REASON AND RELIGION. OR THE CERTAIN RULE OF FAITH, Where the Infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church is asserted, against Atheists, Heathens, jews, Turks, and all Sectaries. WITH A REFUTATION OF Mr STILLINGFLEETS Many gross Errors. By E. W. Author of the Book called, PROTESTANCY WITHOUT PRINCIPLES Poteram ..... Omnes Propositionum rivulos, uno Ecclesiae sole siccare. Hier. contra Lucifer. c. vlt. fine. PRINTED AT ANTWERP, By MICHAEL CNOBBAERT, in the Year 1672. Permissu Su 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THE PREFACE TO THE READER. REligion, that choice Evangelical Pearl. Matth 13. the best Inheritance, and richest Treasure God hath bequeathed to Christians, though found and strongly guarded, meet's yet with many who long since, had their weak attempts prevailed, would have thrown it out of the world. Atheist's deny à Deity, the only foundation of Religion, jews oppose Christ, the great Master of Truth, and Heretics band against an evidenced universal Church, that large field wherein this precious jewel is found. These Adversaries we encounter, and our design is both to unbeguile and silence them. In the first place we attaque those grosser Enemies, Atheists, jews, Turks, and Infidels. This done, we enter upon the main matter, and friendly treat with our Modern Sectaries by the force of plain and undeniable Principles: If these stand (which none can shake) Protestancy falls to nothing. I call this Treatise the Rule of Faith, where you have the Inducements, which lead to the knowledge of true Religion clearly proposed, and strongly Maintained against all Opposers, whose cavils and Calumnies repugnant to truth, will appear as they are vain and forceles, after due ponderation of the Principles we rely on. The prudent search after Religion is ever made and first begun with Reason, or à rational discourse, for I hold this Principle indubitable. None can assent to the high revealed Mysteries of Faith, without previous evidence had of their Credibility laid forth to reason▪ Now because Atheists, Arians, and all Heretics, hold what they teach reasonable, it is necessary to distinguish between false and true Reason, as also rigidly to Examine what ever belongs to that whole Matter, which is amply done in the 14 th' 15 th'.. and, 16 th'. Chapters of the third Discourse, where we prove that Religion is only Reasonable, which Heaven itself declares reasonable, by such visible, sensible, and illustrious Marks as have gained Millions to believe in Christ, and no other but God's Infinite Power and wisdom, can produce. Hereupon, we lay forth the signal Marks of the Roman Catholic Church, clear Cognisances of an Infinite Power and Wisdom, Miracles most evident, Conversions of Nations wrought by Her, Succession of Pastors, ever since the Apostles preached, with à strict unity of one Faith in all that Professed Her Doctrine. We look next upon this late risen Protestancy and find it naked, utterly stripped of all supernatural Motives: No Miracles, no Conversions, no unity in Faith to countenance the Novelty, and therefore conclude that the Professors of it who seemingly stand for Reason, and slight an evidenced Church, are most unreasonable, and as daily experience teaches, mere Sceptics in Matters of Religion. Clemens Rom. in Recog: D. Petri. hereafter cited, gives this wise Counsel to every prudent seeker after Truth. Before all things examine well by the light of rational Motives; whether one that pretends to speak in the name of God, and calls himself à Prophet sent to preach, proves himself to be really so. Thus much learned (and the knowledge is easily gained, because grounded upon evidence) believe boldly all he teaches, though his Doctrine be sublime, and seems difficult to weak reason. The first converted Christians were thus induced by the Lustre of our Saviour's glorious Miracles and other Signal wonders, to own him as he was, à great Prophet, or the true Messiah sent from God, and afterward believed what ever Doctrine he taught, upon his own Infallible word. Apply what is here said to the Roman Catholic Church, you will find this great Truth made manifest in the following Discourses. viz. That as no Prophet, no Doctor, ever came near Christ our Lord in the wonders he wrought, so no Society of men since the world stood, was, or is Comparable in Miracles and other Cognisances of truth, to the Roman Catholic Church. She as I now said, and no other Society, shows you à Continued Succession of Pastors, of Princes, and People since the first Plantation of the Gospel. She and no other, hath been always reverenced all Nations over, and was never opposed by Orthodox Christians. She gives you à large Catalogue of Innumerable Professors eminent in learning, in wisdom, and sanctity of life. In Her the ancient Predictions of Prophets, are literally fulfilled. Her universal extent far and near, is evident; The Conversions wrought by her, Evident. The Courage and Constancy of Martyrs who died for her Faith, Evident. Her ancient Possession of truth (for Confessedly she was once Orthodox) is undeniable, And this is the Church, Gentle Reader, our Sectaries would destroy, This Oracle, though signalised with so many Illustrious Marks, and Indications proceeding from God, inspite of Heaven, they injuriously Calumniate as Idolatrous, and Heretical, And Consequently make those Millions and Millions, who both living and dying zealously sought to serve no other but the great God of Truth in this blessed Society, Fools, Madmen, Idolaters, and Heretics. I say Calumniate, for all they have done hitherto, or can do for the future, comes to no more but to à flat injurious Calumny, as is evidenced in the third Discourse. C. 19 where you are told, that whoever impeaches an ancient Church (once acknowledged Orthodox) of Idolatry, and proves not his charge, by clear and undeniable Principles, Calumniates must unjustly, and sin's damnably, Protestants do so, as is there largely proved, and the truth is manifest in their own writings. They tell us the Roman Catholic Church though once right in Faith, changed Her ancient Doctrine, we justly urge them to prove the Assertion by some unquestionable Principles, more convincing, or of greater weight and strength to persuade what they assert, than the public judgement of all sound Christians living at that time, to persuade the Contrary; And Mark à strange Proceeding, the Calumny itself is returned upon us, without either Proof or probable Principle to uphold it, but their own bare and proofles word. We are told again, there was ever à Catholic Church without blemish, at least in fundamentals, (for that Article of the Creed. I believe the Holy Catholic Church was true in all Ages) We seriously demand where, or in what part of Christendom that Orthodox Church (distinct from the Roman Catholic) had its being at that time, when the Roman fell from Christ, and became Idolatrous? There was such à Church which censured and condemned the supposed Roman Errors, or not; If not, the world upon those supposed errors, was wholly Churchles. Grant an Orthodox Church distinct from the Roman, She certainly opposed those Imagined false Roman Doctrines, which then began to infect the Moral Body of Christians, and Consequently that Opposition was à thing as notoriously known, as loudly noised some Centuries since, as it is Notoriously known and noised, that our Sectaries have now espied those false Doctrines. We urge them to bring to light that public known Opposition of their Imagined Church, against the Roman Catholic Society fancied à Changeling, And what have we? Deep silence from some, and from such as dare speak, false Suppositions for Proofs, unworthy Calumnies for an Answer. Please to see this Argument fully handled. Disc. 2. C. 6. Time was, the world knows well, when our Adversaries avouched they could prove their Protestancy, and refute our Catholic Doctrine by plain and express-Scripture, we come to the true Trial in this Treatise, and in lieu of God's word, find their Books full fraught with mere far-fetched Glosses. Not one Passage I boldly assert, (and put Sectaries to the Proof) favours this Protestancy, as it is distinguished from Popery, and the known Heresies of former Ages. Now that nothing from Scripture can be alleged Contrary to our Catholic Doctrine, is manifest upon this one Principle, which none shall overthrow. What Scripture faithfully interpreted teaches in these weighty matters of Religion, some Orthodox Church delivered in foregoing Ages: For example. If Scripture deny Adoration to Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, or Transubstantiation, an Orthodox Church, which cannot clash with the verities of God's word, in some Age or other maintained these Protestant Tenets, and published them to Christians, But no Orthodox Church ever sided with Sectaries, or taught such Doctrines, Therefore their pretence to Scripture against our Catholic Tenets is frivolous, and implies no more but à false supposition for à Proof. And this strain of turning bare Suppositions into proofs, which never go beyond the strength of their own vnproued Assertions, so universally trancends all their polemics that I stand astonished, to see men who will be accounted learned, wholly busied in doing Nothing. Reflect I beseech you à little. They have been told, and I remind them of it again in this Treatise, that whoever makes the Roman Church Idolatrous or Erroneous, must hold the supposed Idolatry and error so remediless an Evil, that none on earth can redress either, because all the Proofs or Principles whereby the Reformation should be made, will evidently appear less ponderous to Evince this Church guilty of error, than Her sole Authority is to persuade the Contrary, viz. That she never erred. Wherhfore Sectaries Confessedly fallible men, desperately adventure to reform us, and cannot but spoil all they go about to mend, whilst they Evidence not, whilst they plead not, by the Authority of an Ancient Orthodox Church which taught that very Protestancy they teach now, and decried these Supposed Popish errors as loudly as they decry them: But to do thus much is impossible, as manifestly appears by their own writings, For tell me I beseech you, whoever yet heard Protestant in all those weak skirmishes made against Catholic Religion, Say plainly and prove it. Such à Church reputed Orthodox five or Six Ages since, taught as we teach, sensed Scriptures as we sense them, Christians then universally believed no Real Presence, No sacrifice of the Mass etc. Has ever Protestant, I say, gone thus groundedly to work? No, Most evidently, No. I shall highly extol the man that will dare to proceed so ingenuously, but find none engaged in this right way of Arguing. It's true, some who leap over the heads of all their more Immediate Ancestors, between Luther and the three or four first Centuries, tell us those Primitive Christians were good Protestants like them. Ill luck Say I that Protestancy had, not to be entailed upon some Successors in following Ages, for most certainly since those days, the world never saw Protestant before Luther. In à word the Assertion is à loud untruth, an unworthy begging of Question, and besides implies à fancied supposition for à Proof. To show this, we reduce these ranging Spirits to a lesser compass, and oblige them to name but one Protestant, nearer their shameful Revolt from our Catholic Society. Here they stand gravelled, as mute as fishes, and are highly angry, because we touch them where they are most weak. This want of à Church to ground Protestancy upon, makes their polemics to be as they appear, rambling, faint, shallow, and so dissatisfactory, that great patience is requisite to peruse them. Wonder nothing, they can do no better, Rebels they are against an ancient Church, and their handling Controversies may well be compared with the proceeding of Rebels in à Common wealth, who curiously mark, and diligently attend to what ever may seem welcome to your ignorant, seduced, and disgusted Multitudes, That, be it what you will, is fomented, that's laid forth, and inculcated. It is no news to tell you, that our Ministers in England now for à long time, have had à number of seduced People bread in their own rebellious bosoms, and brought up in à spirit of Schism, who God knows have heard little, but of the Idolatry, of the Superstitions, and wickedness of some Professed Catholics. O, say these Incendiaries, we will nourish this Popular humour with food suitable to its palate, we will write Books of this Popish Idolatry, we have tongues and can poison with delight, we will lay forth in folio what we conceive of the Roman Superstitions, and the wickedness of Popes. We know well to Cavil, and how to ensnare the vulgar, on whom we depend, when our Cavils are once out, though neither reducible to Principles, nor subject to the Censure of any judge (for we own none) let them shift for themselves. Our only care is to talk on, though we prove nothing, And chief to be wary in one particular, It is never to mention any thing of à Church which taught Protestancy before Luther, meddle with that mischievous difficulty we are undone, for really we have no such Church. This in à word (and much worse) is Protestancy, as is amply declared in the following Treatise, where you also have the distinctive Cognisances of Christ's true Church, the Rule of Faith, and the Properties of à Rule explained; withal, an easy way whereby to put an end to these unfortunate Controversies. You have moreover the Infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church asserted, Faith resolved into its true Principles, Mr Stillingfleets grosser Errors discovered, The Reasonableness of Catholic Religion laid forth to every rational man, And to omit other Questions (all cannot be hinted at in the narrow compass of à Preface) you have this great Truth proved. viz. That if the Roman Catholic Church hath taught but one false Article, and obliged all Christians to believe it under pain of damnation, there neither is at this day, nor was before Luther any true faith in the world. Wherhfore Sectaries who have made it their chief business to impeach our Church of Idolatry, and Heresy (and the louder they cried, the more they thought to destroy us) have done their utmost to ruin all the Churches on earth, and prove themselves thereby both Faithless and Churchles. But enough for à Preface. Open and read. Approve or condemn, as reason shall guide you. In case you Condemn, please to say, Why, and show me where I err in Principles. Pardon the faults of the Printer which are many (he is à stranger to our Language) except against mine boldly, if you find any, but do it with Charity, and still, for this I must inculcate again and again, Remember Principles. Farewell. AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR Mr STILLINGFLEET Sr. PLain dealing is the best, you shall have it in this short Advertisement from à friendly Adversary (no Enemy I assure you) who desires to do you good, against your will. If I be rightly informed, Both you and some others find yourselves dissatisfied upon this score, that your Rational Account (as 'tis called) comprehending the Grounds of Protestant Religion, remains yet untouched, or not answered. Before I reply to these complaints, I shall take the boldness to request one favour at your hands (you will much oblige me by it) which is to point out that Chapter or Paragraph through your whole Book, wherein the hidden treasure of these Protestant Grounds lie, and to give me in à few lines, one or two of them plainly set down in half à Sheet of paper. I speak of Grounds for Protestancy, as it is your peculiar Religion distinct from Popery, and all known Condemned Hereties. Fob me not off, I beseech you, with any general talk, Tell me not I must seek better and shall find, For, Sir, I assure you though I have made à diligent Search after your Grounds, they are yet so far removed from my sight, that I cannot find one. Wherefore, because you are more Conversant in your own writings than others, and, Plus vident oculi quam oculus, I beg to be enlightened by you. If you fail to do this, the world will judge as I do, that you have abused the Reader with à Title, whereunto nothing in your voluminous Book answers. I mean you have no more touched upon Grounds for Protestancy (as Protestancy and mark my words) then for Arianism, or any other false Religion. In the perusal of your Book I see what beguiled you. You, Sir, thought to throw that little dirt (wherewith some have furnished you) in our faces, was enough to make your bad cause Specious, and to prop up your Protestancy, as if forsooth to Cavil at us, were to establish your Novelties. Know good Sir, that both Arians and all other gone Heretics, were as fierce in their Cavils against the Church as you are, but did they therefore either ground or establish their false Doctrines contrary to God's Truths? It is à gross error to think so; For as it is one thing foolishly to brandish à Sword, and another fitly to use à Buckler, so it is à quite different business slightly to impugn Catholic Religion, and another to defend Protestancy. That first you have attempted like your old Heretics, and with as ill success; But the second, which is to maintain Protestancy, or to settle that upon solid Grounds, neither is, nor was, nor ever shall be done by any, wherefore I tell you in▪ this Treatise (read it if you please) This Protestancy is wholly ungrounded, God never revealed one Article of it (as Protestancy) nor did ever ancient or modern Orthodox Church teach so much as one of your Particular Tenets, And for this reason I say, it's falsely called the reformed Religion, having neither Essence, nor the Properties of Religion belonging to it. Now for as much as Concerns your Clamours, because you think your Book neglected, or not yet Answered. First, give me leave to tell you, it is a great Vanity to rise to so high à conceit of yourself or of your Book (as if you were the only Defender of your Faith) and à greater to publish it to the world. what think you, Cannot Protestancy be impugned without taking you or your work in hand? It's little wisdom to judge so. A Soldier, good Sir, who intends to invade an enemy takes no directions from him, how to enter his Country, much less busies his thoughts about removing every straw, or every little block that lies in his way, but marches on, as he thinks best to compass his Design. To overthrew your Protestancy is our Design, and you most unreasonably prescribe, what we are to do, That is, we must either attaque your Fort and meddle with your Account, or you think nothing is done. Why so I beseech you? Grant, which is not true that those who have written since your Account saw light, passed by it without much notice, they might well do so, looking on it as à Block not worth removing, unless, as I say, you will have them to obey your Commands, and assault what Outwork you please. It is Sir, your Cause we more mind, than your Account. 2. Why do you (or some body for you) not only shamefully stop all the Presses, in so much that scarce a sheet of paper can appear in public; But moreover, why have you (when all liberty is granted to scribble and print what you please) omitted to Answer those Books, which directly impugn your Doctrine. That excellent Guide of Controversies is the One, and Protestancy without Principles, the other: And you have done this with much uncivil scornful Language, with a mere forced Pish from the teeth outward at the end of a Preface, as if, forsooth, you would be thought to Say; You Can Answer but will not, wbereas the naked truth is (at least wise men judge so) you would Answer but, Cannot. Sir, believe me, it would have been much to the purpose, and far more satisfactory to your Protestant Brethren, had you, when you saw your Protestancy (to speak moderately) well shaken in those two Books, replied to some particulars, and shown where either the Principles were false, or their Discourses failed, But you Cowardly quitted the field, sat down silent, busying yourself with reprinting a few Sermons, whereof the world had no need at all. And this ('tis thought) was done to cloak your Lazines, your ignorance or both, because you could not Answer, yet we are called on to quarrel with you, whilst you like a Privileged Person exempt yourself from meddling with us. That is we must speak, and you say nothing. But, Sir, let us come nearer the point and tell you truth. Whatever you account substantial in your Book, hath been answered by your two scorned Adversaries, and if any thing be yet wanting, it is amply supplied in this Treatise. To conceive what I would prove, please to Note. There are two ways in answering a Book. The one is to follow an Author step after step, by examining severally each piece of the Whole: The other is to Consider the Principles whereupon the Whole relies, showing them either false in themselves, or not connexed with those Conclusions which should follow from them. Destroy Principles, you destroy all. Thus the Motion of à Watch may be spoiled two ways, either by disordering every wheel in it, à part, or by breaking the Spring. The fairest Palace ever was, is ruineed, if either you separate every stone from stone, or if you undermine the foundation and blow up the whole Fabric, though many of the stones strongly Cemented, cling yet together. The first way of answering by piece-meal, is tedious and obscure, and as things are with us (by reason of the difficulty in Printing and transmitting Books into England) almost impossible, The other is clear and easy, both are satisfactory to every rational man, and I hold the second most necessary, For, in all our Discourses there must be some firm Principles laid whereunto we reduce, and from whence wè draw what we Assert, which several ways of discoursing, Compose the two different Methods, Analytical and Synthetical, obserucd by Philosophers and Divines. Neither is the Foundation more necessary to à house, or the weight to a clock, than Principles are to a Discourse, which then is good, when the grounds stand firm, and the Deductions of the particular Conclusion from them, clear: But if either the Principles be false and alien, or the Deductions not Coherent, the whole Discourse falls to nothing. Apply what is here said to your Account, or rather to the Religion it Asserts, and you have all I would Say. Your Account, Sir, was writ to vindicate Protestancy, and must stand upon the same Principles with that Novelty, therefore whatever shakes and ruins the Principles of Protestancy, necessarily shakes, and ruins the Principles of your Account, But your Supposed Principles or Grounds of Protestancy are broken, yea demonstrated no Grounds at all, in the Book entitled Protestancy without Principles, where they are proved either false, or no Principles peculiar to your Religion, as it is distinct from the Doctrine of other Societies, called Non-Protestants, And consequently when true, they have no Connexion with Protestancy, nor can lead in any conclusion for you, And where they are false, their falsity is laid before your eyes, and an utter subversion of your Cause, and Account with it, because neither can stand, when your supposed Principles are destroyed, or rather found never to have had Being. And thus your Book is solidly Answered. If you desire to see more ruin yet fallen upon you, read this Treatise, and be pleased to reflect upon these three things in your Account. The length of it, The Objections against Catholic Religion, and finally your Principles for Protestancy. We find two of them, but miss the third. The length mighty tedious, and (too often without substance) wearies à Reader, God help him (say I) that undergoes the druggery to turn over all the uneven stuff which lies heaped up there. Your Objections, usually borrowed from Mr Chillingworth and some other Protestant Writers, are for the most part common, and such as have been answered over and over: Where you think them peculiar to yourself (as they lay in my way) I have rejoined, and if some be omitted, that's only to Say, every stone in your Fabric is not touched, or meddled with, But for as much as concerns your Principles in behalf of Protestancy, I Assert Confidently, you have none, and upon this ground, I say once more your Account is answered. Go on therefore, and vilify the works published against you as you please, call them Wool sacks, Rats, or Flies, add more opprobrious language to gain you credit among your simple and too credulous Vulgar, with Intelligent Readers you prevail nothing, who well perceive, it Matters not to your Intent, if those Wool sacks receive and break the force of your greatest shot against our Church; if the Rats gnaw the best ligaments woven in your Account, if but one of these flies enter your throat, and bereave you of breath (some report of à great man stifled by à Fly) And truly it seems by your deep silence, or not answering since these Books came forth, that some of the greater sort have half choked you. But enough. To say more after this strain, were to rally like you, and to offend the learned world, which requires substance in these serious matters, without contempt, flouting, and empty words. Had you, Sir, gone the right way to work, you should either have kept in your disdainful language, or taken Protestancy without Principles in hand, Showing, where the Author mistook your Principles, Or whether his exceptions were blamable, because he thought them either Common, and not belonging to you▪ that is▪ wholly alien from your cause, wholly impertinent to Maintain Protestancy. This proceeding had been Satisfactory, but difficult and above your force, Therefore you wisely waved it, knowing well it was easier to gi●e sharp words, and snarl at your Adversaries, than to come near and by't, with pinching Arguments. My proceeding with you, Sir, is quite contrary, I slight nor your person, but say plainly where your great mistake lies in handling Controversies. You run headlong into the deep Mysteries of Faith by the ill conduct of your weak, or not well sighted reason, and after à few stag ring thoughts spent in weighing, and musing upon the difficulties, which appear to you in the Mysteries, you will needs tell us what's true, what's false, and therefore boldly take, and reject, as you like best. It is à perplexed way, Sir, which will never make, you either Good Christian, good Divine, or so much as à mean Proficient in Christ's School. In following it, you are just like one (as I tell you in the Treatise) that takes wholesome Pills into his Mouth, chewes them, finds them bitter, and spitt's all out. Hence it is, you spit at the Doctrines of Transubstantiation, of Purgatory etc. because forsooth, they are distasteful to sense and shallow reason. And truly, Sir, it is wonderful, that you have not long since by this procedure, cast off the Doctrine of the sacred Trinity, For most certainly might sense and weak reason plead the Cause here, far greater difficulties would occur against that sublime Mystery, than ever Protestant's yet proposed against our other Catholic Tenants. In a word, Sir, if you desire satisfaction in matters of Religion, busy not your head with the examination of the Divine Mysteries Considered in themselves▪ they are above your reach, but contrariwise, consider well, how and by what means they are made Credible to reason, which is done as S. Austin, cited afterward, tell's you, by first finding out that clear marked, and signalised Church, whereby God speaks, This Oracle once discovered (and the Discovery grounded upon Evidence, is easy) Hear and Believe Her, She is wiser than you, and never think to shake so strong à Fortress, by devising pcrty Arguments against Her Doctrine (no sooner seen then solued) because, forsooth, you cannot Comprehend it. But it is high time to end and I shall do so, with one word more of good advice. Fools they say may sometimes give à wise man Counsel. Sir, if you intent to write any more, Consider for your own sake, what you writ, weigh things well in your thoughts, before they pass your pen. Have always this one reflection in mind. It's easy to Cavil, easy to talk much, but most laborious to make sure what you say, by sound Principles, And Principles your Adversaries ever have an Eye to. Had you complied with this Advice, the greatest part of your Account (if not all) might well have been spared. Never rely on the vain praises of your vulgar Readers, all is not gold that glisters in their Eyes, nor do they always speak as they think. For as much as concerns yourself, show, sir, rather the strength of à Father in loving your works, than the weakness of à fond Mother that hugg's her Brats, though most deformed. I am told, you imagine it à great Acchievement, and yourself the conqueror, in having gained onc private man T. C. to follow your triumphant Chariot, Abuse not your judgement there is no such matter, for in good sober earnest by what I have perused in T. C. his book rather seems to be an answer to yours, than yours to his. Abstain hereafter from opprobrious Language, lest you meet with some ruffing Adversary that will pay you in your own Coyn. Please to use your Buckler better in behalf of Protestancy, and tell me when your Negative Articles are thrown away (as not revealed) what essential Truth remain's within the Compass of Protestancy, revealed by Almighty God, and necessary to Salvation. If you think it the wisest Course, not to take notice of what is proposed against you in this Treatise, vouchsafe to clear yourself of the Contradictions charged upon you. And because I find you much entangled in your Resolution of Faith, and have laid your mistakes open to public view; when the Spirit of answering falls upon you again, Answer I beseech you, to the difficulties Objected in the third Discourse, But above all Answer to God with à hearty repentance, for the wrong you have done his Church, and own me. Sir Your friendly Adversary. THE CHAPTERS IN ORDER. THE RULE OF FAITH Wherein the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Religion is established against Atheists, Heathens, jews, Turks, and all Sectaries. CHAP. I. Whether true Religion be in the world? The Affirmative proved Against Atheists. Atheism, evidently Shewd'improbable. 1 CHAP. II. Reason rejects all sects or Religions not Christian. Whether Gentilism, judaism; or Turkcism, be erroneous and improbable? 13 CHAP. III. Christianity as it stands in opposition to jews, Turcks, Infidels and Heretics, is the only true Religion. 21 CHAP. iv Whether Christian Religion since its first Propagation hath not been in like manner preserved pure, and further spread by Divine Providence, above the Power of Nature? 25 CHAP. V Whether all called Christians Believe entirely Christ's sacred Doctrine? And whether means be afforded to arrive to the knowledge of true Christian Religion? 29 CHAP. VI Of our Sectaries error in their search after true Religion. As also of Mr Stillingfleets inconsequent way of Arguing. 32 CHAP. VII. More of this subject. Doubts concerning the several editions of scripture. None extant more pure, than the Vulgar Latin. Abstract from Church Authority, there is no Certainty of the best Edition. Sectaries Comparing the Present Copies with the more ancient gives no assurance. A word with Mr Stillingfleet. 42 CHAP. VIII. How necessary it was to have one lection of Scripture in the Church. A word of the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles. Of Mr Stillingfleets mistakes and inconsequences concerning them. Objections answered. 55 CHAP. IX. Proofs demonstrating that Protestants have not so much certainty of Scripture, as excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting. A word of Mr Stillingfleets weak discourse with à Heathen. 67 A Discourse between à Heathen and à Christian. 71 CHAP. X. The first and easiest way to find out true Religion is not by Scripture only, though all Christians had moral certainty of the right Canon, and sense also, which is to say, the mere owning Christ's Doctrine, is insufficient to prove it, to all sort of People. 80 CHAP. XI. The Protestant takes away the only means to know true Religion by. His proofs, whether He defend's Protestancy or impugns Catholic Doctrine, are unreducible to Principles, and never go beyond the weakness of his own vnproued Assertion. Mere glosses support all He saith, which is evidenced by à brief handling one Controversy, touching the B. Sacrament. Theodoret wronged by Sectaries, cleared. His Doctrine is most Catholic. 85 Theoderets Testimony alleged above, Contains most Catholic Doctrine. 94 CHAP. XII. A Digressian concerning the Real Presence: The Fathers plainly assert it. Sectaries glosses frivolous. The agreement of the Church and Fathers make à Doctrine indubitable. The Catholick's certain Principle. A word with Mr Stillingfleet. 102 CHAP. XIII. Mr Stillingfleet grossly abuseth the Fathers that assert the Real Presence. His unprincipled glosses are not only dubions, and therefore worth nothing, but moreover highly improbable. 119 CHAP. XIV. It is further proved that neither Scripture alone, nor any other Principle distinct from an Vnerring Church, can with certainty decide Controversies in Matters of Religion, or Regulate Christian Faith. 138 CHAP. XV. The other mentioned Principles above, are insufficient to decide controversies, Or to Regulate faith. 152 CHAP. XVI. One word more of Mr Stillingfleets Glosses, and his unexcusable abuse of other Fathers. 159 CHAP. XVII. Why the Glosses of Sectaries are impertinent and weightles? Mr Stillingfleet misinterprets other Fathers. Of his unskilful Speculation concerning Idolatry charged on Catholics. CHAP. XVIII. The Protestant after all his Glosses can not ascertain any, of true Religion. He would make Controversies an endless work. 180 CHAP. XIX. The last design of Sectaries Glosses discovered. They end nothing. The clear way to end Controversies of Religion. A distinction between Authority and Principled Authority. Of the improbability of Protestancy. 192 CHAP. XX. A word to one or two Objections. It is further proved, That Controversies are ended with Protestants, who have no Essence of Religion, but false opinions only. 205 CHAP. XXI. Protestants granting Salvation to Catholics by à clear Inference drawn from their Concession, end Controversies of Religion. What force their concession hath. Why they granted so much. The Argument is clearly proposed. Mr Stillingfleet returns no probable Answer. A full discovery of his fallacies. 217 THE SECOND DISCOURSE, OF The Church and Rule of Faith CHAP. I. Necessary Principles premised relating to the Controversy now in hand, concerning the true Church And Rule of Faith. 241 CHAP. II. The Rule of Faith assigned: The properties of à Rule. What is meant by the Church? Ancient Fathers Assert that the Church is easily found out. Her marks, more clear, than Her Essential Doctrine. 248 CHAP. III. The Protestant has neither Church evidented by Marks of Truth, nor true Doctrine made credible to reason. His whole Faith is built upon Fancy. 256 CHAP. IV. The one and only true Church of Christ, was, is, and shall ever be the Holy, Apostolical, and Catholic Roman Church. Her Antiquity and Constant Perseverance in the Ancient primitive Doctrine, without Alteration, prove The Assertion. 266 CHAP. V A second Reason showing, That if the Roman Catholic Church erred but in one Article of Faith, thère is now no Fundamental Faith in the world. Were Error in this Church, it is à remediless Evil, and cannot be amended by any, least of all by Protestants. 276 CHAP. VI Other Evidences of the. Roman Churches Perseverance in the Primitive Faith, without change or Alteration. Whether wickedness of life necessarily induceth Error into the Church? The Donatists and Protestants Argue, and Err alike. 285 CHAP. VII. Manifest and most undeniable Miracles peculiar to the Roman Catholic Church only, prove Her Orthodox, withal show that She still retain's the Primitive Doctrine. 296 CHAP. VIII. Miracles evident in the Roman Catholic Church, No less induce All now to believe Her Doctrine, Than Apostolical Miracles Anciently Persuaded to believe that Primitive Doctrine. The Denial of Miracles Impossibilitats The Conversion of jews and Infidels. 302 The Admirable cure wrought by Blessed S. Xaverius in the Famous City of Naples, upon à worthy Religious Person called F. Marcellus Mastrilli, à Noble man by birth, and by Profession of the Society of jesus. The Proof hinted at above, reassumed. 312 CHAP. IX. A word to à few Objections, as also to Mr stillingfleets unworthy Exceptions against that evident Miracle wrought at Zaragosa in Spain, 321 CHAP. X. Other Marks and Signs, peculiar to the Roman Cathollick Church prove her Orthodox, And make Her Doctrine evidently credible. These laid forth to Sense and Reason, distinguish the true Church from all Erring Societies. Inferences drawn from the Doctrine Here delivered. 333 CHAP. XI. Christ and his Church made manifest to à Heathen. No Prophet comparable to Christ, no Church comparable to the Roman Catholic. Our glorious Christ jesus Exhibits à glorious Church. He is proved the Only true Messiah, And the Roman Catholic Church His only true Sponse. How the Heathen Discourses, if rational, And Prudent. 349 CHAP. XII. The Adversaries of the Roman Catholic Church plead unreasonably. A Discovery of their fallacies. The cause of all Error concerning Religion. The only means to remedy Error. 363 Arguments drawn from what is said. Reflections made upon the premised Doctrine. 377 CHAP. XIII. Other Inferences drawn from the precedent Doctrine. Atheists and Heretics Argue alike. The Motives of Credibility lead to à total Belief of what ever the true Church Proposes. A word of Mr Thorndicks Mistakes concerning the Church. 181 A Word of Mr Thorndiks Mistakes discovered in His Book of Forbearance. 387 CHAP. XIV. Whether there be à Church of one Denomination infallible, not only in Matters miscalled Fundamental, but in all and every Doctrine She Proposes, and Obliges Christians to believe, as Faith? CHAP. XV. Divine Faith in this present State of things, necessarily requires à Church infallible. The Reason hereof. The Church neither Defin's, nor can Define by Humane Authority only. Her Definitions, more than morally certain, are Infallible. Sectaries Recourse to Moral certainly in Matters of Faith, à most frigid Plea. Their Fallacy is discovered. Objections Answered. 408 Other Objections proposed by Sectaries, Solued, More of Moral certainty. 419 CHAP. XVI. Principles premised to the following Doctrine. The Roman Catholic Church is à Church of One Denomination. She, and no other Society of Christians, is Infallible. Othet Grounds of Her Infallibility laid forth. The Infallibility of Councils maintained against Mr Stillingfleets Supposed Truth and Reason. There are no Principles whereby Approved Councils can be proved fallible. Sectaries Convinced by their own Doctrine. 423 CHAP. XVII. More of this subject, A further Search made into Errors called intolerable. Whether the Roman Catholic Church must be supposed by Sectaries to have already Committed intolerable Errors, Or only, whether She may for the future Err Intolerably? The Doctrine of Protestants proved False, And most inconsequent. 443 CHAP. XVIII. Two Adversaries mainly Opposite to True Religion. The last and most urgent Proof of the Church's Infallibility taken from the Necessity, the Notion and Nature of true Religion. Mr Stillingfleets Objections found weak and weightles. Most of them already Proposed and Dissolved by others. A short Reflection made upon some few. 452 CHAP. XIX. Certain Principles, where upon the Church's Infallibility stands firm. The End of Divine Revelation is to teach all Infallibly. Every Doctrine revealed by the fiast Verity is no less infallible, then true. It's one thing to teach Truth, another to teach Divine and Infallible Truth. Sectaries Strangely ungrateful. A word of Mr Stillingfleets weak Objections. 465 THE THIRD DISCOURSSE OF The Resolution of Faith: CHAP. I. Some chief Contents in this Discourse briefly declared. Mr Stillingfleets weak attempts against the Church's infallibility and the Resolution of Faith. The Catholic way of resolving Faith, the very same with that of the Primitive Christians. Of the mistakes which run through Mr Stillingfleets whole Discourse. 477 CHAP. II. Mr Stillingfleets 5.th Chapter. Part. 1. examined, is found Weightles. The weakness of his Arguments discovered. His First and chiefest Argument retorted and solued. 483 CHAP. III. More of this subject. Objections Answered. A word to Mr Stillingfleets forceless Instances. Motives of credibility ever Precede Faith. Whether the rational Evidence of the Truth of Christ's Doctrine, can be à Motive to believe it. 493 CHAP. IV. More of Mr Stillingfleets Errors. Of that odd kind of Faith he seems to maintain, grounded on Moral Certainty. What Influence the Motives of Credibility have upon Faith? Other Parcels of his Doctrine Examined, and refuted. Objections Solued. 505 CHAP. V More quarrels Answered. Mr Stillingfleets endeavour to catch Catholics in à Circle, demonstrated both vain and improbable. His Objections are forceless. A word to an unlearned Cavil. 516 CHAP. VI Mr Stillingfleet solues not His Adversary's Argument: A word of his tedious Shuffing. The Motives of Credibility both distinguish the Church from all other Heterodox Communitier, and prove Her Infallible. The Agreement with the Primary Doctrine, no Mark of the Church. More Mistakes and Errors discovered. Of Mr Stillingfleets double Faith who Believes, but not upon Divine the Testimony, That the Books of Scripture contain God's word in them: Yet Believes the Doctrine in those books, to be Divine. 523 Whether we Square Circles in our Resolution of Faith. The other mentioned Points in the Tittle of the Chapter, discussed. Upon what ground those Articles called the fundamentals of Faith are believed, in the Opinion of Sectaries. 534 CHAP. VII. Necessary Principles premised to the Resolution of Faith. God can Speak in à Language proper to Himself. His external language is twofold. When God speaks not immediately, He must be heard by his Oracle. What the exact Resolution of Faith implies? 545 CHAP. VIII. The main Difficulty in the Resolution of Faith, Proposed. What Connexion the Motives have with the Divine Revelation? Of their weight and efficacy. God's own Language not imitable by his Enemies. Faith transcends the certainty of all Motives, The main Difficulty solued. Of our great Security in Believing God, Though we have not Evidence of the Divine Testimony. CHAP. IX. the whole Progress of ●aith Explained in order to its last Resolution. Of that which the Fathers Call the light of Faith. It's wholly different from Sectaries Private Spirit. From whence Faith hath Infallible Certainty. Objections Solued. 560 CHAP. X. The easiest way of resolving Faith, Laid forth in two Propositions. The evidence of Credibility further declared. Sectaries have no Evidence of Credibility. It is as evidently Credible that God now speaks by the Church, as that He did anciently Speak by the Prophets. 570 CHAP. XI. Sectaries Objections solued. The fallible Agreement of all Concerning the Canon of Scripture, no Proof at all. No universal Consent for the Sectaries Scripture, or the Sense of it. How the Church is both the Verity believed, and the Motive, why we believe. Other Difficulties Examined. 580 CHAP. XII. The last Objection Proposed. Whether the Church's Testimony may be called the Formal Object of Faith. Other Notes and Chnsiderations, Concerning The Resolution of Faith. 588 CHAP. XIII. Protestants have no Faith to resolve, And upon that account are freed from à vicious Circle. Some yet are in à Circle. Two Sorts of Sectaries refuted. 596 CHAP. XIV. The Mistakes of some Sectaries in this Controversy. It's necessary to distinguish between true Reason, and fallacious Reasoning. Private Reason liable to Error. Principles presupposed to the Decision of this Question. Reason easily finds out true Religion, by à rational Evidence previous to Faith. 603 CHAP. XV. From whence the Evidence hitherto mentioned proceeds? That Religion only is reasonable, which Heaven declares reasonable. The Declaration is evidently made in behalf of the Roman Catholic Religion. Who is the misled reasoning Man? Other Particulars handled. The readiest way to Convince Sectaries. 615 CHAP. XVI. Objections solued. Sectaries pretending not to See the Church's Evidence, are either blind, or wilfully shut their Eyes. The Assertion clearly proved. A Parallel of the Primitive, and the present Church's Evidence. How far Reason may be said to Regulate Faith. 625 CHAP. XVII. A Digression Concerning Doctor Stillingfleets Discourse, Where he treats of the Protestants Faith reduced to Principles. He is all à long quite besides the matter handled, and Says no more for Protestancy, than for Arianism, or any other Heresy. 639 CHAP. XVIII. The Doctor's Inferences, proved no Inferences, but untrue Assertions. Having answered his Principles and Inferences, Satisfaction is required to some few Questions proposed. 652 CHAP. XIX. The supposed grounds of our Protestants Reformation manifestly overthrown. Protestancy no Religion but an improbable Novelty. The conclusion of this whole Treatise. 665 COURTEOUS READER. YOu will soon perceive by the many literal faults in this Treatise, that à stranger to our language printed it, and that the Cortector used not diligence. Such errata as these are (have for have▪ Sponse for Spouse, Prosylite for Proselyte. Suspense for Suspense. symtons for Symptons'. City for City Christians for Christians. Church for Church which for which, handsome for handsome Religion, for Religion must for most, with many more like them) I leave to your charitable Correction. Some greater faults are here noted. PAge. 2. For civilised. Read ciuilized. line 22. read an universal. Page. 3. l. 33. r. voluntarily. P. 4. l. ●2. for nun. r. none. p. 5. l. 14. r strictly. p. 10. l 3. r. Crimes. l. 11. r. then. and l. 27. for whem. r. when. Synogogue, for Synagogue, Cod for God, hypoericy, for hypocrisy. distinguiched for distinguished, and the like Errata following I omit. P. 12. in the Title. By reasonable. r. by reason. P. 18. l. 31. r. it hath p. 20. l. 19 For Elisi r. Eisi. and l. 13. r Alcoran. p. 35. l. 5. deal. the. p. 36. l. 5. r. Concern. and l. 23. r. Churches care. p. 58. l. 31. r. perfected. p. 62. l. 23. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 72 l. 10. r. meaning. p. 101. l. 21. r. have it, p. 104. l. 26. r. full p. 107. l 21 r. Innumerable. p. 116. l. 2. r. saying. l. 6. r. reply, and l. 13. r. Fathers. p. 122. l. 29. r. Mali. p. 129. l. 32. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 144. l. 6. r. is it p. 161. l. 15. r. Say I is it. p. 164. l. 1. r. Romanos and. l. 2. r. whose Faith. p. 167. l. 3. r. desperate. p. 173. l 4 deal: p. 174. l. 20. r. Speculation. p. 179. l. 9 r. apotheosis, and l. 16. r. sense, and. l. 26. deal. à. p. 185 r. glean. p. 187. l. 4. r. suspense. p. 189. l. 20. r. decides. p. 191. l. 23 r. obsolete. p. 190. in Titulo. r. ascertain. p 199. l. 15. r. guesses. p. 200. l. 1. r. standing. and in the Title r. way. p. 214. l. 7. r. Title. and l. 36 r. discourse: p. 224 l. 9 r. Solution. p. 228. in marg: 1. Concession. p. 231. l. 3. r Mass in the Church, and l. 4. deal the word Church. p. 236. l 3. read for very the name. p. 239. l 3. r. pen to paper p. 236. l. 23. r. hinted at. p. 266. lin. vlt. r. Evident. p. 275. in Marg r. unanswerable. p. 276. in the Title of the Chapter. r. world p. 335. l. 12. r. Christ's kingdom. p. 341. l. 8. deal the. p. 343. l. 25. r. Apostasy. Afterwards you have Divide for divide. Mossias' for Messiah. Apostasy for Apostasy. Fabrik for Fabric. Sensuality for sensuality, Exceptor for Acceptor. Legardemain for leger. peccadilio for peccadillo Cherubins for Cherubims. Seraphins for Seraphims. Numbertles for numberless. Navatiani for Novatiani. Commissoned for Commissioned. Test's for rests banding for bandying, yets for yet rhus for thus. Chimaera for Chimaera p. 369. l. 5. r. blaspheme and Contemn Parall'd for paralleled. p. 390. l 21. deal which. you have moreover. ranked for ranked. Physicians for Physicians. physic for physic. bountiffully for bountifully. aparition for apparition. limitated for limited. lewish for jewish. traitorously for traitorously. Afterward for afterwards. upward for upwards. Acquiese for acquiesce. All plain Errats' and easily corrected. p. 506. l. ●●. for believe. r. belief. p. 610. l. 17. r. without so. p. 612. l. 16. for there. r. three. p. 626. l. 4. deal comma. There are yet many, and very many faults in Orthography and interpunctions uncorrected, courteous Reader as you go along, vouchsafe to correct them with your pen. Disc. 2. after p. 353. please to correct the Error in the next Page, and read p. 354. p. 341. l. ●. deal the. p. 383. in the Titler. Chap. 13. And p. 481. in the Title for. 19 r. Chap. 1. p. 516. in the Title of the Chap. r. unlearned. p. 677. l. for thy r. this. and in the Advertisement p. 7. l. 24 r. Achievement▪ in the Preface. P. 9 l. 17. r. transcends. THE FIRST DISCOURSE, Of true Religion. TO attain à clear knowledge of true Christian Religion is the chief Design of this whole Treatise. We are therefore in the first place, to discuss matters seriously with Christ's professed Enemies, and to prove that the propagation of our Saviour's sacred Doctrine, hath been à Divine work above the force of nature. Thus much performed, we Show how Sectaries err it their Search after Religion, and evince that it is not found by their private pondering Scripture alone, much less by any vnprincipled Glosses. Lastly, in this Discourse, we lay forth an easy way, whereby all these unfortunate Debates concerning Religion, may come to à happy period. THE RULE OF FAITH, Wherein the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Religion is established against Atheists Heathens, jews, Turks, and all Sectaries. CHAP. I. Whether true Religion be in the world? The Affirmative proved Against Atheists. Atheism, evidently Shewd'improbable. 1. THe question may perhaps seem doubtful to many, upon Different judgements Concerning true Religion these grounds. First. Who ever admit's of Religion must either hold it true upon the Authority of others, or because he is persuaded it can be found out by his own search and industry. If he relies on Authority, He meet's with as many Pretenders to truth as there are different Professors of Religions on earth. The The most of men pretend to it. jew pleads for his as the most ancient, the Christian for his, the Turk for his, the Heathen for following the light of nature, and every one thinks well of his own way, and votes his own Religion best. If therefore à searcher after truth relies on Authority, He can no more (say these) take the Christians word than the Heathens, the Heathens than the Jews, the Jews then the Turks, the The diffically about the choice. Arians then the Catholics, the Catholics than the Protestants, and Consequently ought in prudence to reject all Religion. 2. On the other side, if He choose à Religion by the force of his private judgement only, or own industry, He is cast into à Labyrinth and shall never find an exit. He is obliged in prudence to make à diligent search into all the different Sects which are, or have been since the first creation of things: He is carefully to examine the causes of them, the grounds they rely on, the connexion or coherence they have with one an other; He is to converse with the learned of these different Religions, or read their books, and then to pitch by his own erring judgement on what likes him best, which perhaps may be worst of all. This task you see is immense and no less unsuccesful than laborious, man's life is spent, before half the work be done. Therefore it seems, none can come to the certain knowledge of true Religion either by Authority or reason. Ergo, saith the Opponent, there is no such thing as true Religion in Being. 3. Contrariwise I say. True Religion most evidently is in the True Religion is in being. The reason of the Assertion. world. The Assertion is grounded on this certain verity: God eternally existing by himself without cause, and infinite in all perfection is in Being; therefore true Religion cannot but be also. For Grant such à Being as God is, necessary of himself without any superior cause, it follows He is to be adored by all rational creatures essentially inferior to him, and not by any false, or mock-worship, but in Spirit and Truth, for such an adoration only suits his Divine nature. Of the adoration due to God. This reason is reinforced by the light of one indubitable Maxim. Quod universis videtur, est verum. What appears to all, or at least, to the most Civilised Nations to be à Truth, is so: for such à universal consent of nature is the Dictamen and voice of God the Author of nature; But all Nations ever owned some Religion, therefore this agreement of God and nature is à Truth. The minor is evident All civilised Nations own à Numen. (to say nothing of Christians) out of the very writings of Heathens who assure us, though people are found so barbarous as to live without laws, learning, or civil government, yet no whole nation was ever yet heard of, but owned some kind of Numen, some sacrifice, some homage, some worship due to à power either falsely or truly judged worthy of Reverence and honour. Neither is the One difficulty removed. force of the Argument infringed by saying, many and very many Nations erred in the Truth of Religion, which may seem as great an Evil as to have none, for thus much is only proved at present, that the voice of nature more easily owns Religion than it professes one true; That therefore being the universal Testimony or General consent of all, cannot be false. Haec testimonia animae (its Tertullia's Doctrine which S. Cyprian borrowed from him) quanto vera, tanto simplicia, quanto simplicia, tanto vulgaria etc. This general Truth by how much more pure and simple, by so much it's more vulgarly known, by how much more vulgarly known, by so much its more common, by how much more common, by so much it's more natural, by how much more natural, by so much it's more Divine. Omni literaturâ notius (saith Tertullian) omni Doctrinâ agitatius, omni homine Majus, 'Tis à learning more known and resolved in man's mind than all other learning, greater than man is, and therefore à certain truth settled in all by the Author of nature, God himself. Now that many err in the truth of The cause of Mistaking true Religion. Religion, proceeds without doubt too often from want of instruction: sometimes from pride, ignorance, or Malice in the Teacher, which is the deplorable case of condemned Heretics: Sometimes, and this is most usual, it comes from an obdurance of heart begot, by à custom of sinning and transgressing against the very light of nature. For, this custom bring's à punishment with it, that it darkens the mind notoriously, and makes reason à stranger not only to weighty rational motives which forceably draw us to good, but more over it so stupifies, so dulls and indisposeth à soul, that the impressions of grace (not wanting to the most barbarous) touch, as it were, on flintly rocks, and produce either â weak barren fruit, or rather no penitential fruit at all. Would therefore the most obdurate Scythians, or any other uncivilized People yield to the ordinary grace allowed them for the avoiding of sin, known contrary to nature: God who illuminates every man in the world, would give more light, until they came to the knowledge of truths necessary, necessitate medij, to attain salvation. For this is an undoubted Maxim of Divines. God is not wanting in necessaries, and, Facienti quod in se est non denegat gratiam. He denies not grace to such as endeavour by the ordinary means afforded them to avoid sin contrary to nature, but if careless of that duty which nature obliges to, they voluntarily plunge themselves into an Abiss of horrid transgressions, the obdurance now mentioned follows: The powerful operation of grace lies stifled, and much deadened in such hardened hearts, and Consequently sense and love of pleasures bear greatest sway there, which makes reason à stranger to God's truths, and from hence gross errors concerning Religion take their rise and have their origin. The objection above, purely fallacious, supposeth those different Pretenders to true Religion to be all of equal Authority, and casteth man's weak and erring reason on too long and laborious à work. True Religion is known with less Ado, than these Adversaries Imagine, as we shall show hereafter, and solve the objection in its due place. 4. I argue 2. from the assumed principle. God exist's Therefore true Religion is, and discourse thus. There are and ever have been several Religions professed in the world, and all are not false, for if all were false, God, whose existence we now suppose, would see himself not at all adored in spirit and truth, but rather Universally scorned by an erroneous worship, as if men had been created for this end to mock and abuse their Creator; And this seems contrary to the light of reason. Now further. All Religions are not false, From false Religions, one only true, is proved. ergo, one only is true, because two or more which hold Contradictions can not be true; and if one be true, every rational creature is obliged to follow that when 'tis clearly proposed, and to worship his maker by à right way of Homage: but this obligation must suppose the truth of Religion in being, because no one can be obliged to embrace à foolery, or to worship God by à mere nothing. You will say, one may be bound to follow an error or an erroneous Conscience, therefore the proof taken from this obligation, evinces not the actual truth of Religion. Answ. When we are bound to follow an error in à matter of chiefe Concern, the Contrary truth, which all should assent to, so really is, that we may be unbeguiled, and set right; but if all Religions are false, there is none true supposable, and Consequently the Universal error of all is à remediless evil. If therefore God requires à true exhibition of worship from his Creatures He cannot permit all to err Universally, and for this reason true Religion is in being. You may reply. God is independent of us all, and need's not our Homage, or adoration. Very true, but man depends upon God, and by the instinct of nature, is obliged to adore him in truth, which instinct as we shall prove presently, originally proceeds from the Author of nature, and therefore God also obliges all to pay him the true tribute of praise and no Counterfeit worship. Some Perhaps, may object. Religion seems not Capable of à demonstration, because that which is true de facto depends on God's free Revelation, the Credibility where of can be evidenced, but not the truth. I answer, in the general assertion already made, we abstract from the particular proofs relating to true Religion; we treat with all, who own à Deity, and say, these (if God had not elevated man to supernatural, beatitude, or, omitted to reveal the sublime mysteries, of faith) had, in that State been obliged to adore their Creator with no false homage and thus much reason evinces, although we cannot (as the objection proves) strici●ly demonstrate the truth of Christianity, but only its Credibility, whereof more, and very amply, hereafter. In the mean while 5. Methinks I hear some, who stand much for reason, say, that Atheists (rational men) oppose all Religion, and why may not their Plea be heard in so weighty à matter? Answ. It's not my intention Atheism proved most unreasonable. at present to combat too long with Atheists, they are utterley overthrown by the learned Arguments of innumerable grave Authors I have other Adversaries to treat with: However, because their pretence is reason, observe, how they destroy not only Religion but reason also, yea, and extuinguish the very light of nature with it. 6. The ground of Atheism is this prodigious accursed Principle. There is no God, no supreme Power, no Numen, no Providence (for The accursed Principle of Atheism. acknowledge à God and Providence, reason evidently concludes, He is to be adored in spirit and truth, and this worship or Adoration we call Religion.) This Assertion then, God is not, is à prime truth, or the first verity with Atheists, whereon all their human actions depend, by this supposed verity they are regulated during their mortal lise. Contrariwise, This Assertion. God is an eternal Being by himself, is à prime Loud falsehood with them, to be scorned by every one. Hence I argue. That first supposed verity. God is not, depraves the will, extinguiseth the light of nature, makes men execrable, enormously wicked, impious, sacrilegious, takes of all fear of future punishment and hope of reward, For if there be no God, or no supreme power to punish heinous offences, the most hideous sins imaginable would cease to be pernicious, and consequently every one might without check or torment of Conscience, if it served his ends, kill and destroy all he meets with. No wrong, no open injustice, no Treason, no rebellion, can be invented so monstrous, but may be done without reproof of Conscience, if this Principle hath influence upon what we act. God who can neither punish, or reward, is not in Being. And thus you see, how that first Atheism destroys the light of reason. Arch-truth of Atheists. God is not, horridly depraves and vitiates the will, makes it savage, and brutish, which ex terminis is evidently falls, for Truth considered as truth, is à perfection of the understanding, and cannot per se pervert nature, or wrest the will in man to all wickedness. On the other side you see, that this Arch-falsity of Atheists. God is an Eternal Being, by its own force and light rectifies nature, makes men upright, just, obedient, submissive to laws and government; which is impossible; for such à grand error settled in man's intellectual faculty, is by itself as wholly unmeet constantly to produce such laudable effects, as Truth is to deceive, or cold water to warm us. You see. 3. that unless villainy and wickedness be deemed wisdom, and virtue and justice be accounted of as madness, Atheists must change the Propositions and say: God is, remains à supreme Truth. God is not: is à supreme error, and withal Conclude, that the first intellectual Truth cannot make men wicked, nor the first error make them virtuous. 7. Some perhaps will reply against our first inference. Nature itself abhors the impieties now mentioned, (and that's the Atheists Rule) although God were not in Being. I answer. Nature doth so Nature has her impressions from God. without God, no truth can be-known. now, because it receives those impressions from God, the Author of Grace and nature, but destroy this first Author, Eo ipso, you abolish those very first lights of nature, and make it stupidly brutish. The reason hereof à Priori is most convincing. Nature is endowed with these first lights, because it receives them from an indefectible, and unerring intellectual Being, for if this first Power or Being, which gives existence and light to nature, could err, or be deceived in such universal Notions, nature which takes its Being from this first intellectual power, would lose those communicated lights, and fall to nothing. For example. Here is à participated light, or à Truth common to all rational men. Do as you would be done by▪ and nature universally approves it. I ask why is this à supposed Truth? You answer because all agree in it. Be it so. But I say, if all those who agree in it, receive the light from à power that is defective, ignorant, orliable to error, this very consent of nature like that first erring Principle, cannot but be defective, and ignorant, because no effect exceeds the virtue or perfection of the cause it comes from. 8. Will you see this clearly? Suppose that à Casual meeting or concourse of Atoms made man rational, as Atheists will have it, and endued him with the Truth now mentioned, without the influence of à supreme intellectual Power. This rational thing called Dull Atoms impart not knowledge to any. man, judges, discourses, defines, and delivers, as he thinks, certainly the first natural verities. Very good. But we inquire further, and Ask from what cause he had this power of judging, and defining truly? For, if he received it from one that's dull, ignorant or deceitful in all he judges, and defines, He cannot but participate of the nature of that first Principle, which is dull and ignorant. Thus much is clear. For if I receive my knowledge from one who is distracted mad, or false in his conceptions, and regulate myself or others by such à communicated light, all I know or teach by virtue of that knowledge, transcends not the nature of that Principle which is now supposed, ignorant, erroneous and deceitful. 9 Summon therefore all the Atoms together which made man rational, and imprinted on him the first lights of nature, I demand of those Atoms, could they Answer, How it came to pass, that à company of Dull insensible things, void of reason and discourse could by mere chance, produce man intellectual, and not only intellectual, but unerrable also in some Principles called natural? I say all that this man judges is false, because the Principle which gave him being, (void of light and understanding) cannot endue him with unerrable Truths. For, Nemo dat quod non habet; No cause gives The reason why none can judge truly, if God exist not. to its effects, what it precontains not. Insensible Atoms therefore, cannot make man sensible, nor irrational Atoms, reasonable, nor stupid Atoms, devoid of truth imbue him with the first true Principles. Therefore man is no more to be believed in these first lights of nature, than if Apes or Parrots should speak them, because, as we now suppose, they proceed not originally from any intellectual Power, but only from mere dust or insensible things, void of understanding. The sceptics therefore erred not, when upon the supposition The sceptics erred not upon one false supposition. that God made not man, they concluded: we know nothing, we judge of nothing truly, but what might be excepted against, and rationally opposed. If therefore nature errs not in these first Principles, now acknowledged true and rational, ascribe it to nature, but leave not of there, but say these lights come from God the Author of nature, who neither will, nor can deceive us. Here then is our grand Principle. God and nature cannot err, therefore the verity and certainty of these first known truths depending on God and nature, are free from error. And 10. Hence we have an other clear demonstration against Atheists. Either God endowed man with reason and these first lights of nature, or all of us, even Atheists may be justly deemed mad, and besotted An other demonstration against Atheists. with fooleries, but all (including Atheists) are not mad, nor erring in these first lights of nature, Ergo God endued man with those first lights. I prove the Major. It is perfect madness in the judicative power of man to deny the truth of those first lights, but the truth of them must be denied, in case we receive our judicative faculty from à Power inferior to God, for, if we receive it not from an infinite Being, we have it from some inferior erring cause, which may deceive. (Atoms for example) but neither atoms nor any inferior fallible Power, can tranfuse into us à certainty of not erring in those first lights. The reason is given. The lights we have, go not beyond the perfection of that cause which imparts them to nature; This cause, what ever it be is inferior to God, and therefore cannot but be liable to error, and may deceive us. Observe this discourse well, for it is the ground à Priori, of the Church's infallibility, whereof more hereafter. 11 You have other arguments most concluding against Atheists, but I cannot insist on all. Here is one and a A speculative Argument. speculation of a great Divine. A Being existing by itself infinitely perfect, or without mixture of imperfection, is ex conceptu suo formali, or, Apprehended under that Notion no chimaera, nor impossible Object (as impossible objects are distinguished from possibilities) therefore it is possible. I prove it. All Chimeras or Impossibilities essentially imply imperfection, because they cannot be, and consequently upon that account want perfection, but this infinite Being conceived by man wants no perfection (I say conceived, for I neither yet prove nor suppose any thing, but only speak of an object thus represented to an understanding, and say that object is no impossibility because infinitely perfect, without appearance of flaw or imperfection.) Now further; if such an object ex terminis be possible, and not impossible, it is of necessity actually existing, for if it have not an actual Being, it wants perfection, and requires à more perfect cause to produce it, which is contrary to the nature of that which I conceive, and form in my understanding; But if it be actually in Being, I have all I seek for. Ens actu existens, an actual existency without any superior cause, infinitely wise, without blemish or imperfection, and this we call God, the Origen of all things, Creator of Heaven and earth. But I wave these speculations, moral arguments without them have weight enough, and could we say no more Moral Arguments inthis matter sway most. but thus much only; That Atheists in à matter of Eternal salvation (the weightiest point imaginable) deliberately embrace that Doctrine which can never do them good, If true; and eternally damn them, if falls; it were enough. Observe well. Were Atheism true, the Professors of it die like dogs, and so do all others with them, these men therefore will not hereafter laugh at Believers for adoring. à Deity; but if their Doctrine proves falls in the other life, all true Christians may scorn their impudence, or rather deplore their eternal misery which will follow, not only upon the account of Atheism, but for other enormous sins committed against God and nature. Now if the Atheist says he followed the Dictate of his reason, this (were it so) at most excuses him from the sin of Atheism, but frees him not from damnation, if guilty of other criems against the light of Nature. If he say again, he fully enjoys his pleasures in this life, whilst those who believe à God, live in restraint and fear. He pleads Good Christians in this life have more content than Atheists. Nonsense, for à good Christian, if we exclude some horrid sins which nature ex ecrat's, may have his dignities in à common wealth, his lawful pleasures, and recreations as much as any Atheist; herein he hath no pre-eminence before others, no nor so much content as is allowed good Christians; Therefore on all accounts he is in à worse condition them Christians, for he life's contemned here the whole world over, and can expect no happiness hereafter. 12. Others argue and methinks very solidly. Though God's existence were not demonstrable, Atheists may never the less be not only convicted of error, but justly also looked on as in à damnable state, upon the account of their Atheism. Here is my reason. The very rules of nature and civility oblige us to respect all according to the outward appearances of their quality and condition, when we have no just reasons which render them suspected. It would be open injustice to treat any Atheists convicted of errors though à Deity were not demonstrable. one, either in language or actions like an inferior fellow, whose train or garb speaks him à Prince, or nobleman. I should certainly err in justice and morality, should I deny any one that respect which the Common reputation of his virtues and accomplishments, hath gained him (though perhaps not deserved) whem I have no Convincing proofs, that he is not what he seems. There is no Atheist of them all, but would think himself highly injured were he slighted in this nature, and with good reason too, for the mere possibility of being deceived in à man's quality or virtues, can be no sufficient warrant for any to deny him that honour, which his virtues in all appearance challenge as his due. 13. I say therefore, were the Deity supposed indemonstrable, that cannot excuse the Atheist from performing those duties which such à Being, in all appearance, most infinite wise, and omnipotent may challenge, of praise and Adoration, proportionable to his worth: For, if the Atheist exact's all punctilios of respect from others, which the exterior garb of his dignity may entitle him to, he cannot without the highest wrong, and violating the law of nature (Do as you would be done by) deny to God, after so many signal appearances of his dignity, the due respect and honour, whereunto that supreme excellence most justly lays claim. Wherein the excellence of God appears. 14. Now if you make inquiry after the appearances of that supereminent excellence in à Deity, they far surpass all those other appearances which can possibly concur to create in any an opinion of man's greatness, virtues, or accomplishments. No Monarch, no Prince, no Potentate, no nobleman can give so many evident signs of worth and excellence (duly laid claim to) as God evidences of an infinite greater supereminent worth, due and proper to himself. Every one knows, that wisdom, power, and worthy actions, ennoble man; and beget in all à universal fame of excellence. What think ye? Doth not the creation, the continual preservation, and admirable Oëconomie of this visible world loudly speak the wisdom, power, and noble works of à Deity? Do not these raise in all à universal fame of his Being? Have not all civilised nations (agreeing in the truth) the very best of philosophers in past ages, and all Christians (the most wise and learned body of men which the world ever yet saw) purchased to God, upon evident appearances, more immortal honour and renown, than ever Prince or Monarch gained suitable to his state and dignity? If therefore to deny à Prince to be what he seems, when all imaginable appearances speak him Prince, be most justly deemed à crying injury contrary to the light of nature; much more to deny God his Being is à greater wrong, when all the testimonies of grace and nature proclaim him God. One word more and I end this point. So many eminent and signal miracles both before and after our Saviour's coming, which could proceed from no other cause but God, either evidently demonstrate his Being (as we shall seepresently) or make the truth so apparently credible, that, 'tis à degree of madness to deny it. The Atheist therefore, who without proof or principle denies God, and deprives him of that respect which ought to be paid upon outward signs and evident appearances of his excellence, impiously opposes right reason, and sin's damnably; Nor can the supposed indemonstrability of God, more excuse him from damnable irreligion, than the possibility of being deceived in any man's worth or accomplished virtues (whem apparent signs make them evident) from wrong and open injustice, as is now said. 15. Lastly the Atheist who pretends to believe nothing, believes (it's true differently) as much, yea and as hard things, as any Christian doth. The Christian believes à God he never saw, The Atheists believe differently, but more difficult things than Christians. and the Atheist an infinite series of causes, or à strange concourse of invisible Atoms he never saw. The Christian believes the soul he never saw to be immortal, the Atheist, who yet never saw so much, holds it vanishes into nothing. The Christian saith an infinite wisdom rules the world, The Atheist says not, but either fate or chance, (as much imperceptible to sense as God is) Governs all. You see therefore, how these men who pretend to believe nothing, believe as much as any, for we all believe, but with this difference, that the Atheist imprudently judging incredibilities believable fastens on them, and leaves to christian's à belief of verities not only prudently credible, but most true and certain. Mark their blindness and à just judgement of God with it. They reject things credible, and in lieu of these pitch on most desperate improbabilities, and this inevitably: for, not to believe credible verities forceth them to believe the contrary, incredible fooleries. The Atheists arguments run all upon falls suppositions where of see more In the second discourse. God they say, seems careless in governing the world, whilst He suffers the innocent to be oppressed, and unjust men to enjoy much happiness. Mark first, They suppose some innocent, and others unjust, whereas if we deny God, there can neither be innocence nor unjustice, as is now demonstrated. 2. They measure Gods infinite wisdom in governing his creatures by their short fallible Conceptions and suppose him unable to punish the wicked, and to reward the just in à future life. But enough of this subject, most amply handled by others. CHAP. II. Reason rejects all sects or Religions not Christian. Whether Gentilism, judaism; or Turcism, be erroneous and improbable? 1. WE here exclude professed Atheists vowed enemies of all Religion, And now treat with other Adversaries but very briefly, they are either Heathens, Turks, or jews, list if you please with These all condemned Heretics, as Arians, Pelagians, Donatists and the like rabble of Aliens from truth, who really deserve not the name of Christians. Heathens now, of no account. 2. The Gentiles or Heathens that adored many Gods as Mars, jupiter, Apollo, and therefore plain Idolaters, (because they make deceased men Gods) are now of no account in the world. Turks, jews, Christians and all other decry their vanity, or to speak in S. Chrisostoms words: ipsius Christi virtute dissipati sunt, They are wasted, dissolved, and brought to nothing by the virtue of Christ our Saviour's preaching, Diuturnitate temporum perierunt, Time has worn them out, we need say no more. 3. Turkcism which hath gained à great part of the world, and à far greater, then▪ ever any particular Heresy gained, is evidently no more but an open Tyranny. The sword, no word of God, doth all. Power, and carnal pleasures, which corrupted nature easily embraceth, uphold this Religion. More cruelty follows the Professors of it, than justice, fidelity, or any moral virtue; yet moral virtue, grounded in nature, ever accompanies true Religion. Again, and here is à Demonstration against Turkeism. Mahomet (who held himself à Prophet only, and no God) appeared some centuries after Christ, yea and owned both A demonstration against Turkeism Christ, and Moses to have been great Prophets, sent from God. Hence I argue. If sent from God; the Doctrine they delivered was true. Therefore Mahomet's Alcoran is false, which contradicts not only Christ's Doctrine, but that also of Moses and the Prophets. The contradiction is evident by the Alcoran: and the inference, Ergo, The Alcoran contradicts God himself, speaking truth by these Prophets, is as clear. Therefore either God contradicts himself, saying one thing by these Prophets, and revoking it by Mahomet, (which is impossible) or Mahomet is à liar. Yet more. Let Mahomet judge as he pleaseth of Christ and the Prophets, He and his, are obliged to satisfy one Demand: viz. What Doctrine that was, whereby men were saved, before his preaching? And I speak of Doctrine, not of Ceremonies or temporal positive Laws. He will not say, all from Adam to his days were damned for want of true Doctrine, nor can he have recours to the Multiplicity of God's owned by Heathens, these He rejects: Therefore he must acknowledge true Doctrine taught before his being in the world, but this Doctrine, Moses, Christ, and the Prophets truly delivered, or there was none taught in the world, This saved souls anciently, therefore, if believed, it saves them still; once it was true; therefore it is now and will be ever so, But Mahomet opposeth himself to this true revealed Doctrine, therefore He opposeth God speaking by these Oracles. Hence I argue. Mahomet's error Very late, opposite to ancient truth. A Religion which began fifty ages after truth was taught in the world, and expressly contradicts that taught truth, is false; Mahomet's Religion is evidently such, ergo it is false. I say that contradicts the ancient true Doctrine, to prevent an objection which may arise out of ignorance. For some may say: Christ our Lord long after Moses and the Prophets, delivered Doctrine contrary to them, therefore the Argument against Mahomet convinceth not. I answer; It is one thing to reveal Truth à new not anciently believed, and an other to abrogate ancient received verities. Christ, besides cancelling the Ceremonial law delivered more truths, than were explicitly declared by the Prophets, but never contradicted any Doctrine proceeding from God, by the mouth of his Prophets, as Mahomet did. Hence S. Austin and other Fathers Affirm, that Christ's Church reverences the Doctrine of Moses and the Prophets, and that faith hath ever been the same from the beginning of the world. 4. The jews who make their Religion most ancient, are notwithstanding clearly convinced of error, and here is my first The jews à dispersed People without essence or form of Religion. Argument. A People dispersed up and down the world, that have had now for 16. ages neither Essence nor Form of true Religion, nor the effects or fruits of it, cannot profess true Religion, and consequently are not the lawful heirs of the Prophet's ancient Faith. But the jews are thus evidently dispersed, and want the Essence, the Form, and effects of Religion, Ergo. I prove the Minor. A sacrifice essential to Religion which could not, according to their law, be offered but in Jerusalem only: A Temple and Priests also evidently fail them (for no Sacrifice no Priest) judges, Prophets and miracles, cognisances also of true Religion, which never failed in their greatest Captivities, now by the just judgement of God leave them, therefore the very Form and order of Religion wholly reversed, manifest this people, once, Populum iam non populum, heretofore blessed, now accursed for their obstinacy. And if we speak of other effects, or fruits of Religion, their Thalmudick Fables, their unsatiable avarice, their cheating and Cozening others, their open hypocrisy (for gain They exteriorly profess any Religion) now Catholics, now Protestants, now Arians, or what you will. These effects I say, demonstrate à want of the very Soul, of the life of virtue, and Religion in them: All which is manifest to our eyes and senses. 5. To add force to this most weighty Argument. S. Cyprian chief in his first book Adverse. judaeos, shows all along how Their dereliction foretold in scripture. they were foretold by the very law and ancient Prophets of their losing Religion, and future dereliction, after Christ's coming viz. That Their first laws and carnal circumcision were to cease, and à new law with spiritual circumcision to succeed. isaiah. 8. Mich. 4. That an other order and à new Testament should be given, jer. 31. That the old Pastors were to leave of their teaching, and new Doctors come in their place jer. 3. and. 31. That no other but Christ himself was to be the true Temple and house of God, 2. Reg. 7. That the old sacrifices of lambs and beasts should not be offered. isaiah 1. That the old Priesthood was 〈◊〉, and à new Priest and king reign for ever. Ps 109. 1. Reg: ● That the greater People, the jews, should become the less, and the Gentiles far lesser become greater Gen. 15. Osee, 2. That à Church once barren should have more Children than the Synogogue ever had. Isa. 5. 4. upon those words. jucundare sterilis. Thus S. Cyprian through those several short chapters of his first book. And we see all these prophecies literally fulfilled after the coming of our Saviour, and the establishment of the Christian Church. Those hearts are stupid, and eyes blind, that perceive not the jewish synogogue utterly abandoned. Yet more. If you will see this Christian verity amply laid forth, read the 9 chapter of Daniel, where the Holy Prophet after à large declaration of the People's the prophet daniel's prediction. iniquities and à just affliction laid on them for their Sins, an Angel told him that Christ should come, and be slain, and v. 26. that those were not to be his People, who would deny him. verse 27. He foretold the ceasing of their sacrifice, and v. 24. denotes 4. things: Forgiveness of sins, infusion of justice, fulfilling of Prophecies, and the anointing of the Holy of Holies: All which particulars literally and most exactly agree to our Saviour, and to him only. Thus the Prophet Daniel. But that which I would have every one to ponder is the prediction of Christ our Lord Matth. 21. in the parable of the vineyard, where speaking to the chief Priests and pharisees, he clearly prophesied of their ruin and rejection before it happened. A certain householder, saith the The parable of the vineyard. Gospel, planted à vineyard etc. and let it out to husbandmen, when the time of fruits drew nigh, he sent his servants to receive the fruits. Those husbandmen seized upon the Servants, Beat one, killed an other and stoned à third. Here our Saviour clearly alludes to the slain and stoned Prophets. Again this householder sent forth other servants more than the former, who were treated in like manner. Lastly he sent his own Son to them, saying, they will reverence my Son, but, saith the Text, They apprehended him also, cast him out of the vineyard and killed him, and thus the jews abused and massacred Christ our Lord. Next our Saviour proposeth this question to the elders amongst them. When therefore the Lord of the Vineyard shall come, what will he do to these husbandmen? They answer. Malos malè perdet. He will bring these naughty men to naught, and let his vineyard out to other husbandmen, that shall render him fruit in due season. Now follows the very life and soul of the The force of that parable. whole parable. jesus said to them, have you not read in Scripture, the stone which the bvilders rejected, the same is made into the head of the corner? This is done by our Lord, and it is marvellous in our eyes; Ideo dico vobis, Therefore I say to you: The Kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to à nation, yielding the fruits thereof. etc. The Chief Priests and pharisees, saith the Gospel, knew he meant them. The kingdom therefore whereof our B: Lord spoke, and foretold should be given to an other, appears manifestly Gods own glorious work, laid open to our eyes and senses in the Christian Catholic Church. 6. Hence Tertullian lib. adversus judaeos C. 8. draws an Tertullia's Discourse. other forcible argument against the Synogogue, from the large extent of Christ's glorious Kingdom, now established. Observe well. It was prophesied, saith this learned Doctor, Daniel. 7. that Christ should reign every where, not like à Solomon in the Confines of judaea, nor like à Nabuchodonosor from India to Aethiopa, nor like an Alexander of macedonia, who was never Master of so ample à Dominion as Christ jesus possesseth. No. Christi regnum (they are his words) ubique porrigitur, ubique creditur, ubique regnat, ubique adoratur. The Kingdom of Christ is extended every where, is believed every where, reigns every where, and is adored in all places. And thus, the Roman Catholic Religion, though never so strongly oppressed, is every where, whilst Mahometism and Heresy are restrained to such and such Dominions) If Therefore the jews own à Messiah, Christ our Lord who hath founded such à kingdom, is the only true Messiah. I prove it. Were he not, but that an other is yet to be expected, God could not have permitted those manifest Miracles, signs and wonders wrought by him to have introduced an error in place of the ancient true Religion, which the jews professed. judaism therefore would have stood still vnshaken in its ancient vigour, had not Christ jesus powerful works, brought it to an utter ruin. But these, (and it's Christ's own Argument,) john 15. If I had not done works amongst them &c.) far suspassed in worth, Majesty, and greatness No prophet so potent in miracles as Christ. all the wonders of Moses and the Prophets: For none of them ever raised themselves from death to life again. None of them revived one like Lazarus 4. days buried. None had the sea and Elements at command like Christ. None shown such wonders at their death, as our dying Lord did. None fed so many thousands in the desert with five loaves and two fishes. None cured any with the hemm of their garments. None wrought such strange Conversions, as Christ etc. I pafs over other signal wonders related in the Gospel, as the Prophet's miracles are recounted in the old testament, and briefly Argue. Where greater signs and miracles, which cannot but proceed from God, evidence Religion, there is true Religion. But most undeniably, Christ shown greater signs and miracles at the founding of his Kingdom, then either Moses or the Prophets manifested, therefore he taught true Religion, and by virtue of those wonders reversed judaism, and made it improbable. I say greater and mark well my Reason. Had not Christ's illustrious works most eminently surpassed those of Moses and the Prophets, but been as it were equal with them, Christ's glorious Kingdom could never have come to so mighty à growth, to so vast an extent as now it is, The reason of our saviours Large extended Kingdom. it could not have wrought such strange conversions as we see it done, the whole world over. why? A lesser or equal Evidence for Truth can no more obscure or lessen an other greater or equal Evidence, than one candle darken on other, (as we see the light of the sun doth.) Therefore that evidence which made the Synogogue credible to the jews, was to be taken away with a far greater light of manifest signs and wonders, showed to Christians. For If we suppose the Evidence equal in both cases (seeing no Religion is manifestly true of itself without antecedent motives) we might all yet as securely profess judaism, as Christianity, and Therefore our Blessed Lord spoke à most profound Point of Doctrine, when he said. Had he not wrought greater wonders amongst them, than ever any did, they would have been excusable and without sin, which Doctrine implies this great verity, that true Religion where ever it is, pleads most powerfully for itself, yea dead's and vanquishes error by à most clear Evidence of glorious works, and Miracles. And mark well this Discourse, it is destructive of all Heresy, as shall be proved here after. 7. Who ever desires more of this subject may vouchsafe to read that excellent Epistle of Rabbi Samuel Marrochianus then à Converted Christian, to Rabbi Isaac an Israelite. You have it Tomo. 2. Biblioth. Patrum Collain print saeculo 11. pag. 421. He writ the Epistle after the year 1000 6. Centuries since, or there about: and it contains, 27. short chapters. The work is admirable, and most express for Christianity. In the first The Excellent discourse of Marrochianus converted to Christianity. Chapter he lays forth the horrid Transgressions of the jews, their Idolatry and killing of the Prophets, and saith God's wrath was appeased for these sins, as Scripture assures us, when our people (saith he) were set at liberty. But now we have been dispersed and scattered à thousand years and more, and God's indignation yet follows us every where, nec in Prophetis promittitur finis, and there is no end promised in the Prophets, be cause of our wickedness: And if you ask what enormous guilt that was? He answers in his 6. Chapter, pondering these words of the Prophet Amos c. 2. upon three crimes of juda I will Convert, or as the Rabbi reads, transferam, put away, but upon the fourth I will not convert, because they have sold the just for silver. Paveo Domine. I tremble, saith Marrochianus, when I read this sentence, for this just man was not joseph sold into Egypt, nor the fourth heinous wickedness (which he proves manifestly) but was the just Lord jesus, whom the jews sold for silver, and here is the greatest and most crying sin for which we are punished. In the 19 Chap. (I cannot insist on all) He saith, that Prophecy of Zach: C. 13. strike the shepherd and his sheep shall be dispersed, was fulfilled, when the Israelites smit that great Pastor of the Apostles, jesus, than it was that they, anciently his flock, were scattered up and down the face of the earth, and that the Apostles succeeded in the place of our Prophets: For since that Time we jews have had no Pastors, no Prophets, no visions, no sacrifice, no observance of Moses law, no Holocaust, no form of Religion etc. Thus he discourses through several Chapters, and in the last, the 27. after he had declared what great respect the very Turcks and Saracens show to jesus Christ, and his blessed Mother Mary: Of Christ, their Alcoram saith, that He is the true Messiah, yea and prefer His Genealogy before Mahomet's, for Mahomet's parents were Idolaters and had their Origen from Agar the handmaid, Christ descended by à lineal succession from Isaac and the Prophets by à right line, to the blessed virgin's birth. The Alcoran more over saith, that Elisi (in the Arabic tongue 'tis jesus) knew all things, the whole book's of Moses, the secrets of men's hearts, had power given him to work Miracles, to cure all diseases, to cast out Devils, and therefore own him as à mighty great Prophet, and the true Messiah. Much honour and respect also is given by the Turks to our blessed Lady, as you may read in that Chapter. After, I say, à larger Discourse of these two subjects, our Christian Samuel concludes, that the jews have been à deserted People for à thousand years, we may add 600 to them. The Turks Iewes abandoned. yet daily increase by the force of arms, and Christians also strangely propagate by the power and virtue of Christ, both oppose us. Nos autem nihil proficimus, testimonium multorum stat contra nos, we israelites yet advance nothing, in so much that the malediction of Reuben light's upon us. Non crescas, we are still, and shall be ignominious, we prosper not. Such is the judgement of God against us. This and much more, Marrochianus delivered Six ages since against his Nation. CHAP. III. Christianity as it stands in opposition to jews, Turks, Infidels and Heretics, is the only true Religion. 1. THe Assertion is an evident Inference out of the former discourse, for if true Religion be in the world, and not found amongst Heathens, Turks, or jews, Those only called Christians enjoy that blessing, or there is no Religion at all in being. Though the Proposition stands firm on this sole proof, yet I'll strengthen it with two Convincing Arguments. The The first Argument. first. Where we evidently find the marks. cognisances, and signs of true Religion, there it is, but Christ's Doctrine only which we call Christianity is undeniably manifested by clear signs and cognisances of truth, and therefore is the true Religion. I prove the Minor. A cause is best known by its effects, the tree by its fruits, the sun by its light, Faith by its works, and the Existence of God by the emanation of his creatures. But no other Religion whether it be that of jews, Turks or Heathens ever showed to the world the like effects of Truth, the like glorious Miracles, the like austerity of life, the like contempt of transitory Goods, the like efficacy of Doctrine, or, brought so many Infidels from incredulity, so many from sensuality to à holy virtuous life, as Christ and his Apostles gained soon after the first promulgation of the Gospel: Therefore these most illustrious marks and cognisances of Christianity, as clearly convince that God delivered truth by the Preaching of our blessed Lord, and his Elect Apostles, as any effect in nature demonstrat's the cause it comes from. The Marks are manifest to our eyes and senses, and plead most powerfully for our Christian Doctrine. No other sect falsely called Religion, has evidenced the like signs, and this, I am sure no Christian can deny. 2. A second argument is so weighty, in the behalf of Christ's sacred Doctrine, that though we had no knowledge of God or Providence upon other Principles, that which I am now to propose, would make both most undoubted. I argue therefore. That An Other taken from the miraculous propagation of Christian Religion. Religion whose Author, Founder, and chief Preserver is God (we here suppose with jews and Turks the actual existence of à Deity) is manifestly the true Religion, for God cannot found or teach falsehood, but Christian Religion, as taught by Christ and his Apostles, had and has God for its Author, Founder, and Preserver, therefore it is the only true Religion. I prove the Minor. A Religion drawn into à law of living holily, which Miraculously began, and was spread the whole world over, above the power and force of nature, is manifestly from God, and subsists by Divine virtue only, (Devils never helped in so pious à work) but our Holy Christian Religion, was and is still thus miraculously spread and preserved also, all Nations over, above the power and force of nature, therefore it is from God, and subsists by his Divine virtue. To prove that it began miraculously, and was propagated above the power and Four things Considerable in the propagation of the Gospel. force of nature, we are to ponder these four things. 1. The sublime Doctrine of Christian Religion. 2. The condition of those first Masters who taught it, and in what difficult circumstances. 3. The Quality and number of souls gained to believe it. 4. By what means they were induced to Assent. Observe well: You will find in every particular à Prodigious work above the force of nature, and no other but God's powerful hand concurring with it. Thus it is. 3. When the world lay as it were in à dead sleep of sin and ignorance thoughtlesse God knows, of casting so much as à thought towards Heaven, or of loving any good, but what sense and corrupted nature liked of. A new Doctrine sad to sense, and mighty difficult to reason was heard of. Blessed are the poor in spirit. Humility scarce heard of before, was then cried up for à great virtue: wrongs were to be forgiven, laws obeyed, justice observed etc. But was sensuality only thus Crossed in its propensions? No. A load of high Mysteries besides, was laid on Reason also, which seemed to rack and torture it. God one in essence and three distinct persons. God an Infant born of à virgin. A Lord jesus, true God and man, after à wearisome life Scourged by impious hands and finally Crucified. such (with much more) was the strange Doctrine of Christianity. How ever (and here is the Miracle or prodigious work) it got ground, spread itself far and near, and though contrary to sensuality, and above Reason, yet millions of souls so firmly believed it, though austere and hard, that innumerable have died for it. Now if this be not à wonder, or à prodigious work above the force of nature, we may well conclude with. S. Austin lib. 22. de Civit. c. 5. This to be the greatest Miracle of all, that God converted the world without Miracles. 4. The. 2. consideration yet increaseth the wonder of this admirable work. We know great effects require proportionable causes of like strength, and virtue. A weak child lift's not up à weighty burden, nor can à mean handful of naked men defeat à puissant Army. Ponder well the Propagation of Christ's Gospel, and the Conversions of Nations to Christian Faith, visible to our eyes, the work is without dispute, great, noble, and glorious. But say by what cause, by what instruments, or Ministers did God effect it? Did he send Angels from Heaven to preach a Trinity, à Crucified Saviour, etc. or force Christians to à belief of those Mysteries by strength of arms; No. Rex noster Pacificus, Our Divine jesus is the God of peace. Non in Commotione Dominus. No tumultuous spirit brought in his Doctrine. Caluins' tragical proceed in the late begotten Heresy was not heard of, when Christ our Lord and his Disciples preached the Gospel. Some perhaps will say that Gods great intention when he first laid the foundation of Religion, was to destroy Idolatry and to establish à Tie what instruments the Gospel was dilated. new law against judaism, and therefore proceeded as the world usually doth, in weighty matters. He surely made choice of most expert Advocates, of the wisest Philosophers, of the profoundest judges, and most eloquent Orators on earth, and by these pleaded for Christianity. 'Tis an error, all was contrary: Our ever glorius God did his own work by twelve poor Fishermen, ignoble, ignorant, friendless and destitute of all that the world makes account of, yea, and he shown this power more by these weak Instruments; and their successors in after ages, than he did before whilst he lived with them, to manifest that the work was his Principally, and theirs instrumentally This Doctrine is so fully delivered by the great Apostle of the Gentiles, that we need not S. Chrisostoms Eloquent Discourse on the subject in his sermon. Christ is God. To illustrate it further (though that also merits à serious reflection) I will destroy, saith S. Paul 1. Cor. 1. 19 The wisdom of the wise, and reject the prudence of the prudent etc. Hath not God made the wisdom of the world foolish? for because in the wisdom of God, the world did not by wisdom know God, it pleased God by the foolishness of Preaching to save them that believe etc. For that which is foolish to God, is wiser than men, and that which is the infirm of God, is stronger than men. See your vocation, Brothers, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, but the foolish things of the world, God hath chosen, that he may confound the wise, and the weak things of the world, that he may confound the strong; and the base things of the world, and the contemptible, God hath chosen, and those things which are not, that he might destroy those things which are, that no flesh may glory in his sight. Which is to say humane power had no hand in this glorious work, and therefore it is as manifestly above the force of nature, as if Christ jesus had sent 12. little Children to convert the world, for 'tis no less à miracle to see so great à work done by 12. poor fishermen, then by 12. young Children. 5. 3. Consider the number and quality of souls gained to our Christian belief, and ask whether they were à few only, or of so flexible à temper as to credit any thing upon hearsay. You will answer they were not few. Witness the conversion of whole nations, and if we Consider nature, no less. obstinate than numerous. Incredulum illud genus humanum, saith Arnobius lib. 1. Contra Gentes. Mankind most stubborn and incredulous, contrary to its former liberty and education, submitted to the yoke of Christ, which truth, The number gained in numerable. as this Author observes, were it not as evident as day light, would have been thought impossible. Perhaps you'll say (though many), they were yet simple and ignorant and therefore easily wrought on. No. A Learned Dyonisius, à Clemens Romanus, and innumerable other great capacities, called on, came in to the Church, such choice ones, (God cooperating with his weak instruments,) were drawn out of error and darkness, to the light of the Gospel. Now if you ask in the last place, by what means these conversions were made? The Gospel answers Mark 16. 17. By signs and manifest wonders from Heaven. Going into the world preach the Gospel to all creatures etc. and them who believe, these signs shall follow. In my name they shall cast out Devils, speak with tongues. as the Apostles did, in the feast of Pentecost. They went forth, saith the Text, preached every where, our Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs which followed. Signs therefore and Miracles works of Divine virtue without violent hands or humane industry cast down Idols, outed judaism, and induced Aliens from Christ to believe his sacred Gospel. These Arguments, as I now said, so forceably evidence à power above nature in the establishing of Christianity, that if we had no other Proofs for the Existence of God, these alone without dispute Convince most sufficiently, the being of à Numen above us, who has demonstrated his providence in laying the foundation of Christian Religion, so firmly. CHAP. IU. Whether Christian Religion since its first Propagation hath not been in like manner preserved pure, and further spread by Divine Providence, above the power of Nature? 1. I Answer Affirmitively and say, that the Augmentation or further growth of Christian Religion, is to be esteemed no less à work of providence and Divine Assistance, than its first establishment was. One reason is. The Doctrine preached to Christianity further Spread above the force of Nature. innumerable People not Christian in the Apostles time, was the same sublime learning (of à Trinity, of the Incarnation, and other difficult Mysteries) The stubborness and incredulity of those who heard it (at last induced to believe) were alike in them, as in the first converted Christians, Propensions to sensuality which they quitted, as strong, and violent; The number of those after gained souls, you may hold far more, their wisdom not inferior to the former, and the quality of innumerable (witness so many Emperors, Kings and Princes) drawn in following ages to Christianity, much exceeded those first converted by the Apostles. Clear and manifest miracles (effects of God's power only) have been more numerous, in the Centuries since the Apostles preaching, then before. What ever therefore proves the first Propagation of the Gospel miraculous, or à work above the strength of nature, as forceably convinceth the Truth we here plead for. Now if some object! These later Preachers of the Church sent abroad to preach Christ's Doctrine, had much more of the humane learning, than those first great masters of Christianity, and therefore might well by natural Eloquence and humane literature gain many without Divine Assistance. I answer, when the Poets persuade me that Orpheus harp and harmony tamed wild beasts and moved stones, I'll believe (and not Sooner) that wolves became lambs, that the stony hearts of Infidels were softened, and made subject to Christ's sacred law, by the power of humane learning only. What? that natural knowledge, got by industry, could vanquish Idolatry, obscure judaism, and draw innumerable Heathens to deny sensuality, to live à mortified life, and believe in à crucified Saviour? is not only à Paradox above expression, but à vast improbability? 2. You know there are two things the world stands for, Pro aris & focis, that is for Religion and earthly commodities. Religion, you see, hath the Pre-eminence. Imagine now, that à Heathen Prince should send the most Eloquent and learned Doctors within his Dominions upon this hard enterprise, To gain à foreign Monarch and People highly averse from him, his laws, and commands, Withal; to abandon their old Religion and admit of à new one, without the least hope of any worldly interest; Nay contrary, most assured to lose much, which nature seek's after; Would such à Policy (think ye) take? or could these Doctors though never so Eloquent have confidence to bring about their design, by wit or learning only? No. You will judge it impossible to gain so humane learning, notable to Convert souls. much as one sole Province, when no motive of earthly commodity enters, but much against it. Here is our very case. The Church of Christ in ages following the Apostles, sent abroad her Missioners, and These commissioned Preachers, have not only destroyed Altars erected to false Gods, most obstinately defended by Gentiles, but introduced à new sacred Religion in place of them, mightily opposite to sensuality and what ever the world love's: (here is the tribute paid to Christ) can we therefore think that wit did this work? or persuade ourselves, that à little breath drawn only from natural knowledge, threw down these Altars? No. à Divine virtue, and that most Powerful did the deed, God only wrought these Conversions, no less admirable, then Evident to our eyes. When S. Peter, as we read in the Gospel Luk. 5. 4. launched forth into the deep at Christ's command, and drew up great Multitudes of fishes, both he and others stood amazed at the Miracle: And more justly may all admire the far greater multitude of men, drawn out of à gulf of sin and ignorance then foretold, Ex hoc The draught of souls out of perdition, miraculous. iam eris homines captains. by the labours of those first Masters and their Successors. Say therefore, was the draught of fishes great, and all cried à Miracle, And the draught of souls out of perdition far greater, and nature only did it? No certainly. Believe it, Had the Pastors of Christ's Church toiled only by that weak instrument of humane knowledge, the Idols of the Gentiles would yet have stood, and all of them might well have bemoaned their lost labour with S. Peter. Magister per totam noctem laborantes nihil cepimus. Master all night long, we have been hard at work, and got nothing. 3. And here briefly (to say à word in passing) is the true reason why our modern Sectaries are so unlucky in any conversions, not only of Heathens, but of others also named Christians, to their new Religion They launch forth, 'tis true, but without commission, and therefore work not by the virtue of Christ's command, wit alone and à little wordy learning do all, make à noise, and their books to swell, but draw none of judgement to the 〈…〉 ●●les liberty and à rich Benesice (too powerful Preachers to corrupt nature) catch some. The thing is evident, for wh● have we such signal conversions wrought by Sectaries witho●●●ope of any worldly fortune, as now (to Of particular Conversions. omit ancient times) 〈◊〉 very days, and late ones too, show us? Where have they one like that Generous and learned Queen Christina of Sweede● who quit● à Kingdom to become Catholic? Where have they such à Prince as yet lives, the grand Turks own Brother, not only Catholic, but more, à Religious man of Blessed S. Dominicks order? It's needless to give you in this place à Catalogue of many Germane Princes, true members now of the Roman Catholic Church, who were not gained by any worldly motive to abandon Heresy (as they have done) but strongiy called on by God's grace, without delay obeyed the summons, as now lately did that great Commander in France Count Marishal Turene, whose glorious Conversion witness his Profession of Faith, was grounded on serious thoughts relating to Eternity, and not upon any humane interest. These very few, but great changes, before our Eyes with others innumerable known to the world, are plain effects of supernatural grace, and manifestly show, that more than wit or humane knowledge had à hand in them. 4. Hence I argue. That Religion is from God, and therefore true, which He concurres to, and propagates by his special grace and virtue? The Christian Cathoiick Catholic Religion miraculously propagated, therefore true. Religion only, hath been thus propagated by God's special grace and virtue, therefore it is true. To add more weight to this argument, I ask whether those Conversions wrought by the Apostles themselves are to be held miraculous, that is above the force of nature, or not? If you deny, blot out those words of the Gospel, as most untrue Mark 16. 20. Domino cooperante etc. Our Lord cooperating with them, and say all Apostolical conversions were wrought by natural causes only, And grant next, Mahometism and Christianity thus far equal, that as Mahomet drives all to his belief, by the sword (the cause is natural) so the Church draws all to it by wit, policy and humane learning, and this means is altogether as natural. Now if you say those first Conversions were truly effects of grace, and wrought by God's special assistance, This sequel is Clear: The like made in after ages by the Church, far more numerous, as difficult and wholly as glorious, proceed from the same fountain of Goodness, God's Divine grace and special Assistance. And note, I speak here of real Conversions, wrought in Believers upon solid motives (the Church shows you millions of them) not of hypocritical changes pretended hypocritical Conversions▪ not Valuable. for God and Religion, when worldly interest has à hand in them. These are as soon distringuished by their false lustre, as à comet from the sun, they last not long, but fall like blazing stars. We meddle not with them. Thus much of à short digression which makes way to an other query, and 'tis as followeth. CHAP. V. Whether all called Christians Believe entirely Christ's sacred Doctrine? And whether means be afforded to arrive to the knowledge of true Christian Religion? 1. THese questions largely handled in the other Treatise, are soon resolved upon certain Principles. I say therefore first. All called Christians believe not truly and entirely Christ Sacred Doctrine, and prove it; If Hymenaeus and Alexander Timoth. 1. c. 1. 20. once true Believers made shipwreck of their Faith; if the Arians Monothelits, Pelagians, Donatists, and such known Heretics named Christians, have fallen also, and lost true belief of Christian verities sufficiently proposed? This sequel is evident. All of them though named Christians, have not Faith entirely good, nor indeed any Divine Faith at all. See the other Treatise Disc: 3. c. 3. n. 4. 2. I say. 2. All and every one may with ordinary diligence come to the knowledge of the true Christian Religion, I prove the Assertion. Divine Faith, without which we cannot possibly Means sufficient to know true Religion. please God, is determinately necessary to salvation, and consequently the Religion where true Faith is taught, is also necessary. Therefore both these after Ordinary diligence used may be known; unless we will say, that God first makes such things necessary to salvation, and then removes them so far out of sight, that none can know by prudent ordinary diligence what these necessary things are. I say necessary to salvation, not to dispute with Melchior Canus and others of the necessity of faith to the first justification of à Sinner. This difficulty we wave, and Argue. 2. God as we now suppose with all Christians, yea with jews and Turks also, is the Author of true Religion, which he revealed to the world, for no other end but man's happiness, and eternal salvation, therefore if he desires all to be saved by true Religion, which is the final end thereof, He cannot, unless his Providence fail, but afford means to know where it is professed, otherwise (which ill beseem's an infinite wisdom) he would set us all on work to gain Heaven by the belief of true Religion, and withal leave us so in darkness, that we cannot with all prudent industry, come to the knowledge of it; which is to say, He will have us know the end of Religion, and yet conceal the means leading to the knowledge of it. 3. Again I argue. 3. God who obliges not to impossibilities, lays à straight command on all to believe true Religion (and not to assent to any falls sect) therefore it may be known, and clearly distinguished, at least from the errors of infidels, jews, and Turks. Known I say, but how? Not by its internal light immediately, for no Religion ever yet was its own self-evidence ex terminis, or prudently got admittance, because the Professors of it Cried it up as true. Therefore the credibility of true Religion, which must be True Religion is not its own self evidence. laid open to Reason by force of Convincing motives, is made as well discernible from Heresy (destructive of salvation) as from Turcism, or judaism, yea, and may be no less clearly discovered by its proper signs and lustre than à true Miracle; for example, that of S. Peter, from Simon Magus Sorcery. This cannot be denied, unless God, as I now said, either command's impossibilities, viz, to find that out, which cannot be found, or licenceth us to embrace any Religion called Christian, whether good or bad, true or falls (it imports not) because the best, if it can be found, is no more but à mere Probability, or like uncertain opinions in Philosophy, which may be rejected or followed according to every private fancy. This execrable Doctrine of the indifference to any Religion, learned in the Devil's school, is now à days much in the mouths of many, and, I fear, too deeply rooted in the hearts Nor à thing indifferent. of some later Sectaries. But of this more here after. In the mean time you may conclude. If true Religion be in the world, it's made discernible not only from judaism but Heresy likewise; and if it have this discernibility it can be known, if known, it induceth an obligation to be believed with Divine Faith, if it grounds certain Faith Subiectively taken in him that believes, it is no Opinion, and considered Obiectively it implies the highest certainty Imaginable, settled on God's Revelation as is largely proved in the other Treatise. Disc. 1. c. 5. n. 6. 7. CHAP. VI Of our Sectaries error in their search after true Religion. As also of Mr. Stillingfleets inconsequent way of Arguing. 1. ONe error common to all condemned Heretics, is in the first place to find out true Religion by the book of holy Scripture alone. A most improbable way, as the ancient Tertullian learnedly observes lib de Praescrip. cap. 9 15. but chief cap: 19 at those words often cited. Ergo non ad Scriptu●as provocandum etc. The reasons of my Assertion well pondered are most convincing, 1. The Sectary lays hold of à book which he says teaches truth, and yet knows not in his Principles nor shall ever know infallibly, whether the book he own's contain's the Doctrine of true Religion, or aught to be valued as God's assured word, which is to say in other terms; He learns infallible truths of à Master, before he hath infallible certainty of this Masters teaching truth, infallibly. That the Sectary wants infallible assurance of his book is evident, for he saith, no word of God, written or unwritten, no infallible Tradition, no infallible authority on earth, ascertain's him of the Scriptures Divinity. So Mr: Stillingfleet in several places chief part 1. c. 6. Pag 170. Therefore he, can have no in fallible Assurance of the Doctrine contained in Sectaries have not infallible assurance of their Bible. Scripture, and consequently no Divine Faith grounded on that Doctrine, as I shall show hereafter. How ever, grant him an indubitable assurance in à general way of some books of Scripture, he hath not yet so much as moral certainty of that precise. Canon he receives, excluding other books which he denies as Scripture, For no Orthodox Church, no universal Tradition, no consent of Fathers, no definition of any Council, approves his Canon, or explodes those books rejected by him, therefore the sectaries Canon, whereof there is so Much doubt, can give no moral assurance of Gods revealed verities, unless it were without dispute à liquid truth, that their Canon only is God's word, which cannot be supposed, whilst so learned and numerous à multitude of Christians oppose it, as defective and imperfect. Yet more. Suppose he gives you the exact number of Canonical books, he gain nothing, because the very Doctrine of these books is no more but à Translation, and therefore unless the Translator or Printer, have faithfully complied with their duty, and preserved the books in their ancient purity, no Protestant can assure himself or any, that what we now read, is without change or corruption, pure in the very necessary points of Faith. If you say you compare them with the ancient Original Copies of the Hebrew and Greek; I answer; the very best Originals men can light on now, are no more but mere Transcriptions, and consequently may have been corrupted by the Transcriber, The best Originals now extant, are only transcriptions. the Printer, or Librarian. Therefore the Sectary hath no Moral certainty of the bare letter in Scripture, if he cannot show us the hand writing or Autograph's of the Prophets, and Apostles, whereof there is no danger, because he never saw any. Hence I argue. He who hath not infallible certainty of the very letter of Scripture, vows infallible certainty of the Doctrine contained in Scripture, but the Protestant hath not infallible certainty of the letter of Scripture, Therefore he vows infallible certainty of the Doctrine contained in Scripture: for no certainty of the letter, no An argument against sectaries. certainty of the Doctrine drawn from thence. But if he has not certainty of the Doctrine he can have no infallible faith grounded on it: Therefore Scripture alone is an unmeet means to teach him, what either true Faith, or Religion is. 2. Mr. Stillingfleet to solve this unanswerable Argument Part. 1. c. 6. p. 196. says, we beg the Question, when we require an infallible Testimony for our believing the Canon of scripture, yet grants such à certainty, as excludes all possibility of reasonable doubting. and Chap. 7. p. 211. declares himself further thus. Give me leave to make this supposition, that God might not have given this supernatural Assistance to your Church, which you pretend makes it infallible; whether men through the universal consent of persons of the Christian Church in all ages, might not have been undoubtedly certain, that the Scripture we have was the same delivered by the Apostles? I answer, if you take leave to make that supposition, licence me to tell you, you have not that certainty of Scripture which Divine Faith both supposeth and requires. And here is one reason (to omit others insisted on here after) Deny this infallible assurance of the books of Scripture, you have no greater certainty, that God indicted those words we now read, than you have assurance that Aristotle wrote his Topics, or Caesar his Commentaries; And dare you, or any say, that we receive Mr. Stilling: answer, dissatisfactory. our Bible upon no surer ground? Or can you Imagine, if Christians accept these books upon à Testimony less than undubitable, it may not be suspected that à thousand gross errors have entered the Copies by the negligence, or inaduertency of such as transcribed them? Believe it. Were Aristotle's Topics matter of Divine Faith, none would die after the fallible conveyance of them to our age, upon this persuasion; that nothing substantially first writ by that Author, hath been changed or altered Since; and the same I assert of the Bible; unless you say that the words of Scripture were writ in some celestial and incorruptible Matter, yet to be read by all, or grant, which is truth; that as God by special Providence caused them to be writ pure, so also he yet preserves them without blemish, and now witnesseth the truth by the Testimony of his infallible Church, whereof more largely hereafter. At present I will only answer your difficulty about that fallible certainty, which you affirm, excludes all possibility of reasonable doubting, and say first. The universal consent of persons of the Christian Church in all ages, never approved the entire Canon of your Scripture: for not only the present Roman Catholic Church, but the ancient councils also, received books which you reject. This truth is so manifest that it need's no further proof, therefore your Canon vows the approbation of the whole Christian world, and consequently you have not so high à certainty of Scripture, as excludes all possibility of reasonable doubting. I answer. 2. And it is à demonstration against Protestants, who say the whole Christian world for à thousand years at least, erred in Doctrine contrary to the verities of Holy Scriptures, for, if we go up from Luther to the 4th or 5th age after Christ, you'll find none but condemned erring Heretics and Roman Catholics, no less actually guilty (say Sectaries) of these professed errors: Of praying to Sain●s, of an unbloody Sacrifice of the, the A further Argument, taken from the papists supposed errors real presence etc. Thus much supposed; I both answer and Argue against you. If the whole Christian world was for that vast time so strangely infatuated, as to mantain errors contrary to Scripture, when the true Doctrine thereof no less concerned their eternal Salvation, than the true letter; it cannot possibly be supposed upon any weak Probability (much less on such à certainty as excludes all reasonable doubt) that these besotted Christians preserved the letter of Scripture pure and entire, whose errors are now imagined most gross against the Doctrine contained in God's word. Observe my reason. It is much more easy to conceive (if all held corrupted Doctrine) that the very letter of Scrtpture was by negligence or ignorance of these Corrupters of Doctrine, also corrupted, then to imagine the records preserved pure, and Millions of Christians to read them, and after the reading, grossly to mistake God's verities registered in that book. And here I must mind M. Stillingfleet of his proofless and inconsequent way in Arguing. 3. You Sr. say first. The whole erring multitudes of Christians before Luther preserved Scripture pure, yet forsooth, these silly men taught one Doctrine after an other, contrary to Scripture. They perused the book interpreted it, yea preached it, to their own confusion, and condemnation. You say. 2. It is not possible that Mr. stillingfleets arguments retorted these writings could be extorted out of men's hands by fraud or violence under their eyes, or suffered to be lost by negligence: Yet you make it not only possible, but grant the Doctrine thereof to have been lost and perverted by fraud, negligence, violence, or all together. You say. 3. These ancient Christians were professed enemies to the corrupters of the Bible: yet you hold them dear friends to the depravers of God's verities, registered in the Bible. You say. 4. The interest of eternal Salvation made these Christians careful to preserve the Bible in its first integrity: And yet you make them supinly careless in preserving the verities contained in Scripture, as highly necessary to salvation. You say. 5. The eternal concerns of all Christians so depended upon the safe preservation of these Sacred Records that if they were not true, we are all most miserable. And I reply. The eternal concerns of all Christians as highly depends on the pure Doctrine of Scripture as on the outward secured Records; for what avails it to have pure Records, and draw poison out of them? You grant the whole world was miserably infatuated with false Doctrine for ten whole ages, though it had the letter of Scripture pure, and yet the purity of that book prevented not the misery of mischievous errors. You say. 6. When once I see à whole Corporation content to burn the public Charter, and substitute à And further urged against him. new one in its place, and this not to be suspected or discovered; When I shall see à Magna Charta foisted, and neither King nor People be sensible of such à cheat, when all the world shall conspire to deceive themselves and their Children: I may then suspect such an imposture as to the Scripture, but not before. Answ.. Ex ore tuo te judico, and retort the Argument in your own words. When. I see not only à whole Corporation but à whole ample learned Church, waist or deprave the old Legacy of Christ sacred Truths bequeathed to it, and a new learning substituted in its place, and this change not to be suspected and discovered: when I shall see that Magnum Depositum of his Doctrine once committed to the Church escare to be foisted, and neither King, nor Prelate, nor People found, sensible of the cheat: when all the world shall conspire to deceive themselves and their children by teaching falls Doctrine in place of Christ's verities: Then I shall, and must in prudence suspect an imposture, à change, an alteration in the very book of Scripture. This later you shamefully grant to have happened, when upon the pretence of hideous errors you abandoned all other Christian Societies in the world, and unfortunately made à Schism with Luther from the true Roman Catholic Church, therefore you may not only weakly suspect, but must most justly fear the first, which is, that you have not true Scripture. 4. Hence I say, what ever Argument proves the book of Scripture hitherto preserved pure, proves likewise the Doctrine of the present Church as faithfully transmitted and Conveyed pure from An inference from what is said. age to age to our very days. Contrariwise, if there were any Principle (as there is none) whereby this Doctrine could be showed false or stained; All might (if reason have place) jointly acknowledge à non-assurance of the Scriptures purity; For that Corrupters of Christ's Doctrine may more Easily Corrupt the words of scripture. Church which may lose true faith and Corrupt Christ's Doctrine, may more easily lose or corrupt Christ's Scripture, unless you grant, which is horridly impious, that God's special Providence had only care to keep à Bible incorrupt, and at last, like one careless, permitted the Doctrine of that book (whereon Salvation essentially depends) to be extorted out of the hearts of all Christians for à thousand years together. Ponder these truth's Mr: Stilling: and Confess ingenuously, if your Principles hold good, you have not so much as any probable certainty of your Bible. 5. Perhaps one may say if the letter of Scripture be corrupted the very foundation of Faith is shaken, but if supposed pure and unaltered, though all Christians, Papists, and Heretics erred in the Doctrine thereof, yet they may be reclaimed from error by the pure evangelical preachers, now swarming in England. Pitiful. what no help then for à besotted world before these late men appeared, who here speak at random? They first tell us upon à mere supposition without any semblance of proof, that Scripture was ever preserved pure though all Christians abused its Doctrine; whereas we contend upon most grounded reasons, that if all erred in the doctrine drawn from Scripture, the letter cannot be supposed pure, because à Church carelessly negligent in the preservation of Christ's Doctrine, cannot be thought careful enough in preserving the true Records of his Doctrine: Now the Answer without proof is, though all erred Doctrinally, yet none of them maimed or marred the Bible, which besides à Moral impossibility, implies à pure begging of the Question. See more of this particular in the other Treatise Disc. 2. c. 2. n. 8. Again. If these evangelical men pretend to Convince us of our errors What sectaries are obliged to. by à pure book of Scripture, they are obliged to show us some one Copy at least, whereof we may have such certainty as excludes à Possibility of all doubting. But this no Protestant can do, who If God assisted the Transcribers of scripture, much more he assist's the Church. reiects all editions now extant except perhaps his own. The Vulgar latin, which Mr: Stillingfleet calls the great Diana of Rome, of high credit in the Church for à thousand years, pleaseth not, The Clementine and Sixtine Bibles, not different in any Material point touching Faith, are underualued. Set these aside, I desire Mr: Still: or any Protestant, to show me à Copy, whose Authenticalness is so agreed on by the consent of all Christians, as may exclude reasonable doubting of its purity. It is utterly impossible. If these men answer, we must have recourse to the Autograph's, or ancient Manuscripts of the Hebrew and Greek, I deny their supposition, for these now extant, are no first Originals, in à word no more but Transcriptions. What greater security therefore, have we of such copies then of the Vulgar latin? unless you say that the Transcriber (who ever he was) because he wrote Hebrew, Caldee, or Greek, could not tell à lie, or was determined to follow in every Material point of Faith the Hagiographers Copy most faithfully. Grant this, and I Argue: If God by special Providence so assisted the memory, the will, and hands of these Transcribers, as to write nothing but what was exactly found in the first Original Scripture; with much more reason will He ever assist his Church to admit or approve of no Scripture, nor Doctrine, but what is genuine, pure, and Orthodox. 6. To reinforce this argument. I licence Mr: Stilling: to choose amongst so many lections of the new Testament as he saith, are collected by Robert Stephen, one or two he likes best, and then I demand whether that lection agrees with the vulgar latin or differs from it? If't agree, there is no reason to quarrel with the Vulgar; if it be different in any material point, we are cast upon the greatest uncertainties immaginable, for the dispute will then be, whether that Copy which he follows, aught to be preferred before the Vulgar Latin? And here, Sr. you and I must come to clear Principles. We say first. The Vulgar latin translated, or at least Corrected at Pope Damasus Command by that learned and profound Doctor S. Hierom, hath been read in the Church The vulgar latin of long use in the Church. without reproof, for à thousand years and upward. None but one Rufinus (and this only at the beginning whilst S. Hierom lived) excepted against it. S. Austin, all know. Lib. de civet. 18. c. 4. 3. highly commends S. Hieroms great labours, and learning in the three tongues. Not any in the ensuing ages found the work reprehensible, innumerable worthy Authors have approved it. And now, O strange time! à few Novellists whose whole industry is only to pull down, to build nothing, disdainfully call it Rome's great Diana. Be pleased, Sr. to answer and give me as strong à proof for the Authenticalness of that Copy you follow (if any difference be) as I give you for our Latin Translation? If you say the S. Hierom defended, against Cavils. Copy you follow is not the same which S. Hierom used, it is more than you know, He had as many lections, and perhaps more, than you have seen, and can you say which he followed, and which he did not? Well. But suppose he made use of an other Copy different from what pleaseth you, the Question is, whether that be of less credit than yours? And this sole point cannot be decided in your favour by any probable Principle. If you say, S. Hieroms Translation seems contrary to the Authentic Greek Copies. I answer first, you do not only avouch more than you know, but utter an improbability; for if there had been any Material difference between his Translation, and the Greek he made use of; innumerable learned Doctors in the Catholic Church would have espied the error, and discovered it, before you were born. Pray you remember your own discourse P. 215. and. 216. where you say; you may be sufficiently assured that no Material corruption is in the Books of Scripture without our Church's Testimony, because Catholics of old were always as vigilant to preserve the Scriptures purity, as Heretics ready to deprave it: For you say, when Martion began to clip the Text Irenaeus presently took notice and rebuked him, and so did Tertullian, and Epiphanius respectively to others, who rescued Scripture from the violent hands of such as attempted to falsify it. Lay then yours on your breast and once speak ingenuously, can you persuade yourself, if any considerable error had been in our Vulgar Edition, either contrary Catholic authors would have noted errors in the vulgar, had there been any. to Faith or Good manners, that those many worthy learned Catholics in the ages after S. Hierom would not have noted it, and released it from Corruption? What? For à thousand years, was there no Irenaeus, no Tertullian, no Epiphanius, no Ambrose etc. that took notice of so important à matter whereon the salvation of souls depended? Again (And this Argument ever pinches) was there no Irenaeus, no Tertullian, in all those ages, (when they saw the Doctrine of Scripture go to ruin by these supposed erring Papists, that rescued the Doctrine from error, as they did the letter of scripture from corruption? 7. You tell us. 2. That among those multitudes of lections in the new Testament observed by Robert Stephen, which were perhaps occasioned in the general dispersion of Copies by the Multitudes of Transcriptions, through the ignorance or carelessness of the Transcribers, there are none which seem material or entrench upon the integrity of Scripture, as à rule of Faith and manners: They are therefore, say you, but racing of the skin, but no wounds of any vital part. And is it possible? Can you find more than such racing in the Vulgar Latin? can you discover à wound in any vital part thereof? I challenge you to speak to the cause in this particular, but I know you cannot. Why therefore may not the Vulgar be admitted amongst the rest? The reason of my assertion is. You cannot find such à wound in the Vulgar, unless you produce à Copy of Scripture more genuine and pure without Dispute, but this, whether you have recourse to the Greek or any Latin translation will, be more doubted of by whole multitudes of learned men, than the vulgar now read in the Church: Therefore you cannot come to so much certainty of any Scripture as excludes à possibility of all reasonable doubting. Which truth seems so evident ad hominem that it needs no further proof, but this only, The Sectary saith, our Vulgar translation is not pure, we say and prove it, his English Bibles different from the Greek in the new Testament, are Corrupted, (see many of these errors noted before the Rheims Testament), Therefore if the Protestant reiects the now Authentic latin Edition he has no such certainty of any The vulgar Latin rejected, Protestants have not Certainty of any Translation. Translation extant, as excludes à possibility of all reasonable doubting, unless he makes his own party's opinion for what he saith undubitable and our contrary assertion improbable, which is foul play. 8. Some sectary may reply; He excepts not against the Vulgar Latin which is our Sixtine and Clementine Bible, as guilty of any Material error, but of lesser faults only, and with such charitable eyes he looks on all other versions Thus much integrity, I hope, Sectaries must approve the Vulgar latin Bible. Mr. Stilling: allows it p: 216. where he takes notice of à peculiar hand of Divine Providence in preserving the Authentic Records of Scripture safe to our days. By the way: it's pity he omitted to note also the like providence in preserving the Doctrine of Scripture pure so long: But hereof we have said enough already. All therefore I note at present is. 1. If God shown à particular Providence in preserving Scripture, pure to our days, the Vulgar Latin according to Mr: Stilling: Cannot be guilty of any material error, for were it guilty, this peculiar Providence would have failed in the great moral body of the Roman Catholic Church, which hath read this Scripture, and held it incorrupt for ten whole ages; And Consequently Mr: Stilling: must acknowledge à want of special Providence in order to the preservation of all authentic Records every where. Grant thus much, and no Sectary can have so great moral assurance of scripture as excludes all reasonable doubting, for, if God hath permitted à whole ample Church to be deluded with à Bible notably corrupted: The Certainty of Scripture, which excludes all reasonable doubting, fails the sectary, who either must admit of an other latin Translation distinct from ours, or have recourse to the Greek Text, but he approves of no latin Translation as totally pure and incorrupt, (though S. Hierom observes in his preface to the Gospels. Tot sunt Exemplaria quot Codices, there are many of them) Therefore He must have recourse to the Greek, which is usual. 9 Hence I argue. If God shown not particular Providence in preserving our latin Edition from notable error, so diligently reviewed by S. Hierom, and approved also not only by many learned Writers in after ages, but by à whole Church; it is no less than temerarious to allow greater security to any Greek Copy; for can the Sectary An Argument in behalf of our Latin Edition. say, that God's peculiar hand of providence always so attended the Transcriber or Printers of the Greek Copies, that nothing could be written but pure Apostolical Scripture, and with any countenance own à want, à defect, à subtraction, of this peculiar providence to à Scripture, approved of by à whole Church? Observe well the difficulty. Where Gods special Providence is, there we have infallible assurance, you grant God's special Authentic records had not come safe to our hands) therefore you cannot rationally deny it to that Scripture, which the Church approves. CHAP. VII. More of this subject. Doubts concerning the several editions ☞ If this digression Concerning the different Editions of Scripture seem tedious to the Reader, he may pass to the 9 Chapter, where he will find our Discourse Continued against Sectaries. of scripture. None extant more pure, than the Vulgar La-Latin. Abstract from Church Authority, there is no Certainty of the best Edition. Sectaries Comparing the Present Copies with the more ancient gives no assurance. A word with Mr. Stillingfleet. 1. THe first proposition. If the Protestant reiects our Vulgar Edition as not Authentic, or as vitiated in any material point touching Faith and manners, He improbably pretends to have so much certainty of Scripture as excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting. To prove the Assertion I will here give you à few Postulata usually held indubitable by most learned men, who have writ large preludes (called Prolegomena) to holy Scripture. Neither Catholic nor protestant shall rationally except against my suppositions. First it is Certain, that the greatest part of the old The first supposition Testament was Originally writ in Hebrew, but whether that ancient Copy hath been ever since preserved pure, chief after S. Hieroms time, or notably corrupted by negligence or malice, is very doubtful. Learned men stand for the Affirmative, and none, I think, can deny some lesser errors when greater are pretended. You may see these different opinions of Authors in Prolegomen: Ad Biblia Maxima, And the particular supposed errors largely noted by Salmeron Prolegom: 4. It would be too long à work to insist on this subject, and not for me to determine what is true: All I contend for here, is an uncertainty whilst great Authors are opposite, and this is done, to conclude, what I intent against Sectaries. 2. It is again certain that the greatest part of the new Testament was writ in Greek, but here we meet with the same difficulty, and inquire. Whether the Greek by chance or inaduertancy has been corrupted since the Apostles time? This at least (if not more) is The second supposition. doubtful: Grave Authors hold the Affirmative. See Serarius in Prolegom: Cap. 13. and Bonfrer, c. 14. and the errors noted. If Protestants deny them, or think their own authority weighty enough to Contradict our Doctors, the matter in Controversy, is still doubtful. So much I plead, and no more. 3. It is certain that all other Bible's are only Translations, or Transcriptions of The third. the Original Hebrew and Greek. The Greek version of the 72. interpreters out of the Hebrew (or as we usually 〈…〉ak the 70.) is only à Translation wherein many doubts occur. One is, whether that Translation be the first, For Clement Alex: and Euseb: cited Bibl: Max: sect. 18. c. 2. seem to hold an other more ancient, before the time of Alexander the great. How ever, admit, which is perhaps true, the 70. version to be the most ancient, we have yet matter enough of Dispute concerning it, and one great Question is whether at this day, that version be yet preserved pure, The ancient Archetyps whereof, more probably are not now extant, but when or where lost, remains uncertain. See Bib: Max: sect. 18. c. 10. Authors say, it is corrupted through the ignorance or negligence of the Librarians, or the Printers. See Bibt Max. c. 8. 9 Restat ergo. Whence it was, that those Laborious Doctors of Alcala, at the persuasion of Cardinal Franciscus Ximeno The version of the Septuagint. Archbishop of Toledo, and afterward, the Doctors of Louvain, making à diligent search after many Greek Copies, corrected no few faults in the then extant transcribed Copy of the Septuagint, yet this very correction was far from the purity of that ancient version, which the Fathers used. See Bib: Max: now cited, where upon that other version of the 70. taken out of an Ancient Manuscript of the Vatican Library, Anno Dom. 1585. Came forth by the industry of Cardinal Anton: Caraffa, wherein most learned men laboured nine whole years, and it was perfected about the beginning of Sixtus 5. Reign. The greatest difficulty yet remains. It is most certain, the version of the 70. Interpreters differs so notably from the Hebrew Text, chief in the computation of years, or point of Cronology, that our venerable Bede, though à great Scholar and one as humble as learned, ingenuously confesseth, Venerable Bedes judgement. he cannot reconcile those Antilogies. See Bib: Max: c. 8. fine. Who then can tell me when we find these lections of the Hebrew and of the Septuagint opposite to one an other, which is to be preferred? Most learned men stand for the Hebrew, as many for the 70. You may see these dissenting Authors quoted in Proleg: Bib: Max: Sect: 18. c. 11. and how some to accord them, say, That the Holy Ghost would have the Septuagint now to add to the Hebrew, now to diminish according to his good pleasure. See Bib: Max: cap: 8. fine. 3. But let us proceed to à further matter of doubting. Long after the Edition of the Septuagint, came forth three other Translations made by three ungodly men. Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotio. Aquila Pontinus, once à Gentil became Christian, but denying Christ, soon turned jew learned the Hebrew language, Of other three Translations. and too critically translated the Hebrew into Greek, almost word for word. His spleen against the 70. Interpreters was so great, that contrary to the verity of Scripture, He rendered some places speaking of our Saviour, most perfidiously and wrested all to à confused and sinister sense. Symmachus one of Samaria, twice circumcised became at last à Professor of the Ebion Heresy, and Translated the Hebrew into Greek, not as Aquila did Verbatim, but rendered the sense more perspicuously. Theodotion first Baptised, than à Sectary of Martions and Ebions' errors, lastly à Prosylite, embraced judaism (and therefore S. Jerome in 3. Habacuc calls these three, now named, Semi-Christianos, half Christians) followed à middle way between Aquila and Symmachus and translated Scripture with greater Simplicity, more agreeable to the 70. version. 4. An other Edition ascribed to Origen, not because he made origen's great industry. à new version, but with an immense labour, to conserve the 70. Greek pure, first composed his Tetrapla or à Bible branched into 4. Columns. The first contained the 70. version, the 2. Aquilas; The 3. Symmachus his Translation. The 4. that of Theodotion. Afterward this great Doctor, learning the Hebrew language, made his Hexapla, that is à bible with 6. Columns. The first contained the Hebrew Text, the 2. the Hebrew in Greek Characters, the other 4. the Version of the 70. of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Now because there were two more Greek Versions called the fift and sixth Editions, Origen composed his Octopla, or Bible distinguished into 8. Columns. If you will have more of the 5. Edition, called by some Hierecuntina, or of the sixth named Nicopolitana, as also of the Lucian and Hesychian Lections, read Bib: Max: in Proleg: Sect. 18. cap. 9 and Bonfrer. in Prol: c. 17. These two later were only corrections Doubts relating to these versions. of the 70. no new Translations. Concerning all these versions many doubts occur as you may see in the Authors now cited, and you will meet with no fewer concerning the Caldee Paraphras of the new Testament, called Targum. The Syriack version or interpretation of the new Testament extant in that noble laborious work of Arias Montanus called Biblia Regia, is not without blemish; Se Serrar: c. 15. nor the Author of it well known, and I believe our Sectaries will not approve several Titles or inscriptions mentioning what was wont to be read on certain feast days, as on the veneration of the Holy Cross, and in certain fasts, and the Commemoration of faithful souls departed this life etc. 5. To speak here of the many latin Editions and several doubts concerning them, would be too long work for my design (which is only to point at difficulties concerning both Originals and Translations) That ancient one called by S. Austin. Itala, highly commended lib: 2. de Doctr: Christi. and read in the Church before S. Hieroms time, hath no known Author. The The Itala version, commended by S. Austin. more late amongst Catholics, are Santis Pagninus his version of the old Testament out of the Hebrew, first corrected by Arias Montanus, though the Correction pleaseth not Bonfrerius, and it was most pitifully corrupted by that Runagate Printer Robert Stephen, whereof see more in Bib. Max: Sect. 20. cap. 2. and Bonfrer: Cap. 18, Sect. 1. An other you have of Isidore Clarius, which neither Canus nor others approve. A third, of Francis Vatablus Doctor of Paris, and à sound Catholic, but the ungodly Robert Stephen corrupted that version, as you may read in Bonfrer. and Bib. Max. now cited. I mention nothing in this place of the Armenian and Gothick Bibles. See Bib. Max. Sect. 20. cap. 3. And am as silent of the Tygurin version printed anno 1539. by Christopher Froschonerus, à most corrupted Translation by Heretics, (whereof you may see more in Bib. Max: now cited cap. 3.) Read also if you please Serrarius cap. 18. 9 1. Of Sebastian Munster's, of Bliblianders, of Castalions and the Geneva Translations etc. You will find none of them of any account, but with Sectaries only. 6 Thus much briefly premised (for we have not said half of what might be alleged) concerning the doubts and uncertainty of various editions, I here appeal to every distinteressed judgement Reflection made upon these doubts. and ask whether it be not mighty difficult, or rather impossible, to say absolutely by the force of our private fallible knowledge, by wit or humane industry only: This book, This Edition is Gods true sincere word, as it was writ by the Hagiographers? And here I must mind Mr: Stilling: of his not well considered Doctrine, who P. 196. seems to own so great certainty of Scripture as excludes the possibility of all reasonable doubting, and pag 215. asserts. We may be sufficiently assured that there are no Material Corruptions in the books of Scripture, without your Church's Testimony. Good Sr. leave of these generalities, and tell us plainly of what Edition you speak? What particular version have you, which must be supposed so authentic, or so free from all error, as may exclude à possibility of reasonable doubting, before you have the Church's Testimony or toleration for it? Name one, and much A question proposed to Sectaries. is done. Will you follow the Hebrew and Greek Copies now extant? You see most learned men, whose knowledge and Authority is not inferior to yours, say both are corrupted, and thus much alone weakens the certainty you pretend to? Will you admit of the 70. Translation as pure and Authentic? Be pleased to reconcile the Antilogies, between that and the Hebrew Text, or say that the Septuagint, though ever of great veneration in the Church, hath its errors. Will you plead for what Aquila or Symmachus have done? These are evidently corrupted, and in points most Material touching Christ our Lord. Will you say that all Copies, none excepted, all Translations whether Greek or Latin now extant are pure Scripture in the Materials of Faith and manners? It is highly improbable, and therefore hitherto we come to no Solid Principle, to no certainty which excludes the possibility of reasonable doubting. O saith Mr: Stilling: to prove that no Material Corruptions stained the Scripture now extant, We (that is Sectaries) diligently compare the present Copies with the most ancient M S S. we observe the citations of Of sectaries Comparing Scripture with the more ancient Copies. those ancient Fathers who lived when some Autograph's were extant, and then (most likely) we have the pure word of God. You compare? Pray you answer? were there not others in the Catholic Church before Sectaries troubled the world, as industrious in comparing Copies and Manuscripts together, as you have lately been? Was S. Hierom, think you, negligent in this particular? Or did the Primitive Church before S. Hierom when it read that ancient Edition called Itala, and preferred it before all other Lections, fail to examine which Copy was best? Yet more. If we come to later times and ponder well, what diligence what vigilancy, what industry attended the Correction of the Sixtin and Clementine Bibles, Sectaries may blush at their Oscitancy, and too slight Cavils at our Vulgar latin. Read the preface to Sixtus 5. Edition, Antwerp print 1599 with other reflections made in Bib: Max: Sect 20. c. 4. and you will see so great à care and industry used in this correction, that humanly speaking more could not be desired. 