell's you; Though you could Solve all we say for the Affirmative of a Sacrifice, you are to Seek for a Positive Proof of your unproved, yet Believed Negative. There is no Sacrifice. And the like I say of your other Negatives.   

CHAP. IX.  
Of the Means left by Almighty God to Interpret Scripture Truly. One Passage More of Scripture, Proving Infallible Teachers, is Quoted.  
1. WE come now to Solve more fully the Objection Proposed Chap. 7. n. 2. It was to this Sense. A Protestant Delivers what he Conceives to be the Meaning of Scripture. So the Catholic doth also, and can do no more. Both of Them therefore are Glossers, 
The difficulty proposed again, Concerning the Interpretation of Scripture.  the only Difficulty is, to know who Glosses better. Here is the state of the Question.  
2. To go on Groundedly. We may with our Adversaries leave Suppose, That God hath not put a Bible into the Hands of Christians, to cause Eternal Debates concerning the Doctrine delivered in it. And if this be a Truth, We may secondly Suppose, 
God, desirous of Unity in Faith, gave us not Scripture to cause eternal Debates.  That his Wise Providence (so earnestly desirous of Unity in Faith amongst Christians) hath Afforded some Means whereby we may rightly Attain to the True Sense of his Sacred Word. For, no man can imagine that God's Intention is, That we only Read, without Arriving to the Sense of what we Read, or, which is worse, that we fall into Error by our Reading. 
Providence hath afforded means, whereby we may understand Scripture.  This therefore, Providence hath Prevented by one Means or other, if carelessly we do not reject it. We may thirdly Suppose, That God, regularly speaking, Reveal's to no Private man the deep Sense of Scripture (when He Reads and perhaps understands it not) By private Illustrations, new Enthusiasms, or the Ministry of Angels, Therefore 
Private Illustrations no usual means.  some other way is Appointed by Providence to come to the True Sense of what He Reads. The Reason is. True Religion requires a True Interpreter of the Book which found'st Religion. Otherwise, God would have only carelessly, as it were, Thrown Scripture amongst Christians, And bid them Guess as well as they can at the Sense of it; They having no other means to know his Meaning. These Things Premised.  
3. I say first. The Holy Book of Scripture, neither doth, 
Scripture cannot interpret its self.  nor can so Interpret▪ itself as to bring Men Dissgnting in Faith, to an Accord, or Acquiescency in High Points of Controversy. The Assertion is Evident. For, could the Book clearly interpret its own Meaning, Catholics, Arians, Protestants and all Sectaries would as well Agree in one harmony of Doctrine, By force of that clear Interpretation (none of Them Denies The clear Sense of Scripture interpreted by Scripture itself) 
If all agreed in the Sense of Scripture, There would be no dissenting.  as they now agree in owning Scripture to be Divine. They accord not in the first, therefore Scripture is not its own Interpreter. Or, if any yet, without Proof, strongly Assert so much, Most Evidently in order to these Dissenting men, it is as useless an Interpreter, as if it were none at all; For, it Composeth no Differences. Take here one Instance. Sectaries, to prove Scripture conspicuous and clear without an Interpreter, quote these and the like Places. Thy word is a Lantern to my feet. A Lante● shining in a dark place etc. We answer. Scriptures are truly a Light, when that outward cover of Ambiguous Words, wherein the Sense often lies Enclosed, is broken open by a Faithful Interpreter, And withal we add, 'Tis vainly frivolous to make Them such shining Lamps, as to silence all Preaching and Interpretation: yet, this follows if Sectaries Gloss right▪ For it is ridiculous to interpret, or teach, that a Lantern shines, which I see bright before my Eyes. Observe well. The Protestant makes Scripture clear without a Teacher. The Catholic 
Interpretation absolutely necessary to Scripture.  saith, Interpretation is Absolutely Necessary. Scripture itself Delivers not in Formal Words, either the One or Other Gloss: Therefore it doth not ever Interpret itself Home, or declare its own Meaning. Nay, it cannot do so: For, all Interpretation (Properly taken) is a New, More Clear, and Distinct Light Superadded to the Formal Words of Scripture; But, no Hagiographer says, This Sacred Book makes any such new Addition of Glosses; Therefore it cannot Interpret itself. And this is what the Apostle 2. Petri 1. 20. Seems to teach, Scripture is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of its own Explication.  
4. I say 2. No Private man whether Catholic, Arian, Protestant or Other, can (upon his own Discourse or judgement only) so Interpret a Difficil Scripture with Certainty, as, to Assure any that God Speaks as He Interpret's. The Reason is. Every Private Judgement is Fallible and liable to Error, which Truth, that of the Apostle Romans 3. Omnis homo mendax Teaches: But a judgement 
A judgement liable to Error cannot give certainty of the Scriptures sense.  Fallible and liable to error can with no Certainty give me that Sense which God Reveals in a Difficil Place of Scripture; Therefore I cannot Trust to it, nor, assuredly Ground my Faith on such an Interpretation. And thus much Protestants Acknowledge; for, They say, Neither Church nor Ancient Fathers are to be Relied on, as Infallible, in their Interpretation of Scripture; Therefore much less can a Minister, or Lay Man, Assume to Himself the Infallible Spirit of Interpreting, or Resolve, what a whole Universal Church is to Believe. Alas, such a man vows Certitude in what He saith, he vows a Perfect knowledge of both Scripture and Antiquity (never perhaps exactly perused) He vows a Constant Stability; for what He Judgeth this Hour, He may upon after Thoughts change the next; For, as He is Fallible, so is he also Changeable in his judgement.  
5. Yet More. What Private Man Dare, when he sees the Learned of contrary Religion at debate Concerning the Sense of Scripture step in amongst Them, and say: My Masters, you are to Believe me, and Acquiesce to what I judge of the Sense etc. 'Tis I, And not You, That know Gods Meaning. Would not such a Thing be cast out of all Company? Yet, This is our very Case, when a new Upstart, Puffed up with his own Sentiments; Tell's either Catholic or Protestant, what the Sense of Scripture is in Controverted Points of Faith. And Hence, I say, The Catholic cannot Assure a Protestant, without a better Proof than His own Opinion, That the Sectary Errs in his Interpretation, nor can the Protestant, upon his own Assertion, Remove the Catholic from the Judgement He makes of the Scriptures Sense. Both 
As private men, Catholics and Protestants are both Fallible.  of them are alike Fallible, if no other Certain Principle be laid hold on. Here then is the Difference. The Catholic for his Interpretation of such Places, prudently Relies on a firmer Ground than his variable Judgement. The Protestant hath nothing to uphold the Sense He Defends, But his own wavering, and unsteedy Thoughts, which are as changeable, as 
Were moral certainty sufficient, why is it to be more granted the Sectary, than the Catholic▪  the Man is fallible. Here is the best Support for his interpretation, and Faith also. If he tell you, he hath moral assurance, or Interpret's as the Primitive Church did. I answered above; He only thinks so, But Proves nothing. Let him show that the Primitive Church ever Interpred those words: The Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth, as he now Interprets them. If he say, He Believes as his own Judgement Interpret's, I grant this is too Pitifully True; But what am I the better on that Account? Can we Rely on a Protestants easy, fallible, and erroneous Judgement in so Weighty a matter? At last surely, he will hit On't, And say, he Interprets as the Holy Ghost Suggesteth. Happy man did He so: But we shall find it otherwise Presently. However, because the Word is of comfort, let him hear it on God's name, For it is the Resolution of our whole Question. 
The Holy Ghost only interprets Scripture Certainly.   
6. I say therefore 3. No other, But the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Ghost Interpret's Scripture certainly. john 16. 23. When that Spirit of Truth shall come, he will Teach all Truth. But one and a most necessary Truth is, to have Scripture faithfully Interpreted; Therefore this, the holy Ghost Teaches, if he Teach all Truth. Again, john 14. 16. He is called a Paraclete, or Comforter abiding with us for ever; But he is not a permanent Comforter, unless he Solace as well by his Spirit of Truth mentioned john 17. 19 as with other Interior Consolation. To allege more Texts, obvious to all, is needles: The Assertion delivered in These general Terms is undoubtedly True, and Protestaents, I think, who endlessly talk of their Interior Spirit, will not Deny it. 
The difficulty, by whom the Spirit interpret's.   
7. The only Difficulty which will trouble Them, is:  this Al-teaching Spirit usually Interpret's not by Private Illustrations, nor Assumes every Private man to be the Oracle whereby he speaks and interpret's:  also, He leaves Scripture still as Speechless in order to its own further Explication, as it was 16. hundred years agone. The Difficulty, I say, is to find out that Oracle (And a Christian Society it must be, for Angels are not Interpreters) wherein He Presides as Master, and by it interpret's Scripture. Find this Speaking Oracle out, and we have enough. Hear it, and we hear Truth. To our purpose then.  
8. Doth this Spirit of Truth Reside in the late, and hardly yet well known Congregation of Protestants? Doth he Teach and Interpret Scripture by this Society 
The Spirit resides no● in Protestants.  of men? No, Most certainly, no: For, that Society wherein This All-knowing Spirit Presides as Master, is Taught infallibly. Those, He instructs to Interpret Scripture, Both Teach and Interpret Infallibly (For Truth itself can make none his Instruments, and Interpret by them either falsely or fallibly:) But Protestants 
Because They profess to be Fallible.  profess themselves to be Fallible in what ever they Teach and interpret; Therefore they jointly own themselves to be No Teaching or interpreting Instruments of the Holy Ghost. Observe well the Reason. This blessed Spirit when it learns a whole Church what it is to Believe, cannot but Interpret Infallibly by those He Teaches to interpret. Our Sectaries deny this Grace of Interpreting infallibly to All Societies of Christians; 
The Reason is convincing.  Therefore they deny it to Themselves, For, they are amongst These All; And in doing so, They Divorce their little Company from the Infallible interpreting Spirit of the Holy Ghost. Consequently, This Spirit leaves them; For 'tis most evident He Interprets not by such, or for such, as deny and Abjure his Infallible Interpretation. God forbidden (may Sectaries Reply) we Abjure it not, But only modestly say, We cannot Teach infallibly as he Interprets in our Hearts. No. To what purpose then, doth this Divine Spirit lay up his infallible learning in your Hearts, if you can never utter it, or Teach others (after your Instructions secretly received) as this Spirit speaks in you, infallibly? Here is Light indeed closely hid under a Bushel, unseen by All, Beneficial to None. This short Discourse (can Protestants discover Sophistry in it, let them speak) totally Everts their private Spirit, And evidences, That their Interpretation of Scripture finally comes to no more But to a Fallacy, or a self-imagined Fancy. All I would say here, is summoned up in these few words▪ Protestant's confess that they neither Teach, nor can Interpret Scripture infallibly; Therefore by their own Confession, They aro neither Oracles, nor Instruments, nor Interpreters of the Holy Ghost, who Teaches and Interprets by none, when ●e delivers Doctrine for a whole Church, But by such as do it Infallibly. Hence  
9 I say 4. One only Society of Christians There is (Hell 
One only Siciety that Teaches Infallibly.  gates shall not prevail against it, or seduce it by Error) which Teaches and interprets the Word of God Infallibly. This one Dove is , This one Spouse is Loyal, This one Oracle is Infallible. He that here's it, here's Christ, He wh● slight's it, slight's Christ, and draw's upon him the Malediction of a Separated Heathen and Publican, Matt. 18. 17. Si Ecclesiam non audierit etc. You do, I know, prevent my meaning; For, by this Spouse and Oracle, I understand no other, But that long standing, Ancient, Holy, and Catholic Roman Church, which 
Which is the Roman Church.  ever taught the World in foregoing Ages, before our Sectaries se● footing in it. Beside this faithful Oracle (I do demonstrate in the 1. Chap. of the next Discourse) There never was, is, or shall be any thing like a Catholic Holy Church. Now, as it is Ecclesia Docens, a Church Teaching, and consists of Prelates united with one Head, Directed by the Holy Ghost, it Teaches and interprett Scripture infallibly. As it is Ecclesia Discens, or the Church Learning, it receives, and by virtue of the same blessed Spirit, both Instruction and Interpretation infallibly.  
10. The Truth of my Assertion stands firm upon the undeniable Grounds already laid, no less well proved, then presupposed. Here is the sum of All. 
A summary of the precedent proofs.  The wise Providence of God hath left Sufficient means whereby we may know exactly the Sense of his Scripture, in matters concerning Salvation, whilst Learned men of different Sects are at endless Debates about this Sense, and persist most obstinately in what they have once laid hold on. God therefore, most assuredly, will not have us run on thus in jarr's to the world's end, and conclude nothing. There is means then of a Reconciliation afforded, if we please; But that's not Scripture alone, which cannot interpret itself, but lies still in that ancient darkness, as it was first writ; nor can it be man's Private judgement, for that is both Various and Fallible. Certainly it is not the Protestants Spirit, For this we see changes every year, And, confessedly, is Destitute of the Holy Ghosts Infallible directing Spirit. It is no condemned Sect of Ancient Haereicks, acknowledged for such both by Catholics and Protestants. Enthusiasm's no man believes, Angels interpret not Scripture. What then Remains, but that we have recours to that One, Ancient, Holy, and Universal Roman Church, as well for Instruction, as Interpretation. By this sole Oracle the Holy Ghost interpret's and teacheth, or we must grant (which is lamentable) that we are turned loose into an inexplicable Labyrinth of God's deep Secrets revealed in his Word, without hope of finding any Exit.  
11. To prove my Assertion further positively by Scripture, and the Authority of Fathers, would be both tedious to a Reader, and little avail with Sectaries (And I wave as much as may be the useless Repetition of so often quoted Authorities) who turn of Scripture by far-fetched Glosses▪ and undervalue Fathers as being fallible: Yet while they do so, know well enough their own misery at home, within their breasts, which is nothing but a Spirit of Fallibility. You find Proofs amply alleged out of Scripture, Councils, and Fathers to our present matter, in our Polemical writers, chief when they treat of the judge of Controversies. However one Text, though often quoted, I will here give you. Sectaries may tamper long enough with it, before they return a probable Answer.  
12. The great Apostle of the Gentiles writing to 
A solid proof from Scripture.  the Ephesians Cap. 4. after he had warned them of keeping unity in Spirit, and Faith also, verse 11. Add's: And he gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and other some Evangelists, and other Pastors, and Doctors etc. And why gave he these Teachers? The following words Answer, For the consummation of the Saints, unto the work of the Ministry, unto the edifying of the Body of Christ. How long are these to continue? To the World's end, until, saith Scripture, we meet into the unity of Faith, and knowledge of the Son of God etc. What intention had God in establishing These Apostles, Evangelists, and Pastors in his Church? That now, we be not Children fluctuating, and carried away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, turned about with every wind of Doctrine, in the wickedness of men, in craftiness to the circumvention of error. Thus the Hierarchy 
The Hierarchy of the Church that Teaches.  of Christ's Teaching Church is constituted, And by no other than Truth itself. Now I say: No Society of Christians, since St. Paul writ These words, can so much as probably show itself permanently blessed with an Apostolical Teacher, but our Ancient Roman Church only, where the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter yet lives in every lawful succeeding Pope. No Society of Christians can lay claim to such continued 
The Roman Catholic Church only shows through every Age.  Prophets as this Church hath had in it Age after Age, whether by Prophets we understand with Scripture 1. Cor. 14. 1. Holy Men praying and Prophesying, or such as Foretell Future things, our Church hath had abundance of these, if undoubted History may gain credit. No 
Prophet's laborious Evangelists.  Society of Christians can show so many laborious Evangelists as this one Church alone; and St. Paul points at, 2. Timot. 4. 5. They are Those who have indefatigably, through every Age without Cessation, Preached, and carried Christ's Sacred Gospel to unconverted, and most remote Nations. Thus St. Austin sent by St. Gregory Pope, Anciently was an Evangelist to our English, St. Boniface to the Germans, Blessed St. Francis Xavier and many other Evangelical men, were so also to the furthest part of the world. No Society of Christians But our Ancient Roman Church only can reckon up so long a perpetuated Hierarchy of lawful commissioned 
Pastors and profound Learned Doctors.  Pastors, so many profound and learned Doctors, who laboured unto Death in Christ's Sacred Vineyard, and innumerable shed their Blood in Defense of it. These being undeniable Truths,  
13. I Argue thus. This known, visible, and never interrupted Society of Evangelists, Pastors, and Doctors, This Ecclesia Docens, or Teaching Church, constituted 
The Argument.  by Christ himself, was ever, and is still Infallible, and, Because Directed by the Holy Ghost, Teaches and Interpret's Scripture infallibly: or, It can err, And cheat that ample Flock of Christians, committed to its charge, into damnable Falsities. If the first be granted, we have all we wish, Viz. An infallible Hierarchy of living Pastors, who shall Successively instruct us infallibly to the world's end. If contrariwise, this whole Hierarchy can Deceive and lead us into damnable Error, These two woeful Sequels Undeniably Follow. 
Fearful Sequels from Sectartes falls Doctrine.  The first. That the Holy Ghost Directs not, Teach's not that living Hierarchy of Pastors, which Christ appointed to Teach us here on Earth; For, both This and every other Society of Christian Teachers, may Beguile us with falls Doctrine, and misinterpret Scripture? Grant so much, and it follows, 2. That our Learned St. Paul Mistook himself, and Uttered not one word of Truth in the place now cited. For, if these Pastors and Teachers appointed by Christ to Teach, and so specifically here noted, can Delude us (yea, and have de facto erred as Protestant Assert) 'Tis possible. That They neither comply with the Work of their Ministry, nor Edify the moral Body of Christ (but destroy it) nor persever in teaching Truth, until we all meet together in a Unity of Faith (that happy day is not yet seen) nor, finally, after all Their Endeavours, Afford means to persever steadfast in Christ's Sacred Doctrine. They find yet a great Part of People called Christians, like wilful Children resting on Self-opinion only: They see them tossed and turned about with every wind of new Learning. Such is the Fault and unlucky fate of novelists, who will be so wantonly Childish, as to slight an Oracle Undeceivable. Here then is the Conclusion. The Apostles Words are True, Therefore Sectaries vent a hideous 
The Conclusion.  Untruth, whilst they say, these now named Evangelists, Pastors, and Doctors may Deceive, and lead us into Error.   

CHAP. X.  
Objections are answered.  
1. PErhaps they will reply: We mistake St. Paul's meaning; For, the Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, and Doctors etc. Whereof he speaks, are long since dead an gone; They were those, who Preached whilst Christ lived on Earth, or soon after, and Teach us still by the written Word now in our Hands. Since those days we have had no Other Evangelists and Pastors continued in any Christian Society, that either taught, or interpreted Infallibly. Roundly spoken; But without book, and as Falsely as fallibly. 
Let Sectaries prove this gloss contrary to the express words, and bring their proof to a received Principle.  For, who see's not the Obvious Sense of St. Paul's Testimony plainly perverted, whilst He points at Teachers Successively abiding in the Church to the Consummation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That is, to the coagmentation of Saints, or, until they be joined together in one Faith, and all meet in a Unity of Belief, and knowledge of the Son of God? The Deceased Apostles now in Heaven will ('tis true) see this last Day; But are not now with us, nor, Teach until that Consummation be. Therefore Others Succeed and teach in their Place (so God hath ordered) to the End of all things. I have Answered to what is added of their present Instruction by the Written Word. The Bible, 
The written Word insufficient to reconcile differences.  I said, cannot (Because it interpret's not if self) Reconcile our Differences, And no deceased Evangelist appears now, either to Arian or Protestant, to instruct them when they Fail, or mistake Gods True Sense. This very Scripture therefore requires an Interpreter, in whom all must Acquiesce, or we may run on in endless Dissensions to the day of Judgement. But you will ask, Who is in fault,  no man blames himself nor the Bible He read's? Christ Answer's▪ He who hears not the Church, is both the accused and faulty Person. And upon this Occasion I answer to a second Objection.  
2. Our adversaries may say. All Appellation from a Lower Tribunal to a Higher is lawful. And they do so: For, they Appeal from the Church (which only consists of men) to God and his Word, the Highest 
Sectaries by appealign from the Church to Scripture,  Tribunal imaginable; therefore their Procedure is blameless. I answer, It were most blameless, could They know Infallibly what God certainly saith in his Word; But this they cannot know in controverted Points, But by the Infallible Oracle of his Church. To this Tribunal Christ sends us for Satisfaction in all 
In real Truth appeal not to Scripture, but to Fancy only.  our Difficulties; If we reject or forsake this Oracle in real Truth, we appeal not to the undoubted Sense of God's Word, But to our own unsteedy Sentiments; which are Fancies only, and nothing like God's Word. Will you see this clearly? Imagine only a new sort of Sectaries, who will both Appeal from Church and Scripture to God's interior and eternal infallible 
This instance proves the Assertion.  knowledge of Truth: They Appeal from the Church, Because it is made up of men; from Scripture, because They understand it not in a hundred Passages. Therefore they will rely on what God knows to be True, and guests at it as well as they can. Would you not esteem such Men mad, and upon this Account, That they cannot certainly know without a Teacher, what this Infinite Wisdom judgeth of the Truth they seek 
Observe the proof.  after? This is the very case of Sectaries. No more do they certainly know in their Principles, what God hath already Revealed in that one Text: This is my body (and the like is of innumerable others) then if he had never Registered those Words in Scripture. They may guests at the Sense and miss, more they cannot do. Now if they tell me of no man knows what Moral Certainty, or of Fundamentals clearly enough made known in Scripture, we Answer fully to both in the next Discourse.  
3. They may thirdly object. If a Protestant cannot depose his Judgement, nor, think that the Church and Scripture say one thing, Because his Reason finds them Opposite to one another, He may stand for God's Word, against the Church. To confirm this, He may tell us also, that the Church, which 
An Objection containing the ground of all Haresy,  seems to engross all Judicature and right of Interpreting Scripture, is no more but a Party, and a Party cannot in Reason be judge for itself, when the Protestant stands out, and is in Controversy with the Church. Here briefly is the Ground of all Haeresy, and the old Plea of all Condemned Sectaries.  
4. To Answer the first. I Ask what is this Protestant 
Is answered.  that cannot Submit his judgement? Is he an Angel from Heaven, or one immediately Taught by the Holy Ghost? No. He is a poor, simple, fallible, and erring Man. Why then may not he yield to the Church, as well as his Ancestors have done before him, and the Wisest part of Christianity doth now? The true Reason is, Because he perversely will not submit, And, though he palliat's his Pertinacy with a Specious Pretence of God's Word, yet he hath not one Syllable in Scripture for him: The most He can know (if yet so much) is, that what he reads is Scripture, but what God saith in that Scripture he cannot know at all but by Fancy only, when he judgeth contrary to the Church. O, but God Illuminates him about 
A paradox of Protestants illuminated.  the Sense. Why you, my Friend, more than an Arian, as Strong in Fancy as you are? But, why you more than a whole Ancient Church? Doth God tender you so dearly, and not his Church? Will he 
And of a whole Church left in Darkness.  Illuminate you, and leave his Church in Darkness? Will he give you the Spirit of Infallibility, and take it from his Church? Away with these Trifles, not worth Refuting, neither God, nor Scripture, nor Church is here stood for, But a Self-conceipt only. 
The Church no Party, but judge.   
5. Now to what is Added of the Church being a Part, and therefore no judge, I'll say one Word, and first ask what is the Sectary that opposeth himself to the Church? Is not he a Party also? Will He then take upon him to judge and censure the Church. And cry out against it (as partial) if it meddle with him? The Church is already empowered by Christ to judge in Spiritual Causes, as I have proved; But no Particular man is more 
'Tis proved.  Authorized to judge the Church, than a Vassal is to judge his Sovereign after Treason committed. And the Instance is fit, as you may see; If some in a Kingdom tumultuously rise up against both King and Country, as Sectaries have done against the Pope and Church. They are accused and brought to a Trial, before their lawful Sovereign; the Fact is examined, whether Treasonable or no. Will these impeached Men, think ye, fly from the Judgement of their Sovereign, or plead He is a Party, and therefore seek for Justice to a Foreign Prince? No most certainly. The King 
The Church the high Tribunal from which there is no appeal.  and Country where they offend have Power to judge them; And so hath the Church in Spiritual matters, from which there can be no Appeal. And the Case is most Evident for the Church: Because, whilst Sectaries by their Schism or new Doctrine contrary to it, become Rebels, They have no Tribunal imaginable left them to Appeal to, secluding this judge, But their own Self-judgement, which is the Delinquent. The Church thus 
Sectaries make the Delinquent judge.  rejected; Neither God Immediately, nor Scripture more explicitly, nor Angels Ministerially judgeth for them; Therefore their last Appellation is to a very Friendly and too partial a judge, 
Too partial a judge.  Their own what they Please. And this is most evident in every debated Controversy, where no other Judge is allowed of by them but Scripture (and it were well would they stand to it) But it is Scripture, as They are pleased to Interpret.  
6. They may Object fourthly. Those Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Doctors mentioned in the Text, Though granted Infallible, are against all Reason supposed to be the Teachers of the Roman 
The pretence of other Lawful Pastors, beside those of the Roman Catholic Church,  Church: For most surely, There were other Orthodox Teachers beside these, continued Age after Age in the world. Why therefore doth the Church of Rome draw all that's good to itself, and Allow no other Christian Society at least a share of these Doctors and Teachers & c? Mark the Objection which acknowledges a Succession of other Orthodox Pastors and Teachers in the Christian World, Age after Age, 
Shown Null.  And take with it my plain Answer. If Sectaries lay claim to such, They are obliged plainly to point them out, And say where, or when they lived, who they taught etc. But they are not designable, Because, from Luther's days upward There were none (except the Roman Pastors) in the Christian world, But known confessed and condemned Heretics, And They were no Orthodox Teachers, as I largely prove in the first Chap. of the next Discourse. Be pleased to read it. They may Reply fifthly. This Argument: Such Pastors are not 
A Reply answered.  designable, therefore were not, is purely negative and proves nothing. Well. But I hope this Proposition Asserted by Protestants. Such Pastors and Doctors distinct from the Roman Clergy, were Successively found to have been in the World, is Positive, And therefore must be proved. However, Negative Arguments in such matters, and of the like nature with this (That is, when things are of themselves Perceptible, and yet not Seen) Are both strong and Convincing. For Example: 
When negative Arguments have force.  If a company of quick sighted men stand up in a tower set before a plain, and look round about them, yet see nothing within the compass of the eye like a high Mountain; They may well conclude, There is no such Mountain within their sight. Now I say: A Church consisting of such Supposed Orthodox Pastors, as Protestants imagine, Distinct from the Roman, is as visible, and discernible as a Mountain in this present Case, Yet, were never seen by Protestants nor others. Therefore it follows They were not at all, unless we recur to an Invisible Society of such men, now as well exploded by later Protestant's, as Catholics.  
7. A fifth Objection flows from the pen of a Late 
Mr. Stillingfleet.  Writer after this manner. Cannot you conceive that there should be a Number of men professing Christianity, without Infallibility? If not (saith he) I'll help your Understanding a little. Suppose (And it's only a Supposition) That all the members of the Roman Church should be destroyed in one Age, do not you think that there would be still a number remaining, who profess Christianity of the Greek and Protestant Churches, sound at least in the Belief of Fundamentals, without Infallibility? I have answered already, No. And given my Reason: Because a Church 
A Church separated from Divine Assistance, cannot persist stable.  divorced from the Infallible Assistance of the Holy Ghost, is pulled from the Centre of Truth, which supports it; and consequently the Doctrine of it must needs reel and totter (now as is supposed) to rely on no firmer a Hold then on man's unsteedy, fallible Reason, or on a Testimony merely Humane, and therefore Uncertain. Neither have we without this Assistance, more Security 
Without Infallible Assistance no security of fundamentals.  of true Belief in Matters called Fundamental than others, As is clear in condemned Arians, who no sooner left the Church directed by this Spirit of Truth, But Errors followed them in points most Fundamental. And yet, like black Ghosts do, and will haunt them without Repentance, to the Worlds End.  
8. Before we end this matter, I have one Question to propose. It is. Whether, If all the Ancient Fathers 
A Question proposed to Sectaries.  that ever lived, Had plainly interpreted Scriptures as the Roman Catholic Church now interpret's them contrary to Protestants; They would then Disavow Their own Glosses▪ And submit to the undeniable Authority of so many worthy Fathers? Might Reason or Religion (set one unlucky Adversary aside called Prejudice) make the Answer, Sectaries would say, Yes, And do so, were The unanimous consent of Fathers against them. Grant thus much, And say boldly: The Authority of The whole Antecedent 
The Authority of a whole Church, more weighty than that of Fathers.  and this present Roman Catholic Church, is in true prudence of greater Force to withdraw Sectaries from their new invented Glosses, contrary to it, Then if all the Fathers Together Had plainly interpreted Scripture as the Church interpret's. Why? Nothing on earth can Parallel this Church's Authority, much les make it Inferior to 
The Father's only part of the Church.  the universal consent of Fathers. The Reason is. These Fathers were only a part of it, particular men, and Singly considered, Fallible. But a whole Church Embraceth a greater number, and cannot be misled into Error. Nay I say: Though we Impiously suppose, 
Were the Church supposed Fallible the Authority of it is as great as the Fathers.  That this whole Church might swerve from Truth, yet the Testimony of it is as great as that of the Fathers, who, as Protestants say, may all err, and swerve more easily. This Reason is Reinforced, if we reflect on one undeniable Truth, which is: In all controversies now between us, Sectaries can pretend no more, But thus much only: That the sense of some few Fathers only (They never pretended all) whilst they interpret Scripture, is, (though often obscure) more against the Church's interpretation, then for it. Here is the most they can say with any Conscience, Though we grant not so much, when the whole Doctrine of a Father is well examined. However Gratis Admit of the Supposition at present, And see what follows. 
A clear Testimony, Though Fallible, hath more weight than another that's Obscure and Fallible.  Thus much only: The Sense of such and such Fathers is doubtful, and Sectaries say, Fallible; The Church's Sense is clear (That is, you know what it Teaches) and Though falsely supposed fallible, is yet far more firm than the other Testimony, That's confessedly both obscure and Fallible.  
9 This Discourse convinceth that Sectaries cannot 
If Sectaries say the more clear Church Doctrine is, the more manifest is its Error, They speak without Principles, and suppose what is to be proved.  impugn the Church's sense given of Scripture by any thing that hath the look of a probable Principle. For, the Church defends itself upon two undeniable Grounds. The first, Positive; And 'Tis The Church's own Authority (nothing can be greater) The other Negative. Viz. Never any of known credit, neither Fathers generally, nor Ecumenical Councils, much less, Scripture Probably, clearly contradicted that sense which the Roman Catholic Church Gives of Scripture. And here by the way, You may see to what an Exigency our new 
None of undoubted credit Ever clearly contradicted the Church's sense of Scripture.  men are Driven for want of Principles. They say, The Roman Catholic Church is Fallible, The Fathers are fallible, All condemned Heretics are fallible. They themselves are fallible. Thus much supposed, Tell me, I beseech you, by what probable Principle, can They so much as seemingly show, That either They interpret Scripture better than we, or, That Any of us all ever yet arrived to the True sense of it in controverted 
If all are Fallible, by what Principle can Sectaries prove their Interpretation to be the best?  matters? Which yet is absolutely necessary; For, we can have no true Faith without the true sense of Scripture. You know, if the blind lead the blind, There is no safe conduct; And if the Fallible man Guides the Fallible, both may mistake Their way, and err grossly. You will have no Answer returned to this Difficulty, But Sectaries Fancy, and Fancy only. 
Or show that Any had the true sense of Scripture?   
10. Some may Reply. Protestants have the words of Scripture as clear as the Holy Ghost was pleased to Write them in Fundamentals; As also the consent of Fathers, at least for those Fundamentals: They wave other By-Passages of Scripture, and care not much 
A Reply of Sectaries.  whether their Interpretations be right or wrong. I Answer first, (To say nothing of many Others) They 
They cannot wave all Difficulties.  cannot wave one Difficulty concerning the Real presence of Christ in the Sacred Eucharist, which is either a Fundamental Doctrine, or none is. Both Scripture and Fathers are in this particular most expressly against them, as is proved Hereafter.  
11. But let this pass. I Answer 2. We have as good Scripture as Sectaries can lay claim to in every Point, which they call Fundamental, And with it the 
In Fundamentals we are at least equal, and in controverted matter far superior.  consent of Fathers also. In other controverted matters we own the same Scripture they own, And moreover have the sense of it Declared by this long standing Church, wherein we infinitely surpass them. Speak therefore of matters out of controversy, or, wherein all Agree, we are at least equal with them, And, for others in controversy, Because the Church stands for us, there 
No Authority Allegeable contrary to the Church, can be comparable to it.  can be no Competition, Unless They render our Church's Testimony of no Force by substituting a greater in its place, For their sense, which is impossible. Alas, They want Principles to go about such a work, And Therefore must Reduce all they talk against us to Fancy only.  
12. What I would say here, may perhaps be more clearly Expressed Thus. If Sectaries have plain Scripture for Fundamentals, we have it also, and take along with it Those Fathers They Admit of. If in 
judgement against judgement; Spirit against Spirit.  other Matters now in Controversy, They rely on their private judgement when they interpret Scripture, our judgement That's opposite, is (to say no more) as good as Theirs. If they plead by the Spirit of Truth, working in them, we might set our Spirit against Theirs, And Ask whether's better? Thus far we stand most evidently upon equal Terms with them. Now be pleased to observe what I say. They have not one plain text of Scripture, nor one plain Testimony of any Council or Ancient Father, whereby they can so much as Probably offer to Prove, That 
Protestants have Nothing for Their sense of Scripture but Fancy.  the sense of Scripture owned by Catholics is Erroneous in points debated between us, And Beside the judgement of innumerable Fathers, We have also The Authority of a whole learned Church that Approves our sense; They have neither Church, nor Scripture, nor Councils, nor Fathers for Theirs. Let therefore the world Judge, How far they are from convincing our sense of Scripture, to be erroneous by any known or received Principle, unless their Fancy enter in, and pass for a Proof, which we utterly Reject. You will say: If in all controverted matters we make so much of Church 
Why Church Authority is to be highly esteemed.  Authority, There is no Disputing Against us; For, the Church will ever stand for its own Doctrine: I answer: And, if we Value not of it so Highly, But Admit of our Sectaries Glosses upon Their bare Word, We are worse than mad; when 'Tis evident, They cannot prove that sense to be erroneous by a stronger Principle Than our Church Authority is, that denies the Error. The Church Therefore fortified with most solid proofs, drawn from Scripture, Councils, Fathers, and Tradition, most justly stands for it●s own Interpretation. And hence I say: 
Whatever Sectaries can allege against it, will show itself an impertinency.  Though Cavils may be raised, There is no Rational Disputing against it. You have the Reason hereof already: Because what ever Sectaries can lay hold on like a Principle, or, That, whereby They may Attempt to prove the Catholic Interpretations falls, will Appear more than feeble to stand against The long standing Authority of this one Holy and Catholic Church. But of this subject more afterward in the following Discourse.  
13. And thus much of our Protestants strange unsettled Religion, And undeniable Apostasy, both from Church and Scripture. We shall see in the next Discourse, How They recede from Reason also. In passing, be pleased to take these few Considerations along with you.  
14. A Religion destitute of all Appearance of any Ancient 
A Recapitulation of the enormities of Protestant Religion.  Church to side and symbolise with, As Protestants most evidently are: (Their Recours to the third of fourth first Ages, is Ignotum per ignotius, and no less and unproved, than a Supposed whimsy) A Religion which hath not one syllable of Scripture for it, as 'tis evident men of this Profession have not, And because they ever glory in Scripture-proof, I am forced to tell them, They cannot produce one text for Protestancy without Their fallible Glosses (if I wrong their cause let them speak out, and shame me, I'll suffer the Affront, yet fear it not: But Remember I call for plain Scripture.) A Religion which never yet had one General Council to Confirm it, no Universal Tradition to Warrant it, not one Professor before Luther to Own it. A Religion which holds the Belief of all Christians to have been Falls for a thousand years together, And the Prelates misled by Error, who taught Christians for so vast a time. A Religion, whose Professors take upon them to Reform others, Before They find Their own pretended Reformation arrived to any Shadow of Perfection; who espy errors in a Church never Discovered Erroneous, By Thousands more Ancient and Learned than They. A Religion which hath the very look of Haeresy (turn it which way you will) which opposeth all men, And is opposed by the Rest of Christians; which is settled on no other Ground, But the bare unproved Word of those Vncommissioned Men that Teach it; which Changes every year, and hath no seeming Principle for a Ground of Constancy; not one Motive to make it Rationally credible. Such a Religion, I say, Dishonours God, Injures jesus Christ, seduceth poor Souls, and as unworthily, as weakly, stands out against that Ancient Roman Catholic Church, which is every way Blameless, unless faulty in This, that it made Protestants Their Progenitors, And the Rest of the world Christians. If I here overlash in Asserting too much, let our Adversaries come closely to any one Particular, and vouchsafe fairly, and rationally, to make my Error known.    

THE THIRD DISCOURSES OF The Unreasonable proceeding of Protestants in some chief Handled Points of Controversy.  
Be pleased to observe what I shall Note Hereafter. You shall ever find our Sectaries either skulking in Generalities, or supposing what is to be proved, or wording it by Scripture misinterpreted, or finally making Controversies endless, without Appealing to any other judge, but Themselves.  

THE FIRST CHAPTER.  
Protestants are Unreasonable, whilst They seemingly hold a Catholic Church Distinct from the Roman, neither known nor Designable by any.  
1. THis is an Article of the Apostles Creed: I believe the Holy Catholic Church, And was 
Sectaries are required to point at a Catholic Church before Luther.  so three days before Luther deserted the Roman Faith. My humble suit is, That our New Men will pleas by a plain Designation (I ask not for a Definition of the Church) to point me out the True Church, which then was (or now is) Holy, and Catholic. Protestants, as I here suppose, were not then visible in the world. There were ('Tis true) Arians, Pelagians, Abyssins', Grecians, And perhaps some Remainder of Donatists with other Heretics (whether more or fewer 
Known Heretics constituted not the Catholic Church, yet the Article of our Creed was then true.  it imports not to our present Question.) Notwithstanding it is Evident, That some Christians then living, unanimously Professed Their Belief in a Holy Catholic Church. My demand therefore is, whether, That Believed Article was then True or Falso? If falls, for want of a true Catholic Church, Speak out plainly, And say that Christians Believed a Church, which then Really was not in Being. If True. The then Holy Catholic Church; which Verified the Belief of that Article, can be plainly and without fumbling Designed. Say then, on God's name, what Christians had we, who constituted the Holy Catholic Church 
Nor Papists according to Protestants, nor the later Grecians.  in Those Days? Papists, you say, were all in a Deluge of Error, which made Luther to leave them. Our later Grecians held, and hold still, a True Mass, Sacrifice, the Real Presence, Praying to Saints, Prayers for the Dead etc. They therefore, contrary to our Sectaries, were neither the Holy nor Universal Church; 
None, say Sectaries, but gross erring men were in the world before Luther.  Much les were Arians, Abyssins', Pelagians, Monotbelits, or all of them together. Now besides such erring men, There were no other in the World. If Therefore the Universal Church be Essentially made up of Particular Churches, as truly it is (For there is no Vniversale à parte rei) And all Particular Churches Nameable in those days, grossly Erred; it follows evidently, That then no Holy Catholic Church could be Believed. Since Those times Our Protestants came in, 
Protestants only are not the Holy Universal Church.  And will They, (if That Article of our Creed was Falso in the last Age) verify it now, and style Themselves the only Universal Church? I am Confident They will not Donatize so far, or dare to do so. The Question Therefore Proposed deserves an exact Answer. Viz. Where, or amongst what Christians shall we find the 
The Question proposed deserves a clear Answer.  Holy Universal Church, Then free from notable Error?  
2. Can our novelists Rationally say, That All those who rightly Believed in Christ constituted the Holy Universal Church? If so, The Reply is too general; 
An abstract belief in Christ insufficient to constitute true Catholic Faith.  and we ask again, Who Those were, and urge to have the Particular Communities Specified, That Catholickly Believed in Christ? We demand moreover, what they mean by that Belief in Christ, Was it enough to Confess Him to be the True Messus, Our Redeemer, our Master, or, to acknowledge his Death, his Resurrection, without Believing more of his Doctrine? Surely 
More is required and necessary to Salvation.  no. For, first God never spoke those other Excellent Verities registered in Scripture (whether Dogmatical or relating to manners) in vain, But to good Purpose, And with Intention That They should (besides that abstracted Faith in Christ) both be hearkened to, and Believed, after a Sufficient Proposal. Again: Were the later Grecians, who firmly Believed in Christ, and held never the les Almost all the Tenants of the Roman Catholic Church, Catholic Believers also? If so. Papists can in no justice be excluded from that Communion. Perhaps you will say, you do not exclude them. No. Why then have you hanged them upon Gibbets, merely for being Papists? If you Answer, you do so upon the Account of their Particular Errors, then hang up a number of your own Ministers, who confessedly have more Errors among them; Or, if petty Differences in Points of Faith, may be pardoned in the One, why are they so severely punished in the Other? But ad rem,  
3. Say plainly, And Answer Categorically without 
Arians and Pelagians believed in Christ,  Shuffling. Were Arians, Pelagians, Nestorians, Monothelits, Parts and Members of the Holy Catholic Church; For they believed in Christ, and owned him for their Redeemer, Master and Doctor, yea, and admitted of Scripture also? If you Affirm it; Then there never were, nor can be Heresies in the Christian 
Yet were cast out of the Church as Hareticks.  world, whilst Christ is acknowledged in this General Way, and consequently, the Ancient Councils Dealt most unjustly with these men in casting them out of the Church's Communion, And proclaiming them Heretics. Beside observe, I pray you, what a pretty Church is here, made up of men irreconciliable in their Disputes. Is this think ye, that Holy, Universal, 
A Church compounded of hideous dissenting Members is not Christ's Church.  and United Society of Christians, which Christ jesus cemented together in one Faith, who do nothing but clash one with another? And will he own this for his Spouse, when he comes to judge the World? Yet farther. No Doctrine proper to Particular Sectaries, as Arianism is to Arians, Pelagianism to Pelagians, Protestanism to Protestants, can (Because bound up within the narrow compass of these Communities) deserve 
No Doctrine peculiar to Sectaries can be Catholic.  the Name, or Notion of either Holy, Universal, or Catholic Doctrine. Prescind therefore from these particular Doctrines, or lay them aside (which, as Protestants must say, did not Vnchurch them) my Demand is (and it shall never be Answered) wherein Consists the 
Protestants cannot answer the Question.  Remainder of that Doctrine, which implies the pure Essentials of Christian Religion; joins men together in one Faith, and makes them true members of the Holy and Universal Church?  
4. Will You hear, as I think, the best Answer of some newer Protestant's? They may say: Who ever Believes in Christ and Scripture, and joins in that Belief, which was universally owned by the whole Christian World before Luther, is right in Faith, and a Member of the Holy Universal Church, Though, perhaps, He Believes, with his tainted Church, some Errors. A most wretched 
The first Answer refuted.  and unproved Assertion. For, who, ever yet maintained, That a Society of Christians, owning some Doctrine True (as all have done) and more perhaps Falls, is a part of the True Holy Catholic Church? We say, Bonum ex integrâ causâ, malum ex quolibet defectu: A Faith Therefore Truly good, is Entirely good, Any Falsity Spoil's it, And then most, when 'Tis vitiated with notable Errors. Tell me, if Scripture 
A Church vitiated with gross errors is no more a Church Then the Bible notably corrupted is God's word.  were Corrupted in some Points of Consequence, would you own the whole Bible for God's Word? No certainly. How then can we own That for Christ's True Church, which is corrupted with Falso Doctrine? You will say: We must take the Good without the Bad, And Believe as much as is necessary to the Essential Being of a Church, And that makes us Catholics, Though we jointly Believe some errors with it. Answer. This is worse than before, And more confused stuff. Who are those WE, that can choose thus; 
None can separate Truth from falsehood, if I live in an Erring Church.  Or, Tell me, if I live in an Erring Church, where Falls Doctrine is Secretly mingled with Truth, what I am to choose, or, what is Good or Bad? If a poor simple man, Deceived by his Pastor▪ fall into an Error, There are others ready to unbeguile him, But 
Because He who endeavours to unbeguile me, may then most err himself.  here are none to do this Service, Because none can certainly judge of the right or wrong. Will you say, That Scripture is to decide in such Doubts? Pray you Tell me, if (by a supposed Impossibility) Scripture itself were Corrupted in certain great matters, And no Body knew where, on whose judgement should we Rely to single out those Corruptions? This Case only supposed, is a Real one in the Churches Before Luther (if the Roman fail us;) For all other were corrupted, 
Neither Scripture nor man's own private judgement can help in such an Exigency.  and no Protestant can certainly say in what. However, Take Scripture, as it is most pure, And plead with it against an Arian, He laughs at you, and says he hath more clear Scripture for his Particular Tenants, than Protestants have for Theirs. What then is next? Every Private man must in such Exigencies Judge for himself. The Arian Answers He doth so, And thinks his Judgement as good as yours, yet still remains in his Error. Well, at last you shall hear the right Solution.   

CHAP. II.  
Of a late Writers Doctrine.  
1. WHen all Christian Societies (saith he) consent to such 
Mr. Stillingfleet.  things, as by the judgement of all those Societies, are necessary to the Being of the Catholic Church, Then we are Right in Faith: And this Judgement is best made, 
A second Answer refuted.  when we regulate our Belief by the Catholic Doctrine of the first Ages. Here is, no man knows what, and not only a Generality, But Impossibility upon Impossibility. Say therefore. Shall we ever see that day, when all Christian Societies will stand thus United in one Judgement concerning the Being, or the Essentials 
These men propose impossibilities.  of a Church? Never. Unless every Particular Society first lay down its own supposed Error, and say: So much is not essentially necessary. 2. Do you think, That Catholics will ever come in, And acknowledge either Their Belief of an Unbloody Sacrifice or Transubstantiation to be errors? No. They hold these Doctrines as Essential, as to Believe a Trinity. Do you Think that Arians, Pelagians, and other Heretics, will so far Disown their Particular Tenants, as to lay them down, or grant They make not up a Church? No certainly. This Confent of Judgements Therefore, in all Christians Societies, for the 
The supposed consent of judgements for owning so much precise Doctrine Essential is a Chimaera. Sectaries cannot propound that precise Doctrine whereof God requires explicit Belief.  owning of so much precisely as is Necessary to the Essential Being of a Church, is a most unlearned Speculation. Neither do we mend the matter, in saying as some do, That nothing is Essential to a Church, But what may be Evidently propounded to all Persons, as a Thing whereof God requires Explicit Belief. For, upon whose Proposition made evident to us, may we Assuredly rest, and Hold That God requires an Explicit Belief of so many Articles, and no more? If you answer, 'Tis so much as The Catholic Church in all Ages received, you still lurk in Darkness, And prove ignotum per ignotius; For you never yet told us, nor can tell us, where this Catholic Church is, or what it Taught. You will say it is That Church, or the agreed-on Doctrine, which all, who went under the Notion of Christians, owned as Holy and Catholic. Answ. There never was any such Church, nor such Doctrine owned by all in the World: For Christ's True Doctrine always met with opposition, and had Falso Doctrine against it. You will say the Primitive 
Arians opposed as much the Ancient.  Church and Doctrine was pure, let us stick to That, And all is well. I answer first: It was most pure, yet both Arians and others opposed it; They therefore will not Agree to it. And here by the way I might Ask, Why their Authority was not then every whit as good, to Vncatholick that first Church, as Sectaries 
As Protetants do the Present Church.  is now to Uncatholick the Roman? 2. It is a mere Subterfuge, Thus to run up to the Primitive Church, whilst you and we Agree not (though 'tis your Fault) what that Ancient Church Taught in many Particulars. If you say, We must read, and judge. Alas! We have All been Reading these hundred years, And yet are at Variance about that Doctrine. You see then how Controversies are made Endless, by this Proceeding. But what will ye? It is an old Fallacy of our New men, who first Suppose, And then go on to Prove. They suppose the Primitive Doctrine to be known and agreed on by Themselves and Us, and then Appeal to it. There 
Why Sectaries recur to the primitive Church.  is no such thing. The Real Truth therefore is, They take up shelter here, Because Controversies that are now most handled, were in Those days the least examined.  
2. Some of our Later men may perhaps pretend, That we have not been able hitherto to understand their meaning, or to dive into the Speculative Conceits 
A third Answer resuted.  of the Church Catholic, And therefore teach us thus. That Doctrine wherein all Churches have Agreed on, ever since Christ's time, can be no matter of Discord; for where all Agree, there can be no Disagreement. Take therefore that Precise and uniform Doctrine which all Christians have (Antecedently to particular errors) universally owned, as unquestioned Christian Doctrine, Therein consists the Essentials of Saving Faith, or the very Quintessence of the Catholic Church, and in no more.  
3. Mark well a strong Speculation about nothing. You must Prescind one uniform, univocal, True Religion, from 
The abstracting true Doctrine from falls, is a speculation worth Nothing.  all Falls Religions in the World, And then you have the True Religion. That is, you must cut of from Arianism, from Pelagianism, from Donatism, from Protestanism, from Popery (For here is also some thing supposed Amiss) what is Error, And the Remainder of Doctrine, wherein all Agree, constitutes the Essence of Saving Faith. Believe it, it will prove a mighty Diffic 〈…〉 ty, to cut and carve right in so Weighty a matte●. Pray you, who must Go above this work? Protestants? 
Protestants aught first to lay down their own Errors.  Toys. Let them on God's name, who are so much upon Reformation, first lead the way, and lay down their own Errors, next we shall see who follows them. I am sure Catholics will not Disown the 
Catholics will abute Nothing of their Belief.  least Article of their Belief; For they, as I told you just now, Assent with equal Assurance, to all Points of Faith. And so do also, I think, The Arians and other Sectaries to their Particular Errors. But suppose, 
Admit of the supposition nothing is concluded.  That we mentally conceive one agreed-on Harmonious Doctrine, universally held by all Christians, who can Assure me, that so much precisely is enough for Saving Faith? You may say, that, That Doctrine wherein all Christians Agree, cannot but be True, Because all own it: But, you shall never so much as probably show, That saving Faith requires no more, or, stands safe upon such a Generality. The Arians believed in Christ, that is General Doctrine, But denied his Godhead. Cerinthus and Ebion Believed in Christ, But held that he was Man only. The Monothelits Believed 
That which all Christians agree in, though true, is not enough for saving Faith.  in Christ, But denied his two Natures, his two Wills Humane, and Divine. The Apollinarians Believed in Christ, and held that the Word assumed True Flesh, But without a Created Soul. Tell me now, can you Abstract a Belief from these Erring Christians, Common to all other, That is, safe, sufficient, and enough to constitute Saving and Catholich Faith? Is it enough to say, I do Believe in Christ, without descending with my Faith, to an explicit Belief of his Divinity also? Hath one that saith, I believe in Christ; But I will abstract from a Belief of his two Natures, from his having a Rational Soul, from His Being God and Man? And Because others have positively Disbelieved these Articles, I will only Prescind from the Verity of them (to prescind is les, then expressly to deny them) hath such an one, I say, Saving Faith enough to make him a 
Plain Haresy follows from these Sectaries Doctrine.  Member of the Holy Catholic Church? No. For if so, He needs not to believe at all the Divinity of Christ, or his two Natures; after Scripture is Red, and Proposed unto him, which obligeth him, if He own it for God's Word, not to Abstract from the Belief of these Articles, But positively to yield an Assent to them with True Faith, as most Fundamental Verities of Christian Religion. You see Therefore, how Impossible it is to draw one true uniform, Universal Doctrine, From all erring Christians, And to hold that, on the one side sufficient for Catholic Faith; And on the other, to comply with that strict Obligation which express Scripture (clearly proposed) forceth us to Believe.  
4. This Point I insist on, Because I know, Protestants cannot so much as probably Name any Thing like a Holy united Catholic Church before Luther; unless, They first Answer (as some of them seem to do) by the Abstract Doctrine of all Christians, now evidenced no Faith, And say, That particular Errors did Vncatholick none. Or, Secondly run to an invisible Church, not at all Designable. Or, thirdly (as They 
Protestants ought to acknowledge the Roman Catholic Church as True etc.  ought to do) Acknowledge that the Roman Catholic Church was then, and now is, not only a Church, But the Sole, Holy, and Catholic Church of Christ through the whole World. With this Catholic Society, I could show (were it not amply done by others) How all, who Age after Age merited the Name of Catholics, have joined in Faith, And all, who parted from it, Have been Branded with the ignominious Note of 
Or can find none.  Heretics. If I speak not Truth, Name any Society of Christians before Luther, That ever gained the 
None ever had the Name of Catholic but those of the Roman Faith.  Repute of Catholic, But such only as were United in Faith with the Roman Church? Name any one Society That Divorced itself from this Church which Forthwith lost not that Ancient Title of Catholic, Or, was not upon That Separation, Styled Haeretical, Schismatical, or Both. If you say first, the Roman Church wronged them; I Ask. Quis te constituit judicem? Who made you judge in this Case? Name the injured Parties. Were the Arians, Pelagians, Nestorians, Donatists wronged, when they left Communion with this Church? 
The Grecians, Waldenses etc. No more wronged than Arians.  No. But the Waldenses, the Albigenses, the Hussits, And most of all, The later Grecians had Injury Don them. And why so more Than Pelagians? Is your bare Assertion Proof enough to Declare Those Guilty, and These Innocent? When you, yourselves, as much condemn them as Catholics Do, For You utterly Disavow Their Doctrine. Was ever General Council Convened, That did more Patronise the Error of these Waldenses, Then those other of the Arians, or, That blamed the Roman Church, for casting them out of Her Communion? No. Why therefore do you Plead ●o much, for a Bad cause, when you have no more ●o Defend it, Then your own Proofles Talk; which Had you spent in an Apology For any Old Condemned Haeretick, would have Helped as much (That's nothing at all) as now you Advantage These later Men? And Observe, I Beseech you, How weakly you, Go to work. You say, the Hussits, Waldenses, 
Sectaries plead for condemned Heretics▪ without any Principle but their own Talk.  and Others were good Catholics. We deny it, And Demonstrate their Vncatholick Doctrine. To what Tribunal shall we Appeal for a just Sentence to your Saying, I; or to our, No. To None? And Thus you Proceed with us in all your Controversies. We must either take your Word for your Assertion, or Dispute without end upon nothing that hath the Appearance 
And make Controversies Endless.  of a received Principle.  
5. You Say Again. The Later Grecians were Catholics, Before they Recanted their Errors in the Council of Florence. How Prove you That? By a glorious Empty Title: A Defence of the Greek Church, By Far fetched, Uncertain Conjectures, And mere Negative Arguments, which are so slight, That if all were put together in a Just Balance, They would not weigh one Straw, much ●es Outweigh the Definition of a most Learned General Council against the Greeks. Yet such Talk, and Talk only lengthen's these new Books, And makes them so Voluminous as They are. And 
They Defend Doctrine denied by the English Church.  by the way Note here a Pretty Humour. The Greeks must be Defended in that Point of the Holy Ghosts Procession from the Father Only, whilst the Church of England Anathematizeth the Doctrine. Is not this Right, think ye, And well done by a Protestant?  
6. Well. You shall see my plain Dealing with 
Grecians, Hussits, and Waldenses could not make the Catholic Church.  you. I Licence you to take These Grecians, Those Hussits, Those Waldenses etc. to make up a Church before Luther, yet must Tell you, They Do not the deed without more Company, which cannot be found. That These we have named, make not the Church Catholic, is Evident: For, first they were never Universal, either in Time or Place. Their late Beginnings, and little Extent, are known and upon Record. 2. They were never United in one Doctrine, But more at variance with One another, Than you and Catholics are, This they only Agreed in to Oppose the Catholic Faith; And if so much made them Protestants, or good Catholics, You may call in Turks and jews to bear them Company. 3. They were most contrary to Protestant Religion, and not in Trifles only. Why therefore have you recours to a People so Blasted, Scattered, and almost now Forgotten? Alas, 
Protestants Every way Churchles.  The Reason is clear: Because without them you have nothing to make a Church of, And yet with them you are Churchles. I say therefore. No Roman Catholic Church, no Church 
No Roman Catholic Church, no Church at all.  at all. If no Church at all, There was then no Truth in that Article of Our Creed. I Believe the Holy Catholic Church. To Evidence further what I now Assert. Do no more, But Forget, as it were, or, cast out of your mind all Thought of Roman Catholics, from Luther upward to the fourth Age. Then Look About you, And Consider 
Exclude the Roman Catholic Church, Heretics only remain.  well the Remainder of other Christians For that Vast Interval of Time; You will find none but Professed Heretics, Schismatics, or Both, as Arians, Nestorians, Pelagians, and such a like Rabble of men. Again: Forget these, as much as if They had never Been, And only Think of the Roman Catholic Church, Diffused the whole World over, continued Age after Age; Will you not have a Holy, and Universal Church Presented 
Exclude Heretics, you yet have a glorious Church.  to your Thoughts? Yea most assuredly, And a Glorious Church too. It is therefore Evident, That the Roman Catholic Society, was not only Necessary to make Up the Church▪ But was Moreover the Sole, and only Essential Church of Christ, as I have already Proved.   

CHAP. III.  
The Pretended Reformation of Protestants is Unreasonable, if Faith in Christ Only Suffice for Salvation. A more Explicit Faith is proved Necessary.  
1. I Must Needs have a Word more with our Adversaries upon this Subject, and Note: That if a General Belief in Christ's Sacred Person, Office, and Dignity, be Saving Faith enough for a Christian, which some endeavour to Prove by that Text of St. john 20. 31. And these Things are written, That ye might Believe that jesus is the Christ the Son of God, And that believing ye might have life in his Name. If such a General Faith, I say, makes us all, as well Catholics, as Christians, without more; Our Protestants need not to storm at us as They do, for want of True Faith; For we Catholics Agree and Believe in Christ, God, and Man, as firmly as They do; And in this one Article only (may we credit them) All Necessary Essentials of Christian Faith are included. It is true, Catholics say, a more Explicit Faith is required, as I shall presently Declare; But Protestants, who do not, May rest 
Protestants slight work about things not Essentials,  contented; And withal confess, That the great coile They have kept in Reforming Catholic Doctrine comes to no more, But to a slight Piddling about Non-Essentials, which, for aught is yet known, Hath done more hurt than good, And made Things worse than They 
May have done more hurt than Good▪  were Before.  
2. To Drive the Difficulty home; I Ask seriously, Whether any one Article Peculiar to this Religion, as 
If Protestants hold their particular Doctrine necessary to Salvation, other Hareticks will pretend the like.  Protestancy (That is beside the General Belief in Christ, and owning Scripture etc.) Be necessary to Salvation? If yes; Then will Arians, Pelagians, Donatists, and other Sectaries say also; what they hold Particular is also Necessary. And Therefore Doctrine Above, or Beyond the Belief in Christ, or, not Universal, is of like Necessity. If Protestants answer, No; or, Assert that nothing Particularly held by them (because not Universal Catholic Doctrine) implies this 
And if not, two strange S●qu●ls undeniably follow.  Necessity, But a Belief in Christ only. Two things follow. The One is, as I have now Noted, That, without Fruit at all, They have made a shameful stir with their Schism in Blustering all this while about non-Essentials and petty Differences, which may be Believed or Not, without Danger of losing Salvation. 2. It follows, That, as Protestants here Acknowledge, a Church so Universal, wherein all may be Saved that Believe in Christ, in like manner, Any one, and upon as good Reason, May make it Wider, and allow Salvation 
A large Church must be allowed of by Protestants▪  to all, whether jews or Turks, that Believe in God only, without Explicit Faith in Christ, Vnus Deus, una Fides. Therefore, in Place of Christ's Church we may have a God's Church, more large and ample erected in the world.  
3. You will say, Scripture is most Evident for a Belief in Christ; Might a Defender of the now large Imagined Church (which affords Salvation to all that Believe in God) Answer, He would tell you, That the Explicit Belief in God implies some kind of Implicit Belief in Christ, And that is enough, which He is ready to Make good, when you have proved your Abstract Faith in Christ's Sacred Person to be Sufficient to Salvation. A better Answer is. Scripture most Certainly Obligeth us to Believe in Christ Explicitly; But doth it leave of there, and not jointly oblige us to 
More necessary to Salvation then Belief in Christ only.  Believe other Articles also Explicitly, when they are plain in Scripture, And sufficiently proposed? Such are the Sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Eucharist etc. Can we therefore, after we Own these Truths Delivered in God's Word, hope for Salvation without an explicit Belief of them? If so, St. john c. 6. 53. saith not True: Unless ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, you have no Life in you. Surely we cannot do this like Christians, Unless we believe it. 
The Belief of Sacraments necessary.  If no; The Belief of these Sacraments constitute the Essentials of Saving Faith, and so doth also the Belief of much Moral Doctrine set down in Scripture. Read what St. Paul Writes Cor. 1. 6. 9 concerning the Unrighteous, Idolaters, and Fornicators etc. And tell me, if you Own God's Word, whether the Apostle doth 
And of other Moral Doctrine.  not Disinherit all unbelievers of his Doctrine? Therefore something more is Necessary for Christians, united in one Faith, to Assent to, Then only to Believe in Christ.  
4. The true Fundamental Ground of my Assertion is This. What ever God Speaks in Scripture (who never spoke Idle word) whether the Matter may seem to our weak Capacities little or great, is, after a Sufficient Proposal, of the same Weight and Authority. To Believe rherfore in Christ's is a Fundamental Article, and (in one Sense Known to every One) most Fundamental; But to Reject, or Abstract from His other Verities Revealed in Scripture, or to make les Reckoning of them, Because they Appear little to us, is to Affront God, And Tell him, That we will Believe him so far as we pleas, But no farther, Whereas on the contrary side he Assures us, That his Word is equally engaged in all He Saith, And 
All Truths in Scripture are of equal Authority.  that his Eternal Truths, whether little or great, are not to be Valued of by what is spoken, But by the certain Authority of him that Speaks them. Hence Divins Assert, and most Truly, That no man can Believe so much as one Article of Christian Faith upon the Motive of Gods Revealed Testimony, unless He readily Embrace All other alike, as equally Proposed, upon the same Authority. For where we have the Same Motive, we must yield the Same Assent, and with like 
The Centre of Faith.  Reverence. Upon this Motive of Gods Revealing Word, True Christian Faith Relies, Mille Clypei pendent ex eâ, omnis armatura fortium, Here they meet together, Concentred, as it were, in This One Vndeceived, and Undeceiving Verity. Do I therefore Believe Christ to be 
We Believe all ●like upon God's Word.  the True Messiah, Because God saith it? I must also Believe Baptism, the Eucharist, and other Revealed Truths, when after a sufficient Proposal, I know, That the same God Speaks Them. For if his Word Prevail with me to Credit him in the one, It is as Powerful and pressing to force, as I may say, Faith from me in the Other. A further Reason is: Because a 
Another Reason▪  right Act of Faith, settled on this Motive, is a Virtual and Implicit Belief, not of one Article, But of all other which the Motive Own's, or upholds. You see therefore, none can truly Believe in Christ, who Denies the least Verity (Sufficiently proposed) that God Reveals: For, as the True Belief of one Article implies a Belief of All, so 
Believe all, ●● none at ●●ll.  the Denial of One, implies a Denial of all Other. And thus Christian Faith consists in INDIVISIBILI, And is either Wholly had, or Wholly lost, which is the True Cause why Protestants have no Faith, And must jumble as They do 
Why Protestants have no Faith and stagger in their Doctrine concerning fundamental's.  in Their Doctrine concerning the Essentials of it; And finally have never yet discovered, nor shall hereafter (if we seclude the Roman) Any Thing like a Catholic Church before Luther.  
5. For These Reasons now alleged, Perhaps Some will say, That, After a Belief in Christ, and a General owning of Scripture, we must Descend to more Particulars, 
A Reply to little purpose.  And explicitly Assent to all that Express Scripture plainly Delivers (And we will Adhere to the very Words) without Dispute. If we do so▪ We Admit of all That God clearly Reveal's, and Take it upon his Authority without Interpretation. Answer. Here is a fair Promise of Nothing; For 
Who can tell when Scripture speaks plainly?  who can Assure us, without Dispute, when Scripture speak▪ s plainly? Both Catholics and Protestants Dissent in this very Principle. Those say it Speaks plainly for the Real Presence of Christ's Sacred Body in the Eucharist, For Remission of Sins by a Priest, 
The matter still in Dispute.  For justification by Good Works, For Extream-Vnction, For the Infallibility of the Church etc. These Deny all, And (do what we can to hinder them) will upon their own Fancies Force into God's Word certain violent Glosses, which God never Spoke. You see Therefore, That, when we Descend to the Particular Expressions of Scripture Concerning the Particular Doctrines of it, we are at a stand, and cannot go forward; For Sectaries will have no Judge on Earth to Appeal to in These Doubts. If they say the Ancient 
A judge necessary to determine etc.  Church shall Judge. We are, as I told you, as Far from Home as Before, And as much Differ about the Sentiments of that Church, as we do about the Sense of Scripture. And thus it ever falls out; 
Otherwise Controversies are Endless.  Either we must Drive Controversies Between us to Endless Quarrels, or, yield to what our Protestants say, or Finally Commiserate their sad Condition, Because they will not Acquiesce in a Judge upon Earth, that as well Ascertain's us of the Meaning, as it doth of the very Books of Scripture. Without this Judge we may contract to the World's End, and never be Wiser.  
6. You see this plainly in that Instance Proposed above out of St. Hierom. For, according to plain Scripture, if one strike us on the right cheek, we must Turn to him the other also. We are to Abstain from eating of Blood and Things strangled: We are not to have two Coats nor carry Money with us etc. None can Deny But that God Speaks These Verities, Although they seem light to us; Buthow to understand them, is to be learned from some Infallible Interpreter of Scripture (which 
Scripture obscure when Seemingly Clear in Words.  Protestants Reject) when all know that very often, where Scripture seems Clear in Words, There it is more deep in Sense, and most Obscure.   

CHAP. IU.  
The Ambiguous Discourses of Protestants, concerning Fundamentals in Faith, are Proved Unreasonable.  
1. WE need not here to Discuss too largely This Point of Fundamentals (most Learnedly examined by Catholic Writers) For if we Reflect well on what is Proved in the precedent Chapter, There is enough said to Silence All Adversaries, and to satisfy every Rational Man's doubts in This Question.  
2. We Catholics Speak plainly, and Assert. Although an Explicit Belief in God, as a Rewarder of Good and a Punisher of Evil (yea, as some Divines hold of 
The Catholic Doctrine.  Christ also, After the Promulgation of the Gospel) Be Primary Fundamental Points of Faith, Because (Necessitate medij) Every one is obliged to Believe Them Explicitly; Yet withal we say, That the Least Article Revealed by Almighty God, when it is Sufficiently Proposed, grows to be so far Fundamental, That none can Deny or Doubt of it, without Damnable Sin. And in this Sense there is no Distinction between Points Fundamental, and not Fundamental. The reason hereof (Already given) Relies upon this Certain Principle. 
What ever God Reveal's, is equally to be believed.  What God Speaks, whether the Material Object be little or great, After the Charge laid on us to Believe, is to be Admitted of with equal Certitude and Reverence: For, it is not The less or more Weight of Things Revealed, That distinguishes 
Submission to God's Veracity gives true value to Faith.  our Faith, or makes it less or more Valuable; But, that which set's the true Price upon it, is the Submission we yield by it to God's Veracity. Now because this Veracity is one and equally the same in what ever is Revealed, By consequence we Say, That Faith upon the Account of that Submission is equally Good, Solid, and Valuable. This I Note in Opposition to Sectaries, 
Faith not to be measured by the Diversity of Things revealed.  Who, For aught I can yet learn, Measure their Faith, not so much By the Excellency of the FORMAL OBJECT, as by the different Nature of Things Revealed: Which, Because considered in themselves, They often vary in worth; Protestants Think, that the Degrees of their Faith may answerably be less or more various, according as the Object requires. It is an Error. 
The Reason.  For, as it is certain, That when God Speaks to us, The Highest Truth imaginable Speaks; so it is as certain, That He is to be Herd by us with Highest Respect and Reverence, whether the Matter be great or Small.  
3. What is here said, supposeth a Sufficient Proposition of Revealed Verities, which without doubt are not equally Clear to all Capacities, if we Descend to the Explicit Belief of particular Mysteries; But this is no hindrance to Catholic Faith in the most 
How the unlearned believe all that is revealed.  unlearned man in the World; For such an one Believes Explicitly as much as he knows is Proposed, And is not only in Praeparatione animi ready to embrace more, when more is Proposed, But even now in every Act of Faith He Elicit's (as I noted above) Implicitly, and Virtually Submits to All That God hath explicitly Revealed. That Distinction therefore which some of our New men here Introduce, Viz. 
A Distinction of Sectaries, unnecessary.  Of Things Necessary to Salvation, respectively to such as are of weaker Capacities, and of Things Necessary to be owned in order to Salvation by Christian Societies, as Bonds of Ecclesiastical Communion, is to no Purpose (unless we Speak of a less or more Explicit Belief, which may be Various according to a Dark, or Clearer Proposition.) The Reason is; Because All that God Reveals (and neither more nor less) is One, and the same Respectively to All, to the Learned, to the Unlearned, to weak and Strong Capacities; Yea, And to the whole Church also, and this All Acknowedge in every Act of Faith They have, Though, perhaps, it be less extended to particular Articles. But know, as is 
The worth of Faith not in the Extension but in Submission.  now noted, That the true Worth of Faith Consists not so much in the Extensive Reach of it to more Material Objects, As in an Intensive and Equal Submission to God's Veracity in the things He Speaks, which now I yield to by the explicit Faith I have, And am ready to do more when a Clearer Proposition, and Gods Command Require it. Whence you see, Though a 
How far the Faith of the unlearned is extended.  Rustic hath less of the Explicit Belief Then a Learned Clerk; Yet, He vows not therefore One Grain of Supernatural Faith that Saves all Christians: For His Faith is, Virtually, as far Extended as any Doctors, And his Infused Habit, Every whit as Good. If any one cavil at the Distinction of Explicit and Implicit Faith, He may Correct his Error by this one Example. Give me One that hath read over Holy Scripture, and Descend's by Explicit Faith to every Verity in it▪ He Believes well▪ Another far from That Extensive knowledge, knows some Verities Revealed There, and Believes them: nevertheless, He Owns All and every jota in the Book for God's Sacred Word. Tell 
Saving Faith as well found in an implicit as in an Explicit Belief.  me, I Beseech you; Hath not this more Ignorant Man with his less Explicit Assent, As true Saving Faith as the Other? Yes, most Assuredly, And in the Sense now Declared, as Far Extended. This is our very Case. Can we Therefore once Agree about the Proponent of Faith, most Difficulties were ended. These few Considerations Premised.  
4. My first Assertion is. The Distinction usually made 
Protestant's Distinction of Points more or less Fundamental is falls.  by Protestants of Points more or less Fundamental in order to Christians, is not only Unreasonable, but also very Falls, if we consider the Articles of Faith subsisting, as it were, or, Essentially Depending upon God's Eternal Revealing Verity: For as They are Here, All stand firm alike, And equally sure upon this Verity. If therefore I Answer 
All Faith stands firm upon Divine Revelation.  with my Faith to what this Motive firmly requires, And as undoubtedly Believe, as God Speaks, I must Assent to all with equal Assurance; nor, can I Believe some and Disbelieve others, when all are Proposed alike: No, nor make Less, or more Degrees of Certitude in my Faith. From whence I Infer, That no man, by any Means or Search whatever, can find out what Articles are Fundamental, what not, Because There is no Means possible to find that which 
There is Nothing of the less or more certitude when God Speaks.  is not to be Found, But Fundamentals and not Fundamentals are not to be found, And I prove the Minor. Every Revealed Article, is Asserted by an Infinite Verity; But an Infinite Verity Deliver's all it Speaks with one and the same Infinite Certainty (where no Degrees of more or less Certitude can have Place) Ergo, All Articles 
All revealed Truths therefore are equally certain.  of Faith have one and the same like Infinite Assurance, as They are Spoken by an Infinite Verity. Consequently one is as Ponderous as another, And Equally Fundamental, if We (which is only to be Regarded) do Respect the Motive. Again. If some Articles be Fundamental and others not, it is either Because the Fundamentals Rely on a Greater Verity, and the Non▪ Fundamentals on a Less (which is utterly Falls, for the same Infinite Truth Speaks them all;) Or, Because, though He delivers all, yet His Pleasure is, That we Esteem of some more Fundamental Than others, And this is Impossible, Viz. That an Infinite Verity takes, as it were, the pains to Speak to us and for our Eternal Salvation, And yet doth not Oblige us to Believe Him in what He saith, with the whole 
It dishonours God not to Believe All He speaks equally,  forces of our Soul. It is, as I have showed, Highly against the Dignity of God, To engage his Eternal Truth in Speaking to us, And yet have Those He speaks to, Talk, as if it Mattered not, whether He be Herd or no.  
5. You may Reply. Some Things Revealed to us seem light in regard of the Material Object: For who can Own it as Fundamental an Article of Faith to Believe that St. Paul left his cloak at Troas, as to Believe the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son also? I Answer. God (as we 
We cannot believe the greater Matter, and Disbelieve the lesser without Forfeiture of Faith.  now Suppose) Speaks both these Verities, Therefore both are Equally True; And if equally True, I cannot Believe the one upon the Motive of God's Veracity, and Disbelieve The other (when Propounded) without a Forfeiture of all Faith. The Disparity therefore, which Ariseth here From the Matter Revealed, Imports nothing to the present Question.  
6. You may say Again. The Necessity of Things, which lie in Gods great Design, and are Absolutely to be Believed, must be taken from the Reference They have to our last End, which is Eternal Salvation. Answ. I say so too. But 
General Talk.  This is only general Talk, and comes not Home to the Question; For, the Question rightly stated Drives at Particulars, and Asks how many of those Precisely have Reference to this last End, or, are Necessary to Salvation Respectively to All, after a Sufficient Proposition. 
No Article Revealed can be Disbelieved.  Catholics Say, the Belief of all is so far Necessary, That not one of All those revealed Articles can be Disbelieved. Protestants make their Exceptions, Yet hitherto 
Sectaries cannot say what Articles are to be excluded as unnecessary to Salvation.  never Dared to give in a Catalogue of what They except, nor can say, That the Belief of such and such Articles, are to be excluded as Unnecessary to Salvation.  
7. Nay I Affirm more. It is Impossible for Them by their own Principles to Exclude any. To prove my Assertion. Observe First. They can no more say by a true general Proposition: This whole Bible, I have now 
Sectaries cannot by their Principles distinguish between Fundamentals and others.  in my Hands, is Gods own Word, and exclude the least Verity in it from being Gods true Word; Then, They can say by a true general Proposition: All men are by nature Mortal, and exclude any particular Man from being Mortal. For, as the Mortality of every particular man makes so far forth This Proposition True, That if One be by nature Immortal, it is Falso; so the Truth of every particular Article in Scripture Verifies so far the other Proposition, 
To believe Scripture in a general way, that implies the Covenant of Grace, is necessary to Salvation.  That if one Article be not Gods true Word, the General Proposition is Falso also. Now I Assume. But Protestants say, to Believe Scripture to be the true Word of God, at least in a General way (which implies the Covenant of Grace and Faith in Christ) is Indispensably necessary to Salvation; Therefore They must also Say, To believe every particular Article contained in Scripture, as being truly God's Word, is in like manner Indispensably Necessary to Salvation, Because this General Belief carries as well in 
The Reason.  it an Owning of every particular Truth in Scripture, as the General Assertion of All mortal Ascrib's Mortality to every particular man. The Reason is clear. For as Scripture is not made up of Generalities, But Essentially 
Scripture Cansist's of particular Verities.  is constituted of the particular Verities contained Therein; so, if my Faith truly and entirely Own Scripture for God's Word, it is Extended to no Generality in the Object (For there is none) But to particular Verities, Though the Mode or Tendency of the Act be 
Faith must be of Particulars.  nos always perfectly Explicit.  
8. If you Say. The Argument Here proposed seems Fallacious, Because it Proves at most, That every little Matter in Scripture may be an Object of Faith, But no way infers the Belief of them Necessary to Salvation (For 'tis very different To Affirm, Such a Thing I may Believe, And another to own the Belief of 
The Belief of Every particular in Scripture relates to Eternal Happiness.  it Necessary to Salvation) if this, I say, be the Reply, my Answer is: That, as well the Belief of every particular Verity in Scripture, hath the same Relation to man's Eternal Happiness, as the general Belief of owning Scripture for God's Word hath, not only Because the Particular is included in the General, But chief on this other Account, That being a Supernatural Elicit Act of Faith, it can aim at no other End But man's Supernatural Happiness; For under this Notion of Supernaturality it Leaves; as it were, the Limits of Nature, and raiseth a Soul to Eternal Bliss. Where you see, That, Both the Means and End univocally Agree in being Supernatural, and are alike suitable To one another. Permit me to Evidence this Truth further, and Ask, Whether the Denial or Disbelief of the least Truth 
The Disbelief of the least matter in Scripture makes one an Haeretick.  That God Speaks in Scripture (once Owned for his Word, and Sufficiently Propounded) makes not a Man an Haeretick? Yes most assuredly. For by Denying That to be True, which He knows God Saith is True, He pertinaciously Opposeth himself to an Infinite Veracity. Ergo, The True Act of Faith contrary 
That which makes one a Faithful Believer hath reference to Salvation.  to this Infidelity of Necessity makes him a Faithful Believer. But that which necessarily makes him a Faithful Believer hath not only Reference to his last End, But is also necessary to Salvation (for as Infidelity looseth Heaven, so True Faith is Necessary to gain it) Therefore the Belief of every little Article is not of little, But, in this Sense, of as main Consequence, as the Greatest. 
The Belief of Every little matter in the sense now explicated is not Little  And here by The way you may well Reflect upon the Desperate Talk of some Later Men, who Tell us: That All things contained in Scripture, are not so Necessary in order to our End, some being at so great a Remove from this End, That the only Reason of Believing them, is Because they are Contained in Scripture. A most unworthy saying, 
Mr. Stilling fleet's Doctrine refuted.  which makes God to have Spoken a Thousand idle Words in Scripture; For, there They stand uselessly in the Book, without Benefit, without Subserviency or Relation to any further good, But only to be looked on. You may Read them, and pass by them as Things wholly Unnecessary to our Final End. A strange Conceit They frame of Scripture, that make it up (as Ill Apothecaries do sometimes Physick) of Unnecessary Ingredients.  
9 You may Reply. Some Catholics seem to 
The sense of Divines Concerning Matters Necessary. per se, and secundarily Necessary.  Divide the Object of Faith into that which is Per se, By itself Necessary, And By Accident or, Secondarily Necessary. Ergo, They Acknowledge Fundamental, and not Fundamental Doctrines in the Sense of the Question now Proposed. I Deny the Consequence: For, They only hold some Verities to be so Principally Necessary to the Essence of Christian Faith, That if They had not been Revealed at All, or, Now were unknown, Christian Religion would absolutely Perish; But it is not so in Others. For example: Had God never Revealed any thing Touching Christ our Lord, the Sacred Mystery of the Incarnation, or a Trinity etc. The very Essence 
Why called Primacy Objects of Faith.  of our Religion would not have been, And therefore These are called Primary Objects (Ratione materiae) Because if we have no knowledge or Faith in Christ, we have no Christian Religion. Contrariwise. Had the Holy Ghost not at all Inspired the Hagiographers to write much of the Historical part in Scripture (which is writ) or never Told us that Abraham had two Sons, yet we might have Known Christ, and perfectly Believed in Him: Such 
Somethings in regard of the Matter are not necessary. Though being writ become Necessary.  Verities then, Because of the Matter, are not Per see so Necessary. However, Being now writ, They are True Objects of Faith, Because God Speaks Them. It is Therefore one thing to say: These lesser matters (if not writ at all) had not been necessary to constitute Religion; And another thing to say, Now when They are writ, and spoken by Almighty God, They do not integrate the total Object of Faith, But 
They least matter in Scripture is an Object of Faith.  may be looked on as Parergons', or, as Things void of all Reference to our Eternal Happiness. It is, I say, Impossible to own them with so poor a Belief, which, if it be Resolved, Proves No Faith at all. And therefore it is Impossible, Because, when I say by a General Proposition, I am bound to Believe firmly All that God Speaks, I cannot but Believe also every Particular comprised under that General at least implicitly as is Already both Declared and Proved.  
10. My second Proposition is: Although contrary to 
Sectaries, though we Admit of the Distinction between Fundamentals and others, cannot make their Doctrine Good.  Truth, we gratis Permit Protestants to Distinguish between Points Fundamental, and not-Fundamental, yet They are so unprovided of all means to make good the Distinction, or to Sever the Fundamentals from the Other, That They shall never Speak so much as one Word probably on this Subject.  
11. Some fraudulently shuffling all of with Generalities, Think They say much, when nothing is touched on to the Purpose, and Define, First, What ever Appears to me upon sufficient Enquiry to be Revealed by God, 
Mr. Stilling fleets shuffling.  I am bound to Believe it by Virtue of God's Veracity. First Why am I bound to Believe twenty Verities in Scripture, when the Belief of them hath, as you Say, no Reference to Eternal Salvation? Why should God oblige me to Believe that now, which will do me no good Hereafter? Yet farther. You Talk of Enquiry. Tell 
He send's us to inquire and says not of whom.  me of whom must we Inquire; of our own Fancies? These lead us, as we see in the Quakers, to a Thousand Fooleries. Of an Vnerring Church? You own, none to Inquire of. Of Scripture? This Occasion's Error upon Error, And, as Appears by the Endless Dissensions of Heretics, may as well lead us to Deny Fundamentals, as rightly to acknowledge them. They define Pope-like. Secondly: All things, not equally appearing to all Persons to be revealed by God, the same measure of necessity cannot be extended to all Persons. The 
All have not alike the same Explicit Faith.  Assertion only shows what is Evident, That all Persons cannot have alike the same Explicit Faith; But 'tis far of from Proving, That all Gods Verities, when propounded, have not Relation to Belief, and Salvation Also. Yet this is the true State of the Question concerning Fundamentals, as Appears by These men, who put a Difference between some Revealed Points and Others. 
True Faith believes all Implicitly.  Those, upon the General Account of Divine Revelation are Necessary; These, of lesser Reckoning, stand at a great distance from absolute Necessity, We say all are Necessary when Proposed, yea, and all are Implicitly Believed in every True Act of Supernatural Faith. 3. They say: An universal Assent to the Will of God, and Universal Obedience to it, are absolutely and indispensably Necessary to all Persons, 
Perfect Obedience is resolved into particular Compliances with God's will▪  to whom God's Word is Revealed. The Assertion (though most true) runs on in Terms too Universal, And must, if it speak of an Efficacious Obedience, be Resolved into particular Compliances with Gods Will, Otherwise it Destroys itself: For no Man can say: I now Purpose to yield Obedience to God's Will, And, in Sensu Composito of this Volition, Resist his Will in any particular. 
Otherwise it destroys itself.  Therefore if it be his Will (as most certain it is) That I Hear Him and Obey Him in every Particular He Speaks; my Purpose also of Compliance with his Will, cannot but jointly Embrace, and Extend itself to those Particulars, either Implicitly, which is done in every due Submission to God, Or, more Explicitly, when I Hear his Will Propounded in such and such particular Matters.  
12. I have already given the Reason hereof. Because, 
No Generality in Objects. The Object therefore of Faith includes so many Particulars.  there is no Generality in Objects, The total Object Therefore of my Faith, as condistinguished from my Act of Believing, includes à part rei, nothing else, But so many Particulars as God hath Revealed. In like manner the Object of my Obedience, implies a Submission to so many Particular Commands. He Therefore, who saith by a General Act, I Believe all that God 
And a datiful Obedience extends to so many Commands  Speaks, I Obey him in all He Commands, Fasten's upon nothing à part rei, But on Particular Revealed Verities, and Particular Intimated Commands, nor can He, by a General Act, more Believe All, and exclude Some, then exclude All and believe Some. For want of well Pondering this Truth, our Protestants (whilst they own an Universal Belief of Scripture necessary to 
He that Believe's Scripture in General, Believe's every Particular.  Salvation) shall fumble as long as they live in Their Specifying Particular Fundamentals, Because the Universal owning of Scripture, owns likewise all Particulars in it. Exclude Particulars, And you make Null the Universal Proposition.  
13. Others Lay this charge on us, to Believe All that God Reveal's in Scripture, and there we shall surely meet with the Fundamentals of Faith. Answ. Though we Gratis admit, That all Necessary Points are contained in Scripture, yet it is too great a Task, Yea, and impossible also, for every Simple Man to read the Book over. But Suppose this be done, He may not only fall into twenty Errors concerning Scripture. But also most easily judge that to be Fundamental which is not, and that not to be Fundamental which is; And if He do so, He hath neither Doctor, nor Prompter at hand, to Vnbeguile him.   