7. Many Copies and old M S S. were at the Pope's command sought for, and brought to Rome, Not only some chief and selected Cardinals in the time of Pope Pius the 4. but other great scholars also, profoundy learned in the knowledge of Scripture, and skilful in the Hebrew, Syriack, Chaldee, and Greek, began the Great diligence used in the Correcting the Vulgar. Correction of the Vulgar Latin, and to accomplish the work, diligently examined these ancient books, these M S S, the best Originals of Hebrew and Greek, and commentaries also of the most ancient Fathers etc. Speak therefore of humane industry, we may boldly say, our Vulgar Latin hath been reviewed, and corrected with greater care, than ever version was set forth by Sectaries. But if these men will still pretend to find any Material error in the Vulgar, I only ask by what more Authentic Copy can they, so much as probably hope to amend it? By the Hebrew and Greek? Toys. Dispute the Question rigidly, there is less assurance of these supposed Originals integrity, then of the Vulgar Latin so industriously examined not only by the best Hebrew and Greek Copies now extant, but also by other ancient M S S. and commentaries of the Fathers. 8. I cannot therefore imagine what Mr: Stillingfleet aims at, when he tell's us page. 215. that Doctor james who had taken the pains to compare not only the Sixtine Clementine Bibles, but the Clementine Edition with the Louvain Annotations, makes it appear, there are 10000 differences in the Louvain Annotations from the Vulgar Latin, and that these differences arise, from Comparing it (that is sure the Vulgar Latin) with the Hebrew, Doctor james opposed. Greek, and Chaldee- What would the man have think ye? Will he suppose first, that Thomas james hits right in every thing he says? The learned james Gretser whose authority is every whit as good the whole world over as that of Mr. james. Tom. 1. Ad lib. 2. Bell: pag. 1060. denies all this, with à Mentitur tertiò Thomas james, Decem millia verborum etc. Read Gretser I cannot transcribe all he hath. Again will he say, that the Vulgar Latin is to be corrected by the Louvain Annotations, or these by the Vulgar, if any thing were amiss in either? Or 3. If these pretended differences arise from the comparing all with the Hebrew, Greek, or Chaldee, can Thomas james be supposed to know the last energy and force of every Hebrew, Greek, or Chaldee Rational exceptions against Mr. james. word (when there is controversy) better than the Authors of the Louvain, and Correctors of the Vulgar Latin? Here we may come to an endless wrangling about the Genuine signification of words, but decide Nothing. God help us, if the knowledge of true Scripture depends on such petty Niceties, and fruitless quarrelling. 4. And this is to be noted. Were these differences more than are made by Mr. james, The question would then be, whether they imply any Material alteration concerning Faith or Manners, or introduce notable error contrary to God's revealed verities, or finally be mere verbal differences, grounded on the obscure signification of Original words? If Mr: Stilling: only pretends this later, let him remember his own expression of racing of the skin, and know, that there was never Translation in the world, which may not be thus Cavilled at. If any Material alteration be pleaded he both speaks à loud untruth, and contradicts himself, when he takes notice of à peculiar hand of Divine Providence in preserving the Authentic records of Scripture safe to our days. 2. He is to name that Authentic Copy, either Original or translation, by the indisputable integrity whereof, these supposed errors may be canceled, and Gods pure revealed verities put in their place: But to do this after so immense labour and diligence used in the correction of the Vulgar, will prove no less than à vain attempt, or rather à desperate impossibility. Upon this ground. 9 I say first. Who ever denies the Vulgar Latin to be Authentic true Scripture, hath, Eo ipso, less assurance of any other Edition now extant, and consequently, not so great certainty of Scripture as excludes à Possibility of all reasonable doubting. I An Assertion proved. prove the Assertion. That man may rationally doubt of Scripture who rejects the strongest assurance imaginable, and makes choice of à weaker, But this is done, if he doubts of, or denies the Authenticalness of the Vulgar. The reason is first because He hath no other Edition, as is now said, examined with more care or greater industry, and this ground's the highest humane assurance conceivable. 2. Because the Vulgar is approved by God's Holy Church which gives infallible certainty. if therefore the integrity of the Hebrew, and Greek be not unquestionably authentic, he wants that certainty which excludes à Possibility of doubting, And Much less assurance hath the Sectary of his own later jarring Editions of Scripture, which breed nothing but confusion to the very Authors, and all who read them. 10. I say. 2. If the Sectary holds the Vulgar Latin Authentic Scripture, yet makes it guilty of some lesser faults, and therefore endeavours to correct it by à more authentic What if lesser faults be pretended in the Vulgar. Copy, he casts himself upon mere uncertainties and, labours in vain. The reason is. To do thus much, he must suppose that other Copy he would correct by, to be more pure than the Vulgar, and this cannot be proved upon any received Principle. Now if you object. Authors Commonly deny not some obscurities or lesser verbal faults to have been in the Vulgar, I answer that's nothing to the purpose were all true, for it doth not therefore follow, it can be corrected by any other Copy which is more Authentic Scripture, A less authentic Bible may help herein, when other lections are accuratly examined, yet may be faulty in greater matters. 11. I say. 3. No Tradition no Testimony which is fallible and may be falls, can give so great assurance of Authentic Scripture as Divine Faith requires, or that assurance which excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting, which is to say in other words: The infallible Testimony of the Church is absolutely A Testimony in fallible, is necessary to ascertain Scripture. necessary to ascertain us of Authentic Scripture. The conclusion is directly against Mr: Stilling: who page 226. makes the certainty Christians have of the books of Scripture so fallible, that it may be false, yet enhaunses the certainty of the Doctrine there contained to à note higher, of infallibility. We shall see the levity of this distinction fully discovered hereafter, and our Assertion proved in à more proper place. All I will say at present, is. No man can be certainly assured of true Scripture unless he first come to à certainty of à true Church independently of Scripture. Find out therefore the true Church and we have all we seek for, I mean true Scripture with it, unless one tends to à high degree of madness and Asserts, that the true Church of Christ cheated into an erroneous Bible, was deprived of pure and authentic Scripture. 12. And here I will propose an Argument for the Vulgar Latin which Mr: stilling: shall not answer. In what ever Society of Christians we find faith entirely true, we have there Authentic Scripture: But from Luther's time upward to the 4. or 5. age faith entirely true, was only found in the Roman Catholic Church, and in no other Society of Christians, Therefore the Roman Catholic Church which read so many ages the Vulgar Latin as Authentic, had true Scripture. I prove An argument proving the Vulgar Latin Authentic. the Minor, wherein only is difficulty. If the Roman Church erred for so vast à time in any point of Divine Faith, there was no faith entirely true the whole Christian world over, because all other Societies denominated Christians were known condemned Heretics, and consequently had not true faith, Therefore either the Catholic Roman Church enjoyed that blessing, or we must grant à want of faith for ten ages the whole world over. But if this Church had Faith entirely true, it preserved also Authentic Scripture (for where true faith is there you have true Scripture) If not; it follows that we have no assurance at all either of the one or other. Therefore if all Churches universally erred in points of faith, no Church can give so much assurance of authentic Scripture, as excludes à Possibility of reasonable doubting. See more here of in the other Treatise Discourse. 2. c. 2. n. 8. 13. Now we are to solve à difficulty which may arise from our former discourse, where it is said. If one rely on humane authority which is fallible and may be false, so much mistrust, so A difficulty proposed, and solued. many doubts occur concening the Originals and various Lections, that none can have indubitable assurance of Scripture, How therefore could the Church without moral certainty (and greater too) had of the Authentic books, antecedently to the Councils declaration, determine so peremptorily, this Edition of the Vulgar to be Authentic, yea and to prefer it before other Latin Copies? I might hear first by the way demand, upon what certainty can the Sectary prefer his Edition (take which he will) before the Vulgar Latin? What ever moral assurance he has independently of the Church's Testimony for his Bible, the Church has greater for Hers. But to solve the difficulty positively. I say the Church after all moral diligence, proceeded in this particular upon an The Catholic Principle ascertaining Scripture. undeniable Principle, which is, that God by special Providence preserved as well Scripture free from Material corruption, as Church Doctrine pure and orthodox: in both, we Catholics rely on peculiar Providence, and all must do so, unless they, will rob Christ's Sponse of all the treasure she has, and violently take from her not only Orthodox Faith, but Scripture also. The Church therefore in her Declaration depended not on à mere Moral fallible certainty, which may be false, but upon infallible Tradition. This gave indubitable assurance of the Scriptures purity, free from all material error. Here is her last Principle. And thus you see à vast difference between the Church and Sectaries. The Church pleads possession of Authentic Scripture upon God's gracious Providence, and hath it warranted by indubitable Tradition, the Sectary reiect's this infallible ground, and runs away, with no man knows what Certainty, and in doing so, casts himself upon the greatest doubts imaginable concerning scripture. 14. Perhaps you will say, Mr: Stilling: p. 213. relies in this matter on the universal consent of all Christians, and Therefore includes the Testimony of the Roman Catholic Church. I answer first. He hath not the consent of this Church for all those Editions He approves, and Consequently the greatest part of à universal consent fails. I answer 2. He Sectaries Cannot rely on the Churches infallible Testimony. neither doth nor can (remaining Protestant) admit of the Catholics surest Testimony or Tradition, for our Church own's in this most weighty matter, an infallible certain Tradition, Mr: Stilling: reiects that, therefore he hath nothing from our Church which favours his Assertion, drawn from the most assured consent of all Christians concerning Authentic Scripture. And here by the way, I cannot but take notice of this Gentleman's weightles objection Pag. 216. who grants, there can be no certainty as to the Copies of Scripture, but from Tradition. But think not to fob us off (saith he) with the Tradition of the present Church instead of the Church of all ages, with the Tradition of your Church, instead of the Catholic &c. with the ambiguous testimonies of two or three Fathers instead of the universal consent of the Church, since the Apostles times Answ. I verily persuade myself He The surest principle to know ancient tradition. speaks not as he think's, for tell me upon what surer Principle can men now possibly be better informed of Church-tradition in all ages, then by the tradition of the present Church? You see, He slights the Testimony of two or three Fathers (needed we relief from them) and I am sure the unanimous agreement of all Fathers makes no where the consent of the Church in all antecedent ages, contrary to our present Church's Tradition. From whom therefore shall we learn? On what undubitable Principle can we rest, or say such was the Tradition concerning Scripture in pased ages but from the present Church's Testimony? It is impossible to pitch on any other Proof which is surer, or half so sure. 15. What follows is yet worse. Fob us not off with the tradition of your Church instead of the Catholic. Good Sr. design you, or name plainly that Catholic Church distinct from the Roman Catholic in all ages, and (to use your own words) we shall extol you for the only person that ever did any thing memorable on your side; but if you do not this, as I know you cannot, (for all other before Luther were professed Heretics) 'tis you that iuggles and fobs us off with mere empty words. He still goes on thus, worse and worse. If I should once see you prove the A weak Argument re●orted. infallibility of your Church, the Pope's supremacy, Invocation of Saints, the Sacrifice of the mass etc. by as an unquestionable and universal tradition as that is, whereby we receive Scriptures, I shall yield myself up as à Trophy to your brave attempts. Contra 1. ad Hominem. If I should once see you prove all Churches fallible, the Pope no supreme head, No Invocation of Saints, no veneration of Images, no Sacrifice of the Mass etc. and the rest of your negative Articles: If I could once see you prove two Sacraments only, justification by faith only, Christ's not real presence in the Holy Eucharist, by as unquestionable and universal Tradition as that is whereby Scripture is received, we would yield also to your brave attempts. Answer this if you can, or for bear hereafter to weary à reader with evident improbabilities. And mark well why I call them so. 16. Have we not à more unquestionable universal Tradition for the books of Scripture, if Tradition be drawn from the voice of all called Christians (whether Catholics or Heretics) then there is for the very primary Articles of true Catholic Faith? A Trinity for example, the Incarnation, the necessity of Tradition more and Less universal. Grace, Original sin etc. Yes most assuredly, for innumerable Sectaries admitted Scripture, and yet denied these essential Articles, therefore as their Denial made the consent and tradition of all called Christians less universal, for such Doctrines, so their admitting Scripture with others, heightened that Tradition, or made it more general. Say now, Sr. Had those Heretics argued as you do, how little would they have gained? If we should once see you prove à Trinity, Or Original sin etc. by as universal à Tradition as that is whereby Scriptures are received, we would acquiese, but this is not possible, for both you and we admit Scripture, and consequently make that tradition more universal, yet we deny your primary Doctrines, and therefore all tradition is not so ample for your Doctrines, as for the books of Scripture. Here is your unreasonable reasoning Mr. Stilling: You know well Heretics who owned Scripture with us, denied à Sacrifice of Mass An unreasonable way of aryving. Invocation of Saints and other Catholic Articles, and you'll have us to take à tradition from these men, to uphold the Doctrines they denied: Just as if an Arian should bid me prove à Trinity from all Tradition, even of his Church, when he admit's Scripture and denies à Trinity. If you reply, you urge us not to bring in the tradition of all known Adversaries of the Catholic Church for these now named Articles, but only the universal Tradition of the Catholic Church in all ages, we have already answered, that's best known by the present Church's Testimony, no other proof can parallel it. And thus much of the authenticalness of our Vulgar Edition free from all material Corruption. A further difficulty may yet be moved concerning lesser faults, and the preferring it before all other Latin Copies. CHAP. VIII. How necessary it was to have one lection of Scripture in the Church. A word of the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles. Of Mr: Stillinfleets mistakes and inconsequences concerning them. Objections answered. 1. NOte first. It was very meet to have among so much confusion and various sections of Latin Copies, one certain, approved and set forth by the mother Church, to the end her Children might be unius labij of one tongue and speak one language in their reading, preaching, and public expounding One lection of scripture, necessary. Holy Scripture. Note. 2. Though the Council of Trent sess. 4. declares this Edition of the Vulgar to be Authentic, and prefers it before all other latin Editions, Quae circumferuntur, which are now abroad, it doth not thereby detract any thing, from the credit and authority of the ancient Hebrew, and Greek Copies, whereof Authors dispute (whether they be pure or no) whilst the Church is silent and defin's nothing. Neither doth the Council reject the Version of the Septuagint, or that ancient Latin Copy called Itala, (read in the Church before S. Hierom) as Vnauthentick in any material point: for this Argument is convincing to the contrary. As it is madness to say. Christ's Church had not true Scripture since S. Hieroms time, so is it à desperate improbability The Church had in all ages true Scripture. to assert, She wanted that, in the ages before S. Hierom, which is to say: The Church had ever authentic Scripture. Moreover, shall we (think ye) judge, that God, whose Providence never failed, suffered his own spouse to be beguiled with false Scripture for 15. ages, and that now towards the end of the world he will provide us of à purer book, by the hands and help of à few scattered Sectaries. 2. Note 3. Translations may be faulty three ways chief. 1. More ambiguity and darkness may lie in à translated word than in the Original, and this fault (if any) is remediless, because the latin, or à Vulgar language reacheth not always to the full Energy and signification of an Hebrew or Greek expression, whereof you have some examples in that learned Preface to the English Rheims Testament anno 1600. 2. Corruptions How Transtations may be faulty. may creep into à Version by the inaduertancy or ignorance of the Translator, who is neither supposed prophet nor infallible, and thus Authors say, that S. Hierom, though prodigiously learned, was not every way infallibly secured from lesser errors, yet this Providence God hath for the good of his Church that he will nor permit any considerable depravation to remain in all Copies. If therefore one be faulty, all cannot be thought so, and the faults of one, by carefully comparing it with many, and à diligent inspection into other Copies, may be corrected. See Greg. de Valent: lib. 8. Analy. C. 5. puncto 4. 3.dly Lesser depravations often enter à version through the mistakes of Printers Librarians etc. Of these you had many in the Vulgar Latin before the correction of the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles, and they are scarce avoidable chief after several reimpressions, as we daily see in other books. Thus much premised. 3. Listen à little to Mr: Stilling: strange inconsequences and groundless exceptions against the Corrections of Sixtus and Clement. He saith the one Bible differs from the other, as Of Mr Stilling 〈◊〉 g●●und 〈◊〉 exceptions. appears by those who have taken the pains to Compare them, in some thousands of places. A great number indeed. But the first question will be whether these Pain-takers ought to be believed upon their bare word, without further examination? This, Sr. you suppose which cannot well pass, before the particulars come to the test, and bear the censure of your Adversaries, wholly as learned as you have any. But say on. Are these supposed differences any more but like the racing of the skin; or do they give any mortal wound to the Vital part of Scripture? If you only assert the first, you may not only Cavil at your English Bibles, but also at all the latin translations used in the Church both before and after S. Hieroms time, for they have some verbal differences, which you may call petty and inconsiderable faults. Now, if you assert that the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles are Materially corrupted in points of Faith and manners, or to use your phrase, Vitally wounded, what is become, I beseech you, of that peculiar hand of Providence you own, in preserving the authentic Copies of religion safe to our days? Or (which much imports you to answer) by what other more authentic Copy can you without endless disputes and uncertainties, correct the Vulgar? This one particular will give you work enough, before you come to à certain decision of the difficulty. In à word, because I think, many know not too well, all that concerns these two Editions of the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles, I shall add here à few notes to improve their knowledge, and perhaps yours also. 4. Learned men, discovered lesser faults in the Vulgar Latin; and that which was found. 4. Regum. c. 14. v. 17. seemed à chief one. Vixit Amasias silius Ioas Rex juda, postquam mortuus est Ioas filius Ioachaz Regis Israel 25 annis. For thus the Louvain Bibles Lesser faults discovered in the Vulgar Latin. anno 1572. and other Copies usually read 25: annis, before the Correction of Sixtus. Yet Abulensis upon that place Quaest. 15. noted the error, and said for that number 25. we are to substitute 15: as appears. 2. paralip: c. 25. And so also the Hebrew text, the Septuagint and Chaldee read, yet Michael Paludan: cited Proleg. ad Bibl. Max: Sect. 20. c. 4. seems to reconcile both these lections, saying Amasias lived 25. years after the death of joas, but reigned only 15. which helps little to our present purpose. To amend this, and other slighter faults, the Church, as I said above, and you may read in the preface to the Sixtine Bibles, hath used the greatest industry imaginable. Pope Pius the fourth caused not only the Original languages; but other Copies to be carefully examined. Pius the 5th prosecuted that laborious work, but brought it not to à period, which Sixtus the 5th did, who commanded it to be put to the Press, as appears by his Bull which gins. Aeternus ille celestium etc. anno 1585., yet, notwithstanding the Bull prefixed before Sixtus Edition (then printed) this very Pope (as the preface made anno 1592. tell's us) after diligent examination found no few faults slipped into his Bible, by the negligence of the Printers, and therefore, Censuit atque decrevit How Corrected by Sixtus and Clement. both judged and decreed to have the whole work examined and reprinted, but his too sudden death prevented that second correction, which Clement the 8th after the short reign, of other Popes happily finished, answerably to his Predecessors desire, and absolute intention. Whence it is, that the Vulgar now extant, is called the Correction of Sixtus because this Vigilant Pope began it, which was recognised and prefected by Clement the 8th and therefore may be deservedly called the Clementine Bible also. Both are now read in the Church after Clement's Recognition as authentic true Scripture, and make up the Latin Vulgar Edition. 5. Some object first. If Pope Sixtus made à Brieve, whereby he commanded his Edition so accuratly recognised, to be received for indubitable authentic Scripture, and therefore free from errors, How could he afterward find such faults as caused him to intent à new impression of the whole work? Answ: It is not said, He intended to do so upon the account of greater faults, which essentially vitiate Scripture either in Faith or manners, for No substantial error in the sixtine edition mention is only made in the Preface of lesser erratas Espied, when the work was done with this restriction, Preli vitio. That is, of Typographical faults, and these almost unavoidable, cannot slain the purity of an authentic Copy. But grant more, that Sixtus who had Choice of various lections of Scripture, followed perhaps less circumspectly some darker or more ambiguous Copy, which Clement the 8th after à diligent search into other Editions, brought to greater Clarity, and therefore read's à little differently. Nothing is yet so much as probably alleged, causal of any error in Faith, or Contrary to the essential verities of Scripture. For as Tannerus well observes Tom. 3. Disp. 1. 9 5. Dub. 2. n. 79. Where divers lections vary, locus esse possit disceptationi & crisi. There may be place for Critics to debate, which is the best, or to be preferred, And n. 83. Certe, saith he, in hoc genere transigendo etiam inter limites recti, magna potest esse varietas & latitudo. Certainly, in such kind of matters, there may be well be variety and à latitude, within the compass of what is right Variety of expressions with in the Compass of truth. and true. And this Principle Sectaries must admit, unless they deny truth to their own Translations, as they ought to do. For do not they usually translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ordinances, we, Traditions. They 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Elders, we Priests. They 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Images, we Idols? And is it not evident that we follow the obvious and genuine signification of the Greek, as well in these as in à number of other particulars? Whilst therefore Sectaries differ from us, they either err or, not, if they err; let them correct what's amiss, If contrary to conscience they deny the error, they are forced to grant that, inter limites recti, with in the limits of Truth there may be à latitude, à variety, or different expressions, and you will not find so much between Sixtus Edition and that of Clement, nor any Corruption destructive of Faith or manners, but slighter differences only, which altar not the genuine sense of Scripture intended by the Holy Ghost, if we exclude Typographical faults, which hinder not the integrity of à Version. 6. Upon these grounds, Mr. Stilling: objections pag. 214. Come to nothing, where he first tell's us, and truly, of the infinite pains which Pope Sixtus took in his Correction, and after So much ado, shall we (saith he) believe that Sixtus never lived to see his Edition Complete? Answ: You must believe it upon humane faith, for it is certain, God took him out of the world before he saw it perfect, though his intention and aim Mr. stilling▪ fleets objections, solued. was, to recall the whole work to the press again. Now this Recognition, His Successor Clement made, answerable to his wish and design. Mr. Stilling: objects 2. Sixtus his Bull now extant (and therefore sufficiently proclaimed) inioins that his Bible be read in all Churches without any the least Alteration. Answ: This Injunction supposed the Interpreters and Printers to have done exactly their duty every way, which was found wanting upon à second review of the whole work, such commands therefore when new difficulties arise, not thought of before, are not like Definitions of Faith, unalterable, but may, and aught to be changed according to the Legislators prudence. What I say here is indisputable, for how could Sixtus after à sight of such faults as caused him to intent an other impression enjoin no alteration, when He desired one, and what he could not do, his Successor Clement the 8th did for him. Now whether the Bull was sufficiently proclaimed, matters not, for had Sixtus lived longer, He would as well have changed the Bull in order to the particulars now in controversy, as amended his Bible. 6. Mr: Stilling: objects. 3. All that Sixtus pretends for the authenticalness of that Edition, is the agreement of it with the ancient and approved Copies both printed and M S S. than which, there can be no more firm or certain Argument of the true, and genuine Text. Answ. After all his labour He pretends this, but How and what Sixtus pretends. with à caution often repeated in the Bull, quoad eius sieri potest: prout optime sieri potuit etc. That is as well as then could be etc. The firm or certain Argument therefore is. The Church ever preserved true and genuine Scripture, which is either to be found in the ancient approved Copies both printed and manuscript▪ or not where, These, Pope Sixtus diligently searched into, therefore his Edition is true genuine Scripture, which no Catholic denies, if by true and genuine Scripture we understand, not an Exclusion of all lesser faults, but of greater contrary to the purity of Faith and Religion, and so far Sixtus Edition is blameless, although as Tanner now cited. n. 83. observes, perhaps not altogether so circumspectly done, nor every way fit to the public edification of the Church, Wherein there is à latitude within the Compass of truth, and integrity. And who ever read's Pope Sixtus own Bull before his Bible, can force no more out of it but this truth, that many faults which had got into other Copies, are accuratly corrected in his Edition, whereof no man can doubt; with all, Many faults amended by Sixtus that it contains the Vulgar Latin Edition amended at least, in many things, and consequently is authentic Scripture. Sixtus saith not, he amended all lesser faults whereon Religion has no dependence, but rather disclaims busying himself with so small à service. 8. Mr: Stilling: objects 4. The vast difference between the Clementine and Sixtine Bibles lay in this, that Clement corrected the Vulgar Latin according to the Original in above two thousand places, when the contrary reading was established by Sixtus. Answ: Here is no proof but only three improbable Assertions. Who assures you, Sr. of any vast difference between these two Editions? Or inform's you so exactly of above two thousand different places? Or, why finally do you tell us of à contrary reading established by Sixtus? A reading, Good Sir, may be different, No Contrary Reading in Sixtus his Edition. and yet not contrary in any material point of faith or manners, and so far Sixtus is defensible. If there be any other difference or Contrariety not touching on Faith and Religion, because the expression is longer or shorter, less clear in the one, and more significant in the other version, this concerns us not, both may be right within the compass of truth, and without any material fault. But saith Mr: Stilling: if the Latin Copies be à sure Rule to judge of the authenticalness of the Text by, much more shall the ancient Copies of the Original Hebrew and Greek be à surer Rule. Answ: Had we now the authentic true Copies of the ancient Hebrew and Greek we should soon acquiesce, but Sectaries know well this is more than doubtful, yea almost certain that both are corrupted, how far I say not, but morally speaking the Hebrew cannot but be corrupted by reason of the great similitude in The Hebrew text, liable to Corruption. many letters, and the access of points added by the perfidious Masoreths after S. Hieroms age, which may change the sense of Scripture, and very notably. See Gretserus Defence. Bellar: Tom 1. lib. 2. c. 2. I wonder why Mr: Stilling: is so earnest for the Greek, which our English Sectaries utterly leave when 'tis for their purpose. I have told you enough already of Images translated for Idols: Elders for Priests: Ordinances for Traditions etc. And might add more, that Beza thinks those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luc. 3. 37. of Cainan to no purpose in the Text, and therefore leaves them out. Others when the Vulgar Latin makes for them follow that, and not the Greek: Take only this one instance (Authors give many more.) The Vulgar reads Rom 8. 37. certus sum enim I am certain: The Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for I think, or am probably persuaded. Now some to assure themselves of their Predestination, read I am certain, with the Vulgar, not I am persuaded as the Greek doth. It would be endless to tell you of Luther's ill dealing with both the lections of Greek and Latin. After the wicked man had perfidiously added that particle, Solam, to those words Rom. 3. 28. per fidem, and read by faith only. He omit's whole sentences of Holy Scripture in his Translation, as that. Mark 11. 26. If you will not forgive, neither will your. Father that is in Heaven forgive you, your sins. 1. Thess. 4. 5. That you abstain from fornication, is wholly omitted by him, and that whole sentence also 1. joan. 5. 7. There are three that bear record in Heaven etc. You will find no such Grossness in either the Sixtine or Clementine Bible. Yet more. Luther is excellent in the mincing or changing the proper signification of words isaiah. 9 v. 6. to please the jews, where the Hebrew Text gives the name of God El to Christ and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luther read's in Dutch stafft fortitudo. To lessen the Blessed virgins plenitude of grace, whereas the Greek Luc. 1. 28. read's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly full of grace, Luther puts à Dutch word, which as I am told, signifies one pretty well gracious and no more. You have an other notable corruption of the Greek Text Galat. 3. 10. But enough of these abuses, I cannot prosecute half of them. See Tan. Tom. 3. pag. 319. 9 Mr: Stilling: last objection is à f●at Calumny. The Pope, saith He, took where he pleased the marginal Annotations in the A Calumny, for an objection. Louvain Bible and inserted them into the Text. Answer. who would not when he read's this disingenuous and fraudulent expression, Where He pleased, but judge, that the Pope without more Ado picked what he listed out of the Louvain Annotations, and made that Scripture at his pleasure, which is an open slander. In à word here is the truth. Those worthy Doctors of Louvain with an Immense labour placed in their margins, not their own Annotations or Comments, but the different Lections of Scripture, yet determined not which was best, or was to be preferred before others, for they well knew, the decision of such causes belongs to the public judicature, and Authority of the Church. The Pope therefore, omitting no humane diligence compared Lection with lection, and those lections, (which usually differ most inconsiderably, or very little, as I have often observed in perusing the Louvain Bibles) Clement made use of, and after mature weighing all, preferred that which was most agreeable to the ancient Copies. And here is all Mr: Stilling: Cavils at, which yet was necessary to be done, to have one uniform Lection of Scripture in the Church approved by the sea Apostolic. 10. Some may yet object. We say the correction of Sixtus An objection. though in some things faulty contains nothing material contrary to Religion's or manners: Clement's Correction is only so far faultless and no farther, for many hold both these Editions may yet be corrected in some less and slighter erratas occasioned by the Librarians or Printers. Nay, perhaps it is not yet in every particular most perfect, Therefore Clement's pains was to no purpose, or amended little in the Sixtine Bible. That these lesser erratas are found in both Copies, and may, if the Church please, be yet corrected, is granted by great Authors. Read the Proleg: ad Bib: Max: sect. 19 C. 8. Gretser. Tom. 1. lib. 2. Defence. Cap. 11. Bell. Salmeron. Vega. And others quoted in Bib. Max. Answ: The Preface before the Sixtine Bible reviewed by Clement, and Sixtus his own Bull, give ground enough to solve this difficulty. The preface declares the Edition of Sixtus and Clement to be corrected Quantâ fieri potuit diligentiâ, with as great diligence as could be then used: yet to say it is absolutely perfect every way, respecting humane weakness, is difficult. However it is to be preferred before all other Latin Copies set forth to this day, as the more pure, and better amended Copy. Again, 'tis said. In hac pervulgatâ lectione sicut nounulla consultò mutata sunt etc. In this Vulgar Lection, a there are many things purposely changed, so there are others which seemed to be changed, left on set purpose, without alteration. And you may see four reasons hereof in the following words of the Preface, Pope Sixtus his Bull speaks as clearly. Neque: enim ignoramus saith He etc. We are not ignorant, but that there are many who thought, no few words and locutions of this latin Edition might have been translated by the latin interpreter, more properly, more Elegantly, more perspicuously, or more Copiously, measuring, as it were, words with words. Verum de his, minuta nimium & angusta concertatio ridetur. But to insist on these, seems à strife too minute, or worth little. Neque enim ta●ti sunt etc. Neither are they of such consequence, but that the Religion of the ancient Church, and the Authority of most holy Fathers ought to be preferred before such Niceties, it being unmeet and unworthy, as S. Gregory faith. Vt sub Do 〈…〉 regulis verba Caelestis oraculi restringantur. That the words of à Heavenly Oracle be tied to the laws or rules of à Grammarian. Thus, and much more Pope Sixtus. And hereby you see the The difficulty, solued. weakness of the objection proposed. Sixtus corrected many faults in the old Vulgar Latin anciently used in the Church (Sixtus never said, He corrected all the lesser erratas) Clement purged it of more, and restored that ancient Copy (so far as diligence could do) to à greater integrity. Was not this work laudable and praise worthy in these two worthy Prelates? Neither of them can be taxed of any error introduced contrary to faith, or the purity of Religion, And we urge Sectaries to speak à probable word against our Assertion. 11. By this and the precedent discourse you may learn first, that Mr: Stillingf: speaks at random when he tell's us p. 213. of an abundance of Corruptions in the Vulgar Latin, and yet cannot find so much as one Contrary to Faith and Religion. You see. 2. Not one Corruption. in the Vulgar, Contrary to Faith. He amuses and abuseth an ignorant Reader, whilst he asserts there are some thousand of places wherein Sixtus and Clement differ. There is no difference at all in any one point that's essential or material, other differences which arise, either from the Printers errors, or diversity of Lections, as long as we read what's true and the Church approves, is neither liable to Mr: Stillingfleets Censure, nor can be justly blamed. You see. 3. That when Mr: Still: talks, of Thomas james his comparing the Sixtine, Clementine Bibles, with the Louvain Annotations, and then mentions ten thousand differences from the Vulgar Latin, which differences arise from the comparing it with the Hebrew, Greek, and Chaldee, He understands not Matters too well. Because neither Sixtus nor Clement were obliged to regulate themselves▪ by the Hebrew, Greeck, or Chaldee What these two Popes chief intended. Their industry only being to correct the old Latin (Italae) Lection, called by S. Gregory the ancient Translation (most Authentic Scripture) which, however was done, both after à diligent search into the Hebrew and Greek, and à careful inspection also into other Copies. And here by the way, you may perhaps discover à piece of Mr: Stillingfleets cheat, about the ten thousand differences mentioned above. Be pleased only to peruse the first words, of Gene●s where you will find à different sound of words. The Vulgar read's In principio creavit Deus Caelum & terram, and so it is in the Chaldee and Samaritan Copies. The Roman septuagint: In principio fecit Deus. Others ascribe this Lection to the 70. Deus creavit in principio, Some out of the Hebrew read Creavit judices. Aquila read's. In Capitulo fecit Caelum. The Syriack. Creavit Deus esse Caeli & esse terra. An other Syriack. In sapientia Creavit. The Arabic. Primum quod creavit Deus fecit Caelum etc. Others, Creavit Elohim & Caelos. Others Lections seeming different are not always disferent. for in Principio, read, cum Principio. All which imply no more but mere trivial verbal differences, and these perhaps with many like them through the whole Bible, made Thomas james number swell up to then thousand. Most petty and pitiful do, whilst nothing appears of greater consequence. If any desire à literal exposition and reconciliation of these and other lections through the whole Scripture, He may peruse the Author of Bibl: Max: Comprehending ninteen great volumes. You see, 4. If the Church had true authentic Scripture before the corrections of Sixtus and Clement (whereof no man ever doubted) she has it still after the Council of Trents approbation, much more free from lesser faults, than formerly. You see, 5. If the Sectary reiect's the Vulgar Latin now corrected, he has no such assurance of any true Bible in the world, as excludes à possibility of doubting the Scriptures integrity, and consequently, that Scripture serves him not to find out true Religion, or build true Faith upon with security. You see. 6. that all the exceptions sectaries make against the Correction of Sixtus and Clement, ultimately examined, empty themselves into no more but only into flight, torpid, and insipid Calumnies, unworthy men of judgement and literature. You see. 7. the Sectaries Carping at every thing, is just like him who said. Quicquid Our sectaries Spirit. dixeris impugnabitur. Had the Church not at all corrected these lesser faults, the sectary would have blamed it as negligent, and looking to nothing, now it has done that good Service, it is found fault with. so it is. Quicquid dixeris impugnabitur. Help it who can. I say God help them who find fault, where there is none. If any desire to have à solution to some other Silly difficulties against the pretended solaecisms and Barbarisms of the Vulgar, let him read Gretser now Cited. Bib. Max. sect. 19 C. 4. and Serrarius. C. 19 quest: 143. And thus much of à digression. CHAP. IX. Proofs demonstrating that Protestants have not so much certainty of Scripture, as excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting. A word of Mr: Stillingfleets weak discourse with à Heathen 1. LEt us if you please suppose, that we and Sectaries had now in our hands the very Autograph's of the whole Bible, as it was once writ by the Prophets and Apostles, or if you would rather, Imagine the book dropped down from Heaven pure, and every way incorrupt. I say the Sectary has not probable assurance of Scripture, much less such à certainty as excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting. The ground of my Assertion is this undeniable Principle owned as well by Protestants, as Catholics. Viz Scripture solely considered according to the exterior letter, unless the true sense intended by the Holy Ghost be had, is no Scripture to the Reader. For example: Because the Arian read's that sacred truth. My Father is greater than I, and stands merely upon the bare sound of words without the sense intended by the Holy Ghost, He hath no true Scripture. Whence it is, that S. Austin serm: 70. Temp. holds Heretics most unhappy, because they take the words without the sense, have à body without Words without the true sense, no Scripture. à Soul, the bark without the sap, the shell without à kernel etc. S. Hierom also in cap. 1. ad Gal. v. 11. speaks to this purpose. Ne putemus etc. Let us not think, that the Gospel lies in the words of Scripture but in the sense of those words we read, not in the outsyde but in the pith and marrow of it. There is no need of quoting more Fathers. The Principle is agreed on by all, and most indubitable. 2. Hence I argue. Nothing is more essential to scripture than the sense delivered by the Holy Ghost: but the Protestant, where he is most concerned, has not so much assurance of the sense intended by the Holy Ghost, as excludes à Possibility of reasonable doubting, and I prove it. He is most concerned, when he opposes our Catholic Doctrine and stands up in defence of his own opinions, but in neither has he such an indubitable assurance of the Scriptures sense, as excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting, and this I say is evident, For he cannot have so much assurance if as weighty, yea à far more weighty authority contradicts his sense. But it is clear that not only the present Roman Church, but other particular Churches in former ages reputed Orthodox, contradict that sense the Protestant draws from Scripture, But Sectaries have no Certainty of the sense. (when he opposeth Catholic Doctrine or defends his own singular opinions) Therefore he has not so much certainty of the Scriptures sense, as excludes the possibility of reasonable doubting. Now, that the sole judgement of our present Catholic Church (to dispute the thing no higher) is as great upon all accounts, as the judgement of Protestants, seems undeniable; And that the Testimony of our Church weakens the assurance of that sense of Scripture which Protestants lay claim to, is most evident, as we see in school opinions (when contrary to one an other) for no man, whether Philosopher or Divine, can prudently hold his opinion so certain as excludes à Possibility of doubting when as many, wholly, as learned yea more learned and numerous, after à full knowledge had of it and long Study also, deny that certainty. Thus much I say is evident. Now if the Protestant tells ' us, the Authority of his party weakens as much that sense we make of Scripture, as the contrary judgement of our Church lessens his, I answer. The reply here is to no purpose For all I prove at present is, that he vows this certainty, whether we have it or not, is an other quaestion, and clearly decided for the Catholic cause in the other Treatise. Disc. 2. c. 9 per totum. Again, were all granted the objection would have. Thus much (which is most falls,) only follows, that neither of us know assuredly the sense of Scripture, which touches not the difficulty now in controversy. 3. My 2. Argument is so demonstrative that if the Protestant A 2 Argument▪ most Convincing. will please to solve it, I'll never trouble him more with difficulties. To propose it clearly, know only thus much. That when the sectary read's Scripture and would have it to his purpose, He either over reaches the Text, or falls short of its meaning. For example. To those words of S. Math. This is my body he adds this, as good sense. This is à sign, or figure only of my body. Mark well: We both read the same words, but Catholics deny that to be Scripture, not because we deny the words, but his sense we say is no scripture. To that of our Saviour. I am with you always to the end of the world. He adds, I am with you always by à fitting, but no infallible assistance: We say this is no Scripture. To that of S. james. A man is justified by works and not by Faith only, He adds, he is justified not before God, but before men, we still deny this to be Scripture. And thus sectaries proceed with us in all other controverted Texts of Holy writ. Whence I argue. These Additions of à sign only, of à fitting Assistance, of justification before men &c, are either the true sense intended by the Holy Ghost or Sectaries fancy, but most evidently they are not the sense intended by the Holy Ghost, for this must either be gathered out of Sectaries glosses and additions, not scripture. so many express words of Holy writ which is prodigiously false, or must arise from the Holy Ghosts infallible assistance whereby Protestants, as people Illuminated above all others give us the true meaning of Scripture; and this besides the Paradox, when à whole learned Church contradicts the assertion, is most destructive of the Protestants own Principle: For they say, the Holy Ghost interpret's by none, enlightens none, teaches none to deliver the true sense of Scripture, but such as do it infallibly, which Truth is most undoubted. They say again, when they give the sense of Scripture, or interpret God's word, they do it so fallibly, that it may be false, or if they interpret infallibly; and cannot err, Eo ipso, they are so far infallible, which they utterly deny. See Disc. 2. c. 9 n. 8. what then remains but that the sense of Scripture proposed to us by such fallible Teachers, is only the thought of their own fancy. 5. Some may reply. Protestants after long perusing Scripture, and comparing several Texts together, judge the sense of these and No more are their deductions. other controverted places by à lawful deduction, to be as they declare. I answer first. They shall never come to so much as à probable deduction, and I earnestly press them to make their sense good in the passages alleged, when we now stand to Scripture only. I answer. 2. such dark inferences drawn from comparing Texts together not grounded on the very words, ever imply à mixture of humane discourse, which therefore is fallible and may be false. Whence it follows, that Sectaries can believe none of these senses by Divine Faith, because the last Motive or formal object of their Assent, is à fallible reasoning only, and this may err. And here you may learn how necessary an infallible Interpreter of Scripture is, without which we are cast upon mere uncertainties, and unavoidable improbabilities. 6. The Sectary may yet answer. To the comparing of Texts together, He adds the sentiment of some Fathers for his sense: I say of some, for 'tis evident He hath not all, much less the Universal consent or Tradition of the Church in every age. If this be the reply, I may well oppose it in Mr: Stilling: own words pag. 216. Think not to fob us off with the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three Fathers instead of the universal consent of the Church since the Apostles time etc. But what will you say, if he has not one clear Testimony of à Not on● ancient Father Clear for protestancy. The reason is given. Father for him? I boldly assert it, and urge him to produce but one. The reason is. Whatever Testimony of à Father is alleged for his sense, will be at most (if't come thither) so notably ambiguous that weighed with all circumstances, it may well have à Catholic meaning: That sense therefore must stand good without contest, when it answers to the judgement of à whole learned Church, and the Sectary hath nothing to draw it to his particular opinion (neither universal Church nor universal Tradition) but only à few ambiguous words capable of interpretation, and his own fancy to boot▪ Nay I say more, He hath not so much as any little appearance of ambiguous words for his sense. Pray you tell me, (and let Protestants shame me if they can) where has he any hint of à Father's doubtful words for his minced fitting assistance only allowed the Church, Positively excluding infallible assistance? For justification by Faith only? For two sacraments only? For à sign only of Christ's presence in the Eucharist? yet these senses he vend's as the genuine meaning of the Holy Ghost, without proof or probability, therefore fancy only plays here. And thus you see the first part of my Assertion demonstratively proved viz. That Protestants have not so much as à weak probable assurance of that which is the very life and essence of Scripture, I mean, of the true sense intended by the Holy Ghost: Yet you know Tertullia's judgement. Tertullian saith. Lib. de Prescript. cap. 17. Tantum veritati obstrepit adulter sensus: quantum & corruptus Stylus. A falls sense depraves Scripture as much, as if the words were corrupted. Thus much premised and so fully proved, that sectaries cannot return à probable answer, I'll add one consideration more to confirm what is said. A Discourse between à Heathen and à Christian. 7. Imagine that à well disposed Gentil Philosopher half persuaded of the truth of Christian Religion, addresses himself to the most knowing Protestant, or Arian (and not to dissemble the force of the Argument) to some learned Catholic also. He finds them strangely divided about their Canon of Scripture, about their Translations, and which is to our purpose now, at high difference concerning the meaning also. The Arian tell's him he hath the How men called. Christians differ about scripture. true sense, so doth the Donatist, the Protestant, and Catholic likewise. The wise man is not so foolish as to believe any of them upon their bare word, although Stentor-like they cry, this and no other is Divine Doctrine. Therefore he concludes, if reason may have place, This way of finding what he would know, without the help of some other Principle distinct from Scripture, and the fallible Assertion of particular men opposite to one an other, is so highly dissatisfactory and wholly insufficient, that it cannot settle him in the truth of Christianity. Nay, he may well argue further. If I, yet no Christian, cannot so much as know these very books to be Divine because you say they are so, when we Gentiles and jews (in part) hold them only humane; If I though I own them as Divine, can learn from none of you, what they say (for I find you all at high contradictions about the sense) How will you induce me by this your Bible only to become Christian? Or, how can you when you dispute with one an other, so much as propose à probable Argument out of Scripture in behalf of your different Tenets, For The Heathens Discourse. none of you yet know by Scripture only the true meening of it? You first suppose à sense and then argue, whereas you should clear the sense and prove it, or your Argument falls to nothing. For example. The Protestant find's in Scripture, that the Holy Eucharist is called Bread, supposing Bread to signify natural bread or at most bread deputed to à holy use, the Catholic denies this supposition, and sense also. He reads again in S. james c. 4. T 〈…〉 is one Lawgiver and judge who can destroy and free. Ergo saith the P 〈…〉 stant, there is no other visible judge in the Church to end Co 〈…〉 ersies. As odd an inference as if one should conclude, because it is said in Scripture. Be not ye called Masters for your Master is one, Christ, no other aught to be called Master, and therefore this sense and supposition in also denied. And thus it must needs fall out, whilst the Sectary has not one express word of Scripture for his novelties, whereas, saith the Gentil, the Texts seem clear enough for Catholic Doctrine taken in an obvious sense, yet not so clear, but that à peevish Glosser may pervert all by his wilful fancy. 8. Yet the Gentil Argues. You Christians say, there is true Religion amongst you, and that God, the Author of it, hath allowed The Heathens Argument Clearly proposed against sectaries. means abundantly sufficient to knowit, Means I say whereby not only Gentiles, Turks, and jews, but Arians and other Heretics also, may be reclaimed from their errors. Thus much you must grant, or say that Christ hath left an unbelieved world under an impossibility of being converted. And if this be true, that is, if means be wanting to know the verities of Christian Religion, The Gentil may blamlesly remain as he is, and so may the Turk, jew, and Heretic also. Now saith our Heathen. 'Tis evident, Scripture alone without further light, is no meet means to reclaim any of them, for the Gentil slights your whole Scripture, and can that by itself draw him off his contempt? Again The Bonzij in that vast Kingdom of China pretend to an other Bible, writ long since by their supposed great Prophet called Confusius (and the book is not like the Turks Alcoran stuffed with fooleries) but as I am informed, some who lived long there, and knew the language well, say, it contain's most excellent moral precepts tending to the preservation of justice and à Civil life. The jew denies the new Testament, The Arian and others the sense of our Scripture. How therefore can Scripture alone prove efficacious to convert these aliens from Christ, or be supposed à fit means obliging all to believe, when yet they know not without more light what they are to believe, or why? An other way therefore must be found out, whereof more afterward. In the mean while. 9 I truly stand astonished, when I consider how pitifully Mr stillingfleet returns no probable Answer. Mr: Stilling: endeavours to soul this most convincing Argument. Read him who will. Part. 1. Chap. 6. from page 175. to P. 179. and he shall find him tediously running on, but never à whit more forward in his journey where he ends, then at the beginning. 'tis all à long à pure Petitio principij, and worse. The Question moved, is, How the Protestant can convert à Heathen, or prove infallibly that the Bible is God's word. Mr: Stilling: Answers, his Lord Primate undertakes not this task in the first place, nor offer's to Convince à Heathen that the Bible must be infallibly believed to be God's word. No, but first, the excellency and reasonableness of Christian Religion Considered in itself is to be proved, by showing, that the precepts of it are just, the promises such as may induce any reasonable man to the practice of those precepts, that the whole Doctrine is very wisely contrived, that nothing is vain and impertinent in it, that those things which seem most hard to believe in this Doctrine are not such things, ●s might have been spared out of it, as though God did intent only to puzzle men's reason with them. And thus he goes on in his draught, or Idea of Christianity, and so proves the Truth of Christianity by telling à Heathen, What it is, or what it teaches. The Heathen most justly except's against These proofs (so may à Christian too, if no more be said) and professes all this talk hitherto besides à mere begging the Question, seems to him à pure cheat, and fallacy. You proceed strangely, saith the Heathen, for what is à supposed He makes à mere supposition his Proof. verity amongst you Christians, you turn into à proof against me that denies your supposition. You labour to take my difficulties away, by proposing to me those very things, which cause them. Mark well .. You first make the excellency and reasonableness of Christian Religion in itself à fit medium to prove Scripture God's infallible word, whereas that supposed reasonableness of your Religion, is as dark and obscure to me, who am not Christian, as the infallibility of your Bible's Doctrine. Therefore you prove one unknown thing by an other wholly as much unknown. I deny both your Bible and reasonableness of your Religion, prove the one or both, or you speak not one word to the purpose. 10. You suppose. 2. à Principle which neither Catholic nor protestant ever yet owned. viz. That, that which you call Christian Religion is known ex terminis to be true by à mere declaration of its Doctrine, whereas no Doctrine, even the most Primitive was ever made discernible from error by à bare saying it was true, without Evidence of Credibility laid forth to reason before belief. some precedent Evidence of its credibility laid forth to reason: And therefore you are told in the other Treatise against Mr: Poole. ● 21. That if Christ and his Apostles had appeared in the world, and only preached the high Mysteries of our Faith, or spoken as you do, of the excellence and reasonableness of its precepts, or promises, without further evidence, they would have no more drawn jews or Gentiles to their Doctrine then twelve little Children could now draw us to the belief of many other verities, (not yet revealed) had God inspired them to teach without miracles, or any other supernatural wonders. My reason is. As the Bible evidences not itself to be Divine scripture, so the intrinsical reasonableness of Christianity is no first evidence to itself, both therefore must be proved by Clearer Principles. Believe it. Had Christ and his Apostles only insisted upon the reasonableness of Christianity, the very jews would have silenced them alleging greater previous evidence for their Religion, showed by Moses and the Prophets. 3. Saith the Heathen, because you dare not meddle with the motives of Credibility which you Scornfully call à Grand Salad too often served up by Papists you speak at random, when you give me no other satisfaction to my difficulties than by telling me, they are worth nothing. You Affirm. 4. Nothing is impertinent in Christian Religion. I answer. The belief of à Trinity, of God made an Infant; Your whole story of à Serpent tempting Eve, and of Samson, Mr. stilling: proofs found weightless. with your Mysterious book of Apocalyps, seem to my humane understanding not only impertinent, but improbable. You tell me. 5. of Christian Religion agreeing with those books you call the Bible, That is, you would say, the Christian Doctrine of the Bible agrees with the book, which is idem per idem and therefore highty dissatisfactory, unless you prove both the Bible and Doctrine by further Arguments. You say 6. The Heathen aught to believe some thing besides that, he hath heard or seen upon the report of honest men. He answers, he doth, so far, as those reports move him to assent, and therefore denies not the matter of fact, that there was once such à person in the world as Christ, but because you say all this Testimony is no more but moral, and may be false, the Heathens belief goes no higher. Just so the Turks believe there was such à man as Mahomet, the Chinese such à man as Confusius, but what get we, by judging there were such persons as these in the world? Doth it here upon follow, all they taught, Nothing yet proved. was true or infallible Doctrine? No such matter. You say. 7. The Heathen must believe that Christ died, risen again, wrought many miracles, and sent his Apostles to preach his Doctrine. etc. He answers, these being Articles of your faith registered in Scripture, you, Sir, either urge him to believe them, as you ought to do certainly and infallibly, and this you cannot exact, for you believe them because they are in Scripture, and yet you have not proved to the Heathen so much as probably, that Scripture is of Divine inspiration, Therefore you suppose what he denies, and pitifully beg the Question. 11. Or. 2. You will have him yield an assent to them upon the humane testimony of many Christians which you say is fallible and may be false, and that auails nothing, for thus the Turks believe the Alcoran the Chinese their bible upon the Testimony of innumerable witnesses. You say. 8. None can question whether the Doctrine be Divine, when the Person who declared it to the world was so Divine and extraordinary à Person holy in his conversation, wrought unparalled miracles, risen from death to life, conversed with his Disciples, and gave evidence of their fidelity by laying down The question Still. begged their lives to attest the Truth etc. Contra. 1. Replies the Heathen. Here is again the same Petitio principii, for either you believe these particulars because Scripture records them, and then you suppose Scripture to be true and Divine, which he denies, or because fallible men report them (you own no infallible tradition) and this advances not your cause at all, for the Turks and those of China talk as much of their Mahomet, and Confusius upon fallible, and perhaps false reports also (for yet the Heathen knows not what Religion is true) And next wonders why you speak of miracles, of power over evil spirits, of men laying down their lives etc. when, you Sectaries either deny, or slight all the miracles evidently done in the Catholic Church, as also the power She manifests in casting out Devils etc. And if we mention Martyrs, Catholics have more, who laid down their lives in defence of the Doctrine of this one Church, than suffered for Christ, whilst the Apostles preached to the world. You hint some thing at miracles (like one half afraid to meddle with such Motives) and say these wonders prove the truth of Apostolical Doctrine. Pray you Sir Answer? When you plead by miracles Do you only allow those which Scripture relates, or others By what miracles Sectaries, plead. also known by History and humane Authority? If you rely on the first, you suppose what now is in Question. Viz. That Scripture is infallible▪ and of Divine inspiration, If you own miracles registered in Ecclesiastical history, and the lives of Saints, you have, as I now said of Martyrs, à greater number wrought in the Roman Catholic Church in the ages after Christ, than were done whilst he and his Apostles lived. 'Slight such à Cloud of witnesses as attest these later wonders, and speak no more (as you do) of any certainty grounded upon the report of honest men; Own them upon humane authority as morally indubitable, and you prove by virtue of these Miracles, that the Doctrine of the Catholic Church, is still Apostolical and Orthodox. 12. Now here by the way I must lay open your fallacy, A dilemma, which forceth Sectaries to à vicious Circle. when you recur to miracles recounted in Scripture only, and reject others wrought by the Church. Thus I argue. Either you suppose and believe the Doctrine of Scripture to be Divine, because you find the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles recorded there, (and propose these as the first Motive, and inducement of your believing Scripture) or independently of Scripture Miracles, you prove the Doctrine to be Divine; yea, and the very miracles recounted there, to be indicted by the Holy Ghost. If you believe the Divinity of Scripture induced thereunto by Miracles related in that Holy book, you advance nothing, for all you say is, that you prove Scripture, Divine because it recounts these wonders, which are as obscure to à Heathen as the Divinity, or the sacred Doctrine of Scripture is, Therefore you make à most vicious Circle, for you prove the Divinity of Scripture by Miracles internal to the book, and the Miracles themselves (not otherwise known) by the Divinity of Scripture. Now if you say you know the Scriptures Divinity antecedently, or before you recur to Miracles related there, Scripture-Miracles are useless to your purpose, for, if the supposition stand, They are yet no more but objects of Faith, and therefore cannot serve you as motives and inducements to believe that very Divinity, which is now supposed known aliunde, and most sufficiently without them. 13. One may ask, if God had never done any other Miracles but such as Scripture relates, whether these are not sufficient to work belief in all? The Heathen answers negatively, and makes them insufficient, because Scripture is not proved Miracles related in Scripture Convince not à Heathen. Divine by them. And all may answer so, if Scripture be not otherwise first proved Divine, before we have recourse to miracles internal to the book. However, admit gratis they were sufficient, the most you can infer is, That, the Primitive Church which shown them was Orthodox, but whether any other Church yet preserves the same pure Doctrine, may be well questioned by à Heathen. And here in passing, you may note à singular Providence of God, who age after age has illustrated his Church with most manifest and undoubted miracles, whereof more largely hereafter. Disc. 2. C. 8. 14. You say lastly. That which God chief requires from à Heathen is the belief of the Truth and Divinity of his Doctrine. He answers he is ready to do so, when you prove the Doctrine to be Divinely inspired, and infallible. But hitherto you handle things so faintly, that though the matter you treat be excellent in itself, yet your proofs (most disatisfactory) come not home to convince it. Your mishap is just like that of an ill lawyer, who has à good cause in hand, but knows not how to handle it. Your whole Method is unmethodical, your proofs prooflesse, your jumbling most intolerable. In à word, you give no rational A Good Cause ill handled by Mr: Stillingfleet account of the reasonableness, of the Truth, of the Divinity, or of the infallibility of Christ's Doctrine. Therefore saith the Heathen, I'll suspend my judgement till I meet with à more knowing Adversary, who I hope will not prove Truth by simply saying he speaks it, but Convince it upon undeniable Principles. 15. But our Heathen hath not yet done with Mr: Stilling: for he saith plainly, Though all the proofs hitherto hinted at might pass, or were supposed valid, yet there is not one word spoken to the purpose, in behalf of Protestancy. If you wonder at the bold Assertion, ponder well his reason. You, Mr: Stilling: have treated all this while of the excellency and reasonableness of Christian Religion, considered no man knows how. Pray you lurk not in such General terms, but tell me particularly what Christian Religion is thus good, excellent, and reasonable? If good and excellent, it must be now found in the world. Is it Arianism? Pelagianism? Donatism? Quakerism? These sects profess Christianity Are they all excellent and reasonable? Affirm it openly if you dare? Perhaps you will say no. Is it Popery? By no means. For may your word be taken, it mantains false Our Adversary Cannot say, which à 'mong so many Religions is excellent and reasonable. and erroneous Doctrine, and that's neither excellent nor reasonable. Is it Protestancy? Yes surely. This is the excellent and reasonable Religion. And is it possible? Can you persuade yourself without further proof than your own prooflesse word, that the perfect draught or Idea of Christianity lies so fair in the new Nothing of à few jarring Protestants, which all other Christians in the world decry as false and improbable? Can you think that à foulmouthed Friar as ever lived, and à Nunn sacrilegiously coupled together, laid the first foundation of this excellent and reasonable Christian Religion? Speak out, and tell us what you judge, or hereafter leave of to vent such improbable Paradoxes? I speak of à Religion now extant in the world or known. 4. hundred years ago to prevent your wont subterfuge of running up to the Primitive Church, à most unreasonable plea when you cannot say probably what that Church taught, but only by the Tradition of the present, which you most causelessly and unworthily reject. But hereof we have said enough in the other Treatise. Perhaps you'll reply. You defend that Church which holds Doctrine agreeable to Scripture, I marry, Sir, but where shall we find it out? Amongst you They own on un known Church. Protestants think ye? when you know not probably the sense of scripture in one only controverted Text, much less so fully, as excludes à possibility of doubting, nor shall you ever know, whilst you own à sense Contrary to the Roman Catholic Church, as is already proved. CHAP. X. The first and easiest way to find out true Religion is not by Scripture only, though all Christians had moral certainty of the right Canon, and sense also, which is to say, the mere owning Christ's Doctrine, is insufficient to prove it, to all sort of People. 1. THe Assertion may seem strange had we not an evident proof at hand, and 'tis thus. The jews, Turks, and Pagans (although all Christians now and ever agreed in some chief verities concerning Christian Religion, as that jesus is our Redeemer) reject the Doctrine as falls, and foolish 1. Cor. 1. u. 23. We preach Christ Crucified, à scandal to the jews, and à foolery to the Gentiles. Whereby you may well learn, how enormously Mr: Stillingfleet erred above when he told us, that the mere excellency and reasonableness of Christian Religion carries with it its own proof. Our Assertion is contrary, and grounded upon this The proof of our Assertion opposite to Mr. stillingfleet. Principle. The Mysteries of Christian Doctrine considered in themselves, transcend all humane Capacity, and as the Apostle saith scandalise weak reason, Therefore the Mysteries merely laid forth to à jew or Gentile are no conviction, because they are above the reason of the very best Believers. Now if you say, they ought first to be believed by faith without any previous inducement, This is the worst of fooleries, for none of the Primitive Christians, so much as believed Christ or admitted Apostolical Doctrine, without rendering first some satisfactory reason (distinct from their faith) why they rejected the ancient Synagogue and assented to that then new preached learning. Some previous light therefore, distinct from these abstruse Mysteries, which God lays before the eye of humane reason induceth all, whether jews or Gentiles, to the true belief of Christianity, and Consequently the mere supposed verity of the Doctrine only, dark in itself, is no absolute mark or first self evident Principle, The rerity of Christ's Doctrine no self Evidence. whereby we are immediately moved to believe such high secrets. Pray you tell me, should any one go amongst some uncivilised People, who either have heard nothing, or very little of Christ, and only relate the story of his sacred Birth in à poor stable, of his obscure life from the 12th. year of his age till he began to preach etc. Would such Barbarians, think ye, assent to these strange things either by the force of humane reason, or Divine Faith, without further proof or motive to make all good? No certainly. Yet all is true and very true, yea, and most reasonable, but the verity alone is insufficient to persuade any that 'tis true. 2. From this short discourse, whereof more in the second part, these undeniable inferences follow. 1. That Sectaries assert they know not what, when they make the true Preaching of the Gospel and right use of Sacraments to be marks of the true Church. For the true Church (be it where you will) hath ever its marks antecedently supposed to the true preaching of the word, which marks, first manifest that mystical body (at least in à general way as I shall presently declare) and thus known by à natural evidence, she proposeth the Mysteries we believe. Here The Church is known by her marks, before we believe. is the reason à priori of my Assertion. That which is the first object of our Faith cannot be the first object of our knowledge, the Mysteries of our belief laid forth by the preaching of God's word, are the first objects of Faith, (for these we believe, and as believed they are obscure) therefore they cannot be the first objects of knowledge (if we speak strictly of knowledge) or marks previously inducing reason to believe. Whence it is, that reason hath its evidence or prudent inducements laid forth upon other extrinsical Principles, before we believe. Belief therefore, whether you take it for the object assented to, or the act we assent by (being as I said obscure) can be no mark to itself or to the true Church we believe in, for à mark is ever more known than that object is whereof it is à mark, or which is pointed at. 3. Some perhaps will say. The Church is usually defined. An Assembly of those who profess the true Doctrine of Christ, therefore An Objection. true Doctrine most essential to the Church, must necessarily be known before we know the total essence of the Church. Ergo true Doctrine or the preaching of the word is à mark whereby we first find out the Church, and consequently the Church marked with evident clear motives, is no inducement to believe true Doctrine. The Argument is an evident fallacy. First because the Illiterate and simple Christians believe in the Church and have faith sufficient to salvation, though they never arrive to an explicit Briefly solued. belief of every particular Doctrine taught by it. 2. They either explicitly believe all these particular Doctrines by Faith, and this is impossible, because all of them were never proposed explicitly, or, know them ex terminis to be Divine Truths by humane reason, when they are proposed, and this is most untrue. For who can say that this truth. Christ is God and consubstantial with his Father, is à verity more known ex terminis by humane reason, than the contrary error of the Arians is? You see therefore the objection is forceles: For, as one who reads Aristotle or Plato knows what is said, or the substance of the Doctrine by the sense of their words, yet remains ignorant whether it be true or falls, without further reasoning and inspection, so à Gentil that reads our Christian Doctrine in the bible may know much of its sense, or what is said, yet he must both discourse and reason well, before The judgement of Credibility, not attained by examining the Mysteries of Faith. he come to this settled judgement. All I read (not evidently true ex terminis) is yet indubitably so. Now this judgement is not first got by examining the particular verities which Scripture or the Church teaches. No. There is à far easier way whereby reason, after à further discourse concludes: that either God hath cheated the world by the Miracles, the sanctity, The blood shedding of Martyrs, and all those conversions wrought by the Church, or we must grant, That, what the Church teaches is true, And this general judgement arising immediately from à due Ponderation of the motives of Faith (which is Science) disposeth an understanding to believe this great Truth. God speaks his eternal verities by that Church (be it yet where you will) which Christ jesus founded. And in this sense we say, à general Notion or knowledge of the Church manifested by supernatural signs, is usually necessary to the belief of every particular Doctrine delivered by it, and consequently particular Doctrines can be no first mark, or sign of this Oracle. Thus much is here briefly hinted at to solve the objection. Hereafter, the whole Analysis shall be most particularly discussed in its due place. 4. A. 2. inference. True Religion is first found by its marks The true Church is known before we can know the books of scripture. and cognisances, before the pure and incorrupt books of Scripture can be owned as Divine. We come therefore to à knowledge of these incorrupt books by the help of that Christian Society where true Religion is taught, and cannot first know where true Religion is by the books of scripture only. I say. First know. For without all doubt when incorrupt Scripture together with the sense is once admitted upon the authority of Christ's Church, we argue and forceably as the Fathers anciently did, against Sectaries by Scripture: But all such arguments presuppose the Books proved Divine, and sacred. The reason of the inference is. These Books only contain à simple narration of our Christian verities, which both jews and Gentiles slight, therefore though we cry never so loud Scripture is Divine, and written by the Holy Ghost, we effect nothing with these Aliens from Christ, unless we first convince the truth by proofs distinct from Scripture itself. And as little is No disputing by Scripture only, without the Canon and sense be agreed on. done, if Christians of à different belief dispute by Scripture, when neither the Canon, nor the sense is agreed on. For example. Martion produceth his Bible, The Arian his, and his sense, A third à Scripture without S. james Epistle, or that to the Hebrews, Our Sectaries Crowd in with their book, whilst others as learned reject their Canon, and much more that sense they force from it in à hundred passages. What is to be done in this Confusion? Must we admit of Martions' Bible, or submit to our Sectaries Canon, and new sense also? No certainly, it Cannot be expected. Perhaps they will say. we are to dispute the question, and rigidly examine who hath the true Canon and sense of Scripture, They or we, This ends the difference. Very good. But say on I beseech you? And first give us à sure Principle (à doubtful one in so weighty à matter help's little) which may bear up the controversy, and at last end it, for unless this principle be agreed on, the result of our dispute will be nothing but à fruitless wrangling. O the Fathers and Antiquity well pondered cannot but decide the debate. I answer, may we judge by the effect, the assertion is most untrue: The ancient Fathers perverted by sectaries, end not Controversies. For have not we and Sectaries now read and pondered the Fathers and Antiquity for one whole age, what can be alleged on both sides, as well for the Canon as the sense, hath been said, and after all, are we not still as much at variance as far off from ending the controversy, as when we began it? Say Now, but upon à solid Principle, who is in fault? The Sectary thinks we understand not the Fathers, and we are sure, he abuseth them with far fetched glosses. He saith their words are clear for his sense, and we profess, the Contrary. Hitherto we come to nothing like à Principle▪ The Controversy therefore driven on no further, but to the sectaries bare, Yea and our, No, hangs yet in the air wholly undecided. The reason is. Though the Father's words be never so plain for our Catholic verities, yet after the Sectary hath laid his glosses upon them, they are most unworthily made by him as doubtful, and à matter of as great contest, as the very sense of Scripture is, which both of us would have cleared by the Father's testimony. That is. There is as much ado (may Sectaries glosses have place) to understand, what à Father teaches concerning the sense of scripture, as to understand Scripture itself, before we have recourse to the Fathers. To recurre therefore to their interpretation in Controverted matters whilst Sectaries as much darken that by their glosses, as they obscure the Scripture we dispute about, is The matter in Dispute, no meet Principle to end it. evidently à most unfit way to end any Controversy, unless that which is the very matter of Dispute between us, can be supposed à meet and sufficient means to end it, which is impossible. Now if the sectary blames us because we reject that sense, he draws from either Scripture or the Fathers, and he also reject ours, what have we but wrangling? Both parties hitherto only word it, and stand chafing at one an other, without Principles. God therefore hath provided us à surer and easier way to end debates about Religion, whereof more in the sequel Chapters. CHAP. XI. The Protestant takes away the only means to know true Religion by. His proofs, whether He defend's Protestancy or impugns Catholic Doctrine, are unreducible to Principles, and never go beyond the weakness of his own vnproued Assertion. Mere glosses support all He saith, which is evidenced by à brief handling one Controversy, touching the B. Sacrament. Theodoret wronged by Sectaries, cleared. His Doctrine is most Catholic. 1. NOte first. If God as I said above, once established true Religion among Christians, He made it so discernible from all false sects, that it may be found out by prudent reason. Omni literaturâ notius saith Tertull. lib. 1. de Testimonio animae. It's more known than any other learning. For to say on the one side, That an infinite wisdom hath planted true Religion in the world, which shall not perish, and on the other, to assert it cannot be proved or found out, is first to cast à blemish on Providence, and next to free all from the obligation of embracing it, because none can be obliged to embrace that which cannot be known by reason, or rational arguments. Note. 2. The Doctrine of Christ which essentially constitutes true Religion, stands most firm upon indubitable Principles appliable to the Believers reason. If therefore à Want be found of such proofs, and doubts arise, whether Christ's Doctrine be taught or no; None can by doubtful or ambiguous Proofs of true Religion, easy and Convincing. Principles only, absolutely say. This is Christ's Doctrine, and Consequently the proofs of true Religion answer to the weightiness of the matter, that is, they are clear, convincing, and exclude à possibility of reasonable doubting. Thus much supposed. 2. I say first. who ever endeavor's to show by arguments what Tenants of Religion now held amongst Christians are pure and Orthodox (when the matter is of Controversy,) and cannot The sectaries proofs, as dark as his Doctrine. bring his proofs to à Clearer Principle, than the particular assertion is which should be proved, argues improbably. The Protestant in all the discussed matters of Religion doth so, that is, he never goes beyond the strength of his own weak assertion, but eludes all by talk wholly as dark and weightles as the very Assertion is, which should be proved; therefore he Argues improbably. 3. To prove the Minor proposition wherein the difficulty lies. Take à view of all our Protestant Tenants as they differ from Catholic Doctrine, or Constitute this new reformed Religion and ask, what Protestant dare appear and venture to prove, That Faith only justifies: The like I say of his other negative Articles, Of no real Presence, of no Invocation of Saints of no Sacrifice of the Mass. etc. I absolutely affirm, He cannot make one of these Articles good by any undoubted Principle, or establish any of them by à proof which is clearer, than that dark article is, which should be proved. One reason is. These Doctrines opposite to the Latin and Greek Church also, are not evidently known as truths by the light of One reason of our Assertion. nature, or by any received Principle grounded on Revelation. No ancient Church reputed Orthodox held them 7. hundred years ago, and Consequently no universal tradition is for them. The only difficulty is, whether Holy Scripture or the Fathers generally patronise such Doctrines? And to favour Sectaries all that's possible, we will here move no doubt of the letter of their Bible, but withal assure them, it will be impossible to draw such new learning out of that Book, and the impossibility will be thus manifested. As long as these men cannot prove their new Doctrine to be transmitted to them from as good and assured authority as their book of Scripture is transmitted (but upon less sure grounds, or less assured tradition) so long their doctrine is naught and stands unprincipled. But this is so, as we shall see presently. And you may by the way note here the difference between the Catholic The difference between the proofs of Catholics and Protestants. and Protestant. The first, proves every particular Tenet of his Faith by as sure à Principle as he proves his Bible to be Divine, (the Church assures him of both) but the Sectary ever falls short in this and cannot give you so strong à proof for his particular Doctrine, as he doth for the very letter of his book, which he supposes teaches that Doctrine. 4. But let us come to the point which chief urgeth, and take one particular Controversy (we cannot insist on all) and ask the Protestant. How he proves that the real presence of Christ's sacred body (as Catholics assert) is not expressed in the literal sense of those words. This is my body. His negative assertion most evidently is not there in plain terms. We therefore urge him to make it good by à proof that's clear or more convincing than his own dark and yet unproved Negative is. And is he not obliged think ye to produce à strong proof indeed, when he hath so many powerful Adversaries to contrast with? 1. The clear words of Christ now alleged 2. A long Catalogue of most ancient Fathers usually cited by Authors opposite to him. 3. The Authority of the Greek and Latin Church, for both Church's mantain the real substantial presEnce to this day. 4. The express Doctrine of general Councils, which define our Doctrine positively, and The grounds of our Catholic Tenets. condemn the figurative presence of Sectaries 5. Evident Miracles wrought in confirmation of the Mystery, related by authors of most indubitable credit. These are no slight grounds of our Doctrine. Let us see by what strong received Principle the Sectary endeavor's to weaken them, or (which is immediately to my purpose) proves his new negative Position. Has he the express letter of Scripture for his Negative: Christ is not substantially present in the Eucharist? Not one word in the whole Bible is like it, much contrary. Doth the sense of Scripture after all places are compared together favour him? No. What ever sense he draws from thence seemingly to his purpose, will be as obscure and remote from the nature of à proof or any known Principle, as his own improbable position is, and therefore most unfit to persuade it. Has he as universal Tradition or the unanimous consent of Fathers for his negative, (or for that sense he would force out of Scripture), as he and we have for the letter of the Text now cited? Nothing at all. And to show you how justly I propose this question, call to mind what Mr: The Sectary answers not to any. Stilling: exact's of his Adversary Part. 1. c. 7. P. 216. If I should, saith he, once see you prove the infallibility of your Church, the Pope's supremacy, Invocation of Saints etc. by as unquestionable and universal tradition as that is whereby we receive the Scriptures, I would extol you for the only person that ever did any thing considerable on your side. Thus he speaks after this precaution given. Think not to fob us off, with the Tradition of your Church in stead of the Catholic, with the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three Fathers, instead of the universal consent of the Church since the Apostles times. Your own words Mr: Stilling: shall here condemn you. The Question is whether your Negative, Christ is not really present in the Eucharist, as catholics affirm, be Orthodox Doctrine? We exact as rigid à proof from you, as you demand of us, but fob us not off with your own talk (Tradition you have none) nor with the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three Fathers, but give us the universal consent of the Church since the Apostles time, as What we justly require of Sectaries. clear for your negative, as you demand of us for the articles now mentioned; Or if this be too much, give us but only the indubitable sentiment of any Church, reputed Orthodox, four or five hundred years passed for this your sense and assertion, and I will applaud you as à most singular person. But this you shall do, when you have turned all faith out of the world; that is never. I say therefore you have no more but the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three Fathers (nay you have not so much) for this Negative Doctrine; which upon that account prove nothing, because they are as dark for your sense, as the Doctrine is, which you would prove by them. 5. For example. You may allege some passages out of S. Austin, chief that contra Adimant. C. 12. Our Lord doubted not to say, This is my body when he gave à sign of his body. The obvious sense whereof without torturing the Text, is thus. Our Lord gave unto his Disciples the Consecrated species and accidents of bread, which were à sign of his Body there contained, and doubted not to say, that what he gave them under those accidents, was really his body. Let now any one probably infer, that his S. Austin's words favour not Sectaries. sacred body was not then present under the accidents of bread, because S. Austin saith those accidents were à sign of his body not absent, for à sign or figure implies not the absence of the thing signified by it. Well, but grant contrary to truth all you can wish, The words at most are ambiguous, and therefore no fit Principle to ground an article of faith, as is now noted. You may next allege that known Testimony in Theodoret's Dialogues. 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. I answer, Theodoret plainly speaks of the Mystical signs More of Theodoret afterward. which are seen and touched, not of the inward substance of bread and wine, which are no immediate object of our senses, those signs recede not from their nature, but remain in their form and figure as before; and 'tis Catholic Doctrine whereof more presently. But grant the utmost. The words are only dubious and therefore insufficient to assure us of an article of Faith, when contrary to the received Doctrine of the present Church. I assert yet more. Though any Father should say, That the substance and nature of bread and wine cease not to be, there is nothing yet concluded against us, for by these words substance or nature, the outward Massiness, or Corpulency of bread and wine may be well understood, which as Theodoret says remain. The reason is. In ordinary Speech we often give to qualities which flow from the essence or nature of à thing the very name of the thing itself. Thus we say an excessive heat is fire, à Massy heaviness is lead, or à stone, whereas heat and heaviness in common philosophy, are only natural qualities or properties distinct from each substance, respectively. Such locutions, were they found, are at most dubious, but we stand in no need of any farfetched glosses. 6. Lastly Tertullias speech lib. 4. contra Marcio: cap. 39 ex Cap. 21. Lucae contain's no difficulty. Christ taking bread into his hands and distributing it to his Disciples made the same his body, Tertullia's sense, most plain and easy. saying this is my Body; That is, à figure of my body. Observe the words. Made the same his body, and all is clear? What did he make so? I answer. That bread which in the old Testament was à figure of his body (according to the words of the Prophet. Mittamus lignum in panem eius. Let us put wood into his bread, that is à Cross into his body) he makes now in the new law most truly and really his body. Whoever read's Tertullian, will find this to be the genuine sense of his whole Discourse in the place cited, where first he ieer's Martion. Faciebat ad vanitatem Marcionis ut panis Crucifigeretur, Then says, Martion understands not, that bread in the old Testament was à figure of Christ's body, as the Prophet jerimie speaks. Conijciamus lignum in panem eius, scilicet, (They are Tertullian's own words) Crucem in Corpus eius. That is à Cross into his body. See Pamelius his learned notes upon this passage, chief. n. 662. and. 667. and you will easily free Tertullian from all ambiguity in Speech. There are yet other Authorities much weaker produced by Sectaries, but these now quoted seem sufficient for my chief aim, whereof more presently. In the interim I expect from these men à clamorous reply. 7. They will certainly tell us the sense and explication now given to these Fathers are no more but mere vnproued guesses, or A reply of sectaries. answered. thoughts of our fancy. I might first answer. This sense immediately flows from the plain words which we admit, according to the rigid grammatical signification of every particular sentence. But let us wave this, and ask, whether the contrary sense of sectaries be any more but merely their vnproued glosses, or thoughts of fancy? I say they are so, and consequently as dark, and wholly obscure, as that Negative Proposition is, which should be proved by them. They storm, and say the sense is clear for them, I stiffly deny it, and assert the conttary. They perhaps will urge me to prove my sense; I urge them to prove theirs, which cannot be done by the Fathers own words without à surer Principle; For, you see, the words occasion the quarrel, but that which is the cause of our dissensions can never end them, or bring us to any acquiescency, without à further Principle. And thus we stand Andabatarum more, winking and fight. The one says. Yea, The other. No. without fruit or further progress, and are yet far from ending difficulties. 8. Now here is that which I would have all to reflect on, for it is of mighty importance, viz. That controversies between the A reflection necessary for all that writ Controversies. Catholic and à sectary, cannot but be an endless work, if both endeavour to decide them by Principles, and vary as much about the sense of those Principles, (which are supposed to end the Dispute) as we do about the very matter in question. This is ever so, whilst the sectary reiect's an infallible Church or her universal Tradition. Observe well: The matter now in question is, Whether Christ be really present in the blessed Sacrament? We allege his own Sacred words. The Sectary says we mistake the sense, and consequently will not have the difficulty decided that way. To know the Truth, both of us examine all the other passages in Scripture relating to the Mystery, both read the originals, and the different versions, both compare Text and text together, nothing is yet ended; Still we stand at variance about the sense, which should decide matters between us. Next we read the Holy Fathers (for our Sectaries like not Tradition) they produce their How Disputes are made endless. Testimonies; we interpret. We produce ours; They also interpret. Observe well I say. Are we not as much at variance about the sense of these Fathers, which are supposed à Principle to end our debates, as about the very meaning of God's word? And doth not the matter in question still remain undecided? Most evidently yes. Therefore, unless some other means be afforded whereby we may come more easily to the knowledge and belief of the revealed truth in this Mystery, (may Sectaries glosses have place) all are cast into à labyrinth of seeking, without hope of finding what God will have us to believe. In à word the plain truth is thus. 9 Sectaries will have us to dispute of Religion, but on such Terms as shall be sure never to end one difficulty. That is, they will have us to reason about matters of highest consequence, and with it destroy the best ground of all reasoning. I say therefore. If Religion were to be proved by Scripture only (add to Scripture the authorities of Fathers) when every one makes that sense of scripture orthodox, which he conceives to be so; Religion ere this day had been long since destroyed. For the Arian would have his sense pass for truth, The Pelagian his, The Monothelite his, The Protestant his. All these different senses admitted, destroy the very Essentials of Christian Religion. And for this reason I would fain learn of any knowing man, What that owned Principle is, whereby the Sectary proves the sense he gives of Scripture to be more certainly à revealed Truth, than that gloss is which either Arian or Pelagian forceth out of the very book which Protestants read? I assert boldly, they are all alike: Guesses and mere fancies guide A just parallel between Arians and Protestants. them, and nothing else. The Arians sense is not clear, no more is the Protestants: The Arian has no universal Tradition for his sense, no more hath the Protestant. The Arian has no universal consent of Fathers, no more has the Protestant. The Arian has no Church ever reputed Orthodox which owned his sense, no more hath the Protestant. Now if the Protestant recur to the Primitive Church, The Arian will go higher to the very Apostles preaching, and avouch that his sense was taught by those first Masters of the Gospel. I say it once more, they are all alike, there is no difference between them. The Arians gloss is as good as the Protestants, and the Protestants wholly as bad as the Arians▪ 10. Hence I say. 2. The Protestant cannot advance any thing like à proof in behalf of his own new opinions, and he is as far from Principles, when he opposes Catholic Doctrine. You have the reason given already. No proof, less sure than the true sense of Scripture, taught and delivered by à Church confessedly orthodox. No proof, less firm than that Church's authority and her received Tradition, can indubitably ascertain any of Christ's Sacred Doctrine. But it is evident Protestants want such proofs, when they either plead for their own opinions, or impugn Catholic Protestants Condemned by their own writings. Doctrine, And to make good what I say, I appeal to their own writings and ask every judicious Reader, whether he ever yet heard Protestant whilst he asserts no Transubstantiation, (for example) No Sacrifice of the Mass no Invocation of Saints, say plainly and positively upon à solid ground: Such an ancient Church reputed Orthodox confessedly denied Transubstantiation, Invocation of saints, the Sacrifice of the Altar & c? Such à passage of Scripture sensed and interpreted by that Orthodox Church, or general consent of Fathers agreeing with known Scripture and Church Doctrine, decried these In what manner Sectaries handle controversies. Catholic Tenets, as we Sectaries do now? Has ever Protestant I say, gone thus plainly to work? No God knows. I'll highly extol the man that shall offer at it. What then is their strain of writing. All à long à mere cheat. They either argue negatively. We find not, forsooth, Such Doctrines in antiquity (which is false) and, though true, 'tis to no purpose; Or, they cite you two or three ambiguous Testimonies of the Fathers, gloss, and sense them as they please, and then cry victory. Thus Mr: Stil●ingfleet proceeds as you shall see presently. I say, No such mat●er. An ambiguous Testimony of à Father glossed or sensed by ●ou, is wholly insufficient to ground faith upon, or to assert ab●lutely: This is Christ's Doctrine, without an ancient Orthodox Church, which indubitably maintaineed the Position and that ●nse you would draw from à Father. And mark well what I say, ●or we shall afterwards end all controversies by it. In the mean ●me who is there so far from reason, that can persuade himself, ●t I or any aught to reject what my Church teaches, because à Sectary offer's to draw some few Fathers to à new sense which no Orthodox Church ever heard of? When all know, or should know, that no private man's opinion, no doubtful Text, much less Sectaries glosses added to an ambiguous sentence, can assure me what Christ's Doctrine is, which, as I said, ever stands firm upon undubitable Principles, or à Believer ought not to own it as Doctrine truly revealed. 11. But before I press this point further, and show upon what certain Principle the Catholic relies, when the Scriptures sense (the like is of the Fathers) is debated, I must needs entertain you à little (because it much auails to my present purpose) with à few known Authorities of Fathers which either convince our Catholic Doctrine of Christ's real Presence in the Eucharist, or (we may boldly say) no truth was ever established by those great lights of the Church. I say only à few: for it is not my intent to collect half of what is usually quoted by Catholic Authors, my chief What is chief intended in Citing the Fathers. aim being thus much at present, to make this truth manifest. That as long as Sectaries jar with us about the sense of Fathers and only deliver opinatively their contrary Sentiments, so long they do no more, but without fruit beat the air and dispatch no work. Recourse therefore must be had to à clearer Principle, whereof we shall afterward treat at large. Now as I promised one Authority is to be examined. Theoderets Testimony alleged above, Contains most Catholic Doctrine. 12. Whilst I was in hand with this Chapter à Gentleman ● our Nation pleased to tell me of à late little book, called to h● remembtance, The Rule of Faith, wherein one passage of Theoder● is much urged and thought unanswerable. After some Discourse I shown him my notes in the other Treatise. Disc. 4. C. 7. n. ● whereunto He replied modestly, Surely Theodoret says mor● who either must suppose the very inward substance of bread ● changed at all, or his Conference with the Eutichian Heretic becomes What Sectaries would force from this authority. forceless, and this the little book presseth most. Sir, said I. It seems very strange, that your late book bring's again to light such stolen objections, long since answered by one (to say nothing of many others) of our own Nation, the learned Brereley. Please to read with me Theoderet's own words first, and Brereley afterward. We turned to Theodoret, Paris Print 1642. Tom. 4. Dialog: 2. called Inconfusus Dialogus, and began with the pag. 84. Next I produced Brereley of the Liturgy of the Mass Colain Print 1620. dedicated to our late Sovereign Charles the first, than Prince of wales. Tract. 2. Sect. 8. P. 208. and sect: 11. page chief. 252. Having perused both, the Gentleman wondered his little book passed over so slightly the main thing considerable in this Dialogue, and that no word of answer was returned to the observations of Mr. Brereley, adding, it would do well to make the truth à little better known, which is my intent at present. 13. First, it cannot be doubted, but that the Eutychian Two Contrary positions. Heretic concealed under the name of Eranistes, held our Lords whole Sacred body after his Ascension changed into his Divinity. Contrariwise, Theodoret called, Orthodoxus, oppugn's the Heresy, and saith, Christ's body remains as it was before, true humane nature most glorious, and not converted into the Divinity. Again, all who have read the Dialogue know well, that the context to our present purpose is as follows. After the Orthodox had professed his belief of the Holy Eucharist to be the true body and blood of Christ, Eranistes the Heretic begins his plea. In good time hast thou mentioned these Divine Mysteries, for from them I will show Where the Heretics seek's advantage. thee, that our Lord's body is changed into an other nature. Answer therefore to my question? Ortho. I will answer. Eran: How call'st thou that which is offered before the invocation of the Priest? Ortho: I may not speak plainly, for it is likely some are present, not yet admitted to the Mysteries. Eran: Answer darkly or enigmatically. Ortho: It is yet, when offered, that meat which is made up of such seeds. Eran: And how do we call the other sign or Symbol? Ortho: That is also à common name, which signifies à kind of drink, or cup. Eran: But after the Sanctification how dost thou call them? Ortho: The body and blood of Christ. Eran: And dost thou believe that th●● What the Orthodox and the Heretic believed. receiuesed the body and blood of Christ. Ortho: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So I believe, Here upon Eranistes infers. As therefore the Symbols of our Lord's body and blood are one thing before the Priest's invocation, and after his invocation are changed, and made other things, even so the Lords body is changed into the Divine substance. 14. Stay à little, Gentle Reader, and speak your thoughts freely. Is it not evident from this part of the Dialogue (the rest you shall have presently) that both the Heretic and the Orthodox did here suppose the verity of Christ's real presence in the sacrament, as à known Doctrine received in the Church? The Heretic supposed it; otherwise he had been more than senseless to have proved his pretended Transubstantiation of Christ's humane nature into the Godhead, by urging à parity taken from that other Doctrine of the Transubstantiation of bread, into Christ's body. His inference had been without life most languishing, had he drawn the false Doctrine of his conceited change, from an other as false. viz. From no real change made in the bread after consecration. For how lame an inference would this have been? Bread in the Sacrament remain's, as it was before, substantially bread, only deputed to à holy use, that is, not really change● The Heretic supposes à true Change in bread, according to the Catholic Principle. at all, yet from thence I will conclude, that Christ's humane nature is really changed into the substance of his Divinity. As who should say. Because bread is not substantially changed into Christ's body, I will infer that the humane nature is changed into the Godhead, which is pure nonsense. And as gre● Nonsense would it have been, had he only supposed the extrinsid sacramental change of Protestants or from thence drawn his inference, that Christ's body was really changed into his Divinity: For the most which can be inferred out of this sacramental chang● only, is that Christ's humane nature admit's in like manner o● some new extrinsical denomination. 15. Now that Theodoret or the Orthodox supposes also the known Doctrine of the Church in this Mystery is manifest upon these grounds. 1. You see how he was provoked by the Heretic to deny the real presence and change of bread into Christ's body. After sanctification how dost thou call them? Again. Dost thou believe that thou takes the body and blood of Christ & c? Observe I beseech you. Might not Theodoret thus strongly pressed, have quite overthrown his Adversary's argument, had he believed as Protestants believe, that the inward substance of bread is not changed into Christ's body? For upon this supposition he should have replied. Thou ask'st me what these things are after sanctification? I answer they are substantially bread Theodoret also supposes à real change. and wine, though signs of Christ's body and blood. I answer, I take not Orally the true body and blood of Christ, but bread and wine only made à Sacrament. If therefore they still remain bread, and wine as before, I acquit myself clearly, and render thy argument forceless, for thou canst not infer, because I and the Church hold bread and wine, not substantially changed in the Sacrament, That Christ's humane nature is really and substantially changed into the Divinity. But Theodoret, as you hear, returns no such answer, but positively asserts the contrary plainly enough. They are the body and blood of Christ. I receive that body and blood. etc. Though he warily forbears to express the change too significantly, because perhaps of some present, not yet admitted to the Mysteries. Again. And here is my. 2. ground. Theodoret who was an Orthodox Father, penned this Dialogue, and therefore as the learned Brereley observes, neither could nor would have propounded Clear reasons prove that supposition. the heretic's Argument upon the Churches then received Doctrine of Transubstantiation, (which we see manifestly done) had that Doctrine been then strange, unknown, or reputed false. Much less could he have wrote as he doth. That the Symbols after the Priest's invocation are changed and made other things had our Sectaries Doctrine of no Transubstantiation been then taught by the Church and reputed true. 3. Theoderet's great circumspection was needless. I may not speak openly, for it is likely some are present etc. If he had believed no other presence of Christ in the Sacrament, than that, which Protestants call Sacramental: He might well without scruple in that opinion, have declared their sense, and said openly. The Sacrament before consecration was à plain piece of bread, and so it is substantially bread afterward. Thou speakest improperly Er●nistes, whilst thou supposest the Symbols changed and made other things. I tell thee, they are not changed intrinsically, but totally remain in their inward substance as they were, only signifying Christ body and blood as they are deputed to à holy use. Thus the Orthodox should have both answered, and excepted against his Adversary, had Protestant Doctrine been in those days owned by Christians, but he goes on in à quite different strain, as is already declared. Hence I say, this part of the Dialogue is so invincible à proof against Protestants in behalf The Centurist's Censure Theodoret. of the real Presence that it cannot be answered, and therefore the Centurist's with other Heretics quoted by Brereley. pag. 111. and pag. 258. having charged S. Chrisostome with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, censure Theodoret upon the same score as one that speaks dangerously in the matter. These men it seems, saw no great force in the later part of the Dialogue which our modern Protestants so much urge, and follows thus. 16. When Eranistes had asserted that the Symbols by the invocation of the Priest are changed and made other things, and from that change inferred, that our Lord's body after his Ascension, was converted into the Divine substance. The Orthodox Answer's. Thou art caught in the nets, thou hast woven, Theodoret's Assertion. For, the Mystical symbols after Sanctification go not away from their nature▪ For, they remain in their former essence, and figure, and form, and ●●y be seen and touched a● before. But yet they are understood to be those things, which they are made, and believed and adored to be those things, as they are believed. Thus the Latin interpreter renders Theoderet's words (you shall have presently an other Lection) though truly to read them as you see here, after due reflection made upon the precedent part of the Dialogue, is so fully enough to ascertain every one of this learned Father's meaning, that I wonder any judicious Man can scruple at it. The genuine sense is. Thou Eranistes maintain's that the visible circumscribed body of our His whole sense declared. Saviour was after his Ascension swallowed as it were up, or totally changed into his Godhead. To illustrate this thy Doctrine, thou takest à proof from the Mystical signs or Symbols of the blessed Sacrament, and not only from the inward substance of bread, which thou acknowledgest changed. I tell thee thou art caught in thy own net, the parity fails there, for the Mystical signs remain to sense as before in the same exterior form and substance, they are seen, felt etc. Darest thou Eranistes say, Christ's sacred body retain's yet the same exterior form it had on earth? Has it yet in Heaven the same dimensions, as these symbols have after Consecration? Is it visible, or extended? Answer as thou pleasest. Here is an unanswerable Dilemma for thee. Either thou maintainsed that A dilemma. Chris'ts glorious body is now visible and extended as the Symbols of the Sacrament are, Or, contrariwise, not sensible, not seen, not extended. Grant the first: Thou deniesed thy own Doctrine, and must assert that his whole glorious body is not converted into the Godhead. Grant the second, or say, it has not the same exterior form, the same visibility and extension, Thy instance, and proofs taken from the Symbols of the Sacrament, are Eo ipso made null, and forceless, for these signs keep the same form as before, they are perceptible to sense, extended etc. and thus thou art both caught and convinced. 17. By what is now said you find Theoderet's discourse most solid against the Heretic, who would needs infer, grounding himself upon the change made in the Sacrament, that Christ's whole humane nature was converted into the Divinity. Thus much saith Theodoret, is evidently false, for these Symbols remain in their exterior form, unaltered, but Chris'ts humane body with thee remains not so, for all in it, the very exterior is changed into the Godhead: Therefore thy proof, taken from the symbols Theodoret only speaks of the Species or accidents remaining. of the Sacrament, not changed at all, is void of strength, faint, and weightless. Now that Theodoret speaks only of the outward symbols of the Sacrament, is manifest. First by what is noted already, where he saith we are partakers of the true body and blood of Christ. 2. By his answer, to the Heretic, where he openly professeth, that though these symbols are seen and handled as before, yet to the understanding, and Faith, they contain the things we truly believe. That is Christ's real body and blood. And thus much He proves in the following words where he asserts, that they are to be adored no otherwise than Christ's immortal body is now adored, sitting at the right hand of His Father, for in both places, as you may read in the text, the same word of Divine honour is referred to Christ in the Sacrament, and now glorious in heaven. 18. You must here have à word of the other Lection already hinted at which clears all, and takes away the least shadow of à difficulty. The most eminent and learned Cardinal Perron propound's it, and proves it also absolutely the best, by six strong Arguments Liu. 2. De L'Eucharistie Chap. 12. P. 539. First Theodoret's Text, dubious▪ saith he There is certainly in Theoderet's Greek Text à dubious form of speaking, perhaps used on set purpose because of some Auditors present, not yet initiated, or first instructed in these Mysteries. The Original words are thus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. That is. The symbols remain in their former essence, and figure, and form and may be seen etc. But read them thus saith the Cardinal, by à Transposition. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. That is For they remain, and, i● the form, and, in the figure of the first substance, and all difficulty How the Cardinal read's. ceases. For by this construction Theodoret only says, the accidents or species of bread and wine remain, intimating nothing at all of any inward substance of bread remaining, nay, his whole context supposes the inward substances changed into Christ's body. 19 If this Construction be admitted, so that the Genitive case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, be as it is à Genitive, and the other two follow in form of Latin ablatives, you have this Connatural sense. Manent in pri●●● essentiae & formâ & figurâ. The Symbols remain in the form and figure of their first essence, which preiudices nothing the real Transmutation of bread into Christ's body, but much confirms it. But such à Construction, adds the learned Cardinal, or Transposition of words is not only possible, but very frequent in the Greek Language, whereof he gives examples, and one out of Theodoret. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is. The body of our Lord of the nature. In lieu of saying. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. id, est. The body of the nature of our Lord. 20. The Cardinal maintain's the construction now given both as the more elegant, and most agreeable to Theoderet's whole context, for many sound reasons. Here is one taken from the Authors very next words. But they are understood to be those things which they are made, and believed and adored. How Adored? As they are truly believed: That is, as containing the true body and The reason why he read's so. blood of Christ. For were this not really so, Christ could not be adored. For as none can adore one that merely takes upon him the Majesty of à King, who is not; with an Adoration due to that Majesty, so none can honour or adore Christ in the Eucharist with an honour due to Christ, when truly and really he is not present, but saith Theodoret Christ is to be really adored in the Eucharist, and Consequently he is really present there. 21. For the rest I remit the Reader to C. Perron who in the following Chapters dissolves, and most clearly, what ever can be objected against his Doctrine. To end this point, be pleased to reflect upon this one particular. Had Theodoret said. The Symbols remain in their first essence, figure, and form, and included in that very speech, as our Adversaries will have the One reflection more. very substance of bread, He had spoken most improperly which ill beseem's so learned an Author, for upon this supposition he speaks as incongruously as if one should say. Peter this very hour who is himself both Soul and body, remains in himself, that is, The Cardinals reading clears all. in his Soul and body. But if you read with the Cardinal Thus. Car ils demeurent, & en lae form, & en la figure de la premiere substance. They remain and in the form, and in the figure, of the first substance of bread (before Consecration really form and figured by them) the Construction is good, the sense most clear, perfect, and without exception. 22. Thus much I have noted to satisfy the Gentleman, and hope never to hear Theodoret objected hereafter against Transubstantiation. If I do, I shall say an old observation of mine always proves true, and 'tis, That the best Arguments of Sectaries, Printed and reprinted in their little books, are like old threadbare garments quite out of fashion cast off and rejected, I mean, answered over and over by Catholic Authors, yet Brushed up, must appear as new. And this, less blamable, may pass (for they can do no better,) but methinks it is intolerable, that they bring again to light such worn-out stuff, as you see now done in this particular, and dare not inform the Reader, how often it hath been torn à pieces. Yet the worst of all remain's; Viz. That they build their faith upon sand, one dubious Authority of à Father (if yet dubious) supports it, and seems to these new spirits ground enough, to foment Schism, to maintain à rebellion against as ancient Church, which never believed as they do. CHAP. XII. A Digression concerning the Real Presence. The Fathers plainly assert it. Sectaries glosses frivolous. The agreement of the Church and Fathers make à Doctrine indubitable. The Catholick's certain Principle. A word with Mr: Stillingfleet 1. BEfore we produce these Testimonies and lay open Mr: Stillingfleet's Mistakes, turn I beseech you to his Account of Protestancy. Part. 3. c. 3. page. 567. Where he treats of Transubstantiation and calls it an unreasonable Doctrine because repugnant to sense and reason also. It seems contrary to sense, for sense tells us, what we see and taste is bread after consecration; and reason upon that sensible suggestion, aught to conclude, it still remains substantially bread. Observe I beseech you, how the Gentleman to maintain his proofs drawn from sense, is not only forced to reject the plain sense of Christ's words according to the letter. (This is my body which is given for you: This is the Chalice of the new Testament, which is, or shall be shed for you) But more Mr Stilling: quarrel's with all Christians, except à ferr Protestants. over, how he is thrown into à desperate quarrel wherein he will never come off handsomely; For, he is engaged to make not only the Professors of the Roman and Greek Church, who indubitably believe the Real presence, more than stupid (because opposite to that he calls sense and reason) but besides, He contrast's with à far greater moral body of Christians; I may rightly style it the Representative of all named Christians in the world, excepting à few Protestants. I'll show you how. At this day there are in that famous Temple of Jerusalem dedicated to the Holy Cross (called the Church of the Sepulchre) Catholics, Grecians, Abyssins' (those most ancient Christians) Syrians, Maronits', Georgians, and others. All have their Altars in one and the same Church, and all (though different in some Doctrinal points, and Ceremonies) unanimously believe à true unbloody Sacrifice, and with it the real presence of Christ, after Consecration. No modern sectaries have place here witness Prince Radzivill in his jerosoly Peregrin. Antwerp Print 1614 Pag. 109. Nay, they are so meanly thought of, that when the Prince named Lutherans, Zwinglians &c. The party he conversed with, demanded whether they were Christians. What Christians said he? and have no Priest, no Altar no sacrifice offerred up to god in this sacred place, where Christ wrought our redemption? you may see more hereof in the following page of this Author. In the mean while shall any say that à Representative, of so many Christians are to be deemed fools upon this account that they contradict sense and reason? It is so vast à Paradox, that though Mr: Stillings: should write volumes on this subject, He would never speak à probable word against such à cloud of witnesses. You may add hereunto if you please, those many Christians converted to our The Chineses difficulty. Catholic Faith in that vast Kingdom of China (à People, the whole world knows most ingenious) All of them, as I have heard from two worthy men, à long time Missioners there (the one is yet living) who reclaimed many from their errors, raise most difficulties before their conversion against that one Mystery of our Faith, the Incarnation of the Divine word, but after satisfaction received in this particular, they submit easily to the belief of other Catholic verities, and never Scruple in the least at the Mystery of the Eucharist, as à Doctrine Contrary to sense and reason. And they proceed most rationally, for in real truth, there are incomparably Most Concerns the Incornation. greater difficulties in this one Mystery of the Incarnation, to say nothing of the Trinity, (might weak reason decide the case) than in the other. What? That God who is essentially immutable becomes man by à union betwixt the Divine word and humane nature, which union toucheth so intrinsically on that Divine Person, that we must truly say, This word is now intrinsically affected otherwise then he was before; and to conceive all this done without à real change (may the Common notion of mutation stand. Mutari est rem aliter se habere) is à difficulty so great, (say good Divins) that it hath racked many à strong wit, and yet can scarce be well solued. Vtramque enim Substantiam in unam convenisse personam. etc. (They are words of S. Leo Sermo. 9 de Natiu. Dmi) nisi fides credat, sermo non explicat. That is the Mystery is very abstruse. I verily believe Mr Stilling: Metaphysic will not reach so high as to give fall satisfaction herein, though he is pleased to plead evidence drawn from sense and reason against the B. Sacrament, as if forsooth, the full portion of both, were like à legacy Mr stillingfleet argues Improbably. bequeathed him and à few Sectaries, whilst so many Fathers, so many Schoolmen, so many profound Doctors of our renowned Church, must have no small share allowed in either, but are as you see censured like men senseless, and unreasonable 2. Say, I beseech you. Who can persuade himself that those three worthy eminent Cardinals, Bellarmin, Perron, and Richelieu (all have writ on this subject, and are famous the whole world over for their great wisdom and learning) who dare, I say, without à measureless audacity, cast these (could we urge no more) into the Catalogue of dull, senseless, and unreasonable men? None would have ventured on such à vast improbability but one who either knows not, or cares not what he says. Now add to these the consent and acknowledgement of the whole Orthodox world, you may justly say, it is much harder; or there is more violence offered to man's understanding in conceiving, that God who is essential Verity (and therefore inclined to preserve the Church he founded in truth) should permit all those millions of Christians who have believed the Real presence, to be so long deceived in their Faith; than to submit upon so great authority, to the very mystery we believe. Reason more racked, by denying, then believing the Mystery. For by submitting to the mystery, we proceed rationally, and prudently judge, that an infinite power can do more than our weak capacities reach unto; but if we say, his Goodness hath permitted the Church to be seduced by à gross error age after age, or that so many Christians have been cheated into à false belief of so high à Mystery; we force our understandings more, we clash with an evident Principle, and must assert, that God has no care of his Church, or of man's salvation. The blame therefore if we be in error, would at last redound to God, as I shall amply prove in the next Discourse. 3. Thus much noted, Let us look à little into the strength of Mr Stillingf: weak argument, which must run thus. What I see seems, or is bread to the Eye and taste, yet 'tis not bread but Christ's sacred body, therefore the Mystery is contrary to sense. One distinction overthrows this lame discourse. I answer in à word. What I see seems, or is the inward substance of bread, I deny it, What I see seems, yea really is, the outward accidents or species of bread, I grant that. Therefore the Mystery is contrary to sense, I deny the consequence. The Argument purely fallacious supposeth Our Adversary's fallacy, solued. the immediate object of our sense to be the inward substance of bread, which yet as every Puny knows is not so in common Philosophy, for the immediate object of the Eye is colour or light, and so much remain's after consecration, as well as other accidents do, but these sensible objects are in known Philosophy distinct from the inward substance of bread, which is not immediately visible, tangible, or tastable. Mr Stilling: therefore gain little by this dreaming way of arguing. Now à word to his plea of Reason. 4. He may say. Reason tell's me there is bread still after consecration. Why so? surely the answer must be, because sense upon the discovery of its immediate objects, colour, quantity etc. induceth reason to conclude there is bread under these accidents. I answer. Reason thus far would well conclude, were it not that à stronger Principle enters here, which overawes (as it were) weak reason and bids it yield. Pray you tell me. Did not sense and reason also, assure Christ's Disciples Matth: 14. before S. Peter was seen walking on the water, that, that liquid substance could not bear up à weighty body without sinking? yes most assuredly: yet they saw him walk, and reason following the guidance of their eyes checked that other natural discourse, and acknowledged à Miracle. And thus weak reason must yield in the present Mystery when à Strong Principles where upon our Faith relies. stronger Principle interuen's, and forceth it to submit. Thanks be to God. Habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem. 1. Petr. 2. we have yet à stronger Principle to up hold our cause than weak discourse is, The spirit of eternal truth. The express words of Christ which the wit of man shall never draw to any other sense, but what we Catholics own. 2. The constant professed Doctrine of the two Churches, Greek and Latin, yea, and I say more, of all other called Christians, as is now declared. 3. Might we here introduce the known Testimonies of most ancient Fathers, They are so numerous, and so fully significant, that would à Catholic study to set down the truth of this Doctrine, he cannot do it in clearer language. 5. Good God saith S. chrysostom. lib. 3. de Sacerd: Cap. 4. What à wonderful miracle is this? how great is God's love towards mankind? Behold who sitreth above with his Father, in one and the same moment of time is touched by the hands of us all, and giveth himself to such as are desirous to receive and embrace him. Theophilact c. 4. in 26. Matth. Bread is transelemented or transformed by an ineffable operation, The ancient Fathers speak in our behalf. although to us it seems bread. Because we are weak and have horror to eat raw flesh, especially the flesh of man, for this reason bread appears, but in the essence and substance it is not bread. Again, Christ said not, this is à figure, but this is my body, for by an ineffable operation, bread is changed etc. Indeed it appears Bread, but it is really flesh. Yet more. How often do the Fathers, S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Chrisostome and others exhort us not to come unto the Eucharist as unto simple bread and wine, for say they, it is the body and blood of Christ according to our Lord's affirmation. Although sense suggest the Contrary, yet let faith confirm thee. judge not of the thing by thy taste etc. Again. know this and with full certitude believe, that the bread seen is not bread, though it seems so to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that wine seen is not wine, though taste judge it to be wine, but the blood of Christ. Though, saith S. Chrisostome, what we see, seems to our sense and thinking to be bread, Let Gods saying (This is my body) Master our sense and reason. Let us do this in all things especially in the Mysteries, not regarding alone the things, which lie before us, but holding fast to his words, For by his words we cannot be-cousened, our senses may be deceived, his words cannot be untrue, our sense is often time beguiled etc. Thus these Fathers known to every one (to omit in numerable others) speak and believe, thus the Church of Christ speaks and believes also, and both as you see, stand opposite to Mr Stilling: weak plea drawn from Sense and Reason. 6. I might yet cite S. Chrisostome. In. 1. Cor: hom: 24. Other Authorities. Chrisostom. Pachasius Damascan. who saith. The kingly body in heaven, is set before us on earth. We touch it, and do not only touch it, but eat it. This body, the barbarous Magis after à long journey adored with fear and trembling. Thou (adds the Saint) See'st him not now in the manger, but on the Altar, not held in à woman's arms, but by à Priest present etc. Therefore in his Oration of S. Perhilg: he explain's himself further. Truly, this table supplies the place of the manger, for here also is our Lord's body laid. Paschasius à latin author, who lived about the year 800. is so express for the real Presence ànd Transubstantiation in his book De Corp. & Sanguine Dm'i. that the Centurist's Cent. 9 C. 4. Col. 215. Praetorius de Sacramen: Pag: 288. and other Sectaries, charge him with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and oral eating of Christ's body. No less plain and express is S. john Damascen. lib. 4. Ortho. Fid.: whose discourse on this subject though long, is most significant. As bread, saith he, naturally meat, and wine, and water by drink▪ are changed into the body and blood of him that eats and drink's. So this bread proposed, the wine and water also by the invocation and coming of the Holy Ghost, are in à miraculous manner converted into Christ's body and blood, neither are they two, but one, and the same. Our Lord himself hath said. This is not à sign of my body, but my body. This is not à sign of my blood, but my blood. Hence Praetorius now cited P. 288. rejects the Doctrine, and calls this miraculous Transubstantiation held by S. john Damascen slight and fabulous, sodo other Sectaries with him also. 7. There are yet more ancient authorities most pressing to our purpose, were it not Actum agere to say again what has been so often The Testimony of S. Ignatius Martyr, clear. noted. First the Testimony of S. Ignatius Martyr who lived with our Saviour and was Scholar to S. john, seems to me unanswerable. Epist. ad Smirnen: not far from the beginning. They, saith he (that is certain Sacramentarians) admit not Eucharists, and oblations, because they do not Confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins, and his Father graciously raised from the dead. So Theodoret, 12. ages since. Tom. 4. Dialogo. 3. reads. And jaac Vossius who follows the Florentine Copy, differs little, or rather nothing at all. None can reasonably call the Epistle into doubt which Vossius places before the other Epistles and the sense as you see is most clear. 8. The second authority as pregnant, is taken out of S. justin Martyr in his Apology for Christians, usually called the 2. S. Iustin's also most significant. Apology, Paris print 1615. Towards the end at those words. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. For we take not this Eucharist as common bread and common drink, but as jesus Christ our Saviour by the word of God was made flesh, and haed for our salvation flesh and blood; so also after the same manner, we are taught, that the food which by the prayer of the word is by him consecrated with thanksgiving, of which food our flesh and blood are by transmutation nourished, is the flesh and blood of that jesus Christ which was Incarnate. And for proof hereof, he allegeth Christ's own words. This is my body. This is my blood. Thus S. justin speaks who lived not long after the Apostles about the year 150. and nothing can be more express in behalf of Catholic Doctrine. I know some Sectaries Cavil at the expression. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. by transmutation, The sectaries Cavil, answered. and think justin held the Eucharist to be food for the body, but his sense is clear, for he saith only, That the same food which nourishes our bodies by real transmutation, is made after consecration the very body of Christ, and therefore Gaspar Laurentius à learned Caluinist in his Orthodoxus Consensus. Pag: 368. translates justins S. Iustin's true sense. words out of the Greek thus. Sumimus autem hunc panem & hunc potum non ut Communem, sed eo modo quo edocti sumus, jesum Christum seruatorem nostrum, habuisse pro salute nostra, carnem & sanguinem: sic etiam cibum illum ex quo nostra Caro & sanguis aluntur, post benedictionem ipsius, esse carnem & sanguinem Domini. That is in plain English. The bread or food which naturally nourishes our bodies is by virtue of Consecration made the sacred body of our Incarnate Saviour. Conformable hereunto, Gelenius also quoted in the Annotations upon S. Irenaeus adversus Haereses lib. 4. C. 24. n. 26. renders S. justins' words. Sic per verbum precationis & gratiarum actionis, sacratam ab ipso alimoniam, quae mutata, nutrit nostras carnes & sanguinem, Illius Incarnati jesu carnem & sanguinem esse didicimus. The Interpreter also I follow, significantly renders the same sense. Alimoniam, unde etc. The food from whence, from which, or where with, we are nourished, this very aliment is by Consecration made the body of our Incarnate jesus. Well, but admit that justine calls the Eucharist nourishment to our bodies, How some Fathers call the Eucharist Nourishment to the body. he makes it not therefore Corporal food, but Spiritual, which nourishes them to à joyful resurrection or to immortality, and thus the other Fathers, chief S. Irenaeus now cited c. 24. versus finem speaks. Quomodo, saith he, rursus dicunt & c? How do these Heretics plead again, that our flesh shall come to corruption, and not take life from the body and blood of our Lord, where with it is nourished? Again. Sic & corpora nostra etc. and thus our bodies receiving the Eucharist, are not corruptible, having hope of à joyful resurrection. But enough of these authorities. Whoever desires more may peruse Cardinal Perron in his. 2. book of the Holy Eucharist. Out of what is said already, I argue. 9 Either the now quoted Fathers and the Church also, have most impiously betrayed Christ's cause in delivering false Doctrine contrary to sense and reason, or worthily defended à Christian verity; Grant this second, we have our intent. But if Sectaries say these Fathers cheated the world into à false belief, and impiously erred in their expressions: Ponder first, what à frontless impudence accompanies the reply. Next make this true inference. It is impossible, that such à supposed universal error should ever be razed out of A Convincing Argument. the minds of men, by the force of any thing which has the likelihood of à received Principle. For, what proofs or undoubted Principles can possibly outweigh the express words of Scripture, our Tradition, the sentiment of the Church, and the judgement of the Fathers which Sectaries Cannot answer. now alleged? Therefore if we be in error, the wit of man cannot unbeguile us upon rational proofs and Principles. And here I urge Mr Silling: to bring to light his contrary Principles as full and significant (that is, Scripture as clear, Fathers as clear, Tradition as clear, the judgement of some owned Orthodox Church as clear and undoubted) for the opinion he holds, as we now allege in the defence of our Catholic verity, Believe it, if he suppose, as he certainly doth, the Church to have erred so grossly for à thousand years, The Fathers to have beguiled the world with their mistaken and most improper expressions on this subject, when they meant no such thing; He ought to fasten upon sound Principles indeed before we yield; and must not think to overthrew What sectaries are obliged to. our Doctrine or foil us, with à few glean picked here and there out of antiquity, set forth with à hundred false and fancied glosses. Volumes may be filled with such slight stuff, which comes no nearer to Principles, than improbability to Evidence. Will you hear in passing one of his improbabilities? If à man, saith he. P. 567. may be bound to believe that to be false which sense judges to be true (he means which weak reason upon the discovery of sense judges true, for our outward senses make no judgement) What assurance can be had of any Miracles wrought to confirm the Christian Doctrine? A word to our Adversary's strange demand. Or what assurance had the Apostles of Christ's resurrection, if their sight might be deceived about its proper object & c? I am astonished to read this, and answer briefly. Christ's Resurrection, (the like I say of Miracles) was most undoubted upon the discovery which sense and reason made in the presence of such objects, because no contrary Principle, so much as weakly, stood against that evidence, and therefore reason could no more doubt of what was objected to sense, than I now doubt of writing these lines. But all is contrary in the present Mystery. For here the unanswerable words of Scripture, the Authority of my Church, the Clear Testimonies of Fathers, the voice and vote of Christianity force submissions on me to believe the Divine Revelation, which is either certainly known upon these grounds, or we boldly say, no Christian verity was ever yet known upon any sure Principle. What, if sectaries deny Church authority and explicate the Fathers? 10. Perhaps Mr Stilling: may roundly grant, that the Greek and Latin Church erred in this Doctrine of the real presence for many ages, and consequently that innumerable learned Doctors have not only been besotted themselves, but moreover have basely drawn millions of Christians into à damnable heresy of believing that to be Christ's body, which really is not: However, he will honour the Fathers so far, as to afford them the favour of his glosses. Contra 1. If the Church and all Christians erred so vast à time in professing this Doctrine, Mr Stilling: is obliged to name some Church reputed Orthodox. 3. or 4. hundred years past (for then there was à true Church in the world) which held his opinion, or as expressly denied the real Presence, as our Church, both then, and now mantains it, and this will cost him more pains than to writ an other Account of Protestancy, for I am sure there was never any such Church on earth. Contra. 2. If He interpret's the The Church and Fathers speak alike of this Mystery. Fathers, He may as well interpret our Church Doctrine, and make all believe, that we Catholics hold not yet the real presence. Observe the same language in all. That which in seen is not bread, though it seems so to the taste, But the body of Christ. Our sense may be deceived, God's word cannot deceive us. The bread indeed ● made the flesh of Christ, and the wine his blood etc. Thus the Fathers deliver their sense. and it is the Church's language also. If therefore Mr Stilling: can so gloss these words of the Fathers, as to make them speak Protestancy, or not to deliver our Catholic Doctrine, I should not wonder, if in the next book set forth he adventures to draw the very Definitions of the Council of Trent to his Protestant opinion of no real presence. If he did so, I am sure his attempt would prove as unsuccesful in the one case, ● in the other. 11. Well. But permit him to interpret the Fathers, and to fall foul as he is wont to do, upon our supposed Church errors; what is the utmost that follows? Thus much only. Mere talk without Principles. For I ask upon what Principle may I or any know, that his glosses (which strive to dead the very, obvious sense of the Father's plain words) imply not altogether as little satisfaction, as little assurance, as the very Doctrine doth which he would defend by it? If so (and so it is most evidently) as his Doctrine before his glosses was improbable to the rest of Christians, so his interpretations go no higher, but are every whit as improbable. 12. I must therefore tell Mr Stilling: that unless his explanation Sectaries glosses unprincipled, worth Nothing. of Scripture and Fathers rely on à certain Principle distinct from, and extrinsic to his glosses, they are worth nothing. For what auails it me to read his glosses, when no received Principle up▪ holds them but fancy? Reflect à little. I read in Scripture▪ This is my body. My Church tell's me the literal sense is true. The Fathers as you have heard, and the Tradition of two Churche● confirm this sense: Now comes Mr Stillingfleet and first reiects my Church's authority, then gins to strain the Father's Testimonies with his glosses. Stay, Sir, say I. I except against your glosses, and justly ask whether they are true or Counterfeit Coyn● If true, they stand upon Principles now briefly hinted at. Prove this and I'll reverence your glosses, but if you fail (and fail you must) your Doctrine and glosses are both alike Counterfeit, and thoughts of fancy only. 13. He may reply. When Protestants cite, the Fathers against the Real presence, For example, That of S. Austin, or Theodoret mentioned above, we Catholics explicate them, and now (which seems foul play) we except against his Glosses, For, If we interpret, An Objection. why may not He do so also? A word only in passing conformable to what is noted above. If to decide this one Controversy of Christ's Real Presence, recourse be had to the Fathers, and the two adverse Parties do no more but load such Testimonies as are alleged with their private interpretations, the Dispute will never be ended, Because private glosses leave the two Dissenters as much at jars as they were before: God therefore, as I have often said, affords an easier means to know his revealed Truths. Now my Answer to the objection is. The Catholic then only blames the Protestant's wilful interpretation, when it shame fully outfaces, the clear words of à Father, and when the Glosser has no undubitable Principle distinct from his gloss whereon to settle his Doctrine, as he has not in our present Controversy. Observe well. The Fathers say, What we see is not bread, but Christ's very body. The Sectary interpret's. That we see is not common bread indeed, but Christ's body Figuratively or Sacramentally. The Fathers say, it is not figuratively only, but really his body. So Theophilact Answered, and the reason given. and S. john Damascen cited above. Had the Sectary who interpret's thus, an undoubted Revelation for his Gloss, delivered by any Oracle of Truth, Scripture, Traditions or Orthodox Church, there would be good reason to give him hearing, But when we evidently see, that the best and only proof of his Doctrine is no more, but the very gloss he makes, without Further Principles, we justly except against him, and hold such glosses improbable. 14. Now all is contrary with the Catholic who never interpret's any Authority but when 'tis dubious, and if it be so, it neither help's the Sectary, nor hurts the Catholic, and therefore ought In reason to be cast aside as either impertinent, or as weak and forceless in all disputes of Controversies. The fundamental Christ's Doctrine not proved by glosses, or any ambiguous Testimony. Reason already hinted at, is. The true Doctrine of Christ, is not proved by Glosses or any doubtful Testimony, but stands most firm upon known and indubitable Principles (or, if in order to Christians it vows such supports, it cannot pass for Christ's Doctrine). An ambiguous Testimony therefore which seemingly opposes this true Doctrine Certainly Principled, is most impertinently alleged against any Tenet of our known and owned Catholic Faith. 15. Upon this one sole ground now clearly laid forth, I confidently Affirm, all Controversies in Religion might be easily ended, would Sectaries please to lay Prejudice aside, and follow manifest reason. I'll show you how. Writ down first the two contrary Tenants of Catholics and Protestants. Christ is really and substantially present in the Eucharist. Christ is not really and substantially present. Next examine well the Principles whereon these Contrary Doctrines rely or are supposed to rely. The Catholic urgeth first, Christ's plain words. 2. The Authority of his Church and saith, his Church's Doctrine is the very same that Christ words literally taken, express. 3. He ponder's the clear Testimonies of The Catholic Principles: Fathers, and discourses thus. When I find the most significant expressions of Father's consonant to our saviour's plain words, and to the owned Doctrine of my Church, I must assuredly rest on these, as indubitable grounds, or Confess, that There neither is or was ever any Principle for the soundest Article of Christian Faith. Examine next the Sectaries Principles. Has He any words in Scripture as clear as mine, or to this sense? This is not my body, b● à Sign only of it? Evidently No. Has he any Church esteemed Orthodox by the Christian world, which without Controversy taught this Doctrine of à sign only three or 4. ages since? Name Sectaries have none such. such à Church, He will speaks to the purpose. Has he Fathers so numerous, so express and clear, for his Sign and figure only, as the few Testimonies now alleged are in behalf of Catholic Doctrine? If he have let him please to produce them. I'll do no more but lay my Testimonies by them, and if after the perusal, or à just Parallel made of both, All the world judges not those I quote, to be most convincing (may the literal sense stand) and his both dark and ambiguous, I will undergo any Censure. You have heard how loud and express the Testimonies briefly hinted at, and innumerable more are for our Catholic Verity. I challenge Mr Stilling: to Confront them with others as openly significant for his opinion. I verily think he will never go about to do what is desired, but fob us off with kill flies, and no man knows what. 16. In the interim I Argue. I am either obliged to renounce An Argument drawn from our Catholic Principles. the obvious sense of these Authorities which I see evidently Consonant to the words of Scripture, and to the Doctrine of my Church; or, by force of these Proofs am still to believe as I do. Grant this second, I stand on secure ground: But, if I am obliged to renounce the obvious sense of Christ's words, my Church Doctrine, and the expressions of these Fathers etc. Our Adversaries are bound, if à spark of Charity life's in their Hearts, to plead by stronger Principles which may settle me in an absolute Renuntiation of my Doctrine, and withdraw me from the supposed error I live in. Is not this justice and Charity think ye? And is not the Compliance most easy? For, if their Doctrine be Christ's Doctrine, and mine not, Theirs stands, as I now told you, upon clear and indubitable Principles, And Principles of that nature are easily laid forth to every ordinary understanding. Now I subsume: But it is evident, the Sectary hath no such convincing Principles, which can oblige me to renounce the plain literal sense of Christ's words and the Fathers already cited. And this I prove. What ever Principle obliges me to renounce, or to deny the plain literal sense of such words, must give assurance, that those expressions literally Why none can remove me from our Catholic Tenet. understood are dangerous, and apt to induce Christians into gross error, for if literally taken, they do no mischief, or be not apt to induce into dangerous error, why should I Deny their obvious sense, because protestants will have me do so? But there is no Principle so much as meanly probable, whereby these expressions are proved false or inductive into dangerous Error; for were this really so, some Church or Author of Credit, would long sincé have noted their over much vehemency, in saying more than was true concerning this Mystery, which none ever yet did. Therefore I may still and without Reproof hold where I am, and adhere to their literal Doctrine, which my Church teaches. 17. Some may teply. Sectaries urge us not so crudely to reject the Father's Testimonies, as only to moderate or rectify their sense by the help of our Modern men's glosses, which is à blameless proceeding, for we do so with Gelafius and other Authors when they seemingly make against our Doctrine, and Protestants do no more. Answ. Protestants do more, for their interpretations ever imply à peremptory and absolute denial of that very literal sense which the Father words express. For example S. Cyril saith. Catech. Mystag. 4. He that changed water into wine by his sole will, hath also A reply of sectaries answered. changed wine into blood. The expression inuolues à parity, and implies thus much. That as water was really changed into wine at Cana in Galilee, so wine was really and substantially changed into Christ's blood. Sectaries as peremptorily deny this real and substantial change of wine into blood, as if one should now deny the Real and substantial change of that water into wine. Consequently they renounce both the parity, and open sense of the words, And, (which is ever to be noted), wilfully do so, when they have nothing like à sure Principle distinct from their gloss to ground their denial on. Contrariwise, the Catholic in this debate denies no express sense of any Father's Testimony, but only makes Inquiry into the Signification of words, which are confessedly dubious. Take here one instance Gelasius saith. The substance or nature of bread and wine cease not to be. First I make no account of this Gelasius, Author of the book De duobus naturis Christi. Contra Eutich: He was not that holy Pope so called, but rather Gelasins Cizicenus as Bellarmine notes de Scriptoribus Eccl: However these two particles substance and nature may, ex placito, indifferently signify either the inward substance or outward Massiness of bread and wine, for natural qualities which flow from an Essence, have, or often sustain, as was noted above, the name of that Essence they come from. Now the Catholic renounceth no obvious sense, but only contends that Nature and substance may signify, as is most Of Gelasius. How much his authority is worth. usual, the outward corpulent forms of bread and wine which cease not to be, And he gives this signification to these two words, because Scripture Church and the Fathers, whereon his Doctrine irrefragably depends, forceth him to it, And he doth well when it cannot be proved by any probable Principle that Gelasius relates to the inward substance of bread and wine. Thus much may be said, if that authority were worth any thing. Read, I beseech, you Brereley, In his Lyturgy of the Mass cited above pag: 259. you shall find there this Authority most exactly examined, and that in very truth, this Gelasius who ever he was, speaking against the Eutichians as Theodoret did, undeniably defends our Catholic Doctrine of the Real presence and Transubstantiation also. Open the book and read, you will be satisfied. I cannot dwell longer on these long since defeated Objections. 