CHAP. V.  
An Answer to one Reply. More of this Subject.  
1. HEre briefly I Answer to a trivial Objection of our Adversaries, who esteem us Catholics, Though we own an Infallible Church, as far of from 
An Objection grounded on a mistake.  knowing the Fundamentals of it (or giving in a Distinct Catalogue of them) as They are after their Reading Scripture. The Objection (grounded on a Mistake) is Forceles: For, with one Unanimous and equal Submission We Believe all That the Church 
The Church can Declare itself farther, when doubts occur, Scripture cannot.  Proposeth, which, when Doubts occur, is Ready, Able, and Sufficient to Declare itself. Scripture can not do so, As is Manifest by the endless Dissensions of Protestants in this very Question of Fundamentals. Now, He That believes All that the Church Propofeth as Points of Faith, Admits likewise of every Particular, and with the same Certitude, Though, Perhaps, He clearly Distinguishes not: between Matters of Faith, and Others; But this Distinguishing (when exactly done) only Perfects Explicit Faith, And therefore, as it Gives no Addition of more Faith absolutely Necessary to Salvation, so the Want of it Deprives us not of any thing necessary to that End of Happiness. The Reason hereof is clear out of the Precedent Discourse: For, He who by an Universal Assent Admits of all that the Church Teaches as Faith, cannot but Implicitly Believe This Particular, if it he of Faith, 
One may doubt whether the Church proposeth such a matter as Faith, and yet believe it implicitly if it be of Faith.  Though He yet knows not so much, yea, and may sometimes rationally Doubt, whether the Church Proposeth it or no, as a Matter of Faith. So Schoolmen, of different Judgements, often Dispute whether such and such Points are de Fide, And because They are contrary in their Positions, either These or Those Contendents (light where it will) err Materially; yet, I say, The Erring Party, who Admits of All that the Church Proposes, as Faith, to be de Fide, Believes Implicitly (upon his Universal Assent to All) The very 
A man may believe Implicitly what by Error he denies Explicitly.  Matter, which He by Error Explicitly Denies, yea, and hath as True Faith as the Other That hits on Truth. Neither is there so much as a seeming Contradiction between These two Judgements, of True Implicit Faith, and an Untrue Material Explicit Error: For the one is 
No Contradiction between true implicit Faith and untrue material Explicit Error.  so far from Opposing the other, That the Erroneous Judgement in Actu exercito yields to Truth, and resolved into all the strength it Hath, saith no more but This, by a Conditional Tendency. If what I Affirm be not contrary to the Church's Doctrine. And hence it is, that Catholics (God be ever Blessed) do not only easily lay down their material Errors, when the 
The Reason.  Church Declares against them, But most usually also, in Their learned Volumes, submit All They writ to 
Learned Catholics submit to the Church's Censure. Sectaries submit to nothing but Fancy.  the Judgement of the Church, which Implies a  Retractation, or an unsaying of whatever shall be Censured, or, Sentenced to be Amiss. O, would our Protestants Acknowledge such a Living Judge of Controversies, They might make excellent good Use of Their Bible; But to snatch that Pure Book from Catholics (as they have Don) And afterward to Debase it, to Prostitute it to every Wild Fancy, That shall pleas to meddle with it, is plainly to Abjure and Renounce all Possibility of either knowing what Fundamentals are; Or, of ever Arriving to better Settlement in Faith, than now we see, which indeed is none at all. Therefore though they Protest a Thousand times, That they Believe every Thing in Scripture with the like Implicit Faith, as we do the Church, it Avails nothing, whilst every Private man makes that Book to speak what he would have it, That is, what his Fancy Pleases.  
2. Others finally have Recours to the Apostles Creed, and say All things there (as They Relate to 
The Belief of the Apostles Creed not Sufficient for Salvation.  Scripture) and not more, are Fundamental Points of Faith. First: Admit of the Assertion, without any likelihood of Proof, Protestants have little to glory in; For, There is not so much as One Article of their Religion, as Protestancy (Observe it well) contained in the Apostles 
Nothing of Protestancy in the Apostles Creed.  Creed, Therefore nothing of their Religian, as Protestancy, can be Accounted Fundamentally Necessary to Salvation. 2. One may Admit of All those Express Words in the Creed. I Believe in jesus Christ His only Son, and be an Haeretick; For the Arians grant this, and yet are Heretics; Because They Deny the High Godhead of Christ, and Consubstantiality likewise with his Father, which are not evidently deduced out of those Words. And Here, I would gladly know of Protestants, when either Arian 
Let it please Sectaries to answer this Question plainly.  or any Sectary That doth not only Abstract from Christ's supreme Divinity, But Positively also Abjures it, yet in some manner frigidly own's Christ for the only Son of his Father, whether, I faith, such an One may be Reckoned of as a True Believer in Fundamentals?  
3. Though the Creed Compriseth much in that One Article, I believe the Holy Catholic Church (And therefore some Ancient Fathers most Deservedly Magnify the 
Protestants cannot plainly point at the Church which the Creed Calls Catholic.  completeness of it, as an Excellent Summary of Christian Faith) yet Protestants for their lives, cannot say, what or where this Catholic Church is, And it is very hard to oblige me to the Belief of a Church, which is neither known nor can be Pointed out. Now were it known, a great Difficulty yet remains to be Examined, Viz. Whether God will ever Preserve this Church Infallible in the Delivery of Fundamental Doctrine, or (supposing His present Decree) Whether He can so leave it to a Possibility of Erring in Fundamentals, That Christians may absolutely loose all Faith, both of Christ and Creed? If This Second be 
Sectaries are pressed whether They grant or Deny a Church infallible in Fundamentals.  Granted, We have no Assurance, after all Christ's Promises to the contrary, But that Christianity may totally Perish before the Worlds End. If they Say, God will ever Preserve a Church Infallible in Fundamentals, They must jointly Acknowledge a Continued Extinguish Society of Christians, whereof some are Pastors, and Teach Infallibly these Fundamentals, and some 
Sectaries must solve their own Difficulties.  Hear them also Infallibly. I would have these plainly Marked out, And withal have Sectaries know, That All their Difficulties Proposed against an Infallible Church must be solved by them, if they grant such Infallible Teachers of Fundamentals, as is largely 
Baptism and the Eucharist not in the Creed.  Proved Above. 4. To Omit, that the Creed Delivers no Explicit Doctrine concerning Baptism and the Eucharist (Though the Belief of these are also Necessary to Salvation) Thus much I observe, That Catholics, 
Catholics Admit of the Creed without Glosses.  without Glosses and Interpretations, own the candid and plain Obvious Expressions of the Creed in All, and Every particular Article of it: Therefore They are at least (if not more) as good Believers of the Creeds Fundamentals as Sectaries, And, if (which we Deny) They Err by Ignorance in lesser Matters, as Protestants May, and Do Err in Greater, They must yet grant, that the Belief of Fundamentals is Faith enough to save both Parties. This Supposed,  
3. I must Needs have a word with my long forgotten Friend Mr. Poole, and Ask why He Deem's it such 
A word with Mr. Poole.  a Strict piece of Justice, to chafe, as He Doth, at a converted Captain, upon the Account of his changing Religion, as if he were a Lost and Perished Soul? An Instrument (forsooth) He will Prove (Append. p. 2.) if not of God's Mercy to reduce him to the Truth, from which he is revolted, At least of God's justice, And a Witness on God's Behalf, to leave him without Excuse. What needed, I say, so much Ado about Nothing? For both the Captain and all Catholics, whilst they Believe the Creed Relating to Scripture, are very secure, and Confessedly right in Fundamentals; Which being Supposed, It is more than Impertinent in the Protestant, to Keep such a coil about lesser Matters, 
Protestants keep a coil to no Purpose about matters not Essential.  or, to Reduce the main Controversy between us, to a Trial of That which least Concerns us, and cannot, as they think, be Decided by any Received Principle. Viz. Whether They or we, are better settled in nonfundamentals, which imports so little (if our Protestants say true) That the Knowing of them is scarce worth our Knowledge, Because They are wholly Unnecessary to Salvation, and Make us neither more, nor les, Essential Members of Christ's mystical Body, The Catholic Church.  
4. From this Concession of our Adversaries I infer, That no Protestant can probably go about to Draw any 
If the Belief of the Creed be Sufficient, Protestants cannot draw Catholics from their Religion. Superfluities, though granted, hinder not Salvation.  Intelligent Catholic from his Religion. First: Because He is as Firm in the Belief of Fundamentals as Any Sectary whoever, And that will save his Soul. Now, If they say we Want no Fundamentals, but abound in Superfluities, It is only said, and not Proved: However grant all, though contrary to Truth, These Redundancies Hinder not Salvation, and may well be Listed amongst Non-Necessaries. 2. No Catholic voluntarily Opposeth Himself to so much as to one jota of God's Word Sufficiently Proposed, nor, can He, and Remain Catholic. 3. He cannot Thwart his Judgement of Discerning, or, go Against his Conscience in Believing Catholic Religion; For by Doing either, He looseth Faith. 4. As long as He is A Cordial and Sincere Believer of the Roman Catholic Faith, He can have no Evident Demonstrations against it, Or Tax this Church of Error, or, if in Conscience He Do so, eo ipso, He cease's to be a Member of This Church, And is no longer Orthodox.  
5. Yet I say More. It is impossible for a Prudent 
A Prudent man cannot but see the great Evidence of Catholic Religion.  Man (secluding Gross And most culpable Ignorance, which makes him Imprudent) to Shut his Eyes, or, not to See Those clear Evidences, Those visible Notes, Those glorious Marks and Characters of Truth, whereby the Church of Christ is made manifest to the View of All. The wise Providence of God will have this Discernibility or Perspicuity of it both Apparent, and obvious To Ordinary Prudence. Otherwise (which is impious) We might blame His Goodness, and Tell Almighty God. You, O Lord, Assure us in Scripture of our Final Beatitude, But you have (with it) left us in Darkness concerning the Way and Means to Find 
How one of Prudence may plead.  it out, And to Attain this Happiness. What Avails it to know the End, And to be Invincibly Ignorant of the Means? All, who profess Christianity are not True Believers. How shall we Discern the Haeretical Societies from Other? Christ Answers: Your Way, By the Light and 
What Answer Satisfies.  Guidance of Those Marks of Truth which manifested me, when I first Taught Christianity, and yet Beautify my only Church, is so Clear, and Evident without Dispute.  nec stulti errent per ●am, That is hard For the most Ignorant To miss of it, much more For the Prudent.  
6. No Conviction therefore, No evident Demonstration can so forcibly Press upon a Catholic, As to make him to Desert His Faith, And if He stand not evidently 
Catholics cannot, unless Evidently convicted of Error, which is impossible, Desert Their Faith.  convicted of manifest Error, it were worse than Madness in him, yea, and Damnable also to Change his Religion. Let Sectaries therefore Stentor-like Cry out, Till They grow Hoars again (Mr. Poole all along smooth's his Discourse with such Harsh Eloquence) O ye blind Papists, O ye Seduced Men, when will ye open your Eyes & c? The Solid Catholic Answers. Railing is no Reason: Your Ancestors and mine were Papists Before You, or, Your Haeresy were in Being. I believe my Creed as 
Their solid Answer to All Opponents.  well as you, I Admit of every Word in Scripture as well as you, I go no more against my judgement, or Conscience (nor perhaps so much) as you Do. Wherein then am I faulty? Nay, I must yet Tell you More. Though (by a Supposed Impossibility) The Church whereof I am a Member should err, and I jointly be in Error with it, Yet as long as the Error is unavoidable And invincible in me (whereof my Conscience Reproves me not) it is, in your own Principles, no matter of Damnation, Because Ignorance excuses me. Therefore, as 
The Catholic Every way without blame.  I am every way without blame in my Belief, so I cannot be reclaimed from it by you.  
7. But, saith the Catholic: Give me a Company of men who Admit of Christ, and so far Deny His Church, That 
He Evidently Convinces Sectaries of Their Errors and most unhappy forsaking the Ancient Church.  They cannot say where it is; That will Reform Their Elder Brethren, Before They have Certainty of Their own Half well made Reformation; That think Themselves wiser than all the now Living, And the Ancient deceased Defenders of the Roman Catholic Church; That have causelessly Separated Themselves from an Ancient Church, And Yet are not joined to Any Society of Christians, which Bears the Resemblance of a Catholic Community: Who, never yet had so much as one General Council to Direct Them, no Infallible Oracle to Teach them, 
Protestancy described, as it is.  No Motives, No Miracles, to Evidence their new Faith: Who make every private Person a Church, Every man's Reason judge of High Mysteries, that transcend Reason: Who Take and Leave what They list in Matters of Faith upon no other Warrant, But their own wilful Choice: Who seemingly own an Universal Church, But yield Obedience to None: Who are Always seeking for Truth, without Hope of finding it; Always Teaching more Learned Than Themselves, And yet to this day, Know not what they Teach: Who Too unluckily spend the few Days of Their Life in Scribbling Controversies, Though they see it is to no Purpose (For besides a high Offence given to God) All The Credit They gain in the Christian World Abroad, (And their Repute at home, amongst intelligent Persons is no better) Amounts to This Ignominy, That unfortunatly They Patronise a late invented Haeresy. which at last They must quit, or quite Despair of Salvation. Give me, I say, such a sort of Men, They are not only battered and Baffled, But Also by most Pressing Arguments (Drawn both from Authority and Reason) May be evidently convinced; yea, And (if God's Grace want not) easily Reclaimed from Their Errors, If Perverseness in some, and Ignorance in others (I mean the Ignorance of Pride) Hinder not Their Conversion. But to Withdraw a Knowing Catholic, upon Rational Inducements From 
How They have gained some Prosylits.  his Religion, is Impossible. It is true, They have Gained some Prosylits (Unnatural Children to Their Ancient Mother Church) But how? Alas Too indulgent to Flesh and Blood, they were alured by Sensual, not Rational Motives. The Truth is Evident. I say no more.  
8. To End this Chapter of Fundamentals, Be 
Three things to be noted in this Question of Fundamentals.  Pleased to Observe these Three Things. 1. If we Consider the Motive of Faith, which is God's Veracity; what ever He Speaks little or great, is with one and the same Respect and Profound Reverence to be Assented to, And here is no Difference between Fundamentals, and Others. 2. If we speak of the Proposition 
One concerns the formal Object of Faith.  of Faith; Herein also There is no Difference: For, no man can Believe a Fundamental, Doctrine Sooner Than Not Fundamental, unless the one as well as the Other be Sufficiently Proposed. 3. If we 
The other relates to its proposal.  Speak of the Matter Revealed, I have showed Above, That some Points in Themselves, or Per se, More Essentially Constitute, Yea, And more Conduce to Piety Then others: But, This makes no Distinction between 
The Third to the matter believed.  Fundamentals, and not Fundamentals in the true sense of our Question, Because the lesser as well as the greater, Are upon God's Testimony Equally Believed, in every true Universal Act of Supernatural Faith, whereby we say, All is to be Assented to, That God Reveal's.   

CHAP. VI  
Some Few Propositions of A late Writer are Briefly Examined. His Discourse of Fundamentals Destroy's Protestant Religion.  
1. I Say Briefly: For, I leave much to be Answered 
Mr. Stillingfleets Propositions refuted.  by more Learned Adversaries. One Proposition is. The very Being of a Church▪ doth suppose the Necessity of what is required to be Believed in order to Salvation. Very good, but what then? Marry This follows. If't was a Church, it Believed all Things Necessary before it Defined; How comes it Therefore to make more Things Necessary by its Definition? First, A word ad Hominem. 
Protestants Add to what They conceive Essential to a Church, a company of new unproved Negative Articles. They proceed not consequently to their Principles.  Protestants, Have now a Church Essentially Constituted, or Have not: If not, Protestancy is no Christian Religion. If They have such a Church, why do They Add to that which They Conceive to be the Essentials of it, A Cluster of new Articles never owned by any Orthodox Society? For example: No Sacrifice, no Purgatory, no Transubstantiation etc. Can they proceed Consequently to their Principles, they should neither Deny a Sacrifice, a Purgatory etc. nor Assert them, But hold them mere Parergons', Because They have a Church Essentially founded without them. Why therefore, Do They either Deny or Affirm? Why meddle They at all with these Articles? Why load They Protestancy with the Unnecessary Burden of so many unproved Negatives, when their Church hath its whole Being, before these Negatives can be thought of?  
2. In Catholic Principles, both the Proposition and Question are most Simple: For, we own more Essentials 
In Catholic Principles The Proposition and Question are more than simple.  than Sectaries Do, and Therefore say: As there was a Church in Being before any Word of Scripture was writ, and consequently the Writing of Scripture Added no new Being to it, Though it declared Things more Explicitly; so in like manner, The present Definitions of the Church Altar nothing of the Ancient Foundations of Faith, But only declare more 
As Scripture when first writ, altered not the Antecedent Church's Doctrine, So the Church now altars nothing of the Ancient Faith.  explicitly Christ's Verities contained in Scripture and Tradition. And this Power the Church ever Had in all Ages. Mark well what is said here; For it clears All the following Fallacies of our Adversaries Discourse.  
3. A Second Proposition. What ever Church own's, those things which are Antecedently Necessary to the Being of a Church, cannot so long cease to be a true Church. And here, They say, we must Distinguish those Things in the Catholic Church which give it Being, from those Things which are the Proper Acts of it, as the Catholic Church. Very true. But the only Question 
They wave the Difficulty.  is, How much precise Doctrine That is, which gives Being to the Catholic Church? This our Adversaries (Content with a general Word of a Churches Being) wave, whilst Catholics 
Catholics say, All that God Reveal's  Necessary to the Being of the Church.  say plainly, All that God Reveal's, and is taught by the Church as Revealed, is so Essentially necessary to the very Being of it, That not one Article can be rejected after a Sufficient Proposal. Dare Protestants say thus much of Their Negative Articles? No Purgatory, no Real Presence, no Sacrifice etc. Or, own these as Essentials of Their Church of Protestancy? To that Distinction of the proper Acts of the Church (And One is the due Administration of Sacraments) from the 
Faith connaturally precedes the use of Sacraments.  Being of it, I answer the Faith of Sacraments, which Connaturally Preced's the use or exercise of them, is most Essential to the Being of a Church, and This Belief every true Christian Hath.  
4. A third Proposition. The Union of the Catholic 
Unity of the Church, and the Agreement are the same.  Church depends upon the Agreement of it in making the Foundations of its Being to be the Grounds of its Communion. For, the Unity being intended to preserve the Being, there can be no reason given, why the bonds of union should extend beyond the Foundation of its BEING, which is, the owning the Things necessary to Salvation. It is not worth the while to catch at these improper Expressions. The Union of the Church Depends upon the Agreement of it: For, Nothing certainly Depends on itself▪ now, the Union of the Church whether we speak of the Objective Doctrine, or of Faith tending into that Doctrine, is Essentially its Agreement. Therefore Properly it Depends not on Agreement, But really is Agreement, As truly as Vnum, Verum, and Bonum Are Ens, à Parte rei. Whence I Say: Unity is not intended to Preserve the Being of the Church, as a Cause preserves its Effect; For Unity essential to the Being, is The very Thing Preserved 
Unity essential to the Being of a Church is the Thing preserved by Almighty God.  by Almighty God, And therefore cannot Preserve an Antecedent conceived Being without Unity. But let this pass. Consider what follows. They say: The Bonds of Union should not extend beyond the Foundation of the Churches Being etc. Very good. What is next? This it is: Whatsoever Church imposeth the Belief of other Things necessary to Salvation, which were not so Antecedently necessary to the Being of the Catholic 
Mere Talk without proof.  Church, Break's the Unity of it; and those Churches, who desire to Preserve Unity, are bound thereby not to have Communion with it, so long as it doth so. Here is little said, less explicated, and least of all Proved. First, they say not: How much Doctrine precisely makes up the 
Catholics extend not the unity of the Church beyond its Foundations, for They Believe so much as God hath revealed, and no more.  Churches Being, nor shall ever tell us by their Principles. 2. They name not the guilty Persons that Extend the Union of the Church beyond its Foundations. Are they Catholics who Believe all that God Reveal's, and is declared by the Church to be Revealed? Or Sectaries, That have neither Church, nor Scripture for any Article of their Protestancy? 3. If they Hold themselves to be the Preservers of the Church's Unity, They must prove it by strong Principles, And first show Positively by Scripture, That they have just so much as is Necessary and sufficient to Salvation, Before 
Sectaries who have neither Church nor Scripture for one word of Protestancy, Most unreasonably pretend to be the Preservers of the Church's Unity.  they make us Guilty of any Breach of the Church's Unity. This will be a hard Task: For if they say, We Break the Church's Unity in believing a Sacrifice, a Purgatory etc. They are obliged to prove, and by plain Scripture, That either their contrary Negatives are to be Believed, or, That neither our Positives, nor their Negatives merit an Act of Faith, which is Impossible. For, What Scripture saith we are neither to Believe a Sacrifice, nor the Contrary.  
5. In the next place they come to Solve the Enigma, to explicate the main Subject of the present Dispute, And 'tis to Tell us what those Things are, 
Their own saying is the only Proof.  which ought to be Owned by all Christian Societies as Necessary to Salvation, on which the Being of the Catholic Church Depends. Happy were they could they Unridle the Mystery, 
Protestants cannot Show what things are Necessary.  And say what Things are thus Necessary; But our Author still runs on in Generals, and Determin's nothing. Be pleased to hear his Resolution.  
6. Nothing ought to be owned as necessary to Salvation by Christian Societies, But such things which by the judgement of all those Societies, are Antecedently necessary to the Being of the Catholic Church. No man, I think, knows to what that word, Antecedently, relates, nor can this Author make sense of it. One may Guess what he would be at. He will Perhaps Say: When all Christian 
They fall upon impossibilities.  Societies stand firmly united in one judgement concerning the Being and the Essentials of a Church, than we are right in These Essentials. Answ. But this was never yet seen, nor will be seen as is more largely declared Chap. 2. n. 1. whither I remit the Reader for further Satisfaction. He Adds two Things more. One is, There cannot be any Reason given, why any Thing else should be judged Necessary to the Church's Communion (He means 
Who is to judge him that says He Dissents not?  in Necessary Articles of Faith) But what all those Churches, who do not manifestly Dissent from the Catholic Church of the first Ages are agreed in, as Necessary to be Believed by all. My God What Confusion Have we here? Where is the Protestant that can Assure us, without 
Protestants cannot show what the Primitive Church believed.  Dispute, what the Catholic Church of the first Ages positively Believed and positively Rejected? Can this one Point be cleared without Endless Debate, A better Union might be Hoped for; But herein both We and Sectaries Dissent, as is Proved above. Therefore by 
No Appealing to the primitive Church without the Tradition of the present Church.  their Appealing to the Ancient Church, (whilst They Abstract from the Tradition of a present Catholic Church) They go about to Prove, Ignotum per ignotius, And convince nothing.  
7. They Add a second Consideration which may be reflected on. Ad perpetuam rei memoriam, And 'tis to 
Memorable Doctrine.  this Sense. After Their Telling us, That in Case of great Divisions in the Christian World, any National Church may Reform itself (as is Supposed, England 
Men uncertain in all They say, take on to Teach, wherein Faith is abused.  Hath done) and Declare its Sense of those Abuses in Articles of Religion; yea, and Require of Men a Subscription against those Abuses etc. They go on: We are to consider that there is a great Difference between the Owning some Propositions in order to Peace, and the Believing of them as Necessary to Salvation. Now Mark what Follows. 
No Orthodox Church Ever excepted against our Church Doctrine.  The Church of Rome Imposeth new Articles of Faith to be believed (A most unproved Assertion) which Articles are excepted against by other Churches (name the Orthodox Church that ever excepted against them, it cannot be done) But the Church of England makes no Articles of Faith, 
Mark the Doctrine.  But such as have the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Christian World of all Ages, and are acknowledged to be such by Rome itself, and in other things she requires Subscription to 
Protestant Religion reduced to Inferior Truths.  them, Not as ARTICLES of Faith, but as inferior Truths, which she expects Submission to in order to Her peace and tranquillity. And thus much the late Primate of Ireland expresseth to be the Sense of the Church of England as to her thirtynine Articles.  
8. Be it known to all men by These Presents, That the Church of England, so far, as it maintains these 
The English Church consisting of Negatives is no Church.  Negative Protestant Articles of No Sacrifice, No Real Presence, No Purgatory, is here confessedly owned to have no Articles of Faith Revealed by Almighty God, And therefore so far, 'Tis neither any Christian or Catholic Church, Because these Negatives (the very marrow of Protestancy) are now Degraded, And Thrown down from their Ancient Height of Articles, to the low Rank of a few Humble, and inferior Truths.  
9 But let us go on. Who Assures you, Sir, of 
Inferior Truths are none of God's Truths.  Their being Truths at all? God, you say, that Reveal's nothing but most Supreme Truths, Own's none of Them. No Orthodox Church, no Ancient Council, no unanimous Consent of Fathers, no, nor your own Synods in England, (Though without Proof They Suppose them to be Truths) ever yet Defined them, as you Two young Popes do (Doctor Bramhal and yourself) to be Truths of an Inferior Rank and Order. Be it how you will, I am sure, the Declaration before these Articles says, they are Articles of Religion, 
These Author's clash with the 39 Articles.  and contain the true Doctrine of the Church of England Agreeable to God's Word. If so, Gods, Word is Agreeable to these Articles, and Proves them. Again. Some of your own Coat, and perhaps as Learned as you, Call them Articles of Faith. Certainly they 
These Negatives of the 39 Articles are neither Articles of Faith, nor Inferior Truths.  are none of our Faith, Ergo they are yours, or no Bodies. Upon whom then shall we Rely for the last Definition? I'll tell you. Both the Assertions of their being either Articles of Faith, or Inferior Truths, stand tottering without Proof or Principle, upon the sole Fancy of those who say so.  
10. 3. If these Dull Negatives be only Voted for Peace among you, without Reference to your Faith, your Church is Essentially Hypocritical, which may Believe 
The English Church is essentially Hypocritical.  one Thing, And must Profess an Other. I now say no more, having Told you enough to this Sense in another place. Though all the Protestants in England do not only Dissent in judgement from the owning of These 
Protestants may curse These Negative Articles, and yet besound in Faith.  Negatives; Though they are plain Papists in Hart, yea, and Interiorly curse and Anathematise all your new Articles (if the exterior Demeanour be fairly good, All is Fine) They may be still looked on, as Blessed Children of your new Negative Church. The sequel is undeniable; For, They may Believe all that Scripture saith (And this is Faith enough to Salvation.) And yet Anathematise your Negatives, not at all contained in Scripture, And wholly unnecessary to Salvation.  
11. Yet farther. You Protestants Endlessly Talk 
A hard Question proposed to Sectaries.  of Reforming us Papists by Scripture. Speak once plainly and Tell us. How can you go about such a work as to reclaim us by Scripture, To a Belief of your Negatives, when you have not one Syllable of God's Word for Them? For, if you have Scripture, They are Superior Truths Revealed by God, and consequently Articles of Faith: If you have no Scripture, why Preach you falls Doctrine, why Teach you that you can draw Us from our old Faith to your New Negative Religion, by plain Scripture? No Protestant shall Answer to 
It cannot be Answered.  this short Demand. 4. You cheat the World when you Offer to Resolve Protestant's Faith, which is no more Resolvable into Divine Revelation than Arianism 
Protestants resolving Faith, a mere Cheat.  is, Because you must now confess that God never spoke Word of Protestancy, as Protestancy, in the whole Bible. Let therefore the world judge, whether it be not a pure Cheat to give a Title of the Protestants way of Resolving Faith, and then leave that, which the Title Promises, To talk of Resolving a Faith in Communi, which stands in no need of your Resolution.  
12. To see this more Evidenced, And to end with these mere Nothings of Sectaries. Our now Author Tell's us, That the English Church, makes no Articles of Faith, But such as have the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Christian world of all Ages, yes, And are Acknowledged by Rome 
Protestant Church no more a Church then an Arian etc.  itself. If this be so, it is no more an English, than a Church of Arians, of Pelagians, And of all condemned Heretics. For, this man would say, That a Faith common to All called Christians, without Believing more, is the English Faith, and Sufficient to acquire Heaven. Mark the Proposition; And ask first, what is now become of the 
The Arian and English Faith agree in Doctrine common to all Christians.  Protestants way of Resolving Protestants Faith? Next, (and most justly) call it a mere Fancy, A new coined Haeresy contrary to the whole Christian World; For, neither Scripture, nor Councils, nor Fathers, nor any particular Orthodox or Haeretical Church, much less the consent of the whole Christian World, Owned the Belief of that Abstract Doctrine, wherein all Heretics Agree to be sufficient to Salvation. 
A new coined Haeresy, contrary to All.  The whole Christian World never yet said to Believe in Christ, Abstracting from His Godhead, and Two Natures, is Sufficient. Catholics hold the Belief of a Sacrifice and Transubstantiation etc. Necessary to Salvation; And all condemned Heretics as Arians, Monothelits 
No Heretics much less Catholics Ever yet defended, what our Sectaries here vent upon Fancy only.  and Others, as firmly Adhere to their Particular Heresies, as to the Abstract Doctrine of all Christians. Otherwise, they had been worse than mad, to have Abandoned an Ancient Church for a few supposed Inferior Truths, which, neither can Vncatholick any (if the common Doctrine of all Christians be enough) nor make Them in Reaelity worse, or better Christians. And here by the way, you see the Hideous sin of Sectaries, who merely for a Company of Inferior Truths (if yet They were Truths) have shamefully Deserted The true Mother Church that made Their progenitors 
The sin of Sectaries, who have troubled ● the world for a company of supposed Inferior Truths.  to be Christians. I say, If They were Truths: For, I utterly Deny the Falls Supposition, And therefore press our Adversaries to speak to the Cause: That is, to come to Proofs and Principles whereby it may Appear That These Negative Doctrines, No Sacrifice, no Praying for the Dead etc. Merit so much as the very name of Inferior Truths. These Negatives cannot be proved even by Their wont weak way of Arguing Negatively. We Read not of a Sacrifice, or praying for the Dead. For there is no man that Reads Antiquity, But he finds these Doctrines positively Asserted.  
13. From what is now said, These Sequels undeniably follow. First, that Protestants cannot Resolve 
Protestant's Faith but Fancy. The Reason.  their Faith But into Fancy only; For, if they make the common Doctrine of all Christians only to be Their sufficient Faith for Salvation, and Resolve that into its Principles, both Fancy and Haeresy lie at the very Bottom of the Resolution. And if they Go about to Resolve Their Negative Articles, The whole Analysis, the Regress, the Reduction of Them, will come at last to no other Principle, But to the sole Fancy of Sectaries, who call them Articles of Faith, or Inferior Truths. It follows 2. If the English Church makes 
The English Church contradicts the whole Christian World.  no Articles of Faith, But such as have the Approbation of the whole Christian World of all Ages (Excluding others) It doth not only Contradict the whole Christian World, whose particular Communities owned the Belief of more Doctrine necessary; But hath neither 
And Therefore hath no Faith at all.  Faith of those Abstract Articles now Believed, nor any Faith at all Sufficient to Salvation, as is largely proved in the 2. Chap. If Finally, to Assoil These Difficulties, Sectaries will Restrain that Ample Term of the whole Christian World to their imagined Catholic Church in the Air, They are to specify the Particular Societies of this vast Church, And when that's Don, They will find no Abstract Doctrine common to 
There never had been Haeresy in the world, might Faith common to all be sufficient to Salvation.  all Christians Admitted of By any, Sufficient to gain Heaven: For, were this true, There had never been Heretics or Schismatics in the World, whilst Christ only (Though his Divinity be denied) is owned in a general Way. Whereof more in the 3. Chap.  
14. Here I'll only propose one Question to our Adversaries. When they positively Teach, That, that which our Saviour gave his Apostles in his last Supper, and Priests now consecrate Daily, was, and is no more But a Sign, a Figure only of Christ's Body, My Question, I say, is. Whether, Their Positive owning of a Sign, or Figure only, Be an Article of their Faith, or no more, But One of their Inferior supposed Truths? If this later; They never Had nor can have any determinate 
A Dilemma that cannot be answered.  Faith of this Sacred Mystery, which yet God hath most certainly Revealed unto us in Holy Scripture; And consequently They believe nothing of the Blessed Sacrament by Divine Faith, For, Inferior Truths are no Articles 
Inferior Truths are not Articles of Faith.  of Belief with Them. Contrariwise, if They say the Belief of a Sign, or Figure only, is one of their Articles of Faith, And the Thing Believed an Object of Faith: They must certainly eat their own Words, and confess, That the English Church makes new Articles of Faith, And such, as never Had the Approbation of the whole Christian World, much less of Rome itself; For the whole Christian World of all Ages never Believed so. Some perhaps will Answer: They Believe in General Christ's own Words 
Some Sectaries believe they know not what.  to be true, Though They know not well what he meant, when he said. This is my Body. Answer. If they know not what he spoke, why do They charge Idolatry on us. By the force of their Inferior supposed 
Their inconsequences.  Truths, for Adoring Christ in the Sacrament? I am sure Arius of old was an Haeretick, For Denying the High Godhead of our Saviour, upon the Uncertainty of his supposed Superior Truths; And Sectaries are now in a worse 
They are in a worse Condition Than Arians.  Case, whilst they contradict all Orthodox Churches in the Belief of this Sacrament, And make us Idolaters, Merely upon the Uncertainty of their imagined Inferior Truths.  
15. Another Proposition is Thus. Nothing ought to be imposed as a necessarij Article of Faith to be believed by all, but what may be evidently propounded to all Persons, as a Thing which God did require the explicit belief of. Observe the Vnexplicated words, Evidently Propounded to all Persons. Who must propound these Articles of Faith? Must God, Angels, or men's private Fancies Do it? No. The Oracle of Truth Christ's own 
Christ Church Can only propose Faith unto us.  Church (find it where you can) is both to Propose Faith to us, and to Decide all Difficulties when they Arise among us, as is Already Proved. Submit to This, and all Controversies are Ended. Here is also another loose Proposition. Nothing ought to be required as a necessary Article of Faith, but what hath been believed and received for such by the Catholic Church of 
Another Proposition too General and insignificant.  all Ages. Sir, say you plainly where this Catholic Church was in all Ages, and tell us exactly How many Articles it Held Necessary, and sufficient to Salvation, And we shall Drive you out of your Generalities, which Prove just nothing, To a more open and Plain 
They run on in General's.  Doctrine, whereof you are as much afraid, as the Devil of Holy water. We know not what you mean by the Catholic Church.  
16. Well. But the next Assertion will clear all It is sufficient Evidence, that was not looked on as a necessary Article of Faith, which was not admitted into the Ancient Creeds. Pray you, prove This sufficient Evidence, by a clear Principle. Upon what Ground doth the 
The Belief of the Creed not Sufficient etc.  Assertion stand, Distinct from your own Fancy? The Baptising of Infants, The Admitting of so many Books for the exact Canon of Scripture, The Belief, all aught to have of the Holy Eucharist, Are not Explicitly set down in 
Necessary Particulars, not Expresses in the Creed.  the Ancient Creeds; Therefore we must have Recours to the Catholic Church both for the Faith of these, And many other Articles. But we have said enough of this Subject.  
17. You go on. Nothing ought to be judged a necessary Article of Faith, but what was universally believed by the Catholic Church to be delivered as such by Christ and his Apostles. Sir, Before this Proposition be cleared you 
These Authors say not what is meant by These dark Terms, Believed by the Catholic Church.  are to Declare, what you Mean by those Terms, Believed by the Catholic Church. For, if Rightly Suppose, There was never any True Church, But the Roman Catholic only continued Age after Age, And upon This Supposition Reply (which is easy) to your Assertion, and the Ten following Points. You'll say, I mistake your Meaning concerning the very Notion of that Church, which your Fancy makes Catholic. And, if I licence you to Enlarge The Catholic Church as far as you Pleas, or, To comprise in it All who have had the Name of Christians, Though otherwise known Heretics, your, Proposition to us, is de Subjecto non supponente, of a Subject not Supposable, And the annexed Points are highly Impertinent. 
They are to specify what and where This Catholic Church is.  Name Therefore Exactly The Catholic Church upon grounded Principles, and all is done.  
18. After the ending these Negatives, They inquire what we ought Positively to Believe as Necessary to Salvation, And remit us (without any further Proof but their own saying) to the Articles of the Ancient 
A question proposed.  Creeds. This is largely refuted already. Next they propose a question, Whether any thing, which was not Necessary to Salvation, may by any Means whatsoever afterwards become Necessary, so that the not Believing it 
Whether The Church Can Define any Thing anew necessary to Salvation, so that the not believing of it becomes Damnable?  becomes Damnable. The Question, If I mistake not, Drives at This, To show that the Church can make no new Definitions of Faith Necessary to Salvation, Because all Faith Necessary is Antecedently supposed, as it were, laid in The very Church's Foundation before it Defines, Which Foundations were both Fully and Solidly laid, when Christ and his Apostles Taught the World; For, the Earth was full of his Knowledge. He taught his Disciples all things he had heard of his Father. The Messiah when he came would tell them all things etc. Therefore a Church solidly Founded, and, before it Defines, 
The reason of the Doubt.  full of Truth, can make nothing so Necessary to Salvation by a new superadded Definition, that the not Believing of it, Becomes Damnable. 
The grounds of Sectaries shown Null, though the Church made new Definitions   
19 Before we Answer the Question, it will be good to show you the Nullity of our Adversaries Grounds▪ and the Inconsequences of them. Herein lies the chief strength of all That's said. A Church must be a Church before it can Define, and Consequently There must be a Union in Belief by which The Church is Constituted in Being, Antecedently to its new Definitions. Very Good. All this in True, but makes 
The Reason.  Nothing Against the Church, though it Define anew. I'll prove it, and Explicate myself by one Instance. In a Kingdom, or Commonwealth, There is always an Agreement, or Settlement in some great Matters before it Proceed to make new Laws; yet, 'Tis not 
Commonwealths though antecedently settled may make new Laws.  consequent to say, That the Agreement ought to be so Explicit in all Things, in all Points, in all particular Matters, that nothing afterward can be Decreed anew. It is Therefore sufficient, That these new Laws Arise from some first solid Principles of that Commonwealth, Antecedently settled in Being, And if this be so, They oblige as Much as the former Conventions Did, when it was first settled: Though they were not at all mentioned, at the first Founding of the Commonwealth.  
20. Answerably Hereunto, One may say. Christ founded a Church Assisted, as is here Supposed, by a Spirit of Truth, the Holy Ghost, and first settled it upon some fewer Principles, from which All other after-Definitions might Proceed, or be Derived. The 
The Church assisted by the Holy Ghost Derives new Definitions from its first Setlement.  Church thus Assisted, Defines anew upon the former Setlement, just as the Commonwealth makes new Laws, upon its first Agreement. Such Definitions Therefore, because they Proceed from an Infallible Oracle (call them yet new, or old as you pleas) Are as certain, and of as great necessity to be Believed, As those new Laws are Obligatory, and of necessity to be Obeyed. Here is one Disparity which is not to the Purpose, Viz. That the Commonwealths Laws proceed from Human Authority, The Church's Definitions from Divine Assistance. Those oblige under a temporal 
The parity holds exactly.  Punishment, These under Eternal. But the Parity exactly Holds thus far. Those Laws were implicitly and virtually contained in the first grounded setlement of the Commonwealth, These of the Church in the first setlement of Christianity. Those may be called New; These may be also called so. Those become Necessary to be Obeyed; These become Necessary 
New Laws are to be obeyed, and new Definitions, if any were, are to be believed.  to be Believed. Now further. As no man Doubts, But, That the Church may make new Laws in order to Obedience; so none can but most Unreasonably Doubt of its Power in Setting forth new Definitions. It is very True: Here may be much of a Quaestio de Nomine, Whether They are to be called Old or New, Because of their different Respects. Relating to the first settled 
Upon different respects these Definitions may be called either new or old.  Foundations of Christian Doctrine, from whence They Proceed, They may take a Denomination and be called Old, Because Radicated in Those old certain Principles. But, if we consider them as more Ample, Express, and significant Declarations of Gods Eternal Truths, They may, without Offence, or Clashing, in the least with Church-Doctrin, be called New Definitions. Thus much is Briefly said, to show how groundless our Adversaries Grounds are.  
21. But we will not leave the Difficulty Thus. To Answer therefore with more satisfaction, Be pleased to note. It is one Thing to own a Church perfectly Founded, 
Two things to be noted.  and fully Instructed in all things Necessary to Salvation: And an Other, to suppose that all know explicitly what That Perfect founded Doctrine is, which God will have to be believed, as Necessary to Salvation. This later Requires a clear Proposition made by some Oracle of Truth of the necessary Doctrine, As is evident in Scripture itself: For, though I own all that Scripture saith to be True in the Sense intended by the Holy Ghost, yet, I must learn by a sure Teacher, what it saith in a hundred difficil Passages.  
22. Now to Question, Whether any thing which was not Necssary to Salvation, may Afterwards become so Necessary, that the not Believing it is Damnable etc. I Answer. 
The Question answered.  Nothing is now Necessary to Salvation, After the Church's Definition, which was not Necessary Before, yea, and Believed by the Apostles Themselves. The ground of my Assertion is: Because the Apostles immediately Illuminated 
The Apostles the first and best knowing Masters of Divine Mysteries.  by Christ our Lord, were made Partakers of His Divine Mysteries; They had Primitias Spiritus, the First Fruits of the Spirit; Believed as we believe, Taught as we Teach, and never Delivered Doctrine contrary to the Church in After-Ages. Hence Divines commonly Hold, That the Church properly speaking 
The Church makes no new Articles of Faith, but only declares more explicitly, what was Anciently of Faith.  makes no new Articles of Faith, But only Declares more Significantly and Expressly what Those well Instructed Masters of the Church (Christ's own Disciples) Both Believed, and upon several Occasions Taught others. And here, one Grand Cheat is to be taken Notice of. Sectaries Think that All those Christian Truths which the Apostles Believed Explicitly, are now Explicitly enough upon Record in Holy Writ. It is an Error. Our Saviour, as St. john Testifies 
All that the Apostles believed is not explicitly in Scripture.  Cap. 21. v. 25. Did many Things, which if written in particular, the whole World would not contain. Might not then the Apostles also Believe many Things, As a Sacrifice of Mass, Transubstantiation, Purgatory etc. yea, and Teach those Verities, Though they were not so plainly Delivered in Holy Writ (yet expressly enough) But, that Heretics might Cavil at them.  
23. Here then is my Resolution which is most Catholic 
The Resolution.  Doctrine. Christ our Lord Established a Church, that is to Tell us Truth to the end of Ages. This Oracle which Relies not on Gods written Word only, But on the Unwritten also, (undoubted Tradition) answerable to Necessary Ocsions of new Heretics rising up, Or, of Schism made in Christian Societies etc. Often Proposeth more 
The Church useth clearer Terms in her Definitions.  Explicitly what the Primive Faith was, And the Apostles Believed, Not that it makes new Articles, if we speak rigorously, But proposeth the old ones again, in more Clear and Significant Terms. And how can Sectaries blame this Procedure, when They, without the Warrant of God's Word (written or unwritten) Propose and Declare, as They think, the Ancient Sense of Scripture itself to their Hearers, in a Hundred Passages? 
Sectaries without God's Word written or unwritten make new Definitions  For example Christ said. This is my Body. They, by A new Proposition Define: This is a Sign of my Body. Will they licence Themselves to Propose what they please out of God's Word Already writ, and Storm at a whole Church if it do so: or, Further Declare what was not Writ, yet ever Believed; Though perhaps not by all so explicitly, as 'Tis after the Church's clearer Definition? The Church in this Proceeds upon a certain Principle (indubitable Tradition) Sectaries Have neither Tradition, nor Scripture, For what they Propose anew. You see therefore, whoever Pertinaciously 
Whoever Denies the Church's Definitions Denies the old believed Articles.  Denies the Definitions of the Church, Denies not only the new Declared, But the old Believed Articles, And consequently is liable to Damnation.  
24. You see moreover. It is not only suitable to Reason, But necessary also for the very Preservation of Christian Religion, That the Church to whom the Mysteries 
Necessary For Christian Religion.  of our Faith were committed, Though it makes no new Articles, nor Supposeth any other Foundation then what was laid by Christ and his Apostles, May yet as 
That the Church declare more explicitly.  Necessity requires, Declare more Explicitly the Primitive Doctrine of Christianity: For, by what better Means can we possibly arrive to the Knowledge of 
Primitive Doctrine.  those Necessary Truths which the Apostles either Believed or Taught, Then by their Heirs and Successors? 
The Successors of the Apostles Teach in the place of Those deceased Masters.  I mean The vigilant Watchmen, who were, and Still are substituted in the Place of those First Infallible Deceased Masters. They, Blessed Men, ran up and down the World from Country to Country, from House to House, Testifying the Faith of our Lord jesus Christ, yet neither committed all the Truths Delivered by them, to Holy Writ, nor supposed 
The Apostles writ not all They taught.  the Ignorant and Vulearned fit Instruments to Teach, as They had Taught. The Legacies Therefore of our Christian Truths were left in surer Hands, I mean, Chief in the Custody of the Successors of those first great Masters. Whence it is, That the 
Deposited Doctrine commended to Timothy.  Apostle commends to Timothy more than once the Keeping of a Depositum of mighty Value. which the Fathers, and none more expressly than Vincentius Lirinensis call, the Common Catholic Doctrine: Or, to speak 
Talentum Catholicum saith Vinc. Lir.  in this worthy Author's words upon the Text 1. Tim. 6. 20. lib. contr. prof. Hae. Novit. Biblioth. Patrum, Tom. 4. cap. 27. Talentum Catholicum Fidei, The Catholic Talon of our Faith. Aurum accepistis, Add's Vincentius aurum red. Thou O Bishop, Pastor, and Doctor, hast received Gold, render as pure Gold again etc. What things thou hath learned, so Teach, Adorn, and Illustrate (and mark Here a further Declaration of the Deposited 
A further Declaration of Deposited Doctrine allowed of.  Doctrine Allowed of) ut cum dicas Nouè non dicas Nova, That when Thou proposest Things anew, Thou Teach not new Things, but the old Doctrine. And hence it also is, That the Church of Christ is styled by most Ancient Fathers Depositorium Dives, a Rich Treasury, 
The Church called by most Ancient Fathers Depositorium Dives.  wherein the Depositum of Apostolical Doctrine is Kept, And not only once Kept▪ and then lost, But (as a Depositum ought to be) it's Handed down from Age to Age, from Church to Church, Successively continued to the Worlds End. If therefore you look for the Apostolical Depositum, Leap not, I Beseech you, over the Heads of all those Christians, who have been betwixt Us and the first 3. or 
The Apostolical Depositum is in the Church's hands.  4. Ages, As if it were to be found There, and no where else. But Demand of this present Church now in Being, 'Tis She that Knows better, And Informs us more exactly of Apostolical Doctrine, Then all the lost Writings of the 
The present Church best inform's us of Apostolical Doctrine  Ancient Church could have done, or, those that are hitherto preserved can do; Because they are all liable to endless Disputes, and Consequently can absolutely Decide no controversy. Now if any one Boggles at this Assertion, as if we could not have sufficient Certitude of 
The most Ancient writings are liable to Dispute.  what the Ancient Church Delivered, by the Testimony, or Tradition of the Present Church, But further requires Express Records to be Produced of all that was ever Taught; Let him correct his Error and know, That, what is Carved in Brass, or Writ in Velume cannot be more securely Kept, then Apostolical Doctrine, Deposited in the Hands and writ in the 
Apostolical Doctrine better preserved in the hands of Christ's Pastors, thenifed had been carved in Brass.  Hearts of Christ's faithful Pastors, is now Preserved. For, what's in Brass or Parchment, Time may wear out and blemish; But that which God hath committed to his Church and Chief Pastors thereof, who are to Teach Christian's Age after Age, shall never Perish, never Pass, or be put out of Remembrance. And this Doctrine the Church Deliver's more Explicitly in her Definitions, chief when she Declares Truth against Heretics.   