18. There is yet an other Reply. Sectaries may say, we suppose all this while Scripture and Father's clear for our Catholic Doctrine. The Supposition is denied, because they quote ('tis true not many) but some Fathers and Scripture also, to countenance their new opinion. By the way here is occasion again, to reflect on what is often noted. viz. We quote Scripture and Fathers, and they explicate all; They cite also; and we do the like; and if nothing but à Return of explications thus pass from one to the other, we are as much jarring as we were before, without hope of ending Controversies this way. Now my Answer to the first part of the Objection is. We Catholics suppose nothing, but only The answer to an other reply. take the very words of Scripture and Fathers in à literal sense, and say their expressions are exactly conformable to the Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, which was never censured by any Orthodox society of Christians. Upon these Principles therefore, Scripture, Church, and Fathers we stand immoveable. To that which follows I Answer. Sectaries have not one syllable of Scripture in favour of their Novelty (and to omit à rehearsal of those trivial Arguments drawn from certain passages, where they conceive the Sacrament is called bread the fruit of the vine etc.) I convince my Assertion by the positive ground abready established, which none shall overthrew. If this be the true sense of Scripture, when An Argument which Sectaries Cannot solve. it speaks of the Blessed Sacrament. Christ who is above in heaven is not really present on the Altar, but in his sign only, Or, that the bread after Consecration is really what it was before natural bread, only deputed to à holy use; If this, I say, be the true sense of God's word, Christ's Orthodox Church expressly delivered it to Christians as the true meaning of the Holy Ghost some few ages before Luther's Revolt, for then their was an Orthodox Church on earth: But no Orthodox Church then taught so, or sensed Scripture as Sectaries do now, Therefore unless that Church was ignorant and knew not the meaning of Scripture, or Malicious, and concealed it from Christians, our Sectaries sense is not Scripture. To confirm this Reason. All know, that the Roman Catholic Church then, as well as now, absolutely renounced the sense which Sectaries force out of Scripture, and for that cause was not (say they) Orthodox in this particular Doctrine, but no other Church confessedly Orthodox, taught it at that time, Therefore, it was not thought the Scriptures true meaning. All I would say is briefly laid forth thus. 19 The true Church of Christ's ever delivers the true sense of Scripture at least in weighty and fundamental Matters, so much Protestants grant, But, No true Church delivered this their sense three or four ages before Luther's revolt, Ergo it was not the true meaning of the Holy Ghost, but à whimsy lately invented. This Argument I hold demonstrative. You will perhaps ask, What is that these men can pretend to, having neither Scripture nor Orthodox Church to rely on? I'll tell you in à word. They allege How Sectaries endeavour te solve it. first two or three weak and ambiguous Sentences of Fathers, which the Catholic admit's, not in the sense of Novellists, yet according to the clear plain and obvious signification of words, as is now declared, and He prudently gives this signification to ambiguous words, because the Doctrine he owns stands firm upon other indubitable Principles, Scripture, Church, and Fathers. The Sectary evidently wants such Principles, and therefore vapours as well as he can with à few most weak and vnconcluding Authorities. The next thing relied on, is much worse and purely nothing but fancy. He reads Scripture and those evident Testimonies of Fathers (as manifest for our Church Doctrine as it is clear that the Church teaches it) and these, forsooth, he endeavours to obscure by à number of his own improbable glosses, without the least shadow of any distinct Principle, which gives so much as à Colour to his fancied interpretations. You shall see this truth most manifestly proved in the ensuing Chapter. CHAP. XIII. Mr: Stillingfleet grossly abuseth the Fathers that assert the Real Presence. His unprincipled glosses are not only dubious and therefore worth nothing, but moreover highly improbable. 1. THough I am very loath to spend time on trifles and as unwilling to catch flies, as Mr Stilling: is to kill them, ('tis his own phrase) yet I must do so in some measure, or permit à number of foul improbabilities to pass unexamined, which are laid forth in à pretended Rational account of Protestancy. I shall only entertain you with à few of the Grosser sort, waving many of lesser moment, and I do thus much to defend à Christian Verity which my very Soul Adores, For I am well assured, If our belief of Christ's real Presence in the Eucharist be an error, Christ and his Church and innumerable Fathers also, have deceived us. 2. One Authority alleged against Mr. Stillingfleet, you have in his own page 568. And 'tis à known passage of S. Cyprian de Caena Dmi, or of some other Author not much inferior to him, if we believe Mr Fulk against the Rhem's Testament. In 1. Cor. 11. and Erasmus his Annotations upon S. Cyprian, Basil print anno S. Cyprians Authority, examined. 1558. fol. 287. Mr Stilling: contend's it is of à later Date, yet is pleased by an Addition of his glosses to unsense the words as well as he can, and at last make them to speak Protestancy. 3. The Author's words are These. This common bread changed into flesh and blood gives life. The bread which our lord gave to his Disciples being Changed. Non effigy sed naturâ, not in outward form or semblance, but in its inward nature or substance, by the Omnipotency of the word, is made flesh. 4. Mr Stilling: Asserts all this proves not Transubstantiation, first, because the Author Saith Christ's words. Unless ye eat the flesh Mr stillingfleets reasoning, not solid. and drink the blood of the son of God, you shall have no life in you, are not to be understood after à Carnal sense. Answ: That's true, yet your Inference, Sir, is most improbable. The Principle you must rely on, is. None are to think as the Capharnits did, witness S. Austin, that they were to cut into pieces Christ's Sacred flesh, and eat that as we do Common meats, And your inference ill deduced runs thus. Therefore the inward substance of bread is not changed into his body. This inference, I say, is null, for both these are eternal truths and well consist together. Bread is changed into Christ's body, yet we neither cut that body à pieces or eat it, as the Capharnits grossly imagined. 5. He argues again and more improbably. This Author (saith he) by the effects attributed to the Sacrament, calling it His second Argument, more slight. food which nourished to immortality, cannot possibly be conceived to speak if Christ's Corporal presence, because we Catholics confess Christ's body remains no longer in our body, than the Accidents of bread and wine are there. I verily think the man was busied with other thoughts when he wrote these lines. For what sense have we here? Christ's Sacred body really present gives grace and is no longer present then the Accidents of bread and wine remain, Ergo, bread and wine are not Really changed into his body. This I say is à most improbable inference. For the effects of the Sacrament which imply the production of Grace, may and must stand with Christ's real Presence, though that production of grace Sacramentally given, lasts no longer than his Blessed body is under the forms of bread and wine. 6. But an other doughty Argument is drawn out of S. Cyprian's words, which Mr. Stilling: citys in his Margin. Sed immortalitatis alimonia datur à Communibus cibis differens, corporalis substantiae retinens speciem, sed virtutis divinae invisibili efficientiâ probans ad●sse presentiam. His third Argument proves nothing. And He unworthily renders them thus in English. That immortal Nourishment is given us which differs from common food, that it retains the Nature of à Corporeal substance, but proving the presence of à Divine power by its invisible efficiency. So that, saith he, what presence of Divine power is there, is showed in regard of the effects of it, not in regard of any substantial change of the bread into the body of Christ. Sir, I utterly deny your prooflesse, So That, and say your deduction is more than improbable. This Author saith expressly common bread changed into flesh, by the omnipotency of the word giveth life and immortal nourishment, which is Divine grace, and therefore the Divine power appears in both, first in the substantial change of bread into Christ's body, next in the effect, or production of grace in à worthy Receiver, and you improbably conclude, it shows itself in regard of the effects only. 7. Like one half guilty of juggling you go on. I know you will quarrel with me for rendering Corporalis substantiae retinens speciem: By retaining the Nature of à Corporeal substance. Answ: I do so indeed, and will prove you à cheat for your pains. First, because you make this Author speak nonsense, for if Corporalis substantiae The fallacy discovered. retinens Speciem, may be Englished. By retaining the nature of à Corporeal substance, you may as well render it by retaining the substance, of à corporeal substance because nature and substance are here synomimas, And if this be sense, we have à pretty Tautology or rather nonsense with it thus. It differs from Common food, yet retains the substance of Corporeal substance, or common food, and in real truth is still natural bread or Common food. Whereas if we read. It differs from common food, yet retain's the outward forms or external Accidents of à Corporeal substance or common food the sense is good, clear, and open to every Reader. But we must go on. You contend that the word Species in this place Signifies Nature or à solid body, and not the external Accidents because Species an●nariae, Species largitionales, Curator Specierum, whereof we read in the Civil law express the substance of things not the Accidents; and so S. Ambrose must be understood, when speaking of our Saviour's changing water into wine, he faith. Vt rogatus ad nuptias aquae substan●●am in vini speciem commutaret. Now no man will say, that he changed the substance of water into the external Accidents of wine, but into the nature of wine, Therefore Species may sometimes signify substance. Answ: All this is true, yet nothing to the purpose, What the word Species signifies. for can you or any man prove, because Species signisies sometimes kind, or substance that it always doth so? We read in Scripture. Daniel 13. Species decepit te. Isa. 53. non est ei Species neque decor. Daniel 10. Species mea immutata 1. Tim. 3. Habentes Speciem pietatis etc. Will you translate Nature or substance hath deceived thee? There was no nature or substance in Christ of whom the Prophet speaks. My nature or substance is changed. Having piety in nature or substance? All is ridiculous, and therefore though Species may sometimes signify substance or kind, unless that signification hold universally, these instances of Species annonariae and Species vini prove nothing. You will ask perhaps, because the word is ambiguous, how we may know whether in our present Controversy, Species, signifies shape, form, Accidents, or substance▪ Answ: This rule is certain, when the word Species stands in opposition, or is distinguished from an invisible Nature or essence, it must of necessity signify the external shape or form of à thing and not the substance: So when the Apostle exhorts us. 1. Thess. 5. The true signification in this place, given. 22. Ab omni specie mala abstinete vos. The sense is. Abstain not only from inward malice. but (and here mark the opposition) from all Show or semblance of evil. And when S. Cyril saith Orat 4. Mystag: under the Type or species of bread is given the body of our Lord, he evidently distinguisheth the Form or shape of bread from its substance. And so S. Cyprian doth in the words alleged. Corporalis Substantiae retinens Speciem, retaining the exterior shape or form of à Corporeal substance, and moat plainly thus. The bread being changed not in its outward Form and semblance, but in its inward nature and substance by the Omnipotency of the word, is made flesh. 8. Mr Stilling: again page 570. in his Answer to S. Cyprian. This common bread is changed into flesh and blood▪ saith, we Protestants do not deny à Sacramental change of the bread into the flesh and blood of Christ, but only that substantial change which ye Papists assert. Pray you, Sir, tell me what is the Terminus à quo, and the Terminus, ad quem, of this your mysterious change? You acknowledge some thing Protestants cannot say, what is changed into Christ's body. changed into the flesh and blood of Christ? Is the substance of bread the terminus à quo, or that which is changed into the flesh? No, 'tis too plain Popery. Is bread made à Sacrament, or à Sign of Christ's body changed into the flesh of Christ's? Evidently no, for neither the Sacrament, nor that which you call à Sign of Christ's body is changed into flesh. Note well the Emphasis of your own words, of something changed into the flesh of Christ and say on God's name what it is? You may reply, you speak only of à Mystical and Sacramental change. That's not to the purpose now, the Emphasis of your words point at something created or increated, changed into the flesh and blood of Christ, tell us plainly what that is, or in good earnest your expression falls too short of any intelligible sense? 9 In case you run on trifling with your Mystical and Sacramental change only, made upon the accidents or substance of bread, the Author now cited positively asserts more. viz. Panis non effigy sed naturâ mutatus. The bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples being changed, not in Outward form, and appearance, but in its inward nature and substance by the Omnipotency of the word is made flesh, where 'tis plain your extrinsical sacramental change passing only upon the accidents of bread, or on the substance S Cyprian rejects the Protestants extrinsical. Change. (which you say remains) is excluded, and à Real Conversion of the inward substance of bread is positively asserted by S. Cyprian. You Answer. Some great Critics have assured you that the place is corrupted, and that the ancient Manuscripts read otherwise. Non effigy nec naturâ mutatus, neither changed in outward form nor substance. You see to what desperate shifts these men are driven. 'tis wonderful they cite not some great Critics for à Contrary lection of Christ's words. Hoc non est corp● meum This is not my body. Well. I say first, if those nameless and unknown Critics err, and the Author speak sense as we now read without the Critiscism. (Non effigie sed naturâ mutatus, not changed in outward form but in its nature) Transubstantiation is asserted, and your contrary Doctrine is condemned. I say. 2. This Criticism is improbable, and not only turn's the words out of sense into pure Nonsense, but moreover implies an impossibility. I'll show you how. The Criticism will have us read thus: Pan● iste quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat non effigie nec naturâ mutat● Omnipotentiâ verbi factus est Caro. This bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples being changed neither in its outward form nor inward substance, is by the Omnipotency of the word made flesh. Observe well. This bread remaining bread in outward show and inward A Criticism exploded. substance, is made the flesh of the Son of God. An utter impossibility. For no more can bread remaining bread in shape and substance, be made flesh (factus est caro) than Lot's wife remaining what She was flesh and blood in outward form, and inward substance, be made à pillar of salt. The Omnipotent power of God cannot change one substance remaining what it is, into an other. 'tis true Luther said Christ's body was really present with bread, but never thought of making bread remaining bread, to be that other substance of Christ's body. 10. Mr Stillingfleet tell's us more. P. 572. that Substance and nature with the Fathers (and we confess it) are not always taken properly but sometimes more largely for Accidents. Why therefore may not these words. Sed natura mutatus in S. Cyprians Context bear that improper sense? I Answer and ask first. Why may they not also be taken properly? When they clearly deliver à Doctrine conformable to à whole learned Church, and your contrary forced gloss hath no Principle to stand on but fancy? Had you any ancient Orthodox Church, universal Tradition, or the plain consent of Fathers for what you assert, you might speak more boldly, and I would then say S. Cyprians words are false, but without such helps, to torture à Text as you do, to turn good sense into nonsense and this without proof or Principle is more than intolerable. Now here reflect à little on what hath been often noted. You say, the words are improper and render your sense. I say they are proper and significantly speak what the Church teaches. Pray Answer. By what Principle shall you and I come to à decision of this one difficulty? Hitherto, if nothing be added, we have no more but our two contrary, jarring opinions. And are not Controversies, (may this strain hold) made an endless work? To add more I Answer. 2. If this Author speak sense. Not changed in its outward form but in nature. Your gloss is Nonsense. Observe well. He speaks of The reason why we reject it. bread held in à Priest's hand, and saith first. This bread is not changed in its outward form or Accidents. Then he put's his Aduersative. Sed. but it is changed in nature and substance If therefore Nature here, signifies as you would have it, the outward form or accidents of bread, you must read the words thus. Bread is not changed in its nature and Substance yet it is changed in nature and substance, which is nonsense. I prove it. Nature and substance with you import the exterior form or Accidents of bread, bread is not changed in this exterior nature and substance, saith the Author, yet you say it is changed in this very nature and substance. Yet more. S. Cyprian asserts à change in one thing, not in an other. I ask what is changed, and what is not changed? If the exterior Accidents of bread, as contra distinguished from the Sectaries cannot say what is here changed wat not. interior substance be changed, this interior substance of bread, as distinguished from accidents, is not changed, and if, (which is true), this interior substance be changed, the form and accidents of bread are not changed. Take which you please, and talk no more of your Accidental Sacramental change made after consecration, For I ask again what is thus Sacramentally changed? Are the outward Accidents only changed or made à Sacrament? Grant this; and it follows you have but à very lean Lords supper consisting only of à few Accidents after your wordy Consecration, which reaches not to the inward substance of bread, Consequently this inward substance is not so much as Sacramentally changed. For the Author saith, one thing is here changed, and not an other. Imagine therefore, He speaks of your extrinsic Sacramental change, you will never force sense out of his words, whilst he lays à change on one thing and excludes it from an other. For, if he says the inward substance of bread is Sacramentally changed, he denies that to the outward accidents, and if he say these Accidents are Sacramentally changed, he denies that Sacramental change to the inward substance of bread. Let then nature and Substance signify either the accidents or substance of bread as you please, let us also falsely suppose, the Author speaks of your Sacramental change only, you can never make sense of his words. One thing is changed, but not a● other. By all now said you see, Sir, how slight your objection A brief Answer to à weak objection. is, when you Argue. Either nature and substance in the Fathers, are always taken properly, or some times not so, but improperly for accidents; if always properly, we have three Fathers (say you) against Transubstantiation. If sometimes improperly, Nature in this place though we read, Non effigy sed natura mutatus, may well signify not substance, but the outward form or accidents of bread. I have now Answered, though Nature or Substance may sometimes have that signification yet here it cannot, because of the evident opposition betwixt that, and Accidents, and the inevitable nonsense which follows if nature in this place signifies Accidents. But what à loss of time is it to follow these vast improbabilities? I must make shorter work with the ensuing Authorities. 11. The. 2. Testimony cited P. 572. is that of S. Gregory Nyss Tom. 3. Orati. Catech C. 37. and stands thus in Mr Stilling: With good reason do we believe that the bread being sanctified by God's word is changed into the body of the word S. Gregory Nyssene abused. of God. Again. The nature of the things we see being changed, Or Transelemented into him etc. And Mr Stilling: Asserts those expressions are utterly insignificant for Transubstantiation, for saith he. We Protestants deny not à change in the elements after Consecration, but say it is Sacramental, and you (Papists) say it is à Substantial change. Answ. And we follow the Energy of the plain grammatical sense. Bread is changed into the body of the word of God. Bread is Transelemented, You insist only on an extrinsical and Sacramental change, which you admit in the water of Baptism cast upon an Infant, yet you dare not say that water is Transelemented, or changed into an other Substance. This to your Confusion S. Gregory asserts in our present Mystery, and you say it still remains to be proved that the substance of bread is changed. What trifles are these? I prove it by the very words, thus. Bread is à substance, the Saint tell's you into what it is changed, into the very body of the word of God, Ergo he saith one substance is changed into an other. Here is the proof. You yet go on. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is frequently used by the Fathers and S. Gregory himself for an Accidental change, when 'tis not capable of any other sense. So S. Gregory speaking of the shining of Moses face, saith it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Instances impertinently applied. à Change into that which was more glorious: Again, affirming, the souls of men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be changed into that which is more Divine by the Doctrine of Christ, he can surely intent no other but an Accidental change. Answer. Had I no more against Mr Stilling: but the manifest trifling I here See in à serious matter, that alone might most justly displease. Pray, Sir, reflect. Doth S. Gregory by these Instances of Moses face changed into Glory, or by the Souls of men changed into that which is Divine, so much as seemingly favour the mere extrinsical change which you ascribe to the Sacrament? Evidently No. For these changes were Real and intrinsecal in their respective Subjects, And proved impertinent. Glory was really in Moses face, as light is now in the sun. This feigned Sacramental change in the Sacrament is only Moral, and extrinsical, Therefore such instances are to no purpose. For can you make this probable inference? Moses face was intrinsically changed as the air is when it receives light, ergo we have the like intrinsical Physical change in the Sacrament, when by your Consecration bread is made an outward Sign only of Christ's body. Doth that bread really shine like the face of Moses? Or will any say when à Counter is set for à Crown, as bread with you stands for Christ's body, that it is intrinsically changed as Moses face was? 12. In à word the whole cheat is plain. You lay hold of the word Accidental which is ambiguous, and may either signify à Real intrinsical change made in Subjects as is now declared, (and this with you has no place in the Sacrament) or merely an extrinsical accidental Denomination, whereby bread is made à Sign or Sacrament, And this you own, which God knows, has no similitude with the Real changes where of S. Gregory speaks. Can you make à right Parity you should say; That, as Moses face was really changed by à glorious light, and à Soul by Regeneration, so bread after consecration (made in trinsecally more glorious) is really changed either in its accidents, or substance, or both; But this you cannot pretend to. O, but it is made à Sacrament and now is what it was not before. And you Sir, are made à Bachelor of Divinity and are not as you were before, is your face, your substance, or Accidents so really changed in you, that they appear intrinsically more glorious to men and Angels? Well, but perhaps the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be accommodated to à mere extrinsical Accidental A reply answered. change, as when one of à common Citizen is made à Magistrate. Answ. Whether so or no it imports little, for in the instances now alleged, and in this Testimony of S. Gregory, such à signification has no place, where the Terminus à quo, and, ad que● (Bread is changed into Christ's body) are Real, not only Moral; intrinsical, not extrinsical. Yet one word more. I wonder extremely with what face you can cite Snares, as if he favoured your late invented Accidental mutation, for you say he affirms, these expressions of Fathers are more accommodated to that. Sr. I have read this learned Author in the place you quote. 3. part: Disp. 50. sect 3. and perused also his 4.th Section, where he Snares abused. treats largely of the Conversion of bread into Christ's body, and expressly mantain's à Real action necessary in this Conversion, and calls the change Real and Substantial, and it must be called so, when the Terminus à quo, and ad quem are, as they are in this Mystery, Real and Substantial: 'tis true he citys Divines who say, the Adduction of Christ's body under the forms of bread is sufficient to verify à Real change (Bread ceasing to be, because of Christ's body present) without à new action or production terminated upon that body, and it is à probable opinion in Schools, but as remote from your Accidental extrinsical mutation as Heaven is from earth, and to as Little purpose as an other wise question is, when you Ask whether those who are changed by Regeneration A quaestion answered. may▪ be said to be Transubstantiated by it? Frivolous. Sr. when the Terminus ad quem in conversions is substance, it bears properly the denomination of Transubstantiation, or Transelementation; when it's merely an Accident or quality, as in Regeneration, the denomination follows the nature of the quality produced, and is rightly called an intrinsical accidental change, but not Transubstantiation. Had you reflected on what is here said your pretty Criticism where you torture à poor Greek word and learnedly examine whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Gregory comes from the Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or from the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might well have been spared. I give you your Choice take whether you will, your cause lies where it was, nothing at all advanced. But really I am weary of this sport, which is more irksome to me, then to kill the flies you so often talk of. However I must have patience, and briefly say à word to one or two authorities more, pitifully abused by you. 13. That known passage of S. Cyril of Jerusalem. Catech: The Testimony of S. Cyril of Jerusalem. Mystag. 4. occurr's next in your 573. page. The words are. He (Christ our Lord) changed water into wine at cana in Galilee by his sole will, and is he not worthy to be believed that he changed wine into blood? For if invited to à marriage, he wrought then that stupendious Miracle (viz of changing water into wine) shall we not Confess that much more he has given his body and blood to the Sons of the Spouse? wherefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let us take with all certainty the body and blood of Christ And he gives this reason. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. For under the Type or Species of bread his body is given thee, and under the type or species of wine his blood is given thee, that by taking this body and blood of Christ thou mayst be made partaker of his body and blood (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and so we shall be Christophori, Carrying Christ when we receive his body and blood into our members. Soon after he saith. Do not therefore consider this as mere bread and mere wine, for it is the body and blood All along most clear and significant. of C●rist according to his own words; for, although sense suggest that it is bread and wine) yet let faith Confirm thee, and do not judge of the thing by thy taste, but hold this most certain by thy Faith, that the body and blood of our Lord are given thee, so that there arise no doubt at all in thee. Again, towards the end of this 4. Catechesis, he repeat's and most energetically the verity he would have us learn. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Knowing and holding it most certain that the bread which is seen by us is not bread, but the body of Christ; and the wine which is seen by us, although it seem to the sense of our taste to be wine, The Church Speaks not in clearer terms. yet is it not wine, but the blood of Christ. Thus this ancient Father and worthy Bishop speaks so significantly, that the wit of man shall never force on him any other sense but that which the Roman Catholic Church taught in the Council of Trent, and teaches to this day. 14. Now listen à little to Mr Stilling: glosses and say in Conscience, whether they have so much as à seeming probability? Mr stilling: glosses improbable. First he tells us it is evident (and it was for his purpose to cry Evidence at the beginning) that Cyrils design here is to persuade the Catechumen (from whom the Mysterious presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament was wont to be concealed) that the bread and wine were not mere common Elements, but designed for à higher use, to exhibit the body and blood of Christ to Believers. Is this, Sir, your Evidence? Is it evident that Cyril here intended to instruct the Catechumen only? We read that the Saint was à laborious Preacher and complied with that Charitable duty every Sunday, and day in Lent. Surely all who heard him were not Catechumen, and why may not these instructions contain part of that Doctrine he publicly delivered to his Auditors? All you can prove is that his first Catechesis was to the lately Baptised, but that this of the B. Sacrament concerned them only, is not probable. Turn to the Edition of S. Cyril Paris print 1609. You will find after the Dedicatory Epistle under this Title. De scriptis Cyrill. That in his last five Mystagogical institutions he gave solid food and explicated the Divine Mysteries of our Faith, of Baptism, Chrism, the Eucharist, and that great Sacrifice of the Mass, which Certainly belong to Christians of riper knowledge than Catechumen were. Again. if'ft be evident that S Cyrill is made to m●sse of his aim. the Saint in this Catechesis concealed the Mysterious presence of Christ in the Sacrament, He miss extremely of his intent, for no Catholic can speak now with greater clearity of the Mystery, or more fully express the Church's sense then S. Cyril did above thirteen ages since. Yet one word. Say I beseech you what need was there then of concealing this Mysterious presence, if'ft be no more but as you say, à piece of bread deputed to à holy use, or à mere sign of Christ's body present? Such à Mystery requires no secrecy at all, Catechumen might as well have heard of it without torturing their understandings, as now they hear of the Sacrament of Baptism. Lastly is it evident, that S. Cyril aimed at nothing but to show that bread and wine were not mere common Elements but things designed for à higher use, or as you say, to Exhibit the body of Christ to Believers? 'tis improbable, First because you add that to the Text which neither the words, nor the sense bear. S. Cyril saith. Do not consider them as mere bread and wine, Then he tell's you positively what they are. For they are the body and blood of Christ. Now your Gloss, designed for à higher use to exhibit the body and blood of Christ to Believers, first Deads' the very life of Cyrills' words, and then runs into nonsense. I therefore Ask whether What is bread and wine to exhibit the body and blood of Christ? this gloss: Bread and wine exhibit the body and blood of Christ to Believers, says. Bread and wine really changed out of their nature, as water was at Cana in Galilee, are after that change as really Christ's body and blood, as that water was really wine after Christ's Miracle? If your gloss say thus much, you are à plain Papist; if less, it's none of S. Cyrills' Doctrine, for the Saint delivers this as significantly, yea and more fully, than I now express it. I well understand S. Cyrills' sense by his words, but for my life I know not what you mean by your particle. Exhibit. Tell us I beseech you? How do bread and wine Exhibit the body and blood of Christ to Believers? Do they only mind us of his body and blood? A Crucifix representing our Lord bleeding on à Cross can well serve for so much. Do they show or point us out à Real presence of the same body and blood upon the Altar which are now in heaven? If so; Believers have an object of Faith and that truth to fasten on which the Church teaches, but if your word Exhibit says, or signifies less than this, or, only expresses your ever yet concealed Sacramental presence, you cheat the world with ambiguous dark Term's, and in good earnest know not what you say. 15. Answer therefore? What is Christ's body and blood to be Sacramentally present, when really they are not upon the Altar, but absent in Heaven only? The question deserves an Answer, For you, Sir, distinguish between à Sacramental and à Corporeal Presence, you grant the first, and deny the second. That which you grant is à Presence of Christ's body and blood distinguished from the Catholic Real (or as you call it) Corporeal Presence: Vouchsafe to enlighten us à little concerning it, which you page 574. seem to Our Adversary is urged to declare his sense. make real? There is, say you, à Real presence of Christ in and with them (that is, in and with bread, and wine) to the souls of Believers. Very good. Give us I beseech you the total Object which these Souls have before them when they believe à Real presence of Christ in and with bread and wine upon the Altar? Is this object Christ himself whom they pull, as it were, by Faith out of Heaven at the time they receive your piece of Bread? No. Christ still in Heaven, is yet Locally distant and therefore not really present in and with bread and wine, Unless he be in two places at once, And Consequently the Faith of these Believers has no real Object present to fasten upon. Is it that Christ is present in the Signs of bread and wine, as Caesar is in his Image? Pitiful. He is thus present in every Crucifix, though really distant millions of Miles, This, no way makes him actually there in and with bread and wine, as you Assert. Doth finally this your Obiective presence imply only thus much, that Christ by his power (though really absent) work's the same effects in à worthy Receiver, as if he were actually there? No. For he works the same effects, and (though absent) produceth grace by the Sacrament of Baptism as if he were present, dare you Therefore say he is in as peculiar à manner Really present, in and with the water of Baptism, as he is in this Sacrament in and with bread and wine? Yet more. Such à Moral The Sectaries Sacramental Presence contradicts all Authority. Presence directly contradicts Christ's words. This is my body. It directly contradicts S. Cyrills' words. Though it seem to the taste to be bread it is not bread, but the Body of Christ's. It directly contradicts that unanswerable Truth: As water was changed into wine, so wine is changed into blood etc. 16. And thus, Sir, you see how impossible it is to give your poor Believers any thing like à Real object, which may be called à true Real Presence; though I hold you obliged to help both them and me to à clear Notion of it: Because Christ's Sacred body and blood are Real things, you attribute to these two Real things à true real Presence in and with bread and wine (which cannot but denominate them really present with these two Substances upon the Altar) Therefore you are obliged to tell me, what that is A part rei, which I once more say, is impossible; For, as your Sacramental presence, in your sense, is à word no man understands, so your Doctrine is as wholly unintelligible. Yet I have not said all. In this your discourse of à Sacramental and Real presence, you would fain take some advantage against us by other words of S. Cyril. Do not consider them as mere bread and wine, for they are the body and blood of No advantage given Sectaries by any other words of S. Cyril. Christ, according to his own word. Hence you infer, it is plain, He speaks of à Sacramental presence, for he doth not oppose the body and blood of Christ to the substance of bread and wine, but to mere bread, id est, That they should not look on the bread and wine as naked signs, but as Signa efficacia or efficacious signs. Answ. First The Saint has not à Syllable of either Signs or Signae efficacia. Next, your Speculation about mere bread, is à mere nothing. For mere bread, is bread without Consecration, S. Cyril opposeth the body and blood of Christ present, to mere bread, Ergo He opposeth them to bread without Consecration, but bread without Consecration, or mere bread, is the very Substance of bread, Therefore he opposeth the body and blood of Christ present, to the substance of bread, unless you can find the Meerness (might one speak so) or nakedness of bread distinct from its substance, which is not only improbable, but impossible. 17. Upon this solid and undeniable Ground, it imports your A mere quibble about à word. cause nothing, whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Cyril signifies, Species, as it is commonly rendered by Interpreters, or as you say, that which doth figure or represent, for, as long as this verity stands undoubted, that under the Type or Species of bread Christ gave his own body, and That, that body is opposed to the very Substance of bread, the expression is so clear and the same with our Catholic Doctrine, that were à hundred Glosses more laid upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, All would not do, nor rack it to any contrary meaning. You Reply S. Cyril speaks of such à presence as hath relation to the Receiver. Speak out Sir. What is it, that has relation to the Receiver only? The very body and blood of Christ under the Type of bread and wine (which are changed out of their nature as water was at Cana in Galilee) These substances of his body and blood, as really present, work their effect in à worthy Receiver, where you evidently see, that the Real Presence of Christ's Sacred body and blood is presupposed to the effect or to grace wrought in à Soul: Therefore to talk of à presence which hath relation to à Receiver only, without the true supposed real verity of Christ body and blood present, is no more than à perverse and an improbable Gloss, if S. Cyril speak sense. 18. Your next Gloss upon these words. (It is not bread though it seem to the taste to be bread but the Body of Christ) is worse if worse can be, For you only frigidly say. Hereby is meant no alteration i● the Substance of it, but only that it is not That common Bread, it was before. Sir, the contrary is now demonstratively proved against The change made in Chrism wholly different from that in the Eucharist. you. But you hope to help yourself by an Instance which S. Cyril hath of Chrism in his 3. Mystag. Pag. 525. where he Seems to Parallel the change made in Chrism, or holy ointment, with the Change of bread in the Eucharist. By the way. If Chrism be so sacred à thing, it is à shame you have no more use of it in your Church, but let that pass, and mark the Parallel and your own mistake with it. A change there is in both, bread and common ointment, but as different in Themselves as they are differently expressed by this Father. The one change is Real and intrinsical made in the Substance of bread and wine, The change of common ointment is not so, but Moral, into à grace, or Gift or Christ. S Cyrils words take away all ambiguity. See, saith he, That thou think not this ointment to be common or mere ointment, For as the bread of the Eucharist after the Invocation of the Holy Spirit is no longer common bread, but the body of Christ (here is the real change) So this holy ointment, is no longer naked or common ointment after it is consecrated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. S. cyril's words denote the difference. but à grace or Gift of Christ, and the Holy spirit, which operates through the presence of the Divinity. Here is the other and à quite different change. Bread is made the body of Christ, Chrism his holy and sacred Gift. The Parallel or parity therefore, as I now said, lies in this, That both bread and Common ointment are changed from what they were (and this is enough for Cyrills' intent who only proves Chrism to be à holy thing) but it fails when he positively and expressly diversifies the nature of these changes, of bread into Christ's body, of Common ointment only into à grace or à gift of Christ. And Hence, Sir, your Question, whether we may not as well prove à Transubstantiation in the Chrism as we do in the Eucharist, is both fond and frivolous. We Answer No, because the real change of bread into Christ's body fully expresseth Transubstantiation, the Terminus à quo, and ad quem, being Real, and Substantial. The other Change of ointment into à Gift of Christ, denotes à moral change quite different and nothing like the other, which is most real. S. Ambrose next cited, no less abused than others. 19 Your next and last Gloss. abuses S. Amb. De ijs qui initiantur. C. 9 who saith. Bread is no longer that which Nature has framed it, but that which the Benediction of Consecration has made it. You Answer. It is the body of Christ, but not in our gross sense. Pray Sir, Inform us à little of your more acquaint meaning? Say, how bread is Christ's body if it still remains as substantially bread after the Benediction, as water in Baptism remain's substantially water? Doth the water wherewith an infant is washed, cease to be water because it is à Sacrament? No certainly, yet bread if S. Ambrose speak truth, ceaseth to be that which nature framed it. You endeavour to make These words forceles, because S. Chrisost. in Act: Hom. 23. saith of Baptism, I''s virtue is so great that it suffers not men to be men, and then you wisely ask whether we will grant it Transubstantiat's them? Frivolous. The Saint only speaks of the virtue of Baptism, which, as he observes makes us sons of Adoption, That is, it Changes à soul from the miserable state of Sin into à happy state of grace, and so permit's not men once infected with that leprosy, to be men as they were before, unregenerate. And therefore, he adds in the ensaing words. The great power of the Holy Ghost is that it Transforms our Manners and makes them composed. What is here of any thing like Transubstantiation, or of à ceasing of that which nature hath framed? But enough and fully enough of Mr Stillingfleets most improbable glosses, so I must and will term them, until some surer Principle than fancy gives them more strength which shall never be. 20. To end. I'll say à great Truth. Had this Gentleman twenty Cyprians, twenty Cyrils, twenty Augustine's as clear and express for his Opinion of the Sacrament, as the Testimonies Had this Adversary so much Authority for by opinion, as we Produce in behalf of Catholic Doctrine No man Can believe any thing. now cited are significant for Catholic Doctrine: Had he à Church reputed Orthodox which as indubitably maintained his Opinion five or six ages since, as the Catholic Church then held, and yet holds our Catholic Doctrine; Finally, had he Scripture as plain for his Sign or Figure of Christ's body, as it is evidently clear for the Real Presence, I verily think no prudent man could or would believe any thing of this great Mystery, And consequently all might rationally doubt of every article in Christian Religion: Because Fathers upon the Supposition, are directly contrary to Fathers, Church, stands against Curch, and Scripture against Scripture. But now when he hath not one Clear Testimony of à Father, much less the Sentiment of any Orthodox Church, nor so much as à word of Scripture contrary to our Catholic Position; I must Conclude that his Glosses already laid on these Fathers are not only improbable, but more than highly improbable. 21. Perhaps Mr Stillingfleet▪ may reply. His glosses, 'tis true, because they are the Sentiments of à fallible man, are indeed liable to error; but He bids me look well to my Refutations, and beware of setting to high à value on them whilst I oppose him, For my Opposition, (because I may mistake) amounts to no more, but to à weak degree of Fallibility, so that, Hitherto He and I stand upon equal Terms. Answ. If the contest be thus much only, whether his Glosses are not clearly refuted, the judicious Reader after à due Ponderation of my Replies, is so far to judge between us. But here is not all, I must Say more. Though I am as fallible in excepting against His glosses, as he is in making them, yet my Faith depends not upon my Exceptions but upon the Doctrine of my Church, The express words of Scripture, and Fathers, These oblige me under pain of damnation to believe as I do, But all that Mr Stilling: hath for his Faith, is only the uncertainty of his own No man builds faith upon his own Glosses. conjectures (ancient Church he has none, nor express Scripture, nor one Clear sentence of any Ancient Father) And will he Dare to oblige me under pain of damnation to believe his Glosses (or the opinion he would mantain by them) upon no other Ground but his weak Conjectures? I appeal to his own Conscience for an Answer. Well. Be it how you will, thus much is evident (and 'tis the only thing I aim at in this whole Discourse) if Scripture and Fathers be interpreted in high matters of Faith by two Adversaries of different Religions, when no surer Principle is at hand to rely on, but the fallible Glosses of the One, and à contrary fallible▪ combating with those Glosses in the Other, they may both (as the world goes now) sit long at the sport, before one Controversy Other mean● to end Controversies then mere Glosses. be ended. Therefore God, as I said above, has Provided us of an easier way to end these weighty difficulties, or, we may All turn Sceptics. Some may say; The old mode of the World was to dispute by Scripture and Fathers, dare we reject this way of arguing as insufficient? Answ. No truly: It is an excellent way amongst Christians (though insignificant to Heathens) when the Adverse Parties can Clear the sense of Scripture and Fathers upon certain Principles, But if the very sense of Scripture and Fathers be called into Question As now à days it is by Sectaries, We must of necessity have Recourse to an other more Clear, easy, and indubitable means of ending all Debates ever in use among the Holy Fathers, Whereof more afterward. In the Interim the ensuing Chapter may give you entertainment. CHAP. XIV. It is further proved that neither Scripture alone, nor any other Principle distinct from an Vnerring Church, can with certainty decide Controversies in Matters of Religion, or Regulate Christian Faith. 1. THis Assertion not slightly proved in the other Treatise. Disc. 2. C. 4. I hold so certain, That the wit of man shall not rationally contradict it. And to give yet more light to what is there said, Be pleased to exclude, or mentally only to cast aside All thought of an unerring Church, of her infallible Tradition all so, of the Definitions of General Councils, For all these (which Sectaries hold fallible) are Essential to an unerring Church, If any such thing be in the world, whereof we shall Treat afterward. Next look about you, And consider well what remains to end Controversies withal, or to regulate Divine Faith. You have What Principles Sectaries Can Pretend to, distinct from an Infallible Church. first Scripture which à Pagan wholly and à jew partly rejects, Yet with such Aliens from Christ, à Christian can argue rationally yea and clearly convince them, as I shall prove in the second Discourse. After Scripture, you have the sublime Mysteries of Faith, the Father's Doctrine laid forth in their Volumes, and the History of the Church. Here are all the Principles imaginable left Sectaries, besides their private Spirit, which can be no more à sound Principle to them, than the contrary Spirit is to Their Adversaries. 2. Let us now See how weakly the Sectary endeavours to end any Controversy by these Principles without an infallible Church, And be pleased ever to attend to the Adversary he treats with. If he attempts to do good on à Heathen by Scripture, or bring's in the Reasonableness of Christian Religion, The Heathen, and jew also laugh at his Folly, And wish him to prove his Book to be Divine. If he proves that by the Universal Tradition of all Called Christians, the Heathen perhaps will not yet quarrel with him (as I may hereafter) about the Fallibility or Infallibility of Tradition, but desires him to go among the Chinese and lay his Bible down by That book which their supposed Prophet Confusius wrote, full of excellent Moral Precepts. Thus much done the Contest Begins. The Sectary saith his Bible is Authorized by à great Prophet, called Christ. A learned Bonzius Answer's, and his is also. Authorized by à great Prophet called Confusius. The Sectary saith all Christians own his book (upon à never interrupted The Protestants Contest with ● Heathen Concerning the Bible. Tradition) to be indicted by the Spirit of Truth, The Bonzius replies, All China of à mighty vast Extent age after age, hath the like perpetuated Tradition for his Bible. What follows but that These two Adversaries, peruse their Bibles? The Bonzius read's ours, and Reasonably asks, whether the Sectary can infallibly prove such strange Mysteries as are registered there, (for example, à Trinity, the Incarnation of the Divine word) to be Truths Revealed by Almighty God? The Sectary answers. All the infallible certainty he hath of these particular Verities lastly Relies only upon Scripture itself. For what ever Principle can be imagined distinct from that written word whether Church or Tradition, is Fallible and may deceive. If so, saith the Heathen your Bible gain no Credit with me, Because you prove the Mysteries contained there by that which causes my doubt, or is the matter in Question, for you say all I read, is of Divine inspiration because your Bible relates them, and therefore make that à proof of your Doctrine, which is the Matter in question, or causes my doubt. O saith the Sectary read on with Humility and you will find, that the very Majesty of the style, the Energy of the words will quit you of doubting; And to ease you of too much pains, know we Protestants hold That the Belief of à very few chief Articles, or simple Truths (as that jesus is the Christ: The Divine Word is incarnated &c) is faith enough to gain Heaven. Contra. The Heathen except's against the Protestants plea. Replies the Heathen. I see no other Majesty in the Style of your Bible than in mine, and other pious books. The exterior Syntax or joining of words together is common to all such Writings. But above all I wonder why you talk to me of no man knows what splendour shining in the bare Letter, when you say that shines not to Pagans, but only to those who have the Spirit of God, and are the Elect amongst you. Now to what you Add of à few chief Articles necessary to be believed and no more, I answer first. Your Scripture saith no such Thing, nor tell's me or you which Articles are necessary, which not, and if it did so, you are only where you were before in darkness, Since you prove not so much as one of these few Articles to be of Divine Revelation, but by the book which records them; And this you do whilst I justly question not only the book, but the Truth of this very article, which you make Divine, because it is in your Bible. But enough of this subject at present, whereof see more C. 9 n. 7. All that is said there and further enlarged here, makes this Truth not only probable but demonstratively evident, That Scripture alone is no universal Means to end Controversies debated between Christians and no Christians (which is the only Thing we now insist on) yet jesus Christ hath left sufficient means whereby such Aliens may be reclaimed from their Errors, and attain salvation. Scripture doth it not for all, Therefore à more satisfactory way must be thought of. 3. Now if we begin to speak of the Fathers with à learned Heathen, 'tis labour lost, for He who believes not the Divinity of The Fathers of no Authority with à Heathen. Scripture will little regard the Father's Authority. To tell à Heathen of the high Mysteries of our Faith augments his Difficulties, puzzles Reason, and racks his understanding. To weary him with à long narration of Ecclesiastical history is most impertinent, when as yet, He neither believes Scripture, nor Fathers: Yet this man may be converted to Christian Religion if he follows Reason, Unless we say which is intolerable to hear, That our Lord jesus will have this poor man lost, or left without means to attain Salvation by. 4. The next Adversary the Protestant may attaque shall be, if you please, à Roman Catholic (we will here to gain time omit his Contest with Arians and other Heretics) And his whole The sectaries attempt upon Catholics, vain, and why. endeavour, if he go Closely to work, must either be to Establish his own Protestant Tenets by Scripture, Fathers, and Antiquity, or forceably to dissuade all by virtue of these Principles from the Belief of our Catholic Doctrine. I say it is impossible to do either, Because the Sectary has not in the whole Bible one clear and express Text for any one Tenet of Protestancy as 'tis reform; Nor so much as one clear and express Text against any one Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Religion. Therefore, as Scripture cannot Pass an obligation on him to believe one Article of his new Faith, so it cannot oblige him or me to disbelieve one Article of our Roman Catholic Doctrine, For upon this supposition, it never meddless with the one, and often omit's to speak of the other, in plain, open and significant Terms. For example. Scripture neither expressly denies Transubstantiation with the Protestant, nor in that plain open Term affirms it with the Catholic: it neither clearly Says there are Two Sacraments only, nor in express Words allows of Seven: It neither clearly denies Purgatory, nor under that express word asserts it. How then can the Protestant when he hath not one clear syllable in Scripture for what he holds in these particulars, nor à word against our contrary Doctrines, ever probably venture Not one Text in Scripture clear for Protestancy nor one against Catholic Doctrine. to decide these and the like controverted Matters by the plain and express letter of the Bible? It is impossible. The Reason is, it cannot determine that whereof it speaks not clearly, nor become an intellectual Rule, or Measure whereby we are to judge what's true, or what's false concerning these controversies, if it Meddles not with them in express Terms. I say in express Terms: For what ever is less than that, or not express, must either be the Sectaries Gloss or his fallible Deduction, I reject both, and appeal to him who wrote the original Book with all its candour and simplicity. If I find Protestancy there, well and good; If otherwise, no Gloss no Deduction shall prevail with me to believe the Novelty under pain of damnation, unless he who tampers with à Text, first, bids me believe under pain of damnation that he is an unerring man, or that his Glosses or deductions are infallible, which I am sure is not God's command. Again, If I find nothing plain and express in Scripture against my Catholic Doctrine (but much for it) I should be worse than foolish to change my ancient Faith upon the slight ground of farfetched Glosses and fallible inferences. 5. Shall I say yet more clearly what I here aim at? Some Christians there are now in being who Believe the true Doctrine of Christ so firmly, that though an Angel preached Contrary (Galat: 1. 8.) They ought not to be removed from it; if therefore Protestants believe their own Doctrine so steadfastly, and say that Papists (for The Asss●rti●n, proved. example) err in the Belief of Christ's true Doctrine, they are to Evidence it by à more indubitable Principle, than that is which the Apostle understands by the preaching of an Angel, But such à Principle can be no other nor less certain than plain and open Scripture, How Therefore can the Protestant so much as weakly hope to dissuade from Popery and persuade to his opinions by mere guesses, weak inferences, weightles conjectures etc. without plain Scripture? Now to show you he hath no more but, guesses, Let him please to Discuss rigidly with me but one point in Controversy by Scripture only. That of Transubstantiation wherein he think's to have most Advantage, may perhaps occur, and like him best. I say after All he can allege for his opinion, or against our Catholic Doctrine shall be no more but mere Conjectures, improbable Glosses, uncertain Topics, false Suppositions and the like; And are these think you weighty enough to establish his Opinion which he mere Conjectures are Protestants only proofs. holds to be revealed Doctrine? No certainly. The Doctrine of Christ stands so sure upon certain known Grounds that an Angel though he preach otherwise, is not to be believed, and if it be not thus steadfastly founded, it is not as I observed above, Christ's Doctrine. How easy were it for the Sectary to end much of these debates by à due examination of this one Controversy. I urge him to it, yet you'll see, he will refuse this Modest Challenge. 6. Wherefore I shall never comprehend why these men trouble the world as they do with writing Controversies. What is their aim? Is it to draw any one Soul to Protestancy, or only to give à proof of wit, and show that they can speak against God's truths which an Angel cannot Dissuade from? If this later be intended, the Arians of old did so before them, And the Devil can do it much better than either Arian or Sectary: If it be to convert men to Protestancy, The Attempt is desperate, unless they come strongly armed with plain, express, and Significant Scripture, Whereof there is no fear at all; For had they clear Scripture against one sort of their supposed erring Christians (Papists for example) they would not spare us one whit, but most willingly Silence us with Gods own plain language. This we look for, but in lieu of it, what have we? Fancies, Conjectures, Glosses, frivolous Discourses. And thus forsooth Popery must down (I marry) and Protestancy be thought the pure and most refined Religion. 7. By what is said already you see how unluckily these men run Sectaries argue improbably. out of the way of all probable Arguing, whilst Scripture is made so clear, that by the light thereof, All Controversies now raised amongst dissenting Christians, can be determined. Is it so convincing and clear? Prove you no Purgatory, no Invocation of Saints by plain and express Scripture. Is it so convincing and clear? Prove you plainly that to deny Purgatory or Transubstantiation, is as necessary to Salvation as to deny à Quaternity of Divine Persons. Now if it be not clear in such matters. Why keep you à coil about these Negatives? Why do you threaten us with God's judgements for maintaining the Contrary Doctrines? Why have you not only made an uproar in the world about Doctrines merely unnecessary, but more (which may lay sorrow at your hearts) why have Negative Opinions, the cause of Sectaries Separation▪ you shamefully separated yourselves from an Ancient Church, whereof your Ancestors were members? And this is desperately done for à Company of Negative Opinions, Though it imports not one straw whether they be believed or no. Contrariwise, if you make the Belief of these Non-Articles necessary to Salvation they must be proved by the plain and express word of God, which is utterly impossible, and therefore I said right, that Scripture cannot end Controversies between dissenting Christians, Catholics for example and Protestants. 8. And thus much in effect our Newer men grant who talk much of à few simple Truth's sufficient to salvation called fundamentals. Is is not enough saith Dr Taylor in his. 2. Dissuasive. P. 168. That we are Christians, that we put all our hope in God who freely gi●es us all things by his Son jesus Christ? That we are redeemed by his Death, that we are members of his body in Baptism▪ that he gives us his spirit that we do no Evil, that we do what good we can etc. Is not this Faith ru●e Righteousness, and the Confession of this faith sufficient unto salvation? Observe well. If such à faith of à few Novellists, and the like simple Truths which no Arian denies under such general Terms Of Sectaries simple Truths. (and cannot be proved sufficient by plain Scripture) be enough to Salvation, what need had Sectaries to Calumniate our ancient Church, and expose Christianity to the scorn of jews and Atheists for lesser Matters (as they think) than these fundamentals, or few simple truths are? Do we disown any of them? No. We are Christians as well as they, we put our hope in God, we say all things are given us by his son jesus Christ, we are redeemed by his Death etc. Wherein then lies our Offence? O, we hold strange Novelties, Invocation of Saints. Purgatory, Transubstantiation. I d●●y they are Novelties, but be it as you will, They are out of the 〈◊〉 ●f your simple Truths, and in your Principles no more but Opinions, and can you have such cruel hearts as to persecute us, banish us, and shed our blood for mere Opinions? Where is your Charity▪ Again I argue Ad hominem. If to hold à Purgatory be only ● Opinion, your denying it is no more but an opinion also, Therefore you cannot prove your Negative by plain and express Scripture, for if you do so, it well be no longer an Opinion, but à 〈◊〉 led Truth, and certain Doctrine. Convince this if you can and th● tell us that Scripture decides all Controversies between us, or his an obligation on us to believe more than These few simple Truth's 〈◊〉 No Purgatory for example, No Transubstantiation; or say plainly, that Scripture doth not put an end to these Controversies; which Truth is evident by manifest Experience. 9 It is strange to see how endless Sectaries are, and to no purpose at all, in quoting Fathers for the Clarity and sufficiency of Scripture in all things necessary, but afterward spoil all with à new Scripture says not how many are necessary. Whimsy, For they make just so much as they please (à few Simple Truths serve the turn) to be Necessary and sufficient. Here are three insuperable difficulties. First. They speak without book, For God never told them in Scripture how many or how few of these Truths, are necessary and Sufficient; Therefore if I admit this Principle, the Protestants sole Word must secure me, though I know well, that their word is neither à necessary, nor à sufficient warrant for my salvation. Hence. 1. I urge them to show by plain Scripture the number of these fundamentals precisely necessary. 2. I must tell them. If Scripture be clear in à few Fundamentals and so much only be necessary and sufficient, this reasonable Quaestion may well follow. What's the rest of the Bible good for with them? Most certainly the far greater part of it, where it speaks not of these few Necessaries, may be cast away as useless and impertinent. 3. These Novellists Pronounce, and Prove against themselves, in all such Controversies as are now in debate between them and Catholics, For, if Scripture which tell's us of all Necessary and Sufficient things to salvation (comprised in à few simple Truths whereof there is no strif now) omit's, whilst it mentions Sectaries prove against themselves. these, to speak plainly in behalf of our Protestant Opinions. N● Sacrifice. No Transubstantiation. etc. With what Conscience can they tell us (and They have often said it) that this Book alone can decide these controversies, and recall us from Popery to their new mode of Protestancy? I would willingly have Satisfaction to this one difficulty. 10. Well: To answer all they can pretend to out of the ancient Fathers for the Clarity and sufficiency of scripture in order to things necessary; be pleased to observe, that the learned Tertullian against Martion (but chief in his book the Prescript: cap. 16. at those words. We are not to recur to Scripture, wherein there is no victory, or à very uncertain one etc.) And S. Austin. S. Chrisostome with others, may perhaps seem, to à less diligent Reader, to be of contrary judgements. Tertullian now cited, says Scripture is insufficient to decide Controversies concerning Religion amongst Christians. S. Austin. De Bapt. Contra Donat: lib. 2. C. 6. pleads much for its sufficiency. I say here is no Contrariety: both speak well, both deliver Catholic Doctrine. Know therefore, that Scripture is divided into two Parts or Sections, as you may read in Sixtus Senensis. Two parts of Scripture, distinguished. Lib. 6. Bibl. Annot: 152. Who citys S. Chrisostom for it. The one usually called Pars Directa, or direct part treats of the abstruse Mysteries of Christian Faith, and this (which is Matter of Contest between us and Sectaries) Tertullian reiects, and holds insufficient to end disputes, And so doth S. Austin also. Epistola. 49. Ad Deo gratias. The other named, Pars reflexa and the clearer which speaks of the Foundation of Christian Religion, of the Extent of the Church diffused the whole world over, of its marks and Signs, of its Perpetuity, and infallible Assistance, of Nations flocking to it, etc. This part, I say (the book being once admitted as of God's Divine word) is so perspicuous, and clear that it silences all Sectaries and evidently subuerts their Errors. But to tell me, it is clear and sufficient enough to decide differences, when we dispute with contentious men about the particular Mysteries of Faith (the Trinity, for example, Transubstantiation, the number of Sacraments &c.) And the very sense of Scripture, which should end all, is not agreed on by the two dissenting Parties; To assert this I say, is not only à Paradox but à manifest improbability contrary to all experience, And therefore I will extort this confession from our Adversaries (may they please to answer) that as they shall never prove one of their Protestant Opinions, so, they shall never oppugn one Catholic Doctrine, by clear and express Scripture. 11. Some object S. Austin disputing against Maeximinus an Arian, S. Austin's Discourse. with an Arian. who faith. Lib. 3. C. 4. 14. Sed nunc nec ego Nicenum etc. B●rnob, neither I ought to allege the Nicene Council, nor thou that of Ariminum, for neither am I bound to the Authority of the one, nor thou to the Authority of the other. Let us contend by the Authorities of scripture which are common witnesses to us both. Here two things seem clear. First. That S. Austin rejected the Authority of the Nicene Council, as Sectaries do now the Church. 2. That He held Scripture à sufficient Rule to convince an Arian. A word only in passing. Dare the Sectary offer thus much, or dispute with the Catholic for the supposed Observe the question here proposed. Truths of pure Protestancy, or his Negative Articles by Scripture only, as he here supposeth S Austin did Argue in other Matters with Maximinus? I would willingly see some attempt made this way, but am sure, He will not dare to do it. Because he saith His Protestancy, or these Negatives are not revealed, but only à number of inferior truths which cannot be proved by Scripture. To what purpose then is it to allege any Testimony which makes Scripture sufficient to decide Controversies, when the Protestant ingenuously grant's he can prove nothing of his pure Protestancy by plain Scripture? Hence I Say all the Quotations of Fathers haled in to prove the sufficiency of Scripture, help not the Sectary at all. Irenaeus, for example, calls it the Rule of Faith. S. Austin. A Divine Sectaries quote Fathers to no purpose. Balance. Theophilus Alex: A firm foundation. Gerson, A Sufficient and infallible Rule. Most true if we speak of the scriptures Clearer part, yea and of the obscurer also, when it is interpreted by an infallible Oracle. But what makes all this for pure Protestancy, or for its Negative Opinions? Doth Scripture regulate this new Faith, whereof it is utterly silent? Doth it weigh such Negatives, or tell us what they are worth? Is it à firm Foundation to establish these Fancies? A sufficient and infallible Rule which measures us out, No Sacrifice on the Altar, No purgatory. No Transubstantiation? Toys, trifles. There is not à word spoken in the whole Bible contrary to the opposite Verities of Catholic Religion, or in behalf of Protestancy. Therefore though S. Austin appealed to Scripture against an Arian, and had his reasons for it, yet our new men's Plea is more than impertinent, when after their Appeal they find not one sentence for Protestancy, or against Catholic Doctrine. Now to S. Austin. 12. I say first, The Saint rejected not the Authority of the Why S. Austin waved the Nicene Council. Nicene Council which he ever honoured, but only waved that as an unmeet Principle in his contest with Maximinus, who no more regarded the Nicene Definitions, than Sectaries now do the Council of Trent, Therefore as we Argue not from that Council against them, so S. Austin then argued not from the Nicene Definitions. Thus our Catholic Witers have answered à hundred times, yet we must have this Crambe recocta served up again, as à new unsavoury Objection. I say. 2. S. Austin by his Appeal to Scripture recurr's not to the bare letter, which, he Saith, is à body without à Soul, but to the true genuine Sense Thereof, which he supposeth known in that Scripture which we call the Reflex part, and yet is more clearly known by the Universal consent of Christ's unerring Church: For it is one and the same thing with S. Austin, to believe the Church's sense of Scripture, and to believe Scripture itself, which most manifestly commends unto us Church Authority. Had then the Saint argued thus against his Adversary, He had convinced him by the Clearer Part of Scripture. Though thou exceptest against the Nicene A clear Conviction. Council, yet thou canst not deny, but that Scripture commends à Church founded by Christ, diffused the whole world over; what ever Therefore this Church delivers concerning the sense of Scripture, That is the sense of the Holy Ghost, And can be no other, for à Church which swerves from the true sense of God's word, is no Church founded by Christ. But the Vniversael Sentiment of this Church opposeth thy error, Therefore the true sense of Scripture which this Church plainly delivers, stands opposite to thee also, And thus thou art convinced by Scripture itself. 13. Perhaps you will ask whether if S. Austin had argued from the Obscurer Part only which treats of à Mysterious Trinity, one What if S. Austin had argued from the Direct part of Scripture? God in Essence, and three distinct Persons, not so plainly expressed there, He could then have convinced his Arian Adversary of error? None can better satisfy the doubt than S. Austin himself. Lib. contra Cresconium C. 33. where he speaks of an other Matter of Faith. viz. of Baptism conferred by Heretics, which though not clearly expressed in Scripture, is yet held à true and valid Sacrament. His words are. Proinde quamuis huius rei certè de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum etc. Although no example of this thing (the validity of Baptism by Heretics) can certainly be Shown by Scripture yet the Verity of these Scriptures is held by us in this particular. Cum hoc facimus quod universae iam placuit Ecclesia, when we now do that which pleases, or is agreeable to the Universal Church, which Church, the Authority of Scripture itself commends. Vt quoniam, As that because the Holy Scripture cannot deceive (whilst it commends the Church) and every one fear's to be deceived in the obscurity of this Question: Eamdem Ecclesiam de illâ consulat. Let him consult the Universal Church of this particular, Which holy Scripture without all ambiguity Doth demonstrate. Thus S. Austin himself Answers. most profoundly S. Austin. And he gives an Answer to the present difficulty. viz. That if the Obscurer Part of Scripture speak not plainly in the debate betwixt him and an Heretic, the Heretic is to address himself to the Church and learn by Her what the sense of Scripture is. Without light borrowed from the Church, we have only words about these high Mysteries, but not fully sensed words, chief when we argue with contentious Sectaries, whose glosses deprave the plainest Passages in Holy writ, as the Protestant doth Christ's clear Proposition. This is my body. If therefore we go on in such à contest with words not fully sensed, we may well end our lives, as S. Austin notes, before we end one Controversy. 14. And thus you see, as the One Part of Scripture is à body without à soul before it be received by the Church; so the Other Part is also, before it be both received and sensed by this Oracle of Truth. Upon this ground all those other Testimonies usually alleged by Sectaries out of S. Austin against the Donatists, Of Optatus Melevitanus, and S. Chrysostom for the clarity of Scripture are clearly solued, for here is S. Augustine's Principle. The sense of Scripture intended The sense of Scripture and the Church always the same. by the Holy Ghost, and the sense of Christ's true Church concerning Scripture, can never clash, but is one and the same. If therefore I know the sense of the Church, I have with it the sense of Scripture also, but with this difference, That what Scripture often expresses less clearly, Christ's Church delivers more fully, and Explicitly. Whence it follows that if the Church's sense conclude against these Sectaries, the Scriptures sense, where it is obscure, is in like manner concluding. 15. You may object Scripture is in the noblest manner infallible, For it hath its infallibility from God immediately, and may well be à distinct Rule, or Principle, from that sense which the Church gives of it. Why therefore should not Sectaries have recourse to that first and noblest Principle without relying on the Church's interpretation? I have answered, because they know not (guess they may and miss) what Scripture says in à hundred difficult Passages. Therefore they are to recur to the Church, or must make use of their own fancies to sense it. The Argument, purely fallacious, is much to this sense. Christ our Lord when he taught his Disciples was in the noblest manner infallible, being Truth itself, the Apostles were only infallible in their teaching and An Objection answered. further Explanation of those Verities they learned, by à Singular Grace or participation of Infallibility. Why then should not Sectaries rely only on the first sure Principle, Christ's own words flowing from the Fountain of infallibility, without depending on the Apostles Doctrine, not so eminently infallible? Now be pleased to hear S. Austin pondering those words. Psal: 57 Alienati sunt peccatores etc. Where he makes this Parallel betwixt Christ and the Church, and solues the Difficulty. Ex veritatis ore ag 〈…〉 Christum ipsam veritatem. Taught by the mouth of Truth, I acknowledge Christ Truth itself, ex veritatis ore agnosco Ecclesiam participem veritatis. And by the same mouth of Truth, I acknowledge the Church partaking also of Verity. That is, I own the Church to be, not Truth itself, not Scripture itself, but à Copartner of Truth, with Christ, and Scripture. I own it to be, not Infallibility itself, yet so eminently infallible by à singular grace or participated Infallibility, That to dispute against it is most insolent madness: Witness the same S. Austin. Epist. 118. C. 5. ad jan: If he dare to do so, Saith the Saint, Serm: 14. de verbis Apost. C. 18. or rus● violently against this impregnable wall of the Church, let him know his doom. ipse confringitur He is shattered in pieces. Hence you see first, that no man's private judgement can be contrary to the Church's sense given of Scripture, without thwarting Scripture itself. You see. 2. That Scripture and the Church are not two Principles, looking as it were different ways, but one and the same, in order to our direction and regulating Faith. whereof Scripture and the Church in order to all, is one Principle. more Hereafter. 16. In the mean while you may ask, why our Sectaries keep such à Coil about the Clarity of Scripture concerning things necessary? It is hard to say what they drive at, For if all this pretended clarity diffused itself through every passage of Holy writ, worse it is for them, and to their utter confusion. Observe My reason. The more clear Scripture is made by Novellists, the greater is their shame, whilst they cannot prove by its supposed clarity so much as one Protestant Doctrine, nor probably oppugn one Article of our Catholic Faith. Therefore nothing is gained this way: Nay all is los▪ t by Their casting off Church Authority, when after that wicked Fact, clear Scripture leaves them as Scripturelesse, as Their own malice has made them Churchlesse. It is true. I see some Colour for their Pretence to Scripture, and thus it is. Like men lawless, they have shaken of all other received Principles of Christian Religion. Speak of à Church, She is fallible, and has actually erred. Cite Fathers, some pitifully gloss them, others roundly reject them as men merely Fallible. Mention Tradition, the very word is odious. Now for stark shame, whilst they bear the name of Christians, it is hard to throw away all Christian Principles. What's done therefore? Why Sectaries take recourse to the bare letter of Scripture. I'll tell you. They lay hold of à body without à Soul, I mean, the bare letter of Scrrpture without the Sense, and this is all that's left them. I say without the sense, whereof you have seen enough already, for when the sense of God's word is controverted between them and us, and their sense runs contrary to the received Church Doctrine, no probable Principle can make it defensible, and upon this Ground I said right, They are as Scripturelesse as Churchlesse All this is most true, and I well understand it. But why these men labour so earnestly to make the Bible plain, when not so much as one plain passage is found there for Protestancy, or against our Catholic Doctrine, is à Riddle above my reach, I understand it not. Let then as much as you will of the book be clear, whilst the Clarity favour's not one of our Sectaries forged Novelties, nor contradicts one of our Catholic Tenets, it neither help's the Protestant nor hurt's the Catholic. In the next Discourse we shall treat of the Church, and more opportunely solve there à few objections of Sectaries. CHAP. XV. The other mentioned Principles above are insufficient to decide controversies, Or to Regulate Faith. 1. THe next Principle after Scripture, we named the Mysteries of Christian Religion, which certainly cannot regulate Faith, or determine Controversies concerning Religion. For à Rule is the measure whereby we judge what is true and what is fal●●, but no man judges this by the Mysteries themselves Believed, because these proposed without further light, are not only obscure but highly Transcend all natural discourse, And therefore Reason would reject them, were it not curbed and rectified by an other Superior most certain and infallible Rule, distinct from the Mysteries. I further ground and more à Priori is. That man who judges of Religion by the Mysteries believed, makes, in real truth his own fancy or weak reason to regulate Faith, and is sure to err. ●le show you how. Give me one, as yet not settled in any Faith, that casts his thoughts upon all the different Religions now Professed in the world, judaism, Mahometism, and Christianity. He calls them all to the Tribunal of his Reason which is guided by the Mysteries of each Profession, And is resolved to pitch on so What weak Reason would embrace● If left to itself. much, as seems suitable to his judgement. Reason certainly, if it proceed Reasonably. will only pick out of every one, such Mysteries as are Facile, and no way torture an Understanding. Much may displease this Seeker after Truth in judaism, yet perhaps not all. The filth and Fooleries in Turcism like him not, yet something he may approve. Finally he falls upon Christianity and there finds those insuperable difficulties of à Trinity, the Incarnation, Original sin etc. These suit not with his Reason, and consequently are rejected, Therefore (if Christianity be true) à false Religion cannot but have more sway with him, than the undoubted revealed Verities of jesus Christ. Thus much seems clear. Perhaps you will ask why I instance in an Vnbeliever, who is yet to choose his Religion? When I should show that Christians, even those we call Sectaries, ought not to end Controversies or to regulate their Faith by the apparent easiness, or difficulty of Mysteries within the bounds of Christianity, whereof many are in dispute between them and Catholics. Answ. I have instanced thus on set purpose to lay open the great Error of all Sectaries, who leaving the These who yet believe nothing and Sectaries, are alike in their Choice Of Religion. Conduct of Christ's Church run along with this supposed Vnbeliever. For as he, after à consideration had of several Mysteries found in the Religions now named, takes out of each what is easiest, and best likes his Fancy, or weak reason; So Sectaries ptoceed, Though they walk in à lesser compass, and for the most part limit Themselves to something taught by men called Christians, whether true or false, imports not. Within such bounds they take and leave as freely what pleaseth, as any Vnbeliever doth, and usually throw off Mysteries most difficult to sense and Reason. Thus the Arian reiects à Trinity because it is à hard Mystery, and not plainly expressed in Scripture. The Pelagian denies Original sin upon the same ground, and Protestants thunder against Transubstantiation, because the word is not in Holy Writ, and the Mystery seems repugnant to their Reason. All therefore are alike as ill Self-chusers with in such à compass as any Vnbeliever, who makes à new▪ Religion on his own head, guided by no other Rule, but fancy, or what seems to him reasonable. The sole cause of this Self-chusing, is the Sectaries falling off from the conduct of Christ's unerring Oracle, The Church, which tell's them what God speaks. This unfortunately slighted, They make him speak just so much as they think fit, or seems good to their weak and fallible Reason. 2. The next Principle, Sectaries may lay hold on for à sufficient, or at least à Subordinate and concurrent means to decide Controversies, and regulate Faith, is the Authority of the ancient Fathers. Though catholics highly honour these great Lights of the Church, And no way decline the trial, yet they Protestants do and must except against the Authority of Fathers. think an easier Rule can be assigned for all, and know well that Protestants do and must except against this very Rule. One exception is. The labour is immense to peruse exactly the large volumes of Fathers (the like is of Councils) which can only be done by the more learned of different Religions. However, suppose the work performed by à learned Catholic and à learned Protestant, and that both diligently read the Fathers, The satisfaction given to the Generality of other Christians is very little or nothing, who first must Hear, what These two men report, and next credit their dissenting judgements. And can such judgement think ye thus at variance (as they have been for à hundred years) certainly regulate Divine Faith in à Seeker after truth, or end debates whereon Salvation depends? It is impossible. Again These Fathers with Sectaries, even all of them put together, are fallible and may teach False Doctrine: Nay more, They have actually taught it, say Protestants, and grossly erred, whilst they openly mantained à true Sacrifice upon the Altar, prayers for the dead; Invocation of▪ Saints, Translation of Saints Relics and their worship, Pilgrimages because the Fathers are fallible, and teach Popery. to Holy places, Auricular Confession to à Priest, un written Tradition, vowed Chastity, the Hallowing of Altars, of Churches, of water, bread, oil, candles, And the great virtue of the sign of the Holy Cross. etc. These say Protestants, and innumerable others have been the foul mistakes of Fathers, and Therefore Mr whitaker plainly affirms Popish Religion to be à Patched coverlet of the Father's Errors sowed together▪ And D. Humphrey highly blames Mr▪ jewel for his so bold Appeal to the Fathers, saying herein he gave the Papists too▪ large à Scope, was injurious to himself (And) after à manner spoiled himself, and the Church etc. The words of these two Sectaries are cited, as I relate them, in the Protestants Apology. Tract 1. Sect. 3. subd▪ 14. Page (with me) 128. And never Adversary could yet Tax that Author of à false Quotation, who also through the Several passages of his book shows, how Sectaries ascribe the now named and supposed errors to the Fathers. It would be tedious, to expose all his laborious Collections on this subject to common view again. Who ever desires further Satisfaction, need's only to bring eyes, to open the book, and read his Marginal notes. Thus much premised. 3. I say. The Fathers that are not only fallible, but also supposed by Sectaries to have actually wronged Truth, can be no Appendent or subordinate, much less any sufficient Rule of faith for them, when these conceited Errors are so numerous Recourse to Fathers in Fundamentals most insignificant. That all along they stick most Close to our Catholic Doctrine, as is largely proved in the Protestants Apology. Some perhaps will say we must have recourse to such passages of Fathers as only treat of Fundamentals, and so far are unexceptionably plain: Answ. what need of this, when Protestants say there is no great difference between us in Fundamentals? But suppose this done, which yet cannot be done, whilst Sectaries remain in their wont Labyrinth concerning Fundamentals, what light have we from these Fathers to try controversies now in Agitation, when they grant that Popery is made up of the Father's Errors? The final sentence is past, the just Censure already given. The Fathers were, as we are now, plain Papists. I easily grant all. 4. Shall I yet say more concerning the trial of Protestants Opinions, or the supposed errors of Catholics by Fathers, and tell you? Sectaries have no Gusto to it at all. And because it mainly imports first, to discover their want of Evidence and next their fallacious proceeding in this particular, I will briefly do both and remit all here noted to the prudent Censure of every judicious Reader. Thus it is. There is not one controversy now Protestants never offer to plead by à General Consent of Fathers. disputed, in which our Protestants do so much as offer to plead by à General Consent of Fathers, (and Mr Stillingf: likes not to be fobbed off with Two or three Testimonies) Read their writings of the Real presence of Prayers for the Dead, Invocation of Saints, of à Sacrifice upon the Altar, of the infallibility of the Church, and tell me after you have perused all, How many Fathers you find clear and express for Protestancy? A sight of four or five would help much, But hereof there is no danger, for you have not one clear and express (I say more▪ not one so much as probable) against the Infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church, Against praying for the Dead etc. And therefore wonder not that Mr Stilling: Part. 3. C. 6. P. 641. where he treats of Purgatory, talks much of the Father's Fancies and Imaginations▪ And of an itching Curiosity some have to know more concerning the future state of souls, than God has revealed, But after all produceth not one Testimony either clear or probable against our Catholic Doctrine. 5. Do you desire to see more of this want in behalf of Protestancy, And how little there is to countenance the Novelty? Turn again, to Mr Stillinf: Part. 2. C. 1. P. 293. Where you find à Title threatening ruin to us all. The Roman Church, not the Catholic Church. Say, I beseech you, who would not have expected after such à clap of Thunder, à whole Torrent of Fathers to have followed for his purpose? But in lieu of these Imptij words given in lief of ●athers. what have we? Marry, He tell's us First. His Bishop makes à great deal of difference between The Church, And A Church, and some difference also between à True Church and à right Church, next he falls foul on his Adversary, for his not well considering what the Primate had said: Lastly (to pass by à few ieers) he speaks much of the Universal spreading of the Church's Doctrine and Unity thereof, which is due to the Roman Catholic Church only, But after his long Discourse and the rapping Title with it, you have neither sentence nor syllable of any Father, which so much as meanly insinuates, That, that ancient Moral body (as it comprehends all Christians united in one Belief) is not the only True and Orthodox Church in the world: Yet her● had been à most fit place to have pleaded by plain express Authorities (I mean such as directly prove the Roman not to be the Catholic Church) Believe it, were there any such in the Father's Volumes, Mr Stilling: to make his margins glorious, would have brought them to light with à witness, But of this main point he is utterly silent, because he had nothing to say, And therefore wisely Slips aside to other By-Matters, and leaves his Title to shift for itself. 6. Hence you may well conclude that our Sectaries are driven into strange Straits; when we urge them to prove their Protestancy. Of the straits sectaries are Cast into. We first call them to plain Scripture for à Final decision in this particular, but wanting where with all, they fit us right with à return of Antiscriptural glosses. We press them again to name any orthodox Church, which five or Six ages since professed their Novelties: Not à word is Answered. We make Inquiry after Councils held by Protestants before Luther, for the Protestant Religion. Silence, deep Silence, not one is found. Mention only Oral Tradition; they storm at you, because they know Protestancy has none We appeal to the authority of the most ancient Fathers, you see how we are served, with words and empty Titles Nothing is or can be alleged clear, Nothing express, Nothing probable. Finally, to leave them without all excuse. We call them again to an account, and Ask whether they will have their cause tried and judged by their own Doctors, Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius and the like? No satisfaction is found here. Luther condemn's Calvin more violently, than the Prelatic Party in England doth the Quakers, and Send's the Associates Protestants irreconciably Contradict Protestant's. of Calvin to Hell, for denying the Real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, And Calvin is as fierce against Luther in this particular. And thus all Sectaries have opposed one another from the very beginning of this woeful Reformation. Some plead for our Catholic Doctrine, Others are contrary as you may read at large, almost in every Page of the Protestants Apology. We therefore know not what these Novellists would or can believe, whilst these endless differences about Belief thus turn their heads, and make them to believe just nothing, but what every fancy pleaseth. What à Religion have we here? View well it's exterior, you have only Horror and confusion to look on. Altars pulled down, Cloisters demolished, Bious places profaned, Stately Churches turned into sluttish barns, by à barbarous Reformation. Enter into the Interior, or cast à serious thought on that which should essentially constitute Religion, you find this Protestancy à mere new Nothing, as Scripture Neither Interior nor exterior valuable in protestancy. less as Churchles, without Tradition, without the consent of Fathers, or any Christian Principle to uphold it, yea (and this utterly ruins all) without any Agreement in Doctrine amongst themselves. May we not Therefore justly deplore the sad condition of Thousands now within our once most Catholic England, to see à Thing which stands on no Principles but fancy, most earnestly stood for, by men of excellent natural parts, and these English too, whose Progenitors (the world knows it, fully as wise as They) were all Roman Catholics? But what will ye? Good Revenues, A merry life, à handsome wife, and Self Interest will have it so. And thus much of the want of clear Authorities in behalf of Protestants. 7. We are now to speak à word of their fallacious, or rather open injurious Proceeding with the Fathers. And to make good what I am about to Say, you may please to reflect upon the Notes in the other Treatise, Chief. Disc. 4. C. 2. n. 23. 24. Where you are told That the great work of Protestants, is not so much to prove Their own Religion, as to spend time in cavilling at ours, And by superficial Glosses to drive sense out of the Father's most significant Doctrine, and then to tell the world, they are not for Popery. And (thus (may their glosses have place) no Religion (neither theirs not ours) can be proved by the Fathers. This most unworthy Sectaries proceed unworthily with the Fathers. Procedure with these, great Lights of the Church lenghthens Protestants books, And makes Mr Stillingfleets Account to swell into the bulk you see. Might I here (by the way) speak my thoughts concerning it; I verily believe there was never Book set forth, which less deserved its Title, than this. He calls it: A Rational Account of the grounds of Protestant Religion, yet if any one, after à diligent perusal of the whole Work, can show me but one Article of Protestancy proved by plain Scripture, by à General consent of Fathers, by any ancient Church Doctrine, or universal Tradition, I do at this present engage, to evince by my Answer, That he is grossly mistaken. The fairest Occasion Mr Stillingfleet had to speak home for Protestancy, was. Part. 1. C. 7. Where he treats of their way of resolving Faith, yet even here he falls so utterly from the Cause, that he says no more for Protestancy, than Arianism. See the other Treatise. Disc. 1. C. 9 You will ask perhaps wherein then lies the Substance of his book? I Answer in two things chief. First in à tedious wordy quarrel Two impertinences Constitute the subslanet of Mr Stilling: Account. with Catholic Religion; (His flirting at it is endless) 2. In à gross Abuse of the Fathers by his intolerable Glosses. Of neither shall he give à rational Account to God at the day of judgement. To prove what is here hinted at, Read I beseech you the following Chapter, which I place here on set purpose to lead in à further discourse concerning the Glosses of Sectaries, Withal to lay forth their emptiness and fraud; And finally to show whither these Vnprincipled, life-less. Whimsies, tend at last. Thus much performed, you shall see Protestancy appear like itself, à mere Nothing. CHAP. XVI. One word more of Mr Stillingfleets Glosses, and his unexusable abuse of other Fathers. 1. THough much is said of this subject already, yet because here is Occasion again, I shall briefly point at two or three of Mr Stillingfleet's notorious Abuses. To prosecute all or the half he has, would make this Treatise as big as his volume. We begin with that known Passage of S. Jerome. Epist. 57 Ad Damasum, where the Saint saith. The Church is built upon S. Peter's See, and whosoever is out of the Communion of that Church (whereof Pope Damasus was then head) is Profane, an Alien, and belongs to Antichrist etc. This in brief is the Substance of S. Hieroms Doctrine. Mr Stilling: Part 2. C. 1. P. 311. Imputes not plainly these Expressions to heat or flattery, although, S. Jerome abused. Saith he, it looks the more suspicious, because at that time S. Jerome had à great picque against the Eastern Bishops, And then tell's us to no purpose, what occasioned the Quarrel. Reflect good Reader. Is this handsome, to make à Saint and most profound Doctor to Speak in so weighty à Matter against Truth, and his own conscience, moved thereunto by flattery and no man knows what Imagined Picques? Suppose he earnestly stood for Truth against those Bishops, must He Therefore be thought either to flatter or to deny truth now, when he writ's to à Pope, his lawful Superior? Upon what Principle doth this ungrounded calumny Stand? Pray you Answer. 2. After some Parergons', not worth the mentioning. Mr Stilling: Says. When S. Jerome Pronounces those Aliens and Profane, who are out of the Communion of the Church, it either belongs not to the particular Church of Rome, or if it doth, it makes not to our purpose. What mean these words, The particular Church of Rome? The sole Diocese of that City? No. S. Jerome speaks of the Church built upon S. Peter, or of all Churches united in Faith with that See, where Damasus then sat, which only (excluding Aliens, That is all heretical Societies) make up the true Universal Orthodox Church, as shall be demonstrated hereafter. Well saith Mr Stilling: Suppose I grant that S. Jerome spoke of the particular Church of Rome (he means, or 'tis Nonsense, of all Churches of the same Faith with the Roman) yet this comes not home to the purpose, unless we Catholics prove our Church to be as Orthodox now, as She was in those Primitive times. We prove, Good Sr. Prove you on God's name, to Mr Stilling: demand impertinent. whom proving belongs, That this Church is less Orthodox now, than formerly. Who ever stands in à known old path as we Do, ought not to prove he stands there, (Olim possideo prior possider, is his proof) but one that start's aside, and takes to à new way (as you have done) should tell us, why he left the other high Road wherein his Ancestors walked? No prince proves his Right and Title to à Rebel, but if any be so ungracious as to rebel, that man must show why he did so, or suffer for it. But of this subject so much is said in the other Treatise that I hold it unanswerable, More shall be added in its due place. In the mean while you see à pretty way of arguing, which runs upon an idle Supposition. viz. That the Roman Church is altered from itself, since S. Hieroms time. The improbable Supposition is first to be proved, before the Argument have any force, till than we may lawfully judge, that S. Hierom's Testimony concludes against this Adversary. Pray tell me, If I, upon à bare Supposition, should assert that Mr Stilling: is no good Divine, and thence infer, he is His false supposition not proved. unfit to write Controversies, might he not most justly be angry, and well deny my Assertion, because the Supposition whereon the Assertion stands is not proved? No more, say is 'tis proved in the present Matter. viz. That our Church Doctrine is altered from itself since the primitive times. Prove that upon sound Principles, and you will do more than Ever Protestant did hitherto. 3. Hence all Mr Stilling: following talk of Paralogisms falls to nothing. It is he saith, our perpetual Paralogism, when the Fathers are cited in praise of the Church of Rome although sometimes their Rhetoric swelled too high in their Encomiastics, (They are his words) That we will needs have these praises to be understood as well of that Church in our present age, as in the Father's time when it better deserved them; And he adds. As though, it were not possible for à Church to be eminent for purity of Doctrine in one age, and to decline from it in another. Answer. All this is worse than à Paralogism or any captious way of reasoning, for it tends to nonsense unless the main Supposition be proved, to wit, That the Roman Apostolical Catholic Church, once certainly pure in Doctrine has or Can decline from her Purity in afrer ages. Mr Stilling: knows well that Catholics, who hold their Church infallible, make the receding from its Purity à thing impossible. How senseless then is it in this place, where that Question of Infallibility is not handled, first to suppose our Church fallen off from its old Doctrine, and then to tell us the Father's Encomiums have Still that's Supposed which should be Proved. nothing to do with it in this present state? I argue thus, and Mr Stilling: P. 314. seems to approve it. Upon the Supposition that the Roman Catholic Church has not swerved nor can swerve from its first pure Doctrine, The Father's Eulogiums are in this age as due to it, as in any other. But the Supposition must stand firmly built, as you shall see hereafter, upon sure grounds and Principles. But contrariwise this way of arguing is Nonsense? I'll suppose upon no grounds, the Roman Catholic Church to have erred, and then I'll do an open injustice and deny it the due Commendations given by the Fathers. It is just as if one should say. I'll suppose à man hitherto reputed honest, to be à thief and then I'll deny him justice, and hang him up. 4. I say upon no Grounds. And to prove my Assertion, ask? With what Church then visible in the world were Christians obliged to Communicate, when all see S. Jerome will have them to Communicate with some Church? Mr Stilling: Answers with the Catholic Church. Very Good. I Ask again, whether the Roman Church, and all other Churches united in Faith with it, were rightly called the true Catholic Church? Grant this you yield the cause, And Confess that Christians were then obliged to be in union with the Roman Catholic Church. Contrariwise, if you deny that to have been then the true Church, you are cast upon No other Church Catholic but the Roman. endless difficulties, and here is one which cannot be solued. Upon the denial you, Sir, are obliged to denote, or name an other Catholic Church distinct from the Roman, more pure in Doctrine at that time, than She was, And that not only the Romans, but all others were Aliens and Profane who eat not the lamb or communicated not in faith, with your new found fancied Church in the air. I say fancied, for to point at such à Church on earth is as impossible, as to prove known condemned Heretics to be good Catholics, whereof see more in the other Treatise. Disc. 3. c. 1. 5. Mr Stilling. to shift off the difficuIty will perhaps say, When S. Jerome wrote This, The Roman Church was truly Orthodox, and that He accounted all Aliens and Profane who communicated not with it. Most true Doctrine: But see what follows. Be pleased to fall lower to the third or fourth Age after S. Jerome, There was then, I hope, à Catholic Church in the world, wherewith Christians Communicated in Faith; but most evidently there was not any T●en reputed Orthodox, if we exclude the Roman from being so, For all other Societies nameable, In the ages after S. Jerome, no Church Orthodox but the Roman. though called Christians were professed Heretics; With these no man was obliged to communicate, Therefore all were either bound to Communicate with the Roman Catholic Church, or with no Church at all. Hence I infer that the Fathers Elogium's given to the Roman Catholic Church were ever most justly due, not once only, during the Primitive times, but now also and in all Ages: Withal I assert, That Mr Stilling: denying this Truth, speaks his own fancy without proof, or the least appearance of any probable Principle. And he will be as wholly unprincipled, if I first suppose (as I may if my Creed be true) That there is now at this very hour à true Catholic Church on earth, and should next demand, where that Church is, in whose union I must live and die? Will He pitch, think ye, upon an union with the Arians, Grecians, Abyssins' Anabaptists Protestants or Quakers? Light where he pleaseth, he can only vent his fancy without Proof or Principle. Now cast as it were this fancy into à balance with those most weighty significant Testimonies of ancient Fathers, who positively press for communion with the Roman Catholic Church, and you will see à strange uneven Parallel (conceited whimsyes, And strong reasonable Arguments, laid together). Yet wonder nothing, for weak fancy is the strongest Adversary Catholic Religion hath S. Cyprians Testimony proposed. 6. You have yet an other Authority grossly misused by Mr Stilling: Page 315. And 'tis à known Passage of S. Cyprian in his 55. Epistle to Cornelius, where he complain's of certain factious Schismatics, who dared to sail to the chair of S. Peter, and the Principal Church from whence Priestly unity had its Origen, and carry letters from Profane and Schismatical persons. Nec cogitare eos esse Remons etc. not thinking them to be the Romans (whose Faith the Apostle commended) ad quos perfidiae haebere non possit accessum, to whom falsehood, untruth, unfaithfulness, cannot have Access. Thus S. Cyprian And I put much force in those words. Eos esse Romanos. Those who then lived to be the Romans, prophetically commended by the Apostle, which words taken in an obvious sense argue, that true Faith should never part from the See of Rome. But Mr Stilling: conceal's this force, and translates. Not considering that the Romans etc. No less energy lies in the other following words. To whom unfaithfulness can have no Access, which seem to exclude à possibility of falsehood from the Roman Church. 7. Now listen à little to four strange Glosses laid upon this one Text. Three of them are the Bishops, and one Mr Stilling: Vain Glosses Laid upon The Testimony. lays claim to, The Bishops says first. Perfidia can hardly stand here for error in Faith. And why not my Lord? He Answers. It properly signifies malicious falsehood in matter of Trust, or in fact against the Discipline And government of the Church. And I say, it as properly signifies Unfaithfulness, or Untruth, And therefore excludes error in Faith from the Romans; yea it must have this sense here, because it's opposed to the Faith of the Romans so much commended by the Apostle, which was true Christian Faith. Perfidia therefore signifies the quite contrary, that is error in Faith. But grant the sense to be as the Bishop glosseth, it excludes at least from the Romans to whom S. Cyprian wrote, à Possibility of doing any thing against the Discipline and Government of the Church, or of being maliciously false in Matter of Trust. If this be so, much more are they secured by virtue of these words. (Ad quos persidia non possit habere accessum) from à possibility of erring in Faith, for what auails it to have à Church guarded from unjust dealing in Matters of Trust, if you make it liable to Error in the main Essential, which is true Faith, the very ground of Salvation, And Principle cause also of just proceeding amongst Christians? Perhaps these men will say. S. Cyprian in his Elogium respected only the first Romans commended by the Apostle, not Those who lived in his An other Gloss refuted. time. Contra 1. That is not only said without Proof, but improbably falsifies the Saints express words. Eos esse Romanos, as is now noted. Contra. 2. If S. Cyprian only relate to the Romans whom the Apostle taught, what need is there to keep à coil about the signification of Perfidia, when those first Christians had for their Instructor an Infallible Apostle. If therefore S. Paul could not err in faith, Perfidia, may well exclude all misbelief or error in Matters of Faith from that Apostolical Church. And here we make way to discover the Bishop's levity in his second Gloss. 8. Suppose saith he, it be granted that, Perfidia, Signifies error in faith, or Doctrine, yet it belongs not to the Romans absolutely, but with à respect to those first Romans, whose Faith was commended by the Apostle. Contra 1. Upon what certain Principle doth this confident Assertion stand? It belongs not absolutely to the Roman Church? Prove thus much by à sure Principle, and something is said to the purpose. But without à solid Probation we look on it as à whimsy only, or à thought of fancy. Yet more. What mean's his Lordship by those dark words. With à respect to those first Romans? Will he say that the first Romans were infallible in Faith and make those others to whom S. Cyprian wrote fallible? This must be his meaning or nothing, A second and third Gloss rejected. For if both were equally infallible, or both alike fallible, he gains nothing by the word, Respect, to the first Romans. Therefore he must hold that ancient Church of Rome to be more infallibly founded in Faith, than the later Romans were to whom S. Cyprian wrote; Admit this, He makes the Saint not only to flatter à whole Church, but to speak Nonsense also. For in effect he saith thus much. Your Ancestors the Romans, were so secured from error in Faith, that they could not decline from Christ's Doctrine, but you now are in à very tottering Condition, for you may swerve from the Faith of your Ancestors, you may perhaps believe as they did, and perhaps not, However I will soothe you up and praise you, as à Church impossible to err with, an Ad quos Perfidia habere non possit accessum. You are men so faithful that no Misbelief can touch you. The last Gloss of the Bishop is thus. S. Cyprians Elogium seems rather à Rhetorical insinuation, than à Dogmatical Assertion. Mark the proofles word, Seems, 'tis only à thought of my Lord's fancy, which I am sure seems far from à dogmatical Assertion. What? That à Saint and worthy Bishop should Rhetoric it in so weighty à Matter? But enough of this nothing. 9 To make something do at last, Mr Stilling: Page. 317. lays his Gloss by my Lords, and has à good opinion of it. To Mr Stilling: misinterpretation. give every man his due, it is better than any of the Bishops. He says in à word, (after à relation of the present state of Rome at that time, when those Schismatics, Felicissimus and Fortunatus came thither) that, Perfidia, may well denote the Falseness and treacherous dealing of those two Persons, who seemed good Catholics, but were not so, and sought to join in Communion with Cornelius and the Catholic Party, but meant it not. Now such jugglers should have no Access to the Principal Church, or to those Romans, whose Faith the Apostle so highly extolled, so that Perfidia Respects not the Romans, nor excludes Error from that Church, but lays falsehood (as was well deserved) on those Schismatics. This I take to be Mr Stilling: meaning. Contra. 1. The Gloss, every one sees, violently strained, makes the allusion between Fides and Persidia, Both Strained and inconsistent with S. Cyprians sense. insignificant. 2. It is inconsistent with the Author's whole sense, who speaks (not of perfidious men but) of Falsehood and Untruth, which could not have Access to that principal Church. For it is evident, that perfidious persons, as Mr Stilling: tell's the Story, actually had Access, And therefore could certainly have it, when Fortunatus and Felicissimus came to Rome. 3. Make the most you can of this Gloss it reaches no further but to à mere far-fetched Guests, and what is gained by That? Can Mr Stilling: establish his Opinion of the Church's fallibility on no surer grounds? Can he hope to drive me by guesses and Glosses, not only from the Obvious sense of these words, but also from the clear Expressions of innumerable other Fathers who stand openly for an infallible Church? It is à desperate Improbability. Yet so it is: These selfconceited Glosses and nothing else, Uphold Protestancy in every controverted Matter. The infinite number of them, and the Story's Mr Stilling: tell's to no purpose at all, so enlarge his Rational account, That if you fling these away, you may easily put the remainder of that Book, into à small Decimo sexto. 10. Be pleased to observe à little. We say, and Christ said it before us, Hell gates should not prevail against the Church founded Glosses opposed to manifest Proofs. by Divine Providence, But fancied Glosses disputes it at last into à Possibility of being perverted by Hell, and Heresy also. We say, it is the Pillar and ground of Truth, but Glosses laid upon these words must be thought so strong as to shake it all in pieces. We say, Christ will be with his Spouse to the end of the world. Hold there, say Sectaries, our Glosses tell you, No, For this promise was only Conditionally True, in all that succeeded the Apostles. A fitting Assistance we allow it, such as pleases our fancies, But no more. We say with S. Cyprian S. Jerome, S. Irenaeus and other Fathers, that the Church never depart's from what She once held; that in Her is the Rule and square of Faith; that in Her, is the Spirit of God, That She is the wellspring of truth, The dwelling place of Faith etc. But à company of Glosses spoil all this Doctrine, And so rack the sense of these clear Expressions, that one may boldly swear, the Gloss and Text are sworn enemies. CHAP. XVII. Why the Glosses of Sectaries are impertinent and weightles? Mr Stillingfleet misinterprets other Fathers. Of his unskilful Speculation concerning Idolatry Charged on Catholics. 1. Much is said in the Other Treatise. Disc. 4. C. 4. n. 8. of our Protestants Glosses, Here you have à further discovery of their weakness, And 'tis the only thing aimed at in this, And the precedent Chapters. In à word thus I conclude. That man who in Matters of Controversies defends à Doctrine upon no surer grounds then mere doubtful And uncertain Glosses are, added to Scripture and the Fathers, (which An assertion clearly laid forth. seem contrary to his Doctrine) most evidently stands vnprincipled, proceeds weakly, and proves nothing. But the Protestant makes his weak, and doubtful Glosses, charged on such Authorities as are produced for our Catholic Tenets, the sole Support, the only Proof of his contrary Doctrine, Therefore He proceeds unreasonably, and proves nothing. You shall see this evidenced in the present Matter now briefly hinted at, of the Infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church. Mr Stilling: Asserts, She is fallible. I ask how He proves the Assertion? What? By express Scripture, universal Tradition, the unanimous Consent of Fathers, the Definitions of any ancient Church or Council? These are excellent Principles: Can He settle How Sectaries proceed to weaken it. his opinion upon all, or upon any one of them we have done and must yield. But he proceeds strangely, and I must needs tell you How. The man hopes to weaken our proofs drawn from the Fathers in behalf of the Church's infallibility, And thereby to establish his Position. She is fallible. I demand, how can our Proofs be weakened? His Answer must be (for he has no other) I will so tamper with these your alleged Texts that at last I'll make them prove nothing for your Church's Infallibility, And consequently I may hold my Contrary Position (of her Fallibility) very well established. The inference is worth nothing, but let it pass. I Ask. 3. What is it he will tamper withal, or how can he make null those manifest Texts which clearly lie open to every eye east on the Fathers, And evince, (as we shall see hereafter) that the Church is infallible? Mr Stillinfleets strain through his whole book (For, Facta loquuntur,) returns the best Answer. My Guesses (saith he) And Glosses laid on the Fathers, when seemingly contrary to Protestant Doctrine Shall make them speak another language, no way favouring the Church's infallibility. 2. Here we come to the point, And demand in the last place. Whether these Glosses are so clearly their Own Selfe-Euidence, that by their very light they lay à Truth before an understanding Their Glosses no self Evidence. not to be contradicted. For example. Whether S. Cyprian in the Passage now cited, gave only, as Mr Stilling: saith, à taste of his old office of à Rhetorician, And spoke not dogmatically? Is this I say an undeniable Truth? Most evidently no. For stretch it to the furthest it can be no more but à most doubtful and uncertain Gloss, I say 'tis highly improbable. Now be pleased to reflect. The Assertion concerning the Church's fallibility is no Self-evidenced Truth nor clear Ex terminis (no more is our contrary Doctrine of the Church's infallibility) To give it Therefore proof and weight, these Glosses are cast upon the Fathers, who seemingly at least favour infallibility; But these very Glosses which should do that service are as unevident, as uncertain, And doubtful as the very Doctrine is, They should enlighten and lend proof too, Ergo they advance not at all the Doctrine concerning the Church's fallibility. For, proofs which are as uncertain as the very Doctrine is which should be proved, can never raise that to à greater measure of certainty than it had before such proofs were thought of. Please to mark what I say. The Doctrine of the Church's fallibility here supposed by Sectaries is uncertain, and for that reason lies in its. Vnevidence, until solid Proofs clear it, or expel both the unevidence and uncertainty, But these Glosses when they appear, are as unevident and uncertain as the Doctrine is, Therefore they cannot raise the Doctrine to any higher degree of certainty, than to mere unevidence and uncertainty: I would have this noted, For it is à ground whereby I shall show hereafter Protestancy to be à most improbable Religion, And Therefore will deliver it once more in these plainer Terms. If the Sectary has no surer Principle whereon to found his yet unevidenced opinion, of the Church's fallibility then Doubtful Glosses laid on Scripture The force of our Argument more significantly expressed. and Fathers; (as evidently he has not) And These Glosses, which should prove that Doctrine be as devoid of strength as remote from Principles, as uncertain, or doubtful, as that very, yet unevidenced Doctrine is; It follows clearly, That both the Doctrine and the Glosses fall to nothing but only subsist by fancy, which is à real Truth. From all now said I infer, that whoever interpret's, must have his Doctrine firmly grounded upon certain Principles distinct from his own interpretations (as the Catholic ever hath) or nothing is proved. 3. Mr Stilling: may reply, His intention whilst he interpret's these Fathers is not to prove immediately his own Opinion of the Church's fallibility, but only to show our alleged Testimonies come not home, or want force to prove Her infallible. Now to show our proofs forceles in order to what we hold, is not to make good his contrary Assertion: For these two things are very different; Our Adversary's reply refuted. To make null our proofs, And to establish his own Doctrine. Answ. I grant they are different. But neither is, nor can be done. Not the first. Because these Glosses are no Self-evident proving, That the Father's sense is rightly hit on: And Principles distinct from these Glosses, whereby it may be shown what Doctrine the Fathers delivered in this particular, Mr Stilling: hath not any so much as meanly probable. To the second I Answer. If He offer's not to prove his Tenet of the Church's fallibility by the little strength these glosses have, I avouch it boldly, All further Probations fail him, and for that reason he is either forced to make use of such, poor stuff to prove withal or must sit down silent, And grant his Tenet cannot be proved. He may perhaps tell us our Church has erred de facto, Ergo it is fallible: And here is his Principle. I Answer it's no Principle to me, but an Heresy; And as Asserted by him 'tis as much, yea more, doubtful than all his glosses are laid together. He may reply. 3. His Glosses may at least be thought probable. I utterly deny that, And here is my ground. Solely considered they evidence not their own probability, But need further proof and probable Principles to rely on; But such proofs are wanting to found Probability upon, Therefore these glosses are supposed only, not proved probable. Had Mr Stilling: plain Scripture, any Orthodox Church, or Father's clear for the Doctrine maintained by him, He might well talk of the strength Of his Glosses, but to make Glosses probable, The Sectaries Glosses not so much as Probable. when no probable ground supports the Doctrine, for Whose sake he Glosses, is not only lost labour, but share's much of Nonsense. Again. Were these Glosses probable, (which I shall never grant) our Answers to them are at least as probable; And what gain's either Party to their cause by skirmishing in the dark with weak Probabilities only? Matters of Religion, which must stand upon sure Principles (or there is no such thing as Religion in the world) would be just like weak Opinions in schools Tenable or not tenable as different judgements please to Opine, might. Topics, And probabilities only, sway in so weighty à Cause. 4. Upon this ground you have Evidence enough, against these pretended Probabilities of Sectaries (whereof more presently) Be pleased to observe it. The Catholic saith. The Roman Catholic Church is infallible. No, saith the Protestant. She is fallible. Here lies the contradiction. If both these Adversaries Assert so boldly, each of them (supposing that God hath revealed the one or other part of the Contradiction) must solidly prove what he Asserts in so weighty à Matter. And can any man persuade himself, that an Infinite wisdom hath laid That Truth whereon so much depends and is now revealed to Christians (whether it be the Church's fallibility or the contrary) in The obvious truths of Christianity not proved by Guesses. such Obseurity, or removed it so far from prudent Reason, That no man can find it out or prove it, but by the dark glimpses of weak Guesses, of uncertain Topics and Probabilities, which of their own nature easily throw men into error? Grant thus much, We first do injury to God's Revelation. Next we are left in suspense, And know not what to believe. And here I ask whether Mr Stillingfleet will oblige me under pain of damnation steadfastly to believe the absolute fallibility of the Roman Catholic Church? If he doth, no weaker Principle then plain Scripture can be my Security, And this I require of him. If he recoil and produce not plain Scripture, He is more than imprudent, to force on me à new Faith contrary to the judgement of à whole Church, upon no stronger proofs than weak guesses are. Lastly, may Topics avail here, we lay an impossible obligation on ourselves whilst all must say, God will have us to believe and with all certainty what he hath revealed in this particular; Yet when we come to examine the Grounds and Proofs of our certain belief, All Proofs vanish away into Topics Proofs of Christianity no weak Topics. and uncertain fancies. Hence I conclude, if the Protestant affirms, as he doth, that our Church is fallible, He must prove the Assertion by indubitable Principles, And the like obligation lies on the Catholic, who saith. She is infallible; And this by the grace of God shall be proved in the next Discourse. 5. In the interim if you desire to see more of much injury done to the ancient Fathers, turn only to Mr Stilling: 3. Part. C. 3. P. 58. Where he oppugn's our Catholic Doctrine of praying to Saints, And you may well stand astonished at his Vnprincipled Glosses. He saith first. The Expressions of Fathers which seem most to countenance this Innocation, are only Rhetorical flourishes. Has the Assertion any probability think you? Read only the Testimonies alleged by Cardinal Bellarmin de Sanct: Beatitudine. Cap. 19 Br Cardinal P●rron (large upon this subject) And Cardinal Richel e●. Traitte pour convertir cenx qui se sont separez de L'Eglise. Lib. 3. Chief Page 420. (It is not now my intent to transcribe those many unanswerable Authorities alleged in behalf of our Doctrine) And if after the perusal you see not plainly that both Mr Stillingfleet and his Lord do grossly abuse the Fathers, deny me credit hereafter. 6. To convince the first: of unjust proceeding, I'll only instance Mr Stilling: again abuseth th● Fathers, in one particular. P. 589. Where he saith that S. Gregory Nyssen in his commendation of S. Theodorus the martyr, made use of Rhetoric in his Apostrophe to the Saint, without any solemn Invocation. It is utterly untrue. The words of S. Gregory are These. Paris Print. 1615. Page 1011. And 1017. when the Scythians threatened ruin to the Countery: Pray for us, make intercession to him who is our Common Lord and King, As you are à soldier fight for us and defend us, And as you are à martyr, speak freely for your fellow servants, A few lines after. And if more Prayers 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, that They be solicitous for the Churches, where they once were chains, passed dangers, And finally died. judge, good Reader, whether this recourse made to à Saint in time of danger be only à Rhetorical flourish, when the very words imply à most solemn and serious Invocation. Pray for us, Make intercession. Let all the Martyrs jointly become Petitioners in our behalf in these our necessities, are no flourishes but holy and hearty Invocations. Yet more. When all the Fathers in the Council of Chalcedon. Act. 11. Tom. 2. Council Part. 1. P. 340. No less publicly, in the Express for Invocation. presence of the whole Council, than piously invoked the Holy martyr Flavianus thus. Flavianus post mortem vivit. Martyr pro nobis oret. Flavianus life's after Death, let that Martyr Pray for us. Can any one in Conscience think that this was only à Rhetorical flourish? Or that the learned Theodoret acted only à Rhetoricians part, when in his History of Saints He concludes every life, as Bellarmin observes, with an earnest Petition that by the holy intercession of these happy souls, now in Bliss, he might have aid and divine Assistance? S. Austin was à good Rhetorician, yet no man will say, he made use of flourishes in that plain and devout prayer to our Blessed Lady. Tom: 9 lib. Doctrine at least Collected out of S. Austin Meditat: C. 40. Holy and immaculate Virgin Mother of God, Mother of our Lord jesus Christ vouchsafe to pray for me to him, Cuius meruisti effici templum, for whom you have deserved to be made à worthy Temple: He mean's the Temple of her sacred body, wherein her only Son our Saviour, pleased to inhabit nine months together. A whole volume would be necessary to allege other Fathers in confirmation of our Catholic Doctrine. But these few manifestly prove that Mr Stilling: grossly erred, when he said, that the Expressions of Fathers which seem to Countenance the invocation of Saints, look only like Blossoms, and pretty flourishe● in Rhetoric, Withal, that his second Assertion (viz. The Church did not then admit of the Invocation of Saints, but only of the Commemoration of Martyrs) is no more but à dream, or à most improbable saying. 7. It is not now my intent, when I only touch à few, to tax Mr Stilling: of many other gross mistakes in this one controversy, whereof I verily think his own Conscience accuseth him (but● leave that to God). However, because contrary to his usual manner he enters upon à preculation, which I am confident he understands not, I will do so much service as to unbeguile both him and his Reader. 8. Page 595. he saith. I cannot possibly see but that kind of Mr Stilling: Speculation, Examined. worship which was given by the Heathens to their Damon's, was defensible upon the same grounds that the Invocation of Saints is now. Her● is all. Mr Stilling: see's not the difference: Ergo, There is none. Let that pass. Next Augustus Caesar is brought in for an Instance. The Senate, saith he, decrees that Divine honours shall be given to Augustus, And we cannot think that by virtue of this decree August● assumed à Divine nature or, became absolutely God. No indeed. For no decree of à Senate can make à Sinner either God, or Sa 〈…〉. But the Question is, what honour the Senate intended to give that Roman Emperor? You say it was Divine. What th● Divine honour was, decreed as due to him, neither you nor I, Sir, know too well, nor doth it much import us to know at present. Let that therefore pass also. We now come to the point. Suppose, say you, that some Roman Catholic should believe Augustus to have been à Saint: Next suppose the Heathen and Catholic to be at their prayers together to Augustus, you, demand wherein lies so much difference, That the one is Idolatry and the other not. Here, Sir, its clear you understand not yourself, For it's no more Idolatry to worship one as à saint that's none, then to reverence one for à Father (or prince) who is not so. Idolatry is then committed when we either adore à creature as God, or appropriate some perfection to it which belongs to God. Should you therefore hold all john Foxes (miscalled) Martyrs, Saints, And then invoke them, you would be upon that account à false and foolish worshipper, yet no Idolater, whilst you Reverence them as saintly creatures only, And attribute no perfection to them which properly belongs to God: No more say I, would the Heathen and Catholic Commit Idolatry, though they reverenced Augustus and prayed to him as à Saint. 9 This mistake discovered, I must tell you, Had you proposed the question more ingenuously, And told us, whether the erring Catholic when he believes Augustus à Saint and prays to him is to be supposed mistaken by à judgement vincible or invincible Full of mistakes. erroneous (The like is of the Heathen) you had solued your own difficulty, And might well have Spared that after talk, which comes in Thus. Neither of them supposes Augustus to be the Supreme God, both the Catholic and Heathen look on him as having à middle kind of excellence between God and man, the external actions are the same in both and their apprehensions of his excellency being equal, the inclinations of their wills to testify their dovotion must be equal too. Here is à two fold fallacy on foot again. One lies in those unexplicated Terms. A middle kind of excellence. An other (and that's worse) in concealing the tendency of these supposed apprehensions, or judgements rather, which may be either vincibly or invincibly erroneous: And mark well the distinction for it discovers your whole mistake. Concerning the first. I ask, what that middle Excellency is, which must be equally applied to the apprehension of the Heathen and the Catholic? Must both of them be supposed to err so grossly, as to own Augustus à Saint in Heaven as the Patriarches and Apostles now are Or must the Catholic only judge so? This later cannot be unless you make the Catholic most invincibly ignorant. However, such an error is possible, For as à man by invincible ignorance may judge one to be à Prince who is not, in like manner He may be so invincibly beguiled as to think Augustus à Saint who is not, And so may the Heathen (though 'tis very difficult) be deceived also. Upon this Supposition of invincible ignorance which you, Sir, never reflected on, I Answer. Neither the Heathen nor the Catholic do, or Invincible ignorance excuses all Crime. can commit (we must Still use your improper Phrase) Formal Idolatry, but material only, The reason is evident. For though Augustus be really no Saint, yet that middle kind of excellency now mentioned, is upon the Supposition invincibly apprehended by both as if He were one, And consequently the apprehensions had of Caesar's Sanctity, the inclinations of their Wills to Testify their devotion to him, And external actions may be equal, yea one and the same in both, but without fear of any formal false Homage, because invincible ignorance takes off that formal Crime, And thus far, if we speak of sinful Veneration, there is no difference between them. The instance now hinted at clear's all. 10. One comes among us from à strange Country nobly attended, demean's himself like à Prince, or some great Person, and though in real truth he is no more but à Counterfeit, yet He imploies his wit so well, dissembles so dexterously, That all invincibly judge him to be what he is not, à Person of honour: They apprehend à middle kind of excellence in him between à great Monarch and an ordinary man, Reverence him accordingly by their external actions, and inclinations of their wills, and therefore commit (might one speak so) some kind of Civil material Idolatry, But are excused from the formal offence, because of their ignorance, which is both inculpable and invincible. Thus the case is in our present Matter, whilst the Ratio formalis of the Heathen and the Catholics Adoration is one and the same, that is whilst Sanctity, or what else you will, is invincibly apprehended in dead Caesar, which is not. 11. Exclude then this case of invincible ignorance, which though dissembled by you, lays open the whole cheat, The rest of your discourse comes to nothing. Observe it. You talk of à middle kind of Excellence apprehended in Caesar between Divine and Humane. You should have said plainly First. What this excellence is as it stands in the Apprehensions of à Heathen and Catholic? You will hàue it. 2. To be some thing which neither belongs to the Supreme God nor to à mere mortal man, Therefore what ever you imagine, is no real Object in Caesar, nor any Excellence due to him. Whence it follows that all these Apprehensions, or judgements rather, (for apprehensions solely considered are neither true nor false) which attribute that middle Excellence to Augustus are false in themselves, because not conformable to their Object. Now further: If false in themselves, they are either vincibly and culpably false, and Therefore aught to be laid aside; Or invincibly false, because the judgement is invincibly deluded. Suppose the first case of vincible error, what ever prayer or Adoration follows upon that judgement is both à formal and How the worship may be sinful. material Crime, because some kind of excellence is unworthily given to Augustus which belongs not to him. If so; The Catholic and the Heathen continue in their Idolatry. Contrariwise, if you suppose these judgements invincibly erroneous, which can scarce have place in the Catholic unless he be strangely ignorant, what ever Adoration follows upon them is only à material Offence without the Formal sin, as is now declared. Wherefore I verily think you, Sir, understand not yourself too well, when you first suppose the Ratio formalis of prayer or Adoration the same in the Catholic and Heathen, And then tell us, we are not to inquire whether the Apprehension be true or false, but what the nature of that act of Religion is, which is consequent upon such an apprehension. 12. Sir, in case of invincible ignorance, it little imports to inquire after the Truth or Falsehood of the Apprehension, for neither the one nor other (because out of the reach of one erring invincibly) has influence into any act of Religion, And therefore there can be no irreligious worship or formal sin grounded upon such à judgement, if that Supposition stand. All then which ought to be searched into though omitted by you is. How, or in what manner these misled judgements tend unto their Object? If blameably, because vincible they are sinful, if invincible and not in man's power to mend, They cannot hurt any. In all other cases except this one of invincible ignorance you must inquire whether the Apprehension or judgement be true or false. Suppose than it be vincibly and culpably false, it is apt to beget false worship, And should be laid aside. Suppose it true: It only says thus much. Dead Augustus was à wise and gallant Commander (Here is all that can be truly apprehended of him) But this judgement, as it finds no What is to be inquired. excellence in that dead Prince deserving prayer or religious Veneration, so it cannot incline the will to exhibit any religious duty to him. 13. And here we come to enlighten you à little, because you say. You see not, but that kind of worship which was given by the Heathens to their Daemons, was as defensible upon the same grounds, as the Invocation of Saints is now. Can you, Sir, Speak in earnest? What Now? in this present state, when men's judgements are cleared of error and invincible ignorance, can you find no difference? The difference is most palpable: For that Deity is not in being, The Saint really is in Heaven. The Heathen adores his Daemon misled by à false improbable Opinion and Therefore commit's Idolatry, The Catholic worship's à Saint, assured of the Truth by à judgement most certain, And therefore what He adores is worthy Adoration, unless you can Vnsaint those who are in Heaven, or prove they deserve no Reverence The difference between 〈…〉 e and f●●se worship. in hat happy State. Finally, the Heathens judgement, because vn●easonable, and against the light of nature, if it own's à Deity in Caesar, is culpably sinful, and aught to be laid down: The Catholics judgement point blank contrary, ought not to be put away. Now, Sir, if you say. All the Heathens worship of their Daemons or inferior Gods, arose from invincible ignorance of their Excellence (which is more than you can prove or probably maintain) Here is yet the difference between them and Catholics, that These are neither formal nor material false worshippers, The Heathens were at least materially so. 14. What follows in Mr Stilling: is not like his speculation any choice Matter but vulgar only, refuted again and again. As. 1. That the Rites of Canonising Saints Answer to the Rites of the ancient Emperor's Apotheosis. 2. The Formal reason of Idolatry lay in offering up those devotions to that which was not God, which only belongs to an Infinite Being. Let the Expression pass. Catholics, I am sure, offer up no such devotions to Saints as they Adoration very different. do to God, knowing well to distinguish by the internal Acts of their Will between the Supreme Excellence and all other power inferior to That. 3. Saith Mr Stilling: it is not possible to conceive any Act which doth more express our sense of an Infinite Excellence, And the Profession of our subjection to it, than Invocation doth. Pitiful. He should have said, than such à particular Invocation doth, tending to an Infinite Majesty: For we invoke and call upon men now living to Assist us with their Prayers, And likewise Address ourselves to the Saints in Heaven. Yet no man can gather from such devotions any thing like an acknowledgement of an Infinite Excellence in men now living, or the Saints in Heaven. But enough of these weightles Arguments, to touch them is to refute them. And thus much of this, And the other former Digressions. Now we are to à prosecute further Two necessary points. CHAP. XVIII. The Protestant after all his Glosses can not ascertain any, of true Religion. He would make Controversies an endless work. 1. YOu have been often told above, that Sectaries would fain make controversies à long work, I must now give you the ultimate reason Thereof, And withal prove it impossible to know in these men's Principles, what is à Christian Truth, and what not, Their Glosses and impropable way of Arguing lays all which can be said in darkness and obscurity. 2. To proceed clearly. I suppose first, that Christian Truths as revealed, or Contained in Christ's Doctrine are infallible, and Principles supposed. stand firm upon infallible Revelation. I may here also suppose. 2. That either we Catholics, or our Protestant Adversaries, even in such Tenets as we differ, Believe and profess Christian Truths. For example. Transubstantiation or no Transubstantiation, is à Christian truth. The Infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church, or Her fallibility is à Christian Truth, for they are Contradictories held by Christians, Therefore the one or other must be owned true, if maintained as Christian Doctrine. I suppose. 3. That neither part of these Contradictions; Transubstantiation, or no Transubstantiation (in like manner we discourse of all other opposite Doctrines) are held their own Self-evidence or manifestly true Ex terminis like the first Principles in nature, If Therefore assented to as Christian Truths by the one contrary Party, or the other; They must be proved by sure Principles extrinsical to the Doctrine which each Party embraceth. 3. Now you shall see What work Sectaries make in these Disputable Matters, And how nothing can be certainly known by Them, or owned as à Christian verity. I would say, It An Assertion Proved. Can neither be proved in their Principles, That to deny Transubstantiation (let this one instance serve for all) is à Truth, or, that to hold Transubstantiation, is an Error. Here is my reason. When Principles whereon solid proofs should subsist are not, Proofs must of necessity fail, But in those Controverted Matters Sectaries have no Principles at all to Argue by, Therefore proofs must fail. The Minor is evidenced thus. All imaginable Principles whereon Proofs can stand in this contest, must either be infallible, or at least morally certain (Mere Probability vows strength to uphold à Christian Truth) But the Sectary cannot prove by any either infallible or Moral certain Principle, that his Tenet is à Christian Truth, And ours Contrary to him is an Error, Ergo. The first part of my Assertion seems evident. For you know what havoc the Sectary makes of all infallible Principles, Scripture only excepted, (which I am sure speaks not à word in his behalf, nor against us). All Churches with him, All Tradition, All Councils, All Fathers also are fallible and may deceive. Therefore thus much is indisputably clear, He cannot prove infallibly (I say no more yet) that his Tenets are Christian Truths; or infallibly, That ours contrary, are Errors, For no man can more derive an infallible proof from à mere fallible Principle, than fetch gold out of dross or light out of Darkness. Whatever Therefore he pleads by next, is under the degree of infallible certainty. And what is it think ye? O, He has Moral Assurance (and here is the Principle) that his Tenets are Christian Truths, and Ours false or erroneous. Very Fallible Principles ground not infallible Doctrine. good. I ask (Though moral certainty auail's nothings, as we Shall see hereafter) How he proves no Transubstantiation to be à Doctrine morally certain, When the Contrary is expressly defined in three General Councils, And held by à learned Church? Has he any Council so renowned, as either the Latheran or Tridentine, which ever owned his Negative, as à Christian Truth? Has he any Church as Vniversally spread the whole whirled over as the Roman Catholic is, which maintained his Doctrine three or four Ages since? Evidently No. Upon what then, ground's He his Moral certainty? I'll tell you in à word. All he can pretend to, or plead in This Controversy comes to no more, if it reach so far, But to two or three dubious Authorities, taken from those Fathers who were Professed members of the Roman Catholic Church; And this little slender part He makes not only to strive against the whole Church, but moreover gives it so much strength as to Impeach That great Moral body of error, And utterly to ruin the Doctrine which hath been taught age after age; That is to A part Compared with the whole. say. The lesser Part, (or rather à mere supposed part) must be thought so powerful as to make à happy war Offensive and Defensive against that whole Moral body whereof it was à member. Is not this à strange Simplicity? 4. Be pleased to take here one Instance from Civil affairs only. Suppose you have à Parliament consisting of three hundred and three just, upright, grave and most intelligent Persons, who first treat of some weighty Matter relating to the good of à Kingdom or Common wealth, And after long deliberation Enact what in prudence is thought best in order to its Setlement. Suppose withal, that two or three of à different judgement withstand the Act, and hold what is concluded not well done. Will any one think ye, not only ascribe à greater moral Certainty to those three dissenting votes, Than to the other three hundred But more over decry the far more numerous votes (though of Persons equally wise) as unjust, impertinent, and remote from the meanest degree of moral Certainty? And this is done, (reflect An Instance seriously) upon no other ground, for no other reason, but because Three are wilfully supposed, by à third Party looking o●, strong enough to oppose the greater Part. If this instance like you better, make use of it. Imagine that à Synod Consisting of 303. Protestant Ministers define as they think, What's b● to hold within the Compass of Protestant Religion: Imagine also that three oppose Them, Can any of that Religion allow more Moral certainty to the three votes, than to the other three hundred, if we respect Authority merely? Certainly ● 5. Our very case is here sufficiently expressed, and the instances Applied to our present purpose easily applied to our present purpose. The Roman Catholic Church is, you know, à great Moral body comprehending not hundreds, but thousands and thousands, whereof innumerable are now and in past Ages have been most just, upright, prudent, and without Controversy most eminently-learned. These unanimously Enact as it were (whether in the Representative of Councils, or by the universal voice and vote of the whole Church,) That Praying to Saints, prayers for the Dead, or which we now insist on, the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, are not only Tenets morally Authorities not clear impertinently alleged. certain, But more over Articles of Divine Faith. Our Adversaries to oppose this unquestionable certainty, produce three or four Authorities not clear (as is supposed done in Parliament) but weak and strained, and hope hereby to reverse, to unuote, what these thousands have decreed contrary. Three or four witnesses, And these at most dubious, are here brought in against Transubstantiation, to make our new men's opinion Morally certain, and yet These thousands, most wise and learned, though they clearly vote and profess against it, cannot, forsooth, gain so much credit with à few Sectaries as to advance the Doctrine to moral Certainty, For here we wave the question of infallible Assurance. What Do are these? What days do we live in? The whole Catholic Church teaches as She ever taught, that the very Substance of bread is really changed into Christ's Sacred body, And now (o strange times) one Theodoret though no way opposite is haled in, to reverse the Doctrine. One, must strive against, and conquer Thousands. It is, we say, à pretty feat to kill two Birds with one bolt, But here we have à greater exploit, Theodoret is supposed to level so right with à darker expressions (if yet dark) That he destroys the Faith of two Churches at Once, the Greeck and Latin. Councils and eminent A parallel of Authorities. learned councils, have defined in our behalf, and one Tertullian, Though herein he speaks most Catholickly, is picked out to plead against them. What's one against innumerable? Tradition both Ancient and modern delivers the Truth we Propugn, And an unknown Gelasius, set up by Sectaries, must be thought powerful enough to repeal and contradict our fore Father's Tradition. What Do are these? Can the Sectary hope to beat down that strong Fortress which Hell gates could never yet shake by such slight and forceless Armour? Alas, go to single votes, we oppose our justins, our Cyrils, our Cyprians our Chrisostoms, clear and express against one Theodoret were he doubtful. Now with an Addition. add to these The weight and grave Authority of our Church and Councils, There is no Parallel no Comparison betwixt us. Yet more. Suppose these few Authorities were clearly contrary to us, the Protestant only has at most three votes, as it were in Parliament against Millions, and what gain he by this? His pretended Moral certainty stands not firm like an vncontradicted Truth, against such à Cloud of opposite witnesses. And. 6. Here you have à further reason of my Assertion. As long as this Principle stands sure in nature. A whole body is greater than à Part, and à Part thereof less extended than the whole, So long it will be indisputably evident, That the vote or voice of à whole moral body (I mean of à Universal Church far and near extended) A further proof of our Assertion. carries with it greater Moral certainty (For all this while we touch not upon Infallibility) than à small and slender Part can have, were such à part found so invincibly ignorant as to contradict the whole. All I would say is. No more can à few particular members (Though Angels for knowledge) contest with the contrary judgement of our ample Church, Than three votes in Parliament, with the Contrary judgement of à whole Kingdom. No more can the Authority of particular men equalise, much less surmount in weight and worth, the Sentiment of à whole Moral body, than à hand, For example, surpass in bigness the whole man. As the one exceeds in quantity and Extension, so the other doth in weight and Intenfion. 7. Hence you see first. How poorly Sectaries play at small Game, when having no ancient Church of their own to recur to, They are fain to run for refuge to à Few Father's professed members of our Church, And here like people picking Salads, gather up some small fragments which now they clip, now mangle, now pervert, now Gloss, now dress after their new fashion, And at last serve all The new mode of Sectaries arguing. fairly up in the larger Margins of their little English Books. With these they flourish and vapour as if, forsooth, à small parcel were able to contrast with the far greater Moral body, or à few stolen gleaning (were all true they say) sufficient to Vnuote what ever this Oracle of Truth hath defined contrary. Leave of, I besecch you Gentlemen this Trifling, give us weight for weight, measure for measure, Please to plead by sound Principles or you lose the cause, Doge not with us, we deal nobly with you. 8. We give you plain and express Scripture. The Church is à Pillar and ground of Truth. She is founded upon à Rock etc. And you Scriptureless men, return us your fancied Glosses. We quote innumerable Fathers most significant for our Catholic Positions, And you fob us off with obscurities, with Criticisms and such simple stuff. We appeal to Tradition, you have none. We, (And this mainly imports) show you à Church, à Visible and à most glorious Church, which time out of mind, Believed as we believe, And would gladly know where your Orthodox Church was, The Sectaries Pleading impertinent. which four Centuries since approved or published your Novelties; And you like men losing your way, go wand'ring about till at last you fall upon Theoderet's Dialogues, And with one single Passage ill espied and worse applied, hope to undo the whole Catholic cause. It is not one nor ten Theoderets, though they speak far more clearly than is done, That can prejudice our Doctrine, whilst you have neither Church nor Councils for yours. These Principles we demand of you, but you have them not. Therefore you are cast into an impossibility of writing Controversies hereafter, For the few Shreds of Fathers unluckily cut out by you are too slight, to obscure the greater Lights of our Christianity, of our Church, of our Councils, of our Tradition and innumerable Fathers. Believe it, had the Fathers you Quote so much Strength, as you imagine, others would have read them before your eyes were open, better judgements would have weighed what force they had, before your Luther's and Caluins were in Being. But That wiser world now gone to Eternity waved such Cavils, And knew well, That what à Titius or à Ca●us says may be right, And may be wrong, But what the Church of Christ Defines and teaches, cannot but be sound and Orthodox, if God speaks Truth. Here is the Principle whereon Christians securely relied in past Ages, before our later Sectaries troubled the world. 