CHAP. VII.  
More of this Subject. Objections are Answered.  
1. TO go on with our Discourse, I would willingly Know, when the Apostle Exhort's the Galatians cap. 1. vers. 8. 9 Not to Believe an Angel, Preaching contrary to what He had Preached, and They had formerly Received; As also the Thessalonians 2. c. 2. 14. to Hold the Traditions learned by Word or Epistle. Whether 
All that the Apostles Orally taught was neither writ, nor can be supposed lost.  we can Imagine, that, all the Apostles Orally Delivered was Either Expressly Registered in Scripture, or the whole Substance of that Divine Doctrine (of equal Certitude with Gods written Word) is now Totally lost? Neither is Probable. The Essentials therefore of that Doctrine, laid up sure in the rich Treasury of the 
The Essentials of it remain in the Church's Treasury.  Church, still Remain with Christ's own Faithful Pastors. And this is the Depositum mentioned in Scripture, whereby the Church (Assisted by the Holy Ghost) Regulates Herself when She Defines. Therefore great Divines Assert, That the Church, never Teaches, or, will Teach any new Verity that was unknown to the Apostles. 
The Doctrine of Divines.  Se Greg. de Valentia, De Fide Disp. 1. Quaest. 1. Puncto 6. §. Illud vero. And §. Hinc quoque. Suarez Disp. 2. De Fide Sect. 6. n. 18. Tanner. Disp. 1. de Fide Quaest. 1. Dub. 7. n. 211.  
2. St. Paul Methinks confirm's this Doctrine, Roman. 12. 6. According to the Rule of Faith; Whereupon our 
What is meant by the Analogy of Faith.  Sectaries, Because the Greek reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Endlessly talk of the Analogy of Faith. Let us bring Words to Sense, and Sense to Principles. What is This Analogy, This Measure, or Proportion of Faith? Is that, which every Man's private Fancy falls upon to be Faith, the Measure and Analogy of it? God forbidden. If so; Faith would be as Various, as Fancy is Changeable in Heretics. We must therefore find out a better Analogy. And if you say it is Scripture. I Answer. Before the writing of Scripture, 
A perfect Rule of Faith, before Scripture was writ.  There was a true and perfect Rule of Faith, Otherwise These words of St. Paul, Presupposing the Rule He mentions before he writ This Epistle, are insignificant. Again. When He Tell's the Thessalonians Epist. 1. c. 1. of Their being a Pattern to all that Believed in Macedonia and Achaia: Of the Word of our Lord sounded out by them 
Scripture proves it.  in every place: Of their Faith Spread abroad etc. What Think ye, was this not yet written Word of our Lord, or the true Analogy of the Thessalonians Faith, As well Dilated as Approved of? What Finally was that Form of Doctrine commended in the Romans cap. 6. 17? Why Did the Apostle blame the unsettled Galatians for Being so soon Transferred into another Gospel, and Denounce Anathema, cap. 1. 6. if they believed an Angel Preaching contrary to his former Doctrine? All these and many other Passages of Holy Writ manifestly Declare, 
Before the writing of Scripture there was a platform of Christian Religion.  That there was Divine Doctrine Taught by the very Founders of Christianity before the Writing of Scripture. There was a Platform of Christian Religion made by the very Apostles before they Separated Themselves, and began their Preaching to several Nations. And to comply with this Rule or Form of Faith, Blessed St. Paul, Though full of the Holy Ghost, went to confer with St. Peter and the rest Gal. 2. 2. Act. 15. 36. Upon it, The Apostles Held Councils, yea, 
Councils held upon that platform, and Scripture writ.  and as some Grave and Learned Doctors Affirm by the Measure thereof, the Holy Scriptures were written. See the notes on the Rheims Testament, Rom. cap. 12. v. 6.  
3. Be it how Sectaries will: There was Faith in the World before written Scripture. The Apostles who taught it, Had their Rule of Doctrine prescribed by a 
The Apostles had their Rule of Doctrine from a certain Master.  good Master the Holy Ghost, for they Taught not Christian Doctrine upon their own frail judgements (considered as Men.) No, they had ever the Guidance and Direction of this Blessed Spirit with them, and as His Instruments Delivered so much as this Master (according to Christ's Promise) gave Assistance to, and neither more nor less. Now, those Pious Christians 
The first pious Christians had their Rule from the Apostles.  who heard this Apostolical Learning, made it most certainly Their Rule, Their Measure of Faith; Their Analogy, and Form of Doctrine. Whence I argue This Form or Rule of Oral Doctrine First laid up in the Breasts of the Apostles, and afterward Delivered to different Nations, was neither All set down in Holy Scripture (for Volumes would not contain it) nor All entirely lost, 'Tis pity such a rich Depositum should Perish, Therefore it yet Remains somewhere in safe Custody, 
That Doctrine is yet preserved in the Church.  But no Place is fit for it, then that which the Fathers call Thesaurarium dives, the Rich Treasury of the Church: where 'Tis still Preserved, and Those Timothy's (I mean those Evangelists, Those Pastors, Those Doctors mentioned Ephes. 4. 11.) Appointed by Providence to Edify the Mystical Body of Christ, The Chief Preservers of this Legacy and Noble Depositum, are as Necessity Requires, to impart it and make it known to the World by their Definitions, Lest like Children we be carried away with every Wind of falls Doctrine. And 
The Ground of Tradition.  herein lies the very Ground of all Apostolical Tradition. This is not mine, but the Great Vincentius Lirinensis own Doctrine now cited. Where pondering that of the Apostle: O Timothy Keep thy Depositum; He Asks, Quis Est body Timotheus, nisi vel universa Ecclesia, vel specialiter totum corpus Praepositorum & c.? Who is now, or, at this 
The whole Church, or Rulers of it preserve this Depositum.  Day our Timothy, But either the Universal Church, or more, specially the Whole Body of those Guides and Rulers set over it, that are Themselves to have the entire knowledge of Divine Worship, or, to infuse it into others & c? Afterward: Quid est hoc Depositum? What is this Deposited Doctrine? He Answers: Id quod tibi creditum est: 'Tis that which is committed to Thee, not that Thou Invent's, that which thou hast Received, not what Thou hath Fancied of thy own Head. It is a thing not of Wit, but of Doctrine. Non usurpationis propriae, not of thy Private Use, Fashion, or Practise; Sed 
The Church no Author but Keeper of Divine Doctrine.  publicae Traditionis, But of public and known Tradition, brought to Thee, handed to Thee, whereof thou art not to be Author, sed Custos, But a Keeper and Preserver. Then he goes on: Depositum Custodi Catholicae Fidei Talentum etc.  
4. And thus you See, we have a Church, a Catholic 
Principles whereon the Church proceeds.  Talon of Faith committed to it. A Depositum of Apostolical Doctrine laid up in its Treasury. We have a Moral body of Timothy's of Teachers, united with one Supreme Head and Pastor, That Assures us more Explicitly by its Definitions what the Ancient Deposited Doctrine is, And Reclaim's us if we swerve from it. We have Express Scripture, that both 
A Mystical body of Teachers. God's written and unwritten word. Sectaries want all.  Proves and Approves the Churches Proceeding in Doing so, And this Sacred written Word faithfully Interpreted, And the unwritten Deposited Word also most Infallibly Proposed, is our Form, our Rule and perfect Analogy of Faith. O, Had Sectaries but Half as much For what They boldly Assert contrary to us. (And because every Man is a Chutch with them, They Define more than our Church Defines.) The Consecrated Host is Bread only, a Figure of Christ's Body only. There are two Sacraments only. Works justify not, but Faith only etc. Had, I say, These men but half 
Protestants have no Authority for their Definitions.  so much Authority for their Definitions, How would they warble out the Notes of their Novelties? But God hath Silenced them; For they have neither Church, nor Scripture, nor Ancient Depositum, nor Tradition, nor Analogy, nor Rule of Faith, nor Motives to Make 
Talk only of a Nullity, and an unproved Negative Religion.  what They Define probable, nor Any other Thing to talk of, But of a mere Nothing, I mean the Nullity of Their unproved Negative Religion.  
5. What hitherto is said of Catholic Definitions made by Pope and Councils, Chief Relates to such Matters as have been Anciently without Dispute Revealed, yea, And believed also, Though not perhaps in order 
One way of Defining.  to all so Explicitly. And this way of Defining, some Divines call Propositionem: That is, a Reproposing of Mysteries formerly Believed, whether clearly Deduced 
God's unwritten word of equal Authority with his written word.  out of God's Word, or drawn from undoubted Tradition, 'Tis the very same: For, as the Oral Taught Doctrine of the Apostles was, and is certain as Doctrine Registered in Scripture; so all that really is God's Unwritten Word, when proposed to us by the Church as such, is in Substance of equal Authority and Credit with the Written; For, it is not the setting down of Truths in Velume or Parchment that Add's more Weight to them, or makes them higher Verities. And here by the way, I cannot but Reflect on the inconsequent Proceeding of Protestants, who must Trust our Church for the Handing down to them Gods written Word, 
Sectaries ill Consequences.  whilst most Unreasonably They Reject Her Authority, when she Declares what the unwritten Word is. I say, most Unreasonable, For if it can Deceive in this later, it may as well have deceived Christians in the first, and given them falls Scripture. Whereof see more in the second Discourse.  
6. 'Tis true, There is Another way of Defining 
Another way called by Divines Asseveration.  called by some Divines Asseveratio, or, The Asserting of a Truth, not so Explicitly at least Believed before (as when the Church Defines against open Heretics what was Antecedently of Faith.) And Herein the Church Proceeds, not so much upon a Previous Known Act of Faith, as upon the General Owned Principles of Catholic Belief, whereunto Theological Discourses drawn from sound Divinity, And other Principles, partly Evident, and partly in a high Measure Morally Certain, have Access, And are most Prudently joined, Not That the Definition in itself, Relies on those lower Principles, But on God's Gracious Assistance ever with his Church in the Delivery of Truth. However, Providence will have this way followed, as a Usual and Necessary Condition, Because men of Reason, in so weighty Matters are not (as Sectaries do) to Define at random, but industriously to use Reason, And Proceed on rational Principles. But This belongs more to Divinity, then to Controversy: For I think the Church never yet Defined any thing against Heretics, that was not Antecedently a known and owned Truth of Faith, Though not so fully expressed, as it often is, by the Church's clearer Proposition. Thus we say: The Real Doctrine of Transubstantiation 
The Real Doctrine of Transubstantiaton as old as that of the Trinity etc.  is as old as the Doctrine of The Trinity, or the Consubstantiality of the Son with His Eternal Father, Though the Words Expressing these Mysteries more significantly and clearly, are of a later Date.  
7. Now to the Objections. And one Hinted at above is. The Church was solidly Founded in the 
An Objection.  Apostles time in all Things necessary to Salvation. Therefore These Post-nate Definitions of it are to no Purpose. To confirm This, Our young Antagonist Asks; Whether the Apostolical Declarations of the Ancient Primitive 
Of Apostolical Declarations lost.  Faith were lost in the intermediate Ages, or no? If not lost, Show them, saith He, And There is no Need of new Definitions, If they were lost in their Passage down, the Church now wants them, And therefore can Define nothing. Were the Play worth the candle, I might here Demand of Protestants whether Their Declared Sense, This is a Sign of my Body Added 
Is retorted.  to Christ's Words, This is my Body, which Sense They suppose to be Apostolical, was lost in the intermediate Ages, or no? If not lost, show us that Apostolical Declaration, and 'Tis enough. (But this is impossible.) If't was lost (or rather never in Being) How dare Sectaries make such a Declaration on their own Heads without Producing the Apostles Warrant? I Answer 
The Answer. The Church was solidly founded as 'Tis now. That which is sufficient in one Age Serves not always.  briefly to the Objection. The Church then was solidly Founded just as 'Tis now, the Doctrine is one and the Same, And every Article of it was ever, and is now still either explicitly, or implicitly Believed; Yet, These new Declarations are Necessary, Because the Proposition of a Doctrine sufficient in one Time, or Age, Serves not for all Times and Ages, when New Difficulties occur, And Heresies rise up against it. The Church therefore ever vigilant, and Desirous to quiet all, speaks Again more clearly the old Received Verities, Causelessly too often Bogled at by Sectaries. I say, more clearly, For, 'tis one thing to Assert: Such a Verity is not at all contained in Scripture, or in the Ancient Deposited 
Different Circumstances require clearer and more ample Declarations.  Doctrine of the Church: And another, To say it is so clearly There, That in order to us and different Circumstances, it needs not at all a further Declaration. Sectaries continually Declare Their Sense of Scripture (For They have no other Deposited Apostolical Doctrine to Talk of) And why may not the Church, Authorized by Christ, with Better Reason do so too? To what is Added to Help on the Objection, I have answered. 
Deposited Doctrine, following the Church through all Ages, is securely preserved.  The Deposited Doctrine Orally Delivered without writing is not lost, But still remain's in the Church's Treasury: 'Tis, as it were, Handed down from Age to Age, and Inseparably accompanies the Church through all Ages. Yea, and is kept there (Though not in Chists or Coffers) as securely as if't Had been engraven in Brass or Marble. And Sectaries must say thus much, 
Sectaries must grant This.  if They own Scripture for God's Word. For, are not They now as well Assured upon the Church's Testimony, or Unwritten Tradition, That St. john's Gospel was Indicted by the Holy Ghost, As if the Church produced a Handwriting to Evidence that Verity? Yes most Assuredly. Whoever therefore Dare call into 
Their urging for a hand writing of Apostolical Doctrine is proved frivolous.  Question the Church's Authority Asserting a Doctrine, Though it Produce no Manual Writing For it, May as easily Doubt (if it show you One) Whether that very Exhibited Evidence be Authentical, or no. Let us only Imagine that the Apostle, that writ the last Part of the New Testament, had exactly set down the whole Canon of Scripture, which the Church now Receives. Let us Suppose again, That very copy to be left in the Hands of some Pious Christians Living in those Days, 
No hand-writing distinct from Scripture is comparable to the Churches own Authority.  and so long Preserved, Until After Heretics excluded from the Canon such and such Books of Holy Scripture, as Luther lately Did St. james Epistle. Both they, and Luther might more Rationally have doubted of that very written Instrument, than any can now Doubt of a whole Church's Authority, owning the Canon of Scripture to be as it is. No Charter Therefore, no written Instrument, Though once truly made, when the Author is gone, can Parallel the Church's Testimony in what it Asserts. The 
The Reason.  Reason is: Because a Manuscript only Tell's you what it Contains, but, not Whose it is, and though it did so, Men might yet question the Forgery of it, unless an Authority beyond Exception ( to the writing) take away all Fear of Cozenage, and make it Undoubted. 
Tradition surer than any Manuscript.  This Reason proves Tradition Necessary in the Church as well for the owning of Scripture, as other Verities.  
8. I have said thus much to show How near to a Piece of Nonsense our Adversaries Draw, when, To Cancel the later Definitions of the Church, They urge us to produce the old Apostolical Declarations, whereby these later Definitions are proved Authentic. Can you Imagine what They would be at? Would 
These men would have They know not what.  they have an Authentic Attestation, to prove what the Church hath Defined ever since the Apostles Time, is the Ancient Apostolical Doctrine? The Church Tell's Them it is so, but That's not enough. Would they have a Register Distinct from the Church's Declaration containing the Sum of all Apostolical Doctrine? Yes sure this They seek for, if their Demand of having the Apostles Declarations shown them carry Sense with it. For example, we must show them by some written Record more Ancient than all the Definitions of the Church are, That the Apostles held a Purgatory, Transubstantiation, a Sacrifice etc. Or, at least Prove these Doctrines to be grounded on ●ndoubted Received Tradition. I have answered. Suppose the Roman Catholic 
They are clearly confuted.  Church (And here we speak of no other, For I hope Sectaries will not urge us to show Them writings Received from Ancient Heretics) should Produce a Record containing a Summary of Apostolical Doctrine, Our Adversaries might more justly except against that as an old unproved Legend, than They are now able Rationally to except against the Church's Definitions: Because such an Imagined Record must either be Approved by as great an Authority as the Churches is to gain it Credit, or by a Greater. There cannot be a greater in this present State of Things, than the Churches own Authority; But Sectaries Reject this Authority when the Churck Defines, Therefore they would much more easily Reject that supposed written Instrument, though it told them exactly what She now Defines is Apostolical Doctrine. As much Therefore 
The Church can do as much without the Imagined Handwriting as with it.  as the Church can be supposed to do by the Help of such an Imagined Writing, it can do without it: For if it have Authority to Legitimate, as it were, such a Writing, it's own Authority is as worthy of Credit, when it Defines without the Writing. You see Therefore how Unreasonably these men require a Codicil containing the old Apostolical Doctrine, which ought, Forsooth, to be Exhibited and showed them, Before they can be persuaded that the Church fairhfully Proposeth, or Defines a Doctrine to be Apostolical.  
9 Now if They be convinced, that, to Require such a Manuscript from us is as Unreasonable, as if we should Press them to produce one for Their late Novelties, And therefore urge the Church to prove her Defined Doctrine by undoubted Tradition. I answer, The Church doth So, whilst They, God knows, Allege nothing like Tradition, for so much as one of their New Articles. 
A Fallacy of Sectaries about Tradition.  And here because we have a fit Occasion, I'll Discover in a Word the Fallacy of Sectaries in this matter of Tradition. I say in a Word, For 'tis not my Task now to Handle that Question largely. Thus it is. Sectaries ever suppose, when the Church Defines a Doctrine upon the Tradition of former Ages, it is obliged to show them, the very Doctrine, in express Terms (Antecedently to the Definitions) owned, and writ down in the Volumes of some one or more Learned Fathers. Whence it is They Argue: 
How Sectaries argue.  No man heard of a Purgatory before St. Augustine's Time, and He only hints at it slightly; nor of Transubstantiation before the Lateran Council etc. Therefore those Doctrines are Novelties lately introduced. I Answer. Were all this True, The Argument is an unconcluding Negative, and runs 
By uncluding Negatives.  limping thus: Antiquity, or the Ancient Fathers have not Expressed every Defined Doctrine of the Church in the like Explicit Terms as the Church useth, Therefore such Doctrines were not really Received by the Church. Observe well. From the want of an Expression suitable to Sectaries Fancy, They Infer 
The Fathers express Things sometimes one way, and the Church another.  the Doctrine was never Taught by Antiquity. Alas, the Fathers had their Expressions one way, and the Church, after mature Deliberation, another (often more significant) Yet, Both Aimed at the same Verity, though differently set forth in Words, as is clear in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, called by the Fathers a Real Change of Bread into Christ's Body, By the Lateran Council, as you here se, otherwise. I say yet Farther. Had the Fathers not at all so much as Hinted at a Doctrine Defined by the Church, the Argument is yet Purely Negative, and worth nothing. 
Sectaries Discourse highly improbable.  But is here all? No. Their Discourse upon another Account is highly Improbable. To prove what I say, Do no more, but only Imagine, That Three or Four of the most Ancient and Learned Fathers, Had in express Terms Owned and Registered in Their Writings the Lateran Councils Definition concerning Transubstantiation, as received, Orthodox, and Catholic Doctrine, just as that Council Defines it; would Sectaries than have owned it as Ancient, and Orthodox, upon those 
The Definition of a General Council gives Security.  Father's Testimony? If they say, Yes, They are Evidently convinced: For the sole Authority of a most Ample Learned Council, is in true Prudence a Firmer Principle, and a better Proof to Rely on, If we inquire after known and received Orthodox Doctrine ever held in the Church, Then the very best Assurance, That one or more Fathers can give Us of it. For, who see's not, But that the very Definitions of the Nicene, of the Council of Ephesus, or Chalcedon etc. Are more weighty to beget in us a Belief, That, what Those Councils Defined (to be received Truths) were so indeed, Then if twenty other Fathers had Antecedently writ them in their 
Councils Representing a whole Church know more than particular Fathers.  learned Volumes? The Reason is: Because General Councils Representing a whole Church, Spread all the World over, cannot but know more Exactly what Tradition, and the Received Doctrine of Christianity is, Then Private Men can be Supposed to know, who lived in several Parts of the World, And bade no Obligation to Register entirely the Church's Doctrine in every Particular. Thus much is said, if the Church at any time Defines upon Tradition only: Fo● 'Tis most certain, that beside Tradition, it Relies on Scripture also; and Hitherto never wanted the Authority of most Worthy Fathers that undubitably Taught as it Defined, Though not always perhaps in such Express and significant Words. 
If Sectaries Reject both Church and Fathers, when they have not a word of Scripture for them,   
10. Now on the other side, If Sectaries will neither Allow of the Father's Doctrine, Susiposing it were Express for our Catholic Verities (as most evidently 'tis in twenty Controversies) nor, of the Church's Definitions Already Declared in Eighteen General Councils, We are out of the Reach of all Principles, And must leave them to their unsteedy Fancies, or wilful Obstinacy, And pity Their Deplorable Condition. 
They are more to be pitied then Disputed against.   
11. One word now to a Tedious Harange of jeers, 'Tis a mile long at least, and Wearies one out, before He runs it half Over. After our Adversary had 
Answer to our Adversaries jeers of Millstones.  Talked of Millstones hung about our Necks, of the Pope's Supremacy, Transubstantiation etc. He Tell's us: When the Apostles were sent to Preach all that Christ Commanded, This must be Understood, that the Church had Power to Teach more if She pleased.— Alas, the Apostles were only Tutors to the Church in its Minority, But the great Divine Mysteries of the Seven Sacraments, Indulgences, Sacrifice of the Mass, were not fit to be Declared till the Church was at Age— What not one Word of Necessary Points all this while?— Nothing of the Church of Rome, nor Christ's Vicar on Earth & c? Thus our young Tully Tattles. To Retort his Argument, I might here load him with the lesser Millstones of his Inferior Negative Truths; For these hang about his Submissive Neck, if He be a Child of the Church of England, And are as numerous as our contrary Positives. But he will say, they weigh little, Because They are light Negatives. Be it so. Were the Apostles, Think Ye, so Tongue-tied, so Sparing of their Words as not once to Hint at one of these Inferior Truths? What not a Syllable 
The Apostles strangely sparing of Protestants Doctrine.  Through the whole Bible of two Sacraments only, of no Purgatory, of no Sacrifice, Nor, of a Sort of New Men that were to Peep out sixteen Ages after, and Reform the World? O, were They alive Again, how would Sectaries storm at their Silence, And utter Forgetfulness of These New Nothings, which yet are the very best Essentials of Protestancy, or it hath no Essence. Thus men might Talk. But, Ad Rem.  
12. This whole wordy Argument, is just like Protestant Religion, purely Negative, And brought to its best Sense Draws apace towards Nonsense Thus: Christ and his Apostles Declared not to the World These Doctrines of the Pope's Supremacy, of the Sacrifice of the Mass, of Purgatory etc. Therefore they are no Foundations of Faith. I first Deny the Antecedent. How will 
Scripture Speaks more expressly of the Pope's Supremacy, then of a Trinity.  you prove it? Marry Thus. Scripture saith nothing of them. I Deny that also: It speaks more Expressly of the Pope's Supremacy, And of a Sacrifice, Then of a Trinity of Persons in One Divine Essence, or of Infant Baptism. But let us Gratis suppose, it do not so. Here lies the Strength of your Objection, which is Improbably Negative. Scripture saith not, that the Apostles 
The Objection Improbably Negative.  Believed, and Taught a Sacrifice, the Pope's Supremacy etc. Ergo, They neither Believed, nor Taught them. Observe well your Negative. From the not Registering of all in Scripture that the Apostles knew, Believed, and Taught, you infer: They knew no More, or, at least Believed, and Taught no More. Which is as Unlucky a Sequel as this. You, Sir, have not Writ Down in your Rational Account of Protestancy All that your Learned Head hath in it, All you Believe, and Teach Others. Therefore you Know Nothing, Believe Nothing, Teach Nothing, But what is Expressed in that Book. In a Word I have Answered 
The Successors of the Apostles Teach what is Apostolical Doctrine.  above n. 22. The Church of Christ, that is. The Heirs and Successors of the Apostles with whom the Mysteries of Faith were Deposited, Teach us what Apostolical Doctrine is, and This Positive, Approved by Scripture, And all Antiquity, hath more Weight in it, Then twenty of your weak Negative Discourses.  
13. But we must not Part thus. I said just now. Your Objection Against us is an Improbable Negative; And I Appeal to your own Conscience, whether it be not so? For, can You or any Prudent Man Imagine, that all the exact Words, or Express Doctrine Delivered by 
It is improbable to say, all that the Apostles taught, is registered in Scripture.  the Apostles in their laborious Sermons, when They Preached to jews and Gentiles, are Recorded in Holy Scripture? No. I may well say in St. john's Sense, speaking of our Saviour's Works, the whole World, or whole Volumes would not contain them. Therefore All They taught cannot be Supposed to be either lost, or Shut up in Scripture. Take here your own Instance of St. Paul, it Undoes you. He Blessed Man Act. 20. 20. 21. Kept nothing back that was profitable to them, But shown them and taught them publicly from House to House, Testifying to the jews and Gentiles Penance towards God, and Faith in our Lord jesus Christ. You, upon this Testimony too simply Demand. What not one Word all this while of the Necessary Points, nothing of the Church of Rome, nor Christ Vicar on Earth? I might Ask you, Nothing all this whole of Infant Baptism, of the Eternal Consubstantiality of the Son with God His Father? Good, Sir, Reflect, whilst the Apostle spoke of Faith in our Lord jesus Christ, He might well have Declared both these now named and many other Particular Christian Verities: I do not say He did so at that Present, But This I'll Defend Against you. Because Scripture only relates in a General Way what St. Paul Preached, 
A weak Inference of This Adversary.  You can neither Probably nor Positively Infer, That he omitted to speak of These, and other Necessary Doctrines. I say in a General Way. For, Do you think that St. Luke Recounts in Particular all the Doctrinal Points, that the Apostle Delivered, when he went Preaching From House to House? Or, can You Persuade yourself that All the Hagiographers put together, have Recounted all the Doctrinal Matters (not one omitted) That Christ our Lord ever Spoke, and the Apostles Taught upon several Occasions? Pray you ask your Conscience, whether you can judge this Probable? If 
It does not follow that what Scripture relates not, is not to be Believed.  not; The Argument. Scripture Relates not those particular Doctrines, whereat you Cavil, (which is yet untrue) Ergo They were neither Believed nor Taught, is not only a Negative, But an improbable Negative.  
14. To conclude, Let me Friendly ask you, whether this your Positive Assertion. The Apostles never Believed nor taught a Sacrifice, or the Pope's Supremacy, Be an Article of your new Faith, or only one of your Inferior Truths? If you Affirm the first; You are Obliged to produce Positive Scripture for it, And then it will be a 
A Dilemma that cannot be Answered.  Superior Truth Revealed by God, Though, perhaps in your Principles, not Necessary to Salvation. Grant thus much, And you too Clearly own Revealed Articles over and above Those, which the whole Christian World, and Rome itself Believes. Now if it be only an Inferior Truth, And not in Gods written Word: With what 
Sectaries offer to reclaim us by Scripture, and have not one Text to that purpose.  Conscience, or Countenance can you Protestants, who Always Pretend to Reclaim us from our Errors by pure Scripture, Venture probably on such a Work, when you have not so much as one Word of Scripture that inables you to Advance a Proof against us? Relying on these Grounds, and firm Principles,  
15. We easily Solve another trivial Objection of 
Another objection solved of Scripture containing all Things Necessary.  Sectaries; which is. Scripture contains all Things Necessary to Salvation, Therefore we need no new Definitions made by the Church. I might say, much less do we Stand in need of Protestants new Declarations, forced on Scripture, without a Church. But y'le Answer in a Word. Though Scripture contained all the Oral taught, Apostolical Doctrine, and, what ever else is Necessary to Salvation (which is Falso) yet, when we see with our Eyes, that Sacred Book pitifully Abused by Heretics, not only 
Heretics make Scripture useless  in lesser Matters (as They account of Them) But in the very Highest Mysteries of our Christian Faith; it must needs be a useless Book in Their Hands without an Infallible Interpreter, And therefore cannot Decide Controversies, nor Tell us what is Necessary to Salvation, as I have largely proved, Disc. 2. Nay farther. Some may justly Question, 
It may be doubted whether an Angel could write a Book so plain of other High Mysteries, which the vulgar would not misunderstand.  Whether, if a very Angel writ a Book as full of other High Mysteries, yet unknown to the World, as the Bible now Contains, And used his best Skill to Express Those Vertties in the most Clear and significant Language Imaginable; Some, I say, may Doubt, whether such a Written Book, left only to the Private judgements of Those whole Multitudes, who now read Scripture, would not be misunderstood in a hundred Passages, if no After▪ Teacher Regulated the weak Readers of it in Their Difficulties, or did not comply with the Duty of an Infallible Interpreter. Therefore the Bible which is now Extant, And contains the High Mysteries of our Faith (often less clearly expressed) much more need's an Interpreter. And, perhaps, the wise Providence of God would have it writ so on set Purpose, that Christians should have Recours to a Living Oracle of Truth, and Learn of it, what They cannot Reach to by their own simple Reading. You 
Church Doctrine is repeated again and Again, None can be ignorant of it.  will say an Angel can write a Book as clear to all Capacities, as the Church's Definitions are. Very True. What then? That Book only once writ, is left, as we now Suppose, to the Sentiments of private Ignorant Men (as the Bible now is in Their Hands) But God hath provided that the Church's Doctrine be not only once Delivered, No. It is Laid forth anew, it is implanted anew; it is repeated and cast, like good seed, Again and Again into men's Hearts and Memories by Faithful Pastors and Teachers, who shall never fail the Church to the End of the World.  
16. A third objection. The Church's Definitions, Because Men declare them (and all Men are Liars) cannot be Infallible, and Therefore Ground no Faith. Contra 1. Ergo, Neither Sectaries Novelties, Nor the General Doctrine 
A cleur Conviction of Sectaries.  owned by all Christians (of one God and one Christ, Because men Teach them, And all are Liars) may yet be Fallible, and Falls also. Grant, or Deny the Sequel, you are Silenced. Contra 2. If All are Fallible, and consequently may be Liars in what they Teach, why Vent you, my good Friends, So many Negative Doctrines, which may all be falls? Truly▪ if There be no Infallibility in the World, you neither aught to Vapour, as you do, with your Inferior Negatives, not Blame our 
They Condemn Themselves whilst their Censure is Fallible.  Contrary Positives; For in Doing so, You condemn your own judgement, and Advance no Proof against us. Your Fallible Censure (were our Church Fallible) Goes not one Step above a tottering Fallibility, And therefore is too faint to Oppose the Churches contrary Doctrine, Though falsely Supposed Fallible. Mark well. I 
Our Church's Doctrine, Though supposed fallible, is as Good as Sectaries Confessed Fatli●●e Doctrine.  must say it once more. You Fallible men tell me That my Church's Doctrine is Fallible. Admit of the Falls Supposition, it is yet, upon all Accounts as Good as yours, or as This very fallible Affirmation is, That says its Fallible, And, if in real Truth it be Infallible, it is much Better.  
17. One word more. If Any People on Earth ought to stand for the Infallibility of a new Invented Religion, The Abetters of Protestancy (could they Proceed consequently) should Do it. Why? They Deprive Men of their Estates, cast them into Prison, Banish some, Hang up 
Why Sectaries persecute Catholics, while jews are tolerated.  others, And All this is Don, Because poor Catholics cannot in Conscience conform to a Religion that is Professedly Fallible, and Uncertain. Now, if such Crueltly can be practised on Christians (whilst jews, And the worst of Heretics are Tolerated to live quietly) For a Thing, that's only Fallible, and may as well be Falls as True, we are 
The Reason is, because we▪ cannot believe a Religion, That may be as likely Falsas True.  surely at an End of all good Discourse, grounded on Christian Principles. What? To Banish us, to Confiscate men's Estates, To Shed our Blood, For a Religion That may be Falls, when we Believe our Creed, And Profess as much as these newer Sectaries make Essential to any Religion of Christians, is, to speak moderately, an unheard of Severity. Yet so it is. They Do not Harrass us as they do, Because we Believe in one God, and one Christ, or own a Doctrine common to all Christians; For themselves Believe so much. But Here is our supposed 
Mark well our supposed Crime.  Crime. We cannot Assent to a Religion that may be Falls, we cannot Subscribe to a Company of new Negative Nothings, And Therefore we are lashed and Persecuted. Nay (and I'll tell you a Wonder) our Gild goes not so High: 
A wonder never enough to be admired.  For, though we were in our very Hearts Arians, or, As we are Catholics, yet, if in the Exterior we do as Sectaries do, we are still lovely Children of the Church of England. Learn Therefore this Truth; it is undeniable. All the Storms of Persecution Raised against us, Are not upon any 
In real Truth we are persecuted because we will not be plain Hypocrites.  Account of want of True Faith; But, for this Sole Reason, That we will not Believe one Thing, and Force our Consciences to Profess an Other, Which is to say: We are Handled thus roughly, Because we will not Dissemble with God and Man, and become plain Hypocrites. Herein only Lies our Trespass. justus es Domine, & recta judicia tua. judge you, my God, whether that no-offence Merit's These Scourges.  
18. By what is now said, You may easily Perceive, That, when Sectaries seemingly Bemoan our Blindness (God knows how much of The Grief lies at their Hearts) And Tell us, They have Done what is possible to Convert us, to Drive us from Superstition, 
Sectaries cannot say, to what they would convert us.  And Draw us to the Purity of Their New Gospel, They only give Words without Substance: For, to What would they Convert us? Will They have us Believe the General Received Doctrine of all Christians? We were Converted to this before Protestants Appeared in the World. Do they desire to Convert us to a Belief of their New Negatives? These are, at most, uncertain Inferior Truths, no way Essential to Christian Religion. Put 
Our positive Doctrine weighed with Sectaries Negatives.  the case, by a supposed Impossibility, that our Contrary Positives, were only Inferior Truths like Protestants Negatives, They might notwithstanding most justly hang in the Balance with Them, and would certainly outweigh Them, Because a more Ample and Universal Church own's Them. All therefore They can Drive at, when They Pretend to convert us, is, That We carry 
They only careser the exterior form of Protestancy  about Us, The Exterior form of Protestancy in our Demeanour, Though we still remain Catholics in Hart, They care not. That is, as I said now, They would Convert us to be plain Hypocrites.  
19 From this and the precedent Discourse it follows, 
A Fallible Religion cannot defend itself.  That whosoever Embraceth a Fallible Religion, which may be Falls, can neither Defend his own, nor impugn another upon any grounded Principle, much less can He Persecute his Adversary to Death or Imprisonment, Though He 
Nor the Professors of it persecute others.  mantain's a contrary Religion, in like manner Fallible. The Reason hereof is Clear. Because, The Defense of a Religion That's Fallible, And the opposition made against another Answerably weak, and Fallible, cannot go beyond the Strength 
The Reason is Evident.  of that last Ground whereon the Defense, or Impugnation (ultimately resolved) have their Footing. But, if the Religion be Fallible and uncertain, The last Ground whereon the whole Machine (either of Proof, or Opposition) stands, must needs be A Distasteful, opinative Conjecture, Which, without Certitude, or Satisfaction, is as 
A Defender of a Fallible Religion, cannot preserve himself from Scorn.  unfit and forceles to Convince another of a contrary Belief, as to preserve itself from the Scorn and Contempt of him, though he profess no more but a Faith that's Fallible. Put the Case, That a Pelagian and a Protestant are hard at a hot Dispute: The Question proposed is, Whether of these two Religions (we suppose them both Fallible) is the better? With what Proof, or Principle can this Fallible Protestant Assault his Fallible Adversary, when He knows he cannot go one Step further than to what is purely Fallible? If he interpret Scripture, that's Fallible, if he Quote Fathers, both They and He are Fallible, if He cite Councils, the Definitions (with him) are Fallible, if He cry up his own Religion as having the Upperhand in Probability, He only throws his single vote into the Vr●, which when 'tis examined, comes to no more But his Own Sic videtur, or Self Fallible 
He can neither convince his Adversary, nor persecute him, but most unjustly.  Conceit. And Hence it follows, That, as He cannot Prove his Religion against his Adversary, so He cannot, but must unjustly Persecute him, if he Refuse to Embrace that which cannot be Proved. But most certainly his Proofs go not beyond the Bounds of Uncertainty, and Therefore cannot oblige his Adversary to Believe him. And Thus these two Combatants may wink, and fight to the day of judgement, without ending one Controversy, or falling on any Thing like a certain Principle.  
20. I'll say here a strange Word, And think it very True. Would A Learned Atheist write a large Volume 
An Atheist might say as much against God as.  against the Existency of God, or, A Learned jew against jesus Christ; They might prove as much, by a Roving, fallible Talk, Grounded on no Principles, against These great Verities of Christian Faith, as ever Protestant hath yet Proved against the Roman Catholic Church. 
Protestants can say against the Roman Catholic Church.  For, Their new Mode of writing is a long, loose, wearisome Discourse, without Reducing either Proof for their own Religion, or Opposition made against Catholic Doctrine, to Any Thing like a received Principle. Mark this in all particular Controversies, you will find mere uncertain Conjectures to be the last ground, whereon, either Their Proofs or Arguments Against us stand, most unsettled. Yet it should be Otherwise: For, whoever will venture to impugn a Religion That's Held by the greatest part of Christians Infallible, must strike Home, and Reach to sound Principles Before He Touch it, much less break it a Pieces. Sectaries may say, They are able at least to Defend Christian Religion in General, owned 
Their Defense of Christian Religion in in general is to no purpose.  by all the World; For the rest of Protestancy it may go whether you will, Nec seritur nec metitur, They are not solicitous. My God are we come to this Pass now? What must all the Disturbance of Sectaries, their Schism and Rebellion made Against a Church, their Glosses on Scripture, And the whole Machine of Protestancy End thus in a Non Probatur, it cannot be proved? Is that only, now asserted Defensible (to wit the common Doctrine of all Christians) That precisely taken is no man's Religion, And Needs no Defense?  
21. Some other Objections yet remain, But are all Solved upon the Principles now established. One is. If every Doctrine Defined by the Church be Fundamental, the Church lays its own Foundations. Contra: There was Fundamental Faith in the Church before Scripture was writ: Did Scripture Therefore lay New Foundations of 
Scripture Declared anew the Antecedent believed Doctrine of the Church  Faith, Because it Declared anew that Antecedent owned Doctrine? Thus we Say, the Church Declares the Ancient objective Faith of foregoing Christians, ever implicitly at least Believed, And not otherwise. A second Objection less to the Purpose. The Teaching Church either Believes in that Instant Sht Defines a thing Necessary to Salvation, or doth not. If She doth, It was Necessary before the Definition newly made; If not, She Defines something Necessary to Salvation which was not before Necessary. To answer the Objection, I might ask whether St. john when he writ this Proposition. The Word is made Flesh, Believed that Article of Christian Faith before he writ it, or no? If yes, it was of Necessity to be Believed before. If not, He delivered something Necessary to Salvation which was not so before. In one short Word, Here is the solution to No Real Difficulty. The Church at least Implicitly Believed before, what 
The Church believes Implicitly before She Defines, but more Explicitly after for her own Definition.  it Defines, yet may and doth more Explicitly Believe the same Mystery in that very Instant She Defines, Because God Speaks that Truth more clearly by Her Definition. So St. john Believed the Incarnation of the Divine Word for His Definition. Verbum Caro factum est. The Word is made Flesh, Though without Doubt He Assented to the Mystery, (and by Divine Faith also) Before He writ His Gospel. But enough of these Forceles Arguments, long since Proposed and solved, which only give a Testimony of Sectaries ready will (to offer at something) and weakness with it (to do nothing.) For, you see clearly, They cannot press us with a real Difficulty.   

CHAP. VIII.  
Protestants are Unreasonable in the Defense of Their late Manifest and Undoubted Schism.  
1. SEctaries Are no no where more unluckily out of the Compass of Reason, Then in Their Discourses of Schism. I shall endeavour to make The Assertion good in the ensuing Chapters.  
2. To Proceed clearly. First, it is most certain, 
Martin Luther's first Separation.  That Martin Luther, And His Associates, once Roman Catholics, Separated Themselves from the Communion of that Ancient Church, which gave them Baptism About the Year 1517. 2. It is as Evident, that our following Sectaries Uphold still, And Stiffly Defend that Actual Separation made by Luther, as a Necessary 
Sectaries Defense of it.  lawful Fact, And well Don. 3. It is no less clear, That as Luther, when He first began his Revolt from the Church, stood all Alone, without joining Himself to any visible Society of Christians then extant in the Christian World; So, it is now as Manifest, That our Protestants to This very Day, stand 
Sectaries yet stand solitarily Alone, not united with Any Christian Society.  also a solitary Society alone, owning no Fellowship, Union, or Communication of Liturgies, Rites, or Sacraments with any Church Through the Universal World. They forsake Catholics, They forsake Grecians, Arians, Abyssins', Nestorians, Socinians, and All the rest of Christians.  
3. My first Proposition. If ever Schism was in the World, or, can Possibly be conceived, Protestants are most 
The first Proposition.  Evidently guilty of a Formal Separation from all other Christian Churches, which Denominates them Formal Separatists, or, in plain English; Schismatics. The Assertion is so clear that it needs no Proof: For, say, I beseech You; If any man in England (now Starting up with a few Followers at his heels) should utterly Deny our Gracious Sovereign to be Supreme Head of that Kingdom, as also Abjure the Salutary Laws there in Cours; Or Finally, should So make Himself and Associates a Body a part, That all Obedience and Submission were 
The case of Rebels in a Kingdom compared with Protestants Schism.  shaken of, Respectively, to both King and Gouvernment etc. Would not this Man, Think ye, Highly Merit the Title of a Rebel, or (in Civil Affairs) of a most Uncivil and ungracious Schismatic? Yes, most undoubtedly. This is our very Case. England, All the World Knows, Once owned The Pope of Rome, not only For the first Patriarch, But Supreme 
What England anciently was.  Head of the Universal Church: It Admitted of this Church's Discipline and Laws, And yielded Obedience to Them: It communicated with the Roman Church, As▪ well in Points of Faith, as in the use of Rites, Liturgies, and Sacraments. Yet All These, And, in a short Time, were Shaken of. Luther And our Late men to 
How it Revoked from the Church,  this Day, make Themselves a Body a Part; And, to Add more to the bargain, as yet, join with no other Society of Christians, either in Faith Discipline, or, 
And yet is joined to no other Society of Christians.  The like Communion of Rites, and Sacraments. Therefore, if a Schism can be conceived (Define Schism how you Will) This both was, And is still the highest Degree of a plain Formal Schism, and Separation from an Ancient Church, that Ever yet appeared in the World.  
4. To Solve this unanswerable Difficulty, Our Later men are pleased to Play, in a Matter most serious, 
Sectaries play in a serious Matter with an ungrounded Distinction.  with a Pretty Distinction, which Intricates Them more, Then they are ware of. First then, Distinguish, Say They, between an Actual and Causal Separation, next Apply it thus, And you have the Truth. We Protestant's made an Actual Separation from the Church of Rome ('Tis granted) And so are (Though the word is Harsh) the Formal Schismatics: But you Papists, are the Causal Separatists, That is, Ye gave the true Cause of our Parting from you, And Therefore are the Schismatics before God; For Schism is Theirs, who give the first Cause of it, And not Theirs, who make the Actual Breach upon a Grounded And most just Cause, as We have Don. Thus our new Doctor's Discourse, But how Unreasonably, We shall Declare presently. In the mean while, You 
Intolerable Boldness in Luther and▪ His Followers, to accuse and condemn an Ancient Church without Power o● jurisdiction.  see one wretched Luther, And a mean Handful of Followers so pertly Bold, so Audacioufly Impertinent, As not only to Accuse a whole Ample, Ancient, and Learned Church, But more, without Power, Authority, or any jurisdiction over it: You See Them also sit as judges in a Cause They Had nothing to Do with; And Then, Inauditâ causâ, Proceed to a Sentence, And condemn it of Errors And Causal Schism. And can Reason, Think ye, Enter here, or ever Countenance such a Proceeding? It is Impossible. Had But a spark of Reason lived in These novelists, They Ought to have 
Such suspected Accusers could not be judges.  known, that Accusers (so Unvaluable, so few, and so Rationally Suspected of Malice) Can be no fit Judges in so Grave and Weighty a Matter: They ought to have owned this very Fact a most Desperate one, First, Openly to Rebel, And then without any Other 
A most Desperate Fact first to Rebel, and then to suppose without Proof, They had Reason for their Rebellion.  Proof, But Their own Proofles Word, Tacitly to Suppose They had great Reason For their Rebellion. Had reason Regulated Here, They should have Laid forth the supposed Evidences of their Charge against our Church to a Third Impartial Judge (They Talk of an Universal Church Distinct from the Roman) why did They not Appeal to This, And then Acquiesce in some other Sentence and Judgement Better than Their own? But to Accuse so vast a Society of Ancient Christians as we are, And know not WHY; To Condemn it of Error, and know not WHEREFORE; And, This before no other Tribunal but Themselves, who were the Rebels, Savor's so strongly of Sauciness 
The very Method held in our Protestants condemnation, was Illegal and contemptible.  and Selfconceipted Pride, That the very Method Held in the Condemnation, Makes all to look upon it as Naught, Foul, Illegal, and Contemptible.  
5. To Prosecute further this most Necessary Point, Thus much I will Say, and wish All may well Consider it. It is most Evident, That This Actual Breach with Rome, This Rupture, This Rent, This Rebellion, This 
The Formal Separation of Sectaries from an Ancient Church is Evident.  Divorce from an Ancient Church, This Formal Schism (Cover all as much as is possible under the smother Term of an Actual Separation) is as clear on our Protestants Side, As the Sun's Shining at Noon▪ day, like Dirt it lies at their Doors, and They will never be Able to Sweep it away. But to Say, That Catholics laid such Nastines There, 
But to say that Rome was cause of it, is a mere unproved Calumny.  or, That Rome caused This Sehism, neither is, nor shall be any more, than a mere Supposed Whimsy, An unproved Calumny, As long as Truth is in the World.  
6. Say therefore, I Beseech you, Good Dear Countrymen, Why was the Roman Catholic Church the Cause of your Schism; Why Separated you your Selves from it? You Answer. A multitude of Corruptions, 
What Sectaries allege, as cause of their breach.  of Superstitions, of new Forged Articles in Faith, of Innovations, and I know not what more, made you leave this Church, so Far as it had receded from its Ancient Purity. Very good: The Charge Drawn up, goes High, And is evidently Heinous. But Say on: Are your 
The Question is whether Proofs answer to the Charge?  Proofs Answerably as Strong, or Equally Evident To make the Charge good Against this Church, Both Accused, and Condemned by you? Or, which Comes much to one, Are these Proofs as Manifest To justify your Formal Schism, as 'Tis evident, that you Made it? Such an Evident charge 
Or are as manifest to justify that Formal Rupture as 'Tis Evident, it was made?  against a Church, and so Tragical a Separation▪ from it, Acted by you, Must both in Law and Conscience Be Supported and Born up by Evidence. The weightiness of the Matter Requires it. Weak feeming Probabilities, mere crazy and Conjectural Arguments (Atheists Vent such against God and Jews against Christ are Here too 'Slight, and Forceles, Either to Acquit you of your 
Weak crazy Conjectures prove Nothing.  most sinful Formal▪ Schism, or, To make us Guilty of the Causal.  
7. Come therefore, Let us not word it Longer, But go closely to Work. We Appeal to Reason and undoubted Principles in this Controversy. These (and not Talk, nor mere Conjectures) must Uphold your Proofs, if you have any Against our Ancient Church. To Proceed Therefore clearly,  
8. Note first, That the Supposed Errors, charged on 
Errors charged on our Church are not Evident ex Terminis.  the Roman Catholic Church by Protestants, are not like the first Principles in Nature, Evident ex Terminis, By their own Light. Their Evidence Therefore, if any be, must be laid forth in a Solid and Convincing Discourse, And This Discourse, if Convincing, is to be Driven on by a Medium, which either by itself is, or doth at last Rest on some 
Therefore must be proved by Discourse reduced to owned Principles.  Known and Owned Principle; Owned, I say, and Admitted of, not by the One or Other Dissenting Party, But Common to them Both. If such Principles Fail, or the Discourse, which is carried on, Derives not Strength and Certitude from Them, The Force of Arguing (turned either into a Roving Talk, or Clamours) is Lost, Becomes Lame, Deficient, and Vnconcluding.  
9 Note 2. Whilst Sectaries, by Imputing Error to the Roman Catholic Church, make it the Cause 
The Self-saying of Sectaries is excluded from being a Proof.  of Their Formal Schism, They are not to Suppose, That Their own bare Assertion, or, Saying, We have Erred, can be either Proof strong enough, Or any Thing like a satisfactory Reason in This matter: For their Saying is no▪ Received Principle. I Note thus much on set Purpose, Because I really Perceive a strange Humour in our Protestant Writers. You have in their Books 
Protestants Humour In Writing Controversies.  ('Tis true) Difficulties now and then hinted at, Words multiplied, Much Talk in General, Intricate Discourses carried on in Darkness (And This to Amuse a vulgar Reader) weak Conjectures Enough, now Drawn from This, now from That unevidenced Authority, Margins charged with Greek and Latin, And Learned Margins They are, or must be Thought so. But after All, you see the main Difficulties waved, you Find Nothing Proved, Nothing clearly Reduced to 
They bring nothing to undoubted Principles.  any other Owned Principle, But Their own Proofles word, and Bare Assertion: In so much, that I am Apt to Believe (if I think Amiss God forgive me) All that Protestants Aim at in their Polemical Writings, is only to Keep up Talk in the World, And Glory when They have the last Word in a Controversy, whether a Proved Word, or no, it Imports not, so it can be said, They have Answered.  
10. Note 3. If, As we Both must and will exclude 
The Principles They are to Rely on, whilst They condemn our Church of Error.  the Self-saying and Own-voting of Protestants from the Nature of a Rational Proof, whilst They Accuse and Condemn our Church of Errors, They are Necessitated to have Recours to other Principles, And, I think, There can be none better, nor more Free from all Exception, Then These I now Name. 1. Plain speaking Scripture. 2. The unanimous Consent of Fathers, Add to These, if you Pleas, the Indubitable Definitions of Ancient Councils. 3. Universal Tradition. Proofs, which run on in good Form, and Finally Rest on These, or the like Foundations, are Solid, Undeniable, and concluding. If They swerve from such Grounds, They Become both Faint, and Forceles, And cannot But Participate much of Fancy, which we utterly Reject.  
11. By the Recours to Plain Scripture, We Exclude All weak and unproved Glosses of Sectaries. By Recurring 
Exceptions justly made Against Protestants.  to the unanimous Consent of Fathers, we Highly Except Against an Unworthy Proceeding of Protestants, who, if by Chance They meet with a Patch, or maimed Sentence of a Father, which, because Dubious, seemingly Makes for Them, They Triumph, as if the Victory were Theirs. Soft and fair, Say I, There is no such matter: For no Doctrine Doubtfully Delivered by a Father (and 'Tis then doubtful, when it justly may Admit of Different Interpretations) Can Pass For a Received Principle (Principles are clear) Much less hath it force to Blemish the Purity of an Ancient learned Church, whose sole Authority is greater Than 
The Dubious sentiment of a Fatherless, than the clear judgement of the Church  can be the Dubious Sentiment of any one Father. And Thus much our Adversaries must Acknowledge; For, Though a whole Torrent of Fathers undeniably Comes against Them (As is most evident in Twenty Controversies, Take for Example that one of an Unbloody Sacrifice Daily Offered up in the Church, Or the Real Presence) They Answer (Forsooth) the Fathers were 
Sectaries Reject the Evident Testimony of Fathers. when most clear against them, and fight with a dubious Testimony of one or two Fathers against the Church.  men and Had Their Errors etc. Why then, I Beseech you, when One or Two of Them Speak only Doubtfully in a Controversy (I Grant no more) should Their Authority have force to weaken our Church's Doctrine? Nothing Therefore less, Then The Clear and unanimous Consent of These Ancient Worthies, truly Pillars of our Church, can be Admitted of as a Received Principle. We stand to this, and the other now named Principles. Thus much Premised, we pass on to the Trial of Protestants Proofs.   

CHAP. IX.  
Protestants Cannot make Good Their Charge Against the Roman Catholic Church, Concerning Causal Schism.  
1. THe Assertion saith thus Much. There neither is, nor can be Proof against the Roman Catholic Church, whereby it is made Guilty of Error, And Therefore none can Rationally Say, That this Church was, or is, The cause of Schism in Protestants. The Reason Hereof is best laid forth in these Few Words Proofs against 
Proofs fail when Principles are wanting.  this Church cannot But Fail, when Received Principles are wanting to Support Them: But Received Principles are Here evidently wanting To Sectaries in Their Charge Against our Church. Therefore Their Proofs must Fail, and Consequently, when they are Resolved, can come to no more, but to mere Proofles Calumnies.  
2. To Show you, That all Principles Fail them in This Matter, You shall See how Ingeniously we Proceed. We Licence our Adversaries to make Use of all the 
One plain Dealing with Sectaries.  Principles, which the whole Christian World Own's, as Undoubted. Will They Please to have Recours to well Grounded Reason, to plain speaking-Scripture without Glosses, to the unanimous consent of Fathers, or Definitions of Councils, and Universal Tradition? We are contented, And will Acquiesce. All we seek For, is to Exclude Their own Proofles Word from entering in, as a Received Principle. You See here is Liberty Enough, And 
The Liberty given Them,  we Allow it, withal Petition Them for Almighty God's sake, That they will Vouchsafe to Deal candidly with us, And take to any One, or More of These now named Principles, and Dispute closely in Form, Either 
Provided, they will Dispute in Form.  by Syllogisms, or, That known shorter way of Enthymems. By this Procedure we shall see the Rise, and Progress of their Discourse, the Validity of Their Arguing, whether it be Convincing, and Finally rest on a Received Principle, or contrariwise Lame, and Deficient. Reason is reason to all sorts of men, and Though we are Papists, we yet know well what Reason and Evidence is. May it therefore Pleas our new Doctors to Begin with that Common Principle to us both, of Holy Scripture: Their Argument (if to the Purpose) cannot But be much to this Sense. What Scripture saith is true; But Scripture saith, The Roman Catholic Church is at least, liable to Error: Ergo, it may 
Their Argument from Scripture Ends after the First Syllogism.  err. We deny the Minor, And Expect a Second Syllogism to Prove it, which Shall be more Fumbling, and Proofles Then this very Minor, that is Fals. I am so confident of this my Assertion, That I in treat our Adversaries to Go on in Form, And Prove Their Minor, (if Their Cause be good the Labour is not great) And let us have the Honour to Answer Them. Again. They may Argue: What Ancient Councils Define, And 
And will be as Forceles if drawn from Fathers.  Holy Fathers unanimously Teach is True; But These Say the Catholic Church of Rome Hath Erred, or can err: Ergo. We here Deny The Minor Also, which shall never be Proved by a second Syllogism either Evidently, or Probably. In the mean while (And let Them Remember so much) Their Formal Schism is not only probable, But Evident, Though the Proofs fall short to Evidence the Pretended Cause of it.  
3. Some Perhaps will Say: This way of Arguing doth not the Deed. No. They will go Otherwise 
If they will come to particular Controversies,  to work, and Descend to Particular Controversies, And show us how Council hath Contradicted Council, How Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Praying to Saints, worshipping of Images etc. are late Novelties Introduced into our Church. Here, They Hope to have us upon an Advantage, And With such Doughty Do, They are able to make our Church Guilty of Causal Schism, And Acquit Themselves of the Formal Crime. Observe a Shuffling, And Know; Before we Catholics are like to get a Sight of our Evidenced Errors, We must Travel far, And run over All those long Worn-out Controversies which have Troubled the world, And to no Purpose, For a Hundred years and More. However we are Content, 
We are willing, may it pleas them to Dispute in Form, and bring Arguments to Principles.  May it Pleas our Adversaries first to begin with one particular Controversy, And so closely to follow the Matter by a continued Arguing in Form, That at last, They bring their Discourse to a sure Owned Principle. But, I well Foresee (Because Conscious of their want of Principles to ground a Convincing Discourse on) They'll not Hear to this Proposition. Therefore to leave Them without Excuse, I'll Propose another way, 
Another way proposed.  Which every man shall judge most Reasonable, Let them vouchsafe at least, to Set down Plainly one of Their Protestant Tenants conrrary to our Catholic Doctrine, For Example. Transubstantiation is a New Invented Opinion lately brought into the Roman Church. And then So closely to Give us the last and strongest Grounds They have for the Assertion, without long tedious, Discourses that nothing Appear superfluous, (Much may be said in a little compass.) Their Undoubted Scriptures, if any be a● Hand, Their Ancient Councils, Their consent of Fathers, Their Ancient Tradition, And, which I highly Value of, some Ancient Orthodox Church Authority. Must of Necessity enter here, to Uphold their Assertion if it be Defensible. This Don. I'll Engage to 
The Author's Engagement.  Place against what ever Sectaries Allege, The contrary Proofs of our Catholic Religion, for Transubstantiation; And Add to them, the Testimony of our Learned Church, And, if These put in just Balance, or, compared with the Other, Do not (in the Judgement of every Disinteressed Scholar) Quite Outweigh all that Protestants can say Against us, I'll here Promise, never to Trouble them more with Controversies. But, if on the Otherside you evidently find These men, after all their Noise of introduced Novelties, so cut of from Proofs, so profoundly silenced, That, They cannot 
What will appear by this way of trial.  bring to light so much as one Passage of Scripture, nor one Ancient Council, nor, the Vnanimons' consent of Fathers (no, nor one clear Sentence of a Father) And, least of All, Any Ancient Orthodox Church contrary to our Doctrine, or, that Plainly and Positively Defends Theirs, You will, I Hope, Bear with me, if I say once more. Their new Opinion Relies on Fancy, And, that I Mistook not when I called this Treatise. Protestancy without Principles. I say that Positively Defends their Doctrine: For, I would have Them Know, Their Negative way of Arguing We Read not (forsooth) of the Word Transubstantiation, will, if it Appear once more on Paper, look 
Sectaries Negative way of Arguing, out of Fashion.  like an old cast Garment, no less out of Fashion, Then quite worn out to nothing. When this Controversy is Ended by Close Proofs and Principles, without wand'ring into long dark Discourses, We, on our part, are Ready to Engage in Any Other, as shall best like our Adversaries, And will Endeavour, to make this Great Truth known to the world. That Sectaries, are as Unfortunate in Proving their Own, As unlucky, in Opposing our Catholic Doctrine.  
4. Beside what is said, Here is another Proof, that 
A further proof, of Sectaries not proving.  shows They can convince nothing unless Hereafter, They manage Their Cause better than is Don Hitherto. In All Debated Controversies, We Have no more But our Adversaries Objections, And the Catholic Answers. The evidence of our Errors cannot Appear in our Answers, For These All along, g●●on in Clearing us from Their Cavils. Neither can the Evidence Arise, like a Beam of light, out of the Objections of Protestants, Unless They lustily Vainquish us with a Demonstration in good Form, Supported by an owned Principle, and Force us, and other Intelligent Persons to Acknowledge, That these Objections are plain Convictions of our Errors; whereof there is no great Danger, for We Catholics Profess, And say it with all candour, That we look on These Objections against us as 'Slight, Trivial, 
While we return a Rational Answer, Their Arguments Recede from all likelihood of Evidence.  Defeated and worn-out to Nothing. Be it how you will; They cannot be Supposed owned Principles Between us, Unless we are mad, And Grant, That, what our Protestants Vent and Vote against us, is Unanswerable. As long Therefore, as we give a Rational Reply to Their Arguments (And let us have an Indifferent Judge to Decide the Controversy, whether our Answers be Rational or no) so long Their Objections will Recede From Evidence, And Loose the Force of clear Demonstrations Against us. Yet Their Schism is Evident. That cannot be Denied.  
5. They may say first. This Recours to a Judge is only a Put Of, And makes Controversies endless, Because 
If a judge be rejected, Controversies are Endless.  They Acknowledge none But Themselves. And, I Answer, This want of a Judge, makes Controversies endless; For seclude a Judge, we may wrangle to the World's end, and Stand still at as great a Remove from composing Strifes, as we were when we began Them. Pray you, what do They think, That without a Judge, or clear Evidence, which needs no Judge, we must submit to their wordy Objections, as if Oracles Pronounced Them, when They Acknowledge Themselves both Fallible and Erring men in all they say? No certainly. Hitherto Therefore We have no Evidence, yet Their Schism is Evident, Remember That.  
6. They may Reply Again. It is Plain Perverseness in us, not to see the Evidence of Their Arguments Against our Errors. Pitiful. I Retort the Argument, And Tell them: It is worse than Perverseness in Them to 
Sectaries suppose what is to be proved.  make That Evident, which Hath not so much as Probability in it. Alas! To Talk thus, is Scholding, no Scholarship, a Clamour, no Close Disputing. Be pleased to Put your Arguments in Form, Unless This be done, it is but Vain to Suppose Evidences which cannot be Proved. Yet your Schism is Evident.  
7. They may thirdly Reply, Their Objections against 
The self-seeming of Sectaries no Proof.  our Errors seem at least Evident to Them. Observe a Strenuous Proof. We urge to have Arguments against our Errors Reduced to Vndubitable Principles, And here They give in Their own Self-seeming, which is Fancy, and 
True Evidence hath force with all.  Nothing like a Received Principle. I say therefore They have No Evidence; For, This Works upon all men's intellectual Faculties alike, And equally Necessitats Them to Assent. It is true, The Perverseness of man's will, may either make him to cry up That For evident, which is not, Or, To Deny That to be Evident which is; But it never makes him not to see what is clearly Discernible by its own manifest Light. Thus than it is. Neither we Catholics, 
Neither Catholics nor Others Ever saw any thing like Evidence in the Arguments of Protestants.  nor the rest of the Christian World, ever yet saw any Thing like Evidence in those Arguments of Protestants: Why Therefore should we take Their word For it, Or Believe, that They have better Intellectual Eyes than Their Neighbours? Alas, if an Arian would lay Claim to such an Evidence For his Heresy, He might do it upon Fancy, and every whit as Groundedly as Protestants. No Evidence is yet seen, But the Schism is Evident.  
8. They may fourthly Reply. Though they have not express Definitions of Councils, or Unanimous consent of Father's Assertive of our Church's Errors (Because all of them Sided with Rome, and were no little Flatterers of that Sea) Yet, They Cite Scripture Against us, which is a Principle owned by all. Answ. So do Arians Also, and to as little Purpose. But ad rem. Produce plain Scripture without your own unevidentced 
Their Arguing from Scripture is Forceles Against us.  Glosses (which we Reject as Extrascriptural) And put your Arguments grounded on Scripture in good Form, You Shall see All, in the First, or Second Syllogism Decayed, Faint, Forceles, And out of all Fashion of an Argument. For Example, you have not one Syllable in Scripture Against our Doctrine of Transubstantiation, or Purgatory, or any other controverted Point; Therefore Arguments built on Scripture, must needs fail you. All you can Allege is, That the Word Purgatory, or Transubstantiation is not in Scripture, And you know, no more is the Word Trinity and Consubstantial. O, But the Reality is not in God's Word. How prove 
Their Negative way of Arguing Proofles.  you that in Form? We Deny it: But Admit it be not, your Proof is Poorly Negative, and without legs runn's Thus: What Scripture Expressly contains not, is an Error; Scripture Expressly contains not Transubstantiation, Ergo it is an Error. We Deny the Major, and give you Twenty Instances to blunt and Dead the Force of it. Go on Therefore to prove That, yet Vnproved Major. It is Impossible. Here, you will have Them 
Sectaries are urged to Dispute in Form.  at a Stand, They cannot Advance. However, Grant They Offer at it; Our Answers still closely Fellow Them, And Enervate Their Proofs, as They are Driven on in the Cours of Arguing. Believe it, They Shall be sooner out in Arguing, Then we in Answering: And to Show you, That I do not vainly Vaunt in Saying Thus much, Let it Pleas our Adversaries 
And to bring Their Proofs to an undeniable Principle.  to come to a just Trial of Disputing in Form upon this particular Matter of Transubstantiation, or, of any other where They Think to have most Advantage, And Press on us Proof after Proof, Till at last They bring us to a Propositio quiescens, That is, to an Intellectual Light, which by its own Clarity Evidenceth itself Solid (not To you, or to me, Mr. Poole) But to All Rational men, who know what Evidence is, An now we need not go to School and learn That, For nature with a little Logic, Teaches sufficiently what Evidence is. This Evidence Therefore, drawn out in a close continued Arguing in Form will Do the Deed, and Show whether we are Foiled, or you Fight Unluckily. Unless This way be taken to 
The loose and uncluding way of Arguing in Sectaries, is most insipid and Blamable.  (whilst you run on in a loose Vnconcluding Talk, And Own No Infallible judge to Decide between us) We may stay till Dooms day (which is pitiful) And End our Lives Before we end so much as one Controversy. Study Therefore well For this Propositio quiescens, which by the Evidence of its own Light, Apparent to all, makes us to Yield up the Cause. If you can do this, you are Gallant men; if not, Know That your Shism is Evident (This is the burden of the Song) But the Pretended cause of it laid on us, lies yet in Darkness unevidenced, And Therefore is unjustifiable.  
9 What will you say, if a new Zealot of Our English Schism Argues Thus? Most surely, Protestants wise and learned men, cannot All (so numerous as They are) Be Supposed to have made a Bustle in the World about Nothing. They cannot be Supposed to have left an Ancient Church, But, upon the Sight of great Difficulties, which frighted many, and Finally withdrew Them from Holding Communion with it longer. I shall Answer the Objection largely Hereafter; Now I only Say: When a Rebellion is manifest, and Decried 
A known Rebellion in Kingdom, Or a clear Schism in the Church, Cannot be justified by The Authors, or Abettors.  by all Indifferent and Vnconcerned men, The sole Authority of Those who Began it, can never make it justifiable. The Case is clear in Civil Affairs: For example, In that ungodly Rebellion raised in England Against our lawful Sovereign; as also in Ecclesiastical, Witness, the Arians Schism Against the Church. These Partisans Authority alone, it is well known was Too Weak, and Insufficient to justify either of these impious Facts.  
10. To that Talk of a Sight of difficulties, I Answer: He, who for seeming Difficulties will leave an Ancient Church, 
Whoever leaves an Ancient Church for seeming difficulties, may as Easily Relinquish all Christian Religion.  Shall at last be forced to Abandon all Christian Religion, which certainly hath its Difficulties: (And, are there none, Think you, against our Protestants Novelties?) I say therefore, supposing we once Digest the hard Mysteries of Christian Faith common to us all: So Few, So 'Slight, so Unvaluable are the Difficulties Against our Church, That when One seriously Reflects on this Churches long Continuance, on the several Councils convened in it, on the different Judgements of learned men, on the various Dispositions of People and Nations, which make it up etc. (All apt enough according to nature to breed Endless Dissensions) He must say, if a spark of 
It is a special Providence That Difficulties are no Greater in the Church.  Reason live in him: Digitus Dei est hic. The work of God and a Special Providence over his Church Appears in this alone, That Difficulties are no more, nor greater in so long standing a Moral Body, Than those slight ones are, which causelessly Affright our Adversaries. Do not then, I say, Desert Christian Religion Totally, upon the Account of those difficil Mysteries, it Teaches: You can never in prudence Relinquish this Ancient Church, For Pretended Contradictions in Councils, for supposed Superstructurs, Innovations and such like Trifles, which (Though stumbling Blocks to Sectaries) are no sooner looked on, then removed, And put away By Most Satisfactory Answers.   

CHAP. X.  
The Roman Catholic Church, whilst Evidence comes not Against it, Stands Firm Upon Its Ancient Possessed Right. This long Possession Proves the Church Orthodox.  
1. SOme perhaps may Object against the former Discourse. We Catholics do not so clearly 
An Objection.  Acquit ourselves of Error, Nor consequently of the Charge in being Cause of Protestants Scbism, as we Rigorously Exact of them to have these Errors laid evidently Forth against us. For, if One should Ask: How we Prove our Church to be free from Error, and this clearly? Or, That by our Errors we Occasioned not Protestants Separation from us, what shall we say? I Answer. Though we have Demonstrations for the Truth of our Religion (supposing Christ once Established a Church in the World) And Can show This Truth, by a close Order of Arguing in Right Form, Yea, And we will Do it, when Sectaries have Satisfied our Difficulties▪ Yet, to Solve This present Argument, We are not Obliged by the Law of Disputation to Prove any Thing, Nor To do more Then only to Stand upon our Guard and Defense. The Reason is. Our Protestants are here the Actors, the Aggressors; 
Protestants because Aggressors are obliged to prove their charge.  'Tis Therefore Their Task to Prove, ours only to Defend, which is Easy; if you Mark How strangely in Vain They make Their Attempts Against us. Observe it. After our Church, had stood a Thousand years and more in the quiet Possession of Truth, They Accuse it of 
Their weak Attempts.  Error: After, so many Thousands of Learned and Virtuous men, that lived Holily, And Died Happily in it; Yes, And Had Eyes as Quick, judgements as Deep, and Wills as good to Find out These Errors (Had any been) As the best of Sectaries, yet found none; They, forsooth, Espy Them: After 
The Church's Purity and Innocency,  This Church had its Purity and Innocency Signed and Sealed by the blood of innumerable Martyrs, Evidenced by undoubted Miracles, Manifested by so many Glorious Conversions wrought on Aliens, Drawn to Christ, And Finally Demonstratively Proved by All Those Illustrious Marks of Truth, whereof we Treated Above▪ Our Protestants Rise up, And Calumniate This great Society of Christians, Lay a foul Aspersion of Heresy on it. Are not They, Think ye, as Actors, Obliged in Justice to make Their Charge good Against us By Evident Proofs? And, are not We 
Proved by a long Possession,  Exempted from all Further Obligation of Pleading, Then only to stand upon our Ancient, Blameless, And Quiet Possession? Believe it. This OLIM POSSIDEO, PRIOR POSSIDEO, is Warrant sufficient, And our Wall of Defense against such weak Aggressors: And yet we Strengthen our Hold with Canon Proof (it is Evident Reason also) Nemo praesumitur malus nisi probetur, No Man, upon vain 
And Evident Reason also.  Presumption, aught to be accounted Naught, unless Reason Prove him a Delinquent.  
2. For Example. Give me a Loyal Subject That hath Don wonders and great Service for his Prince; 
An Instance.  That hath Enlarged His Kingdom, Gained Him Friends, Defeated His Enemies, And yet is Struggling, to Do him More Service, Whose Repute was never Stained, nor Fame Blemished etc. Suppose now, That a little Knot of unknown Men should Offer at some Small or Vnconsiderable Proofs, And with These Endeavour to Impeach him of Treason, would not the Prince, Think ye, Either Require Evidences to be brought in against so worthy a Subject, or Reject These Accusers as unworthy of Credit? Yes most Assuredly. This is our Case (Though no Instance, taken from Private men, can 
The Church Evidently hath proved her Fidelity to Christ.  Parallel the Fidelity of the Church Towards Christ) The Roman Catholic Church (I speak of no other, For there is none) Hath Faithfully Don Great Service For the King of Kings Christ jesus, It Hath Dilated His Empire Far and Near, It hath Defeated His Enemies (Perfidious Heathens) Gained him Friends, and Innumerable Servants. It yet Struggles (Maugre all Attempts Against it) to Promote 
Hitherto of unspotted Fame before Sectaries impeachment.  his Honour, and Gain him More. So long it was of an Unspotted Fame, and Accounted Pure without Blemish, Till now at last a Little Inconsiderable Knot of Protestants Impeach it of Treason, and Makes it a Rebel Against that King, For whom it hath Served so long and Faithfully. What then, doth our Lord jesus, And All justice Too, Require of These Accusers But Evidence? Yes, And (if possible) More than Evidence is necessary, to make Their charge good against This Church. It Hath Evident Proof enough of its Fidelity, 
justice in this charge requires Evidence, not unproved Cavils,  by its Faithful long Service, By its hitherto Irreprehensible Purity, Allowed for a Thousand years and upward, And Therefore cannot be Supposed a Delinquent upon mere Cavils, or For Things which look like Proofs, But when Examined, are no Sooner seen then Slighted, no Sooner Weighed, then cast away as Weightles.  
3. Take one instance more (Though none of the 
Another Instance Ad Hominem.  Best, it may yet best serve for Protestants.) Suppose, That another Kind of Luther with a few Followers, once Protestants, as These were Anciently Catholics, should now Separate from the Church of England, and Openly Accuse all the Ministers within that Island of Error in Doctrine, of Injustice, of Schism, of Their Forcing Scripture by unproved Glosses, to say what God never Spoke, etc. The Accusation certainly would be looked on by Ministers As a Heinous Calumny. What is to be Done? Would not they, After a satisfactory Answer returned to the Objections of these Supposed Calumniators, Hold Themselves Unblemished, upon the Account of their supposed Ancient good Fame, 
Thus much is only supposed to give force to the Instance.  And (we must now Imagine it) of Their Unquestioned Integrity both in life and Doctrine, whereof They have had Possession in men's Opinion for a hundred years Together? Would they not All unanimously say, That, by this very Maxim grounded in Nature: Nemo praesumitur malus, nisi probetur, None, who had the Repute of an Honest man is to Loose it, Unless Evidence comes against Him, And Blemish his Honesty? Yes, All of them would swear it. They need not Therefore to Preach to These Accusers, or, To show By Positive Arguments, How 
This is also only supposed in their behalf, though not True.  Purely They Teach Christ's Doctrine, How Innocently They have lived, How free from all Injustice, How Their Hearers have hithertho Reverenced them as Saints, And Laborious Workmen in Christ's Vineyard. No. This (were it so) Proves itself. The very having Don Well in the Eyes of All, And so long, Carries with it its own Evidence, And is Argument Enough. Wash 
They are not in Real Truth Calumnies, but Verities.  then Away the Objected Calumnies (if yet Calumnies) And the Work is done, They are Sound in Doctrine, Clear, Innocent, And Blameless, upon this Falls Supposition.  
4. The Application of this Instance to our Present 
The Application of the Instance.  Case, is easy. The first Luther accompanied with a handful of Men Accused not only A Few Islanders of Error, But a Church of a far larger Extent, Renowned the whole World over. We have Answered to all Their Calumnies, not one Objection is Omitted; If there be Any new Ones, For God's sake, let us Hear them. This Don, we stand still upon our Ancient Possession of Truth, and Prepossessed good Fame in Teaching it. These 
What Evidenceth itself needs no Farther Evidence.  Evidence Themselves, And need no further Proof; For This Argument is Good. Once we were Honest men, And therefore are so now, Once Right in Faith, and we are Right still, Unless Evidence Drive us out of our Ancient 
No less than Evident Proofs can Drive us out of our Ancient possession.  Right, and Honesty. Solve then a few Objected Calumnies, The Work is done, we stand upon Clear Ground, which is, The yet Vnshaken Hold of our long Olim Possideo, prior Possideo.  
5. You will say. The whole force of this Instance comes to one Trial. Viz. Whether we Catholics 
What Sectaries may Reply.  Have Already Solved, or can Solve as well the Objections of Protestants Against our Church, As They are able to Vainquish what ever This now Supposed Sect Proposeth Against their new Doctrine. If The Parity Hold here, the Instance Presses; If not, It is Forceles. Answer. Here, were it worth the While, We might have Sport, and see How our Adversaries Either Pitifully Beg the Question in what They say, Or Licence Every Man to be His own judge, Though he Vent Plain Haeresy, or Finally Draw Controversies into endless Cavilling. Observe it. They say, They can better Solve the Arguments of These new Sectaries against Themselves, Then we are Able to solve Theirs against us. Is not 
They beg the Question.  this a mere Proofles Petitio Principi? Most Assuredly, Yes. And Mark how It Goes on. Just as Protestants Tell us Catholics, That we solve not their Arguments, 
These new supposed Sectaries Argue strongly against Protestants  so these New men stand stiffly to it, And Tell Protestant's They Solve not Theirs: And They Instance strongly Thus. You Think yourselves safe, And all clear For you, when you say, Papists Answer not to what you Object Against Them, And our Reply is the Same. We are as safe in saying Boldly, you Answer not Our Objections Against you .. You say, you Solve our Arguments, We say, No. Will you be judges in your own Cause for the Affirmative? Permit us then to be judges in Ours, for the Negative. If you Say Again, you give a Probable solution to our Objections; So Catholics Answer you. If you say, our Objections do not so Evidently conclude Against you, But, That still you are Able to Solve Them Negatively, That is to show, They do not force your Understanding to yield to Them; So Catholics Answer you, with this Advantage, That They can Enervate All you Object Positively by contrary valid Proofs, And when This is done, Have Twenty for one as learned against you (Besides the Infallible Church They Pretend to) That Vote and Voice for Them, and Pity your Folly in Objecting. Now, if After all (Say These new Sectaries) you Protestants Blame us for our late Separation made from the English Church, And therefore Charge Schism on us, know, That Clodius accusat moechos, You Led the Danse, And first Schismatized from a more Ancient Church than we have done. You yet, Though Formal Separatists, were not the Schismatics, But Rome that Gave you Cause,) And just so we say. We are indeed the Formal Separatists from you, But your Errors gave us just Cause to Part from you, And therefore the sin of Schism is on your side. And thus, These Two Dissenting Parties 
Their Dispute is Endless, because Neither own's a Lawful judge, nor can come to certain Principlet.  may Dispute until They both are Breathless, And stand gazing on One an Other without further Progress, Unless They bring Their Discourse to Vndubitable Principles, or have Recours to some Third Equal judge between them, or, Finally Grant, which Evidently follows, That without a judge, or Certain Principles, The worst of Heresies may be Defended, if every one may first Accuse his Adversary, And then give sentence for himself: For there is no Arian, no Nestorian, But 
Every one Thinks well of his Heresy, and will pretend as Protestants do, that his Arguments are not solved.  Thinks well of his Errors, And will, at least, Pretend (as our Protestants do) that his Arguments for them Are not solved.   

CHAP. XI.  
Of a late Writers Exceptions Against our Pleading Possession.  
1. IT is very True, Did not I see the Strain of Sectaries 
Mr. Stillingfleet.  Arguing to be Every where like itself, weak, and deficient, I should scarcely have thought, that a man of parts could Have miss so enormously, as one doth in this Controversy, whilst He gives you hints, of hitting the nail on the Head, and saying much to the Purpose. Thus it is.  
2. We Plead a lawful Succession from the Apostles times, And a quiet Possession of Truth with it, by virtue of an Immemorial Tradition. Our Adversary Tell's us. The Obligation of Proving lies upon us. Of proving what for God's sake? Marry that, which 
We are urged to prove, what is by itself, an Evident proof.  Immemorial Tradition most Evidently Proves; in so much that we are now urged to prove that Proof, which is alone its Own most clear Light, and undeniable Evidence. They Proceed here, just as if One should bid me Prove, that All Mankind Descended From Adam 
If Scripture were not, undoubted Tradition, would prove, we all came from Adam.  (Had we no other Argument to Convince the Truth but immemorial Tradition) Because, some (forsooth) may Imagine, without proof, that God in One Age or other (though they cannot say when) broke of this lineal Descent, By creating a new sort of men from whom we come, and not from Adam, which is Senseless. For the Very Tradition alone has more weight in it to convince the Affirmative. We all came from Adam, then, A pure Imagination without proof, to persuade the contrary Negative. Take one Instance, perhaps more pressing, and significant. A Kingdom, or, Commonwealth Proves the Succession of its Monarches, or Princes, for so long a time, by a Constant Tradition, never called into Doubt, or questioned by Any. Suppose, some Zelots should begin to Quarrel with the states of the Kingdom, And Tell them. Gentlemen, you are all Mistaken. Believe us. In 
An Instance.  one Age or other, (though we know not when it happened) The lineal Race of your supposed Kings, Failed. A Usurper Got to the Throne, by force, fraud, or both, And it was He (its true we cannot name the man) that brought in Novelties, strange Opinions, Dangerous Maxims, contrary to your Ancient Laws and Customs. Imagine, I say, thus much, would not these novelists, think ye, after no Small contempt, be put to their Proof, or be scornfully laughed at, should they urge the Kingdom to Prove what is proved by certain Tradition? This is our very case. We prove 
We prove as clearly the lawful succession of Popes, and Catholic Pastors, as Any Kingdom the succession of their Monarches.  the lawful succession of our Popes, of our Prelates, of our Pastors, and People, by undeniable Tradition from St. Peter to this present Age, And we are now called on, To prove that, which the very strength and Efficacy of Tradition Proves by itself, without more Ado. A most impertinent Demand. For, if He that Denies the lawful lineal succession of Monarches in a Kingdom, warranted by undubitable Tradition, must, if He stand to it, be put to His Proof (the Kingdom Proves enough by its immemorial Tradition) Much more are these men forced to Prove in our Case, if they Oppugn the Tradition of a whole Universal 
The Churches clear Evidence.  Church: For the Church gives in Her last and clearest Evidence, when she Pleads undeniable Tradition, No man can require more.  
3. You May say First. Beside Tradition, whereby the lawful Descent of Monarches is Proved, There are also Records at hand, to Confirm the Truth of the Tradition. I Answer. The Church hath as Good 
The Church's Records, as Ample, as any in a Kingdom.  Records, whereby she manifesteth the lawful succession of Her Popes, Prelates, and Pastors, as any Kingdom on Earth produceth for the lineal Descent of its Monarches. Therefore it is you, that must show (And by sound Principles) as well these Records to be forged, or Vnauthentick, as Oral Tradition (which is a Distinct Proof) to be Falls, and Fallible. Both are above your Power, Skill, and Learning. Be it otherwise, the Proof Certainly lies on your side. And 'Tis all I Intent at present.  
4. You may Reply secondly. The Instance of 
Records contrary to the Church cannot be produced.  Monarches succeeding in a Kingdom, Upheld by Tradition is Forceles, if Contrary Records be produced, and Prove that a Usurper Got in, and interrupted the right line of Succession. The like, may have been in the Church, when Her Popes and Prelates became Usurpers, and changed the Primitive Doctrine of it. Mark a Supposition For a Proof, and, withal Observe How you cast the Obligation of Proving on yourself. For, 
The Obligation of Proving is incumbent in our Adversaries.  Now it's your Task to Produce These supposed Records Contrary to the lawful Succession we Plead for. Show them therefore, And Argue by them, or, if you fail in this, as you must Fail, The Tradition from our Ancestors stand▪ s still in its Ancient vigour unshaken, against mere unproved Cavils, and Calumnies.  
5. You may Thirdly Reply. That Instance of Monarches lawful Succession in Their respective Kingdoms, when warranted by undoubted Tradition, seems good and convincing, because no Man Questions the Right, no Man within the Kingdom Doubts of the Acknowledged Succession. But all is contrary in our present Controversy; For, innumerable called Christians, do not only Doubt, But, expressly Deny that Right, and lawfulness of Succession which we Attribute ro our Church, to our Popes, and Catholic Pastors; Therefore, because the party Fails, The instance is forceles. First a Word Ad Hominem. Let it Pleas our Adversaries to Declare plainly the Succession of Their Church, of Their Bishops, of Their Pastors, by virtue of any Immemorial Tradition. Let 
Sectaries must solve Their own Argument.  them also Vouchsafe to give in that Title, whereby They lay claim to a Possession of Truth. What ever is Allegeable for the One, or Other, whether it be Tradition, Scripture, or Fathers, will suffer more Contradiction from innumerable Called Christians, than the least Article (if any were little) of our Catholic Faith, Therefore they must Solve their own Argument. The Reason is. If they plead Traditjoin for a continued Succession of a Protestant Church ever since Christ, the whole Christian World, yea, even Protestants themselves, Oppose the Paradox. If Their Plea for Pure Protestancy, be Scripture, They'll meet with as many Adversaries, Having not one Syllable for it in God's Word. If finally They make a Belief Common to all Christians to be Their Essential Faith, None likes the Doctrine. Both Friends and Enemies, Catholics and Heretics, stand against them. Therefore I say once more, They must solve Their own Objection. 
The Argument is solved.   
6. Now you shall have my Answer, And I say, An Argument, That Draws all the Force it has from the Opposition of Enemies, (And They were all known 
Opposition of Heretics no proof against it.  Heretics, that Opposed our Catholic Tradition) Destroys not only Evident Truths, but also impugns Christ, and Christian Religion. Atheists make Objections Against God, Jews Against Christ, yea, And the very Instance now allowed of, supposeth some wilful Zelots contrary to the common received Tradition, of so many Monarches undoubted Succession. You 
Christian Truths meet with Adversaries. He that will side with such Opponents, shall at last desert Christianity.  see Therefore, How weak this way of Arguing is. Believe it, There is no one Christian Verity, but hath its Adversaries, Therefore, the Man that will Side with such Opponents, and Cavil also, Because a Company of Dismembered, and jarring Sectaries Do so, must look how He strikes, lest he cut to deep, and Wound those, He would not hurt. For at last, He shall be forced to shake of the very name an Notion of a Christian. I'll say in a word, what is more amply laid forth Disc. 1. Chap. 7. n. 4. 5. We have an Ancient Church against these Scattered Companies of novelists, A Church united in Doctrine, Against their jars and Endless Dissensions. A Glorious Church manifested by such Marks and Motives, as made the world Christian, And these plead against Their unevidenced Opinions. Finally we have most certain Tradition, against their uncertain Guesses. Upon such Proofs, which cannot be shaken, we stand; Therefore, unless our Adversaries, beside the Multitude of Opponents, bring rational Proofs against our Possession, which Rest at last upon undeniable Principles, We are safe, and cannot be Daunted. Alas, The mere Number of known Enemies, without Evidence 
Clamours of known Enemies, without a rational Trial. Proofles.  to warrant what is Pretended, Seems much like unjust Clamours in a Disordered Commonwealth, Loud 'Tis true, but as Senseless as Loud, when Reason ought to have place, and plead the Cause, by Proofs and Principles. Therefore, we Appeal to Principles; may They bear Sway, we are content, if not, We told you Above, Though as many Heretics rise up against us, As there are Atheists opposite to God, And jews to Christ, We Regard them not, if they come Unarmed, and only Fight by the Votes of their own Scattered and Divided Companies. But enough is said of this Subject, in the Discourse now Cited.  
7. Here, I'll only Add one Consideration more, And it is to Assure our Adversaries Though, They run to passed Ages, that is, the whole world Over, and Gather all the Votes of Enemies, either against the Possession, or, the Ancient Tradition of our Church, They only give us a Number of jarring Suffrages, which bond up together, cannot Amount to a weak Probability. 
A weak probability, though granted, cannot clear Sectaries from Schism.  However, Let Truth suffer: Suppose them weakly Probable, is this enough, think you, to warrant Sectaries Fowl Schism? Is here Ground enough to justify an Evident Divorce made from an Ancient Church, wherein Their Ancestors Lived peaceably time out of mind, Age after Age, without Trouble, and Disturbance? No. All is improbable, For, what ever is less, than Evidence Grounded on sure Principles, will show itself to be, as it is, a Proofles Cavil Against so long prescription, and immemorial Possession of our Ancient Faith.  
8. Some may yet Reply. All that's Said hitherto, 
An Objection.  Shows only a Personal Succession of Popes, Prelates, Pastors, and People in foregoing Ages, But is far from Proving the main point in Controversy, (They mean) a full and quiet Possession of Truth, which we make so Hereditary to These Popes, and Bishops Descending from St. Peter, That it was never lost. This, They say, is to be Proved. I Answer, We are yet obliged to prove nothing: For, the very Testimony, the unanimous 
When the Church gives in Her Evidence. Sectaries are to Disprove it.  Consent, the Constant Tradition of our united and learned Church without more, are most pregnant Arguments, as well for the Possession of Apostolical Truth laid claim to, as, For the Personal Succession of our Catholic Pastors. Therefore, unless Sectaries can weaken this Plea by a Contrary Evidence, more strong than our Church's Tradition is (and then the Proving is incumbent on them) we stand firm upon our Olim Possideo, which cannot be shaken. I say by a contrary Evidence, Stronger than our Church's Testimony and Tradition. Speak now, it's your time of Proving. What have you to Allege against This sole 
Want of Principles makes Sectaries Cavils improbable.  Consent and Tradition? Is it Scripture? Produce it, And we are silenced, if not, Vouchsafe to Hold your Peace Hereafter. Have you the Consent of Fathers, or Ancient Councils to make your cause Good against our Pleading Tradition, and the Ancient Possession, of Truth with it? No. Examen These learned Volumes you'll not find one clear sentence, favouring your unjust Process Against a Church, That made your Progenitors Christians. What then Remains 
Sectaries own Votes as weightles, as the Arians  to Scare us with, But your ownself Simple Votes; and if these Cast, as it were, in A balance Against our Ancient Possession, can out weigh it, and so Deprive us of our Right, The Arians long since had Destroyed us all; for, Their Votes were as weighty, as united as yours, Yes, and more numerous.  
9 Well. Though we are not Obliged to prove, 
A Few Proofs briefly hinted at, though we are not obliged to prove.  what both Tradition and our Ancient Possession Convince, I'll yet Hint, most briefly, at a few Proofs in Behalf of our just Possession. First, it is an undeniable Verity, that Christ founded a Catholic Church, And 'Tis as Evident (Sectaries Confess it) that He invested the Roman Catholic Church in an Ancient Possession of Truth. 2. It is an undoubted Verity, that Christ 
Christ Abandoned not the Church He Founded.  never abandoned the Church He founded, For He told us: Hell gates should not Prevail against it. He gave Assurance of his being with us to the end of the world. The Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth etc. If therefore Christ stood to his Word, and once established the Roman Catholic Church in Truth, it is Orthodox still, and Preserved in Truth by His special Assistance. 3. It is an Evident Verity, that God, whose Providence never Failed his Church, could not permit this Ample, and Ancient Moral Body of Catholics to Cheat the world by its pleading a Possession of Truth; if it had none, for a thousand years together, when, (which is deeply to be Pondered) there was not any 
A Truth well to be Pondered.  other sound Church on Earth, for so vast a time, to Teach Christians the Orthodox Faith of jesus Christ. 4. We have our quiet Possession Acknowledged by innumerable Votes of most learned Fathers. 5. And 'Tis a Greater Proof (For nothing, Scripture excepted, can Parallel it.) The Testimony and warrant of this Ample Catholic Society carries with it our Evidence, no less, for an actual Prescription, Then for the Right, and Title of our long pleaded, and enjoyed Possession. And who can suppose that all those Innumerable Professors of this learned Church, by whom this Evidence was conveyed Age after Age, were all besotted or deluded with Error? 6. And 'Tis an Evident Demonstration. No Ancient or modern. Church reputed Orthodox by the Christian World, ever so much as Quarrelled with the Roman Catholic Church, or once 
No Orthodox Church Ever censured us for the want of a just Possession.  Questioned the Right of Her Possessing Ancient Truths, delivered by Christ and his Apostles, none Censured it, none Condemned it, upon any supposed want of a most just Possession, but only Known, and Professed Heretics, And to these our English Schismatics Adhere; 
An Inference grounded on these Proofs.  with these, And no other, They side. If therefore The Foundations of our Church were once laid firm by Christ. If He stand to his Promise Expressed in Scripture. If his Assistance Fail not the Church, Once Established by him. If God could not 〈◊〉 this great Moral Body to Deceive Christians, by Pleading a Possession of Truth when it had none, And when there was no other Orthodox Church to deliver Christian Verities to the world. If Finally, The Authority of our Church, And the Testimonies of most Ancient Fathers may speak in our Cause, And this Convincing Proof also have place. None (Ever Gainsaid our Ancient Possession But know and condemned Heretics. We may well Hope to silence our Adversaries at present, or, if these Persuasive Reasons, with many other, Insisted on Hereafter, Become insignificant to Their Obdurate Hearts, when They can not speak a Reasonable word Against our Evidences, what shall we Do, But Commiserate Their Condition? You see, How roundly I deal with 
Sectaries cannot Answer our Proofs.  Them, And say, They cannot speak a probable Word Against These Positive Proofs, Though, (whilst we plead Possession) it is their Task to Prove, who are the Accusers, And Charge Heresy on us.  
10. Observe therefore. If they say, our Saviour 
What They are to Prove.  once settled not the Roman Catholic Church in Truth, They are to Prove it. If they say, He violated His Promise, And preserved not the Church, He founded in Perpetual Truth, They are to prove it. If They say, We misunderstand the Scriptures now cited, They are to Prove. If They say our Catholic Church cheated the world for ten whole Ages together by pretending Possession of Apostolical Verities when it had none, They are to Prove. If they say our Church was once Sound in Faith, but failed Afterward, They are to Prove, And withal, Distinctly to point at some other Orthodox Christian Society, that Succeeded in the place of the Roman Church, now (falsely) Supposed Fallen into Error, And This will give Sectaries work enough. Again: If They 'Slight The Authority, and Testimony of our Church, Evidenced by most glorious Miracles, And other Illustrious Marks of Truth, They are to give, in Lieu of that, a more Valid Testimony, a stronger Authority For Their Pretences, which is impossible. If Finally, They Talk of any Orthodox Church. That plainly Censured, or, Condemned the Roman of Error and Heresy, (And Herein we Urge Them to speak to the Cause) the Proof lies still on their side: or, if they Prove not. Believe it, our OLIM POSSIDEO, is impregnable; The Presciption, and clear Evidence of a long quiet Possession, are our wall of Defence, not to be battered, or Beaten down by Calumnies.  
11. Thus much premised. You shall see in Brief, How 
The Objections of our Adversary, shown forceles.  all comes to Nothing, Wherewith This late Writer too weakly Oppugn's our Ancient Possession, who, After His Telling us Part 3. c. 5. Page 627. That the Proof lies upon us, He gives this Reason, And let it be His first Objection.  
12. They who Challenge full and quiet Possession, by virtue of immemorial Tradition, and succession from Their Ancestors, aught to produce the CONVEYANCE of that Tradition from him, who alone could invest them in that Possession. Mark these Mysterious Words. Ought to produce the Conveyance of that Tradition from him etc. What signifies This? Had He said. They ought to Produce a Conveyance, warranting the Possession of Truth to be in their Church, we would have sent Him back to the Proofs Already Alleged, And Here only Insisted on our Tradition: But to Demand for a Conveyance of our very 
The Efficacy and force of Tradition.  Tradition, which is either by itself, it's own most manifest and clear Conveyance, or must be proved by another clearer Tradition, (And so in Infinitum) Tends, Methinks, a little towards Nonsense. Truly I know not what the man would be at. Would He Have us, Think ye, to Produce a Letter written by Christ jesus (for, Conveyance Here must Signify, Charta, or, 
No Charter or writ stronger than Tradition.  Instrumentum) whereby it may Appear, that the Tradition of our Church is Sound and Orthodox? This would signify just Nothing. Because Sectaries might more justly Cavil at such a writing, And say it is Forged, Then they can now Except, against the greatest Testimony Imaginable of a whole Learned Church that must Give Credit to this Writing, if it have Any. Therefore, He who can Doubt of this Attestation of a 
The Reason.  far Extended Church, May more Rationally Doubt of the Writing itself, Though it were now actually laid before our Eyes to Read. See more of This Subject Above Chap. 7. n. 7. 8. Perhaps, our Adversary will say we are to produce Scripture, if not for The Conveyance of our Tradition, at least for the Possession of Truth we pretend to. I Answer, This is now Don, 
Our Proofs are Already given.  n. 9 10. where I Tell you that Christ founded the Roman Catholic Church in Truth, And promised to be with the Church He Founded to the End of the World: Withal, that no Orthodox Church Ever opposed this just Possession etc. It therefore lies on our Adversaries to Disprove These Scriptures, And to Weaken those Reasons by sound Principles, or, at least to Offer at an Answer, which, I Think, will be Difficil to Do by Any Proof. That's weakly Probable.  
13. In the Interim you see the Strain of Sectaries Writing 
The Strain of Sectaries writing Controversies.  Controversies. It is Ever to be Cavilling at our Tradition, at our Possession, and Prescription. And Thus they run on as if their Cause were not at all Concerned, Though it should be otherwise; For, do not Protestants 
Protestants pretend to a Possession of Truth.  as well pretend to a Possession of Truth, as Those They call blind Papists? Yes. And will They not say, that the Truth they Lay claim to, is either a Belief Common to all Heretics, or, the Particular Doctrines of the English Church? Yes, For they'll have no Mixture of Popery with it. Well. Now we Urge them to produce a Conveyance From Him alone 
But can produce no Conveyance from him that could invest them in it.  who could invest them in the Possession of Either the One, or other Doctrine. Here You'll have them Silent, For, not so much as a Syllable of Scripture, nor one clear Sentence of a Father, lest of All, Any Ancient Tradition, Ever Favoured such Extravagancies. However, you must have patience, And Hear Sectaries Loud in Their Complaints Against our Tradition and Ancient Possession, And 'Tis no wonder; For, 'Tis easier to Cavil at Truth, Then to speak sense For Falsehood.  
14. A second Objection. It is Plain in this Case (viz. Of Prescription, or Possession) The full Right depends not upon mere Occupancy, But, a Title must be pleaded, to Show that the Possession is Bonae fidei; so that the Question Comes from The Possession, to the Goodness of the Title. Answ. By This Word, Right, or, Title, I understand a just and meet Reason, Allegeable For 
What's meant in this place by Right and Title▪  that, whereunto a man lays Claim, And, whereof He had Possession for long a Time. As if One should Ask an Ancient Gentleman by what Right He Holds His lands, And How long He hath Had Them? He Answers. They were settled on Him by His Ancestors, (And here is His Title.) Both they And He, have quietly Possessed Them, without Cavils, 
Cavils Against known Right Proofles.  for a thousand years etc. Suppose now, A wrangling Lawer should Tell the Gentleman. Sir, whatever becomes of your long Possession, I Question your Right, or Title, And therefore say, your Possession is not Bonae fidei, But a mere Occupancy. Would not This busy Fellow, think ye, if He said no more, be put to His Proof, when the Gentleman shows His Right, and justly pleads his long Possession? Yes, most Assuredly. Here is Our very Case. It is more 
The Right and Church's Title.  certain, that the Roman Catholic Church was Once most lawfully invested in the possession of Truth by the Gracious Goodness of Him that founded it, (Than ever Any was lawfully settled in Right of His lands) For so much ●he whole World, and Sectaries also Acknowledge, as undoubted: And Here is The Churches First Right, or Title. It is Again most Evident, That Innumerable of unspotted Fame, of Great Learning, Sanctity, and Virtue Have not only Avouched This Blessing to be once Conferred on the Church, But Moreover, have professed Themselves, to be 
The Heirs and Professors of it.  Heirs of this Ancient Right, And so Far, the Professors of Those Primitive Verities, That They conveyed them Age after Age to posterity (I say No more yet, but only what they Professed.) Now Starts up a Minister, And Tell's the Church (just as the Lawer 
It's Tacitly supposed by our Adversary an Occupancy, but not Proved.  Doth the Gentleman) She hath no Right nor Title, But a mere Occupancy, That's no Possession. The Church proves this Right first to have been Conserted by one that could give it. Then She shows it, to have Remained with Her in Every Age By sure Witnesses of Virtue and Integrity. Must not therefore this Minister, Think you, that Contrast's with such Witnesses, And Encounters such an Army of old Tried Soldiers be put to His Proof, and Fight lustily by Evidence, And, if possible, with Stronger Proofs? Is All manfully Don (Pray you Judge) when He wholly supposeth, what Should be proved, And is pleased to Miscall our Ancient undoubted Right, our just Title, and Unquestioned Possession by a new Coined word of Occupancy; Let him Keep the Occupancy to Himself, and Apply it to His Protestant Religion, That Hath neither Right to plead by, nor Title, nor any Ancient Possession.  
15. A Third Objection. If we plead Possession by immemorial Tradition from Ancestors many things are to be Contested, and this is one, That no Antecedent Law hath determined Contrary to what we challenge by virtue of Possession. Very Good. When you, Sir, Show us this Antecedent Law, Contrary to what 
Our Adversary is to Show an Antecedent Law contrary to our Possession.  we Challenge by virtue of our Possession, we'll yield. But you are to make this Evident, And, Consequently the Proof Lies on you, which will be a hard Task, For we Know, There is no such Law against us.  
16. A fourth Objection. Christ's Law hath Determined Matters of Difference between us one way or other: For Example, Whether the present Church be Infallible, or no. If the Law has Determined Against us; Possession, And Prescription signify Nothing, If for us, The Question must be wholly Removed from the Plea of Possession, And be tried on This Issue, whether Christ by his Law hath determined on 
The Legislators Determination.  your side or Ours. I Answer. The Legislator hath most plainly Determined for the Infallibility of that Church which He founded, And though you slight those Sacred Texts, Super hanc Petram. Pasce Oves. E●o Vobiscum, or what Else you pleas, They are yet Vigorous Proofs Against your mere Cavils. Therefore, Because you Offer to be Tried upon this Issue. Whether Christ 
We like our Adversaries Offer.  hath Determined for you or us, we Accept of the Challenge, And are ready to Dispute by Scripture only. Produce then your Texts, as plain and significant for the Fallibility of the Roman Catholic Church, Once Confessedly True, As these now Hinted at, and many more Cited Above, are for Her Infallibility. This don you may Vapour as much as you Pleas, And Offer to be tried by Law, etc. But we know your Want; you have not, after All this Talk, a Syllable of Scripture 
Sectaries Have no Scripture Against the Church's Infallibility.  Against our Church's Infallibility. Now, to the other Horn of the Dilemma where you Say, (if Christ's Law has Determined on our side, the Question must be removed from the Plea of Possession, and be tried by the Law.) I Answer, It's a strange Piece of an Argument, 
The Question ought not to be removed from the Plea of Possession.  And say, it must not be removed, Unless you can Show by your Logic, That, when A Man hath two Good Proofs for a Verity. He ought not to make use of both, but, is to Content Himself with the one only. Thus it is. We prove the Church's Infallibility by significant Scripture, as a Possessor Bonae Fidei proves the Right to His Lands by his Ancient Writings. And, 
An Instance.  as He Add's to His Writings, a just Possession: So we plead Also Possession in our Case, Why therefore should we throw Away this second proof taken from Possession, unless An Evident Law Come Against it, which we expect from you, but Fear it not. Sir, you Possess a Benefice, And can, if need be, show How you came by it; whether it be a Writing, or, some Thing equivalent, it Imports not; You have beside, the Possession of it. Suppose now, Any One would Endeavour to Disturb you, or Doubt of your supposed Right, You would Plead both These Titles, Would you not? Answer This and, your Objection is solved.  
17. A Fifth Objection page 628. Lies I know not How, wrapped up in twenty Obscurities. It is much to This sense. We must prove, that there is no other way to Interpret the Law of Christ, but by our Church. Withal, That the Church cannot come into a Possession of Any Thing, but what was Originally Given Her by the Legislator. Mark upon what Duties we are 
Sectaries put us on Duties which they cannot Comply with.  Put. We must prove, And by the ●aw (For Here is the last Trial with These men) that our Church Interpret's faithfully, whilst They sit Down speechless, as it were, in their own Cause, And must not prove, That their Church Interpret's better. Moreover; Note also by the way, How the whole Question is 
The Question is removed from the Law to Interpretations.  now removed from the Law, and comes to This Issue, whether Our Interpretation or Theirs, be more Conformable to God's Word. Most certainly, Their Interpretation is worth little, because confessedly fallible, And Therefore, proceeds not from the Infallible Assistance of the Holy Ghost, As is Amply Declared 
The proof lies on our Adversaries.  Disc. 2. c. 9 n. 7. 8. 9 where we propose the Difficulty, And Prove, That One Only Oracle, Christ's own Spouse, which is Assisted by the Holy Ghost, Interpret's Scripture Infallibily. Now, if our Adversary Except's Against our Scriptures And Reasons there Alleged, The Task of Proving will lie on Him; For He must either Prove, That our Proofs are Proofles, or That His, Far surpass them in worth, And a clearer Evidence, And He will find an Insuperable Difficulty in Both. All I say now, is. Though the Interpretation of our Church were Fallible, it is as good as yours; And if we respect its Age, which gives some Pre-eminence, it may be Accounted much better. We have largely Answered to the other part of the Objection, in the whole first Discourse, And Proved, that the Church cannot Come into the Possession of Any Doctrine, but what is Allowed of by the Legislator. It's otherwise, 
A fallible Church may boldly Err.  I am sure, with your Church, which, because Fallible, may Alter, when, and as often As Sectaries Pleas. To end, Our Adversary Should have known that the Matter now Debated, Depends not Immediately on the Church's Infallibility, for Here is our Immediate Plea. The Church was Once true, And ever since its first Foundation, Pleaded Constantly this quiet Possession of Truth. Ergo unless that first ground be shaken, And this Pleading Possession be Evidently Disproved, it ought to be supposed true still: And thus You see how the obligation of Proving, lies irremovably on our Adversaries.  
19 There yet Remain some other wordy Objections, but I wave them, because They are solved, And in real Truth, are mere Suppositions, and no Proofs. Sometimes, They will Have Tradition to be Proved, which is its Own manifest Proof. Sometimes They tell us, that a bare Possession in matters of Religion is a senseless Plea (They suppose we have no more.) Sometimes, that we are plainly the Imposers, And They Not Aggressors, And both are supposed. I pass these, and now hasten to one Objection more, solved in a Third Proposition.   

CHAP. XII.  
An other Objection. And whether Protestants can Acquit themselves of Schism.  
1. SOme may Argue further, And say, we have 
A simple Objection.  hitherto Supposed a Wrong Principle, Viz. That our Errors are to be showed us Evidently, which is not so. For, it is Enough to make them known by strong Moral Proofs, These sufficiently Convince us as Guiltly, And Clear Them of the crime of Schism. Neither can we have stronger Arguments Then moral in this Matter, Because Principles of Faith are not Evident in Themselves; All Discourse Therefore built on Them, must Fall short of Metaphysical Evidence. Observe in Passing. If our Protestant's (As They think) Bring strong moral Arguments Against our Supposed Errors, We give Them As Good as They Bring, And clear our Cause by as strong good moral Solutions to those Arguments (They say the one, and we the other) Who must be Believed? Or, Who must Judge here? And, if Again, They hold themselves, by Force of such moral Proofs, Acquit of Schism (which all Sectaries Pretend to) we Charge it again on them, By far more valid Arguments. Who judges now? Who is to be Believed? Neither of us yet, For Hitherto we only Talk without Principles. Yet the Catholic hath his Principle in Readiness: A LONG ANCIENT POSSESSION now insisted on 
The Catholic Answer founded on a certain Principle.  (which is eleven Points of the Law.) But By what good Law do our Protestants take this Right from him, or Turn him out of Possession? By what strong moral Proof, grounded on an undubitable moral Principle, can They convince us of Errors, and clear Themselves of Schism? I'll Tell you (and 'tis a Truth) They have neither 
We would Gladly Hear of Protestants Proofs against us, reduced to sound Principles.  Proof nor Principle to rely on, But their own Proofles word. If I wrong them, They can Right Themselselves, and convince me by good Arguments in Form. To what is Added of the Vnevidence of Faith, I Answer: Though the Principles Thereof, For example, the Words of Scripture, or the Definitions of Councils want Metaphysical Evidence in themselves (Because only revealed 
Principles of Faith once admitted of may ground a certain Conclusion.  Truths) Yet They are certain, And, once Admitted of as Certain, can Ground a Discourse, which (if well Deduced) need's no more to Falter, or Deviate from good Form, then if we Argued out of Euclid's Principles. Thus much per transennam. Now to answer the Argument Home, Here is  
2. My Third Proposition. Protestants Cannot so much as Probably Acquit Themselves of Schism, nor Probably impeach the Roman Catholic Church of Error Causal of Their Schism. I prove the first part of my Assertion. No Probability can Acquit them of Schism, when Evidence lays That crime on them, But this is True; And to prove the Assumption, I will not Here Tell Them, 
Evidence lays the Crime of Schism on Protestants.  How Improbable it is, That This Schism, which took its Rise from one Discontented Luther, and a Disgusted Prince, can have any Good in it; The cause from whence it came looks like naught, And the Doleful Effect which Followed, worse. Nor, will I urge Again How Improbable it is, That this one Prince, and one Friar (of lives confessedly Vicious) can be Supposed to have gone About any Work of God or Piety, when mere Passion Hurried them on to struggle Against Their own Consciences, Against a whole Church, And the Faith of their Deceased Ancestors. These Considerations I'll wave.  
3. Yet, I cannot But Note how improbable it is, To Suppose, That All those learned Councils which Anciently Taught Christianity; All those Learned Bishops, Those Doctors, Those Religious, who like Stars Beautified the Terrestrial Heaven of the Roman Catholic 
It is improbable to say that Sectaries Discovered Errors in the Church unseen by Thousands more learned and numerous than They.  Church for a Thousand years Together, Had, notwithstanding Their Vigilancy, such a Mist cast before Their Eyes, as not to Discover Those Palpable Gross Errors which our Protestants have now so lately Espied. Say Therefore (the Question is worth Answering) How came it to pass, That our Protestants first saw these Errors, And upon that Monstruous Sight Quit Rome, whilst Others As Sharp-sighted, as Numerous, And learned as They, Saw none of them for many Ages Before? Speak probably. Why, for example, Did not so Eminent a Saint and Doctor, as St. Gregory the Great was, or his Clergy, so many following Innocents', so many Clements, so many Urbans see these Errors, and upon the Discovery, Separate themselves long since from this supposed Erring Church? I would hear their Answer. If they except Against These, Because They were Popes, I Ask, Why at least Did not so many Bernard's, so many Malachies, so many Bennets, so many Anselms, so many Kings, so many Princes (whose Temporal interest, God knows, lay not in Adoring Rome) with innumerable Others long Ago Desert This Supposed Erring Church, and Revolt from it as Luther did? Is it not a Degree of Madness to Suppose. That All 
These Learned and innumerable Professors must either be supposed stupidly blind or wickedly Hypocritical.  These Worthy, Powerful, and Learned Professors of the Catholic Faith, were either so Stupidly Blind, as not to have seen Such Errors, or so Wickedly Hypocritical as, to Have Winked at them, After a clear Discovery? I say more. The Professors of this Church were so far of from not Seeing those Doctrines which Protestant's now call Errors: For example, The offering up of Sacrifice For the Dead, Praying to Saints etc. That the Denial of them was Positively condemned as Heretical, in Foregoing Sectaries. None shall ever Probably Answer this Question no more, then give Satisfaction to an Other, Viz.  
4. When this Schism was first made by a few Disgusted men in England, Why did so many, not only in that Island, Though temporally Undone for their 
The Opposition made so universally against this Schism proves it monstruous.  pains, But innumerable more in the Christian World abroad Stand up Against it, and Oppose it on its first Appearance, as a most Pernicious Novelty? All these condemned it as Heretical, and Held the Broachers of it for Heretics. Now, had either Goodness, Reason, or Religion accompanied this Schism, it should have rather Gained an Universal Applaus from Others, more numerous and learned then those were, who Began it. But all was contrary, it Appeared like another Ismaël. Manus eius contra omnes, & manus omnium contra eum, as Opposite to All, so universally Opposed by All; And how could these few Abberters of it, When 
The intolerable Pride of Sectaries  this foul Work first Began, without intolerable Pride, Think Themselves Wiser in Patronising it, Then the Rest of the Christian World in Condemning it?  
5. Here then is my first Argument Against this Schism. A new Sect, Schism, or Heresy (call it what 
A new Doctrine never heard of before, and so universally Opposed, cannot be sound and Catholic.  you will) which was never Herd of before in the World, And on its first Appearance, met with an Universal Opposition made by All other Christians, who then Lived, Cannot be from God, or Sound and Approved Doctrine. But thus the Schism of Protestants was, at its first Rise, universally Opposed, And is so yet: Ergo, it cannot be from God, or sound Doctrine. The Major is Evident in the cases of Arius, Pelagius, and other Heretics: For the universal Dislike 
As is clear in the cases of former Heretics.  and Opposition Raised Against These Schisms and Heresies were, even Antecedently to Their Condemnation in Councils, Proof enough against them. And if our Adversaries Require more; to wit a Council condemnation, We have it Also. They cannot in Justice make Any more Exception Against the Council of Trent, Then Arius made against the Nicene Council. The Minor is as clear; for all Christians, who then were in being, Condemned the English Heresy and Schism. Grecians Disliked it, and do so to this Day: Arians, Abyssins', Nestorians etc. And, most of all Catholics oppose it so far, That not one will Believe as Protestants Do. So True it is: Manus omnium contra eum, All banded against this Novelty; Therefore it cannot be from God or approved Doctrine. Now. That our Protestants since their first Rise, have Gained the company of some few jarring and Dissenting Brethren, Proves Nothing; For Arius in time Got more, and I believe, had them better united in Doctrine, Then These ever will be.   

CHAP. XIII.  
A Second Argument Against this Schism. Of Sectaries Cavils Concerning Errors, Entering the Church Insensibly.  
1. I Argue 2. Protestants, seemingly at least, Own 
An Argument ad Hominem against Sectaries.  a Holy Universal Catholic Church before Luther of a very large Extent, which comprised a Generality of Christians Over and Above the number of Roman Catholics. This Church was surely that Jerusalem (mentioned by the Prophet) upon whose Wales Watchmen were placed, And were by Duty to Speak in God's Cause, when his Honour was Concerned. In this Church we shall Certainly find Those Vigilant Pastors, Doctors, and Teachers, Ephes. 4. Who Perfect Saints, and still Edify the Mystical Body of Christ, to the end, That we be 
Protestants highly Disgrace that large Catholic Church which They own,  not carried Away by every wind of Doctrine etc. Now I Assume. But, with our Protestants leave, All the Watchmen, all the Pastors, all the Teachers of this Ample and far Extended Church, were so Carelessly asleep, so Negligent and Forgetful of their Duty,  
For the vast interval of a Thousand years Together, That they took no notice of These (now Imagined) Roman Errors by any Public Censure, or Condemnation; But contrariwise Permitted Rome to Revel, to Countenance Error, Yea, and to be quite carried Away with the 'Slight Doctrine (as They suppose) of an Unbloody Sacrifice of the Real Presence, of Purgatory etc. Only, Forsooth, one Martin Luther, and our Protestants, had such quick eyes as to See Them, and upon the sight to Hold themselves Obliged in conscience, to make an eternal Divorce from this Church, wherein they were Baptised. Observe here not only Paradox upon Paradox, But also a whole Heap of Impossibilities packed together. Our New men saw These too plain and visible Errors; But this large Vigilant Church saw Them 
Protestants make Themselves more wise, vigilant, and zealous then then their large Catholic Church.  not. They were so Sensible of the Honour of Christian Faith as to Condemn Them; But this great Church was so Senseless as to Dissemble All. They now Separate, Spurn, and Kik at this Church As Antichristian, But That Ample Catholic Society did never so much as put a Mark of Dishonour on Rome, For want of true Doctrine. If ever such a Mark, Note, Censure, Private or Public Act, Issued out from an Universal Church Against the Church of Rome, Let them speak, And I'll be silent Hereafter: If not, it is A Strange Boldness To make Themselves more Wise, Zealous, and Vigilant, than that Universal Church was (which Here to their Prejudice They own) Because, forsooth, Rome must loose the Title of the Church Universal.  
2. Our Protestant's therefore must grant (there is no Denying it) That, Either This Universal Church had lost Her Eyes, or was more than Impiously. Negligent over the Charge committed to Her, which was to Teach, to Instruct, to Reprehend, and Crush Heresies as They Appeared; Or (which is the Real Truth) That They find Fault with Errors which never were. Now Here Observe, an Other great Advantage given against Themselves, And How They Honour Rome, and Disgrace Their own imagined and more Universal Church. 
The Diligence of the Roman Church compared with the Negligence of Their great Imagined Catholic Church.  The Church of Rome was Vigilant, And (as the World knows) Ever Ready, Age after Age, to Suppress Heresies as they Risen up, and Declare Against Them (Witness the Condemned Arians, Nestorians, Monothelits &c.) But this imagined Universal Church was so Sleepy and Vnconcerned, as to Permit one Particular Church (For Rome, They say, was no more) To Own, and strongly to Foment Those very Errors (And this without so much as a word of Reproof) which Caused our Conscionable, and tender Hearted Protestants to Schismatize as they did, and Bid Adieu to Rome For ever. A strange Tenderness of Conscience 
The tender Conscience of Protestants.  Indeed, which (to take of the Gild of Schism from Themselves) doth not only cast an Eternal Ignominy upon this Vast Imagined Church, But makes it also Sinful and Damnable, For Dissembling so long with Errors, which caused at last our Protestants Schism.  
3. What can they reply to this Argument? Will they say, This Great Society of Christians had not power to contrast with the Roman Church? The whole is greater than a Part, and Rome, They say (If Yet so much) Was only Part of that Universal Society. However, If Power was wanting, where was 
A vast improbability, That one Luther can be supposed to have had more knowledge and Zeal than this whole Church.  the zeal of this Church? Can one Luther, and His few Associates Be Supposed to have had more zeal, Then flamed in the Hearts of so many Pastors and Doctors For ten Ages Together? They may Reply. The Church of Rome was ever Held sound in Fundamentals, Though not every way Right in Faith, Therefore this great Church Thought it better patiently to wink at these lesser Faults, then to raise a Tempest in the Christian World, not 
A Reply.  easily calmed. Observe first: How These men, when They have said much, and Proved nothing, know every Thing without new Revelations. First, They know where this vast Church was, Though no body ever yet Herd of it. 2. What it Thought. 3. Upon what Motives it Dissembled so long etc. But let all this Pass. My Answer is. Ex ore tuo te judico. Did this Church Prudently wink at these less 
Protestants ought to have proceeded as Their Imagined Church Did.  Supposed Errors, Because not Fundamental, nor Destructive of Salvation? Why did not our good Protestants do so also? Did it Hold it safer to sit down Quietly, Then to raise a Tempest amongst Christians? Why did not our Protestants take to the far●e Cours also? In Doing so, They had made Themselves as well Inheritors of their Forefathers Peace and Wisdom, as They now are of their Lands. But to Disown the better Inheritance, to Condemn their Ancestors, and a whole Church beside of Error, To make a violent Bustle, a hideous Tumult in the Christian World, upon Little Causes, is in a 
Their open Injustice and plain Rebellion is undeniable.  word open Injustice, And flat Rebellion. I say upon Little Causes: For in Kingdoms and Commonwealths, where the Laws are without Exception good, it is hard to find the Practical Government so free from all Misdemeanours, But that you will have Eyes enough to Espy Them, and Hearts ready, upon very Little Feeling, to Clamour against Them: Yet Licencence once these Malcontents to Rebel when they feel a little Smart, and Adieu, say I, to all Loyalty: Civil Government 
Licence Malcontents to rebel upon little Aggrievances, and all Government is destroyed  is Destroyed, both Regal, and Other. Admit therefore, That, there Had been Abuses in the Church of Rome, as also (which is Falso) it had Failed in Nonfundamentals of Faith, Yet Evident Reason shows the Schism made by Protestants to be Unexcusable. For, as that man Commit's an Unexcusable Crime, who for little Aggrievances in a Kingdom wherein He is born, Openly Rebels against it, So He Commits a higher Offence, if for petty Faults, He rebel's against an Ancient Church, wherein he was Baptised. Now it was as Clear to the First Schismatizing Protestants, That the Church of Rome was the Mother Church that gave them Baptism, as it is clear to any Subject in the World, That such a Kingdom first gave him Life. Unpardonable Therefore is the Crime of 
Schism i● cannot suppose a just Cause.  Schism in Every one, which can never Suppose a just Cause. And thus much not only the Holy Fathers do, but our Protestants also, Must Confess: For, to Tell me on the one side, That the Church of Rome hath All 
A Paradox. The Church of Rome vows Nothing Necessary to Salvation, yet it is Necessary to Salvation to leave it.  Things Necessary to Salvation, And yet on the Other, to Assert, It is Necessary to Salvation to leave it (when it vows nothing Necessary) is Implicatory in Terms, Yea, and Gives Liberty to Protestants to Leave their own Church when they list; where there is Danger enough of more than little Errors, which Prejudice Salvation.  
4. And here is Proof enough of the other Part of my Assertion, which was: Protestant's cannot probably Impeach the Roman Catholic Church of Errors, Causal of their Schism. You have already the Reason. For if Faults, less or more Usually seen, even in well ordered Commonwealths, can not give just Cause of public Rebellion, much less could These Supposed Faults And unproved 
Sectaries must either Convince us of Errors highly Fundamental, or They are plain Schismatics.  Errors, not Fundamental in the Church of Rome, give just Cause to our Protestants of Their shameful Schism against it. Therefore They ought to convince us of Errors highly Fundamental, And so make us no True Christian Church, or, They must sit Down Branded with the black Note of both Causal and Formal Schismatics. There is no avoiding it.  
5. Again I Argue. If Errors Causal of Protestants Schism Invaded the Church of Rome, They entered After the first 4. or 5. Hundred years; For so long (say They) That Church was Orthodox: But it is more than Improbable, That such a Deluge of them, as our Adversaries Charge on us, Invaded that Church, and Diffused Themselves all Over. I prove the Minor. 
The high improbability of Errors, Entering the Church, laid forth.  They could not Enter this Church without Public Defense, and Public Resistance. Defense, in Those who first Heretically Vented Them: Resistance in others, who Catholickly Opposed Them. But there was never since Christ's Time, Any such first Public Heretical Defense, nor first Public Catholic Opposition of These Supposed Errors. The Real Presence; The Sacrifice of the Mass, Prayers for the Dead, Prayer to Saints etc. Only Heretics Condemned for their Pains Opposed them, But not others. Let us therefore Appeal to Reason, and Ask. How it 
A clear Conviction of Sectaries.  was Possible, That such loud Clamorous Novelties could so silently, And as it were by night, Creep into a Church, and no Body Discover Them on their first Appearance? How was it Possible, That they could become Public Owned Objects of men's Fairh, and Gain an Universal Belief through a whole Ample Church, And no Body yet know when this new Belief (or, Unheard of Professed Faith) first began? Nothing can be more Improbable, Paradoxal, and morally 
Dr●wn from the Moral Impossibility of the Entrance of these supposed Errors.  more Impossible. And  
6. To show you further the Impossibility of this Clandestine Entrance of public Errors into a Church, without Public Notice or Clamours against Them, Be pleased to Reflect here upon one Instance. Suppose, That a new sort of men should now begin to Broach an Impious Doctrine, And openly Teach 
An Instance confirms all that is said.  that the water in Baptism, which washeth away sin, is ●s Really the True Blood of Christ, And Therefore worthy of Adoration, as Catholics Hold a consecrated Host to be his Sacred Body, and upon that Acount Adorable. Would not such a Novelty (Think ye) where it Publicly Gins, be Publicly also Clamoured against by Sound and Orthodox Christians? Yes. And if it Gradually got ground, or more Followers in Time (not easily Suppressed) Would it not, as well As all other Heresies, which have troubled the World, Remain upon Clear and Undoubted Record for Posterity to read? Certainly yes. Yet more: Can this Persuasion live in any rational Man, That such a Novelty might in time be so Held an Article of Faith by a Most Ample and Learned Church, That The Professors Thereof would Die for it? The Seven Wonders of the world are not Comparable to this one. Observe the Application. There was a time (say 
The Application of the Instance.  Protestants) to wit For the 4. or 5. first Ages after Christ, When the whole pure Primitive Church, no more Believed Christ Sacred Body to be Really and Substantially under the Species of Bread, Then now we Believe His Sacred Blood to be under the Species of water in Baptism. There was a Time when the One as little Deserved Worship, or Adoration as the Other. For, both were only Holy Signs, and no More. There was a Time when this whole Church grew Mad, and Brought in the most Palpable and Erroneous Novelty that ever the World Herd of, or Record Preserved, What? A piece of bread before not Christ's Body, was then (O Strange Time!) Believed to be his Body; A whole Ample Learned Church was then Cheated into that Belief; And whereas, it once Deserved no Worship (say our Protestants) All at last fell down and Adored it in the Open View of the World; And to Testify that They did so in Earnest▪ Innumerable have shed their blood in Defense of what they Believed. Yet (and here is the Wonder of Wonders) 
Evidences Against Sectaries.  no man can say: Who those were that first introduced this supposed Monster of Novelties. No man can say in what Age, under what Pope This Error First got Growth, and Patrons for it. No man can Tell me, what Orthodox Christians first stood up in God's cause, and Opposed it. No man can Tell me, when this Visible and Public Adoration of an Host Began. No man can Tell me, How, or when this new supposed Coined Doctrine (Serpent like) first crept into men's hearts, And at last Poisoned A whole Universal Church. Hideous were these Novelties, Prodigious these Visible 
No Author ever mentioned these Notorious, visible, supposed Changes. Sectaries trifle whilst They oppose the Strength of our Argument.  supposed Changes, Yet Hush! All passed in silence, no Body saw them, No body mentions them, Not one Author (neither Friend nor Enemy) Writ them, or left them upon Record. Is not this, Think ye, (whilst all other Heresies are most exactly Registered) more than a Pythagorean and Prodigious Silence?  
7. It is Pitiful to see with what petty Trifles, our Adversaries Oppugn the Strength of this most Convincing Argument. Some tell us of a Beard growing grey Imperceptibly, of the Index of a Clock moving Insensibly, of Tares peeping up in a Field when men are asleep. And who can Question (saith one very Profoundly) the birth of an Infant, Because He knows not the time of its Conception? Errors Therefore might grow up with like silence in a Church, and as Insensibly. Observe this Trifling. We speak in the Instance now given of a Visible Mountain, and our Adversaries Send us to seek for Invisible Moths in an old wasted Garment. Say, I Beseech you: Can they suppose That all Objects are alike Discernible by our Senses? Or, is it as easy to find a needle in a Bundle of straw, As to see Towers and Castles before our eyes in a fair Sun shin day? The Supposed Novelty now 
Sectaries Parallel Things of their own nature not perceptible, with Others most Visible and Manifest.  mentioned, the Supposed Change of a whole Church into another Belief, the Imagined New Public Adoration of A Sacrament, were more Discernible and Visible than Mountains and Castles, And cannot be Paralleled with the Imperceptible Grains of a beard, with Tares peeping up etc. However This we can say. Certainly so many years since, the beard was not grey, now it is, So many Months since, Tares were not, now they are. Let our Adversaries Proceed with like Evidence against us, and say Certainly (not doubtfully) such Supposed Errors Then were not in the Church, but afterward Began, and within the precise Compass of so many years. But This They cannot probably Hint at. The last Instance of a child's Conception is the worst of All; For if you know its Birth, you know the conception was nine Months before, according to the ordinary course of nature; Though if both were hid from us, it is a Forceles instance, Unless we suppose that all Trivial Matters must as well be known, and stand upon Record, as Things of greatest Concernment. The late woeful Burning of London, will (I'll warrant it) be Exactly Recorded, when the birth of twenty Infants is never thought on, and so should the General Ruin of Faith in a whole Church, have stood Registered.  
8. One word more. Though These Examples were 
Can Sectaries show how such changes might enter the Church that proves not they entered.  to the Purpose (as indeed They are not) at most they would only show, and Pitifully enough, How such supposed changes might perhaps be made: But are far from Proving, They were made so De facto: For this carries no likelihood of an Argument with it. I'll Show you how These Errors might Enter the Church insensibly, How these Changes might get in with Silence. Ergo it was so, Thus they were made, De facto. A Potentiâ ad actum non valet Consequentia. No man can Argue from a 
An Inference from a mere Possibility to The Act is Null.  mere Possibility of their Clancular Entrance, that in real Truth They entered in Such a manner. Sectaries may say, They Suppose these changes made upon other Principles, And now only show by Insta●●es, How They might get in without Noise, and public Notice. Here, we may have plain Dealing, if it please our Adversaries. Show you Therefore, My Good Friends, by any Thing like a Solid Proof or Principle, That the change we now speak of was Actually made in the Church: Say plainly, This Supposed Novelty was not in such an Age, but afterward, And let a solid Proof make good both 
Their examples neither Prove these pretended novelties introduced, nor suppose them proved by any known Principle.  Assertions; And than Your Instances of Tares and Beards growing grey will be to no purpose, Because the Changes which you say were made, are now upon your Supposition strongly proved Aliunde, That is, By other solid Grounds, and this without the help of these weak instances. Here therefore is an Unanswerable Dilemma for you. You either endeavour to show that the Supposed Novelty of the Real Presence entered the Church, Because your Examples of Tares, and a clock index convinceth the Actual Entrance of it, And This Inference, as I said now, is Nonsense, Thus it might Enter, Ergo thus it did Enter. Or, Contrariwise, You can clearly Prove that the Church began such a Novelty by undeniable Grounds, without 
Protestants make their own Instances impertinent and forceles.  depending of these Instances. If you do this solidly, your instances are worth nothing. For, if you Convince by an undeniable Principle, that the Church brought in this new Doctrine in any Age, you need not at all to talk of a grey beard, or, of Tares peeping up insensibly, Because you must now suppose the pretended innovation clearly Proved, by other far better and undeniable Grounds. Do this, and you make your own Instances, Eo ipso, Null, and as impertinent, as Forceles. For, Most 
An Instance against Them.  surely, No man in his wits will go about to prove that Protestancy, for Example, came into the world insensibly as a board grows Grey, when he can evidently Demonstrate by other undeniable Principles the Palpable Beginning of it. And thus it is in the present Controversy.  
9 One may yet say. They cannot, 'Tis true, Demonstratively Evidence the supposed change now in Controversy, yet are able, upon strong Moral 
Their pretence to make Novelties in the Church to be highly probable, is more than improbable.  Proofs, to make it highly Probable. Contra 1. If you make it highly Probable, Talk no more of Tares and Beards; For one Proof of this nature will be of more Advantage to your cause, than the secret peeping up of a Thousand weeds in a garden. Contra 2. If this your Assertion be made probable, it must stand upon a strong Moral certain Principle, whereof none can but most imprudently Doubt. Deal Candidly, Give us in plain language this High Moral certain Principle, whereon your Assertion hath Footing, and you'll Gain much. But if after the Offer, you Turn us of with words, or lead us by a loose Discourse to what you may say is Morally Certain, Though thousands more learned vow the Contrary, you'll only First Discredit yourself, and next your Cause much more. Speak plainly on God's Name, Here is place for it. Make your undoubted Principle known, whereby your Assertion is proved, And you will do more than Ever Protestant did yet, or, shall do Hereafter. Contra 3. It is a mere whimsy, to suppose Proofs highly probable against This ever Taught and unchangeable Doctrine of the Catholic Church, which stands Firm, First, upon Christ's own Express words, 
No proof can be probable that stands against undeniable Principles▪  This is my Body. 2. On the Irrefragable Authority of so many most Ancient Fathers, that speak not only Dubiously of the Mystery, But as clearly Defend it, as the Council of Trent Defines it, whereof more largely Hereafter. To These Principles, We Add the Testimony and Express Belief of our whole Learned, both passed and present Roman Catholic Church, Too strong a Proof, to be Battered or shaken by Empty words. Wherefore Every one may Consider what a hard Task Sectaries have in hand, if They go about to make Their Contrary Assertion highly Probable. First. They are Obliged 
It will be hard to find an Orthodox Christian Society of greater Authority than the Roman Catholic Church.  to Prove, and by a sure Principle, That Christ spoke improperly, or, according to Their sense. 2. That all, or at least most of the Fathers Erred in their Doctrine of the Blessed Sacrament. 3. That They quite Overthrow the Roman Catholic Doctrine by the Authority of some other Church, that was ever Held by Christians more Orthodox, and Apostolical than our Roman Church is. All this is to be done not by Talk, But by Sober, Solid, and undeniable moral Principles, which, both Friends and Enemies ought, if They be Rational, to acknowledge as Principles Morally Certain. When Sectaries shall pleas to do what is here plainly required (And it must be performed if they speak pertinently) Than I shall begin to think, That, They mere Fallible men may speak more boldly and Say. Our Church is Fallible, and hath brought in, both this new mentioned, and many other Innovations. Therefore, I deeply Charge their Consciences, 
The Consciences of Sectaries are pressed to prove what They teach of Errors in the Church,  as They will Answer it at the day of judgement, not to Trifle in a most serious matter; But, without Ambiguity, plainly to touch the Difficulty, And to make known to the whole World, what that owned Principle is, whereon this Their Proposition stands: The whole Church is Fallible, and hath introduced This Novelty of Christ's Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament. I speak 
Not by Empty words, but certain Principles.  boldly. And dare say: It is a Flat Heresy, And, therefore Sectaries have nothing like a Principle Morally certain, whereby the strength of the contrary Verity, mantained by Scripture, Church, and Fathers, can be meanly Quarrelled with, much les solidly Reproved, unless the too simple talk of a Few novelists be able to Evert, and Overturn what God hath Revealed, And a whole ample Church Defends upon Revelation.  
10. Perhaps it will be said first. The Fathers that Defend the Real presence were fallible and might Err. 
what Sectaries may plead, but 'Tis more than highly improbable.  I answer. Our Protestant's who Deny it, are Fallible also, and may Err more. By what undoubted Principle Therefore, can They Convince, that Their fallible rejecting the Fathers Hath weight enough, to make Null the Testimony of so many Blessed Saints, against Their Doctrine? We call here for Principles, and are not content with Empty words. They may Reply 2. They can Explicate both Scripture and Father's contrary to the Church's Sense, And so rid themselves of that Burden. I answer, This Riddance is none, Unless, when they have explicated, They prove by a more sure Principle, Then the Express Words of these Fathers are, That Their Glosses hit right, and that the Fathers were Deceived, which shall never be so much as Probably Convinced. If They lastly talk of Citing Fathers for their Heresy: I answer, They have not one, As will be amply Proved hereafter. In the mean while let them know, it will be the safest Cours to talk no more of Changes ad Novelties introduced into our Church without proof and Principles, to uphold Their ill Supposed, and worse Proved Calumnies. But enough of this Digression. We return now to other Objections.  
11. Some again Tell us. The corruptions of our Church came in, in time of greatest ignorance, when little notice was 
Still Empty Talk without proofs or Principles.  taken, and few Records were Preserved of them. Here is more Talk without Principles. For, where Read They of so great Ignorance in the Church that Disenabled all Writers to Register such vast Changes? Or, where find they Records of those lost and Vnpreserved Records? This is only Proofles talk; if They have Records, let them be produced; if they have none, let them 
Sectaries Guesses rejected.  Hereafter Wave such blind Guesses, whilst Proofs are Expected. It would anger our Protestants, if I should tell them without Proof or unquestioned Records, that the Beard of Their Religion is Insensibly Grown grey since their new Faith came in, Or, that Tares were cast into Their Church, whilst They Slept etc. Yet They, it seems, Are licenced to run on with such poor Guesses, And no body must Check Them.  
12. Next they Argue. We cannot show, when the 
Were these Things unkown, it follows not that other of greater monent are unknown also.  Necessity of Communicating Infants, and the Rebaptising of Heretics, or, That Doctrine of Souls not seeing God before the Day of judgement First entered the Church: Yet These were Errors, And their Beginning is unknown. Here I answer briefly. The Communicating Infants was only Tolerated for a time, But never was held a necessary Doctrine of the Church; Much less were those Two other 
These Examples touch not the Difficulty.  Points (condemned by the Church) ever Owned as Her Doctrine. Such Examples therefore (not Church-Doctrin) are to no Purpose, in this place.  
13. Lastly they Tell us. Scotus thought Transubstantiation to be of no elder Date, than the Council of Lateran, And Bishop Fisher saith the Doctrine of Purgatory was not much heard of in the Primitive Church. I would willingly see in Scotus his own works the Distin. and Quest. Where He Asserts what these men Say: Some Protestants cite him in 4. Distin. 11. q. 3. where He only saith (in different Editions) that Transubstantiation was more explicitly Defined in the Lateran Council, which is far from making it no older a Doctrine, Then that Councils Definition is. But, Admit Scotus said so, and Bishop Fisher (unquoted) worse then they pretend, The Church of Christ Teaches no such Thing; Yet, from this Oracle of Truth, we must Learn, and not from particular Doctors (who may err) what Church Doctrine is. And, for this Reason I told you above, of much foul Play in Protestants, Who (Because they want Antiquity) take no little Pains to run up and down our Authors, and if by chance a Word be found less warily spoken, They trifle with it, and presently make that Popish Doctrine: It is an Error. Catholic Doctrine is not one Man's singular Opinion, 
Catholic Doctrine is no Man's singular Opinion.  But the Universal received Doctrine of the Church. And thus much our Adversaries must assert for Themselves; Otherwise (when one of great Renown amongst them Tell's Protestant's Plainly) It is but labour in vain to talk of union with One Another, Unless They join again to that moral Body, from which they once Separated, that is to those, who are in union with the Sea Apostolic; The whole English Church must here Subscribe, and say it is Protestant Doctrine. Will they Do so? The Voice therefore of One, is not the voice of All, nor one man's Opinion more men's Opinion, Much less the Sentiment of a whole Church.  
14. It is but time lost to follow these Men, whilst 
Blind Guesses no Proof of Novelties, brought into the Church.  They Blindly run on Guessing at the Rise and Origin of our Supposed Errors, and Tell us. All our Corruptions came not in on a sudden. They were first practised freely, and then urged as Necessary. Persons of great esteem first held them, and Others soon followed their Example. If one would take the Pains and trace it, He might find the Head of these Corruptions at last etc. Pitiful slight Talk, unworthy a Scholar, And vented at random against the Primitive Church, would even Blemish that as much as any Other, yea, And Protestancy more. I wave such stuff, Because nothing like a proof follows it.  
15. My last Proposition is. Though Protestants should convince 
Though Errors were falsely supposed to have entered the Church, yet Protestant's cannot Prove that They have set Faith right again on its old Foundations.  (which is impossible) That the Roman Catholic Church hath Swerved from the Primitive Doctrine, yet, They cannot so much as Probably show, That They have mended the Matter; or set Christian Faith right again on its old Foundations, as it once stood pure. It is therefore a most Uncomfortable Reformation, which only Tell's us of our being Out of the high Road of Truth, Unless the Reformers lead us (and this with Assurance) into the unerring way, from whence we Strayed. If This be not Don, it follows (upon the Supposition) That both They, and 
Their pretended Reformation most uncomfortable.  We are yet pitifully Out, and Therefore both of us, must look after some third Guide to Reduce us.  
16. Now, that Protestants are utterly unable to persuade any Rational man, That they have exactly brought Christian Faith to its Ancient Purity, is more than Evident: 
Sectaries have nothing like a Principle whereby their Reformation is proved Probable. It is one thing to say we have Erred, and an Other to prove, that they are Right.  For, beside Their own bare Word (which is worth little) They have nothing like a Principle (neither Scripture, Councils, nor Fathers) to Ground a probable Discourse Pertinent to that Purpose; For None of These ever Knew what a Protestant was. It is True, They Pretend (Though God knows to little Purpose) That Scripture, Councils, and Fathers are against our Errors; But it is one Thing, slightly to tell us we have Erred, and an Other solidly to Prove, that They are Right, and have broughr Christian Faith, hitherto much Tainted to its Ancient Purity. This last is the only Difficulty. And I Conjure Them, as They will give an Account of their Religion to Almighty God, without Tergiversation, or Farfetched Discourses, Directly and Clearly to Solve it. The Proposition to be Proved, and Positively 
What They are obliged to prove.  is Thus. Protestant's (Because they will be Reformers) are every way Right in Their Faith, from which Faith, Catholics have Swerved. Observe it. You shall never have 
They can give no direct Answer to the Difficulty.  a direct Answer to chis Difficulty. They may tell you, Catholics have Erred: They follow Scripture: Their Rule of Faith is what was Delivered in the first Primitive Ages, and They know that better than Papists Do. They Hope all is well with Them etc. And thus They I put you of, with Empty Words: But to Prove Solidly that Proposition is impossible. Believe it, Those Bonzies of japan had more Plausible Proofs to defend their Pagods, and Impugn Christianity, Then our Adversaries have to Evidence Protestancy to be the Primitive Faith, and impugn, the Now-standing Catholic Roman Religion.   

CHAP. XIV.  
A Word to a Few Supposed and unproved Assertions, Whereby Some Endeavour to clear Protestants of Schism.  
1. THeir first Proposition. There is no Society of 
Mr. Stillingfleet.  Christians of any one Communion, but may impose some things to be believed or practised, which may be repugnant to 
The Assertion is Falso in Protestants Principles, unless it be granted that their ample Catholic Church can destroy Christianity.  the general Foundations of Christian Society. I Answer. If the Assertion fall on That Imagined Universal Catholic Church, more Ample than the Roman (which must be a Society of Christians of one Communion) it is Falls in Protestant Principles, Unless they say, That this great Catholic Church can Impose Things to be Believed, or repugnant to the general Foundations of Christianity. Again, if it Relate to the Roman Catholic Church, it is a mere unproved Fancy of their own; For This Church, as is largely showed, Defends its Infallibility by Proofs as Certain, as the Common Grounds of Christianity are. Be it how you will; You have here our Adversaries Acknowledgement, That their particular Church of 
Protestants may impose Things Contrary to the Grounds of Christianity.  Protestancy (because Fallible) may Impose Things repugnant to the Grounds of Christianity, And this I easily Believe without further Proof.  
2. The 2. Proposition. There being a possibility acknowledged, that particular Churches may require Unreasonable conditions of communion; the Obligation to communion cannot be absolute and indispensable, But only so far as nothing is required Destructive to the ends of Christian Society. The 
The Author of the proposition, sure enough, supposeth himself fit to judge what is Destructive. No Protestant can avouch so much as probably wherein the Church hath imposed Unreasonable Conditions. Protestants Profess themselves Fallible in all They Teach.  Assertion, if I mistake not, Supposeth the Roman Catholic Church to be only a particular Church, Deficient, and liable to Errors, which is not yet so much as probably Proved, and Therefore I say, the Obligation to Communicate with it is Absolute, and Indispensable. But let us wave this at Present, and contrary to Truth Imagine, That this Church hath imposed Unreasonable conditions, Destructive of Christian communion etc. We Ask Again, and very seriously, who are They that can Mend the matter, in case it hath Don so? Or, who dare Avouch by the Force of any received Principle, that Such and Such particular Conditions imposed on Christians, are Unreasonable? Where are the Equitable and infallible judges appointed by Almighty God to Decide in so weighty a Matter? Are they Protestants? No. It is impossible. Hear my Reason. If the Church hath Erred by imposing such Unreasonable Conditions, Protestants, who Profess themselves Fallible in All They say, may Err More, Yea, And spoil all, whilst They go about to set Things Strait. However, if They dare Venture▪ on so difficile a Work, 
And therefore may more likely spoil Then mend what they Conceive Amiss.  They are First obliged to Prove (And this not by Talk) But by undeniable Principles, That just so Far our Church Errs, so Far it requires Unreasonable Conditions of Communion, And next, That They, the Illuminated men of the World, have done no more, But exactly Canceled the Errors of our Church, leaving all untouched, that is, not Destructive to the ends of Christian Society; For, we must believe, They are the skilful Masters that always hit Right, Though confessedly Fallible. You shall sooner draw pure Gold out of mere dross, Then get any Thing like a Tolerable Proof from these men, to countenance One of these Desperate Assertions. Alas, They only Word it without Proof, As Arians and Nestorians Do. And here is All you Have from Them.  
3. The 3. Proposition. Nothing can be more unreasonable, 
The proposition supposeth what is to be proved.  then that the Society imposing such conditions of Communion, should be judge, whether those conditions be just and equitable, or no. I Answer. And nothing can be more Unreasonable, then to make a Receding Party from an 
rebel's are not to be judges in Their own Cause,  Ancient Church, a few Rebellious People against it, judges in their own Cause. The Arians judged thus for Themselves, and so do Protestants. All rebellion in Kingdoms and Commonwealths is Patronised, if those who Revolt may Clear Themselves from Gild, upon their own Votes and saying: Such conditions imposed 
Nor Protestant's of Their Schism.  on us are Vnequitable and Grievous; We therefore, who Rebel, will sit upon the Bench and judge so. The Kingdom (Believe it) is to Decide in such Cases, and not the 
The Church is to judge in this Cause of Schism.  Rebel's, And so the Church is to Judge you, As it did the Arians, And not you The Church. Your Complaint of unequitable Conditions imposed on you. is only an Unproved Fancy, begot in your Nonage, when you never Herd good Word of Rome; Passion still foment's it, Sophistry Advanceth it, but All will not Do. Most truly, That Talk of unjust Conditions 
The Plea of unjust Conditions only a Mask of an injustifiable Schism.  is Merely a mask to Cover an Unjustifiable Schism, a Pretence to Defend what cannot be Defended. Pull the Wizard of, which is done by putting you to the Proof of your Talk, and the Proposition Appears in its own Likeness, Ugly, and Deformed.  
4. The fourth Proposition. Where there is sufficient evidence from Scripture, Reason, and Tradition, That such things, which are imposed, are unreasonable conditions of Christian Communion; The not communicating with that Society, which requires those things, cannot incur the guilt of Schism. Here wants a Minor, which I shall supply with a contradictory Proposition thus. But there is no sufficient Evidence from Scripture, Reason and Tradition, That such Things Imposed on Protestants by the Church of Rome, are Unreasonable Conditions of Christian Communion; Therefore Protestant's not 
A General task of unreasonable conditions, Proofles.  Communicating with that Ancient Society, which justly requires those Things, cannot but make them Guilty of Schism. Who must now judge between us? Or, Finally say, whether that Major, or, This contrary Minor carries the greater weight of Truth with it? The first is 
What Sectaries say in this Proposition, Any Heretic may Assert and as probably  only a Supposed and an unproved Assertion, That both Arians and all condemned Heretics may vent against us. The Minor is Grounded upon the acknowledged Ancient Purity of our Church, Which, Unless clear Evidence Overtrow it, cannot but Defend itself as strongly Against such Calumnies (upon its own Prepossessed Right and Innocency) As the best of Kingdoms doth against a company of known Rebels. When Therefore These novelists Pretend to have sufficient Evidence from Scripture, Reason, and Tradition 
What Sectaries are Obliged to do, by more than Talk only.  for▪ Unreasonable Conditions imposed, They are Obliged, to Descend to Particulars, And make the Charge Good by valid Proofs, reducible at last to Owned, and allowed of Principles amongst Christians. If this be not Don, They may Vapour against our Church, as the jews Do against Christ, But shall never Advance so far, 
They make Controversies Endless.  as to a weak Probability, or make an End of one sole Controversy. And mark what Do we have Here. They will have no judge on Earth; Clear Principles Fail Them in every Controversy, And yet we must Hear (and only in a General way) Of sufficient Evidence Drawn from Scripture, Reason, and Tradition, Against our Unreasonable Conditions. If there be such Evidence, Show it, And let us see the Owned Principles, whereon it lastly Relies. But truly, So much Ill luck Follow's them, That 
Their want of Principles, only Causeth Proofles Talk.  you never find a Controversy solidly handled, or brought (when They go about to Prove their own Doctrine Positively) to any thing like a Proof, or Principle, And They are as unfortunate, when They Oppugn Ours.  
5. The fifth Proposition. By how much the Societies are greater, which are agreed in not Communicating with a Church imposing such conditions, By how much the power of those who rule those Societies so agreeing is larger; By so much 
Suppositions without Proofs. What are these Abuses? Who is to reform?  the more justifiable is the Reformation of any Church from those Abuses, and the settling the bonds of Christian Communion without them. Here is the Thesis, And a Thing, like an Hypothesis, comes limping After, as well as it can, Thus. On these grounds, the Church of Rome Imposing unlawful conditions of Communion, it was Necessary not to communicate with her, and on the Church of England's power to reform itself by assistance of the supreme power, it was lawful and justifiable not only to redress those Abuses, but to settle the Church upon its proper and true Foundations. So that the Church of Rome's imposing unlawful conditions of communion, is the reason why we 
They pretend to settle, and have no Ground to build on.  do not communicate with Her; and the Church of England's power to govern and take care of herself, is the Reason of our joining together in the service of God, upon the Principles of our Reformation. Did you ever Hear men Vapour much, 
What are these Principles? Name one.  Talk much, Suppose much, and Prove just nothing? Here you have them. Observe it. We Hear a Noise of Unlawful imposed Conditions, of great Abuses in our Church, of the English Churches Power to Redress these Abuses, Yet, no man Knows, nor shall ever know by any solid Proof, what these Conditions and Abuses are▪ Much less, That a few Protestants have power to Redress 
Were there Abuses in the Church, Protestants have not Principles to redress them.  them, were there any such in the Church, whereof more Hereafter.  
6. At present, to Answer the Difficulty, I will say two Things. The first. If the Power, Number, or Largeness of these pretended Reformers justify Their Reformation, it's more than evident, That a Far greater Power, Number, and Largeness of those who Oppose it, makes 
More Oppose these Sectaries Reformation, then approve it.  it unjustifiable. Now not only Catholics, But all the Christians in the World (Altogether more Powerful, Larger, and Learneder than a few Protestants) Stiffly Oppose this late Reformation, as an Heretical and Schismatical Novelty. Therefore, that little Justification, which their own Power and Largeness Gain's to Protestancy, is not only much weakened, But made Null, by a greater Power, that withstands it. I say 2. This Proposition is utterly Falls, and Because Falso, cannot be Proved: Viz. That, by how much Societies are greater, 
It is not true, that by how much Sectaries are more Numerous and greater, by so much more Their Schism is justifiable.  and their Power larger in Agreeing, not to Communicate with an Ancient Church, wherein They were Baptised; Bianca so much more justifiable, is their Pretended Reformation. For, the Society of Arians, which Agreed in not Communicating with the Church of Rome, was more Numerous, Greater, and Powerful then ever Ptotestants were in England; They had their Emperors, Their Bishops, Their Councils, Their Churches, and a World of Followers. Say therefore, I Beseech you, did their 
This Truth is clear in the Arians.  Number, Power, or Greatness justify either their Heresy or Schism? Or, doth the greater Power, and Number, of Agreeing Rebels in a Kingdom against Their lawful Sovereign, Justify that Treason? You 
And in Rebels also of a Commonwealth.  will Say. The Arians Erred, But Protestants hit right on the Roman Abuses, and this makes their Reformation justifiable. Mere Proofles, empty Words; 
The Proofles Talk of Sectaries.  For, do you not see (and evidently) That all you Speak to this sense, is a wretched Supposition, and a pure Begging of the Question? And Because it is so, can either We, or any third Indifferent Judge Believe you sooner, speaking in your own Cause, then credit an Arian that will say the very same For his Heresy? O, But Confessedly both Catholics and Protestants acknowledge the Arians to be Heretics. And as Confessedly both Catholics and Arians, yes, And all other Sectaries Say also, you are Heretics. What Therefore get you by this Reply? Will you Tell us next, That you are Better at your Proofs against us, than the Arians are? The Arians laugh at you, And say, with Truth, This very Assertion is Proofles. Believe it. Though the Arguments of Arians against our Ancient Church, whereof they were once Members, 
The Arguments of Arians are more difficile Than ever Protestant's yet Proposed against our Church Doctrine.  are both Deficient and Strengthless; yet They go far deeper into Difficulties, which look more manly On't, then vv●at hitherto any Protestant hath Proposed against us. If you say: This is my own unproved Assertion, I will first Appeal to the judgement of any Indifferent and Vnconcerned Scholar for sentence in the case: Next (if this like you not) Be you first Pleased, to Propose one of the strongest Arguments you have, Against any particular 
The Grounds of the Assertion are declared.  Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church (One I say, and in Form) which may at last be Driven to an owned Principle, And then (Though I do Anathematise The Heresy) I shall Advance an Other in Behalf of the Arians; And if this, in the Judgement of every good Scholar, do not more Puzzle you in your own Principles, than yours me, against the Church, I'll 
Sectaries cannot solve the Arians Arguments without recurring to our Churches infallible Interpretation of Scripture.  yield up the cause. Here is fair Play offered. The ground of my Assertion is first. Because Protestants cannot so much as Probably solve the Arians Difficulties, without Recurring to the Churches infallible Interpretation of Scripture, which they Reject. 2. Neither Catholics nor any, can solve them Otherwise (than only Negatively) That is by showing they do not Convince, But to Infringe their Force Positively, Or, To Evidence them falls, Abstracting from Tradition and 
The Reason why Arians Difficulties are harder than those of Protestants. Negatively and Positively Protestant's Arguments are Solved.  the Authority of the Church (which is more the Proof of Catholic Doctrine, than a Direct Solution to difficulties) is Impossible. Now, on the Other side, Protestants can Propose no Difficulty Against us for Protestancy; But we will first Show it Negatively Vnconcluding, And next by Positive Proofs break in pieces the Seeming Force of it. For example. They Argue against the Real Presence: A body cannot be in 
One Example Hereof.  two places at Once. We Show first Negatively, that their Argument concludes not, and then Introduce Positive Proofs, partly drawn from God's Omnipotency, partly from other Undeniable Grounds, Which both weaken and Dead the Argument. And thus we Proceed with them in Other Controversies, Concerning the Pope's Supremacy, Praying to Saints, Purgatory etc.  
7. I have Complained all along, of our Adversaries Asserting much, and Proving Nothing, You will yet see more of this Proceeding in some, who Think They strongly Vindicate the Church of England from the Gild of Schism.   

CHAP. XV.  
More of These Author's Confused Doctrine, is Refuted.  
1. IN a Chapter Entitled: Protestant's not Guilty of 
Mr. Stillingfleet.  Schism. The Catholic Opponent Argues. If the Roman Church was corrupted in Doctrine, it Follow's, That for many Ages before Luther, there was not one Visible and Orthodox Church throughout the whole World. And consequently, during that Time, Every good Christian was obliged in some point or other to Contradict the Doctrine, and Desert the Communion of all Visible Churches in the World. Which 
If all particular Churches were corrupted in Doctrine, the whole Catholic Church was also corrupted.  I say cannot but Imply a Leaving of, And also a strong Opposition Against the Church Catholic, What ever this Catholic Church be; For, this Catholic Society is not a Chimaera in the Air, But is Essentially Constituted of either Pure, or Particular tainted Churches. Now our Adversaries say, All particular Churches throughout the whole World, were tainted; Ergo, what ever is meant by the Catholic Church, was also corrupt and 
Therefore upon the Supposition men are obliged to desert the Communion of the Catholic Church. He Grant's not particular Church was free from Error. They say▪ all Churches had erred. It is necessary to separate from all erring Churches, therefore as necessary to separate from the whole Catholic Church. What Sectaries Reply.  Tainted. Yet more. I am Obliged to Desert all Corrupted Churches, Therefore I am obliged to Abandon the Communion of the Church Catholic. After much Talk and Quibbling about the Meaning of one Visible Church, and the Errors of particular Churches, whether Several, or the same in particular Societies of Christians, etc. These men Grant, That there was not One Church, of any Distinct Communion from others, free from Errors. The Arians, the Nestorians, the Eutychians, the Greeks, the Abyssins', Hussits, And finally Catholics Had Erred. Therefore all the Churches in the World, consequently the Catholic Church, had erred before Luther: But it is Necessary to Separate from the Communion of all Erring Churches, Therefore, 'Tis as Necessary to Separate from the Communion of the whole Catholic Church.  
2. To This Argument They Answer. There can be no Separation from the whole Church, But in such Things, wherein the Unity of the whole Church lies etc. Now, when men Separate from the Errors of all particular Churches, They do not Separate from the whole, Because those Things, which one Separates from those particular Churches for, are not such as make them, all put together, to be the whole, or Catholic Church. For a further Explanation They tell us: Two Things may be Considered in all particular Churches; One, that Belongs to them as a Church, The other, that belongs to them as a particular Church. What belongs to them as a Church, Implies the Common Ligaments or grounds of Union betvveen all particular Churches, which taken all Together make up the Catholic Church: Now these which belong to it as a particular Church, are such, as it may retain the Essence of a Church without them. And therefore supposing, That I should Separate from all particular Churches, I do not Separate from the communion of the whole Church, Unless it be for something, without Which, those could be no Churches.  
3. Here in brief is their Confused, unproved, and 
This Doctrine of Sectaries confused, unproved, and falls.  Falls Doctrine. I call it confused, Because, when They Tell us: There can be no Separation from the whole Church, But in such Things wherein the Unity of the whole Church lies, They should Declare Expressly, and Particularly, Wherein that Unity of the whole Church Consists: But to leave us in Darkness Concerning no man knows 
They speak confusedly of unknown Ligaments, and of as unknown Unity.  what Ligaments, and Pretended Unity of a Strange Imagined Catholic Church, without Saying How far these Ligaments reach, or, Wherein Precisely This exact Unity lies, is only to Turn us of with Talk, and Teach just nothing. If They Answer: The Unity of this Doctrine is found in the Fundamentals of Faith, we are yet as 
No man can Imagine what They will make Fundamental.  far to seek as Before; For, who Knows what these new Protestants will make Fundamental, and Vnfundamental Doctrine? They may say one thing to day is Fundamental, and change it to morrow. However, Admit that They Declare Themselves, and Tell us Punctually, so much and no More is the Fundamental 
And if we could it would only be their own unproved Fancy.  and Necessary Doctrine of the Catholic Church, it will be only their Own Supposed, and unproved Assertion, and Occasion anew as hot a Dispute, as Any other Controversy between us. Unfortunate are These Men in every Thing they Say (and it cannot be otherwise) for wanting Ground to Build on, and a Church to regulate Their Faith, Whatever They Vent against our Catholic Doctrine, must of Necessity be as Much Their own Supposed and unproved Fancy, As if an Arian Disputed Against us.  
4. Observe Yet, How They Still run on with these unproved Suppositions. When men, Say They, separate Themselves from the Errors of all Particular Churches▪ They do not Separate from the whole etc. Blessed are such 
Protestants Separated and Poorly suppose, that they run away with Truth only, and left all the Errors behind Them.  Men, But who are They for God's sake? Protestants? Yes. And I must take their Word for it, we have no other proof. Pray you Tell me, When that first Protestant Giant, Martin Luther, stood up, and Separated from all the Societies of Christians Throughout the whole World, from Catholics, from Arians, Abyssins', Grecians &c. Who Assured him (●nd here we urge for a Satisfactory Principle) or, Who can yet Assure our Protestants, That both He and 
Who Assurs them so much? or, that they are not more deeply in Error by their own wilful Separation?  They are not More Plunged into Gross Errors, by this wilful Divorce, Then if They had remained, as once They were, Honest Catholics? Can, in Reason, Suppose That All, and every One of these Societies that Quit Rome were Corrupted in Doctrine, And without so much as a seeming Probability, Hold Luther and his Followers, the only Pure and Untainted Christians of the World? These are Paradoxes, and vast improbabilities; For if All These Erred, when They left the Roman Catholic Church (As evidently They did) what God, or Angel, was it, That Directed Protestants to hit right every way, and to Avoid all Error? These Heretics, when They Separated, were Fallible men, and actually Erred; our Protestants are as Fallible, and may have done worse. These 
Protestant's Separation parallelled with that of other Heretics. Protestant's proof is their own word, and nothing Els. Whether Protestants dare assert that Their reformed Protestancy is so Right that it can not be made better? If They Affirm, we urge for Principles to prove it. All that formerly deserted the Roman Catholic Church erred, upon what proof are Protestants Exempted from the like Error?  followed their own self Judgement in making that Divorce, Yet Miss of Truth; Protestants can only Say so much, And therefore very likely may have Miss more. How then shall we know (and by a satisfactory Proof) That this rare Reformation, which Opposed all Religions, is Untainted, and Orthodox? I'll tell you. Protestants (after an Infamy cast on all the Churches in the world) Say so, And what They say (Though whole Armies of Christians, more learned and numerous Stand against them) must be thought True. Is not this a Jolly Proof? In a word, Here is my Dilemma. Either They must Assert, that Their whole Protestant Doctrine now Established, is without Blemish, Pure, and Orthodox; or, yet Hath its Errors: if this last, it needs another Reformation: If they make it so Pure that it cannot be made better, They only say without proof, what All the Condemned Heretics in Christendom Assert for Themselves, and Moreover will have Christians Believe The greatest Paradox ever Herd of, viz. That They Only had the good Luck to hit Right, whilst All Foregoing Sectaries, who Abandoned the Roman Church, Were, and, yet Are tainted with gross Corruptions. The Reason why both They, and All other Heretics that left the Mother-Church, are in Error, is drawn from the Impossibility of doing the Work They have gone about: For, it is not in man's power to change or Reform Religion. No. Only one High Priest (God and man) Once made a change, who was Holy, Innocent, Undefiled, Separated from sinners, and made Higher than the Heavens. Men Therefore wicked, as Luther was, Guilty 
One Only High Priest had Power to Reform Religion.  of high Crimes, Born and Brought up in sin, and now buried in Contempt, Are unfit Instruments for such a work: They may mar Religion, but to mend it, is Impossible.  
5. Again. That Distinction (made Above) between the Common Ligaments of a Church, and particular Errors in all Churches, Which yet do not Vnchurch Them, is Frivolous, unproved, and most Fals. For, first there neither are, nor can be any Common Ties, or Grounds of Union amongst all Christians now in Being, which considered by an Abstract Notion, sufficiently Conslitute the Necessary Doctrine of the True Catholic Church. My Reason is: No Doctrine Common 
Doctrine Common to all Christians is not Sufficient to Salvation.  to Arians, Nestorians, Catholics, and Protestants, or universally held by all Christians, can be more Proved to be saving Faith enough for Christians, Then if we Gratis Assert, That a belief in one God only, common to Turks, jews and Christians, is full Faith enough for us all. Scripture, as I have largely proved in a foregoing Chapter, Requires yet more Explicit Faith of many Particulars. 2. It is utterly Falls, That the True Catholic 
The True Catholic Church is not found amongst Christians That Err in Faith;  Church may be found amongst all Particular Erring Churches. The Primitive Christians were a Body apart, and as Distinct from the Arians in those Days, as We are now from Protestants. And therefore no Doctrine Common to that Church and Arians, was ever Thought sufficient Catholic Doctrine. Otherwise, Arius might have Told the Nicene 
Otherwise Arius would not have Erred in matters of Faith.  Fathers: (yes, And These should have Assented to him) You unjustly Condemn me, For Admit, That I have my Particular Errors, you may have Yours Also, We are all yet of One Church, and Need not to break of any Catholic Unity, Because, though both you, and I, err, We may yet retain the Essence of a Catholic Churck. Heretics hitherto Never Pleaded thus for their Cause, But as Pertinaciously Defended 
Heretics as strongly defend their particular Errors as the Common Doctrine of Christianity.  their Private Opinions, as They did the Common Doctrine of all Christians. Only our Protestants, now Pressed with Unanswerable Arguments, concerning the plain Naming of a Catholic Church before Luther (like men living by shifting) Seek out a woeful Subterfuge, and make all Erring Churches partly good, and Catholic, in the Common Ligaments of Christianity; And partly Naught and Heretical, in Their particular Errors, Whereas the Spouse of Christ, is but One Immaculate moral Body, and can be no More Tainted with Error, than the pure Primitive Church was; No, nor more Corrupted than the whole Bible 
The entire purity of the Church Necessary.  now is, and yet remain Purely God's Word. 3. Grant (which is the greatest Chimaera Imaginable) That the Common Ligaments and Grounds of Catholic Faith, are to be found amongst all the erring Societies of Christians, Protestants have yet an endless Task in hand, Which is to Persuade All men Opposite to them, That They, by their Discerning Spirit, Have just 
Protestants cannot prove that they have taken so much Doctrine to themselves as is purely Catholic.  hit the nail on the Head▪ And taken so much to Themselves as is Purely Catholic Doctrine, without Mixture of Error with it. Believe me, it will be hard to prove so much done; And if They Prove it not by undeniable Principles, Farewell Protestants say I: For They may be more in Error by Their late Reformation, Then all those Erring Churches together, Which They have gone about to Reform.  
6. In another Chapter Entitled the Reformation of the Church of England justified. These very men (after they had made the Catholic Church like a Common field laid open to all those Inhabitants (who own the Fundamentals of Christian Faith) Tell us, That the Roman Church stands Guilty of the violation of Public Right, and Add's 
Neither Proof nor Inference Good.  many Particular Doctrines, many Superstitious Practices which have no Foundation in Scripture, or Consent of the Primitive Church; Therefore this Roman Church is Separated from the Communion of the Catholic Church, And so is become Schismatical. But their Church of England hath hit Right, and is only so far Separated from Rome, as Rome hath Divided Herself from the Belief of the Universal Church. What have we here? A Cluster of mere superfluous Words. I am Astonished to See men run on, with such proofles Generalities. However, We will have Patience, and friendly Ask: How far is that large field of the Catholic Church to be extended? Point out the Limits of it? Name those Christians and Them only, 
Not one of These particulars can be proved by certain Principles.  who Inhabit that large field? What are those Fundamentals of Faith? How many are there of Them, ninty nine, or a Hundred? Specify, with a Proof at the end of it (but Proofs are now out of fashion with Protestants) Those particular Falso Doctrines of the Roman Church so contrary to Scripture. Say once Plainly, what that Catholic Church is, From which Rome Separated, and something is Don? But above all, make good your wild Assertion, That just so far you are Divided from Rome, (not one Inch more or less) as Rome is Separated from the Universal Catholic Church. To do this, justice requires an exact Proof of these three Things. First, That you particularly Show us, 
Three Propositions to be proved.  What, or how much the Precise Doctrine of that imagined Catholic Church is, which dwell's in your Fancy. 2. Wherein the Roman Church hath Swerved from that true Doctrine. 3. And this will cost you some pains, make good upon any Received Christian Principle, That you are right in your Faith, And have just Divided yourselves so far from the Roman Church, as this is from Another Church, more Universal and Catholic. Can these men live to Mathusalem's Age, They would never come near to the likelihood of a rational Proof for any one of these Particulars. I say of a Proof; For, I would have Them know, That to talk at random, and vent their own fancies as They do here, will weigh but little, when Reason comes to Balance all with a close Arguing in good Form.  
7. When again They are Told in the same Chapter, That the Separation of Protestants was not only from the Church of Rome, But, as Calvin Confesseth, from the whole Christian World, which necessarily Implies a Separation from the True Catholic Church. They Answer. We have not separated from the whole Christian World in any thing, wherein the whole Christian World is Agreed▪ Is this so great 
No Heretic Separated from the Universal Doctrine believed by all Christians.  a matter to be Praised for? Not to Separate from what men cannot Separate, if they Own Christ, and Deserve the name of Christians? Mark well, I beseech you. Neither the Arians, nor Nestorians, nor Donatists, Nor any other condemned Heretics Separated from any Thing, wherein the whole Christian World Agreed in; For They Believed in Christ a Saviour and Redeemer, and Thus much all Christians Hold: But is This Faith enough to save us without Believing more? Pray you Answer. Again. These Heretics Added something 
what got Them the Name of Separatists or Heretics.  to that General owned Belief of All, And this got them the name of Separatists, or Heretics, not Because they Deserted the Common Doctrine of the whole Christian World, But, because They Abandoned that Ancient Church, wherein they were Baptised. Protestants have Don the like in leaving the same Ancient Church, And have Added That to Their Specifical Religion, which was neither the Common Doctrine of All Christians, no, nor Held by any Christian Society in the World. Upon this Account Therefore, They as justly Deserve the Name of Heretics and Separatists, as either Arian or Nestorian. And thus much I Prove by their own Concession; 
Protestants proved Schismatiches by Their own Doctrine.  For They grant, that the Donatists were Separatists and Schismatics, Because they confined the Catholic Church within their own Bounds of Africa; Yet, by Their good leave, These very Donatists Dissented in nothing that was held all over Common Christian Doctrine; For, they Acknowledged the same Christ as we Do, yet were Heretics Upon the Account of their particular 
The Donatists no Schismatics in Protestants Principles.  Doctrine, Though They clashed with nothing held universally. You will say, But They did Clash; For without all Proof They Confined the Church to one place Only. Contra. And you, my good Friends, without all Likelihood of Proof, make the Church a mighty wide One; You give it Arms which embrace all called Christians, Though Heretics in their particular Tenants. Did therefore the particular Doctrine of the Donatists (confining the Church to one place) Vnchurch Them; Believe it, your 
The Donatists were Schismatiches for making the Church too straight, and so are Protestant's for making it to wide.  Particular Doctrine in making it too Large, will Vnchurch you also. I call both these Doctrines Particular, and Heretical. For, as never men before the Donatists, made the Catholic Church so straight as They did, so never Christians before these later Protestant's, made it so large as to hold in it all the Heretckis in the World. I say expressly: This Doctrine of the Donatists was only their particular Error, and not Then Universal, or, Common to all Christians; For, Their very Denying the Church to be Spread the whole world over, made that Doctrine not Vnuniversal, or, not Held by All. And thus much Protestants must Say; For, whilst They (or any other Sectaries) Maintain Tenants particular to themselves (for example two Sacraments only) A Doctrine 
In the Principles of Protestants the Arians and Nestorians were not Heretics.  so limitated, cannot be called Universal. Out of what is hitherto Said, we must conclude: If no Doctrine can make a man an Heretic, but the Denial of That, which the whole Christian World Own's, The Arians, and Nestorians were not Heretics.  
8. These novelists go on Trifling in a most serious Matter, And first Tell us. Though a man differs 
A frivolous Instance. Every one knows what is essential to a Man; But Protestants know not, how much Doctrine is Essential to Christian Faith, and how much is merely Accidental.  from all other in Accidents, for Example in Feature, yet he leaves not of to be Essentially a man; Therefore, though Protestants Differ from all other Christians in Doctrine Accidental, or, wherein these Dissenting Societies Disagree from one another, Yet, as long as They stick to the Common owned Faith of all Christians, so long they are Safe, and Members of the Church Catholic. A miserable Put of. It Seems, a very Universal Doctrine sufficeth Protestant's to be good Catholics. All we Desire, is, That they will exactly say▪ How much Precisely of this Doctrine will Serve the turn (as both Necessary and Sufficient) to make us all Catholics? Or, whether the Arians, Nestorians or Donatists Had enough of it, to be good Catholics? If Yes. They were both Good Catholics and Heretics at once; Catholics, upon the 
Arians and Protestants Symbolise.  Account of Common Christian Doctrine owned by them; and Heretics, for their particular Erroneous Tenants. And it's more than probable, that Protestants are like Them: Secundum quid, Catholics; Because of Their Common Doctrine; But, Simpliciter, Heretics, by Reason of Their late introduced Novelties.  
9 They tell us Again. The Communion of the Church Catholic, is not to be measured by the particular Opinions either of All, or any particular Church, But by such things, which are the proper Foundations of the Catholic Church; For there can be no Separation from the true Catholic Church, but in such things, wherein it is Catholic; And it is not Catholic in any thing, But in what Properly relates to its Being, and Constitution. Let the World judge, whether this be not mere Confused Talk? For the only Difficulty 
Sectaries wave that only Difficulty, which requires Explication.  in this Matter is, to know of these new Doctors, How much Precise Doctrine is Necessary and Sufficient to be believed, How much of it Constitut's The Being and Foundation of the Catholic Church, And what is Accidental, or Unnecessary? You see They wave This, And content Themselves with telling us of no man knows what Being, of no man knows what Foundation of a Church, without Descending to Particulars, or Proving what these Essentials are; Or, Finally who Those Christians were, that were Right in the Essentials of Faith before Luther, or, had the Being of a Church amongst them. They Proceed here, as if 
Protestants enjoin us to learn that Doctrine which is Essential to a Church, and allow us neither Master, nor Rules to learn it by.  a Master should tell a young Beginner with Grammar: You must learn your Rules well, and understand them perfectly; But you shall have neither Book, nor Precepts from any, whereby to Learn them. I Profess before Almighty God (and I think Thousands not only Catholics, But others, are of my opinion) I am yet as wholly Ignorant of what These Newer Protestant's will make the Essentials of Faith, the Necessary and sufficient Foundations and Being of a Church, as ever Boy was of Grammar Rules, when he first went to School. I may perhaps Guess better at their Doctrine, And my Thought is: They Hold All the Heretics in the 
The world would Cry Shame if they Explicated their sense.  world, whether Arians or Others, to be good Catholic Christians; Yet, dare not Publish so much in Writing. And this is the true Reason why they Schulk in Generalities, And hid Themselves under these universal Vnexplicated Terms of the Essentials of Faith, of the Being of a Church, the Foundations of it etc. Well, I will say it once more. If the Doctrine common to all Christians, be the Essential, Necessary, 
No Heretics ever were, if Doctrine Common to all be sufficient to Salvation.  and Sufficient Doctrine of the Church truly Catholic, it Follows evidently, That no Heretic was ever yet Vnchurched by His particular Heresy. But,  
10. Woe be to Catholics, what ever becomes of Others, They must be Vnchurched. For, These men Assert (and very wisely, as they Think) Although nothing Separates a Church properly from the Catholic, But what is contrary to the Being of it; yet a Church (And this is the Roman) may Separate Herself from the Communion of the Catholic Society, By taking upon Her, to make such things Necessary Conditions of Communion, which never were the Conditions of Communion of the Catholic Church. Observe first. A Supposition for a Proof, of strange imposed Conditions. Observe 2. A Supposition 
Mere Suppositions pass for Proofs with Sectaries.  for a Proof, of no man knows what Catholic Church, Wider and larger, than the Roman. But above all,  
11. Observe 3. Their unlearned Discourse. The Roman Church (say They) Draws the Bounds of Catholic Communion within Herself, and so Divides from the true Catholic Church. I Ask, From what true Catholic Church did 
They cannot name the Orthodox Church, from which the Roman Church Separated.  she Divide Herself? Speak out, And name that Church, Design it Plainly, which was Actually Orthodox, and in Being when Luther Apostated, and something is said to the Purpose. If you fail to Show us that Imagined Church, from which you Suppose the Roman Separated, All you Assert is a mere Calumny. We say, and can Justify it, There was no such True Church in the whole World to Separate from, Unless Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, Grecians &c. constituted that great Imagined moral Body. But These, as is Evident, (once Catholics) Separated from the Roman Church, not She from them; Therefore this supposed Separation, is only an unproved Fancy.  
12. Yet more: And this is to Show you the strange 
Grant, what Sectaries would have, Nothing is Proved.  weakness of our Adversaries whole Discourse. Let us suppose, this falsity of a true Catholic Church in Luther's Days much wider Than the Roman; withal, that the Roman was only a corrupted Part of that more Ample Church. Believe it, These men are yet far enough from Proving their Intent: For Admit, upon the Supposition, That the Church of Rome Draws the bounds of Catholic Communion within Herself, and Confin's all Truth within Her own Community: This is only Her own particular Opinion, which Draws no more, Confines no more, Than Protestants do now. For, do 
Protestants pretend as much, to have Christ's verities taught by Them, as Catholics Do;  not They Profess, that the Doctrine of Christ is more Purely, and less Erroneously taught in England at this Day, Then in any other Society of Christians, That Dissent's from Them? Yes. Here then is as much Drawing of Truth to Themselves, and this Drawing consequently implies a great Division from that Fancied 
And consequently They Divide Themselves from their Catholic Church.  Catholic Church, Which, I am sure, Never Taught, that the Gospel of Christ is Preached most purely and without Error, amongst a few English Protestants. Mere Opinions Therefore of particular Churches (as long as the General Doctrine of all Christians Stands unshaken) Cannot, in these men's Principles, Vnchurch any Christian Society; or, if They can, both They (I mean our Protestants) And all other Sectaries are Vnchurched, Because all of them Believe more, than the General Essentials of Faith Exact of any Christian.  
13. It may be Answered. Though they believe more, Yea, And particularly hold, That Christ's Doctrine is more purely Taught and believed in England, Then in other places, Yet this is not a Necessary Condition of Communion with them. No? I hope it is a 
To have Communion with Protestants is, without Doubt, necessary to Believe something of pure Protestancy.  Necessary condition of Communion with Protestants, Though Unnecessary for Communion▪ with that other Fancied Universal Church, and the General Doctrine Thereof. The Reason is. No man can be more a Protestant, unless He Believe All particular owned Articles of that Religion as Pure, and Orthodox, Then a good Papist, and, not Believe what that Church particularly Teacheth.  
14. Now, Because we are got thus far into a Matter, wherein I Hold our Adversaries much Overseen; I would 
A Question proposed not to be Answered by Sectaries.  gladly have a clear Answer to this one Question, Viz. Whether (after a due Proposal) it be absolutely Necessary to Salvation to Communicate with Protestants, That is, Firmly to Believe any one Article of our Protestants Reformed Faith, as it is Protestancy? For example: Two Sacraments only, no Real Presence, no Sacrifice, or, what else you will? If they Answer, Yes. Then I Infer: The Belief of that Doctrine Universal and 
If Doctrine Common ●● all be not sufficient, something of Protestancy must be owned necessary.  Common to all Christians, is not Enough to Salvation; For now They require more, Viz, a Belief of some Doctrine peculiar to Protestancy, as it is reform. Contrariwise, if they Grant, nothing within the Bounds of pure Protestancy to be a Doctrine of such absolute Necessity to Salvation, it follows Evidently: Though a Protestant, after a perfect knowledge had of his Religion, as Reform, doth both Abjure, and Anathematise that particular 
If Nothing of Protestancy be accounted of as Necessary, one may abjure all that Religion, and yet be a Faithful Believer.  Doctrine, And believes only with a General Faith, Common to Arians and all other Heretics, He may yet be saved, Because the Belief of no one Article within the Compass of Protestancy, Avails him one whit to Salvation. If so: Tell me, I beseech you, what a Religion have we Here? Shall we say, That the Authors and Professors of Protestancy have made a shameful Bustle to bring in a Novelty, which must be called the true Reformed Religion, And now Hear the● Teach, That is Teaches nothing Necessary to Salvation? Grant thus much, and Throw Protestancy 
A shameful Schism about Protestancy, that Teaches nothing necessary to Salvation.  out of the World, Men may be saved without it.  
15. Some, Perhaps, will Reply. Protestants, at least, judge, That amongst the many Religions, which now swarm in the World, Their reformed Novelty is one of the best, and the Securest way to Heaven. Alas, We 
We Ask not what Protestants judge, but demand for a Proof of that judgement.  inquire not what They, Mere fallible Men, Judge (Every Heretic speaks favourably in his own Cause) But we go further, and Ask into what Undoubted Principle that Judgement is finally Resolved, or, Whether These men, withal the Judgement and Learning They have, are able, Solidly, and Rationally to Prove, that Their particular Articles of Protestancy rest firmly, and Rely upon the Object of all Faith, Which is God's certain and 
If Protestants can resolve the Belief of their particular Articles into Divine Revelation, it will be Necessary to Salvation.  Divine Revelation? If this can be Don, the particular Tenants of Protestancy are as Certain, and consequently the Belief of Them as Necessary to Salvation, As is the belief of that General Doctrine, which all Christians Own. The Reason is clear: Because, the Testimony, the Authority of the same God and the same Eternal Verity (as now we must Suppose) Warrant's as well the One, as the Other. Again. If They say (And They must say it.) God hath not revealed in the whole Bible one Article of Protestancy, and therefore the Belief of not one reformed Article is Necessary to Salvation; It follows, That this Religion, Thus Separated 
If not, Protestancy is no part of Christian Religion.  from the true centre of Divine Faith (God's infallible Revelation) is no Christian Religion at all, But stands tottering on Fancy, and fancy only; which is a great Verity.  
16. Occasionally, I here Answer to a Trivial Objection of others, that much Extol the Clemency of Protestants, who (like Papists) do not Excommunicate all that believe not as They Believe. Good Reason (say I;) For why should they Excommunicate any, for not Believing a Religion, which is built on Fancy? Can they judge in Conscience, or Assure us, That, what they hold, as Sectaries, were Revealed by 
The want of Zeal in Sectaries for Protestancy.  God, Necessary to Salvation, or worth Believing; They should so far stand for God's Cause, and set so great a Value on it, as to Induce all, even by spiritual Menaces (it is a Sweeter way Then to Deprive Men of their Lives and Fortunes) to embrace Their Novelties. But Alas, The real Gild of Schism, which lies like lead at their Hearts, makes them most frigid in Advancing a Religion, laid hold on by mere chance, and a most unfortunate Casuality. Almighty God soften these concealed Hearts by sorrowful Repentance, and Forgive all Sectaries Their double great sin, both of Schism and Heresy.    