9 You see. 2. in what à pitiful case Sectaries are, when no more is alleged against our Catholic Doctrine (And rest assured They have no more) but à few scattered Authorities now taken Doubtful. Authorities, of no weight at all. from one, now from another ancient Father.▪ Therefore I discourse thus. The Authority is either expressly plain against us (which I never yet saw in any Doctrinal Contest between the Catholic and Protestant) or Contrariwise, doubtful, and ambiguous. If doubtful; it decides nothing, nor can the Protestant though He Vow's it Clear, make it so, whilst the learned Catholic avouches the Contrary; Hitherto both of them stand upon Opinions and end nothing. Neither can the one or other yet absolutely Say by virtue of such à Passage only. Your Doctrine is False, And mine is True, For à Principle rationally apprehended dubious, determin's none to an absolute true judgement, one way or other. Let us therefore suppose contrary to Truth, That the Sectary produceth à Father indubitably clear against Catholic Doctrine. Thanks be to God These great lights of the Church are not so scarce with us, But that we are able to confront that one Authority with the plain Testimonies of other Fathers far more numerous. And thus much I here engage to do, may it please Sectaries to come to à just Trial, and fully examine with me this one point of Transubstantiation, now hinted at: And if after the Contest we do not only match our Adversary, but quite outvie him with many more Testimonies fully as clear and clearer, We may then rationally ask what's one clear Authority worth? I say yet more. Though we falsely suppose these particular contrary Authorities to lie even, or equal on both Sides, I mean, as pregnant for the Sectary, as for the Catholic, yet I neither lose my cause, nor he gain's his, Because neither of us can absolutely say upon what if authorities were equal on both sides? Moral certainty, which Doctrine is à Christian Truth, And which not. For in this conflict of Authorities Supposed equal, both judgements are left in suspense, The one saith I quote clear Authorities for my Tenet: The other answers He doth so too, And Therefore hitherto stand so equally poised That neither may cry Victory: Neither can yet pretend to so much Moral certainty as excludes All reasonable doubting, because both Parties must doubt, whilst the Authorities of the one abate the force of the other. What then follows from the Father's Testimonies were they thus equally divided; That is, if as many clearly stood for the Negative of no Transubstantiation, And just as many clearly for the Contrary Positive? I Answer, This follows. That we and Sectaries must of necessity, (will we know Truth) either appeal to à third certain concluding Principle, or stand doubtfully opining (as is often done in what follows upon arguing out of doubtful Principles. schools) without à final Decision. For, to Believe any thing certainly as Catholics believe, if that Principle be excluded, or, to know any thing yet morally certain, as Sectaries pretend to know, is utterly impossible, Because à Principle purely probable, is evidently too weak, either to Support any firm Belief, or to ground so much Moral certainty of à Christian Truth, as excludes à possibility of doubting. 10. You will Ask what then is there which may raise these two Adversaries from that low degree of mere Opining to à higher degree of certainty? I shall fully Answer the Question in the next Discourse, Here I say in à word. No Principle can do this, But one only which the Sectary vows, And the Catholic has to rely on, which is the Tradition, the Voice and open declared judgement of Christ's Catholic Church here on earth. This faithful Oracle raises us from the supposed State of our guessing Probably, to the highest degree of not only Moral, but also of Infallible certainty, Though now we press not that against our Adversaries. The Sectary Therefore who disdain's to learn of this Oracle what Christian Truths are, shall never come to his Moral certainty, though the Supposition already made of Authorities equal stood in vigour. judge then, I beseech you, How desperate his Cause is now, How remote from all such certainty De facto, (whether he impugns our Doctrine, or pleads for his own opinions) when he hath nothing to rely on, but only à few dark and dubious Passages of some ancient Fathers? 11. I say dubious Passages, for in Truth (if so much) they are no more, And Therefore though we have hitherto supposed Authorities evenly laid on both sides (To Show that nothing What the Sectary can Plead. help's the Sectary▪ out of his labyrinth) yet now I must tell the Story as 'tis. All he has in this world to plead, comes only to à few misinterpreted Authorities, And with such poor Glean, Churchless man as He is, he thinks to Outbrave à whole Church, To decry Tradition, to unsense the Fathers, to rob us of our right, And finally to throw us out of the Possession of those ancient Christian Truths, which both we and our Ancestors have professed age after age without Alteration. What think ye? Have à few racked and tortured Sentences (Add to them as many Cavils, as many Criticisms as you please) force enough to do such wonders? Can these glean, misinterpreted as you have seen, better inform us of the ancient Primitive Truths, than the General voice or universal consent of à whole Church now in being? It is improbable. Grant therefore (which I do On what Principle the Catholic Stands not) That we know not too well the sense of one Theodoret, or of à Tertullian etc. The Catholic clears his Doctrine, And draws it from surer Principles. viz. From the voice and open declared judgement of his Church, And most deservedly looks on the Sectaries attempt as highly improbable, who will needs know what Doctrine we are to hold now, or, was anciently held amongst Christians, by à Father's Testimony, when the very sense is supposed doubtful, And lies in obscurity. That is. He will know more than can be known▪ He will force light out of darkness, And deri●● the moral certainty of his Doctrine from mere doubtful Principles, which is impossible. And thus these men proceed in all other Controversies, though Conscious, that à whole ample Church decries their Doctrine as false And the open abuse of Fathers also. O, saith the Sectary, I little regard what the Church decries. Ans●: And much less do I regard what you cry against it, When the whole strength of your Clamours ultimatly resolved, comes to no more but to fancied Glosses, laid upon ambiguous Authorities. What in God's name would you be at? What can you pretend The Church opposed to Sectaries Clamours. or intent? Shall clamours, Think ye, and your few clouded Testimonies force me to leave my ancient Faith, when I evidently know, That the Church I live in, calls louder on me and more rationally commands me to Believe as I do? This audible known voice of Christ's Church dull's your clamours, infinitely Outweighs your Glosses, your guesses, And the doubtful Sentiment of any private Father. 12. The Sectary may reply. I have now supposed, without Proof, the Fathers abused by him, whereas, if the Supposition holds, it's only doubtful whether it be so or no. Answ: Thus much is only supposed doubtful, That neither of us can learn by words precisely obscure, what Doctrine to embrace, or what to reject, Before à surer Oracle speaks and decide, the Controversy. Catholics say this Oracle is the Church, The Protestant who has no Church to recur to, stands trifling with his obscure Passages, hoping at last to make something of nothing, to hammer out of dark sentences the Clear Moral certainty of his new Doctrine Though contrary to the whole Church, And thus He abuseth both Fathers and reason also, Because as I said just now, A doubtful Principle yields not so much certainty. If He say. 3. His quoted Authorities are sufficiently clear to ground the Moral certainty of his Doctrine against the Church, it is à desperate, improbable Speech, For Moral certainty (which should pass as an vncontradicted truth) most evidently loseth that force, when à whole Church manifestly contradicts it. But hereof enough is Said in the other Treatise. Disc. 1. C. 6. n. 3. 13. You will ask perhaps, What is to be done if we meet with à Father so clear and express against Church-Doctrin that he cannot possibly be brought to à Catholic sense. I Answer. A doubt proposed and solued. Suppose thus much, which I think was never yet heard of in any Contest betwixt the Protestant and Catholic, I'll absolutely deny the Authority and adhere to Church-Doctrin; For, as the whole body is greater than à part, so the judgement of à whole Church is the stronger Principle here, and aught in reason to regulate and bear sway, before the sentiment of any private man, who by weakness or inaduertancy may slip aside into Error. I say through weakness or incogitancy, for if he obstinately oppose the Church, He is no Father in that, But an Heretic. 14. Whoever reflects well on what is noted already will see, I hope, How near we are to an End of disputes with Protestants if the Contest arise from the Authority of Fathers. Here is the Ground of what I am to Say. All the Authorities which can What Authorities can be quoted? be quoted in Points now Controverted are either plain, or esteemed plain for Catholic Doctrine both by the learned of our Church, and Sectaries also, As is amply proved above: Or Contrariwise, are at most supposed doubtful. I Assert it boldly, the Sectary has not one plain Testimony for him in this debated Matter of Transubstantiation, And if one or two were granted plain that's nothing to contrast with à whole Church and innumerable other Fathers. 15. Hence I Discourse. In case Authorities be Clear for Catholic Doctrine, the Sectary opposes us improbably, if he seek to establish his Novelties upon à Principle which plainly teaches what we teach, And quite ruins his contrary Opinions. If the Authority be doubtful, I have said enough already. viz▪ That, that gives no Moral certainty, but leaves you where you were before in à state of doubting. Observe now. All you get from the Protestant when the Fathers plainly teach Catholic Doctrine, is either to deny the Authority, as the Elder, And perhaps wiser Protestant's have done, or, after Mr Stillingfleets new Mode, How Sectaries Shift off Authorities. to Gloss them. All you get when à passage seems dubious, is to squise more out of it than it has. Whence it is, That you ever find the Sectaries Doctrine (when He tampers with à Te● seemingly doubtful) to overreach, or to go beyond the strength of his Quotation That is, He speaks plainly what he would have you believe, And the more plainly he speaks, the further he runs from his Authority, which Therefore checks his Boldness, And Tell's him. I say no such thing as you Teach. Take for example those words of Theodoret. The Mystical Symbols remain after Consecration etc. O, saith the Sectary the meaning is, the inward Substance of bread remain's. Hold, Sir, there; That's more than the words allow of. Mystical Symbols may as well, yea far better, signify the exterior Accidents, than the inward Substance of bread, Therefore you overreach the Text, And abuse your Author. 12. Thus much premised. We shall come to our last intended Demonstration And by the grace of God Evidence, How Controversies may be ended, Though indeed, the Sectaries intricate way of handling Matters, makes them seem to à vulgar Reader à work without end, For say I beseech you? What can be more slight or more remote from Reason, than after à long Profession and quiet Possession had of our Catholic Verities, To see à few Sectaries (late Strangers to Christianity) step in amongst us, And after so many Ages, strutt up and down in à corner of the world, As if They, forsooth By their bringing to light again The procedure of Sectaries, 'Slight. nothing but à list of old absolete worn-out Heresies, could now Ascertain Papists, How much of their Doctrine is Orthodox, And How much not? And this (ò strange Boldness!) is done upon no other Principle, than upon à few misconstrued words of some few ancient Fathers, without alleging plain Scripture or the Authority of any Church, for this most uncouth and strange Proceeding. What can be more slight than to follow the lesser Light (or rather no Light at all) And to prefer That before the, Luminare maius, which hitherto has illuminated the whole world? What can be more slight than to stand guessing at the sense of Fathers, To Gloss their plainest Testimonies, when these guesses and Glosses are unprincipled and have no more Support, than the fancy of him who makes them? You shall now see whither these Glosses tend, And an End put to Controversies. CHAP. XIX. The last design of Sectaries Glosses, discovered. They end nothing. The clear way to end Controversies of Religion. A distinction between Authority and Principled Authority. Of the improbability of Protestancy. 1. NOte. When Sectaries Gloss Scripture or Father's clear for Catholic Religion, and after much tugging violently force some piece of their new Doctrine from Passages less clear, Their aim is to keep us off from the last sound Principles of ending What Sectaries aim at ● by their Glosses. Controversies. Mr Stillingfleet, like one haunted with two contrary Spirits, has à rare Talon this way. Now He charms à darker Passage out of all obscurity, And makes it speak Protestancy; So he gives light to Theoderets Mystical Symbols: Now He does the contrary feat, And casts as clear words as ever Father uttered into so much darkness, That it is hard to know what is said. Take here one instance, You have it in his Page. 217. Where he Interpret's that plain passage of S. Austin. Tom. 6. co 〈…〉 Epist. Fund: C. 5. I would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church moved me thereunto, And to obscure this most manifest and profoundly well expressed Truth, The Gentleman spend's three whole pages in Guesses and conjectures, And all is to Unsay what the Saint had most evidently Asserted. First, forsooth, he tell's us, What the Controversy was which S. Austin then discussed. 2. What Church that was which moved hi● to believe the Gospel, Here He Guesses and Misses. 3. In what way and manner, the Church's Authority did move him, And in this particular Mr Stillingfleet errs grossly, who will needs persuade S. Austin very clear, made obscure. us, That S. Austin believed not the Divinity of Scripture upon the Church's Authority, But only the Authenticalness of the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists: As if to believe the Authenticalness of the Gospel, could be separated from believing that very Gospel to be Divine. It's à whimsy As shall appear afterward. In the mean while you see How all these Conjectures laid together (I meddle not with them at present) are incomparably less clear than S. Austin's plain words, Yet I must so far put out my eyes, as to esteem them the only light to regulate my judgement by, and Consequently make Nonsense of S. Augustine's clear Expression. Is it not reasonable think you, Before I do so, To ask first by what Principle I may know That these Conjectures hit right? 2. Now here you have what I wish the judicious Reader seriously To reflect upon. Suppose one should follow Mr Stillingfleet through all those wind and Turn wherewith he encumber's this one short Sentence of S. Austin, And Answer step What the Reader is desired to reflect on. by step to every Paragraph in order. Suppose He that undertakes such à Task should in like manner proceed through all The Gentleman's Rational Account (as 'Tis Called) And attend to his discourses, reply to every particular of his endless Glosses, laid on Scripture and other Fathers. Suppose Thirdly, He should rigidly Examine every circumstance related in the Stories of that voluminous Book (Do only thus much and you draw the book dry For besides cavil you have no more) How many volumes think ye would This way of Answering bring forth to the world, before the whole Account were Answered? And when all is done, Much, God knows, is not done to end Controversies with Satisfaction. Thus the contest goes on. 3. Mr Stillingfleet like one afraid to meddle with sound Principles gins to Gloss, His supposed Adversary, because no better stuff is given to work upon, goes not yet deeper into difficulties, But turns to the Scripture and Fathers, Read's and judges by His own Reading That much is interpreted amiss in this Rational Account, Therefore Vnglosses as fast as Mr Stillingfleet Glossed, And hopes He doth very well. Mr Stillingfleet discourses; This Adversary doth so also, But finds, or pretends to find (I say no more yet) His discourses unsound at the bottom, Much Confusion sollowes this way. And too weak to bring in à good Conclusion. Mr Stillingfleet relates his Stories, set forth with à number of circumstances; Our supposed Adversary discouer's (As he thinks) many à Flaw, many à Mistake, much jumbling, much disorder in the Narration of his Circumstances. Reflect well good Reader. Do you not see here à strange Confusion? When after the utmost done by these two Adversaries, You have two quite different Doctrines raised from the same Authorities of Scripture and Fathers? And that after the recourse of both to History, You have two as different Stories told you, as Yea, and No. In like manner after Their long discourses, You have two contradictory Conclusions drawn out, And laid before your eyes to read. Upon what Principle (if no more be Said) can the yet perplexed Reader come to so much certainty of our Christian Truths, as is necessary to Salvation? By what means shall He know, whether of these Two, relates the truer Story, Glosses, or discourses better? O, He must peruse Ecclesiastical History, Scripture also, And the Volumes of Fathers And then judge. Pitiful. More than half the world vows means to do this, And He who is able to comply with that laborious Task, must at last trust to his own judgement. However, give me one who will conform Himself to what he Reads, and not draw all to à preiudicated judgement, That man will find out Catholic Religion. 4. Be it how you will, The Catholic has à better And far more easy Principle to rely on in so weighty à Matter, whereof The Catholics Principle far more easy and plain. we shall Treat largely in the next Discourse. The Sectary has no other Ground to set footing on, But his own private Fancy. And here is the true Reason why he love's à life to stand dallying with you upon Authority and History. Go no further, He is sure to have some Reply at hand, For it is easy to trifle à long time, whilst you only give him this Authority And that Parcel of History to quarrel with. The one, as we have seen, He wrest's to what Sense he pleases; On the other He can put so fair à Varnish by concealing some Circumstances, and jumbling others together, That the eyes of à vulgar Reader are easily dazzled. In the mean time He warily waves (And is well content to do so) The last sound Principles which only can end Controversies. Wherefore, Methinks one cannot fit the Sectaries. Humour better, than to attaque him with Authorities, And next leave the Glozing them to his fancy, To recur to Antiquity, And permit him to put an other face on the whole Story. Thanks be to God the Catholic Writers of our own Nation (to say nothing of others) who handle Matters most profoundly, And in real truth have already brought these debates to à Period, give no such Advantage to Sectaries, But relying What Sectaries would be at? on sound Principles, as learnedly reject these Glosses, as our new men wilfully make them without Principles. Yet this is Truth. As novelists can do no more But Gloss without Principles, So as I said now, They are well enough content if the Catholic will do something like them, And only interpret or discourse upon Authorities; And this I call the less, or not the last plain way of Ending debates. Go no further, they think Themselves safe. For example. Read S. Austin in the place now cited. I would not believe the Gospel etc. Ponder His whole Context, attend to his learned Discourse, Mark well how He both disputes and proves: That he would not believe the Gospel as God's Divine Word but upon This solid ground, That the Authority of the Church, then when he wrote, moved him to believe so. Descend yet to other particulars taken from his most Connexed way of Arguing, Allege all plainly against the Sectary which hath been done and most landably again and again by Catholic Authors, Yet after all, you see Mr Stillingfleet gins new Quarrels as fiercely, as if nothing had been said, And if one should unravel what he hath woven in his three pages, would not ●e, think ye, to prolong these unfortunate Strifes possibly find something to except against you? And must not you to unbeguile the Reader once more reply, And except against all his new Exceptions? How long may controversies not yet brought to the last plain Principles, run on without ending? A shorter way Therefore must be thought of. And thus it is. 5. Take only that Positive Doctrine which the Protestant plainly makes his own dogmatical Assertion, when he either Adds his The clearest way of ending controversies. new Gloss to an obscure Authority, or casts one clear for Catholic Religion, into darkness. If you will have Scripture, Quote that Passage of the Apostle. The Church is the Pillar and ground of Faith. This is my body, or what else you like best. If Fathers; Cite S. Cyril of Jerusalem. S. justin Martyr, or any other quoted above in defence of the Real Conversion of bread into Christ's Sacred Body. This done. First consider well, what Church speaks most Conformably to the obvious Sense of these Authorities. 2. Distinguish exactly between the Sectaries Gloss, which contain's his Doctrine, And the plain words of that Authority which he Interpret's; Withal, Ponder how little these two look like one another, How little their Gloss. This is à Sign of my Body, hath to do with our Saviour's clear Expression. This is my body. 3. Stay not too long upon the Energy of à Testimony Though plain in your behalf, nor weigh over much the Circumstances wherein it was spoken, For though both be well done, yet This fitt's the Sectaries Humour, Who waits for such By-Matters, And in his Answers (as I have often observed) To shift off what mainly urgeth, will give you work enough, with his Suppositions, his May-be's, And endless Winding. What is then to be done when he supposes his conjectures or Glosses to be true Doctrine? This way I am sure is very solid. 6. Propose with all moderation These following Questions. Have you, Sir, any Orthodox Church ever since Christianity began The Sectary is urged. (I am sure you have no express Scripture) which without dispute as plainly delivered the Doctrine contained in your Gloss, as you now plainly Teach it? Have you any Orthodox Council which without Exception as Clearly defined it, as you now Assert it? Have you any Tradition, which by à continued Succession Age after age conveyed unto you the Tenets you pretend to find in some few Fathers, And now publish to the world as Christian Truths? If you ground your Glosses or Doctrine on such excellent Principles, we Catholics are certainly in Error, And aught to conform to your reformed Gospel, But if you fail (and fail you must) to do thus much, if you only give us empty Glosses without further Proofs, we look on them as slight things cast off by the Orthodox world, as both unprincipled and unpatronized. Therefore Scriptureless as they are, Churchless as they are, they fall of Themselves to nothing, And bring utter ruin to your new Machine of Protestancy. 7. I do you not wrong when I draw you off your Glosses To point at his Church and Councils which taught Protestancy. to an Orthodox Church. (The world was never without one). Say therefore, in God's name, where, or when was such an Orthodox Christian Society in Being that positively taught no Transubstantiation, No sacrifice of the Mass, No invocation of Saints & c? Where or when were your Councils which positively defined these Doctrines & c? You may Answer, and truly. You have indeed neither Church, nor Councils, Nor Tradition Express for these your Negatives. Very right. Therefore I wrong you not in saying, your whole Cause subsists upon Conjectures, cavils, And Glosses, Because now you cast yourselves into an Impossibility of pleading by any better Principles than mere guesses are. Thus much supposed, Say, I beseech you, What auails it, if, when an Authority is plain for Popery, that you can by à nimble gloss darken it? Or if obscure; You have A Fiat lux, at hand, and can charm it into so much Clarity as may suffice to dazzle the eyes of à vulgar Reader? What Satisfaction have I here, or what gain you by this Proceeding, when you know we have more witnesses ready to attest, yea to die for our Catholic Verities, than you have hairs on your head, or Glosses in your book? What gain you to your cause could you missinterpret all the Fathers that ever wrote, when you without the warrant of any Orthodox Society have yet à whole learned Church, Her Councils and Tradition against you? And all the store of Ammunition left you to attaque this great Oracle of Truth, is very small; no more, God knows, but à without them no satisfaction is given. flash of lightning borrowed from the Ignis fatuus of your far-fetched Glosses. Gloss on, Cavil on, conjecture on to the world's end, As long as no known or Owned Principle distinct from Glosses and conjectures Support's them, You only beat the air, or, (to use à pretty late phrase amongst you,) lapwing-like Pew most when furthest from the nest. I mean, you are most fierce to end Controversies, when you are furthest off from Principles, which only can end them. 8. Thus than you should proceed had not God and Truth silenced you. I, E. S. B. D. declare to you honest Papists, That in the Sixth or seaventh age after Christ, His true Orthodox Church, positively taught no Transubstantiation. Such à Council, either in former or later Ages expressly defined so. Then, and before also, Church Tradition was universally for my Doctrine, And thus much I can make good to the learnedest Romanist among you. Wonder not Therefore when you quote your justins, your Cyprians, your Chrisostoms, seemingly contrary to my Church Doctrine, That I interpret all; I am forced to do so, or against conscience must desert my old Mother Church, Her Councils How Sectaries ought to plead. and Tradition likewise, From which You have too licentiously swerved, to side with your justins and I know not who else. Can the Sectary plead after this manner, His Glosses would have force, But he never meddles with the First main Business, That is, never ground's his Doctrine upon any thing like à satisfactory Principle, But, as if He minded to tyre Ones patience, runs on headlong with Glosses, When he has no Principled Doctrine to Gloss for. Just as if One should tell his neighbour, Sir you lie, And, this I aver to your face, Though I want where withal to prove my Saying true. In all these Controversies Sectaries are so pertly uncivil, as to give the Lie to à whole Church, And what supports the Boldness? Have they any other Church more Orthodox, Councils more learned, Tradition more universal to prove we lie, than our Church, our Tradition, And Councils are which say we speak truth? Nothing at all like them. We here challenge them to speak to the cause and controversies are ended. What then remain's to plead with? Plain Scripture? Not à word. Father's plain? Not one. O yes, Tertullian is drawn in to help at à dead lift, so is Theodoret, And one or two more. Very true. But he is à glossed Tertullian, à glossed Theodoret etc. Separate than these Glosses from the Father's genuine Doctrine, give them the Sectary to manage, you see him in open field completely armed ready to encounter Church, Councils, Tradition, And all the other Principles of the Catholic world. Are not Glosses think Glosses strangely powerful with Sectaries. ye strong and prodigiously powerful, which have not only force to plead against à whole Church, But more over to implead her of palpable error? This Church is supposed to have changed Her ancient Doctrine, And Sectaries will reform it not by recurring to any other more Orthodox Society of Christians, But by mere guesses and Glosses. That is. The Fallible Glosses and gueses of men confessedly fallible, must reform à Church which holds Herself infallible, And proves it also. 9 Thus it is, Christian Reader. I speak plainly, And can defend my Assertion. Besides mere begging the Question in all Disputes, besides Cavils, And weak conjectures, The Sectary hath no more left him to oppose our Catholic Tenets, but mere unprincipled Glosses. I neither word it nor wrong Protestants in saying thus much. Peruse if you please their writings, chief Mr Stillingfleets Account, you will find (when the Church's Infallibility, or Transubstantiation etc. Happen to be handled, That Glosses laid on the Authorities usually quoted for Catholic Doctrine, ever take up the most room. And which is worse, yea pitiful in à Rational Defender of Protestancy: You shall never find through this whole Book (wave cavil conjectures and Glosses) one sound Principle laid plainly forth, nor so much as hinted at, in behalf of any Protestant Article. What think ye? Shall Yet Most weak and feeble. Christians, who would fain have à Church to live in, see the old House of God pulled down by unhandy Glossers, before They have à better built up, And well settled on good Foundations? Pulled down. What say I? Alas our Glossers have not strength to untile it, much less force to demolish that long slanding Fortress. Yet Glosses chief, And 'tis à sad thought for the Sectary, support his undefensible Schism made in the desperate quarrel against that Church which gave his Ancestors Baptism. These only (there is no more) must plead in behalf of his inhuman and barbarous Reformation; These finally must answer before an Impartial judge at that great day of Doom for all his merciless cruelty practised upon the deceased, and some yet living Catholics. Sad thoughts, I say, they are to go to bed with, to rise with, to banquet with, which like Ghosts will haunt him to his dying day, And lay Torment at his restless hart in his greatest jollities, And more in the hour of death. 10. After all you see the Conclusion and an end put to Controversies. The Conclusion against Sectaries. If no Orthodox Church upholds this Protestancy, or any article of it. (which is evident). No Councils nor Tradition can support it. If no Councils nor Tradition support it. It has no Principled Doctrine. If no Principled Doctrine, No Moral certainty. If no Moral certainty, (for mere groundless Glosses cannot give Any against all the Powerful Motives of our Church) there is no Probability in it. If no Probability; The whole Reformation must be reduced to fancy only. There we found it, And there leave it. 11. Now, if any except against our casting off Protestancy from the meanest degree of Probability induced to judge otherwise upon this ground, That many learned men defend it. I have Answered above. Mere Probability is insufficient to support Christian Truths. Here I both answer and Ask. 2. where were the many learned Defenders of this new Faith, when one Luther stood up alone against the whole Christian world, And first broached his Protestancy? If at that time there was no Authority nor reason for the Novelty, Process of time hath gained it neither. Look then into its Rise or First beginning, you'll find it unsound at the bottom, yea utterly improbable upon this certain Principle, That the Singular Doctrine of one disgusted Rebel against à whole Church and Thousands more pious and learned then Himself, can merit no Belief, but deserves (what it has), to be Anathematised. 12. We must yet insist à little upon this Point, And lay forth the Vanity of our Adversary's pretence to Probability, which done, you shall see controversies are ended. Sectaries May say. Protestancy improbable. If their own Authority makes not Protestancy Morally certain, it cannot but raise it to à high degree of Probability. We deny this, And shall presently Ask, why their Authority more advanceth this Religion to Probability than the mere Authority of Arians bring's Arianism to Probability? At present we do not only oppose the voice and vote of the Roman Catholic Church against this Plea, But the Authority also of Grecians, Abyssins' and all other called Christians, who with one unanimous Consent decry Protestancy as improbable. Compare therefore votes with votes, Authority with Authority, There is no Parallel; For, for one that defends it, you have hundreds, yea Thousands that Contradict the Novelty. Thus much is indisputably Evident, if we precisely Consider Authority as it were in Abstracto, or oppose the Votes of dissenting Parties against it. But here is not all. We must go further, And distinguish well between à bare Authority, and a rational grounded Authority. For this is an undeniable Truth. Reasonable Principles ever precede, or are presupposed, when Religion is pleaded for To the consequent Authority of those (whether many or few) that Teach, or Profess it. Hence all say. If the first converted jews to Christianity, Had not had most weighty Inducements proposed to reason before they deserted judaism and believed in Christ The change had been most imprudent; Nay, all had been obliged, as is proved in the 4. Chapter, To hold on in that Profession still without Alteration. So necessary it is to have rational grounds laid firm in the Foundation of Religion, before the Professors allow it either Moral certainty, or so much as Probability. Thus much premised. 13. We draw Sectaries from all Self-Voting, or further pleading by their own Authority, And force them in this Contest, if Sectaries drawn off their own Self voting. Protestancy be defensible, not to say, but to prove by Principles, distinct from their own bare votes, These two Propositions. 1. That God who is Truth itself, And once laid his Truths the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church, permitted that faithful Oracle to become Traitorous, to teach Idolatry, to tell the world loud Lies for à thousand years together. And that all this happened, when there was no other Orthodox Church on earth to unbeguile Those poor deluded Christians. The second Proposition to be proved, is. That these Millions of souls learned and unlearned who firmly believed this Church And died happily in it, were All mad, All Idolaters, All besotted and seduced What the Sectary is to Prou●. by Fooleries: And (which is à Paradox above Expression) That à knot of late unknown Novellists pretending to Reformation, dare now attempt to teach men more learned than Themselves; To make these supposed mad, wise, The Idolatrous, Orthodox; the besotted, Reasonable; The Seduced, right in Faith again; And that this was, and is yet done upon à mere proofles Supposition, (that we are mad and besotted) which stands on no Principles, And for that reason is contradicted by the vast number of most knowing Catholics, And the whole Multitude of Christians Besides. 14. When these two Propositions are made probable upon good Principles, We shall listen to our Sectaries Authority, But if they fumble herein, Only talk and prove nothing, We reject their ungrounded Authority And say, The more votes they multiply without Proofs, the less weight they have. You shall yet see how weightles Their Authority is, might we here insist longer upon one Matter of fact which ends all Controversies. In à word. All know the great Controversy between Protestants and Catholics comes to this. Whether they or we teach The difficulty proposed between Catholics and Protestants. Apostolical Doctrine? Whether they or we lay forth the genuine sense of holy Scripture? Neither Party saw or heard the Apostles Preach. Neither pretends now to Enthusiasms, or private Revelations concerning that Doctrine: The whole cause therefore is to be tried, and decided by Witnesses of foregoing Ages, such Testimonies and Tradition must clear this Matter of fact. A pretence to Scripture only without precedent lawful Pastors, without Doctors, without Witnesses teaching that sense and Doctrine which the one, or other Party stands for, is here both useless and impertinent. If then The Protestant makes his Doctrine Apostolical, His sense of Scripture, Orthodox; The Catholic replies. Be pleased to give in your last Evidence, produce your Witnesses; your Pastors, And Doctors Four Ages since, That taught as you teach, And sensed Scripture as you sense it. My Church (adds the Catholic) evidently demonstrates à continued succession of Her Pastors that taught as I believe, (as shall be proved hereafter) And shows as clearly à Succesion of the same Doctrine and Faith with these Pastors. Her Antiquity is undoubted, and her pleading Possession in preserving the true Sense of Scripture and Apostolical Doctrine, is as great as any King on earth can show for the Possession of the Crown he wears. Now, saith the Catholic, We examine your pedigree of Pastors and Doctors, And after some few Ascents by à The first plead by Principles the others not. Retrogradation come at last to the year 1517. There we find, and most evidently, à Luther, or Calvin To be the first men in the world that professed Protestanism, that interpreted Scripture as you interpret, or owned your Religion. With these late Runagates you must stop, No man on earth can advance or bring your Genealogy further, Therefore to speak in the words of the Ancient Optatus Melivitan. Lib. 2. Contra Parmen: At that time, you were sons without Progenitors, successors without à Pedigree New Teachers without commission, Protestants indeed, but without Principles. 15. Hence I argue and it is à demonstration against Sectaries. If neither Church, nor Councils, nor Pastors, nor Doctors, nor any Orthodox Christians in foregoing Ages ever owned, or so much as heard of Protestancy before one unfortunate Fatherless Luther broached it; If no Antiquity, so much as once mentioned one Professor of that Religion; if no Tradition handed to Luther the new Faith he taught (all which is without dispute manifest) Protestancy most enidently is upon this very account both an Vnwitnessed and an Vnprincipled Religion, And not only improbable, but in the highest degree improbable. But no Authority can release an unprincipled Novelty from its own intrinsic, miserable and essential state of improbability, Therefore our Sectaries votes (of no weight at all) cannot make it probable. And thus Controversies are ended, because an improbable Religion (And for this reason improbable, because unprincipled) is not defensible. 16. To add more to this Discourse I Ask, whether one Arius opposing the whole Church represented in the Nicene Council, Protestancy as improbable as Arianism. defended probable Doctrine or no? You will answer No. Very good. Yet he quoted Scripture (and might one insist upon the exterior letter or sound of words) more plain and express in the behalf of his Heresy, than all the Protestants on earth can produce Father's plain and Expresss for their Novelty of Protestanism. I would say. Neither Theodoret nor any other Father, speaks half so clearly to the Doctrine of No Transubstantiation. No Sacrifice of the Mass etc. As these words (to omit others). My Father is greater than I, (may the exterior letter regulate here) seemingly express an inequality between the Father and the Son. Now if the seeming clear sound of Scripture made not Arius his Doctrine probable against the Church Then, much less can the more obscure Testimonies of some Fathers, make the Doctrine of Protestants probable against the Church Now. And if we speak of followers that Arius gained in his time, There is no comparison, He had more than ever England had Protestants in it. 17. One may yet reply. The Nicene Fathers cited plain Scripture against Arius. Very true, And so do Catholics against Protestants, For, Christ's Sacred words. This is my body, are as significantly plain against Protestanism, as any Text those Fathers then urged, or yet can be urged against Arianism. The Arians not Convinced by Scripture only. But this you see did not the deed, nor was then the last conviction, And why? Here is the reason. Because as Protestants now wilfully Gloss this plain Passage of Scripture and many others, So the Arians then wilfully Glossed all those Scriptures alleged by the Nicene Fathers, And yet hold on in that strain to our very days, as you may read in Crellius and Volk●lius Yet more. As the Arian Party then only Glossed but without the help of any antecedent Church Doctrine known to the world▪ or universal Tradition to settle their Glosses on; So our Protestant's now do the very same, There is no disparity betwixt them, They Gloss, 'tis true, but give us Churchles Glosses. Finally, as those Fathers at that time did not only reject the Arians Glosses, but established also their own Definitions upon Scripture How Convicted interpreted by the known delivered Doctrine of the then present, and the more Ancient Church (for they represented both) And thus ended that Controversy, So we Catholics proceed against Protestants, And bring all debates to the like last period. The Church, or nothing, must end them. Without recourse had to the known and owned Doctrine both of this present and precedent faithful Oracle, They and we may interpret Scripture long enough, They may Cavil, And we may hold on in our Answers to the end of an other Age, without hope of ending so much as one Controversy. But of This enough is said already. CHAP. XX. A word to one or two Objections. It is further proved, That Controversies are ended with Protestants, who have no Essence of Religion, but false opinions only. 1. SEctaries may object first. We Suppose all this while But prove not, The Orthodox world to have hitherto maintained the Doctrine now taught by the Roman Catholic Church concerning Transubstantiation, Invocation of Saints etc. Therefore our Discourse seems ungrounded. I answer. 1. The Reply is not to the Purpose in this place, whilst we only press Sectaries to give in Proofs for their Contrary Positions. This we say They Cannot do: Now if we be as far of From Proofs, or Cannot ground our Tenets upon undubitable Principles; Controversies are ended without more Ado; Because The first Objection answered. both of us, (if the Supposition holds,) have no Articles of Religion to Propugn, But weak opinions, which (whether true or false) import not Salvation: Nay, the Truth of them, could it be known, is scarce worth any man's Knowledge. I Answer. 2. Our Proofs (to say no more now) Stand firm upon Church Authority, once at least owned Orthodox, on our Councils, and ancient Tradition never yet repealed, nor excepted against, But by Heretics only. May it please our Adversaries to come Closely to the Point and plead in behalf of their Tenets, by the Authority of any like or better Church than ours is, We have done, and must yield; But this they know is impossible, And therefore neither will nor can Answer our Discourse. If they say our Church, (where its contrary to Protestancy) has erred, Urge them to prove the Assertion by any Principle, either equal to (or stronger than) our Church Authority is, And you will have them driven again to their Glosses, or to some few glean of Fathers; In à word to no Principles. 2. They may object. 2. We have took much pains to prove Nothing against Protestancy, For we know, some late Professors namely Doctor Bramhal and Mr Stillingfleet, stiffly maintain A second Objection Proposed. these Negatives of No Transubstantiation, No Sacrifice of the Mass, No Invocation of Saints etc. To be only pious Opinions or inferior Truths, Neither revealed by God, nor Essential to Protestant Religion, Therefore whilst we urge them to ground such Negatives upon plain Scripture, upon the Authority of an Orthodox, Church, Councils, Tradition etc. They tell us we meddle not at all with the Essentials of Protestancy, But only dispute against Opinions, And, Contrary to justice, force them to prove mere opinions by Scripture, Church etc. which is more than we can press upon them, or do ourselves, For have not we Catholics many Opinions in Schools, which none pretend to ground upon so strong Principles as we settle our Articles of Faith on? Yes most assuredly: Opinions then and Articles of Faith cannot but be very differently Principled. And thus Points at à distinction between Faith and Opinion. the Protestant discourses in the present Matters, Here saith He, is the only difference, That Catholics lay Claim to more Articles of Faith, And the Protestants to Fewer. Our more numerous Articles, over and above His fundamentals, He calls opinions, Holds unprincipled, And hopes to settle his fewer articles, or the Essence of his Religion upon Excellent solid Grounds. 3. Hence it follows, that all Controversies hitherto agitated between us come to no more, but to à slight skirmishing about different opinions only; For we and they agree in the Essence of Religion. Unlucky opinions surely, Cries the Sectary (and He would seem to sigh as deeply as we, But has not felt so much Smart) which have caused endless Broils, strange confusion, and à Shameful Schism in the Christian world. Thus much I conceive some later men, who expressly teach the Doctrine would have us learn, And because it is à new invented way of defending this falling Protestancy, I hold myself obliged, First to discover the whole fallacy of the discourse, Next to show how Protestants themselves put an end to all Controversies. This done the Objection is soon answered. 4. The fallacy lies here, That Protestancy is supposed to have an Essence when really it has none, but is wholly made up of worse than false opinions. The false Supposition stands gloriously in Mr Stillingfleets empty Title. A rational Account of the The fallacy, discovered. grounds of Protestant Religion. The man surely imagines Protestancy to be à Religion (which implies an Essence,) yea and grounded too. I say the contrary, it has no Essence, and consequently No grounds. To prove my Assertion, Do no more but cast out of Protestancy all the Negatives it has, which confessedly are no Essentials. And next fix your thoughts on the little which remains, And is called Protestancy. You will see the Essence after these Negatives are gone, dwindle to nothing. Most surely this is not its Essence To believe these Negatives, pious opinions, or inferior Truths, For if God never revealed the Negatives▪ He never revealed to any, That the Belief of their supposed piety constitutes the Essence of Protestancy. An other Essence Therefore must be found out, if it have any, And may be it is this. Believe the Creeds or à Doctrine common to all Christians (our Adversary's hint at both) and you have the whole Essence of this Religion, Yea, and Faith enough to attain Salvation: And thus they reduce their Faith to fewer Articles than we do. I might Say à word in passing, And reduce all true Christian Faith to à shorter compendium. viz. To one only Article of The Apostles Creed. I believe the holy Catholic Church. That is, who ever own's the true Church of Christ, and firmly adheres to all She teaches An other Sectarian pretence of believing the Creeds. after à due Proposal made of her Articles, And dies in that Faith; such à man jointly believes both the Church and Creeds also. But if he run away with one half only, or Talk of Creeds, as Sectaries do, without à Church, And exclude from His Belief that Church which approves the Creeds, He separates that which cannot be separated, And is à Self-chuser, In à word he neither believes Church nor Creeds, And consequently has no Christian Faith. 5. Hence I say. This very Assertion. I believe the Creeds i● the sense of Sectaries now explicated, is so far from being à Principled Truth, That it is no more but an Error, or à proofles Protestant Opinion, As bad or worse as any of the Negatives are. If therefore they make it an Essential Article of Protestancy, We press them according to their promise, to give à rational Account of it before God and man. And here our Queries above come in again. Have you, gentlemans, any Divine Revelation, That this half Faith of believing Creeds, after your bold receding from the Church is so sufficient for your Salvation and mine, That more is not required? Did ever Orthodox Church expressly teach this to be sufficient? Did ever ancient Council define so, or universal Tradition deliver the Doctrine? Speak plainly plead by all, or any one of these Principles, And I have done. But 'tis impossible. Perhaps you will say All Antiquity and the Fathers likewise highly commend the Apostles Creed as à short Abridgement of our Christian Faith. Answ: So do we as highly, But know there are different Lections of it, whereof you may read in your own Doctor Ushers Diatri●a. De Symbolis, London Print. 1647. Sent to his friend joannes Vossius. We know again, (may Credit begiven to S. Jerome. Epist▪ 61. Ad Pammach.) That this Creed was not writ in Charta & atramento, but in tabulis Cordis, And Therefore we must trust to Tradition for the best Lection. All other Creeds even that ascribed to S. Athanasius (A Graecis interpolatum dressed up à new by the Greeks, Saith Dr Usher) The Church either made or has approved. If then I must build my faith on these Creeds, I cannot divorce it from the Church. For, Propter quod unumquodque tale, est illud & magis tale. If I believe my Creeds, much more must I believe the Church which either made or Authorised them. 6. In à word here is all we demand, And If Sectaries can Answer they speak to the purpose. Let them but name any The Beliefs of Creeds and the Church, inseparable. Orthodox Council, Nay, one ancient Father that says, Faith is then fully and sufficiently Catholic, if one believes the Creeds, Though at that very time He pertinaciously reiects the present Church we live in, Or will not hear that Doctrine which She teaches above The express Doctrine delivered in the Creeds, Let him, I say, do thus much And he speaks to the purpose, But it cannot be done, Because both the Ancient and modern Church condemns all who slight Her Doctrine, though not expressly contained in the Creed. In this opposition therefore, That which the Sectary would make the Essence of his Religion is only his false opinion, and in real truth hath neither Moral certainty, nor so much as Probability, As is already proved. He may reply. All he pretends, is, That the Creeds completely contain Matter enough of Christian belief, (To Add more is unnecessary), And Says withal, He slights not that Ancient Church, which either composed or approved the Ancient Creeds, but blames the Later Church which hath turned mere Opinions into Articles of faith, And imposed them on Christians to believe. Answ. These men it seems will hold on to be unlucky in All They say. We are now enquiring after that Doctrine which essentially Constitutes Protestancy, And here they obtrude upon us their Protestant Opinions for Answer. 7. To assert Therefore First, that the Ancient Creeds explicitly contain Matter enough of Christian Belief is à Protestant False Opinions supposed the Essence of Protestancy. opinion only, largely refuted by our learned Writers. See the other Treatise Discourse. 3. C. 5. To assert that the Church in after ages added Vnnecessaries above the explicit Doctrine contained in the Apostles Creed, impugns the most Ancient Councils of the Christian world, And is no more but à Protestant opinion. To assert. 3. That the Ancient Church was right in faith, And the present Church not, or, That She hath imposed mere. Opinions to be believed by Christians in place of Articles of Faith, is à flat Calumny an improbable opinion, which never yet was, nor can be grounded upon any rational Principle. And can these opinions think ye which all Catholics reject, pass for the grounded Essence of Protestancy? They must, or it has no Essence at all. And mark well, As they proceed with us here, so they do in all other Controversies. They tell us not only the Creeds, but Scriptures much more contain all things necessary to Salvation, That's only their Opinion. They tell Particular Proof Thereof. us, Their Belief now, and that of the Primitive Christians for the first Three, or Four Centuries, is one and the same; It is their Opinion merely, And demonstratively untrue. They tell us, They own à Church before Luther, but to say where, or when it was distinct from the Roman Catholic, or as They Imagine much larger than the Roman, is only an Opinion, and most improbable. In à word They are every where so narrowly confined, That whether they build or destroy, Impugn our Religion or offer to establish their own, They never get out of the reach of Their own tottering improbable Opinions. 8. And because I find this strain runs through Mr Stillingfleets whole Book, He cannot surely be justly offended, if for my better Satisfaction concerning his Rational Account, I require his rational Answer to one Question which I hold very reasonable. Thus I propose it. You, Sir, defend à Religion called Protestancy, You allow it some essential Doctrine distinct from Popery, and all condemned Heretics. Your Title supposeth this Doctrine well grounded (The grounds of Protestant Religion) Answer I befeech you, give me first without fumbling that Doctrine peculiar to Protestancy, which essentially makes it à Religion. Give us the Specifical difference of it, if't have any? And A question proposed to Sectaries. Next, Ground this Doctrine (be it what you will) upon the undubitable Authority of some known Orthodox Church, Orthodox Councils, or universal Tradition, but Fob us not off with your vnproued Opinions, Tell us no more of believing Creeds only, The Scripture only, the Four first general Councils only without more (these Onelies we except against) Yet do you only thus much as I now require, ('tis easily done, if your cause be good,) And I will recall what ever I have written against you, And crave pardon for my rashness. But the Catholic knows well because Heresy can have no grounded Doctrine, This task is impossible. I am now to show the Protestant the impossibility of it also. 9 Imagine one who believes the Creeds, as the Sectary pretends to do, yet so, That interiorly And from his very heart He abjures and slights all those Negative Articles called the opinions of Protestants. (I speak not here of his exterior demeanour nor Countenance his dissembling if'ft be so) My Question is this. Whether such à man have internal, essential, sufficient faith to make him à true believing Protestant? He holds himself one upon this convincing Reason, That he firmly believes what ever the Professors of that Religion maintain Sectaries must make mere Opinions their Articles of Faith. as both essential and sufficient to Salvation. Besides He knows well, No obligation lies on him to believe by Faith, the Negative Articles of Protestants, neither can he, because God has not revealed them. Such à man therefore hath completely essential Faith enough, and is à true believing Protestant, or if he be not yet got so high, or have not the Protestant Faith completely, necessary and sufficient to save him, He must help it out by believing some one or other Protestant Opinion, And Consequently the Belief of Opinions must either constitute him essentially à Protestant, Or He will never be one, yet this is most untrue, for God obliges none to believe unrevealed Opinions as Articles of Faith. 10. We must go yet further. Suppose this man believes the Creeds, The Roman Catholic Church and every particular Doctrine She teaches, just so as the best Catholic Believes, And whereas before He only slighted the opinions of Protestants, now in place of them he firmly adheres to the Contrary Catholic Positions. viz. To The Pope's Supremacy. Transubstantiation.▪ An unbloody Sacrifice. Praying to Saints worhiping of Images, And in à word to all that the Church obliges me to believe. The difficulty farther urged. This man in heart is certainly Catholic. I Ask whether he is yet à true believing Protestant? In our Sectaries Principles, He is. For first he believes his Creeds or Doctrine Common to all Christians, And there is the Essence of their saving Faith. O but all is spoiled by believing the Church, And what ever Doctrine She teaches. Why so I beseech you? why should this spoil all, if in Conscience the man judges Her Articles to be revealed Truths? A Catholic you say may be saved, Though he believes thus much, Therefore there is no reason to damn this man upon any Account of his want of Faith, For the Faith of His Creeds saves him, And the belief of our Catholic Articles ruins not that Faith. Ergo. Again. You must say, His abjuring your Negative Opinions doth not Vnprotestant Him, if he believes the Creeds, why then should the firm adhering to our contrary Positive Catholic Articles (which you call opinions) make him less Protestant? You may reply. If He holds them only as opinions, He is still Protestant, But we now suppose He believes all as Articles of Faith. Very good. This then follows inevitably. Not to believe them as Articles of Faith, besides Owning the Creeds, essentially makes him Protestant, Ergo, This also follows To believe some one Negative, or more than the Creeds Formally express (Add to them the common Doctrine of all Christians, The four General Councils &c.) is essentially necessary to Constitute him Protestant. Now This very More which is nothing but à Sectarian Opinion essentially enters in to make him Protestant, or He shall never be one. Thus much I intended to prove, and I hold it proved demonstratively. 11. You have what I would say, plainly laid forth in this unanswerable Dilemma. He who judges all the Negative Articles of A dilemma. Protestants false, And believes the Contrary Positives taught by our Catholic Church As revealed Truths, is yet Protestant, or not. If not; the belief of some thing else (Truth or untruth) is essentially requisite to make him Protestant, But the belief of That (be it what you will) now superadded to Constitute him à Believing Protestant, is no Truth revealed by God, But only à Protestant Opinion, without which he wants the Essence of that Religion, Ergo most evidently the Belief of Opinions essentially constitutes him à believing Protestant, Consequently some Doctrine which God has not revealed makes him Protestant, And the belief of his Creeds is not Faith enough to make him one. These Inferences seem evident, if not, I petition Mr Stillingfleet to discover where the fallacy lies. 12. Now on the other side, if such à man as believes his Proving what is intended against Sectaries. Creeds, the Roman Catholic Church, And all the Articles She teaches just as I believe them, be notwithstanding essentially Protestant still, He is both Protestant and Catholic together. Catholic He is, whilst He Assents to all without Reserve which the Roman Church teaches; And he is also Protestant, for He believes his Creeds, And what ever our new men require as essential to their Religion. Wherefore unless The not-believing their Negatives, or his submiss yielding to our Positive Contrary Doctrines, destroy that essential Faith of his Creeds (which is impossible) He is in these Principles, both at once Catholic and Protestant. 13. And thus you see How Our new men end Controversies, For now in their Principles, There is no more quarrel about Religion, The whole contest being purely brought to this, whether Party Opines more securely, just as the Thomists and Scotists (worthy learned Catholics) dispute whether School teaches the better Opinions, Though if the Supposition stand, it will be difficult to find out disputable Opinions between us. what our Adversary i● obliged to. 14. Be it how you will, Mr Stillingfleet must of necessity change his Tittle [The grounds of Protestant Religion] For now Protestancy with him consists with Popery, or rather is Popery, And Popery, If we speak of Religion, is consistent with Protestancy: The Essence and grounds of the one and the other cannot but be the same, if (which is ever to be noted) Protestancy as Protestancy hath not one true essential Article of Orthodox Faith peculiar to itself, For having none, The Abettors of it must either be Catholics, or Profess no Religion. 15. And here by the way you may note the difference between us. As the Catholic own's all which the Church defines to be de Fide And necessary to Salvation, So contrariwise, the Protestant own's nothing within the compass of His Articles to be de Fide, or in like manner necessary, For both He and I may boldly renounce what ever he holds as Protestant without danger of loseing our Souls. And hence it is that Opinions only, and false ones too, essentially constitute this whole Religion. I speak here of Articles proper to Protestancy, For to believe the Creeds, the four General Councils, to Assert that the Sacraments give grace to the worthy Receiver, that Faith and repentance are necessary, or what else can be thought of, as Matter of Divine Faith, All, I say, and every one Constitute the essence of Catholic Religion, and are known Doctrines of the Roman Orthodox Church, in so much that the Protestant has not proper, Special, or peculiar Tenet of Religion left him at all (which is true) to propugn. And for this reason He is obliged hereafter, jure humano, & Divino to write no more Controversies of Religion, wanting Matter to write of, And no less obligation lies on him to leave off all further quarrelling in behalf of his improbable Opinions. I would willingly see this plain discourse answered. 16. Some perhaps not penetrating the force of it, may A weak reply, answered. Reply. The old strife is now on foot again: For as we call the particular Tenets of Protestants, Opinions, and improbable also, So they in like manner say, All that the Catholic Church maintains above the Common Doctrine of Christians or the Articles of the Creeds &c, are only Church-Opinions, as improbable as Theirs. The Doctrine of Transubstantiation seems as improbable to them, as No-Transubstantiation to us. Invocation of Saints more improbable, than not to trouble Those blessed Spirits with our Prayers etc. Answ. The reply settled upon no Foundation is more than simple, For either these men Cavil because we call their Negative Articles, Opinions, or Term them improbable Opinions. Sectaries themselves call them Opinions, that's unexceptionably plain, Though they know well that the Church never speaks so meanly of her contrary Positive Doctrines. The only difficulty remaining is, whether they are improbable or no? And this stands most clearly evidenced already upon an undeniable Principle. viz. That when Luther first broached them, They were opposite to the whole Orthodox world, And for that cause were then as improbable and Heteroclite as one Rebels vote is against à whole Kingdom, or as Arianism was against the Universal Church. Now since that time they have gained no more Probability than Arianism, And so the old Improbability still clings to them. And for this reason the Sectary is to find out à Catholic Church which defended his Negatives, or any one specifical Tenet of Protestancy, as Ancient, or, reputed as Orthodox, as our Church then was, or is now: Thus much done we will allow more to his Opinions than Probability. But to do it is Impossible. 17. Thus the first part of the Objection above is solued. who are to prove the Protestants. Negatives. To That is added of our pressing Sectaries to prove their Negatives by plain Scripture. I answer, we justly exact so much proof of Mr Rogers and his Complices (the greater part of Protestants I think) who hold them Articles of Faith: These are to produce their Scriptures, And only urge Doctor Bramhal and Mr Stillingfleet that call them inferior truths or pious Opinions, to settle these Negatives or any Tenet of pure Protestancy upon so much as any thing like à Probable Principle, And here we expect their last Propositio qu●escens for Probability, But this cannot be given, whilst we know, The true Church of Christ decries them as improbable, and Heretical errors. 18. It is very true (and that's next objected) Catholics have opinions in schools differently Principled from Articles of Faith, but 'tis nothing to the purpose, when the diffecence betwixt these and our Sectaries Tenants, is, that Catholic opinions, if How Catholic Opinions differ Protestancy. probable, are ever reduced to probable grounds, our Sectaries opinions contrary to the voice and judgement of à whole Church, can have no such foundation And for this cause we justly impugn them not as False Opinions only, but as Heresies. Now to the last Plea of Sectaries making fewer Articles of Faith than the Church doth, The Answer is easy. It belongs not to them▪ God knows, wholly unknown to the world one Age past, To give us now à right measure of Faith, The attempt is no less vain, than prodigiously bold. But Say on, How will they Abbreviate? By what Rule? By what law? By their improbable opinions. Here is all. Well therefore may they Lament these unlucky Opinions, which have ruined many à poor Soul and given infinite Scandal to the Christian world. Vae homini illi per quem Scandalum venit. CHAP. XXI. Protestants granting Salvation to Catholics by à clear inference drawn from their Concession end Controversies of Religion. What force their concession hath. Why they granted so much. The Argument is clearly proposed. Mr Stillingfleet returns no probable Answer. A full discovery of his fallacies. 1. SOme may think the particular Matter now hinted at too largely handled being scarce worth half the labour here spent upon it, And They judge right, Should I once so much as offer to prove, as Mr Stillingfleet fond Imagin's, the Roman Catholic Church à safe way to salvation because Protestants Say so. Far be it from me to entertain such à Thought, For whether They side with us, or not, We have absolute Absolute Certainty of Faith without dependence of Sectaries. Certainty of our Faith independently of Their suffrages, or Voting us in à Secure way to Heaven. Wherefore Should Sectaries recoil, And say we are all damned (as some have done) we regard it not, That would no more Lessen the Certainty we now have of sound Faith, than Their Casual Granting us Salvation in the way we are in, Heightens it. 2. 'Tis true, were it doubtful (or no more but Probable) whether Catholics Can be saved in their Religion, The agreeing of Sectaries with us might serve for something, But now, when the Certainty of our Doctrine Stands, as we here Suppose most secure upon an Infallible Principle (which is Church Authority) The Proof taken from the Agreement of both Parties is an Impertinency, And in real Truth, De subiecto non supponente, That is, Not to be supposed, if (which is ever to be noted) we should go about to strengthen our Catholic Doctrine, because Heretics Agree with us. 3. However, though the Agreement, Considered in itself, be● no more but à fallible Protestant Opinion, yet laid by the other indubitable Doctrine of the Catholic Church 'Tis à Truth as asserted by them, And ties their tongues so fast, that They shall Never hereafter speak à probable word against our Catholic Faith. Again, the Concession presses Sectaries Ad hominem, who admit Scripture upon the General Agreement of all Called Christians. If therefore They argue well: Both you Catholics and wee Protestants hold these books Divine, Ergo, They are so. We Argue as strongly: Both Parties also grant salvation to Catholics, An Argument against them upon their Concession. ergo They are so secure, that it is impossible to plead against the Truth, Though as I said now, The Sectaries Concession heightens not one whit our Certainty, whereof you may see more n. 20. In the Interim please to know, The only reason why I discuss this Controversy more at Large, is, first to discover Mr Stillingfleets gross fallacies, Next to Show that Protestants, are forced at last to Put an End to Controversies, Seeing the most Learned that ever wrote, ingenuously acknowledge the Roman Catholic Faith, to be à safe, secure, and abundantly sufficient Means to attain Salvation, which is to say, A true believing Catholic Cannot be Damned upon the Account of Wanting Faith, if other Christian▪ Duties be Complied with. 4. Now if you Ask what forced Sectaries to grant thus much to Catholics? I answer it was no kindness God knows, But stark shame (to touch here on no other Motive) which extorted the Concession from them, For would not both Heaven and earth have Clamoured had They damned all their own Ancestors, all the learned and ignorant of the Roman Catholic Church far and near extended, for want of Divine Faith? Yet this follows, Because without Faith it is impossible to please God. And thus they stand perplexed. Allow saving faith to the Roman Catholic, Their Plea is ended; Deny it; They send millions and millions of Souls to Hell. Thus much premised. I Argue. 5. That Faith which the Roman Catholic Church and Protestants The Ground of our Doctrine. also jointly own as sufficient to bring à man to Heaven, is entirely perfect, And cannot be rationally opposed by either Party. But the Faith of à true believing Catholic is such à Faith, Therefore it is entirely perfect, And cannot be more rationally Opposed. Now further. If it stands thus firm upon Church Authority (That's the certain Principle) And the Conc●ssion of Adversaries As an over-measure (though weightles) it cannot be rationally excepted against by either, both Parties owning it sufficient to Salvation. Therefore All controversies concerning Faith are clearly ended in behalf of Catholics, Unless mere Cavils may pass for rational Arguments. 6. It is truly Pitiful to see how vainly Mr Stillingfleet. Part. 3. C. 4. Page. 611. strives to Euert the force of this short Discourse. Sometimes The difficulty is not so much as touched by him. Sometimes He mistakes the Question, And ever begs it. Now He runs away with half à Principle, which leads in à lame Conclusion. Now false Suppositions pass for Proofs. Now Protestant Opinions enter in, as sound Doctrine. Here he wrong's our Catholic Authors, There He contradicts himself. In à word you have nothing through His whole fourth Chapter But I know not what strange Confusion. Thus He Gins. 7. Protestants confess there is à Pissibility for some to escape (Damnation) The Adversary's discourse. in the Communion of the Roman Church, But it is as men may escape with their lives in Shipwreck, But they (Protestants) undertake to make it evident, There can be no danger, if they observe the Principles of Protestant Religion. Mark first How straight hearted The man is, in granting as little as may be. viz. A mere Possibility, And of some only to be saved in the Roman Faith, hoping Thereby to remove his own Ancestors and Millions of Pious Christians as far from Heaven as à Possibility conceived by Him, is from an Actual Being. I know other Protestants speak more roundly And say absolutely, Salvation may be had in the Roman Catholic Church, because it is à true Church in Fundamentals, And that the differences betweem them And us are about lesser Matters, or mere Opinions etc. See Mr. Thorndicke in his Book of Forbearance. page 19 Therefore Mr. Stillingfleets, lean, bare, and remote Possibility of Salvation, is only his own particular Opinion. Proved weak and vnconcluding. However though he see's not the Consequence, We have enough to conclude against him. I'll s'hew you how. 8. There is, Saith he, A posibility of being Saved in the Romam Catholic Faith, That is, Catholic Religion has in it à Possibility of bringing men to Heaven, if there be nothing wanting on Their parts. Very Good. This Possibility intrinsical To the Religion is now as actually in Being, as the Religion itself, But the Religion is actually in being, Therefore this Possibility inseparable from it, is also Actual, And lies not in the Series of things yet producible, as Creatures do which God, if he please may Create to morrow. And thus you see, Possibility stands here not opposite to non-Existency, but to an Actual impossibility, Therefore when I say, Catholic Religion now existing can possibly save All, I say with the same breath, it cannot possibly damn Any. Unless you'll Grant it can save All and damn some, which is impossibile. 9 Hence Mr. Stillingfleets pretty Put off, of Saving Some, and The Religion which saves Some can save all. not All, is most inconsequent Doctrine; For clear the Religion from all actual essential Error, it can as well Save all, as some, And if it be tainted with any essential Error, The whole Religion is naught, And can save none. But of this more in the next Discourse. Chap. 5. 6. where I shall prove that Catholic Religion is eithér entirely Good, totally Orthodox, or worth nothing, And consequently if upon à supposed impossibility There were but one essential error in it which I through invincible ignorance know not, yet Assent to, That invincible ignorance would ('tis true) excuse me from Sin, But it cannot free the Religion from being false and forged in itself? 10. What follows in the Objection of our narrow escaping damnation in Catholic Religion, as men do with infinet danger in Shipwreck, is no more but Mr. Stillingfleets own improbable Assertion, not worth refuting, And His reason is far worse. Protestants, Our Adversaries improbable Assertion. forsooth, undertake to make it evident, There can be no danger, if they observe the Principles of Protestants. To make it evident. What à vast overlashing is this. Sir, make your Assertion only Morally certain, Nay, but so much as meanly probable, And May I have the honour to Answer, you will soon disclaim Evidence. In the mean while, I look upon it as à mere Vanity worth nothing, And so is all the rest in your next page. 612. Where you bid us judge, whether it be wisdom, in such à point as salvation is, to forsake à Church in which the ground of Salvation is firm, to follow à Church in which it is but possible one may be saved, but very probably he may do worse. All this is worse than your own improbable Hic glorious bragging. Opinion, You here Suppose without Proof, that the ground of Salvation is firm in your Protestancy, And therefore shamefully beg the question in every word you speak. Yet thus you go on. 11. His Lordship still asserts the Protestants way to be only the Safe way to Salvation, and that in the Church of Rome, there is only à limited possibility of it. Answ. Enough is said already of the Possibility. Here you beg the question again, you run away with half à Principle, And only tell us, what his Lordship Asserts. What security have I from his Assertion? There is yet more of this stuff. Protestants confess, there is Salvation possible to be attained in the Romam Church; but they say with all, that the errors of that Church are so many and some so great, as weaken the foundation, that it is very hard to go that way to Heaven, especially His begging the question. to them that have had the truth manifested. Here is nothing but words. We only hear what Protestants prooflesly Think and Say. What am I wiser for that? These false Suppositions, This His false suppositions. manifest begging the Question fall of Themselves without further refutation. 12. Were it worth the while, I might Ask whether these supposed errors so far weaken the foundation of Catholic Religion, that Salvation cannot be had in it? His Lordship Answers. I grant salvation to Romanists, But not as they are Romanists, but as They are christians And believe their Creed etc. Pitiful. Speak, plainly. Will The Belief of Roman Catholic Religion damn them or no? If it Damn's them, The Belief of their Creed's cannot save them. (Unless you both damn, and save them at once) Contrariwise, if the Belief of the Creeds saves them, Roman Religion cannot Damn them, for now upon the Supposition it destroys not that saving Faith of the Creeds, But stands well with it here, And therefore cannot damn any hereafter. What follows is yet worse, if worse can be. You, Sir, Say. Page. 613. His Lordship dares not deny à possibility of Salvation for the Roman Cathelick, but he is far from Asserting it of those, who either know the corruptions of that Church, and yet continue in them, or of such who wilfully neglect the means▪ whereby they may be convinced. 13. Here is first à false Supposition for à Proof. Of known Corruptions, And à pure begging the question besides. Here is. 2. The half Principle of his Lordship's bare saying laid hold on without more, which infers no Conclusion, But only thus much, That my Lord spoke (and perhaps not) what he thought, Or if He did so we Catholics are not of so easy Faith, as to believe him. Here is 3. A pretty piece of Nonsense in those words. Nothing but Confusion in the Replies of Sectaries. But he is far from Asserting it of those who know the Corruptions of that Church etc. As, if forsooth, one truly Catholic could know and own any Corruptions in his Church And yet remain Catholic. These two things are inconsistent, To remain Catholic, And to judge this Church corrupted in any point of Doctrine. Such men My Lord may list among his Protestant Believers. In à word His Proposition is de Subiecto non supponente, And so is also what crowds in next. Of Those who neglect the means afforded by Protestants sufficiently Proposed etc. Here is again the false Supposition, not proved, we never yet heard of any such means, nor shall here after, I am sure your Rational Account affords none. 14. You add presently à desperate word And 'tis, That his Lordship Speaks of such Catholics whose mere ignorance excuseth, when the Fundamentals are held etc. Ergo you and your Lord damn all Sectaries send to Hall innumerable Learned men. the learned of our Church That entirely believed the Catholic Faith for à Thousand years and upward. You Damn our B●des, our Bernard's, our Dominicks, our Brunoes', not to be listed amongst the Ignorant. You Damn more over all the learned Catholics who have lived (since your Heresy began) in Italy, Germany, Spain, France, and in other parts of the world. Bethink yourself well, whether this can pass for either Catholic or Charitable Doctrine? And never more rail at us upon the account, That we Condem● you, For, for one we comdemn, you damn Thousands. Compar● the ignorant, amongst you (late beginners) with the ignorant o● our Church Past and present; The learned amongst you with th● learned of our Church confessedly Popish for à Thousand year and upward, There is no parallel in the number. If then yo● damn many, why may not we condemn the late risen fewer Multitudes amongst you, wilfully divorced from the Mother Church. Again we damn not your Persons. No. One Supreme judge Catholics damn none, but Condemn Heresy. only, is to Pronounce the final Sentence upon us all, But we condemn your Heresy, And say as You ought to speak of the Arians, Pelagians, Macedonian's &c. (and all such known Renegadoes) That you have no better Faith than these. Look you to the Consequence. 15. Your next Demand is. When we grant à possibility of Salvation to those of the Protestant Church in case of invincible ignorance, How we dare deny it where there is à preparation of mind, to find out and embrace the most certain Way to Heaven? What's this? Are you yet only in Preparatives to find out, and embrace? Is one whole Age gone, And Truth not yet found out among Sectaries are yet preparing to believe. you? The Catholic firmly believes, A better Religion cannot be found than that is He now embraces, And you are Still in à state of seeking, and preparing for it. Sir, à mere Preparation to take Physic in à mortal infirmity cures none, no more can à Preparation to believe, if one meet not with the right Faith, save any. Good Physic actually applied, cures the body, And Faith actually informing the soul saves us. 16. It is not now my intention to dispute that case of invincible Ignorance, great Divines favour not the Opinion. See our learned Countryman Thomas Southwell. Analyfis fidei Disp. 3. Cap. 9 1. 150. And Michael de Elizalde de formâ verae Religion is invenienda. Quest: 37. n. 596. The rest which follows of men being saved by The Terms of Gospel (A language I understand not) And of our Stalking to the interest of the Church of Rome, is vain Talk, (every Arian will say as much) But not close Arguing. 17. Page. 614. You offer at à Salvation to our Argument already proposed. It is most safe for Salvation to take that way which All parties agree in. To this you never directly Answer, But wholly Our Adversary waves the main difficulty. wave the difficulty. First you tell us again without Proof of the Errors and corruptions in our Church, And say it is hard to conceive there should be that Faith and Repentance, which you make necessary to Salvation with such à multitude of errors. Sir, These fancied errors either destroy Divine Faith of the Creeds and Fundamentals, Or do not. If destructive of Faith, You contradict yourself, And falsify your own Proposition which says. Catholics may be saved in their Religion, For without Divine faith no man can be saved. If these Supposed errors destroy; not, Faith (The ground of Salvation) is apt of its own nature to produce in à Soul Contrition, Repentance, pious Conversation, The fear and love of God etc. Unless we wilfully hinder such holy effects of Grace. And here you have an unanswerable Dilemma. 18. Suppose these miscalled errors destroy Faith, There is no Possibility of Salvation at all; Suppose they destroy it not But consist with it, much less can they unroote Repentance, Piety, A dilemma. the love of God, ànd the other virtues which bring men to Heaven. The reason is evident. Essential Errors, were There any, stand directly opposite to Christian Faith, which is true, therefore in the first place they must shake, or rather destroy that ground of Salvation, before they reverse Repentance and other Christian Virtues. Now if you say we have indeed à kind of Faith, but so defective that it begets no Repentance no piety etc. You speak only your fancy, destroy the very Essence of Faith, And Consequently the Catholic must at last be damned for want of Faith, or, if you make the Errors so minute as not to raze out Saving Faith, that stands in being still, so do other Christian virtues likewise, and Salvation with them. The Argument is convincing. 19 Page. 615. You are wholly besides the Question, And fall upon particular cases impertinent to our present purpose. You first inveigh bitterly against Deathbed Repentance, where Our Adversary's impertinencies. you deliver intolerable Doctrine. 2. You unjustly Calumniate, As if Catholics taught Repentance not necessary before death, whereas the world knows, both Doctors in Schools, and Preachers in their pulpits most Zealously inculcate the great danger of continuing in Sin, and delaying Repentance. Sir, these difficulties worth examination, And throughly canvased by others, are in this place impertinencies, Therefore though you would lead me astray, yet I'll not follow you, But press you to Answer directly to the point in hand. Give me à man, For example, An humble S. Francis, who lived ever à Penitential life, and delayed not Repentance until death (there have been innumerable in the Church profoundly humble and penitential) the Question is, whether you dare damn such upon the Account of wanting true Faith, true Repentance, the fear or love of God & c? Damn such And you deny the possibility of Salvation to all Catholics, Save them, And you grant that true Repentance, piety and other Christian virtues are consistent with Catholic Faith. And thus I remove you from your particular case of Deathbed repentance, For although all such were Damned (which is hideously impious to Assert) Yet you see our Question has à large extent in order to millions of other Believers, who lived piously all their life long. Now if you Say that Doctrine which holds Salvation possible to one who ever lived à lewd life, and only repent's at death is perniciously impious, you only vent your Opinion, And here is an other impertinency. 20. Page. 617. You come to that which is the proper business, And 'tis to examine the strength of our Inferences. Protestants grant we may be saved, And the Church asserts it also. To An Instance brought in. this you say his Lordship returns à triple Answer, Who first gins with the confession of Protestants. This was the way of the Donatists of old, which would hold as well for Them, as the Church of Rome. To prove the Assertion you instance in one particular of Baptism. Both Catholics and Donatists granted Baptism was true among the Donatists, but the Donatists denied it to be true Baptism among the Catholic Christians, Therefore on this Principle the Donatists' side is the surer side, if the Principle be true. It is the safest taking that way, which the differing Parties agree on. Answ. 1. Here is no Agreement concerning the main point of Salvation, For the Catholics and Donatists jointly and unanimously never openly Confessed that Catholics could be saved, as now we and Protestants by one consent say it. But let that pass. 2. The Catholics To no purpose. and Donatists agreed that Baptism administered by Heretics was valid and good. That's true Doctrine. But both parties never agreed, that it was lawful for à Catecumen to take Baptism from the Donatists, unless in Case of necessity. See S Austin Lib. 1. de Bapt. c. 2. 3. O, but thus much follows. The Donatists' Baptism is more safe than that of Catholics upon this Principle, That both Parties agreed so far, and it is safest to take that way wherein differing Parties agree, consequently the Catholics Baptism is less safe, because the Donatists denied it to be true. 21. Answ: This whole Discourse is à mere Paralogism; the Fallacy lies here, That the Opinion of dissenting men is supposed A Paralogism answered. to Add more security, more certainty to Church-Doctrin, than the Doctrine itself derives from that Oracle of Truth. I say Contrary. As such Opinions, when true, Add no more weight or certainty to that Doctrine than it had antecedently from the The Fundamental ground of our Answer. Church, So if false; They make not the Doctrine less certain. Take one instance, God reveals this Truth. The Divine word assumed Humane nature. One preaches the Truth but Adds no degree of certainty to the Doctrine in itself, which in the highest degree was most certain, before his Preaching. An other falsely (as Arius did) opposes the verity, it is not Therefore less certain in itself because He contradicts it. And thus we discourse of our Church Tenets, indubitably most certain upon Church Authority, whether Heretics deny or grant, (That Matters not) the Doctrine stands firm still as before, And as we see by daily experience neither riseth higher in certainty, nor falls lower in the judgement of Catholics, because Sectaries side with it, or bend against it. 22. Thus much proved The Paralogism is at an end. The Catholics held The Donatists' Baptism valid; so they would have done had these Heretics duly Ministered it, and with all (which is possible) afterward denied it valid, So independent Church Doctrine is of dissenting men's opinions. The Donatists again slighted our Catholic Baptism, the Church regards it not, For as the Opinions of the Goodness of their own Baptism heightened not the Church's certainty concerning it, So their Contrary Opinion of its insufficiency made not the Truth less certain to the Catholic. Apply what is here noted to our present case, and you will see the like Conclusion. Protestants Say, we may be Sectaries Siding with us neither Lessons nor increases our Certainty. saved in Catholic Religion. The Opinion is true, But as asserted by them is no more but an Opinion, which therefore Add's not one grain of more Certainty to Catholic Doctrine, For had they denied us à possibility of Salvation, as now by mere Chance they grant it, Catholics would have given as little ear to That, as They now do to their many other false Opinions. So it is? Church Doctrine as I now said, neither falls nor riseth in certainty, upon the account of our Sectaries Opinions. 23. You will Ask what then gain we by the Concession of Protestants when it gives us no more Assurance in this particular, than we had before from the Church? I have answered above. We gain thus much, That they cannot rationally impugn any Catholic Doctrine without contradicting Themselves, For if confessedly, This bring's men to Heaven, the Religion is sound, And implies no essential Error, The concession then, as I said, serves well as an Argument ad Hominem to stop the mouths of Sectaries, And shows withal, That they end controversies For its What their Excession Serves for? horridly unjust to dispute against à Faith which all grant saves souls. We pretend no more, nor can pretend it, And here is the Reason. 23. No Catholic (nor indeed any other) doth or can believe à Christian Verity upon this ground or Motive, that Sectaries say its true, for their saying so, is neither God's Revelation nor the Church's Doctrine, But à mere Opinion as taught by them, But an opinion (chief theirs) is to weak to ground any faith upon, Therefore if I believe, as I do, Salvation most safe in the Roman Catholic Church, I believe it upon à Motive totally distinct from the Protestants Assertion. It is true, their Assertion or siding with us may induce one to reflect on the great power Truth has in working upon men most refractory, Though it Adds no new degree of certainty to Catholic Doctrine. I have insisted longer upon this point because it utterly destroys what ever Mr. Stillingfleet can say against us, unless he will quarrel upon this score, that I here suppose my Church Doctrine most certain, which is not the Question now, But may well be supposed in all good law of disputation, And shall, God willing, be proved in the next Discourse. 24. Page. 619. you proceed to à second Answer of his Lordship, And Argue thus. If that be the safest which both Parties agree in, the Principle makes much for the Advantage of Protestants, And why? We Catholics are bound, Say you, to believe with you in the Point of the Eucharist, For all sides agree The Sectaries Argument taken from the Eucharist. in the faith of the Church of England, That in the most blessed Sacrament the worthy Receiver is by his Faith made Spiritually partaker of the true and Real body and blood of Christ, truly and really etc. Answ. 1ᵒ. If we believed As you do, The motive of our Faith would be, As is now said, quite different from the Motive of your Opinion, And so it is de facto in the belief of every Catholic Mystery. But I wave this, And say Your Principle is ill applied, For you and we agree in just nothing concerning the Eucharist, but thus far only, That what we see looks like bread. We say that very Christ who was born of the Virgin; and suffered on the Cross is really and substantially present under the form of bread after true Consecration, You by à strange fancy lay hold of Christ's Presence existing in Heaven, And think thereby to make yourselves partaker of his real body. We say Christ is rruly Worth nothing, and why? and really in two, and more places at once, you make this utterly impossible. We put the real Presence or local being of Christ in the very Object before our eyes upon the Altar, you put it in your faith, or Fancy rather. Hence your question afterward viz. Whether we do not allow any real and Spiritual presence of Christ besides the Corporal (you mean the Real) manducation, is soon answered, For we distinguish what you confound together, And say, if by these Terms Spiritual Presence you would exclude the real obiective Presence of Christ's sacred body, we descent from you, And absolutely hold that Real obiective Presence, which may be rightly called Spiritual because by it Christ is placed Totus in toto, totally in the whole host and totally in every part of it. Contrariwise, if you make it only à fancied Presence of Christ, or say, He is not really under the Forms or Accidents of bread, we leave that lean sacramentary Doctrine to you, utterly disanow it, and still descent from you. 25. The whole cheat lies huddled up in those unexplicated words. The worthy Receiver is by his Faith made spiritually partaker of the true and real body, etc. As if, forsooth, your two terms. The fallacy discovered. Faith, and Spiritual, could make us agree in one Tenet, whereas we most vary about this very Faith and the object of it, And also disclaim your fancied Spiritual Presence. Hence we say, you have neither true Sacrament, nor true Faith, nor receive worthily, nor really partake of Christ's true body, nor of any benefit of his Passion. We say you feed not spiritually, but only taste natural bread. This is our Doctrine concerning your miscalled Eucharist, we allow you no more, and Therefore utterly descent from you. 26. You add presently à great untruth, And I wonder you could speak it without blushing. The greatest men of our Persuasion as Suarez and Bellarmin (say you) assert the belief of Transubstantiation not to be simply necessary to Salvation. Ignorance or, Malice or both had certainly à hand here, For they say no such thing. I Ascribe much to the first, moved thereunto by your following words. And that the Manner of it is secret and ineffable. Dear Sir, were Christ really present without Transubstantiation as Luther held, The manner of his existing with bread might yet be secret and ineffable, But would this infer à denial of his ineffable Presence? All that Catholic Authors say, is, That the modus exist●ndi or Our Adversary's Mistake. Manner of his existing in the Sacrament, is secret and ineffable even with Transubstantiation; do they Therefore hold the verity not simply necessary to Salvation, or boggle at the Doctrine of Transubstantiation? You believe à Trinity of Persons in one Divine Essence, it's hard for you to express the Manner how God is one, and three distinct Persons, yet you believe the Mystery And hold that belief necessary to Salvation. Divines eudeavour to explicate the Manner of Christ's ineffable Presence in the Eucharist, but when all is done you have no more from Then but Opinions, And so it falls out in the other Mystery of the Trinity, where Schoolmen vary in their explicating Quomodo, How God can be one in Essence And three distinct Persons, Yet they hold the belief of the Mystery after à due Proposal absolutely necessary to Salvation, And thus they discourse of Christ's ineffable Presence in the Eucharist. The Quomodo, or Manner of his being there is difficult And cannot be clearly laid forth to weak Reason; yet that perplexeth not our Faith whereby we submissively yield to what God speaks without further curiosity. 27. Your other instances. Page. 620. are quite besides the business. Christ you say, instituted the Sacrament in both kinds, The Primitive Christians received in both. What then? Ergo Other instances refuted. Christ commanded both to laics, is no Consequence, nor agreed on by Catholics. 2. Both Churches, say you, Agree that the Eucharist is à Sacrifice of duty, of Praise, of Commemoration etc. You know, we absolutely deny your Supposition, and say you have no true Sacrifice, consequently neither praise God, nor Commemorate Christ's Passion, but grievously offend him in your taking à bare piece of bread, Here is no Agreement. And thus we speak of your Mass or Liturgy, For there was never Mass in the without à true Sacrifice, you have no Sacrifice, Ergo no Mass Church. The grossest error therefore is that you have razed out the Sacrifice, most essential to à Liturgy. 28. Page, 621. You say. His Lordship Answers truly, that the Agreement of differing parties is no Metaphysical Principle, The Contingent proposition. but à bare contingent Proposition which may be true or false, as the matter is, to which it is applied. Answ.. A contingent Proposition; What's this Sir? If you mean that the Protestant party vented it by chance, I'll not quarrel with you, But out it is in print, And applied to the Possibility of Salvation, which you allow Catholics. Let this concession stand, it cannot but be true unless you say, Both parties err in the Assertion, And then we are not only out of the Question, but highly blame you upon this account, That all your pains in discussing sc largely the matter hitherto, has been to no purpose, For one line might have ended All, had you plainly Said. We Protestant's foully erred when we granted Salvation to Catholics in their own Religion. Be it how you will. I say this Proposition. Salvation may be had in Catholic Religion, is So true, that it cannot be false, because the greatest Authority on earth, the universal Church of Christ own's it as an undoubted verity, and could this possibly be à falsehood, neither we nor Protestants can believe any thing which the Church teaches, as is amply proved in the second Discourse. etc. For to what purpose should I believe the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Creed or any thing else, when Is so true that is cannot be false. that Church which proclaims these as Truths, may after all damn me? The very ugliness of such à thought carries horror with it, And stark shame decries it, as Abominable. Your Lord and you say next. The consent of disagreeing parties is neither Rule nor proof of truth, No man can resolve his Faith into it, but Truth rather is, or should be the Rule to frame, if not to force Agreement. Answ. All this is very right, Therefore we never make your consent either Rule or proof of any Catholic Verity, much less do we resolve our Faith into your Agreement; Church Doctrine Stands firm without you, it was true before you were in being, And the evidence of it forced you to consent with us. Now à word to your other two or three instances. And. 29. In real truth, Sir, I much wonder you saw not their Lameness, before you thrust them into your Page 621. And that you would fain allow them Strength to weaken this Truth. W●e Other Instances proved weight less. and Protestants Agree thus far that Catholic Religion can save us, etc. I say Contrary, The instances are so remote from your design, That they prove just nothing. One is. The Orthodox Christians agreed with the Arians, that Christ was of like nature with his Father, But added, He was of the same nature, Ergo, Say you, it is safest to hold with the Arians. To hold what I beseech you? You Answer, that Christ was of the like nature. Very good. That Likeness either excluded the same nature or included it; Grant the first, you make the Father's Heretics, which is impossible, For they held the same nature common and Consubstantial to the Father and Son. If their concession (which is true) included the same nature, The Orthodox party and Arians agreed not in the same hypothesis, consequently your instance is to no purpose at all. In à word this ever and unexceptionably holds good. The Doctrine which Heretics jews and Turks agree in with Catholics is most true (so you and we agree about salvation now discussed) but it doth not follow, that so much only, or that no more is true. Your want of reflecting upon this Only or, no More makes That's truth wherein Catholics and Heretics agree. all your instances impertinent And your inferences Ergo, It is safest holding with the Arians most vnconcluding; For though the Doctrine be true when the Arian side with the Church, yet it derives no absolute safety from that consent of Heretics. 30. Upon these grounds all the rest which follows falls to nothing. Some dissenting parties (Say you) agree that there ought to be à Resurrection from Sin, and that this Resurrection is meant in divers passages of Scripture, But they deny the Resurrection of the body after Death. Ergo it will be the Safest to deny the article of the Resurrection. Again: Dissenting parties, as jews, Turcks, and Sectaries agree with Catholics, that there is but one God, Ergo by virtue of this Principle, men will be bound to deny the Trinity. Lastly. Dissenting parties Agree fully with us That Christ is man; but Heretics deny His Godhead. Therefore it will be safest believing that Christ is mere man, And not God. Answer. With much wearisomeness do I read these more than pitiful improbable inferences. Not one of them arises from Premises which lead in any thing like your Conclusion. Reduce but Premises put which infer no Conclusion. one to right Form (one serves for all) and you will see your folly. Thus it is. That Doctrine in which Catholics and Heretics agree is safe and true Doctrine; Catholics and Heretics agree in this Doctrine that Christ is man (but not man only) ergo that is safe and true Doctrine. Here is the utmost your Premises can infer, And I grant all. Christ is truly man. So I grant the Doctrine of à Resurrection from sin, of one God only to be most sound and Catholic, But here is your grand mistake and open fallacy with it. You seem to persuade the Reader, that because Heretics agree so far with the Church, Therefore it is safe to deny what ever other Doctrine She maintains. Sir, She maintains the Truths now mentioned, yet not only Those But many more And herein there is no Agreement, consequently not good conclusion for you upon any agreed Principle. For thus much only follows from thence, That so far as we Agree, so far true Doctrine is taught. Apply this to our present matter and all is plain. You and we agree thus far, that Salvation may be had in the Roman Catholic Religion. Most true. We descent from you concerning the Charge of Superstitions An ather fallacy discovered. and gross Errors imposed on us, from this you can infer no Conclusion against us upon the Principle of Agreement, now Supposed in the other Doctrine of Salvation, which goes on roundly without all contradiction. I would say. We agree about Salvation and that's à Truth; we differ in other points, here we must dispute upon other Grounds, And lay that agreed on Principle aside, for immediately it leads in no conclusion in such matters. 31. Shall I now tell you where your whole Fallacy lies? It lurks in that pretty Term, Safest, For you thought to infuse into it this Sense. So much Doctrine as we and Heretics agree in, is only the Safest, But no more, As if we Catholics held, what ever other Tenet is out of the compass of that agreed-on Doctrine implies both Vnsafety and Uncertainty. You grossly mistake. We hold every other Point of Catholic Religion wherein you and we descent wholly as Safe and certain, as That is we both agree in; For I tell you once more, our Safety and certainty depend not upon any Heretics consent. If then you would rack That Principle (we and Arians agree) to this unto ward sense, So much Doctrine The Principle of Agreement abused precisely is the safest we agree in, And no more, Or, That our maintaining that agreed-on Doctrine to be safe, excludes other Catholic verities from being So, We neither agree with the Arian nor any other Heterodox, But utterly disclaim The Principle and consequently say, you can draw no Conclusion at all from it against us. Sense the Principle and all is clear. Heretics and we agree, That Christ is man, That sense contains certain Doctrine. O, but the meaning may be; He is so purely man that he is not God. Give it this sense, we agree not, but reject the Principle as Heretical, which therefore infers nothing like à conclusion against us. All is contrary in the other agreed on Principle Concerning the Salvation of Catholics, For that as I said now, Though it serve not immediately to end other debates, touching Purgatory, Pra●ing to Saints etc. yet it draws with it à long train of notable consequences. For if we may be saved, we have true Faith in our Church, true Hope, true Chatity, true Repentance, And what ever is necessary to attain salvation. More of Mr. Stillingfleets Mistakes briefly discovered. 32. I'll only briefly hint all the rest which follows from your Page 623. to the end of the Chapter, To touch them is enough to take off the little strength they have. You ask first. Why you ought to believe that which both Parties agree in. I Answer because you must believe in some Church, which is either your own or Two questions answered. the Roman Catholic Or B, Both grant the Catholic may be saved, what would you have more. You Ask again, If the consenting parties may agree in à falsehood what evidence have you but that the agreed on Principle, is one of those Falsehoods? I have answered. 1. If the Principle, be supposed false you might have roundly said so at the beginning, and spared all your superfluous labour spent to no purpose in this fourth Chapter. I Answered, 2. The true Church, even when Protestants consent to it cannot Agree in à falsehood, for the true Church speaks truth, And He or They who side with it cannot swerve from truth in that. You say. 3. It ought to be à safe Principle indeed, and no uncertain Topical Argument, which men should venture their souls upon. Answ. If men must be saved in the true Church (be it yet where you will) And in this we All agree, none can in conscience call the Doctrine of it Topical or uncertain, as shall be proved afterward. In the mean while Say I beseech you, Church Doctrine Miscalled Topical. what safer Principle have you to rely on in this weightly matter of Salvation, which will not be more Topical Than that is which the true Church teaches, And you approve. You know, or should know there was never any true Church since Christianity began, which denied Salvation to the Romam Catholic. Nay all Orthodox Christians ever granted it. You side with all these Orthodox Christians and what greater Authority can there be on earth? Yet this Principle must be called by you Topical and uncertain. Say then what's more certain? Will you leave the voice and vote of all Orthodox Professors and run to Scripture? Alas, The whole book Saith no where so much as seemingly, That you Protestants are in the Safe way of Salvation, And we Catholics not. What ever Argument therefore is drawn from Scripture, will be à less satisfactory Principle (yea none at all) And infinitely more Topical in order to save you, Than what the church teaches, and you hold with it, is, to save us. Now if you let go this Principle of plain Scripture, as you must (or I'll urge you lo produce that plain Text which saves you, and Damn's Catholics) you have nothing left to stand on but mere Misinterpretations and Glosses, which indeed merit not so much as very name of Topics. 33. You say 4. Heathenism if our Principle hold, will be Answer to an Objection taken from Heathenism proved the safest way to Salvation, For some of you (Catholics) agreed That many of them may be saved without any explicit knowledge had of Christ, But they deny you can be saved by it. Answ: Here the old fallacy is on foot again, And à pretty Antilogy with it, For if the Heathens deny we can be saved by an explicit knowledge of Christ, They must certainly have some explicit knowledge of him; Or if they have no such explicit knowledge, How can they deny Salvation to us by Christ? They cannot deny what they never heard off. But let this pass. I Answer. 2. You are quite besides the Question and once more out of our Principle, For you join together two opinions only. viz. what the Heathens and some Catholics hold in order to the Salvation of such Aliens. And We in the contest with you, make use of à Doctrine which all the Orthodox Churches on earth have ever taught: This is more certain than any opinion can be, and only (in order to the inference about the Salvation of Catholics) Add your opinion to it. 3. After you have said all, you only conclude thus much, that à Heathen may be saved without any explicit knowledge of Christ. The Concession so far is good upon the Opinion of Catholic Doctors, but doth it follow from hence that so much only is true, or that no more Doctrine is Safe? This you ought to infer or you prove nothing. 34. Page. 623. You only tell us what his Lordship says. viz. That the Roman Church, and the Church of England are but two distinct members of the Catholic Church, spread over the face of the Sectaries own Catholics à part of the Catholic earth. Observe good Reader, our Adversaries both here and else where often make us à part, at least, of the Church Catholic. Upon that Concession I argue ad Hominem, they are certainly to talk no more of any danger of damnation for want of Faith, but grant freely we may be saved, or in real Truth They surpass Mahomet in malice. For if Mahomet who held Moses and Christ two great Prophets never dared to damn those millions of Mahomet more favourable than Sectaries. souls that believed in them, And had lived from Moses until the wicked man set forth his Alcoran, much less can these men who hold us Christians, and part of the Catholic Church damn those innumerable professors of this great moral body for want of Faith, who have been since the. 5. or 6. age until Luther appeared in the world. You next put us to our proofs. If we can prove that the Roman Church is properly the Catholic Church itself, we are to Speak out etc. Sir, though we are not to prove that we keep in the King's high way where the world has seen us so many Ages, But might most justly force you (late stragglers) to prove you have taken à better path; Yet what you desire is so amply evinced in the other Treatise upon several Occasions chief Disc. 3. C. 1. 2. 3. That none of you hitherto have dared to Answer. The proof briefly is reduced to this plain Discourse. Three days before Luther shamefully deserted the Roman Catholic Communion, there was à true visible Church on earth, but that only was the Roman Catholic Church for all other Societies, name which you will, were erroneous and heretical. The Roman, the only Catholic Church. Ergo the Roman Church, or none, (for Protestants were not then in the world) was the true Faithful Orthodox Church of Christ, And is so Still after our Sectaries late Revolt from it. 35. You Cloy our ears again with his Lordship's severe Sentence concerning the Leaders of our Church, who refuse to hear, Her Instruction, And his Charity extends so far as to think them all lost souls, though many that succeed them in these Errors, without obstinacy, may be saved. Answ: His Lordship neither is, nor was, nor Shall ever be the judge of the living and the Dead, Therefore we little heed his heavy Doom, The man has his already. But say I beseech you? Where was the Church before Luther whose Instruction the Catholic Leaders refused to hear? was it your English Church? Alas, it was à thing, never heard of in those Days. Was it the Church of Arians, Pelagians, and such like condemned Heretics, must our Leaders be damned for not hearing these? No certainly. Say then for God's sake A question Proposed Concerning. The Church Catholic? where was the Church, they should have have hearkened to and refused to hear? Here, Sir, we urge you, may we use your own Phrase to speak out, to pronounce, and prove. Again. How dare you with any Conscience suppose, that so many learned, most pious and virtuous Prelates, Pastors, Doctors, Religious, went against their own Consciences to lead Themselves and millions of Souls into Perdition? whereof innumerable gave all they had to the poor, some built Churches, Others founded Monasteries, others Universities, Others, who might have lived like Princes in the world, shut themselves up in Cells to gain Heaven at last, yet these, for sooth, must be Misleaders with you, And damn themselves and whole Millions for nothing. The Devil in Hell hath not Desperate Doctrine. malice enough to harbour such à thought, And I verily persuade myself that neither the Bishop that's gone, nor you, Sir, when you wrote your Account, where so far infatuated, as to judge it probable. Your Papers speak not always your own Consciences. 36. You Still run on with nothing. Many, Say you, hold A mere importinency the Foundation itself Doctrinally, who hold it not savingly. Most true. A mere impor●inency But the fault is not in the Doctrine, but in their want of complying. And what's this to our present purpose? whilst we only Assert with you That Catholic Religion can save us, If our lives be answerable to it. 37. You say again Page. 624. Our Leaders are lost because they most dangerously withhold from others the plain and undoubted word of God, And therefore deserve the same Anathema which. S. Paul Pronounces against an Angel, in case he teach any other Doctrine. Answ. Do you speak in earnest Good Sir? Favour me so far, That you and I may debate this one point, and end it by plain Scripture, If you show me upon sound Principles indeed, That we teach any Doctrine Contrary to the plain word of God I am gained to your side, And shall acknowledge you Conqueror, But no fear of this. You Say moreover, if you Prove us guilty of any gross dangerous and damnable Error, That, will be abundantly sufficient to your purpose, that Ours cannot possibly be any safe way to salvation. Conditional Propositions, here insignificant. Answ. Very right indeed. But these Ifs end no Controversies: Set, once more pen paper and prove us guilty of damnable Error, and you'll damn so many, that very few of your Protestants will be left in à state of Salvation. I'll make the Assertion good hereafter. In the interim you Tell us, We palpably beg the Question whilst we suppose the whole Church is on our side, and against you, which is à notorious falsehood. Sir, words are but wind. I shall by the Grace of God Evidence this Truth so notoriously in the next Discourse, that you, if reason may have place, must confess, Catholics are the only Orthodox Church, And Consequently grant, that Controversies are ended between us. THE SECOND DISCOURSE OF The Church and Rule of Faith HEre we come to handle à main Matter in Controversies, And first Evidence the true Church by Her Marks and Glorious Miracles. The Roman Catholic Church is proved the only Orthodox Society of Christians, and Rule of Faith also. We Evince Her absolute Infallibility, and show by Reason, That if She hath taught but one false Doctrine, and obliged Christians to believe it, there is now no true Faith in the world. CHAP. I. Necessary Principles premised relating to the Controversy now in hand, concerning the true Church And Rule of Faith. 1. THE first Principle. God whose eternal design is to bring man to true Faith in this short pilgrimage, and after to endless Happiness, afford's means to acquire both, And hath as Principles presupposed. well laid open the means whereby true Faith may be attained, As made our final End known. 2. The second Principle. Those want the means leading to the last happy End, who are Aliens from the true Church of Christ, or Separated from that Catholic Society. The Assertion is so plainly delivered not only by most Ancient Fathers, But by the more learned Sectaries also, That it is needless to produce many Testimonies. S. Cyprian. Lib. de unitate Ecclesiae? Saith. Quisquis ab Ecclesia separatus est etc. Who ever is separated from the Church is joined to an Adulteress, And divorced from all the Promises of the Church. He comes not to the reward which Christ has promised who leaves the Church of Christ. He is an Alien, Profane an Enemy, and cannot have God for his Father, who hath not the Church for his Mother. S. Austin. lib. 4. de Symb. C. 13. Speaks fully this sense Citing those last words of Cyprian. And Lib. 4. de Baptis. C. 17. Saith. Out of the Church there is no Salvation. Yet more: Epist. 152. Whoever is or shall be separated from The Father's Testimonies preduced. this Catholic Church, although he thinks himself to live most laudably, For this one wickedness alone, that he is disjoined from the unity of Christ, shall have no life, Sed ira Dei manet super eum, But the wrath of God remains upon him. S. Fulgentius Lib. de fide ad Petrum. C. 39 Hold this most certain and no way doubt of it, That an Heretic or Schismatic baptised in the name of the Father of the Son and Holy Ghost, if he be not in Union with the Catholic Church, Although he gives never so great Alms, And shed his blood for Christ, yet he cannot be saved. I wave other excellent Authorities known to every one versed in the Fathers, And need not to take more pains when Protestant's themselves own the Doctrine. The Ark was à type of the Church, saith Perkins, in Symb. Colum: with me. 785. extra quam omnes interibant, out of which Ark All died, and all are damned who are out of the Church. Again In Caput. 9 ad Sectaries Consent. Galat. Those who are not members of the visible Church, are not members of the Catholic Church. Humfred. Ad Ration. 3. Campiani. We condemn all who are not aggregated to the visible. Church of God. Finally Calvin, the Master of Sectaries. Lib. 4. Institu. C. 1. 4. makes it absolutely necessary to be in union with Christ's visible Church. 3. The ground of this Truth is so solidly laid down in Scripture, that none can contradict it, For here the Church is called the Kingdom, the Body, the Inheritance of Christ, purchased at à dear The Ground of our Catholic Truth rare, the effusion of his sacred blood, A City built upon à Mountain. The House, the Temple of God, the Jerusalem, the Pillar and firmament of Faith, etc. Whereby it appears, That whoever is out of this Kingdom, out of this City, out of this house and Temple of God; whoever is not à member of this Mystical body or shares not in this purchased Inheritance, or in à word out of the true Church (be it where you will, I yet define nothing) is in à damnable condition. A sad thought for all Sectaries, because it is certain, that Christ has not composed his Church of such Members as rightly believe the revealed Doctrine taught by the true Church, and of such as oppose it. Unity and Division in Unity and Division in Faith have no place in the true Church. points of Faith ase inconsistent in the same Orthodox Church, and destroy the essential form of it, which is one Faith. Now if our Adversary's talk of à unity in Fundamentals, they are not only evidently convinced of Error in the other Treatise, But upon this very Account become Separaters from the Church, and without Principles Assert that which neither Church nor Scripture teaches. Who ever holds not the Catholic faith entire shall Perish eternally, saith S. Athanasius in his Creed, but an entire Belief excludes all distinction between fundamentals and others, as is manifest. I little value some Protestants Glosses made upon this Text, for Glosses with me are weightles, when they stand unprincipled. 4. The 3. Principle. What the true Church of Christ teaches concerning the sense of Scripture, That's the sense intended by the Holy Ghost, and Consequently most true. The reason is. Truth cannot be contrary to truth, The Church and Scripture never Clash, But always speak one and the same verity. This Sectaries must grant, who define the Church to be an Assembly of men professing the pure Word of God, Therefore it cannot deceive or teach an Error contrary to that pure word, Or if it doth so, it ceaseth, eo ipso, to be God's Oracle, And the true Church of Christ. 5. If these men still go on trifling with their wont distinction, of Fundamentals, and not Fundamentals, And allow à Perfect unity of Doctrine between the Church and Scripture in The Distinction between Fundamentals and others, frivolous. things absolutely necessary to Salvation, but not in others. This is to define, and not to define, to build and destroy, to teach and cheat in one breath, For à definition, which makes known the nature of à Thing, must stand in its open sense without restraint, and exactly agree to the thing defined. Mark now. Christ's true Church is the Thing defined; and the Definition charged with endless restrictive Terms, is drawn to Nonsense, for it tells us, the Church is an Assembly of men professing the pure Word of God, But how far? In à few simple Truths, called fundamentals, in others it may err, and profess as much falsehood as you please against the Verities of Scripture, So that the true Church, not defined at all, is made by these, à fair and foul Spouse at once; fair in à few unalterable necessary Truths, but foul, ugly, and deformed (because erroneous) in à hundred other matters. Mark the Paradox, and call it à flat Heresy, which separat's him who asserts it from the Catholic body. Thus it is. Christ's Church is true, and false, pure and unpure, right and wrong, lovely and hateful together. The Inhabitants of this City of God, of this Temple and safe dwelling place, are in it by believing à few simple Truths, And at the same time out of it, by believing more Falsities. This is Mr Stillingfleets strange Doctrine, who think's there is no Church now in the world of one Denomination free from Error. To what desperate improbabilities doth Heresy drive men? 6. The 4. Principle. The received Doctrine of Christ's Church, chief in all points of Controversy is ever as clear, and often more clear, by what She teaches, than it is in any express words of Scripture. The Assertion is undubitable. For Church Doctrine clear in the Church's Definitions. who see's not, but that the whole Catholic Doctrine, of the sacred Trinity, of one God and three distinct Persons, of the Father improduced, the eternal Son begotten, and of the Holy Ghost proceeding from both, is more plainly delivered in Church Doctrine, than in any sentence, or sentences of Holy Writ. The like I say of the high Godhead in Christ, which the Arians deny; Of Original sin, rejected by the Pelagians, and other Articles of our Christian faith. And thus much is evident against Secctaries, for do not they make their own Doctrine, of their Caen● Not always so inscripture, as Sectaries grant. or Sacrament, when they call it à Sign, à Figure etc. more plain than any words are for it, in Holy writ? And will they not also grant ('tis an Argument ad hominem) that our Catholic Tenet of this sacred Mystery, laid forth in the Council of Trent. Sess. 13. Can. 1. is more express and plain Popery than lies couched in Christ's own words This is my body, Though the Popery is there clear enough to every Reader? Yes most assuredly, For if our Doctrine stand as plain in Christ's words, as in the Church's Definition drawn from thence, Sectaries cannot (as they do) admit of the one and scornfully reject the other. Therefore they must suppose Scripture more dark and obscure, than either their own, or our Church's Doctrine is. And hence it follows that the very Arians were not so much Heretics upon the account, that they opposed any most clear and express sentence in Holy writ (for really it's hard to find one manifestly express against them), as for contradicting plain Church Doctrine, or the true sense of Scripture delivered by this Oracle of truth. Their Heresy then proceeded first from some words in Scripture seemingly clear in their behalf, as, My Father is greater than 1. 2. From no Text so manifest, but that still place was left them to Why the Arians were accounted Heretics. Gloss as they have done, and in their judgements with some appearrance of truth, yet Heretics they were and so deservedly accounted of, for contradicting the Church's clear Doctrine. Be it how you will, thus much I am sure of, They never mangled or misused any passage in holy Writ, when contrary to their Heresy more shamefully, than our Protestants now mangle and abuse our Saviour's Proposition. This is my body. 7. By all you see this Principle well grounded. Whatever Clarity Scripture hath chief in Matters of controversy (and clarity helps much in the Rule of Faith) God's true Church, which cannot but speak the Scriptures sense, in every particular, delivers it most clearly, Wherefore S. Austin told Manicheus, Tom: 6. contra Epist: Fundam. C. 14. That if he was to believe the obscure Mysteries of Christianity, He would assent to them upon the weighty Authority of People and Nations celebrated and spread abroad, By the consent of all learned, and unlearned, which consent implies the universal Agreement of the Catholic Church, And to establish this Doctrine more firmly, He assures us. Tract. 18. in joan: That all Heresy which entangles souls and casts them into Hell, S. Augustine's judgement concerning. Scripture. proceeds from this one misery, that Good Scripture is not rightly understood by them. Hence also He told us above, Lib. 1. contra Crescon. C. 32. That if any doubt arise concerning the obscurity of Scripture we are to have recourse to Christ's holy Church, and receive from Her satisfaction. To which purpose, S. Cyprian speaks most piously. Lib. de Vnit: Ecclesiae. illius lacté nutrimur Spiritu eius animamur, adulterari non potest sponsa Christi. We are nourished by the milk, we are animated by the Spirit of this faithful Spouse of Christ, which cannot play the Harlot, or become an Adulteress. 8. The last Principle. The Rule of Faith is plain, or its own Self-evidence, apt of its own nature to convince the most obstinate Adversary, whether jew, Gentil or Heretic, And for this reason must be immediately credible by itself, and for itself, otherwise it must suppose an other distinct Rule yet more plain, more evident, more convincing and more immediately credible, And that Rule à third, à fourth, And so in infinitum, which is impossible. Again, the Obiective Rule we Shall now speak of, Answer's to the thing regulated by it, which is true, certain, and Divine Faith. This Rule then must not only be true, and certain in itself, but also certainly applied to Believers, For à certain What the Rule of Faith implies? Rule in itself dubiously applied to an understanding, auail's only to leave all in Suspense and leads none to any further Acquiescency, but to à wavering and uncertain Opinion, And this is neither suitable to firm Belief, nor to the Rule itself, which ought to establish us in Gods revealed truths, without doubt and hesitancy. Grant this Notion of à Rule to be exact (and none shall justly except against it) All we have said above of the Scriptures Insufficiency, to regulate Faith, or to decide controversies, is no less than à Demonstration against Sectaries, Whereof see more in the other Treatise? Disc. 2. per totum. Scripture Certainly is not plain in all things necessary to be believed, for were the true sense of it (which indeed is only Scripture) as plain and indisputably clear for the Arians, or Protestants in every particular controversy, as their Doctrine is plainly delivered by them; Or contrariwise; were the sense of it as plain and indisputably clear for the Catholic Doctrine in Matters of debate, as the very Doctrine is taught by the Church, All Contention would soon cease, because either They, upon the Supposition, must become Papists, or we turn Arians and Protestants, Or finally be forced to deny plain Scripture. A most convincing Argument. 9 The difficulty therefore is not (and Sectaries seldom touchit) whether Scripture be true, were the sense known or out of Controversy, but what that true sense is, which lies in obscurity, and cannot be known, without à certain Interpreter. Here is the only Question debated between us and Sectaries. One may The only difficulty concerning Scripture. Reply. It is no good objection to say learned men differ about the sense of Scripture, Ergo it is not sufficiently plain, because à great wit may wrest the plainest words God ever spoke to à sinister sense. Contra. 1. But who knows, when two learned Parties contest in this Matter, which of them is the sinister Wrester? Contra 2. When à whole Society of men as the Arians were, and Protestants are now, Tamper with à Text, which touches an essential point of Faith, And descent from others as learned as Themselves about the meaning, The sense cannot be supposed more clear for the one than the other, without an other Rule certain and Definitive. Pray you say. Is the sense of those words. My Father is greater than I, indisputably clear for the Arian? Or the sense of Christ's words. This is my Body without controversy clear for the Protestants Doctrine concerning the Sacrament, when à whole learned Church opposeth both? Evidently No. Therefore Sectaries must acknowledge an Obscurity in Scripture. our Novellists must grant, that Scripture is not only obscure, in these two places, But more; That à judge is necessary to ascertain all of its true meaning, as well in these, as in à hundred other Passages. Again, if Scripture want this clarity, it cannot be its own Self-evidence, much less convince an obdurate Adversary. Nay I say, though it were clear and the sense thereof agreed on by all called Christians, yet both jews and Gentiles scorn the Divinity of the book, And say if't be of Divine inspiration, That must be proved by à certain Rule extrinsical to Scripture, Therefore it is not immediately credible by itself, or for itself. Lastly were Scripture plain in itself, yet (And this utterly ruins Sectaries) The certain Doctrine of it, can never be applied indubitably to any understanding, For our Novellists say, because all Teachers of Christian Doctrine are fallible, none can make an infallible Application of it to any, or teaeh that Doctrine infallibly, which is in itself infallible. See more hereof in the other Treatise. Disc: 1. C. 2. and C. 4. N. S. CHAP. II. The Rule of Faith assigned: The Properties of à Rule. What is meant by the Church? Ancient Fathers Assert that the Church is easily found out. Her marks, more clear, than Her Essential Doctrine 1. THe true Church of Christ in this present State manifestly demonstrable by signal Marks and Motives, is the only plain, certain, Self-evident Rule of Faith, apt to convince the most obdurate: Vnbeliever. It is immediately credible, and the Doctrine of it certainly applied to à Seeker after truth. These Assertions stand firm upon 3. Principles. 2. 1. Christ jesus has provided Christians of à clear and easy Rule, otherwise All are left in darkness, and know not what, or how to believe. 3. 2. Nothing assigned by Sectaries, Be it Scripture solely, or what else Imaginable, Carries so much as à weak probability of being à Rule so plain, easy, and satisfactory as the true Church is. 4. 3. All the properties of à Rule exactly agree to the Church of Christ and to Her only. 1. The Rule of Faith is plain, Christ's Church is the Rule of Faith. so is Church Doctrine and much more plain than Scripture; I mean, we easily understand what the Church teaches though the Doctrine in itself be difficult. 2. A Rule is its own Self-evidence, so the Church is, taken with the Marks, and Motives whereby She is demonstrated. 3. A Rule is apt to convince, the most obstinate Adversaries; Christ's Church has evidently done so, witness the innumerable Conversions wrought by Her upon jews, Gentiles, and most obdurate Heretics. 4. A Rule must be certain, and certainly applied to Believers; what Christ's true Church teaches is so, for She is Gods own Oracle, as shall be proved hereafter, and teaches her Children infallibly. The Truth of these particulars will be more fully laid forth in the sequel of this Discourse. In the mean while, two things are to be cleared. The first, what we understand by the Church of Christ. 2. How and by what means She may be known? Thus much done, we shall easily find out those Christians, who are Members of this happy Society, or essentially constitute that visible moral Body, called the Holy Catholic Church. What is meant by the Church. 5. Concerning the first. We speak plainly, and understand by the Church à visible Society of true Believers, united in one profession of Christian Faith and the communication of Sacraments, under the Conduct and Government of Christ's lawful Commissioned Pastors. I say no more yet, hoping no Sectary can justly quarrel with the Notion of à Church, expressed in such general Terms, And therefore wave at present that other worn-out controversy agitated by Protestants. viz. Whether the Predestinate only make up the true Church, or great Sinners also may be included, That is not at all to our purpose now, when we only seek after à Society of Christians united in the true Faith of Jesus Christ, who own à due submission to lawful Commissioned Pastors, whether those who teach, or are taught, be Saints, or sinners, concerns them, 'tis true, but not our present Question. Of such Believers there cannot be two or more Churches, but one only; And to avoid all confusion, or the mingling of different Questions together, we here move no doubt concerning the Head, The meaning of the question proposed. or chief Authority of this Church, but immediattly Ask, whether there is now, and has ever been, since Christ's time, à visible diffused Society of Christians, who have faithfully believed the Orthodox Doctrine of Christ, and upon that Account well merit to be called the Professors of the true Catholic Church? Of this Universal spread Society our Saviour spoke most clearly, or of none. Hell gates Can not prevail against it. The Spirit of Truth abides with it to the end of the world etc. I think no Sectary will deny such à Church. 6. The only difficulty now is to find out this Orthodox and large diffused Body of Christians, united in one true Faith, and the sincere Worship of God. And nothing is more consonant to reason, more express in Holy Writ, or more clearly asserted by the ancient Fathers than that the true Church lays forth Her own evidence or clear Discernibility whereby She is distinguished from all Heretical Sects, That is, She lies manifestly open to all eyes, and Cannot but be most easily known. She is à Ci●●y built upon à mountain: The light of the world: A Tabernacle placed i● the sun. Ipsa est Ecclesia saith S. Austin Epist: 166. In sole posita. The Church is placed in the sun, Hoc est in manifestatione omnibus no●a usque ad terminos terrae, That is, She is known by Her own apparent and manifest Evidence all the whole world over. And because no one Father touches this point with greater Energy than S. Austin, Hear yet more. Tract: 1. m. 1. joan: Possumus digito etc. S. Augustine's judgement concerning The Church's Evidence. we can point at the Church and demonstrate it with à finger, and They are blind who see it not. Lib. 2. contra Crescon: Cap. 36. Extat Ecclesia. The Church is in Being apparently clear and conspicuous to all. Again, Lib: 2. Contra Petil: C. 32. Neminem latet verae Ecclesia. The Church of Christ lies hid to none. And Lib: Contra crescon: C. 63. The Church so clearly presents itself to all sort of men even to Infidels, that it stopp's the mouths of Pagans etc. See also this great Doctor, pondering those words of the. 30. Psalm. Qui videbant me foras fugerunt etc. Obscurius, faith He, dixerunt Prophetae de Christo, quam de Ecclesiâ etc. The Prophets have spoken more darkly of Christ, than of the Church, And I think this was done, because they saw in spirit, that men would make Parties against the Church, and not contend so much concerning Christ ready to contend about the Church. Christ almost every where was preached, by the Prophets in some hidden or covered Mystery, Ecclesia apertè, but the Church was pointed at so clearly that all might see it, and those also who were to be against it. I wave other Authorities, for 'tis tedious to prove à Manifest Truth, or here to transcribe plainer Testimonies relating to this subject. Thus much premised. 7. I say first. Though Church Doctrine be more clearly expressed by the Church chief in all Matters of Controversy, than in Scripture; For example: you know the Church delivers the An Assertion concerning Church Doctrine. Consubstantiallity of the eternal Son, with greater clarity than Scripture expresseth that Truth, Yet no man can prove to reason this clearer Doctrine to be immediately true, upon this sole ground, (Mark my precise words) that the Church teaches it. My meaning is. The Church yet not manifested to be God's Oracle by marks extrinsical to its Doctrine, leaves Reason so in suspense that it Cannot say. This is the Oracle which teaches Truth, or, that the Doctrine of this not yet evidenced Society is Divine, and Orthodox. The Assertion is so amply proved above that it is needles to press the Arguments further in this place. All I say now, is, that we discourse in like manner of Scripture and Church Doctrine precisely considered as Essential Doctrine, not yet made Credible by The Doctrine of Scripture, or The Church, not Proved true by Saying its true. signs and Motives. As therefore the Verities of Scripture, are not known to be Divine Ex terminis, because I read them in that Holy book, But must have them proved Divine upon à certain Principle distinct from Scripture, So the Verities of the Church are not known Ex terminis to be certain, before I prove the Church by Clear Motives to be the Oracle of Truth whereby God speaks to Christians. what I Assert is evident in Christ our Lord and his Apostles, when they first began to preach, For neither jew, nor Gentil believed that Sacred Doctrine upon their bare preaching, Nay, It scandalised the one, and seemed à foolery to the other, But when they saw it confirmed by Evident Signs and Wonders, by eminent Sanctity of life, by undeniable Miracles, and other Signal marks which the Author of Religion laid open to Reason, Both jews and Gentiles, were gained, moved to believe by Such Inducements no less prudent than forceably persuasive. 8. The reason of all à Priori given above, evinces thus much: None can indubitably and immediately own the Doctrine of either Church, or Scripture as true and Orthodox but by one of these two means. Either the light of natural Reason discovers that Truth, Or it must be known by Faith. Reason alone, too weak to comprehend the Sublime Mysteries revealed in Holy writ or taught by the Church, boggles at all, And, left to itself, rejects The reason of our Assertion. at least the harder Mysteries, as is manifest in both jews, and Gentiles. Now to know them by obscure Faith is wholly impossible, unless one have sufficient Assurance before hand, grounded on other prudent extrinsical Principles, That both Scripture, and the Church teach Divine, and certain Doctrine. To know thus much, the Rational man must discourse And in this present state of things, first find out the Church, by her Marks, and Signs visible to all. If reason complies not with this duty, the Faith we draw from thence is no Faith, but, à precipitous foolish Credulity. For who can prudently assent to the high Mysteries of Christianity, unless Reason first see it is prudent to do so? This is what the Apostle deliuer's in few but most pithy words. Scio cui credidi, & certus sum. That is, I first know why I am to believe by Reason, and then steadfastly believe without further reasoning. But enough of this in the Chapter cited above. 9 The. 2. Proposition. If the Doctrine of Christ's Church precisely considered according to its Essence, be not ex exterminis manifestly true, or proves not immediately that the Church is Orthodox upon Her own mere saying that She teaches Truth; It is evident, She must be proved God's Oracle by Motives, extrinsical to Her Doctrine. Now these Motives purely considered as Inducements to believe, are not Articles of Faith, but sensible, reasonable, and of such weight, that they powerfully incline every The Church▪ first proved Orthodox by rational Motives. well disposed understanding to this rational assent. As God anciently spoke by Moses, by Christ, and his Apostles, So he now also speaks by his own true Church, And leads men under her safe Conduct to Salvation. 10. The ground of my Assertion, is no less evident, than the very Position itself. First, Christ himself never proved his Doctrine true by merely saying it was so, but confirmed it by signs and wonders which made it immediately credible as is said already, So also did his Apostles, And so doth the true Church to this day. 2. Unless Christians have those prudent Inducements previously applied to reason before they believe the Holy Catholic Church, The wise providence of God must be supposed so neglective, as not to let men know after à prudent and diligent search, which or where his true Church is, Though Scripture Compares it to à glorious Sun, most visible to all And the Fathers say, they are blind that see it not. 3. All those Millions of Christians who believed the true Church, who lived and died happily in it, (innumerable shed their blood for the verities of it) were not à People mad nor besotted upon this Account, because As the Primitive Christians more induced to believe, so are we. They proceeded just as the Primitive Christians did, that always believed upon Rational Motives. These Motives than first enlightened the reason of the most ancient Christians, And reason afterward prevented by grace, submitted to all the Church teaches. But much more of this hereafter, because of greatest Consequence, though it seems Sectaries have little regard to the Evidence of Christianity Drawn from rational Motives. 11. The. 3. Proposition. The Marks of Christ's Church manifest to all, are more sensible and clear than the essential Doctrine is, marked by them; They are peculiar to the true Church only, and distinguish Her from all Heretical Communities; Finally taken all together, and not by Piece-meal, convince this truth. That God speaks to Christians by this Church. Every part of the Proposition proves itself. First à Mark is more clear and sensible than the thing marked by it, For, who ever had seen our Blessed Saviour walking here on earth, and observed his holy life, whoever had heard his sacred words, and seen his Miracles would have said, his Sanctity, words, and Miracles, were more clear and evident to all, than his Doctrine was of being God and man. Therefore the first Christians believed that great Mystery induced by evident works, and wonders. 2. These Marks are peculiar and proper to the true Church only. You have the reason hereof in the other Treatise. Disc. 1. C. 8. 1●3. The force of prudent Motives. Because it is not possible, if à true Church be now on earth that God can permit à false Society to equalise it, much less to surpass it in the lustre of such Motives as forcibly persuade to discern between That, and all heretical Communities, For were this done, Falsehood would be made as credible to reason, as truth, And God would be guilty of Arguing less efficaciously in behalf of his own Church, against jews, Gentiles, and obstinate Heretics. 12. Observe well the Strength of this Argument. I say in à word. If an Arian could truly Assert: I have as many forceable Motives, And marks of truth belonging to my followers and Doctrine, As the now supposed true Church of Christ can show for itself, could he say with truth I will evidence the like Antiquity, the like Perpetuity, the like lawful Mission of my Pastors, the like unity in Faith, the like conversions of Heathens, wrought in and by my Church, The like succession of Bishops preaching my Doctrine from Christ's time to this day, The like sanctity, the like miracles, as any Church on earth can demonstrate: They distinguish the true Church from false Communities. Can an Arian, I say, (or jew either) speak all this with truth, no Orthodox Christian could argue the one or other of Falsehood in Doctrine: For grant thus much, These very men might much better handle and interpret Scripture than Protestants do, utterly destitute of all such Marks. The jew, if the false supposition stand would draw the old Testament to his sense, and so would the Arian the new; And who could reprove them could they show you à Church bearing these signs of divine Authority? Hence, Sectaries that only Gloss Scripture, and never had any thing like an evidenced Church which taught the Doctrine they now maintain, and so earnestly Gloss for, are most reprovable, And vainly attempt to draw any prudent man to à belief of their Novelties. 13. By all you see how important it is to have à Christian Society clearly marked, and distinguished from false Communities, with evident Signs, and rational Motives before we recur to Scripture. All faith depends on this greater Evidence laid forth to reason, as Shall be demonstrated towards the end of this Discourse. 14. I would have every one seriously to reflect on what is now said, and once more to know, That Christ's Church like à glorious Sun evidenceth Herself by the Lustre of signal Marks, though her essential Doctrine believed by obscure Faith, appears not Evident. Find me then out à Church ever in being since Christ's time, united in one Faith, glorious in Miracles and conversions of Heathens, wherein Bishops and Pastors lawfully sent, have preached Christ's Doctrine age after age; Give me à Church which was never censured or taxed of Error by any Society of known Orthodox Christians, She, and She only, is Christ's true Spouse, All other late risen Assemblies, are Conventicles of Satan; And these Marks do not only distinguish Her from all One only Church Shows these Marks. such Conventicles, as is now noted, but Collectively taken convince this Truth, That God speaks to Christians by this Oracle, whereof you have more in the following Chapters. 15. In the Interim we must enter upon à further difficulty and next inquire, which among so many Congregations as now are and have been in the world, is the only manifested true Spouse of Christ? For all, as I said above, make not one Church unless Christ hath composed this mystical Body of such members as rightly believe, and of others that injuriously oppose his sacred Doctrine. Now because the chief controversy is between the Protestant and Catholic, The first pretends to à Church which teaches Christ's Doctrine; The Catholic utterly denies the Pretence and pleads for his Own Oracle evidenced by prudent Motives. This I say being the Contest, we are in the first place, to unchurch the Protestant, and then prove by undeniable Arguments, where and with whom the true Church of Christ is. CHAP. III. The Protestant has neither Church evidenced by Marks of Truth, nor true Doctrine made credible to reason. His whole Faith is built upon Fancy. 1. THe Marks of the Church, as is now said, are so clear to reason, that they make the Oracle manifest to all sort of people, to the learned and unlearned, to jews, to Infidels, and much more to Heretics who pretend to believe in Christ. All of them are alike concerned, and obliged to make à search after the true Church, and when 'tis found to believe it. 2. Now to find it out, I Ask, whether our English Protestant's (with these we chief dispute) like well of the marks Questions Proposed to Sectaries. already hinted at, or will reject them? I propose my doubt with all candour. Will they dare to say That their Church, as it delivers Protestant's Doctrine, or, as it is now reform in England, was ever since Christ time In Being, and visible to the world? Can they produce à Succession of Bishops, or Pastors, that taught Protestancy Age after Age, without intermission? Can they show what Conversions these Protestant Pastors wrought upon Heathens to their faith, five or six Centuries since? Can they produce, indubitable Miracles, done by such Pastors? Most evidently No. Therefore our later Protestant's reject these, and the other like Motives, as slight and impertinent, to evidence their Church (which yet say they, teaches Christ's Doctrine) and Wilily do so, because they have none of them. Well. To leave them without excuse, to silence them for ever; Here is an un answerable Dilemma. Either the marks now kinted at are admitted or, rejected. Suppose them owned as clear cognisances of the true Church, or of Her Orthodox Doctrine, we most justly urge Protestant's to prove, what I know will never be made probable. Viz. To show That they had à Church three or four Ages since invested in the signs, and marks, now mentioned. On the other side, if which is usual, such marks be slighted as unmeet to manifest the true Church, it must be granted, They have no evidenced Church, and Consequently no true Doctrine with it. Hence I Argue, Who ever believes, in an unevidenced Church, destitute of all Signs and marks of truth, believes in no true Church; The Protestant believes in such an unevidenced Church, Therefore he believes in no Church: But he who believes in no Church believes à Doctrine more than improbable, or absolutely false, And this is fancy or worse than fancy. 3. What answer think ye do Sectaries return to this Argument? They return no probable Answer. A strange one indeed. They tell us the only Mark of the Church lies not in any external Notes, but appears in the written word of God, and the Purity of Scripture. So Alstedius. Lib. de notis Ecclesia C. 29. Whitaker Contro. 2. 9 5. C, 17. and Mr Stillingfleet here and there, seems well pleased with the fancy. Contra. 1. The Church had her Marks before Scripture was written, what ever sensible Signs Then distinguished that holy Society from all heretical Conventicles, makes it yet known to the world and Still as clearly points it out, For, the writing of Scripture nothing at all obscured, the exterior lustre of those Signs, or prudent Motives. Contra. 2. A Mark which makes an obscure thing known is ever more clear and sensible, than that is which is marked by it. The Church▪ Say Sectaries, The Church more clearly manifested than Scripture. is obscure and must be first known by Divine Scripture, But this very Divinity of Scripture, is more obscure than the Church (For it is not its own Self-evidence, nor known ex terminis to be Divine) Therefore unless this Divinity be made manifest by an other light, it cannot give to all the first notice of the Church, which appears More clearly to sense and reason, by its own Signs, than Scripture doth. 4. Hence it follows. 1. That, Scripture, which should first mark out the Church, cannot do it; being more obfcure than the thing marked by it. It follows. 2. That the Church thus marked, is its own Self-evidence, not Farther demonstrable to Reason. Who ever therefore deprives the Church of her external Motives, or takes from her the glory of Miracles, of Antiquity, Conversions, etc. Shall long grope in the dark, before He finds either Church, or Scripture, You will say. Scripture known by the universal Tradition of Christians, may well mark out and first discover the true Church, Tradition being à thing most known, and Sensible to all. Contra. This very Tradition either supposes à Church signalised with other Of what weight pleading Tradition is rational Motives, or excludes them; And imports no more but the bare Consent of Christians, that accept of Scripture as God's Divine word. Grant the first; we have all that's wished. Plead only by the Second, or tell à Heathen (who may be gained to believe the Church) That all Christians universally own Scripture as Divine, and mention nothing of Miracles or other Motives manifest in the Church, He will soon reply. The Chineses have also universal Tradition or à general consent of à People largely diffused for their Bible; The Turks have it for their Alcoran, yet such à Tradition alone is no Mark of God's word or the true Church. Why then should it be à mark to Christians, if no more be said? 5. And the Heathen easily makes his Plea good by this convincing Reason à Priori. Before this universal Tradition was, before you so many Christians agreed in the Belief of your Bible, the Doctrine Thereof was made credible upon other Motives, These Motives are not now extinguished, or of lesser account because you have agreed on the Scriptures Divinity; Nay they The Heathens exceptions against Tradition only. must be presupposed to have been before you agreed, For this Agreement is not the cause of the Bible's credibility, but an effect of the same. That is. Therefore so many. Christians have agreed by à universal Consent, that Scripture is God's word, because it was made credible to Reason Antecedently, to an Agreement so universal, But the ground of this Agreement was no other but the Authority of the Orthodox Church gloriously evidenced, by the Lustre of her Signs and Motives etc. This Principle alone, utterly ruins Mr: Stillingfleets Resolution of Faith, as shall be made clear in an other place. 