THE FOURTH DISCOURSES THE CHURCH'S EVIDENCE. OF THE IMPROBABILITY OF PROTESTANT RELIGION.  

THE FIRST CHAPTER.  
Christ's Church is Proved to be no Other, But the Roman Catholic. Sectaries are Convinced.  
1. WE have often made a just Exception against Sectaries in the foregoing Discourses, 
A just Exception against Sectaries mare fully laid forth.  And you Shall have it here Again in plain Language. Protestants, as They Prove not their own Religion of Protestancy, so, They never Impugn the Roman Catholic Faith by Rational Arguments, at last reducible to Undoubted Principles. Catholics Contrariwise, Make good Their Church's Doctrine by undeniable Principles, And, by manifest Proofs Evidence the Nullity of Protestants Faith. Though both these Assertions are already Demonstrated in the precedent Treatise, Yet, Because of the weightiness of the Matter, it will be necessary to Epitomise some Points, largely Declared above, And bring much to a Clearer view, and a more Compendious Form.  
2. To do this we may Suppose. If True Religion 
God established Religion with intention to have it known, not to hid it from us.  be in the World, the wise Providence of God hath made it so Manifest to Reason by force of Rational Motives, That All may know it; For certainly God never established Religion amongst Christians with Intention to Hid it from Them, or to put it out of their Sight, if men will follow Reason. Proofs therefore for it, can no more Fail, Then Religion itself, Unless 
Proofs therefore, for it cannot fail.  an Infinite Goodness (which is impossible) obliges us Under pain of Damnation to Embrace a Religion, which no man, after a diligent Search made by all the reason He hath, can find out.  
3. Upon this Principle let me tell our Protestants, 
Wordy Cavils end no Controversy.  That They and We, are not (in so important a matter) to misspend our time, or to wrangle it out with Words. No. Proofs must enter, if They Hold their Religion True and ours Falls; And so They must also, if We say the Contrary. Again: Neither of us can here proceed as Schoolmen Do, when They Oppugn One an Other, 
Solid proofs must sway here, and not weak Conjectures.  and Defend their Different Opinions upon weak and Doubtful Grounds▪ For, if the Proofs for Christ's Religion be not stronger than Schoolmens often are for mere Uncertain Opinions, We may as well, and without Offence, Reject a weak Proved Religion, as we do a weak proved Opinion. The Arguments therefore for Religion, whereon Salvation Depends, Are to Stand firm upon undeniable Principles, Or, This follows: That, though God hath most clearly evidenced Religion, yet proofs are wanting to make it known, And this, whilst He will have it Known, And manifest to All. Thus much Supposed,  
4. We will First briefly Touch on a few Arguments for the Roman Catholic Faith, which are amply laid forth upon several occasions in this Treatise (I cannot 
A brief Repetition of some few Arguments  Repeat All in a short Compendium, yet, you Shall have Enough to silence Sectaries) And Remember, We speak now of the Antecedent Evidence, which clearly shows us Christ's True Church, and makes it indubitably Credible; For no Religion, As I noted above, is, Ex Terminis, without convincing Proofs, either Evidently Credible, True, or Fals.  
5. I Say then, First. A Church▪ or Religion, which Manifesteth itself, and Proves the Doctrine it Professeth by the same Signs, Notes, and Characters of Truth, whereby the 
The Roman Catholic Church is Evidenced as The Apostolical or Primitive Church was.  Apostolical and Primitive Church was Marked and Evidenced, is Undoubtedly True: Or, if this Proof be not valid, we may easily Deny Truth to that Apostolical and Primitive Church. Now, the only Church in the World thus Marked and Evidenced, is no Other, but the Roman Catholic Throughout all Ages. This Principle is undeniable. Deny these Marks and Signs to the Roman Catholic Church, you Deny what is Evident, Grant them, And you Admit of Popery. See Disc. 1. c. 9 10.  
6. 2. A Church, or Religion, which in every Age after 
Miracles, Christ's own Marks Evidence the Roman Catholic Church.  Christ, Hath had a most clear, Assured, and Vndubitable Evidence of Truth, which is the Glory of Miracles (Christ's own Marks and cognisances) makes known the Absolute Power of God Cooperating with it, And therefore cannot but be True, Unless we Think that his power Alone Divorced, as it were, from Goodness, Did set his Hand and Seal to mere Forged Signs, and wrought these Wonders to Deceive the World. But the Roman Catholic Church, And She only, Clearly Demonstrat's Vnparallelled Miracles, not in One, But in every Age, As is without Controversy Proved by undoubted Records, 
They are undeniable.  (which Truth I engage to make Good, if any Doubt of it) Therefore, either This Church, or None, is Christ's True Church. I call Miracles the most Forceable, and Persuasive, Arguments of Truth, that can be Proposed. All other 
And above all other Proofs most Convincing.  Proofs, Though clear and Convincing to Disinteressed judgements, being liable to Cavils: For, cite Scripture▪ against Sectaries, wilful Misinterpretations Abuse it. Produce Fathers and Councils, They are either Rejected 
Other Proofs more liable to Cavils.  by these men, as Fallible, or Drawn to a Sinister Sense, as Fancy will have it. Tell Them of the Sanctity of our Church; They Answer, Much of it may be Hypocrisy. Insist upon that great Work of Conversions, some reply, Policy and Humane Industry had a strong hand in Them. But, when we Come to the Proof of Proofs, And plead our Cause by Known and most Evidenced Miracles, all Mouths are stopped, Envy itself is Silenced, And cannot speak a Probable word against us: Unless 
None can require, that All and Every one of this Church work Miracles.  Perhaps some require (and most unreasonably) That every One within this Moral body should work Miracles, which is merely to cavil; For, in the Primitive times, All had no such Privilege. It is Therefore sufficient, That there be some Choice and Selected Persons, United in Faith with this Church, to whom God Communicat's the Grace, and Do These Wonders. See more of this Subject, Disc. 1. c. 10. n. 15. 16. 17.  
7. 3. A Church, which hath Converted whole Kingdoms and Nations from Infidelity to Christ, And Drawn Innumerable 
Admirable Conversions wrought by the Roman Catholic Church, as well prove it Orthodox as the Primitive Church.  Souls from a Tepid life to Penance and Austerity, From the Contents of the World to a Contempt of it, From Self-love to a Perfect Self-Abnegation, Must either be deservedly named the True Church of Christ, Or, the Apostolical Church Proved not its Truth, by such Admirable and Miraculous Conversions. The Church of Rome only, Hath, by the Assistance of God Don these Wonders; Therefore, it is the True Church, or, there was never any true upon Earth. Deny these Conversions made by our Catholic Society, you Deny what is most▪ Evident; Grant Them, You subscribe to Popery. See 
The Roman Catholic Church Opposed all known Sectaries. And us Orthodox Society ever opposed it. A manifest Proof of Truth. The Marks of Truth more manifest in the Roman Catholic Church, then in any other Society, Can not be permitted by God to cheat the world.  Discourse 1. c. 7. and chap. 9 n. 10.  
8. 4. A Church which Opposed All the Sectaries in the World since Christianity Began, And was never Opposed by any Author of credit, or, Orthodox Society of Christians, But only by Known Condemned Heretics, most Evidently Professeth True Religion: The Roman Church only hath▪ Age after Age made this Opposition against Sectaries, and never was Opposed by any, But known Heretics. This is an undeniable Proof, for the Truth it Mantains. Disc. 1. c. 7. n. 5.  
9 5. A Religion, which hath Had in all Ages, most Indubitably, more Illustrious marks and signs of Truth Accompanying it, Then all the other Sects in the World put Together, Either aught to be Owned for Christ's Sole and Pure Religion, or, We must say, That God can make a Falls Heretical Sect more Credible, Clear, and Evident to Reason, by Signs of Truth and Sanctity, Then his True Orthodox Religion is. Reflect seriously. Can We Think that Miracles, Conversions of souls, Casting out of Devils, Great Austerity of life, Efficacy of Doctrine etc. Once convincing Arguments of Truth in the first Ages, are now▪ Shown us in the Roman Catholic Church to favour such Errors as Sectaries impute to it, or, to Countenance any thing like Antichristian Doctrine? To judge so, is an Improbable Paradox, And here you have an Other most evident Proof, and Principle, For the Truth of Catholic Religion. Disc. 1. c. 7. n. 8.  
10. 6. A Church, which hath manifestly Don great Service 
The Evident Service done for God by the Roman Catholic Church, Without Note of Dishonour put on it by any Orthodox Society, Proves it Pure and Holy. A Church Once True is still True.  for God, by defeating his Enemies, And gaining him Friends, And yet Labours to Do him more Service: A Church, which never had Note or Mark of Dishonour put on it, Censure, Private or Public, Issuing from any Universal Church, is Blameless, Pure, Holy, and Uncorrupt in Doctrine. In all, The Roman Catholic Society justly Glories, which, No other Sect called Christian can Do. And, 'Tis an undeniable Proof For its Integrity. Disc. 3. c. 8. n. 2. 3.  
11. 7. A Catholic Church Established by Almighty God, And therefore Once True, must (upon the same Grounds which then Proved it Orthodox) ever after be Acknowledged as True. Hear my Reasons, 1. That infinite wisdom which Founded this Once True Church, made it a School, not to Teach a Few first Christians, Or For a Time only, But to Instruct All, And for ever. The Word of our Lord Remains for ever, And 
It taught not Christians for a time only, 〈◊〉 then left of to be true. Reasons of the Assertion laid forth.  this is the Word, that is Evangelized among you, 1. Pet. 1. v. 25. That Word then, which Those Primitive Christians learned yet Remains, And is now Taught by the same true, and Indeficient Church, Founded by Christ. 2. The Gifts of God, Rom. 11. 29. are without Repentance (That is unchangeable;) What ever Therefore Moved an Infinite Wisdom to make a Church once True, or, for a time, Evidently Shows that Mercy farther Extended, and Continued to the end of the World. 3. The Necessity of Having Christians Instructed in Truth, (Souls are now as Dear to God, and as well Provided of means to Attain Salvation, as the Primitive Christians were) Requires the Continuance of Truth in that Church, which Christ first Founded. He VVill's All to be saved, and come to the knowledge of Truth, 1. Tim. 2. 3. If All; None at this very Day, are Excluded from the Means of learning Christ's Verities, Taught only in that Church, which He established. 
Grace Remained with this Church, Therefore Truth also.  4. The consolation of Grace (Sectaries say it) Permanently Remain's with Christ's Church For Ever; Therefore, Truth also is as Permanent, And as Inseparable from it; Truth being as Necessary to a Church as Grace is. 5. The Rock which is Christ, Stands Immovable and Unshaken; Therefore the true Church Built upon this Rock and Cornerstone, 1. Cor. 10. Can no more Fail, or fall from Truth, Then Christ can leave of to be an Indeficient Verity. To say then, That God once Founded his true Church upon the Rock jesus Christ, And grant, That afterward He Permitted either Men or Devils to Pull it down, to Deface it with Error and falls Doctrine, is so Desperate a Paradox, That, I think, no Christian dare Avouch it in such Terms.  
12. Now mark my Inferences, upon These premised 
Inferences upon the premised Considerations.  Considerations, The Roman Catholic Church was Once the True Church (Sectaries Confess it) Once it was Built on Christ, Once it Taught Christian Verities without Error, Once it was Owned by Christians for Christ's School, Once it Euangelized the Word of God Purely. Therefore if God be yet as  unto Souls as He was Anciently, If He Subtract not Means from us Necessary to Salvation, if his Gifts be unchangeable, If his Intention of settling Truth for ever amongst Christians Altar not, If He Bless his own Society as well with Truth, as with the Consolation of Grace; This Catholic Roman Church, And no Other, Once True, Was, Is, and Shall ever be so, for the Future. Ecclesia invicta res est, They are known words of a great Doctor, etsi infernus ipse commoveatur. The Church is invincible And continues the same, Although Hell itself be moved, and Struggle Against it. We may Thank Eternally our Blessed Lord for that great Verity registered in the Gospel: Portae inferni non praevalebunt adversus eam. Upon 
No other Church but the Roman Catholic.  this, we Ground our Faith, And Therefore you Have here undeniable Principles. Disc. 1. c. 3. n. 2. 3. and Disc. 2. c. 9 n. 8. Now, if to Weaken these Arguments, Sectaries will pretend to another Catholic Church more Ample than the Roman, See them clearly 
Sectaries cannot probably say when Our Church brought in the Novelties laid to its charge.  Confuthed. Disc. 3. c. 1. Per totum.  
13. 8. A Church or Religion, which was once confessedly Orthodox, And no man can probably say, when it ceased to be so, Or, When it brought in such Visible and Perceptible Novelties, as Sectaries charge on it by mere unproved Calumnies, is Evidently a True Church still. The sole Voice of this Ample, learned, Roman Society (Had 
The Ancient Possession of Truth allowed this Church, is a stronger Proof, Then Sectaries contrary Cavils. Antiquity Owns the Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.  we no more) which cries out against These Fancied Cavils, And the Ancient Possession of Truth Allowed it in Foregoing Ages, will be judged in any Tribunal of the World, a more convincing Proof, An incomparable greater Testimony For its Perseverance in Christ's Doctrine, Then a few blind Guesses of Sectaries can be to the Contrary, Which when they are Resolved, come to no more, but to Calumnies, or Strong Fancies. Disc 3. c. 9 n. 5.  
14. 9 A Church whose Doctrine, when you read Antiquity, whether Councils, Fathers, or History, you find so undeniably Owned and universally Professed, That the man is blind, who sees not Popery maintained all along Those learned Volumes: For example; Who see's not, But, That a Sacrifice Daily Offered upon the Altar, Praying to Saints, Prayers for the Dead, The Real Presence And the like, are Doctrines plainly Delivered by Antiquity? Now, Such a Church, which upon its own Authority also, defends These Verities ('Tis the greatest on Earth) cannot be Vainquished by a few weak Cavils of our lately Unknown, and Vnauthorized Sectaries. The Principle is undeniable. Disc. 1. c. 6.  
15. 10. A Church, That hath had, Age after Age, 
The both passed and present Witnesses most Learned and Holy, a most strong Proof for the Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.  whole multitudes of Wise, Learned, and most Holy Professors (the Number of them is numberless) That, without Fright or Fear of any Delusion, lived joyfully and died Happily in their Ancient Professed Faith, Cannot, But upon the very Testimony of these Witnesses, so many (And so rarely Qualified) be judged Evidently Credible, True, Pure, and Holy. Otherwise we must Say, That, all These learned men for a thousand years and more were Mad, Besotted, and Seduced with Fooleries, which is so Desperate a Proposition, That None shall Dare to Vent it, and speak Probably. The Roman Catholic Church Alone, Produceth such Choice, Learned, and Continued Witnesses for its Truth, No other Sect comes near it, 
Our Roman Catholic Church shows that all other Called Christians, from Luther to the fourth or fifth Age, were both Schismatics and Heretics: The Roman Church only Demonstrat's with Antiquity a lawful Mission of Pastors, Unity of Doctrine, and a continued Succession of Popes, Prelates, and innumerable Professors. Cavils cannot overturn an Evident Verity. One Verity is, that God could not permit so Learned a Church, as the Roman is, to be beguiled with fooleries for so vast a time. Another Verity. If the Roman Cath. Church be falsely supposed to have Erred. Protestants cannot probably say how far or wherein in erred. What They are to prove and by solid Principles. A Third Verity. Christ promised to be with the Church he founded to the End of the world. Yet Protestant's must say, He Stood not to his Word.  None can Parallel it. A most convincing Proof, An undeniable Principle. Disc. 1. c. 6. n. 12.  
16. 11. A Church, That Evidently Demonstrat's all Other called Christians From Luther Upward, to Have been Schismatics, Heretics, or both, is either to be Owned for the true Orthodox Church of Christ, or we must Grant, That Christ had no True Church on Earth for so long a time of a Thousand Years. The Roman Catholic Church Demonstrat's this clearly, And it is an undeniable Principle. Disc. 3. c. 1.  
17. 12. A Church, which Confessedly Demonstrat's its Antiquity, Proves its Mission, Evidenceth its Unity in Doctrine, And Shows a continued Succession of Popes, Prelates, Pastors, and Innumerable Professors, ever since Christianity began without Interruption, Hath so great Evidence for the Truth it Teaches, That, all the Cavils of Sectaries, Pretending a change of Doctrine made in this Society, are Weak, Proofles, and Highly improbable. The Roman Catholic Church Proves these Particulars. Disc. 1. c. 9 n. 8. 14.  
18. To end, I say three Things. 1. No Cavils can Evert an Evident Verity, But it is an Evident Verity, That God (essentially Goodness itself) could not Permit so Learned, so Numerous, so Excellent, and Precious a part of Christians, as the Roman Pastors, and Doctors were, from the fifth Age to Luther to be All Beguiled with Falso Doctrine: Neither could He Suffer Those Innumerable Christians, who were Taught by such Wise and Learned Pastors for a Thousand years, to be all Misled by means of Their falls Doctrine, or Cheated into Error. This is impossible, Unless we grant (which is a Blasphemy) That an infinite Goodness utterly Deserted his Church, and Preserved None True on Earth, for so long a time.  
19 2. This is an undeniable Verity. If the Roman Catholic Church erred, as Sectaries Assert, These men cannot by Their own Discerning Spirit, much less by an owned Principle probably say, How far, or wherein it Erred, For example (And I urge them to Answer the Difficulty) why say They, That our Church more Erred in believing the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, Then in Believing a Trinity of Persons in one Essence? They cannot by any Proof but Fancy only, more Espy Error in the One, Then in the Other. Therefore, whilst They believe a Trinity, and other Doctrines Common with This supposed Erring Church (and indeed, They must hold them on this Church's Authority only, or cannot Believe Them) They may be as well Plunged into Error by owning a Trinity, as They think this Church is Deceived, in Holding the other Mystery of the Sacrament. See these two Points further explicated Disc. 1. c. 6. n. 12. 13.  
20. 3. It is an undeniable Verity, that Christ once Promised to be with the Church He Founded to the end of the World, which was the Roman Catholic Church. Now Protestant's must say that Christ Stood not to his Word; For certainly when He made this Promise, He well Foresaw, That, the Roman Catholic Church would (if Protestants speak Truth) at last, about the fifth or sixth Age, Become Erroneous, and consequently forsake the Good Master that founded it. With this Church then, Which Abandoned Truth, Christ, who is Truth, Remained not; nor, with any other Society of Christians for Ten whole Ages, Because All these were Professed Heretics, and Christ never Taught Heresy, Or assisted Heretics in their Doctrine. Therefore, He did not only Promise what he Never Intended to Perform, But more; even now Glorious, as He is, in Heaven, He Wink's at 
Yea and now winks at all the supposed errors of his once own Founded Catholic Church. Vast Improbabilities.  these Hideous supposed Errors of his (once) own founded Catholic Church, And Remedies none, Poor souls are Beguiled to this Day, with the falls Doctrine of that Church which He Established in Truth, And Promised to Assist for ever. Are These▪ Think ye, Probabilities? No. They are the most Pernicious Doctrines That ever entered into a Christians Hart, or Tongue Expressed.  
21. If Protestants shall Pleas to make any Exception against these Proofs, Give me leave to Assure them first. I will not take their bare Word for any Thing They say against us. 2. To Before warn Them of a usual Fallacy, And it is, That They run not here into tedious Generalities and Talk in the Air, which only confound's a Reader, and leaves him at last as much Dissatisfied, as when He first Began to Read. And hence I Tell them, 3. They are obliged to Answer directly without Ambages, I, or, No. Let them say Plainly, These Proofs are Good, or, show them to be Fallacious; and if they Hold them Fallacies, Let this be Evidenced by Contrary clear Proofs, grounded on Received Principles. Thus We Proceed. 
Proofs and Principles Parallelled.   
22. For Example we say: This is an Undoubted Principle (we are here forced Again to Parallel Proof with Proof and Principle with Principle) that the Apostolical Church Evidenced by Miracles, great Sanctity of life, Efficacy of Doctrine, Admirable Conversions etc. Proved itself by these very Marks and Signs, to be no Counterfeit, But a True Orthodox Church. And Here is an Other sure Principle Laid by it. The Roman Catholic Church (And no other Society of Christians) Hath Age, after Age, Evidenced itself by the very like Signs of undoubted Miracles, of Admirable Conversions, of Efficacy in Doctrine, of Dispossessing Devils etc. This whole learned Society Own's these Wonders, They have been, and yet are Manifest to men's eyes and senses. The Ancient Miracles and Conversions 
Proofs for Miracles and Conversions wrought by the Roman Catholic Church.  Stand upon certain Record: Authors of unquestionable Fidelity Recount the later, Not only Friends, but Enemies also Allow them so much credit, That they justly Deem the Man near a Degree of Madness, That shall Offer to Deny All That are on Record. Therefore The Church, which Hath Ever Manifested, And yet Doth Manifest These Wonders, Proves its Doctrine in that Manner As the Apostles and Primitive Church Proved Theirs. Observe now well. If Sectaries go about to Infringe the Validity of this One Proof, or will 
What Sectaries are obliged to ●o if they Deny These Proofs.  yet Deny these Miracles and Conversions wrought by our Church, They are obliged to Ground that Denial on a Proof as Strong (if not Stronger) as is This Cloud of Witnesses produced by Catholics, For the Contrary Affirmative: And this is not only Improbable, But wholly Impossible. It is therefore mere Talk at Random, to Tell us, As They are wont: Many Miracles have been Feigned: Senses may be Deceived: Papists are too Credulous: Historians sometimes Recount Things upon too slight Credit. All are weightles Words, unproved Guesses, Thoughts of Fancy, and Fancy only, As 
unproved Guesses no Proof.  wide from Proofs and Principles, as Truth is from Heresy. Disc. 1. c. 9  
23. Again it is an Evident Truth, That the Roman Catholic 
Sectaries without proof censure the Roman Catholic Church, never censured by any Universal Church.  Church hath Don God Great Service, And never was Censured by any Universal Church. Say Therefore, upon what Owned Principle can Protestants Deny this Good service Don for God? Upon what undoubted Proof Dare they so freely Censure and condemn it? I'll tell you, their own Saying Doth All. They have no Better Proof.  
24. 3. It is a most Evident Truth, That all those Wise and Learned Doctors, That Taught Christians Popery for a Thousand years and more, Were neither Fools nor mad men, nor 
Two other most certain Truths.  universally blinded with Error. If this be not Evident, thus Much certainly is. The wise Providence of God never suffered those whole Millions of Christians Instructed by these Teachers to be cheated so long, and Abused with Fooleries. Now my hearty Wish is, That our Adversaries will Once plainly Tell us by what Proof or Received Principle they are 
An Unanswerable Difficulty proposed to Sectaries.  able to convince, That all These Learned Doctors (no less wise than They) were Besotted so long; or, that God for so vast a time, Owed so much ill will to Innumerable poor Christians, as not only to See them cheated and Misled; But 
They are to prove, not by Talk, but sure Principles. First, That all the Learned Doctors of the Roman Catholic Church, were besotted with Fooleries for ten Ages. Secondly, That God permitted Innumerable Christians to be cheated for so long a time. Thirdly, That Protestants have Exactly settled Christianity Right on its Ancient Foundations.  more, utterly to withdraw his Providence, And suffer them to Grown under so lasting a Misery of Falsehood; And this (which is ever to be Noted) whilst There was no Other Christian Society in the world to afford them true Instruction in the Pure Christian Faith. May it please Sectaries candidly, To clear this one Difficulty upon a Rational Principle, They will much Oblige me. This Don: Let Them also Vouchsafe to Add a Word more, for my Satisfaction: It is: If They Digest These Harsh Propositions: All those Doctors were Fooled: God Deserted his Church for so long a time, That, They next come to a Solid Principle and Prove, That Protestants among so many other Sectaries, were the Only Elect people appointed by Providence to Mend what They conceived Amiss in an old Decayed Church; And They must Show this Don without mixture of Error in their Reformation, Yea, and without Danger of Marring more Than they went about to Mend. They tell us, of their settling Christianity Right Again on its Ancient Foundations, Here is place to make that Talk good, let us have a Strenuous Proof for it. If they say, they do it by Scripture; not one clear Text can be quoted without Twenty Glosses and Fancies added to it, And yet all will not Do. If again they will need's shake Hands with us, And say, We, and They, are all One and right in Fundamentals, It is an unproved Assertion: But, might it Pass; No Assurance can be given That they have settled all strait in Nonfundamentals. See Disc. 3. c. 10. n. 2. and C. 9 n. 3. 2.  
25. 4. Amongst the many other Evidences of our 
A fourth Evidence of Catholic Religion drawn from God's special Providence.  our Roman Catholic Religion, This is none of the least; That God, by special Providence, hath Preserved it both in Being and Honour, for 16. whole Ages. This Church hath Stood so long Invincible and Glorious in the heat of all Persecutions. It Resisted the Violence of jews and Heathen Princes: It Encountered known Heretics and Defeated Them: No Counsel, or Wit of Man, nor Power of Devils have been hitherto Able to Dissolve it, whilst Whole Kingdoms, and Commonwealths lost their Ancient Glory, And were Subverted. Whence I Argue, as the Learned Gamaliel once did, Act. 5. 39 If this Counsel and work be of men, it will be Dissolved, But if it be of God, you (Sectaries who so vigorously Oppose it) cannot Dissolve it. Now here is 
A Convincing Argument.  my Dilemma. Either this Church Subsisted for so vast a time by mere cheats and Humane Policy, or was, and is Protected by God's special Providence. If the first be granted, It would have Perished long Ago, and come to nothing: And if God by Special Providence Preserved it in Being, It is Vndubitably the Orthodox Church of Christ, And cannot be Argued of Disloyalty. To confirm this Truth, I ask. Whether the Reasons now Alleged 
Whatever Argument Proves Christian Religion in General to have been preserved by God, Proves also the Roman Christian Religion Graciously preserved. The Reason.  Prove True Christian Religion (taken under that General Notion) to have been Preserved in so many Storms of Persecution by God's special Assistance? If Sectaries Answer, Yes; The very same Arguments applied to the Roman Catholic Church, Prove that also Graciously upheld by Providence. The Reason is: Because, as I have largely Proved, True Christian Religion (Though never so Generally taken) And the Roman Catholic Religion are Synonima's, and the very Same, There is no Difference between Them. Now, if Sectaries say, That as well the Christian, as the Roman Catholic Religion, have subsisted so long without special Assistance by Man's mere Industry, and Humane Policy, They do not only Enervate Old Gamaliels Argument, But more, Vent a Paradox which can 
If Sectaries Say Religion hath been so long preserved by Humane Policy, They vent an unproved Paradox.  never be Proved, Or Brought to any known Principle, But to Fancy only.  
26. And thus much briefly of some Few Arguments for the Roman Catholic Religion, which if reduced to Form (And 'tis easy to do it) are Unanswerable, You have more in the Treatise. Let us now se in the next place, what Sectaries can Say for their Novelties, or, upon what Proofs Antecedent to their Faith, They are able so far to Evidence the Credibility of Protestancy, As to make it, in a Poor Measure, Probable.   

CHAP. II.  
Protestancy is an unevidenced, And a most Improbable Religion; Or, rather no Religion, but a mere Fancied Opinion.  
1. IT is unevidenced, For, the Professors of it, can (by no Rational Arguments Previous to Belief) more Prove, That Their Owned Novelties ought to be Admitted of, as prudently Credible, Then the worst 
Protestancy as much unevidenced as Arianism.  of Heresies, Take for an Instance, Arianism. Hear my reason. The very Grounds whereon Rational Proofs ought to stand, Fail them. They have no Antiquity, no Universality, no Succession of Protestant Bishops and Pastors. They want lawful Mission, Miracles, and all other prudential Signs of Truth, as is largely Declared in the first Discourse c. 9 Yet from These and the like Motives, Previous rational Proofs manifesting the Credibility of Religion must be Drawn, Or, The Religion which is Asserted 
Rational Motives must Evidente the Credibility of Religion, or, 'Tis upheld by his bare word that says, it is True.  to be True, or Credible, will Appear Naked and unevidenced, having nothing to Uphold it, But the bare Word of Him. who Says it is True, And Therefore is no Religion. I need not to Urge this Point further, Because Sectaries tacitly Suppose the Credibility of their Religion to be Vndemonstrable by outward Signs, and Marks of Truth. For, Inquire of Them, Why They rather Embrace Protestancy then Popery, or any other Doctrine of Heretics? You never Hear a word of the long Continuance 
Sectaries seem to make no Account of these Antecedent Motives.  of Their Church, of their lawful Mission, of the Succession of Their Protestant Bishops from Christ's time, Nor of Undoubted Miracles etc. No. But they presently run to Scripture, and Tell you, That both their Faith and the Motives of it (internal to the Book) Stand there sufficiently Evidenced. Shall we see a little the Vanity of this Assertion?  
2. Methinks, I enter into a Study where a learned Protestant Sits with a Bible before Him, And much Dissatisfied with his Novelties; I Assure him, The 
The Bible Alone proves Nothing for Protestancy.  very want of rational Proofs Grounded on Objective Motives Draws me from His Religion, which is neither evidently, nor So much as Probably, made Credible to Any. The man Points at his Bible, And saith; This Book both Proves Protestant Religion, and Gives you Motives for it. Make, Sir, say I, this your Assertion Good, Viz. The Bible Delivers Protestant Religion. He Argues: The Bible Teaches that jesus is the Christ, the Eternal Son of God, the Redeemer of the World, And thus much Protestancy Teaches also. Ergo Scripture Proves Protestancy. 
To prove Doctrine by Scripture Common to all Christians, is not to prove Protestancy.  I Answer: The Argument à Genere ad speciem, Proves just nothing; For, these Doctrines Common both to Catholics and other Sectaries, are no specifical Articles of Protestancy, as it is Reform. Now, These, Sir, you must Show Contained in Scripture. For Example: As a Protestant, you Believe no Sacrifice Offered upon the Altar, No Purgatory, No Transubstantiation, etc. Pray you Warrant these Negative believed Articles by Scripture-proof. He Replies: After his long Reading Scripture, He finds no Mention made at all of a Sacrifice, of Transubstantiation, And the like. I Answer: Others, as learned as He, find Them, And Prove all by Scripture. Here, Therefore is no Owned Principle to Ground his Denial on. But let this Pass.  
3. I Argue against my Doctor. Though you find not a Sacrifice, or Purgatory in Scripture, nay more; Though, we falsely Suppose, both to be unrevealed 
Sectaries Negative way of Arguing, Demonstrated Proofles.  Mysteries, Yet, you cannot Positively say, by an Act of faith: A Sacrifice is not: Purgatory is not. I prove it. Nothing can be Believed by Divine Faith, But what God Positively Reveal's: But God hath not said any any where Positively. There is no Purgatory, no Sacrifice, no Transubstantiation; Ergo These Negatives cannot be Believed by Divine Faith. Sectaries Grant the Major. The Minor is as Evident, For They shall as soon Prove, That God now Positively Reveal's who shall be the last man alive in the World, as Prove that Scripture Positively Teaches, Purgatory is not, a Sacrifice is not &c. Whence I Infer: If Protestants Believe no Purgatory (For Example) It is not enough to say We Read of no such Place in Scripture; For (were this True) It is Only a bare Negative, And at most Shows, That God 
What Protestants are to prove, if The believe any of Their Negatives.  hath Omitted to Speak at all of Purgatory, Which silence, can Ground no Act of Faith, Unless this Consequence be good. Because an infinite Verity, neither affirms nor Denies That Third Place, Therefore I will Believe no Purgatory. To Believe then no Purgatory, or No Sacrifice, It is Necessary not only to Say, God saith nothing in Scripture of these Mysteries, But more is required, Viz. to Prove, That His infallible Revelation Positively Denies Them: For, 
Before Sectaries positively Deny Catholic Doctrine, They are to prove, that God hath positively Denied it in his Word.  Before I Positively Deny a Purgatory by my Faith, I must prove it Positively Denied by an Infinite Verity, Which is utterly Impossible. See this Point more amply Declared, Disc. 2. c. 8. n. 4. 5.  
4. Perhaps the Doctor will Tell me. These Negatives of No Sacrifice, No Purgatory, etc. Are no Essentials of Protestant Religion, But certain By-articles, which may as well be Rejected as maintained, whilst the Common, and Allover Owned Doctrine of Christianity is firmly Believed. If He Answer Thus: First, Protestant Religion comes to Nothing; for all, or the most  of it is made up of these Negatives. 2. This Reformed Part is no Christian Religion: 
If Sectaries make Their Negatives not Essential to Protestancy, Their Reformed Religion is no Christian Religion.  For, Christian Religion (at last Resolvable into Gods certain Revelation) cannot be Yielded to, and Denied as men Pleas, Unless we grant, That, that may be Denied, which God saith is True. 3. It follows, Though a Protestant Curse, and Anathematise the specifical Articles of his Reformed Religion, as Reform, He may yet be a good Protestant, and gain Salvation, by the General Faith Common to Arians and other Heteredox Christians. I would gladly hear of a good Solution to these Difficulties, more largely laid Forth, Disc. 3. c. 11. n. 13. 14. In the mean while, you see, How unevidenced a Thing Protestant Religion is, which hath Neither rational Motives to make it Credible, nor 
Protestancy hath Neither Motives to make it Credible, nor, a word of Scripture to make it probable.  so much as one  Word of Scripture to make it probable. You see moreover, How Scripture Alone without a Church, and a naked Church, not manifested by Prudent Motives Leaves us in Darkness, Leads into Labyrinths, Yea, And utterly Impossibilitats not less the Search, Then the Finding out of true Religion.  
5. From the Evident Vnevidence of this new Religion, the 
From the unevidence of Protestancy, the improbability of it follows.  Improbability of it follows as a Property doth to its Essence: For, an unproved Religion, is Improbable, And, an Improbable Religion is no Christian Religion. Pray you Tell me: If one Pretend to be a Wise man, and never Gives Sign or Proof of his Wisdom; to be Learned, and shows Himself a Dunce in all Company; to be Liberal, And 
An Instance.  Relieves none in Necessity; Will you Admit of all without Proof upon the bare Word of him, who Says, He is Wise, Learned, and Liberal? No, you will 'Slight such Talk as Vnworthly of Credit, and Hold it Improbable. This is the real Case of Protestants, who Vapour much, Talk much of the Truth of their Pure Reformed Gospel, But, When Things come to the Test, and Proofs are justly Called 
No Principles, whereby to prove Protestancy probable.  for to make Words good, They can neither Say, by force of any Received Principle, why They Believe Protestancy in General to be Christ's True Religion, Nor, why They give Assent by Divine Faith to so much, As to one Article within the compass of Protestancy, as it is Reform. 
The Doctrine Asserted, the proofs of it, The Opposition made against Catholics and the Method held in Arguin 〈…〉 g, improbable.   
6. You will Say this Charge goes High; And Therefore justly Require of me to Declare further, wherein Chief Our Adversaries Speak so Improbably? I Answer: They do it not in One Particular only, But in every Thing they Say. The Doctrine Asserted by them is Improbable: The Proofs of Their new Religion are Improbable. The Oppositi made against our Roman Catholic Faith, is Improbable: The Very Method Held in Arguing against us is Improbable. All Falls All is Deficient, And it Cannot be Otherwise: For, who is able to Persuade Himself without Assenting to a most Desperate Improbability, That in this Old Age of the World, when all rather Expect the Day of judgement Then a Settlement of a new Religion, a Little Knot of men wholly Unknown a Hundred Years Agon Should now Start up And Speak to the Purpose, when They go about not only to Cast Down a long Standing Church, But More, To make a Novelty Credible, Whereof the World had no Knowledge at all, For fourteen Ages Before? This I say is Highly Improbable But Ad Rem,  
7. I say First, Their Doctrine is Improbable, And Prove it. 
Protestancy not resolvable into God's Revelation, stands on Fancy, and therefore Improbable. Protestants Glosses, as improbable as the Arians.  No Doctrine Fallibly Taught can be Vltimatly Resolved into God's Infallible Revelation, But, into Fallible Guesses Or Fancy Only: The professed Doctrine of Protestancy, as Reform, is Fallibly Taught, And cannot be Resolved into God's infallible Revelation; Therefore, it Finally Resteth on mere Guesses or Fancy, And Consequently is Improbable. See Disc. 1. c. 1. n. 6.  
8. 2. It is Improbable to say, That Scripture Alone, without an Infallible Interpreter makes any man Certain in what he Glosses, or at all Infallible; For both Arians, And Pelagians Read it, and Gloss it Yet Err Grossly in Points most Essential. Protestants, who Own No infallible Interpreter, both Read and Gloss As These Do by their own uncertain Guesses, And therefore Gloss as Improbably. Disc. 1. c. 4. n. 7. 8. 
Universal Opposition makes Protestancy Improbable.   
9 3. A Doctrine which at Its first Rise And after Also, was, and is still as much Opposed by Other Christians the whole World over, As Ever Arianism was, and is Improbable. Protestancy Had, and hath still This Universal Opposition made against it, And therefore upon that sole Acount is Improbable. Disc. 1. c. 6. n. 3.  
10. 4. To Say on the one side That Protestancy is the true 
Protestancy Dishonours Christ, and Therefore is Improbable.  Orthodox Religion; And, on the Other to Grant, That the Roman Catholic Church (which Sectaries Condemn of Error) Hath Infinitely Obscured Protestancy with the Splendour of most Glorious Marks of Truth manifestly known to the World, as Miracles, Conversions etc. is Highly Improbable, Because Dishonourable to Christ and Injurious to God, who cannot make a Falls Religion more clear to Reason or more Prudently Credible than his own Truths and Verities are. Disc. 1. c. 12. n. 1. 2. 
A new coined Heresy may be better Defended then Protestancy.   
11. 5. A new Coined Heresy without Motives of Credibility may as well be Invented and better Defended by the bare Words of Scripture, Then Protestancy Can be Defended. But such an Heresy is Improbable; Therefore Protestancy upon that Account is Much more Improbable. Disc. 1. c. 12. n. 3. 4. 5. 
Sectaries improbably allow God no more but a Lame and half Providence.   
12. 6. To say, That God had only care of a Bible, and Preserved that free from Corruption, But withal, Permitted His own Immaculate Spouse the Church (which He Founded Pure) To play the Harlot, And afterward to Deceive Christians with Damnable Errors, Is not only to Allow him a Lame and Half Providence, But also to Vent a Doctrine more than improbable 
They must say that a Church Essentially errable may as easily lose the Consolation of Grace at Truth Both are Improbable.  (That is) Enormously Impious. Sectaries say so, And therefore Speak improbably. Disc. 2. c. 2. n. 7.  
13. 7. A Church essentially Errable may lose All Truth, And consequently as easily All Consolation of Grace, And so Become wholly Divorced from Christ: The first Protestant's Assert And Therefore must maintain the Other, Which is Heretical, And more than Improbable Doctrine. Disc. 2. c. 6. n. 7. 8.  
14. 8. Though contrary to both Truth and Conscience it were Supposed, That We Prove not our Catholic 
They Improbably found Their Doctrine upon Falso supposed Negatives. Being fallible, and therefore not Assisted by the Holy Ghost, They pretend Improbably to Teach Christ's Doctrine with Certainty.  Verities, Yet no Absolute Denial of these Verities follows from our not Proving Them: But Protestants upon this Falls Supposed Negative, We Prove Not, without the least Appearance of any infallible Revelation for them Ground their Faith, Which is a most Desperate Improbability, Disc. 2. c. 8. n. 2. 3.  
15. 9 It is Improbable to Say, That Protestants whilst they Teach their Novelties or Interpret Scripture, Do either the One, or Other as Faithful Oracles or Instruments Assisted by the Holy Ghost: For These men, whether They Teach or Interpret Profess Themselves Fallible in All They Say; Therefore are not assisted Instruments of this Blessed Spirit who Teaches by none The Necessary Doctrine of a Universal Church, Interpret's by None but such as do it Infallibly. Disc. 2. c. 9 n. 8.  
16. 10. To say, That that Article of our Creed: I Believe the Holy Catholic Church, was not True in all Ages before Luther, is more Than Improbable. Protestants, who 
They make Improbably an Article of our Creed Fals.  can name no other Catholic Church, but the Roman, which They Hold Erroneous, must both Vow and Vote the Creed Falls for so vast a time. Disc. 3. c. 1. n. 1. 
To Teach that a Doctrine common to Heretics is enough for Salvation, is Improbable. A Religion essentially Hypocritical, Improbable.   
17. 11. It is highly improbable to Say, That either the true Church of Christ can be corrupted in Doctrine, or, that a Doctrine common to All Heretics is enough for Saving Faith. Protestants Affirm both. Disc. 3. c. 2.  
18. 12. A Church Essentially Hypocritical That may Believe One thing And must Profess an other, is unworthy of Credit, and cannot be judged to Hold probable Doctrine. Protestants own such a Church. Disc. 3. c. 6. n. 10.  
19 13. A Church, or Religion, that hath not one Article of Faith Grounded on Scripture (as it is Reform) yet 
So is a Church without a word of Scripture for it. Another Improbability of Sectaries.  pretends to Draw all to it By Force of Scripture, Delivers most improbable Doctrine, Protestancy is such a Religion. Ibidem n. 11.  
20. 14. Protestants that Pretend to submit to the Authority of one, two or three of the Ancient Fathers, And Scornfully Reject the Authority of the Roman Church, Proceed Improbably. Disc. 3. c. 7. n. 9 And thus much Briefly of a few Doctrinal Improbabilities Taught by Protestants, The Treatise affords you more, Touching the Liberty, The unconstancy, The Endless Dissensions of Sectaries, with other sad Effects that follow This new Gospel. These I wave in this place. And  
21. Say 2. The proofs of Sectaries for Their new Religion 
Sectaries Proofs of their own Religion are Improbable. The Reason.  are Improbable. The Assertion is consequential, and Stands Firm, Upon what is said already, For a Doctrine Proved Improbable by undoubted Principles cannot be made Evidently Credible by any rational Arguments, Unless Truth be contrary to Truth: But, The Doctrine of Protestancy is Demonstrated Improbable; Therefore no Rational Proofs can make it Evidently credible; nor so much as weakly Probable. To confirm this. Do no More, but Demand of any Sectary (the Question hath been often Proposed) Upon what Rational Proof 
A Protestant cannot say upon a rational Principle why He judges his Religion true or the best of all other.  or received Principle Antecedent to his Faith, He Believes Protestancy (I do not say Christian Religion) taken in what General way you will To be the Best and Purest Religion, now Professed? He cannot Pretend that this Novelty is ex Terminis Evidently True, or Credible (for no Religion is so) Much less, That He Believes without Reason, or, Because He will Believe; Therefore after he hath Declared what He Believes, He must also Satisfy the Doubt, And Tell us. Why He Believes And, Ground his Answer upon a Rational Principle. But it is as impossible to Satisfy This one Demand, as to Remove the Pyraenean Mountains from the place they Stand in. The Reason is. It is 
It is highly Against Reason to Embrace a Religion without Prudent Motives. Protestancy hath no Prudent Motives. If they have any in store They can be laid forth to Reason.  Highly Against all Reason to Embrace any Religion, whether new or old without Rational Proofs Grounded on sure Motives, Which Plead as it were in God's behalf and make Religion Evidently Credible Before we Yield Assent to it. But, Protestants have no rational Motives Antecedent to their Belief of Protestancy, which Hold a strict Analogy with Those of Christ and his Apostles, as is Amply Proved Disc. 1. c. 9 10. 11. 12. therefore their Religion, as Protestancy, is without Proof unevidenced. If they can Gainsay my Assertion let them Speak, And Bring their Motives to Light. We would gladly hear what can be Answered plainly to this one plain Demand.  
22. After a General View Taken of Protestancy, We may Descend to Particulars, and inquire in the next Place Why the Professors of it Believe so much as one Article of this Novelty? For example: Two Sacraments only, no Sacrifice, no Church Infallible. Why They Believe (And 'Tis the Worst of all, Yea, and a Paradox 
Astrange Paradon of Protestants.  beyond Expression) That Christ Abandoned the very Church he Founded in the greatest Need and Danger that can concern a Church, Which was and is to Defend it from Heresy. Here we may justly stand astonished and Ask, How it came to Pass that ou● Careful Lord jesus, (like one Drowsy, or Forgetful of his Charge) Withdrew his Providence From that Church He Founded? What? Hath He been asleep so long? 'Tis True, when He Entered a little Boat, Matt. 8. (It was a Type of the Church) a great Tempest arising, He seemed regardless of his Disciples fears And Slept a while; But to Say, He hath now Slept on For a Thousand 
Christ founded the Roman Catholich Church, yet Protestants say, he suffered it to perish.  Years, and like one Reckless, Suffered that Ark He Built not only to be Tossed with the worst of Tempests, But to be overturned with a Deluge of Errors and Falls Doctrine, is a Novelty fit for Protestants to Broach then Any Christian in the World to Hear or Think of. Ask therefore what Scripture, what unanimous Consent of Fathers, or Councils, have They for this long Supposed Negligence of our Vigilant Lord? I'll tell you. They can Allege just so much proof for this Unheard of Paradox as They Do For Their other Novelties, which is purely Nothing. Protestancy therefore, whether we consider 
Protestancy Every way unproved.  it in a General Way, or Descend to the particular Tenants Thereof is merely Fancy, An unproved and Consequently, An Improbable Religion.  
23. And Hence it is (Mark it, you will find what I say▪ 
Sectaries Thoughtless of Proving Protestancy make it Their chief work to cavil at our Religion.  most True) That Sectaries chief Busy Themselves in finding Fault and Carping at Catholic Religion (As if, Forsooth, Theirs were made good Because They Cavil at Ours) But think not of An Other Task, which most of all Concerns Them, And 'Tis Positively▪ to Prove, That Protestancy ought to be Owned as Christ's only True and Orthodox Religion, This they wholly wave, and the Reason is, Because an Improbability cannot be Proved.  
24. Pray you Tell me. Did you ever yet Hear 
Protestants prove not their own Religion.  from Protestant Any Thing like a convincing Principle, when He goes about to Prove two Sacraments and no more, or, That Faith only justifies without Charity? Or (to be brief) That Protestancy ought to be Valued of as the only pure and Orthodox Religion of Christianity? No. I have Perused some of Their Authors, and find These and Their other Novelties, either passed over in silence▪ or, so slightly Handled, That they seem afraid to meddle with such Difficulties. What do They Therefore? 
But think it enough to Cavil at ours.  Their whole strain is to find fault. This in our Religion is not Right. That's not well proved. A Third Thing Pleaseth not. Here we have a Novelty introduced. There is a Ceremony blamable etc. Then a jeer follows in Handsome Language, And Their Work is Don. In the mean time, The Main point in Controversy (which is to Prove by undeniable Grounds Their Right settlement in Faith without Novelties) is no more touched on Then if it were not in Being.  
25. In case they Reply. To prove our Religion Falls, 
An inconsequence of Sectaries.  in some particulars is sufficient to prove theirs True in all. I have Answered, could this be done, The Inference is yet worse than Nonsense: For suppose, An Arian Did Convince Protestant's of much Falsity, Doth it Therefore follow that all he says, is true? No. What then doth the Protestant speak here to the Purpose? 2. It is more than Improbable to prove any one Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Religion Fals. The Reason I give in 
It is impossible to prove the Roman Catholic Doctrine Fals.  this place (to omit Others) is, Because an undubitable Principle which cannot be shaken, Stands Firmly against These supposed Proofs, And is thus Hinted at Already. Christ jesus Founded a Catholic Church which should never Fail, and Therefore Can never be deserted by him. For, No Monarch that lays the Foundations of a Kingdom and obliges 
The Reason.  himself to take care of it, can without injustice Abandon it, unless a Contrary power, or great Negligence Deprive him of his Right. Now, none can be more powerful than Christ, And I hope our Adversaries will not make him Guilty of Negligence or Injustice. Therefore He still Defends the Militant Church (a most Dear Kingdom) which he Established. Perhaps some less Considerate will say. We here Tacitly suppose, Christ to have founded the Roman Catholic Church 
We suppose Nothing, but a most certain Verity.  only. I Answer first. If this were Supposed we suppose no more but Truth, when it is clear That for a Thousand years before Luther, There was no other Orthodox Church in the world But the Roman Catholic, as is proved in the second Discourse. I Answer 2. We Suppose Nothing but an Evident Verity. Viz. That Christ founded a Church which 
That Christ jesus Founded a Church which He never Deserted.  was permanently to continue to the world's End. But this Church (find it where you will) Protestants say, Christ Abandoned, Because before Luther's Days, There was no True Church on Earth for ten whole Ages. Or if they Admit of such a Church, Let them please to name it, But This will be impossible if They Exclude the Roman. You see Therefore, How pitifully weightles Protestants Proofs must needs be, when They Talk of a Universal Deluge of Errors Overrunning the Roman Church, yea, and all other Churches 
What Sentence Reason gives upon these Considerations.  before Luther. You see also (may Reason have place) Whether it is not much more prudent to Hold All those petty Cavils of Sectaries, to be, as They Really are, most prodigiously Forceles; Then to be wrought in this perverse Persuasion, That Christ jesus Deserted the Church He founded, and Permitted not only the Roman But all other Churches with it, to be Misled 
Nothing less than an Evident Demonstration. can prove our Church Guilty of Error.  into Hideous Error. Can Sectaries give Demonstrations of our Errors in good Form, (And believe it Nothing less than a Demonstration will Do the Deed) They might look Big On't, And Hope to Fright us, But when we Evidently See Their Proofs so Drooping and Faint, that not one of Them stands upon A sure Principle, We may well Say, It will be best For them Hereafter, either to Hold Their peace, of our Church's Errors, or Learn to speak more to the Purpose.  
26. I Told you in the beginning How these men 
What Sectaries ought to Prove.  should Handle us, Had They a Likelihood of Truth on their Side, They should silence us with undeniable Proofs drawn from Scripture, from Councils and the unanimous Consent of Fathers. They should show us Precisely, When our Errors first Began, whereof they talk but Prove Nothing. They should plainly Point out That Orthodox and Universal Church, which as Strenuously Defended pure Protestancy six Hundred Years agone, As We now, and the rest of the world do Oppose it. They should also tell us, what Orthodox Church six or seven Ages since (There was then most surely a True Church in the World) Condemned Those very Doctrines of our Church that Sectaries now Condemn and Cavil at. Such Arguments, could they be Herd of, were to the Purpose; But, To have nothing from these ●risk Antagonists but Trifles And mere slight stuff, is Lamentable. Now we are Told Scripture may be Interpreted this Way, now an Other. Now, our Modern Authors say This, now That. Now Council seems to Contradict Council. Now mere Patches, and Fragments of Fathers, Pitifully Abused and Weighed out of their Circumstances, are Produced against us. Now they 
Their way of Arguing, insipid and weightles. The Roman Catholic Church hath withstood stronger Heretics than Protestants are.  jeer at our Popes, now at our Prelates, Now at our Ceremonies, And Thus They Hold on in a slighter Way of skirmishing Unable, God knovvs, to do more Against a Church which Divine Providence upholds, And therefore It Hath not only withstood Harder Shocks from former Heretics (Than now are in Being) But also Defeated Them. So it is. Ecclesia in victa res est etc. This Ancient Church is, And will be conquerant, Though Hell and Heresy Band against it.   

CHAP. III.  
A Word more of Sectaries new Mode of Arguing best Laid Forth, By Touching briefly on one Controversy.  
1. WHat I would say now of this Subject, As also of the just Exceptions one might make against our Sectaries writing Controversies, Cannot be Expressed in few words: Their Faults and Failings being as they are, no less numerous than looking different 
Faults of Sectaries.  ways at once. In a word: Besides Their Corruptions, and selfconceipted Glosses whereof there is no end, you have first Gross Mistakes. 2. Pretty Peevish jeers (harmless things) for they hurt no body, and give the Printer work. 3. No little ignorance. 4. Mere Suppositions for Proofs. 5. Much unsincere Dealing, when They slightly handle Controversies and slily dissemble such Proofs, as make for our Catholic Verities. The last Defect (but this is both remediless, and Transcendent) They never bring Assertions to Principles, nor give us weight for weight, I mean Authority Answerable to our Authorities in any one debated Question.  
2. These faults, and many more I have Discovered 
Mr. Stillingfleet.  in a short Chapter of a late Writer, part. 3. chap. 6. pag. 638. Where he treats of Purgatory. The shortness made me read it; for where you have length and little substance with it, one is soon wearied. To be brief therefore.  
3. Our Adversary in that 6. Chapter, were he would 
jeers begin the work.  say something of the sense of Fathers Concerning Purgatory, first Begins with his jeers, and calls Purgatory the great Diana of our Church. And why Diana pray you? What has that Dea Sylvarum, or Hunting-Goddess to do with Purgatory, or Purgatory with Her? Well, but this Diana, He says, besides Casualties and Deodands, brings great Revenues into the Church, in so much that she's grown fat by the sins of the People, And (which Kill's all) Spalatensis (whose Authority is as good as Luther's) Confirms the Doctrine. Is not this think ye a piece of Profound Divinity, with the rest that follows of Hell's Suburbs, and bidding Adieu to Indulgences and years of Iubil●? But, 'Tis 
The jest is ended.  enough: you see how little the jest is worth, I leave it. Surely, You'll have him more in earnest now.  
4. He tell's us therefore, After his quoting the Council 
Mistakes follow.  of Trent, that the Gild of Mortal sin being remitted by the merits of Christ, The Punishment is supposed still to remain. Here is either a Mistake, ignorance, or both. For, All know, when the guilt of a mortal 
God cannot de potentiâ ordinariâ punish a sin eternally which is not, and some Deny it possible de potentiâ absolutâ.  Sin is remitted, which is an exigency or an intrinsic condignity to Eternal punishment, that punishment, eo ipso, is remitted with the guilt, unless you say, that God can punish a sin which is not, and this for ever. It is true, an exchange from the eternal, to a temporal punishment is made by Almighty God through the merits of Christ jesus, when the due means prescribed for Remission is used by the Penitent, And this temporal punishment is to be satisfied For here, or in Purgatory.  
5. He states next the Controversy between the Greeks and Latin Church upon this subject, and saith, The main thing objected by the Greeks against the Latins was this temporary punishment for sin in a future state. Sir, I must now speak to you, and say your Assertion is an unproved supposition, And very untrue as will presently 
Mistakes, in Stating the Question.  appear. Neither doth the Apology you so blindly quote Ed. Salm. so much as Probably favour it. Mark your own Translation. We own no Purgatory fire, nor any temporal punishment by fire. The contest therefore was not concerning a temporal punishment precisely Considered, For The Greek Church never denied a punishment, but about the particular Pain by fire, And this purgation by fire, some of them perhaps might think (though most weakly) slackened the 
Obscurity.  endeavours of the Diligent if your quotation be true, for I wonder why you run to Ed. Salmas when you 
No man here knows what Ed. Salmas signifies.  have at hand the Parisian, the Venetian, the Cullen Editions, with others. Now, that which I Assert is without Dispute most certain, as Appears by the very Definition of the Council of Florence under Eugenius the Fourth, where the Greeks with their Emperor, and Patriarch of Constantinople met, and Consenting to the Latins Defined thus. Item definimus si vere 
The Councils Definition,  Poenitentes in Dei charitate decesserint etc. Also we Define, if those who are truly Penitent and departed this life in the love of God, and yet have omitted the worthy fruits of penance for their sins committed, eorum animas poenis Purgatoriis purgari, that such souls are purged by the pains of Purgatory. Thus much you might have read in Alfonsus à Castro, whom you cite lib. 12. Tit. Purgat. at the end of the Title. And therefore when Alfonsus at the Beginning thereof, attributes 
Alfonsus à Castro explicated.  the Denial of Purgatory to the Greeks, He must either mean (if he contradict not himself) that some of them only denied it, or that most denied a place of torment by Fire: For, How can He say, that the Greeks Denied all future punishment in Purgatory, when He expressly Grants they Defined the contrary. Nay, He saith more, that the Greeks then assembled in that Council, published a book Ad probandum Purgatorij locum to prove the place of Purgatory, which book was printed at Basil both in Greek and Latin. And here by the way you may Observe another fraud of Sectaries, who if they find a piece of a sentence seemingly  for them, that's laid hold on, and whatever clears the Expression or makes against their 
Dissembling of Difficulties proper to Sectaries.  mistaking it, That's waved and dissembled. But let us go on. You Oppose against the Councils Definition Marcus Eugenius utterly refusing to subscribe it. What is it to the purpose whether He did or no? Was his sole vote Enough to unvote, or make null the sentiment of a whole Council? O, say you, He would never have done so, Had all the Controversy 
The authority of Marcus Eugenius weightles.  been whether the Fire was real or Metaphorical. How know you that but by your proosles Guesses only? Besides, that was not the Controversy.  
6. You still go on a Guessing. The Greeks indeed, say you, Do not Believe that any Souls enjoy the Beatifical vision before the Day of judgement, And on that account they Allow of prayer for the Dead, not with any respect to a Deliverance of Souls out of Purgatory, but to the participation of their happiness at the great Day. Answer. 
More Mistakes and Errors.  You have here as many foul mistakes and Errors as there are words. And, First tell me, who Those Greeks were that Denied souls the Beatifical Vision before the Day of Judgement? Your Indefinite Proposition, The Greeks do not Believe etc. Seems to include all, And this you must intent, if you speak to the purpose; for to say, that some few, here and there, were of that Opinion is no Advantage to your Cause. Now to show you how untrue this part of your Assertion 
A few of that Opinion is no Advantage.  is, as also the rest that follows; withal, to confirm what is alleged out of the Council of Florence, Ill give you the Testimony of a most Erudite Author Leo Alatius a Grecian born, and one better versed in 
Leo Alatius a most Learned Author.  the knowledge of the Greek Church, than we Islanders can be, so remote from it. Sir, Believe it, had you red one only book of this Author (I'll now quote it) to say nothing of his other works, Chief Contra Hottingerum, you would never have writ this 6. Chapter against Purgatory; For, He doth not only rid out of the way those vulgar Objections you Propose (not one I am sure is omitted) but also acquits himself of far Greater, And, (as behoves a Scholar) so strongly maintains our Catholic Verity by undeniable Principles, that none shall Hereafter speak probably against it.  
7. To the matter therefore now in hand, Leo Alatius in his Book entitled: De utriusque Ecclesiae Occidentalis & Orientalis perpetuâ in Dogmate de Purgatorio, Consensione Printed at Rome Anno 1655. and Dedicated to Pope Alexander the VII. page 243. n. 34. which begins, Hic vero paululum immorandum, Declares out of the Acts of the Council of Florence what the Greeks thought of Purgatory 
The Dispute Concerning Purgatory fire between the Greeks and the Latins.  fire, what persuasion they were wrought into after much Dispute had with the Latins, And finally with what judgement they returned into Greece. Cum Ferrarae (saith He) adhuc Synodus esset etc. when the Synod was yet at Ferrara the 4. of June, The Question of Purgatory fire, was propounded. The Latins shown first, that such souls as have venial Sins are purged by a Purgatory fire, receive help, And are freed from those pains by the prayers of Priests, by the Sacrifice 
What the Latins Asserted.  of the Mass, Alms giving, and other pious works. 2. That the souls of Saints are in Heaven present to the blessed Trinity, and there enjoy all Happiness. Therefore They distinguished three different places. Of the just in Heaven, of the Damned in Hell, and of a third sort, suffering in Purgatory till all be satisfied for. The Greeks, saith Alatius, Hearing what was alleged by the Latins out of the Holy Scripture and Fathers, said they would return an Answer to every particular. Therefore on the 14. of june, Bessario the Nicene Metropolitan gave in writing the Greeks 
What the Greeks Answered.  Opinion, and expounded that Passage of the Apostle contrary to the sentiment of the Latins, yet, Confessed, The Greeks held a temporal punishment, due to souls not perfectly purged, And, that these go in locum tenebricosum, 
The Greeks acknowledge a place of punishment though not by fire.  locum moeroris, into a dark place of Grief, of Sorrow, and Pain, yea, and are freed from that torment by the Sacrifices of Priests and Charitable Alms deeds, But, still, He said the torment is not by fire. The Difference therefore between the Greeks and Latins was, that those Confess a place of Pain and Sorrow, sed non per ignem, not by fire: The Latins contrary stood for a Purgatory by Fire. All this passed before the Definition of the Council, And therefore you see how untrue your Assertion, is viz. That the Greeks Allow not of prayer for the Dead with any respect to a Deliverance of souls out of Purgatory pains; For, here the contrary is professed by them. Again, whereas you say, the Greeks believe not, that any 
More Mistakes concerning the Greeks.  souls enjoy the beatifical vision in Heaven before the Day of judgement, Alatius, page 245. fine, plainly contradicts you, Affirming, that the Greek Church believes the contrary; Although He Adds, nonnulles esse There are some 
The Opinion of some is not the judgement of a whole Church.  of that Opinion, but the voice of some few, I hope, gives us not the sentiment of their whole Church. At last, saith my Author, page 246. After much contention and Delay made by the Greeks a whole day long from morning till Six at night, They met again the 27. of julij, and debates being ended, Firmarunt, they established this Truth. Sanctorum animas, ut animas, 
The Greeks granted the beatifical vision to souls before the day of judgement.  ad perfectam pervenisse beatitudinem, in resurrectione tamen perfectiorem consecuturas, cum propriis corporibus fulgebunt ut Sol etc. That the Souls of Saints come to perfect happiness, yet in the Resurrection they are to enjoy a more perfect felicity because of their bodies, when these shall shine like the Sun etc. Finally, in the 25. and last Session, Three things were concluded. The first, that the souls of Saints are perfectly happy quoad Animas. The second: Souls of great sinners are Endlessly miserable. Now for the third state of souls, which they called Medea's, They voted, 
The last Decision of Both Difficulties.  such to be in a place of Torment, but contended not, whether it was fire, Darkness, or any like grievous torment, and These They said (after a perfect purgation) were to enter in the Society of the Blessed, and see the very essence of God, sine ullo medio, that is, immediately. To confirm both these Verities He produceth the last profession of Faith which joseph the Patriarch of Constantinople 
The Profession of Faith made by the Patriarch of Constantinople.  made of this subject in these Few, but pithy words. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I confess a a Purgatory of souls. And He Added, that the Greek and Latin Church were not Divided upon any account of Purgatory. Finally, page 249. Alatius recounts with what judgement the Greeks returned concerning 
With what judgement the Greeks returned Home.  Purgatory, which appears, saith He, by their Rituals. It was, that souls not perfectly cleansed, are purged in a place of Torment, and receive benefit by the prayers of the living, as is now Declared.  
8. It would be a long work, to prosecute All that our Learned Author hath of this Subject. Whoever desires more, may read him chief from the first page to the 42. where He shows first the mistakes of some Writers, that thought the Greeks absolutely Denied Purgatory, And with these, Sir, you may rank 
How some Latins were beguiled that say, the Greeks absolutely Deny Purgatory.  your unquoted Authors, pag. 640. But Alatius Disrank's them all, Declares the ground of their Error, And shows how they were▪ deceived by the writes of some Schismatical Grecians, whose Authority, saith He, Avails as little to prove that the Greek Church Denied Purgatory, As if one should now cite Luther, Calvin, or Ochinus, and believe them, when they go about to recount the supposed Errors of the Roman Church. Stulte enim argumentaremur (They are his words page 3.) The man would Discourse foolishly, that should conclude, the Greek Church Held no place of Purgatory, Because Marcus Ephesius, Barlaam Monachus, Nilus Thessalonicensis, josephus Bryennius, And other Schismatics have Falsely related matters so, which way of Arguing is as weak, as if one should say, That, that whole Church is now infected 
The Errors of some, are not to be imputed to a whole Church.  with Arianism, Macedonianism, Eutychianism, or Nestorianism, Because some among them Profess these Heresies. Alas, The Errors of some that receded from that Church as Nicetas Bizantius cited page 4. well observes, cannot in justice be imputed to their whole Church, which ever defended a place of Purgatory, And therefore He Tell's the Chief of the Armenians of his unhandsome Plea, when 
Bizantius adversus Principem Armeniorum.  He pretended, that the Church left the Schismatical Opinion of some few. No such matter, saith Nicetas, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But the contrary is true, 'tis you the far less number, that deserted us. Page the 12. Alatius citys Manuel Caleca lib. 4. adversus Graecos, who doth not only Admit of a place of Purgatory for Souls not perfectly Cleansed, but moreover Deliver's 
Three Truths established by Manuel Caleca.  these three particular Truths according to the Sentiment of that Church. The first. It is not Necessary to pray for those who now enjoy Beatitude, For although, saith He, we offer Sacrifice for the Saints, it is not done that they may Obtain mercy Having it already, But it is offered up for this End, that by Honouring Saints we may make them, through the mercy of God, to be Mediators for us. The second Verity is. The Church never Prays for the Damned. The last. There is therefore a third place of Punishment called Purgatory, where souls, not perfectly Cleansed, must by the just judgement of God, suffer for less Offences, and so pass into glory. This learned Author has much more to this Purpose, But, it is impossible to touch on all.  
9 Let us return to Alatius, that in every page refutes your Doctrine. Page 74. He Tell's us, that the 
The whole Greek Church taught by Apostolical Tradition, prayed for Souls in Purgatory.  whole Greek Church, taught by Apostolical Tradition, ever prayed for the departed who were neither cast in to Hell, nor are Glorious in Heaven. And He proves this even by the Confession of innumerable that are of the Schism, Here he gives us the judgement of Gabriel Severus Philadelphiensis in the book He writ against the Latins of Purgatory, where He shows how far the Greek Church agrees with the Latin, and wherein it Differs. We Agree, saith He, that souls piously departed this life receive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, benefit and relaxation 
Those of the Schism Confess it.  in those places they are, and this, by the Alms-deeds and good prayers of others, as Dionyfius Areopagita teachers. And besides Dyonisius, Severus Alleges also the Testimonies of S. Athanasius, S. Chrysostom, Basil and Theophilact for this great Verity, that such souls departed have help, comfort, and relaxation by the Sacrifice of the Mass, by Alms, and pious Prayer of the Living. Thus a Grecian Schismatic speaks. And it is not He Alone that produceth these Fathers for a proof of Purgatory, but other Greek Authors also, even those of the Schism, as Alatius Demonstrat's in several places. 
The Interpretation of the Greek and Latin Church make the sense of Father's clear for Purgatory.  And most surely, so unanimous a Consent of many ( whom the Latins agree also) cannot but make the sense of these Father's indubitable For our Catholic Verity.  
10. Now, Sir, if other Adversaries say as you Do, that the Greeks indeed Prayed for the Dead, but without any respect of Delivering souls out of Purgatory, or a place of torment, Turn once more to Alatius page 87. where He gives you not only one, or two witnesses, But, as He speaks, Vniversam ipsam Graeciam, The Testimony of the whole Greek Church, palam & aperte, openly 
A clear refutation of our Adversaries.  Avowing these torments of Purgatory, And, to this Purpose He quotes their Rituals, their Office of the Dead, and other Prayers. In the Office you have this Orison. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. O Christ give rest with thy Saints to the soul of thy servant, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where grief, sadness, 
The Greek Rituals and office of the Dead, significant for Purgatory.  and Mourning may cease, give them a life of perpetual happiness etc. Another Prayer is. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Our Lord Himself, Give rest to your Servant, N, in a place of refreshment, from whence grief, misery, and deep sighing may pass. This is also repeated in their Paracletica. From Tears and bitter Crying out, Deliver, O Saviour, thy servants. Again they beg they may be freed from all punishment, from a Prison of Sufferance, and soon be settled in a place of joy, where the just inhabit with perfect forgiveness of all their transgressions. Yet more. Alatius page 93. Saith, This is the Doctrine of S. Dionysius, of the great S. Basil Precatione 3. in Pentecosten, where He prays, that these souls 
Some Fathers quoted by Alatius.  may not only be quit of Torments and sufferances, but moreover, be placed in the Tabernacles of the Just, and enjoy happiness for ever. Finally, page 95. He quotes S. Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. Mystag. 5. who doth not only acknowledge Assistance afforded the Dead by our Prayers (for such an Assertion is easily misinterpreted) But, besides Affirms, They receive remission and relaxation of their punishment. The like Severus Philadelphiensis, though a Schismatic, Confesseth That the Greek Priests 
The Confession of a Schismatic.  pray every Saturday, that, these departed Souls may find God Merciful, gain remission of their sins, and be freed from the punishment, which torments them.  
11. I am forced to wave a world of other Testimonies most pertinently produced by this learned Author for our Catholic Verity▪ Page 56. He shows, that as well the Ancient as Modern Greeks acknowledge 
Prayer for the Dead an Apostolical Tradition.  the continued practice of praying for the Dead to have come from the Apostles, And in confirmation of it citys Gennadius the Patriarch; S. Chrysostom Hom. 69. ad populum expressly Approving the Doctrine, who also saith much help is afforded the Dead by Prayer. This is again confirmed pag. 63. by the Ancient Testimony of S. Dionysius (sive quis alius) Ecclesiast. Hier. c. 3. by Holy Ephrems last will and Testament, and others. Page 93. and 94. He proves more amply 〈…〉 at these Prayers were made for a Delivery of souls 〈…〉 am pain, from Grief, Mourning, Affliction, and Torment, as is now declared. Page 104. He shows, the sufferance 
The pain of Purgatory is really great, not slight, or Imaginary.  of these Departed in Purgatory not to ● a slight 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as some Sectaries would have it, but a hideous penal torment, true, real, and not Imaginary. And to this purpose Nicolaus Cabasila in Exposit. Missae cap. 45. and joannes Eugenicus are quoted page 147. and 149. The first affirms: Souls are purged and receive remission of Their sins by the Prayers of Priests, The other: The whole Greek Church acknowledgeth this 〈…〉ation of souls after Death, and that releasement of 〈◊〉 sufferance is obtained by the Sacrifice of the Mass, by pious Prayer, and other good works acceptable to God. 
The Thing granted, 'Tis Senseless to trifle about the name.  Alatius therefore most justly deplores the pertinacy of some, who read so often 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek Authors, and yet causelessly doubt of Purgatory. Rem habent, & de nomine contendunt, They have the Thing and yet boggle at the Name. Confess then, saith He, which is undeniable, that souls have relief in a place of punishment by the Prayers of the faithful, And call it Purgatory, or what else you please, it imports nothing.  
12. Sir, by these Testimonies alone (besides innumerable others omitted) which none can either except against, or, probably explicate, you see, how wide both parts of your Assertion are from Truth. The one is. The Greeks do not believe (you must mean the 
Both parts of our Adversaries Assertion proved untrue.  Greek Church) any souls to enjoy the beatifical vision before the Day of judgement, which is now proved absolutely untrue. The other. They allow indeed of prayer for the Dead, but without any r 〈…〉 to a Deliverance of Souls out of a place of punishment: ●●d this second, if there be a latitude in Falsity, 
Prayer for the Dead, tormented with a temporal punishment, Evidently proves a Purgatory.  is more untrue. You see moreover How forceable that usual Argument is for Purgatory. The Greek and 〈…〉 in Church (yes and the Ancient Church of the jews also, as I shall presently Declare) Prayed for the Dead, Ergo there is a Purgatory, or, which is the same, Purgatory is as certain, as it is certain that these Churches pray for the Dead tormented with a Temporal punishment. Now, if after all, you Answer. They only prayed for a joyful Resurrection, or, merely for a solace of 
Prayer not made for a joyful Resurrection only etc.  souls 〈…〉 lling, as you seem to suppose, in dark Recepta 〈…〉 or finally, that they may Escape the flames of fire which shall be at the Day of Judgement, you do not only Vent your own Fancy without Proof, but moreover Contradict the Authorities now cited, whereby it is Evident, that Prayers were made to free souls from a temporal punishment, during this our time of Exile, to acquit them of Debts Contracted in this life (so S. Austin prayed for His Mother lib. 9 Confess. c. 13.) and Finally to Transferr Them from a present doleful State, to Bliss and Happiness before the Day of Doom. And, Hence it is, that the Greeks in Their Paracletica cited by Alatius page 144. Petition Almighty God, when the soul is departed, for its speedy passage into Paradise without let or impediment. Hence also S. Chrysostom 
S. Chrysostoms' prudent Counsel.  (quoted page 145.) Orat. 5. de Poenitentiâ, Exhort's all to make the Judge Gracious and  before They come to the Tribunal; For, saith He, when the judge Sits, there is no appeasing no mitigating of his sentence, neither power, Eloquence, or Dignity will Do it; And the reason is, as Alatius well observes, For, in this General 
Sins not released in the general judgement, but sentenced.  Tribunal, Non dimittuntur peccata, sed judicantur, sins are not forgiven but judged only, Expectanda est sententia & retributio. A just sentence and a Recompense due to every Ones deserts are Here Herd of without further Pardon. Ponder therefore well the Argument now proposed with all its Circumstances. The 
The Argument with its Circumstances convinceth.  Church Prays for the Dead, And, not for a joyful Resurrection only, not for their sole solace, in no man knows what Dark receptacles, etc. But, She prays for souls now actually in grievous torments etc. Ponder, I say, These particulars well, and you'll find the Argument most pressing; and unanswerably Convincing.  
13. You see thirdly, How weakly some of your Brethren Cavil, whilst they pretend, That our Doctrine of Purgatory Comes much to the same with origen's Opinion Concerning a Vicissitude of Misery and 
origen's error.  Happiness belonging to souls Hereafter. It is a pure Fiction, For Origen thought this Expiation done by the Fire that will burn the world at the Day of judgement. Catholics say Contrary, It is made presently after Death. It is true, if, by reason of the straitness of 
Quite different from the Doctrine of Purgatory.  time, some be found near that day who have not fully satisfied, God can in a very moment Augment the Torment and supply that by an jntension of pain which the length of time would have satisfied For. Again, Origen said, this Purgation will be made in Hell fire, and for a determinate time. Catholics own no such Doctrine. Finally, He held that not only Great sinners And the Damned, but the Devils also were to be Purged in Hell, which Expiation Ended, all of them are to return to a state of Happiness. Catholics Abjure the Error, and Hold no redemption possible for either the Damned or Devils. Thus much of a mere Calumny.  
14. You see fourthly, no little swerving from Truth, when you, Sir, Tell us in your Preface to the Reader, That you have been so far from dissembling the force of any of the Cathalick Arguments, that if you Can add Greater weight to them you would have Done it, being as Unwilling to abuse yourself, as the world. All is Contrary in the present Controversy (and you miss as much in others) For, you have neither stated the Question rightly between the Latins 
Our Adversary dissembles Difficulties.  and the Greeks (And Herein lies no little fraud) nor have so much as slightly touched on any one Material thing now spoken of, And judge you, whether this be not a Dissembling of Difficulties. If you say, you never read Alatius, you have certainly in your Excellent 
His too much Forwardness in declaring what He know not.  Libraries more than one of those Authors He Quotes, and why were not they better Searched into before you writ of Purgatory? The Truth is (There is no Denying it) you were too forward in Declaring your Judgement concerning the Greek Church, before you well knew what it Teaches. Would one take the pains (and perhaps it may be done) to Translate your whole sixth Chapter into a known language, and send it to Alatius (He is yet alive, and can Answer to the Cause) with what Disdain think ye, would He look on't? How undigested a piece would he judge it to be? 
Leo Alatius highly esteemed for his Learning.  How far from Expressing what the Greeks Teach? And, Do not slight the man, for, He has the repute of a most learned Scholar the whole world Over. However, if you Set light by his Person, answer his Arguments, His Reasons, and most Convincing Authorities.  
14. If any one desire to know more of what the Greek Church holds concerning the Fire of Purgatory, He may read Alatius page 200. where He citys S. Basil and others for a purgation by fire. You have much also 
Purgation by sire.  of this whole subject in His Book against Hottinger, where He proves, page 130. Chap. 10. that the Greeks pray for the releasement of Souls, from their tears and Torments, And, that after the Ending of such punishments 
And passing into Happiness after punishment.  they may pass to eternal Happiness. In Ecclesia Graecorum, saith He, pagina 155. cap. 11. Vnus fere est consensus omnium Graecorum etc. Almost all the Greeks, even those who are against the Pope agree so far with 
The blessed after this life enjoy the beatifical vision.  him, that the Blessed, after This life, enjoy the beatifical vision with the Angels, and see God fancy ad faciem. Now, Sir, if you would have an Answer (Though it merits none) to the pretty jeer you begin with, Concerning the vast Incomes of the Church by Indulgences (Rivet calls them Pontificias emulgentias) Read Alatius page 223. Chap. 12. where He washes away the Calumny, and shows how severely the Church proceeds in this particular charging All Officers of the Court not to take 
No Salary for Indulgences.  so much as the least Salary for the very Parchment, for the writings or any other labour belonging to the Indulgence, And to avoid all Deceit, this Superscription goes with the Indulgence. Gratis etiam quoad Scripturam. All is frankly done, without reward or recompense.  
15. You may return once more to His Book de Vtriusque Ecclesiae Consensione, and page 272. find the Doctrine of Purgatory Professed and believed as well by the Syrians, Armenians and other Fastern Nations that Profess Christianity, as by the Greeks themselves. Abraham Ecchelensis a Maronit (saith Alatius) And one no less skilful 
The Eastern Churches beside the Greeks believe a Purgatory.  in Ecclesiastical Affairs then in the Oriental Languages in His Notes upon Hebedieusu Bishop of Sobae expressly mantains the Doctrine of Purgatory, and saith, The Roman Church Innovates Nothing in this particular, Teaches Nothing, but what is read in S. Ephrems 
S. Ephrems Office accords with the Roman Church.  Office, Sive spec●et id ad Purgatorium ignem, sive ad remissionem delictorum, whether that relates to the fire of Purgatory, or to the remission of sins after Death. Much more is there Alleged to this purpose, but the work would be Endless, should we transcribe the half of his Quotations. Yet one Thing is not to be omitted which He as largely as learnedly proves Chief from page 268. to page 300. And 'Tis that the Ancient Church 
The Ancient Church of the jews believed Purgatory.  of the jews believed a Purgatory. He first urgeth that known Passage of Scripture Machab. lib. 2. c. 12. which though it were not Scripture, as Sectaries pretend, yet the book is of great Authority, and was never taxed of Error by Christ and His Apostles or any Orthodox Writer since Christ, and therefore cannot but be reckoned of as an undoubted History. Next He Produceth the Testimonies of no few learned Rabbins from page 278. whereby we have assurance that the Hebrew 
And the fire of it also.  Church indubitably believed not only a Purgatory, but the Fire of Purgatory also: And here, were it worth the labour, I could charge my margins with Hebrew enough (borrowed, from Alatius) as Sectaries usually Do Theirs with Greek and Latin, (I know a Little, and 'Tis little enough of that language,) but I 'Slight such Paedantry, too manifest a bragging of Nothing. Good 
Ostentation ever Displeasing.  Apparel needs no Ribbons, nor a solid Discourse so much Margent-Bravery of Hebrew, Greek and Latin. If any particular Emphasis lie in a Greek or Hebrew word, it is worth the while to Search into it, but too much of the flourishing (when every Boy Can transcribe a Greek or Latin sentence, if He have a book before him) relisheth not, For it only serves to show how vainly Affectation creep's in under a colour of Learning. Yet if this be the new Mode of Sectaries Let it pass, it is one of their least Transgressions.  
16. Well, Not to forget: Alatius page 277. citys you R. Menachem Calomiti, whose Writings are yet preserved in the Vatican Library, And This Rabbi 
Testimonies of the Rabbins.  tell's us what the Judgement of the Hebrew Church was, much to this sense: That if any soul be infected with pride or Error, it was necessary before its entrance into Paradise to be washed, and cleansed by fire in a place above Hell. You have yet a clearer Testimony taken out 
The jews distinguished a triple State of Souls.  of the Thalmud Massecher quoted page 292. where a triple State of Souls is distinguished: Of perfectly just, of impiously wicked, and of a third sort who are first to descend to a place of Torment, to be tried by Fire as Gold is: And for the relief of such imprisoned Captives, judas Macchabaeus sent twelve thousand Drachmas of silver to Jerusalem as an Oblation. The Conclusion therefore is, Sancta & Salutaris etc. It is a Holy and wholesome cogitation to pray for the Dead, that they may be freed from their sins. But enough of this subject, if you desire further Instructions from the Rabbins concerning Purgatory, read Alatius now cited.   

CHAP. IU.  
A Parallel of Proofs for, and Against the Doctrine of Purgatory. A solution to our Adversaries late Objections.  
1. WE come now to a just ttial of the eause, to Proofs and Principles. Pray you observe. We will balance all without partiality, and make the Parallel as it truly is. The Question rightly 
The Question truly Stated.  Stated is. Whether there be a third place (distinct from Heaven and Hell) wherein Souls departed this life suffer a temporal punishment, From which punishment they are freed 
No dispute de nomine.  by the Prayers of the Living, Call it Purgatory, or otherwise, it matter's nothing, we dispute de re, not the Nomine. Sectaries hold the Negative, Catholics the Affirmative. And here is our first Principle.  
2. What Christ's true Church, and all other Churches 
The first, and most convincing Proof.  in the world denominated Christians Profess and believe, cannot but be an undoubted verity. But Christ's true Church and all other Churches with it Profess and Believe that third place of torment, as also a Deliverance of souls from it by the Prayers of the Living. Ergo that Doctrine is an undoubted Verity. The Major is Evidently proved in the Precedent Chapter, For the true Roman Catholic Church, the Greek Church, and those more Eastern Churches, with the Ancient Orthodox Church of the Jews, undeniably Profess and believe this Doctrine, none can gainsay the Proposition. 
The consent of act Churches a strong Principle.  The Minor is as certain, for no Authority under Heaven (plain Scripture excepted) can be greater than the unanimous Consent of all Curches. No contrary judgement is able to struggle with so much strength. Therefore, put the case first (you will 
The supposition holds not de facto, for no Fathers teach so.  have what I would say better Evidenced upon a supposition) That more than one of the ancient Fathers should expressly Deny a Purgatory, whilst all Churches teach the contrary. Suppose secondly, that God should command me to believe the One or Other, And that, which prudence evidently Tell's me is the most 
What we are obliged to upon the supposition.  Credible, I am obliged, if I proceed rationally, to Adhere to the Church, because it is evidently the stronger Proof, and to deny the Father's Authority. Therefore I am bound much more, to yield my Assent now when all Churches Affirm the Doctrine, and not one Father Denies it. And our very Adversaries must say as much as I prove. For, do not they own the Holy Book of Scripture to be God's Word (how consequently 
Sect 〈…〉 es must grant what is now asserted.  they proceed I Dispute not) because all Christian Churches in the world do so? If therefore that Authority be warrant enough for a Bible, it is as weighty for the Doctrine we stand for. And this was my Conclusion. Perhaps you will say. Very 
An Objection.  many among the Schismatical Churches Deny a Purgatory. Contra. And very many also Deny the Canon of Scripture you Admit of. Doth this make the Bible of less esteem among you? Know therefore, We speak Here of Church Authority, and not of 
Schismatics receding from a Church weaken not the Church's Doctrine.  Schismatical Parties receding from those Respective Churches whereof they were once members; Know also, that the self-Opinion of such Partisans is not to be compared with the Sentiment of a whole Church against them. You may Reply Again. We are now forced to make use of Schismatical Churches to Defend our Doctrine of Purgatory. Answer. No such matter, We need not their Help, but say, Salutem ex inimicis nostris, when Adversaries agree with us in a Truth it is an Advantage to our cause, witnesses upon this account are multiplied, Et vox populi vox Dei, if 
The number of withnesses for a Truth, gives some Advantage.  All teach as we do, it is certain we profess no Erroneous Doctrine. At least the Argument (Ad hominem) Against Sectaries hath place, who value so much of the Greeks and other Heterodox Christians, We care not for more. Besides, the Greek Church, when it was most Orthodox, prayed for the Dead in a state of sufferance, as is already proved.  
3. Weigh now well the Reason's Pro, and, Con. 
Reasons. pro, and con, are weighed.  All the Churches in the world Defend a Purgatory, that is a place wherein souls are temporally punished: No Church reputed Orthodox ever denied it. I say more: No Schismatical Church, under the Notion of a Church contradicted that Doctrine, Therefore our professed Faith is undoubtedly certain upon this very ground, or if it be not, one may call the primary Articles of our Faith into Question. And 
The Parallel, All and none. A clear Conviction. The second Principle.  thus you have the first Parallel. All Churches stand for our Affirmative: No Church defends the contrary Negative of Sectaries. A most Evident Conviction: A powerful Proof against this Heresy.  
4. The second Principle is S. Augustine's known Doctrine De Baptismo contra Donatistas' lib. 4. c. 24. Quod universa tenet Ecclesia, nec Consiliis etc. What the whole universal Church holds and was not first instituted by Councils, 
What all believe is Apostolical Tradition.  but ever in use and retained, Recte Creditur, is rightly believed to be no other but an Apostolical Tradition. But it is most certain, that the whole Universal Church prayed for souls departed, with intention to free them from a temporal Punishment: The Greeks, the Latins, and the Ancient Hebrews Prayed so, as is already proved, And this had no first Rise from any Decree 
No Sectary can say, when the Church first began to pray for the Dead, suffering terment.  of Councils, therefore it is an Apostolical Tradition, which Truth Alatius further demonstrat's upon several Occasions. Ponder therefore things impartially, And ask now what Tradition have Sectaries for their Negative? The Dead are not Assisted by Prayer. They have none, they are here put to silence, for, neither the Tradition of the whole Church, nor of any part of it reputed Orthodox, ever favoured Their Opinion or delivered what they teach. Make then the Comparison. All Tradition is for our Catholic Verity, 
The Parallel.  and Nothing like Tradition for the contrary Heresy. All, and nothing, make a strange Parallel. And so it is at present.  
5. The third Principle. Many Ancient and learned Fathers so interpret those known passages of Holy 
Scripture interprrted by Fathers a third Principle.  Scripture usually alleged for a proof of Purgatory, that Scripture itself Speaks what the Church Teacheth. Not one Father gives such a sense to Scripture as may Ground a positive or absolute Denial of Purgatory. I cannot insist upon all. Take for an instance that one passage of the Apostle 1. Cor. 3. He shall so yet be saved as by fire, And know that besides those learned Notes of Bellarmin upon the Text Lib. 1. De Purg. Cap. 5. and the 
Bellarmin.  Fathers there quoted most significantly expressing the Catholic sense, Leo Alatius produceth others, and Page 
Leo Alatius.  311. Cites Manuel Caleca a more Modern Author Lib. 4. Contra Graecos, who Saith the place cannot be understood of Hell fire, for the Apostle speaks of a fire whereby souls are saved, which is not the fire of Hell, but a Purging 
Manuel Caleca his reason.  fire, and by this They are to pass to happiness. And so much the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Per, which insinuates a Passing, strongly signifies. Thus Caleca, who hath much more to our Purpose. It is true some Authors think the Apostle speaks of the fire of Tribulation, Others (though less probably) of the last burning of the 
No Father's makes Scripture to Deny a Purgatory.  world, but no Father makes the Text or any other of Scripture positively exclusive of Purgatory, for This is no Consequence. We are to pass through Tribulation, and the fire also at the judgement Day. Ergo, there is no penalty to be endured in a third place. Here you have an other Parallel. Most learned Fathers interpret 
The Paralled.  Scripture Conformably to the Church's Doctrine, not one positively favours the Contrary Opinion of Sectaries. judge you therefore, and cast as it were into a balance the express Sentiment of Many against None, and see where the greatest weight lies.  
6. The fourth Principle is the Express Doctrine of 
The fourth Principle.  Fathers Themselves▪ as well Greek as Latin, whether it be grounded on Scripture, on Tradition, or both, matters not at present: Here we only Appeal to the Their Positive Doctrine. To transcribe all they have said on this subject, would be a long work. Bellarmin now cited cap. 10. hath many, Leo Alatius adds other 
Greek Authors favour the Church Doctrine.  Greek Authors as well Orthodox as of Schismatical from his 57 page. There you have Gennadius the Patriarch, St. Epiphanius express to our purpose, S. Chrysostom Hom. 69. ad populum, and S. Damascen both approving and praising S. Chrysostoms' Doctrine, Eustrati●s Priest of Constantinople, Michaël Glycas a Schismatic, Eugenicus Nomophilax adversus Synodum Florentinam, Meletius Alexandrinus Epistolâ ad Chios, who saith Expressly, it is an Apostolical Tradition, and grounded also in Scripture, To Hold that the Dead have great Assistance by the good works of the Living. But let us return to the more known Authority of Fathers. S. Denis (or some other Grave Author) Eccles. Hierarch. cap 7. part 3. saith, that 
Dionysius, S. Cyril of Hi●r. S. Chrysostom.  the venerable Prelate prays over the Dead, to the End that all his sin's's committed through human frailty may be forgiven him. Say I beseech you, what signifies this remission of sin's obtainable by the Prayers of the Prelate? S. Cyril of Jerusalem Mystag. 5. We make Prayers and offer up the dreadful Sacrifice on the Altar for the Dead, believing it to be a mighty Help for their souls. What can be more plain Popery? S. Chrysostom Hom. 21. in Acta, Alatius quotes the words in his own language, which begin thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. God, saith He, hath laid open to us many ways to salvation. Oblations, 
Oblations and Prayers for the Dead.  Prayers and Alms for the Dead are not things vainly done in their behalf, No, They were instituted by the Holy Ghost, who will's that we endeavour to help one an other. Be most assured the Dead have much profit by our Orisons. The Saint hath more to this purpose in his 41. Hom. upon the first of the Corr. Theodoret (cited by Alatius page 71.) lib. 5. Histor. cap. 36. Tell's us, that Theodosius the younger, lay prostrate at the Relics of S. Chrysostom, praying for the Souls of his deceased Parents Arcadius and Eudoxi●, that God would grant them pardon for their Offences etc. Alatius besides These, citys Theophylact, S. Cyril of Alexandria, Metaphrastes and other Greek Authors. You have the Latin Fathers Largely quoted by Bellarmin supra cap. 10. And their words are so plain for our Doctrine 
The Latin Father's accord also.  (Specially S. Augustine's) that none without violence can draw them to any other sense then what the Church Teaches. Most surely, you will now expect that Sectaries Answer us with like measure, And give in lieu of these Testimonies (briefly hinted at) others as clear and significant for their Opinion. And this They are obliged to, when besides the alleged Authorities, we have an Ample, ancient, and learned Church that speaks in the language of the Fathers, and Teaches the very Doctrine They Deliver. But all is Contrary.  
7. I'll tell you a great Truth, and 'tis worth a serious reflection. Sectaries have not so much as one Ancient Father Greek or Latin, not one Ancient Writer 
Sectaries want of Authors.  reputed Orthodox, not one Council new or old, not one word of Scripture that either Positively and Expressly Denies a Purgatory, or Prayers for the Dead, or the relief we now plead for, afforded them in a place of Punishment. What not one? No. Parallel 
The Parallel.  therefore many with None and you will se what foundations Our Adversaries Novelties Stand on. I say Expressly and Positively, being well acquainted with Sectaries proceeding, as well in this as in other Controversies. 
Sectaries way of Arguing.  Here They will first be upon you with their Negative way of Arguing. We read no such word as Purgatory in the Ancient Fathers. 2. You may have a Company of blind inferences drawn from Scripture and Fathers before the sense of either be Agreed 
They make Deductions from Scripture before the sense of Scripture is known.  on. 3. As far as Conjectures can reach, they will set Glosses enough upon the best Testimonies allegeable out of Scripture or Fathers etc. But mark it, all this while you have Nothing Express, nothing Positive and significant against us. And Do they think that a mere Negative Argument hath force enough to overthrow a Doctrine Positively Professed by a whole Church, and so many Learned Fathers? Can they persuade Themselves that Their Inferences Forced from Scripture or Fathers, are of any validity, whilst the very sense of both lie under Dispute? Take for an instance 
An Instance.  that of S. john Apocal. 14. Blessed are the Dead that Dye in our Lord, Amodo, from hence forth they rest from Their labours. The Question is, what Amodo relates to, whether to the day of every man's Death, or to the last Judgement Day? whether the Scripture speaks there of perfect Souls only, or of others? what is meant by that word labours; For if it signify the sufferances and persecutions of this present life, the Text Proves nothing for our Adversaries. Notwithstanding all these Doubts undecided, Their Inference goes on. And 'tis, that S. john here Excludes all sufferance in Purgatory. Alas, such Deductions are too weak to Oppose 
Weak Deductions.  an Express owned Doctrine all over the world, as is now proved. Yet you have no better from these men. Nothing Express, nothing openly significant Against us.  
8. I touched in the last place on Sectaries Glosses and interpretations, forced on such Testimonies, as are usually cited for our Catholic Faith. And here 
How differently Catholics and Sectaries proceed.  I will briefly Discover not only their Cheat, but moreover show you how differently we and They proceed as well in this present Controversy, as in all other Disputes between us. Observe well, The Truth is thus. When we Produce Scripture, Councils, or Fathers against their Novelties, They make their own Interpretation to be the last and surest Ground whereon 
The Sectary makes the last ground of his Opinion to be his own Explication. The Catholic hath his Religion proved before He Explicates.  Their maintained Opinion ultimately relies. Contrariwise, the Catholic never interpret's Scripture or Fathers alleged by Sectaries, but He ground his Gloss on a surer Principle than his sole Explication reaches to. I will explicate myself more clearly by one Instance. Besides the Authority of our Church, and all other Societies called Christian, we allege (for example) St. Denis his Testimony, St. Chrysostoms', or any other to prove that Prayer for the Dead Avails much for their comfort and remission of sins, that is, for the lessening of the pain due to sin. The Sectary interpret's These and the like passages as his own Fancy suggesteth, And if this Fancy hit not right, He is undone, for He hath no surer Principle to rely on, either in this or any other Controversy, but His own self conceited Gloss. The Reason is: He hath no infallible 
All sure Principles fail Sectaries.  Church, no clear Scripture, no undoubted consent of Fathers, no Universal Tradition distinct from his Gloss that can so much as make it probable. Therefore his own unproved interpretation Doth all; it is his last Principle and Strongest Hold, He never goes Higher, nor can advance one step further. I am so confident of this Assertion, that I challenge our Adversary to come to a just trial in this one Controversy; 
A fair Offer.  And if He can Answer to our Authorities now quoted, upon the Assurance of plain Scripture, undoubted Tradition, or the plain Consent of Fathers, I'll cry Peccavi, and Ask forgiveness of my rashness. Thus they proceed.  
9 On the Other side, when the Catholic interprets Scripture or Fathers alleged by Sectaries against his Faith, He never makes his interpretation to be the 
The last Proof of a Catholic is not his Interpretation.  greatest light or surest Proof of His Doctrine: but most prudently Answers, I am bound to interpret your less clear Authority brought Against me, because, I am Assured Aliunde by the strongest Principles Imaginable (whether my Gloss hit right or no) that my Faith is most certain. Christ's Church tell's me so, Fathers Confirm it, None ever Opposed it but known Heretics. Here, saith the Catholic, are my last 
He hath assured Principles to rely on.  Principles, Upon these I rest, And can you, my Adversary, Imagine that I being so well grounded, Ought to leave my certain Principles for a Dark sentence, or your unproved Conjectures? It is impossible. You will see this more clearly by one Example. The 
An Instance.  Catholic Believes a Purgatory. The Sectary saith His belief is against Scripture. (Wisdom 3. The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God, and no torment shall touch them.) No such matter, Answers the Catholic, for if the word Righteous point at such as are perfectly just and need no Purgatory, your proof is proofles, or if the word Torments particularly signifies (as it doth) a racking or torturing forced on Malefactors, to confess the Truth before a Judge, the Text is wide enough from your purpose; For no such punishment shall touch the just departed. Now mark, 
The Catholics just Demand.  saith the Catholic: Will you, Sir, have me to part from clear and certain Principles whereon my Faith relies for a Scripture, whilst the very sense of that Scripture is at least doubtful and obscure, and therefore may be well explicated without violence no way Contrary to the Doctrine of my Church? It would be a sin (and a great one) against prudence to yield upon so slight a ground. I should make (saith He) an ill bargain, should I (as it were) exchange the sure Principles 
A woeful Exchange of sure Principles for uncertain Glosses.  of my Faith for your uncertain Glosses and you have no more, Though you read the Text now cited till your eyes be weary.  
10. Upon the Occasion now offered, give me leave to Tell you one great Truth, Viz. All of us must (Vnavoidibly) either firmly Adhere to the Doctrine of our Catholic 
A great Verity worthy of Reflection.  Church, in these points of Controversy, Or (may Sectaries Glosses sway with us) we shall be sure to Assent to that which is not only an Heresy, but according to Ordinary Prudence and clear Principles a thousand times more improbable and Difficil. Observe it in our present Controversy▪ Sectaries hold it no improbability to say, That the Souls of good men do not enjoy complete Happiness till the Day of Judgement (Any thing may pass but Popery) yet this very Assertion, if we respect Authority 
The Improbable proceeding of Sectaries.  and reason also (abstracting from Faith) is less probable than our Church Doctrine is. Those quoted Scriptures prove Nothing to this purpose, as we shall show presently; for to find mercy at that great Day, infers not, that all Souls must stay out of Heaven till the second Coming of Christ to judgement. Note the like strain in other Controversies. They will have me to Deny the Infallibility of my Church, and will give me in Place of it their own fallible word, which I am sure cannot Stand in Competition with the sole Humane Authority of my Church. They will have us to deny the Pope's Supremacy, And what Do they enforce on us in lieu of that? Nothing, but Their own jarring heads that agree in Nothing, And these must Teach and Govern us in place of a Pope. They will have me to Disbelieve my Scripture interpreted by the Church, and to believe their Interpretations, who are both Churchles and Scriptureles. Mark well, and judge you, whether that which Sectaries 
They would drive us upon greater Improbabilities.  would Drive us upon, be not in a high measure more improbable and difficile, than what we now believe, and it must needs be so, for, as I told you, the only support of their whole Religion, as Protestancy, is neither Scripture nor the Consent of Fathers, but their own Glosses forced on both, without further warrant. Fellow them closely through all Controversies, you will find I speak Truth. Contrariwise. 
The Catholics Security when He interpret's.  when the Catholic Interpret's, He hath ever at hand a certain Principle distinct from his Interpretation, which is his security; For, saith He, I must either Interpret an Authority when it is Dubious, or desert those Convincing Principles whereon my Faith is grounded, which are without Controversy most certain: But to do so is madness, and a notorious sin against Prudence Thus much by way of a Notandum. 
Our Adversaries Objections.   
11. We come now to Combat a little with our Adversaries Objections, but the Quarrel will not be long; For besides what is refuted Already, and some other Parergons', not much (as I think) to the Purpose, the remainder may be easily dispatched.  
12. He saith first: Nothing ought to be looked on as an Article of Faith among the Fathers, but what They declare, that they believe on the account of Divine Revelation. Mark the word Declare, and see, Sir, what a law you lay on 
A hard Rule given the Fathers.  the Fathers, they must tell their Readers when they writ: My Masters, so much you are to believe on the account of Divine Revelation, and so much not: or if They fail in this Declaration, they may, as you seem to say afterwards, speak only their own fancies and Imaginations. Contra. St. Augustine's writes of Purgatory and holds it, as we shall see presently, But Declares not Explicitly that the Doctrine is of Divine Revelation, nor Explicitly that it is his own fancy. If therefore He Declares neither Explicitly, upon what Principle 
The Argument is retorted.  can you Assert, that he rather makes it a thought of his own fancy, than an Article of Faith. All you say, is: He declares it not to be of Divine Revelation. And I Answer, He Declares it not to be a thought of His own fancy. If then you suppose it to be his Fancy, because He declares it not to be of Divine Revelation, I may as lawfully suppose it to be of Divine Revelation, 
The Mistake.  because He declares it not to be his own fancy. In a word your Principle is a Mistake. For, the Fathers in their Learned Volumes often speak of matters of Faith, yet ever say not expressly it is so, and they often also touch on Opinative Doctrine, yet Cry not always out, This is opinion only. No, but suppose both known by other Principles without their express Declaration. You cite St. Austin in the next page, Asserting in Several places, That all things necessary to be believed are clearly revealed in Scripture. I doubt much of that word clearly, and of the several places too; but this is not 
St. Austin saith expressly there are many things very difficil to be understood in Scripture. de Fide & oper. c. 15. The doubt it of St. Augustine's Assertion, not of Scripture itself. A better Rule. A second Objection.  what I aim at. My Question is, whether St. Austin declares himself plainly in those several places, that His Assertion is of Divine Revelation? If He do not according to your Rule, it is a Thought of his Fancy only, and therefore makes nothing for your purpose. Well after All, here is a better Rule. When the Fathers Deliver a Doctrine Conformable to the Belief of the Universal Church, you may rightly suppose it to be of Divine Revelation, though They Expressly declare not so much in their writings.  
13. You say 2. That cannot be looked on as an Article of Faith to such persons, who express Their Doubts Concerning the Truth of it. But upon our enquiry into the Fathers we shall find (say you) the first Person who seemed to Assert that any Faithful souls passed through a fire of Purgation before the Day of judgement, was St. Austin: But He Delivers his judgement with so much fear and hesitancy, that any one may see He was far from making it an Article of Faith. To prove this hesitancy you quote two Places, de Fide & operibus c. 16. 
St. Austin was not the first that held Purgatory.  And Enchir. c. 69. I Answer first. You have not made a Diligent enquiry into the Fathers, if you think St. Austin was the first that held a fire of Purgation before the day of judgement. The contrary is manifest by the Authorities cited above. I say 2. This Learned 
He delivers no doubtful Doctrine of Purgatory.  Father Delivers no doubtful Judgement of Purgatory; but plainly Asserts it. I say 3. Your two Places prove not that He doubts of it. And to make this clear, you know the whole Drift of St. Austin, both in this 16. Chapter and the precedent, was only to deliver his opinion concerning the sense of the Apostles dark 
St. Augustine's Drift Explicated.  words 1. Cor. 3. And not to Define whether there be a Purgatory or no. This therefore being his main intent, He first rejects the Opinion of others, and Inclines much to the Affirmative, Viz. That the place Proves Purgatory, but not certainly. Hereupon follows what you cite: Sive ergo in hac vita tantum homines 
His words.  ista patiuntur etc. Whether therefore men suffer these things in this life, or such Judgements follow them after this life, non abhorret, quantum arbitror, à ratione veritatis iste Intellectus hujus sententiae. That is in plain English. Such an understanding of this passage is no way, 
He thinks such a punishment is proved by the Text.  as I conceive, contrary to the true meaning of S. Paul's words, which is to say: I think a punishment is proved by this Scripture, either now or hereafter, yet am not certain. And therefore those next words follow; Verumt amen etiamsi est alius qui mihi non occurrit. Yet there may perhaps be another sense of them, which now occurr's not to me 
To doubt of Purgatory and to doubt whether such a Scripture proves it, are different.  etc. Now, Sir, be pleased to reflect. It is one thing to doubt of a Purgatory in itself, and another to Doubt whether it can be well proved out of this place of Scripture. St. Augustine's: Quantum arbitror, or hesitancy, as is manifest by the words, Iste Intellectus hujus Sententiae, And, Etiamsi sit alius etc. makes only His Proof Doubtful, without giving the least hint of any doubt relating to the Doctrine of Purgatory itself. It often falls out in Philosophy and Divinity that a Doctrine is certain, yet some Arguments whereby it is proved are excepted against as proofles, or less valid.  
14. To solve the other place, Enchir c. 69. Note first 
A Principle of St. Austin to be noted.  a Principle of St. Austin, who, as we read Tom. 10. serm. 41. de Sanctis thought that some lesser sins, as too much love of the world and such like, are so usually purged by Tribulation in this world,  in futuro ille ignis Purgatorius, aut non inveniat, aut certè parum inveniat quod exurat, That in the next life the fire of Purgatory will find either Nothing, or very little to punish, But saith the Saint, Si nec in tribulatione etc. If in our Tribulation we neither give God thanks, nor redeem our sins by Good works, Ipsi tamdiu in illo igne Purgatorio moras habebimus. We shall stay in Purgatory till those lesser sins be consumed like Hay and stubble. And by the way note here also what Judgement St. Austin had of Purgatory. 
The Connexion of St. Augustine's words,  In the second place consider well the Connexion of St. Augustine's words in the precedent chap. 68 Quia urit eum rerum dolour etc. Because the Grief he hath for the things he loved, torments him; And what follows cap. 69. Tale aliquid etiam fieri post hanc vitam incredibile non est. It is not incredible that such alike punishment be after this life. What is not incredible? Thus much. 
Solves the Difficulty.  That as some are punished in this life by a present Grief for their too much affection to worldly commodities, so it is not incredible, that some also suffer a torment in the future purging flames upon that account. Et utrum ita sit quaeri potest. And we may inquire, saith He, whether such a particular punishment be found in Purgatory, Viz. That by how much more or less men loved these transitory Goods of the world; Tanto tardius citiusque saluari; So much sooner or later they come to Heaven. Which last words plainly give us St. Augustine's meaning, and prove that He doubted not of Purgatory (for He supposeth 
St. Austin only doubted of one particular punishment  it here) but only calls such a particular pain into Question as is expiatory of lesser faults, because, as I told you, He held These lesser transgressions usually taken away by sufferances endured in this life. Conclude therefore, unless this Inference be Good, St. Austin doubted whether some faults were punished in Purgatory; 
The Testimony shown forceles against us.  Ergo He thought none were Expiated there, which is not probable, The alleged Testimony is of no force against us, yet proves that you read not St. Austin too well. Now if you say my Gloss upon this Authority is not certain: I answer, No more will yours be, when you have Interpreted all you can. Therefore neither of us yet come to a certain Principle, And consequently, you must produce a far clearer Authority before you Ask again, whether any man in his wits can think that St. Austin spoke this of a matter of Faith, Supposing all sure for your Interpretation, which to me, And I think to others also that know Latin and sense, will not appear probable. It is not my Task to quote 
A parallel of clear and doubtful passages.  here at large those most clear Testimonies of St. Austin for our Catholic Verity, yet I'll give you one, And wish you to parallel that with all your dubious places, lib. 2. de Genesi contra Manichaeos' cap▪ 20. fine. Those books are of undoubted Authority. Qui fortè agrum suum non coluerit etc. He that Cultivates not his 
Sectaries ever suppose mere dubious Testimonies to have more force, then most clear ones, and the judgement of a whole Church.  Field, but suffers it to be overgrown with thorns▪ hath a Curs on him in all He doth in this life. Et post hanc vitam habebit, vel ignem Purgati●nis, vel penal aeternam. And after this life shall either have a Purgatory, or suffer pain for ever. Thus the Doctor. And every man in his wits (it's your own phrase) cannot but think he spoke of a matter of Faith, when his Doctrine agrees with the Belief of a whole Church. See more lib. 21. de Civit. c. 16. Where He speaks of a Purging torment after Death, as also in Psal. 37. But enough of this point.  
15. You say 3. Where Any of the Fathers build any Doctrine upon the sense of doubtful places of Scripture, we have no further reason to believe that Doctrine, than we have to 
Two Propositions more unproved.  believe, that it is the meaning of those places. So that in this case the enquiry is taken off from the judgement of the Fathers, and fixed upon the sense of Scriptures, which They and we both rely on. And you give this reason. For since the Fathers pretend to no greater Evidence of the Truth of the Doctrine, than such places do afford: it is the greatest reason, that the argument to persuade us be not the testimony of the Father, but the Evidence of the place itself. Answ. If here be not a piece of most 
Confused Doctrine.  confused Learning, I never read any. Observe well your own propositions as they lie in order. First the Fathers are supposed to build a Doctrine upon the sense of doubtful Scripture; and than you say, you have no further reason to believe that Doctrine, than you have to believe that it is the meaning of those places. Very Good. But I ask, by what light can you better come to the true meaning of a doubtful place of Scripture, than the Fathers Did? If the meaning was 
How Sectaries may wrong both Scripture and Fathers.  doubtful to them, it is as doubtful to you; And if that sense which you draw out of a doubtful place be contrary to the Fathers, you wrong both Them and the Text; Them, because you Oppose their judgement upon a mere uncertainty; The Text, because you will make it speak your sense which it doth not certainly, for it is doubtful to you. Perhaps you'll say, When the sense is doubtful, Neither you nor the Fathers can tell what to make of it, and Therefore without further enquiry it will be best to let it alone, and remain in its obscurity. May this Doctrine pass: you need not to believe a great part of Scripture, for it is very obscure. 
They cannot contradict the Father's explicating a doubtful place.  2. You are bound in Conscience never to contradict the Father's interpreting a doubtful passage, For (and it is very good reason) if you will have the Father's silent in such a case, you are to hold your Peace, and to say nothing against them. Your second Proposition. In this case, the enquiry is taken off from the judgement of the Fathers, and fixed upon the sense of Scripture, which they and we both rely on, Seems not to be too full of sense: For most assuredly, when the Fathers explicate a dubious passage, Their judgement tends to declare the hidden sense of it. Why therefore will 
No sure fixing on a doubtful sense.  you take their judgement off from such a●sense, and put yours in room of it? Or to what purpose do you talk here of Fixing upon the sense, when a place is dubious, and neither Church nor Fathers must be believed? What is your Fixing good for, when you suppose the thing you Fix on to be doubtful, and your felves Fallible? If you say you must come to a certainty of the sense by Tradition or some other way, know that the Church and Fathers had better reason to be acquainted with such lights, than any Sectary can have. In a word. A doubtful place remaining still doubtful, or dubioufly explicated can never beget a certain belief in you or any: Yet we say, when the Church of Christ and Fathers also agree in an Explication 
When the Church and Fathers interpret, all doubt ceaseth.  the doubt ceaseth, and the delivered sense is most certain. In your reason, For since. They etc. you leap from the sense of a Doubtful passage to the Evidence of the place itself, which seems not pertinent: For what hath Evidence to do here, when your Discourse is only of a doubtful sense? When a place is evident we see that as well as you, And have with it the sentiment of a whole Church, and Consent of Fathers also.  
16. You say 4. (After some Talk of two Reverend Primates which I much heed not) That St. Ambrose and others prayed for the Blessed in Heaven, Ergo Orisons 
Old Objections renewed to no purpose.  for the Dead prove not a Purgatory. I wonder you weary men's Ears again, with such old worn-out Objections. You, or your Brethren have been told many and many a time, that no Father, no Church 
The Church prays not for the Saints in Heaven to be released from temporal pain, or to have sins remitted.  Greek or Latin ever prayed that the Saints in Heaven may be freed from any temporal pain, or for the Remission of sins; yet not only the Fathers, but these Churches also pray for both, and such a prayer Evidently proves a Purgatory. Bellarmin cited cap. 9 n. Neque videtur, tell's you, St. Ambrose hoped well of Theodosius, and Therefore rejoiced in his behalf; yet because He was not certain of his possessing happiness, He prayed for him. And the like practice is yet in the Church, when men of great virtue departed this life. We pray for them if they stand in need, though we verily think they need no prayer. You know what distinction St. Austin makes Serm. 17. de verbis Apost. between Martyrs and others. Pro caeteris defunctis, saith He, Oratur, We pray for the faithful souls departed, but not for Martyrs. Injuria est enim etc. For it is a wrong to pray for a Martyr Cujus nos debemus orationibus commendari, to whose prayers 
St. Augustine's Distinction between Martyrs and others.  we are to commend ourselves. This had not been well spoken, had St. Austin thought that the Blessed in Heaven need our prayers as much as others do. If you desire more of this subject, or would know, how the Greek Church prays for Saints, read Leo Alatius de Consens. page 105. n. 15. where He taxes his Adversary 
Alatius.  of more than Childish ignorance in the Greek Affairs, because he thought the Ancient Church interceded for 
How the Greek Church prays for Saints.  Saints just as it Did for others. No such matter, saith Alatius. Tormentorum ac poenarum nulla est mentio etc. That Church in her Orisons for Saints makes no mention of any releasement from pain and torment, but prays that the Sacrifice offered up to God may be to his glory in the name of those Blessed for the celestial gifts of Grace bestowed on them: Or, that God may receive most large and ample thanks from them for the great glory they enjoy, Wherefore St. Austin in Enchir. c. 110. speaks 
St. Austin is conformable.  properly. Pro valdè Sanctis gratiarum actiones sunt, Thanksgiving is for great Saints. Alatius moreover citys not only the Orthodox Greek Fathers, St. Dionysius, St. Epiphanius, 
The Sentiment of the Greek Fathers. An Objection.  St. Chrysostom; but also later Authors as Manuel Caleca, yea and those of the Schism very pertinently to this purpose. Some perhaps will say: We may pray as well for our Saviour as for Saints, if the supplications for them to be nothing else but a giving of thanks and offering up of such a Sacrifice as is now explicated. If any one, I say, cavil thus. St. Epiphanius contra Aërium, presently after those words 
St. Epiphanius answers the Difficulty.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. We make a commemoratiom of the just, craving the mercy of God for sinners etc. Answers the Difficulty, And saith we are to separate our Lord jesus Christ from the order of other men, because of the special honour and worship due to him, knowing that he is both God and man, and therefore cannot be ranked with other mortals, though most high in glory. Whence it is, we 
No prayer made for Christ, but to him.  pray not for Christ no more than for God, because of his supreme Excellency and Dignity above all other whether Saints or Angels, but offer up to him a Sacrifice of thanksgiving as also to his eternal Father and the Holy Ghost, as Bellarmin now cited well observes n. Separamus.  
17. You say 5. The supplications of the Church for the Dead respected mercy and forgiveness to be showed the just at the day of Judgement, and consequently were intended for God's final Justification of them by his sentence at that great Assembly. To prove this you cite many places of Holy Scripture, 2. Tim. 1. 16. 1. Cor. 1. 8. etc. Answer. The Church in the Mass for the Dead, whilst she represents the terror of that 
The Church speaks conformably to Scripture.  dreadful Judgement, speaks most Conformably to the sense of these Scriptures; And, as if that Day were to be the first Trial, doth not only make her Children Solicitous (Quid sum miser etc. What then miserable men shall I say? What Patron shall I ask for? When the just will hardly be secure;) But moreover teaches them to petition for mercy. Ne me perdas. Destroy me not in that Day, call me with the Blessed etc. Yet, this Inference is not Good. The Church and Scripture speak of mercy and forgiveness to be found at the day of judgement. Ergo there 
How the Supplications of the Church respect the judgement Day.  is no third place of punishment wherein mercy is showed before judgement. I say therefore the Supplications of the Church for mercy at the day of Judgement respect the Mercies Don us before hand, when we are released from the pains of Purgatory, and supra Condignum, receive a crown of glory above our Deserts. And in this sense I understand St. Austin lib. 9 Conf. c. 11. We etiam laudabili vitae etc. Woe be to the worthy commendable life of man, if you, O God, remove pity and discuss it too severely. On the other side. The Supplications for these intermedial mercies have a necessary reference to the Judgement Day really obtained before; but when the Judge 
Mercy shown the just will be publicly declared at the day of judgement.  sits, They will be publicly Declared, and made known before God and the whole world, to the confusion of the wicked, and the Eternal comfort of the Just, Who may say with joyful hearts: Misericordias Domini etc. We will sing the Mercies of our Lord for Ever. And Sectaries cannot Deny this Doctrine, For do not they hold that God, through the merits of Christ, 
Sectaries cannot Deny this Doctrine.  pardons the guilt of sin, and takes off all punishment from the Elect before they Die? What Forgiveness is there then anew to be Expected for them at the Day of Judgement, when both sin and punishment are antecedently remitted? Yet more. Suppose that the souls of just men do not enjoy a complete felicity before the great Day, I ask whether They sit in that state with their sins on their Consciences, or without them? If They remain in sin, all sins being mortal with Sectaries, 
No pardon can be expected at the judgement day for mortal sins.  they shall never be pardoned for the future: if without all sin, They need neither forgiveness nor pardon at the general Day, But only a publication, a confirmation of that mercy as is now explicated.  
18. You say 6. Since we Confess that many of the Fathers held erroneous opinions concerning the State of the Dead, We ought not to press you with their Testimonies. Answer. We go not about it, but 
Sectaries are to look to their own Errors.  urge you to prove your erroneous Opinion Contrary to the greatest part of Fathers, and all Church Doctrine. And you are to do this not by talk, but by solid proofs and Principles. To what you add on your own head, that none of the Fathers hit upon a State of Purgation till S. Augustine's time, I have answered, and proved it to be a flat Calumny. Again, whereas you say, the Apparitions and Visions of souls departed are only pretended, and not real, Contrary to received History, 
Apparitions of souls too slightly rejected.  we expect a stronger proof for the Assertion than your Word is, which is worthless, and most unmeet to make all null that has been writ of these Apparitions.  
19 In the last place you come to examine the Testimonies of Some Fathers made to speak as you would have them. But Bellarmin before you were born, 
Bellarmin, Leo Alatius.  and Leo Alatius more lately have Answered, and proved all you say to be Proofles. I'll here only take Notice of your less can did proceeding, where S. Cyprian Ad Antonianum de Cornelio & Novatiano is quoted for Purgatory: Aliud est ad veniam etc. Aliud missum in carcerem etc. It is one thing to stay for pardon, and another to 
S. Cyprian words.  come presently to Glory. It is one thing to be cast into prison, and not to come out thence till you have paid the last farthing etc. The Words, you know, are the same with those of Scripture, whereby Catholics, following the Interpretation of Fathers, endeavour to prove Purgatory. Now you Tell us, S. Cyprian speaks here of the Severities of Penance, which the lapsed Persons underwent in order to Pardon, and no doubt, as is easily gathered by the Context, His Epistle treats mainly on that subject; But, that occasionally He spoke not of Purgatory, or That this matter was wholly unthought of in this place, is more then either you or any can make probable. You say Rigaltius and Gabriel Albaspinaeus 
Rigalt, and Albasp. deny not the obvious sense of S. Cyprians words.  understand the Passage of Pennances suffered in this life. Be it so. Neither of them excludes the other sense which the words bear and most properly. The intent of these Authors was to Declare that whereof St. Cyprian Chief Discourses, and not to meddle  every point of Doctrine occasionally touched on. Be it how you will, your Argument barely Negative: (Rigaltius and Albaspinaeus apply not this place to Purgatory, Ergo they thought it proved not Purgatory) is forceles, whilst others Positively judge the contrary. And here I must complain a little. Sir, why Do you, who pretend to Dissemble nothing that makes for our Advantage, slipped over so silently jacobus Pamelius his notes upon these words. Aliud missum 
Proofs Dissembled.  etc. where He saith. Mirè facit hic locus ad Confirmandam Ecclesiae Traditionem de Purgatorio etc. The place of S. Cyprian makes Marvellously well for Purgatory: And so the most Reverend Bishop Martinus Peresius Ayala before me observed very rightly. Thus Pamelius, whose Positive and Express Authority quite Outweighs your bare Negative, And argues you of some little Dissimulation. But,  
20. I must end, and tell you a great Truth. What ever you can Allege in this matter is either purely Negative, or worth Nothing. We have the Authority of a Learned Church for our Doctrine. You have 
Proofs Compared.  none for yours. We have the express Testimonies of Innumerable Ancient Fathers, you have not one that expressly Denies Purgatory. Admit (which is untrue) St. Austin to have been the first that asserted our Doctrine, you have none so Ancient and learned as He that positively Contradicts it, No, nor one less learned. What then have you for your Novelty? bare Conjectures, uncertain Authorities, unproved interpretations of certain ones against you which are ever more obscure and weaker than the Text is which you Interpret. In a word you have Fancy and (Though you take it ill, I must speak truth) it is the sole foundation of your whole Religion. And because I say so much, I shall endeavour to prove it further, which will be best done by examining One other Controversy.   

CHAP. V.  
An Objection Proposed, and Solved in A Discourse of Another Controversy.  
1. SOme Perhaps may Think We 'Slight our Adversaries too much, And Tell them too often of Fancy, of their Unreasonableness, and Grounding nothing on certain Principles. For who can doubt, but that in most Controversies now on Foot, They s●em to say Some thing Which Tends as well to the Establishment of their Own, as To the weakening of our Catholic Doctrine; Therefore, we do ill in Treating them so Uncivilly As if all They said were Fancy, Weightles, and insignificant. To answer this Difficulty home it 
If Sectaries think Their cause rationally Defended.  would be Necessary, To run over All the Disputed Controversies between us, And to show their weak Ground in every particular matter of Difference. But this is not Suitable now, nor can be Complied with, when you see a Treatise Grown to long Already.  
2. Yet to satisfy the Reader, I will briefly Touch 
The Decision of one Difficulty will show Their error.  on one Controversy more (it may serve as an Instance for Many) which hath been matter of Contention these last Hundred Years. In a word: It is, That too long Debated Question concerning the Real Presence of Christ our Lord in the holy Eucharist. And to Gain what time we can, it will be best to Wave a Needles Stating of the Question; For, all know what Catholics Believe of this Mystery, and Sectaries Do not, what Those Affirm, and These Deny.  
3. Now in Handling this Matter, We might Proceed 
Two ways in handling this Question of the Blessed Sacrament.  two Different Ways, And first, not only Bring to Light again the large Testimonies of Scripture, Councils, and Fathers in Behalf of our Catholic Verity; But also draw Arguments at length from their clear Expressions, for a greater Evidence of Truth: But This would be Actum agere, to Do what Hath been often Don by Others and very completely. The other way is Shorter, which Supposeth these Authorities 
We follow the Shorter way.  Faithfully Quoted by our Catholic Writers: You Have them largely in Bellarmin, Through every Age since Christ, lib. 2. de Euchar. cap. 1. usque ad 29. Exclusive; And if the Reader know not Latin, He may find most of them, in that Excellent English book called, A Disputation of the Church, by E. S. F. Printed at Douai 1640. Chief in His 5. Book c. 6. Sectaries Acknowledge these Authorities, whereat I shall briefly 
Sectaries cannot doubt of the Authorities here supposed.  hint Hereafter. So far Therefore, There can be no Difficulty; The only Strife will be How They'll come off in their Answers, And, Whether They are able to Satisfy Two or Three Arguments, Which I shall Propose upon most grounded Suppositions. If I be not much Deceived, We shall see how Fancy all along, or something worse, upholds Their new Opinion. You must here Expect plain Language, For Truth is never better seen, Then when plain Words set it forth.  
4. To proceed clearly. We may first Suppose, 
Two necessary Suppositions.  That as God hath Certainly Revealed the Truth of this Mystery of the Blessed Sacrament in Holy Scripture, so He hath also Taught us, What we are Truly to Believe concerning it. We Suppose 2. That his real Intention, was, and is, That we stand to his Word, and Believe Him as he Speaks, Unless, we can Learn by some clear and Undoubted Principle, That he spoke Reservedly, or, That his words bear another Sense then what they plainly Signify. Upon these Suppositions I Argue. When God Reveals a Truth in Holy 
A clear Argument Proposed against Sectaries.  Scripture, which concerns the General Belief of all, And really Intends to Teach Christians what▪ They are to Believe of that Revealed Truth: He cannot Deliver more significantly, clearly, and expressly, that Doctrine which He would not have Christians to Believe, Then He Doth the Doctrine which He Would have them to Believe: For, if He did so, (whilst We cannot Learn by any known Principle, That He speaks otherwise then He Thinks) He would not only Equivocate, and Deal reservedly with us in a Weighty matter of Faith (And this as Ill beseem's his Goodness as to Speak an Untruth) 
God in a weighty Matter of Faith cannot deliver more clearly that Doctrine, which He would not have Christians to Believe. Then he Doth the other which He would have them to believe. If God cannot make a falls Religion more credible to Reason by outward Motives, Then his true Religion is, He cannot deliver an error not to be Believed in more plain and significant words, than he useth when he speaks a Truth, to be believed by All.  But more; if we Rely on Scripture only, He would Induce the whole world to Believe a Falsity. Now I Subsume. But, it is most Evident, (if Sectaries Say right) That God, in speaking of this Mystery, Delivers that Doctrine more clearly, And significantly, Which He would not have Christians to Believe, Then He doth the other, which He would Have them to Believe, And, there is no Imaginable Principle, whereby we can learn that he Spoke otherwise then He Thought, or his plain Words Signify, Therefore he speaks not only Equivocally, and Reservedly in a weighty matter of Faith (which is Always to be Reflected on) But, He Induceth also the whole Christian World, if Scripture guide us, to Believe a Falsity by His too plain Speaking.  
5. Before I prove the Minor, And give you this Clearer Language of Almighty God, For what He will not Have us to Believe etc. Be pleased to call to mind, one Truth Explicated more largely Disc. 1. cap. 8. For it is the Ground of my Present Discourse. Upon that Principle therefore, I say now Again. As God cannot (if True Faith be in the world) make a Falls Religion more Prudently Credible to Reason by the force of rational Motives, Then His True Religion is Evidenced and made Credible (For, if he did so, He would oblige Reason to Embrace a Falsity, and Desert Truth) So also, when He Delivers a Doctrine Concerning Christian Faith (And, in the most serious Circumstances imaginable) He cannot Deliver an Error in more Emphatical and Plainer words Than He speaks a Truth, which yet, You Shall see, is Don, if Sectaries be Believed. The Parity Holds Exactly, For, As those more Persuasive Motives, Antecedent to Belief, whereby we are, as it were, summoned 
The parity holds exactly.  to settle our Faith right, Would, If They Countenanced a Falso Religion Prudently Induce Rational men to embrace that, and Leave the Discountenanced true Religion, so, This very clearer Language of God Whereon our Faith immediately Relies, Would Also, if it be more Express and Significant For Error, than Truth, Force All to Embrace the Error and Abandon Truth, Because the Error is most significantly Expressed in Holy Writ, And the Truth not at All: And This is Don, when there is no excogitable Grounded Principle to 
Fancy, or the bare words of Sectaries cannot work out of a Christians Hart the open sense of Christ's words. How Christ speaks, and what Catholics Believe.  Draw us of the supposed Error, if we be Beguiled, or, to work this supposed Falsity out of our Hearts, But the mere Fancy, And the bare Word of a few Sectaries, who say we are Deceived.  
6. Now to prove the Minor, And Demonstrate that God delivers more Fully, and significantly the Doctrine, Which He would not have Christian● to Believe, than he doth the other: Ponder these two things. First, what Eternal Truth Speaks in this Matter, And we Catholics Believe. 2. What Sectaries say He speaks, And They Believe. These are Christ's words. This is my Body. This is my Body, Which is Given for you. This is my Blood of the new Testament that shall be Shed for many. Take heed, say Sectaries, Read warily, These words 
Sectaries must say, That Christ's words taken in their plain literal sense are falls.  Taken in Their Plain, literal, and most Obvious sense are Falso, and Therefore Express not the Doctrine we are to Believe. Again Christ Speaks Thus. This is the Chalice of the new Testament in my blood, which (Chalice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) is, or shall be Shed for you. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. No such Matter, say Sectaries, This is not the Doctrine we are to Believe, For, these words Understood in Their Plain Obvious sense are Fals. That Chalice Shed For us, was not his blood, But wine of the grape. We eat not the flesh of the Son of man, nor drink his Blood, But, only eat Baker's Bread, and Drink Natural wine. 
Sectaries make the contrary Proposition to Christ's words, True.  His flesh is not really meat, nor His blood Drink. Observe I pray you: Sectaries so Abhor The plain and Proper Sense of Christ's own Words, that they make the contradictory Proposition to Him, Absolutely True in Every Particular, And his Falso; Therefore they must at least confess, that he Speaks too clearly and expressly that Doctrine, which They say we ought not to Believe; Otherwise, Why do They not Admit of his Words in Their open, and most candid Signification?  
7. Shall we next Consider, what Sectaries Believe of this Mystery, and withal Learn, whether Christ Delivers as plainly Their Doctrine in Scripture, As ours? 
Sectaries Faith▪ of this Mystery.  Hear Their Profession of Faith: We Believe, Say They, That, that which Christ gave to his Disciples was Natural Bread, Deputed to a Holy Use, And no More: We Believe it to be a Sign Only, a Figure Only, a Seal, a Token, a Type Only of Christ's Body, That is, We Believe, it to be His Body by Resemblance, Symbolically, Tropically, Metonymically and Significantly, Which is to Say, it Hath the 
Scripture, no where calls that which Christ gave his Disciples Natural Bread, or a Sign only of his Body.  name of Christ's Body, But Really is no such Thing. And is This your Belief? Yes. Out with your Bible Therefore, And Show me as Many clear Texts of Holy Writ, where, That which Christ gave to His Disciples in his last Supper, is called Natural Bread, a Sign Only, a Figure, Token or Type only of his Body, (For, This is the Doctrine, you say, we ought to Believe) As I have now Quoted for the Contrary, where it is called Christ Body and Blood: Though you Suppose This to be the Doctrine We must not Believe. Believe it. These expressions. This is my Body which is given for you. This 
The words of our Saviour are plain and most Significant.  is the Chalice in my Blood, which shall be shed for you, are most Open And Significant Language. Answer Me with Other Texts as Significant For your Faith, or to this Sense. This is not my Body, But a Sign Only of my Body, which is given For you. Speak Plainly, was it a Sign, or a Figure Only of Christ, That He, blessed Lord, Sacrificed on the Cross? Was it a Sign or Figure only of Him, That Judas Betrayed, or that Suffered For our sins? No. It was his 
judas betrayed not a sign of Christ Body, but Christ himself.  very real Body, and this Body Truth that cannot Err, saith He gave to his Disciples. Once more, (I have right to Demand) Give me Text for Text, or Cast your Scriptures in a Pair of Scales for a Trope, Figure, and Sign Only, and Lay mine now Quoted By Them, for the Reality of Christ's Body Present, And Let that Side of the Balance Fall, where you find most Weight of God's Word, You will soon Perceive, 
Nothing in Scripture of signs and figures only.  How Light your Heresy is, Compared with Truth; And that without further Dispute, it Flies up to Fancy: For, There is not in the whole Bible, so much as one Syllable of these Signs Only, of these Figures, of these Metonymies, or any such Language.  
8. We see Moreover. If Sectaries Speak Truth, The Conclusion Falls on Them with a greater Weight, than They Imagined. For it Follows. That Christ our Lord Hath not only Spoken more Significantly and Expressly the Doctrine He would not have to be Believed, Then the other, which, They say, is to be Believed; But also, That He obligeth us to Believe a 
Sectaries would have us to believe a Docttin contrary to express Scripture.  Doctrine, And by force of Scripture, Which Clear Scripture is so far from Expressing, That it Expressly Teaches the Contrary to what They Say, All Ought to Believe. I might yet Propose this Argument in other Terms, and Perhaps with greater Force after this Manner. If Christ Delivered that Doctrine more Plainly 
The Argument is proposed in other Terms.  which Sectaries Suppose to be Falls, and Less clearly, Yea, not at All; The contrary Doctrine, which They Suppose to be True, They, who ground All Their Belief on Scripture, must either Interpret the plainer Scripture by the more Obscure, yes (and I say) by no Scripture at All, And this is pure Fancy; Or, will be forced, not so much to Misinterpret, as plainly to Deny the Obvious and Open Sense of Christ's own Words, And This is worse than Fancy. And here by 
If by a supposed impossibility Catholics were deceived in Their Faith.  the way you may gather. 3. If Catholics, who Believe the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, Be Deceived in their Faith, They may, without Blame, Impute the Error to no other cause But to the plain Speaking of our Saviour, and most Justly say: Si error est quem credimus, à te decepti sumus. If we are Deceived, 'Tis you, Blessed Lord, who have done it. You Tell 
They might justly blame Christ's plain words.  us. This is my Body, which is given for you. This is my Blood shed for many etc. You never uttered the least syllable in your Scripture of a Sign Only, of a Trope, Figure or symbol Only. Say therefore, most imparrial Judge, Wherein are we guilty, whilst We Expressly Believe what you 
To say that Christ beguil's us, or that we are beguiled by him, is Blasphemy.  Expressly Teach, And Reject a Novelty, which None But Heretics Brought into the World? To Affirm, that Christ intended to Beguile us by his too Plain Speaking of this Mystery, is open Blasphemy: And to Say we are beguiled by him, is no Less An Impiety. 
The Answer, if Sectaries pretend, we do not anderstand Christ's words.   
9 All that Sectaries can Pretend for Their Cause Against this Discourse, is, That we yet Arrive not to the True meaning of Christ's sacred Words And Therefore They are ready to Teach us. Very Good. We are content to learn what is Truth. But Before they Begin Their Teaching, it will be best for Them To Reflect, that we have here a Proposition: This is my Body etc. And because Christ Delivered It, 'Tis most True. Therefore, we have a Subject also, This, (school terms are necessary in the present occasion) we have a copula EST, IS, And a Predicate, or Attribute, My Body. Now, If our Adversaries will Vouchsafe to Teach, Let Them first Please to Give us Plainly, the Total Object of Christ's Proposition, And Say what that 
The total Object of Christ's Proposition it to be declared.  Predicate was, which He then Connected with the Subject HOC, or THIS. Did He say natural Bread, remaining bread, was his Body? No, 'Tis most Fals. Did he say by an Identical Enunciation. His Body was his Body? No. Did He Say, that what He pointed at, was, By the Energy of his Words, made Really his Body? No, it is too plain Popery, and Christ, Say they, never Spoke it. How then shall we Learn what he truly Asserted, or find a Subject, Copula, 
Sectaries can find no Truth in the proposition, unless they first abuse his sacred words.  and Predicate in this Proposition? They Answer (And here is their best Instruction) it is Impossible to find either Truth, or these three Things in it, Unless They first Abuse the Words And Say, Hoc est: Here Sits Christ's Body, or, That this Bread, Per commumunicationem Idiomatum, is Christ's Body, or, That this Bread was made a natural Body by the Omnipotent Word of Christ, or, Finally Say, (To Omit other Glosses, And This sense best Pleaseth Modern Sectaries) That the Word, Est, Imports not, Is, or any Identity between Hoc, and Corpus, But Renders an other Sense, and only Avails as much, As if you said, Significat, This Signifies Christ's Body. Read therefore the Gospel thus. This is my Body; id est: This Natural bread Signifies, or, is a Sign, a Figure of my Body, And we are Right, We have the Genuine Sense of his Proposition. Thus they Teach us.  
10. Here you shall see a Powerful work of Fancy, 
A work of Fancy, And a mighty injury done to Christ.  And the Greatest Wrong Don, I think, to Christ, that ever entered into a Christians Hart. To lay open This sin of Sectaries, I will not Insist much on their High Contempt of These sacred Words, Which, in a vulgar and Obvious Sense are as Falls, as if I should now say, Holding a Paper in my Hands, This is my Body: But This I must urge to their Confusion, And wish All to tak● Notice of it. If the Interpretation now made of the Proposition be true Doctrine, it Evidently Follows, That Christ spoke so contrary to his 
Sectaries must say, that Christ beguiled the whole Orthodox Christian world by the most Serious words he ever spoken.  mind, That He Hath beguiled the whole Orthodox Christian World By the most serious Words He ever uttered in this Mortal Life. I'll show you how, Christ, say Sectaries, Before He spoke those words. This is my Body etc. Had only this internal Act or Judgement in his mind. That which I will now give to my Disciples, Shall be nothing but Bread only, or a bare Sign and Figure of my Body (for Sectaries Suppose He never intended to make bread his Body) yet hear how They make Christ to speak. As it were, contrary to his Thought, I will, Saith Eternal Truth, Though I know That, that shall be Bread only which I am to give my Disciples, 
Mark the injury. They make Christ to say, That was his Body which really was not. Three Things Evident in the Principles of Sectaries. The first that Christ spoke improperly. The second that in the Moment He spoke He Foresaw a universal pretended Error would follow in all Orthodox Churches. The Third, that this universal pretended Error would proceed from no other 'Cause but from his improper speaking. All Churches Orthodox believed the Real presence.  So Unluckily Express myself by Outward Words, as to Miscall the Sign by the name of the Thing Signified and Avouch that to be my Body, which Really shall not be my Body. But is here all? No. Christ intended more in these men's Opinion, and Said in Effect thus much. Though I now Foresee, That an universal Error will Fellow Through all the reputed Orthodox Churches of Christendom, upon my Dark and Improper Language, yet I will speak, as I do Obscurely, And Beguile Them (I know all will be Beguiled) Because all will Mistake my Meaning And Believe That to be my Body, which Really is not. Thus I foresee They will err, And the very Emphasis of my words will Cause this (now pretended) Universal Error among Them. Therefore They cannot But leave off to be Orthodox; For, a Church Erring in so Weighty a Matter, Or, That Adores a Piece of bread for God, is Absolutely Vnorthodox, and Hideously Fals. Sectaries, you see, grant, that Christ spoke thus Darkly, And, that by Doing so, He hath Drawn all the Reputed true Churches on earth into This Persuasion, is a most Evident Truth; For, there was never Any Church Acknowledged True in the world, But such as literally Understood his Proposition in its Plain and obvious Sense, And, consequently All Churches Believed the Real Presence of his sacred Body, in the holy Eucharist, Though Sectaries say all Erred in that Belief. I Say All, for so Lanfrancus Speaks in his last book against Berengarius. Omnes qui Christianos se & esse & dici laetantur. All, who are Glad of the Reality and Name of Christians, Glory in this, That they Receive in the Sacrament the True Flesh and Blood of Christ, which was born of the Virgin. Ask of all, whether Grecians, Armenians or of what other Nation soever, Vno ore hanc fidem se testantur habere. All of Them, with unanimous consent, openly Witness, That they have this Faith. Now, if our Adversaries 'Slight so Worthy an Author, let them produce but one as Ancient and learned as Lanfrancus was, That saith as much for the owning of Their novelty of a Trope, Sign, Figure only etc. And I will be Satisfied.  
11. And Here we come to the last Trial of our Sectaries Cause, Which is to show you the High Improbability of their new Fancied Opinion. And therefore we are in the next Place, to Drive Them of All possible Ground to stand on, And Demonstrate That 
The last Trial of our Sectaries cause, which is to lay Forth the improbability of their new Opinion.  They have not so much as a likelihood of any undoubted Principle, whereby, we may Learn, That Christ our Lord Spoke improperly in the Passages now Quoted, or, That his Words have any other Sense then what they Expressly Signify, Which is our Catholic Doctrine.   