6. Again saith the Heathen, you Protestants discourse not probably, you just proceed as one doth who lays Colours before à blind man and bids him judge of them. You say, that both I and jews are blind, and cannot discover the light which lies in the Scriptures Divinity. If this be so, how can you imagine that I may find out the true Church by the light of Scripture (though admitted upon Tradition) which I can no more look on than an owl on the Sun, at Noonday? Neither will it help you at all, if you Say. Scripture interpreted both Mark's, and manifests the true Church, For I must first know that Scripture is Divine, before I give credit to any Interpreter, And though I were ascertained of that Divinity, yet I am still to seek whether your Interpretation, or the Arians be better, and this I cannot know without à sure Rule extrinsic to Scripture, And all fallible Interpretation. Yet the Heathen hath not done, but pinches the Protestant shrewdly. Admit, saith he, that Scripture Mark's out the Church, and gives us the first Evidence of it, when it tells us. The Church is à City built upon à Mountain, and founded on à Rock, That all Nations shall flock to it. That Christ will be with it to the end of the world; That it ever had, and will have Pastors, Visible, He clearly convinces Sectaries. and audible, till we all meet in one Unity of Faith. That it is the Pillar, and ground of Truth etc. Can you, my good Protestants, show me such à Church belonging to you three or four Ages since when, you had not one single man in the world professing your Protestant Religion? Where was then your Protestant City visible on à Mountain? What Rock stood it on in those days, when it was not in being? What Nations, what jews what Gentiles did it then convert to your Novelties? How was Christ then with it, and taught it all Truth, when there was no such Church to learn his Doctrine? Give me à Catalogue, of your Visible Pastors at that time, or tell me how your Church was then à Pillar, an Oracle of truth, whilst all it teaches now is fallible, and may be false? 7. Hence I argue. What Scripture saith is true; Scripture here speaks of à Church founded by Christ, of an Ancient, Visible An Argument drawn from what is now said. Society, of Her perpetual Pastors without interruption, of à Church converting Nations etc. Therefore it speaks Truth, and points at à sure Oracle marked with the notes we plead for, who ever then admit's Scripture, must jointly own these Marks and Signatures of the true Church, But ye Sectaries admit Scripture and have no such Marked Church, with Antiquity, continuance of Pastors etc. Ergo you are not members of the true Church, which must necessarily be found in some other Society of Christians. 8. Here by the way, we must prevent à trivial Objection; For some less knowing Adversary may reply. We destroy our own Ground, and now prove the Marks of the Church by Scripture, whereas we suppose the Scripture first proved to be of Divine Inspiration, because the Church manifested by her Marks and Motives saith so. 9 I Answer we prove the Marks of the Church, and the Form of her essential Doctrine also by Scripture, But how? Upon à Supposition, that the Book be first proved Divine by Church Authority, Thus much done, it is an excellent Principle, But not Primum indemonstrabile, it's own Self-Euidence, Or first indemonstrable Principle. This Truth is clear, For no man goes about to convert à jew by alleging Passages out of the new Testament, or to draw à Heathen to Christianity by any thing written either in the old, or new Scripture. As therefore that Scripture not the first in demonstrable Principle. man would not be well in his wits, who hopes to convert à Protestant, by merely alleging the Definitions of the Council of Trent which he slights, so he would be as senseless, did he hope to convert à Heathen by Scripture only, as much underualued by him, as the present Definitions of the Church are by Protestants. Hence you see how Scripture is à Principle against Sectaries, who admit it, and reject an infallible Church. By Scripture we Argue and convince them of error, might the words Thereof bear their proper sense without fancied Glosses, Yet if we make à right Analysis it is not the first indemonstrable Principle, but, Per Modum suppositionis only, that is, it must be either supposed or proved Divine. 10. I say yet more. Though both the jew, and Heathen, owned Scripture as it truly is, à Book indicted by the Holy Ghost, Though it were so there yet remains à difficulty not to be solued. yet they have but made one step, as it were, towards Christianity, For when such men look well about them, and find Scripture differently sensed by so many jarring Heads as have it in their hands, by Arians, Socinians, Quakers, Protestants, etc. (Catholics descent from them all) where can, I beseech you, these half Christians, whether Iewes, or Heathens securely rest? With whom can they rationally unite Themselves? whose sense must they believe and own as the undoubted meaning of the Holy Ghost? To do any thing prudently in so weighty à Matter is impossible, Unless they first come to the knowledge of Christ's true Church, which as well Ascertain's them of the Scriptures sense in all Controverted points of Faith, as it doth, of the Book's Divinity. Now further. It is not possible to know the true sense of Scripture but by the Church; it is not possible to know the Church, but by her Marks, (the essential Doctrine Thereof no more mark's itself as true, than Scripture Doctrine denotes its own Divinity) The Sectary therefore that robs the Church of her Marks and the external Glory of Miracles, Conversions, Perpetuity etc. is guilty of three heinous crimes at once. 11. First he makes the Conversion of à jew to Christianity Sectaries make the Conversion of jews▪ impossible. most impossible. I'll show you how. The jew Admit's of the old Testament and draws from every passage which speaks of Christ and the Church, à Sense quite different from that which Christians own. The Protestant admit's both the Old and New Scripture, And as we may Suppose, is at à hot dispute with à jew concerning Christian Religion. First saith the jew, Lay, Sir, your New Testament aside, which is no Principle▪ with me, Because it neither evidences itself immediately to be God's word, nor can you prove it Divine upon any sure ground extrinsical to the Book. Therefore we must Argue by à Principle common to us both, The old Testament only. You read There, I read also, You know the Original language, so do I, You compare Text with Text, I do the like, You Gloss, and I Gloss against you, Yet after all is done, you draw one sense out of this very Scripture, and would prove Christ to be the true Messiah, I draw from thence an other quite Contrary, And say He is not. My demand is, whether Christ, The Assertion, proved. whom you Adore, hath provided men of better means (Than your Glosses and mine are) whereby we may certainly know what the sense of this Scripture is? If he have done so, it can be nothing but à Church manifested by Supernatural Signs and miracles, (for God now teaches none by Angels or Enthusiasms) if the guidance of à Church be wanting we are all left in darkness, And know not what Sense to make of Scripture; and this ill beseems the Goodness of à Saviour, who, as you say, came to enlighten the world and teach all truth, which is not done, For he leaves Reason in Darkness and Teaches not where his true Church is. It may well be the Protestant will except against his Adversary's Glosses, but He is soon silenced, for Saith the jew, you, good man, when you treat with Papists interpret Scripture as you please, and why may not I proceed so with you, And use the like liberty? 12. The second crime committed by the Protestant, who deprives the Church of Her external Signs, is, that he Eclipses that great light of the world (which as Origen saith shines to all) And make it as Obscure, as some Protestants make their Church invisible before Luther. What I say is certain, For no man can find the Church by reason, when all rational Motives are What Sectaries are guilty of. taken from it, And held impertinent to illustrate that great moral Body. Hence you see the third sin of Sectaries relating to Scripture. This Book also loseth all credit with Christians, because it Euidenceth not its own Divinity, nor can any Signalised Church tell us, it is Divine, or certainly declare the true sense thereof, to either learned or unlearned. 13. My last argument against the Protestant is not Topick, nor bare Probability, but à plain Demonstration. The Title saith; This reformed man has no Christian Doctrine made credible to The last convincing Argument. Reason, whilst he believes as Protestant. To prove the Assertion, Three Principles are here Supposed. First, that the Marks of the Protestant Church or of its Doctrine lie (as these men will have it) in the Purity of Scripture only. 2. That their Church Doctrine is either contained in the 39 Articles, or implies so much as all called Christians Believe, and no more, Though plain Heretics in many particular Tenets. 3. That this Protestant Community as it Teaches, is either the whole Church of Christ excluding other Societies, or only à Part of the universal Church. These Principles Supposed, you have my Demonstration. 14. Scripture Marks the true Doctrine of Christ's Church, but it neither mentioneth nor marks out the Doctrine contained in the 39 Articles, for our newer men call these inferior Truths only, And hold them not Registered in God's word. Neither doth it Assert so much as darkly, that à Mixture of Truth, and Falsehood, (such as all Heretics have owned and do own) is the Doctrine of the true Catholic Church; Lest of all, That à Doctrine common to Arians, Protestants, and Catholics, is sufficient Scripture disowns. Protestancy. to Salvation. Lastly, it saith no where, that the Protestant Church containing that reformed Doctrine, is by itself the whole true Church of Christ excluding all other Societies, nor so much as à Part of it, And this I prove. 15 If as reform, it be à Part of the true Catholic Church, the Professors of it have now, and had before Luther some Partners who joined with them in the belief of their reformed Doctrine, But before Luther, they had not one sole man in the world that believed as they believe, and so wanted fellowship, because, neither they, nor their Partners were at all in Being: Now at this instant, they have no Society of men, called à Church, (run over all the world) which side's with them, or holds either the. 39 Articles, or à Doctrine common to all Christians, to be the true Doctrine of Christ, or of his universal Church. All this I say is evident. And. 16. Hence you see, in what plight these men are, who pretend to à Church marked and made evident by Scripture, and A clear inference against Sectaries. when they have that sacred Book in their hands, it is impossible to find so much as one Sentence or syllable in behalf of Protestancy. Those other exterior Signs of Conversions, Miracles, Antiquity etc. are of no Account with them, And were they otherwise, most evidently they belong not to the reformed Doctrine of the English Church. Here is à piece of sad news for Sectaries, who have à Church neither Spoken of in Scripture, nor manifested to Reason by one Supernatural wonder. So unevidenced à Thing it is, And Consequently upon à double Account, no Church at all. 17. The Sectary may reply. When he Asserts Scripture Marks the true Church or Her Doctrine, the meaning is not that it speaks expressly the Tenets of Protestants, but only Says, it is à sufficient Repository of all things necessary to Salvation, and delivers so much plainly. What ever therefore is not plainly taught in scripture ceaseth to be necessary. Contra. 1. Protestants A Reply Answered. granting thus much, may seek long before they find Their particular Tenets, because Scripture delivers none of them either expressly, or by any clear Deduction. Contra. 2. The jew and Heathen regard not the plainest Truths in Holy Writ before the book be proved Divine, The most plain Verities avail nothing with them, Yet God hath afforded means to draw them to Christianity. But it seems our Sectaries in all their talk of the Scriptures clarity, never reflect on these Strangers from Christ, nor point at the means whereby their Conversion may be wrought. Contra. 3. The Arian and the Orthodox as highly differ about the sense of plain Scripture, as the Protestant and Catholic, about the sense of Christ's own words. This is my body, And these differences, either touch on fundamental Matters, or there are none such in the whole Bible. Contra. 4. The Protestant only tells us what he saith of all things necessary contained in Scripture, and speaks his own Sentiment boldly, without either proof or Principle. 18. Some object first. God can indite à Book in as plain An Objection solued. words as any man can speak, and 'tis not supposed, that he affected obscurity in his own Scripture, already written. Contra. 1. If Scripture be not obscure. How is it That Christ told the Saducees they mistake the true meaning of it? How is it, that these Protestant Pillars Luther and Calvin, so grossly contradict one an other in their Commentaries made upon holy Scripture, And this in points most material? How is it that innumerable others called Christians Profess to reverence, to Read, to spend the greatest labour upon Scripture, and when all is done draw out of it plain Contradictions in points, as is n●w said, most Fundamental? Contra. 2. We question not what God can do, but say he hath not indicted Scripture plain, de facto. S. Peter. Epist: 2. 3. 16. Speaking of S. Paul's Epistles, is my warrant. In which, saith he, Certain things are hard to be understood, which the unlearned, and unstable deprave, as also the rest of Scripture, to their own perdition. And the words relate not only to the Mysterious Matters whereof the Apostle wrote, but to his Phrase and form of writing also, Therefore the Greeck Copies have both in which things, and in which Epistles, And all Expositors hitherto, even S. Austin, have acknowledged an obscure way of speaking in S. Paul's Epistles, chief in that to the Romans. Yet we are not to say that Truth expressed without harshness. God affects Obscurity (the word is unmeet) but speak thus: His providence purposely would have Scripture delivered in such à dark manner, that all might have recourse to à living Oracle, (His true Church) which speaks more plainly, and cannot swerve from any verity in Scripture, No offence is given to pious ears, In à word you have à Verity expressed with out harshness. See S. Austin lib. 2. de Doct. Christ: c. 6. And S. Ambrose Epist. 44. Again vote Scripture most plain, what gain Sectaries by the Clarity, when they neither have plain, nor obscure Text through the whole Bible for their Protestancy? 19 Hence we Answer to an other petty objection. Scripture (say some) relates many Things not necessary to Salvation, Therefore it cannot be supposed to omit things necessary. Contra: 1. Ergo it speaks some things of pure Protesstancy, or nothing in that Religion, as reform, is necessary to Salvation. I would willingly have an express Text for this reformed Novelty, and these few difficulties solued. Contra. 2. Though the whole Bible were without dispute most plain, or told us all things necessary, yet this neither moves jew nor Gentil, nor draws any to Christianity without further light, as is already proved. We have shown above how Scripture contain's all things necessary in the Reflex Part thereof. It is now our Task and intent to Mark out the true Church of Christ (the only Rule of Faith) which decides all Controversies Concerning Religion. CHAP. IU. The one and only true Church of Christ, was, is, and shall ever be the Holy, Apostolical, and Catbolick Roman Church. Her Antiquity and Constant Perseverance in the Ancient primitive Doctrine, without Alteration, proves The Assertion. 1. IT is hard to illustrate à manifest Truth, because what ever reasons are brought to light for it, surpass not much the Evidence of the thing you would make clear. Who ever goes about to prove by Arguments that the Sun is the most luminous Body in the Heavens will have much to do, because that's evidents to our senses, and so is the true Church of Christ, saith S. Austin, digito demonstrari potest, She can be pointed at with your▪ finger. Origen adds Hom. 33. in Matth. She is like à sun, casting her beams from one part of the world, to the other. However, because we now treat with men, who either see not, or pretend not to see, I will give them all the Evidence gathered from demonstrative Signs which à heart can wish for. 2. I say first, before we come to more convincing Arguments. Antiquity is à certain Note of Christ Church. The reason is. As God was before the Devil, and Truth before falsehood, So the Orthodox Church, whether you take it from Adam, or Antiquity denotes the true Church from the first preaching of Christian Doctrine, was before all Sects and Heresies. The Roman Catholic Church only which Christ founded, and is so much extolled by the Apostle, has this Precedency. It was, when the Arians were not, we know their first Rise, it was when the Pelagians were not, we know their Beginning, it was when the Donatists were not, their Origen is as well known, as that of Protestants, which first peeped out with one unfortunate Luther, something above an age since. Might not then the Roman Catholic Church, more ancient than all these Sectaries, have most justly questioned, each of them at their first appearance, as the learned Tertullian. Lib: de Prescrip. did those of His time? Qui estis vos? who are you new men? Vnde & quando venistis? From whence came you? Vbi tam diu latuistis? Where have ye been hid so long? No body yet saw you, or heard of you. I wave the Testimonies of other Fathers, (chief of S. Austin and S. Jerome) though none presses this Argument drawn from Antiquity with greater efficacy, than Optatus Melivitan. Lib: 2. contra Parme●an. They are known to every one. But this Mark must not go alone. 3. I say. 2. Antiquity, and à never interrupted Continuance The Church once true never Changed her Doctrine. of the same Visible Society Age after Age, and the same Doctrine upheld without change or Alteration, clearly evidences Christ's Church. This Scripture strongly Asserts. Osee. 2. where the Church is said to be espoused to Christ in Sempiternum for ever. Math: 16. Hell gates shall never prevail against it. Math. 28. Christ will be with it to the end of the world. upon which Passage, S. Jerome speaks most clearly. Qui usque ad consummatione● sae 〈…〉 etc. He who promised to be with his own Disciples to the end ●f Authority ●nd. the world, both shows that these blessed men shall ever live (in their successors) And that he will not departed from the true Believers. Videtur sicut luna etc. They are words of S. Ambrose lib: 4. Hexam. The Church may be seen like the moon eclipsed, but never perishe●, She may be clouded and over cast with darkness, but cannot fail. The reason is. If Christ's Church could fail, not only all memory Reason prove the Assertion of his sacred Passion with the other Mysteries of our Faith, but the whole Scripture also would for that time of her supposed Deficiency have been no objects of Belief. None could then have said with truth; I believe the Holy Catholic Church, or have had Access to it, because it was not then in Being. Now further. As the Church cannot fail, so She cannot Alter from herself or change Christ's Doctrine. For if She did so, She were no more Orthodox, Christ could not own Her for his Spouse. Ponder▪ S. Augustine's Discourse on this subject▪ in Psal: 101. Exist●●t qui dicunt etc. There are some who say. This is not the Church of all nations which once was. No. That's gone, and thus they Speak, saith the Saint, because they are not of the true Church. O impudentem S. Augustine's judgement. vocem, illa non est, quia tu in illa non es. O impudent speech, it is not the same Church it was, because thou art not in it. Vide ne tu ideo non Sis. look to thyself, lest thou be not, for the Church will be, although thou were not in the world. Then he decries this Doctrine of the Church's failure as most abominable, detestable, and pernicious; And in Psalm. 60. positively Asserts the permanency of it to the end of the world. 4. Hence I argue. But the Roman Catholic Church only, hath ever continued in being without interruption and never The probation urged. changed, or Altered the Doctrine which She first learned of Christ; Protestancy which began one only Age since, most evidently wants this continuance, and every year put's on à new countenance. Therefore the Roman Catholic Church, and not that of Protestants, is the Spouse of Christ. That the Roman Catholic Church stood permanently in being ever since Christ, is as demonstrable, as that Protestants were not before Luther. The Visible perpetual Succession of our Popes, of our Bishops, of our Pastors and of our Catholic People in all ages, is an irrefragable Proof. Neither do Sectaries much cavil at this Personal Succession, or the exterior Permanency of our Church (for What Sectaries object. that's evident) But here is their Plea. This Church (say they) once Orthodox changed from herself, forged new Articles of faith, Contrary to the primitive Doctrine, Herein lies the great Charge. Now if I demonstrate, that the Roman Catholic Church once confessedly Orthodox, hath ever since been Visible in the world, and never swerved from the pure Primitive Doctrine in after Ages, She is certainly the Church of Christ still without Alteration. You will Ask how can this be evinced? 5. Some may think 'tis best done by Paralleling our present known Church Doctrine with that of the Primitive Times. Very good. But by what means shall we come to à right Parallel? One may Say. Make A diligent Inspection into the Records, and Writings of those worthy Fathers, who lived in the first Ages, And all is done. I Answer. This Rule precisely considered help's nothing. For what if those Fathers never meddled with most of the Controversies, now agitated between us and Sectaries? And 'tis no wonder at all if they did not, For may not à new Sort of Heretics rise up to morrow, whose Errors never entered into the thoughts either of the Fathers, or of any man now living? Again, What if most of those ancient Writings be lost, (many certainly are) we are at à Stand. But finally, what if doubts arise concerning the sense of those few preserved copies yet extant? can Sectaries Glosses or ours either determine what's right Orthodox Doctrine by them? No. Therefore By what means one may come to the primitive Doctrine? as I said above, no man can come to à full, exact, and satisfactory knowledge, of the Primitive Truths, but by the voice and Tradition of the present Church. Reject this voice of the present Church, we are cast into darkness, we may dispute long but end nothing. Now because it lies not in my way to Treat of that excellent Rule of Tradition, learnedly handled by others, I'll give you three Convincing reasons, And prove my Assertion. viz. That the Roman universal Church, once Orthodox▪ never changed the Primitive Doctrine. To show this, Two certain Principles are to be reflected on. 6. First. God had always an Orthodox Church on earth founded by Christ, which was, and is pure without mixture (at least) of notorious damnable Errors, and which never taught An Argument proving the Roman Catholic Church still pure in Doctrine. Christians any shameful, false Doctrine; for had it done so in any Age, it had then ceased Eo ipso to be Christ's pure Church. The 2. Principle. Protestants confess, (and 'tis à certain truth) that the Roman Catholic Church continued Orthodox without Notable error, for the first three or four Centuries. 7. Hence I argue. If this Church once pure, abandoned Christ's Doctrine in after Ages, or forged new Articles of faith contrary to the Primitive verities, that Change was Notorious, shameful, and damnable, as we shall see presently. But it is not possible, that She ever made such à shameful, Notorious change, And here is my Reason: Had She done so, Christ in that Age when this supposed Alteration began, would have had no Orthodox Church on earth free from gross and culpable Error, and Consequently his own pure Church would wholly have been abolished. 8. You will Ask how I prove this? I Answer most evidently. Begin if you please from the third Age, when the Roman Church was pure, And descend to Luther's days, you will find all the known Societies of men called Christians, to have been either Orthodox Believers, Or grossly erring in Faith, yea plain condemned Heretics, And so reckoned of by Protestants. Such were the Arians, Nestorians, Pelagians, Monothelits, Donatists etc. And all others nameable, excepting Roman Catholics. But those gross erring men, evidently taught not Christ's pure One reason urged. Doctrine without notable Error, much less constituted either à Part, or the whole Orthodox Church, which Christ established in truth, Therefore if the Roman Catholic Church went to wrack also, if She erred notoriously with these known erring Societies, the Orthodoxism and Purity of the whole Church ceased to be in the world. And this is impossible. 9 Here in à word is all I would say. Christ had ever à Church Entirely pure on earth, for he founded one pure, which should always continue in that integrity laid in Her very foundation; But no error was laid in the foundations of the Roman Catholic Church once Confessedly pure, therefore no notorious Error stained it in after Ages; Or, if any such error fouled that once fair Spouse of Christ, this Sequel is evident: There was at that time no pure Church in Being, unless our Novellists please (and perhaps they may do so in time) to make Arians, Donatists, and such à rabble of men, more Orthodox Christians than their own Progenitors were, and all the Roman Catholics are now, the whole world over. 10. You see I insist upon notorious Errors, And do so on set Why we insist upon Notorious errors. purpose to prevent à Reply of some newer Sectaries, who say the Church of Rome hath indeed Her Errors, But not fundamental, or destructive of Salvation. And will you know the reason of this trifling? Here it is. If they say She was not Orthodox in fundamentals, there was no true Church in being for à thousand years before Luther, and this no Christian dare Assert, And if they make her Orthodox in every Article She taught, both Heresy and Schism falls shamefully upon Protestants, Who dare not grant they abandonned à Church Entirely pure and blameless, when they left it. Hence à middle way was wisely (or rather most simply) thought of: Our Church, forsooth, must be what Protestants please, partly true. viz. in à few Fundamentals, and partly false in other Matters of less concern, which these men, elected by God, were to reform, and tell exactly what was amiss, or how far it hath erred, etc. And therefore name themselves the Reformed Church. Well. Let this whimsy pass, largely refuted in the other Treatise, and in passing take notice of à pitiful Church indeed which Christ had by these men's own Confession ten whole ages before Luther. It was à mere deformed Monster made up of Linzy wolzy stuff, of tawny Colours, of something, and nothing, in à word of Truth and Falsehood. But here is not all. 11. I am to prove much more, if Protestants Principles stand firm. viz. That neither we nor they, had any Orthodox Church, in fundamentals before Luther, and Consequently no true Church was in being for ten whole Ages. Now most evidently, Sectaries had nothing like à Church, for they were not in the world, And it is as evident, if their Charge hold good against our Church, it had been much better never to have appeared than to see it turned into so many ugly shapes, into such an unfashioned Monster as these new men make it. In à word this ancient Catholic Society, if Sectaries say right (and Mark ever the Supposition) erred notoriouslly in the very fundamentals of Faith, and Faith totally ruined in Sectaries, Principles. neither believed in Christ, nor Creed, and therefore there was no Orthodox Church before Luther, nor yet is, to this day. If I evidence not this upon the supposition now made, never Credit me here after. To do it, please to observe that by à fundamental Error in Faith, I understand à Doctrine, which if falsely taught, contrary to Christ's verities, is as damnable to those who teach it, as the Arians errors are at this day damnable to Arians. Hence I Argue. 12. What ever Society of men forges new Articles of Faith contrary to the Primitive Doctrine, or tell's the world à loud lie, that God revealed such things as he never revealed, but utterly The Assertion manifestly proved. disowns and yet execrat's, And more over obliges all Christians, after à sufficient proposal, to believe such falsities upon Divine Revelation, and this under pain of damnation, doth open injury to God's Infinite verity, Assert's that which Eternal Truth never taught And therefore sins damnably, or errs in the fundamentals of Faith. But Protestants, say, the Roman Catholic Church long before Luther did so, ergo She sinned damnably and erred in the very fundamentals of Faith. That She did so is evident upon their own charge, For this Church taught ●● unbloody Sacrifice neither Christ nor the Primitive Church taught so: It defines Transubstantiation to be an Article of Faith, Christ and his Primitive Church never did so. It maintain's Purgatory, Praying to Saints etc. Christ never delivered such Doctrines, nor the Primitive Church believed so. Now further. These are all loud Lies if Sectaries speak Truth, and our Church obliges all Christians to believe them as truths revealed by an infinite Verity under pain of damnation, which yet, as they suppose were not revealed. Therefore She first openly injures God's Veracity, which can be no light Offence, but mortal and damnable, And consequently errs in the very fundamentals of Faith, Therefore ●pon that account is now no Orthodox Church, nor was so before Wherein the Sin of all Heretics Consists. Luther. And here briefly is the ultimate reason of all that's Said. The enormous Sin of all Heretics past and present consists in this only, that they pertinaciously charge, or fasten upon God à Doctrine He never taught, this alone makes them Heretics, but the Church of Rome, say Sectaries, hath done so, ergo She was, and is yet Heretical. 13. If this Argument which I hold demonstrative convince not, I will propose an other and then briefly solve one or too Objections. The Arians who deny à Trinity of Divine Persons, are guilty of à fundamental Error. All grant it. Ergo the Roman Catholic Church was, and is as guilty, or rather more guilty if Protestants do not Calumniate. I prove it. The Arians error related to à sublime and speculative Mystery which transcends all humane Capacity, But one supposed Error of the Roman Church (as Sectaries tell the Story) is worse and more gross, to wit, à plain, palpable and practical Idolatry. Why? She Adores à piece of bread for God, wherefore if Idolatry was ever in the world, She commit's that grievous Sin And errs damnably, An other Argument Urged. But no Sin can be greater, no Error is more destructive of Christian faith, than Idolatry; If then our Church be guilty of that crime, She is far enough from being fundamentally Orthodox. Here is the Argument. 14▪ One may Answer, it is only the Sectaries Opinion (which is fallible and may be false) that we are Idolaters. What then? You Novellists hold the opinion, you print it, you publish it, and persuade Thousands, and Thousands poor beguiled souls, we are Idolaters, and they judge so of us, And as long as that judgement stands immoveable, they cannot own us Orthodox Christians in Fundamentals. But let us come more closely to the point, and speak of the thing in itself. 15. Here is à Dilemma. We are Idolaters, or not; Grant the first; We err in the fundamentals of Faith, and were no Orthodox Church either before or after Luther. Contrariwise, if we be not Idolaters but only Adore the Saviour of the world, really and substantially present, under the Forms of bread and wine, Ye Gentleman, do not only hideoufly calumniate à whole Ancient Church, And sin damnably; But more over Err in à fundamental point of Faith, For, if the Second part of the Dilemma subsists. viz. That we Adore not à piece of bread, but that very Christ substantially present (under the Species of bread) who died on à Cross, The whole error, the whole Sin, you charge on us, falls heavily on yourselves. You first tell the world à plain lie and say God never revealed Christ's real Presence, in à consecrated Host as the Catholic Church believes, whereas upon the Supposition now made, He has revealed it; Therefore you contradict God, you injure an infinite Verity, which is à Error and sin, fall heavily on Sectaries. hideous fundamental error. Of such consequence it is to Tax▪ à whole Ancient Church of false Doctrine, That to say so, is à flat Heresy, and the Calumny without repentance is damnable. 16. 2. You oblige all you teach, and this under pain of Damnation, not to fall down or Adore Christ, substantially present in the Sacrament, yet upon the supposition (which is ever to be minded) he is really there and claims the highest honour the supremest worship, as most due to his sacred Person. This you scornfully deny, and both err and sin damnably. One may Answer you adore Christ in Heaven, and that's enough. Contra. He merits Adoration wherever he is present, for if he should visibly appear to any of you all, you would (if Christians) fall down and Adore him: Here he is in the Sacrament upon the Supposition, and you disdainfully deny him homage and veneration. This in à word is all I would say, and it is an unanswerable Dilemma also. AnVnswerable Dilemma. 17. If you Accuse us justly, we are Idolaters, and were no Orthodox Church before Luther, if your Accusation be, as it is, most unjust, you Sin damnably, you unchurch à pure Church and err fundamentally. I prove it. Who ever should Say this very hour: The pure Primitive Church of the first Age was guilty of Idolatry, besides à damnable sin, errs fundamentally, For he makes à Church tainted with falsehood, which God said was every way pure, And for that Reason contradicts God's Veracity. You Sectaries lay the same foul Aspersion on à Church, which the Supposition now makes pure and Orthodox, Therefore you sin damnably, err fundamentally, and unchurch yourselves by it. 18. I would willingly see this Dilemma Answered, and with all have every Reader to take notice of à just judgement of God fallen on Sectaries, whose whole labour hitherto hath been to charge error and Idolatry on us, and the higher they went in such Accusations, the more they thought to destroy us; never reflecting A just judgement fall●n on Sectaries. that in doing so, They have done their utmost to destroy all the Churches in the world by Calumnies, and Consequently to ruin Themselves; For most evidently if their was no true Church in the world before Luther, they are no members of it at this day, but miserably Churchles. Grant the first, the second is an inevitable Consequence. CHAP. V. A second Reason showing, That if the Roman Catholic Church erred but in one Article of Faith, there is now no Fundamental Faith in the woild. Were Error in this Church it is à remediless Evil and cannot be amended by any, least of all by Protestants 1. SOme as was said above may object. The Roman Catholic Church before Luther was right in à few fundamentals for She believed in God, in Christ, owned à Trinity etc. So far, and à little further perchance She may be reputed Orthodox, yet erred in other Matters which Sectaries desire to amend, and so to settle Christian Doctrine again on its old foundations. Observe how I must labour to make that an Heretical Society upon our Sectaries Supposition, which was and is the only true Church in the world; And therefore say. If our Church hath erred but in one only Matter of Christian belief, She is Traitorous, disloyal to Christ, and can be believed in nothing. To prove The Church is traitorous if false in one Article. the Assertion, Suppose an Ambassador sent to à foreign state with this deep Charge, that he utter nothing in his Prince's name but so much only as he is commissioned to speak. Suppose again, the man declares some few truths to the state as his Lord commanded, But withal forges twenty other untruths on his own head, and stiffly affirms his order is to deliver all he saith in his Master's name. Would not such à man think ye be à Traitor upon à double account? First because he exceeds the bounds of his Commission and delivers that he had no order for, But chief because he speaks vast falsities, wholly Contrary to his judgement who sent him. 2. The Application in easy. The first Teachers of the Gospel were legates sent from God to à great State; the whole world, For in omnem terram ex●uit sonus eorum. They taught every where and well for some short time our Christian Verities, as the Prince who sent them Commanded, But their Successors, the Pastors and Doctors of the Roman Catholic Church in after Ages, had, Say Sectaries, the ill luck to miscarry, to turn Traitors, for, besides à few fundamental Truths upheld no man knows how, They did not only exceed their commission in delivering Doctrine to all Nations which Christ their Master never allowed of, but more over; forged of their own heads twenty untruths. Purgatory, Praying to Saints, Transubslantiation etc. And spoke all in their Prince's name, Said also they had Commission from Christ to teach so. This fact, if the Charge be true, is Treasonable, they injured Christ And consequently not Orthodox. and his Verities and betrayed their trust; But à Church so perfidious cannot be Orthodox. Therefore if Sectaries do not Calumniate, Christ had no Orthodox Church in the world before Luther which I intended to prove, and Consequently Protestant's are yet no true Church at all. 3. I say moreover. If the Roman Catholic Church hath taught false Doctrine but in one only Matter of Christian belief, She can be believed in nothing, yea I may rationally suspect her false in all She teaches. Just so it is. If the book of Scripture deliuer's one Doctrine false which Christians now believe, I cannot credit it in any thing. The reason is: One and the same Motive of my belief duly and equally applied, ever moves to an equal Assent, or to None at all. For example. I believe Christ died for us, because God's word says so, Here is the Motive of my Assent: I believe also that he ascended into Heaven, because the same word of God speaks it, here is the same Motive. Imagine now by à supposed impossibility, that this latter Article A Church false in one Article merits no belief. is God's word, but false; I cannot believe our Saviour's Death upon the Motive of God's word, For if this word be false and once deceive, it may as easily be false and deceive me twice, And there is no possible means to quit me of my error, Because whoever endeavours to do that, is of less Authority than God's word, which is now supposed to deceive me. If therefore the First Verity can reveal an untruth, none can believe either man or Angel speaking of the high Mysteries of our Faith, and Consequently All must still remain in Error. 4. Apply this Discourse to the Roman Catholic Church which pretends at least (I say no more yet) to be God's Oracle, and to speak in His name. She speaking in his name assures me, that Infants are to be Baptised, I believe Her upon her word: She also tells me, there is à Purgatory, but we must now suppose with Sectaries, it is à great untruth, if so; I cannot possibly believe Her in the other Doctrine of Infant Baptism. For if she deceives me once She may well do it again, and which is to be noted, There is no means left under Heaven to unbeguile me or to draw me out of my supposed Error; for who ever attempts to do that, is of less Authority than my Church, which is supposed to teach, to err in Her teaching, and stiffly to maintain the Error. Scripture cannot help here, unless it be clear upon an indubitable Principle, that the sense of it, and Doctrine of my Church can differ in points of Faith, which must be proved, and not Supposed. If Fathers be alleged Seemingly contrary to this known Doctrine, my duty is to explicate them, and rather to draw the Fathers to what the Church teaches than to renounce Her Authority, and adhere to the dubious and yet unknown Sense of any Father. 5. Now here is à short consideration For Sectaries. I said, whoever supposeth the Roman Catholic Church to have erred, A Reflection for Sectaries. must jointly own it so remediless an Evil, that all the men on earth cannot help or remove the supposed error from this Church. The reason is. All the Proofs and Principles (setting plain Scripture aside whereof there is no danger) which may be thought pertinent to impeach Her of error, will fall infinitely short and prove less ponderous, less substantial to persuade that She has erred, than her sole Vote, and own Authority (whilst she anathematizes the falsehood) is to persuade the contrary. Viz. That She never erred. Hence Sectaries, confessedly fallible men, who Sectaries Attempt desperate and why? may easily spoil all they go about to mend, adventure desperately to reform the Church, when the very Principles they should reform by (were there any such in being) are incomparably of less weight, strength and force than the Authority of this Church is, which saith She cannot err. However She must be reform (and here is the wonder) before they know whether She has erred, or have the least assurance of their own half accomplished reformation. Who then see's not, every attempt made against our Church this way to be, as really it is, à folly, an unaduiced Enterprise no less impossible, than in the highest manner improbable? Mark what à task lies on them. 6. First they are to prove She has erred, which was never yet done 2. To give in Principles whereby they will reform. 3. To What they are to prove Show themselves well settled in à perfect Reformation. 4. To evince that all those innumerable learned men of our Church from the Fourth to the present Age have been stupidly blind, bereft of judgement and besotted with Error. 5. Whereas other Christians both more aged and most learned espied none of these Errors, They are to prove that God made choice of such uncommissioned men to perform à work so long neglected by the Orthodox world. But of these particulars enough is said in the other Treatise. 7. Hence two things follow. First, that Sectaries only lose time, when by alleging à few dark Testimonies of the Fathers they offer to overthrew any Doctrine of our Church. Alas, what this Oracle positively defin's is à stronger Principle than twenty dubious Authorities of Fathers (if any such were) in appearance contrary. It follows. 2. That the Roman Catholic Church must of necessity be either owned Orthodox in all She teaches, or cannot be believed in any thing. 8. Wherefore I say à great word. If this Church hath deceived the world in teaching à Purgatory, for example; neither we nor Sectaries can certainly believe, that Christ was here on earth or Redeemed us. For Ask, why believe we this great Mystery? If you Answer Scripture reveals it, you are Questioned again. How One Error in the Church Destroys all Faith. know you that Scripture is God's word which Ex terminis evidences not itself? You must Answer Universal Tradition and all the Churches in the world have owned the Book for God's word. Very good. But The Church hitherto supposed most Orthodox, among so many Heretical Societies, and Her Tradition likewise have actually deceived all; For She is now Imagined to have taught the false Doctrines of Purgatory, Transubstantiation etc. Therefore you cannot believe Her, or any Tradition, for erring in one point of Faith, She is not believable in any (This principle stands firm) Much less can you trust to the Doctrine or Tradition of known Heretical Churches, whether Arians, Pelagians or others, For all these have erred and most grossly, Therefore you have no certainty of the verities contained in Scripture, nor can you believe this one Prime Article. Christ died for us, by Divine Faith. 9 Let therefore the Sectary labour all that's possible to contract the fundamentals of Faith into the shortest room Imaginable, let him mince them almost to nothing, let this one Article. jesus is the Christ be Faith enough for all: I say if the Roman Catholic Church speaking in the name of God, as She pretends to speak, hath taught but one false Article, and obliged Christians to believe it under pain of damnation, (Purgatory for example) none can now upon any Motive known to the world firmly believe That jesus is the Christ. So pernicious, is one known error of the Church, that it ruins' all belief of other Articles, nor can such à Church be more trusted in any thing She speaks, than Scripture relied on, were it false in that Article. jesus is the Christ. 10. The reason à Priori is. All Faith is at last reduced, or finally resolved into God's Divine Revelation, whether he speaks by this or that Instrument, by this or that Oracle, imports nothing. The ultimate reason of the Assertion. The difference of the Oracle he speaks by, diversifies not faith, which always tends to one Centre, and rests on one sure Ground, God's Veracity. If he speaks by à Prophet that's his Oracle, If by an Apostle he is made an Oracle, If by the exterior words of Scripture, they are Oracles, if by the Church, She is his Oracle. Now further. Suppose any of these assumed Oracles speaking in the name of God declare à false Doctrine to Christians, the Falsity Vltimatly redound's to God, who own's them as Oracles, yet by them teaches the world Falsities. It falls out here; As if à Prince should send à Legate to à State who speaks in his name, and cheat the whole State by his Embassy: would not all deservedly upon the Supposition, more impute the Cheat to the Prince than to the Legate that speaks in his name? The parity is exact and proves, if either Scripture, Prophet, Apostle, or Church speaking in the name of God delivers false Doctrine, God himself deceives us, and therefore Rich. de S. Vict. Said well in this sense also. Si error est quem credimus etc. If we believe an error, 'tis you, Great God who have deceived us, But if God can once deceive, either immediately By Himself, or mediately by his Oracle, The whole Systeme of Christian Faith, is desstroyed. What I say would be true, Although He should make à solemn protestation of Speaking Truth, For even then he cannot oblige me to believe, because he may deceive in that very Protestation, and deliver à falsity, if the supposition hold. 11. Here then is the final Conclusion. As subiective Faith in à Believer is Indivisible, That is, it is either wholly good or wolly naught None can have à piece of Faith without the whole virtue, (an Can the Church propose one false Article She can be believed in nothing. Arian cannot believe Christ to be à Redeemer, if He denies the Trinity) So if one Matter of Faith proposed by the Church be really Contrary to what She defines, None can believe any thing She teaches, For, the mere Possibility of deceiving Christians in one Article, impossibilitates the Belief of all She proposeth. And this proves the Church absolutely infallible not in some points only, but in all and every Doctrine, whereof you have more in the, 15 16 and 17 Chapters following. 12. Some may reply. I suppose all this while the Church made so steadfastly God's Oracle as not to err in any Doctrine She proposes, which is Petitio Principy or à begging of the Question. Contra. And Ye Gentlemen whilst you impeach Her of Error Suppose Her Instrumentum diwlsum, an Oracle tom, as it were, from God's Sspecial Assistance, just as if I should Suppose the words of Scripture separated from the Spirit of truth. You suppose Her à fair spouse, yet make Her à harlot, when and as Often as you please. You acknowledge some Church or other (find that out where you can) to teach Truth, yet you like petulant Scholar's will forsooth be so wise, as to tell her where she misseth in Her Lesson and correct Her for it; And you have done it to the purpose, For you have destroyed Her Monasteries, robbed Her Altars, profaned Her Temples, abused Her Children, banished some, and hanged up other. Are not these fine God deceives if the Church c●n Err. Do? Contra. 2. I suppose nothing but what is manifest, that Christ ever had à Church on earth (once more find it where you can) and that God speaks to Christians by this Oracle, which he will be with to the end of the world, And against which Hell gates shall never prevail. Now I say, if this Church which God (not I) makes his own Oracle, and promises to teach Truth by it, can deceive but in one Matter of Faith, God himself deceives us, And this Church ceaseth Eo ip●o to be Catholic, yea, and God to be the Eternal Truth. For it Matters nothing, if he can deceive, whether he do it by Scripture, or the Church. Solve this Argument if you can. 13. You may say. 2. The whole ground of this Discourse à Fallacy and comes only to thus much. If à man once tell à lie he must be thought à liar in all he speaks. So it is. The Church speaks an untruth in some things, Ergo it doth so, or may do so in all, seems no good consequence. Contra. If an Ambassador once be found in an Untruth when he speaks in his Prince's name, I think few Monarches or States will no more believe him in like occasions, Than give credit to one convicted The disparity between à private man erring, and the Church. of perivery when He swear's, unless what he swear's be proved true independently of his Oath. But let this pass. The disparity between à private man and the Church is most notorious. The First considered as one single and private, hath no Commission to speak in God's name, or to teach the whole Christian world what is, or what is not Christ's Doctrine; The Orthodox Church is empowered to do this, or to teach nothing, if then She errs but once, the Error makes Her infamous, redound's to the Damage of all Christians seduced by Her, yea and to God himself, as is now declared. Hence I say the Church cannot teach truth by halves, as Sectaries would have Her, or now Hit right, now miss. She cannot be Orthodox in à few main Matters called Fundamental, and erroneous in others. No. She is either God's Vicegerent in all She deliuer's as points of Faith, or in nothing. She must when she pretends to speak in God's name truly do so, or She cannot speak, nor pretend to speak, but must be silent. This Verity is further laid forth in the Chapters now cited, where we treat of the Church's Infallibility. 14. In the mean while, if any Should Object The Church vainly pretends to be so far an Oracle of Truth, as not to impose on us false Doctrine And then demand, from whence She had this Whether our whole Discourse tends. Privilege of Infallibility? I Answer. Whoever trifles with such objections in this place, (to be solued hereafter) little understands the force of our Arguments. Mark I beseech you. It is now à supposed Principle (Sectaries will have it so) that the Roman Catholic Church hath forged new Articles, and imposed the belief of them on Christians which God never Revealed. Grant thus much, She injures God, sin's damnably, And therefore is no Orthodox Church, But if She neither now be Orthodox, nor was so ten Ages before Luther, There was not then, nor is yet any true Christian Church in the world, And consequently Protestant's ●aue no Church. The more erring Therefore they make the Roman Catholic Church, the more are they Churc●lesse. This is what I Press and express at present, and would willingly have my Argument solued. 15. There is yet an other Objection scarce worth the paper, you shall have it, such an one as it is. Protestants talk much of A weightless Objection. Papists Blindness, And to free the Roman Church from damnable sin or formal Fundamental Errors, may perhaps say She hath indeed erred before Luther, and still is Idolatrous, But may be excused upon the Account of invincible Ignorance. Answ. What's this? Do we hear talk of invincible ignorance in à whole learned Church? Pray, where shall we find knowledge if ignorance have place here? Such ignorance may perhaps be in some particular men, But to Tax à whole Church with it, is not only to make so many Councils, so many profound Doctors as have taught the world worse than Idiots for à thousand years, but it is to injure Christ, to tell Him he has indeed established à Church, yet marked it so obscurely, removed it so far out of the Sight of Christians, that the most learned of all could not discover the Truths it taught for ten long Ages, though all Antiquity Assures us that Christ's Church is one of the most manifest things in the world. Again, Suppose our Church were blind and inculpably ignorant, who for Gods, sake must open Her eyes now, and unbeguile Her? Touching upon the Ignorance of Catholics Solued. Must à few late scattered Sectaries Do the wonder, that are to look to their own vincible ignorance, And therefore (if learned) Sin upon that account damnably. 3. If our Church may be excused upon the score of ignorance, excuse also the Arians less learned, the Pelagians, the Donatists etc. And say there were never any formal sinful Heretics in the world, yea jews, and Turks may thus be acquitted of formal Sin, and Error likewise. But above all free, I beseech you, our Sectaries from further painstaking, as also from the least hope of amending Matters, were there any thing amiss, for you may well rest assured, if ignorance hath cast this learned Church into such an Abyss of Error, it is not to be expected that the far weaker knowledge of Protestants, can draw Her out of it. I wonder men of Modesty dare offer to impute ignorance to the Roman Catholic Church, And presume to teach more learned than Themselves. CHAP. VI Other Evidences of the Roman Churches Perseverance in the Primitive Faith without change or Alteration. Whether wickedness of life necessarily induceth Error into the Church? The Donatists and Protestants Argue, And Err alike. 1. I Argue. 2. God had ever à true Church preserved free from Error for so many Thousand years as passed between A second Argument Adam and Christ. It stood all that vast time invincible against Heresy, and was never stained with false Doctrine. The Truth is indubitably owned by Christ our Lord, who came not to change so much as one iota of Doctrine taught by the Prophets, but only to perfect it by revealing other Verities, not explicitly known before. Now Mark à strange Paradox avouched by Sectaries. They say boldly, That our Christian Catholic Roman Church which certainly God Himself established, And enriched with his own Verities, only continued Orthodox for Three or Four Ages, and then (O dismal time) left off to be what it was; lost Christ's revealed Truths, became the whore of Babylon, Apostated from itself, and cheated the world into false Doctrine. What says the prudent Reader? Is it Possible that the Ancient Church of Drawn from à most improbable Assertion of Sectaries. the Patriarches and Prophets stood without change or blemish for 4. or 5. Thousand years, and Christ's own Spouse became smutched and ugly within the compass of three or 4. Ages? Is it Probable that the lesser light of the Synagogue lasted so long, And the Glorious sun of Christ's own Church, appeared dark and Eclipsed soon after The world had Cast an Eye upon Her? And this, to increase the wonder happened then (Sectaries must say) when evidently There was no other true Church on earth, unless you will take in Arians, Pelagians &c and such open Heretics to make up à Catholic Society, most unfit (all know) to teach Christ's Orthodox Doctrine. I wish Protestants would well ponder the force of this one reason, And return an Answer. 2. My last Argument is à Demonstration against Sectaries, who say. There was always an Orthodox visible Church since Christ's time: For this Article of our Creed was ever professedly true in all Ages. I believe the Holy Catholic Church. They say again, There was à time when our Roman Catholic Church once Orthodox, began to innovate, to bring in new Doctrines of an unbloody Sacrifice, of Transubstantiation, of praying for the Dead, of Purgatory etc. Now be pleased to observe the Demonstration. When An Argument against Sectaries. the Roman Church began these new supposed Doctrines and actually erred, There was at that very time an other Orthodox Church in the world, or was not; If not; Christ had then no Orthodox Church on earth, and Consequently that Article of our Creed was false. I believe the Holy Catholic Church, For no man can truly believe in à Church which really is not. If contrariwise they own à pure Orthodox Church to have been on earth when the Roman began to err, That (because Orthodox and pure) was certainly à Society of Christians distinct from the then supposed fallen and false Church of Rome. 3. Hence I argue. Eirher that Orthodox distinct Church, sensible of God's cause and the Honour of Christian Faith, vigorouly opposed, censured and condemned those imagined errors of the Roman Church now fallen, or Carelessly let all alone, and omitted that Duty. If it omitted that duty, it was no true Church, For if true, Her Charge was and is, (She hath à command from Christ to do it) to crush, and suppress false Doctrines, when they first rise up, or begin to infect the body of Christianity. This duty that Church neglected, and for that cause was not Orthodox. Moreover, the Roman is also Supposed actually drawn from Truth, Clear and Convincing. Condemned Heretics made up no Church. We had then in those days à strange world indeed, when Christ the Supreme Head looked down from Heaven, and saw his Mystical body the Church pitifully Corrupted, when he cast an eye upon poor Christians, and found them all Churchless. 4. If Sectaries own such an Orthodox Society, which opposed and censured the Roman Errors, that must be à Truth as Notoriously known to the world as it is now supposed, that the Church of Rome had Errors Notoriously known. And Here I desire the judicious Reader to reflect on what I Shall propose, And wish our Adversaries to Answer. Can they Imagine the Errors of the Roman Church openly discovered so many Centuries since, and judge that no Orthodox Christians than living (who beheld Truth run to ruin) made Opposition against them? The Errors, say Protestants, were palpable (for our new men espy them now) yet no Orthodox Christans are heard of to this day, who then stood up for God's cause, and defended the Ancient truths of Christ against this supposed erring Church, This yet lies in darkness The Fault must be noised as both criminal and public, And yet there is no news at all of such as lent à helping hand to redress it. 5. Again, Can it be imagined that the Roman Catholic Church which Age after Age condemned innumerable Heretics, And gives in an exact Catalogue in order as They risen up, (These Sectaries Paradoxes and. particulars are exactly known) And yet that no Author, Friend or Enemy Can be found, who gives so much as the least hint of any sound Christians that condemned the now decried Errors of this one Church? Finally (and here is the wonder) must we suppose our Church to have grossly erred à thousand years since, when yet all good Christians were silent and reprehended it not, And that now after ten whole Ages are past, And Millions of Souls damned for want of Faith, A company of jarring Protestants Can probably begin to talk of them, to Reprove, to Argue, Vast improbabilities and offer to settle Christianity right upon its old Fundations? No thought of man can fall upon more desperate improbabilities, yet they pass as current among Sctaries. But of this point more hereafter in the 13 Chapter. 6. Now here is the Conclusion, and the true Trial of this cause. It is possible that our new men, who pretend knowledge in Antiquity, name an Orthodox Church which openly Protested What Sectaries are obliged to do, but Cannot. against these supposed Errors before Protestants were in Being. It is possible to tell us when this Church strongly Acted against the Roman Errors. It is Possible to say what became of that Orthodox Church at last, whether after it had done that great work and Censured the Roman Doctrine, It quickly disappeared, Or still remains in the world. It is I say, Possible, that Sectaries Evidence these particulars of most high Concern, or impossible, If the first can be done, we Catholics ought to Reform. But I must unbeguile the Reader, and absolutely Assert. All the Protestants who now are, or shall be hereafter, Shall as soon destroy all Christian Faith as name any Orthodox Society, any thing like à true Church which censured these supposed Roman Errors, Therefore (And it is an evident Demonstration) Our Catholic Church once true, continued so in all Ages, Or there was none in the world Orthodox, The Articles She maintained then, and yet defends are no Errors, but Primitive Verities. And thus the whole Plea of our new men Concerning Errors entering the Church de facto, ends as it deserves in à flat Calumny. What do they think to bring Errors to light now, whereof the most learned Churches in the world never took notice before? Will they speak of false Doctrines when all Orthodox Societies said nothing of them? Dare they accuse and condemn à Church which Millions of Souls so highly reverenced that the best of Christians lived and died happily in it? Nothing can be more exotical. Wherefore I say, when our Novellists can work this Persuasion into men's minds, That Crows once white, turned black in time (though no body must say when) Then, and not Their Attempt impossible. before, they may perhaps hope to make us mad, and induce All to believe, that our Church Anciently pure became tainted in time with gross Errors, though when or in what Age this deformity appeared they know not, nor Can ever know, because the Change is de subiecto non supponente, not supposable. 7. One may reply. Though the Sectary cannot point at an Orthodox Church which condemned these now Supposed Roman Errors, yet he has plenty of witnesses to ground his Assertion upon, For in past Ages, many, though reputed Heretics, vehemently decried the Doctrines of our Church as Novelties Swerving from the primitive Truths. Answ: Very true indeed. For thus Arius of old decried Consubstantiality and the Supreme Godhead in Christ, Pelagius, Original sin, The Monathelits two wills in our Saviour, Humane and Divine, Luther an unbloody Sacrifice, And the Devil after all, if you'll believe him, will oppose every Truth which Christ taught. But what is all this to the purpose? which yet to my great wonder I find urged by some? Is the Authority of these condemned and confessedly known Heretics, precisely considered, to be paralleled with à Church The Votes of Adversaries without Proofs, weightless. which was never condemned by Orthodox Christians? Must the condemned Party be heard when it Accuses, And the Innocent or never censured Church be Supposed guilty, after the whole world held her blameless and has judged well of Her condemnations pased upon Heretics? Compare I say, the Authority of the Church time out of mind proved Innocent, with the Authority of Heretics known most guilty, There can be no Parallel, may we precisely respect Authority. Wherefore if the Opposition of Heretics hath any force, Their charge against the Church must stand upon Strong proofs and sound Principles distinct from Their own voting Her Delinquent. These Principles we seek for in all our Disputes with Protestants, yet hitherto never heard of Any, and believe it, We hold their own Authority of no greater weight than that of Arians, or, of any other condemned Heretics. 8. Others, quite driven off all ground of rational Arguing will needs fasten Errors upon our Church, because, forsooth, in such an Age the 9.th For example after Christ, or There about, some Popes were less good and People much debauched. An other simple Plea. Then, most likely, was the Nick of time, Say these, to bring in Transubstantiation, the Pope's Supremacy and what other Error you will. Answ. A most pitiful Plea, not worth the paper it blot's. I shall not so much refute it, for it merit's not the labour, As Show how it destroys the Belief of all Christian Religion. 9 Pray you consider Christianity in the greatest Latitude Imaginable. Call Arians, Donatists, Protestants And Catholics also Christians. Grant, which is true, that there have been very wicked men amongst these different Professors. I say if this Argument have weight. Some few Popes, and many People were not good for one Age chief, Ergo debauchery in manners more than probably brought in false Doctrines under the Notion of Christian Truths, A jew or Gentil may Argue as well, and infer that Viciousness of life hath destroyed all Truth among Christians, if ever They had any. For why should lewdness have less force to Subvert all Truth taught by the Church of Rome than some only? It hath, say Sectaries, brought in much Error, Therefore, saith the jew, it may as well have corrupted all Christ Doctrine. 10. To reinforce this Argument, I told you above, if the Church of Rome, had but once proposed one Article to be believed by Divine Faith, which is false, She is not to be rejected and proved unreasonable credited in any thing. If you Reply, it is evident That though false in many Tenets, She yet taught some Articles true, As that Christ is our Redeemer. The jew Answers, and so do I too, She Taught and teaches so still; but that This is Truth, if debauchery of life be inevitably connexed with false Doctrine, shall never be made Probable, For this Church is either entirely sound in Doctrine, or Entirely deluded. One may Say. Scripture is evidently plain for some Primary Articles of Christian belief. Answ. The jew scorns the Reply, and maintain's this Truth, as I also do. If it be once proved that the Church of Rome imposed on the Christian world Falsehood in place of Truth, Transubstantiation, The Sacrifice on the Altar etc. She may as easily have corrupted the whole Bible and made that Book false in à hundred important Passages, whereof enough is said in the other Treatise. No true Church Therefore, no Probability of true Scripture. 11. Let us now proceed to others called Christians the most known Arch-heretics, you will have the same Conclusion. Arius for example, à stubborn proud Fellow had many Associates like Himself, yea and certainly taught some Doctrines false, Therefore, Saith the jew, All He delivered was false also. The Devil learned Luther to broach His new Gospel, and the man's enormous Viciousness is known to the world by as credible Authors as Platina or Nico: de Clemangijs, who make Popes and People so impious, Therefore all that Luther taught cannot but be upon the Argument proposed, most justly excepted against An other Simple Argument, rejected. as pernicious Doctrine; For gross Errors like à Torrent follow Depravation in manners. Caluins' Pride, Deceit, and Cozenage, to say nothing of that hideous Sin for which he was branded, are upon Record, And all know what Rebellion, what tragical Do ensued upon the wicked man's Apostasy. Who then can harbour so much as à good thought of any Doctrine He taught even that Christ died for us? Hence, saith the jew, if Wickedness of life and Errors in Doctrine be such inseparable Companions And all Sects or Religions nameable have had Professors wicked, Farewell Christianity, yea and Christ Himself also. For, if the Impiety of some, leads Erroneous Doctrines into à whole Moral Body, that one crying Sin of judas might more easily have corrupted the First Apostolical College small in Number, Than the incomparable less defects of Popes deprave the great Moral Body of the Church. O, but Christ secured the other Apostles from Error. Answ. So he doth his Church, And the jew will as soon believe the one as the other, who Argues thus. 12. Christianity was never without Sin, Ergo never without Error, if the Argument have force. When Therefore these new men Say Wickedness of life Compared with the loss of Faith. God's Providence seems equally concerned to preserve the Church from things equally Pernicious (But viciousness of life is as pernicious to Christianity, and as destruct●ue to the End of it as Errors in Doctrine) They know not what they Say. The Argument is every way defective? 13. First it's utterly False, that Wickedness is so pernicious as Errors against Christian Doctrine, For Errors destroys Faith the ground of Salvation, and immedeatly opposeth Gods Infinite Veracity, Wickedness in Manners destroys Grace and other Supernatural virtues, yet leaves the Foundation vnshaken. Again. By what law do these men Suppose that God preserved not his Church Holy in those days? Doth it follow because some were wicked that She lost all Sanctity? Will they Say if the English Church had ever Sanctity in it, All vanished into Smoak in the late dissensions and deplorable Tumults? There were never such Do at Rome in the worst of days as England then Shown to the world. O but there were then many Holy and Godly men that suffered. Be it so at present, I love not to recriminate. For one of yours Holy, we had Thousands in that Particular Abuse can not unhallow the Church Age you except against the whole world over, in England Germany, Spain, France, Denmark etc. most humble, pious, virtuous and profoundly learned.▪ What do you think, that à few Abuses in Italy not half so bad as you make them, can Vnhallow an ample Church? Yet here lies the Strength of your weak Argument. The iniquity of some, chief of Popes and Prelates ruins not sanctity only, But moreover induceth Error into the whole Moral Body of Christ. You just proceed, as if One should atattempt to prove that à goodly Building, which yet visibly stands fair to the Eye, and firm on Sure foundations, is all shattered and pulled down, because you can lead à man to the By-places of it and show him in it some Nastiness. The Instance is most Pertinent. You find filth Here and there in the fair House of God, and though there be more of it before your own doors, yet your Church must be supposed Holy and Orthodox, And ours contrariwise false and impious. 14. But I wonder nothing at this lame way of Arguing. Lewdness of life in some (not in all sorts of men as is vainly Supposed) Vnsanctifies the Church, and bring's in Error etc. For just so Heretics of old Argued against Catholics. Read S. Austin. Sectaries argue like Heretics of old. Tom. 7.ad litter Petiliani lib. 2. Through his several Chapters chief. Chap. 39 Petilianus objected as these men do, And I will Answer as S. Austin did. There is no bitterness in honey, nor dross with pure gold, Saith Petilianus. We Donatists are the purified gold, you Catholics full of bitterness and dross. etc. S. Austin Answer's. This is to Vapour like à mad man, And to prove nothing. Attendis zizama. Thou attendsed to the Cockle only, and not to the wheat (As who should say though some be, yet all are not wicked) Thou considersed the Seed of the Enemy sown in the world, and regardsed not the seed of Abraham, in whom all Nations shall be blessed. Quasi vero vos iam s●is massa purgata. Thou talksed as if ye, forsooth, were only the purged Mass of men, the sweet honey, the pure gold, the refined oil, and none but you. It is not so. There is much naughtiness among you, And the saint shows wherein it was. 15. In like manner one might easily lay forth the lewdness, the Hypocrisy of no few Sectaries were it not that S. Austin teaches us to use better Arguments, and therefore C. 32. Saith. How S. Austin argues against the Donatists. Paciscamur ergo etc. Let us agree on this. That thou neither Object to me our wicked men, nor I thine, to Thee. This bargain once made, thou will have nothing to Say against that seed of Abraham, now diffused over all Nations. But Petilianus, I shall press thee with an insoluable Argument, and Ask, Why ye Donatists have impiously Separated yourselves from the seed of Abraham, or that Catholic Church wherein all Nations are blessed? And thus we urge Protestants. 16. Again. Chap. 51. Petilianus objected. Ye Catholics lay Claim to S. Peter's Chair the See of Rome, I call that, saith he, in the words of the Prophet, Cathedram Pestilentiae. The See of pestilence. And do not Protestants speak thus irreverently of the Roman Chair and Church also? Both Argue alike. S Austin Answers. Haec non vides? Dost not thou see that all thou allegesed here is à mere lying Calumny? For though thou may reproach some, yet all are not guilty of the Crimes imputed to them. I will avouch more, Adds the Saint. Si omnes per totum orbem tales essent quales vanissimè Criminaris etc. If all the Bishops the whole world over were as bad as thou fanciest, what wrong hath the Chair of S. Peter, or the Church either, done thee? If thou persuade thyself, that those who deliver the law, do not exactly comply with it, know, that our Lord jesus speaking of the pharisees, lon● since silenced thee. Dicunt & non faiunt. They say but do not. If then thou wouldsed diffame either Church or See, because men in works are not answerable to their words, thou knowesed not what to say but only to reproach without Reason. Thus and much more Blessed S. Austin, and He overthrows our Adversary's whole Plea by it. Though I verily hold them no such strangers to common reason, but that they saw well the Argument The Sectary Cannot but see his Argument void of force. already proposed enormously impertinent, to prove either the See of Rome or that Church impious or erroneous in Doctrine. 17. The true Reason of foisting in such simple stuff, is an itching to Cavil, because they can not closely dispute against Catholic Doctrine upon rational Principles, having none to urge against us. What remains but to scratch (it is à late strain got in among them) and to rub upon old sores, the personal defects of others abroad, whilst God knows, they have more festered wounds to look on and lance in their own Brethren at home? Thus I say, they must nip and taunt or write no more Controversies, Though it is done to their own Confusion, For suppose all were true which is said of lewd and wicked men in the Church (as in real Truth the half is not) yet the impiety of these men Why sectaries bring to light such simple Stuffe. never came to that height as to make upon such Cavils, the pure Spouse of Christ à Harlot; on Frontlesly to impeach Her of Error, or quite to desert Her as our Novellists have done most shamefully. No: Though wicked, they know well, that Cockle grows up in the same field with good Corn, and that the Sin of some may stand with the Sanctity of many in the Mystical body of Christ. The Harvest, as the Gospel, and S. Austin teach, is to Winnow all, and to Make the Separation. But enough and more then enough of this slight and forceless Objection. 18. I have yet one word to say of errors wrongfully Charged on us. Were this Supposition true that the Roman Catholic Church had Apostated so shamefully in any Age, as Sectaries Imagine, Had She been made of à beautiful Spouse à harlot, Had She fallen from the primitive Truths into false Doctrine, And consequently Cheated Christians into Falsities for à thousand years together; Christ jesus our Lord had been obliged by virtue of A Reflection for Sectaries. his promise already made in Scripture to have appeared Again, To have sent an Angel from Heaven, Or to have used some other extraordinary means to establish his Church à new, to raise up the walls of his now Supposed ruined Jerusalem, which he built so slightly, that it all fell down in the short Compass of three or four Ages. I say All, For, if the Church be false in one Article, I can trust it in nothing. The Promises in Scripture of Hell gates not prevailing against the Church, of Christ's being with Her to the end of the world, are manifest; Yet now upon the Supposition, Hell and Heresy have destroyed the whole Building, and He Blessed Lord, looked on, saw his own work defaced, yet after all his Engagements of preserving it in Being, repaired nothing. These are harsh Heretical Paradoxes unfit for Christians to hear, yet the Sectary (will he nill he) must own them to his Confusion. 19 To establish more this great Truth, That the Doctrine of our Church is at this day the same with the Primitive; I might well Argue from the Confession of our Adversaries, Luther Chief and Calvin, who grant so much in many particulars, As that of Merit, of Free will, Limbus Patrum etc. But withal say Antiquity erred no less than we do now, And therefore Calvin professeth he follows none of the Fathers but S. Austin, Though when He pleases, he is too bold with the Saint and scornfully reiects his Authority also. See Bellar: de notis ecclesiae lib: 4. What Sectaries Novelties are. Cap. 9 I might also show that our Sectaries Novelties, for the greatest part, are nothing else but à List of old long since dispersed and condemned Heresies now brought to light again, and knit together in one bundle to poison the world withal. They have renewed the Heresy o● the Donatists, who taught that the Church of God had perished throughout the world except in some few obscure Corners. They renew the Heresy of the Arians teaching it unlawful to offer Sacrifice for the dead. They renew the Heresy of the Eunomians, saying that by Faith only man may obtain life Everlasting. You have with These men the Heresy of the Iconomachians in breaking down the Images of Christ our Lord and His Saints, revived again. Of the Berengarians denying the true Body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ really present in the Eucharist, as likewise of the Vigilantians that slighted the Invocation of Saints, denying Honour due to the Relics of holy Martyrs. But I need not to insist upon these and many more revived Heresies, they are things Vulgarly known to all, largely laid forth in the writings of our Catholic Authors. See Bellar: now Cited. CHAP. VII. Manifest and most undeniable Miracles peculiar to the Romani Catholic Church only, prone Her Orthodox, withal show that She still retain's the Primitive Doctrine. 1. BY this word Miracle, or Miracles, I understand à supernatural work done by Almighty God above the power and force of Nature. For there is no doubt, but that God, who What is meant by Miracles. created Nature, has within his boundless Omnipotency Supereminent effects of Grace, which far surpass the little Might of all Creatures made by him. These are finite; The Author of them infinite, And can do more. 2. 2. This Principle is certain. God hath wrought innumerable Miracles, not only to Testify He can do more than Nature, Why Miracles are wrought. but with this express Design also, that by the Manifestation of such wonders, All may come to the knowledge of those Oracles whereby He speaks, and Reveals most sublime Mysteries far above the reach of our weak Reason. Now whether these Oracles be Prophets, Church, or Apostles, seems one and the same thing, If they be equally Manifested by miraculous Effects, and speak in his name who Assumes them to teach the world. 3. I say manifested Oracles by Signs, And say it for this End, That all may reflect upon the depth of Divine wisdom, which may on the one side Seem too rigorous in obliging us to believe most Difficult Mysteries, neither seen by Eye nor heard by ear, They facilitate Faith. Were it not, That on the other side, the burden is lessened and our Faith much facilitated by the Evidence of most prudent and convincing Motives, For 'tis à great Truth. Non sine testimoni● reliquit Semetipsum benefaciens de Caelo. His Goodness so favourably condescend's to our weakness, that though he removes not Vnevidence and Obscurity from the Mysteries believed, Yet he makes them all so evidently Credible to prudent Reason (Benefaciens de Caelo) by the Lustre of Signs and Wonders, That the man who believes not after à Sight had of such glorious Marks, stands guilty before God's Tribunal of damnable Sin. 4. The third Principle. Miracles eminently great in number and quality (for example the raising of the dead to life) Chief, when wrought by Persons of Singular virtue to Confirm our Christian Faith, are from God, and evident Signs leading to the knowledge of true Religion. None can doubt of the Assertion, seeing Christ our Mord. Matt. 11. When Questioned whether He was the true Messiah, proved the Affirmative by his Signal Miracles. The blind see, the lame walk, Lepers are Cleansed, And lead to the knowledge of true Religion. the deaf hear, the dead rise again etc. Which is to say in other Terms. These wonders speak in my behalf, and plainly Testify that I am the Messiah; For only to say, I am à Prophet sent from God without proving the Truth to Reason by Signs and wonders Convinces nothing, Induces none to Believe. Therefore john. 10. Christ remitted the unbelieved jews not to the Evidence of his Doctrine, (for really no Doctrine of Mysteries above Reason, though most true, is or can be its own Self-evidence) But to his manifest Miracles. The Works which I do in the Our Saviour pleaded by His Miracles. name of my Father, These give Testimony of me. Again. If you w●st not believe me believe my works. Blessed S. Paul might have Long preached the Sublime Doctrine of Christ, and without Fruit, unless. Miracles had confirmed it, which he calls the Signs of his They were Signs of Paul's apostleship. Apostleship. 2. Cor. 12. And How long think ye would Nabuchodonozer have remained in his Idolatry unless He had beheld that prodigious Wonder wrought by God upon the three Israelites in the fiery furnace. Daniel 3. But when he saw them walk in the flames nothing hurt, He cried out. Blessed be the God of Sydrack Misack and Abdenago, who hath sent his Angel etc. Miracles therefore are powerful Inducements to Belief, which Truth might be yet more largely demonstrated by the Wonders of Moses, of Elias of the Prophets and Apostles, But these I wave and briefly take notice of our Saviour's sacred words john 15. If I had not come and spoken to them, they should not have finned, but now they have no excuse of their sin etc. And to show, that Speaking only was no sufficient Conviction, The Text adds. If I had not done among them works which no other man hath done, they should not have sinned but now they have seen, and hate me, and my Father etc. 5. Three things follow from hence. First That eminent Miracles of their own Nature are Marks of Christ's Doctrine and true Religion. 2. That Our Saviour most justly condemned Why the jews were taxed of Incredulity? the jews of infidelity, not so much for rejecting his word or Preaching, as for not believing after they had seen it confirmed by Wonder's from Heaven, For 'tis Said plainly. Had they not seen they had not sinned. A Doctrine Therefore attested by Miraculous signs, and wonders renders the Vnbeliever guilty of Infidelity: Consider it alone, devested of such Marks, what have we? High Mysteries preached, But without Proofs antecedently laid forth to Reason; Truths taught, but yet unknown whether so or otherwise. In à word we have the Decrees of à great Monarch obliging all to submission, but without his Seal, or Signature. 6. And Hence it is that our blessed Lord empowered those first great Masters of the Gospel Matt. 10. not only to teach his Sacred Verities, but to teach Perswasively, by the virtue of Miracles. Go and preach, saying the Kingdom of God is at hand Cure the sick, raise up the dead, cleanse the Lepers, Cast out Devils etc. And they did so. Mark 16. 20. They Went abroad, preached every where, God Cooperating with them, and confirming their Doctrine by Signs which followed, Or to speak in the words of S. Paul. Heb. 2. God withal Testifying by Signs and wonders and divers Miracles etc. A third sequel. If the jews had not sinned by rejecting Christ Why sectaries are unblamable? and his Doctrine (which then was new) in case he had not wrought greater Miracles amongst them than ever Any did before him, How highly imprudent think ye. How notoriously culpable are our Sectaries who believe the new opinions of one wretched Luther or Calvin, without so much as one Miracle wrought, to make them probable? 7. A fourth Principle. True Real Miracles are Still necessary in the Church and foretold to be so, by Truth itself. joan 12. Amen, Amen, I say unto you, he that believes in me, the works which I do he shall do, and greater works than these shall he do. I say purposely, True real Miracles, mindful of S. Chrisostoms profound Discourse upon these very words in his Book against the Gentiles. There have been, saith the Saint certain Masters (you may call them Impostors) who had their Disciples and talked much of Wonders whilst they lived; but none of them ever came to the impudence S. Chrisosloms excellent Reflection. as truly to Prophecy of Miracles to be done by them after death. No: A juggler may do something strange, whilst he is on the Stage, But take him off the Theatre, Throw him out of this life, The cheat appears, He is worth nothing. 8. All is contrary in our Saviour, who here foretold of greater Wonders to be wrought in after Ages by his true Believers, Than He had done in this Mortal life. And if we Speak of great Conversions (which all most justly account Miraculous) the Truth is Evident, For our Blessed Lord converted but few, in Comparison of those who followed in the Church after his Death. (A parallel of other Miracles we shall see presently). Yet more. The Apostles wrought the greatest Miracles after Christ's Ascension. And 'tis worth Reflection, whilst Christ's Disciples conversed with Him, the Gospel record's little of their Miracles, But after his leaving this world Signs followed them, They cast out Devils, raised the dead, spoke with new tongues, converted Nations, laid hand on the Sick, etc. And the like Supernatural effects have been visible in the Church through all Ages after the Apostles. So true are the words of Christ. Greater Things shall be done. And the meaning is not, that every true Believer should work Miracles, (For so Christ's promise would not be truly fulfilled, because All do them not) But that some choice elected of his Church, as it happened in the Primitive times, Members of this Mystical Body, should have the Privilege. 9 One Reason of my Assertion is. If Miracles, Gods own Seals and Characters, were Necessary at the first preaching of the Gospel to induce all to believe Christ's Doctrine, or to distinguish his Truths from the Errors of jews and Pagans, The like Necessity is for their Continuance in after Ages, not only in respect of Infidels, but erring Christians also. For, no sooner had Christ founded his Church, But the Devil raised up his Chapel by it, Pestiferous Heretics from Simon Magus, have Why Miracles are now Necessary? been in every Age his chaplains. All of them Pretended to Truth, with an Ecce hic est Christus, Lo we preach Christ. In this Confusion of Sects, it was absolutely needful, to Mark out that happy Christian Society which taught saving Faith and Shown where God was adored in Spirit and Truth. Now no Mark can be more Palpable or more attractive, than the Glory of indubitable Miracles, Christ's own Cognisances, and the Clearest Evidences of Apostolical Doctrine. 10. 2. Miracles are necessary in the Church to stir up Christian Faith, and Devotion with it, which would soon grow cold, Two other Reasons alleged. were it not that Divine Providence frequently quickens both, by these exterior Signs and wonders. Wherefore, as His Goodness works inwardly and plies our hearts with Grace, so outwardly also (to Testify that nothing is wanting) He moves us to Believe by no less visible Inducements than Those were, which first made the world Christian. 11. 3. The Continuation of Miracles Clearly appeared in the first five Centuries after Christ, And as Authority makes them indubitable, So reason also proves them necessary upon this very Account, that the Conversion of Infidels strangers to Christ, was not wrought on à sudden, or all at once, But successively Age after Age, If then Miracles were necessary to convince our Christian Verities when Christ and his Apostles first preached to unbelieved jews and Gentiles, no man can probably judge them useless in after Ages, when the like Barbarous, the like Ignorant and vnciuilized Nations who never heard of Christ or Scripture became Christians, Induced, to so happy à change, not because they heard truths Taught, But because they saw all confirmed by Evident Signs and Wonders. 12. Reflect I beseech you à little. Were not the Natives of those vast and remote Regions we call the Indies (whether Orient or Occident) à People as ignorant of our Christian verities and as much averted from Christ's Doctrine, when S. Francis Xaverius, and other laborious Missioners first preached There, as any Nations One Reason further illustrated were to whom the Apostles preached Christ? Yes most certainly. In both cases the disdain and ignorance may well be paralled. Imagine now that S. Xaverius had only opened his Bible; And told the ruder People of the high Mysteries of Christian Faith, would this think ye, though never so speciously laid forth, have gained credit? No. But when their eyes beheld Miracles, and glorious Miracles accompanying His laborious Preaching; The By an Instance of Missioners sent to preach deaf, dumb, blind, and sick instantly cured. When they saw the Sanctity, the Austerity and Innocency of His virtuous Life. When they heard him endued with the Gists of tongues. When they knew that after à noble contempt of the world, The blessed man sought nothing but God, And fearing neither death nor dangers Courageously traveled from one end of the world to the other etc. Then it was they began to look about them, to open their eyes more, to Renounce Idolatry and submit to God's truths, most manifestly evidenced by glorious Miracles. Then it was that the Saint (God's grace concurring) converted Thousands and Thousands, All which is upon certain Record, and witnessed by those who have written the wonders. However grant that S. Xaverius wrought but one or two Miracles (when many more cannot without impudence be denied him) our Assertion subsists, that Miracles are necessary, for the reclaiming of Infidels, And if he did none at all, This as S Austin anciently observed upon à like occasion, is the greatest Wonder of all, That he converted innumerable Heathens to our Christian Faith, without Miracles. CHAP. VIII. Miracles evident in the Roman Catholic Church, No less induce All now to believe Her Doctrine, Than Apostolical Miracles Anciently Persuaded to believe that Primitive Doctrine. The Denial of Miracles Impossibili●at's The Conversion of jews and Infidels. 1. I I say first. Clear and Unquestionable Miracles, of the like Quality with those which Christ and his Apostles wrought, have been ever since, most gloriously manifest in the Roman Catholic Church, And in no other Society of Christians, I hope none for Proof of my Assertion can expect that I writ Volumes, or bring to light again in this short Treatise so much as the hundred Part of those prodigious wonders which are upon Record in the lives of Saints, in the death of Martyrs, and Ecclesiastical History. Baronius large Tomes give you innumerable in every Century, And Bellar: Lib 4. de not is Eccle: C. 14. Hints at à few from the first Age to the 15. I must wave this longer work, and briefly Argue thus. 2. Christ Spoke Truth in the Text now cited. john 14. 12. Prophesying of future glorious Miracles to be wrought by those who believed Indubitable Miracles evince Christ's Prophecy fulfilled. in him. But the indubitable Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholic Church only, through every age prove that Prophecy exactly fulfilled, or effectually Evidence the Verity of it; Therefore none can doubt of Miracles done in the Roman Catholic Church, if Christ's Prediction be true, and this Proposition be also proved. viz. That, This Church only, hath effectually manifested the truth of that Prophecy, or shown such Wonders as have proportion with Christ's own glorious works, and the Apostles. 3. Now to clear the Truth, Here is my Principle. When I read à Prophecy in Scripture, I submit to it by Faith, but when I See it actually Accomplished or made manifest by real visible Effects And both Sense and undoubted History discover so much evidently, Reason, grounded on Sense and History, Can not but prudently assent to the Verity. What I would say is clear in all the Ancient Prophecies of Christ, and his Church. Take this one instance. The Prophets, Daniel chief and Esay, Foretold of the large Extent of Christ's glorious Kingdom here on earth, of The Principle whereon, our Assertion is grounded. whole Nations flocking to his Church, of Her teaching those Truths which were believed from the Beginning; But when all saw with their eyes innumerable Heathens gained to our Christian Faith, and heard of other Conversions conveyed to them upon certain Relation (for few or none of us saw the latter Conversions wrought in China, japan, and the like remote places) when I say Authority never Questioned gives us certainty hereof, Then all bless God, And conclude. That what the Prophets foretold of great Conversions, hath been visibly fulfilled; And that Christ's Church is daily more and more enlarged, Answerable to those Predictions. 4. Hence I discourse further, and Assert, that the glorious Miracles which stand upon indubitable Record, and have been done in the Roman Church only, most notoriously Evidence without Dispute the actual Accomplisment of our Saviour's own words. The works which I do, he shall do also and greater than these shall he do. If you Ask how I prove the Assertion? I appeal to Sense and certain History. Sense first saw these Miracles done, and certain History which Supplies the want of Sense, conveys them to us, though innumerable are living at this Hour, who have been eye Witnesses of Miracles. Now here we might enter upon à long work and Recount what the Fathers and Historians both ancient and latter, have of this Subject. Read if you please these few. 5. Irenaeus Bishop and Martyr who lived about the year 180. lib: 2. Cap. 57 And says. The number of these Divine works which God hath manifested in his Church the whole Fathers, produced witnesses of Miracles. world over, are numberless. A little before, He mentions these particulars. Some cast out Devils, other Prophecy, others lay their hands on the sick and cure them; yea and raise up the dead, who lined with us for many years. Tertullian of the second Age Lib. ad Scapul: And Euseb. lib. 5. give you à large Catalogue of most glorious Miracles. The like doth S. Bafil. Lib. de Spir: S. Speaking of that worthy Bishop of Neocaesarea. S. Gregory, deservedly called Tha●maturgus, for the wonders he wrought. S. Athanasius and S. Hierom relate the Miracles of S. Hilarion, S. Martin. And the sames Jerome. Lib. adversus Vigelantium c. 4. Saith that the Signs and wonders manifested in the Temples of Martyrs prove mightily beneficial, both to Believers and the Incredulous. Respond (they S. Hieromes words. are his words) Quomodo in Vilissimo pulucre etc. Answer, Vigilantius, how it is that we see such Signs and virtue present in à little unualuable dust, and dead men's ashes? S. Ambrose, an Eye-witness of Miracles wrought by the Relics of S. Geruasius and S. Ambrose an lie witness. Protafius Ep●st. 85. for proof of them, Appeal's to sense and the judgement of others. You have known, saith He, Nay you have seen, many dispossesed of Devils, many when they touched the garments of Saints, freed from their Infirmities etc. S. Austin Lib. 22. de civet: C. 8. & 9 Is large in relating the Miracles wrought by the glorious S. Augustine's Evidence. Martyr S. Stephen; And Lib. Contra. Epist. Fundam. C. 4 5. Saith, That the true Church of Christ is proved and demonstrated by Miracles. Our Venerable Bede à great Scholar, à worthy virtuous man, And highly esteemed the whole Christian world over, certainly deserves credit, when. Lib. 4. Histor. He recount's the Miracles of the glorious S. Cuthbert Bishop of Lindesfern and of others within our England. Are any such seen now à days wrought by Protestant Bishops? No God knows, Their new Faith is à great stranger to all old Miracles. 6. Fall if you please lower and read S. Bernard in the life of S. Malachy à worthy Bishop of Ireland, what wonders have we there? The ancient Miracles of the Church, Saith S. Bernard, were apparently, manifest in S. Malachy. He had the gift of Prophecy, S. Bernard in the Life of S. Malachy. Cured the Sick, changed the minds of men to the better, and raised up the dead. Now if you will hear of S. Bernard's own Miracles, Read Godfridus who lived with him. Lib. 4. C. 4. and wrote His life, you have innumerable. 'tis hard, saith Bellarmin, to Recount all, And as numberless are the known Miracles of those two admirable, Saints Blessed S. Dominick and the Seraphical S. Francis, Founders of two most glorious Religious Orders. S. Francis, To omit his other certain wonders, was Himself à Miracle of Austerity and Penance. The like was S. Dominick, who as we read in his life raised three dead men to life. And for three you have more revived by an other of His holy Order, I mean that admirable Saint Vincentius Ferrerius. So the pious and learned S. Antoninus Archbishop of Florence Recounts in his Histpry. 3. Part lib. 23. And who dares say that so great à Doctor And most modest Prelate, was so Frontless as to write that we read, not long after the death of S. Vincentius, without Assurance and Certainty. The whole world would have decried the Folly, Had it been à Fourb, an Imposture; or à fabulous Story. 7. By what is now said of These and other infinite Operations of grace which I am forced to omit, you may infer first. That the Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholic Church are not inferior to those done by the Apostles, And consequently if our Our Saviour's Prophecy falfilled in the Church's Miracles. Saviour's Prophecy was seen manifestly fulfilled in those first Apostolical Wonders, it hath been also as effectually accomplished in these latter of the Church. I say, in the Roman Catholic Church, For all those now named, whom God privileged with the Grace of working Miracles, were of the same union in Faith with this Church, and no other. It follows. 2. That Humane Faith, when no just Exception comes against it, But the foolhardy Spirit of unbelieved Heathens and Heretics, gives Mortal Assurance of Miracles. The Miracles of our Saviour evidence this Truth. He raised Lazarus from death. john 11. A Touch of his garment cured the infirm woman. Matt. 9 He restored sight to à blind man. john. 9 Observe I beseech you. All jewry beheld not these Wonders, But some only, Yet they were wrought for the good of All, and without doubt proved convincing Arguments of Christ's great power to innumerable, who actually saw them not, But only heard of them, and Assented to what they heard, upon Miracles made Credible upon humane Authority. humane Authority prudently credible. Therefore our Saviour Supposed That humane Faith (and this before the writing of Scripture) was à Sufficient Means to convey to others à Moral certainty of his Miracles. I say yet more. If God ever efficaciously intended to worck à true Miracle since the Creation of the world by any of his creatures, Humane Faith was, and yet is the First and most Connatural way of Conveying it to the knowledge of others. Who therefore excepts against this usual course of Providence destroys à Principle of Nature, and can believe nothing of Supernatural Effects, but what he either sees with his own eyes, or finds registered in Holy Writ. 8. Ask now. How many Augustine's, How many Chrysostoms', how many Cyrils, how many Bedes and Bernard's, have upon their Credit, and Reputation assured us of Miracles wrought in the Roman Church only, like to those in the Primitive Age? They are numberless. Did Christ our Lord restore life to the dead, sight to the blind, health to the sick? The Professors of our Catholic Church, by his virtue, have done the very same, and the Miracles are more numerous. But now, and here is the chief demand. Were our Saviour's glorious Works made Credible to Authority alleged. thousands no Eye-witnesses upon Humane faith and Authority, before Scripture registered them? So it is. Behold we have our Augustine's, our justins, our Basils, our Bernard's unexceptionably plain for the Church's Miracles, and none can without Impudence, and the violation of all humane Credit, probably Cavil at what these have written. None can without making very Saints Impostors and guilty of that enormous sin of grossly deceiving Posterity, pair away so much as any substantial parcel of what is Recorded. Therefore unless all humane Faith perish, its desperate rashness to deny most glorious Miracles to have been in the Roman Catholic Church, which was my Assertion. 9 And to confirm it more. I Ask why do Sectaries to disgrace our Miracles, introduce, I know not what Stories of the Heathens wonders? Are these credible or no? If not; reject them boldly as Impertinences; If Credible, it seems humane Faith is of some weight with Sectaries when they read of the Heathens fopperies, though of no Account for true Miracles wrought by the Church of Christ. Again, this Faith is much worth with these men, when to lay à foul Aspersion on à Pope Sectaries in Consequences. or Prelate, they fill their Books with à hundred petty Stories, whether true or false imports little. Herein their easy Belief swallows all, But if à Father or Choice Historian mention à Miracle, its à Fourb, à dream, à fiction, and what not. 10. One word more and I end. A mere pretended Humane Authority, which really is not, And therefore nothing worth, is shamefully made use of to patronise that crying Sin of Sectaries Schism. Our Church, Say they, Changed Her ancient Faith, the Charge at most relies on History or Humane Faith, God never told them so. For example. The Lateran Council first brought in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, some Pope or other first invented Purgatory etc. Suppose all this were as true, as 'tis hideously false, History or nothing must make it good, and yet in our present case it is no warrant for known Miracles. Thus Faith riseth and falls in value as our New men's fancy pleases. Believe it, had blessed S. Ambrose (cited above), in lieu of that Miraculous Cure wrought on à blind man at Milan, when Himself was present (and innumerable of that City saw the wonder) related à stroy prejudicial to either Pope or Clergy, How often think you would that have been told and reiterated in the Writings os Sectaries? But now when He speaks of à supernatural Work of grace, done at the Relics of the holy Martyrs Geruasius Humane Faith now Valuable now not with Sectaries. and Protasius, not à word is said. No, all passes in Silence, as if Christ's own Marks and the Church's glory (undoubted Miracles) deserved no Memory, but Contrariwise Scorn and contempt. 11. I said in the Assertion, that the grace of true Miracles, (meaning such as exactly Answer to our Saviour's glorious works) is proper and peculiar to the Roman Church only. The proof hereof is easy. First, Sectaries pretend not to work Miracles, For they say, that power ceased long since, though I might here mind them of Caluins' great wonder, and really it was à strange one, For whereas God's Saints restored life to the dead, this great Sinner, having persuaded one Bruleus of Ostun to fain himself dead, deprived the poor wretch of his life Or, rather God Caluins' Miracle. to lay open the fraud and Hypocrisy of both the one and other, turned the Fiction into à Verity, for really Bruleus who Counterfeited himself dead, to get Calvin the renown of working Miracles, was after all the Ministers long prayer, found dead indeed. The story is known and writ not only by Jerome Bolsec in Vita Calvini. C. 13. But by others also. And here I wish Sectaries to give some credit to humane Authority. 12. Now as Protestants disclaim Miracles, so do the jews also, for they never had any after our Saviour's Coming. 'tis Sectaries jews and Turks disclaim Miracles. true, that Pond upon Probatica. joan. 5. Or as many will have it, the Pond itself, so called because the Sheep ordained to Sacrifice were washed there, continued Miraculous, whilst Christ our Lord preached, But soon after ceased, And so do all other wonders amongst that abandoned People. The Turks who say. God gave Mahomet the sword and Christ the Power of working Miracles, pretend to no such supernatural effects at all. No more in justice can Heathens or the Donatists lay Claim to any, whose wonders were but trifles, compared with the Glorious works of Christ and His Church. None of them all converted whole Nations to Christian Religion, none of them raised up the dead. None of them after death wrought any Miracles. See Tertullian writing of the Heathens. In Apolog: C. 22. 23. And S. Austin against the Donatists. Homil. 13. in joan. De Vtilit. Credent. C. 16. As also Lib. 10. de Civit. C. 16. 13. I say. 2. If the Miracles of Christ and the Apostles rationally proved against jews and Gentiles, the Credibility of Apostolical The ancient and modern Miracles compared together. Doctrine, The very like Signs and supernatural effects most evident in the Roman Catholic Church, as rationally prove against Sectaries the Credibility of our now professed Catholic Doctrine. I would say. Church Miracles constantly wrought in all Ages since Christianity began, are no less efficacious to draw Sectaries to the Belief of our Church Doctrine, than those the Apostles wrought were to induce Iewes and Gentiles to the belief of Apostolical Doctrine. Here is one Proof. The same Signs and Marks of Truth when equal in Majesty, Worth, Quality, and Number ever discover to Reason the same Truth, For, God can no more deceive by such works of Grace than by his own Divine word. Interrogemus ipsa Miracula saith S. Austin. Tract: 24. in joan: Quid nobis loquantur de Christo. Let us ask of Miracles what they say of Christ? Habent enim si intelliga●tur, linguam suam. They want no tongue to speak with, their Language is plain for Christ. Just so Say I and prove it, Church Miracles Speak as planly for the Church. Wherefore if the Roman Catholic Church most clearly gives in evidence of Her Miracles equal in worth, quality, and number with those wrought by Christ and his Apostles, it follows, that as those first Apostolical wonders were sufficient to convince Iewes and Gentiles of the Truth of Christianity, So these latter also wrought in the Church are of like force, and no less efficacious to convince Sectaries of what ever Doctrine She teaches. Now ponder What the Apostles did, the Church doth. well what the Apostles did. They cured the sick, dispossed Devils, raised the Dead, converted Nations, etc. But these very Miracles have been done in the Roman Catholic Church, yea and greater too, Ergo we have the like Evidence of Truth in both the primitive Age and this, Consequently with it the same Truth. The Evidence hath been partly laid forth already, and shall be further proved presently. The Sequel is undeniable. 14. I say. 3. No otherwise, nor upon any better ground can the Sectary Oppose the Miracles of our Church, than jews and Gentiles have opposed and yet do oppose those of Christ and his Apostles. Observe well. Will the Sectary Say our Miracles are wrought by the Devil's power? So the jews Calumniated Christ own Glorious works. Will he Say, they are only feigned by poor deluded or bold-lying Catholics? So the jews speak of Christ's own Miracles to this day. Will he Say that some Miracles avouched true, have been afterward evidently The like opposition made against Christ's Miracles and the Churches. Sergeant, and why may not those the Church glories in, be ranked with such? Contra. And why may not Christ's own wonders be also listed with them? The Argument, if of any force equally concludes against both; For if the Forgery of some prove all forged, Christ's own Miracles no more escape the Censure; than if one should say, ('tis S. Augustine's instance) all women are naught, because some have been so. Let then the Sectary show upon good Principles That Church Miracles have been forged, and he speaks to the purpose. In the interim, he may well think, his bold incredulous Humour makes none forged. 15. One may reply. There is à vast disparity between our Saviour's Miracles registered in Scripture, and those we plead for, only attested upon humane Faith. I Answer in order to Christians there is à Disparity in the Testimony, But that falls from the purpose now. First because Christ's Miracles were known and admitted upon humane Authority, before Scripture was written. 2. And chief, because both jews and Gentiles as much slight our Scripture testifying those wonders, as the Miracles themselves, And make little account of either. 16. But when they read these things in Scripture, and moreover both jews and Heretics convinced. hear what Miracles God hath Constantly wrought in every age (yea almost every year) in his Church, and yet continues that favour to our present days; When they hear and read of the Miracles which that one sacred house of Loreto Evidences, the public Monuments and Testimonies whereof are undeniably Authentic, and able to convince the most obdurate Gentile. When they read or hear of the continual Miracles done at the Relics of S. james at Compostella in Spain the infinite number of Pelgrims resorting thither from all parts of Christendom (besides Records) bear witness of those great Benefits. When they read or hear of that perpetual Miracle seen in France, exhibited to all men's eyes in the Sacred Vial of S. Mary Magdalen, wherein the precious Blood gathered by that penitent Saint at our Saviour's Passion is yet perserued, and Visibly boyl's up on the very day he suffered after the reading of the Passion. A whole Nation testifies this, thousands and thousands have seen it, and Spondanus. ad An: 1147. Saith, he beheld the viol in the Church of S. Maximin. 17. When again, they hear or read of the undoubted Miraculous Cures wrought upon the blind, the lame, and all sort of diseased Persons by the Intercession of our Blessed Lady at Montaigu, By what particular Miracles, they are Convinced. (English usually call the place Sichem) The evidence whereof is so undeniable without dispute, that justus Lipsius in su● Aspricolli to the Reader, most justly saith. They are not men (but rather beasts) or purposely shut their eyes, that See not those Miracles as clear as the Sun; For, Saith He, many of them have been manifest to our eyes and senses. And Erycius Puteanus speaks as fully the sense of his Predecessor. See his preface ad Aspricol. H●c ista etc. These very Miracles which the Mother of God began to work at Montaigu this very Age we live in, are so manifest, so many and most stupendious, that if any doubt of them, Poterit & de universâ Numinis potentiâ dubitare, He may as well doubt of all the power God hath, They are plain truths, rigorously and most severely examined, testified by Eye-witnesses, and now upon Two certain Miracles related. Record etc. I am forced to omit innumerable latter Miracles, (The work would be Immense to recount but half) yet one most certain, and no less famous than certain, you have here set down. Another truly wonderful, follows in the next Chapter. Sense, Experience Reason and all humane Faith go to wrack, if either be boggled at. Those judgements are perverse, Those hearts harder than stones, that dare deny them Credit. The Admirable cure wrought by Blessed. S. Xaverius in the Famous City of Naples upon à worthy Religious Person called F. Marcellus Mastrilli, à Noble man by birth, and by Profession of the Society of jesus. The Proof hinted at above, reassumed. 18. In the year 1634. The Vice▪ Roy of Naples Count Monterey, pleased to keep à Magnificent Solemnity at his own Palace in Honour of the ever Blessed Mother of God. Amongst orher Altars richly adorned to set forth the Festival day, The care of one Altar was committed to F. Mastrilli, who standing on the lower steps of à ladder, and casually looking up at one that took of Tapestry nailed to à higher part of the wall, met Marcellus wounded. with à sad Accident. Behold à Hammer of two pound weight fell directly▪ upon the Temples of his head, struck him down, left him senseless, and grievously wounded. In this Peril, First taken up by the hands of others, He was presently carried in à Couch to his own College. Doctors of Physic and Surgeons without delay called for, searched the wound and found it Mortal. Forth with, à burning fever following upon the hurt, so increased the danger in that noxius air (à great enemy to wounds) and unseasonable winter time, That all left hopeless, despaired of Marcellus His wound judged Desperate and why. Recovery. Besides his mouth by the Contusion of Nerves was so closed up, that the poor Patient could take no sustenance. To help That, The Doctors (necessitated to use violence) forced it open, and thrust an Instrument down towards his stomach, hoping thereby to clear the passage and fit it to receive some nourishment. But with little good success, For the Cruel Remedy became an unspeakable torment to the afflicted Patient. Soon after followed strong Convulsion fits (plain Symtoms of death) and besides à Dead Palsy, which wholly took away the use of his left arm. 19 Whoever desires to see more of this desperate danger, And how near Marcellus was at death's door, may please to read Daniel Bartoli in his second Part of Asia. lib. 5. at this Tittle L'Imperio dc▪ Toxongum. Page with me 441. and. 442. And also Michaël de Elizalde. Eorma verae Religionis. Qust: 27. N. 478 P. 329. who lived at Naples, and wrote this Miracle not long after it happened. In this condition Marcellus continued many days, despaired of by the very best and most expert Physicians. Wherefore the Conclusion was to implore the mercy of God Death expected. in his behalf, to commend him as the manner is, to the prayers of the Community, and finally to administer Extreme unction, For his obstructed Mouth and breast full of Clottered blood, hindered the taking the Holy Eucharist, or last Viaticum. The Doctors The Doctors gave Marcellus over. prudently adviced to prepare him for death, For they found him now past all hope of Recovery, Nay, all of them with one Consent absolutely Concluded, Marcellus could not live till the next morning. 20. Now here gins the Miracle. The 3 .d of january four hours within night, The Fathers that watched with dying Mastrilli, The Miracle gins. observed He did not only move and turn Himself to the wall, but heard him speak also; which seemed to them à wonder, For before He lay speechless not able to utter à word, much less to move his weak body. But what follows clears all, The motion came from à stronger hand, And thus it was. 21. S. Xaverius appeared in à pilgrim's weed very Glorious With S. Xaue●ius Apparition. to Marcellus, And with à Smiling Countenance demanded, whether He would rather die at present, Or according to his former desire be sent Missioner▪ into the Indies? In passing please to know, the virtuous man ever languished after that Mission, Though hindered from it by Superiors, because of his tender and weak Constitution. 22. Marcellus Answered I am ready to do whatever God pleases; Yet according to my former purpose, may that be grateful to the Divine will, and granted by Superiors, I am in heart prepared to die à Martyr for Christ amongst those Indians. Xaverius hereupon pronounced the form of à vow which the sick man (as the words were spoken by the Saint) repeated after Him. By this vow He obliged himself to renounce Country, Friends, and whatever is in the world to be sent to the Indian Mission. You have the Form of the vow in Bartoli now cited. Page 444. In the Marcellus his vow. Relics Applied to the wound. next place à Relic of the Holy Cross and some others also which Marcellus had about his neck, were applied by the help of S. Xaverius to the wound in his head. Still the Fathers present heard Marcellus speak for à long time together, some thought them words of à distracted brain, others judged Otherwise. After these and many other Circumstances related by the Authors already quoted, Xaverius Spoke to this Sense. Marcellus be of S. Xaverius Comfortable words. good Courage, you are now perfectly cured. Your desire is granted, you shall go to the Indies and there die à Martyr. This said the Saint disappeared. 23. Without delay at all, Marcellus loocked on as à dying man revived; instantly sat up in his bed, called for his clothes, The Miracle moct Evident. Yea, saith Elizalde, Exilit è l●cto leapt out of his bed, And with à strong Cheerful voice said. I am well, I am perfectly Cured, And so it was indeed. For the Mortal wound cause of His Malady quite Closed up, appeared no more, And which is à wonder, the hair of his head cut of by the Surgeons to facilitate the cure, was restored as formerly. So Elizalde testifies. n. 480. Restituti Capilli ad Vulneris Curationem ●rasi. His Paleness and weakness, went away, Colour, strength and agility returned in that very Instant. What need I say More? Marcellus à Moment before at Death's door, becomes sound, healthful, and perfectly well. 24. Those who attended Him called together the Fathers of the house many in number, to be Eye-witnesses of the wonder. All came with joyful hearts, and First prostrate on the ground with much devotion gave immortal thanks to God for the cure, then Embraced Marcellus who took à little sustenance, which he had wanted for à long time. That done, the Superior commanded him forthwith to write down exactly every particular he had heard or seen that night, and to subscribe all with His own hand. He did so. The next morning, when whole Multitudes came to pray for Marcellus soul (the Humble man was indeed Made known to the Community and noyseed abroad. much beloved and honoured all Naples over) They found him perfectly recovered, saying Mass at. S. Xaverius Altar. Presently the Miracle manifest to all Eyes was soon diuulged through the whole City and held so indubitable, that some thought it needless to give His Eminence the Lord Archbishop Information of it. However that was done and most exactly. The Doctors, the Surgeons, the Fathers, and other Eye-witnesses also Examined upon Oath. of the wonder were assembled before His Eminence, and All upon Oath solemnenly taken, avouched boldly without doubt without hesitancy the naked Verity, and undeniable Truth of the Miracle. Now if any would be further informed of the great Severity usually held in the Sacred Congregation of Rites at Rome, when Miracles are brought to the Test before that high Tribunal, Though the whole world knows the rigour, you may by the occasion given of this one wonder, read Elizalde. N. 485. This Short Relation permit's me not to insist upon So many large particulars. In lieu thereof, be pleased to hear what F. Elizalde (one learned and à great Divine) speaks of his own knowledge. n. 481. Much to the sense, as follows. 25. I was saith He in Spain when this great Miracle was wrought by S. Xaverius, And although I am of an Humour incredulous enough A learned man's Testimony Concerning this Miracle, whilst he lived at Naples. not easily drawn to believe such wonders, yet upon the several Testimonies which came in great number from every part of the world, I found myself even then convinced of the Truth. Now I have lived at Naples well nigh three years, and Conversed with many, who were in the College at the time of this wonderful cure, And with one particularly (à man upright and just) that was in the Chamber when Xaverius appeared to Marcellus. I have attentively considered what every one said, and after à diligent inquiry made, perceive (as it ever falls out in à point of Truth) no difference amongst them, but Contrariwise, find all, unius labij▪ Speak the same, agreeing in one Relation. But let us omit our own witnesses. Italy, Spain and the other parts of the Christian world never questioned the Miracle, but held it certain, and most prudently did so, For scarce any thing can be more Authentic remaining within the Limits of humane Faith. Upon this certainty it was, that His Catholic Majesty familiarly treated with Marcellus à long time together, desiring his prayers, and bountiffully offered all Assistance in order to his further voyage, so likewise did the Dukes and Princes of that Court. Nay, all sort of People came flocking to the pious Passenger, as if He had been one sent from Heaven, or raised from the dead. Happy were they that could speak with him, touch his garments, or receive any little small trifle from His hands. Thus all reverenced the Holy man. So great Renown the Miracle had gained every where. Much to this sense Elizalde writes. Let us now go on. 26. Soon after the Miraculous cure, Marcellus began his long journey towards the Indies, and in the year 1638. arrived at Nangasaque in japan, where taken prisoner, He first endured that Marcellus his martyrdom. strange, and Miraculous. usual and cruel Torment of water (known to every one) but came out sound, not hurt at all. The standers by astonished at the Spectacle, presently commanded the Executioner to strike of his head. The Barbarous man attempted to do it, but on à sudden made strengthless, wholly benumbed, was not able to move his hand. Where upon Marcellus said, delay no longer, but in God's name do thy duty. The fatal blow at those very words was given, And The Virtuous Marcellus became à Martyr and died for Christ, according to the Prophecy of S. Xaverius. 27. Now here I Ask what just exceptions can Sectaries make against this Miracle, attested upon Oath, rigedly examined, and universally believed? Will they say Marcellus was indeed wounded No just exceptions against the Miracle. (for that many Seculars saw), yet the wound was but slight, not mortal and perhaps no more but à rasing of the skin? Say so. The Doctors and Surgeons had been worse than beasts, to torture the poor Patient as they did by forcing down into His Stomach the Instrument already mentioned. Besides burning cavil answered. fevers, Convulsion Fits, Palsies (of themselves mortal) usually ensue not upon slighter hurts. Will they say The Aparition of the Saint to Marcellus was either an Illusion, à dream at most, or à distemper of à dying man's fancy? That indeed might have some colour, had we not Evidence against it. For what can be Answered to the strange effect, the Miraculous cure, I mean, which so suddenly followed in one short Moment of time? This (clear Self-evidence) speaks truth, and proves that God had à hand in the cure. None can Cavil at it, none can contradict it. Perhaps some will say. All was à fourb, à cheat, and Fiction, The Fathers, Doctors, and Surgeons by compact feigned one Mortally sick that was not, to gain jesuits the renown and Glory of à Miracle. 28. What's this? who are here accused and condemned? Give ear à little Gentle Reader. A flat Calumny will have us to believe That All those venerable Fathers, those expert Doctors, Those experienced Surgeons, with others also who beheld the Miracle, All I say, Though they called God to witness by Solemn Oath taken upon the sacred Gospel, That the cure was real and Miraculous were notwithstanding worse The just falsely accused. than very Villains, forsworn, base, abject, and perjured Persons. And this we must Assent to, upon no other proof, but because Malice likes well to Calumniate ever itching to decry God's own Glorious wonders. Besides, we must believe those high Tribunals where the Miracle was most rigidly examined, and after examination unanimously approved, to have been so notoriously unjust, so impiously partial, and wickedly misled, as to oblige Posterity to own upon humane Faith, à Lie, an Imposture, In à word, that to be Gods Glorious work (à true Miracle) which really was not. Is it not impudence think ye Tribunals Condemned. to harbour such desperate Thoughts? The Devil himself (though Father of lies) would be ashamed to calumniate so boldly, without some Colour or appearance of proof; Yet here we have not any. 29. Now I'll prove the Sectaries Assertion to be à flat Calumny, and withal further evince the truth of the Miracle. S. Xaverius, as we have heard, ascertained Marcellus of his cure, and likewise Prophesied, that He should go to the Indies and there die à Martyr for Christ. I know Malice may Cavil here, And deny all. But Mark what follows. Upon the Assurance of this Prediction Marcellus Himself, the Reverend Fathers also and others relied, when they so Confidently gave out, That he should lose his life at japan, and die à Martyr. Reflect I The Calumny rejected. The Miracle proved true. beseech you. Had it not been in the highest measure imprudent, nay more than à foolish Presumption of those Fathers to have filled all men's ears with that Prophetical Speech, upon mere future uncertainties? The performance whereof, (all know well) was liable to à thousand Disasters and Casualties, in that immense voyage from Europe to the furthest parts of the world. Speak impartially. How easily Might Marcellus (none of the strongest Constitutions) have died in the way? What if Pirates had seized on the Ship, and cast him over board? What if the Vessel had perished by Tempest with the virtuous Man, and other Passengers? How much scorned would the Fathers have been, who certainly were never so strangely besotted as to expose themselves and the reputation of their Order to à public contempt upon mere Contingencies and weak Conjectures. Hence I infer, They had by virtue of S. Xaverius Prophecy à high Moral Assurance of the event, The Prophecy spoken some years before Marcellus his Martyrdom, was true, And the real Effect of his death proved it true, neither Devil nor Mortal man could certainly foretell Things so remote, and yet God wrought the Miracle. to come. God therefore was the Author of that Prediction, And Consequently His Divine power by the means of the Saint, wrought the Miracle. 30. It's high time now to reassume what I began with, and said above. When jews and Gentiles read our scriptures which with them may well deserve as much credit as Humane faith gives to Caesar's Commentaries or any other History; When they find in that Sacred book how strangely Christianity was first established, and introduced by the virtue of our Saviour's glorious Wonders. When they fall lower and see (though still upon Humane Faith) an evident Continuance of the very like Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholic Church through every Age. The Conviction is by good law so strong, the The Proofs hinted at above, urged Proofs for undeniable Miracles so manifest to the dullest Gentile, that He may as well deny (as Lipsius Saith) the Sun to shine as doubt of those most glorious visible wonders unquestionable, in this one Society of Christians. And this holds true, Although no more but Humane faith resting on most Certain Authority informs us of these Miracles, For such à Faith, as great Divines Observe, often comes to so clear à degree of The weight of humane Faith. Certitude, that you may well call it an undubitable kind of Evident. How certainly do we hold (it is S. Augustine's Instance. lib. 6. Confess. C. 3.) that we are born of such and such Parents? How certainly do we believe and upon humane Authority, Saith Snares, Tom. 1. de Incarn: Disp. 31. Sect. 2. That Titus and Vespasianus destroyed Jerusalem? And can any Cordial man Question, if He lay prejudice aside, but that true and most glorious Miracles have been as certainly wrought in the Church, as that those two Emperors destroyed Jerusalem, or that such are our Parents? I appeal to every one's Conscience for Answer. 31. By all now said we see first, that what ever can be proposed against our Church's Miracles, hath like force against Christ's own glorious works. And I challenge Protestants to hint but at one Argument which doth not equally strike at Sectaries justly reprehensible, And why. both. We see. 2. How Hideous à Sin Sectaries commit, who Scornfully slight all those known and most evident Miracles wrought among Christians, since the Apostles times: By this their unworthy Procedure, they rob Christ's Spouse of Her greatest Glory, falsify His own sacred words, Prophesying of greater wonders than he did, And finally make the Conversion of jews and Heathens to Christianity impossible. For, give me à naked Church without Signs, without Marks, without Motives inducing to truth (and the most convincing Sign of all, is the Glory of Miracles) Nothing remains proposable to à poor Infidel that's meet to convince his Reason, But the bare letter of Scripture, or the essential Doctrine of the Church, which solely considered more affrights weak Reason, (naturally averse from high Mysteries) than brings it to any Submission or Acquiescency. I say therefore the sin of Sectaries is grievous, Whilst Miracles are slighted, by doing so, they slight the Church, yea Christ himself, and hasten apace to Atheism. CHAP. IX. A word to à few Objections, as also to Mr stillingfleets unworthy Exceptions against that evident Miracle wrought at Zaragosa in Spain. 1. THe objections are as few as fallacious, and cannot be otherwise, when, as 'tis said, All of them prove as much (that's just nothing) against our Saviour's own Miracles as against those of the Roman Catholic Church. To see this truth manifested and difficulties vanish into nothing, be pleased to afford à little Attention. 2. The Sectary may Object first. None of us all know One objection. what strange effects nature can produce in certain circumstances, nor what Power the Devil has to work Miracles, when therefore Scripture forwarn's us. 2. Thess. 2. Of Antichrists great Prodigies, as also of False-christs' and false-Prophets appearing with Signs and wonders. Matt. 24. We may justly suspect, if nature alone cannot do such works, that the Devil had à hand in most of our Church Miracles. Contra. 1. And You see Found weak and frivolous. first, the Argument Equally oppugn's Christ's own Miracles, licenceth both jews and Gentiles to slight him as à false-Prophet, and his glorious wonders also. Contra. 2. Not one of these False-Prophets once raised▪ the dead to life, nor after their own death did any thing like à Miracle, as the departed Saints of God's Church have done most frequently by à touch of their Relics only, which Truth of (mighty weight) deserves Reflection, and refutes what ever Donatist, or Conjurer can say in behalf of counterfeit Miracles. Contra. 3. And observe well the Objection. None knows what nature or the Devil can do etc. What then I beseech you? May one infer from our not knowing the Devil's power that this evil Spirit hath actually wrought all the Miracles recorded in Scripture, and Ecclesiastical History? To Assert this we must not only know how far his power reaches, but more have Assurance also Of his actually doing such Wonders. And thus much (manifestly improbable) neither is nor can be ascertained upon the weakest Principle within the compass of nature or grace. We usually say, the Devil appears with à Cloven foot, That is, you may easily discern his Villainy, And we know he never casts out evil Spirits like Himself from possessed Persons, which yet hath been done and frequently in God's Church Miracles above the power of Devils. Church. He can, it is true, if we believe History take up the Divided Parts of à dead man and act with them for à while, But there is no such Motion, no such Operations in the dead assumed Corpse, as have been seen in many Miraculously restored to life. Be it how you will, We are sure God can do, yea and hath done great Miracles, when therefore all imaginable Circumstances forceably induce us to believe that they are his own glorious works, it is I hope more wisdom to Ascribe them to an Omnipotent Power, than to Father them upon Devils. 3. Some who plainly see, it's à degree of madness to doubt of so much humane faith as Testifies of Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholic Church grant many have been done, But than Object. 2. God did them to manifest that Christ is the true Messiah, or to work à Belief in us of so much Doctrine only as is Common to all Christians, but not to confirm our Popish Errors, of Praying to Saints, Purgatory etc. Contra. This Argument also impugns our Saviour's great Miracles, which were not wrought (one may say) to confirm all the Doctrine he taught, but à Part or parcel of it only. Contra. 2. If Miracles Mark out à Doctrine common to all, or confirm so much truth And no more; It seems strange, that Arians, Pelagians and Protestants work not Miracles as frequently as the Church doth, For these men own à Doctrine common to all Christians, yet show none of these wonders. Contra. 3. There is not one Miracles truly alleged for every Doctrine the Church teaches. Doctrine taught by our Church, (and held erroneous by Sectaries) which is not Sealed, Signed, and Attested by evident Miracles. We have innumerable for Christ's Real and substantial Presence in the Eucharist; As many for the Invocation of Saints, as also for the Honour due to holy Relics. Innumerable prove that third place of Purgatory etc. All these (may good Authors deserve Credit) are upon undoubted Record. And what just Exception have Sectaries against so great Authority? I'll tell you. Their own incredulous Humour. Here is all. Whereas, could they speak to the cause, they should give us weight for weight, and Oppose what we Allege (in behalf of Miracles) upon grounded Principles. That is, they Should evince positively that our Authors are mere Cheats, and fain Stories, when we read of Miracles wrought in confirmation of praying to Saints, the Real Presence. And this in all law of Disputation they are obliged to do upon solid Proofs indeed, distinct from their own Incredulity, or à mere Saying, Such Records are false. But do what ye will Sectaries can never be driven to dispute upon Principles. 4. A third Objection. S. Austin. Lib. de Vnit: Ecclesiae. Saith. We therefore say not, we believe because so many wonders are done all the world over in holy places, for what ever we find in this kind. Ideo sunt approbanda quia in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ fiunt, are to be approved S. Austin alleged against Miracles Speaks nothing for Sectaries. because they are wrought in the Catholic Church. Hitherto, the objection is of no force, For the Saint only Says, No new Miracles ought to gain certain credit, But such only as are wrought in the Church, or such as confirm Her Doctrine, or finally have the Church's Approbation. Now because he disputes against the Donatists, and supposeth the Church known upon other grounds expressed in Scripture, Her Unity Chief and universal extent over the world, before these latter Miracles were heard of. Let us, Saith S. Austin, wave this Plea of Miracles (you Donatists allege yours, and I mine) and Argue by Scripture only, and see what Church Scripture commends antecedently known, before these latter Miracles came to our knowledge. Which is to say, though the after Particular Miracles added to others formerly done, may much strengthen our Faith, yet absolutely How the Saint pleaded against the Donatists. Speaking, Faith depends not of them, Because the Church we believe in is sufficiently manifested by Her Unity, Perpetuity, and Vniversallity expressed in Scripture. Haec sunt causae nostrae documenta, hac firmamenta. Here in sies all we have to Say, Whilst we contest with you Donatists that own Scripture with us, yet Cavil at our Miracles. Who ever read's this one Chapter exactly And draws any other sense from the whole Context than what is now briefly hinted at, will much oblige me may he please to discover it. 5. One yet may Object. S. Austin Saith more, and it seems much against us. Non ideo ipsa manifestatur Catholica quia haec in ea fiunt. The Catholic Church is not upon that Account manifested to you Donatists, because these Miracles are wrought in it. I Answer. 1. The words understood as Sectaries interpret Euert as wholly the Miracles of our Saviour, who said. If you will not believe me, believe my Works. 2. The Sectaries sense impugns also the express Doctrine of S. Austin. de Vtilit. Credendi. C. ●7. Where He Asserts that Heretics are condemned by the Majesty of Miracles. Besides, Their sense is nothing to the purpose, because in this very Passage He speaks of latter Miracles known to S. Ambrose at Milan, And Saith, He will no more insist on These, than permit the Donatists to talk of their False-visions; For the Church is sufficiently manifested without them upon à Surer Principle (the Holy Scripture) which the Donatists admitted, and therefore Why He● waved the proof of Miracles with the Donatists. whilst They pretended to Miracles as well as S. Austin did, He prudently waved that Discourse, and Argued by Scripture only, leaving Miracles to their own worth and weight. I Say to their own weight, which is gathered from this great Doctor's Discourse. 6. Our Lord jesus, saith he, arose from the dead, and manifested Himself to his Disciples and offered his sacred body to be touched by their hands, yet, lest that might be thought à fallacy, he judged it meet to confirm his Resurrection more Principally by the Testimony of the law, the Prophets and Psalms, showing All things were now accomplished ●n him. Whence I infer, as the touching his Sacred body was Proof enough, though not the chiefest of his Resurrection, when Scripture was at hand to make that most manifest; So Miracles also The true Reason, given. wrought in the Church manifest that Oracle but not Principally to the Donatists, who ought to have believed more firmly the Church's Doctrine upon that one potent Proof of the Apostle. 1. Tim: 3. 15. The Pillar and ground of Truth, than for all the latter wonders done in the Church. Yet these have à mighty force and are strong Inducements, so far as Motives can reach, but not the chief and Principal cause of any man's Belief, or Assent. Read then S. Austin's words thus. The Church is not made manifest by her latter Miracles to à Donatist who cavil at such wonders, but Principally by Scripture which he admit's, and will like Protestants be tried by, You have the Saints full Sense and à great Truth with it, whereof there can be no doubt at all, when. Lib. Contra Epist: Fundament●. C. 4. 5. He Demonstrat's the Church by Her Miracles. 7. To end this point between S. Austin and the Donatist, as also between Catholics and Protestants, I say all Controversies are fully tried and happily ended by Scripture only. But how? Not because any can pretend to find every Tenet of Faith clearly set down in so many express Terms of holy Writ, For the Protestant How Scripture decides all Controversies. pretends not to so much in behalf of his Doctrine, But thus the Orthodox discourses with S. Austin. Scripture evidently points at the Church of JESUS Christ known by Her Marks and manifest Signs, by Her Antiquity, Her large Spread over the whole world, by the Succession of Her Pastors and Doctors▪ Miracles, and the like Signal Motives. Thus much once clearly laid forth in the written Word, that Holy Book remit's him to the Church Clearly marked, commends Her, faith S. Austin, and commands him to hear and learn what ever She teaches. 8. Whence it is, that our profound Doctor Disputing the Case, whether the Baptised by Heretics were to be rebaptised, laboured not to decide the Question by any express words in holy Scripture (wholly silent in this particular) But contrariwise teaches, that the Church which is diffused all over (and no Party of Donatists shut up in à corner of Africa) was to give Sentence herein, For She is that great Oracle, which Scripture commends. Read Lib. 2. de Bapt. C. 4. And de Vnit: Eccles. C. 22. Thus briefly you see the true difference between the Protestant and Catholic, The first has not à word of Scripture for his Tenets, much less any Orthodox evidenced Church. The Catholic relies on à Church spread the whole world over, known by The Catholics strong hold. Miracles, Conversions etc. And Scripture commands him firmly to believe what ever She Proposes as Faith. Qui vos audit me audit. Whoever hears the Church hears Christ, And in this Sense Scripture manifesting Gods own Oracle, which cannot but propose truth, end's all Controversies. 9 A 4th Objection. julian the Apostata as S. Gregory Nazian. Orat. 1. in julian: And Theoder: Lib: 3. Histo. C. 3. attest, driven away Devils with the Sign of the Cross, Therefore wicked men can do Miracles. And why may not Almighty God A fourth Objection solued. for Reasons best known to his infinite wisdom do strange wonders, and permit an Arian to Say, All are wrought to Confirm his false Doctrine. Contra. Both Parts of the Objection equally impugn the Primitive Miracles of Christ and the Apostles. To the first I answer. An Heretic may work à Miracle to prove Catholic Doctrine, but never to make his own False Opinion probable. The Reason is. God who is Truth and Goodness itself, can no more deceive by his own work, than by his own Words. Sicut humana consuetudo saith S. Austin. Epist: 49. verbis Divina potentia, etiam factis loquitur. As man speaks by words, so God speaks by his works. But the Works or Wonders now Spoken of because supernatural proceed from God, And as is God can no more deceive by his own Works then by by Words. supposed deceive, Therefore it ill beseem's an Infinite Truth and Goodness to do them. Upon this Ground I say likewise, Divine Providence will never permit his own glorious Works (Seals and Signs of Truth) to be abused by wicked men. But of this particular I intent to speak more largely hereafter. 10. We now Come to Mr. Stillingfleets cavil you have some of them. Part. 1. C. 5. p. 134. And 135. Where he doth not Mr Stillingfleets Cavils answered. so much, impugn Miracles as would have them done by such Persons as he likes well of; Popes for example, that pretend to infallibility. And if (which is easy) we produce many wrought by Holy Popes, His next Querie perhaps may be. Why all all of them are not Miraculous men alike? In à word I like not to search into the depth of God's secret Counsel, And therefore briefly discourse of persons favoured with such Graces, as S. Austin doth of different Places. Tom. 2. Epist. 137 to his Clergy and people at Hippo, where he proposeth this Question. Quare in alijs locus haec miracula fiant & non in alijs: Why are Miracles done in some places and not in others? We have known some wrought at Milan: ●n Africa though full of Saints Bodies, not so? He returns this wise Answer grounded on the Apostles wotds. 1. Cor. 12. Non omnes Sancti etc. All saints have not the Gift of curing diseases, all discern not spirits, ita nec in omnibus memorijs Sanctorum. etc. So God And first why God works Miracles by some, and not by others. who divides his Grace's according to his own best will, doth not these wonders at the Memory of every Saint. And who dare enter into his secret Counsel, or ask why he doth so? Why raised he three dead men by S. Dominick, and not one we know of by S. Austin? Dividit propria unicuique prout vult, He is Lord and distributes his own favours as he pleaseth. And thus we Answer Mr. Stillingfleet who next Saith some thing of Miracles done in Corners. What can the man mean? Are all the wonders wrought at Loreto Compostella, Sichem and other places seen to innumerable, and All upon certain record to be called Corner Miracles? Be pleased to hear worse yet. 11. Page 135. Think not saith Mr. Stillingfleet We are of such easy faith, that the pretended growing out of à leg in Spain, or any of your famous Miracles wrought by your Priests in Italy will persuade us Mr Stillingfleets unjust exceptions against the Miracle wrought at Zaragosa. to believe your Church infallible. Again, after his Talk of Devils doing no feats when Opposers are by, He utters this scornful language. It is an eas● thing for à Stump to grow à leg in its passage from Spain hither, For fama crescit eundo. And in despite of Truth, casts out too much bitter venom to obscure à Glorious work of God, wrought by the Intercession of our Blessed Lady upon à young man at Caesar Augusta or Zaragosa in Spain (where you have her miraculous Statue Set on à Marble Pillar And for that reason is called, Neustra Sennora del Pilari) It is one of the most evident and clearest Miracles which I believe hath been done in the memory of any man now living. I have the whole Printed Relation by me both Latin and Dutch, written by Peter Neurat Doctor of Physic, and dedicated to his Excellence Don Francisco Marquis of Caretto and Grana. Ambassador Extraordinary from the Emperor to His Catholic Majesty. The Substance whereof is thus. 12. Ego ab Caesaraugusta Venio etc. I come from Zaragosa and bring tidings of à Miracle not heard of in any age. A young man had his leg cut of and buried, which was Miraculously restored again, by the Intercession of the most Sacred virgin. My Lord, I here present you with à Gift it is not mine, but our Blessed Ladies, to whom immortal thanks are due for the favour. Given at Madrid Ibid. Mart. Anno 1642. I have besides the Licence of the Vicar General, Don Gabriel de Aldama appointing the whole Narration to be Printed, which gins. Nos el Licenciado Consultor del Sanct● officio etc. Subscribed. Lic. D. Gahriel de Aldama. And underwritten▪ Por su mandado Martin de Lual Notary, 13. Yet more. I have the Attestation of Hieronimus Brizids, Testimonies of that Stupendious Miracle. who had order from the Vicar General to peruse and censure the whole Relation presented to the said Vicar, D● Gabriel de Aldama. Legi (saith he) libellum de stupendo Mirac●l●●stro saeculo inaudito Divae Virginis de Pilari, quod verum esse scio etc. I have read the little book concerning that stupendious and strange Miracle in this our Age of our Blessed Lady of Pilari, which I know to ●e true, I knew the youth at Caesaraugusta, or Zaragosa, when he had but one leg, and there begged Alms at the Church door, I saw him afterwards at Madrid, whither he came at the command of his Catholic Majesty, and saw him going on both legs. I saw the Mark, which the Blessed Virgin had left, where the leg was cut of, And not only I, but all the Fathers of the Imperial College beheld this (I might add upon certain Relation innumerable other Eye-witnesses and of noble Men too, then in the court of Spain) I known the young man's Parents, I known the Chirurgeon that cut of the leg. Given at Madrid. 12. Mart. 1642. underwritten. Hieronimus Brizids. 14. We may add hereunto the Approbation of F. joseph Crespo, The licence of His Catholic Majesty. Prior of S. Martin's Monastery in Madrid, who knew, as he saith, this Miracle to be most true, and witnessed it under his own hand. 4. Martij. 1642. Lastly. Facultas Regia, or his Catholic Majesties Licence, is thus annexed. Signata à D. Augustino de Arteaga & Cannizares, Scriba Camerae Regiae. You shall see presently how rigidly the Miracle was examined, and afterward approved by the Lord Archbishop of Zaragosa. The particulars whereof are briefly as follow. 15. This young man called Michael joannes Pellicer about nineteen Who this young man was? years of age, was born at Calanda à Village in Arragon, Son to Michael Pellicer à Husbandman, and Mary Blasco, Inhabitants of that Village. Whilst he served his Uncle james Blasco, His right leg broken. being in à Cart loaden with wheat, by chance fell down, and one of the wheels ran over his right leg, and broke it. His Uncle and Friends being poor Conveyed him first to the Hospital He was Carried to the great Hospital at Saragosa. at Valentia, where remedies were applied, but without success. Thence brought to the great Hospital at Zaragosa, He was Committed to the care of john de Estanga à most expert Surgeon and public Professor of Physic, who finding the His leg cut offingn●. legw holly rotten cut if of four fingers below the knee, and buried it. When the wound was some what healed; the lame ma● went on Crutches to our Lady's Church, and there both begged Alms, and earnestly implored the Blessed Virgins favourable Assistance. He was well known to all there for the space of two whole years. In the year of our Lord 1640. He went back to his Parents at Calenda, and going up and down as well as he could begged sustenance for Himself, and poor Parents. 16. On the 19 day of March. Anno 1640. well wearied with gathering up Hay sitting with his Father, Mother, and two others, he laid aside his crutch and went to bed. About à 11. of the Clock that night, his Mother entering the chamber where he was, found one in the bed with two feet, and suspecting him to be some soldier (for then à whole troop lodged in the Village) presently ran to her Husband who came in, knew his son well, wakened him out of sleep. 17. On à sudden the yet not too well awaked youth, broke Was Miraculously restored. forth into these words. I dreamt I was in our Lady's Chapel of Pilari, and annointell my leg with the oil of the Lamp burning there. The poor Father ouerioyed replied Render, my Child, immortal thanks to God, our Blessed Lady hath restored thee thy leg. Hitherto, the youth before his Father spoke reflected not on the Miracle. All this noised abroad, drew in many Eye-witnesses that night, and the next day more, who accompanied the young man to the Church, where, to the end all might behold the The Miracle diuulged. Miracle, His foot, which yet stood much wrested to one side, came before à Multitude of people to its own natural Posture, and those who saw him the day before wanting one leg, observed him now walking strongly on two, sound and whole. 18. Thus much noted by à public Scribe and spread abroad, soon after called the youth to Caesaraugusta, Where he had his judges assembled, witnesses examined, Lawyers pleading and the Was rigidly examined. whole cause most rigidly discussed. All which performed, The most Illustrious Lord Archbishop of Zaragosa, D. Petro Apaolaza, publicly gave Sentence the 27. day of April. Anno 1642. The sentence finally given that the restoring of that leg was à Work above the force of nature, and therefore might without doubt be deservedly esteemed, A prodigious Miracle. Those who attested the same, after due examination, and subscribed their names were as follow. 19 Don Antonio Xavirre Prior of S. Christina. D. joannes Perat official of the Metropolitan Church at Zaragoca. Don Subscribed by many. Virto de Vera Archdeacon there. Don joan Plano à Frago also Official. D. Philip Bardaxi Interpreter of the sacred Canons. D. Didacus Chueca Canon of Caesar augusta. D. Martinus Irribarne Canon and Reader there. F. Bartholomeus Foyas' Provincial of S. Francis order. F. Antonius Ortin Provincial of the Minims of S. Francis de Paula. D. Dominicus Cebrian, the first Reader of Divinity at Zaragosa. The sentence Published. given, was published and declared by great Doctors of the Canon and Civil law, D. Aegidius Fuster; and Michael Cypress à public Notory also. It was signed by D. Antonius Albert Zaporta the Apostolical Notary, and chief scribe of the Ecclesiastical And now extant in the Spanish Annals. Court at Caesar Augusta. D. Thomas Tamayo de Vargas the King's Historiographer of Spain and the Indies has published it in his Annals extant in the Spanish language, Printed at Alcala. 20. The Relation end's thus. Videant haeretici an hoc tam facile etc. Let Heretics look well to it, whether they can as easily The end of the Relation slight this, and other strange Miracles done in our time among the Indians, as they scorn the restoring of S. john Damascens hand at the Intercession of our Blessed Lady. This we now speak of, is Testified by Eye-witnesses. Both Spaniards and French were Spectators. The whole cause lasted long under à most severe Examination, and finally to make the Glorious works of God known, Sentence was juridically pronounced by à worthy Archbishop as is now said. Quod si rei tam notae contradicere ausint. And if Sectaries yet dare contradict so manifest à Verity. Quis illos etc. who is there that will not look on them. As impudent, and list them among incredulous jews? 21. Yet our Mr Stillingfleet, forsooth, Shifts all off with à jeer. It is an easy thing for à Stump to grow à leg, in its passage from Spain hither. What will not this man write to his petty purpose if't come in his way? What will he not pair away Mr Stillingfleets cheat, and open fraud. and add to à Story remote from the knowledge of the vulgar (His book is full of such fraud) Will he not think ye, say any thing before the illiterate and ignorant, in the high Mysteries of Faith, whilst he blushes not to cheat and deceive his Reader in à matter of Fact Notorioussly known to the world? If he thinks I have forged this Relation, He shall have the very individual Copy I made use of sent him, the Bulk is not big. If he doubts of the Authority of these witnesses already produced, and say yet all is à Fourb, I'll say as easily, I am fooled in believing there is such à man in the world as Mr Stillingfleet whom I never saw, And next will force him to exchange Principles with me à little. You Sir say its à fourb, à pretended, no real Cure▪ What's required of Him? I say Contrary, The Cure was real and à great Miracle. Prove now you Your Assertion upon as good Humane Authority as I have proved mine And we come to Principles, fit to decide in the present Matter. Fail to do this, your Assertion hath not so much as one leg to stand on, besides fancy, or something worse. CHAP. X. Other Marks and Signs, peculiar to the Roman Catholic Church prove her Orthodox, And make Her Doctrine evidently credible. These laid forth to Sense and Reason, distinguish the true Church from all Erring Societies Inferences drawn from the Doctrine Here delivered. 1. VEry little may suffice, concerning the first part of the Title, our Catholic Authors having done the work to my hands whilst they treat most largely and learnedly, of the Amplitude, and Vniversallity, of the Roman Catholic Church, of the continued and Succession of Her Bishops, Pastors, and people, of Her Unity in one and the same Faith, of Her Sanctity, of the efficacy of Her Doctrine in converting whole Nations to Christ, which S. Austin justly holds miraculous. The Largeness of this great moral Body (rightly called by Sectaries à growing Religion which no persecution of Tyrants could hitherto suppress) For time, extends itself without dispute to all passed Ages since Christ, And The Largeness of the Catholics Church. if we speak of place, the growth successively, was so great, That, In omnem terram exivit sonus eorum, it hath been preached with immense fruit to all Nations, Answerable to that of the Royal Prophet. Psalm. 2. where the eternal Father speaking to Christ our Lord, as man, gives him an ample Kingdom, spread all over for his Possession. Ask of me and I will give the Gentiles for thy Inheritance, and thy possession, the last ends of the earth, 2. Hence we first distinguish the Church of Christ from the lewish Synagouge, limitated to one time, (till the coming of our true Messiah) And to one place also, For the Sacrifice essential to that Religion, could not be offered but in the Temple of Jerusalem only. We distinguish both Church, and Doctrine likewise from Mahumatism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, and other Heresies in Distinguishes Her from all false Sects. the East, which never got any considerable footing in these Western parts of Europe Finally we distinguish it from Lutheranism, Calutanism, and Protestanism, à confused Mixture of both: and other late Doctrines. These and their dissenting Heads stay in our Northin Climates, without fruit or Progress made into Asia, Africa, Greece, or the like remote Countries, wherefore some doubt not to aver, and most truly, That the Holy Orders of S. Dominick, of S. Francis, and of the Society of Jesus are further spread, more diffused through the world at this day ● than all the Sects or Subdivisions of Protestants ever yet were, or I think will be. But the Kingdom of Christ's Church, as Tertullian Cited above. Chap. 1. n. 6. well observes, Vbique regnat, reigns every where, and is The Amptitude of Christ's Keingdome▪ every where believed, Nor can these latter Sectaries now in an aged world, hope to Propagate further; For if S. Austin. De Vnit. Eccle. C. 14. Thought it enormously improbable, that Donatism then so early, could diffuse itself the whole world over, much less can our confined Protestants very late Teachers after so many Centuries, when Heresy every where lies à gasping, Hope to draw foreign Nations to à Belief of their Novelties. 3. The reason à Priori is. A greater extent, à further increase seems inconsistent with the very Nature of those who profess this Religion, For once living in the Vine, and drawing Nutriment from thence, they wilfully cut themselves off, and separated from the Church, Therefore as S. Austin saith they lie where they are, Withering, and dying, without Lustre, or any Enlargement. Again; as they began this new learning without Gommission to teach, So they can send none hereafter Authoritatively, to spread it further. Hence I Argue, That Church only is Christ's true Spouse which ever Protestancy increases not. And why. was from the first Rise of Christianity, and successively got Possesin the four Parts of the world, But thus the Roman Catholic Church was, and is Still diffused (here is Christ's promised Inheritance) Therefore She is the only true Church. Contrariwise, the narrow, confined, and jarring multitudes of Sectaries scattered up and down in à few corners in Europe, All late Beginners, and shameful Desertors of this Ancient Society, never had so ample an inheritance, and Consequently Their pretence of being the true Church of Christ is more than improbable. 4. We may yet subjoin to the Amplitude of our Religion the ever visible and never interrupted Succession of Bishops, and Pastors, in the Roman Catholic Church from Christ's time. A Mark no less evident to sense, than openly destructive of Heresy. This succession long since Prophesied by Daniel. Cap. 2. Christ Kingdom shall never be dissipated, and foretold by the Apostle Ephes. 4. 11, He gave some Apostles etc. Sett's forth the Glory of it. We need not in this place, to weary the Reader with the known Authority of S. Austin positively Asserting. Contra Epist. fundam. The succession of Lawful Pastors, urged. C. 4. That the Succession of Pastors from▪ S. peter's time held him in the Catholic Church and the Argument is more fully urged again. Lib. de utilit. Credendi C. 17. We need not tell any with S. Cyprian. Epist. 76. That, that man is not in the Church, nor can be thought à Bishop who succeeds to none, but hath his Authority and Origen from himself. These and other forceable Testimonies we wave, and urge Sectaries, as the ancient Tertullian did the Heretics of his time; Lib. de praesc. Evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suorum etc. Let them unfold the Catalogue of their Bishopr from this day to Luther, and from Luther upward, and here we call not for Hussits, Waldenses or such like men, but for à continued descent of Bishops, and Pastors, Lawfully ordained, and commissioned by Authority to preach Protestancy; We Protestants have none. call indeed but hear of none, before the days of that unfortunate Luther. Therefore as I said above, they are sons without Fathers, they would be thought spiritual Children, but are so unbegotten that no body own's them. 5. Reflect à little, Gentle Reader, and cease not to wonder at the greatest Paradox, I think, that ever entered into the thought of man. Holy Scripture Ascertains us, that Providence hath appointed Bishops to govern his Church, Pastors and Doctors to teach till the Consummation of Saints, for the edifying A Paradox maintained by Sectaries. of Christ's Mystical body. The Roman Catholic Church gives in Her Catalogue of Bishops, and Pastors, ever since Christ. The first Apostolical Pastors received their learning from an Infallible Master, God and man, These conveyed it to their Successors, They to others, till this very age, And to prove that They both kept and faithfully conveyed the same Doctrine without Change or Alteration, you have not only Church Authority, the greatest on earth, but more Gods own seal set to this Doctrine, Christ's own signs and Marks, Miracles, undeniable Miracles, Conversions of nations etc. Now start up à knot of late unknown strangers called Protestants, without Bishops, without Pastors, for 1●. Ages, These pretend to have received new letters, new learning from Jesus Christ, That is an other sense of Scripture, than was formerly delivered, This Letter is read, This learning is published to the world. We Ask what lawful Pastors taught it four Centuries since? What ancient Church owned it? They Answer none. We demand again, To have at least à Demands proposed to Sectaries. sight of God's Seal set to this Letter, some visible Marks of Christ, Miracles for example, to make the doctrine accepted. They have not any. Ergo say we The letter is forged, the Doctrine is false, unevidenced, improbable. 6. All that's pleadable against this Discourse is, That our Doctrine once confessedly Orthodox, was changed by the Church in after Ages. Answ. We are both willing and ready to discuss, and that most rigidly this particular with Protestants, but before hand give them one Caveat. Viz. That no Topics, but sound Principles enter here, or bethe last Probation. If then we produce and most evidently, à list of our Bishops and Pastors ever No Answer given. since Christ, as Witnesses of our Faith. They are to do as much, and produce as many for Protestancy. If we, as we do, ever force Sectaries to name some known Orthodox Society of Christians, that condemned our Doctrine in any Age, they are obliged to unbeguile us, and show us where, or when, or by whom, we were condemned. If finally we unexceptionably evidence most glorious Miracles to have illustrated our Church, even after Her fancied Falling from the Primitive truth, after she became What sectaries are forced to grant. the whore of Babylon, our new men must either deny her such Miracles (if so, we urge them to ground the denial on Principles equal to our contrary Probations) or will certainly be forced to confess, That God wrought Miracles in à Church, which had brought in shameful Errors and quite forsaken the Primitive Doctrine. Observe well the force of our Argument. It's improbable to say, That God favoured this Church with the Glory of Miracles, Had She falsifyed His revealed truths. And it is as wholly improbable to deny Her the Glory of Supernatural wonders. Sectaries worn-out Objections are not worth taking notice of. Some oppose the Greeks, though now not of the Church, pretending to à Succession. We answer if the Pretext be true, Their cause upon that Account is better than Protestants, But withal say, though Succession be ever necessary to demonstrate the Church, yet it follows not, where we have it, There is the Church, For Other Errors may undo all, And de facto Vnchurch the Greeks, guilty and condemned in three General Councils. See Bellarmine de Notis Ecclesia. Lib. 4. Cap. 8. 6. secundo. 7. Enough is said above, and in the other Treatise also. Disc. 1. C. 10. n. 4. 12. of the Union and Sanctity of our Church. Unity à Mark of the Church. Union in Faith the greatest Blessing hearts can desire, asserted by S. Jerome Epist. 57 ad Damasum (Those are profane who ●ate not the lamb in the Roman Catholic Church) And innumerable other Fathers, knit's together this whole Moral Body amongst so many different Nations, different judgements, different manners, different Education, different times, different places, from one end of the world to the other. All believe as the Pope himself believes, or is no Member of this Church, And here is our Glory. Whereas, if on the other side, we cast à sorrowful Utterly destroyed by Sectaries. thought upon all the Heretics who from the beginning rend themselves from the Roman Church, we shall find Divisions, and subdivisions (Foreruners of Ruin) endlessly following, which at last destroyed them. From one Luther, as Bellarmin now cited observes. Cap. 10. à hundred Heresies sprouted up, And since his time there are more added to that number in our Mr. Thorndicke true Observation once most Catholic England. He that can take measure saith Mr. Thorndicke, in his late little Book of Forbearance. P. 33. how much of common Christianity is lost by these Divisions in thirty years' time since our troubles began, even among them that call themselves Godly and Saints, will easily believe that it (he means Christianity) hath not long to live in that Island, unless Division be put to death. 8. A just judgement of God upon them, pointed at by the Prophet isaiah. Cap. 19 2. I will make the Egyptians to run against Egyptians, and à man shall fight against his Brother: every man against his friend, City against City and Kingdom against Kingdom. Such confusion such an Abomination of desolation we England's Division remediless without returning to the Roman Catholic Church. see now standing in that once holy Nation (He that reads let him understand) which might justly draw tears of blood from Compassionate Eyes, Were it not that as S. Hilary notes, Bellum haereticorum pax est Ecclesiae. The Dissensions of Heretics brings peace to the Church: This some what assuages our Grief, and stint's our tears. But the Evil is desperate and incurable, do what Sectaries can, without returning to the Church of Rome which causelessly they have forsaken. And thus much Mr. Thorndicke seems to Assert, though I know not very well what he mean's by the Rom●● Catholic Church. He Adds more. P. 127. We (They in England) are in the State of Schism in spite of our teeth, Though we are ●● clear ourselves of the crime of schism upon the Terms settled. S ●. no Terms excogitable shall clear you from that crime, or ever bring you to Settlement, But à perfect Reunion with the ancient and present church of Rome, Whereof enough is said both in this, And the other Treatise. 9 To speak in this place of the Church's Sanctity, whether we consider the Purity of Doctrine, or the Eminent Holiness of innumerable professing her Faith, would require volumes. I say in à word, neither Heathen nor Sectary, though cavils are raised Sanctity Eminent in the Roman Catholic Church. against the Orthodoxism of our Doctrine, could yet justly tax it of too much liberty given to Christians. We, contrary to the inclination of nature, fast when Sectaries feast; we humbly confess our Sins to à Priest, they shake of that obligation. Our Church forbids Marriage to the clergy allowed to Ministers. We in spiritual Affairs submit to one Supreme Head of the Church, They acknowledge no submission to any in points of Belief, but to their own Fancy. We are united together in one Ancient Catholic Faith and execrate all Divisions, They are endlessly divided in their Novelties. We set à high value upon the pious laudable works of just men, They esteem all as sordid and sinful. We say God enforceth no man to Sin, they as Calvin confesses, make him both Author and cause of it. I might yet instance in à hundred other particulars, But 'tis needles. The whole world see's that Catholics, strengthened by the Grace of God, contrary to their interest, and natural Propensions, even for conscience sake, Profess and practise more Austerity, Pray more diligently, fast Not so with Sectaries. oftener, observe the laws of the Church more exactly, And finally do greater works of Charity than Sectaries either think necessary, or hold Themselves obliged to by virtue of their Religion. I say by virtue of their Religion which binds to nothing but only to Believe (though no man knows what) and consequently gives so much liberty in other matters that it makes the Professors thereof Libertins. Most unjustly therefore do our new men call Protestancy the reformed Religion, (unless by an Antiphrasis or contrary way of speaking) when God knows, it reforms nothing, but contrariwise allows more than enough relaxation to Corrupted nature. Whence I infer A thing so Indulgent as Protestancy miscalled, à Reformed Religion. Protestancy is cannot be from God, who will have us to curb Sensuality, and upon that account the Professors of it seem very unfit to reform the Doctrine of the Church, were any thing amiss, whilst they leave manners so notoriously unreformed, releasing all from the burden of such Duties, as Christians have practised from the Beginning. 10. Be pleased to reflect à little. We have, thanks be to God, in the Roman Catholic Church many Holy Religious Orders, as Benedictans, Dominicans, Franciscans etc. All had their The truth declared by two Instances several Founders most eminent in Sanctity and never meddled with mending Church Doctrine, knowing well that was sound and orthodox, But contrariwise endeavoured to better the world by their Prayers, Preaching, incessant labours, and virtuous Example. Suppose now any of these had called their Order à reformed Religion and brought Christians by that Reformation to greater Liberty to more Sensuality, than was practised before Their Prayers and Preaching; Would not all most deservedly have accounted their Labours misspent and worth nothing? Suppose again that any one would begin to Institute à Religious Family, with these or the like Injunctions. All of them may Marry, provided they keep Conjugal Chastity, All may fast but when the humour takes them, All may profess Poverty, but experience nothing of the hardship. All may obey but in greater matters only, not in others, freely left to their choice. Would not such à Founder vainly pretend to Reformation, that lays no more Christian Duties on any? Would not every man look on him as One that perverts Religion, and laugh at his folly? This is the case in our Protestants mending matters. Therefore I say once more the Reformation is not from God, but à humane and very sensual Invention. Enough is noted already both here and in the other Treatise of the Efficacy of our Catholic Doctrine Conversion of Nations à great Miracle. Demonstrable to our Eyes and Senses, in the Conversions of Nations to Christ. Maximum Miraculum Saith S▪ Thomas 1. Con. Gent. C. 6. It is the greatest of Miracles, and à manifest Testimony that God Assisteth this Church to do such wonders. We pass now to consider some Truths, grounded on the Doctrine already delivered. 11. One is (and it gives comfort to every Soul) that our Lord JESUS Christ though Absent from us, life's yet as it were Visibly, shows himself Manifestly, Acts still Miraculously in the Mystical Body of our Catholic Church, and the several Members Thereof. His Power appears in Her Miracles, Christ our Lord works yet in and with the Church. His Wisdom in the learned, the certainty of His Doctrine in the Church's Infallibility), The Antiquity of his Truths in Her long continuance. His Mercy appears in the Charitable, His Obedience in the Perfect Religious, His Poverty in thousands who have left all for his love, His Submission in the humble, his wearisome labours in the painful Missioners, His Retirement in Her the Ermits, His Patience in the mortified, His Purity in Virgins, the Efficacy of his Divine word (last mentioned) in the Efficacy of the Churches preaching, His Holy life appears in Her Sanctity, and finally his Sacred death in innumerable glorious Martyrs. Frame then à right Idea of our Blessed Lord, we behold The Church expresses our Saviour's perfections. his admirable Perfections Shining in the Church, And contemplating the Church, we see to our unspeakable Solace Christ jesus, as it were, yet living working in it and by it. 12. A second truth. As Things in Nature are not first known by that we call Their interior Essence, but by outward Marks, Qualities, and Effects, whereby we easily distinguish one from an other, à Lion for example from an Elephant, (but do not so easily, saith Aristotle, distinguish their different essences, known to few). Just so we Discourse at present and say the true Church is first evidenced by her Marks, Signs, and Motives, Miracles Antiquity Conversions etc. which being objects of sense lie open to every eye and Collectively taken make, as I said above, this beautiful Spouse as discernible from Heretical Societies, as one Creature is from another by its outward Form and known Proprieties. I do not Assert that The Church first known by Her Marks. the Motives lead to à Scientifical knowledge of the Churches Essential Doctrine; no: For this we believe by Faith, And know not Scientifically; Yet they plainly Mark out the great Oracle, whereby God speaks to the world, And therefore wonder not, that Sectaries strive so earnestly to Obscure the evidence, Their design is to take from us the clearest Principle which must end Controversies, Why Sectaries endoavour to obs 〈…〉 ●he Church's Lustre. For cast once off à Church manifested by Antiquity, Miracles, Conversions etc. Nothing remains to regulate Faith, but the dark and yet unsensed Letter of Scripture, which is most grossly abused by the one or other dissenting Party who force upon it quite contrary Senses. And by what means can any one come to the knowledge of Him or these that abuse it, if Church Authority be excluded or decide not in this most weighty matter? We need not saith Mr Thorndicke (in his Book of Forbearance. P. 2.) The Heresies of the Primitive times to tell us, what Irreligious pretences, may be set forth in Scripture Phrase. Our own Fanatiks would furnish sport enough with the Fooleries they pretend as from God's Spirit because they can deliver their Nonsense in the Phrase of Scripture: Again. This two edged sword of holy Scripture, may prove an edged tool to cut their s●ins with, who take upon them, and have not skill to handle it. Much better were it say I, were the Abuse or ill handling of the Book only found among à few fanatics, But the evil is spread further, you Gentlemen are all alike, whether fanatics or Protestants, that handle, gloss, and interpret Scripture by Private reason, conttary to the judgement of an universal evidenced Church. 13. A third Truth. The Church thus manifested by Her Marks which are Objects of Sense, and induce reason to judge that She only is God's Oracle; Catholics never call into doubt Her Essential owned Doctrine, nor seek for further Evidence thereof, because there is none in this present State, But humbly submit to all she Teaches. This Evidence then once attained, which ariseth from the Church's Marks, And hath drawn Millions to believe her Doctrine, We next turn to our Bible, and learn there, that the Language of these Motives (for etiam fact● What these Motives Speak. loquitur Deus, saith S. Austin above, God speaks by his works) and the Language of his own written word is one, and the same. That is what these Inducements point at, God expressly delivers in holy Scripture. Observe an exact parallel. 14. The Antiquity of our Church, and here is one sensible Mark we plead by, gives Assurance that the first Founder was our Lord jesus Christ; No Sectary calls this truth into Question, and the Gospel confirms it, Luc. 24. 48. Beginning from Jerusalem etc. Her Constant Perseverance, visible in all Ages, God reveals in Scripture, proves Her indeficiency And this is manifest in Scripture. A City placed on à Mountain Hell gates shall not prevail against Her. Om 〈…〉 m etiam infidelium oculis exhibetur saith S. Austin. Lib. Con. Crescon: C. 63. The Church is so well seen by all, that the very Pagans cannot contradict Her. She shows you à continued Succession of her Popes, Bishops, and Pastors from the beginning, and Scripture also Ephes. 4. 11. And he gave some Apostles etc. long since foretold it. She gives in à clear Evidence of Her Miracles through every age, Our Blessed Saviour prophesied it should be so. john. 14. 12. Maiora horum facient. They shall work greater wonders. None can deny most Miraculous Conversions of Kingdoms, and Nations to Her Faith, and the Prophecies of Christ's Church fulfilled. Prophets every where Proclaim the truth. Many Nations shall flock to Her. Zachar. 2. 11. She Shows how Her Doctrine was propagated through the whole world, And therefore is called the Visible Catholic, or Universal Church, Scripture also Confirms it. Do●ete omnes gentes. Teach all Nations. Dominabitur à mari usque ad mare. She shall reign from sea, to sea. Finally to say much, in few words, which might be further amplified. Is it true (which the Church demonstrates) that Heretics, as Arians, Nestorians, Pelagians, Eutichyans, Lutherans, and Caluinists, once Professed Catholics, shamefully abandoned Her Union, and for that Cause justly deserved the reproachful name of Heretics, and Separatists? Scripture Foretell's us of the Breach and Apostasy. john. 1. 2. 19 Ex nobis prodierunt. They left us, went out from us. for had they been of us they would have remained. And thus both Church and Heresy are visibly pointed at by clear Marks, and Gods written word also. Videndum (it is the Expression of Optat. Milevit. Lib. 1. à little after the middle) Quis in radice ●um toto orbe ●a●serit, quis foras exierit? We are to see who They were that continued in the root, with the whole world, and who parted from it. We are to see who erected another Chair distinct from that which was before. Call these and boldly, Heretics, stragglers from the Church, and the Verities of Christ's Gospel. And here by the way, we urge our Novellists, to point at à visible Sectaries Urged to Answer. Orthodox Society, which the Supposed erring Church of Rome abandoned, as clearly as we lay forth to them the time, the place, the circumstances, not only of their own impious Revolt, But of all other more ancient Heretics from this Catholic Society. Can the Sectary do thus much, He might speak more confidently. 15. To end the matter now in hand You see by what is said already, If Christ's words have weight. Math. 18. 16. In ore duorum vel trium Stet omne verbum; That Truth stands firm upon the Testimony of two or three unexceptionable Witnessesses, We here introduce two Testimonies in behalf of our Church which none can except against. God's own voice speaking to reason by Miracles and the Motives now mentioned, is the One, And his own sacred revealed word, which most significantly teaches what these Motives speak, is the Other. Hence I say Sectaries cannot dispute against this Church, without proofs drawn from Motives as strong, and Scriptures as clear as are now alleged in our behalf. We press them again and again to give in their Evidence, and seriously demand whether Protestancy was confessedly founded by Christ, Or, but once owned Orthodox by any sound Christians, Sectaries Gravelled at Every Question. As all acknowledge the foundation of the Roman Catholic and the Orthodoxism of it, to have been established by Christ our Lord. We further inquire after à visible Succession of their Pastors, after their visible Miracles, their visible Conversions, made in foregoing Ages. Nothing is answered, nothing is or can be pleaded, nothing in à word is returned probable. Therefore Protestancy is an unevidenced Religion, no Motives countenance the Novelty, no Scripture speaks for it, and Consequently cannot but be in the highest degree improbable. 16. A fourth Truth. A Church which wears as it were Gods own Livery and bears the Signatures of Divine Authority in Her Miracles, Prodigious Conversions etc. so far Eclipses the false lustre of Heathens, jews, and Heretics, that reason concludes. In this one manifested Oracle it is, that Eternal Wisdom delivers his Divine Truths, Or, there is no such thing as à revealed Truth, taught in the world. This judgement most rational, once well settled in an understanding without further debate, ends all controversies of Religion. So forceable and persuasive is the language of God's own glorious works. 17. Imagine I beseech you that God should now lay the Heaven's open, and evidently declare to the whole world in most significant and clear words, That the Roman Catholic Church is God's works speak no less plainly to reason, than His words. his own faithful Oracle, and exactly teaches those truths he revealed. All, whether Heathens, jews or Heretics, would submit, and, if reasonable yield Assent to so great an Evidence manifested by words. And what shall his own glorious works of Miracles, the known language of Heaven, ever spoken since Christianity began prove less persuasive than words, but once only delivered? Interrogemus Miracula saith S. Austin cited above, Quid nobis loquantur etc. Ask of Miracles what they speak of Christ, demand also what they say of his Church. Habent enim 〈…〉 guam suam. They are neither dumb nor silent Orators. Works therefore speak, and can Answer both for Christ and his Church. S. Paul. Rom. 1. 20. draws evidence of God's invisible Perfections, of his Power and Divinity, from the Creation of the visible effects in Nature, And shall not Christians think ye find evidence enough in the works of grace, (I mean in Miracles and other most Signal Marks) manifest in the Catholic Church, which make it highly Credible That he speaks his eternal verities by this one Oracle? The Evidence in both cases well penetrated seems much à like, call it moral, physical or what you please, whereof more presently. 18. From this Discourse it follows, That à Church demonstrating Gods own Seal and manifest Characters of Truth, so exactly All walk in Darkness without an Evidenced Church. teaches Truth, that none can rationally contradict Her Doctrine, though often difficult to weak Reason. The ground of my Assertion is. Renounce once such an Oracle, we are cast into confusion, and have no other Master to teach Christians, but the obscure Mysteries of Faith, (far enough, God knows, from any Self-evidence,) and the yet not sensed words of holy Scripture, because the Church which only can, and must interpret, is upon the Supposition rejected. In this two fold Darkness of obscure Mysteries, and unsensed Words, weak Reason toils as our Sectaries have done à whole Age, But with what success think ye? S. Peter's night labour returns the true Answer, Totá nocte laborantes nihil cepimus, All night long we have took much pains, yet got nothing. Such is the Fate and Folly of our modern Sectaries, that will walk in the dark without the Guidance of à Church, And Her infallible Tradition. Here also we have The true Cause of our Sectaries endless Divisions. the true cause of their endless Dissensions, and multiplicity of Religions, which almost every year are coined new. All Pulpits saith Mr Thorndicke. P. 5. so ring of this multiplicity, That now no Religion stands to be the Religion of that Kingdom. 19 A fifth Truth. The Sectary that Professeth himself à Christian, and seriously ponder's the Marks, the Signs of Divine Authority openly seen in the Roman Catholic Church, stands so convicted of wilful Error, that practically he is either to renounce Christianity, or obliged to believe this evidenced Church, I prove him First convinced of wilful Error upon these grounds. The Sectary confesseth, or he is no Christian, That this Argument is efficacious against the jews. Christ our Lord did greater wonders, shown more manifest Miracles, than all other Prophets wrought in the time of judaism, and from hence He infers, or (shall never prove it) that Christ is the true Messiah. Therefore this Argument is equally pressing against Protestants. What ever Argument Proves Christ to be the true Mos●ias proves also the Catholic Church true. The Roman Catholic Church only has evidently done greater Wonders, chief in the Conversion of Nations; She has shown more manifest undoubted Miracles than all Protestant Professors in the world, Ergo She is the only true Church, because She bears the Marks, doth the works, and wonders of that great Lord that laid Her foundations firm. Whereas Contrariwise this naked Protestancy, has no resemblance of à Church, But lies in Obscurity, unevidenced, only known by its own Monstru● fiery upon this Account, That two hideous Rebels begot it in Pride, and brought it forth in Division to no other purpose, but to fright all that look on it. Again the Sectary, if he be Christian, must hold this Argument Valid against the jews. All the Prophecies in Scripture speaking of the true Messiah, exactly agree to, and were amply fulfilled, in the Person of Christ our Saviour, and in no other. But the like Argument holds as strongly in our case. For all the Ancient Prophecies of the true Christian Church whereof we read in the old Testament, As of Her Continuance, Visibility, and Nations flocking to Her only agree, and are exactly fulfilled in the Roman Catholic Church, And not so much as one appears in this naked Novelty of Protestancy, Ergo the Roman Catholic Church and not that Fatherless Progeny of Protestants, is the only true Catholic Oracle of jesus Christ. 20. Lastly this Argument is strong against the jews and Proves them deserted by Almighty God. Since Christ came to Redeem us, This abandoned people lie under contempt, and are A visible Mark of God's wrath. Set upon jews and Sectaries. best known upon the Account of their open injustice, Wherefore God to set à visible Mark of his wrath upon them, has not only scattered them up and down some few corners of the world, but also permitted them to Divide and Subdivide into several Sects, and Factions. But the same Argument is as forceable against Protestants, For first, the whole Christian world abroad slights the men as Innovators, and their Doctrine also as Novelties. Arians, Semiarians, Grecians, Abyssins' detest Protestancy, and as highly contemn the Authors of it, as the far extended Church of Rome condemns both the one, and other. 21. 2. No Injustice ever done by jew, except that one wicked fact of crucifying Christ our Lord, is comparable to the open The open injustice of Protestants. clamorous wrong of Protestants, who without law or right yea contrary to all conscience, violently usurp the Ecclesiastical goods in England, and worse than Robbers on the high way appropriate all to Themselves, which neither God nor man intended for them. These Reveneves were given by Catholics for the Orthodox Pastors and Teachers of our Ancient Religion, that lawfully and quietly possessed them for à thousand years, And now behold à Robbery done but one age since, turns the true Owners out à doors, And serves, forsooth, to entail Church Live upon Luther's Progeny, open Rebels against the Church. The world never heard of greater Iniustlce. 22. Now lastly if we speak of different Sects, and endless Divisions in points of Doctrine, Most undoubtedly the Dissensions are greater, the Sects more numerous amongst Protestants professing Christianity, than among the very jews that profess. judaism. A just judgement of God, A clear Mark of his Indignation, set upon both. The Sin of the one for deserting Christ, Divisions more amongst sectaries than jews. hath scattered that People up and down the world, And the Sin of Sectaries, for their deserting an Ancient Church, hath more scattered and divided them into endless erroneous, and most jarring opinions. Upon these grounds therefore, That Protestants believe not an Oracle signed with the Marks of our Lord jesus Christ; That they reject à Church clearly Prophesied of in holy Writ, That they lie hid in unevidenced Conventicles, And broach Doctrines slighted the whole world over; That their open injustice and robbery cries to heaven for revenge, Practically I say, They renounce Christ, Church and all Christianity with it. Thus much of the Church's Evidence against Sectaries, we now proceed to à further consideration. CHAP. XI. Christ and his Church made manifest to à Heathen. No Prophet comparable to Christ, no Church comparable to the Roman Catholic. Our glorious Christ jesus Exhibits à glorious Church. He is proved the Only true Messiah, And the Roman Catholic Church His only true Sponse. How the Heathen Discourses, if rational, And Prudent. CHrist and his Church are so easily laid forth to à Heathen, That grant once the Existence of à Power Omnipotent and Infinitely wise in the Government of this world, the main work is done, Reason if it contradicts not Evidence, soon finds out the A Deity supposed what the Heathen would Learn is easily learned. One and Other. Now if as S. Cyprian Discourses, it be à most heinous Offence. Eum nescire velle quem ignorare non poterant, not to know God, whom all cannot But know, In like manner say I, it must needs imply à Supine negligence in our present State, when Christianity is diffused all Nations over, not to come to the true knowledge of Christ and his Church, whilst neither can be concealed. The Heathen than that Own's à God, and desires to serve him, is supposed to demand of Christians, How or in what way, due Honour may be rendered to that infinite Being. For Answer please to bear in mind these Principles, rightly called three strong Evidences. 2. First. True Religion whereby we yield Honour and due Submission to God, ever bears the Ensigns of its Author, And Three principles. shows by certain Marks, it proceeds from God. No jew nor Gentile, no Heretic can deny the Principle, delivered in these general Terms, though Disputes may arises concerning some particular Motives. 2. A greater Evidence of Credibility in Religion, is à certain Matk of its Truth, For whoever, whether Heathen, jew, or Christian, own's that matter of Fact of Moses prevailing against the Egyptian Magicians, Or, of S. Peter's Miracle, set against that of Simon Magus, sees well by the force of greater Evidence, That the Prophet and Apostle maintained Truth against these Sorcerers. A third Principle. If there be not à Of the Greater rational Evidence for God's Truth. greater excess of rational Evidence, or à stronger Conviction in behalf of true Religion, than fdr Sects unorthodox or false, God is frustrated of his End, And can oblige none to embrace true Religion; For this Obligation necessarily ceaseth if à Spurious Faith could match the Orthodox Religion Or Outvie it in those glorious Wonders which God evidences, And hath manifestly appropriated to His own revealed Truths only. See more Hereof in the other Treatise. Disc. 1. C. 8. Thus much premised. 3. We here Represent in the first place, our Glorious Lord Jesus Christ, the great Master and Author of Catholic Religion, and Ask what credit the Heathen gives to that holy book we call Scripture, or to one Part thereof, which recount's the prodigious wonders wrought by our Saviour. Will he own them? upon Humane faith (for we urge him not yet to believe infallibly) as Authentic, or as well deserving Credit as Caesar's Commentaries, or any other received History? If he grants; we Infer. These Miracles, far above the Power of nature, were Gods own works, and manifestly testified that none since the world began, whether Heathen, jew, or Heretic, ever paralleled Christ our Lord in the like Wonders. Now, if he wholly flights the Authority of that Book, we proceed further upon Evidence The Heathen convinced by the manifest Signs of God's power. enough and lay before him those manifest Effects, which in â short time followed▪ our Saviour's Preaching, most apparent in the first Propagation of the Gospel, and continual increase of it. Herein, the Marks, the Ensigns of à Divine Power clear to sense, speak openly, without contradiction. viz. That no ancient Prophet, no Heathen, no jew, no Heretic ever opposed sensuality so strongly as Christ our Lord did, yet he gained Millions to submit to his law. No Prophet, no Heathen, no Heretic, preached more difficult Mysteries, Yet as the World sees, He hath drawn whole Kingdoms and Nations to believe his Doctrine. And if you go on, or Ask by what Instruments this admirable work was happily accomplished? The Answer is ready. Twelve poor Fishermen, friendless, unlearned, despicable in the eyes of worldlings, were the chief Oracles. These made the incredulous, Believers, Strangers to Christ, his own Domestics, Lofty Spirits, Submiss to his law. No Heathen can doubt of such known Effects, signal Evidences, of God's power, cooperating with Christ, and the sirst evangelical Preachers. But because this Argument is most fully handled, in the 4. and 5. Chapters of the first Discourse, I petition the Reader to return thither, And once more to peruse that Discourse, which I hold unanswerable, and most convincing for our present intent! 4. To add yet more in behalf of our Glorious Redeemer, and the verity of Catholic Religion (for prove the one, you prove the other) I Propose à second Question to the Heathen, and Ask, Whether our Blessed Lord, who called himself the long expected Messiah, and the true Son of God, Spoke Truth, or contrariwise, most impudently Assumed to himself that so An unanswerable Dilemma. high Prerogative? Grant the first. He was indeed the true Son of God, and the wonders he wrought, were Gods own works, Therefore Christian Faith stands firm, upon Eternal Truth manifested by most glorious Signs. Say. 2. That Impostor like, He falsely made himself the Son of God, when he was no more but à Cheat. It follows first. That either God positively intended to draw the world into gross Error by his Perfidious Preaching (which is horrid to think) or we must grant, that his Gracious Providence long before this day, should by one evident Sign or other, by some Notorious Mark of dishonour, have made manifest Reflect Gentle Reader upon these Consequences. the Legardemaine, the Imposture of this supposed Deceiver. It follows. 2. That the jews who crucified our Blessed Lord justly deserved upon that Account Renown and Honour, yea, the highest Recompense, For it was à laudable fact to comdemn à Counterfeit, s● openly wicked as dared to call Himself the Son of God, when H●e was not. Perkin Warbecks' disguise, was but à Peccadilio compared to this shameful cozenage. The sin of Mahomet who never made Himself God but à Prophet only, came not near the Malice of this one supposed abominable loud Untruth. It follows. 3. That our supposed Impostor (I have à horror to pronounce the word) deservedly merited, And yet merit's for His unexcusable Hypocrisy, eternal Reproach, contempt and ignominy, in the just judgement of God, men, and Angels. Hence I Argue. 5. God is just, and hath Providence over the world, But our just and wise God never since Christianity began, Se● Mark or Sign of Ignominy, upon our Blessed Saviour, as he hath done upon other Impostors. Our just and wise God ever since that wicked People nailed him to à Cross, hath been so far from honouring them or rewarding Their impious Fact That, most visible, and severe Punishments have proved the only Recompense and best Reward. The Temple ruined, their Dispersion followed Christ honoured the jews contemned. up and down the world, where they live contemptible, chief infamous for Hypocrisy, and Avarice. (See also this Argument more enlarged above Chap. 2. n. 4.) Our most just God, hath not only taken of all Marks of Ignominy, but evidently to our Senses declared by real Effects His innocent Lamb our lovely Saviour worthy of Honour Benediction, and Glory. So true it is, We read. Apocal. 5. 13. Dignus est Agnus, qui occisus est etc. The just Tribute of Praise and Glory is visibly paid him (so Providence hath ordained) not only by Kings, Princes, Learned and unlearned, by all Nations far and near, But by the very Turks also. 6. And is it possible (reflect I beseech you) that God who is no Exceptor of Persons, could have punished so dreadfully, these abandoned jews, had they done well, in crucifying our Lord Jesus? Is it possible, that his just, and wise Providence, could ever have crowned à Counterfeit with so much Honour God's just judgement. and renown, as our Saviour hath gained, or permitted A che● not only to be Reverenced as the true Son of God so long (though he was not) but moreover to draw so many Millions and Millions of Souls into error as believed in him, for sixteen Ages and more. The Paradox is so desperate so highly improbable, That one would as soon deny both God and Providence, As once seriously harbour it in his thoughts. Observe my Reason. 7. The Light of nature dictates, abstracting from Authority Rom. 2. 9 That as on the one side, Shame, Ignominy, and Confusion pursue horrid Workers of iniquity, So on the other, Prove ou● Saviour Innocent. Glory, Honour and renown inseparably follow the manifestly declared just, and innocent. But Shame, Confusion, and Ignominy, God's Just Signs of indignation, yet visibly follow that wicked race of People, the Authors of our dear Saviour's death, contrariwise, Glory and renown, ever since he died, have been his due reward, and own inheritance. Therefore if God speaks, And the jews Criminal. as He doth, by these Signal Effects of justice, The jews so long severely punished, stand like guilty Criminals in that high Tribunal of Heaven, There sentenced answerable to their Desert as Workers of iniquity; And our Holy Lord jesus, so long honoured the whole world over, receives the contrary Sentence, And is by visible effects there proclaimed just and Innocent. A Domino factum est istud etc. It was not chance but à Signal work of Providence, that the Stone these Builders rejected, became so glorious as to support the noblest Fabrik God ever made. 8. Apply what is is now said to the Roman Catholic A true Application of this whole Doctrine. Church, We shall see an exact Parallel of proofs, delivered in the same Terms.▪ Christ our Lord called Himself Eternal Truth in all he taught. Our Church stils Herself, Gods own Oracle, in all She teaches, Now whilst so high à Prerogative is claimed, She either speaks Truth or lies most impudently. Grant the first. Viz. That this Church speaks Truth, she is to be believed in all she teaches, Say secondly, she falsely makes Herself Gods own Oracle, when she is not, Divine Providence which cannot dissemble, nor Design to ruin Souls by the false Doctrine of an infatuated Oracle, would long before this day, have either destroyed Her, or marked Her out as à Cheat by some evident Sign of Justice, as he hath marked other false Oracles (jews, To the Roman Catholic Church. Turks, Infidels, and Heretics) with Contempt, ignominy, and Disgrace. The sin is so hideous, that it well deserved à greater Punishment, and would have been inflicted upon this Church also if the Supposition stand: Unless as is now said, we Assert (which is abominable) that Gods express Will was, that She should poison whole Nations for so many Ages with corrupted Doctrine. But All is contrary. To our unspeakable comfort the Roman Catholic Church fails not, She keep's her Posture still. She flourishes every where, even amongst thousands and thousands She flourishes. that dare not (interest will have it so) Profess Her Doctrine, And without any least Note of infamy proceeding from God, (what Devils or Malice invent or vent against Her, we heed not) Teaches not only, the most pious and learned in this nearer world, But the wisest also of the whole Universe. Thus we discoursed of Christ our Lord, and the Argument holds as strongly in behalf of our Church. 9 Again. Hath God whose Counsels are just, Crowned our Saviour with Glory and Renown? Has he also who knows well where to inflict Punishment, manifested his Wrath upon an ungracious People that condemned Him? Ponder I beseech you first, How visibly Providence has made his own Spouse the Roman Catholic Church, Renowned, And wonder not, the Made renowned▪ Son of God paid dear for the Renown, and gave his life for it. Vt exhiberet ipse sibi gloriosam Ecclesiam. Ephes. 5. 27. That he might exhibit and present to Himself and the whole world à most glorious Church. All this, I say, visibly Appears, to o● eyes and senses. 10. Ponder. 2. Where and upon whom, God hath Set Marks of ignominy, and inflicted most rigorous Punishments. Wh●● upon jews only, that opposed and condemned Christ? Are jews and Heretics. these only Marked and Chastised? No. Those rebellious Spirits also, Those first Renegadoes, I mean the chief Arch-heretics that opposed and condemned his Church, Vile, and abject in life, dying, felt Gods heavy hand of justice. Manichaeus was stead à live. Montanus hanged Himself. Arius voided out his bowels and filthy soul together, in à Privy. God struck julian the Apostate dead, and the ground opening swallowed up his carcase. Nestorius' wicked wormeaten tongue brought the wretch to à miserable end, And john Calvin consumed with vermin, Severly Punished. despairing died like an other Herode or Antiochus. I need not Here relate any thing of Luther's sudden death after his merry supper. Read Bellarmin. Lib. 4. de notis Ecclesiae C. 17. where you have these, and other more fearful Examples of God's Severity. 11. Finally must we say, that our Lord jesus is proved no Impostor upon these reasons, That no false Prophet since the Creation purchased the like universal Fame, None ever had so universal an Applause, or the like Tribute of praise paid Him? It it true▪ That ever since Christianity began, the powerful hand of Providence hath not only rescued our Holy jesus from all Reproach (justly merited) but moreover by signal Effects of indignation, made his Enemies contemptible? The renown of the Roman Catholic Church. Nothing can be more manifest. You may then boldly Conclude in like manner. The Roman Catholic Church is as demonstratively proved no Cheat but an Oracle of truth, upon the same grounds. Her universal visible Extent, the continued Succession of Her Pastors, the Conversions, and Miracles wrought by Her invite all with à loud Venite Adoremus, incite all, not only to behold and Praise this magnificent Building, but also to Adore the Founder of it; For, if it be true as was said above, that the visible works in nature point at God the only Author of them. Caeli enarrant glor●am ejus, The Heavens declare his Glory. It is also clear, that these visible Effects of grace, Miracles, Conversions obvious to every Eye, set forth the glory of the Roman Catholic Church. Now how deservedly she hath gained this Renown, let the world judge. 12. Wisdom, saith, Solomon, built Herself à house. Proverb. 9 where Pillars stand firm, à Table is plentifully furnished, Victims are immolated &c. The whole Passage. S. Cyprian. Lib. 2. Epist. 3. Applies to the great Sacrifice of the Altar offered up under the Forms of bread, and wine. I wave the Application and urge only an How gained evident truth, And 'tis, that Our Church built upon Christ the Cornerstone, upon those strong Pillars the Apostles, hath stood firm sixteen Ages, and here is Her Glory. For if Glory (witness S. Ambrose) be nothing else, but Clara cum laude notitia. A clear knowledge with Fame and Renown, The long Continuance and ample extent of this Church, could we say no more, hath justly purchased Her à large Renown the whole world over. Now mark where the contempt lies, which is à base Esteem of à thing unworthy value. All know the Arians built, Heretics despicable. the Pelagians built, the Donatists and other Heretics built▪ but their unsteedy disordered Houses soon fell down, and came to nothing. What says Reason when Ruins are compared with this long standing Edifice? 13. Next cast à serious thought, upon the Inhabitants of this house of God. You will find all united in one Faith adoring one jesus Christ, loving one Mother his spouse, looking on one last End, Their hope and Happiness And if through frailty differences do arise abating charity, our Advantage is far above all other Societies in the world: We have à supreme Pastor (God be ever blessed) that can command, and like à Other advantages in the Church. Father exhort to peace, in Abraham's language. Ne sint qu●so j●rgi● etc. jars must not be in the house of God, Fratres enim s 〈…〉, For we are all Children of one loving Mother. Here is the Church's Glory. Whereas on the Contrary side, nothing but Discord, and that remediless, the known evil of Lucifer's pride, And in the highest points of Faith, inseparably hant's the rambling Fancy of such, as have wilfully divorced themselves from this one united Society. And Here is matter enough of Contempt, and Compassion also. 14. In the last place consider well the vast multitudes who are, and have been Domestics in this house of God. In the very Entrance we meet those Candidati aternitatis (as Tertullian speaks) Novices of Eternity, the newly admitted by the Sacrament of Baptism, and no Society of Christians can show the like number. Here we have Cherubins admirable in Knowledge, The Inhabitants of the house of God, numbertles. Doctors I mean, profoundly learned, Seraphins inflamed with Divine love, that rest in the height of Contemplation. Here we find Penitent Souls bewailing their sins, innumerable Martyrs shedding their blood for Christ, numberless laborious Missioners travelling far and near to propagate His sacred Gospel. Here finally we have (for 'tis long to recount all) Abraham's glorious multiplied Stars. Gen. 15. 5. Kings and Queens, whole kingdoms and Nations professing the Faith of this one Church. The Gentiles walk by Her light, and Princes in the brightness of Her rising. Lift up thy eyes and see, saith holy Isaias, All these assembled together: And if you Ask what the duty was, and yet is of so many convened Multitudes? The Royal Prophet, that long since foresaw in Spirit à continual Oblation offered up, Answers? Psal. 9 1. In templo ejus omnes dicent gloriam. All in this Temple and sacred House shall incessantly render praise, and glory to God, the Author of So noble à Structure, Therefore Psalm. 86. 2. He rightly Concludes. Gloriosa dicta sunt de te O Civitas Dei. Glorious things are spoken of thee, O City of God: Thou begansed In Jerusalem, was't afterward extended to all Nations, becamsed permanent, and because permanent, Glorious. Thus that whole Psalm, speaking mystically of Christ's Holy Church. These are Truth's not only proved, as you see by Scripture, but also evident (and this I urge) to our eyes, and senses. Now next consider those scattered, dissipated, and jarring Multitudes of Heathens, jews and Heretics, And let reason, if à spark of it live in any, judge, whether this be not evident without Dispute. Viz. That as no Prophet ever came near to Christ our Lord in glory and A Parallel of Christ and His Church. renown, So no Society of men since the world stood, was, or is, comparable to our glorious Roman Catholic Church, All other besides this happy united moral Body appear as they are abject, and contemptible. 15. And thus we Evidence Christ our Lord and his Church to à prudent Heathen, not first by making the intrinsic Reasonableness of the essential Doctrine the main Proof of its verity, as Mr. Stilling: simply Argues, above. Disc. 1. C. 9 (For it is truly ridiculous to draw the Pagan to believe à Doctrine, as reasonable and Divine, whilst yet he knows not, upon any rational Inducement, whether it be from God, or no) But this way takes effectually. When you lead him on by à clear light extrinsical to the Doctrine, when you set before his Eyes, such Marks, Signs and wonders as cannot but proceed from God, Miracles Conversions etc. When you Show him How strangely the Doctrine of Christ and his Church, though sublime and difficult, was miraculously Spread the whole world over, when you Demonstrate how manifestly Divine providence hath Age after Age Honoured Christ and his Church, and severely Chastised the professed Enemies of both. When finally you make it manifest that there is no Union, no Form, no fashion of Religion in any Society now on earth, but in How the Heathen is Convinced. the Roman Catholic Church only. Then the Heathen, if reasonable and desirous to learn Truth, must confess that God speaks Truth by this one Catholic Oracle only, Or there is no such thing as à revealed Verity taught in the world. 16. Out of what is said already I infer first. If that Maxim of Philosophy he undoubted, Frustra sit per plura etc. It is needles to multiply many proofs in behalf of à Verity, when one most clearly convinceth it. This Argument alone, drawn from the glorious Marks of our Catholic Church, which cannot but proceed from God, proves Her his own faithful Oracle, With these Signs we have the thing signified. These in à General way settle in every reasonable understanding this fundamental Truth. God speaks to the world by his evidenced Church. I say in à General way. For as the visible works in nature, prove this General Truth. Ipse fecit nos etc. A mighty power made us, we made The efficacy of Church Motives. not ourselves, though as yet none comes thereby to an explicit knowledge of many Perfections in God; So the Marks and Motives manifest in the Church, convince this General Truth also. That the same Power which made Nature gives being to these, the same Power which preserves nature, preserves these glorious Signs for our instruction, And Consequently it follows, That as the visible world is proved Gods own work, so this visible glorious marked Church is proved his own Oracle, Though yet neither the Heathen nor any knows every particular Doctrine, which God teaches by the Church. In like manner great Divines assert, that Christ's own Disciples owned first our blessed Lord as the true Messiah, and à great Prophet. joan. 1. 41. Inuenimus Messiam, We have found the Messiah, before they learned the other high Mysteries of his being the natural Son of God, the second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Redeemer of Israel etc. see Suares. 3. Part. Tom. 2. Dispu. 31. Sest. 4. 17. A second Inference. The General Truth now spoken of well established. God teaches the world by à Church Signed with Supernatural wonders, All further disputes cease concerning the particular Doctrines She teaches, though sublime and above the reach of our weak Capacities. For none, whether Heathen, jew, or Heretic, can boggle at à Doctrine which God reveals, How reason discourses upon these Evident Motives. But God, saith prudent Reason, reveals such and such Truths, The Incarnation of the Divine word, the Trinity, Original sin etc. by à Church which most pressing Motives evince to be His own Oracle, Therefore it is my duty to Submit and believe every Doctrine She proposes. 18. The Ground hereof seems clear. For as there can be no endless Progress or going on in Infinitum in the intrinsical formal Object of Faith, because Faith at last rests upon one sure Principle, An infinite Verity▪ So we can have no endless Process in the extrinsic Lights, and Motives, whereby we are induced to fix à firm Belief upon that one sure Principle. Therefore in what ever Society of men Reason finds these Motives, it rests, without further Enquiry after stronger, which cannot be found, But most evidently reason finds them in one only Oracle the Roman Catholic Church (as is now proved) and prudently resteth there as upon lights which immediately manifest the Church, Scripture not so immediately Credible as the Church. and make Her Doctrine evidently credible. Scripture, 'tis true, is the object of Faith, but not so immediately credible as the Church, for independently of Scripture, I can believe the Church as the first Christians did before the Book was written, but men generally in this present State cannot believe Scripture without the Church's Testimony, As is already, and shall hereafter be proved more at large. 19 A third Inference. Who ever pretends to à Doctrine revealed in Scripture and holds it of Faith, has either à Church which teaches it evidenced by the Marks of our Lord jesus Christ, or He publisheth à falsehood. Which is to say in other Terms. If the evidenced Church of Christ positively own's not, or rejects such à Doctrine, that Doctrine, Eo ipso, is spurious, forged, and not the Fide. Hence it is, that when our Blessed Lord, Commissoned the Disciples to Preach his sacred Verities. Math. 28. 19 Go and teach all Nations. He sent them abroad with the Characters, Marks, and Ensigns, of his own Preaching. Mark 16. 2. Our Lord working with all, and confirming the word with Signs that followed. And here by the way, I can never sufficiently admire the open folly of Sectaries, that wholly Churchless, A lawful Mission required to teach our Christian truths. will yet needs persuade us into new opinions upon their own bare word, That they teach truth. It is impossible. Nay I say more, Although (which is false) they should speak Truth, they ought not (Churchless as they are) to be listened unto. For suppose one should present himself as an Ambassador from à Prince to à foreign State, but without Credentials, or Authentic letters justifying his Embassage, no State can or will admit him, though he speaks truth. He must not only do so, but show his Authentic Commission that he speaks truth, delivered by the Princes own order, or he is sent back unreceived in the quality of an Ambassador. In like manner I say. No more can any one essentially uncommissioned pretend to teach Christ's Doctrine, whilst he is not sent to teach by Christ's own evidenced Oracle, than this uncommissioned An Instance Legate to speak in his Prince's name. Many à man knows the law well, and is fit enough to pronounce à just Sentence, yet sitt's not on the Bench nor gives it, because he is not Authorised to do so. And thus we discourse of all Heretics, no members of the evidenced Church, though, as I said, they deliver truth by chance, they yet deserve not the hearing, wanting power and Authority to teach it. 20. S. Cyprian Epist. 2. Speaks very pertinently to our present purpose. Quod vero ad Nauatiani personam pertinent etc. For as much as concerns Novatians' Person, I would, dear Brother, have you know in the first place, we are not to be curious concerning what he says, when he teaches out of the Church. S. Cyprian Confirms the Doctrine. Quisquis ille est, & qualiscunque est, Christianus non est, qui in Christi Ecclesiâ non est. Whoever, or of what condition soever he be, is no Christian, that is not in the Church of Christ. And hence S. Austin in his frequent Disputes with the Donatists, presseth this point most efficaciously, Lib. de unit. Eccles. Cap. 2. Quaesti● inter nos versatur, ubi sit Ecclesiá utrum apud nos aut illos? Here lies the main Business, where the Church is, whether with us or them? Again, Epist. 163. Quaritur utrum vestra an nostra sit Ecclesia Dei. We demand whether yours or ours be the Church of God, which must be known, saith Optat. Milevit. Lib. 2. By Her Marks, and Characters. And therefore we said above, though S. Austin made use of Scripture against the Donatists, it was not done to decide every particular Controversy by the bare and obscure words of that holy Book. No. The profound How Scripture manifests the Church. Doctor aimed not at such impossibilities, his whole drift being to teach the Donatists à great Verity, which we all subscribe to. viz. That Scripture once admitted as God's word, without Dispute clearly demonstrat's the Church by Her visible sensible Marks, Antiquity, Miracles, Conversions, Digito demonstrari potest, We can point at Her with our finger Saith S. Austin. The Church therefore thus manifested we have enough, and rely on Her as à faithful Oracle in every Doctrine She professeth. See Cardinal de Richelieu. Traitte pour conuert●r ceux &c. Lib. 2. C. 7. §. Cest encore. Where he exactly renders S. Anstins' meaning conformable to what we delivered. Disc. 1. C. 14. n. 10. 21. The last Inference. If all are bound to embrace true Religion, All have also with the obligation means to know where it is taught, But the means to know this lies not in the essential Verity thereof, for that is no Self-evidence, or manifestly true ex Terminis. The means to know it is not found, in the high Mysteries of Faith, for these (far above the reach of humane understanding) remain yet in darkness without More light. Scripture alone makes not its own Divinity known, and though it did so, And the Heathen owned it as most Divine, yet when he evidently discouer's that dissenting Christian's Sense the book quite contrary ways, he has not the means to learn what true Religion is, or where it is taught. Thus than He must Discourse, or believe nothing. 22. God that's Truth, reveals the Verities of true Religion. If so; some united Society of men teaches what ever God reveals, for Angels are not our Doctors. I find, Saith the Rational man, great Signs of truth amongst the Christians, and after The Heathens prudent Discourse. many à serious thought Cast upon à Matter of highest Concern, I sinned also that all those Signs, as Antiquity, Vniversallity, à visible Succession of Pastors, evident Miracles, which cannot but proceed from God, belong to one only Christian Society, the Roman Catholic Church▪ I see moreover à strange benign Providence held forth in preserving Her from innumerable attempts of Adversaries. No jew, no Heathen, no Heretic can show the like Signal Marks and Proofs, of God's love, as this one Catholic Oracle demonstrat's. Therefore all other Societies are false Sects misled by erring Prophets, according to Christ's own Prediction. Math. 24. For there shall rise false Christ's, though they clamour never so loud. Ecce hic est and Conclus●on. Christus. Lo we preach Christ, and his truths. Thus Reason test's satisfied, yet because the Heathen see's wholeArmies banding against the Church, and rationally holds their Arguments like theer cause very weak, He is desirous to have the Fallacy of some chief Adversaries laid forth to his reason. For your Satisfaction be pleased to read the following chapter. CHAP. XII. The Adversaries of the Roman Catholic Church plead unreasonably. A Discovery of their fallacies. The cause of all Error concerning Religion. The only means to remedy Error. 1. THe enemies of the Roman Catholic Church are chief reduced to these four Classes, to Atheists, Heathens, jews, and Heretics. A word briefly of their fallacies in order. Some Atheists there have been (and perhaps Lucian was one), that to cast off all thought of Religion more expressly denied Divine Providence, than they did the Existency of à God. And à chief The Atheists Plea. Argument to omit others of less weight, is much to this sense. A Numen Infinitely wise and powerful, shows his careful Providence in governing the world, But an evident Principle opposes this careful Providence, and no contrary Principle of equal strength Seems to establish it, Therefore reason well denies Providence. Now here is the evident Principle. The Oppression of just men, manifest to our eyes, the prevailing of the wicked against the just, of Turks against Christians, to say nothing of other much visible Confusion and Discorder; prove à neglect of Providence, and no contrary Principle half so strong or evident conninces it; none counterpoises the weight of this clear proof now hinted at, ergo Reason, reasonably denies Providence. Thus the Atheist. The Pagan Argues, That Religion is false which holds Mysteries ridiculous, and impossible, but Christians How the Heathens and jews Argue. teach that God is one Essence and three Persons. Both seem impossible. The jews vapour against à crucified Saviour, and lay its unworthy God to become man, and to die ignominiously upon à Cross. Lastly our modern Sectaries that own Christ, come limping after the rest, and except much against the Roman Catholic Church. She, Say they, has changed the ancient Articles of the Primitive Faith and introduced Novelties in lieu of them, She maintains errors contrary to sense in Her▪ Doctrine of Transubstantiation; And much more seems amiss. 2. I say first. All these and the like Arguments are mere unsound Paralogisms, and prove just nothing against Providence, against Christ, or the Romam Catholic Church. Before I discover the fallacies be pleased to note. 1. That God whose existence we have proved. Disc, 1. C. 2. is à Being incomprehensible, and far transcends the reach of our narrow Capacities. The very Gentile Philosophers owned the truth agreeing in this Principle, That humane reason is as weak to know what God and divine Mysteries are, as an owl is to behold the Sun at noonday. Note 2. Reason in man, often too bold enters into Divine Mysteries, though conscious it walks in à Labyrinth not so much as Principles pr●mised to solve these Objections. half-sighted in the search it makes, and this less than Half-insight into Divine truths, is the cause of Atheism, of all Heresy and the most gross errors now reigning in the world. The Apostle. 2. Tim. 3. 7. Points at the misled. Semper discentes. They are always learning, but never come to the knowledge of truth. Note 3. Reason in the investigation of Religion and Divine verities, may tend two different ways, Directly, and Reflexly. Direct reason, as is now said, falls upon some great Mystery in faith, finds it harsh, yea most difficult to be understood, and What follows? The faint man with his feeble reason either reiect's the Mystery, or remain's so perplexed in the search that he can resolve nothing. His procedure is just like à man unskilful in Music, that hearing one Note alone which seems harsh, slights all without more Ado, whereas he should listen to the whole Harmony before he judges. In like manner we often proceed with God by à Half-pondering Divine Mysteries. Contrariwife, reflex Reason labours not to Conquer difficulties by itself, or any half consideration but prudently waves that way, and has recourse to à surer Principle, whereof more presently. Thus much premised. 3. A second Proposition. The fallacy, of Atheists in their Arguments against Providence, chief arises from this; That the direct judgement of weak reason runs headlong into Mysteries The fallacy of Atheists Discouer.ed considered only by halfs or in themselves, without attending to the Solution, most easily attained by à judgement which is reflex and Prudent. For example. The Atheist denies Providence because just men suffer, and the impious Prevail against the just, and hence infers negligence in God: Here is one harsh untuneable Note to his ear, but reflects not First, That, that which he calls Nature is as negligent, and much worse left alone without God. He reflects not. 2. That if God were supposed to R●le the world, there would yet be fools enough to sinned fault, and think some thing amiss in the Government. He reflects not. 3. That if God be an intellectual Being infinitely wise, his thoughts are as far above our thoughts as the Heavens above earth, And therefore adventures desperately to reject Providence which his shallow head neither doth, nor can Understand. Finally He never reflects, that to deny all divine Foresight casts Reason into more Mazes, than to grant it; For deny it, we must say, That this admirable and well ordered work of nature Gouern's itself. The Sun, Moon, and Stars, move themselves. We must say, That the vast and swift circulation What they are forced to grant against Reason. of these Celestial Bodies depend on no Superior cause; unless we feign many unknown invisible Gods, or Genii, Eternal of themselves, And say These run about with the Heavens, and regulate that admirable Motion. But to Assert this without Proof offer's more violence to our intellectual Faculties than to own one powerful Being, essentially wise, and therefore Vigilant over all He Gouern's. In à word you see here, this great Fabric of Nature (some rightly compare it to à Clock or Watch) and find in it nothing like confusion, but contrariwise à lovely Order, à Harmony most gracious beseeming God, Yets say the foolish of the world, we eaten to divorce it from his sacred Providence: That is, the Clock can move, the wheels can turn about without à Superior hand that winds all up and orders all. And why I beseech you? Mark the reason of such as have no Reason. Free Causes, men I mean endued with Liberty, abuse liberty oppress the just, raise tumults, breed confusion, and Scramble who can get the greatest heap of dust together; Ergo saith the half eyed Atheist, (respiciens ad pauca) there is no care had of us, which is to say. Men comply not with their Duty but abuse their own Free will, Therefore God is unblamable because he either makes them not mere Animals, Brutish, or forces not Virtue upon them against their wills. It's an Error. 4. Thus much then concerns God. To endue rational Creatures The abuse of liberty redound's not to God. with Liberty to command the right use of it; but not to be responsable or held neglective, if They abuse it. No, this touches them (for 'tis their own work) that do Evil. Let then the Evil remain where it is (Providence can forgive, but not forget) And seriously consider the lovely Harmony, the recreative Order visible in the works of Nature (here is Gods own admirable Oëconomy) do only thus much, and reason so evidently discouer's à depth of Wisdom in these works, that it cannot but exclaim with the wise man, Sap. 14. 3. Tua ô Pater providentia gubernat. Your Providence, o Father, governs all. This done cast your thoughts again as much as you will upon the Monsters in nature, which man freely begets, and freely bring's forth. What follows I beseech you but rhus much only? That God, after so many menacings so much Terror laid before us if we transgress, leaves liberty to its own free choice, and will severely punish the Offenders; But that Spurious Progeny of evil Works he own's not. Therefore no Argument can have force against Providence Liberty is lest to act without compulsion. upon this account, That liberty is permitted to act as liberty requires, without Compulsion. Were God forgetful or negligent; would he not, or could he not punish sin now, or hereafter, Atheists might vapour more boldly; But hereof there is no danger, for nature itself leaves this deep impression in all (let who will Govern it) that one supreme Regent hates Iniquity, and that as he often doth visibly in this life, So he will more rigidly take Revenge in the future. Mihi vindicta: & Ego retribuam. Rom. 12. 19 And this consideration alone of both present (most clear) and future Punishments, so blunts and dead's the Atheists Plea, that their best Arguments fall to nothing, and are indeed resolved into pure Nonsense. This consideration alone, that God will reward the unjust sufferings of the Virtuous, is comfort enough for them, and every rational prudent Creature. 5. We are next to dispatch the main business with these Adversaries, who desire to have as strong Proofs in behalf of Providence, as they allege against it. I will therefore for the better Satisfaction of all, produce three most convincing Arguments. One is; The Deity we all Adore is not inexorable, but, as clear and manifest Experience teaches, and most known History in One clear proof of Providence. all Ages relates, here's often the Prayers of just men in time of Tribulation releasing them from sudden danger, when no humane Power can help in the Exigency, Innumerable after earnest Prayer and hands lifted up to Heaven, have found speedy Assistance, some in the peril of Shipwrak escaped, others thrown to hungry lions have been lest untouched, others cast into the fire not so much as scorched, volumes might be writ of such particulars. Therefore there is à Supreme Numen, that has care of us, the Sun, Moon, and Stars hear not, nor can lend aid in such pressing Necessities, And to recur to no man knows what invisible Spirits, is, as we now said, less intelligible and far more difficult, than to own one powerful Being of Himself that both can and doth relieve at his good Pleasure. 6. 2. The knowledge of future things Sublime, and above the reach of all Creatures, Argues à Power Omniscient, and Omnipotent. The reason is. The Prenotion of what's to come, not yet limited to any Being in itself, nor as yet determinately existing, necessarily arises from an Infinite Knowledge and efficacy of light, which extends itself to what ever can be The knowledge of future things proves à Power Omniscient. known; for that power which comprehends things future, much more comprehends all past and present, and therefore has an infinite Extent, which we call Omniscience. Now I subsume. But an Intellectual power is in being, that by virtue of his own light knows future Truths whereof none can doubt, because he has actually communicated part of his knowledge to others, For example, to the Ancient Prophets, who most exactly foretold things to come relating to Christ our Lord, and the Glory of his Church; Such Secrets highly Divine, they had not as men nor were they known by any Principle within the bounds of Nature, therefore God Omniscient imparted all; And he did so not in vain, but for this great End, That mortals may see how an infinite Goodness condescend's to inform us of Truths whereby he manifestly tender's our Happiness, And this alone demonstrat's Providence. That the Prophets foretold truths to come is evident by the books of Scripture, writ whole ages before they happened, and the Event visible to our eyes, proves the verities of the Predictions. What have your Astronomers who more often miss then hit in their Predictions comparable to these Prophecies in Scripture? Nothing at all, if (which deserves reflection) we consider the Eminency, the Depth, and high importance of the Mysteries revealed. 7. My last proof taken from one Manifest Absurdity, is no less than demonstrative. Suppose Providence be denied, it follows, That those Millions of men who since the world's Creation adored God, whereof innumerable were wise, upright, and holy, have all been besotted and stupidly beguiled in Adoring that which is not. Nay more, This also is consequent, A third and most convincing Proof. That à few abject, ignorant, and despicable Atheists, are only endowed with the light of à Truth, which once established, makes Virtue odious, Honesty, and Goodness highly contemptible. I prove the consequence. If Providence be à chimaera, All our acts of Reverence, of Fear, Obedience, Religion and Gratitude tendered to God, essentially blessed with that foreseeing Power are dissonant to reason, and in themselves abominably sinful. Contrariwise, All acts of Contumely, of Blasphemy, and Contempt of Providence, are consonant to reason, and most laudable. The more therefore, we blaspheme, contemn Divine Providence, the more laudably we operate, and as highly merit praise, as one doth that contemn's an Idol set before him to worship. For Providence, Say Atheists, is an Idol, Ergo to adore it is madness, to contemn it, most Praise worthy. These and Harsh sequels granted by Ath●eists. other like Sequels are so harsh, so Abominable, and contrary to the light of nature, that I think the boldest Atheist now living, dare not in à serious mood own them as Truths. And thus much briefly of reasonable Arguments in behalf of Providence, to oppose that slight Plea of Atheistical Spirits already Proposed, and dissolved. 8. The third Proposition. As Atheists plead fallaciously against Providence, so Heathens jews, and Heretics follow closely the like Strain in every Argument proposed against the Mysteries of Faith taught by Christ and his Church. Atheists and Heretics argue à like. I would say. As the Atheist runs headlong with his weak judgement upon Difficulties, so these now named, err as he erreth. They make Direct Reason to see more than it can see, to Comprehend Mysteries incomprehensible, and quite cast aside that Prudent reflex Reason, which allays all, and gives most Satisfaction. For example, The Heathen comprehends not that great Mystery of the Trinity, and there stands puzzled. Good cause, say I, for if à Cockle shell contain's not the whole Ocean; why should thy shallow head comprehend the Trinity? Were this possible, either thou must be God, or God leave of to be what he is. The jew understands not how God became man, and died ignominiously upon à Cross. Observe à strange Stupidity saith Divinely S. Chrisostom. Lib. Quod Christus sit Deus, towards the end. These Adversaries of Christ read of contempt and Disgrace, and credit all. They read in the same Scripture of our Saviour's Admirable Miracles and believe nothing. Here is want of Reflex Reason. The Heretic boggles at the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and wonders that à Church made up of fallible men can be held infallible. And from whence comes The Assertion proved. this boggling? What cause is there of wonder? He Answer's. Transubstantiation seems contrary to Sense and Reason. Very good. I Ask again, to what Reason is it opposite? Grant gratis the utmost, it only seems contrary to that not wel-sighted Reason which more often beguils than learns us Truth, or which loseth itself in the Search of deep Mysteries, where it can find no Exil. But Answer I beseech you? Is the Doctrine opposite to that Other wise Prudent judgement, whereby all know or should know, That reason is never more reasonable, than when When Reason is reasonable? it leaves off reasoning in high matters above reason? No certainly For deny once this one clear Christian Principle, or say that's only believable and no more, which weak reason Approves; We destroy the very Essence of Faith and can believe nothing. The Doctrine of God's Free-acts, of à Trinity, of the Incarnation, of Transubstantiation, and the other like Mysteries is quite renounced, if so much only gain belief, as weak reason (puzzled in the Mysteries) see's Reason for. 9 I say therefore. This Direct purblind reason casts us upon Difficulties, Reflex reason solues them. The first makes us mere What effects weak reason produces. Sceptics yea (and followed) Atheists too, The second good Christians: The First remains in darkness, the second finds light. The first would turn all faith into Science, the second saith, No, Si non credideritis non intelligetis. Unless you believe you shall not understand. The first, though no more but à handmaid, would rule, bear sway, and command, the second curb's that petulancy, and bids Her Obey. Now the only difficulty is to show what is meant by Prudent- reflex Reason, and of what consequence it is in matters of Faith. 10. Briefly this reason stands not long upon the Mysteries How the reflex and prudent reason proceeds. revealed but, leaves off that lost labour and relies wholly, on the Authority of one Master, that reveals them. Hence Clem. Rom. in Recogn. D. Petri gives this wise counsel. Ante Omnia, etc. Before all things examine well by rational Motives, whether he be à Prophet that speaks; This done, ponder no more but believe boldly all he Saith. And wonder nothing at the principle, for it is far more easy to find out the Prophet by his marks, and signs, than to understand the sublime Doctrine he teaches. S. Irenaeus! Lib. 9 C. 9 1. speaks conformably. Non enim nos aliter discere poteramus quae sunt Dei, nisi Magister noster verbum existens homo factus fuisset. We could not otherwise learn those Secrets God has revealed, unless our great Master, the Divine word, had been made man. Which is to say, the Reason we call reflex and prudent, most easily finds out the Master that teaches truth, and having once found him it relies on his word, whilst direct Reason stays entangled in difficult Mysteries, and learns nothing. Hence also it is, that S. Thomas and others most profoundly. Observe à notable difference, in our proceeding when we hearken to God, and to man. When we treat with man, we rigidly What man speaks is to be examined, what God saith, not. examine the things he speaks, and if found absurd, or impossible, reject them; We observe the coherence of his Discourse, and judge whether it be consonant, or dissonant to reason. But to proceed thus with God, who can neither deceive, nor be deceived, is Impudence; Inquire then no more but thus much only, what God says, and rest Satisfied, his own sole word, is warrant enough. 11. We come now to apply this Doctrine more home. The Primitive Christians, after à prudent search, found out by evident signs, and wonders, the great Master of the world Christ our Lord, and were commanded to hear him Matth. 17. 5. Ipsum audite. And because he proved Himself by manifest fignes, to be à Doctor and Prophet sent from. God, They believed the Doctrine he taught, upon his own word, though very sublime and above weak reason. Now here is à Point of consequence worth our serious ponderation. 12. Can any one imagine, that our great Doctor of truth An application of the Doctrine. left us all comfortless, or so destitute in his Absence, without Pastors without Prophets, withous living Oracles that yet speak in his name, and deliver with all certainty those Verities he taught, and will have ever taught? Reflect I beseeck you. This great Master saith No. john. 20. 16. As my Father sent me, so I send you. Matth. 20. 19 Go and teach all Nations. Luke. 10. 16. He that here's you hears me. And to these Pastors he promises his presence and continual assistance to the end of Ages. Matt. 28. 20. I will be with you ever to the end of the world. And the There is yet à teaching Oracle. very excellency, the very nature, of Divine Learning requires this Assistance, and must, if Divine, depend on an Oracle which cannot but speak in God's name Truth, and Truth only. For how is it possible to conceive the vast moral Body of Christians, of so different tempers diffused the whole world over, knit firmly together in one saving Faith; if no certain Oracle lays forth that learning, which God has revealed, and will have all to believe. 13. The Sectary may Answer, Scripture is his Oracle, he needs no more. Contra. 1. Christianity had à living Oracle before Scripture was written, did then that Oracle cease to be because God's truths were committed to paper or parchment? Contra 2. And mark I beseech you, how unwarily weak reason (already rejected) works mischief to itself, and others. Reason The Plea of Sectaries rejected. reads Scripture, and when that is done, it sets endless jars incomposable debates not only between man and man, but, which is worse, between God and man; Therefore Scripture thus handled can be no Oracle that unites all in one Faith. Theses jars between man and man are manifest, for the Arians, Pelagians, Protestants, and Catholics read the book, and you see what fight there is about the Sense, which only indeed (and not the bare letter) is Scripture. Now that some of these many Contend also with God, is undeniable. For God approves not all these different senses because contradictory, Therefore some draw à false meaning from Scripture, and these Some (let the fault light yet where you will) oppose the true Sense of the Holy Ghost, yea act stiffly to their Eternal shame, against that noble perfection in God, his undeceived Verity and this I call contention or quarrelling with God (Truth itself) which as you see, our Sectaries will have go on without redress, because they allow of no Doctor no Teacher, no Oracle, that can end the Strife, or reduce the erring Party to due submission. 14. I say therefore, And here is my last Proposition. The The true teaching Oracle nameed. Roman Catholic Church, which prudent reason easrly finds out, and no other Society of Christians, is Gods own Oracle, What she teaches, we learn; what she reiect's, we reject, Her Definitive word is our warrant, without further dubious search made into the Mysteries proposed. The proof of my Assertion, depends on this brief discourse. 15. God obliges all poor and rich, learned, and unlearned, to embrace true Religion, And consequently affords means to find it out, being à matter of so much weight as concerns Salvation, But the Necessary means to find true Religion, is to come to the knowledye of that Oracle which Proposes and teaches truth with all certainty, For no man teaches Himself but learns, if wise, of à better Master; Scripture you see Ends not our Controversies. The Mysteries of Faith are not our Doctors, because these in themselves obscure, are believed after Reason has found out God's living Oracle, Therefore all Christians must own à Teacher, an Oracle of truth established by Almighty God, commissioned to enlighten and to instruct the world. How shall they hear saith S. Paul Rom. 10. 15. without à Preacher. Observe well à teaching Oracle is to Propose evangelical Doctrine. But how shall they preach unless they they be The Church Commissioned to teach, instructs all. sent? Here you see the Mission and commission of evangelical Doctors plainly pointed at. Now further. As none can but own such an Oracle, so all must likewise acknowledge it so Visible by Marks and Signs, so obvious to sense and prudent reason, that the most simple may discern it from Heretical Communities; For this Oracle teaches the poorest sort of men, therefore Providence has made the evidence thereof plain, and suitable to the meanest capacities. 16. Here we See again the difference, between the essential Doctrine of the Church, and the Churches outward lustre manifest in Her Signs. The first is not got by long Pausing upon the Mysteries of Faith, nor by rigidly examining the things revealed, as we discuss Doctrines probable or improbable in Schools. No. The Christian saith not, I will either Know how God can be one Essence and three distinct Persons, How the Incarnation is possible, or I will believe neither; For go this way to work, he doth like one that takes wholesome Pills and chewes them, but finding much bitterness, soon spits them out. Thus than he should proceed guided by à Reflex prudent discourse. My only search is to find out that Oracle whereby God speaks to Heathens, jews, Christians and Heretics; There is such an one manifested, or none can Believe any thing. This once found, How prudent reason discourses. I examine no more, nor intricate myself in the Mysteries proposed, but will humbly Submit to all that's taught. This wisdom I learn from the Primitive Christians, who most easily knew that Christ our Lord was the true Messiah, and one sent from God by the Wonders he wrought, though they little yet understood the depth of those Mysteries he delivered, and obliged all to believe. Thus much Premised. 17. I Prove that the Roman Catholic Church is God's only Oracle. And first Her exterior Marks and signs give in as clear evidence of Her being the only Divine Oracle, as the wonders which the Apostles wrought evidenced them to be Divine Oracles. With this lustre we have à Church most visible, and discernible, from all unorthodox Communities. None can Parallel Her in known Miracles, in Antiquity, Perpetuity, Conversions etc. 2. This Church hath taught the world ever since The Churches clear Evidence. Christianity began, and no Orthodox Society but She only is nameable, which delivered the Sincere Doctrine of Christ; For hint at any, they are manifestly proved condemned Heretics. 3. She was never censured in any Age of error by so much as one confessed sound Christian, Nay I say more (and have proved it above) She is so infallible, that if she erred but in one Article, She then ceased to be God's Oracle. 4. This Church shows the Mission of Her Pastors, and derives Her Commission to teach the world, from God, and our Lord jesus Christ. 18. The first Mission concerning the teaching of the new Testament Originally came from Almighty God, that sent his only Son our Saviour to preach. john. 14. 24. The word you have heard is not mine but his that sent me, the Fathers. Luke 4. 14. He sent me to Euangelize to the poor. Now Christ our Lord, sent the other Apostles. Mark 16. 15. Going into the whole world preach the Gospel to all creatures. These first Masters, had their Successors lawfully commissioned, they sent others age after age, in so much that the Mission of Orthodox Pastors legally authorized to administer Sacraments, and to preach God's word, never yet failed in the Roman Catholic Church since Christ's being upon earth, nor shall fail hereafter to the world's end. 19 These Truths well weighed, And after many serious thoughts found as they are undeniable, Prudent reason account's all that can be objected against our evidenced Church, worse than folly. And here is the ground à Priori of the folly. These Adversaries Sectaries mistake the right way of arguing. that Oppose us, quite mistake the right way of Arguing, (were there any) For, whereas they should first find out God's great Oracle which teaches truth, and object that against us, They wholly wave this matter of highest Importance, And, so far as weak Reason can work, draw Arguments from the dark Mysteries of Faith. One finds difficulty in the Trinity and reiects it, Another in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and holds it impossible. That is, weak reason, as much set's up its own light against God, as if one should offer to extinguish the Sun beams by the dim light of à candle. 20. Observe I beseech you à strange Procedure. We evidence à Church; we prove Her God's Oracle by the Characters, Signs and Marks manifestly laid open to all men's eyes, we say this manifested Oracle which has drawn Millions of souls to the Catholic belief cannot beguile us. Our Adversary's one the other side Say (notwithstanding this reasonable Evidence) God speaks not by Her, Because the Mysteries are hard and above Reason; whereas indeed the quite Contrary should be inferred, They plead most simply. viz. Because they are mysterious God speaks by so evidenced an Oracle. And here is the Reason of my Inference. 21. Had the abstruse Mysteries taught by the Church been à humane Invention only, and not from God, the supposed Inventor of them (who ever he was) had been worse than mad to Propose so many, to our shallow Reason. He should rather have followed the strain of all other Heretics, and with the Arians denied à Trinity, with Protestants cast of Transubstantiation, The reason of their weak pleading. But this you see is not done, The Church speaks truth plainly, because She knows there is an other light, à stronger Evidence which lessens, facilitates, and conquer's these seeming Difficulties. If therefore there be evidence enough of Credibility for this one Proposition. God speaks to all by this known Oracle, Reason pleads no more, but yields to one that cannot err. 22. It may perhaps appear Strange, if One consider with what plain Simplicity the Holy Evangelists wrote the Gospel of jesus Christ, where they seem to furnish the jews with Arguments against our Saviour. They declared how He was contemned, reproached, Scourged, haled from Tribunal to Tribunal, and finally Crucified. Here the Adversaries of Christ Exclaim, and Ask what's more Difficult? Can God possibly (Say they) The Candour of the Evangelists writing our Saviour's life. permit his only son to be thus abused, when 'tis writ, Maledictus qui pendit in ligno. Cursed is the man that hang's on à Cross? The Evangelists feared not the Objection, but, related the Story as it was. Nor did they to gain their great Master applause Cover or dissemble his Sufferings as Policy might have done, had humane Wisdom only made the Book. No. They proceeded candidly; And why all this Sincerity think ye? The Answer is easy. They knew well, that the Victory which our Saviour gained after all these sufferings, The Renown he purchased upon the Cross, the Miracles he then and formerly had wrought, were so forceable Evidences of his being the true Messiah, that no contrary Humiliation, even to death itself, could obscure that greater light and rational evidence of Truth. Therefore whole Multitudes beholding the wonders at his sacred Passion after the Centurion had cried out, This man indeed was just returned, knocking their breasts. Luke. 23. 48. And in his life time, said. Quid facimus? What do we do? This Christ works so many wonders, That if we dismiss him, All will believe in him. Arguments drawn from what is said. Reflections made upon the premised Doctrine. Christ, and His Church prevail against Incredulity. 23. Hence I Argue. If the evident Light of our Saviour's glorious Miracles was sufficient to vanquish Incredulity, and to work à Belief in all of his truly being the Son of God, notwithstanding the difficulty of the Mystery; It follows clearly that the undeniable Evidence of the Roman Catholic Church already laid forth, is as fully sufficient to vanquish the Incredulity of Heathens, jews and Heretics, And to work this Persuasion in all (notwithstanding the high Mysteries proposed) that She is God's Oracle. For here is my Principle, and most undoubted. That as the Verity of Christian Religion is to be learned from that known Oracle which bear's Christ's Ensigns, without disputing the Sublimity of the Doctrine, so the falsity of à Doctrine is proved, (Not by the difficulty thereof), but, is clearly gathered, from the Nullity of an unevidenced Church, which teaches it. An unevidenced Church therefore is no warrant of true Doctrine. 24. And here you have briefly the fundamental Reason, why no Heretic, can probably oppose the received Doctrine of our Catholic Oracle, or defend his own contrary to it, whilst he is Churchless, I mean so long as he gives in no Evidence The true reason why no Heretic can oppose the Church. of an other Church distinct from the Roman Catholic, as Ancient, as universal as She is, as glorious in Miracles as She is, as famous for Conversions as She is, as Uncensured as She is, as commissioned to preach, and teach the world, as She is, I say whilsed no such qualified Church can be evidenced, which contradicted our present Catholic Doctrine, and maintained that of Sectaries, so long the Protestant cannot defend his own opinions, nor rationally oppose our Catholic Tenants. For here, as S. Austin anciently observed disputing with the Donatists, lies the main Business and it decides all Difficulties. Vtrum vestra, an nostra sit Ecclesia Dei. Whether yours, or ours, be the Church of God. Let then this one point, worthy Debate, be rigidly examined; And 'tis easily done may the ever acknowledged Marks, and Signs, of the true Church have weight with Prudent reason, We are all without more Dispute reunited in one Ancient Faith. 24. And who can (if his cause be good) decline this modest Offer? When 'tis known, that these public Signs have fixed, Sectaries Ever decline the Sentence of an Evidenced Church and established this public judgement in all through the Christian world. That à Church so undeniably Ancient, so Miraculous, and drawing Souls to Her, cannot but be Gods Sacred Oracle? But Sectaries in all their polemics wave this worthy Question concerning an evidenced Church, and unworthily to the great wearisomeness of every Reader, stand pitifully trifling with à few long since defeated and worn-out Controversies. I say trifling, For is it not more then slight and frivolous, now to flirt at the worshipping of Images, now to pelt the Pope, now to quote à half sensed Sentence against Purgatory, now to misrelate And trifle time away. à Story, now if à wickedness lie in à Corner to rifle that, Now to talk, as if men were mad, of the Roman Churches Idolatry. Here to iibe at our Ceremonies, there to attaint the Spotless Reputation of Christ's Spouse? Say for God's sake to what purpose is this? when the Knowledge of that Vnum necessarium which cannot but be known. viz. Here is Gods evidenced Oracle so clearly ends all Debates, so justly determin's what's true, and what's false, in these and the like particulars, that none can, unless led on with à Spirit of Contradiction withstand the just Sentence of this One evidenced Oracle. 25. If the Sectary reply, notwithstanding the Church's Evidence, many things She teaches appear doubtful to him. I have Answered. Disc. 1. C. 18. Proofs only doubtful, yea though Probable also, (which is not) want pith to gainsay an Evidence What the most ancient Christians owned, owned by the public Wisdom of the Christian world: But the greatest Part of the Christian world Always owned these Truths. First. That God has, and ever had, à Church Visible on earth. 2. That his Church may be known by Her Marks, Signs and Motives, and that the most meet Signs to Distinguish Her by, are answerable to those, manifested in Christ our Lord. 3. That the Roman Catholic Church only, Evidently shows these Signs, and by Virtue of them demonstrat's Herself to be Gods own Oracle. Here you have my Principles already laid forth, And à Petition with them to Protestants, to infringe or weaken but One of them, upon Scripture-Proof, upon the irrefragable Testimony of Fathers, or by Virtue of any Principle which may appear probable to the universal Sense, or rational Consent of such as have been owned Orthodox since Christ lived on earth. But to do this is utterly impossible. 26. Descend now if you please to particular Controversies, you shall ever find that nothing but the twilight of weak Reason, mere Doubtfulness I mean, support's Protestant Religion. It is doubtful say these Adversaries, whether Purgatory be, or Doubts and Cavils are the only Support of Protestancy. no. It is doubtful whether Praying to Saints be Orthodox Doctrine. The Pope's Supremacy over the whole Church is Doubtful, and Questionable. Very Good, let these Propositions pass yet as doubtful. Perhaps Purgatory is not, Perhaps it is. Perhaps invocation of Saints is Orthodox Doctrine, Perhaps no, For neither the one, nor other considered in Themselves is à Truth Evident Ex terminis, or so much as Morally certain. Now here is the just Trial. The Protestant positively denies Purgatory. I positively Assert it. Both Propositions are hitherto supposed doubtful, Therefore He who maintains truth is obliged to raise his Proposition from that low State of à poor Perhaps or doubting, to à higher Degree of certainty. The Catholic speaks plainly and Argues thus. God's evidenced Oracle which bears the Marks, the Ensigns of Christ jesus, and taught the world from the Beginning, obliges all as well to believe à Purgatory, as à Trinity of Persons. I cannot therefore, Saith he, without à Forfeiture of all Reason and striving against the Public wisdom of the Christian world, Own this à faithful Oracle in the Proposal of the one Mystery, and hold it Perfidious or Traitorous in the other. Here is the Catholics Evidence. Now Mark well. The proofs of the Protestants Proposition, (There is no Purgatory) are ever as remote The Assertion declared and proved. from Certainty, as miserably dubious, as his very Assertion is. I say no Proof goes above the Strength of one poor deficient and weak Perhaps. If he allege Fathers Contrary to Purgatory, or any other Catholic Tenet, His own reason yet in à cloud tell's him. Perhaps, He hits on the true Sense, Perhaps not. If he plead by Scripture he never gets above the degree of doubting, If he take recourse to History or any other Principle what ever, He shall find himself at the end of his labour, where he was at the Beginning as doubtful in his Proofs as in his Assertion. And why? He hath not evidenced Church to rely on. But more of this hereafter. See also. Disc. 1. C. 11. CHAP. XIII. Other Inferences drawn from the precedent Doctrine. Atheists and Heretic, Argue alike. The Motives of Credibility lead to à total Belief of what ever the true Church Proposeth▪ A word of Mr Thorndicks Mistakes concerning the Church▪ 1. THe first Inference. All that's pleadable in Behalf of Protestancy or any particular Tenet thereof, is not only doubtful but highly improbable, upon These two Principles. First, that à Church evidenced by the very same Marks and Motives which Christ our Lord Shown to the world, reiect's the Two Principles. Novelty, (And no Authority on earth can Contest with an Oracle so clearly Manifest.) The other Principle. No Society of Christians signalised with the like Motives as the Roman Catholic Church Demonstrat's, ever maintained so much as one Tenet of the Protestants Doctrine. Here the ingenuous Reader is desired to reflect à little how we proceed. 2. I prove my Catholic Doctrine by the Public Authority of an evidenced Church, (That's my Principle) And our Adversaries to Oppose me come armed with two or three maimed The Sectaries opposition against the Church is null And why? dark Sentences, of the Holy Fathers and think this enough to cast Popery out of the world. No such Matter my good Countrymen, There is yet much more to do, before you speak probably. You explode Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Invocation of Saints. We Ask whether you ever had à Church as Evidenced, as Ancient, as universal, as Commissioned to teach as ours, which publicly maintained your Tenets and censured The Roman Catholic Doctrine? Show us such à Church upon solid Principles the work is done, you give weight For weight, Evidence for Evidence, and may Speak boldly, Nay I say more, you may well triumph, For upon the Supposition, we are vanquished; But Fail to do this (and fail you must) you are silenced, yea, impossibilitated to write more Controversies. See more of this Subject above. Disc. 1. C. 19 3. A second inference. The Atheist and Protestant plead alike. That is. As the one Argues against God, just so the other doth against Christ's Church. All know the more ancient Atheists offered not positively to Demonstrate the Nonexistence of God, for there is no Principle to ground that Senseless Assertion upon, But chief excepted against the Proofs The Atheists way of arguing parall'd with that of Sectaries. drawn from the visible works in Nature and thought these so weak to Evince à Deity, that there might well be none. Thus our Sectaries proceed. For stark shame they dare not deny à Church of Christ, Yet their whole labour is so to obscure Her Evidence, that no man can possibly find out the Oracle by Signs, Miracles, Conversions, and Antiquity. Therefore as the Atheist in effect denies God, or at least stands doubtful of his Being, So the Sectary, to parallel him, because He denies the Churches glorious Evidence, cannot but remain doubtful, whether there be any such Oracle or no. Again as the Atheist betrays his folly in giving the Lie to the universal judgement of mankind, when he Says the works of Nature prove not à Deity, So the Sectary runs the same Career, betrays his folly, and gives the Lie to the whole Christian world, when he says, the Manifest works of Grace, visible in the Catholic Church convince Her not to be God's Oracle. 4. A third inference. The sole Evidence of the Roman Catholic Church visible by Her Marks, so clearly convinces and carries on the whole Catholic Cause without exception, A Church clearly evidenced cannot be excepted against. So utterly vanquishes the Protestants Plea of Errors entering into this great moral Body, that it is highly improbable, yea à flat Calumny to impeach Her of any. Here is my reason. Mere doubts, or crazy Topics can not reverse Evidence, But the Church's Antiquity, Her vast extent, Her Progress, Her Miracles, Her Conversions and the other like Signs, are ●x sensatis, sensibly and undeniably evident; Therefore all impleading Her of Error is more than improbable, unless She has erred in showing such Marks as have made the world Christian. Now further. If this Evidence stands firm, Her Doctrine is made evidently Credible by it, that is, so worthy of Acceptance by divine Faith, That Reason, after so much Light seen, is obliged under pain of damnation to yield Assent to the Doctrine. For, as none can prudently believe, before this Evidence be attained. (Qui cito credit levis est cord, Eccles. 19 44. One too quick in believing is not wise) So none after 'tis had, can without damnable sin Disbelieve. 5. Hence I Argue. The Doctrine of the Primitive Church was made evidently credible to reason (That is) worthy of all Acceptation in the three or four first Centuries, or was not; The Primitive evidence of Credibility. If not; none could then believe, with divine Faith; For the Evidence of credibility necessarily preceed's Faith, And as Faith in itself is strong, most certain, and victorious over Incredulity (john 1. 5. 4. This is the victory which ouercom's the world, our Faith), So this previous Evidence, answerably brings Reason to so firm à State of believing certainly, that nothing Proposable can Eclipse that clear and manifest light. 6. Contrariwise, if those Primitive Christians had the Evidence we speak of, and were thereby obliged to believe, We Catholics Is yet manifest in the Roman Catholic Church. are Most secure, for the very same Evidence still continues to this Age in the Roman Catholic Church. Miracles go on, Conversions of Nations go on, the Succession of Pastors goes on, The fulfilling of Prophecies goes on, Sanctity of life in Thousands and Thousands, is manifest to our eyes and senses. Every day the Church grows older, and which is enough to convince the most obdurate Heretic, the lovely union, the unanimous Consent, of so many Nations though▪ different in tongues, in manners in Education, (conspiring, and openly Professing one and the same faith,) hath not only gained our Church à public Reputation the whole world over, but moreover proves this great Truth, That she, and none but she, is God's Sacred Oracle. 7. If then (and here lies the force of my Inference) it had been à flat calumny and more than vastly improbable, to have taxed the Apostolical Primitive Church of Ertour after so great The force of the Inference. Evidence laid forth to Reason in Her Marks and Signs, it is no less sinful in the Protestant now, no less ungodly at this day, to accuse the present Church of corrupted Dectrin, whilst She frees herself from the Calumny, by giving in the very same Evidence of Credibility. For here is my irrefragable Principle. The like full evidence of motives leads reason to draw Thence à most firm and certain Faith. Destroy this Evidence in any, that proves Himself to be God's Oracle, you must deny it to Christ our Lord when he preached, To the Primitive Church also, and finally to the Modern Catholic Church. Do so, All Faith perishes; Grant it to both the Ancient Church and this now in being, All pleading against our Catholic Doctrine is mere Vanity. 8. The Sectary may reply. Though the Evidence we insist on hath some weight. Yet it follows not, that all the Doctrine An Objection Proposed. our Church teaches is made evidently Credible, For he can justly except against the Doctrine, relying upon other solid Grounds, and most approved Principles. Scripture, for example, the Authority of holy Fathers, the Records of Antiquity, the Form of the Primitive Church, are his Principle, and by these he hopes to prove our Church's Doctrine False, which done the Evidence we build upon, signifies nothing. 9 I am very willing to solve this Objection, the Answer I hope, will show upon what unsteedy foundations Protestancy stands. To proceed with all clarity. This is Questionable, whether we, or Protestants, teach the Doctrine of jesus Christ. And because it is here impossible to descend to all particular controversies, we will fall upon one only much debated (one serves for all). Viz whether Transubstantiation, or no Transubstantiation, be Orthodox Doctrine. The truth yet lies in darkness, there is no Self-Euidence either in the Affirmative or Negative, 'tis yet no more but doubtful, or à mere Perhaps, whether the Protestants or we Speak Truth; God's revelation which only can give certainty is Where the difficulty lies? yet obscure to us both, and as little evidenceth itself, as the Verity we inquire after. By what means then can we raise ourselves above this state of Doubting to so great à degree of certainty, as to Say without fear. Transubstantiation is Orthodox Doctrine. And the contrary, is not so. 10. The Catholic (to wave in this place other proofs) recur's to his Church, And saith this Public evidenced Oracle, as well raises him to à State of certainty for his Tenet, as the evidenced Primitive Church raised the first believing Christians from their doubts to Security. For the like full evidence always leads to How the Catholic Peoceed's. a like certainty of Belief. The Protestant, having rejected our present evidenced Church, hopes well, and will needs find flaws and falsity too in Her Doctrine, not by confronting Her Evidence, or denoting an other Church, As ample, as ancient, as miraculous, as She is, which held his Doctrine, for this, though it should be pleaded, (if we come to à clear Decision,) is unpleadable, because the Protestant has not such Oracle. What's done therefore? I'll tell you, and you may justly wonder. He shaks of this clear Principle of an evidenced Church and pretends, (though there is no such matter) to launch into the vast Ocean of Scripture, Councils, volumes of Fathers, ancient Records▪ and thinks The Sectary takes à Contrary way. to carry on his cause this way. Here He pick's up one dark Sentence of à Father, and triumphs with that, There on another. Here upon the least hint given he Snarls at one piece of Popery, there at another. Here he guesses, and there he misses. In à word the man is busily idle, doth much, and just nothing, runs on, but is out of his way, utterly lost, without the guidance of God's evidenced Oracle which only can draw him out of the Labyrinth. And if you Ask, why he is out? I Answer his Error lies here, that both in this and all other Controversies, he makes his false Suppositions to pass for proofs against evidence. 11. You shall see what I here Assert Made Good. To prove no Transubstantiation the Se&ary read's Scripture, Fathers, Antiquity, or what else you will. Be it so. He read's but not alone, For the learned Catholic bear's him company and read's also. Mark now. The One after his reading glosses, so doth the other. The One compares Passage with Passage, so doth the other. The One discourses, So doth the other. But when all is done (and here lies the mischief) the Protestant imposes one sense upon the perused Testimonies, and the Catholic another Which leaves him in State of doubting. quite contrary. This daily Experience teaches. viz. That we differ not so much about the words we read as about the sense of Scripture and Fathers. Therefore this also is Evident, That the Protestant advances not his Doctrine (if yet he get so high) above the degree of guessing only, whilst he pleads by his glossed Scripture, and Fathers, For as long as the Catholic, wholly as learned and conscientious as He is, and an ample Church besides, opposes his far-fetched Sense out of the Fathers, He cannot without Impudence, and making à false Supposition to pass for his Proof, cry it up as certain: Now further. As the sense he draws from Scripture and the Fathers is no more, but at most doubtful, (I say improbable) so his Assertion concerning no Transubstantiation, or what ever else he holds contrary to the Roman Catholic faith, is wholly as much wavering, or purely doubtful: But that which is only doubtful and no more is too weak, What ever is doubtful grounds not Faith. either to ground any Christian Tenet upon, or to Contrast with the Roman Catholic Church, whose Doctrine is indisputably made evidently credible. Therefore unless à weak Uncertainty can reverse Evident Credibility, the Sectaries Plea against the Church, is not only improbable, but highly improbable. 12. To conclude this Point. Here is an unanswerable Dilemma. It is possible to Denote, and point at another Church (which without dispute taught Protestant Doctrine and opposed ours) as Ancient, as large, and every way as Evidenced to sense and reason, as the Roman Catholic Church is, Or it is not possible. If possible, controversies are strangely ended, for prove A Dilemma. me once such à Church, I say plainly. There is no such thing as true Faith in the world worthy defence. Why? Because if the Supposition holds two different Churches evidenced à like, equally as ancient, as efficacious in Doctrine and glorious in Miracles, clash with one another, Say and Unsay, approve, and condemn. The one condemn's Protestancy, The other Popery, One will have Transubstantiation believed, The other not, which is as wholly destructive of Christian Faith, as if Scripture itself should plainly Speak Contradictions. 13. On the other side, If the Sectary can neither name, nor point at à Chutch (every way as evidenced as the Roman Catholic) No evidenced Protestant Church, no pleading for Protestancy. which expressly propugned Protestancy and opposed Popery, He shall never utter probable word against any one Article of our Catholic Faith; For throw an evidenced Protestant Church out of the world, All that is allegable in behalf of its Doctrine, or against us, will either End in à slight discharge, of à few scattered unweighed Sentences of holy Fathers (no sooner read than Answered) or, as we daily Experience, in gross Mistakes, and bold Calumnies laid on our Doctrine. And can these think ye extinguish the visible Lustre of our Chureh, can these lessen the evident Credibility of Her Doctrine, or bring so known and owned an Oracle into open disgrace, or public Disreputation? It is impossible. The most vigorous Abettors of Protestancy may not only blush to Assert it, but will be baffled did we once live to see the happy day, when our just cause might be proposed, and heard in à Public Dispute, before Learned and impartial judges. A Word of Mr Thorndiks Mistakes discovered in His Book of Forbearance. 14. Though I Honour Mr Thorndick, and hold him much more wise, Learned, and moderate, than some late voluminous Writers have been, yet because Truth will out, I must not dissemble but Speak truth, And therefore Say in à word. His whole attempt against the Roman Catholic Church is weak, And the feebleness of it Cannot but appear to every Reader that penetrat's the force of the Principles already established. My wish indeed was to have. Understood his meaning better in some particular passages, For here and there, he seems to me à little obscure, yea, to build with one hand and to Pull down with the other, How ever by what is clear we have enough, and may well refute his Errors. 15. Page 19 In the Book now cited He takes leave to blame all those who declare in behalf of the Protestant Church, that it depart's, or Separat's from the Church of Rome. For, Saith he, seeing it hath been granted in, and by this Church, ever since the Reformation that there is, and always was salvation to be had in the Church of Rome as à true Church, though corrupted; I am very confident, that no Church can Separate from the Church of Rome, but they must make Themselves thereby Schismatics before God. I grant. 1. Such are Schismatics as leave this Church, I grant 2. Salvation was, and will ever be had in this Church, Yet say. 3. It is Calumny, yea à plain Contradiction, to grant Salvation attainable in this Church, and to impeach Her of Error or corrupted Do & rin. The Calumny Church Motives either prove that Oracle pure in all She teaches, or in Nothing. is unquestionable because the Marks, the signs and exterior Evidence of our Church already insisted on, either prove her God's Oracle as sound and faithful in all She teaches as the Primitive Church was, or convince nothing. What then can these Adversary's aim at? Will they grant Her no less illustrious in Marks and Motives which induce to faith than the Apostical Church was, and yet make Her à Monster, à harlot, and prefidiously false in proposing Faith? Have so many learned Doctor's Age after Age taught Her Doctrine, so many Martyts shed their blood In defence of it, so many Saints wrought glorious Miracles to confirm it, and after all can it upon no proof but upon à vain and most unjust Supposition be called false and unorthodox? Nothing can be more extravagant. You must therefore either deny the Evidence we plead by, (which is undeniable) or own this Church entirely sound in every Doctrine proposed, as Faith. Whence it is that when jews, Gentiles, and Heretics, convert themselves to Catholic Religion, drawn thereunto by the light of evident Motives, they frankly believe no Part, but all Church Doctrine without Exception. And the Reason of believing thus Wholly and not The Reason of believing entirely, and not by halves by halfs, is given above. C. 5. 6. where we Demonstrate, that if the Roman Catholic Church has erred in the proposal but of one Point of Faith, and obliged Christians to believe that under pain of Damnation, She is not only traitorous to Christ, and therefore can be believed in nothing, But moreover at this present day there is no true Faith professed in the Christian world. Contrariwise, if She be true and unerrable in all teaches, She is to be believed in every Article without reserve. 16. Now to the double Contradiction in the words alleged. It is granted Saith. Mr. Thorndicke that there is, and always was Salvation to be had in the Church of Rome as à true Church, though corrupted. I Answer this is implicatory. For if true, She is not corrupted in Doctrine; or if corrupted in Doctrine She is not true; Unless one makes by mere fancy à Chimaera of the Catholic Church, and says à true Church may be corrupted which is impossible, for truth excludes corruption: Therefore no Orthodox Christian ever owned à Church partly true, partly false. You Sir, say. 2. Salvation may be had in this Church. Very good. Ergo Her Faith is sound able to produce The Contradiction evinced against this Author. in every soul Repentance, the love and fear of God, and what ever else is necessary to acquire Heaven, Or if it want this Essential Perfection and bring not men to à security of Salvation, it is no Faith at all, and consequently Catholics must be damned for want of divine Faith, having no true Church to believe in. See more. Disc. 1. C. 21. n. 7. Finally, whereas you Assert. No Church can Separate from the Church of Rome, but they must make themselves thereby Schismatieks before God, The Inference Sir, is true, but most clear against yourself, And proves that both you and the Protestant Party are Schismatics before God and man too. For this matter of Fact, Viz. That you Separated from, Protestants proved Schismatics. and rebelled against the Roman Catholic Church is as evident, as That England, once Catholic, communicated with Rome in Points of Faith, in the use of Rites, Liturgies, Sacraments, And afterward divorced itself from that Communion. Reply, or tell us you had cause to do so, and so far only receded from this Church, as She receded from Her Ancient purity, You make again à false Supposition your Proof, yourself judge in à cause you have nothing to do with, And the lovely Spouse of Christ loyal and perfidious, chaste and à harlot with one breath. 17. Yet one word more. You say the Church of Rome is à true Church wherein Salvation is had, though corrupted. One clear Inference against Mr Thorndick. Hence I Argue; Either you in England are now at this instant separated from this Church, as it is True, or not; If separated from it, as true, the Reformation belongs to you only, you are to cancel your own Errors, according to the form of Doctrine in our Church, for She, if true, is so far pure that she cannot be reform. And thus much you seem to grant P. 33. It is out of love to the Reformation, that I insist upon such à Principle as may serve to reunite us with the Church of Rome; being well assured, that we can never be well reunited, with ourselves otherwise. That not only the Reformation, but the common Christianity must needs be●lost in the Divisions, which which will never have an end otherwise. What is this to say, but to wish the English Church reform by the Roman Catholic? Therefore something (if these quoted words bear sense) is amiss, not in the Roman, but in the English Church, which needs Reformation. Now on the other side, if you say the Roman Catholic was and is à true Church, Another Inference as clear. and that the English also is altogether as true as she, or hath not separated from the Roman in matter of true Doctrine; it follows inevitably, if the Supposition holds, that neither of them needs Reformation in matter of Truth (for here we speak not of Rites and Ceremonies which are alterable.) To what purpose then is it to talk of reforming either Church, in point of Truth, when both are Supposed so true, that neither can be reform, nor differ, if true in faith, from one another? 18. Perhaps you may (yea and must) reply, if your Discourse have sense. Though they are true in Doctrines called fundamental, yet both have their lesser corruptions, and these need Reformation. This is all that can be Asserted, For if both are false in fundamentals neither of them at this day is the Orthodox Church of Christ, and consequently both the Romanists and English wanting fundamentals, are People essentially Churchless. Now upon the Supposition of lesser corruptions only not fundamental, you have à dreadful Inference against Protestants, And as true, as dreadful. Viz. That their first Separation from the Roman Catholic Church was damnably Sinful, though She were here falsely supposed to have erred in smaller matters; This, I A third Inference. Say follows, not only because the Ancient Fathers expressly teach, No Reformation can be of such Importance, as to countervail the danger of Divisions, And that all things should be rather tolerated than to consent to Schism in the Church; But upon this other account also, that the Revolt of Protestants from our Ancient Church hath laid such à visible disgrace upon à noble Kingdom, That none but the powerful hand of God, with the wisdom of our Gracious Sovereign and the State's concurrence, Touching upon the doleful Divisions in England. can take it of. The Nation, we see with our eyes, is strangely divided, hideously discomposed, Religion is of the hinges, and men generally are so transported into Extravagancies; that none can say what the Religion is which England Professes at this day, There are so many Sects, so many Divisions, so many Tub-Preachers, so many woemen-Gospellers, so many Quakers, so many fanatics, so many Leviathan-monsters, that you may read and see without turning to the Bible, à Babylonian Confusion, amongst them. Would Popery, Sr. think ye, (you are as I understand moderate, and learned) had that continued, laid England under such à public Disgrace as this Rabble of men, and fanatics have done? Let the world judge. 19 Now if you Ask, from whence came this fearful Disorder, which to my sorrow makes our Country ridiculous to foreign Nations? I answer. The first Rent, the first Rupture, the first Schism of Protestants from the Catholic Church, occasioned all. Here is the Source, and Sole Origen of these unfortunate, The Origen of all these lamentable Divisions. Revolutions. Wherefore this Argument proposed by à Fanatic against Protestants is unanswerably convincing, Ad hominem. (I say ad hominem; not that I approve Fanaticism). As ye Protestants without recourse to any other judge but yourselves upon your own Authority quitted the Roman Catholic Church, and thought your Fact reasonable; So we fanatics, without recourse to any but our own tender Consciences, (knowing you began à Reformation not yet complete) leave Protestancy, And hold our fact as reasonable as yours: And thus others by your first Example The fanatics Argument against Protestants. may reform Religion to the world's end. Yet all of us (may these men Say) make but one true Church, For if Mr. Thorndicke Page. 9 Answer's pertinently to that demand. Where his Church was before Luther. There it was, saith he, where it is. The same Church reform, which was depraved afore. If this Answer I say be good, Pray you why should fanatics, Nay why ought the Arians, and worst of Heretics be excluded from being of one and the same Catholic Church? For the Church seems to Sectaries an ample field, and embraceth all called Christians though differently reform. The only difficulty than is, to find out him, or see Those, who among so many dissenting Reformers (the whole world over) have happily made the best choice, in All seclanes will reform, and none can do it. mending Religion. The Protestant you see reform's the Catholic, the Puritan, the Protestant, and the Quaquer will reform all at once, until some new Sectary peep out, that bring's in à better Fashion. And is it possible, shall all these vnreformed People reform one another? This difficulty cannot be solued in Protestant principles. 20. I say in à word. It is impossible to reform any erring Society of Christians, but by the Rule Doctrine and Authority, of The Church which reform's other erring Socoeties must not need any reformation. some one Church, which must be owned so pure, that She cannot be reform in what She teaches. The reason is clear. For à fallible and deformed Church, can no more help to reform another like wise fallible or unreformed, than the blind lead the blind. Hence methinks Mr. Thorndick, who holds Protestancy as fallible, and as much out of order as Popery, Speaks little to the purpose Page. 11. where he saith. There is no Power in this Church and Kingdom (he mean's England) to reform itself in matter of Religion, but only by that Form, and to that Form which may appear to have been held by the whole Primitive Church before the Corruption came in, which we pretend to reform. I cannot but smile at this word Appear. Pray you Sir, Say to whom must it Appear? What? To you or me, or to any private fallible man? You talk as if, forsooth, the Primitive Doctrine were so apparently Manifest to People, that every one by opening Books and reading Autiquity, may with à wet singer clearly discover the true and Orthodox Form of Religion, Whereas the contrary is evident, For have not we and Protestant's (to omit others) now for à whole Age perused Councils, and Fathers, and after all, do we not see with our eyes, that what seems Orthodox Doctrine to one Party, seems not so to the other? It appears manifestly to me, that the Primitive Fathers, so openly maintained an unbloody Sacrifice upon the Altar, that the wit of man cannot without violence, wrist them to à contrary sense; doth the Truth appear so to Protestants? It appeared to S. Cyprian Epist. 55. ad Cornel. Dissensions arises after the perusal of the primitive writings and to me also, That Heresy and Schism, take their Origen from this, That the fraternity of Christians answerably to God's command, Obey not one Priest (and one judge) who is Christ's Vicegerent in the Militant Church on earth. Will Sectaries read and understand this as I do? It seemed clear to S. Jerome cited above, That one out of the Roman Catholic Church, whereof Pope Damasus was then Head really belonged not to Christ, but to Antichrist, and Therefore aught to be esteemed an Alien from the house of God, à Person unclean, and profane. Will the Protestant after his reading these words own the Doctrine pure and Orthodox? No he dares not. 21. What then is the Result, though we read these and à hundred other Passages in the ancient Records so Plain for Popery? Experience tell's us, nothing else ensues but an endless contest about their Sense, and crossing one an other with contrary glosses. This is all that can appear to Mr Thorndick. Wherefore Unless The plainest Authorities Convince not Sectaries Recourse be had to better Principles then to mere Appearances, Disputes may go on till Dooms day, without Satisfaction, or fruit to any. Be it how you will. My hearty wish is, that Mr Thorndick, who hitherto Stays in generalities, would please fully to set down that whole Platform of Religion, which he conceives exact, and suitable to the Primitive Church. Were this done (which will never be) I am confident, His Extract or what is required of Mr Thorndick Draught would appear so imperfect, and misshapen à Business in the judgement of Catholics and Protestants also, That as the one Party cannot, but look on it with disdain, so the other would reject it as unworthy Acceptance. 22. Besides, would it not seem à new wonder to Strangers abroad, Yea and as ridiculous as wonderful, were they told, that after so much labour spent about reforming Religion in England, we have yet at present à thoughtful Gentleman there, that's very busy in Setting forth the last and best Edition of Protestancy Reform, which perhaps may prove worse than any other gone before. Naught it must needs be, for this Reason, That the means he would reform by, has no Proportion with the designed End. For by A New● Reformer of Religion in these old days of the world. the light of à few dead Manuscripts, written 14. or. 15. Ages Since, He offer's now to amend all the Churches in the world, though the very sense of these Writings which must be the Rule of his Reformation, is neither well known to Himself, nor yet agreed on, by those dissenting Churches he would reform. What think ye? Were this sense yet to be learned, (the want whereof causes endless Errors among Sectaries,) would not common Prudence rather take it from à living Oracle, which has taught the world time out of mind, than from à late Novellist that Professes himself fallible, and Therefore may most easily Misinterpret would appear ridiculous to all. the best Records? This living Oracle at least promises infallibility (Which Shall be proved presently) And therefore is à Surer Principle to rely on, Then The Father's Sentences long Since Written, whilst Sectaries make Their sense and true meaning à Matter of Contest. 23. Yet one word more and I end. Mr Thorndick will Reform the present Roman Church Corrupted, by the Primitive supposed pure for the first 4. or. 5. Ages. I must needs demand first, whether that Primitive Church, the Rule of his Reformation Questions proposed to our Adversary. was infallible, and pure in those pretended fundamentals only, necessary to Salvation, though not in other Doctrines of lesser Moment? Or. 2. Whether She (because fallible) as much needed Reformation in smaller Matters not called fundamental, as this present Church is supposed to need? Or. 3. Whether She was so entirely pure in every doctrine, little, and great, that She could not be brought to more Purity, or be better Reform? Grant the first. viz. That the Primitive Church was unerrable and pure in fundamentals only, not in others, The present Roman Church is as good as She was, For our Adversary own's Her à true Church wherein Salvation may be had, and thus far She needs no reforming. Grant. 2. that both these Churches, because fallible, might err, and perhaps have erred in lesser Matters, not named fundamental, The Primitive can be no Rule of Reformation to the present Church, because that Primitive is alike err 〈…〉, alike reformable, And for ought men know, as much out of the way of truth in Nonfundamentals as the present Church is; Therefore I said above, if the blind cannot lead the blind, à Church wanting Reformation cannot reform another sick of the same malady. 24. If finally it be Said, the Primitive Church was so infallible, so pure every way, both in great and little Matters, that She could not be more reform in the first 5. Centuries for example: We have à Church once entirely pure, And then urge our Herein Satisfaction is most required. Adversary not barely to say it, But to prove upon indubitable Principles, Scriptures, Fathers, or the General Consent of Christians, that She continued not wholly as pure in the sixth, seventh, or eight Age, and so downward to our days as She was before. To show à Deficiency in this Church once confessedly true, in after Ages, will be more than an Herculean labour, when it is demonstratively evidenced above, That nothing but à Church equally as Ancient, as Universal, and glorious in Miracles as the Roman is, can probably impeach Her of the least Corruption. Mr Thorndicks Mistake is, that he makes (as Sectaries usually do) à false Supposition his Proof; He supposes A supposition made à Proof. our Church corrupted in Doctrine, and then will amend it according to his fancy by the Primitive, whereas he knows, or aught to know, that we Catholics deny His Supposition, and say both are unerrable, and withal Assert, that no Authority on earth can better inform us of the Primitive Doctrine than the present Roman Church, which hath successively handed it to us Age after Age. However to take away all ambiguity and further Dispute in this Matter, you have next, three following Chapters which I hope will give Satisfaction to the rational Reader. More shall be added hereafter. CHAP. XIV. Whether there be à Church of one Denomination infallible, not only in Matters miscalled Fundamental, but in all and every Doctrine She Proposes, and Obliges Christians to believe, as Faith? 1. AS the Answer to the Question aym's at à clear and easy way of ending Controversies Concerning Religion, So the following Discourse tends to settle one great truth in the minds of every one. viz. That both the Ancient, and present Roman Catholic Church is not only infallible, But that the what we intent to prove. Adversaries of Her infallibility destroy the very Essence of Christian Religion, And deservedly merit upon that Account, The name of Schismatics and Heretics also. 2. To make good what's now Asserted, à few Postulata or Principles must be premised. One is. That Church which Promises, and proves Herself infallible in Doctrine doth not only Upon these following Principles. facilitate, but gives also absolute Security to Faith, For such à Church Participat's most, and comes nearest to that first Divine Apostolical Spirit, which confessedly was infallible. 3. A. ●. Principle. Whereas nothing hath, or aught to have, à stronger Influence over the minds of men than Religion, So nothing can discountenance it more, than à steadfast Persuasion of its Fallibility, and Consequently, of it's easily being False. This Persuasion Cut's of all Christian Assurance, and drives men to so cold an Indifference of embracing this or that Religion, That it much imports not which to take to, any or none. 4. A. 3. Principle. The means or influence whereby Christ preserves his Church infallible, needs not to be explicated by any Supernatural quality, personally inhering in the Teaching Representative, or intrinsically elevating the convened Prelates to à State of Infallibility; for 'tis enough, that the safe Conduct of Almighty God, who is always vigilant, and Assists by his exterior Protection, so secures the Church from error, that She neither What the Church's Infallibility requires. can be misled, when She teaches, nor misled others. Yet I deny not but that an interior Motion of Grace may be, yea and often is in the hearts of such as are Assembled together in God's name, and Assisted to define infallibly. Divine Faith, 'tis true actually elicited, even after the permanent Habit infused, requires à Supernatural Motion of Grace, But hereof we speak not at present. 5. A. 4. Principle. When it is enquired Whether the Church Distusive be infallible, the Querie is not, whether the Motives inducing to distinguish that Oracle from others, Demonstratively and with all Metaphysical certitude, evidence likewise God's Revelation relating to the Mysteries Believed; For this might lead us to inquire whether Faith be evident in Attestante, That is, so Vnexceptionably manifest, that all may clearly Infer from the Revelation clearly known, That the Mysteries believed, are evidently true. We now meddle not with that Difficulty, though great Divines patronise the Affirmative, But only Ask, Whether the Doctrine of Christ's Church be so infallibly Certain, that it cannot be False or deceive any. Catholics The Question Stated. own à triple infallibility necessary to Faith. The first proper to God's Revelation, no Protestant denies that. The second belongs to the Church, either Diffusive, or Representative in General Councils, whereby we learn, and that infallibly, those Truths which God reveals. The third infallible Assurance necessary to Faith, all Orthodox Christians have, that believe the A threefold Infallibility. Mysteries revealed upon the Divine Testimony, Proposed by Christ's Church. 6. A. 5. Principle. If, (what is most undoubted) Divine Faith essentially relies upon God's infallible Verity speaking by one or more men sent to Teach, (who prove their Mission and Demonstrate the Credibility of the Doctrine delivered) it necessarily follows, That, that first infallible Verity begets in every true Believer, no less perfect Faith Than what is most certain and infallible. Wherefore as it is the indispensable Duty of every believing Christian to acquiese in, and rest upon God's infallible Man's Duty grounded on Christ's Promise. Veracity; So it is an indispensable Promise, That we have Christ present with à Church which teaches all Truth, And therefore cannot but Propose the Object of Faith infallibly. The firm Promise irrevokably issued from Power and Goodness itself, Matt. 28. 20. I am with you always to the end of the world. john. 14. 16. I will Ask the Father, and he will give you an other Comforter, the Spirit of truth to remain with you for ever. Hell gates cannot prevail against the Church. Thus much premised. 7. The Difficulty now agitated is. Whether the Roman Catholic Church and Her approved General Councils be so secured from Error, That She cannot swerve from that first Support of Truth, (I mean God's infinite Veracity) But must when She teaches, Teach that exactly which God hath revealed, and will have after à sufficient Proposal, Vniversally believed. Sectaries say, She may, Yea actually has swerved from God's Revelation, and in great Matters too, though not perhaps in the What Protestants assert. Primary Fundamentals, (as they are Called) or in Fundamentals Simply necessary to Salvation, And they were forced to this wicked Doctrine upon three naughty Motives. 8. First to give Scope, or rather to invite Libertins to hold or deny so much of Christian Religion as pleaseth their fancy; And do we not see the liberty effectually laid hold on in England amongst fanatics, and such giddy People? All this giddiness And why? came first from the reformed, or rather the deformed Novelty of Protestancy. They do it. 2. to make Controversies Endless, For deny the Church's Infallibility, Cavils go on; Grant Her infallible Disputes are ended. 3. This is done, to quit themselves of an Infamy justly laid upon them, of being both Schismatics and Heretics at once, which shall never be clawed of, do what they can. For these unsound reasons, or pestilent The Catholic Assertion. Motives rather, The Church forsooth must needs be fallible. Catholics on the other side, maintain the contrary, And say there is à Church so Infallible, that She cannot err in any thing She teaches, as Faith. And thus much God willing shall be evinced in the following Discourse. But to do it exactly, I am briefly to lay open to all that have eyes, The Abject, the Desperate and Desolate condition of à fallible Church. You have here my first Proposition. 9 A fallible Church is essentially Constituted, in à State of public A fallible Church is in à State of rebellion. Rebellion and Hostility with itself, Wages war against Infidels without hope of convincing, or conquering any: And therefore cannot be Christ's Orthodox Church. To declare further what I would say know first, That Sectaries own à Catholic Church much larger than the Roman Catholic, And make Themselves Part of it. Conceive now (which though very hard is yet possible), that the Representative of this great Moral Body meet's in à General Council, and discusses the Question now in hand. Viz. Whether there be à Church of one Denomination Preserved infallible by Divine Assistance? Part of the Representative, and these are Protestants, Oppose the total Infallibility of every Church. Part (Catholics I mean) Say one Church is infallible, and that is the Roman. The Difficulty proposed can be decided, or not. If not; This great Representative meet's to no purpose, but only to make more No means to unite it. Strife in the world. If it can be decided, God has provided means whereby the truth of so weighty à Matter may be known, But there is no such means left, unless some one Church or other (or all together) be owned infallible, Therefore an endless Hostility goes on, in this supposed Representative. 10. That all means fail may Sectaries Votes have place, is indisputably Evident. You shall see it clearly. The Catholic Party Appeals to Scripture, alleges these and other like Passages. Without some One Church be Infallible He who here's you hears me, and from thence infers, Who ever here's the Church here's Christ, an Infallible Teacher. The Church is the Pillar and ground of Faith, and hence concludes, She is infallible. The Spirit of Truth shall remain with the Church for ever. Pastors, and Doctors, are appointed by Providence to preserve the faithful from wavering in Faith, and all erroneous circumvention. Hell gates cannot prevail against the Chutch etc. What can be more The Scripture. Significant, if plain words have sense for the Infallibility of some One Church? Yet all these and many other Testimonies so shrink to nothing, (may Sectaries Glosses stand in force) That no man can say what God speaks in these Scriptures or know the Truth now debated. Viz. Whether any Church be infallible or not, This means failing of its End which ought to compose our Strife, Hostility is as vigorous, as when the Dispute began, for yet we know nothing certainly. 11. Pass from Scripture to Fathers, We have there most pregnant Expressions. The Church cannot be adulterated. Cypria● And Fathers Speak significantly the Church's Infallibility▪ de Vnit Eccle: What She once received from Christ, She ever hold●. Idem. Epist. ad Corne. She is à pure Virgin in Faith, and cannot be deceived or seduced, nor overcome with any Violence, being upheld by Her Virginal integrity. Fulgent. Epist. ad Probum. Cap. 5. Her Fa●● is invincible, even to the Powers of Hell. Euseb Caesar. Praepar. E 〈…〉 g. ●ib. 1. C. 3. If any fear to be deceived by the obscurity of à Question, let him Consult that Church concerning it, which the Scripture Demonstrat's without any ambiguity. S. Austin. lib. Contra Crescon. C. 33. What think ye? Is not the Church's Immunity from Error clearly established? No say Sectaries, For though we cannot confront these Passages of Scripture and Fathers, with others as significant for our Plea of Fallibility; Yet we do, and must deny Their plain Sense; We do, and must say, The Roman Church has been adulterated, otherwise we are Schismatic'ks. We must Sectaries deny all, or must own themselves Schismatiks. say, that though once pure She lost what she had received; And therefore is now no Virgin, but à Harlot. We must Say, Her Faith is Vincible, That it is not safe to consult Her in dubious Matters, for She can return no better Answer, than what is fallible and may be false. Thus Sectaries. 12. Hence it follows first; That our great supposed Representative, made up of Protestants, Catholics, and all other called Christians stands without redress in an open Rebellion, in à public Hostility with itself, And consequently taken in its whole Latitude is not Christ's Church, Because the Church of Christ is essentially founded in Unity, This supposed Representative, torn as you see in pieces with intestine Divisions is not one, And therefore most desolate, For, Omne regnum divisum in se desolabitur. And here by the way, I take leave to tell Sectaries, 'tis but Folly to talk as They do, of à Catholic Church wider than the Roman, Or of à lawful Representative possibly to be convened in Unity, out of the Body of all named Christians, For as such à Church (considered Two Mistakes of Sestaries. in the largest Extent) which stands divided in Faith is not Orthodox; So such an assembled Council, made up of so many jarring Believers (considered under that notion of Hostility and Rebellion.) can be no legitimate Council. The reason is. Christ never owned à Church professing more Faiths than one, nor lawful Councils consisting of other Members than Orthodox Christians. You will then say Heretics, are not to What Heretics have to do in Councils. ●e admitted into Councils lawfully called. I Answer they are admitted, but how? Freely to dispute, not to Teach; to propose difficulties, but not to Regulate Faith, to acquiese in the Church's Definitions, but not to define, remaining Heretics. 13. You see. 2. That à Church fallible in Her Definitions concerning Faith, vainly attempts to reclaim Infidels and Heretics from their Errors. Wherefore the Nicene Father's Condemnation of Arius might have been justly excepted against and pleaded reversable upon this ground, That what they defined (because fallible) might be as far from Truth, as the very Errors they Censured, and defined against. Nay I say more: If that Council was then fallible, it lies yet at the mercy, not only of Arians, but of all Christians at this day, to admit, or reject, the Nicene Censure, or rather, if Prudence have place, to suspend Strange sequels if the Church be fallible their judgements and say, no man knows what to believe. Into such darkness, upon such Hazard, and indifferency, Christians are cast, if God's Church or that Council could err. One instance may give you some light. 14. Imagine à Heathen at that time, when Arianism seemed prosperous, and carried much vogue in the East, well inclined to embrace Christian Religion, Withal Suppose the man firmly settled in this judgement, That Catholic Religion (much resembling Arianism) was so fallible, that both the one and other might be false. Say I beseech you How indifferent would this judgement have made the Heathen, to either Religion? Nay would it not, had interest swayed never so little, have drawn him more to Arianism? Yes most assuredly. For thus he might have discoursed, and prudently. What, they call Catholic Religion How the Heathen discourses. and Arianism are much alike, both fallible both may be false. My Interest now when Arianism flourishes, carries me thither. 'tis true, I meet there with fallible Doctrine which may be false (God knows how things are) but the mischief is I can find no better amongst Catholics, nor in any other Society of Christians. Now if all I can learn be no better but fallible, and perhaps false Doctrine too, I may as well learn that from the Arians as from Catholics, or rather ought to suspect all Christian Religion of Error, because none of that Profession And Concludes against à fallible Religion. can assure me infallibly, what God has Said. But such Doctors saith the Heathen who may as easily teach me to injure an Infinite Verity, and ascribe that to God he never revealed, as lead me to acquiesce in his revealed truths, (were any such truths in being) deserve no Credit, Therefore I neither can, nor will believe any thing. 15. Before we make à further Step to one or two Propositions which decide this Controversy, à few difficulties are to be cleared against the precedent Discourse. One is. Hostility ceases in the ample Council now mentioned, would all, which is easy, Agree in one Truth, That Christ's Church is infallible in Fundamentals only, or fundamentals simply necessary to Salvation. Answ: This is to say If that were done (which never was, nor can be done) à Reunion follows. Alas, it is not yet agreed on by all nor ever will be (unless some quit their Errors) One objection answered. which and where, Christ's true Church is. It is not yet nor can be agreed on, How many or few these fundamentals are, For though Catholics and Protestants Unite in à belief of the Trinity, and call that à Fundamental Article, The Arians stand out, and Hostility ceases not but increases by the Sectaries Means. oppose both. The means then here thought of, is so far from establishing Union that it increases Division, And so it will ever fall out whilst à Church of one Denomination, is not acknowledged infallible in every Doctrine She teaches, and obliges Christians to believe under pain of Damnation. See more hereof above. Chap. 5. n. 5. 16. A. 2. Objection. Dissensions in Councils (witness those at Basil and Florence) or the Access of Heretics cannot lessen their Power, or Annul their Definitions, Therefore our Plea taken from the Hostility in à most ample Council Euinces nothing. Answ. I grant the Antecedent and say, Though Heretics and dissenting Christians meet together, yea, Though some too busily advance opinions dissonant to truth and Orthodox Doctrine, Yet God's gracious and watchful Providence, which draws good out of Evil, And often conuerts War into Peace, will with all Assurance effect that such à Council either break up and Define nothing, Or, if à Definition issues forth that only shall be defined which is certain, and infallible. Thus much is granted. Yet I deny the Consequence and Say, The Argument drawn from Hostility Convinces. Here is my reason. That Imagined Representative consists, as we now suppose, of Arians, Protestants, Catholics, Socinians and all other called Christians, For these, as some think, Collectively taken, make up the diffused Church of Christ more ample than the Roman, Or, if so many The Argument taken From Hostility Convinces. Constitute it not, Let Sectaries please to tell us what Christians are to be excluded, or precisely how many are the Members of this diffused Catholic Body? In the mean while vouchsafe to Consider the force of my Argument, grounded upon an implacable Hostility. 