CHAP. VI  
Sectaries without either Proofs or Principles, Wrist Christ's Words to an Improper Sense, And vent an Heresy upon mere Fancy.  
1. NOte first, when Christ our Lord said: This is my body etc. And used the like, or more significant Expressions (Registered by the other Evangelists) He did not only Institute the Noblest of Sacraments, But made also his Will and Testament, He Published a Law, 
The Nature of a noble Sacrament, Christ's own will, a Dogmatical Verity.  gave a Command: Hoc facite, Do this. At least, all Acknowledge, That He Delivered a Dogmatical Verity Concerning our Christian Faith, And did This in such grave Circumstances, And to such Persons (His own Dear Disciples) That the Time, Place, and Persons to whom He Spoke, Required no Dark, But most Plain and Proper Language. As therefore no Man makes his last 
And other grave circumstances require plain and proper Language.  Will, Publisheth a Law, Lays an Express Command on any, or Delivers a Truth which All are to Learn Under Tropes, Figures, Metonymies, or such Obscurities (Thief have place in the Dark Speaking of Prophets, and serve well to set forth an Oration) But contrariwise, in obvious Vulgar, and Intelligible Words: So much Less can it be Supposed (when Christ our Lord spoke of these Serious Matters) That He Delivered his Mind in Obscure Metaphors, Tropes, or any such Expressions: Unless, as I noted above, We certainly Knew by more 
Christ could not speak so obscurely of this Mystery without clearing all in other passages of Holy writ.  plain Scripture, Then our Saviour's words are now cited, That, Though He beguile us Here, with Tropes, and Metaphors, Yet in other Passages of Holy Writ, He clears all These dark Expressions by a contrary language, And Speaks more Significantly for these Signs of Sectaries Than He doth for our Catholic Doctrine. Unless, I say, such Texts be at Hand Nothing can Force us from that Express Sense, which the Gospel most Significantly Deliver's, concerning this Mystery.  
2. Note 2. Sectaries Advance their Cause nothing at all, when They tell us that the word, EST, sometimes 
Though the particle Est in some Propositions may be Interpreted, it Signifies.  Imports as much as if We said (Signifies) As when you see a Picture of Caesar on a wall, and Say: This is Caesar. The seed is (Signifies) the Word of God etc. Can this be proved, it is not enough, More is required; for They are Obliged to Show, And by an undeniable Principle (if my Faith Rely on their Gloss) 
That's not enough, Sectaries are to Prove it Bears that Sense here An Instance.  That the Word EST in our Saviour's Proposition hath determinately that Sense, and no Other. You know Scripture saith. Hic est filius meus dilectus. This is my beloved son etc. Now, no Man can Infer Because EST, sometimes is Rendered (Signifies) That Here, it loses its Proper sense, And only Avails as much, as if you Said: Christ only Signifies, or, is not otherwise the Son of his Father, Then a material Picture Hanged on a Wall is a Sign, or Figure of the Prototypon, This cannot be admitted of, Unless, I say, a Stronger Principle (which is Impossible) Force us to Approve of such an Heretical sense. And thus We Discourse in our Present Matter.  
3. Note 3. All the Principles which can be Thought on, to Force Catholics from the Received Sense of Christ's Own Words, or, to Favour our Adversaries Cause, must be Reduced to one of these Heads. To 
No known Principle upholds the Doctrine of Sectaries.  Plain speaking Scripture. To Universal Tradition. To the Catholic sense of Christ's Orthodox Church in former Ages, or, Finally to the General Consent of Fathers. If none of these Principles Uphold Protestants Doctrine, it Falls of itself, And wholly Relies on Fancy. Thus much supposed.  
4. Here is my Proposition, and an Inference also. 
A Proposition against Sectaries.  Sectaries cannot by virtue of any one of these now Named Principles, Withdraw Catholics from the Plain Received Sense of Christ's Words. They cannot Prove that EST, in our Saviour's Affirmation, Imports only as much, as if you said, it Signifies. Therefore the Doctrine which Denies the real Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, is wholly unwarrantable, and Built on Fancy Only.  
5. The Proofs of my Assertion are as undeniably 
The Proofs of it, are no less clear, Then the Proposition itself.  Evident as the very Assertion itself; For it is Manifest, No Scripture plainly Teaches (I say no More now) That the Verb EST, in Christ's Proposition Bears only this sense, it Signifies: And it is as Clear, no Universal Tradition Approves of this new Fancied Sense. What then Remains, But that our Adversaries take Recours to some Ancient Orthodox Church, or, To the General Consent of Fathers? I say therefore. If they 
A Fair offer made to Sectaries.  can Name any Universal Church, Nay any particular Church Reputed Orthodox the whole world Over, That Interpreted these Words as They do, or, Clearly Denied Christ's true Body and Blood To be under the Forms of Bread and Wine after Consecration, or, Believed that Natural bread only hath the Name of Christ's Body, Though it be Really no more But a Sign only, a Figure only, a Resemblance only of his Body; If, I say, 
Protestants you shall see, will never Answer Directly, to what is here proposed.  any one of these things can be proved. They'll Come of Gloriously, And Gain Thousands to their Opinion. But I know, all is in a high Measure Impossible. I say, a Sign only, a Figure only; For, We Catholics both speak with the Fathers, and Truly Believe The Eucharist to be a Sacrament, And consequently a Sign of Invisible Grace, Yea, and a Figure also, a Memorial of Christ Himself and his Sacred Passion; But this is not the Controversy between us, The sole Question therefore is, Whether it be so purely a Sign or Figure, that 
What They are to Answer To.  the Thing Signified is not in the Sign, And the Verity in the Figure, That is. Whether Christ's Sacred Body and Blood, be not Truly and Substantially within the outward Sign, and really Present There? This We Affirm, and Sectaries Deny, Though never Orthodox Church Denied it with Them.  
6. To clear this Point, And Add, If Possible, more Weight to our Assertion: We Have an Ample, Holy, and Learned Catholic Roman Church (whose sole Authority, set Scripture aside, is the Greatest on Earth) 
The sole Authority of our Roman Church, is Sufficient to Convince Sectaries of Error.  Which confessedly hath believed and taught this Doctrine of the Real Presence for at least a Thousand Years (I say Ever since Christianity began) And, can any one prudently Persuade Himself, That so Choice, and Learned a Society, That yet Speaks in Christ's own Language, And Literally believes his words as They are in the Gospel, Hath, for so long a time lived in a Cheat, and taught Millions of Souls a most Damnable Error? Admit of this Vast Improbability, We have yet a Demonstration 
No Other Orthodox Society Ever opposed our Catholic Doctrine.  against Sectaries: And 'tis: No Orthodox Church can be named that ever Opposed, Found fault, or Blamed the Belief of the Roman Church Concerning this Mystery. Therefore the Doctrine of this Learned Society is undoubtedly Certain, upon a double Account, that Christ Taught it, And no Universal Church ever Condemned it.  
7. In the last Place we are to Say a Word of the other 
The last Principle which is the consent of Fathers.  Principle, Which is the unanimous consent, not of a small Number, but of Many most Ancient, Learned, and Holy Fathers, These can well Declare what Scripture Teaches of This Mystery, And what Christ's Orthodox Church ever Believed. If All Readers Have not the Originals at hand, They may see them in the Authors Cited above, I shall only Hint at a few, For to Transcribe All, or Half of them, And Quote the Places Exactly, Would Needlessly lengthen a Digression, which I Intended to make short. In passing I'll only say thus much. If Sectaries, with all the Skill 
Father's express for Catholic Doctrine.  They have, can Interpret These few Testimonies, Which I shall briefly Glance at, They may with the same Ease, Yea, And far less labour, Explicate the Words of the Council of Trent, and make that to speak Protestancy, Or to Deny the Real Presence.  
8. Some Fathers therefore Dogmatically Teach: What we take into our mouths, is not that which nature 
These Fathers are Faithfully cited, Though to avoid Tediousness in a short Digression, I thought it best, not to give the Reader more Trouble than is necessary, by quoting Exactly the places.  made, But what the Blessing hath Consecrated, And that by Consecration the very Nature of bread is changed. Thou hast learned that of bread, is made the Body of Christ, and the wine and water is put into the Chalice, But by the consecration of the Heavenly Word, it is made Blood. The Bread and Wine of the Eucharist, before the Sacred Invocation of the Adored Trinity, were simple bread and wine, But the Invocation being once done, the Bread indeed is made the Flesh of Christ, and the Wine his Blood. The Bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples, being changed not in shape, but in Nature, by the omnipotency of the Word, is made Flesh, Christ, by his own Will, once changed water into wine, and is He not worthy to be Believed, that He changed Wine into Blood? Mark a substantial change. Wherefore, with all Certainty let us take this Body and Blood of Christ: For his Body is given thee under the Form of Bread, And his Blood is given thee under the Form of wine, Although sense tell thee Otherwise, yet let Faith confirm thee in this Truth. 
You have the most of them in Bellarmin, and the other Author named above.  That which appears Bread is not Bread, Though it seem so to the Taste, But it is the Body of Christ: And that which appears wine is not wine, as the taste judges it to be, But the Blood of Christ. The Consecrated Bread, is not a figure only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Body of Christ, But the very Deified Body of our Saviour. The bread and wine are Supernaturally changed, or Transmade into the Body and Blood of Christ. Christ was Carried in his own Hands. To the exterior Sense it seems to be Bread, But know, by the sense of your Understanding, That it is my Body, not an Other, But the same in substance, which shall be Delivered to Death for you. Other Fathers say. The same body is on the Altar, 
If Any Doubt of These Authorities, I oblige myself to quot● the places exactly, Now only omitted because they are vulgarly known.  which is in Heaven, The same Blood is in the Chalice which Issued out of our Saviour's side. He gave us that very flesh wherein he walked here, to be eaten to Salvation. It is the same flesh of our Saviour, which suffered for our Sins, which was on the Cross, which was Born of the Virgin, This Body we Receive and Eat with our mouths▪ and have it Mingled with our Bodies.  
9 Thus the worthiest Fathers of our Christian Faith Speak, And as I said just now, Neither the Council of Trent, nor, Any Modern Catholic can speak more significantly in Behalf of the Doctrine, We All Profess. I Say also. No Ancient Fathers ever Expressed 
The expressions of Fathers, as significant for This Mystery, as for a Trinity.  Themselves with Greater Energy, when They treat of that High Mystery of our Faith, The Sacred Trinity, which Sectaries jointly Believe with us, Then These have Don in the present Mystery of the Blessed Sacrament. I Appeal to our Adversaries own Consciences, And ask whether They can Contradict me? If they Do, I must Tell them, they cannot Think it, or, if They Seriously Judge so, Their Judgement, Because Contrary to the greatest Part of the Christian world, is Weightles, And (finally resolved) comes to no 
Sectaries may with greater Ease Deny Any Christian Verity, than this Mystery. They are at least obliged to Match us with equal Proofs. The Catholic Principles, Briefly Declared.  more but Fancy. I have told them often in this Treatis, That, any Heterodox May with greater Ease, and lesser Violence Offered, either to Scripture or the most Primitive Fathers, Turn off all that can be Said for the Proof of any Christian Verity Than They are able to Enervate the plain Words of Christ and Fathers, now alleged for this Mystery.  
10. Be it How you will, Our Adversaries, if They'll yet Wilfully run on in an Heresy, Are at least Obliged to stand on Equal Term's with us, To give us Proof for Proof, Weight for Weight, Measure for Measure. Here are our Principles. We have Plain and Express Scripture for our Catholic Verity, They have not a Word. We Plead our Cause by a Constant and never Interrupted Tradition, They have None. We have a Renowned, Ample, and most Learned Catholic Church, which both Believed and taught this Catholic Doctrine, They have neither Orthodox Church nor Chapel, that Taught or Talked, seven hundred years agone, of Their Tropes, and Figures only. We have the General Consent of Fathers, They have only Patches and Fragments weighed out of their Circumstances, for Their Condemned Opinion. We have Miracles, Clear and undeniable Miracles, which confirm our Doctrine: 
Sectaries want all these Proofs and Principles▪  Both Ancient Fathers and Modern Doctors Recount Them, who cannot be Supposed, to have wilfully Damned Their Souls by Obliging Posterity to Believe Impostures upon Misinformation. They have neither Miracle nor Sign, But the Empty Sign of a Piece of Bread, For their too long known, And as long since Decried Heresy. Finally (And here is a sad Thought for Sectaries) If ever Heresy was in the 
A sad Thought f●r Sectaries.  World, This of Theirs is, or never any Deserved That Name. At least, All the Marks, All the Signs, All the Characters of Heresy follow it, That can be Imagined. It is a late Found out and a new Invented 
What Marks and Signs accompany This Heresy.  Opinion. The Chief Author of it, Berengarius (no Saint I'll promise you) is Known. The time When, And the Place Where it Began, The few Followers it then Had, the Trouble it Caused among Orthodox Believers, the Opposition made Against it, The Trial, The Examination, the Sentence and Condemnation of it, Are Known, And All upon Record. Almost every Catholic Author that Handles this Subject, Assert's and Proves what I say, by undeniable History. Can our new Men Allege But half as Much Against our Catholic 
Can Sectaries Say but half as much against our Catholic Doctrine, could They weaken it by one of These Proofs.  Doctrine; Can They Point out The First Broachers of this Popery; Can They name the Place, the Time of its first Rise, Or, Tell us what Orthodox Church, After a Severe Examination Condemned it, They might take courage, Speak Boldly, And well Hope to Drive us of our Principles. But, when we find them unaccountable in These Particulars, and see Evidently They cannot look one of these Difficulties in the face, nor Hint Probably at the least Sign of any Novelty in our Doctrine. When Again we Reflect, How easy 
They might Cavil more justly.  Their Tenent is to Sense, and Ours contrary very Difficil, (And therefore could not hiddenly Creep into the world without Clamours Against it.) When we seriously Consider, That both the Latin and Greek Church, though now at Variance in other Points, yet well Agree 
But nothing is spoken probably.  in one Profession of Faith concerning this Mystery. Finally, When we know, that the Greatest part of the Christian world (Whereof many were, and are, no less Profoundly Learned, then Eminent in Sanctity▪) Hath notwithstanding the Opposition made by Sectaries, believed as We Do to this Day, and Died in 
Other Confirmations of our Catholic Verity.  that Belief. We may Hope to Silence these Men Hereafter, and Well Conclude: That our Doctrine, which Stands sure on Christ's plain Words, Which the strongest Pillars of the Ancient Church Uphold, which the Roman Catholic Church yet Defends, And no Orthodox Church ever Opposed, Which Indubitable Miracles have Confirmed, and none Denied, But Known and Professed Enemies of Truth; We may, I say, rightly Conclude, That our Faith is Anciently Catholic, And therefore True; And That the contrary Opinion of Sectaries is a mere Fancied Novelty, And Therefore Falls, and Heretical.  
11. We might yet Go on (And to clear all) Answer now to a few Falls Supposed Grounds of Sectaries, But the Learned Bellarmin Hath done the work to our Hands, and Contributed more than Enough to Their 
Not one word of Scripture in the whole Bible for Sectaries.  utter Overthrow. Truly, is very pitiful to See, How, after all their Brags of Scripture, Scripture is Here so Scarce with them, That they cannot Find a Word through the whole Bible, so much as remotely Favourable for this Heresy. Observe well what Straits They are put to.  
12. First, the Particle, EST, in our Saviour's Proposition, must either Sound as much as Significat, 
How they Trifle in a most weighty matter.  (Signisies) or Sectaries are undone. And who Tell's Them so but Fancy? O, It often Hath that sense. I answer no such matter. For, EST, ever retains its own simple and p●●per Signification in every true Proposition, and doth no more but joyn's the Predicate with the Subject, what ever it be. The reason is. If any Trope, or, Metaphor, lie hidden in the Copula EST, it may certainly be Resolved into an other Word 
They Err in their Interpretations of Christ's Words.  or Diction of a more Simple, Clear, and Open Signification Then, EST, by its own force Expresseth. But this is Impossible, For, no Word can be clearer than the Clearest, more Open, than what is most openly significant: This Copula is Always so, and therefore cannot 
No Trope or Figure found in the verb Substantive though often in the Attribute or subject.  be Resolved into any clearer Diction. And hence it is, That when your Rhetoricians Treat of Figurative Speeches, or Locutions, They never Place the Trope or Figure on the Verb Substantive, But either on the Attribute or Subject. 'Tis true, the Predicate, or Subject in many Propositions, known (Aliunde) or by other clear Grounds, to be Metaphors, must be Explicated by clearer Terms, whilst yet the Copula EST, Holds its most Simple, and Proper Signification. Take one Instance. Semen 
An Instance.  est verbum Dei, The seed is the word of God. The Word Seed, as it is a Sign, made by Institution essentially to Signify; so, in this place, it is a Trop, or Metaphor also, (For certainly Christ said not That material Seed cast into the Earth is really his Word:) if Therefore it be here both a Sign, and Metaphor, you must ultimately Resolve the Proposition into a clearer Sense Thus. The very Essence of a Sign is to Signify, This Word 
How Figurative Propositions are to be Resolved.  Seed, is a Sign Ad placitum, Metaphorically Representing the Word of God, Therefore, as well as a Metaphor can Do, it Signifies this Divine Word where you se, EST, keeps its proper Signification: And Therefore, The whole Proposition finally Resolved, Renders this Sense. This Metaphor Seed, is a Sign signifying God's Word. Now if you say We Grant at last, That the Copula May here be Expounded, Significat; I Answer, most True, Yet without any Trope in EST, For, in such Enunciations, Praedicatur Signum de Signo, (as Bellarmin notes) The Sign is Predicated on the Sign; As in this Proposition. Amare, Est, diligere. That is: Amare, is a synonimal Sign, or signifies the same as Diligere, And therefore is Explicated by Significat, Because 
Sectaries explicate Christ's proposition, without placing the Trope on the verb Substantive.  the essence of a Sign is to signify. But it is not so in other Propositions, where that which is predicated is neither formally a Sign Only, nor any Metaphor at all.  
13. You shall see what I say now Evidenced in our Sectaries Opinion: For, whilst they Explicate Christ's Proposition. This is my Body, the Copula, EST, Retain's purely its own proper Signification, without any Trope. I prove it. When we find a Trope in a Proposition, it must lie There, or in that Part of it, into whose place, when the whole Proposition is Resolved, We put an other more plain and Significant Word to explicate the Trope clearly (by this Resolving of a whole Proposition into its Parcels we easily judge where the Trope is.) Now Observe. Our Sectaries resolve Christ's Proposition Thus. This is my Body. Hoc est signum corporis mei. This is a Sign of my Body. Mark well. The words Subrogated to Explicate the 
The words subrogated to explicate the Trope with Sectaries be long to the Attribute.  Trope, are these Two, Signum Corporis; But these two Words, which belong to the Attribute or Predicate are not, as is most evident, Substituted in the place of the Copula, EST, Therefore the Trope lies not in the Copula, which Keep's still it's proper Significaiton, But according to this Resolution in the word Corpus, or Body. Now How Falls it is, That any Trope lies in the word Body, And consequently no no where in the whole Proposition, is Evidently Convinced by our Saviour's true Assertion. This is my Body, which shall be given for you. Believe it. No sign of his Body was given for us, But his Real Body. Be it how you will. Thus much is Clear, That the Verb Substantive, even here Retain's its Simple, Proper, and most Common signification.  
14. You may see more of this subject in Bellarmin lib. 1. de Euchar. c. 10. §. secundo, and cap. 11. per totum Where He Learnedly Explicates other Propositions Alleged by Sectaries, as Petra erat Christus, Agnus est Pascha etc. All I'll now say, And 'Tis what I noted Above. Although it were granted that the Copula, EST, sometimes sound's as much as, significat, Yet, unless this sense Hold in All other Locutions of Scripture (which is absolutely Falls) our Adversaries are far enough from Proving their Intent, Because they cannor Convince by any probable Principle, That, EST, in this place 
Sectaries are far from proving their intent, were all granted they pretend to. A second Objection.  Hath that Determinate meaning, which They would give it. Therefore Fancy or something Worst, must Help them to Mantain this Improbable Gloss.  
15. They Object 2. Those Words of Scripture. Do this in Remembrance of me: And then Discourse. We Commemorate no Body, nor Celebrate any Ones Memory, unless He be Absent; But Christ, As we Teach, is Always Present in the Holy Eucharist, Therefore we cannot make a Commemoration of Him, as of One Absent. 
If is one thing to say. Do this Action you see me Do in Remembrrance of me. And another to say, the Sacrament is only a Remembrance of Christ.  The Apostle 1. Corrinth. 11. Answer's the Difficulty, For After He Had said: Do this in Remembrance of me. He adds. Quotiescumque enim etc. As often as you Eat this Bread and drink this Chalice, You shall show the Death of our Lord until He Come, But the Death of our Saviour is long since Pased and not Present, Therefore we may well Commemorate his Death and Passion, as Priests do in every Mass they say. In Rigour therefore, These Words Precisely force not on us any Memory of his sacred Body, or Blood Present, But only Mind us of his Action of Sacrificing in his last Supper. However, to Satisfy our Adverfaries, be pleased 
A Disguised Prince may be Remembered, though present with his Nobles.  only to put this supposition: That a Prince were with his Nobles in a Disguised weed, And Would not appear to their Senses but Disguised; Might they not well, Although they knew otherwise He were their concealed Prince, and Present, not Only Reverence and Adore him, But also make a Commemoration of Him? Most certainly yes. This is our Case. As therefore that which we call a Sign, requires not 
A Sign requires not the absence of the thing signified▪  the Absence of the thing signified, For, the Ark of the Covenant was a Sign of God Present, and the Dove Descending on Christ, was a Sign of the Holy Ghost Present: So, likewise a Remembrance or Commemoration Implies no Necessity of his Absence, that is Remembered. Finally, We may Remember our Lord and Saviour, as He is in Heaven absent, whilst He feeds and feasts us here on Earth with his precious Body and Blood on the Altar. The Objection therefore is Forceles every way.  
16. They Object 3. This Sacrament is called Bread. Answ. But, never Baker's Bread after the 
The Sacrament is not called Baker's bread.  Words of Consecration, Fancy only says so, and no Proof. Again. 'Tis called Bread because it's made of Bread, as Man is called Dust because made of Dust. Such Objections are Trivial.  
17. They Object 4. The Breaking of Bread strongly 
Calvin saith, Breaking of Bread, is Sacrificing.  argues, 'Tis plain Bread, Though Deputed to a Holy Use. Answ. The Breaking here is Sacrificing, as Calvin Himself confesseth. The Argument, though it Proves just nothing, is seemingly more for Luther's Opinion of Bread, and Flesh together, then for our Sectaries.  
18. They Object 5. Christ is called a Vine▪ a Rock, and a Door. Answ. What then? Put a Minor Proposition to these Words, and See How weak a Conclusion 
A weak Inference of Sectaries.  Follows. Is it any Consequence, that because figurative Speeches are in Scripture sometimes, Therefore all we Read there, must be Tropes, and Metaphors? We know, and the whole world knows also by other Principles, that These are Tropes, And we evidently know by as assured Principles, that, Mr BODY GIVEN FOR YOU. MY BLOOD SHED FOR MANY. Are no figurative Locutions.  
19 They Object. 6. The Cup is called the Fruit 
The legal, and Sacramental Cup, Distinguished.  of the Vine, therefore it is not Blood. Answ. 1. It may be called Heavenly Wine, as Christ called himself Heavenly Bread etc. But the true Solution is. There were two Cups on the Table that night before our Saviour suffered, the Legal, and the Eucharistical, or Sacramental Cup, That's called the Fruit of the Vine, This not.  
20. They Object 7. Some places of Scripture. The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life. The flesh Profiteth nothing. All did eat the same Spiritual Food, and all drank the same Spiritual Drink. Answ. Nothing But mere Fancy, or something Worse, can Draw these Texts to the sense of Sectaries. The open and plain Meaning of Christ's words without Violence offered to them, (easily Gathered By the whole Context) is 
The sense of Christ's own words is clear, by the whole context of the Gospel  Thus. I have spoken to you of Divine and Spiritual Matters, conducing to Eternal Happiness, But your Thoughts are still on Earth, As, if I were to cut off certain Pieces of my Body, and give them you to Eat (so S. Austin explicates this Place) it is not so, saith our Saviour, I spoke of that more Hidden Mystery of the Sacrament, 
If Sectaries can prove the contrary, let the● them do by a sure Principle.  which Being Believed and Spiritually Understood▪ will Quicken you and Give you Eternal life: The Flesh therefore, That is, a Carnal Understanding of my words Profit's Nothing etc. This is the  and candid sense of Christ's Expression. For, it were a Blasphemy to say, that his sacred Body Profit's none. I Answer To The other Passage of S. Paul, It's, an Error to judge, That the Jews Received no less the Substance 
The Apostles words misonderstood by Sectaries.  and Benefits of Christ's Graces in Their Figures, Then We do in our Sacraments. The Apostle Intimates no such Thing, But only Saith. They all (the Hebrews) among Themselves, good and bad, Eat the same Meat, and Drank of the same Rock, which was a Figure of Christ. Now, Pray you Tell me, Do all Calvinists, Good and Bad, when They Receive Christ by the Mouth of their Faith, Equally participate of his Graces? Or, were There any such Ample Promises Annexed to the Eating of Manna in the Desert, and Drinking the Wather Issuing out of that Rock, as are now made to the Sacraments of the New Law? No. They were Egena elementa, Barren Elements for so Scripture speaks. You'll Ask, Why Then doth the Apostle call the Manna, and Water, Spiritual Food 
Why the Apostle calls Manna Spiritual Food.  and Drink? I Answer, They are called so, not Because they Produced Grace as our Sacraments Do, But because They had a Spiritual Signification, And were caused by a Special supernatural Providence, contrary to the Ordinary Cours of nature.  
21. They Object 8. Such aught to be the Way of Receiving this Food of the blessed Sacrament, as is 
An Objection concerning the way and manner of Receiving showed null.  Answerable to the Quality of the Food and End, for which we take it. But, both the Food itself (to wit Divine Grace) and the Final end of it, which is a Union of the soul with Christ, are purely Spiritual; Therefore the Way, or Mode of Receiving it, must be Proportionably Spiritual: But, no Mode or Way of Taking it, can be more Fit, or Spiritual then Faith; Therefore we are to Receive it by Faith Only as the meetest Instrument. Answ. The Objection (no less improper in Speech then simply Fallacious) Distinguisheth not rightly Between the Immediate Cause of Grace, the effect of 
Sectaries distinguish not rightly between the cause of Grace, the effect itself, and the Disposition necessary to receiving.  Grace, and the Disposition necessary to Receive this Effect Fruitfully. The immediate cause of grace, is Christ's sacred Body under the Forms of Bread and Wine. Now to say, That his Body is the Way or Manner of Receiving our Spiritual Nutriment, is an Impropriety in Speech. And to say Again, That, this Body ought to be Ejusdem planè rationis, of the self same Nature with the Spiritual Food it Causeth, or, That a Corporal thing cannot be Ordained to Produce a Spiritual Effect, is most untrue, For, the water in Baptism 
A material thing can cause Spiritual Grace.  produceth grace in the Baptised, yet is Corporeal; the Corporeal visible Effusion of Christ's sacred Blood in his Passion, Freed us from a Spiritual Death, and brought us to a Spiritual Life. And do not Sectaries Hold, that the very Material Hearing of the Word of God is a fit Means to Beget Faith both Spiritual, and Supernatural in the Hearers Soul? The Difficulty therefore Proposed comes to nothing but Fancy. Finally, if we speak of the Disposition requisite to Receive the Effect of this Sacrament (you may call it, if you please, the Mode, Way, or Manner necessary to a due Receiving) 
What Disposition is necessary.  All Catholics Profess, that not only Faith, at least Habitual, but Charity Also, per se loquendo, Are Prerequired as necessary Dispositions to the Effect thereof, Because it is Sacramentum Vivorum the Sacrament of Those, who now Live by Faith, Hope, and Charity.   

CHAP. VII.  
How differently We and Sectaries proceed in this Controversy. What they are to Prove.  
1. SOme other 'Slight Objections yet remain Drawn from Fathers Misinterpreted, and the weak Reason 
Other Objections briefly touched on.  of Sectaries. It is not worth the while, to Bring all to Light Again, They are Solved, and undeniably Solved, by our Catholic Writers. A few shall here suffice. Some Fathers seem to say, That this Sacrament is a Sign, a Figure, an Image, a Type of Christ's 
The Fathers say not where, that the Sacrament is a Sign or Figure only of Christ.  Body. Very true. But not one says it is a Sign Only, a Figure Only, a Memorial Only etc. Now know. It is one Thing to call it a Sign, and an Other a Sign Only. Exclusive of Christ's Real Presence, As it is One Thing to say, Faith Justifies, And Faith only Justifies, excluding Charity. Read therefore Those words of St. Austin Lib. contra Adimantum cap. 12. Till your Eyes be Weary. Non dubitavit dicere etc. Our Lord Doubted not to say. This is my Body, Cum daret signum Corporis sui, When He gave a Sign of his Body. All you 
S. Austin affirms it not.  can Force out of Them, is this Obvious and Genuine Sense. Our Lord, When He gave His Disciples the Consecrated Species, Accidents, or Forms of Bread, which were a Sign, and Figure of his Body There contained; Doubted not to Say, That, that which He then gave them under those Species, was Really His Body. If Sectaries can Enforce more out of the Words, let them do it without Fancy, And prove their Gloss, by a Clearer Principle than St. Augustine's Words are.  
2. Again. When some Fathers Say, There is not, 
What the Fathers mean, when They say it is not altogether the same Body.  Planè idem corpus, The same Body Altogether in the Eucharist, which was Fastened to the Cross, But after a Manner the Same; To which Sense St. Austin Commenting in Psalmum 98. Introduceth our Saviour speaking thus. Non hoc corpus quod videtis, manducaturi estis etc. You are not to eat this Body you see (Grossly He Means, as the Capharnaits Understood) And to Drink that Blood, which my Enemies will Pour Out: I have 
The Father's endeavour, to remove from us all gross Conceptions of this Mystery. The two states of a Body, Natural, and Spiritual, change not the substance of the Body. We say usually when one is changed by Age or Sickness, he is not the same men.  Commended to you a Sacrament, which Spiritually Understood, will Give you Life etc. When, I say, The Fathers Express Themselves by such Terms, And Did so, As well to Remove from us all Thick and Carnal Conceptions of this sublime Mystery, as to Beget in us (so far as we can reach to) a Right understanding of the Spiritual Manner, of Christ Existing in the Sacrament We must Distinguish, with the Apostle 1. Cor. 15. Two States of a Body, Natural, and Spiritual, Whose Dotes and Qualities, Though Different, Change not the Body Substantially. Distinguish I say Thus, And then Speak boldly with the Fathers. It is not Altogether the same Body, But after a Manner; For, so we Speak in a Usual Language, When we see one Notably Altered from Himself by Age or Sickness, And say, He is not the Same He was, But quite an Other Man, Yet the Difference Here is not so Great as between a Glorified Body in Heaven, and a Mortal Body on Earth, or, Betwixt Christ Body Situally Extended with its just Dimensions, And not at all Extended. The Fathers Therefore, By placing all the Variety on the Mode or Manner of Existing, Deny not Christ's real Being in this Sacrament, But as Learnedly, as Literally Express the very Mystery, 
The Fathers Learnedly and Literally Express the Mystery.  as it ought to be Expressed. And We Stand to Their plain Words without Violence offered to the Obvious Sense, by any Superaddition of Far-fetched Glosses, Yet Say it is Substantially the same Body.  
3. And here by the way, if you will Parallel a little the Procedure of Sectaries with ours, And Ours with Theirs, As well in this as in Other Controversies, You may see How Faintly Fancy pleads against Reason, and Heresy Opposeth Truth. Observe it. What 
Catholics stand to the plain obvious sense of their words, and Scripture also.  ever They Allege out of God's Word for their Error, We Stand to the Plain, Obvious, and Literal Sense of the Text, And yet Deny Their Heresy Drawn from it, Which therefore must of Necessity be an Additional Gloss of Fancy. Fo● Example. Doth Scripture say, Do this in Remembrance of me? We admit of the Open Sense of the Words, without further Commentaries, or Glosses. Doth it say The Flesh Profit's Nothing? We say so too, But must learn, by other Principles, what Flesh Signifies in that Place. Doth it say, That 
Examples Hereof.  All the Ancient Hebrews eat of the same Bread, Drank of the same water? We, without Wresting the Text say so too. Dotario it say, that God Inhabits not Temples made by Hands? So say We, And Give this Reason, Because God's Divinity infinitely Immense, Circumscribed in no Particular Place (as if he wanted Lodging) is Every Where. Doth it say that Christ Risen from the Dead, was not Therefore in the Sepulchre? We Answer, the Illation is good in those Circumstances, whilst Those virtuous Women Sought the Living Among the Dead. Do the 
No Fathers make the Sacrament a Sign, a Figure on 〈…〉 eluding Christ's presence.  Fathers say that the Holy Sacrament of the Altar is a Sign, a Figure, a Type of Christ even There Present? We Acquiesce, and speak also as They Do, But withal Add, That no Father makes it a Sign, a Figure, a Memorial Only, as if the Reality of his Body were Excluded from the Outward Species of Bread and Wine. Thus we Proceed with all Candour.  
4. Now let us cast a few Thoughts upon our Sectaries 
Sectaries contrariwise proceed with Catholics, and violently force both Scripture and Fathers. Examples Hereof.  Dealing with us Catholics, And See how Fancy only upholds every Thing they Assert. We Allege our Saviour's own Words. This is my Body which is Given for you. They Answer, No. It was not his Body, but a Sign Only of His Body Given for us. Observe well. This Interpretation of a Sign Only, is a Gloss of Fancy, For, neither the Word, Sign, is in Scripture, Nor a Sign Only is any Ancient Father. We Cite Again that Unanswerable Text of St. Luke. This is the Chalice, the new Testament in my Blood, which Chalice is shed for you. And mark the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that Relates to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Case, and not to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a Different Case. What Answer our Sectaries. Marry Beza Tell's us St. Luke Here, either spoke a Solacism, or a Marginal Note Cre'pt by chance into the Text; Here is His best Solution, And who Tell's Mr. Beza so, But his own Fancy? We Produce moreover Those Testimonies of Ancient Fathers, Briefly Hinted at Above, And say no Wit of Man can solve Them, Chief That Authority of St. Cyril, Of Wine changed into Blood, as water was Once changed into Wine. They Answer. The Change was only Moral of Wine Deputed to a Holy Use, which is Against the very Nature of the Instance, And consequently a Strong Thought of Fancy. We say No Universal Tradition, No Ancient Church, ever Opposed the Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church concerning this Mystery. Herein, our Ad 〈…〉 rsaries are Silenced, And cannot Design the Orthodox Church that opposed our Doctrine, as both We, and the whole world beside, now oppose their Novelty. Parallel therefore the Proceed of Sectaries Against us, 
A Parallel between their Proceeding and ours. Sectaries mangle and pervert most clear Authorities.  with ours Against them, And you will find them to stand upon Quicksand, without Principles: The very Straits They are put to, Demonstrat this Evidently, whilst, as you have seen, They Mangle, Pervert, Misconstrue, and Gloss Every clear Authority cited against Them, And We on the other side, candidly Admit both of Scripture and Fathers Quoted by Them, without Any other Gloss but what the very Text, and Context of the Testimonies Allow of.  
5. And Hence it is, that you Always have our Adversaries 
Sectaries bold in asserting, but weak at their Proofs.  bold in Asserting, But Cold, Unmanly, and Weak at their Proofs. Besides what is now said, the true Reason is. No Proof can touch, much less Vainquish a Verity, that Stands firm upon undeniable Principles. Plain Scripture, the unanimous Consent of Fathers, undeniable 
What our Catholic Proofs are.  Tradition, the Authority of a Holy and Universal Church, and this Negative, No Church ever blamed our Doctrine are Strong Supports for the Faith we Profess. And can our Sectaries, who are as Scriptureles as Fatherless, as Fatherless as Churchles, and Finally Destitute of All other Principles, Think to Dant us with a few Gleancing, Gathered 
Sectaries cannot deny Them.  now out of This, now out of that Ancient writer, when They Evidently see with their Eyes the whole Torrent of Antiquity contrary to Them? Can they Persuade Themselves, that Because one Theodoret For example 
Of Theodoret's Authority.  Saith, the Mystical Signs after the Sanctification, Recede not from Their Nature, but Remain in their first Substance, Figure, and Form, are Seen, and Touched as Before (which words are literally True, if we Speak, as 
We Admit of his Words.  this Author Doth, of the visible Accidents of Bread and Wine) Can we, I say, Think that this one Authority, Though it were a Hundred times more Difficil, Hath Weight enough to turn the Scales, Force Enough to Drive us from the Faith, which Scripture, Church, and Fathers most manifestly Deliver? It is impossible. 
The obscurer places of Scripture, and Fathers, are to be Interpreted by the clearer.  All know, when Divines Explicate Scripture or Fathers, They Interpret the obscurer Passage by the Clearer, And never make the Darker Place to give Light to the more Evident. Observe Now. Theodoret saith the Mystical Signs Recede not from their Nature, But Remain as before. I say so too. The only Difficulty is what he Means by the Word Signs, and 
Sectaries Glosses without Proof. Theodoret cannot be supposed to contradict other most Learned Fathers. He is to be Explicated, were he obscure, by the sense of other Fathers.  Nature? Sectaries Tell us: The Sense is. Bread and wine Recede not from Their True Substance. First, This is their Gloss without Proof; For, the Visible Signs of bread and wine, are not the Invisible Substance of Bread and Wine. 2. Theodoret in all law of Arguing, when His plain Words Force not on us this sense of Sectaries, aught to be Catholickly Interpreted: And Had we no other Reason but this, That it cannot be Reason, To make so Learned a Father (Though once he strayed a little) to Clash with all Antiquity, it were Enough. At most His Words are Doubtful, And, upon that Account capable of Explication, is it not Therefore more Just, to Explicate Them by the Clear and undeniable Doctrine of a Whole Church, And other Fathers, then to Draw these Fathers from their Open and Manifest Sense to His, if it be supposed Obscure, as in Truth, well Pondered, it is not. Let Reason Judge Here.  
6. By what is said Already, We may well pity the desperate Condition of Sectaries, who Pertinaciously Defend an Heresy, without so much as a colour of 
Sectaries want Principles.  Scripture, Church, or the General Consent of Fathers; For, these Principles (and none can Parallel them) Most evidently Fail our Adversaries. Urge them Again and Again to speak more Pertinently to their Cause, then is Don hitherto: You get nothing but the Old Story told over again, And it will never be Better, for I se too Plainly Their Humour. It is, God knows, 
Sectaries Tristing, and wherein it Appears.  To spend, or rather to Misspend their whole Life and Labour in Trifles. They Think, to Cavil at the Proofs of our Doctrine Establisheth Theirs, As if it were sufficient, to make their Novelty good, Because they can Talk against our Ancient Faith, Just as if One, to Prove Himself an Honest Man, might do it Pithily, by calling his Neighbour a Knave.  
7. I must yet Add one Significant Word more, And 'Tis very Necessary to lay forth our Adversaries Weakness, as well in This as in All other Controversies. Observe 
Solid Proofs for a Doctrine stand firm and unshaken against all Opponents.  it. When Proofs of a Doctrine Stand on solid Grounds, and Principles, the Objections Against it are like Fathers cast Against the Wind, forceles, And return upon the Opponents to their Confusion, whereof, I think, you Have Already seen Enough in this Present Controversy. But contrariwise. When the Proofs are Meager, Barren, and Void of Strength (They are ever so with Sectaries) The Very Opposite Principles for Truth, Dash All, Discountenance All: and Evidently Show those Arguments to be Feeble. And Truly, would our 
Did Sectaries Proceed Candidly, They would see Themselves Convinced.  Adversaries once Deal Ingeniously, Candour would Force them to Acknowledge what I say to be most True; when they can allege nothing probably for their Novelty against our Plain Scripture, Against the Ancient Doctrine of a Universal Learned Church, And the Authority of so many Fathers now Cited.  
8. We might yet entertain you with One or Two 
Difficult ● drawn from the weak Reason of Sectaries, solved.  Difficulties more Drawn from Reason, Whereat our Adversaries, Measuring God's Power by their own Wit or Fancy Stumble not a Little. One is: A Body cannot be in two Places at Once. Just so the Peasant Thinks the sun cannot be bigger than a Broad Sieve, Because (never learning Mathematiks) He Measures All by his silly Imagination; And so the Sectary Doth Here, Because He is no Scholar in Christ's School. But ad Rem. Who Tell's Him that a Body cannot be in two Places at once? Hath God Revealed this in Scripture? 
Nit●her Faith nor Philosophy, against th' being of a Body in two places.  No, But Philosophy Teaches it: What Philosophy? Aristotle's? No, For the Received Doctrine of his School is, That a Body (to say nothing of a Soul That is in two places, Head and Feet at Once) Individually Considered by itself, is no more Actually It's own Local Presence or Place Then the Organ of the Eye is of itself its own Actual Vision, Or Fire 
A Body is not by itself, it's own local presence. An other Argument of Sectaries ungrounded.  by itself Actually Heat. This is common Philosophy, if That of Sectaries be Better, let them Vouchsafe to Learn us Otherwise, Not by Saying it is Better, But by some Clear and undeniable Principle.  
9 An other Argument is Drawn from the Great Indignities, whereunto Christ's Sacred Body is liable, if it be in the Holy Sacrament: As That a Mouse, or Worse Creature may Eat it Up etc. Here we may Justly Exclaim with St. Austin upon another Occasion lib. 22. de Civit. c. 11. Ecce qualibus argumentis Omnipotentiae Dei humana contradicit infirmitas etc. Se, with what 'Slight Arguments Man's weak Wit Opposeth God's Omnipotency. Speak therefore. Truth. Is it not a greater 
The pretended Indignities of Sectaries shown frivolous.  Indignity, that Christ Permitt's a Sinner to Receive him with a filthy conscience, Then That He lics in the Stomach of a Rat or Mouse? Say yet. Had a worm Suked his Precious Blood when it was shed on the Ground in his Passion, or, a Spider bitten his Sacred flesh in the Crib of Bethlem, Would that Indignity, think ye, Have Forced men from a Belief of his Real true Body? These are childish Arguments, not worth the Answering. And here you have almost an End of a Digression which I Think cannot be well Answered.  
10. I Exceed not in saying: It cannot be Answered. 
Some points Briefly touched on, whereunto Sectaries are desired to Answer,  And therefore Tell our Adversaries, if it shall please them to Reply They are first to Prove, and by certain Principle, that Christ's Sacred Words now Alleged for our Catholic Verity are Misunderstood by us, And aught to have Their Determinate sense of a Sign, Figure, Metonymy, and no Other. What we here Require is most Reasonable; For, if my Faith fall upon Their sense They are obliged to Prove it Revealed by Almighty God, Otherwise 
Upon sound Principles.  Contrary to all Reason They'll Urge me to Believe what an infinite Verity never Spoke. 2. They are to Prove And by a clear Principle also, That in such an Age after Christ, There was an Orthodox Church that Believed their Doctrine of a Sign, Figure. Metonymy Only etc. And Publicly Opposed ours of Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist. To do this, More is required then to cite a few broken Sentences of Fathers, half Abused and wholly 
Maimed Sentences of Fathers, Proofles.  weighed out of Their Circumstances. All which put together Come not near to a Probable, much less, to a Certain Principle That's able to Evert the undeniable clear Catholic Doctrine of other Fathers, And the Authority of our whole learned Church with Them. 3. They are not only to Interpret the Fathers now Alleged (For, Fancy without Proof may pervert the clearest Words God ever Spoke) But, when Their Interpretation 
When Sectaries Interpret the Fathers, They are obliged to prove their Interpretation.  is made They must Show it grounded upon a contrary Received Principle as Strong, as the Express Words of those Fathers are. 4. They are to Show, That Christ our Lord when He uttered those sacred words to His Disciples. This is my Body, And then foresaw the universal supposed Error of Believing his Real Presence in the Eucharist would follow in all Orthodox Churches, And from no other Cause but His own Express and significant Speaking, They are, I say, Obliged to Prove And by an undeniable Principle, that He shut up in the clearest Proposition He ever uttered, that Dark sense which. They draw from it, And, that He did so to Deceive the World. Sectaries grant Christians to have been universally Deceived 
What Sectaries Grant.  in their Belief of the Real Presence: And that the supposed Error Arose from Christ's plain words, is Evident. For, the whole Catholic Church that Believes this Mystery doth so, Because Truth itself said plainly without Reserve: This is my Body. Finally, That Christ our Lord would speak as He did is Manifest by the Gospel; And that He then foresaw the Supposed Universal Error, would be also Believed by force of His words in the greatest part of Christendom is most Vndubitable, Because of the perfect Knowledge He had of Future Things. 5. May it please Sectaries to Proceed candidly, They are to cast a serious Reflection on passed Ages and Ponder well, who those were that Patronised Their Doctrine, and Opposed ours. They are to compare and justly to Balance their Obscure Scripture with our clear Texts: The weak Testimonies of Their misconstrued Fathers, with our contrary now Quoted Authorities; Their Novelty with our Ancient Believed Faith, The sentiment of their little late Congregation concerning this Mystery with the Judgement and Belief of our long standing Roman Church etc. And, if when All is Don, They can come to a sound Principle Whereby it may Appear to every Rational man, That their Scripture, Fathers, and Church Authority Outweigh as it were Ours Or have more force to establish their Novelty, than what is now Alleged to make our Catholic Doctrine most stably sure; We will begin to Think They may more laudably write Controversies Hereafter. But if contrariwise, you find Them Gravelled at every Difficulty now Proposed, and hear nothing distinctly Replied to (upon undoubted Principles) or Further confuted, than a loose wand'ring Discourse will carry on a Weak Cause, I'll once more crave Their Pardon, and Plainly Say: Our Arguments and Reasons cannot be Answered.   

CHAP. VIII.  
The Conclusion. The Church's Evidence.  
1. WE have seen Enough in the Precedent Discourses That True Religion is not (as Sectaries make Protestancy) Like a Dark Lantern, But One of the most Morally Manifested and Evidenced Things in the World: And Reason Teaches it should be so. For, if True Worth ever Shows itself by Real 
True worth is Known by real Effects.  Signs and Known Effects: (So Faith is Discovered by good Works, Life by its Vital Operations, The Existency of a Deity by the Emanations of Creatures) None can Doubt; But That God who Desires all to be Saved, Hath Made That Religion wherein Salvation is Had, 
Proofs cannot be wanting to manifest the Church; wherein Salvation is to be had. St. Austin confirm's this Doctrine.  most Known and Discernible by Outward Signs and Vndubitable Marks of Truth. Therefore, as we said above, clear Proofs cannot be Wanting Whereby That is Manifested which God will have Known. Audistis ejus vocem manifestissimam. They are Words of St. Austin de Vnit. Ecclesiae cap. 25. You have Herd the Most Manifest Voice of God, Not only by the Law, Prophets and Psalms, But by His Own Sacred Mouth Commendantis Ecclesiam suam futuram. Commending his Future Church to us All. This Church you have Diffused Every where: You see it like a City, whereof He who Built it, Saith: A City upon a Mountain, cannot be Hid. This is the Church, which is not in one Part of the World, as the Donatists were in the South, And▪ our Sectaries now are in These Northern Climates, sed ubique est notissima, But 'tis Manifest every where. And, if you Ask by what Signs 
And shows, by what Marks Christ's Church is Evidenced.  it is Known? The Saint Answers, lib. de Vtilit. Cred. c. 17. Hoc factum est Divina Providentiâ. This is Don by Providence, By the Oracles, and Fore telling of Prophets, by the Humanity and Doctrine of Christ, by the wearisome Travails of his Apostles, by the Reproaches and Contumelies of Martyrs, by their Gibbets Blood Shedding and Blessed Deaths, By the Famous▪ 
St. Augustine's Motives of Credibility.  Known Lives of Saints, and Among These so Universal great Virtues, By most Worthy Miracles, Meetly and upon fit Occasion Shown us. Mark the Signs. He Goes on. Cum igitur tantum Auxilium etc. When Therefore we see so great Aid and Help Afforded by Almighty God, so much Fruit and Increase. Dubitamus nos ejus Ecclesiae gremio 
They force Reason to profess the Faith of that Church, which shows them. It is pride and impiety, not to give Preeminence to such a Church before others. St. Austin Defends not a Religion common to all Christians.  condere etc. Shall we Doubt to Hid ourselves in the Lap of That Church Which from the Apostolical Sea, Even to this Public Confession of Mankind, Hath got to such a Height of Authority, by a Continual Succession of Bishops; condemned Heretics vainly snarling at it. Partly also by the judgement of the People, Partly by the Gravity and Weight of Councils, Partly by the Glory and Majesty of Miracles. Cui nolle primas dare, vel summae profecto impietatis est, vel praecipitis arrogantiae. And not to Give to this Church the Chiefest. Preeminence is in Good Earnest either a Mighty Wickedness, or a Stubborn and Headstrong Pride. Ponder these Words well with the Following Also, and Ask your Own Consciences, what Church that was For Which St. Austin Pleaded so Strongly? Did He Speak For All who Go under the Name of Christians? No: The Impugned manichees were Such, And so were also the Arians, Pelagians, and Others: But These Because of Their unevidenced Religion (utterly Destitute of Marks and Motives) He Rejects as Schismatics 
Much less, the Then unknown Novelties of Protestants.  and Heretics. Did He Argue, Think ye, For our little late Risen Congregation of Protestants? No God Knows, They have less of this Evidence Then the very Arians Had; And, Besides were never Thought of in St. Augustine's Days.  
2. The Church Therefore, For which our Profound 
The Saint pleads for no other, then for the Ever Visible, Holy, and Catholic Roman Church,  Doctor Speaks and Pleads, is an Other Society Known to the World before Heresy Began. I Mean the Ever Visible, Holy, Continued and Catholic Roman Church wherinto Heresy, justly condemned, never Entered. (August. Tract. 18. in joannem) And, whereof the Prophets Spoke more fignificantly then of Christ Himself (Aug. in Psal. 30.) This Church, And This Only, Hath been Manifested Age after Age by Eminent Sanctity, By Glorious Miracles, 
Made Evidently Credible, by undoubted Marks and Signs.  By the Bloodsheding of Martyrs, By a never Interrupted Succession of Prelates, Pastors, and People from St. Peter's Days to Ours, And finally By most Learned and Approved Councils. This, and This Only is the Church Diffused the Whole World Over, which Keeps perfect Unity in Faith with one Supreme Head, And so Demonstratively Evidenceth its Antiquity, That the Worst of Sectaries are silenced When They offer to Cavil at it.  
3. If you Ponder well These undeniable Truths, You 
A Conclusion against Sectaries.  must needs Conclude Against Sectaries, as Blessed St. Austin Once did Against the Manicheans. Read him lib. de util. creden. cap. 14. VOS AUTEM TAM PAUCI, ET TAM TURBULENTI, ET TAM NOVI, NEMINI DUBIUM EST, QUIN NIHIL DIGNUM AUTHORITATE PRAEFERATIS. There is no Doubt, Saith the Saint, But that You Sectaries so 
St. Augustine's pithy Expression, justly agrees to Sectaries. Th●y are few in number. Fearfully Divided. And of a new Faith. St▪ Augustine's words pondered with Reflection on Sectaries. Innumerable witnesses against a few.  meanly Few, who Evidence nothing Credible in your Religion, You so Turbulent and Consused in your Opinions concerning Faith; You so newly Strangers to the Christian World; There is, I say, no Doubt But That You of so Small Authority can Allege Nothing worth the Hearing, or Worthy of Credit when you Oppugn our Ancient Church, or Defend Your Own so late invented Novelties. Consider every Word Seriously. VOS TAM PAUCI. What? You so Few. You, Who See, to Your Eternal Discomfort, so Many Nations, so many People, so Many Worthy Prelates, so Many Glorious Martyrs, so Many Penitent Sinners Believing Our Ancient Faith Dying in it, and for it: You, who see so Many Miracles Confirm it, so Many Conversions Wrought by it, so Many Churches Erected, so many Universities Founded, so Many Prisons Sanctified, so Many Dangers run Through, so Many Works of Piety Don by the Professors of this Ancient Church: All is Evident to Your Eyes and Senses: VOS AUTEM TAM PAUCI. And what can You so Inconsiderably Few, not the Hundred part in Number, who Have Don Nothing like these Zealous Christians Say for a Novelty, or Probably Plead Against so Learned, so Holy and so Diffused a Christian Society? Moreover. VOS TAM TURBULENTI. You so Turbulent, See in This Ample Moral Catholic Body Innumerable Seculars, Though of Different Nations, of Different Tempers and Education, Knit Together in One Ancient Belief: You See Innumerable 
Unity stands against Division.  Profound Doctors, All over Christianity, Innumerable Learned Religious, (Though Various in Matters merely Opinative) Yet so Highly Tender of the Church's Unity, That They would rather Die than Break or Blemish it. All these well Agreeing Hearts in one Faith, Evidence, That This Church, is Made up of Members who Glory in Union amongst Themselves, and Testify it By a due Submission to one Supreme Head set over this Blessed Society: VOS AUTEM TAM TURBULENTI. And what can You, late Troublesome People, Who Yield Submission to None, But to your own Fancies, You, Who within the Compass of one Narrow Kingdom, are so turbulently Divided in Faith, so Horridly Rend and Torn a Pieces with Schism; What can You, I say, Allege For Your Breach of Union, or Rationally Pretend Against this long Standing and Ancient Agreeing Body of Catholics?  
4. Finally. You So NEW MEN Behold (And it may lay Sorrow at your Hearts) Innumerable of your own long since Deceased Ancestors, Professed Children of this Mother Church, Their Monuments, Even in 
Antiquity against Novelty.  England (Sad Spectacles 'Tis true, But) Visible Enough to Your Eyes, Plead Strongly for the Ancient Faith, which You now Unfortunately Reject: You See, The Very Churches built by Those your Forefathers, Though in part Defaced, Are not yet so much Spoilt, But, That still a memory is preserved of Catholic Religion in the very Altars half Pulled Down, In the Crosses, And other Remembrances of their Ancient Renowned Piety: You See withal, Whole Volumes writ in Defense of our Catholic Doctrine, the very Velume and Characters whereof (much elder than your Faith) lament your late Change, And tell many a sad Story of your new risen Gospel. VOS ERGO TAM NOVI, And How Dare you so late Masters, without Confusion and Torment of Conscience, reflect on These Ancestors, Look on These Monuments, Read these Writings, And after all, Speak, as you do Irreverently of an Ancient Faith, merely to Countenance a Novelty Whereof the World never Herd, before you Preached it. Say once Plainly, 'Tis High time to Speak, what Have you for This Protestancy? Any Prudent Motives That make it Credible? Not One. Have you Scripture? Not a Word. Do Ancient Councils, or, the unanimous Consent 
Nothing can defend Protestancy but Fancy  of Fathers Favour it? No. All Band against it, And leave both you, and the Novelty professed by you To no better a Ground, than what upholds all Heresy, which is Fancy, or some Thing worse than Fancy. Therefore Nemini dubium est quin nihil dignum auctoritate praeferatis.  
5. Some Perhaps will say. If Protestancy be thus Highly Improbable, And the Roman Catholic Religion so Manifestly Credible As is now Declared, From 
Why Sectaries stay so long in Heresy, whilst the Church is so manifest to all.  Whence is it That Sectaries Stay so long in Heresy, And Embrace not a Faith, which is without Dispute undoubtedly Clear to All? To Answer the Question, it would be enough to Propose an Other, And 'Tis not to Ask, Why All Embrace not Protestancy That hath Nothing to induce men to it, But Why, after 
It is Answered first, by an Instance of Christ and his Apostles not converting all. A further Reason is Given.  All those most Signal Manifest Miracles, and Conversions wrought by Christ our Lord and His Apostles the whole world, Both Jews and Gentiles came not Then in, Upon such Evident Motives, Why Did they not Forthwith Profess Christianity? Most Certainly the Attraction was Forceable: They wanted no Inducements. But Education And a contrary custom of Living Hindered much, and Sense too strong with the Most of men, Perhaps More. For as Sense and Sensual Pleasures, Ever Make Virtue Insipid to the will, So They often Dull the Eye of Reason also in Order to Truth, And Either Withdraw the Attention from a Serious 
Contrary on Educati▪ s●n●iberty see and sensual pleasure Hinder.  Consideration of what most Concerns our Good, or, which is Worses, totally averts the mind from it. We See this misery Daily, For the More that men are Lulled a Sleep in sense and worldly Delights, The Less they Listen to what God speaks, Though He Calls loud on Them, And Useth a Language, as He doth by His Church, most Clear, Audible, and Significant.  
6. Add hereunto an Other Verity Delivered by One That could not but Speak Truth, 1. Cor. 15. 19 Oportet 
Heresies must be.  Haereses esse. There must be Heresies, and the Reason Follows in the Text. That Those who are Approved may be made Manifest Among you. Manifest, How? I'll Tell you. It is Heresy that hath brought Thousands 
The Reason.  of Martyrs (and this in the open View of the world) to Their Gibbets and Torments, without it 
Much Good follows the permission of Heresy.  They Had not Dyed for Christ, nor Manifested so clearly their Renowned Constancy. It is Heresy that hath Evidenced the suffering Patience of Innumerable Confessors, who Though shut up in Prisons and Dungeons for their Faith, Have yet Their Memory Living, and it will Remain upon Record to future Ages. It is Heresy, That both Proves and Shows you where True Faith (much more precious than Gold tried by the Fire) is Found, unto 
showed in particular.  Praise and Glory. It is Heresy, That Brings to Light Gods pure Revealed Verities, never more spread abroad, nor, better Known then when novelists endeavon to Suppress Them. It is Heresy, that hath set Forth so many learned Volumes of Ancient Fathers, Sent Innumerable Missioners Up and Down the World, And yet Gives you Plenty of painful Preachers in the Church, who Cease not to Speak in God's Cause, It omne os obstruatur, that the Mouths of Sectaries being Stopped, All may love Truth and Yield a Due Submission to Christ and His Church. You see Therefore How Heresy, Though it Poisons Him That feeds on't, Yet it causeth More Good Among Christians, Then our Vulgar 
And more, then is Vulgarly conceived.  Thoughts easily reach to. Se● Tertullian lib de Praesc. c. 1. And S. Austin de Verd Relig. c. 8.  
7. Grow not Therefore Angry with God ('Tis Tertullia's advice) for Permitting Sin and Heresy. An 
God That permitt's sin and Heresy, knows best for what use they serve.  Infinite Wisdom Knows best for what Use they Serve. You Remember, When Those Servants in the Gospel Matth. 13. 26. Saw Cockle Appearing among the Wheat, They readily Offered their Service to Pluck it Up, But the wise Housholder Said, No. Sinite utraque crescere usque ad messem. Suffer Both to Grow until the Harvest, And in the time of Harvest, I will say to the Reapers, Gather up first the Cockle etc. They Pressed not further, but Remained well Satisfied with Christ's Answer. 
Christ's Answer.  Lest whilst you Gather up the Tares you Root up also the wheat with Them. Now, if you Understand not the Deep Sense of these sacred Words: Exclaim with the Apostle Rom. 11. 33. O Altitudo. O Depth of the Riches, of 
The Apostles pious exclamation. The Prophet's Lesson, and the wise Counsel, of the son of Syrach.  the Wisdom and Knowledge of God Quis cognovit sensum Domini, Who hath known the mind of our Lord, or, who hath been his Counsellor? Learn well that good Lesson: Esay 55. 9 My Thoughts are not your Thoughts, for as the Heavens are Exalted above the Earth, s● are my Ways Exalted above Yours, and my Cogitations above your Cogitations. Learn more of JESUS, the Wise son of Syrach Eccles. 33. 15. And Look with Him, upon all 
Teach ●● to Reverence God's permission of Evil.  the Works of the Highest. You see Two against Two, and One Against One, Against Evil is Good, Against Death is Life, Against a Just man is a Sinner, And I Add, Against Truth you have Heresy. S. Austin lib. 11. de Civitate c. 18. Calls 
S. Augustine's Discourse, of Contrarieties in God's works.  these Things, R●rum Antitheta. Contrarities in the works of God, And moreover Assures us, That His Goodness would never have Created either Men or Angels in whom Evil was Foreseen, Nisi pariter nosset, quibus eos Bonorum usibus accommodaret, unless He had also Known how Useful, Subservient, and Beneficial, I'll would Prove at last, to Virtuous Good Men. Atque ita in ordinem seculorum tanquam pulcherrimum Carmen, etiam ex quibusdam quasi Antithetis honestaret, And How that in the Cours of Ages, He might Commend and set Forth all We See, like a well made Verse with certain Contrarieties. 
Evil graceth virtue and Error gives a lustre to Truth.  Evil Therefore Hath its Good, and Gives a Grace to Virtue. Error Add's a Comeliness to Truth, And the more Ugly Heresy is, the More it sets forth the Lustre of Christ's Orthodox Church, And makes it glorious. 
S. Austin confirm's the Doctrine,  Pictor novit (They are Words of S. Austin Serm. De Diversis c. 5. fine) ubi ponat nigrum colorem ut sit decora pictura, & nescit Deus ubi ponat peccatores, ut sit ordinata creatura. A▪ Painter Knows well where to lay Darker Colours, That his Piece may be Fair to the eye, And Shall not God Know where to Place Sinners (the like is of Heretics) That His Creatures may Thereby Appear 
And sh●w●s of what use erring men are to the Church.  Seemly, and in Order? Yes most Assuredly. This great Doctor Saith yet More lib. de Vera Beligione c. 6. Haec enim Catholica Ecclesia, per totum orbem validè lateque diffusa, omnibus errantibus ad profectus suos, & ad eorum Correctionem cum Evigilare voluerint etc. This Catholic Church so far and near Diffused, makes Benefit of all Poor erring Souls, Yea, and Doth so for their Amendment, when They Shall Please to Awake out of their Drowsiness. It makes Use of Gentiles to let them See the Wonders it Works▪ of Heretics to Prove its Holy Doctrine, of Schismatics to give them a Lesson of better Stability, of jews to Show them the Beauty of Christian Religion etc. So it is. All the Blindness in the world, saith S. Austin, else Were, Ad aliquem usum Sanctorum ordinatur, is Ordained for some 
Heresy serviceable to the Church.  Profit and Service, of God's Elect and Chosen People.  
8. Conclude therefore. As there will be Deluded Souls, whether jews or Gentiles: As There will be Sin, Oppression, and Open Injustice to the End of Ages. Sic oportet Haereses esse. So there will be Heresies also, 
No wonder that some wilfully Shut their Eyes to the Evidence of the Church,  And Those who Wilfully Shut their Eyes to the Evidence of a Glorious Mother Church. And wonder not at it. For you Know, That the Son of God Himself, came into the World, Et mundus cum non cognovit, And the World would not know Him, His sacred Doctrine was Preached All over, But Seemed, Iudaeis Scandalum, Gentibus Stultitia, A Scandal to the jews, and a Foolery 
When the Son of God was not known to All.  to the Gentiles. What Marvel is it then, that His Own Holy Church, Be less Regarded by Dispirited Souls, and the Doctrine thereof set Light by? Have Patience. Wait on God's Good Leisure. No Hart is so Hard but Grace can Soften it. These Dimm Eyes of Deceived Men Will at last be Opened. Et videbit omnis caro Salutare Dei. And all shall See and Know, That, as There is no Other Saviour but One, Christ our Lord, So There is no other Church but 
No other Christ but one. No other Church but the one only Roman Catholic Church▪  One, Wherein Salvation (long Sought for) can be Found, But in the One only Ancient, Apostolical, Catholic, and Holy Roman Church. CREDO SANCTAM ECCLESIAM CATHOLICAM.   
FINIS.   

THE CHAPTERS IN ORDER.  

THE FIRST DISCOURSES.  
Of an Infallible Church and Infallible Teachers.  

CHAP. I. There are Infallible Teachers of true Christian Religion. Page 16.  
CHAP. II. The Infallible Doctrine of Christ Necessarily requires Infallible Teachers. 20  
CHAP. III. Other Proofs for Teachers, and a Church infallible. 29  
CHAP. iv Replies to these Arguments are Answered. 36  
CHAP. V A Controversy with some later Sectaries concerning Moral certainty. 49  
CHAP. VI Faith only morally certain, is no Faith. Protestants have no Moral certainty of Protestant Religion. 63  
CHAP. VII. How Sectaries err in the search made after Religion. Of their weak and improbable Opposition. The Objection is more fully Answered. 70  
CHAP. VIII. A few Reflections made upon these Motives of Credibility. No Religion hath Motives founding moral certainty but One only, which is 〈◊〉 Roman Catholic Religion. 78  
CHAP. IX. A short Digression concerning the shuffling of Protestants in this matter. 88  
CHAP. X. Protestants have no rational Motives, whereby their new Faith is evidenced to be so much as Probable. 96  
CHAP. XI. Arguments drawn from Reason against Protestants, upon the consideration of These declared Motives. 114  
CHAP. XII. Protestants, for want of rational Motives cannot convert an Infidel to Christian Faith. 119  
CHAP XIII. Protestancy for want of Rational Motives dishonor's Christ, and makes way for any new coined Heresy. 128    

THE SECOND DISCOURSES.  
Of Scripture.  

CHAP. I. Scripture is useless, if none declare infallibly the sense of it. 135  
CHAP. II. The Fallacy of Protestants concerning Scripture, and the Interpretation of Scripture, is discovered. 144  
CHAP. III. All substantials of Faith are not plain in Scripture without an infallible Teacher. 153  
CHAP. IV. Sole Scripture without an infallible Interpreter can be no Rule of Faith. Protestants have no Scripture for their Religion, as it is Protestancy. 162  
CHAP. V The Reason of private men, and their private spirit, cannot interpret Scripture. 169  
CHAP. VI The new mode of Protestants Misinterpreting Scripture, which proves the Church's Infallibility, is more Amply Refuted. 179  
CHAP. VII. More of this subject. 187  
CHAP. VIII. The new Mode of Sectaries misinterpreting Scripture destroys Protestant Religion. 195  
CHAP. IX. Of the Means left by Almighty God to interpret Scripture Truly. One Passage more of Scripture Proving Infallible Teachers, is quoted. 203  
CHAP. X. Objections are Answered. 217    

THE THIRD DISCOURSES.  
Of Sectaries Unreasonable Proceeding.  

CHAP. I. Protestants are Unreasonable, whilst They seemingly hold a Catholic Church Distinct from the Roman, neither known nor Designable by any. 231  
CHAP. II. Of a late Writers Doctrine. 236  
CHAP. III. The Pretended Reformation of Protestants is unreasonable, if Faith in Christ Only suffice for Salvation. A more Explicit Faith is proved Necessary. 244  
CHAP. IV. The Ambiguous Discourses of Protestants, concerning Fundamentals in Faith, are Proved unreasonable. 250  
CHAP. V An Answer to one Reply. More of this subject. 262  
CHAP. VI Some Few Propositions of a late Writer are briefly Examined. His Discourse of Fundamentals Destroy's Protestant Religion. 271  
CHAP. VII. More of this subject. Objections are Answered. 291  
CHAP. VIII. Protestants are unreasonable in the Defense of Their late Manifest and undoubted Schism. 315  
CHAP. IX. Protestants cannot make Good Their Charge Against the Roman Catholic Church, concerning causal Schism. 323  
CHAP. X. The Roman Catholic Church, whilst Evidence comes not Against it, stands Firm upon its Ancient Possessed Right. This long Possession Proves the Church Orthodox. 333  
CHAP. XI. Of a late Writers Exceptions Against our Pleading Possession. 339  
CHAP. XII. Another Objection. And whether Protestants can Acquit themselves of Schism. 357  
CHAP. XIII. A second Argument Against this Schism. Of Sectaries Cavils concerning Errors, Entering the Church insensibly. 362  
CHAP. XIV. A Word to a Few supposed and unproved Assertions. Whereby some Endeavour to clear Protestants of Schism. 379  
CHAP. XV. More of These Author's confused Doctrine, is Refuted. 387    

THE FOURTH DISCOURSES.  
Of the Churches Evident Credibility. Of the Improbability of Protestancy.  

CHAP. I. Christ's Church is Proved to be no Other, But the Roman Catholic. Sectaries are convinced of error. 405  
CHAP. II. Protestancy is an unevidenced, And a most improbable Religion, or, rather no Religion, but a mere Fancied Opinion. 420  
CHAP. III. A Word more of Sectaries new Mode of Arguing laid forth, by Touching on one Controversy concerning the Doctrine of Purgatory. 434  
CHAP. IV. A Parallel of Proofs for, and Against t●e Doctrine of Purgatory. A solution to a late Adversaries Objections. 452  
CHAP. V An objection proposed, and solved in a Discourse of another Controversy. Which is the Real Presence. 477  
CHAP. VI Sectaries without either Proof or Principles, wrist Christ's Words to an improper sense, and vent an Heresy upon mere Fancy. 489  
CHAP. VII. How differently We and Sectaries proceed in this Controversy. What they are to Prove. 506  
CHAP. VIII. The Conclusion. The Church's Evidence. 517     

SOME FEW OF THE MORE CHIEF CONTENTS OF THIS TREATISE.  

THE FIRST DISCOURSES.  
Of Infallible Teachers, and the Motives of Credibility.  
CHrists Church hath infallible Teachers of true Christian Religion. Christ's infallible Doctrine requires infallible Teachers. A Doctrine that is fallible may be falls. Christ sent none to teach any other Doctrine but that which may be resolved into God's certain Revelation, but such a Doctrine can neither be falls nor fallible. Sectaries preach no other Doctrine but what is fallible and may be falls. The Objective infallibility of God's Word in Scripture is not ex terminis Evident, and no Church (as They say) Ever yet told them or can tell them infallibly, that it is infallible. If all Pastors and Doctors may err in their delivery of Christian Doctrine, God would as indifferently oblige us to believe a lie, as his certain verities. If God deprive all Pastors of infallible Assistance, Christian Religion now stands on no more firm ground than man's weak, mutable and erring opinion. God's infallible Revelation avails nothing in order to Faith, unless Christians lay hold on the certainty thereof by Faith which cannot be done, unless that Oracle which proposeth the Revelation to all be infallible. If the Proponent of a Revelation only say doubtfully. I think God speaks as I preach, but am not certain, the Assent given to his Preaching is also doubtful, and no Faith. Faith surpasseth in its strength and Tendency, all moral and Metaphysical certainty. Though Moral certainty were sufficient for Faith, yet Sectaries have not so much for Protestancy, as it is reform. How Sectaries err in their search made after Religion, and both weakly and improbably oppugn the Doctrine of the Catholic Roman Church. Reflections upon the motives of credibility. It is impossible (after the establishment of true Faith in the world) that God permit a falls Religion to be more clearly evidenced to reason by force of rational Motives, then true Religion is manifested. A falls Religion cannot equalise Gods true Religion in the evidence of prudent motives, inducing to Faith. No Religion hath motives founding moral certainty (prerequired to Faith) but the Roman Catholic Religion only. Protestants have nothing like rational motives, whereby Protestancy, as Protestancy, is proved to be so much as probable. Where Mr. Stillingfleet Treats of resolving Protestants Faith, He waves the Question wholly, and speaks no more in behalf of Protestancy, than Arianism, or another Heresy. Arguments drawn from Reason against Protestants upon the consideration of the Church's motives. Sectaries cannot for want of prudent motives (inducing to Faith) convert an infidel to Christian Religion. Their Religion Dishonours Christ and makes way to any new coined Heresy.   

THE SECOND DISCOURSES.  
Of Scripture.  
SCripture is a useless book in the hands of Sectaries, if none, as they confess, Declare infallibly the sense of it in high points of Controversies. Arians interpret Scripture as probably as Protestants, when they oppose the sense received by the Church. Sectaries make Scripture a book, that proves all Religions, and more significant for Arianism then Protestancy. The fallacy of Protestants concerning the Interpretation of Scripture, is discovered. Grant no infallible Church, we have no Assurance of true and interrupted Scripture. Scripture might be more easily corrupted then a whole Church cheated into falls Doctrine. No man can prudently suppose, that God had more care to preserve Scripture uncorrupt▪ than a Church free from error. All Substantials of Faith are not in Scripture. A Learned Philosopher by his own reading Scripture cannot judge what it means in a hundred Passages without an Interpreter. Sectaries now are in the very same case without an infallible Interpreter. Sectaries in their Glosses on Scripture do nothing but add, and subtract from God's Word, When They Oppose the Church's sense of Scripture. Sole Scripture without an infallible Interpreter, can be no Rule of Faith. Protestants have not one word of Scripture for their Religion, as it is Protestancy. The Reason of private men, or of a private spirit cannot interpret Scripture. The new mode of Protestants misinterpreting Scripture is amply refuted. All our Sectaries endeavour is to turn Scripture off from the Catholic sense by their own fancies, and then think the work don. It is one thing to say (and only to say it) that Scriptures alleged by us prove not what we intent, and another positively to prove the Doctrine contrary to us to be grounded on Scripture, In this Sectaries always fail. The new mode of Sectaries interpreting Scripture destroys Protestant Religion. Here is the sequel of Sectaries. We Catholics Prove not what we assert, therefore they make the contrary Doctrine an Article of their new Faith. Faith cannot rely on such Negatives. Of the means left by Almighty God to interpret Scripture. The Holy Ghost only, speaking by the Oracle of the Church, Interpret's Scripture infallibly, in those matters which concern the general belief of all. Protestants, who profess themselves to be fallible in what ever they teach, are no Instruments assumed by the Holy Ghost to teach and interpret infallibly God's Word. No Sectary can judge the Church, but the Church is to judge all Sectaries.   

THE THIRD DISCOURSES.  
Of the unreasonable proceeding of Protestants in some Chief matters of Controversy.  
Protestant's, who seemingly hold a Catholic Church before Luther larger than the Roman Catholic Church, and cannot design it, Proceed unreasonably, and must falsify that Article of our Creed. I believe the Holy Catholic Church. Before Luther there were no Christians in the world for a thousand years, at least, but Roman Catholics, and known Heretics, neither those Catholics alone (as Protestants say) nor the known Heretics (nor both together) constituted the true Catholic Church, therefore there was no true Catholic Church on earth for so vast a time. No abstract Doctrine common to all, who are named Christians, is sufficient to constitute Catholic Doctrine. Mr. Stillingfleet is confuted, and his Doctrine shown improbable. Faith in Christ only, as a Redeemer, is insufficient to Salvation: A more explicit Faith of other particulars is proved Necessary. If Catholics and Sectaries are right in the fundamentals of Faith, all the pretended Reformation of Protestants comes to a slight work about Non▪ Essentials, which may have made Things worse than before. It is not the less or more weight of things revealed that makes Faith less or more valued of, but the Submission we yield to God's Veracity, which is one, and of equal Authority in what ever he Reveal's. Though a Distinction were granted between Fundamentals and not Fundamentals: Yet Protestants cannot so much as probably sever the Fundamentals from the others by any known Principle. If there be no Catholic Church owned (at least) infallible in Fundamentals, all Faith both of Christ and Creed may perish before the world end's. And if there be such an Infallible Church in Fundamentals, Sectaries ought to design it, and say, to whom that Spirit is granted, in what subject it resides etc. A Protestant, who so far Denies Christ's true Church, That he cannot say where it is, and endeavor's to reform others before he have certainty of his own half well made Reformation, cannot probably go about to withdraw a prudent Catholic from his Religion. Some Propositions of Mr. Stillingfleet are examined. His Discourse of Fundamentals destroy's Protestant Religion. He Speaks of the Being of a Church and saith not precisely how much Doctrine constitutes that Being. He cannot name any Orthodox Church that ever Excepted against the Articles believed by the Church of Rome. He makes the Negative Articles of the English Church not to be Articles of Faith, but only inferior Truths held only in order to peace and tranquillity. His Church therefore is essentially Hypocritical, which may believe one thing and must profess an other. Though Protestants were very Papists in hart, yea, and Anathematised all These Negative Articles, They may be looked on as Blessed Children of this new Negative Church, if their Exterior be fairly Protestantlike. He makes his Church no more an English Church then a Church of Arians, and of all condemned Heretics. He saith the English Church makes no Articles of Faith, but such as have the Approbation of the whole Christian world and of Rome itself. The Assertion is Evidently Untrue, For no Orthodox Church, no Heretical Society, no Consent ●f the whole Christian World Ever taught, That a Doctrine wherein all Christians agree is sufficient to Salvation. When Sectaries Say. Christ's gave to his Disciples a Sign only of his Body. This very Doctrine is either an Article of Their Faith, or one of their Inferior Truths. If the first; They believe that which never had the approbation of the whole Christian World, much less of Rome itself. If the second be granted: They have no Divine Faith at all of the Blessed Sacrament. The Nullity of our Adversaries ground's is declared, though the Church made new Articles of Faith. If we speak rigorously, The Church makes no new Articles, but only declares more Explicitly what was anciently believed▪ The Fathers call the Church a rich Treasury wherein the Depositum of Apostolical Doctrine is securely preserved. The Analogy of Faith is explicated. There was a Platform of Christian Religion before Scripture was Writ, and the Apostles separated Themselves and Preached to several Nations. Sectaries who seemingly acquiesce in the Judgement of one or two Ancient Fathers, most inconsequently reject the Authority of a Learned General Council that is of greater weight and Estimation. If the Church's Definitions are therefore to be thought fallible, because men declare them, and all men are liars; much more are our Sectaries Novelties and Glosses on Scripture to be valued of as Fallible upon the same ground. These fallible men tell me my Church's Doctrine is fallible, suppose falsely it were so, it is altogether as good as this very fallible Proposition is that says 'Tis Fallible; and if (which is true) it be infallible, it is much better. No man that holds His Religion fallible, can probably endeavour to convert an other, though the contrary Religion Professed by this other be acknowledged to be no more but fallible. Much less can he persecute Him for not yielding Assent to a fallible Religion. All the Storms of persecution raised against Catholics are not upon any account of want of Faith, but for this sole cause, that we will not believe one thing and force our Consciences to Profess an other: Which is to say, we are persecuted because we will not be Hypocrites.  