17. This whole diffused Moral Body evidently maintain's Contradictions. For example, Christ is the highest God, Christ is not the highest God. Our Lords Sacred Body is substantially present in the Eucharist: That Body is not substantially present. As therefore this large Society of Christians, now supposed but one great Church holds contradictions, So it must be granted, that the Representative of it also holds the same Contradictions, Or, ceaseth ●o ips● to Represent the whole Diffused Moral Body. 18. Hence one of these three Sequels inevitably follows. The first. If this Representative still continues to Represent (which is ever to be noted) and proceeds to à Definition, answerable to the Sentiment of the large Moral Body in Division, it necessarily Defines the contradictions of those Churches to The Reasons and Proofs of my Assertion. be Orthodox Doctrine, and were this done There is More than Hostility enough, For thus impossible Contradictions, are both Definable and Believable. Or, it follows 2. that our imagined Representative break's up, and leaves all points in Controversy as Wholly undecided as they were before; And this which implies an endless Hostility, would, I think, be the Result of that Council, And upon that Account appear à ridiculons Representative. Or. 3. This follows. That some one Part or other in the Representative must lay down Arms, and acknowledge one Church of One Denomination absolutely infallible, in whose Sentence all are to rest. Without this Acquiescency in one Orthodox and Infallible Church, Errors in Faith go on as S. Austin Speaks what we Assert. we see hitherto in à remediless condition. This truth S. Austin. Lib. de symb. ad Catec●um. C. 6. Saw well, where He speaks profoundly to my present purpose. Ipsa est Ecclesia sancta, Ecclesia una etc. She, and she only is the holy the one Church, the Catholic Church, which fights against all Heresies, She may fight, but cannot be foiled. And Might I here Digress à little, I could Demonstrate That never Heresy yet of any Fame in the world appeared since Christ's time, but it was Crushed censured, and condemned by one only Oracle the Roman Catholic Church, to whose Sentence the very best of Christians dutifully Submitted, relying on our Saviour's secure Promise. Hell gates cannot prevail against that Oracle. 19 A. 3. Objection. Scripture alone though all Churches were fallible, is sufficient to teach infallible Faith necessary to Salvation. Answ. Of all Objections proposable, this is least worth. For had Scripture that sufficiency, it may, I hope, be yet Enquired, Whether the Church also, which cannot clash with Scripture, has the like Prerogative of infallibility. Scripture was infallible when the Apostles preached, and yet their Preaching was as infallible as The words they wrote. But here is not my greatest Exception. I say Scripture and all the Verities in it go to wrack if the Church be fabllible, For grant this, we have no infallible Certainty of the Scriptures Canon, of its substantial Purity or Immunity from corruption, of its true Scripture with out the Churches infallible Testimony, loseth force. Sense in à hundred controverted passages. We cannot believe that Christ is God, or That his Ascent into Heaven was real, and not à vain Vision. We Cannot believe what Sacraments are, nor know the number of them without the Church. Therefore unless this Principle stand vnshaken. It is immediately more certain that the Church, manifested by Her Marks is Gods own Oracle, Than That Scripture, setting Church Authority aside is God's word, we can believe nothing. For who see's not but that very Book would soon have been out of credit, had not God by special Assistance preserved as well it's Doctrine pure in men's hearts, as He preserved the words in Velume or parchment, And this by the means of à watchful living Oracle his infallible Church. 20. Again, and this Reason convinceth. Were Scripture judged sufficient to teach Saluifical Faith completely, independently of the Church, Or were the Church (when that judgement is) held not only errable but actually erroneous, How can any having The Assertion is proved. these two judgements (Scripture Infallibly ●eaches Faith completely). The Church because erroneous fails in this Duty) Account himself à Heathen or Publican (as our Lord Saith) though he absolutely refuse to hear the Church? His refusal Certainly is prudent and defensible upon this ground, That Scripture doth all, learns him enough, Therefore none can oblige him to hear the Church, which may misled and Propound false Doctrines, For no man in his wits will listen to à Fallible Oracle, whilst he has another at hand, that teaches all Truths infallibly. 21. If you reply. Such an one is at least obliged to hear the Church in Fundamentals, but not in others. The Intelligent Person Asks, whether Protestants who lay that obligation A Reply answered. upon him of believing fundamentals only, own that Assertion s● infallible, that to believe the Distinction is an Article of their Faith? If they say it is à fundamental Article and that he is obliged to believe so, Protestants do not only maintain one infallible fundamental Point peculiar to themselves, disowned by the Roman Catholic Church (for She certainly reiects the Distinction) The Sectary Convicted of Error. but moreover now become infallible Oracles, in à Matter of greatest Importance, which cannot pass, because they are Professedly fallible in all they teach, Therefore may truth have place, the Dictinction given between fundamentals, is both Vnfundamental and fallible Doctrine, And so without More we are freed from all Obligation of believing the Church, for that Distinction failing to be à fundamental truth, The Church is absolutely fallible in fundamental Doctrine. Well then may we not hear Her at all, without any Note of being looked on as Heathens, and Publicans. 22. Some perhaps, great Patrons of Christian Liberty, and freedom of mind in matters of Faith, may object. 4. The Church cannot exercise Her Authority over men's judgements, or oblige any to an internal Assent, Her power being limited and to thus much only, as to order and regulate the Exterior A Reflection made upon Christian Libertins. for this end, that Unity and peace May be preserved without public Dissension. Answ. These men certainly never say their Creed. I believe the holy Catholic Church, that is in mind interiorly, I give Assent to all the Catholic Church teaches, Now if this Doctrine stand, They may well not yield Assent at all to any Doctrine the Church teaches, but like Hypocrites may outwardly be fair Catholics, and inwardly foul Heretics, And this is, to Profess one thing, and believe another. Christ is ashamed of them. Luke. 9 26. and so is the Apostle also Rom. 1. 16. Who blushed not to preach as he believed, And to believe as he preached. But enough hereof is said in the other Treatise. CHAP. XV. Divine Faith in this present State of things, necessarily requires à Church infallible. The Reason hereof. The Church neither Defin's, nor can Define by Humane Authority only. Her Definitions, more than morally certain, are Infallible. Sectaries Recourse to Moral certainty in Matters of Faith, à most frigid Plea. Their Fallacy is discovered. Objections Answered 1. ONe Principle established above. N. 6. Proves the first part of my Assertion. Divine Faith which is à firm Assent to what ever God speaks So ultimatly rests upon his Infallible Veracity, One Principle premised. That if à true Believer yield Assent to him as He speaks, and because He speaks, All the power in Heaven cannot Separate Infallibility from that Belief. Herein consists the Perfection of all Divine Faith, That without swerving, it tends upon a Verity Infallible, and without Hesitancy holds that infallibly true, which the infallible Verity reveals. A lesser Perfection than this is not Faith, And à greater the Apostles had not, if we precisely respect The perfection of Faith. the Motive of their Assent, Hence all must Distinguish à twofold Infallibility, One intrinsic, and infinite, proper to God's Verity, The Other answerable to à creatures Capacity, (finite, 'tis true), yet Infallible, and such the Apostles Faith was. 2. Thus much Supposed, not easily gainsaid by Sectaries, the infallibility of one Church which we say is the Roman Catholic, Stands firm. And here is the Reason. As Faith relies upon an infallible Verity that reveals Truth, So it also rests upon an infallible Oracle, which (without danger of Error) Applies and Proposes that very Truth yet obscure, to Believers, For it little auails to have à Verity infallibly Revealed, if à fallible Oracle which may both Miss and Misled, be our best One ground of the Church's Infallibility. and only Guide, or Proponent. The Church therefore which Saith Indubitably, I Propose what God Reveals, must be infallible, answerable to the Infallibility of Divine Revelation. Ruin the One or Other Infallibility, Faith can be no more but an uncertain Assent, And consequently no Faith at all. 3. To Reinforce this Reason. Please only to cast à serious The reason reinforced. Thought upon such as have been justly reputed Heretics, and upon their Procedure. The▪ Arians after the reading Scripture denied the high Godhead in Christ, His Eternal Consubstantiality also to the Father, And erred. The Pelagians rejecting Original Sin, swerved likewise from the Verities of Christian Religion; so did the Monothelits that impiously bereft Christ of his two Sacred Wills, Divine and Humane. The true Church, All know condemned, and yet condemns these Tenets as Heretical. Right say modern Sectaries, And it was well done. Very Good. If well done, hereupon ensues another troubleson Question, and it is. Whether that true Church, whilst She condemned these Errors and defined the contrary Truths, proceeded Doubtfully, Probably, upon Moral Certainty only, or Spoke as God's Oracle ought If the Church defines doubtful. to speak, Infallibly? If She Defined doubtfully, it is yet also doubtful whether Christ be the high God, and Consubstantial to his Father, Unless Scripture (now supposed God's word) in express Terms clear the doubt, and raise the Doctrine to absolute Certainty, which most evidently is not done. 4. The whole Contest then is, Whether the Church or Arians Interpret Scripture better, For the Object of my Assent when I believe the eternal Word, Consubstantial, being not Express Scripture, but an Interpretation only, it follows, if the Interpretation which the Church gives be supposed doubtful, She wrong's the Arians, and all other Christians, whilst She obliges them to believe the Mystery otherwise than only, Sub dubio or doubfully, which is not to believe at all. Again If the Church's She wrongs both Arians and All Christians Definition get à Step higher, to à degree of Probability and no more; The Arians Opinion for aught we know yet, may be as tenable as the Contrary Doctrine now supposed Orthodox, And Consequently the real Consubstantiality of the Son to his Father, is no more any Object of Faith, but merely à disputable Matter like this or that Opinion in Schools, earnestly tossed to and fro, But never ended. Doubts therefore, And mere probabilities rejected, too weightles for Church Definitions, 5. We are next to look à little into one only Refuge left The Sectaries Plea of Moral Certainty examined. Sectaries, called Moral Certainty. 'tis à dark cloud, they are lately got into, our Endeavour shall be to dissipate it. They may say. When the Church condemned Arianism (the like is of any other Heresy) and defined the Eternal Word Consubstantial. The Definition (much above Probability) though not absolutely Infallible, was yet so morally Certain that no man can, but most unreasonably, doubt of its Verity. In passing, I may without Offence take notice of Sectaries Inconsequences, and Ask, if Moral Certainty be at least had from Church Definitions, when She interpret's Scripture, though the Doctrine be not formally expressed There, Why are not Her Definitions every whit as Morally certain against Luther and Calvin, though what She Defin's be not in express Terms Gods word? I would also as willingly learn, why Protestant Doctrine is not esteemed over all the world so Morally certain as thief Ancient Catholic Definitions are? But let these Queries, not easily Answered pass, We come to the main difficulty, and demand. 6. Whether this Positive Doctrine. Christ is the Highest God, and Consubstantial to his Father be à Fundamental Article of Christian Faith finally resoluable into the Divine Revelation, And admitted A question Proposed to Sectaries. as most Fundamental by Protestants? I verily persuade myself they will Say it is: If not; This follows inevitably, that there is no fundamental Article in our Christian faith. Upon the supposed Concession I Argue. But If the Church be fallible, this Positive Doctrine. Christ is Consubstantial. is no Article of Faith because it cannot be resolved into an infinite Verity infallibly Revealing Truth, Therefore it is only à Moral humane Persuasion at most, which may be false. 7. The Proof of the Minor, will best appear if we Ask why Sectaries believe that positive Doctrine? They cannot Answer, Scripture expressly Teaches it; For most evidently that's not so. Will they say the Mystery may by good Discourse be deduced The true Answer proves Faith Certain. from Scripture? I Can wish to see à clear Deduction, yet fear it. However Suppose that done, new Doubts arise concerning the certainty of the Deduction, which can be no more but morally certain, most insufficient to ground Divine Faith. The true Answer therefore must be, or none. The Nicene Council, The both pased, and Present Church faithfully interpreting Scripture, Definitively delivered the Doctrine, and upon this ground we believe the Mystery. 8. Now here we come to the main Business, and Ask again, whether God speaking by this Church as his own Oracle, Proposes that Doctrine and obliges all to believe it, Or, Contrariwise, whether the Church divorced as it were from Divine Assistance teaches upon Her own humane fallible Authority, And The Church's Infallibility further evinced obliges all to believe the Mystery? Grant the first, The Definitions of the Church are infallible, because an Eternal Verity speaks infallibly by Her. Say secondly, That the Church wholly Vnassisted, teaches and Defines upon Her own fallible humane Authority, the Doctrine we learn from Her of the Incarnation, of the highest Godhead in Christ, of his being Consubstantial, of the Blessed Trinity, of Original Sin, begets no Faith, Because if the Supposition holds, that Assent relies not at all upon an Infallible Verity speaking by the Church Assisted, but upon à weak and fallible Human Authority which cannot support any certain Belief, For it is most preposterous to Say, that men merely fallible, as all are left to Themselves, can Assure us, what that Doctrine is, which God reveals Infallibly. Now we Come to this Moral Certainty. 9 And one Perhaps will say, Such men, though fallible, may at least give Moral Assurance of the truth of the Doctrine, and that's enough. Contra. 1. Moral assurance which ever implies some weak Degree of fear of the contrary may in rigour be false: But the Church, which obliges all to believe Her Doctrine under pain of Damnation speaks without fear, and Saith boldly. God reveals as I teach, Therefore her Doctrine if false, is the Devil's Doctrine. But none can say, That the Nicene Definition against Arius was the Doctrine of Devils, But Contrariwise à Truth revealed by God, and Believable Fide Divina, Ergo it was infallible, and more than Morally certain. Contra. 2. God The Church's Definitions More than Morally Certain. Speaking by the Church gives greater Certainty than Moral, And if he do not speak at all by Her, the Definition now removed from Infallible Assistance upholds not Faith, as we shall see presently, nor can it be prudently judged morally certain. 10. Though much be said in the other Treatise. Disc. 1. C. 4. 6. against this Pretence to Moral certainty (Sectaries casually light on it because, forsooth, they brook not the word. Infallibility) yet here we must wholly weaken that Plea. I say Therefore, could the Church (as She cannot) Define or teach without God's special Assistance, Christians would either not attain to so great certainty of Her Doctrine, as is Moral; Or if no greater could be had, That certainty would not be Divine Faith. Every one knows Moral certainty to be à kind of knowledge, whereby men judge such things are, or are not, without great Hesitancy or any reasonable cause of Doubting, It is usually grounded upon some vulgar Persuasion, or common half owned Evidence, which the most of men trust to prudently, When no surer can be had. Thus we say. All People in Common Conversation speak not always contrary to their thoughts. Some mean well in their Priceeding. The Nature of Moral certainly briefly hinted at. Rome and Constantinople are now Cities in being. These and the like Assertions may in rigour be false, Yet our judicative faculty without Violence readily yeild's to all, induced thereunto by à Persuasion vulgarly received whereby we say, That as such things are Commonly reported, So they also are usually believed, and Commonly true. In à word the greatest part of Moral certainty may be rightly styled à kind of half Supposed Evidence, current in the world, which may Deceive, yet easily deceives not. 11. Now be pleased to reflect. The sublime Mysteries of A reflection Faith, remote from all vulgar Apprehensions and half owned Evidences, are neither visible like Constantinople, seen by innumerable Eye-wittnesses, Nor assured upon any either Fallible or deceivable Authority, nor finally believed upon à mere humane prudential Discourse only. No. They lie in à higher Region above our natural knowledge in the Abyss of God's inscrutable Wisdom, and the more remote they are from Sense Or any Half-evidences, the more they stand in need of an infallible Proponent, No Power deceivable can ground Faith. Whereby All rest Ascertained of their being Eternal Truths. Hence I Argue. None but God above who reveals, and an infallible Church which Proposes the Mysteries can give Assurance of their being Divine Truths, or say absolut'ly They ought to be believed answerably to their Dignity, as Divine. Now further. But if God reveals them as his own Truths for this End, that all believe them infallibly, the Church cannot but Speak in the name of God, and independently of this Vulgar The insufficiency of Moral Certainty. humane knowledge, Propose them also infallibly as Divine, Or if She could turn us off with no more but à Moral Persuasion of their seeming Gods truths, yet may not be so, The Strength of Faith vanishes into à dissatisfactory Topick, into à mere Perhaps thus. It may be we Believe Truth, it may be not. In à word we believe not as the Apostles did, infallibly. 12. Hence none, I think, shall ever comprehend how this Whimsy of Moral Certainty got into our Protestants thoughts, For had Christians agreed in that Certainty, or had they said: Because the Mysteries of faith are proposed so weakly, We can believe with no Stronger assurance but Moral, They must have received and learned that Doctrine (not from their own fancy) but from some Superior Power, some known Oracle that taught so, which either revealed, or proposed the Mysteries as only Morally certain, and no more. But to point at any such Oracle is impossible, And here is the reason. All know, that God Faith only Morally certain rejected by all that taught Christianity an infallible Verity, cannot Reveal any Truth only Morally Certain. Christ our Lord taught his own Verities infallibly, so also did the Apostles who were Strangers to this low and half lame Assurance. No ancient Christians nameable professed à less certainty (of Faith) than infallible in the Church which taught them. The Roman Catholic Church you see for convincing Reasons, lays claim to divine Assistance when She Teaches; and disclaims this petty kind of Certainty, which may be false: From whence then came the Persuasion of that certainty into men's Heads when neither God, nor Christ, nor Apostles nor Ancient Christians, nor any Orthodox Church ever favoured it? 13. The true Answer is, Inimcus homo hoc fecit. An old Enemy to decry the Infallibility of Gods own Oracle conveyed the fancy into à few Sectaries, Though when they have it, it becomes The Author of Moral certainly. wholly useless to end Controversies. Observe my reason. If these men Dispute with à jew, will they say that Christian Religion, taken in what latitude you please, is not absolutely infallible, but only à little More morally certain than judaism? Or if they Argue against us can they be so shameless, as to allow Moral certainty to Protestancy and deny it to Catholic Religion? They must do so, and here is the reason. Moral certainty is never appliable to two Parts of à Contradiction, The One must It is useless to Sectaries in all Disputes. of necessity be made morally Improbable, (so if all judge in this Instant that Constantinople is à City in being, the Contrary i● Morally improbable) if therefore Sectaries hold Protestancy Morally certain and the Roman Catholic Doctrine not, This becomes in their Opinion Morally improbable. Dare they say so much with any Countenance? If they do, our Dispute gins à fresh, we come to the Trial of their Assertion, and will show when it pleases them to hear, that their high challenge to Moral certainty, is far from being probable. At least this is Evident, That whilst we most rationally except against it, it's only an vnproued Supposition and ends no Controversies. 14. To discover yet more the Vnweightines of this weak An Instance certitude in Matters of Faith. Imagine if you please First. (it is in this present State an impossible Supposition yet gives light to what I would say) that the Church had not Proposed at all the abstruse Mystery of the Sacred Trinity, As it is already significantly Defined. Suppose again that twenty learned men, (but fallible) after à perusal of Scripture had endeavoured to bring Themselves and others to believe it. viz. The Father of himself Proving Moral Certainty insufficient. Eternal and unbegotten, the Son Coequal and Eternal, begotten, The holy ●h●st Eternal also and proceeding from Father and Son. All three Consubstantial, one in Essence, in Power, in Wisdom, in Omnipotency, only distinguished by their Relative Oppositions. I say notwithstanding; This their Assent would only have been à weak Opinion not morally certain, and though hundreds more had Sided with these Twenty upon the like Ground, none could have believed the Trinity with Divine Faith. The reason is, Because whilst men merely fallible (and as fallible) Propose an incomprehensible Mystery far above the reach of humane understanding, The Proposal (relying upon à deceivable, Or an unassisted Power) cannot bring Faith to its own Object, God's infallible veracity. The Resolution of this supposed Faith clears all. For Ask why They believe the Trinity? It is Answered they verily think and persuade Themselves that the Mystery lies couched in Holy Writ. But Ask again, whether that Thought or Persuasion be not fallible, they Answer, affirmitively. Ergo, Say I, their Faith which cannot go beyond the strength of that weak Proposition, is also fallible and consequently not Divine. 15. Here you see first, the absolute Necessity of an infallible Proponent in Points of Faith, which Sectaries have not, And therefore can believe nothing Divinely; And truly Catholics would be in as bad à Condition (yea really no Catholics) An Infallible proponent, necessary could the Church only guests at these high Mysteries, could She propose them upon à humane errable Authority only, Or in à word, Define Fallibly. You see. 2. Upon what ground the ●aith of à Catholic is infallible, For being demanded why He believes this, or any other Mystery, his Answer is, God reveals them. Questioned again who gives him so much Assurance? A satisfactory Reply is at hand. He believes so, because an Assisted Church, which cannot Err, Proposes all Her Mysteries infallibly. Take away Divine Assistance, She is errable and may deceive every one She teaches. 16. One may here demand whether the Protestants Belief of the Trinity, or of any other high Mystery grows up to so much Certainty with them, as is Moral? Answ. 1. It imports little whether it do or no, So long as their Faith is merely fallible. I Answer 2. If we Speak rigorously, Their Belief is not Sectaries have no faith morally certain. morally certain. Here is my reason. Their own Divining in so abstruse à Matter cannot raise the Assent so high, And if they would borrow, as it were, Certainty from the Catholic Church, and Apply that to Themselves, They know well this Oracle Ownes no other Certainty in the Belief of revealed Truths, but what is infallible, and cannot be False. 17. By what is said already we easily Solve à common Objection. Moral certainty seems often equivalent, yea wholly as Satisfactory An Objection. to reason, as that is we call Physical, For one that never saw Constantinople can no more Question the Being of such à City, than doubt of the sun's shining at Noon day. Answ. All is most true, but nothing to the purpose, For, that certainty Therefore equalizes physical, because (Originally grounded upon à sensible visible Evidence) it is taken from innumerable Witnesses Moral Certainty. grounded on Sensible Evidence gives not Faith any Assurance. who have seen the place, This makes the common Report indubitable, and conveys unto us à certainty as firm, as if we saw Constantinople with our Eyes. But the Mysteries of Faith lie, as is now noted in à higher Region, and are neither proposed nor conveyed to us by the help of any visible or sensible Evidence; And were they in some low degree morally certain upon humane Reports, that would neither match, nor be so strong as natural Evidence is. Wherefore God interposes his own Assistance and raises the Proposition of these Mysteries and our Belief of them, to à yet higher Degree of certitude far above either Moral or Physical, For whether we consider them as Truths revealed by an infinite Verity, or proposed by the Church Divinely Assisted, They stand firm upon infallible Principles. And thus we have their Truth indubitably conveyed, And the Conveyance you see, admits of nothing but Infallibility. I say the Truth, For without doubt there is à strong visible and sensible Evidence in the Marks and Motives which Denote Christ's Church, and make Her Doctrine in the highest manner indubitably Credible, But hereof you shall hear more partly in the Objections, But most amply in the third Discourse. 18. To end this point concerning Moral Certainty. I Ask Moral Certainty in Faith à most frigid Plea. And why? (and for Answer appeal to the judgement of every rational man) what cold comfort would it have been to the Primitive Christians, had the Nicene Fathers after à resolute Definition issued forth, whereby the Consubstantiallity of the Divine Word was Asserred, and à Peremptory Anathema Pronounced against all that believed it not, Declared themselves and Sense in this frigid manner? It is so indeed Defined. But we only mean thus much, That the Doctrine is morally certain and may be false. Would not Arius think ye have slighted the Definition? And might he not have Argued to the purpose Thus? If no man can hold himself happy for being actually in Error, He cannot Certainly think himself out of the danger of an unhappy State, if he be exposed to the danger of Error, But the Moral certainty you defend thrust's you upon the danger of being in Error, Therefore your Condition is none of the surest, Nay it is as bad as mine, For the worst that can befall my Doctrine, which I pretend Scripture for, is, That it may one day prove false, and so may yours too (Good Fathers) if in the least degree fallible. 19 Hence You see first, That the Definitions of Christ's evidenced Church must either be owned infallible, And then mere Moral certainty hath no place, Or Heretics may endlessly cavil at Her Doctrine and boldly say, nothing is taught nothing can be believed infallibly. If you Reply. Many cavil and except To except against the Church's Infallibility destroys Faith. against the Church's Infallibility. I answer. This is to say, Exception is made against à Truth which either must stand vnshaken, or Faith (made not more but à tottering Opinion) is destroyed. And Mark in what à Distress poor Christians are, who Ask. Domine quo ibimus? Lord whither shall we go to learn Eternal truth? Protestants will needs draw us from à Church▪ hitherto held infallible, And to afford à better provision of Truth, remit us to Themselves, who confessedly are fallible in all they Teach. A Paradox beyond Expression. The Church is supposed fallible, The Sectaries Paradox. and Protestants are really fallible. Where then is our Security? From whom shall we learn Truth? From no body. But more of this hereafter. 20. You see. 2. There is not one received Christian Principle so much as seemingly favourable to Moral certainty only which may be falls, or which forces That upon the Church's Inf●rences. Definitions. Whereas, on the contrary, Scripture Councils, and Fathers Positively Averr Church Doctrine to be infallible. You see. 3. To pretend to true Faith or to true Religion divorced from Infallibility, Destroys Both, For although every Truth be not infallible, yet Truth and Infallibility inseparably meet in Faith. Wherefore this Inference inviolably holds good. My Catholic Faith is true Ergo it is infallible. For Faith relies upon, And is ultimatly Resolved into God's infallible Veracity, which (with the Concurrenee of other Principles requisite) Transfuses into it à Supereminent infallibility above all natural Certitude. What ever makes Faith true makes it Infallible. That Therefore which makes Faith true, makes it also Infallible. Now further to our present Purpose. God as we here Suppose revealed the Consubstantiallity of his Son Infallibly, But the Mystery lies dark in Scripture, The Church empowered to Propose exactly eternal revealed Truths, Answerable to▪ Her Trust and the weightiness of the matter, speaks not like one faint hearted, Forsooth, Morally speaking Christ is the highest God. The word is Consubstantial, But Asserts it without all Peradventures, And strikes Arianism dead with one only Definition. And thus Faith stands firm upon à double infallibility, the One infinite and Essential to God's Verity; The Other, the infallible Proposition of an Assisted Church, For as She Proposes the obscure Mysteries of Faith, so we believe. Whereof more presently. Other Objections proposed by Sectaries, Solued. More of Moral certainty. 21. One, though enough broken already, must appear again in our New men's Terms, or nothing is done. Thus they Discourse. If Christian Doctrine be in so high à Degree Morally Certain, As it is Certain that Caesar, Pompey and Cicero were men once in Being, None can reasonably doubt of the Doctrine, And why may not Such an Assurance Content us, without our pretended Infallibility? I read this in Mr Stillingfleet more than once, And had I not seen it with my own Eyes, I Should never Sectaries Mistaks concerning Moral certainty. have thought, That One Professing Knowledge in Divinity could have erred so enormously. To lay open the foul Mistake. 22. All know the Certainty we have of Caesar's once being in the world was first grounded upon à Visible clear Evidence, for Innumerable saw the man, heard him Speak, whilst He lived on earth. The Verity ever since conveyed down from Age to Age Continues still to our days, And here is all the Moral Certainty men can have of Caesar, of Pompey, or of any other, so remote from us. Please now to observe. As Caesar and Cicero were seen by many Eye-witnesses, So Christ our Lord was both heard and seen by Innumerable when he Preached, and suffered on the Cross. The Evidence to those Spectators was Sensible and Physical, To jews and Gentiles now, its Moral, who upon à Universal report Say without boggling, There was once à man in the world called Christ, as they say, There was once One, Called Caesar. But (and here we Come to discover Mr Stillingfleets Error) Do These jews and Gentiles therefore To say Christ was upon Moral certainly believe in Christ, or Assent to his Sacred Doctrine by Faith, because they judge upon Moral Certainty, He was once on earth? Is this Truth, I say, As it is grounded upon à Common Report, or Morally Certain the Object of Faith? It is more than ridiculous. is not to believe in Christ. For grant That, All the jews in Europe at this Day may be well thought to Believe in Christ, because they have Moral Certainty of his once Being in the world. 23. To Believe in Christ Therefore, is not to Say, such à man once had his Being, he Preached, and suffered (for this lay open to Sense) But implies Much more. viz. To Assert indubitably upon Divine Revelation. That the Man called Christ jesus was truly the Highest God, The only Messiah, The Redeemer of Mankind, Consubstantial to his Eternal Father and finally to Assent to Every Doctrine he taught. These and the What is to believe in Christ. like Truths (neither visible nor sensible, like Caesar) are Objects of Divine Faith, far enough removed from Physical and Moral Certainty, And we firmly Assent to All, not because they are seen with our Eyes, or Scientifically known, Or finally Conveyed unto us upon the weak Support of Moral certainty, But because God an Infinite Verity has revealed them. Here is our Ground. Now This Revelation being not evidently known by virtue of any Principle in Nature, must be Believed (together with the Obscure Mysteries, Attested) by an Act of Divine Faith. 24. And Hence it follows, That as no Object (as seen or Faith is more than morally Certain Evidently known) Can terminate Supernatural Faith; So no Moral Certainty can be essential to it, Or uphold it. The ultimate Reason hereof is most Convincing, and Briefly thus. What ever God reveals (as it is revealed) is Certain and Infallible Doctrine. Wherefore, He or those that take from this infallible revealed Doctrine, it's own intrinsical Certainty, And make it no More but Morally Certain wrong God the first Verity, and injure all Christians, who are to learn it as Infallible, But Sectaries do So, That is, they unnaturely turn A Convincing ●eason hereof. Gods infallible Doctrine out of its own intrinsical Certainty, and Say its only Morally Certain to us, Therefore they wrong that first Verity and abuse all Christians. This Principle alone Proves the Church's Infallibility, And utterly ruins the Protestants Pretence to Moral Certainty, whereof you Shall have More hereafter. 25. Now to deal fairly with Mr Stillingfleet, let us at present falsely Suppose Moral Certainty à sufficient ground of Faith, Were Church Doctrine only Morally certain, Sectaries yet gain Nothing. what Good for God's sake get Protestants by that? Can They tell us where the Church is, whose Doctrine must be reputed only morally certain? The Arians call themselves à Church, so do the Grecians, the Protestants likewise, and finally so do Catholics. Are all these different jarring▪ Doctrines Morally certain? Evidently No. For the Professors of them maintain Contradictions, utterly Destructive both of Moral and all other Certainty. Some One Society therefore teaches it, For more than One (if divided in faith) cannot, This One must be Signalised and pointed out, which no Protestant can do, For if he name his own Church he hath the whole world against him, and will be forced to prove his Assertion upon indubitable Principles: And if he point at the Roman Catholic Church, he ruins his own cause, For two opposite Churches cannot teach Doctrine morally Certain. Now if he can point at no Church of One Denomination teaching Doctrine Morally certain, This certainty is only an insignificant word in the air, appliable to no Christian Society. 26. A second objection. The Motives of Credibility though commonly held only Inducements morally certain, so Denote the true Church, that all may find it out, Therefore though Church Doctrine were only morally Certain, and not Infallible, it may sufficiently lead to believe that Doctrine which God has Revealed. Answ. Here is neither Parity nor any Inference consequential, Faith relies not upon Motives inducing to Belief. And the want of distinguishing between the Credibility▪ of Revealed Doctrine and its Truth, breeds the Confusion. The Motives then only make the Doctrine evidently Credible, and remit us to the Church which teaches Truth, She proposes the Doctrine, and upon Her Proposition Faith relies, which therefore must be infallible, not upon the Motives too weak to Support Faith. In à word here is all I would say. God reveals truth infallibly, the Motives in à General way manifest the Church where truth is taught, the Church thus Signalised Proposes Truth infallibly, And upon Her infallible Proposition (not for the Motives▪) Christians believe Infallibly. 27. A third Objection. If the Church's Proposition be infallible, or if God speaks by the Church As he anciently did by the Prophets and Apostles, And She likewise Speaks in his name. Whatever this Oracle Proposes may be called the Voice of God, and Consequently the Formal Object of Faith. I Answer no hurt at all were it so, For perhaps in this present State of things, few Articles of Faith are, or can be believed independently of the Church's Proposition. At least it is very easy to say. I Believe the Sacred Trinity because God anciently Revealed it to whether the Church's Proposition may be Called the Object of Faith? the Apostles, and also because the Church now Testifies that the Mystery was anciently Revealed. However we here wave this Doctrine and Say. The Church's Proposition, though absolutely infallible, is not properly speaking the Formal Object of Faith, Though much may be de Nomine. First, because it is merely Accidental, not Essential to Faith, to be proposed by the Church, by this, or that Oracle, For Christ our Lord at his first Preaching was not the Church, yet he Proposed Articles to be Believed, and most Infallibly. 2. Divines by the word Formal Object, usually understand the Ancient infallible Revelation made to the Prophets and Apostles, And not the Church's Proposition, which though it be an Intrinsic, Essential, and Necessary Condition completing, and Applying the Ancient Revelation to Believers, yet Principally it Terminates not Faith. Now to be an essential Condition, nothing at all impairs the Church's Infallibility. Thus much is said to solve the Objection, though the Matter, 'tis true, is capable of higher Speculation, but Sectaries like not Speculative Learning. 28. A fourth Objection. The Church's Infallibility seems chief Asserted upon this Ground, that She is to be Herd, and Obeyed, which proves nothing. For judges, Governors, and Parents The Disparity between Governors Commanding and the Church defining. are to be heard and obeyed, though all are fallible. Answ. A most silly Objection. The very Matter, wherein These and the Church are to be Obeyed Shows the disparity, For No Civil Magistrate pretends to regulate Faith, or to Define what God reveals. This the Church, and She only is empowered to do, To crush Heresies as they rise up, and to establish without Erring the contrary Truths, which cannot be effected (the matter being so Sublime) without the infallible Assistance of the Holy Ghost. Now we are to Proceed to the main Business in hand. CHAP. XVI. Principles premised to the following Doctrine. The Roman Catholic Church is à Church of One Denomination. She, and no other Society of Christians, is Infallible. Other Grounds of Her Infallibility laid forth. The Infallibility of Councils maintained against Mr Stillingfleets Supposed Truth and Reason. There are no Principles whereby Approved Councils can be proved Fallible. Sectaries Convinced by their own Doctrine. 1. WE here first Premise three certain Principles▪ One; that the Doctrine of all Churches severally Denominated One Principle, importing the Disunion in Faiih. from their Authors, as Arianism from the Arians, Protestancy, from Protestants, Christian Verities from Christ our Lord, ●s not in the whole (or totally considered under One Notion of Christian Doctrine) either True or Infallible, For in this whole diffused Body, We evidently find Contradictions. The Arians con●adict Protestants, These Set against Arians, And the Catholic Church Opposes both. Therefore All of them maintain neither One, nor true, nor infallible Catholic Doctrine, And consequently infallibility ceases in the Whole, when the several Parts stand in an implacable Opposition with One another. 2. A. 2. Principle. If all Churches which Contradict One another are not infallible, One only, and of one Denomination Another Principle. must be infallible, or none at all can be so. For example. Catholics, and Protestants, teach Contrary Doctrine (the like is of all other dissenting Societies) both Parties cannot be infallible, Therefore the One is so, or Neither. Now further. Protestant's disclaim the Prerogative of teaching infallibly; whence it follows First, That the Roman Catholic Church enjoys that Privilege, or there is no such thing on earth as an infallible Church. Secondly this is Consequent, It is the same to Say. The Roman Catholic Church is infallible, as to Say, that God yet Preserves an infallible Church in Being. This I Assert, not only because Protestants quit all Pretence to infallibility, but upon this ground chief, That no other Society nameable can Parallel this One Oracle in Her Marks and Signs, Illustrious Miracles, admirable Conversions, Sanctity, the blood shedding of Martyrs. By these The present Church proved by her Signs as Infallible as the Primitive. Signs the Infallibility of this present Church is no less rationally proved, than the Infallibility of the Primitive Church in the Apostles time. Here I Petition our Adversaries to give à probable Disparity. 3. A. 3. Principle. One may teach true Christian Doctrine, and yet not Propose it as infallible. So all do that hold the Definitions of the Church only morally Certain. One again may teach infallible Christian Doctrine, and yet not teach it infallibly, Different ways of Teaching infallible Doctrine. And thus Sectaries teach the General Truths of Christianity, of one God, and of one Christ. The Doctrine, obiectively attested by Divine Revelation is in itself infallible, But these Novellists for want of Divine Assistance, teach it not infallibly, And therefore Confess themselves so fallible that they may swe●●e from Truth. Finally, One may teach, true and infallible Christian Doctrine with this Addition, That he Teaches it Infallibly. And these three Perfections now named, were most Eminent in the Preaching of Christ and His Apostles. They Taught true Doctrine, They taught infallible Doctrine, and moreover taught it infallibly, In so much that their very formal Teaching was not liable to Error. Thus much Premised, here is my Assertion. 4. The Roman Catholic Church is God's infallible living The Roman Catholic Church is God's Infallible Oracle. Oracle, and teaches not only Christ's true and infallible Doctrine, But moreover Delivers it so infallibly that She cannot err. The Proof of the Assertion wholly depends upon à Discourse in the other Treatise. Disc. 1. C. 2. and in the Appendix. P. 2. 3. 4. Whence I Argue. If once you annul this one Principle, that à Church which pretends to teach Christ's Sacred Doctrine, teaches it so fallibly that She may Deceive, it doth not only follow that one Eminent Perfection in our Saviour's Preaching (who taught infallibly) is utterly lost, and now removed from us, But this is also consequent, That no man can have assurance of so much as of one Christian Verity at this day Proposed or taught the whole world over. The Reason is. Whatever Church teaches Christian Doctrine fallibly, can say no more but thus much timidly, That (as taught) it may by virtue of the Proposition be false, but à Doctrine so far removed from infallible Certainty for want of à due Application of its Infallibility, comes not near to the Doctrine The Assertion proved. of Christ and his Apostles, which was Applied, Taught, and. Proposed Infallibly. Therefore such à Doctrine if valued by the merit of its Delivery, Can be esteemed no more but à weak uncertain humane persuasion, not at all resoluable into God's infallible Verity. For though God own's à Doctrine obiectively True, and Infallible (because he Reveals it) yet he utterly disowns such à Proposal as discountenances that Worth, and makes it look like à changeling, or dislike itself, (That is) neither True, nor Infallible, but contrariwise Possibly false and fallible. And it neither is, nor can be more to Christians than fallible, if proposed Fallibly. 5. The Case is thus, As if one had à Gem of mighty Value, and skilful jewellers were appointed to Prise it, yet none after all Art and Industry used can know the true worth Thereof. An Instance The jewel may indeed be precious, and perhaps not. More the most skilful cannot Say. Put this case, the Owner would be little enriched by such an unknown treasure whilst the worth is not known. And no More Say I, are Christians now enriched with Christ's Precious Verities, whilst none can esteem of Their ultimate Value nor Say infallibly, They are Gods own infallible Truths? Moral certainty has here no place, For the Reasons alleged above. Hence it follows, That as God reveals his verities of an Immense Valuation (True and infallible) So Providence has ordained that they be Proposed answerably to their due Estimate, truly, and infallibly, without which Their unfitness to ground Faith is more than palpable, as will appear by the Resolving any one act now held the Fide. Please to observe. We and Sectaries believe the Divine word Consubstantial to his The Assertion further declared. Father, the Church Proposes that infallible Truth, but as it is now Supposed, Fallibly, the Assent which follows upon that Proposition and should be Divine, reaches not so high, because it Answers not to the Strength of the infallible obiective Verity in itself (yet not asserted by any, as infallible) But to the weakness of the formal Proposition, which is supposed so fallible that it may be false. All then that à Believer can Say by virtue of that weak Light is thus much only, and no more. Perhaps the Divine word is Consubstantial, perhaps not, For none doth or can aven the Truth otherwise, but as à thing doubtful or indifferent to truth and falsehood. 6. The Reason à Priori of all now said is. We neither know, nor believe by external Obiective Truths considered in Themselves, but by our own Subiective internal Acts, as therefore an Obiective Truth appears in our own internal Acts, of so much worth it is to us, And neither more nor less. Now further. My internal Faith necessarily depends on two external Objects when I believe any Mystery: The first is God's Revelation, The other the Church's Proposition: Neither the one or other is my true Faith, for that's inherent in me, if I believe. We believe not by Objects but by our interior Acts. When therefore the Church after Her Proposition obliges me to Settle my internal Faith upon the Divine Revelation, I rationally demand in what manner, Or how I shall fix it? Knowing well, if God speaks he speaks infallibly, But my Scruple is whether the Church can infallibly Assure me so much? If She Answer's truly She doth so, I am secure upon this Principle, that an Oracle teaches which cannot Deceive. But if it be replied, She is only empowered to Propose revealed Truths fallibly, and I by my internal Assent close, as it were, with That, or lay hold of the revealed object just so as it is proposed fallibly, most evidently my Assent and Belief, is no more but Fallible. 7. In this Matter then as in all others, we are exactly to attend to the Proposal of Objects, for as they are laid forth to us, so much weight they have. For example. A real Good in itself is by mistake Proposed to me as an Evil, I adhere to that Object as it is proposed, and must Adhere to Evil, because it appears so to me. In like manner, an infallible Truth, is Proposed not as it is in itself, infallible, But discoloured, and defaced, by à vitiated Proposition which is fallible; Therefore by force of that weak Declaration it appears no other to me but As things are proposed so they are to all that believe. weak and fallible: And none on earth can unbeguile me, or Propose it with greater certainty, Because all are now Supposed fallible in their Teaching. 8. One Instance may yet clear my meaning. The Protestant reads Christ's Sacred words. Matt. 26. This is my Body. And Proposes what he conceives to be believable by Faith, But An Instance doth it fallibly. Imagine that the Roman Catholic Church also could Say no more for Her Doctrine, or the Sense of those Words, But as the Protestant doth so fallibly that all might be False, it is clear That none, whether Catholic or Protestant, can have Certainty of the Doctrine, which Christ our Lord delivered in that one short Sentence. Why? Both declare their fallible Sentiments only and Fallibly concerning the Sacrament, So far their teaching reaches and not farther. Therefore the Faith which should be had of the Mystery dwindles into nothing but into à fallible Opinion, by virtue of that imperfect Teaching. 9 Hence we learn, that à Doctrine though infallible in God's word without more Help, makes no man (though he be à Prodigy of wit) an Infallible Teacher. The reason is. Infallibility Scripture alone makes no man infallible. And why? proceeds not from Scripture easily misinterpreted, but immediately from God's special Assistance, And this Assistance which fixes an Assumed Oracle upon Truth unerrably, no malice can wrest to falsehood. Now that the Book of Scripture as daily Experience teaches, is horridly perverted to à Sinister sense, needs no proof, For all know, what ruin Heretics have (to the uttermost of their Power) endeavoured to make of the chief Articles of our Christian Faith, though they aknowledged Scripture to be God's Divine Word. There is scarce One which remain's Vnperuerted. Some Deny the Necessity of Divine Grace, Others, that great Mystery of the Incarnation, Others an Equality in the Divine Persons, Others our Saviour's two Wills, Divine, and Humane. Thus the Pelagians, the Antitrinitarians the Apollinarians and Monothelits taught and deceived The world. And when Scripture is Alleged in behalf of every Orthodox Truth, All you have from them is à return of overthwart Glosses. Grace, must signify what the Pelagians please, The Word made Flesh, How abused. what the Antitrinitarians fancy, and so of the rest. Whence it is Evident that Scripture Alone without more light, clears not sufficiently its own Truths, For here you See the most Primary Atticles disowned and Consequently Scripture abused by Private Spirits, which therefore makes none infallibly certain of God's revealed Doctrine. 10. We Catholics require à further Help, One faithful Oracle to teach, which in this contest about the Sense of God's What Catholics require besides the bare— Letter of Scripture. Word end's all Strife, and Says both plainly and infallibly. Thus and thus an Infinite Verity speaks in Scripture: Yet Sectaries are offended with us, because we can assert without hesitancy. We believe infallibly what Truth itself reveals infallibly: Nay more, They are angry with God for having done them the greatest favour Imaginable. For to put à Period to these endless A signal Mercy of God makes sectaries offended. debates raised among Christians, To teach all Infallibly by his own unerring Oracle what may and aught to be believed Infallibly, is à signal Mercy for which due Thanks can never be rendered. Disowne the Mercy, we live and shall live, in à Spirit of Contention to the world's end. 11. Now if you Ask why the Church, after She has proposed the Sense and verity of Scripture, more easily begets infallible Faith in Her Children, Than the bare letter of God's word can do without Her? I Answer. The facility (Divine assistance Supposed) arises from the Clarity of Her teaching known to all Vniversally, whether Orthodox or others. Whence it is, that few of our Adversaries scarce move any doubt concerning the Sense of the Churches universal received Doctrine (for that's plain) but chief Question the Truth of it. Whereas all is contrary in our contest with the forenamed Heretics, For there is no Dispute whether Scripture be true, What is chief debated with Sectaries. The debate only being what it Saith, or what the Sense of God's sacred word is? Here we fight in darkness before the Church Speaks and Declares Her Sense, And if She be divinely Assisted to teach truth, as is already and shall be more amply proved in the sequel Discourse, that doubt also ceases, and vanishes into nothing. 12. In the mean while, Some may Object. 1. The greatest part of Christian Doctrine is now agreed on, and Supposed by Catholics and Protestanss both true and infallible, what necessity then have we of any other Oracle besides Scripture, to teach infallibly? Answ. The Agreement is Null, and the Supposition destroys itself, if all that taught Christian Doctrine since the Apostles time teach it fallibly, For How could any An Objection Answered. agree in this, That such and such à Doctrine is both true and infallible, when He, or They (yea all) that teach may, because fallible, err in their very teaching, and call that infallible Doctrine, without Assurance given of its Infallibility? Do Therefore all own the Verities in Scripture infallible (not infallible ex Terminis) We must jointly own with that, an Oracle which Proposes these Verities infallibly, or can believe nothing. And by this you See the Supposition destroys itself, For The Sectaries Supposition destroys itself. to Suppose à Doctrine infallible, when none can Propose it answerably to its Merit, as infallible, or infallibly, is as implicatory, as to Suppose without Proof, the Stars in Heaven equal in number, and from thence to Infer they are to be judged equal. The Parity holds exactly. 13. Object. 2. Whoever, though fallible, Delivers by chance Infallible Christian Doctrine, Teaches the very sense that Christ taught. Answ: Very true. But he gives no Assurance Aunother Error of Sectaries. That he doth so, For à fallible Delivery of à Truth, as yet only Supposed not Proved infallible, raises it no higher but to such à State of Uncertainty, that one may justly doubt whether it be Christ's infallible Doctrine or no. 14. Object. 3. The fallible teaching of an infallible Verity may well convey unto à Hearer that which God has Revealed. For why may not an infallible Verity, as Revealed, though fallibly Proposed have influence upon Faith, and work in Believers à most firm Assent? Answ. It is utterly umpossible; For à fallible teaching of an infallible Verity not yet Proposed as infallible by any, neither Supposes the Truth Certain upon other principles (and this is ever to be noted) nor makes it infallible. It Supposes no Truth taught infallibly, for Protestants Say None now can teach so, All Doctors being fallible: And most evidently Sectaries clearly convinced. it makes not that Verity infallible, For the Verity (as revealed) was antecedently Infallible before this fallible teaching meddled with it, Which therefore can not make it Infallible. By what is said, you see our Sectaries Supposition of some Christian Doctrine acknowledged infallible is pure Sophistry, for none can Assure them so much, if All that teach it be fallible. The very Apostolical Doctrine respectively to us now living loses its Infallibility, if this Supposition stands, That all Teachers are fallible. Now we Proceed to à Second Argument and Discourse thus. 15. If the whole Church (the like is of any General approved The Church's Infallibility further proved. Council) can err, She may not only traitorously betray Her Trust, But moreover do so much Mischief to Christians by uniting all in Error, That they must remain in it, without redress or remedy, For if the Church may mistake, whilst She Teaches, No man on earth can be rationally Supposed wiser than She is, nor go about to Vnbeguile the deceived by Her. The Evil here hinted at is so Notoriously horrid, the Perplerity it causes so Great, that either Church Doctrine avoidable becomes despicable, (whilst every one may justly Quarrel with it) Or this Principle must stand vnshaken, that the Church cannot teach à Falsehood. 16. Some Sectaries seeing the Force of this unanswerable Argument, hold the Church Diffusive infallible in fundamentals, Yet neither name nor can name those Christians who constitute an infallible Church larger than the Roman, whereof enough Sectaries Oppose The Infallibility of Councils, without reason. is said both in this, and the other Treatise. In the next place their whole Strife is to Oppose the Infallibility of the Church's Representatives in her General Councils, But methinks inconsequently, For what ever Reason proves Immunity from Error in that diffused Moral Body, Convinces as forcibly the like Privilege in its Representatives, Which are not Conuened to deceive, But to teach God's revealed Verities 17. Mr. Stillingfleet. Part. 3. C. 1. 2. P. 506. After à larger Prologue to very little Substance, Tell's us. It is not any high challenge of Infallibility, in any Person, or council, which must put an end to Controversies; For nothing but Truth and Reason, can ever do it, and the more men pretend to unreasonable ways of deciding them, instead of ending One, they beget many. I say contrary. If the Church and Her Councils be infallible, Controversies are ended without more Ado, For all know upon that Supposition, What to believe and what to reject. And if they be not Owned infallible, there is no such thing or things in being as Truth, and Reason, which can put an end to Controversies. To explicate the Assertion is to prove it. 18. Do then no more but cast away all thought of an Infallible The Infallibility of Councils asserted. Church, as also of Her infallible Councils. It is clear, that every Doctrine Taught since the Apostles time has been delivered Fallibly, 'tis clear likewise, All that teach it at this day (highly dissenting among themselves) Teach fallibly, Imagine now that two adverse Parties, Ten learned Protestants on the one Side, And as many learned Catholics on the Other, meet together and seriously Discuss this Point, whether Protestancy or Catholic Doctrine (as opposed to Protestancy) be the true Religion? (the like is if any particular Controversy fall under Debate.) I say the Attempt to decide any one controverted matter is Vain and Impossible, if both Church and Councils be Supposed fallible, And consequently Mr. Stillingfleets Truth and Reason are no more but mere insignificant Words. The Reason is. Whilst fallible men pIead for Religion upon Principles as fallible as they are that Argue, the Result of that Dispute necessarily carried on by Arguments and reasoning purely fallible, can end in nothing but in dissatisfactory Topics, if yet it come so far. But this is so, and observe well. The Protestant pleads The weakness of two parties pleading fallibly. for his Tenants, or oppugn's our Doctrine and doth it fallibly: The Catholic Answers, and fallibly too; The Protestant Replies, but hath no infallible Principle to ground his Reply upon, no more hath the Catholic, if the Supposition holds, any other Answer but what's Ungrounded, and Fallible. Say I beseech you, do not both Parties, busied in this Contest upon uncertainties, run on in Darkness? Have we yet the least hope of Satisfaction? Or so much as the Truth we all seek for yet discovered in this weak skirmish, Whilst Fallible men, and Fallible Arguments, and Fallible Principles are the only Support of the whole Discourse? Most evidently no. All are left where they were before in à deep Perplexity. 19 I Said just now, If we we exclude an Infallible Church, and her approved Councils, Truth and Reason vanish to nothing, and that no Principle remains whereby these Contests of Religion can be ended. To prove the Assertion further. I first urge the Protestant to name the last certain Principle, or that ultimate Sectaries are urged to name the last judge in these Debates, judge in whose Sentence he dare Acquiese, and Say positively upon this Principle we must both rely, This shall Define whether you my Adversary, or I yours, defend Truth. The man will not for stark shame name Himself nor any private Person on earth for judge: He cannot recur to an Inferior Council and Oppose that, against One Generally received the Whole world over: He will not adhere to à Schismatical and Heretical Church, and plead by Her in defence of his Doctrine, against an Oracle never yet taxed or tainted of Error, Or if he doth so, he gain's nothing, For all those are as fallible as the two Parties now in contest. Where then is the Sectaries Sure Principle, or last judge to stand to in these Debates? Or whither will he go to find out his yet Vndiscoured Truth and Reason? Will his refuge be to Scripture? It help's nothing in this Case, not only because Scripture omit's to speak either explicitly of the half of such And cannot pitch on any. Controversies as are now agitated, But upon this Account Chief, That if the Church and Councils be fallible, the Book itself becomes à most fallible Principle to all, For neither Catholics nor Protestants, nor Arians, nor any, can Say with Assurance, ●uch and Such is the undoubted ●ense of God's word in Controverted Matters, if the Church's judgement be set light by, and looked on as fallible. Yet I'll Say thus much. Were the Church fallible, Sectaries may well blush, first to decry Her Sense of Scripture, and then to set up the far inferior and fallible interpretation of every single Person against the Church? 20. Some may Reply. The grand Principle of Protestants, The grand Principle of Protestants, rejected, is, that Scripture in things necessary to Salvation, appears plain to all who use ordinary Diligence to understand it, wherein certainly their Truth and Reason may be found. Contra. And I Press not in this place the Uncertainty of the Principle, which is as disputable as any other Protestant Tenet, But Say more, it is wholly improbable, Yea and destroys Protestancy. It is And why? improbable, Because it cannot be Supposed that any private man or men, have used full Diligence to understand the Scriptures Sense, And that à Church of à thousand years standing hath neglected à Duty so necessary. But these private men whether Arians, Protestants, or Socinians, and the Church draw contradictory Senses from Scripture, And all these jarring Sectaries with their different Senses defend not truth, Therefore some of them (let the fault yet light where you will) have not used Diligence, nor rightly understood God's word. The Question now is (and some Oracle must decide it) where, or in whom, this Misunderstanding lies? Most willingly would I have this one Difficulty folued and 'tis worth the Labour, whilft every one sees it is no more certain, that the Protestant hitts on the Scriptures true Sense, than it is certain that the whole Church after à thousand years' Diligence, mistakes it. Can this think ye be ever cleared in behalf Why Should Sectaries his right on the Scriptures Sense. of Protestants by any Proof, so much as meanly Probable? It is Impossible. Wherefore I Conclude, Their Grand Principle is rotten at the very root, fails all that Rely on it. I will say it once more. If the Protestant hath not greater Certainty of his Sense of Scripture than it is certain, That he hits right, and the Church Errs in her Sense, His Belief after all industry And the Church be deluded? used stands unprincipled, rests on his own fancy, and is not rectifiable, while he judges so. Say the very utmost it is no more but à mere hazard, whether he believes, or no, and this destroys Protestancy. Thus much of Scripture. 21. The next thing pleadable in behalf of Mr Stillingfleets Truth and Reason, may perhaps be the Authority of Holy Fathers. It is weightles if the Church be fallible, or has Erred. And first Protestant's say all Fathers are liable to Error. I add more and Assert, if that Church whereof They were Members taught or can teach false Doctrine, it is à mere vanity to seek for certain Truth, or any satisfactory Reason in the Father's Writings. What can Streams (the Fathers were no other) be Supposed pure, and The Sectaries pretence to Father's improbable the Head fountain (Gods own Oracle▪) Poisoned and infected? Did they hit right upon our Christian Verities, when their only Guide (Christ's sacred Spouse) misled Posterity? Can they Dedicate all their Labours to make an Oracle renowned, that afterward whispered Errors into all men's ears? These are Paradoxes. I Say then, it is à stronger and far more reasonable Principle to Assert, That the Church never erred nor can err, Than first to Suppose Her erroneous, And next to find truth in the Fathers, who were no more but Scholars, and sucked the milk of purest Doctrine from the Breasts of this their Mother, The Catholic Church; If She therefore poisoned them with falls learning, both She and They yet poison us; And consequently neither the Church, nor Fathers deserve credit, nor can be prudently Believed. 22. And here by the way I cannot but reflect upon à strange Procedure, usual with Sectaries in All their polemics. First The procedure of Sectaries, unreasonable. they Suppose the Church and Councils errable, yea actually misled in Asserting Purgatory, Transubstantiation etc. And to Rectify what is thought Amiss, Some few Gleaning of Fathers (how little to the purpose is seen above) are produced, and these, Forsooth, must stand as it were in battle Array, fight against à whole Church, and overthrew Her Errors. Is this, think ye Reasonable? Can it be imagined that God preserved his Revealed truths in the Heart's thoughts, and words, of à few Fathers, and suffered his Universal Church, with so many learned Councils (convened after the Four First) to fall presently into so shameful à Dotage, as Sectaries charge upon Her? Were the Fathers Then illuminated, and was the Church afterward darkened and besotted? There is none so blind, But must needs see Himself out of Countenance by adventuring to Defend à Tenet so highly Contrary to all Reason. Wherefore I must earnestly petition the Reader once more to reflect upon the greatest Folly which, Methinks, ever entered the Thoughts of men. Thus it is. The primitive To say the Fathers taught truth, and that i Church deserted Truth Fathers, (not many in number) Who wrote in the First three or four Centuries in different Times and Places, (perused by few and understood by Fewer) are Supposed to Deliver exactly the Catholic Verities, (What They said was True) And an Ample Universal Church together with Her Learned Councils known to All; spread the whole world over for à Thousand years and upward, must be Supposed so Abominably sinful, Is worse than a Paradox. so Fearfully misled, as to Desert the Ancient Faith of Those Fathers, to Pervert God's Truths, And Finally to Bring into the Vast Moral Body of Christians à Universal Mischief, à Deluge of Error, of Idolatry, And no man knows what. If this be not pure Frenzy, there was never any. 23. The last Principle to ground Truth and Reason upon, or to bring Controversies to an end, is Universal Tradition, but this also Fails to uphold Truth, if the Church be fallible: For who will, or can with certainty trust the Tradition of à Church (or so much as take the Book of Scripture from Her) were she branded with this foul Note of having Publicly taught, and wilfully imposed à hundred Doctrines upon Christians contrary to Gods revealed Revealed Truths. But more of this above. C. 5. 6. 24. After all you se first, Truth and Reason brought to Ruin, Faith and Religion unhinged, if the Church and Councils, be Fallible. You see. 2. These Inferences Settled upon undeniable Principles. The Church is infallible, Ergo Controversies are without Perplexity ended. Contrariwise. The Church is Fallible: Ergo Contentions Clear Inferences against Sectaries. go on without Redress, endlessly. Scripture as you have heard because differently Sensed decides nothing, No more do the Fathers (Say Sectaries) confessedly fallible. Church, and Councils are rejected as errable when and as often as Sectaries please, Those that Dispute of Religion (Yet more Fallible) are not to be judges in their own Cause, and without à judge Their best Arguments will be thought by all Prudent men, no more but Vnconcluding Topics, And really they neither are, nor can be better for want of Principles, and some Oracle Infallible. 25. Whoever desires to have the Principle I Rely on further established by clear Inferences drawn from our Adversaries, needs only to read M. Stillingfleet from page. 534. to the end of that 2. Chapter. My Principle is. There is no possibility of ending strife touching Religion if the Church and Councils be fallible, yet Mr. Stillingfleet and his Lord, Say they must have some end, or They'll tear the Church à sunder. My Task then is to show that these men's Doctrine Tears all in pieces, and makes Controversis Endless. 26. The Determination of à Council erring (say our Adversaries) is to stand in force and to have external Obedience at least yielded to The Sectaries Doctrine breeds Confusion. it, till evidence of Scripture, or à Demonstation to the Contrary, make the Error appear, and until thereupon, another Council of equal Authority, reverse the Error. Here is their Position, which breeds nothing but Confusion among Christians, and licenseth every unquiet Spirit, interiorly at least, to Censure Church Doctrine as abominable if He judges it Erroneous, or Contrary to Christ's Verities. I say Interiorly? And 'tis hard to Silence and oblige men to external Obedience, if this full Persuasion remain's And necessarily brings in Division. steadfast in their minds. God's truths are Overthrown, by an Erring Church, or à misled Council. There is no law humane or Divine which can bind to Hypocrisy; But to judge one thing Evidently falls, and to Profess it as true is pain Hypocrisy, To avoid therefore this Sin all are in points of faith not to Speak Contrary to Truth, or hostility will of Necessity follow Between the Profession of private men and their interior judgements, which cannot but foment Rebellion in the Church whilst People generally live in such à Persuasion that God's Truths are wronged. 27. But here is not my greatest Exception. Please to mark those other words. Till Evidence of Scripture, or à Demonstration makes the Error appear: Or, another Council reverses the Error of the Former, And say I beseech you, to whom must this Evidence of Scripture appear? To whom must the Councils Error be Demonstrable? What to Private men, and these It can not be said to whom the supposed▪ Errors of. Fallible? If so; the Contest will be whether these Private Erring men or the Supposed Erring Council, has the greater Evidence of Scripture, Or on which Side the Demonstration against the Error lies? I say if the Church and Councils be fallible, There neither is, nor can be, any thing like Evidence or à Demonstration in either of the Contenders, Therefore an Councils must appear. endless Dispute upon mere Uncertainties must ensue, unless Mr. Stillingfleet lays the Error upon whom he pleases, and makes Himself Umpire in the cause. You will say he supposes the Councils Errors evidently known. Pitiful. To whom I bescech you must they be known? It's impossible to return an Answer. Again if Suppositions may once pass for Proofs, I'll go the Contrary way, and either Suppose all Councils infallible (or maintain this Truth: Errors cannot be evidently known) And why should not my Supposition, be as good as his? What then remains but that we bring these Suppositions to the Test, and Examine which is better? And here the Dispute gins again in behalf of what is Supposed, which can never be ended without an infallible judge. 28. It may be replied. These Adversaries prove not Councils fallible upon any bare Supposition, but only Say thus much: If they were Fallible, the Peace of the Church may yet be Preserved. Contra 1. Peace is infinitely better upheld were Councils (as they truly are) owned Infallible, For so every one would Acquiese in their Decrees, as the Christian world has done hitherto. Contra 2. The Church's Peace is torn in pieces, Sedition Sedition reign's if Councils be fallible. necessarily reign's, Debates are endless, if Councils be fallible. To prove this. 29. Call once more to mind the Assertion. Viz. The Determination of an erring Council is to stand in force, until there upon, an other Council of equal Authority Reverse the Error. Observe I beseech you. Both these Councils are Supposed fallible, and of equal Authority. The Second therefore cannot reverse the One Proof of the Assertion Error of the First, being as weak, as fallible, and of no more Authority than That first was. Or if thus by Turns one may Annul the Decrees of the other, A third may be convened which recall's the Decrees of both▪ and à Fourth which Cashieres all the precedent Definitions, And so in Infinitum without Stop or Stint. Hence arise endless Quarrels, not only between Council, and Council (For every one will Stand for its own Right) But also among Christians, Who seeing the Discord are thrown into à remediless Perplexity, and can never know what to Believe, or whom to Obey. You will see clearly what I would express by one or two Instances. The Nicene Council Defined Further declared by an Instance. the Consubstantiality of the Son to his Eternal Father. So much is undoubted. Imagine now, that an other like Assembly as fallible as the Nicene (for that with Sectaries was fallible) and of equal Authority, had Defined the quite Contrary Doctrine, And let this be also supposed (for in Protestant Principles i● is Supposable) that this Second corrected the Error of the First. What tumults think▪ ye, what an endless Rebellion would have ensued there upon in Christendom, had the One Council thus clashed with the other? No man in Prudence, could have Believed or Obeyed either, because both are Supposed fallible, and of equal Authority. 30. There is yet one Instance more Suitable to à Sectarian Humour. Imagine only, another Council Conuened, as Learned, Another Instance Showing. as General, and as fallible as Protestants Suppose the Council of Trent to have been, And that this reverses all the Doctrine contained in the Tridentine, Offenfive to our Novellists. Would not this destroy the Unity of the present Church? Would This horrid Inconvenience of jarring Councils. not some Side with the first, some with the second, or rather would not All (upon the Supposition) scorn and contemn the Authority of both Church and Councils? The like Inconvenience follows, were the Catholic Church as large as some Sectaries make it, or embraced all called Christians, If in that case Two Councils representing the whole Moral Body should meet, and the later Tear in pieces the Decrees of the former, Would not Dissensions Grow as high, and as odious upon these Voting and Vnuoting Councils, as they are now in England whilst Prelatiks Preach One kind of Doctrine, and fanatics another quite contrary? And is it Possible, Do all Eyes see the Horror of this contrary Preaching in One Island, and are they shut upon à greater more Terrible, were it true, That two of the highest Tribunals in the Church could stand in open Hostility, and the One band against the other? Thus much of Dissensions and Tumults, necessary Appendants to jarring Representatives. 31. But all is not yet Satisfied. Our Adversaries Say, There can be no cause of Tumults in the Church, if an Error be evidently Discovered, For every One ought to thank God (not to grumble) when they see themselves freed from so great Sectaries ●● destroy their own Principles. à Mischief: On the other side, if the Error be not Evident, All are to submit to the Councils until à Public Declaration makes the contrary truth manifest, And thus the Peace of Christendom seems well secured. Answ. And we will first begin with these last words. If the Error be not Evident or intolerable, all are obliged to submit to the Council until some public declaration etc. Hence I Argue. But there neither is, nor ever was any Evidence of Error produced against one of our Catholic Councils (the Lateran, Florentine, or Tridentine for example) there neither is, nor ever was, any Legal Declaration more against these, than against the First most ancient and purest Councils in God's Church, Therefore Sectaries by their own Principle are obliged to Submit to the Lateran, Florentine, and Tridentine, as well as to others. That there has not been any Public Legal Declaration made against them is manifest, And here is my proof. 32. The clamours and Calumnies of Arians Cast upon the The Assertion proved Nicene Council were no Legal Declaration against That, but most uncanonical, Ergo the clamours and calumnies of Protestants cast upon the now named Representatives are fully as Illegal and uncanonical, yea and more forceles (if more can be) to Declare Clamours, no Proofs. them Inualid, And besides clamours, we never yet had, nor shall have hereafter any Thing from Sectaries. The true Reason is. Go groundedly to work, There is not one Imaginable Principle whereby the Nicene can be proved à more lawful Council then the great Council of Lateran was, so much decried by Novellists: And if't were Possible (as it is not) to Overthrow the One by any solid proof, the Other Eo ipso loses all Credit and Authority. 33. Hence These and the like calumnies vented by Sectaries The Arians and Protestants Clamour and Calumniate alike. i● Corners. The Lateran and Tridentine were unlawful Councils, 〈…〉ed by the Pope, they had not freedom. Their Votes ought to be 〈…〉ted Surreptitious. The Conuened were not men of unquestionable Integrity. Some few by fair Pretences brought over the greater number wanting judgement, to side with their Designs etc. Such corner-Calumnies I say, and I read them in our Adversaries (As easily ●●attered out by Arians against the Nicene Fathers) can never pass for legal Declarations against Catholic Councils, whilst every Proposition vows proof, and every word its due Weight: That i●, what ever can be said to this Sense stands Vnprincipled. Therefore unless all must be just so as Sectaries will have it; Unless falls Suppositions become convincing Arguments, and à pure begging the Question prove it, Or be able to decide our Differences, We have Right to cry as loud They. Audiatur & altera Pars. A judge is to decide all▪ and not Clamours. Let Catholics be heard also. And when they are heard and return their Answers before à lawful judge to every particular, these Calumnies will vanish, or rather appear like Themselves, Forged and farfetched Improbabilities. Exclude à judge and à just Sentence, Sectaries are where they would be in the old Labyrinth of Quarrelling without Principles, or giving any hope of ending One Question in Controversy. 34. Now to implead our Councils of Errors? and to pretend Sectaries never legally assembled. Evidence for it, is more than à desperate Attempt, unless as I say the Corner-votes of à few jarring dispersed Sectaries (never legally Assembled) have Power to create à new kind of Evidence unknown to the world. Please to reflect à little. It must, Forsooth, be Evident That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, or Praying to Saints are Errors, whilst à whole united learned Church Opposes these vain Pretences and defends the Articles as Catholic Create à new Kind of Evidence. Verities. It was never yet heard, that Sectaries Scattered here an there had Authority to impose such foul disgraceful Names of Evident Errors, or Errors morally Certain upon Doctrines so universally received, when as I say The most learned Body of Christians that ever was, Vnuotes all they blow into the ears of others, as mere Impertinences. Evidence, Good Reader, and Moral certainty lose force and never yet stood in the Sight or presence of so strong an Opposition. I will yet say more. Though we abstract from Church Authority, we Catholics are able to maintain our Doctrine against Sectaries upon Tradition, the Authority of Fathers, ancient Records etc. But still we require A last judge to give Sentence, whether they or we abuse the Principles we plead by (For certainly the one or other Party doth so) But this, Novellists ever Decline and Sectaries decline both judge and final Sentence. will have us to Dispute without either judge or indubitable Principles, and so make, as is now said, all Controversies endless, which indeed is the only Thing they aim at, and I have undertaken to prove against them. 35. Mr Stillingfleet. P. 539. speaks so fully to my purpose that more cannot be desired from an Adversary. He Demands, how it can be known when Errors in Councils or the Church are manifest or intolerable, and when not? And Answers thus. We appeal to Scripture interpreted by the Concurrent Sense of the primitive Church, the common reason of mankind, the consent of wise and learned men, Supposing Scripture to be the Rule of Faith. And à little after. Our Adversary's Doctrine. If you Ask further. Who shall be judge what à necessary Reason or Demonstration is? His Lordship tell's you plainly enough from Hooker. It is such as being Proposed to any man and understood, the mind cannot choose but inwardly assent to it. Here you have the Gentleman's last Principles: And every one when applied to our present Matter is as much Controverted between Catholics and Protestants, as the very Question now in Dispute. Observe well. 36. The Question is whether the Lateran, Florentine, and Tridentive Councils have erred in their Definitions (the like may be moved of all others) Protestants say, they have erred; Catholics Leads still ●n to dispute, but to make no end of Controversies. Deny it. Both Parties Appeal to Scripture interpreted by the Sense of the Primitive Church So far as that Oracle learns us. And if any Passage be found there seemingly favourable to Sectaries, Catholics after the Contest of one whole Age have been more ready to clear all Doubts, To take of any thing like Imagined Errors, Than Protestants were ever yet able to lay such foul Aspersions upon either Church, or Councils. What then is to be done? Must we eternally Dispute concerning that Sense and end nothing?▪ Must we Commence new Quarrels Sectaries who began the quarrel. about Matters so often debated? Must the old Actum agere come over and over again? Sectaries like that Sport well, but no Progress is made this way. As yet we only skirmish in the dark. Wherefore recourse at last is to be had to à lawful julge to some known Oracle or other, in whose final Sentence all are to acquiese, If any lawful judge, or owned Oracle (Primitive or latter) Condemn our Councils of Error, and we licence Sectaries Like well ●● hear themselves talk without Principles. to name either (Provided they make not Themselves judges, nor their long since defeated Arguments Evidences) We are indeed the guilty Persons, and They the wise Reformers, But if All of us Decline this last judicature, and do nothing but hear ourselves talk upon Principles grossly misinterpreted, by the one or other Party, Dissensions will go on remedilessly to the great Scandal of jews and Gentiles, and controversies of Religion cannot but prove endless. CHAP. XVII. More of this subject. A further Search made into Errors called intolerable. Whether the Roman Catholic Church must be supposed by Sectaries to have already Committed intolerable Errors, Or only, whether She may for the future Err Intolerably? The Doctrine of Protestants proved False, And Most inconsequent. 1. MR Stillingfleet to find out Evident and intolerable Errors in Councils Appeal's (as you See) in the next place to the Common Reason of mankind, and to the Consent of wise and learned men. None could have more ruined his own cause, For this Dilemma is unanswerable. The forementioned Councils have either erred intolerably in Defining the Doctrines A Dilemma of Transubstantiation, and of Purgatory, Or have not erred intolerably. If not; Protestants, as is now said, are obliged by their own Law to yield at least external Obedience to them, which is not done, For herein they have made à Public Reformation, and call such Doctrines Errors. On the other side, if these Errors be intolerable you see by their own words, We must have the Common Reason of mankind, the Consent also of wise and learned men both ready to Oppose and Condemn them: But this is enormously improbable upon à clear Ground. Do no more but Divide the Moral Body of Christians now at Debate into two Classes, Catholics and Protestants, For one that Or à clear Conviction of Protestants. makes these Councils Illegal or their Doctrines intolerable, you have hundreds, yea I think thousands, who avouch the Contrary, and clear Both from that unworthy Imputation. Therefore unless Protestants engross the Gift of common Reason and Wisdom to themselves, and allow no little parcel of it either to the Greek or Latin Church, They are to recall what is Said: And if they will have Reason so fast entailed upon à few Sectaries, That no body else can share in it, There is no further Dispute: All we say is. God help Them. 2. But what say we to Mr Hooker who tells us necessary Reason or à Demonstration is that, which being proposed to any man and understood, The mind cannot choose but inwardly Assent to it. I answer, the Principle, though good, is most impertinently Applied to the controversy now in hand, For have not we (As is already noted) Thousands and Thousands in the Roman Church most learned and pious, who hear the Doctrines of the fore named Councils proposed, and in judgement so inwardly Assent to all without scruple, that they would die for the verities there A Principle ill applied. defined? The Truth is manifest. Therefore Mr hooker's necessary Reason, or Demonstration has no place in these far more numerous than all the Protestants are in England, and consequently every man Stands not evidently convicted of our Councils Errors. Now if you say so many Thousands are fooled, Know Sir, That no few of these fools, are wise enough to dispute with you, and to Show you Speak at random without Principles. 3. Thus much is said of our Catholic Councils hitherto convened in the Chureh, now if we return to the old Supposition, and First imagine all Councils fallible, and Secondly think, that the latter, of equal Authority amends the First, or à Third the Errors of the Second, and so in Infinitum, I Say it is Impossible, either clearly to Discover the pretended Errors, or to redress them, and this I Assert upon these grounds. 4. One already hinted at, is, that none can by an inward Assent (and Mr Hooker requires that) own any such Evidence An Assertion proved. whilst the Council which makes them Errors, is as weak and fallible as the other was that Defined the contrary, and Published all under the Notion of Christian Truths. No more can I, were I yet to Learn rest Satisfied, in what either of these two jarring Councils Define (for the One is as bad as the Other) than I am able to trust to two Ministers Talk, if I heard them Preach quite contrary Doctrine at Paul's Church, That is, no man can believe either, upon their fallible Authority. This Principle therefore Stands firm. An errable Council A fallible Council, most un meet to teach the high Mysteries of Faith. i● as unfit to Teach, or Vnteach another likewise Erring, in the high and yet unknown Mysteries of Faith, as One Wholly ignorant, of an uncouth Path, is to direct à Stranger into it, For as Both these are to learn the way from à third Guide more skilful, So both these Councils must take their Instructions from some third certain Oracle, Or remain, as they are, Ignorant. But Sectaries remit none to any living certain Oracle, Therefore they cannot but still Sat in Darkness ('tis God's just judgement upon them) and blind as They are, lead the blind they know not whither. 5. Again (and here is my second Reason) Before the Discovery of these intolerable Errors we ought to have à List of them, and know How many or few they are, And who can Ascertain us of this? Are we to divine at their Intolerableness by our own private judgements? Or is some wiser body to instruct us, when there is no Council at hand to do it? Must all Christians dispersed up and down the world writ letters to one another, Or inform themselves whether the Errors be intolerable? These Supposed Errors in Councils. And if so; whether it be yet high time to cry out against them? Or, is it enough to Ask our next Neighbours what they think of the Business, and rest there? Perhaps some will hold them inconsiderable, Others of à violent temper heinous not longer to be born with. And can such jumbling and Confusion which tears the Unity of the Church in pieces Preserve Her in peace think ye? Must we first Suppose à learned Cannot be discovered by larring Multitudes. Council to have erred, and next rely on unlearned jarring Multitudes to Proclaim, Censure, and Reverse the Error? If this way be not more than uncanonical in matters of Religion, there was never any. 6. You will Say, the next Council is to mend all the failings of the former. Answ. Were this, as it is not Possible, what is to be done in the mean time, whilst there is no Council in Being? Must the Church which Believes the Definitions of What if à Council be not in Being. the former erring Councils and all Christians with it, Err on so long till this other Council Appears? Or is every private man to resolve for himself what's best to do in such Exigences? Reflect I beseech you. How far easier were it, to quiet all, might Councils once be owned infallible. Yet here is my least When difficulties arise Exception. I say therefore to prove what I said above. If Church and Councils can err notoriously, There is no means left on earth, either to discover the Errors, or to amend them. 7. The Assertion will be proved by sifting this one Point to the Bottom. And Much light will be had if we leave Generalities, One Point Examined. wherein Sectaries always lurk, and descend to particulars, Or lay forth the nature of some imaginable Errors. Call then These if any be, horrid and intolerable. 8. To teach there is no God, no Christ, no Redeemer, no Salvation. I Ask whether the Councils in God's Church can err thus grossly, The Nature of horrid Errors. or are so secured by Divine Assistance, as not to Define such vast Absurdities? If it be Answered, They are so far at least preserved infallible, I clearly Infer, No man can exclude à total infallibility from Councils. If it be Answered, Possibly they may err in this Damnable manner. I infer Again. Ergo, Possibly, Councils, Church, and all Christians may utterly desert Christ, become Atheists, Turks, jews, Devils, or what else you will, that naught is. Can this also be granted. 9 One may reply, it is indeed possible, yet will never be. C●ntra. Who hinders the Mischief, I beseech you, if the Supposition may stand? The Roman Catholic Church, Say Sectaries, is already Idolatrous, and long since was Antichristian, when some English Protestants made the Pope Antichrist. The Church accused of intolerable Errors. Why then may not Atheism, judaism, and Turcism infect likewise the Whole Moral Body of Christians, and Destroy both Church and Councils? Grant this Possible, there can be no more talk of after-Councils correcting the former, erroneous, For the Church is now Destroyed, Christ our Lord must please to appear again, or send some great Prophet to establish à new Church more firm than the other was now ruined, or we are lest desolate, utterly Churchles. 10. I am verily persuaded our Adversaries will think twice on't, before they once grant these horrid Consequences, and therefore must needs make the Supposed Evident intolerable errors not altogether so abominable, but less, or of à lower rank, yet evident and intolerable. Remember that. And what may these A question proposed to Sectaries. be think ye? I would fain know whether any such foul Doctrines have been ever taught de facto, or, because Councils are Supposed fallible, whether they yet remain in à State of possibility, and only may be Taught? If it be Said they are not actual but only possible, Or may be intolerable hereafter, And Sectaries upon that Account abandon the Roman Catholic Church: Their Sin is now actual and more horrid than such Concerning these Supposed Errors Actual or Possible. Errors are, Because They desert à Church upon supposed faults which only may be, yet never were hitherto. Now if for à mere Possibility of falsities, (never yet actually Discovered nor known) The Roman Church is to be quitted, Protestants ought to forsake Their own Religion, For they are all liable to Error, Yea, And may well hang up the most Innocent man in the world upon this score, That he may be à thief, Though as yet he never Stole any thing. 11. The Errors therefore, if we Discourse rationally, hitherto pretended against us are not in à mere State of Possibility, None Condemned for Errors which Possibly may be. But Actual, Evident, and intolerable. We inquire after them, And still proceed upon this wretched Supposition, that both Church and Council are fallible, or have erred. When Envy has done its utmost, you only can get à List of these or the like Supposed Falsehoods. Praying to Saints. The Real Presence. Worshipping of Images. Transubstantiation or some thing of this nature, which Catholics maintain. Now truly, it is more than extravagant (and I know not with what Conscience Sectaries do it) to Decry these as Evident and intolerable Errors, whilst à whole learned Church defends them as Truths. 12. What Saith Mr Hooker? Is the mind so forced that after à full Proposal, it cannot choose but inwardly Assent to All as evident Errors? Toys. Trifles. Millions, as we now Sectaries in consequencies. said, own them as Apostolical Verities. 2. If Evident and intolerable, they strike at such Verities as Sectaries call the fundamentals of Faith, And consequently the Roman Church which maintains them, has been Vnorthodox in fundamentals for à thousand years and more. Will this be granted? Grant or deny, here is an unanswerable Dilemma; They are fundamental Errors (in our Sectaries sense) destructive of Divine Faith, or not. If not; but only smaller matters, Protestants Oblige themselves to forbear, and to expect the Churches Good pleasure until, some other Council meet's, and Reverses what's Amiss. Their Clamours therefore against the Church's Doctrine now, are unauthorised and most illegal by their own Principles. Nor have they Power, as is confessed, to Reform themselves in lesser matters, but only in things of à higher Concern, Evident, and intolerable. 13. Now if they be of this nature and consequently fundamental A clear Inference against Sectaries. Absurdities against Faith, It follows, that there was no Church right in fundamentals the whole world over for ten Ages before Luther: Not the Roman; if the Supposition holds, Nor any other Society of Christians for all those (name whom you will) were more deeply plunged into fundamental Errors. 3. And 'tis the chiefest thing I aim at. If Church and Councils be owned fallible, can err, or have erred, Our Adversary's Supposition of Errors Evident, and intolerable, is purely chimerical, And therefore I said just now, None can know them as such, and consequently no Power on earth can amend them. I prove the Assertion. 14. First they cannot be known as evident or manifest, Intolerable Errors cannot be proved against the Church. without Principles, as clear as the Errors are Supposed to be, which therefore must be so indisputable That the mind inwardly Assent's to them, as Mr Hooker Saith. A weaker light, as Probability, or à miscalled Moral Certainty, begets Evidence in none. Now here we Urge our Adversaries to bring to Light but one, or more clear Principles, whereby it may manifestly appear, that Transubstantiation or any other Catholic Doctrine, is so manifest à Falshood, That the mind conquered, By any thing like à Principle. and convicted with the Evidence, cannot choose but decry it as intolerable. Whither will these men run for Principles? To Scripture, it's evidently abused by the one or other Party, but who is in fault? You will say That's yet disputable, therefore f●r of from Evidence. Church and Councils, supposed errable, and erroneous, cannot tell you nor give in evidence against him or them, that abuse Scripture. Wither next? To the Fathers? All are fallible, and their Sense ●n controverted matters is made so intricate when you hear Them glossed by the Protestant, and unglossed by the Catholic, that you would Swear they speak Contradictions, And can any thing like evidence or certainty, grow from these contrary Glosses, which as Experience teaches, breed endless Quarrels? 15, Other Principles we have not any, except Mr Stillingfleets Common Reason of Mankind (the worst of all) for do we not Scripture, Church Fathers and all Principle fail Sectaries. see, that Heretics every where make Themselves and their own Sects most reasonable? Where we have nothing like common Reason, but so many different and divided Sentiments of jarring men dispersed up and down the world. If therefore Scripture, Fathers, and this Common Reason fail to be Principles, our Sectaries Supposition of manifest or Evident falsities in the Church, goes beyond all Moderation, and implies an Ouerlashing more than intolerable. 16. Their ungrounded Mistake lies here, That Principles are Supposed at hand, or ready at à call to Decide in this case of à Councils Supposed Error, Whereas if both Church and Councils can, or do Err, There are no such things in being as Principles. Topics Uncertain Topics, no Principles. at most, or an endless jarring upon mere Vncettainties lead none to an Evident Discovery of Errors, Therefore I said right, they cannot be known as Evident for want of Principles, and if not known as such, no Power on earth can amend them. Yet good Principles reach thus far at least, as to Demonstrate that Protestants grossly Mistake in their Clamours against our Church's errors De facto, And here you have my Principles already hinted at. 17. Either these supposed Errors are those unchristian Tenants mentioned N. 8. And certainly Councils never transgressed so enormously as to Define such devilish Doctrines. Or. A Strong Argument against Sectaries. 2. They are only Possible false Doctrines which may be Defined if Councils can err, but yet are not taught. If So; All must Say, that as it is horrid to condemn à man for à crime he may commit, though he never did it, So it is the highest Injustice to condemn à whole Church for Falshood's She may teach (if fallible) though She never taught them. Nothing then remains but to plead against our Church Doctrine de facto, as evidently and intolerably Erroneous, and herein we will not spare Sectaries one whit, but Urge them, as we do, to speak home in the cause. Their Accusation is evident, we Press them Again and again to justify it by Proofs and Principles as evident. What must these errors be decried as Evident and intolerable, and can none but Sectaries get so much as à glimpse of the Evidence? Away with such fooleries. No man can hear them with Patience. 18. By what is said already you see, that The Doctrine of Protestants Shows itself as it is, not only false but most Inconsequent. Sectaries Doctrine, in consequent. Mark, I beseech you the Inconsequence. These Novellists Define the Church to be an Assembly of men who Belie●● and Profess the pure Word of God, But such men (find them where you can) as believe and profess the pure Word, which is i● itself Infallible, are certainly infallible if they Believe it as God's infallible Word, Therefore they must acknowledge an infallible Moral Body of Christians that Constitutes an infallible Church. 19 In Lieu of Doing this, They Tear all in Pieces, and First Decry the Roman Catholic Church as Errable, Yea actually erring; Next, and this Marr's their own Cause, they withal Profess themselves fallible: Whereas, had any thing like consequent Doctrine entered their Thoughts, They should at least have made protestants infallible, being as They Say, new commissioned By their own Principles, they should hold some Society of men Infallible. Doctors sent from God, to amend the Church's Errors. And believe it their own Infallibility, had they casually laid claim to it, would as soon have been persuaded (That's never) as now without Probability or any thing like à Principle, They endeavour to prove the Roman Catholic Church Fallible. But let this pass. Thus much I Assert. To tell us on the One side, There is an Assembly of men who Believe the infallible Word of God, And on the Other, To make all that Teach and Believe it, Fallible, liable to False Doctrine, is not only to proceed The contrary Doctrine ruins Faith. inconsequently, but moreover to Expose Christian Religion, to the Scorn of jews and Gentiles, yea quite to ruin Divine Faith, And finally to make us all Sceptics, certain of nothing. 20. If it be replied. The, Councils, and Sectarles with them, are at least preserved infallible in things Called the Fundamentals of Faith plainly revealed in Scripture, I urge them first to give in their Proofs for this half or partial Infallibility, which will be more than ridiculous, if once they Appear in paper. Again, if we are all infallible and secure in à few Fundamentals plainly registered in Scripture, to what Purpose do Sectaries keep à coil about smaller Matters, called Vnfundamentals, Which are neither intolerable or Considerable, because Small, Much less can they be Evident Errors, so long as à whole Their pretended Evidence of Errors is evidently à Fourb. Church defends them as Truths, For this Evidence cannot but fail Sectaries (or come to nothing) whilst the Church and They stand in Contest about it. Be it how you will. Here without à judge, we are got into the old Labyrinth again of an endless Dispute, which can never Produce any thing like Evidence in behalf of Sectaries. CHAP. XVIII. Two Adversaries mainly Opposite to True Religion. The last and most urgent Proof of the Church's Infallibility taken from the Necessity, the Notion and Nature of true Religion. Mr Stillingfleets Objections found weak and weightles. Most of them already Proposed and Dissolved by others. A short Reflection made upon some few. ●. THere is à Knot of half-witted People who Say, though Religion Seems indeed necessary to Preserve humane Society in peace, And to Ouer-awe unruly Spirits, yet the Two Paradoxes maintained by these half mad men. best (were any Good) is no more but à mere Fiction, à forged ●ale, in fine an Error. These men make nature Monstruous, and must Consequently maintain two vast Paradoxes. The one; That humane Societies every were (That is) All Kingdoms, and Commonwealths stand in need of Fiction and Error to make them happy. The Proposition is evident: For if peace, Tranquillity, Fiction and foolery can make no man happy. and the subduing of unquiet Spirits, be à true necessary Happiness to all, And these cannot subsist without à feigned Religion, It is manifest that Fiction, Foolery, and Error make the● happy, which is as much as to Say, à Constant Sickness keep's the body in health, weakness gives it strength, Pain and 〈◊〉 ●ase and refreshment. Certainly no less is error dissonant to à rational Nature, than Sickness repugnant to health, 〈◊〉 to fire, or heat to water. 2. The second Paradox wholly as bad and clear, keeps Parallel with this other. It is now supposed that Religion which is nothing else but Fiction, necessarily conduceth to the Peace of Kingdoms and Commonwealths, whereupon their Happiness jest's more secure, And is better preserved than if this fiction 〈◊〉 not. Hence it follows evidently. To know and Profess Truth, to quit ourselves of Error and fiction, robb's us of Happiness and makes humane nature miserable. The Inference is undeniable, For if we be happy upon this score that we live in à Dotage, we are miserable in case we get free of it or become Wise, which is against the light of Reason, For if God has endued Nature is not miserable by being freed from dotage. all with à desire of true Wisdom and the knowledge of truth, (whereof none can doubt) Man cannot be miserable if he Possesses that Good which the Author of nature would have him to enjoy. Hence it in also Inserred, that the universal Persuasion of true Religion is no Dotage, no Deception but à Truth, and that most notorious. 3. Now if you Object, some live without Religion, and ●● few embrace à false one; you plead by cases merely Accidental, As if one should Say, Nature has made man Sociable and given him à tongue to Converse with others, But some Cases merely Accidental made use of to no purpose are dumb, others abuse their faculty of speaking, Therefore man is no sociable creature. This is our case. Those who live without all Religion, (if any such be) are the dumb and blind: Those that Profess à falss Religion, like lying tongues abuse Gods Gifts, the Abuse is Theirs not God's, who would have all to be v●ius labij of one Tongue and one heart in à matter of so high Concern. And thus much of these first Adversaries Opposite to true Religion. 4. In the next place, I may well name our modern Sectaries no less than Arch-aduersaries of Religion, who make the Church and all that teach Church Doctrine fallible. My reason is. A Feigned and Fallible Religion, are near Cous 〈…〉 Sectaries paralleled with the other Adversaries. Germans. The one is à Fiction, The other at least may be so, And for aught any man can know, is no better. For there is no Principle whereby it may appear so much as probably, that all the Christians who lived since the Apostles time or yet are alive, have not been deluded with fictions concerning Gods truths, but rather are plunged into à deep Deluge of gross Errors, if the Church and Councils can Teach or believe false Doctrine, And here be pleased to reflect à little, Ho● near these two Adversaries come to one another. 5. The first mentioned account it Happiness to remain in Error, and Sectaries like well not only the Possibility but more, à prefent manifest danger of erring in this matter of highest The Parallel lapid forth, and proved. Consequence. Actual error pleases the one, and à great hazard of it contents the other. Humane nature, say the first, would be miserable were men so wise as to learn this Truth, that Religion is à Foppery, though it be so, And we are all undone (Say Sectaries) could we acquire so much Wisdom in this present state, as to be infallibly Ascertained that Religion is no Foppery, which perhaps may be one. Wherefore to weaken all certitude They tell us, That none can learn infallibly those truths which God has revealed, because all Churches, all Councile, all Pastors and Doctors, whose Duty is to give Assurance of trut● are so fallible, And that the very best may err and oblige men ●● believe Error. Here is all the comfort we have from Sectaries. Thus much premised. 6. We come to the fundamental Ground which proves our Catholic Religion, and the Church that teaches it to be infallible. I Said in the first Disc. C. 1. n. 9 speaking against Atheists. If we receive the first lights of nature called general The fundamental ground of the Church's Infallibility. 〈◊〉 from any Power inferior to God, They are all fallible, and may deceive us. This granted, which I think no Christian can deny, It is most consequent to Assert, That if we receive the Supernatural lights or truths of Grace revealed in Scripture (vastly above all humane Comprehension,) from à less Power than God, the wisest of men may live in error, and cannot but be deceived. And thus both Nature and Grace necessarily depend on God. 7. This great Truth i● the Apostles Doctrine. jacob. C. 1. 17. Omne Donum perfectum de sursum est. Every perfect Gift Deduced from the Apostles Doctrine. comes from above, descending from that Father of lights. God therefore, rightly styled the Father of light, or, as Divines Speak, Prima veritas the first unerring Verity, Pleased to make known some few of his Divine truths in that Book of Holy Scripture. Few I call them, compared with innumerable others, not at all revealed, which yet his infinite Wisdom comprehends, However these few (often darkly expressed in that mysterious Book, or in Terms less perspicuous) Dazzle the eyes of weak sighted Mortals, and wonder nothing, The Apostle gives the Reason ●. Tim. 6. 16. because all proceed from him, Qui lucem inhabitat inaccessibilem, That dwell's in an unaccessible light, none can attain unto. Yet truths they are, the first unerring Verity Treasures Communicated. Asserts it, and therefore aught to be esteemed treasures. If treasures; Providence will have them conveyed unto us by secure hands, And if eternal truths concerning Salvation, God cannot but will, and his Will is à law, That all be Proposed and Taught as Divine and infallible Verities, depending upon none, How to be Valued▪ if we ultimately bring them to their last Centre) but upon the first Truth only, who neither will, nor can deceive any. 8. Now here is the Difficulty. Seing it hath pleased Almighty God for reasons best known to Himself, to leave most of the high Mysteries registered in Scripture in no little Obscurity, The main Difficulgy Proposed. Some express his own Perfections of being one essence, and three distinct Persons, Others relate to the admirable works of Grace effected by his Infinite Power (Of this nature are the Incarnation, and the whole Series of man's Redemption.) The Difficulty I say is to find out à trusty Interpreter, some faithful Oracle, which can when doubts occur concerning the darker Mysteries clear all, lay open the Book, and absolutely Assert. An infinite verity speaks thus, This sense and no other is what the Holy Ghost intended. And this is necessary, because Almighty God teaches no more immediately by himself, nor will have Enthusianisms to be our Doctors. 9 Moreover the necessity of such à sure Oracle (if Divine The necessity of an Infallible Oracle. truth must be learned) is proved upon this ground chief. That these mysteries, as is now said, have both their Difficulty and Darkness. Natural reason left to itself boggles at them, jews, Gentiles, and Heretics reject the highest. It is, Say they, mighty▪ hard to believe á Trinity, the Divine word made flesh, God and man to die upon à Cross etc. What can Reason yield so far, or submit to these as eternal Verities, when their last and only Proof is taken from à Book which we see evidently sensed different ways, and so interpreted, that One in rigour may own the Quineced because the Mysteries are difficult. Scriptures Divinity as the Arians do, and yet so far favour Reason, as not to force upon it the Belief of such sublime secrets, which offer violence to our intellectual Faculties. Thus the Arians discourse. 10. Now here I justly appeal to the common judgement of Mankind, and Ask whether our God of truth, who on the one side perfectly comprehends the depth of his own revealed Mysteries, and on the other, penetrat's no less our shallow capacities (puzzled as we see in the search of the most Obvious things in nature) could make choice of men merely fallible, and divorced from Divine Assistance to interpret Scripture, whilst all of them none excepted, because errable, may grossly mistake and change the purest Verities which were ever yet revealed, into Errors. What think ye, could God who from Eternity foresaw, and yet sees his written Truths depraved, abused, yea Heresies drawn from his most sacred words, Can this Alseing wisdom I say, put his own Sacred book into such Sacrilegious han●s, or like well that à few scattered and divided Sectaries should be the only best Interpreters of it? 11. I say yet more. All the men in the world, considered merely as nature has framed them, fallible, would commit the Presumption in this matter easily Committed. Sin of Presumption, and wrong both God and his verities, did they venture so far as to interpret Scripture by no other Rule or law but by their own weak Reason, and there upon resolutely define, that God is one pure Essence, and three real distinct Persons: Original Sin is such an evil as the Orthodox Church teaches: Children are to be Baptised etc. To deduce thus much from the bare letter of Scripture, and to define every particular resolutely, is above the force of all natural knowledge. Those then who Interpret the Truths of the first Alseing Verity that inhabits light not seen by our natural eyes, must be specially Privileged, and either receive Divine Assistance necessary. illumination from the Father of Light, or thankfully take infallible Assistance from the Holy Ghost the Spirit of Truth, which is both promised and readily given to the Catholic Church. 12. Hence I deduce the Church's infallibility, and Argue thus. Either there is such à Society of men preserved by Providence infallible in all they Define and interpret, or not. If you Affirm, The Roman Catholic Church alone has the Privilege, for all others disclaim Infallibility. If you Deny. The A further Proof. highest Mysteries of Christian Religion are things only sought for, but not found, talked of, but never learned. In à word Religion is à mere Scepticism, the best that learn it seem just like those Scholars the Apostle mentioneth. 2. Tim 3. 6. Semper discentes etc. Always learning, but never throughly instructed. If I evidence not what is here said so manifestly, That no Sectary shall rationally contradict it, censure me at your pleasure. 13. A few Questions will clear all, And first I must Demand. From whence has that we call Religion its truth? All Answer from God the first unerring Verity. Very right. But we Ask again, Where is the Master teaching Oracle which plainly deliuer's these revealed truths, or clearly Proposes the Mysteries now named? Sectaries usually tell us, Their Oracle is holy Scripture. Hereupon follows à third Querie more difficult than all the rest. Viz. Who Ascertains you Arians, you Donatists, you Pelagians, you Protestants you Quakers (All fallible) that you The Sectaries pretence to their reading Scripture, examined. rightly understand what you read, and grossly deprave not God's Word, for without controversy innumerable called Christians do deprave it? Protestants (à perfect Representative of all the other) shall Answer for all. O say they, We read Scripture attentively, we pray for light, we peruse the Originals, we compare Passage with passage, and after much pains taken we both believe the highest Mysteries, and moreover persuade ourselves, that the new Model of Protestancy is conformable, or (at least) not Dissonant to God's word. Here you have their last and very best Principle, For they will not hear of an Infallible Church. 14. Reflect Gentle Reader à little. Do Protestants only read, pray., peruse, and compare? No Certainly. The Arians long since have done So, yet boldly oppose Protestants, and deny the highest Mysteries of our Christian Faith. If then the Arians Praying, perusing, and comparing prove no conviction to Protestants, Arians also read, and Oppose Protestants. Why should the Protestants praying or perusing Convince the Arians of Error? Again. Have not Catholics (think ye) of à longer continuance and far more numerous than Sectaries, prayed and perused Scripture? None can doubt it. And yet they hold the whole Model of pure Protestancy à Novelty, and openly declare it Heretical. Therefore unless Sectaries have So do Catholics. à singular talon in praying and perusing above all other Christians, Unless they can produce better Proofs for the Mysteries of Faith against the Arians, and stronger Arguments against Catholics in behalf of Protestancy, than the bare letter of Scripture, Sectaries Pretence to reading Scripture. And their own weak conferring Texts together, or praying upon them, They do not only make Protestancy ridiculous, but moreover, every new whimsy defensible; For was there ever yet Fanatique in the world that could not Say thus much? He certainly both professes and teaches truth, because he has à Bible, read's that, peruses it and prays earnestly. And will not any Adversary retort the Argument upon him and defend whatever foolery he fancies contrary. 15. Believe it, if this way of Arguing have force the meanest Quaquer in England, will make his cause good against the makes Protestancy ridiculous. stoutest Protestant, and the Protestant if he say. I read, I Ponder I pray, proves his Religion every whit as strongly against the Quaquer. That is, neither proves any thing. Nay more, the worst of Heretics, may upon this ground maintain his Errors against the Orthodox Church (be that yet where you will) and could the Church only say, She reads Scripture, ponders it and preys, Her case would be the same with the worst of Heretics, But besides reading and praying There are other Proofs, whereby One Church only is evinced God's Faithful Oracle 16. From what is now said I Argue first. A Principle, which makes false Religion true, yea all Religions though most erroneous as credible as true Religion, is more than intolerable. The Sectaries Principle makes false Religions true. But this Principle of Protestants, we read Scripture, we ponder and pray, makes false Religions true, and all Sects though most erroneous as credible as true Religion is, Ergo it is more than intolerable. The Minor as is now said proves itself, For every Heretic pretends to read and ponder Scripture, but if you move à further Question concerning the Sense of what he reads, he returns you his own fancy as the best light he has, and makes that his judge. This and no other is the Protestants Principle, and the chief, if not the only support, of all Heresy in the world. 17. I Argue. 2. And hold it à Demonstration. To make Religion à Scepticism eternally debatable, without hope of attaining truth at last, is wholly as ridiculous, as if two men should go to law merely to wrangle, hopeless of ever having their cause determined. But this Protestant Principle. We read, Pray and ponder makes Religion à mere Scepticism without hope of ever knowing it, or having truth finally decided (Semper discentes they Another Convincing Argument. are always learning but never well taught). Ergo it is more than ridiculous. 18. To prove the Minor let us first suppose, that either we Catholics, or Protestants teach and profess true Religion (both certainly do not, for we hold Contradictions). Suppose. 2. This falsity, which our Adversaries will have supposed. Viz. That the Roman Catholic Church after all Her reading, and perusing Scripture is as fallible in all She teaches, as Protestants confessedly are in what they deliver after their reading. Both teach as they do contrary Doctrine, Yea and fallible Doctrine, yet both tell you, they teach true Doctrine. Say I beseech you, what man in his wits To teach Contrary Doctrine and true Doctrine. can believe Either upon their bare Assertions, chief if we Suppose them of equal Authority? when he finds the Result of their reading, and perusing Scripture, to end in nothing but in open Contradictions, and sees plainly that the opposite Doctrine of the One Church, so much abates the Credit of the other teaching contrary, that in real truth both become Contemptible. And hence I Said, that which we call Christian Religion would justly deserve Scorn, if no Church teach it infallibly. But is impossible. here is not all. To discover more the gross error of Sectaries in this particular, 19 We are yet to Demand upon whom this jarring Doctrine of the two dissenting Churches now supposed Fallible is to be laid? Or whence it proceeds? Can it come from God's special A Doctrine taught fallibly. Assistance think ye? It is impossible. Because God teaches no contradictions. Nay, if we consider it as contradictory, no Spirit of truth can teach it. Therefore we must part the Doctrines, and Ascribe to each Church its own particular Opinion, And then (were that possible) Examine which is true. 20. But here lies the Misery. I say boldly. There neither is nor can be any appearance of certain revealed truth in either proceeds not from God. Church, not only because all Principles fail whereby to discern à certain Christian truth from Error, but most upon this ground, That we must now remove the fallible taught Doctrines of both these Churches, from God's Infallible Verity and his Special assistance also, and make them lean upon man's weak and shallow understanding. We have no other Principle to rest on, if once infallible Assistance be excluded. But it is manifest, man's shallow But relies upon man's weak Understanding. capacity communicat's no Certainty to Any, concerning the high Mysteries of Faith, removed from their Centre (The first infallible Verity). Therefore all we can learn from such Teachers, is no more but doubtful Doctrine at most, or, if it reach to an Opinion meanly probable, there is all, Yet you have often No ground less than infallible Supports true Religion. heard, (and it is à Truth) that no Principle less than one which is infallible, Can uphold our Christian Doctrine. Wherefore an utter ruin of true Religion inevitably follows upon this Ground. As Duine Doctrine infallibly taught begets infallible Faith, So if taught doubtfully, it begets only à doubtful Assent, which is no Faith at all. Now were these Doctrines respectively to each Church probable (as I think neither would be if the Supposition of their fallibillty stands) we are only brought to the old Scepticism again, and may dispute of Religion as we do of Probabilities in Schools, and so if men please, They may as often change Religion as they change Opinions, or apparel. 21. Some perhaps will reply. Protestants can certainly Say more for themselves then only to tell you They read Scripture, and compare the Passages of it together by the light of their own weak reasons, Can so much indeed make them accomplished Sectaries can pretend to no other Principle. Doctors able to lay forth God's eternal truths, it would seem strange, mighty bare, and dissatisfactory to Reason. Answ. Here is all you have from them, For they neither do, nor can pretend to more. Wherefore I challenge them again and again to Say plainly what other Principle can be relied on, not wholly as doubtful, and as much controverted as their very Religion is, when they either teach, or interpret Scripture, contrary to But to their own Comparing Scripture. the Roman Catholic Church. Observe their Procedure. If à contest arises betwixt them and condemned Heretics, The Arians for example▪ All ends in à mere throwing Texts at one another, And the sense must be just so as each Party conceives. And do they not follow the same strain in every Controversy with Catholics? One Instance will give you sufficient light, and may well serve for all. 22. They (Protestant's I mean) read those words of our Saviour. This is my Body. So do Catholics also. They compare Text with Text, and Sense all as they please. Catholics as wise and learned compare also, yet hold contrary Doctrine, and discover no little fraud in these new men's Deductions, and Criticisms. Say now plainly. Who is He that acts the Sectaries seek to quarrel but to End nothing. Scepticks part? Who is He that would endlessly quarrel about the Sense of God's word? Is it the Catholic? No certainly. He is willing to have the cause ultimately decided, He Petitions to have these endless strifes remitted to the censure of one Supreme judge, to à Church which manifesteth itself by evident glorious Miracles (never yet censured, by any Christians but known Heretics) and which finally has taught the world ever since Christ left it. Dare Sectaries do thus much? Dare they appeal to any Orthodox Church, by whose just Sentence these debates may have an End? No. They recoil, and without listening to any judge but Themselves, would still continue these Debates. Therefore they are the Sceptists. And to prove this, give me leave to propose one Question to the Protestant (He is the man we now treat A Convincing Proof of our Assertion. with). Has he any Church so free from Censure, of so long Continuance, so glorious in Miracles as the Roman Catholic is. Has He any Council as generally received the whole world over, as either the Lateran or Florentine which ever interpreted Christ's words or Sensed them as he doth? Most evidently no. Therefore I said well, His reading and glosses, and all he can Allege for himself, are nothing but His own weak thoughts, as far removed from the foundation of truth, (Gods infallible Verity) as earth is from Heaven and more. 23. But its needles to Prosecute this Point further, when one only reason, which none can contradict gives Evidence enough against Protestants. I Propose it thus. What ever Doctrine they teach peculiar to Protestancy, or maintain against the Roman Catholic Church, either proceeds from God's infallible Assistance, or wholly borrows strength from their own Sectaries teach Doctrine divorced from Divine Assistance. fallible Conceptions, after their reading and comparing Scripture. Grant the first; They teach infallible Doctrine, by virtue of God's infallible Assistance, and consequently are the men who constitute an Infallible Church. Say secondly, that all they teach derives force from their own weak reason (guided only by the external words of Scripture, understood as they conceive,) They teach as the Arians, and all Heretics have taught before them, à learning which is not from God. Their And therefore not from God. Doctrine in à word, Divorced from all Divine Aid and Assistance, stands tottering upon their own errable Sentiments, and therefore neither is (which I intended to prove) Christ's Doctrine, nor at all resoluable into that first Principle of truth, God's unerring Verity. 24. Shall we to give some clearer Light to the Controversy hitherto handled compendiously recapitulate à few of these many reflections made already in the foregoing Chapters? And then more establish the Church's infallibility upon undoubted Principles. To do so, may perhaps benefit the Reader. 25. Say therefore. Is it true that Christian Religion ultimately A brief recapitulation of what has been Said. depends upon God, the first unerring Verity? No man doubts it. Is it true, that innumerable called Christians grossly misconceive those revealed Truths, after their reading and perusing Scripture? It is no less certain. Is it true, That the bare reading, and pondering Scripture Sectaries like Arians. no more ascertain's Protestant's of the Verities there registered, than the Arians or any other Heretics? The truth is undoubted, For from whom should they have greater certainty. Is it true, That Funaticism. Scripture wrested. Doubtful faith. eu●ry Fanatique recurr's to Scripture, as Sectaries do? Experience proves it. Is it true, That this sole recourse to Scripture wr●sted to a sinister Sense, vpohld's the most false Sects in the world? Is it true, That Christian Doctrine, doubtfully taught, begets only à doubtful faith? Is it true, That the only support of Protestants in points of Religion Comparing Texts, fallible▪ Scepticism. amounts to no more but to their own doubtful and bare pondering Scripture, or to their various and fallible comparing Texts together? Is it true, That these men like Sceptics would stand everlastingly quarrelling about the sense of God's word, and cannot be iuduced to hear any judge No judge. speak in this cause of Religion but themselves? Is it true, That we urge them to make choice of what judge they please, provided they appeal not to their own Sentiments and Glosses, as much controverted as Protestancy is? Is it true, That they can name no Orthodox Church which No Orthodox Church. Nor Councils Want of Infallible Assistance▪ Fallible Professors, of fallible Doctrine Divine Revelation wronged. Doctrine never owned. taught as they teach, glossed Scripture as they gloss; No Council generally received (Comparable either to the Lateran or Florentine) which favours their Interpretations forced upon Christ's words? Is it true, That the Doctrine they propound confessedly proceeds not from God's infallible Assistance? Is it true, That they assume to themselves the name of Christians, and yet are ashamed to be called infallible Professors of the whole system of Christian Religion? Is it true, That they have done their utmost to take from God's infallible Revelation it's own intrinsic nature of Infallibility, by making it no more but morally certain in order to our Christian Faith? Is it true, That, that half Infallibility some lay claim to, in à few yet unknown fundamentals, appears even to Protestants, not any Doctrine owned by the Christian world, nor can it appear otherwise, whilst à whole universal Church decryes it as improbable? Is it true, That These Novellists raise not their Doctrine Endless Disputes. any higher, but only to an endless Contest, whilst no judge but themselves must speak in the cause? 26. Are all these things (I say) more amply enlarged and clearly proved already so undoubted that no Sectary shall ever rationally contradict them? If the judicious Reader find I speak truth, as he will, may Prejudice be laid aside, I may boldly Conclude. Who ever see's not the deplorable Condition of misled Sectaries, who ever see's not also an absolute necessity of an infallible Church to set them in the right way of truth Again is wilfully blind, supinely negligent, Yea utterly Careless of Salvation. CHAP. XIX. Certain Principles, where upon the Church's Infallibility stands firm. The End of Divine Revelation is to teach all Infallibly. Every Doctrine revealed by the fiast Verity is no less infallible than true. It's one thing to teach Truth, another to teach Divine and Infallible Truth. Sectaries Strangely ungrateful. A word of Mr Stillingfleets weak Objections. 1. NOw we come to the last certain Principles whereupon the Church's infallibility stands most firmly. Here is one. The Doctrine which God reveals, as it proceeds from that first unerring Verity, is not only true but infallible. The Second Principle. Scripture which makes none infallible is often abused by Heretics. Principles premised. The third Principle. Some Christians are yet in Being That both teach and learn this true Divine, and infallible revealed Doctrine. The Proof is easy: For unless some Teach and learn it, All Teach and learn another Doctrine distinct from that which God revealed, The Principle Proved. and this neither is, nor can be Divine, but merely humane at most, and Perhaps à foolery. That therefore, which the Prophet Asserts. john▪ 6. 43. All shall be Docibiles Dei, docible or taught of God, is not so, For now if the Supposirion holds, the whole Church (take it in what Extent you please) is delude● as the Apostle Saith Ephes. 4. 14 With the wind of Doctrine, in the wickedness of men, in Craftiness to the circumvention of error. And this brings ruin to Christian Religion. 2. The. 4. Principle. This Divine Doctrine is not only A Church must be acknowledged absolutely infallible. true and infallible in itself, but moreover so infallibly Proposed by one unerring Oracle, That all who will receive it, are most indubitably certain of those very truths which God has revealed, and therefore cannot err. Make good this one Proposition, We have an infallible Church established, not only in à few nicknamed unknown fundamentals, but in every Doctrine She teaches. Now the Proof is taken from the End of Divine revelation which seems most Convincing, For say I beseech you, Why did God impart truth and infallible truth to the world? The end was not to improve his own knowledge, being ever Omniscient. It was not that the Angels and blessed in Heaven should believe, for Faith▪ ceaseth in that happy State, All there see intuitively what they once believed. The end therefore The Proof is taken from the End of Divine Revelation. why God revealed true and Infallible Doctrine was, That we, yet Pilgrims on earth walking by Faith should yield Assent to it, and believe all as both true and infallible. But this is impossible, if the Church which immediately Proposes the Doctrine can clash with Scripture or with God's Revelation, and pervert his Verities. Therefore She must be acknowledged both true and infallible in every Doctrine She teaches. 3. If any reply. It seems sufficient that the Church teaches Truth, though She neither proposes nor teaches it so infallibly, but that some times She may swerve from it, He destroys again Christian Religion. Be pleased to observe my reason. If the Divine revelation is to be assented ●o infallibly. infallibility of revealed Doctrine be lost as it were in the way between God and us, If the Revelation appear not as it is in itself infallible, when we assent to it by Faith, That is, if it be not infallibly conveyed and applied to all by an unerring Proponent, as it subsists in its first cause, infinitely infallible, Faith perishes, we are cast upon pure Uncertainties, and may justly doubt, whether such à Doctrine, separated from that other Perfection of infallibility, be really true or no? To see this clearly laid forth, Please to make one reflection with me. 4. May not either jew or Gentil, well inclined to Christian Religion rationally propose this Question to the Protestants or to any? Has God revealed any Doctrine which is only true, God's revealed Doctrine is no less infallible, then true. and not infallible? You will Answer, No, because the same infinite verity which support's truth, is powerful enough to uphold also its infallibility. Say on I beseech you. Can you who pretend to teach truth (the worst of Heretics have done so) Ascertain me also, that you teach and propose Gods infallible Truths, infall●bl●? Prove yourselves such Doctors, and none will ever Question further the Truth of what you teach, For if you once make this clear, that you teach the infallible Doctrine which God has revealed, the truth inseparably connexed with infallibility, is no more disputable but manifestly Credible. But if you turn me off, with à fair Story of teaching truth, and Ascertain me not of your teaching it infallibly, every rational man will most justly doubt of your teaching Truth. And here is the reason à Priort. 5. Every Doctrine which is taught as à Verity, founded upon God (the first Verity) is no less Infallible than true, Therefore who ever Ascertains me of the one, must jointly ascertain me of the other: Or if he will divorce truth from that perfection of Infallibility, There is no parting Infallibility from truth. he gives me no more but at most the half of that Doctrine which God reveals. Nay I learn not so much from him, seeing God own's no true Doctrine (men can teach natural truths) which is not as eminently infallible, as true. Now further. If I be fobbed off with no man knows what halves of Divine Doctrine, That is, if the Proponent parts truth from its infallibility, and no Authority in Heaven or earth licences any to Separate what God has joined together, I only learn the faint Sentiments, when We believe God's revealed Doctrine. or weak Opinions of fallible Teachers founded upon fancy, which God disclaim's And (which is ever to be noted) man by nature fallible can do no more, but only propose them as mere humane or doubtful Uncertainties. But à humane doubtful Proposition, though true, begets, as is said above, no certain faith in any, Therefore who ever will not utterly ruin the very life and Essence of Christian Religion, must absolutely assent both to the truth and Infallibility of Religion, and consequently acknowledge an Infallible Oracle which teaches and One Church only Infallible. proposes Infallible Verities, Infallibly. But this is only the Roman Catholic Church, as is said above, for no other Society of men lays claim to teach Gods infallible truths, infallibly. 6. To solve all Objections against this Discourse, it will much avail to be well grounded in this sure Principle. Viz. A certain Principle. It is one thing to teach truth, and another to teach Divine and infallible truth. Man by natural reason can teach truth, yet is insufficient to teach Divine, revealed, and infallible Truth, this must come from à higher Power, either from Divine Assistance, or Supernatural Whereupon our Answers to Sectaries Illumination. If therefore the Protestant Should demand, Why we cannot believe his Doctrine even when he only Proposes those general Verities which all Christians admit (He never offers to Obtrude upon you his inferior Tenants peculiar to Protestants). Answer. They are truths indeed, and infallible truths, but not proved so, because he Vnassisted teaches them. If he Ask again upon what foundation do we Catholics lay the truth and infallibility of that Doctrine we believe and teach? Answer. are grounded. Upon this firm Ground, that Scripture interpreted by an Assisted▪ Oracle (the Church) which cannot beguile any, Proposes all we learn, as true and infallible Doctrine. 7. If he reply. 3. Protestants abstract from the Church's Interpretation and hold Scripture plain enough in all fundamental Doctrine necessary to Salvation. Answer. He errs not knowing the depth of Scripture; which is so dark, and unintelligible in the abstruse Mysteries of faith, that unless certain Tradition and the Sense of the universal Church cast light upon it, or impart greater clarity to the bare letter, The wisest of men Scripture is obscure. will be puzzled in what they read, or at most guests doubtfully at its meaning, And therefore may easily swerve from truth. To see what I say, proved. 8. Imagain only, that twenty learned Philosophers or more, who never heard of Church Tradition, or of her Generael re 〈◊〉 Doctrine, had our Bible dropped down from Heaven with Assurance that it contain's Gods infallible truths, provided all they read be rightly understood, but not otherwise. Suppose. The most learned Philosophers ignorant of Tradition and Church Doctrine. 2. They peruse that one Sentence in S. john's Gospel. I● the beginning was the Word, and that W●rd was with God. Th● same was in the beginning ●ir● God etc. Suppose. 3. They also confer the Sentence with all other Passages in Holy Writ relating to this Mystery. Can these Philosophers think ye by the force of their natural discourse only acquire exactly the infallible truth of the Incarnation, just so as the Church now teaches and believes? No. Every Particle would put Cannot Understand it. them upon à further Scrutiny. What is signified Saith one, by this. In principio. In the beginning? What is that Word saith another, which was with God, or how was it with God? Was it One real thing Essential to him, or merely à breath à Word terminated upon creatures, without which nothing was made? All know though the Arians had à Church to teach, yet with that sure Rule of faith they mangled and misused this very passage of the Gospel, Therefore difficulties much more would molest these Philosophers, having no Oracle to interpret, And as many would arise concerning other Scriptures, relating to the sacred Trinity, Original Sin, and the like Mysteries. 9 Now here is my reflection, and I think every Intelligent An application made to Sectaries. person will speak as I do. Just so much as these Philosophers have to gloss with and descant upon, So much Sectaries may challenge, but no more, if we sever Scripture from the Church's Interpretation. Both have à Body without life, words without sense, difficulties proposable concerning their reading, but none to Answer them. 10. The only difference between them is; That the Philosophers, yet ignorant of Church and Tradition have no School to go to. Sectaries have both, yet run as it were from School with half à Lesson, with one part (and 'tis The difference between them and the Philophers. much the obscurer part) of Divine Learning only, the bare Texts I mean, of holy Scripture, shutting out the Churches infallible Sense. And what have you in lieu of this light, which hath hitherto illuminated Millions of Christians? The weak and errable Sentiments of a few disvnited Sectaries. And is this all we can rely on? Do we believe the Trinity, the Incarnation and other high Mysteries (so obscurely expressed in God's word, that innumerable have mistaken the true Sense) because à Luther, à Calvin, or their followers expound Whether Luther's followers or an Ancient Church is to teach? it? Or is our Belief grounded upon that Church's Interpretation which has ever taught the world? The One or Other must have influence upon Faith, if we will believe. But most manifestly the first (men only of yesterday, and fallible) are not our Doctors, Therefore the Church is the only Oracle which Ascertains us of the Scriptures Sense, of its Truth, and infallible Doctrine also. 11. Two things necessarily follow from this Discourse. The one. That Protestants Show themselves strangely ungrateful, because Sectaries manifestly ungrateful, And why? they slight an Oracle, which has taught them all they know concerning the Primary Articles of Christian Faith, for in real truth the Church's Authority in Her expounding Scripture upholds that true Assent they yield to the Mystery of the Sacred Trinity. So much is granted, Or not. Grant it. I Ask. Why disdain they to hear this Church in other matters? If you deny. Their Submission to this and the like Mysteries wholly relies upon their own fallible dissatisfactory thoughts and glosses. Here Some perhaps will retire to the Primitive Church's interpretation, and ground their Assent upon Her Doctrine. Nothing is got this way, For the most Primitive Recourse to the Primitive Church, frivolous. exposition of Scripture was no more infallible, than what the latter Church or Councils have Defined. But enough is said above, of this Chase all Controversies up to the Primitive Ages. 12. The second Inference is. If God has not made Religion à matter of eternal Debate, If all are obliged to believe by divine Faith the very truths, yea the same infallible truths which God has revealed, and no other of à lower or slighter Rank; If he has revealed them for this end, that all may be Ascertained A second Inference. of their intrinsical Worth, (That is,) of being both Divine and infallible; If the whole Christian world remain's not at this day in Error, or is not cast upon uncertainties what to believe; If both the truth and infallibility of all revealed Doctrine stands and subsists firmly joined together in God, the first Verity (impossible to be separated there). And if Finally as 'tis there true and infallible, all are obliged to learn it: Nothing can be more manifest than that divine Providence has established and empowered Some Oracle to teach and propose that very revealed Doctrine under its own Nature and N●tion, as it is both true and infallible. 13. Thus much Supposed and proved, All further Questions The Oracle teaching truth cannot be questioned concerning the Oracle ceases, For it neither is, nor can be another but the Roman Catholic Church which has charge to interpret Scripture faithfully, to rescue God's truths from the lewd misusage of Heretics. Clear therefore once that Sacred Book from abuse, Learn what this one certain Oracle teaches, our Faith is sound, Catholic, and Apostolical. But if Scripture by reason of its Obscurity deceives any, or the Church could deviate from the sincere interpretation of God's truths there registered, The Very life of true Religion is lost, Faith vanishes into error. 14. Who ever seriously Consider's what is already said in this and the precedent chapter will find Mr Stillingfleets scattered Mr Stillingfleets Objections weightles. Objections against the Infallibility of Church and Councils utterly void of strength. Some worthy person of our Nation (who he is I know not) in his Guide of Controversies. Disc. 3. has so broken and vanquished the little force they have, that I may well supersede all further labour herein. There is not one Objection proposed, but 'tis either first, evidently retorted upon Mr Stillingfleet, Or 2. Implies à pure begging of the Question. Or 3. impugns all Councils. Or 4. Appears so slight at the very first view, that it deserves no Answer. What can be more slight then to tell us as he doth. P. 508. That we He Speaks not truth. are absolutely averse from free Councils, because we condemn all other Bishops but those of our Church without suffering them to plead for themselves in any Indifferent Council. It is hard to say what the Gentleman mean's by free and indifferent Councils, for he fetters all with so many Conditions, that never any was yet found in the Church so qualified, as he would have it. Read him through his 1. and 2. Chapter, as also P. 557. You will see what I assert, Manifest. It is true, we condemn A Calumny for à Proof. all heteredox Bishops (and doth not Mr Stillingsleet recriminate, and condemn ours?) But to say we suffer none to plead for Themselves in à free Council is à flat Calumny, unless that only be free which some body's fancy makes free, and no other. A word now to one or two Objections. 15. If you (saith Mr Stillingsleet) require an Assent to the Decrees of Councils as infallible, There must be an antecedent Assent to this Proposition. That whatsoever Councils decree, is infallible. I first retort the Argument. If you require an Assent to your Definitions in the Dort-Meeting, Or hold That the convened there delivered true Doctrine. There must be an The first Argument retorted. antecedent Assent to this Proposition, That what soever those Dort-men taught is true Doctrine before you own it as true. Ascertain us of thus much, And you solve your own difficulty. If this Instance please not, make use of another. Your Ministers in England pretend to teach true Doctrine, though not infallibly. Say only upon what antecedent Proposition the Truth of their Doctrine is assented to by all, before it be believed as true, and we shall without labour Answer in behalf of our infallible Doctrine. 16. In à word thus Catholics plead. This general Proposition is to be assented to, as both true and infallible. Viz. All And clearly solued. are obliged to Hear and Believe the Pastors of God's Church when Lawsully Commissioned to teach in God's name, and as the Orthodox Church teaches. Here is the Thesis or the universal received Proposition. But these Pastors and Doctors when assembled in Council are still Pastors of the Church and lawfully commissioned to teach in God's name, both true and infallible Doctrine, Therefore they are to be heard and believed in all and every Definition, proceeding from that Assembly, lawfully convened. Here you have the Hypothesis as indubitably certain, as the Thesis. 17. A second Objection you meet with in his Page 509. Another Objection retorted, and Solued. What infallible Testimony have you (he means Catholics) for this, that Councils are Infallible? It is not enough for you to say, That the Testimonies of Scripture you produce are an Infallible Testimony for it: For that were to make the Scripture the sole judge of this great Controversy, which you deny to be the sole judge of any. I first retort the Argument and Ask. What Testimony have you Sectaries (I do not say Infallible) But so much as seemingly probable taken from Scripture, whereby Councils (the greatest Representatives in God's Church) are made fallible? Not one can be alleged. 18. Now my Answer briefly is. Scripture once admitted for God's word (which our Adversaries will not reflect on) manifestly The Catholic Principles for Infallibility. convinceth the Church's infallibility. To those express and significant Passages of holy Writ known to every one (The Church is the pillar and ground of Truth) you have them already, We add the judgement of Fathers cited above (The guide of Controversies. C. 3. P. 147. produceth more). Besides, God's Church which we hold an Infallible Oracle, interpret's Scripture to this sense, and here are our abundantly full Principles for Her Infallibility. Come you Sir, now closely to the point, confront us if you can with as many Passages of Scripture, as many Testimonies of Fathers, Or (and this we always urge) with the Authority of any Orthodox Church which favours your contrary Tenet of Fallibility., The Strife is ended. But hereof there is no fear at all. And thus you see how Scripture is the judge Sectaries have none for their Tenet. when once admitted as Divine, and faithfully interpreted, not otherwise. 19 A. 3. Objection. Page. 509. The Decree or Definition of à Council receives Infallibility from the Council before the A third weak objection retorted Pope confirms it, or not. If not; The whole infallibility resides in the Pope, and this some Say is not de Fide universali. If it arise from the Council before the Pope confirms it (for that act of confirmation follows the Definition) the Council is infallible antecedently to the Pope's Confirmation. I first retort the Argument. An Act of Parliament, or à law made for all, receives its force from the Conuened Members before his Majesty Confirms it, or not. If not; The whole Power of making such à Law resides in His Majesty, which some will say is not so. If it arise ftom the Parliament, before His Majesty Confirms it (and that Confirmation follows the Act) The Parliament is empowered to make such Laws, before His Royal. Assent Confirms them. Here is the very same Form of arguing (though in à different matter) and you see the weakness of it. 20. The true Answer to the Objection is as follows. Every Doctrine definable may be considered two ways, first as it proceeds from God the most supreme Verity, and under that Notion, it is both true and infallible in itself before the pope and Council Define it, (And note, they can Define no other Doctrine And solued. on earth, but what God ratifies in Heaven). 2. It may be considered as the Doctrine of the Representative Church infallibly Assisted to teach Divine truths; And under that Notion it is called Church Doctrine, proceeding from the Head and Members of one mystical Body: The Head therefore Separated or solely taken, Defines not in Councils, The Members divided from the Head define not, But one and the same Definition proceeds jointly from both Head and members united together. The Instance already hinted at gives light enough. If any reply, The Definition when the Council proposed it, was both true and infallible Doctrine. I distinguish the Proposition. It might be then Certain Every Doctrine true in itself, is not therefore Church Doctrine. and infallible Doctrine in itself (that's true) but as yet it is neither known or owned as such or called Church Doctrine: It was then the whole Councils or Churches true and infallible Doctrine, I deny it. This is founded upon both Pope and Council infallibly assisted, as is now supposed, and already proved. 21. I find no more in Mr Stillingfleet worth any notice That which follows in his Page 510. overthrows all councils Other Objections waved as impertinent. or proves nothing. What certainty have you, Saith he, that this or that Council proceeded lawfully? That the Bishops were lawful Bishops? That the Pope who confirms them was à lawful Pope? That some By-ends or Interest swayed not many? That all conditions were exactly performed etc. I Answer first, and Ask. What certainty have you of any illegal Bishops, of unlawful Popes, of Interest Swaying all. Here because you accuse, we put you to the Proof. I Answer. 2. That Certainty which you or any has of no By ends in the four first general Councils, of their lawful Bishops, of no interest swaing etc. The same we have of all the approved Councils in God's Church. To insist further upon such saint Objections, is only to lose time or; (might one retaliate in Mr Stillingfleets own language) merely to kill flies, to run after them, and make sport with them. And thus much of the Church's Infallibility, (I mean the Roman Apostolical Catholic Church) to whose Censure and infallible judgement I do most willingly submit myself, and every particular in this Treatise. THE THIRD DISCOURSSE OF. The Resolution of Faith: THe subject here hinted at, is as all Shollers know very Speculative. Terms, according to my little Skill in the English Tongue, often Fail to express what is necessary. Wonder not therefore, if now and then you meet with that which may seem Obscure to à Vulgar Reader. My Endeavour Shall be to give the Discourse so much Light, as that Every one may perceive the Adversary I treat with, clearly refuted. THE FIRST CHAPTER Some chief Contents in this Discourse briefly declared. Mr Stillingfleets weak attempts against the Church's infallibility and the Resolution of Faith. The Catholic way of resolving Faith, the very same with that of the Primitive Christians. Of the mistakes which run through Mr Stillingfleets whole Discourse. 1. IN the following Chapters, we first remove such difficulties as may seem to obstruct the Clearest Resolution, What this third Disceurse Contain's. And all along discover Mr Stillingfleets Errorus. viz. Chief those, most apparent. in his 5. Chapter. 2. We examine what Influence the Motives of Credibility have over Faith? 3. Necessary Principles are premised much availing to Conceive the true Analysis. 