The Unreasonableness of Protestants Schism laid forth, from the VIII. Chap. of the third Discourse to the XV.  
THe Separation of Protestants from the Roman Catholic Church, is as plain and manifest a sinful Schism, as ever was Decried Rebellion in a Kingdom, or any Violation of a Countries Right. The formal Schism of Sectaries, is evident, but the Causal charged on Catholics, is no more but an unproved Calumny. Proofs brought to received Principles fail Sectaries, whilst they make the Roman Church to be the cause of their Formal Schism. The supposed errors charged on the Roman Catholic Church by Sectaries are not like the first Principles in nature, Evident ex terminis, and therefore must be proved by a Discourse grounded on certain Principles. We Licence Sectaries in their Discourse against us, to make use of all Imaginable sound Principles, Scripture, Fathers, Tradition, or what They pleas, and only exclude Their own self-voting from the nature of a rational Proof and Principle. When a Rebellion is manifest in a Kingdom, the sole Authority, of them who began it, is insufficient to make it Justifiable▪ And the Authority of Sectaries is as forceles to Justify their Evident Schism against the Church. Whilst Evidence comes not against our Church, it stands most firm upon its ancient possessed right. This long Possession proves our Church Orthodox. Examples Hereof. Mr. Stillingfleets Exceptions against our pleading Possession, are proved to be weak, forceles, and mere ungrounded Suppositions. Though the Obligation of proving Evidently lies on our Adversaries, who are the Aggressors, yet we prove not only a personal Succession of our Popes and Prelates in foregoing Ages, but also manifest a Quiet Possession of Truth that descended with these continued Popes and Bishops from the days of S. Peter to this very Age. No just Exception can be made against our Tradition, which is Evidently its one Proof, for there cannot be a clearer. Mr. Stillingfleet supposeth that our Right of pleading Truth is a mere Occupancy. He is to prove this because he is the Accuser. No Antecedent Law hath determined Contrary to what we Challenge by virtue of our Possession. We have both the Law for us, and ancient Possession, besides; And there is no Reason when we allege two Proofs, Law and Possession, that we Quite the one, which is Possession, as Mr. Stillingfleet pretends we should do, which is against all rational Discourse of this subject. It is improbable to say, that Protestants first saw these supposed errors imputed to our Church, when others as Quicksighted, more numerours and Learned than They, saw them not for ten whole Ages before Luther. It is a degree of madness to suppose, that all those worthy and Learned Professors of the Catholic Faith were either so stupidly blind, as not to have seen such supposed errors, or so wickedly Hypocritical as to have winked at them, after their plain Discovery. It is a Paradox to say, that our new men saw these too plain and visible errors, when that great Catholic Church (which Sectaries make more large than the Roman) saw them not, but permitted Rome to countenance these supposed errors, without check or reprehension. Of the Impossibility of errors entering the Church after the first 4. or 5. hundred years. Though Sectaries should convince (which is impossible) the Roman Catholic Church to be guilty of error, yet they cannot show that they have set Christian Faith right again on its old Foundations, as it once stood pure. All Principles fail them in this particular. Fancy only, and nothing like a rational Proof, uphold's this charge of error against our Church. Mr Stillingfleets Assertions are refuted. If the Roman Catholic Church has erred by imposing unreasonable conditions, Sectaries who Profess themselves fallible in all they say, may have erred more and spoiled all they went about to mend. Nothing can be more unreasonable, then to make a few Rebellious people receding from an ancient Church first to accuse it, and then to sit judges in their own cause, and condemn it. None can probably show, that these late Reformers of Protestants, who opposed all other Religions, are untainted, or purely Orthodox. As no men before the Donatists made the Church so straight as they did: so never Christians before these later Sectaries made it so wide, as to hold in it all the Heretics in the world. Protestancy, as Protestancy, is no Christian Religion at all, if the belief of that Doctrine which is common to all Christians be amply sufficient to Salvation. Protestants may Anathematise all the Doctrine within the compass of their reformed Religion, and yet be saved.    

THE FOURTH DISCOURSES.  
Of the Church's Evidence, and Improbability of Protestant Religion.  
Protestant's, as they make not good their own Doctrine, by Proofs grounded on certain Principles: so they never impugn the Roman Catholic Faith by rational Arguments. Catholics contrariwise prove their Church's Doctrine by undeniable Principles. The Grounds of Catholic Religion are briefly laid forth. As it is an evident Principle, that all those Wife and Learned Doctors who taught Christians Popery for a thousand years, were neither fools nor perversely blind. So it is more evident, that God suffered not those millions of Christians, instructed by these Teachers, to be grossly abused with falls Doctrine, whilst there was no other Catholic Society in the world ●o unbeguile them. All other Sectaries, who deserted the Roman Catholic Church erred grossly: and it is improbable to think, that Protestants only among so many straying Teachers, were the only privileged people, elected by God to mend (had any thing been amiss, in a old decayed Church, without mixture of error, or marring more than they mended. Protestancy is unevidenced, and an improbable Religion, that is, no Religion, but a fancied opinion. No Doctrine fallibly taught, as Protestancy is, can be ultimately resolved into God's infallible Revelation. Scripture alone without an infallible Interpreter makes no man infallible. A Doctrine which at its first rise was, and is still opposed by all Christians (excepting the Sectaries who broach it) is as improbable, as Arianism. A Church essentially errable, may lo●s all Truth, and consequently all grace, and so become divorced from Christ. A Doctrine proved improbable by undoubted Principles, cannot be made credible by rational Arguments, unless Truth be contrary to Truth. Of the slight way of Sectaries Arguing against Catholic Doctrine. Mr. Stillingfleet, like his other Brethren, in a Discourse of Purgatory, gins with jeers, with Mistakes, and dissembling of Difficulties. He states not the Question rightly between the Latin and Greeks. The Dispute between the Latins and Greeks is clearly laid forth by Leo Alatius a Grecian. What passed in the Council of Florence concerning This Dispute. The Greeks most certainly, both before and after the Council held, a place of punishment for souls departed, from which place they are freed by the Prayers of the Living. They also hold that souls enjoy the beatifical Vision before the day of Judgement. The weakness of our Adversaries cause is best seen by a Parallel of Proofs for Purgatory and against it. The Catholic Principles for Purgatory. S. Augustine's was not the first that held Purgatory. Mr. Stillingfleet misunderstands two passages in S. Austin. The Sectary when He Explicates Scripture or Fathers, makes his own Gloss the surest ground of his Interpretation. When the Catholic explicates a dubious passage▪ He relies on a sure Principle distinct from his Interpretation. Objections are Answered. How the Supplications of the Church respect mercy and Forgiveness to be showed the just at the Day of Judgement. An Objection is proposed in behalf of Sectaries, and solved in another Discourse concerning the Blessed Sacrament. The Grounds of our Catholic Doctrine for the Real Presence. The contrary Opinion of Sectaries is proved to be mere Fancy. Sectaries cannot by virtue of any one received Principle remove the Catholic from the plain and Obvious senfe of Christ's most significant words. The Testimonies of Fathers are as clear for our Catholic Doctrine, as the words of the Council of Trent. A Parallel of Proofs for and against the Doctrine of the Real Presence. The way of Sectaries is, chief to loose Themselves in proposing difficulties against us, without casting a serious thought on sure Principles that solve them. They find the Mystery of the Blessed Sacrament uneasy to sense, but reflect not, that They believe two or three other Mysteries fully as hard, if not more difficile, for Example, a Trinity, the Incarnation, and Original sin. It is most Evident, what Ever Principle (whether it be Scripture, Church Authority, or consent of Fathers) that moves to believe these Verities, that very Principle is as pressing, forceable and urging, yea and often more express for the Belief of our Sacrament whereat they boggle. What the Sectary is obliged to prove, if He except against our grounds in this Controversy? We admit of Christ's plain Words, according to their most obvious sense: we find them so understood by a number of the most venerable ancient Fathers, as we understand them, and moreover have a Learned Church that speaks as both Scripture and Fathers speak. Can Sectaries now exact of us that we leave these strong Principles, and rely on their word because They will have us do so? It is impossible, unless They give us in lieu of the se, as plain Scripture, as plain Testimonies of Fathers, and produce the warrant of some other Church more ancient and Orthodox than ours is, that once Patronised their Novelty. If they say, They can explicate our Scripture and ancient Fathers. I have Answered above. Their explication is worth nothing unless it be grounded on more express Testimonies that favour their Novelty, than our contrary authorities are for Catholic Doctrine. If again they reply As we must explicate their Authorities brought against us, so They can explicate ours alleged against them. I Answer, if a stop be made here, neither they no● we yet come to the last Principles. But here will be the final Decision of all. We appeal to the clear Words of Scripture, They have Evidently non so express. We appeal to the most manifest Testimonies of Fathers delivered i● this Controversy (The Council of Trent speaks not more clearly) They Oppose a few dark Sentences helped on with their Glosses, contrary to the Father's sense, a● is largely proved. Lastly, we appeal to the Judgement of our Ancient and fa. extended Church, Herein they are forced to yield, for they have no Church comparable to it that Defends their Novelty. The Church's Evidence. Why God permits Heresy to be in the World.    

A FEW NOTES UPON MR. POOLS APPENDIX, AGAINST CAPTAIN EVERARD.  
1. I Say a few for I must be brief, finding very little to stay me in the Appendix which is not directly solved in the foregoing Treatis. And therefore wonder not, it I often remit the Reader to the former Discourses as occasion requires, it being impossible to reply to an Adversary upon this subject of Infallibility, without touching on what is said already, where the Direct Answer is given to His objections. I would not indeed have writ thus much against Mr. Poole, but only to hinder a little vanity in the man, for if no notice had been taken of his Appendix, He might perhaps have thought too well of his work, and judged it so learned a piece that none would Dare to meddle with it. To gain what time is possible, I pass by all His jeers, his harsher language, and Calumnies cast on Catholic &c. Those Personal exceptions also unjustly made against the Converted Captain, and some vulgar Difficulties solved a hundred times, shall give me no work at present, who will only fall (and closely) upon that which Mr. Poole (its likely) may think most material, and to the purpose. And because the best strength He hath, lies in the beginning of the Appendix, I'll examine that most, and make his errors manifest by sound proofs and Principles. Briefly.  
2. The occasion of Mr. Everards' Conversion was a Discourse held with a Catholic Gentleman. Who Asked me (saith the Captain) whether I was so certainly infallibly assured of the Truth of the Christian Religion, that it was not possible for me, or those that taught me Christianity to be mistaken therein; and He gave me this reason for his question, that otherwise, as to me, Christianity could be no more then probably true, And we could not condemn the jew or Turk, or Pagan, since they were as well persuaded of their several ways, as we could be of ours upon a fallible certainty, And for aught we knew (not having any infallible certainty for our Christianity) some of them might be in the right, and we in the wrong way, sor it is possible, you may be mistaken. Thus Mr. Poole Appendix page 8. who slight's the Discourse, as silly, weak, and ungrounded.  
3. I say Contrary. The Discourse is strong, rational, and most convincing. The ground of my Assertion further declared Disc. 1. c. 1. 2. is thus. A Doctrine which by virtue of all the Principles it hath (or can rely on) cannot but be fallibly taught by all Teachers now within the bounds of Christianity, is, by force of its Proposition, and merit of the Doctrine precisely considered) most certainly fallible, and may be falls. But such a taught Doctrine, which by virtue of all the Principles it hath, (or can rely on) and merit also of the Doctrine, or force of its Proposition, is fallible and may be falls, is not the certain Doctrine of Christ, which cannot by the virtue of any Principle it hath or merit of the Doctrine, and force of its proposition, be either fallible or falls, Ergo such a taught Doctrine is not Christ's certain Doctrine, which neither is, nor can be fallible or falls. Now further. A Doctrine which is not Christ's certain Doctrine (because remo 〈…〉 from certain Principles) can be no other but the Doctrine of man's errable judgement or Fancy, And consequently gives as little Assurance to him that teaches it fallibly, or those that hear it, as that of the Jews gives to them. Observe my reason, equally Convincing in both cases. Therefore we say, the Doctrine of a Jew gives 
If you say the Doctrine of a Jew is not only fallible, but falls also, you suppose what is to be proved against him.  no Assurance to Him that Teaches, and those who hear it, because it is removed from all infallible Principles, and relies only on his errable judgement or Fancy that teaches it, but the Fallible Doctrine of these Sectaries now mentioned, is also removed from all Infallible Principles (for no man amongst them can deliver Doctrine infallibly) Therefore it relies only on an errable judgement or fancy that teaches it, and by good consequence, is none of Christ's infallible Doctrine. But if it be none of Christ's Doctrine, it gives no more Assurance to them that Hear it, than the Doctrine of a Jew gives to any of his Sect, Ergo. Here briefly is my Ground and I would see it Answered.  
4. Some perhaps will say, the Doctrine of these Sectaries relies on God's Word, and that alone is a sure and infallible Principle. I answer, if we speak of Sectaries particular Doctrine as reform, They have not one Article clearly, no nor so much as probably grounded on God's express word, for Scripture saith no where that Faith only justifies, that all Churches are fallible, that there is no Purgatory, no Sacrifice of the Altar, etc. Ergo these Doctrines want certain Principles. Now if they Reply, Though these particular Doctrines are not express in Scripture, yet the general Truths of Christianity are, And They rely on these, not caring for more. I Answer, Though these Verities as revealed be infallible in themselves, yea and infallible also to the Catholic that admit's of them as infallible, for the certain Testimony of his Church, yet no man, no Church, no Oracle of Truth, ever hitherto assured the Protestant infallibly, that they are infallible (for all these with him are fallible) therefore They are removed from the nature of being certain Principles in order to his Faith and Doctrine also, unless He say that the Objective infallibility of Scripture is evident ex terminis to the very eyes that read the book, which is proved improbable Disc. 1. c. 12. n. 4. Whereof more presently. I Answer. 2. If the Objective infallibility of these great Verities be a certain Principle to the Protestant, it either Derives into his understanding that teaches them a Subjective infallbility in order to his Doctrine; or leaves him as He was before liable to mistake and error, if the first be granted; He is Subjectively infallible when He teaches, and this He will not hear of. Grant the second viz. That He is liable to mistake and error in his teaching, He may well miss of the objective Truth, because He only saith fallibly what God speaks infallibly, and consequently his Doctrine ultimately resolved, saith no more but timidly thus much: Perhaps I declare what God speaks, and it may be not, for my Declaration is fallible and may be falls, Therefore you Christians who hear me, can believe nothing infallibly, because my very Teaching is doubtful, And it is against the nature of a doubt, to convey certainty into any understanding. See Disc. 1. c. 4. n. 7. 8. Now if you Ask why it is doubtful, though he speak truth as it were by Chance, I answer the Reason is: Because he hath no Principle which determinates his teaching to say that Infallibly which God speaks infallibly. The External Principle of Scripture makes him no more Infallible, than the worst of Heretics who read it, And all other Principles He works by, are liable to error. And here briefly you see the difference between the Truth of an Act, and its Certitude, The first only says in contingent matters a conformity with the Object; The other, a necessary Determination to Truth by Principles not liable to error, And Sectaries always want these Principles, whilst They teach a Doctrine fallibly. If here they take recourse to moral certainty only and think that sufficient, turn to the fift Chapter of the first Discourse and you will see them evidently confuted. It is lost labour to repeat again what is said in that place.  
5. These grounds supposed, you shall see how Mr. Pools Exceptions against them comes to nothing. Let us saith He P. 9 n. 2. examine a little the strength of this pretty Proposition viz. That if we be not infallibly assured of the Truth of Christianity jews, Turks and Pagans are as well persuaded of their ways, as we (Christians) of ours. What a mad Assertion (saith He) is this, that nothing is credible, but what is infallibly certain, and that there is no difference between Probabilities and Improbabilities etc. To this I answer in a word, (you shall have the Reason hereafter) Nothing in true Christianity is credible, but what both may, and must be believed by most certain faith, in other moral matters things are morally credible, though we arrive not to certainty, but Faith hath its exceptions. Mr. Poole goes on. I am not infallibly certain, that there is such a place as jamaica (for it is possible that all Geographers may mistake, and Travellers may lie) Therefore I am as uncertain that there is a sea passage to China by the North etc. I am not certain, if I find a Calf in a field, but that it may (as some time it was) dropped from the Clouds, but will any sober man think that it came not from a cow? He hath other instances to this purpose, And the man (if I mistake not) would here liken the cettainty of that Truth we have of Christianity, to the certainty we have of jamaica and a calf coming from a Cow, and the Doctrine of Judaisme He would have so improbable, as if one should say, the Calf was dropped from the Clouds. In a word if He dispute with a Jew, He will hear that his whole Discourse is Petitio principij, and that his Instances of jamaica and a calf are nothing to the purpose, because he supposeth what should be proved viz. That the Doctrine of a jew is so improbable to that Sect, as this Antagonist makes it, And that the taught Doctrine of Sectaries is so highly Probable in order to them, as is here supposed. Alas, the jew will utterly silence Mr. Poole with this convincing Reason. What ever becomes of my Doctrine, I tell you, your Protestant taught Doctrine which may be falls, is no better than mine, because it is not ultimately resolvable into Gods infallible Revelation which cannot be falls. That it cannot be thus resolved is evident, because a Doctrine that is fallible and may be falls (though true in itself) as fallible and liable to falsity, cannot be, as it were, cast or laid on God's infallible Veracity, that essentially Disowns and rejects all Doctrine that's fallible, and may be falls. Therefore, as Fallible, ultimately resolved, it must be brought to its one home, which is not God's infallible Revelation, but to mere fancy, or some other uncertainty. For example: Put the case, that an English Synod truly Defines: Christ jesus is God and man, yet so that the Definition by virtue of all the Principles it hath, or its own intrinsic merit, is fallibly Delivered. One reflects on this Definition and consider's the Truth of it, which is a conformity with its object, as also the Weakness of it, which is Fallibility for want of Principles that Determine it to Truth. I Ask now why Do Sectaries believe Christ to be God and man by this Fallible Definition ('Tis one of your Acts of Faith is it not?) You must Answer; you Believe so because God hath said it in Scripture. Very good. But I Ask again? Hath he said this Fallibly by a Revelation that's capable of falsity? No must evidently, His Revelation is infinitely certain, Ergo I say your Definition or Act of Faith, Quâ fallibilis, or as merely fallible, cannot under that Notion of Fallibility, rest upon an infallible Veracity, for this infallible Veracity hath neither measure nor Proportion with a fallible Assent, nor can a fallible Assent have any measure or Proportion with an infallible Revelation. Mark therefore well the Resolution of this whole Assent. I believe Christ to be God and man by a fallible Act which may be falls, because Gods infallible Revelation which can neither be fallible or falls, Moves me to believe so, And most justly call it no Faith at all, for an infallible Revelation Moves none to believe fallibly, therefore the tendency of this Act, as it is Fallible, Moves forward without a Divine Motive to rely on, and hits not upon the Strength of God's certain Revelation, but leaves that, and runn's no man knows whither, or stands without any motive. You see therefore that God's Revelation which is infallible cannot support a fallible Assent, and consequently the very best Acts of our Sectaries Belief are no Faith, whereof more Disc. 1. Chap. 5. and 6. I say the very best Acts. For you may distinguish two sorts of them in Sectaries. The first tend to their own particular Novelties, and these are both falls and Fallible. The other Acts adhere to the general Truths of Christianity, And all these though conformable to their objects, are yet subjectively fallible, and consequently have not the strength of any firm or supernatural Principle to uphold them, as you may see in places now cited.  
6. But we have not yet done with Mr. Poole, there are more exceptions against Him. Mark his words. If saith He, we be not infallibly assured of the Truth of Christianity, jews and Turks are as well persuaded of their ways, as we are of ours, And then Asks what a mad Assertion is this, that makes no difference between Probabilities and Improbabilities. Now here his Instances follow of jamaica and a Calf, and I think He would say, That the Truth of Christianity is probable, and so highly Probable, as that there is a jamaica, And that judaism is so improbable as that a Calf found in a field, should be thought to be dropped from the Clouds.  
7. In the first place, we are to explicate more fully what M. Poole huddles up in these general Terms. The Truth of Christianity. Three Things therefore may be here reflected on, which essentially constitute Christian Religion. The first is the Object of it, which is God's infallible Revelation. The second is the matter believed by virtue of this infallible Revelation. The third is a firm act of Faith, that tends into the Revelation and the matter Revealed, upon that Divine motive Infallibly Proposed, And this firm Assent of Faith, intrinsically Denominates all good Christians Faithful Believers. I say infallibly Proposed: For if a Revelation lie as it sometime doth dark in Holy Scripture, a Proponent is necessary, that brings it to more light, And as I noted Disc. 1. C. 4. According to the measure or degrees of certitude which the Proponent gives to an obscure Revelation, An Assent in the Hearer follows and no stronger. If He only say probably God speaks thus, The assent can be no more but probable, if with truth he say certainly, it is certain. These things supposed be pleased to reflect once more on Mr. Pools words. What a mad Assertion is This? That nothing is Credible (He means concerning the Truth of Christianity) but what is infallibly certain, and that there is no difference between Probabilities, and Improbabilities. He would say, it is madness to judge so, and Wisdom to make the Truth of Christianity highly Probable, and Judaisme improbable.  
8. Now I say. Nothing that essentially Constitutes the truth of Christianity is less than certain, Nothing in it can be so meanly thought of, as to be called only probable. And first if we speak of the Material Objects believed, These Solely and Objectively considered (may we use proper Terms) are neither Probable nor improbable, for there is no Probability in Objects, every thing being what it is in its self, independent of my Probable or Improbable Assertion. No man when He see's the sun so darkly through a Cloud, that he cannot say whether it be the sun or no, yet thinks it is, Calls it a Probable sun, the Probability is in his act that makes a judgement of it, and not in the object. Again, if we speak of God's Revelation that Assures these Material Objects to be as they are spoken, That very Revelation because it proceeds from an Infinite intellectual power, is properly not only infallible, but infinitely more infallible than all the words of men and Angels are, put together. And here is no place for mere probability only, though we think of the greatest Imaginable. He therefore that Parifies the moral Certainty one hath of Jamaica, with the more than Metaphysical certainty of God's Revelation, Doth not only hideoufly err, but wrongs God and his eternal verity. 3. If we speak of the internal Assent of Faith, which Denominates us true Christian Believers, and tends into God's infallible Revelation upon the perfection of its infallibility, as also into the Material Object infallibly revealed, This very Act goes far beyond the strongest probability, and is more certain than that judgement is which men have of jamaica. The Reason is. That which uphold's this act of Faith (to say nothing here of other principles which steadfastly fix it on Truth) is an infinite Verity, an Infinite Objective Certitude, Contrariwise, that which upholds an Assent given to the Being of jamaica, is only moral Certitude and may be falls, For the Act ultimately resolved comes to no more but this. Men say so: Those are living that have seen the place, letters are conveyed thither etc. But all these proofs, though most morally certain, equalise not the Infallibility of an Assent that relies on an Infinite verity, that can neither deceive nor be deceived.  
9 Perhaps you will say: Though this Veracity of God be infinitely infallible in itself, yet one may rely on it with an Act only Morally certain, and you require no more for Faith. I grant the case is possible, but withal say such an Act is no Faith (as is largely proved Disc. 1. c. 5. and 6. because it is not ultimately resolvable into Gods infallible veracity as the last Motive to rest on, but into some other inferior Motive extrinsic, and Distinct from God's Revelation. Put the case, that three or four Learned Heathen Philosophers of good repute, Assure one of their sect upon their Credit and humane Authority, They cannot but judge, all things considered, that God hath revealed the Incarnation of the Divine word in Holy Scripture. Admit also that the Hearer, because he esteems them knowing, upright, and sincere, yields his assent to that Revelation merely for their Authority: The Formal Object or Motive of his Assent is not (if the supposition stand) Divine Revelation, for this is only yet the Material Object Believed upon humane Authority, consequently it cannot be an Act of Faith, For Faith as Faith, precisely rests always on God's Revelation as the last and ultimate Motive, without the mixture of any other. See Disc. 1. c. 5. n. 5. 6. as also Chap. 6. Now if you desire to know more concerning the certainty of him that Proposeth the Object of Faith darkly revealed in Holy Scripture, read the 4. Chap. of the first Discourse.  
10. By what is said hitherto, you see (Good Mr. Poole) that true Christian Religion must either signify the Objective Infallibility of God's Revelation, or the Assent of Faith whereby we Captivate our understanding, and submit to an Infallible Veracity, both the one and other go far beyond the mean measure of mere Probabilities, or the highest moral certainty. Therefore your Instances of jamaica and a Calf are here useless and insignificant. I say True Christian Religion, or to speak in your words, The Truth of Christianity, For if by the essential Truth of Christianity, you will understand the prudent Motives or Inducements that precede Faith, and show us where True Christianity is professed, and call these the Essentials of Christian Religion; know first you have none of them, as is proved Disc. 1. C. 8. 9 and 10. Know secondly, that these Motives previously pondered before we believe, though most requisite to belief, are not the Essentials of Faith (whether you take Faith obiectively For the matter believed or subiectively for the Act of Belief) But objects of Science, as you may read in Chapters now Quoted: For Faith, which essentially constitutes Religion, follows in every good Christian after the Consideration of these Motives, and sub Notione fidei, or as Divine Faith, ultimately relies not on them.  
11. Upon these Grounds all comes to nothing that you have P. 10. and 11. where you say: If besides the Infallibility of the Thing, there be required Certitudo subjecti the Infallibility of the person, you will bring this fox out of his hole by a notable Dilemma. A word only in passing. Pray you, Sir, what's here understood by the Infallibility of the Thing? You either mean Gods certain Revelation and this certainly most infallibly, is not to be called a Thing but aught to be spoken of with greater Reverence, or you mean (and your context bears no other sense) the material Objects of our Christian belief, now these solely considered can no more properly be called fallible or infallible, then probable and improbable. No man saith that a stone which he sees in the high way, is either fallible or infallible, probable or improbable. The Reason is, Because these Terms, certain, fallible, infallible, probable, improbable, etc. note ever the tendency of vital Acts proceeding from an intellectual power, And therefore most improperly belong to objects, neither vital, nor intellectual. Thus much only by the Buy. Now to your foxing it and fearful Dilemma. Either (say you) a subjective certainty or infallibility of Belief, (mark your own words) of the Truth of Christianity is necessary for particular Christians, or it is not. If it be not necessary, than Papists too vainly boast of it, and must Confess probable evidence sufficient for particular Christians, and infallibility necessary only for the Pope and Council: if a subjective infallibility be necessary for particular Christians, than every Papist in England hath a Pope in his belly, etc. Here is the substance of your Dilemma, and it is a strange piece of confused Stuff. Observe well. You begin with the Subjective infallibility of the Belief of the Truth of Christianity, and then run further than to jamaica, to talk of that which you call the probable evidence of it. Good Sir, the evidence of credibility belonging to true Christianity, is totally distinct from the infallible belief of it. That; if we make a right Analysis, precedes Faith, Faith follows, and is far more certain than the judgement is, all have of the Evidence of Credibility. See Disc. 1. c. 7. 8. 9 10. Briefly I say first. The belief of true Christianity is subjectively infallible in every faithful Christian, who therefore may have as sound Faith as the Pope himself, or any that sitt's in Council. The Reason, already given and further declared Disc. 1. c. 1. is thus. God an infinite Verity speaks to us for this end that we believe him, He speaks infallibly; Faithful Christians believe both what He speaks, and (answerably to their power) as He speaks, Ergo they believe infallibly. Again. A fallible Belief cannot be ultimately resolved into an infallible Revelation, none therefore that holds himself obliged to Believe an infinite Verity owned as infallible, can proceed doubtfully upon that Motive, for he knows, An infinite Verity speaks not doubtfully, or opinatively. I say secondly. Infallible Faith of the Truth of Christianity is miscalled, if you style it probable Evidence: it is not probable, but certain, because it relies on an infinite Verity. It is not Evident, but obscure, because, Argumentum non apparentium. Thus much is undoubtedly true, if we speak of the Assent of Divine Faith. Now, if when you talk of particular Papists having a Pope in their belly, you grossly Imagine that every one can Define, or Declare infallibly Christian Doctrine in order to the whole Church, as the Pope and Council Do, you fight with shadows, no Papist holds such fooleries. And by this you see the last strength of your weak Dilemma brought to nothing.  
12. You are also as unlucky in your next Assault, where you Challenge the whole Club of Jesuits to Answer solidly. By the Grace of God you shall have an Answer that will make you silent hereafter. Thus you go on. Were the Popish opinion of the Church's infallibility true in itself certitudine Objecti; so also is the Protestants opinion concerning the infallibility of Scripture true in itself, and certitudine Objecti, as the must desperate Papists Grant. For they say the Scripture is Divine, true, and certain in itself, but not quoad nos, therefore hitherto there is no difference. It is not worth the while to insist here upon a Catacresis or abuse of words, or to say how incompossible these two terms combined together are in the Papist. Opinion, and certainty of the Object: For Catholics in Matters of Faith content not themselves with a bare opinion, where there is certitudo Objecti or Gods certain Revelation duly proposed, that exacts from them no Opinion, but a sure Assent of Faith, And so we say that the infallibility of the Church is a matter believed by us, because God hath revealed it, consequently it's no Opinion. But Sir, this is not what I aim at. We will hear you say all, And come to the strength of the Difficulty. If say you, it be a sufficient foundation for a Romanist, that He hath such probable evidence of this Doctrine of the Church's infallibility, why should it not be as sufficient a foundation for a Protestant, that He hath such (nay infinitely more) probable evidence of the Doctrine of the Scriptures infallibility? Since the evidence of the later is granted by the Papists Themselves, and the evidence of the former (that is of the Church's infallibility) not only denied and Disputed down by Protestants, but also questioned by their own Authors. You End. This Question I challenge the whole Club of jesuits solidly to Answer. I Answer very catagorically without Clubbing it, and say first. The Catholic hath more than mere probable Evidence of the Doctrine of the Curches' infallibility. The Sectary by his own Principles, hath not so much as probable evidence of the Doctrine of the Scriptures infallibility, Independent of the Church. I say 2. Though the Sectary had probable evidence of the Scriptures infallibility, yet it is a useless book in his hands.  
13. The first Assertion contain's two parts I prove the first. The Catholic hath a Church evidenced by Unparalleled Miracles, by conversions of whole Nations, from Infidelity, to our Christian Verities. He hath a Church manifested by all those other Glorious Cognisances of Truth, which the Apostolical Church showed to the world (not one is excepted) as is proved Disc. 1. c. 9 10. If therefore that Apostolical Church, was prudently believed to deliver infallible Doctrine (and this before Scripture was writ) by the inducements of those illustrious marks and Characters of Truth wherewith it was adorned, our Roman Catholic Church, that undeniably evidenceth the very like signs, is proved upon that Reason to deliver also infallible Doctrine: For where there are the same effects and signs of infallible Doctrine, the Infallibility of it is, as it were, witnessed by them, otherwise such Motives would be both inefficacious and useless, whilst God shows them for this end, that all may give Assent to his infallible Verities, taught by that Oracle where they evidently appear, and I believe led on by the inducements, yet must forsooth, only believe uncertainties, or fallible Doctrine that may be falls.  
14. The Doctrine therefore of the Roman Catholic Church is now as well made immediately Credible by virtue of these Motives, as the Apostolical Church was, before the writing of Scripture. And These Motives in order to the Learned, and those who prudently seek for Truth, first and most immediately Demonstrate the Church, or Those persons that teach infallible Doctrine, by whose Authority we learn, what and where infallible Truth is professed. That these marks and signs immediately belong to the Persons that Teach infallibly and not to Scripture, is undoubted. Mark 16. 17. These signs shall follow, in my name they shall cast out Devils etc. Again not only the Doctor of the Gentiles. 2. Cor. 12. 12. calls the wonders He wrought, Signa Apostolatus sui, the marks of his Apostleship, but a greater Doctor also, Truth itself john 10. 25. (when the Jews would not believe him) remitted them to the evidence of his Miracles. The works which I do in the name of my Father, these give Testimony of me. And vers. 38. If you will not believe me, believe the works. Works therefore and wonders Annexed to the persons, or Church that Teaches, Forceably induce prudent men to believe the certain Doctrine Delivered by them, who show such wonders. In a word, here is all I would say. No Religion is evidently true or falls ex Terminis, upon the bare Affirmation of Him that says its true or falls, Therefore it must have the Evidence of its Credibility manifested, before Christians admit of the Doctrine. But this Evidence is first manifested by such signs and Miracles, as Christ and the Apostles personally showed to the world, and by virtue of them induced Aliens from Truth, to believe it as Infallible Doctrine, Therefore whatever Church shows such Miracles, the like signs and wonders as Christ and his Apostles manifested, pleads as well for the Infallibility of its Doctrine witnessed by such Miracles, as the Apostolical Church Did. But the Roman Catholic Church only and no other, shows these Miracles, Efficacy of Doctrine, Universality, strange Conversions and other most Convincing Motives. Therefore if the first Christians induced by such evidence, firmly believed the Apostolical Doctrine to be infallible (which was not ex terminis evidently infallible) we may now upon the very like Inducements (not for the inducements as the last Motive) Believe as securely upon our Church's Authority the Doctrine taught by it, to be infallible. Deny this Evidence of our Motives, and we force Sectaries to prove the Denial by as sure Principle, as we Assert them: Grant them and our Argument is concluding. And here you have more them a mere probable Evidence of the Church's infallibility.  
15. An Other Argument for it, besides those Scriptures cited Disc. 2. C. 6. n. ●. is not only probable, but unanswerably Convincing, hinted at Disc. 1. C. 2. n. 9 Christ as is confessedly granted both by Catholics and Sectaries, sent Pastors up and down the world to teach Christian Doctrine, But he never sent any to teach fallible Doctrine which may be falls, Ergo He sent them to teach his own infallible Doctrine, and Infallibly. I prove it. He sent none to teach any other Doctrine then that, which may be ultimately resolved into God's infallible veracity revealing Truth: But that which is ultimately resolved into an infallible Veracity, can neither be falls nor fallible Doctrine, because God as I now said, owns no fallible Doctrine that may be falls, Therefore, this Resolution of an Act tending fallibly into Divine Revelation, is rather Nonsense then Faith. I infallible believe Christ to be God and Man, because Gods infallible Revelation will have me to believe so: For No Infallible Motive applied to my understanding, as it is infallible, can draw from me a fallible belief of a Doctrine that's merely fallible. But All Sectaries, whether Arians, Donatists, or Protestants Teach only fallible Doctrine, and fallibly Ex parte Docentis, Ergo they Teach not that Doctrine which Christ sent his Ministers to teach, or that can be resolved into God's infallible Veracity revealing Truth. Yet most certainly, some Christian Pastors by virtue of Christ Mission, teach his infallible Doctrine Infallibly, and these are the Pastors of the Roman Catholic Church, who only lay claim to Infallibility and prove it also, as the Apostles Did by the Antecedent Evidence of those Motives, which the Church shows and manifesteth to the world, as is now Declared. I challenge Mr. Poole, directly and Catagorically to Answer this my Reason (without talking any more of Clubbs, or running into Generalities) and in as few clear words as I Deliver it.  
16. Now to prove the other part of my Assertion. Viz. Sectaries by their own principles have not so much as a probable Evidence of the Scriptures infallibility, without Church Authority? Here is my principle. The infallibility of Scripture which contains many Difficulties, tell's strange stories, and seemingly often speaks contradictions, is not by itself or own light, so evidently Credible to the Eyes of a Reader, as the infallibility of the Apostolical Church was evident by Miracles, and Conversions to the Primitive Christians, who believed it infallibly: At least S. Austin judged it not so Evidently Credible, when He saith, He would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church moved him to believe it. The Infallibility of it therefore, must by proved by some good Principles extrinsic to Scripture, but the Sectary hath not one sound Principle, Distinct from the Tradition and Authority of the Church whereby this Infallibility is proved, Therefore Scripture in order to Him is not so Infallible, as the Church is to the Catholic. If any Deny my principle, and make the Scriptures Infallibility Discernible by its own light, by the Majesty, of the style, purity of its Doctrine, or efficacy it works in the minds of those who read it etc. I think there are evident Demonstrations against the Paradox: For as I noted Disc. 1. C. 2. 12. n. 4. Two things are to be considered in Scripture, first, the exterior Syntax or Connexion of the words, and so much precisely is not the Scriptures total Infallibility, which says more besides that exterior language, and necessarily implies A Divine Act a Volition, or Decree of God, whereby the Hagiographers that writ the words, were infallibly assisted, and determined to record truth, and nothing but Truth, Now this Divine Volition or Decree because it is essential to God, and therefore no other but God Himself, can be no Object of our senses, when we hear or read Scripture: Consequently it is to be Discovered by a Discourse grounded on Principles, distinct from the outward letter of Scripture, whereby we may come to a sure Evidence of its Infallibility, not at all yet within the reach of our senses, And this no Sectary can do, as I shall presently make Evident.  
17. I say Therefore, if the Motives now alleged for the Church's Infallibility, as Conversions, Miracles Universality etc. induce not immediately to believe that Church they demonstrate to be Infallible, much less can the exterior words or sintax of Scripture, be a fit Medium to Convince any of its Infallibility. And to prove this, besides what is often noted in the Treatise, Chief Disc. 1. C. 8. n. 7. Ill here only Propose two Questions, The first: Whether if St. john, who was infallibly Assisted, had not recorded that short sentence in His Gospel: The Word is made flesh, but some other not infallibly Assisted by the Spirit of God, had written the very same Verity, as it were by Chance: My Question I say is, whether the Sectary that now reads this sentence in S. john Gospel, can more Discover an Infallibility in it by force of the outward words, then if they had been Casually written by one without Infallible Assistance? I think He will not dare to say yes, or if He Do, I'll urge Him to prove it by Principles, when the outward words are the Very same in both Cases, and in like manner clear to all that read them. My second Demand may yet perhaps better evidence what I aim at, and is thus. Suppose that our Sectaries should put the book of Eclesiastes, which they hold Canonical, into the hands of twelve learned Gentile Philosophers, and with it the book of Wisdom or Eclesiasticus also, not held Canonical by them: Suppose again, They desire these learned and disinterressed men, seriously to read these three books, and after the reading Sincerely to tell them, which of them hath God's Spirit in it, or contains his infallible Verities, For, this may be easily gathered by the very natural evidence of what they read, by the Majesty of the style, Efficacy of speaking which appears Clearly enough in the outward letter. Thus much done, separate these Philosophers, by four and four, into three Companies, put them into three different cells, much after that manner, as some say, the sevently Interpreters were separated. Let them with all sincerity read, examine, and peruse these Books, and if when the work is ended, they unanimously accord, that a greater Divinity, a stronger infallibility appears in the song of Solomon, then in the other two books, we will say something is proved, and hold it as strange a Miracle, as that which S. Austin recounts of the 70. Interpreters. Now if Any tell us, this light of Scripture, though sufficient in itself, is not evident to every one that looks on it, because the blindness or perverseness of men's minds may keep them from the Discovery of it: The Reply hath no place here, for we suppose first, these Philosophers to be disinterressed, learned, upright and sincere, as well in their reading, as in the judgement they give of it, And secondly we will suppose, that all those are not blind whom Sectaries make blind, nor only those quick sighted (I mean themselves) whom they will have so.  
18. To these Questions I add one more, it may pass for an Argument Ad hominem against Sectaries, who hold all the Definitions of our Church, even when they are true, to be yet fallible. I Ask, whether these Quick sighted men are able to Discern the Fallibility of these Definitions, by force of the outward words thereof only, as they Discover the infallibility of Scripture by the Majesty of the style, and outward Sintax. And mack where the force of the Difficulty lies. As Infallibility necessarily implies Divine Assistance in order to the Truths Delivered in holy Scripture, so the supposed Fallibility of the Church's Definitions, implies a want of that Assistance in order to those Definitions. I Ask therefore, whether as the first is Discernible and visible enough to their Eyes, by the very context of the outward letter, They will consequently grant, that the other also is as clearly visible, and Discernible by the very words of the Definition? If They Answer, yes, First they need not hereafter to impugn the Church's Definitions by any other Medium but this, that they are without further proof by themselves evidently fallible: So much is said by them, and it proof enough. 2. They may as well say, They know when a man tell's a lie, and this by force of his very speaking, as that they know the supposed Fallibility of the Church's Definitions by her speaking: For, if their eyes can Discern the want of Divine Assistance in the one case (which really is not wanting) they may more easily Discern the want of Truth in the other (which really is wanting.) And if this be not a Paradox, there was never any in the world. Now contrariwise, if they cannot Discover the Church's supposed Fallibility in her Definitions merely by her Exterior words, because that is a thing invisible, I would gladly learn how They come to know the Infallibility of Scripture by the words Thereof, for that is as much (if not more) invisible, and as far removed from our eyes and senses.  
19 Some, who pitifully suppose, Scriptures to be proved Divine and Infallible by the very light which is in them Object first. When we see the sun, and the vast extent of the light it has, we may well infer it comes from that luminous body, And may we not (say These) proportionably infer, from the clearness, Greatness, Majesty, and Coherency of those Truths revealed in Scripture, that they must certainly come from none but God? Answ. What will not men say at last, who dare Propose such evident improbabilities? Why, the whole world agrees in this that the light comes from the sun, for it is evident to our senses, but do all unanimously agree about the very Canon of Scripture, or the clearness of those books all admit of, which are evidently obscure in a hundred passages, and so seemingly incoherent in many other places, that it is mighty Difficile to reconcile them? Again. What more Greatness or exterior Majesty, can any Discover in salomon's Proverbs, then in the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, or in those two pious Hymns Te Deum, and Gloria in Excelsis? such arguments therefore are not only slight, but improbable.  
20. They Object 2. The works of Creation Evidence God's Wisdom Power, and Greatness. Ergo God can give as great evidence of a Revelation. Answ. I grant He can do so, But What then? Doth it follow that He hath done it de facto by the words internal to Scripture (which is here only to the purpose?) without the light of orher Motives, as Miracles, Conversions and the like, which as I now said, immediately manifest the Church, and not the book of Scripture.  
21. They object 3. No other way is conceivable, that it should be evident that a Doctrine comes from God (and consequently is infallible) but that it contains things highly suitable to the Divine nature, things above the finding out of human reason, things only tending to Advance Holiness and Goodness in the world, And this Doctrine to be Delivered by persons, who wrought Vnparralleled Miracles. And They ask, whether all these be not in the most evident manner Imaginable contained in the Doctrine of Christianity and in the books of Scripture? I Answer first: The Opponent is far from Conceiving any thing like a probability in this Objection. For, if it be evident that a Doctrine comes from God, and therefore is infallible, because it contains Things suitable to the Divine Nature, the very Gentiles without other Motives should as well see this Evidence, as we see the light of the Sun. Now if you say its an Evidence, but not perceptible by all you run into Darkness, Destroy the Nature of Evidence, and make it now evident now unevident, when, and to whom you please. If again you say its an Evidence sufficient to breed Faith, you beg the Question and speak improbably for nothing can beget Faith but what is owned for God's infallible Word upon prudent Motives, and the Testimony of some Infallible Oracle. To confirm what is here said, I Ask whether if Christ and his Apostles had appeared in the World, and only preached the high Mysteries of our Faith as a Trinity, the Incarnation, Original sin, with other Doctrines now registered in Scripture that advance Holiness of life etc. But all this without doing one Miracle, Converting one Nation, or showing any the least wonder, that they were sent from God, to teach as they did. My Question I say is, whether upon this supposition, either Jews or Gentiles would then have believed them or could have discovered an Infallibility in a Doctrine thus Orally Delivered, or writ in patchment merely by the force of the words. If Sectaries say Yes, They do not only speak a Paradox which not Christian ever uttered, and make our Saviour's Argument Against the Jews (Simo opera etc. If I had not done works amongst them which no other did they would not have sin) null and inefficacious, but moreover are convinced by this clear proof. Suppose, (And it implies no impossibility) that God, who hath yet within the vast reach of His Omnisciency, a Thousand other Verities unknown to the world, and not at all revealed in Scripture, or Delivered by the Church (for certainly He hath not revealed all He knows) should now both inspire, and Assist twelve poor Fishermen, to preach infallibly these Truth never heard of before, yet so, that they Teach only, but do no Miracles, work no Conversions, show no wonders, and give no other Testimony of their being sent from God, but by their own bare word. Would any men in the world, think ye, prudently believe them merely for their preaching, or would Sectaries as well Discover the Infallibility of these Verities taught by their preaching, as they now Discern the Scriptures infallibility? No, the whole world would prudently set light by such Doctrine, though in itself, both Divine and Infallible for want of prudent Motives to make it evidently Credible, and so all would have done, had the Apostles only preached the Divine Truths already registered in Scripture, without further Motives. Therefore more is required to prove that a Doctrine comes from God, then thus much only, that it contains in itself things highly suitable to the Divine nature, things above the finding out of humane reason, and conduceing to piety. I say in itself for if we go to a strict Analysis of the Scriptures Verities, we are not to suppose, as the Opponent doth, but to prove, that all these Verities are suitable to the Divine nature, which both Jews and Gentiles Do Deny, And therefore must be further proved.  
22. Now if on the other side They grant, and most truly, that none would have Discovered any Infallibility in Apostolical Doctrine without further evidence of Miracles, of signs, and wonders, we have our Intent: For it follows inevitably, that Scripture cannot be Discovered to be Divine by itself, nor Infallble, by virtue of any light contained in the words, or Sintax thereof. It follows 2. that Mr. Stillingfleet is more than a little out, in his seventh Interrogatory part. 1. Chap. 7. p. 230. fine, where He Asks whether it be not the highest Disparagement of this Divine Doctrine to make it stand in need of an Infallible Testimony of any, that call themselves the Catholic Church? Good Sir reflect. These Motives of Credibility manifested by Christ, and his Apostles, their Miracles, Conversions, Sanctity etc. taken purely as Motives previous to the Faith, of those who believed, were either fallible or Infallible (take whether side you will:) If Infallible; you evidently see that most certain Doctrine stood (without Disparagement) so far in need of those Inducements, that it would never have been believed without them (as is already proved) though most infallible in itself. If you hold those previous Inducements to be only Fallible, you must yet Grant, that the belief of that Apostolical Doctrine stood still in need of them without any Disparagement. Therefore much less doth the Testimony of an Infallible Church Evidenced by the like Motives, Disparage it. I say the Testimony of the Church Evidenced by clear Motives: For as the learned Snares Observes 3. Par. Tom. 2. Disp. 31. Sect. 2. n. Dico●primo. The very Miracles of Christ precisely and solely considered, (or separated from all other certain Principles) would not have proved Him to be the eternal Son of God, because God might have wrought Miracles by one that was purely Man, and not Omnipotent, and He did so the facto, by his Disciples, as He for told them, john 14. 12. Majora horum facient, that they should do greater wonders. Therefore other Principles (and none could be more strong than Christ's own Testimony) besides His Miracles, were necessary to beget certain Faith of his Godhead in Believers: And so we say, The Testimony of the Church, Evidenced by signs and wonders, is also necessary to beget a full Assurance of the Scriptures Infallibility, without it we have no Divine certainty of God's Word.  
23. Now I return a second Answer to the Objection, and say: A person that is not infallible can speak of things suitable to the Divine Nature, and above the reach of humane reason, of virtue and Godliness etc. For not only the book of Herman, or Hermes Called the Pastor, highly valued of by some Ancient Fathers, but other writings also, though untruly ascribed to the Apostles, often speak Divinely; yet never were admitted by the Church as Canonical, or Gods Infallible word. Nay more. Some parts of the Gospel, and the Epistles of S. james and S. jude also, were not for a time received as Canonical by the Ancient Church, though they spoke then as Divinely, and were as Insallibly God's word, as they are now, the Ancient Church, that had eyes as good as Sectaries read them, yet Discovered no Infallibility or Divinity in them upon this account, that they spoke of things suitable to the Divine nature. And who sees not, but that the books of Wisdom and Eclesiasticus, contain as high Doctrine, as Divine Precepts, as are in salomon's Proverbs, or Eclesiastes, yet the later are Divine with Sectaries, and the former not? And here I would willingly learn, whether the first Protestants that admitted of the later, and rejected the Other as Apocryphal, did so, because they smeled, as it were, a Divinity in those they received by the very reading, and not in the former? I am sure, the more learned Protestants give other Reasons. For these grounds therefore I say, the Argument above is so unreasonable, that I wonder men of judgement Ventured to propose it. Now if they believe the Scripture to be Infallible, because of the Miracles and other wonders, internal to the book, wrought in confirmation of its Doctrine. Make a right Analysis, and Ask, why they believe these Miracles to be Infallible Scripture, and follow them closely till they come to a Propositio Quiescens, or an undoubted Principle? And you'll find the very Reason returned you, to be the thing in Question: Although we granted (which is not true) that Scripture itself said, all things contained in the book are infallibly God's Word, For it would be demanded a new, How They know, that very Assertion to be Scripture.  
24. For these Reasons some Sectaries will say, The Scriptures infallibility is to be proved by Discourse, not grounded on the mere light, or Majesty thereof, but by probable Principles extrinsic to it. And here is one Argument. We know by humane Authority Morally certain, that Scripture was writ by holy men, Prophets, Evangelists, and Apostles. I answer, we know not so much of all the books in Scripture, without the Church's Testimony. For it is doubtful who writ the books of joshua and judges, and it is still in Controversy, whether Solomon writ the Proverbs, and therefore, some, not only Catholics but Sectaries also, are of opinion, that if we rely on humane and historical Authority only, we have greater and more particular Assurance, that S. Thomas, for example, writ his sum of Divinity than we have Assurance of the particular Authors, of no few books in Holy Scripture. Again, though we had this certainty grounded on History, yet no man among Sectaries (who say all Churches erred before Luther) can tell us, upon moral certainty, whether the first Authentic Originals, were afterward Corrupted or no, by Ancient Heretics, and the supposed erring Church of Rome. See more of this subject Disc. 2. C. 2. n. 7. 8. Others again may Argue, from the Miracles wrought by Scripture immediately, And one was, as Baronius recounts, that this sacred book in Diocletians time being cast into the fire, the flames were forthwith extinguished. I Answer first, both this and other Miracles, were only wrought in the true Church, and at most prove (which is to be noted) that the book is true, pious, and holy, but is far from Convincing that (we now only inquire after) which is its infallibility. For, God might have done the like Miracle for a true Christian Catechism, Had Diocletian, who desired to raze out all memory of Christianity, cast that into the Fire also. Others argue from the Accomplishment of Prophecies, which proves little, without the Testimony of the Church. First because the very Prophecies, and the fulfilling of them, must be proved to be Divine Scripture, and this cannot be done, abstracting from Church Authority. 2. These two things are to be distinguished: A power to Prophecy, and to write, as Hagiographers Did, Canonical books. One may prophecy, who only hears from a Prophet what was told him, upon the Prophets own Authority, but none can write infallibly Canonical books of Scripture, but such as have immediately the Assistance of the Holy Ghost to direct him. In a word, here is the last and most true Resolution of all these Difficulties. Unless Sectaries rely on our Church's Testimony for the Infallibility of Scripture, they are evidently beaten out of all likelihood of other Principles, whereby to prove it is infallible. Yet this very Principle of the Church in order to them, doth little or nothing, for reasons clearly alleged Disc. 2. C. 2. n. 6. 7. It is needles to repeat them in this place.  
25. And it is as needles to prove my second Assertion above n. 12. Which is. Though Sectaries had Probable Evidence of the Scriptures infallibility in general, yet that doth them no service, because it is a useless book in their hands. This Proposition is so Copiously proved, in the second Discourse C. 1. and 2. Where much is said of Sectaries endless dissensions, concerning the sense of Scripture (though admitted of as Divine) that no Unorthodox man shall acquit Himself of the Difficulties, there proposed. All I'll do now (Though it hath not been my Custom to tyre the Reader, with long Authorities of Ancient Fathers) is to mind him of one only Tertullia's Testimony, in his book de Praescriptionibus adversus Haereticos cap. 19 His words are. Ergo non ad Scripturas provocandum est: nec in his constituendum certamen, in quibus aut nulla, aut incerta victoria est. (Rigaltius read's, par incertae, aut parum certa) Nam etsi non evaderet collatio Scripturarum, ut utramque partem sisteret, ordo rerum desiderabat illud prius proponi quod nunc solum disputandum est, quibus competat fides ipsa cujus sint Scripturae, à quo, & per quos, & quando, & quibus, sit Disciplina, quâ fiunt Christiani. Vbi enim apparuerit esse veritatem disciplinae, & fidei Christianae, illic erit veritas Scripturarum, & expositionum & omnium traditionum Christianorum. The sense of this whole sentence is this. We are not therefore to appeal to Scriptures, nor are our debates to be determined here, wherein there is no victory, or a very uncertain one. For although there were no Collation, or comparing of places together, that might stay the two Advers parts, yet the order of things requires this to be first proposed, which is now only to be disputed viz. To whom the Faith appertains, whereof the Scriptures are. From whom, and by whom, when, and by what Persons, that Discipline is, whereby they were made Christians. For where there appears the Truth of Discipline (that is as Macereus and Pamelius interpret, the Rule) and of Christian Faith, there you shall have the Truth of Scriptures, the Interpretation of it likewise, and of all Christian Tradition. Observe well. The whole context of these words saith first, that debates can never be ended by Scripture only. 2. That before we Dispute by Scripture, we ought to know, and by other Reasons, who those are to whom Scripture belongs. 3. That where the Discipline, or Rule of Christian Faith is previously known, by other grounds distinct from Scripture▪ there you have the True Interpretation of Scripture, and all Christian Tradition. After a full ponderation of these words, I leave any man to Judge that loves Truth, whether that Doctrine be not here most remarkably expressed, which is taught and mantained, by the Roman Catholic Church.  
26. Mr. Poole from his 12. page to his 37. hath no work for me, for his whole strain is to run on in cavils and finding fault with such Arguments of Catholics, as He forsooth, judges inefficacious to prove the Church's Infallibility, whereas God knows, Had He had where withal to do it, He should have gone a contrary way, and proved positively by Scripture, Fathers, and Tradition the Church's Fallibility, but Herein He is silent, because in real Truth He hath nothing to say. The ground of the Church's Infallibility, which Mr. Poole never toucheth on, is briefly hinted at above n. 15. and further laid forth Disc. 1. c. 1. and 2. and I desire an express Answer to it. Now and then He hath something against the Writings of the Ancient Fathers, who with him are fallible, because they speak of the Church's Infallibility, and the good man never reflects, that he and his little book, are far more fallible. I wave such trifles.  
27. Page 37. He gins with his Distinctions of the Judge and rule of Faith, and saith first: The supreme and truly Infallible Judge of all Controversies is God and Christ. Very Good, but nothing is yet Done, unless you fallible man can say, in all the Differences between us, what God and Christ speak, what is judged for you, and against us, which is so far from being a Truth proved, that in Every Controversy it is the very thing in Question, and merely supposed by you, without either Proof or Principle. You say again. The External and political Judges, to wit the Governors of the Church, are subordinate to the supreme Judge. Answ. Very true. But what then? Marry this follows, that if they really contradict the supreme Judge's sentence, They must give their subjects leave to argue, whether it be right in the sight of God. Hold Sir a little. If you rationally contradict them, you must first prove yourself wiser than these subordinate Judges are, and Evidence their Errors by undoubted Principles, which is impossible. For either these Judges are Infallible, or fallible, if you grant the first, you cannot rationally contradict them. And if they be fallible: How dare you a private fallible man speak contrary, when your very Contradiction is no better than their opposite Assertion is, I mean purely and poorly Fallible? In a word without any certain Principle to rely on (which you shall never have) you too boldly take leave to oppose your Judges, and make yourself a Rebel by it. You say 3. There is in Every particular Person a secret Judge, which is called Reason, or Conscience. I must Ask once more, what then? Have not Arians, Pelagians, Quaquers, and all other Sectaries reason, as well as you? What therefore this Instrument of reason can apprehend, judge, and work in you after your fashion, it doth the like in these other, after Their fashion. Do you not therefore see how little you advance your cause by talking of your Reason, which, unless it be Evidenced by sure Principles to be better than that of your Adversaries, proves just nothing; And add what private Spirit you pleas to help your Reason out, They will talk as much of their contrary Spirit, to help theirs. These two points are so largely declared, and proved Disc. 2. c. 5. that I believe your Answer to them will prove unreasonable.  
28. Page 40. You go first very warily to work for no man knows what you would say. Then you are manly resolute in your Decisions. We willingly acknowledge (say you) and reverently esteem the true and rightful Governors of the Church, orderly assembled and proceeding regularly in Counsels, whose decisions are to be highly valued etc. Here is no man knows what. Pray you speak out, and name more clearly the Church you reverently esteem of, Tell us who these true and rightful Governors, of it are (and do not put us of with an old piece of a long since rejected Doctrine. They are those, who hold closely to the Truths of Scripture, for we must know who these are.) Finally say when Counsels are regularly assembled, not according to your Fancy, but, (which will be a long work for you) let us have laws prescribed, whereby we may know by sure Principles more particularly, without this general talk, when Counsels are orderly assembled, or unorderly. A word now to your resolute Definitions. You say first, this Judge of the Church is not infallible, but subject to error. Answer. And so are you, Sir, also fallible when you oppose yourself to the Judgement of a Church, whether it be your own English Church, or the Roman Catholic: If therefore the Judgement of both Churches were supposed fallible (as the one is not) your singular Judgement is no more but fallible also, and what gain you by that? Thus much only: You Contradict the Church fallibly, and the Church again Contradicts you fallibly, and thus you may remain Contradicting one another to the World's End, without the Decision of one Controversy, unless you make it Evident by undoubted Principles, that you are to judge the Church when you please, and the Church is not to meddle with you, or your judgement. You say 2. this judge of the Church being subject to higher Authority, and tied to a higher rule, if its Decisions be Manifestly repugnant to that Superior Rule, they are not to be obeyed. Answ. You purely suppose what should be proved. Viz. That the Decisions of the true Catholic Church, which is ever assisted by the Holy Ghost, can be tepugnant to any Superior Rule, and therefore touch not Catholics in the least manner. But if you speak of the Decisions of your English Church, which (because fallible) may be repugnant, you licence yourself by your own Principles, to disobey it, And look you to that. You say. 3. The judge is Constituted by God in the Church, not for the Command of men's Consciences, but for the regulation of their Actions, and Preservation of peace in the Church, which is not Violated by men's inward and unknown Sentiments, but by their External demeanour, and sensible Effects of them. Answ. Most pitiful Doctrine. What, is all the preaching of Sectaries Come to no more, but only to teach how the Exterior Actions of men are to be regulated, and peace may be preserved? This Truly more be longs to the justifies of Peace in their Several Districts, then to Ministers, if therefore they go no deeper into Consciences by their Doctrine, they certainly preach not the Word of God, for I read Heb. 4. 12. the Word of God is lively and forcible, and more piercing, then any two Edged Sword: and reaching unto the Division of the soul and Spirit, of the joints also and the Marrows etc. And these men go no further, then only to give instructions concerning the Exterior Regulation of Actions, or preserving of Peace. If therefore their Hearers were very Hypocrites, jews or Arians in hart, and only demeaned themselves fairly in the Exterior like Protestants, Ministers are not to meddle with them but leave them to their own Consciences, without Check or reproof, whereof se more Disc. 3. C. 7. ●. 17. 18. Now if Mr. Poole will find some Mystery in the words he useth Command of men's Consciences, let him read S. Paul to Titus 2. 15. Haec loquere. Speak these things, and rebuke Cum omni Imperio, with all Command, and Authority: And so Pastors should Speak to Consciences Cum Imperio in God's cause, and people should obey them. The Apostle gives the reason. Hebr. 13. 17. Obey your Prelates, your Guides, or Commanders, for they watch, as being to render an account for your Souls. And if they must render an account of Souls, they may certainly speak like Prelates to their very interior Consciences.  
29. Page 41. you say the Scriptures of the old and now Testament, are the Infallible rule and ground of Faith. Answ. They are so, Faithfully interpreted. See Disc. 2. C. 4. where you have your Errors Discovered, and the Objection fully Answered. You say again, Universal Tradition rightly understood is of great use, and like a channel, whereby Scripture (which alone is our rule) is conveyed to us. Answ. the Parenthesis (which alone) is refuted in the Discourse now cited, the rest of your Assertion hath no hurt in it. But you add a Mysterious piece of Divinity, where you distinguish between, Rem Tradi●am the thing Delivered, & Traditionem, and the Tradition or Delivery of it, and say Papists by Tradition understand the first that is res tradita. Answ. either I understand not you, or you (which is more likely) misconceive the Doctrine of Catholics, For they distinguish between Tradition and the thing Delivered: For example. The Baptising of Infants, the keeping of Sunday in place of the Sabbath, are Objectively Doctrines delivered, and the Testimony, Consent, and Acknowledgement of the whole Universal Church witnessing these Verities, are rightly called the formal Tradition, therefore you mistake our Doctrine. It is true as this word Faith, sometimes signifies the matter revealed by Almighty God, And most properly the internal Assent we yield to the Revelation, so this word Tradition may also signify, either the Doctrine delivered, or the formal Delivery of it, but this makes not to your purpose. You say again, Tradition taken for the vehicle or conveyance of the books of Scripture, is in some sort necessary to bring the Rule to you, yet is no more a part of the Rule, than a Basquet is Nourishment wherein bread is brought to feed on. Here is your learned instance. Believe it, Sir, if you take the Basket, and find Nothing but a stone in it, you will have a poor dinner, And if you make Tradition minutely like the Basket (in some sort necessary) you may well have a stone for bread, that is, no Scripture given you, for Scripture. Tradition therefore, whether part of the Rule or no, is absolutely a necessary conveyance, and must be Infallible.  
30. Page 44. you tell us. Scripture is the Object, only rule, and standard of Faith, by which all Controversies of Faith are to be decided and judged. Answer. The Proposition is only your own bare word: Scripture alone can be no rule without an Infallible Interpreter, as is proved Disc. 2. c. 4. And had we no more to say, but thus much, that Scripture proves nor itself to be Infallible it were enough. But grant, which you yet Convince not, that it is infallibly God's Word, an insuperable difficulty remains to be decided, And it is, whether you Sectaries know so exactly the sense of Scripture in all controverted matters, that your fallible Glosses are to be stood to, contrary to the judgement of a learned Ancient Church? Hence I say, you talk at random, when page 48. you tell us. There is enough delivered in Scripture by which all Controversies might be ended, would men be humble, studious, and Self denying. Lay your hand on your hart, and speak your conscience, can you judge this to be true? Or can you persuade yourself, that none are to be found within the limits of this Ancient Church as humble, as learned, and studious as a few Ministers are in England? Why vent you such Paradoxes without proof, or so much as a probability? You say again page 48. after some parergons of conditional, and absolute power, That if the Church be sufficient to end all Controversies, because all must submit to its decrees and Doctrine, the Scripture in like manner, may be said to be sufficient, because all are obliged to submit to the Decrees and Doctrine thereof. I Answer all are to do so, when they know by an infallible Interpreter what the Scriptures Teaches, but this in controverted matters, is ever the difficulty. You say it speaks one thing, and we say the contrary, therefore Scripture alone, which is as silent now, as it was Sixteen ages since, is a less meet Means to end these Contentions. Contrariwise, the Church proposeth all she teaches with the greatest clarity, and if any doubt occur, is ready, able, and sufficient to declare itself further, Scripture that hitherto never ended any difference between us, cannot do so. For a further satisfaction read the 5. Ch. of the 3. Discourse.  
31. We return now to your 44. page where you tell us. First, Tradition is the Vehicle to convey the rule of Scripture to us. 2. Reason is the instrument or Eye, whereby you apprehend and see the Rule. 3. The Spirit of God is the Eyesalve that anoints your Eyes, and inables you to see the Rule. 4. The Church is the Interpreter (but not infallible and Authentic) the witness, or guardian of this Rule. Observe well. We have here a number of words, but Nothing proved, Nothing so much as cleared. Say therefore plainly: What tradition is it, that conveyed to you the books of Scripture? Most surely, it is the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church, for you have no other. If therefore, you dare trust this Church in a matter of so weighly importance, as to hand to you Gods Sacred Word, you may as well, and with as good Conscience, believe what ever other Doctrine it Teaches by Tradition. See Disc. 2. C. 2. n. 4. 5. You talk secondly of Reason, that see's this Rule of Scripture, and you certainly mean the true sense of it, or you say nothing. Now I would willingly learn, how your Reason comes to have the privilege, or pre-eminence of knowing such Secrets, before your elder Brethren the Papists, or your more nearer Allies the Quaquers, or the old Arians? The like doubt I move about the Eyesalve, that anoints your Eyes, you call it the Spirit of God, And I am sure there is no Donatist, or Pelagian, but will say as much of his contrary Spirit. But above all Satisfy me in one doubt, and plainly point me out the Church that interpret's Scripture as you do in all those matters of Controversy now between us? I tell you Sir: There was never any such Church in the world fallible or infallible, that favours your glosses and interpretations of Scripture.  
32. Page 46. You have a Fling at the Captain's Arguments against the judgement of Reason, who, if you relate truly, (for I have not now his Epistle by me) saith first. Reason must submit to the judge, therefore it is not the judge. You Answer. It is not the supreme judge, but subordinate, and tied to Rule. Contra. Every judgement with you is fallible, and may easily Swerve from the rule, or mistake the supreme judges Sentence: if it do so, it is erroneous and not to be followed. Say therefore, who ties your judgement that is fallible, and may be falls, to any certain Rule? This should be Answered.  
33. He Objects again. The judge must be Infallible, but reason is fallible, Ergo. You Answer: The Mayor is a pitiful Petitio principij. Contra. Your Reply is more pitiful. Observe well. All judgements, you say, are fallible, and many are not only fallible; but falls also. Most surely, you will not have us to follow any falls judgement▪ and yet we must follow a fallible judgement. Vouchsafe, to tell us, whose fallible judgement we are to trust to, in these weighty matters of Controversy? And I have all reason to be satisfied in the doubt, because it avails me Nothing, to know that I must rely on a fallible judgement which may be falls, Unless you teach me whose fallible judgement it is, I am to rely on. For example: When you interpret a passage of Scripture contrary to the Church's Sense, your explication is fallible. Answer therefore, why will you rather have me to rest on your judgement that is fallible, then on the Churches contrary sense, though it were falsely Supposed fallible? If you say, All things considered, your explication is more probable, you are the very man, that pitifully begg's the Question, and speaks without any probable Principle.  
34. Now, if wearied with those Interrogatories, you say roundly (and this must be answered in your Principle) that every man is to follow his own judgement, in these debated matters: The Arian is to follow his private judgement, the Socinian his, the Quaquer his, the Donatist his etc. you do not only licence all the Heretics in the world, to remain still in their Heresies, But moreover Counsel them to believe Falsities, for you know, or should know, that these private judgements are all falls. If finally you Answer: We must rest on a judgement that is True, although it be fallible, I know not what you mean, for no man amongst you, can assure me in these high points of Controversy, when a judgement is to be reckoned of as true, that is fallible, because Truth is most easily separated from an Act, that is really Falli●●.  
35. In a word, Sir, your whole Mistake lies in this. You sound not to the bottom, the signification of these words. The judgement of Reason. For Reason in this place, cannot be taken, for a weak Discourse, or the private Sentiment of every erring man, after He hath hummed over, or paused on Scripture (the Arian or Socinian, will make his Religion good this way) but the judgement of Reason Goes further, and aught to be deeply rational indeed, that is: It must rest at last upon a solid and satisfactory Principle, which throughly pondered, work's powerfully upon every prudent disinteressed Understanding, and gently forceth the man, that lays prejudice aside, to acquiesce and yield, without fear or trouble. The Catholic Church of Christ only, most evidently proposeth these undoubted satisfactory Principles, whereon a rational judgement doth rest securely, when the Faith She holds, is resolved. No Sectary ever yet showed, nor shall hereafter show, any think like a Satisfactory Principle, to ground a rational judgement on, when He believes contrary to this Church. All he can do is to tell us, what He thinks, but you shall never learn from him, upon any solid Principle,  to his own bosom thoughts, That God speaks as He thinks. But I have said so much of this Subject Disc. 1. c. 7. n. 4. 5. and Disc. 2. c. 5. n. 8. 9 10. that it is needles to add More.  
36. To the 3. Argument. If Reason were judge a man might pleas God without Faith, (I know not whether you propose it fully enough) you Answer, this would overthrow the Church. You are much deceived, for the Church teaches, that none ●an please God without Faith. In your fourth Answer, your are ●●ing up again your Reason, to a Law and Rule in things you understand not. Sir, if you understand not, you want cords to tie fast withal, and therefore may easily not close, with the supreme judges sentence. But of this we have said enough already. You will find the substance of what follows in your Appendix refuted upon several occasions in the Treatise. Had I more time, I would say a word to your Glosses upon these two places of Scripture quoted by you. In the first, though S. Peter saith contrary 2. Pet. 3. 16. that Scripture is difficile to be understood, you will have it easy, unless it be to the ignorant and ungodly: and 'tis likely you suppose, there are none of these ignorant or ungodly people among you. Upon the other Text 2. Tim. 3. 15. 16. you seem to infer, from the Utility of Scripture, a sufficiency in order to Salvation, which is as good an Inference as if you said: Your head is profitable to make you to live, therefore it is sufficient. Or▪ the Principles of Philosophy can instruct you to learn Divinity, Ergo they make you a perfect Divine. Sir, the general Truths contained in Scripture▪ because they teach us to believe the Church, Tradition and other Apostolical Doctrines, orally delivered, are in this general way, able to make us wise to Salvation, but none can so much as probably draw from hence, that all things in particular, necessary to Salvation, are explicitly set down in Scripture. Every Catholic Writer that Explicates the Text, shows your Deductions to be weak, and unconcluding. That work therefore being done to my hand, I end, wishing you much Good, and eternal happiness.  
FINIS.   

Besides other faults noted in the beginning you have these.  
In the Advertisement. pag. 18. l. 22. Invocations R. Innovations p. 19 l. 16. of long standing Church our R. of our long standing Church p. 22. l. 5. were R. where in the Treatise p. 49. l. 7. Fallibility R. infallibility p. 158. l. 28. improperty R. impropriety p. 176. l. 18. Marck R. mark p. 239. l. 3. above R. about.  
ERRATA CORRIGENDA. Page 4. line 5. oft Read of page 6. last line retour R. return. p. 11. l. 4. put R. but p. 17. l. 24. reach R. reaches p. 19 l. 10. as it R. as it is p. 22. l. 13. feaching R. teaching p. 22. l. 23. true R. true p. 24. l. 8. Insalibility R. Infallibility p. 22. Title Teachere R. Teacher p. 25. l, 1. trough R. through p. 26. l. 1. forth R. for p. 27. l. 2. asserward R. afterward p. 30. Tit. further R. further p. 39 l. 24. te R. the p. 40. Tit. Relies R. Replies p. 41. l. 16. in R. it p. 43. l. 11. assurance R. assurance p. 46. Title Relies R. Replies p. 47. l. 27. fundemeetals R. fundamentals p. 53. l. 14. dot R. doth p. 58. l. 2. vetities R. verities p. 69. l. 4. it if follows deal if p. 69. l. 9 praging R. praying p. 69. l. 23. Realon R. Reason p. 71. l. 17. whick R. which p. 74. l. 1. foe rit R. for it p. 77. l. 17. Father R. Fathers p. 77. l, 30. standingh R. standing p. 81. Title deal certainty p. 90. l. 7. owing R. owning p. 93. Marg. loct R. lost p 94. l. 12. is R. it p. 94. l. 13. Prophet R. Prophets p. 103. Marg. sew R. few p. 113. Tit. Brave R. Prove p. 141. Marg. propose R. proposed p. 143. l. 6. pretend R. pretends p. 144. l. rotterin R. tottering p. 149. l. 20. other R. others p. 158. Marg. te R. to p. 159. l. 2. Christ R. Christ's p. 159. Marg. no Read not p. 175. l. 6. opposite, opposite Read opposite p. 178. l. 5. stead R. instead p. 182. l. 22. were sent R. they were sent p 182. l. 27. casting of R. casting out p. 184. Marg. uncompossible R. incompossible p. 186. l. 5. buth R. but p. 189. l. 17. see R. seem p. 195. Marg, an R. on p. 209. l. 28. interpred R. interpreted p 212. Marg. Siciety R. Society p. 215. l. 4. Propecying R. Prophesying p. 217. l. 24. if self R. itself p. 218. l. 5 yo R. you p. 222. l. 29. Objection R. Objection p. 228. l. 9 of R. or p. 256. Marg. cansists R. consists p. 256. l. 12. nos R. not p. 260. l. 7. ptosed R. proposed p. 261. Marg. datiful R. dutiful p. ●62. Marg, doclare R. declare p. 269. l. 10 ' caslesly R. causelessly p. 275. l. 29. both we deal both p. 278. l. 13. reclaim R. convert p, 295. l. 15. Chutch R. Church p. 302. Marg. uncluding R. unconcluding p. 311. Marg. care for R. care for p. 313. Marg. in in deal in p. 314. l. 16. sht R she p. 318. l. 32. ditt R. dirt p. 329. l. 26. unevidentced R. unevidenced p. 330. l. 29. An R. and p. 342. l. 30 party R. parity p. 344. l. 5. An R. and p. 346. l. 10. these R. those p. 350. l. 10. Cutch R. Church p. 351. l. 13. for long a time R. for a long time p. 352. l. 26. onveyed R. conveyed p. 356. l. 1. infallibily R. infallibly p. 358. l. 15. Argument R. Argument p. 359. Marg. Soy R. Say p. 362. l. 15. wales R. walls. p. 363. l. 21. impiously. deal p●●ctam p. 363. Merg. then, then R. then p. 365. l. 31. licencence licence p. 372. l. 2. convinceth R. convince p. 375. Tit. Curch R. Church p. 375. l. 14. ad R. and p. 378. l, 13. chis R. this p. 382. l. 29. overtrow R. overthrow p. 402. l. 18. that is R. it p. 405. Marg. mare R. more p. 406. Marg. smay R. sway p. 412. l. 14. confuthed R. confuted p. 417. l. 10. thoughts R. thoughts p. 420. l. 7. ns R. us p. 424. l. 18. unworthly R. unworthy p. 425. l. 30. and is deal and p. 441. Marg. whac R. what p. 443. l. 4. teachers R. teaches p. 448. l. 18. Cathalick R. Catholic p. 449. l. 7. expreffing R. expissing p. 452. l. 11. ttial R. trial p. 453. l. 17. Cutches R. Churches p. 460. l. 20. Ground R. Grounds p 501. l. 6, worst R. worse p. 516. l. 15. Scripiture R. Scripture.  
After Page 431. is Page 332. R. 432.  
There are without doubt many more faults in Orthography passed over, to say nothing of points ill placed, of Capi●●l letters to often, and commas needlessly multiplied. What ever is found amiss impute it boldly to the Printer, or to the Author, and please to pardon both, for the first knouwes not a word of English, and the other has not the language perfectly.