4. We Show wherein the Main Difficulty lies in this Resolution (Omitted by Mr Stillingfleet) and solve it. 5. The whole Progress of Faith is Explained in order to its last Resolution. 6. The true Analysis is given in two Propositions. Here we also treat of the Evidence of Credibility, and solve the Sectaries Objections. 7. This question is proposed. Whether the Church's Testimony may be Called the Formal Object of Faith? 8. We Ask what is meant by this word Reason, And inquire how far true Reason Conduces to end Controversies? 9 Protestancy is proved à most unreasonable Religion. 2. Mr Stillingfleet. Part 1. C. 5. P. 109. offer's at much, it is to discover strange ill Consequences, yea grand Absurdities, Our Adversary's bold adventure. if Faith be resolved by the Church's Infallibility; and seems some what overheated in carrying on the cause against his Adversary. Let any man (saith he) judge whether this be not the most compendious way to overthrew the belief of Christianity. There is hardly any thing more really destructive to Christianity, or that has à greater tendency to Atheism, than the Modern pretence to Infallibility. The unreasonableness of it is so great, that I know not whether I may abstain from calling it ridiculous. And much more to this Sense. 3. It seems by what I read in Mr Stillingfleet T. C. (whose Book I had not then seen) said that Catholics in this present What his Adversary asserted. State, resolve their Faith after the very same manner, as the Israëlits anciently, and the Primitive Christians resolved Theirs. If he said that, he Spoke à Truth, not only defensible; but so Sound and Irrefragable, that Mr Stillingfleet (to use his own pretty Phrase) like one under an Ephialtes Shall tumble, groan, toss this way and that, and yet not rid himself of the vexation. 4. The Doctrine I find plainly delivered, and the Instances of the ancient Israelits and the Primitive Christians, so well made use of for the Catholic Resolution by our learned Countryman, Thomas Ba●on Southwell. Analysis Fidei. Disp. 4. and 5. That here I must needs insert some Part of it, because it much avails to Conceive the easiest way of resolving Faith, And well penetrated so utterly defeats what Mr Stillingfleet has, that Is Sound Doctrine. much more is not requisite to make void his forceles Objections. 5. F. Southwel therefore, Analysis Fidei now cited, c 〈…〉 n. 18. Speaks much to this sense. Had one asked à 〈◊〉 Believer in Moses his time after the 〈…〉 such was written, Why believe you that God is just, wi●e, faithful in his Promises? Or (if you will have one particular) why Adam sinned How the israelites questioned about faith. in Paradise? He would have answered Scripture Saith s●. But if again demanded, How know you that Scripture is God's Divine word? Would he think ye have Answered, I see that by the very light and Sparkling of the Letter? It is impossible as shall be proved afterward. Thus therefore He would have replied. Moses our great Prophet Affirms it, or rather God speaking by the mouth of Moses lays that Verity open to us, And upon that ground I believe it. So we read. Deute●. 1. 3. Moses spoke to the Children of Israel all which God had commanded him to say to them. Now if thirdly Questioned. How W●uld ●aue answered? Prove you that Moses was à true Prophet, or God's Oracle, He could not have satisfied by alleging Scripture, without à Vicious Circle, but would have Said: This truth is immediately, and most evidently Credible by itself, for the Wisdom, Sanctity, and Power of working Miracles, manifest to all eyes, prove to Reason, that Moses is à great Prophet. 5. In like manner Catholics proceed in their Resolution of Faith. Demanded why we believe the Mystery of the Incarnation, it is Answered Scripture Asserts it. Ask again, why we believe the Divinity of that Book called Scripture? It is replied. The Church ascertain's of That. But how do we know that the Church herein deliuer's Truth? It is Answered, if we Speak of knowledge previous to Faith, Those admirable Signs of Divinity mentioned above, and manifest in this one Oracle. Viz. The Sanctity of life the Contempt of the world, Catholics in this present State, return the very same Answer. the c 〈…〉ed Austerity of Penance, the height of Contemplation apparent in thousands and thousands, And above all the glorious Miracles most illustrious in this one Society of Christians prove it an Oracle so evidently credible, That we cannot, if prudent and manifest Reason guides us, but as firmly believe what ever this Oracle teaches, as the israelites believed Moses and the Prophets. One only Differen●● advantageous for us. Here is only the difference (And the Advantage is ours) that in Lieu of Moses we have an ample Church: Innumerable multitudes in place of one Servant of God, The incomparable greater light, I mean, the Pillar and Ground of truth, the Catholic Church diffused the whole world over. 6. Answerable to this Doctrine the primitive Christians resolved their Faith, after the Canon of Scripture was written. Ask therefore why these first converted People, whether jews or Gentiles, believed Christ to be the true Messiah, the Son of God, and Saviour of the world? They might have Answered. We read this and much more in Holy Scripture. But how know you, that these Scriptures are not suppositious or feigned, as some Gospels have been? We believe this, Say They, The Primitive Christians way of resolving Faith. upon the undoubted Testimony of those blessed men the Apostles, who both taught us, and wrote that holy Book. Yet more. How know you that those Apostles were not Cheats (for there have been false Prophets and Apostles) but men Authorized by Almighty God to teach and write his holy Verities? Had they replied, We prove this by Scripture itself, the Circle would have been inevitable. For to Say Scripture is God's word, because the Apostles Assert it, and to Say the Apostles were infallible Oracles of Truth, because Scripture affirms that, is to Prove Idem per Idem, And implies à most vicious Circulation. 7. Their Answer then must have been, for there is no other. The manifest Miracles wrought by the Apostles, Their eminent Sanctity and Holiness of life (our Lord working with, and confirming their Doctrine by manifest Signs) proved them Gods Oracles, True and faithful commissioned Teachers. And thus Is Our way also. we discourse of the Church Whose undeniable Miracles, Sanctity, and Conversions wrought by Her, convince reason of this great Truth, that She only is God's Oracle. All this is said supposing the Canon of Scripture already complete, For if we go higher, and consider à Church (whether it be that of the ancient Patriarches, of the Israelits, or finally of the Christians before Scripture was written) Faith must be resolved into Divine Revelation by the means of some living Oracle (Whether One or more it imports not) who manifested themselves God's commissioned Teachers by Signs and Miracles. Whereof more afterward. 8. This much premised (And it is Very easily understood) you shall See Mr Stillingfleets verbose Objections brought to Three Mistakes chief pointed at nothing, but to mere Cavils and Mistakes. Three Mistakes chief, run through his whole 5. Chapter. First he strangely confound's the judgement of credibility necessarily prerequired to true Belief, with the very Act of Faith itself, whereas the Resolution of these two, have indeed à due Subordination to one The first breeds Confusion. ●●other, yet depend upon quite different Principles. The judgement of Credibility whereby the will moves and commands the intellectual Faculty to elicit Faith, relies not upon that Object which finally Terminates Faith itself, But upon extrinsical Motives wihch persuade, and Powerfully induce to believe, ●uper omnia. 9 Here is the Reason. The high Mysteries of Faith, the Trinity, for example; Original Sin, and the like Transcend our natural Capacities, or to speak with some great Divines are naturally Incredible, Therefore Providence hath by the force and efficacy of extrinsical motives, raised them from that degree of natural Incredibility, and made all most credible to humane Reason. And this no Sectary can deny, For before that Doctrine be believed which he embraces, and before he reiect's the contrary not believed by him, He will tell you, He hath Motives and reasons as well for the one as the other. Here is all we require at present. 10. Mr Stillingfleets second error is, that he distinguishes not between the nature of Science and Faith. Science is worth In the second Science and Faith are not. nothing unless it prove, and Faith purely considered as Faith, (mark well my words) is worthless, if it prove, For as innumerable Fathers affirm, Fides non quaerit quomodo. Faith reason's not, nor Asks how these Mysteries can be, but simply believes. Science makes use of Principles, Per se nota, known by themselves And then discourses, Assuming nothing but what is proved, wherefore no virtue, no validity, can be in the progress, or Sufficiently distinguished. end of à rational Discourse, which was not precontained in the first assumed Principles. Faith, 'tis true, has its Preambulatory Motives, as we have seen already, yet Scientifically draws no Conclusion from them (and herein Mr Stillingfleet all along beguiles himself, and the reader). The Motives inducing to believe this Truth. God has revealed à Mysterious Trinity are morally certain, yet there is à more firm Adhesion to the infallibility of that Divine Testimony for which we believe, than the extrinsical Motives inducing to belief either do or can draw from us▪ And in this sense Faith contrary to Science, goes far beyond the certainty of all extrinsical Inducements, as shall be presently declared. 11. Our Adversary's third Mistake lies here, That he distinguishes not, between the humane and Divine Authority of the The third also wants à Distinction. Church. S. Austin Lib. con. Epist Fundam. C. 4. Speaking of the first, Saith. The profound wisdom of so many Doctors, the consent of Nations, the Antiquity, the continued Succession of Pastors etc. held him within the Pale of the Church Catholic, yet this Authority precisely considered as humane, and therefore fallible, is not sufficient to ground Divine Faith. I say as humane, for though I believe that the Church has ever been Visible, with à continued Succession of Commissioned Pastors to teach Orthodox Doctrine, yet my Act of Faith no more relies upon such motives, considered merely as Motives, inducing to believe, Than the Primitive Christians Faith relied upon the visible Miracles, which Christ or his Apostles wrought. 12. As therefore that first Act of Faith, whereby they believed our Saviour to be the true Messiah, was built upon his infallible Divine Authority, manifested by Miracles, Sanctity of life etc. So that first Act of Faith whereby every one believes the Church to be God's own Sacred Oracle, is built upon Her infallible Divine Authority manifested by Miracles, and other signal Marks of truth, whereof Scripture plainly Speaks. Hell gates shall not prevail against the Church. She is the Pillar and ground of truth, And so much is said above. C. 16. 17. that I know well Sectaries What caused our Adversary's Error cannot Answer. The not reflecting upon this twofold Authority which Mr Stillingfleet knows Catholics do distinguish, makes his Circle charged on us so irregular à Figure, that it looks rather like à Rhomboides than à round Circle, as shall appear presently, with à further Discovery of his other mistakes. One thing I cannot but admire, and 'tis, That though his 5.th Chapter be tediously long, yet the main and most real difficulty concerning the Resolving of Faith is scarcely so much ●● hinted at. After à few Pages I will propose the Difficulty, and endeavour to solve it. CHAP. II. Mr Stillingfleets 5.th Chapter. Part. 1. examined, is found Weightles. The weakness of his Arguments discovered. His First and chiefest Argument retorted and solued. 1. I Must and will wave all this Centlemans' Parergons', all frivolous excursions with his uncivil language, and if I touch in à word upon his pretty conceited jeers scattered here and there, it shall only be Pertransennam, as if I little minded them. 2. Thus he gins. Page 112. The Infallible Testimony of your Church is the only Foundation for Divine Faith, and this Infallibility Our Adversary's first Argument. can only be known by the Motives of Credibility (He means in this present State) Therefore this way of resolving Faith is unreasonable, because it requires an infallible Assent upon probable grounds beyond all Proportion or degree of Evidence, which is as much as requiring infallibility in the Conclusion, where the Premises are only probable. Answ. Our Adversary Spoil's à good Difficulty by proposing it lamely, He would fain say some thing like that which Catholic The difficulty not fully proposed. Divines learnedly propose whilst they handle the Resolution of Faith, But so fumbles and doth it by halves, that He ●eaches not home to the main Business. 3. I Say therefore first. The Argument proposed if of any force, destroys all Faith even the most Primitive. To prove the Assertion I Ask, whether the first Christians believed infallibly the Infallible Testimony of the Apostles Preaching, with à Divine Infallible Assent? Most certainly they Did. Yet the Infallibility of that Testimony was not known (if we speak strictly of Knowledge) but by Motives of Credibility which were no Object of their Faith (unless you make faith to be Science) The Argument retorted. but Inducements only to believe. Ergo this very Primitive Faith was unreasonable, because it was an infallible Assent built upon probable grounds, beyond all Proportion or degree of that Evidence, whereby those pious men were moved to believe. Hence You See, though the Motives which illustrate the Church were in themselves fallible, and not Metaphysically conexed with the Divine Testimony, yet Faith grounded on that Testimony cannot but be certain and infallible, and consequently must Transcend, or go beyond all the degrees of Certitude appearing in the prerequired Motives. Mr Stillingfleet replies. This is to require Infallibility in the Conclusion, where the Premises are only probable. Answ. He errs not knowing the nature of Faith, which Discourses not like to Science. For example. Make this Sillogism. Whatever God reveals is True, but God reveals the Incarnation of the Divine Word, Ergo that is true. The difficulty only is in the Minor: But God reveals, which cannot be proved by another believed Article of Faith, wholly as obscure to us as the Incarnation is. I say proved by Reason, because the same difficulty will be as much moved again Concerning the Proof of that second believed Article, as concerning the first of the Incarnation, and so in Infinitum. And Showed Proofles. Therefore all rational Proofs availing to beget Faith in any, must of necessity be extrinsical to belief, and lie as it were in another Region more clear (yet less certain) than the revealed Mystery is, we assent to by Faith. 4. Now to our Purpose. We hold this an Article of Faith. The Church is God's infallible Oracle, And therefore Say, antecedently Rational Proofs for the Church's infallibility. to Faith it cannot be proved by Arguments as obscure, or of the same Infallible certainty with Faith, For then Faith would be superfluous, or rather we should believe by à firm and infallible Assent, before we do believe upon the Motive of God's infallible Revelation, which is impossible. Hence it is that when we go about Have not the certainty of Faith. 〈◊〉 the Infallibility of the Church independently of Scripture, Yea, and also independently of all belieu●d Church Doctrine, We must necessarily Evince this rationally, by reflex Arguments and Motives extrinsical to what we Believe, which are not of the same certainty with Supernatural Faith itself. Now these Arguments what these Motives Prove. founded upon the Motives of Credibility can go no further (stretch them to the utmost) But only to prove this great verity. That what ever we believe, either of Scripture, or of the Church is most evidently Credible above all things proposable to the contrary, And this great light the learned at least have, before they yield an infallible Assent upon Divine Revelation to the very Doctrine of the Church, or Scripture either. 5. I Say. 2. Mr Stillingfleet and all Sectaries, whilst They Believe with an Infallible Assent the most fundamental Articles in Sectaries go beyond that Evidence whereby they are induced to believe. Scripture, go beyond all Proportion of that Evidence whereby they are induced to Believe, And consequently must Solve their own ●eak Argument, yet strong Ad hominem against them. If I Evince not this Truth blame me boldly, And observe my Proof. 6. The Sectary believes that Verity which. S. john expresses in this short Sentence. The word was made Flesh: That is, he believes the Incarnation of the Son of God with an Assent so infallible, that it cannot only be false, but that he would not disbelieve it upon any reason Proposable, Though an Angel should preach Contrary, But neither this Act of Faith, nor its Formal Object (the Divine Revelation) are ex terminis evidently true, Quoad ●s, yet must be proved evidently Credible to reason, or Faith becomes unreasonable, and rash, For, Qui cito credit levis est cord. Now further. None can prove this, by another Act or Article of Faith (no more its own Self-evidence than the believed Incarnation The Assertion, Proved. is) All therefore which can be done, is to make it evidently Credible by Motives extrinsical to Belief, by universal Tradition, and the Consent of innumerable learned men, who have both conveyed unto us the Words as Divine Scripture, and the genuine Sense of them also. But this very humane Tradition, this exterior Consent of all, or what other Motives can be Imagined previous to Faith, (because fallible,) may deceive: Yet by the help of such fallible Motives Mr Stillingfleets Our Adversary Clearly Convinced. Faith, if it rests upon the Divine Revelation is raised higher, and stands firmer upon that Ground, than the Evidence of his Motives can induce to. Therefore he makes the conclusion surer than the Premises, And goes beyond all Proportion and degree of fallible Evidence, preambulatory to his certain Belief. What I Assert is manifest. For by Faith he The Conviction Manifest. Says the Incarnation is so infallibly true, that it cannot be false, Yet all the Motives which induce him to believe Say, Possibly it may be false, or exclude not à Possibility of falsehood. And if this be not to Transcend all Proportion of his acquired Evidence, nothing is to go beyond it. 7. The Argument will be yet more clear if proposed after this manner. Mr Stillingfleet infallibly believes the truth of that Scripture now Quoted. I Ask by what means can he know That this very believed Truth is à Divine. Verity, or Scripture? The Answer may be, That's known upon Tradition, or the public Authority of all, not only Christians but others also, who have conveyed the Book to us. Very Another most Convincing Proof. good. But this Public Authority, this Conveyance, or what ever Tradition you will, is either of equal infallible certainty with the Believed Truth of Scripture, Or less and much weaker; If less and weaker, Mr Stillingfleets Faith goes beyond all propotion and degrees of his previous acquired Evidence, Not to be answered. And it be of equal infallible Certaintly (That is) If he believes as infallibly the Conveyance of those Words, For, or Upon God's Divine Testimony, as he believes the Doctrine there contained to be à Divine Truth, He makes one Article of Faith the Proof of another, and evidently incurs the Circle objected to Catholics, as shall appear afterward, When we examine his 170. Page, and refute his Error concerning the Moral Certainty of Faith. 8. Now to the Objection. It is not possible, That the Assent in matters of Faith rise higher, or stand firmer than the Assent to the Testimony is, upon which those things are believed. Answer. Very true. But know Sir, we Assent to matters of Faith upon God's Divine Testimony, and not for the Motives which only induce to believe. So the Primitive Christians believed upon Christ's A Mistake in the Objection. infallible Testimony, and built not their Faith upon the exterior Motives Evident to Sense, which merely considered as Motives only made his Testimony highly credible to Reason. Viz. One Instance which none can boggle at. That it was Divine and infallible. For example. Some saw, Others heard of our saviours great Miracles, of his admirable Sanctity, And then discoursed. The Man that doth these wonders cannot but be one sent from God. It is true, he preaches both new and difficult Doctrine to our ears, But if he be sent from God, we are obliged to Believe him upon his word, And upon that Word Their Faith relied. 9 Apply this Instance to the Church, you have all I would Say. The Church is evidenced by Miracles, Sanctity of life in Millions, by Conversions and the like signal Motives. Here are the Inducements which prove Her God's Oracle, and Clears all. the Doctrine highly credible, above what ever all other Societies called Christians have Taught, Yet our Faith is not built upon these Motives considered as Inducements, but upon Her infallible Testimony. The Instance now given Concerning the most Primitive Believers is so clear, That our Adversaries shall never weaken the force of it, or show the least Disparity. 10. And thus you see all Mr Stillingfleets talk. P. 113 Comes to nothing. I desire Saith he to know, whether an infallible Assent to the Infallibility of your Church can be grounded on those Motives of Credibility? Answ. And I desire to know whether an A Question answered, and retorted. Infallible Assent to the Apostles Preaching, was grounded on those Motives which the Primitive Christians saw or heard of before they believed? what you say, I'll say. Briefly. Many learned Divines hold the Motives of Credibility Metaphysically connexed with God's divine Testimony speaking by the Church, and if that opinion be true, the Motives ground an Infallible Shown also impertinent. Assent but that's Evidence, and no Faith, And therefore most impertinent to your following Inference. If, say you, we affirm the Motives ground an Infallible Assent, there can be no imaginable necessity, to make the Testimony of our Church infallible, in order to Divine faith. For, we Catholics, you hope will not deny, but that there are at least equal Motives of Credibility to prove the Divine Authority of the Scriptures, as the infallibility of our Church, And if so, why may not an Infallible assent, be given to the Scriptures upon those Motives of Credibility, as well as to our Church's infallibility? Answ. A strange kind of Argument. 11. First, Sir, you know, or should know, Catholics hold with S. Austin, That no certainty can be had of Scripture without Church Authority (How then do you say, You hope we will not deny &c). No Motives as is proved above and in the other Treatise also, immediately make Scripture Credible, independently of the Church's Tradition. No Miracles were ever heard of No Motives make Scripture evidently credible. which proved the book of Ruth admitted by you, more Canonical Scripture, than that of judith which you reject. Did any Martyr ever yet die in defence of salomon's Canticle (that's Scripture say you) and refuse to die for the Book of Wsdom, cast out of your Canon? Or was ever any soul sooner converted by reading the One, than the other? These Miracles Sir, these Martyrdoms, these Conversions immediately illustrate the Church, and prove not à Part only but Her whole Doctrine to be Independently of Church Authority. most Evidently Credible, and worthy of belief, whilst you see your Signs of Divinity and no man knows what imagined motives in behalf of Scripture, as little Evidence the Books you admit, as those you reject, That is, neither indeed have any Self-Euidence in them, abstracting from Church Authority. Your Evidence therefore is à strong fancy and nothing else. 12. But admit one had Evident Motives for the whole Canon or bare letter of Scripture, you have not any so much as probable for the Sense (chief in Controverted matters) which properly is God's Revelation, without the Churches infallible Interpretation. Speak, Sir, your Conscience plainly, What can it avail you or me, to know that the Book we read is God's No Motives for the Scriptures Sense. word (Seeing innumerable false Religions by perverse Misinterpretations are drawn from thence) if that other Principle. Deus ●● dixit; God, or Truth itself speaks This and this particular Sense, lies in darkness concealed from us. This Principle then. God speaks this Sense, being the very ultimate Resoluent and last foundation of Christian Faith, must, when that Sense is Obscure, borrow light from no dark mistaken fallible or doubtful Orade: But the bare letter of Scripture is dark, and grossly mistaken by Heretics, man's private judgement is fallible, our comparing the Scriptures Passages together, is merely Coniectural, and dubious. Therefore if the certitude of Faith must rely upon Without the Churches Infallible interpretation. what God has spoken (I mean the infallible Sense of his sacred word) The Oracle which interpret's, can be no other but an Infallible Church. And here I both Petition and urge Sectaries to assign any other Surer Ground where upon Faith can be built, seeing all confess we are obliged to believe that Infallible sense, chief in matters they call Fundamental. This Argument alone could we say no more, forceth every rational man to own à Church absolutely infallible in Her exposition of Scripture. 13. From whence also it follows first, that Mr Stillingfleet much mistakes Himself, when he Saith. Both sides I hope agree, Our Adversary mistaken. that there are sufficient Motives of Credibility, as to the belief of Scriptures. I answer. There is not one firm Motive for the true revealed Sense (and this only is Scripture) if we exclude Tradition, and the infallible Interpretation of God's Church. Bring to light but one, and I am satisfied. 14. It follows. 2. That, that half Tradition owned by Sectaries in order to the conveyance and delivery of the Books of Scripture, leaves them wholly Scriptureles, and as Faithless The half Tradition for the barc letter. as if they had no Bible, For it neither grounds faith immediately, because it is not God's Revelation, but the fallible Consent of men; Nor can it induce as à Motive to believe any one particular Article of Christian Religion, without further certitude had from the same Churches infallible Tradition and interpretation, Not sufficient. concerning that most weighty Point of the Scriptures meaning. Reject therefore this infallible Interpreter, All of us just like Arians, Macedonians, Donatists, desperately rely upon the worst Guides Imaginable, our own fallacious and ungovernable fancies, and will needs learn of such giddy Teachers, the pure interpretation of God's Word. These we make our Oracles in lieu of Christ's Church, and in doing so, may easily ascribe to God à Doctrine he disdain's to own, and become Heretics by it. The very hazard men run in this wilful Course, is an open Injury to the Supremest Verity, unavoidable in out Sectaries Principles. 15. And here by the way, you see the Vanity of that pernicious Doctrine published by them, wherewith the world is Sectaries pernicious Doctrine. cheated. Viz. The Sense of Scripture is plain enough, even to the unlearned, in things necessary to Salvation, in other matters not necessary, à right Faith an unerring Guide, an infallible Interpreter, See● useless and superfluous, As if forsooth, the Arians, Pelagians, Nestorians, had not grossly erred in Points most necessary, though Concerning the Clearness of Scripture. they read the same plain Scripture, which we all read. Did the● that supposed Clearness nothing secure them from Heresy in Necessaries? Why should it, I beseech you, rescue Sectaries (wholly as fallible) from gross errors in other matters, when the words of Scripture are more express against them, than against the worst of Arians. But hereof enough is said above. 16. It follows. 3. That no Christian has stability in Faith but the Roman Catholic, for the most which others, no members of this Church, can know (if yet they know so much) is, That the Books of Scripture are God's word, but with this half piece of imperfect Learning, they neither know nor can believe one particular Article of Christian Faith, because that other The Roman Catholic only has Stability in Faith. Principle, the last Resoluent of all Belief, God speaks infallibly this very Sense, has no influence over their Assent, and therefore is rejected by them as impertinent to ground Faith upon. One instance will give you more light. 17. The Arian and Protestant agree thus far, That those words. john. 1. 5. 9 Three give Testimony in heaven etc. are Divine Both Arians and Protestestants want à Stability. Scripture, yet so vary about the meaning, and the difference is in à matter most fundamental, that the One Assent's to the sacred Trinity for these words, which yet the Other impiously denies. Say now, upon what infallible Principle doth the Protestants faith stand more firm, than that of the Arian? Will Mr Stillingfleet say the Scripture is Clear? The Arian takes him off that Plea, and endeavours to obscure the passage, by adding to it no small number of his Arian Glosses. Next And why? he Argues thus ad hominem, and thinks no wrong at all done. Can ye Sectaries believe that your glosses laid upon those Scriptures which Catholics produce against you, are strong enough to divert, and pervert the Sense or Interpretation of their Universal Church, and shall my glosses opposite to your Doctrine, have no force to divert or weaken the late, private, invented Sense of à few Lutherans? What law is there for this? I call it late and private as it comes from you, for you How the Arian argues against Sectaries. disdain to ground it upon any Church Authority absolutely infallible, in all She teaches. Therefore it is your own Private Sense, and not the Churches. O but the Church of Rome in this particular interpret's Scripture faithfully, though She errs in other matters. Pitiful. That is, She hits right when You'll give leave, and misses when you think otherwise. 18. One may Say again. The whole Orthodox world ever proved the Mysterious Trinity from that alleged Passage of Scripture. Contra, Replies the Arian, I, and my Adherents who deny the Mystery, hold ourselves as precious à Part of the His Argument Convinces. Orthodox world as you Protestants do, And hope we expound Scripture by the help of our private Reasoning and comparing Texts together, as well as you. Why not I beseech you? Or give à Disparity. But say on, And the contest is ended. Have you any Oracle, which more infallibly Ascertain's you of that Sense of Scripture to be as you gloss, than we have who give it à quite contrary Interpretation, For hitherto we are both alike, and expound all by our private judgements. Grant such an Oracle (Distinct from Scripture) whereby you have Assurance of God's meaning darkly expressed in those words, you become plane Papists; Own not Any Infallible, you cast yourselves upon as great Uncertainties as we Arians are thrown, who expound Scripture by our own natural Discourse. No infallible Church therefore, no Stability No Orthodox world, without an Infallible Church. in faith, no Stability in faith, that specious word of an Orthodox World Signifies nothing, For this I Defend, and have Proved it, if all Churches be fallible in their Definitions, there neither is, nor ever was since Christ's time any such thing in being, as an Orthodox World. 19 It follows. 4. That as it has ever been the proper Mark or Character of all faithful Believers to yield Submission The distinct Marks of true Believers, and All Heretics. to the Church's Doctrine, though weak reason conceives it difficult, so Contrariwise, stubbornly to resist Church Authority has ever been inseparably the Mark and Badge of all Heretics, whether ancient or modern. With this virulent Spirit they began to Oppose God's Oracle, and held on for à time, But as S. Austin observes at last ended in shame Conterentur, saith the Saint, the battered Rock of the Catholic hitherto stands firm, maugre that Violence, And their Scattered forces routed and broken, as experience tells us, are brought to nothing. CHAP. III. More of this subject. Objections Answered. A word to Mr Stillingfleets forceless Instances. Motives of credibility ever Precede Faith. Whether the rational Evidence of the Truth of Christ's Doctrine, can be à Motive to believe it. 1. WHat follows in Mr Stillingfleets. 3. or. 4 next Pages, seems so slight that the very most is refuted by the grounds already established, Yet to Comply with the man's humour, we must follow him further. How Saith He can you make the Assent to your Church's Testimony to be Infallible, when The sirst Argument retorted. that infallibility is attempted to be proved only by the motives of Credibility? I Answer. Just as you make the Assent of the Primitive Christians given to the Apostles preaching infallible, So I make the Assent to the Church's Testimony infallible. The Motives are alike in both Cases, if not greater for the Church. 2. He Objects. 2. If Divine Faith, cannot be built upon the Motives proving the Doctrine of Christ, what sense is there that it should be built upon those Motives, which prove our Church's infallibility Here is the old Mistake again. I Answer therefore. Divine Faith is not built upon the Motives inducing to believe, but upon the Infallible Testimony of Christ, and his Church. The Motives ground the judgement of Credibility, The Infallible Testimony Support's The second is à gross Mistake. Divine Faith. Now if by this word, Built, you mean no more but rationally, To induce, I say none in this present State can be induced to believe Christ's Doctrine revealed in Scripture, in case he reiects the Authority of that evidenced Church which both Ascertains him of the Canon, and the Sense also. Hence, That other Objection falls to nothing. How can there be an infallible Assent to the truth of this Proposition: Scriptures are The third retorted, and answered. the word of God, when that Infallibility at the highest is but evidently Credible? I Answer and retort the Argument. How could the Primitive Christians Assent to the Apostles preaching as infallible, when that infallibility at the highest, was but Evidently Credible, before they believed? 3. The whole Confusion lies, as is said, in not Distinguishing between Faith, and the judgement of Credibility. Infallibility therefore, whether we Assent to Christ, to his Apostles, or to the Church (all taught one and the same Doctrine) is the Object of Divine Faith, but none ever assented to any Doctrine these Oracles taught, infallibly, without sufficient Evidence previously had A Discovery of the whole Fallacy. of its Credibility. And thus I believe by Faith Scripture to be God's word, because the Church Saith so, But if you Ask, why I hold all the Church Teaches to be Evidently Credible, I Evince not this truth by the Infallibility I belleve, But recur to those Motives whereby She is proved an Oracle as evidently Credible, as ever any Apostle was, And consequently I believe Her Infallibility with the same Divine Faith, as I believe the Words of Scripture. 4. Page 114. He object's. 3. We Catholics make by this way of resolving Faith every man's reason the only judge in the Choice of his Religion. Why do we more so, I beseech you, than the Primitive Christians, who certainly had the very like rational Motives with ours, and no other, before they believed? But of this Subject we shall treat largely towards the End of this Discourse. 5. Page. 115. He Saith. If the Infallibility of the Church of Rome, be à sure foundation of Faith, what will become of the Faith, of all those who received Divine Revelations, without the Infallibility of any Objections grounded on Instance. Church at all? And he brings in these Instances. First, of the Apostles believing the Divine Authority of the old Testament when Christ suffered, which certainly was not Grounded on the infallible Testimony of the jewish Church, for at that time it consented to the Death of the messias. 2. Of all that believed the woman of Samaria (no infallible Oracle) when She declared the Discourse between Christ our Lord and herself. 3. Of such as believed our Saviour's Doctrine and Miracles related by men honest and faithful. These, Saith ●e, had no infallible Testimony, but only à rational Evidence to build Faith non, and consequently an Infallible Testimony of the Conueyers of Divine Revelation is Unnecessary to Divine Faith, which seems undoubted, For very few in the first Ages of the Christian Church received the Doctrine of the Gospel, from the mouths of persons infallible. 6. By the way I much wonder, Why Mr Stillingfleet omitted to touch here upon an other Instance far more difficult, which both he and all other must solve concerning rude and illiterate Persons (chief if of no great maturity) who are induced to believe by the Testimony, or Instruction of their Parents, or of Another Instance more difficult. some other simple Teachers. These certainly may have Faith, without acquiring that full Evidence of Credibility whereunto the learned reach, yea, and without any Discovery of the Scriptures rational Evidence, never perhaps heard of, much less understood by them. 7. Now I Answer to the Objection. None makes the Roman Catholic Church in all Circumstances the only sure foundation of Divine Faith, For the first man that believed in The Church in all Cireumstances was not the only Foundation of Faith. Christ our Lord before the Complete Establishment of His Church, had Perfect Faith resting on that great Master of Truth, without dependence on the Christian Church, For Christ alone was not the Church, But the supreme Head of it. Faith therefore in General requires no more, but only to rely upon God the first Veri●y speaking by this or that Oracle, by one or more men lawfully sent to teach, who prove their Mission and make the Doctrine proposed by them Evidently Credible. In like manner, the Apostles preached no Doctrine in the name of the new Christian Church, whilst our Saviour lived here on earth, But Testified that he was the true Messiah by virtue of those Signs and Miracles, which had been already wrought above the force of nature. Thus much Supposed. 8. It is hard I think for any to Say, where the force lies in The Mistake of the first Instance. that Instance of the Apostles believing the Divine Authority of the old Testament, which innumerable jews than dispersed all jury over, and the other parts of the world (not at all conscious of Christ's Passion) most firmly believed. Why therefore might not the Apostles believe the Divinity of the old Scripture upon the Authority of that Church, whereof there were at that time many and very many Professors in other places distant from Jerusalem? Hence I say the Belief of that Article never failed, But was always preserved entire in both Churches of the jews and Christians, for we all yet believe the Authority of the old Testament, And Consequently its hard to Conceive what this Objection aims at. 9 Again, admit à total Subversion of the jewish Church, Had not the Apostles our Blessed Lord present who could well Ascertain them that he came not to Cancel any Divine Supposed true its forceles. Authority of Scripture (for this was impossible unless God be contrary to God) but to fulfil, to perfect, and change the old Law into à better State. O but the High Priest and the Elders also erred in consenting to Christ's death. Very true, and the Reason is because their Privilege of not erring, lasted only to Christ's coming and not longer, But hence it follows not, that then there was no jewish Church which believed the Divine Verities of the old Scripture. I verily think, Mr Stillingfleet mistook one Objection for another. Perhaps he would have said, that the Apostles lost faith of our Saviour's Resurrection, at the time of his Passion, But this Difficulty is solued over The Apostles failed not in Faith. and over. First it is Answered, that Article was not sufficiently Proposed to them, Therefore we read. Luke. 18. 34. They understood none of these things. This Word was hid from them. Again. Had they failed in Faith are that time, They were then as Bellarmin observes. Lib: 3. de Ecclesia. C. 17. neither the whole Church (but only material Parts of it) nor could that improbable Supposed Error, have prejudiced one whit the Faith of others, who firmly believed in Christ. 10. That other Instance of the Samaritan woman is soon cleared, if we distinguish between the Motive, or the natural Proposition The other Instance cleared▪ by one 〈…〉tion. of Faith which comes by hearing, and the infallible Oracle whereupon it relies, And 'tis strange Mr Stillingfleet saw not the Distinction. The Faith therefore of those other Samaritans that believed in Christ upon the wonans word, ultimately relied upon our Saviour's own Authority who had conversed with her, And hence the Gospel Says. Now we Believe not for thy Saying, for we ourselves have heard, and know, that this man, in very deed, is the Saviour of the world. 'tis true, had this woman, whom the Fathers Suppose perfectly converted to Christ, been made an Infallible Oracle in all she delivered The Samaritan woman proposed what She had heard, as the Apostles were in their Teaching, or the Church now is. Her Testimony might well have supported Faith, but because thus much only can be evinced by Scripture, that She ●ealously Proposed what She had heard of our Saviour, Her testimony alone might serve well as à natural Proposition to raise Belief in others, though insufficient to ground in them that Supernatural Assent, And her words had upon this Account greater weight, because She confirmed them with à Sign above the force of Nature. This man has told me all I have done. I know some Authors are of opinion, that this Samaritan called Photina first reduced to the Faith of Christ her Sisters and Children, which done, She went into Africa, and there Propagated the Christian Doctrine with great Success, till at last both She and her Different Opinions Concerning her. Children were crowned with à glorious Martyrdom. The only difficulty is, whether She be the fame with that S. Photina whereof à memory is kept in the Roman Martyriloge the. 20. day of March, some Greek Authors stand for the Affirmative, Be it so or other wise, it imports little to our present Purpose. Who desires more of this Subject may read the erudite Godefridus Henshenius. Tom. 3. de Santis Martij die. 20. immediately after the life of S. joachim. 11. Conformable to this Doctrine we Answer to these other forceles Instances, and might say with some good Divines, That Other Instances Showed forceles. all Immediate Propounders or Conueyers of Divine Revelation in such particular Cases, need not to be Infallible, For Faith (as These Divines Teach) requires no more; But first that the Object be truly revealed, and Proposed to one upon prudent Motives, Suitable to the firm Assent He must elicit. 2. That In Doctrine Commonly received. by the light of such Motives He be induced to fix Belief upon the Divine Revelation, although that full Evidence of Credibility which the Church Manifesteth and the more learned attain to, be not yet acquired by him. These Conditions presupposed, Divine Grace is ever ready to make that man's Faith most firm and supernatural, And consequently an Obligation lies on him to believe. But from this Doctrine which is Common, no such thing follows as Mr Stillingf. would infer. Viz. That the Church's infallibility Seems unnecessary to uphold infallible Faith, for may not young Beginners growing more mature (chief if solicited to abandon Their first Faith) justly demand to have more full Satisfaction in all their doubts, and so much Assurance concerning that they once assented to, as not to be removed from it upon any false Motives or fallacious Arguments, though never so Specious? Such cases (Say these) fall out every day. 12. But in this present State, none can clear these doubts, none can Assure any that his Faith is certainly true, none can bring the most learned to à perfect acquiescency in Belief, but an Infallible Church, Therefore upon this very Account The Church's Infallibility absolutely necessary. Her infallibility is proved not only convenient, but absolutely Necessary. And hence it is, That God's sacred Providence never failed since Christianity began, to have in readiness Some one or other infallible known Oracle, whereupon faith might rest most Securely. The Apostles had for their Master the best living Oracle, Christ our Lord. The Primitive Christians learned of the Apostles. After them the Church perfectly founded did succeed, as the only Oracle whereunto every one may take recourse for further Satisfaction when difficulties arise, Though in some particular Cases, as is now Said, Her Motives and glorious Miracles, be not at the first laid forth most fully to every simple Believer. Ceteram turbam, saith S. Austin, contra Epist: Fund. C. 4. non intelligendi vivacitas, sed credendi simplicitas sal●am facit. That is. Candid Simplicity, makes these more How young Beginners are drawn. safe, than curiously to search into the ultimate grounds of Believing. The Reason is, because fewer Motives (if yet prudent and Convincing) may well serve to induce Beginners, seldom molested with Difficulties against Faith, than will convince Others more learned, who often struggle to Captivated their Understanding, when the high Mysteries of Christianity are Proposed. 13. Moreover, many great Doctors maintain, that in the Two Solutions more. particular cases now mentioned, God by his special Illumination Supplies the want of the exterior Proposition when that's deficient, or less convincing. See Suarez. Disp. 4. de Fide sect. 5. and this way also, we easily solve Mr Stillingfleets difficulties. Lastly it is noted in the other Treatise. Disc. 1. C. 2. n. 5. 6. And both received Doctrine. That whoever is lawfully sent to teach the Christian doctrine, and delivers those Truths in the name of God and his Church, if considered, as à member conjoined with Christ's infallible Oracle, He may be Said to teach infallibly. The Reasons you have there given more largely. 14. I am now to retort Mr Stillingfleets Instances upon himself and show, That though he walks never so far abroad to view the several Plantations of Faith amongst either Britain's or Barbarians, he must solve his own difficulties. Thus I discourse. We now Suppose, All these Barbarians Converted to Christ These instances retorted. to have had true Faith, and Consequently prudent Motives to believe, before they firmly assented to the Divine Revelatlon. We make Enquiry after these, and Ask: By what Inducements were such as yet knew not our Saviour, drawn to believe in him? Mr Stillingfleet returns the strangest Answer I ever heard, What our Adversary asserts. For he seems to make his Motives inducing to Faith nothing but the rational Evidence of the truth of the Doctrine delivered, and Therefore grievously complains. P. 118. That we destroy the Obligation to Faith, which ariseth from the rational Evidence of Christian Religion. If this be not pure Fancy there was never any, and my Reason is. That Supposed rational Evidence, is either the very same with the intrinsical Verity of the Doctrine delevered, or à rational intellectual Light distinct from the Doctrine. If it be the very same, These truths simply Proposed. Christ His rational Evidence of Christian Religion is God and man, Adaem infected his posterity with Original Sin. God is one Essence and three Persons, are without more their own Self-evidences, and consequently all the Miracles which Christ and his Apostles wrought to settle these, and the like Verities Reicted, firm in the Primitive Believers, were to as little Purpose, as if one should raise the dead to persuade us that the Sun shines, or (if we speak of Moral certainty) that there have been such men in the world as Pompey and julius Caesar, which is enormously untrue. 15. Contrariwise if he Saith, This rational Evidence necessarily implies à previous intellectual Discourse grounded on prudent Motives, distinct from the Verity of Christ's Doctrine, He first cashier's his own fancied Evidence. And 2. must Andretorted. Answer to the Instances proposed, And. 3. Assent to this true universal Proposition. Viz. That never any believed, or can believe (if we abstract from private Revelations) without Motives distinct from Christ's Doctrine, (fit to induce Faith) And an Infallible Testimony to ground Faith upon. Thus the Samaritan woman, and those who heard her Relation, being first induced by precedent signs to judge that Christ was à Prophet. I perceive thou art à Prophet Says the Text (and perhaps his Goodness added more interior light to strengthen those Signs) firmly believed upon his infallible word. jesus said to her I am ●e Prudent Motives and an Infallible Oracle. Necessary to all Faith. (the Messiah) that speaks with thee. Neither can any Instance be given where true Faith is, But you have with that very Faith, Prudent Motives Proposed to reason, as Inducements, And besides an Infallible Oracle to ground it upon. O, but every immediate Propounder of the Divine Testimony is not infallible. Be it so at present, What matters that? If he leads me to one which gives me à clearer Evidence of Credibility, and proves Himself by Motives above the force of nature, God's Oracle. 16. Some thing of this nature we have in the first Conversion of Christ's Disciples john. 1. 44. Philip, Saith the A Proof taken from the Conversions of Christ's Disciples. Text, meeting with Nathanaël told him. We have found jesus the son of joseph of Nazareth, whom Moses in the Law and the Proph●s 〈◊〉 of: Nathanaël wondered. What can there be any good from Nazareth? Philip answered. Veni & vide. Come and see. Drawing near He understood that our Saviour knew his Interior, where in there was no Guile, and beheld him under the figtree before he was called: Thus enlightened by Signs above the natural knowledge of man, forthwith that true Profession of his Faith followed. Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel. In like manner it may easily fall out, if one not very learned treat with another wholly illiterate (yet The Application. morally honest) that has heard little of Christ or his Church, He who would instruct, Says no more, But, Veni & vide. Come I will bring you to an Oracle right able to teach you, we call it the Catholic Church, She can show you who laid Her foundations firm, She will convince your understanding by the efficacy of such Motives, (Miracles, Conversions, and Sanctity of life) which far surpass the power of natural causes. Now after you have seen and heard what I Say to be most true, Believe not upon my word (for I only point at the Oracle) but upon the Churches own Testimony, She is without Guile, and cannot deceive you. 17. And here by the way you see how differently the Sectary How differently the Catholic Doctors, and Sectaries proceed. and Catholic proceed, in the Conversions of an Vnbeliever, whether Heathen or other. The first only open's à Bible, and without further Motives but what are found there, bids him read the Book. This yet unconuerted man Says the sense is dark, He understands it not. The Catholic on the other side, Proposes à Church evidenced by the very same Marks and Signs, whereby our Saviour and his Apostles were In the Conversion of Vnbelievers. manifested to be Oracles sent from God. This Church both proves that the Bible is of Divine Inspiration, And mereover declares its Sense in all controverted Passages. Finally after Her Motives laid fo●th, She remit's every one to Christ's own words, He that hears you hears me, and our Saviour remit's us to his Eternal Father, for he Assures all. john. 7. 16. That the Doctrine delivered by him was not his, but his Fathers that sent him. And here is the last ground of all Divine Faith, which stands fast upon three strong Principles never yet at variance with one another. The Church, Christ our Lord, and God the first Verity. Consider I beseech you which of the two Teachers proceeds more rationally. 18. You see moreover those Instances of the Britain's and The Instances of Barbanians proved forceles. Barbarians brought to nothing, For suppose first, which some Authors assert, that S. Peter Prince of the Apostles Preached in Britain or England, Or that S. Paul, Simon Cananaus surnamed the Zealous, Aristobulus à Roman, and S. joseph of Arimathia performed that Apostolical function there, (whether so or no I dispute not). Suppose again, And herein all agree, that England received the Christian faith very early, For it is as certain that King Lucius and his Subjects, were converted by S. Damianus and his Associates, sent to preach by that holy Pope and Martyr Elutherius about one hundred and eighty years after Christ; As The reason here of. it is indubitable, that the English Saxons were afterward Converted by S. Augustin and his followers sent by S. Gregory the great in the six Century, to do that most worthy and laudable Duty. Upon these Suppositions you see, that the first Preachers were Apostolical men, and privileged by our Saviour to work Miracles, Mark. 16. 20. Those others in the two following Conversions received their Commission from Popes, held à strict Union with the Roman Catholic Church, and finally made their Doctrine evidently Credible by great Sanctity, and other Signal wonders, as known History recounts. 19 Some may reply. All these Conversions would have been easily wrought, had those Preachers only made our Saviour's Miracles known, and done none Themselves. I Answer first, Done they were and prejudiced nothing, but rather highly advanced the Glory of our Saviour's wonders, Yea and as experience A Reply Answered. teaches, yet notably facilitate the Conversion of Infidels every where, when God is pleased to work them by his Servants. Therefore the Apostles were empowered not only to Testify that the Messiah did Miracles, but moreover to do the like themselves, And for this reason, Almighty God has ever hitherto preserved, and will hereafter preserve that singular Grace of working Miracles in the Church. I Answer 2. None can have infallible Assurance either of our Saviour's Miracles, or of any other Verity recorded in Scripture, independently of some actual living, actual infallible, and most clear evidenced Oracle by Signs above the Prudent Motives induce to Faith and An Infallible Oracle support it. force of Nature, which in this present State is the Church, And therefore I said à great Truth, That Divine Faith had in all Ages that necessary Expedient of rational Motives to induce it, an Infallible Oracle to teach it, and finally to rely on. 20. Hence we easily Answer Mr Stillingfleets Question. P. 118. What, Saith he, cannot men have unquestionable Assurance that there was such à Person as Christ in the world who died for us, if the present Church be not infallible. Answ. You might, Sir, have proposed à wiser Question. Know I beseech you That in the forenamed Proposition. There was such à Man as Christ who lived in the world, and An unlearned Objection answered. died for us, Two things may be Considered. First, That the man called Christ died on à Cross, And this Verity, as we said above, Once visible, both jews and Gentiles yet Assent to upon Moral Certainty, but therefore do not believe in Christ. The Reason is Manifest (and it utterly destroys your Doctrine) because that Common report, or Moral Certainty is not God's infallible Revelation, which only can support Faith. 21. The second thing to be considered is. That the man called Christ dying for us, was the only Messiah, truly God, the Redeemer of Mankind. Here you have the hidden Verities of Christian Religion, the Certain Objects of Faith Conveyed unto us, by no Moral Assurance but solely upon God's Infallible Revelation, whereof more presently. 22. Page. 119. He tell's us first. We cannot say, what or where that Church is which we suppose infallible. Nor. 2. What is that Church is the proper Subject of infallibility, Nor. 3. What kind of Infallibility this is. Nor. 4. How we can know when the Church Defin's infallibly. Here is very slight Matter to work on. To the first we Answer. The Church, which we do not barely Suppose, The true Church denoted. but have already proved Infallible, is that diffused Society of Christians (united in one Faith under one Head) which is most discernible from all Societies, by the same evident Marks of truth, that Christ and his Apostles manifested to the world. To the. 2. We have both Answered and retorted the Argument in the other Treatise, where it is Said. The Church may The subject of Infallibility. be considered, First as it is Docens, or Teaching, And thus Her Representative moral Body, the Pope, I mean and Council assembled together, for the Reasons alleged. Chap. 17. is the proper Subject of Infallibility: Again if we consider the Church as it is Discens, learning, or taught, All those diffused multitudes of Christians that are united in one belief, and own due Submission to their lawful Pastors, because they believe as the Church Representative teaches, may be rightly styled upon the Account From whence Infallibility Proce●d's? of their infallible Faith, the proper Subject of Infallibility. And must not our Adversaries who hold à Society of men infallible in Fundamentals solve this Difficulty, and Declare in what Subject that half Infallibility is lodged? To the. 3. we have Answered. Chap. 16. This infallibility which proceeds from the Special Assistance of the Holy Ghost, is of such à Nature, That, that Blessed Spirit will never permit the Church instructing, to Define à falsehood, nor the instructed, Vniversally to fail in faith. To the. 4. I Answer. Then we know the Church Defin's infallibly, when She obliges all under Anathema, to believe her Doctrine, and when the Doctrine is so sufficiently proposed to her Subjects, that it cannot be morally doubted of. But enough of these Strengthless difficulties, examined and solued à hundred times over. May better be expected hereafter? We shall see that in the following Chapter. CHAP. IU. More of Mr Stillingfleets Errors. Of that odd kind of Faith he seems to maintain, grounded on Moral Certainty. What Influence the Motives of Credibility have upon Faith? Other Parcels of his Doctrine Examined, and refuted. Objections Solued. 1. AFter Mr Stillingfleet had said, All may have unquestionable Assurance of our Saviour's once being in the Mr Stillingfleets Doctrine. world, though the present Church were fallible, He tells us again, that the Assurance of the matters of fact which are the foundations of Faith, is necessary, in order to the obligation to believe, And then adds. I mean such an assurance as matters of fact are capable of, for no higher can be required than the nature of the things will bear. He goes on in his Ignorance. Cannot we have unquestionable Assurance, that there were such persons as C●sar and, Pompey without some infallible Testimony? If we may in such things, Why not in other Matters of fact, which infinitely more concern us, though the Church stamp not her Infallibility upon them? The man you see would say, That these verities. Christ died for us, is our only Redeemer, truly God and man, being Matters of fact, and foundations of Faith, are conveyed to us upon no higher certainty than Moral only, For the nature of them, just like that Assurance we have of à Caesar, and Pompey, bear's no greater. Hence he also tell's us. P. 206. that Moral certainty, may be as great as Mathematical Explained by himself and Physical, Supposing as little reason to doubt in moral things, as to their Nature, as in Mathematical and Physical, as to theirs. And afterward. There can be no greater than this Moral Certainty, of the main foundations of all Religion. Reflect Christian Reader. But The Doctrine is dangerous the Verities now mentioned. Christ is our Redeemer. The only Messiah, truly God and Man, are the main foundations of Christian Religion, And Conveyed to us by moral certainty, Therefore Mr Stillingfleet lays the whole weight of Christian Religion, hitherto held infallibly true, upon à certainty which may be false. By this confused and undigested Discourse, I hope all will perceive, what it is to write Controversies, with half an Insight into Difficulties. 2. I prove it first both indigested and erroneous by this undeniable Principle. No Authority in Heaven or earth delivered And Proved Most erroneous. these Verities (Christ is the true Messiah. Christ is God and Man) upon Moral Certainty only, Ergo, None can believe them with so weak an Assent, as is only Moral. The Consequence is clear, For if no Authority conveyed or delivered the Verities as Morally A two fold Probation. certain only, And I Assent to them with à Believe only Morally Certain, my Assent is given to some Authority which hath no Being either in Heaven or earth. Or, Argue thus, and you Convince. If all Authority Imaginable, whereupon Faith can depend, Conveyed or delivered these Verities both as Infallible Truths, and infallibly, And I Assent to the Doctrine with à Belief not infallible, but only morally Certain, I leave by my fallible moral Assent, the true Infallible teaching and Conveying Oracles of Christian Doctrine, and believe upon à mere fancied Authority, which was never empowered to Convey God's Verities to any. 3. Now that all Authority (whereupon Faith can depend) delivered the forementioned Verities Infallibly, is Manifest. All Teachers of Christian Doctrine conveyed it Infallibly. God's Revelation, was and is infallible. Christ our Lord and the Apostles taught these Doctrines Infallibly. The Orthodox Church, Disclaim's this petty way of conveying and teaching Christian Doctrine fallibly. Therefore No Authority can be conceived, which delivered such Verities (owned even by Sectaries essential Doctrines) upon Moral Certainly only, or Conveyed them fallibly to Any. 4. Hence you see first. This Dilemma cannot be Answered. Either we believe, That our Saviour is the true Messiah (the like is of all other Mysteries) because God revealed it, And because A Dilemma Christ himself, His Apostles, and the Universal Church ever since taught the Doctrine; Or Contrariwise, we believe it upon some other Authority Inferior to, and distinct from the Infallible Testimony of these Oracles. Grant the first, our Faith stands firm upon à Testimony both Divine and Infallible, and therefore Cannot but be Infallible. Say. 2. We believe upon another Authority distinct from the Testimony of the Oracles now named, that misplaced Assent, because not resoluable into the first Verity, is no Faith at all. 5. You see. 2. Whoever attempts to turn these high revealed A 2. Inference. Verities out of their onws nature of being Infallible, Or rashly presumes, to convey that Doctrine to us upon Moral certainty only, which God by Divine Revelation, Christ our Lord, The Apostles also delivered and Conveyed, as most infallible certain Doctrine, Becomes thereby à public Corrupter of Divine Truths upon this account, that He transfigures what the first Verity has spoken Infallibly, into weak Topics and uncertain Moralities. The Offence is Criminal, and the wrong done to God not pardonable, without à serious Repentance. 6. You see. 3. That No Authority Imaginable upholds this pretended Moral Certainty of Sectaries in Matters of Faith. And here I desire Mr Stillingfleet to Answer. Will he believe that Christ our Lord is the true Messiah, God and man, because No Authority conceivable vphelo●'s All Orthodox christian's assent to the Verity? I Answer first. All these believe the truth with infallible Faith, and why dare not he do so also? 2. If he Assent's because they universally consent to the Mystery, He build's his Faith not upon God's Infallible Revelation, but upon the Assent of Others which He saith Should only be moral, and fallible. 3. Will This pretended moral Certainty. he believe the Verity because Heteredox christian's judge it true? That's neither God's Revelation, nor Christ's Doctrine, And Consequently his Faith has no foundation. 4. Will he believe for the Motives of Credibility previous to Faith? These considered as Motives, are nor God's Revelation, Nor so much as Apostolical Doctrine. Besides as we Shall see presently, Protestants have no Motives at all to rely on. Finally will He tell us, He believes that Christ was in the world and died on à Cross, with the same Moral assent as He yields to the being of Caesar and Pompey? I have Answered, that's nothing to the Purpose, For Gentiles assent to such Matters of Fact (once Visible and Sensible) by Moral where the main difficulty lies? Certainty, And yet are Infidels. That therefore which urgeth at present, Concerns the hidden and obscure Mysteries of Faith, In these Moral Certainty hath no place at all. The reason is manifest For if as revealed they stand firm upon God's infallible Testimony, No Power under Heaven can alter their own intrinsic Infallibility, Or Convey them unto us upon weak Moral Certainty, yet Mr Stillingfleet boldly Assert's. There can be no greater Certainty then Moral, of the Main foundations of all Religion. judge good Reader, whether this be not à gross Mistake, And whether I wronged the man, when I told you his Discourse is undigested, and highly erroneous. 7. Yet we have not said all. Wherefore because Mr Stillingfleet seems highly to value This late invented Novelty of Moral Certainty, we will examine the Doctrine most rigidly, till at lased the Moral certainty more rigidly examined, whole fallacy be discovered. To do this, my first demand is, to what Object will He apply his Moral Certainty in this Matter of Fact? Christ is the Messiah truly God and man. These four things and no more, can only be thought of. 1. The Matter believed. 2. The Divine Testimony, which reveals that Truth. 3. The Faith of those who believe upon Revelation, And. 4. The Motives whereby we are induced to believe the Truth revealed, Four things to be Considered. because God speaks it. Now all know first, that in Material Objects purely considered in themselves, there neither is, nor can be moral Certainty, For every thing is, or is not, independently of our judgements, where only Moral certainty is founded, therefore God, and all those who see things intuitively, are exempted from this imperfect degree of Knowledge. 2. There can be no moral certainty in the Divine Revelation, which proceeds from an infinite Verity, for this without Question is most Supereminently Infallible. 3. If that infallible Testimony, or Revelation be infallibly The efficacy of Divine Revelation. applied to Believers, and hath influence upon their Faith, it cannot but transfuse into it infallible Certainty, if God Speaks infallibly, for this end that we believe him infallibly, And if Faith rest not upon that Perfection of his infallible Testimony, it is no Faith at all. Thus we Argued in the other Treatise. Disc. 1. C. 5. n. 7. 8. It remain's, that we now Say à word of the Motives which what Influence The Motives have upon Faith? induce to Faith, and examine what Influence they have over it, when we either believe the Doctrine in Scripture, or the Church's Definitions. Mr Stillingfleet. P. 203. Having first told us, that the Revelation which was communicated to one, was obligatory to all concerned in it, though they could have nothing but moral certainty for it, Concludes thus. By this it appears, that when we now Speak of the resolution of Faith, though the utmost reason of our Assent be that Infallibility, which is supposed in the Divine Testimony, yet the nearest and most proper Resolution of it, is into the Grounds inducing us to believe, That such Our Adversary's Doctrine. à testimony is truly Divine, and the resolution of this cannot be into any Divine Testimony, without à process in Infinitum. He would Say, That à true act of Faith relies upon two foundations, one remote, the supposed Divine Testimony, The other most proper and nearest, To wit, the Grounds which induce to believe, that fuch à Testimony is in being, or truly Divine. And his reason (if he has any) must be, because these grounds, immediately Apply, or Convey unto us the supposed Divine Testimony. Now this Conveyance, or Application of the Testimony, being made by grounds only Morally certain, It follows, that the Faith we elicit Answer's not to the strength of the Testimonies Infallibility (considered in itself) But to the weakness of the Conveyance, and consequently can be no more, but only à Moral certain Faith, not at all Infallible. And thus you removes Faith from its own Object. see, To lay Faith as low as may be, to remove it from its own Centre, and fasten it upon no man knows what moral ground's; Finally to introduce à new, weak, and uncouth way of believing, is the best service Mr Stillingfleet can do for God and Christians. But, Ad rem. 9 I Say first. Protestants have no grounds distinct from the Divine Testimony, whereby to discover any one particular Truth, which God has revealed. I prove the Assertion. These supposed Grounds, are either reduced to the rational Evidence of Christian Religion, already refuted (as laid forth by Mr Stillingfleet) Or to the Doctrine contained in Scripture, And this Saith Herald Page The Doctrine refuted. 170. We believe by Faith upon à Divine Testimony, which therefore is not the antecedent Reason or ground, Why we believe it, For no verity Assented to by Faith, can (as assented to) be the previous Reason of our Assent, or à rational ground iuducing to believe. Therefore we said, our Saviour's Miracles believed by Faith, when Rational Inducements to Faith are ever presupposed to Belief. we read Scripture, are not the Inducements to believe them, because an Inducement to Faith, is ever presupposed, and not involved in the Act of believing. But it is needles to Say more of this, For no man in his wits, if Questioned by either jew or Gentil, why he believes the Sacred Trinity, can for the last Answer tell him, He believes so because ●e believes it, or because he read's that Mystery in à book called Scripture. Now besides these proofles Inducements, there are no other imaginable, whereby the Divine Testimony can be Discovered, conveyed, or applied to Believers, but only those known Catholic Motives (as Miracles, Sanctity, Conversions Church Motives Slighted. of Nations &c) which illustrate the Universal Roman Church, And these Mr Stillingfleet scornfully calls, mute things, à grand Salad too often served up, found very dry and insipid. Therefore he has no rational Inducement morally Certain for any one Article of Christian Religion, much less for the Tenets of Protestants. 10. I Say. 2. If the Grounds or Motives inducing to believe (let these be what this Adversary pleases) have Infallible connexion with the Divine Testimony, or convince upon Metaphysical Certitude that God speaks the Truths we believe, The Assent given to the Motives is not moral, but highly infallible. Contrariwise, if all Motives previous Faith cannot be built on Fallible Motives. to belief be supposed so fallible, that they may deceive, Faith neither is, nor can be built upon them, Therefore Mr Stillingfleet Errs in Saying. The nearest and most proper Resolution of Faith is into the Grounds, inducing to believe, that such à Testimony is Divine. 11. To prove the Assertion, I demand, Whether God obliges all to believe his revealed verities, upon his unerring Testimony, as the only Formal Object, or to believe for Motives extrinsical to that Testimony, which though morally certain, may possibly Deceive? Grant the first, Faith stands fast The Assertion proved. upon its own foundation, the Divine Testimony. Say. 2. It is jointly built on Motives, as the nearest and most proper Object which in rigour may deceive, it hangs, as it were, Upon two Heterogeneal Principles, The One most firm and Infallible, The Other weak and fallible; Viz. Motives which being fallible, cannot but contribute as much Weakness to Belief, as the infallible Testimony gives it Certainty, And so these two Principles, by their different Influence, Do and Undo, build and destroy, wind on and wind off: The one imparts infallible Certainty, the other staikes it away, and makes Faith no more, but à fluctuating, moral, and fallible Assent. 12. To advance this Proof yet further, I Ask Again (if all Divine Revelation were by à supposed Impossibility not infallible, but only morally certain,) whether then Christians could believe the revealed Mysteries, with à Faith as certain, as they now elicit upon Revelation? Answer, Tea. That Perfection of infallibility, essential to God's Revelation, would then be useless and impertinent to Support Faith. Answer, The Proof further explained, convinceth. No, or Say Faith, if the Hypothesis stands, would not be Divine and certain. I infer. Ergo, it is neither Divine nor certain De facto. My reason is. So far, and not further, God's infallible Testimony or the Divine Revelation has influence upon Faith, as fallible motives Apply it to Believers, or give it leave (might one speak so) to Support that Assent, But these fallible Motives, which immediately apply the Revelation to Believers, permit it not to raise that Act to any greater certitude, than only moral which may be false, Therefore the Revelation de facto communicates no more Certainty to Belief, than if it were only morally, and not infallibly certain, For here is our Adversary's Principle. According to the Proofs and grounds, whereby we discover the Divine Testimony to be in Being, We believe, But all these Proofs and grounds Say only Morally and Fallibly, that the Testimony is now in Being, Therefore faith also can be no more but only Moral, Fallible, and liable to Error. 13. Hence it follows first, That neither the very Apostles, Ill Consequences deduced out of nor any other Believers ever since that time, had any surer faith than only moral, which may be false. It follows. 2. That the Truth of all Christian Religion, inuolues in it à Possibility of salshood, For being applied or proposed to us, upon Sectaries Doctrine. grounds only fallible and moral, we are to judge of it, according to the Exigency and Merit of such weak grounds, And therefore can esteem it no better than fallible. It follows. 3. (And this I would have noted) That Faith in these men's Principles, tends not absolutely into the Divine Revelation, but only with doubt and fear, or merely conditionally. For every man may rationally Say. Lord if you have revealed this truth. Christ is the true Messiah. I believe it as undoubtedly true, but the certainty I have thereof, is only Settled upon Motives which They make Faith à Conditional Assent. may deceive me, Therefore my faith can be no more but Hypothetical or conditional, to this Sense. If you have revealed it, I believe, if not I reject it. Hence you see, it were much better (could not the difficulty be otherwise solued) to Say the Motives previous to Faith convince with Metaphysical certainty, that God speaks by his Scripture and Church, Than to make the Revelation so strengthless that it can (because weakened by fallible Motives) contribute no other certainty to Belief, but what is Moral, and may be false. 14. And thus much Mr Stillingfleet, could he proceed consequently This Adversary proceeds not Consequently. (as he doth not) should Assert. For, if (as he saith) considering the Nature of things, moral Certainty be as great, or begets as firm an Assent as any Mathematical, or physical certainty, what is it that fright's the man from allowing Infallible certainty to Faith? Or what gain he to Substitute in Lieu of that, another certainty which he calls Moral? For if these two certainties be equally as strong, it is Senless to establish the One, and reject the Other, but the truth is, in matters of belief, moral certitude has no place, as is largely proved above. 15. Against this Discourse one may first Object. God can An Objection proposed. oblige all either to believe what is revealed, as infallible true to us, So that there can be no possible Deception in our Belief. Or. 2. He may oblige us to believe His revealed Verities merely according to the efficacy of such Proofs, as intimate to us that God Speaks; And why may not Mr Stillingf. build his Faith upon such Grounds or motives as the nearest foundation, though the ultimate Principle of believing be the Divine Revelation? I have partly Answered. Either those Motives convince withal Of no force if the Motives be infallible. Metaphysical certitude, that the Revelation doth actually Exist, and than the Difficulty ceaseth, for the Assent yielded to them, is infallible; Or contrariwise, They are as Mr Stillingfleet supposes, fallible, And may stand with all their Lustre, though the Revelation really were not in Being. Speak So; It is most clear, such Motives cannot support Faith, For all which right reason can draw from them (if not absolutely infallible) is thus much only, That our Christian Verities according to Prudence, If fallible, they uphold not Faith. are evidently credible. But by virtue of that judgement we reach not as yet to the infallibility of the Divine Testimony, Therefore if God obliges all de facto to ground Faith upon his infallible Testimony which cannot deceive, He jointly Obliges us not to The reason hereof. ground it upon fallible Motives, which may deceive, and stand as Mr Stillingfleet will have it, although God had never revealed any Christian Verity. Again. If we are obliged to free Christian Religion from all Possibility of falsehood, That is, if God will have us to believe it as absolutely infallible, We cannot without wrong done to his infinite Verity Say, he obliges us, to settle faith upon Motives only morally certain, or absolutely fallible, for thus He would oblige us to believe that as his own Truth; which possibly may not be Truth, but contrariwise, à lie, à falsehood, an Error. 16. 2. Object: Now De facto, in this present State there is no Difficulty, For all judge though the Motives be fallible, yet A second Objection Solued. God has revealed our Christian verities. Answ. All do not judge so, But admit some do, They judge so by their infallible Assent of Faith, terminated upon the Verities as revealed, But antecedently to to belief, none can judge they are infallible revealed truths, whilst Motives only fallible ground that judgement. 17. A 3. Objection. Suppose Eternal truth had never revealed A third proposed by no Sectary▪ more difficult. the sacred Trinity (the like is of any other Mystery) Suppose also that the whole System of Motives had then stood in the same vigour and force as now they appear to us: Would not God and prudence have obliged us in that case to believe as firmly the Trinity, as we now believe it? I answer. If the Supposition implies no Contradiction, as I verily think it doth; (at least many hold so) Prudence would then have laid upon us an Obligation of firmly believing; But what follows from hence? Thus much only, That poor Mortals not seeing the depth of things would have been invincibly deceived; But Deception is remote from God, for his wisdom penetrat's all Truth, and his Goodness could not upon the Supposition have obliged any Solued. The ground of the Solution. to believe à falsehood, or that to be, which really is not, Therefore he could not in the Case now supposed, have afforded Divine Assistance to make Faith supernatural, because the Object by error apprehended believable, really was not. Thus much is true, and God might have obliged us to judge, That the Motives would then have made the Mysteries evidently credible (though they were not) yea, and perhaps further to believe Conditionally, As is said above. 18. A. 4.th Objection. This Proposition is true. We believe for the Motives, Or, we prove that God Speaks because the Motives apply and convey the Divine Testimony to us. I distinguish the Proposition. We believe for the Motives as Inducements, to settle Faith upon another Object. Viz. God's Testimony, I grant A fourth Obiestion solued it. We believe for the Motives, That is, We ground our faith upon them, as either the nearest or more remote Object, Why we believe, I Deny it. Thus the will love's good, because the understanding apprehend's or conveys good to it, yet love's not the by à clear Instance. knowledge which conveys it. Fire laid near to fuel burns, the approximation burns not, but is only Conditio applicans, à necessary condition applying heat which burns. So we say the Motives avail to make it most credible that God speaks, But no more ground Faith, than approximation burns, or the knowledge, when we prosecute Good, is the Object of love. 19 And here by the way you see Mr Stillingfleets constant Mr Stilling: Constant Error, discovereds Error, who makes the Motives inducing to Faith the foundation of it; That is, in other Terms: He Confound's the judgement whereby we Assert, the revealed Mysteries are evidently Credible, with the Assent of Faith itself, And will needs have the formal Object whereupon Faith is built, not only to be the Divine Revelation but the Motives also, though they can do no more but 〈…〉 ace the Will guided by reason, to settle belief upon the infallibility of the first Revealer. CHAP. V. More quarrels Answered. Mr Stillingfleets endeavour to catch Catholics in à Circle, demonstrated both vain and improbable. His Objections are forceless. A word to an unleaaned Cavil. 1. FRom the Page last cited, to P. 123. I find nothing in Mr Stillingfleet worth any larger Answer than is given already. Here He tells us, That many things in Christian Religion are to be believed before we can Imagine any such thing, as an infallible Testimony of our Church. It is hard to guests at his meaning, for he names not one Article, thus Assented to. Perhaps he would His meaning obscure. Say, That the Verities revealed in some books of Scripture, called Protocanonical known by their own proper Signatures or Motives, as the Harmony, Sanctity, and Majesty of the Style, may be believed without the Testimony of an Infallible Church. If so; I Answer first. All this Harmony or Majesty, considered only as Objects of Sense, or as previoussly known by their Natural Evidence (thus far and not further they bear the name of Motives) avail not to believe any Verity in Scripture, if the infallibility of the Church be rejected, And therefore we said above, this Sanctity and Harmony The Church rejected, no Majesty in Scripture can gain Belief. are assented to by Faith only, after the Church immediately Evidenced by Her Motives, Ascertain's us that such Books are Divine. I Answer. 2. Grant such Motives may in some weak manner, and particular Circumstances conduce to believe the Scriptures Divinity, yet in this present State, when we have à Church most clearly manifested, which both Ascertain's us of Scripture and the Sense also, it would be no less than an undiscreet rashness to cast off her Authority, (being the most facile and plainest Rule) and in Lieu of Her, to rely on another foreign, unfit way of Believing by Motives, not half foe clear, and far less convincing. 2. Thus some Divines Teach, though à Heathen after à due Consideration of the works in Nature, may come to believe that God will reward Good, and punish Evil, yet none do Assert, That when our Christian Articles are clearly proposed to An Instance him, by the Pastors and Teachers of the Church, For example, That Christ died for us. The dead shall rise again. God will reward the just etc. That then if he reject Church Authority, he can believe the forenamed Articles with Divine Faith. This I Deny, And the reason is, because that way of believing, when à It is imprudent to reject we easiest was of Believing. more ordinary and facile is proposed, Seems temerarious and imprudent, And so it would be, should any now when the Church gives us full Assurance of the Scriptures Divinity lay aside Her Authority, and Say. I will alsolutely believe this or that Truth to be God's word, because I Discover apparent Signs. of Divinity, in what I read. 3. In the next place, Mr Stillingfleet Quarrel's with à word. The Roman Catholic Church, which, in his opinion, is just as much as to Say. The Germane universal Emperor, That is particular and universal together, for Roman restrain's or marks out one Church, universal, includes all. Answ. It is à mere Quibble exploded by A mere quibble exploded by Fathers. the Fathers, particularly S. Jerome. Apolog. 1. adversus Ruffin. not far from the beginning, who calls the Roman Faith the Catholic Faith. What, Saith he, is Ruffinus his Faith? It is that there with the Roman Church preuails, or another founded in origen's Writings? Si Romanam responderit, Ergo Catholici sumus. If he Answer's it is the Roman Faith, This Inference is good, we both profess the universal Faith. Therefore Roman and Universal are here synomimal or words of one Signification, which the Apostle clearly Insinuates. Rom. 1. 8. Your Faith is renowned the whole world over. Again. Epist. 16. ad Principiam Virg: circa medium. He shows that the most ancient Saints addressed themselves to to the Roman Church, Quasi ad tutissimum communionis su● S. Hierom's express. Testimonies. portum, as to à place of refuge, or of mutual Communion, which was General, Public, and belonged to all. Yet more. When, Epist: 57 ad Damasum, This great Doctor positively teaches, That he was joined in Communion, with no other Society of men than such as adhered to Damasus, S. Peter's Successor, (where upon the Church was built) And that those who eat the lamb out of this House, were profane. Did he think ye speak of any one particular Roman Diocese, and not of the universal Catholic Church? It is contrary to his Discourse, and reason also. 4. See more of this subject in the Epistle of S. Athanasius to two Popes, julius and Marcus, Read also S. Cyprians Epistle. 52. n. 1. Other Fathers Speak with S. Jerome. And S. Ambrose, De obitu fratris, about the middle, and know withal, The word Roman added to Catholic is not to limit the universal jurisdiction of that See, But to distinguish Orthodox Believers from Heretics, who were professed Enemies of the Roman Faith. If therefore we may rightly comprise under this word Roman all other Christian Societies, past or present united in Why the Roman Church was called Universal. belief with this one Mother Church, There is neither Bull nor Solaecism in speech, to call the Roman (ever One and the same in Faith) the universal Church of Christ. 5. Page. 127. To catch Carholicks in à Circle Mr Stillingfleet Ask's, why we believe Scriptures to be the Word of God. If we Affirm upon this Ground; That the Church which is infallible Mr Stilling: endeavour more than weak, delivers them so to us, He demands again (and bids us Answer if we can) whether 'tis possible to believe the Church's infallibility any other way, than because infallible Scriptures Say, She is infallible, which implies à plain Circle. Answ. It is very possible, For seeing Scripture demonstrat's not ex terminis its own Divinity, nor can be made evidently credible by any light internal to catch Catholics in à Circle. to the Book, some other infallible Oracle distinct from it, must necessarily ascertain us, that the Book is Divine, And the Doctrine there preserved, is yet pure as the Apostles wrote it. But this Oracle can be no other but the Church which proves Herself by Signs and Miracles to speak in God's name, independently of Scripture, therefore the first act of Faith, whereby we believe in à General way the Church's infallibility, relies not (as this Gentleman weakly supposes) on Scripture, But upon the Church itself, as the most known manifested Oracle. And thus the Circle is easily avoided. 6. You will see more clearly what I aim at, by one Instance taken from the Primitive Christians. Ask what induced them to believe the Apostles Infallibility when they Preached? All No Circle in the Primitive Christians Faith. Answer; They believed so, because those blessed men immediately proved themselves commissioned Oracles sent from God, and made their Doctrine evidently Credible by sensible Signs and Wonders which surpassed the force of Nature. Very true. I● like manner we believe the Church's infallibility, having previous Motives as Strong to believe that Truth upon her Authority, as ever Christians had to believe that S. Paul was infallible, when he preached. If then there was no Vicious Therefore none in our Resolution. Circle in those first Christian's Faith, there can be none in Ours, uhilst all of us have infallible Oracles, manifested by Supernatural Signs to rely on: And Those first now mentioned had them before Scripture was written. You will say this Discourse seems to prove, we cannot believe the Church's Infallibility upon the Scriptures Testimony. It has been Answered over and over, supposing Scripture be one admitted as God's sacred Word, ●e prove the Church's infallibility so strongly by it against all Adversaries, who own the Book as Divine, that none of them shall ever return à probable answer to our alleged Testimonies. 7. But what Saith Mr Stillingfleet. Is there no difference between the way of proving à thing to an Adversary, and resolving one's own Faith? Answer yes. But we both resolve and pro●●. We Resolve the first Act of Faith concerning Scripture How we both resolve and prove the Church's Infallibility. into the Churches infallible Authority, and believe that Book▪ to be of Divine Inspiration, because this Otacle saith so. Then we Argue upon à Principle proved by us, and supposed, (though not proved) by Sectaries. The Principle is. Scripture is God's word. We read the book which all Christians Say is Divine, And prove also from it the Church's infallibility against our Adversaries Ex probatis & concessis, That the book is Divine. Here is no danger of à Circle, nor any fault in this way of Arguing. 8. Yet Mr Stillingfleet makes his Exceptions, and will needs have the Circle go on against us. You prove, Saith he, the Church's infallibility from such Passages. Super hanc Petram. Pasce oves etc. But how come you to know infallibly, A reply retorted. that the Sense of those places is as you believe, For your Adversaries deny any such thing as infallibility proved out of them? I may Answer first, by proposing the like Question. How do these Adversaries know that their contrary sense is exactly the true Meaning of the Holy Ghost? Will they tell us they think so (here is all we have from them) what am I better for that? When the Donatists, Pelagians, and all Heretics can think as boldly as any Protestant, And by their deluded thoughts unsense, as we see by experience, the most choice and sacred Passages in holy writ. To whom then shall we recur in case the Sense be doubtful? I Answer to the Church. O, saith Mr Stillingfleet Here we are got into à Circle again, and though his own words (see them in the page cited, fine) give no force to his Probation, yet I'll help them on to all the Strength his meaning is capable of. He should therefore Another Reply, Answered. Argue thus. We believe the Church's infallibility because the true sense of Scripture says, she is infallible. Again, We believe this very Sense of Scripture to be infallibly true, because the infallible Church saith so. I have Answered. The first Act of Faith wherewith we believe the Church's infallibility, is not at all founded upon the true Sense of Scripture, as yet not known (in illo signo) to be so much as Divine, but upon the Churches own infallible Testimony made by itself, and for itself, immediately credible. 9 Now if we Speak of another Distinct, consequent, and more explicit act of Faith, when we believe the Church's infallibility upon this ground, That She declares the Scriptures ge●●in Sense which proves Her an infallible Oracle, There is no difficulty at all, Because this very Exposition or Interpretation of Scripture brought to its last Principle, is ultimatly resolved into (and therefore again believed upon) the same infallible Authority The sense of Scripture resolved, and believed. of the Church, or rather upon Scripture and the Church's Interpretation together, For thus jointly taken, They ground Faith, and not like two disparate Principles, As if we first believed the Scriptures sense independently of the Church's Interpretation, And then Upon Scripture and Church Authority jointly. again believed the Church's Interpretation to be infallible, because the Sense of Scripture known aliunde, or without Depending on Church Authority, Saith she is infallible. This cannot be, if Scripture and the Church's Interpretation Indivisibly concur to this lotter act of Faith, whereof we now speak. 10. Here then is à Dilemma that clears all, and free's us from the least Shadow of à Circle. We either know (or believe) the Scriptures Sense independently of the Churches infallible The Assertion Cleared. Interpretation, or receive it upon her infallible Authority. Grant the first, There is no danger of à Circle, for in case that Truth were know upon à sure Principle distinct from the Church, it would be another new and as strong à Probation of her Infallibility, as if an Angel sent from Heaven should interpret Scripture to the Catholic Sense, And then we might Assent to the Church's Infallibility upon two disparate Principles (which prove not one another). The one Ordinary, the Churches own Interpretation, The other independent and extraordinary, Should an Angel or Prophet sent from God, interpret. Say. 2. We believe the Sense of Scripture upon the This way▪ no two Propositions to make à Circle of. Churches own infallible Authority, There are no two imaginable Propositions to make à Circle of, whilst that Sense internal to the letter, can not be infallibly propounded otherwise, then by the Church. 11. Page▪ 128. I find an unlearned Objection much to this Sense. We Catholics destroy all Possibility of avoiding à Circle, if we prove by the Motives of credibilty no new Revelations Distinct from the old; And this we Pretend not to, For A weak Objection in effect solued. we only seek to evince by these Motives à Divine Assistance with the Church in every thing She Defines, but this Assistance cannot be proved from any other ground, but only from the Promises made in Scripture, Therefore we are still in à Circle, For we believe the Scriptures infallible, because of the Church's Testimony, and we believe the Church infallible, because of the Promises in Repeated Again. Scripture concerning the Assistance of the Holy Ghost with the Church, so as to secure Her from all Error. Here in Effect is the same Objection repeated again, Therefore I Answer. We believe not in the first place the Churches infallible Assistance moved thereunto by the Promises in Scripture, For this first General Act of Faith wholly relies upon the Churches own infallible Testimony without depending on Scripture; because Her Testimony One Instance clears all. is made most Credible to reason by convincing Motives, before we believe, that She is insallibly Assisted. All must Say what I now Assert, For before Scripture was written, The Primitive Christians believed infallible Assistance granted the Apostles in every Doctrine they taught, being induced to believe so by the Signs and Miracles which those blessed men Evidenced. In like manner we in this present State, answerable to the Procedure of these Christians, having the same Motives manifest in the Church, may well be induced to believe, That She both now is, and ever was no less Assisted by the Holy Ghost to speak Truth, than the Apostles were, for as much as concerns the Substance and Verity of her Doctrine. CHAP. VI Mr Stillingfleet solues not His Adversary's Argument▪ A word of his tedious Shuffling. The Motives of Credibility both distinguish the Church from all other Heterodox Communities, and prove Her Infallible. The Agreement with the Primary Doctrine, no Mark of the Church. More Mistakes and Errors discovered. Of Mr Stillingfleets double Faith who Believes, but not upon Divine the Testimony, That the Books of Scripture contain God's word in them: Yet Believes the Doctrine in those books, to be Divine. 1. IN the next place, Mr Stillingfleet labours to solve his Adversary's main Argument, the Substance whereof The substance of the Argument. is. As Christ and his Apostles proved themselves Oracles sent from God by their works, Signs, and Miracles; Again as the Primitive Christians induced by such Signs believed Christ and the Apostles upon their own Testimony to be infallible Teachers: So we having ever had the very like Works, Signs, and Miracles manifest in the Church, are prudently induced to believe Her as an Infallible Oracle, upon her own Infallible Testimony. 2. To solve this plain and pressing Argument, one of these What's required to solve the Difficulty. two things must be done: Either à Disparity is to be given between Those first Signs and Miracles of the Apostles, and the latter of the Church, or it must be shown wherein the Inference made, is Defective or vnconcluding. Viz. That the Church evidenced by Her Signs, is not proved God's infallible Oracle, as the Apostles were proved by their Signs, to be infallible Teachers. I hearty wish, any would read Mr Stillingfleet through all his long Pages of this Subject, And afterwards Gratify me so far as to Say, where or in what Paragraph the direct Answer lies to either of these Difficulties, I would Own it as à Singular favour, in the Interim Nothing is, or can be Answered. give me leave to Speak truth. He Shuffles all along, Waves the main Matter, and Answers nothing. 3. Thus he trifles. The Church of Rome is infinitely obliged to us, could we make all good we Say. Our Attempt is Heroical and generous. What, must men be as much obliged now to believe your Church infallible, as that Moses and Christ were so? He wonders nothing at the Severity in our Censures of all out of our Church, if to deny our Church's infallibility be an Offence of so high à nature. Then he Asks. P. 129. Mere Trifles returned. Whether the same Motives of credibility belong to our Church, by which Christ and his Apostles shown their Testimony to be infallible? We have Answered Yea, and proved the Assertion largely. Disc. 1. C. 7. 8. 9 And here press him to refute our Probations; Or if he holds them not refutable, to give à Disparity betwixt the Apostolical, and our Church's Motives. 4. But he runs on headlong, and to slight the Devotion and Charity manifest in the Church, talks of our Superstitious Ceremonies, and burning of Heretics. To what purpose are these More Parergons' in Lieu of à Solid Answer. Parergons' when à Categorical Answer to the main Business is expected?? Is it only to give à vulgar Reader Entertainment, or to withdraw all who peruse his Book from minding where, and how he would Shift off the Difficulty? He shall not do it, for we will follow him closely, and therefore take notice of one great folly. P. 130. Where he pleases to Say. How much we have befooled ourselves, in attempting to prove the infallibility of our Church, in the same manner as Christ and the Apostles proved their Infallibility. And Mark his Proof expressed in this proofles Proposition. Insisting, Saith he, on that of Miracles as the greatest Evidence of their infallibility (he means the Apostles) our Church cannot with any face pretend to it. Is not this Heroical and generous only to Say we are befooled and Faceles, When we have convinced in the Chapters To say we are befooled is no Proof. already cited, that the Church has wrought Miracles every way equal with those, which the Apostles wrought? What Do are these? May men vapour thus with their bare Assertions, whilst we Prove, and sti●l expect to have the Arguments solued, either by Reason or Authority? 5. Page. 130. As if one still sought to divert à Reader with à deep piece of Learning, He tells us Man's understanding because More Shifting yet. finite cannot be in itself infallible, without receiving à participated Infallibility from an infinite Power above it, And à tedious Discourse follows hereupon known to every one, but what is all this Said, over and over, to our Difficulty? Have we yet any Disparity given between the Apostles Miracles and those which the Church Evidences, Or is our Inference already made, any way infringed hitherto? Not à word is yet returned to either, and therefore the Argument stands in its vigour without reply. 6. Page. 131. He saith first. The Apostles delivered not their Doctrine from Themselves but immediately from God, and consequently their Testimony must be owned infallible. Answ. Neither can the Church The Apostles Divinely inspired, the Church infallibly Assisted. without Divine Assistance deliver her Doctrine as from Herself, but from God. As therefore the Apostles were immediately Inspired to teach as they did, so the Church is immediately Assisted by the same Holy Ghost to define as she doth, and upon this account her Testimony must be owned infallible, For what ever reason or Authority ascertains the one, ascertains also the other. And here we may come to Principles if our Adversaries please The Proofs are equal Let them evince (and 'tis à Truth) that the Apostles were so eminently privileged, I will lay down my Proofs by Theirs, and Show by as great Authority, that the Church has her Privilege also of Divine Assistance. 7. He Adds. It being most unreasonable to think that God would favour such persons (the Apostles) with so extraordinary à power, who A paradox should falsify their Message, and deceive the world. Gentle Reader consider à little. The Apostles taught the world for à few years only. The Roman Catholic hath stood invincible, and taught Millions of Christians for sixteen Ages, If then it be unreasonable, The Apostles taught for à Short time, and Erred not. yea impious to think, that God could permit those first Blessed men to falsify their message, and deceive with error for that short time; Is it not I beseech you as highly unreasonable and impious to judge, that an Infinite Goodness could permit the very Church he founded, made glorious by Her Miracles and other Signal Motives (all which Prove her favoured with à Power extraordinary) to falsify her Message, to betray Her Trust, and lead Millions of souls into damnable error, during the vast circuit of à The Church longer, and grossly erred. thousand years? Consider I Say, And blush at his boldness, who dare impeach this purest Spouse of falsehood. 8. Page. 132. He goes on. These Motives of credibility were wont to be esteemed only the notes of Distinction of the true Church Church Motives both distinguish and prove. from all others, and not rational Proofs of her infallibility. Answ. They both distinguish and prove. The Apostles were distinguished from all false Teachers, and proved also Oracles sent from God by their Signs and Miracles, The like we say of the Church, whose Marks and Miracles are not inferior to those the Apostles manifested, and far more Numerous. Show us à disparity if you can, or be silent hereafter. 9 Page. 132. I find nothing but first leave given Bellarmine, to multiply his fifteen Notes of the Church to fifteen hundred. A sting at Bellarmine to no purpose. How comes this to the Purpose? Or what need is there of multiplying, when One of those Fifteen, (and I'll tell you which it is) the Churches glorious Miracles, hath so silenced Sectaries, that none of them all has hitherto attempted to return any better answer than this. Bellarmine thou liesed? He Says. 2. The only certain Note of the true Church is its agreement with the Primary foundation of it, in the Doctrine wh●ch was infallible, and attested by miracles undoubtedly Divine. This is à strange Note or Mark, which cannot be distinguished from the thing Marked, as the Motives of Credibility, manifestly sensible, are distinguished from the Doctrine believed. 10. Answer therefore, Good Sir, is this Agreement with the Primitive Doctrine it's owns Self Evidence, as à Mark should be▪ Or, do all dissenting Parties accord thus far, That anciently such That's made à clear Mark ●as the Primitive Doctrine, but now is changed from itself into another new Learning? Most evidently no. For the whole contest between the Church and Her Adversaries (may these be ●eard) is, whether of us Profess the Primitive Doctrine laid in the first foundation of Christianity? This point then being yet disputable (for so Sectaries will have it) it is mere folly to make it à Mark whereby to distinguish truth from falsehood, And there is which Sectaries must Say, is yet disputable and obscure. no clearing it from Improbability unless you say. Sectaries more ●i●e than the rest of the world can exactly tell us, who those Christians are that now agree with the Primitive Doctrine, and who dissent from it, But others as wise as they, want faith to believe such bare Assertions without Proofs and Principles. In à word there is no knowing what the Primitive Doctrine was, nor can any now have infallible certainty of the Apostles▪ Miracles, without à Church actually in Being, and Infallible. 11. He saith. 3. If our Doctrine be repugnant to what was Originally 〈…〉 ered by the Founder of the Christian Church, our Society is not the Conditional Propositions, here Proofless Christian Church. Answ.. No more. Sir, is Yours, if it be repugnant. But To what purpose are these Ifs, and conditional Propositions? when Proofs are expected from Accusers. Prove you if you can, but do it upon sound Principles, that our Doctrine is repugnant to that which was Originally delivered, you are Conqueror, and we no more Catholics, but, Sir, à hundred more of your Volumes will never Evince this. 12. He demands. 4. whether we cannot conceive à Church should A fallible Church cannot be Consonant to Christ's Doctrine. be Consonant to the Doctrine of Christ, without being infallible? Answ. No truly. 'tis impossible and here is the Reason, because in à less space than one Age, there would be as many Religions in such à Church, as there are Towns or villages in it, And perhaps more. And is not this manifest in England, where almost every year we have à new Religion coined? Therefore to Imagine à Society of men united rogether in the belief of Christ's infallible Doctrine, without an infallible Oracle to teach, is à mere Chimaera▪ O, but every Man in this fallible Society is bound to take care of his soul, and to believe the infallible Doctrine of Christ. I Answer. If to take care of his Soul necessarily▪ implies the Belief of Christ's infallible Doctrine, it is impossible to take that care, because he can have no infallible Assurance of Christ's Doctrine, without à Church which teaches it infallibly. Hereof enough is said above. 13. Page. 134. He desires to have such Miracles wrought as may convince Infidels, as to the point of the Church's infallibility. Answ. He has all he can desire. The Blind se. A Parallel of Miracles. The Dumb speak, the Deaf hear, The Dead rise up to life again were our Saviour's own Miracles, and convinced Infidels, but these are our Churches likewise, as is largely proved. Disc. 2. C. 8. What would the man have more? 14. Page. 135. To his no little disgrace, without any Proof at all, he scornfully slights that evident and most known Miracle An Evident Miracle slighted. wrought at Zaragosa in Spain. But enough of this above. Disc. 2. C. 9 Here I can add, having it from à right Honourable Person yet living, who heard His Majesty Charles the first Say, in the presence of many others. The cure of that young Man at Zaragosa was certain. Some hereupon Proposing à further Question, whether it could be thought à Miracle? His Majesty Answered be it as you will, the thing was done, The leg cut off and buried, was certainly restored again. 15. In the same Page he Questions whether the Motives we produce belong only to our Church? But grant, Saith he, they do belong, its hard to find the connexion between them and Infallibility. We have Answered to the first. No Society of men can show the like Motives, and therefore urge Mr Stillingfleet to produce his Evidence, That is, To prove they The Connexion between Miracles and Infallibility evinced. belong to any other Society, But to the Roman Catholic Church only. The other point concerning the Connexion, Nicodemus à Prince of the jews. john. 3. V 2. long since cleared. Rabbi we know thou art come à Master or Teacher from God, for no man can do these Signs which thou dost, unless God be with him. Was then our Saviour proved by the works and the Miracles he did, à Master sent from God to teach? And did these Signs convince reason, that God was with him when he taught? None can deny it. Therefore none can doubt', but that He was also proved infallible by Virtue of His wonders, And consequently the connexion between them and infallibility holds good. But The true Inference. the Church (and here is our Inference) Evidences the very like Signs above the force of nature, therefore reason concludes that She also is proved Infallible. Wherefore, Mr Stillingfleet is either obliged to find à flaw in the consequence, or to give à Disparity between our Church-motives, and those other Primitive, which he never goes about to do. 16. I meet with nothing in His. 136. Page, but loud untruths Another Parergon to divert the Reader. concerning our Doctrine of Penance, as if we indulged sin here, and yet gave men hope of Heaven hereafter. It is à Calumny (every one knows we teach no such Doctrine) and ●n this place à mere Parergon besides. I therefore slight it, and take notice of another straying out of the way. P. 137. where he Speaks thus. The Principles of any Conclusion, must be ●f more credit than the Conclusion itself. Therefore if the Articles ●f Faith, The Trinity and Resurrection be the Conclusions, And the Principles by which they are proved be only Ecclesiastical Tradition, it ●ust needs follow, That the Tradition of the Church is more infallible than the Articles of faith, if the Faith we have of those Articles, should be finally resolved into the veracity of the Church's Testimony. 17. This Difficulty not well digested, either Proves nothing, or makes every Resolution of faith void, For suppose I believe Every Resolution made null by this Objection. the Trinity because God hath revealed the Mystery plainly in Holy Scripture. I Ask whether God's Testimony, supposed the Principle of believing, be more infallible than the Trinity, which is believed upon it, here called the Conclusion? Say, The Divine Testimony is more Infallible, I'll Affirm the very same of the Church's Proposition, For what the Church speaks, God speaks. Answer No. And give this reason, Because we believe the Testimony and the Mystery attested, by one Indivisible certain Act of Faith, which tends infallibly upon both these Objects at once, without making Conclusions, The difficulty ceases. And hereby you see How the Church's Testimony is the Clearer Principle. first. How the Church's Testimony is à Principle to the thing▪ believed, For every one knows, that à Formal Object compared with its Materials which lies in darkness, is the greater Light, and has the pre-eminence to be immediately known For itself, and not for another: Whereas, the material Object would still remain in à State of obscurity, and never be yielded to, but by the Energy of its formal Motive. In this sense therefore, the ultima ratio assentiendi, or formal Object may be well called the more certain Principle, Though as I now said, the▪ Assent be indivisibly terminated upon both Objects infallibly. 18. You see. 2. Where the mistake of our Adversary lies. He Supposes faith generated by Discourse. First that we believe The Mistake discovered. the Trinity (for example) upon one Principle. Viz. The Church's Tradition or Testimony, and then descend lower to believe the same Mystery upon God's Revelation distinct from the Church's Testimony, As if, forsooth, the Church's Testimony were an extrinsical condition preparing all to believe upon the Divine Revelation (This must be intended or nothing is said to the Purpose) now we utterly deny the Supposition, and Say when we believe the Trinity, or any other particular Mystery upon the Church's Testimony, or rather upon this revealed truth: God speaks so by the Church, We then elicit not two distinct Acts one depending on the other, but with one One Indivisible tendency in Faith, indivisible tendency of Faith believe at once, the Formal and Material Object together, That is, we believe God speaks the truth by the Church, which is to say: we Assent to it because he speaks it, by his own infallible Oracle. 19 This one syllogism clears all. What the Church▪ Says is true. The Church Says God has revealed the Trinity. Ergo that's true. We resolve the Mayor, or first Proposition thus. What the Church says i● true. That is. What God speaking by the Church saith, is true. But God speaking by the Church Says the Mystery of the Trinity is, Ergo, That's true. Where you see, we only Discourse (could Faith be so generated which some Divines Assert) from the Formal object, or from God's Revelation, to the Material believed. Now Mr Stillingfleet makes this Sense of the Mayor Proposition, (and here lies his Error) that the Church Says of Herself, not including God's Revelation, is The Error more Clearly pointed at. an act of Faith and true, But the Church of her own sole Authority saith, God revealed the Trinity. Ergo I must first believe the Mystery by one act of Faith upon the Church's Testimony, as à Preparative to believe it better, upon God's pure Revelation, which is another distinct Formal Object from the Church's Testimony. This Discourse is implicatory. First because the Church's Testimony, if separated from the Divine Revelation, can ground no act of Faith. 2. If which is true, it only cooperates with, or consummates the ancient Revelation in order to the Belief of any Mystery, it can help nothing to bring in à Conclusion, wholly as obscure as itself is. That word, Conveyance, beguiled Mr Stillingfleet, for he thought, if the Church's Testimony conveys unto us the ancient Revelation, What beguiled thy Adversary. it must be excluded from being infallible, and much more from being à joint Motive with it. Herein lies his Error. 20. It is difficult enough, To Say what He would be at in his two next pages. Some times he will have no want of Evidence in faith, as to the Reason inducing to believe, And if he means, That what we Assent to by faith must be evidently Credible before we believe, it's à Truth, but if he will have the very act of Faith elicited to be evident, the Apostle. Heb. 11. 1. Faith implies Obscurity. contradicts him. For Faith is an Argument of things not appearing. Sometimes again he saith, the Assent is not requried to what is obscure and Vnevident, And then to mollify the Proposition, adds. But what is evident to us And theresore credible. In à word, Obscure Doctrine. if he intends thus much only, That the evidence of credibility precedes the in●●dent act of Faith, all is well. But by one Instance we may guests where he errs. The manner of the Hypostatical union, Saith he, is to us inevident, whereunto God requires not our Assent, but to the truth of the thing itself. Answer, good Sir, Is the truth of the Hypostatical union in itself, or of the Trinity evident to us? Where lies that Evidence? The truth of the Trinity evident to no Believer. Or upon what Principle is it grounded? Heretics are found that for the very difficulty of these inevident Mysteries deny both, And the best Orthodox Christians ingenuously Profess, they so far Surpass all natural capacities, That there is no assenting to either but only by an humble submissive Faith, which essentially implies Obscurity. If therefore what you say be true. We may lawfully suspend our Assent, where God gives not evidence of the thing Assented to, you may Consequently suspend your Assent, and neither believe the Trinity, nor the Incarnation. 21. Page. 140. He demands why we believe the Resurrection of the dead? We Answer because God reveals it. An Objection Proposed. But Questioned again why we believe, that God hath revealed it? We Answer because the infallible Church says God did speak it, whereby it is plain that though our first Reply be from God's Authority, yet the last Resolution of our faith is made into the infallibility of the Church's Testimony: For though God had revealed it, yet if this Revelation were not attested by the Church's infallible Testimony, we should not have sufficient ground to believe it, Therefore the Church's infallibility must be more credible, than the Resurrection of the dead. 22. To give à Satisfactory Answer, please to hear what I demand also. Mr Stillingfleet believes that our Saviour is Answered by Scripture itself. the true Messiah, because Christ spoke the Truth with his own sacred mouth. john. 4. 26. And if he believes Scripture, He Assents again to that truth upon S. john's Testimony, And so firmly believes it, that if the Evangelist (or some other of like authority) had not wrote it, he could not have believed S. john's Testimony, or that our Saviour Spoke those words. Here is our solution. God long since said the dead shall rise, but this Ancient Revelation being remote from us, (if solely considered) cannot move us to believe the truth, unless an Infallible Oracle Ascertain us that God once spoke it, just as S. john assures all that Christ said. I am the Messiah. Ask now ●hy Mr Stillingfleet believes, that our Saviour uttered those ●ords? He will Answer, God speaking by S. john an Infallible An Application of the Instance clear in Scripture. Oracle, Affirms it. So I say God speaking by the Church, an Infallible Oracle, affirms the Resurrection of the dead. O, but independently of Church Authority we know the resurrection is revealed in Scripture, Contrariwise we know nothing of our Saviour's words, but from S. john's Testimony. Answ. we know indeed the Resurrection is asserted in à Book called Scripture, But that the Assertion is Divine, or uttered by Eternal Truth, we have no more Infallible certainty without the Church's Testimony, Then if any vulgar Samaritan, without Divine Assistance, had said. Christ spoke those words. I am the Messiah. 23. By what is now briefly touched you see first, That as our Saviour's own words and S. john's reflex Testimony upon them, concur Indivisibly to the Faith of these Adversaries; So the revealed Verity of the Resurrection in Scripture, And the The ancient Revelation and the Church's reflex Testimony Church's reflex Testimony which infallibly Ascertains us that it is revealed, may well indivisibly concur as one complete Motive to our faith, whereof more hereafter. I say indivisibly; And therefore this Faith ultimatly resolved, relies not first upon Scripture only, as our Adversary conceives, without any relation to the Church, and then rests upon the Church's Concur indivisibly to▪ Faith. Testimony, as upon à distinct Formal Object, but by one simple Tendency it pitches on both together. 24. You see. 2. It's hard to Say what Mr Stillingfleet would have, when he tells us. This Principle. The Church is infallible, must be more credible than the Resurrection of the Dead. If We clearly distinguish what our Adversary Confound's. he mean's, the Church's Testimony is to us in this present State, the more known and nearest Motive, whereupon the Faith of that Article is grounded, we easily Assent. But if he think's we must first Assent to Scripture, which asserts the Resurrection and own that as Divine, or the only Motive of Faith without all Church Authority attesting it to be Divine, He errs not knowing our Doctrine: For we Say, no Scripture can be infallible An improper Speech. assented to as Divine independently of the Church's Testimony. Again those words. More Credible, are improper, if applied to the Formal Object of Faith, For the Formal Object terminates Belief, the Credibility whereof goes before, and is grounded on the previous Motives inducing to believe. Whether we Square Circles in our Resolution of Faith▪ The other mentioned Points in the Title of the Chapter, discussed. Upon what ground those Articles called the fundamentals of Faith are believed, in the Opinion of Sectaries. 25. In many following Pages we have little but that the Churches Infallible Testimony must be called the Formal Object of Faith, whereof something is said above, And you shall have more hereafter. 26. P. 149. He thinks we Argue like men squaring Circles, when on the one side we make Scripture obscure, yet on the other, give it light enough to prove the Church's infallibility, And then he talks of an Apocalyptical key hanging at the Church's Scripture Proved Divine Convinces the Church's Infallibility. girdle, able to unlock all the Secrets in it. To the first I have Answered. Thus much Supposed, that Scripture is proved Divine, we have so great light from the several Passages thereof, to convince the Church's Infallibility, that no glosses of Sectaries shall ever obscure them. To the jeer of the Clavis Apocalyptica I Answer. Some one or other must unlock those high secrets, when 'tis evident innumerable Heretics by à wrong key wrest God's word to most pernicious Senses. The Question is whether you, Sir, or the Church must rurn the key? 27. Page. 152. After thanks given for our Coleworts so often served ●y, Those mute Persons, the good Motives of credibility; He is Brisk Ie●rs and empty words and in earnest resolute, to solve our Argument, Ask before hand: Whether it be not enough to be in à Circle ourselves, but must ●eed's bring the Apostles into it also? Reflect I beseech you. We said above, that the Apostles induced by the Signal works and Miracles of our Saviour, Assented to his sacred Doctrine as most infallible. In like manner, The Primitive Christians induced by the works and Miracles of the Apostles believed them to be infallible The force of our Argument Oracles. Therefore we also in this present State, having Motives and Miracles of the same weight and Evidence in the Roman Catholic Church, Believe with à firm Assent of Faith that She is God's Oracle, and her Doctrine most infallible. The short Answer to all this (saith Mr Stillingfleet) is, That the ground why the Christians did Assent to the Apostles Doctrine as true, was because God Wholly waved. gave sufficient Evidence, that their Testimony was infallible in such things, where such infallibility was requisite. Pray, Consider well, whether this be not à gliding, or rather à plain running away from the Difficulty? We have urged all this while the Parity between the Church's Motives, and those of the Apostles, We have proved and yet plead, That the Evidence is à like in both. The Churches most manifest Signs are. The blind se. The lame walk. The dead rise, Devils are dispossesed etc. And these termed by you unsavoury Coleworts, and mute good Things, were the Apostles Signs also. Are not you therefore obliged in all law of Disputation, What all law of Disputing require●. either to prove, and upon sound Principles indeed, That we falsely appropriate such Motives and Miracles to the Church, Or, if you cannot disparage so illustrious an Evidence, to show à fault in this Inference? The Church is known as well by her Signs, to be an infallible Oracle. 28. Now mark how we are put off with half an Answer. God ●y you, gave sufficient Evidence, that the Apostles Testimony was infallible. None doubts it. But Say on, what want do you find of the very like Evidence in the Church? Her Miracles are as manifest, Her Conversions as Numerous (and more) Her fame as renowned, Her name as Catholic, finally might we use your scornful language, Her Motives (no mute Persons) speak Nothing like an Answer given. aloud, and Her Colewarts are every whit as good, as those were the Apostles served up. To this you Answer not à word, but first tell us with your Adversary, that the Apostles confirmed their Doctrine with Signs that followed, by which Signs all their Hears were bound to acknowledge them for infallible Oracles; And it is very true. But we prove the like Signs accompanied and followed the Church in all Ages, therefore her Hearers are also bound to acknowledge Her an infallible Oracle also. In this place you should have spoken to the Cause and showed, Why, or upon what Account, those first Signs were so powerful to Prove the Apostles infallible, And these latter of the Church less pregnant to prove Her infallible. This, and 'tis the main Point, you wisely wave For it is unanswerable, and most frigidly tell us The main point pressed again. P. 153. You must be excused as to what follows. viz. That those same Motives moved the Primitive Christians and us in our respective Times, to believe the Church. And why not dear Sir? Give us the Disparity, and we have done, but you cannot. If therefore it which cannot be Answered. be à bold Attempt to deny the Evidence of the Church we plead for, which. S. Austin. Epist. 166. compares with the Sun manifest to all, usque ad terminos ad terrae, To the last bounds of the earth, it is impossible to weaken the force of our Inference, when we Say. The Church is proved by her Motives an infallible Oracle. You next Term this Expression, The formal Object of faith, à Coccysm, whereby it appears how little you are versed in School-divinity. 29. It seems in the Page now cited, your Adversary urges this Argument, Ad hominem. If à Church be acknowledged An Argument urged, ad hominem. infallible in Fundamentals, The last reason why you believe it infallible, must rest upon this Principle, That the present Church doth Infallibly witness so much by her Tradition. To this you return à most dissatisfactory Answer, in these words. When you Ask ●s (Protestants) why we believe such an Article to be fundamental, As f●r an Instance. Christ will give Eternal life to them that believe him, The Sectaries Answer. ●e Answer not because the Church which is infallible in fundamentals Delievers it to be so, For that were to Answer Idem per Idem; But we speal to that Common Reason which is in Mankind, whether, if the Doctrine of Christ be true, This can be any other than à fundamental Article of it, it being that without which the whole Design of Christian Religion comes to nothing. 30. Good Reader join here two things together. Mr Stillingfleet believes (and Mark the word) such an Article to be Fundamental, not upon Scripture or Church Authority, for neither makes the Distinction between fundamentals and not fundamentals; highly dissatisfactory, and why? And again, before he has proved by any infallible Authority that such à Distinction in his Sense ought to be made, He brings in the common Reason of mankind to judge in à matter, which Catholics Say is de Subiecto non supponente, not capable of judicature, Because there are no Things in being as he calls fundamentals, distinguisable from others, of à lower Rank. Moreover (And take notice of this) He believes such an Article to be à truth because God reveals it, and believes it to be à Fundamental Faith stands not upon two disserent Motive Divine and humane. Truth upon this Motive, that Common reason holds it so. Doth not therefore this one act of Faith, rely upon two heterogeneal Formal Object? As Faith; it is built upon God's Veracity, as Fundamental Faith, it stands tottering upon man's fallible reason. 31. What follows is as bad or worse. It is sufficient, Say you, That the Church doth deliver from the Consent of universal Tradition, the infallible Rule of Faith (which to be sure, contain's all things Fundamental in it) though She never meddles with the deciding what Points are fundamental, and what not. Pray you, Sir, Answer. Who shall dare to meddle with those fundamentals, were they Supposable in Worse Doctrine yet. your sense, if the Church doth not? What must your private judgement or mine, decide here? Quo iure? by what law or Authority? whilst Scripture says nothing, and you will not permit the Church to meddle in the Business, were there any such thing to be meddled with, Therefore you leave all to men's private Opinions, to make what they please fundamental, and exclude from Fundamentals every thing which likes them not. And here is your fumbling way of Believing no man knows what, whilst Their broken kind of Faith. the Church tells you, that every thing She Proposes, as an Article of faith, is Fundamental. This impregnable Principle we establish in Lieu of your lose Faith, and broken way of Arguing also. Lastly you are out in the main Supposition, that Scripture only is the Rule of faith, But hereof▪ enough is said in the first Discourse. 32. The next Thing I meet with worth any Notice, is. P. 158. Whereunto we also join his. 170. Page. It seems D. Lawd before Mr Stillingfleet wrote his Account, was urged to give à The main Point concerning Scripture, and its sense, examined. satisfactory Reply to the Question. Why, or upon what ground Protestants believe the Books of Scripture to be the Word of God? Scripture alone Says not which Books are Canonical, much less declares their Sense in matters controverted. Sectaries reject the Churches Infallible Authority And say, She is not to tell us which Books are Scripture, or, what their sense is, though admitted as God's word. Is it not very reasonable think ye to A reasonable Demand. demand upon what Ground these men stand, when either they believe Scripture to be the word of God, or give an Assent to the particular doctrines contained in the book? For clearing these difficulties, you shall have Mr Stillingfleets own word's P. 170. 33. This Question, Saith he, how we know Scripture to be Scripture, may import two things. First, how we know that all those books contain God's word in them? Or secondly how we know, the The substance of Mr Stillingfleets Answer, Doctrine Contained in these Books to be Divine? If you then ask me, whether it be necessary that I believe with such à Faith, as is built upon Divine Testimony, that these Books called Scripture, contain the Principles of the jewish and Christian Religion in them, which we call God's word, I do and shall deny it (viz. That This belief is built on any Divine Testimony) and my reason is, because I have sufficient ground for such an Assent without any Divine Testimony. But if you ask me ●● what ground, I believe the Doctrine to be Divine which is contained in those books; I then Answer affirmatively, on à Divine Testimony, because God hath given abundant Evidence, that this Doctrine was of Divine Revelation. 34. Here are two Assertions. The first is, That the Books of Scripture contain God's word in them, And this cannot believed upon any Divine Testimony. Thus much granted, It follows inevitably. Though one should pertinaciously reject the whole Drewes an ill Consequence after it. Canon of the old and new Testament, or absolutely affirm, These Booked, and all the particular Sentences contained in them, are not God's written word, He could not yet for such à perverse Denial, be accounted an Heretic. I Prove it. None can incur the guilt of Heresy, but he who denies à Truth which God has revealed, or which stands firm upon à Divine Testimony. But he that denies the Books of Scripture to contain Heresy not incurred, though one denied the Books of Scripture to be Divine. God's Word in them, renounceth no Truth revealed by Almighty God, For, Saith our Adversary, this is no revealed Truth, nor stands firm upon any Divine Testimony, Therefore he is no Heretic. Now further, if he may without the sin of Heresy deny these Books to be Divine, Seing God never said so, It is impossible to believe the Doctrine therein contained to be Divine, upon any Divine Testimony, yet Mr Stillingfleet thinks he may. 35. My Reason is. No man understands by the Books of Scripture which contain the Principles or Doctrine of the jewish and Christian Religion, to be merely the Paper or Cover of the Books, but he must understand, if he rightly conceives What is to be understood by the Books of Scripture? what Scripture is, the very Principles and Doctrine contained in those writings. For example. Here is one Principle in the old Testament. Gen. 17. 4. God made à Conuenant with Abraham and his seed for ever. Another in the New. joan. 1. 14. The Word is made Flesh. Answer I beseech you? Can any man truly affirm, that these two Principles (the like is of innumerable others contained in Scripture) stand not firm upon God's infallible Testimony, when 'tis manifest, the whole Christian world is obliged to believe them, with à Faith grounded upon the same infallible Testimony, that revealed them? Principles of Religion denied. It was Therefore no little Oversight in Mr Stillingfleet to Speak here of the Principles of the jewish and Christian Religion, contained in à Book called Scripture, And positively to Assert, these cannot be believed upon à Divine Testimony. This certainly is not Defensible. 36. Some may yet Reply. Two things are here to be considered. First the bare letter or outward words of Scripture, and these we believe not upon Divine Revelation, but have them from universal Tradition, or the consent of Nations. An Answerto such as here diflinguish The second, is the Sense or Divine Doctrine which these outward Signs or exterior words Convey to us. Now this Sense or the interior Doctrine of Scripture, as contradistinct from the bare outward letter, we purely believe upon the Divine Testimony, casting the Assent given to the Words upon Between the bare words▪ and the sense. other foreign Principles. I believe Mr Stillingfleet elsewhere Says some such thing as this, or must say it. Contra. 1. The mere outward words though pure, are no Books of Scripture, And as separated from the Sense and interior Doctrine, are neither Principles of the jewish or Christian Religion, nor in rigour God's word, For God never spoke nor inspired others to write words, but he jointly conveyed with them his own Sense, and Doctrine also. And Methinks its very hard to believe this Doctrine. This is my beloved Son as God's sacred words, and not to believe those very words to come from God, upon the same Divine Motive which Support's the Doctrine. Moses, saith our Saviour. john. 5. 47. Has written of Words are Divine. me. And if you will not believe his Writings, how will you believe my Words? These outward Signs therefore, the very words of truth, called by the Apostle. 1. Thess. 2. 13. Verbum auditus Dei. words of hearing, or heard, are in very deed the Words of God; and consequently may well, where none can rationally doubt of their Purity, be assented to upon the same Divine Testimony, with the Doctrine contained in them. 37. The Reason is. God would have been the same Verity he now is, although he had revealed nothing, that therefore which moves or determin's Believers to assent to the truths revealed is not only his increated Authority, but the sincere external Revelation with it also. These Two jointly The First Veritas Speaking is the Object of Faith. concur as one Motive, whence it is that the First Verity, as Speaking, or Revealing, may be rightly called the Formal Object of Faith. I know Divines vary about this Question. Whether the external Proposition be à partial Motive with God's internal Verity, or only à necessary condition whereby that Verity, (the ultimate ground of faith) is applied to Believers, herein much may be de Nomine: But none of them all Say, The exterior Revelation is assented to upon one Principle which is not Divine, and that the Doctrine conveyed by it, is believed upon another most Divine and infallible. This is à novelty. What Sectaries should grand. Neither do I see, how Sectaries can find that Lustre, that Majesty and Divinity, so often talked of in the purest words of holy Writ, if they be not owned as God's true words upon his Divine Testimony. 38. Let us now briefly examine Mr Stillingfleet's Proposition, without depending on what he teaches or must teach, concerning the belief of words separated from the Doctrine. We believe, Saith he, the Doctrine contained in the Books of The Doctrine in itself examined. Scripture upon à Divine Testimony, because God has given abundant Evidence, that this Doctrine was (or is) of Divine Revelation. Here are three things Distinguishable. The Doctrine Believed, The Incarnation for example. The Testimony revealing the matter bebelieved, and finally the Evidence whereby that Testimony is brought to light. Now all our difficulty is concerning the Evidence of this Divine Testimony whereupon we believe any Mystery, and we Ask from whence Mr Stillingfleet takes his Evidence (He has you se abundance of it) wherewith to prove that God ever Said. The Divine word was made flesh? 39 The Question seems reasonable, because this Testimony which all aught to believe, and consequently doth Exist, is not its own Self evidence, nor can it be evidenced by another Testimony of Scripture (wholly as obscure to us) that God spoke The Divine Testimony, not its own Self evidence. that Truth, For so we should go in insinitum and Prove one dark Testimony by another equally as dark. Infallible Tradition not written, and the infallible Authority of the Church our Adversaries reject, And may Say, B (though admitted) are Objects of faith, and consequently under t●at Notion appear as little Evident to us, as the Scriptures Testimony is, we desire to prove. Therefore whatever is rightly called Evidence in this matter, whereby all would discover an obscure Testimony (not yet proved God's word) must of necessity be extrinsical to the Testimony itself, and if extrinsic, no other Evidence can Therefore the Evidence of its Credibility must be taken from extrinfick Motives. Possibly be had, but that which arises from the known Motives of Credibility, For by these the Church is proved an Oracle no less Infallible, than those first Masters of Christianity were. Wherefore Mr Stillingfleet is constrained whether he will or no, if he gives in any thing like Evidence, to make use of these good mute things the Motives of Credibility, which he scornfully calls Coleworts too often served up, or shall never prove that God once said. The Divine word is made flesh. Which is to Say, He must first evidence à Church, before he Proves those words Divine. 40. It may be replied; His Evidence for the whole Book of Scripture and every particular sentence in it, is taken from the fallible Tradition of all called Christians, and others also no Christians. I Say fallible, For he owns none Divine or Infallible. Tallible Tradition no sufficient Evidence. Contra. 1. The Scripture was acknowledged Divine, before men agreed so universally that it was Divine, Tradition therefore, which is rather an Effect of our Christian Belief concerning Scripture, than à proof of it, presupposes some other more clear foregoing Evidence, whereby the Book was anciently owned as Divine. This we inquire after, and very reasonably; because the Chineses have à universal Tradition for their Bible, and the Turks for their Alcoran one also general, yet such à humane, fallible and weak Tradition proves not those Books to be Divine. Contra. 2. And here is an An Argument ad hominem. Argument ad Hominem. If Mr Stillingfleet believes the Testimonies of Scripture Infallible, upon fallible Tradition which may be false, he makes his Conclusion concerning the belief of every Passage in Holy Writ, far more sure than the Premises are which lead in the Conclusion, And this Doctrine he reiects above as improbable. Contra. 3. He has neither universal Sectaries have no universal fallible tradition for their Scripture. Tradition for the Protestants Canon of Scripture (disowned by more than half of the Christian world) much less for its true Sense, wherein dissenting Christians so much vary, that none of them all can Say upon humane or fallible Tradition, what the true meaning of the Holy Ghost is, and consequently this very Tradition, as also Mr Stillingfleets double Resolution of Faith into the Books of Scripture, and into the Doctrine, or Sense, come just to nothing. 41. Page. 158. He Argues the whole Church consists of men subject to error, That is, All the Parts are liable to mistake, Ergo the whole Church cannot possibly be infallible, A faslacious Objection Solued. in and of itself. Answ. Lay open these covered Terms, In and Of itself, The Argument loses force. I Say therefore, Men merely considered as nature has made them fallible in order to believe Supernaturally, have In and Of themselves no immunity from error, yet taken under another Notion, as they constitute à Church, they are infallible. That is. There was, is, and will ever be à Church Teaching, and à Church Taught, Infallible, So that all shall never err in Faith. You may easily rejoin. This or that man, these or those Multitudes may wilfully abandon Christ's Doctrine. Too true God knows: And if so, They are no more members of the Church, but Heretics or Infidels. Again. If you run Some may err All the Church, cannot. over the rest of Christians remaining Orthodox (whether Pastors or People) and Say these may also fall from Faith; I Answer Some may, All cannot, because God has promised ever to preserve à Church in Being, I mean faithful Teachers and faithful Believers, to the end of the world. And must not Sectaries acknowledge thus much, who hold à Church infallible in Fundamentals, which upon that account cannot wholly err? 42. Mr Stillingfleet Answer's, Though the Authority of the whole Church be not Divine, yet she cannot err in Fundamentals, because she is tied to the use of means. Say, Good Sir, who ties Her to this infa 〈…〉ble use of Mean's, if the whole Moral Body and every Member of it be fallible? Grant that God by his special Assistance ties Her fast, She is for that reason infallible, and must Use the means: Take from Her divine Assistance, and Say She is only guided by the erring Conceptions of fallible men, She may easily swerve from the Means, and revolt from Christ. And thus the fallacy is cleared. You, The fallacy discoverid, Sir, Suppose the Infallibility must be taken from the right use of means, whercas the contrary is true. Viz. Therefore S●e rightly uses the means, because She is antecedently preserved infallible by Divine Assistance. You suppose again, that all the Parts of this They rightly use the Means, because antecedently made Infallible. Assisted Church are fallible, And we Say no, For as long as they continue members of it; So long as the Pastors lawfully commissioned teach in Christ's name, and the faithful believe their infallible Doctrine (There will be ever such à Church on earth) So long they are all infallible. If any fall from Faith, whether few or many, These, eo ipso, cease to be Members of this Mystical Body, yet the Church fails not, for the failing of some, infers not à possible Failure in all. The want of this Distinction caused your error. 43. And thus having removed such weak difficulties out of the way (thought great ones in that 5th chapter) which to an Difficulties removed, we proceed to the Resolution. an unwary Reader may seem to Obstruct the Catholic Resolution of Faith, We will in the following Discourse, first Premise some Principles much availing to conceive the easiest Resolution, and next declare where the chiefest difficulty lies which Mr Stillingf. has not done, and finally endeavour to solve it, without the least danger of any vicious Circle. Afterward we shall prove that Protestants have no Faith at all to resolve. CHAP. VII. Necessary Principles premised to the Resolution of Faith. God can Speak in à Language proper to Himself. His external language is twofold. When God speaks not immediately, He must be heard by his Oracle. What the exact Resolution of Faith implies? 1. THe first Principle. God who is an Infinite verity and speaks not to stones, can by à Divine Language proper to himself, so make his interior mind and sincere God's proper language meaning known to rational creatures, that all upon hearing His voice may without hesitation indubitably, Say. Thus God judges, this be Speak's, which granted. All are obliged both readily and firmly to yield assent to so great à Majesty for his own Authority. Known to all. The reason hereof is clear. If God can speak to Mortals, and for this end that he be understood, there arises an obligation in every one to believe him without fear or doubt, Or in case it be impossible after all humane industry used, to learn what he speaks, none can absolutely believe him. 2. A. 2. Principle. Then (and not otherwise) this external Language is certainly known to come from God, when it is spoken in his name, and so fairly appears by its own Signatures, Lustre, and Wonders, to proceed from him, That all must confess an infinite Goodness cannot permit, either Devil or false Prophet to use the like way of Speaking, I mean by Signs peculiar How this Divine Language is known to proceed from God? to God, and withal to utter à falsehood in his name: For were this possible, we infringe the greatest Evidence which Christianity has, and must Say, though Christ our Lord and his Apostles Significantly spoke to all in God's name by their wonders, and Miracles, Yet neither jews nor Gentiles could be obliged (after à clear discovery of them) to believe that they were sent from God, To teach the world. 3. Now because this external Language is twofold, First. Private and Immediate. 2. Public and Mediate, both for our better Satisfaction are to be declared. Concerning the first. Imagine By one Example, G●ds immediate way of speaking, that one like another Mofes were in à Desert, and saw à Bush burn, yet not consumed, Drawing near he here's one Speak out of the flame, and Ask who it is? it is Answered. I am God that speaks, and command thee to believe and deliver to all what I Say, And to Evidence that I am God, I foretell thee now things, which shall happen in thy days. Besides thou shall see these is declared. wonderful Signs to confirm this Truth, that I Speak. Put thy hand into thy bosom, it shall become leprous, and presently The language known to proceed from God▪ And why? pure again, Cast thy rod upon the, ground I'll make it à Serpent, and without delay turn it into what it was before. And if these Signs move thee not, look into the next Thicket, there is one lies dead, barbarously slain by his Enemies, this man I will raise up to life, and thy own eyes shall see the Miracle. For these wonders therefore, thou must believe, I am God who speaks, and know it belongs to my Providence not to permit such à signalised Language to pass from me, unless it were mine. Thus we have Gods private and immediate way of speaking. 4. Hereupon this retired man leaves his Solitude, goes abroad, and publisheth to all what he has heard and seen, but yet gain no credit. He than tells his incredulous Auditors, God has sent him as à Messenger to speak in his name, and proves his Commission The way of Speaking by another. by working strange Wonders. He cures the sick, dispossesses Devils, raises the Dead, which done, the most obdurate hearts Assent to what he teaches, and believe he is no Impostor, but à Messenger indeed sent from God, For none, as that Prince amongst the jews argued above john. 3. 1. can say he comes from God, and work such wonders, unless God be with him. And this is God's public way of speaking by another. 5. A. 3. Principle. Whoever grant's that God can speak what we are obliged to, if God speaks not immediately. to man by an Oracle distinct from himself, must also (if so great à Majesty pleases not to impart his truths immediately) hold it Obligatory, to hear the Mediate Language of that Oracle, whereby God speaks. 6. Imagine now, you had an earnest Seeker after Truth, à mere Stranger to Christ, yet thoughtful of à long Eternity, that looks about him, and is resolved to find out what God has spoken by the best Oracles. He read's Aristotle, Plato, and the like ancient Philosophers, And ponders all most diligently. What How à Zealous Inquirer after ●tuth, proceeds? follows? Some few Sparks of light he finds there, but so mixed with darkness and error, that the ill Lustre of it, leaves him quite dissatisfied. Perhaps he may hope to learn more from Mahomet's Alcoran. Worse Success here. For no sooner has he the Book in his hands, but the impudent lies, the horrid Impostures, the filth and contradictions discovered there, so disquiet He meet's first with profane learning. his troubled soul, that be curses the Book, And rightly Conclud's so foul à language, could never come from God. Enquiring moreover who this Mahomet was? He learns, he was à Counterfeit, an Ignorant, an unpure and most cruel man, only prays●ble in this, that he owned One God, Though he never adored him in Spirit and truth. 7. Thus much done, our Zealous Seeker, hears of à Book Falls next on the Holy Scripture. called the Holy Scripture, highly reverenced by Christians. He reads and rejoices, for now he meets with à language beseeming God, grave, Sim●le, familiar, yet withal serious. The Doctrine and Precepts of the book appear also most sacred, But one doubts occur ' doubt occurr's Concerning the strange Miracles and wonders in the old and new Testament. So doth another in no few Passages, which there Seem so obscure, that He understands them not. Howe●er, by what is discovered, most happy Man were He, could any Ascertain him of the truth of all now perused, And indubitably prove it to be God's own infallible word. 8. In this restless condition, He proposes the Doubts to one He seek's Satisfaction. or more of Caluins' followers, and Asks how they prove the Scriptures Divinity? They tell him the Question is as impertinent, as if he should demand, how light my be known to be light, and not darkness, white to be white, and not black. Much dissatisfied with the Answer, wholly as bad as that other Proof is, taken from the private Spirit; The inquisitive Person having And repairs to Catholics. heard of à known Christian Society called Catholics, addresses himself to some of the learned among them who pretend to Speak in the name of Christ and the Church, And assure him that God is the Author of Scripture. This yet reaches not home, and though it were further answered, the Church positively teaches so, yet he may justly demand. How we prove the truth of the Church's Testimony? 9 Here whilst Sectaries are silent, We proceed as the solitary Man did, and evidence God's own Language spoken by one only Oracle. That is, We lay forth the Motives mentioned above, which illustrate the Church and most prudently convince, that God speaks by this Oracle. The Motives are her undeniable Miracles, the eminent Holiness of life in thousands, the Sanctity He listens to God's own language Spoken by the Church: and Unity of her Doctrine, witnessed by the consent of so many different Nations, who all agree, and will agree in one and the same Faith, to the end of Ages. We Add hereunto the Constancy and fortitude of Martyrs, those admirable Conversions the Church has wrought, Her amplitude extended the whole world over, and yet to give more light, We Ask whether ever since the first Creation of things, such multitudes of Professors so well united in one Faith, so wise, so learned, so pious and virtuous, can be found in any other Religion not Catholic? Who more exactly complied with the Law they lived under, or yielded à readier Obedience to it, than those do and have done, that make Profession of the Roman Catholic Faith. The Ingenuous man saith No, and the truth is manifest. The Heathens so notoriously transgressed the Law of nature, that few and very No Motives sound in any other Religion but the Catholic. few observed it. During Moses Law the Church was but little, yet the People's sins were great, And if we compare the Learning, Wisdom, and Piety of the jews, with the eminent Knowledge, Virtue, and Piety of those who profess the Catholic faith, there is no Parallel. Mention modern Sectaries, divorced from Christ and his Church, what are they? Men of yesterday; truly Lawless, in à word à very small disjointed company. Their Critical learning appears in their Writings, and the virtue they have, is best known by their works. Nothing hitherto of God's Language. I mean, no rational Motives illustrate this Religion. 10. Thus you see First. How à Seeker after truth may by prudent Industry learn, that the Doctrine contained in Scripture, is Gods own Sacred and Divine word. But. 2. To be Assured hereof, an Infallible Oracle, evidenced by Supernatural Signs The last assurance given. is to attest the Verity, for so Providence has ordered, That God's own most sublime and Divine language, m●st be conveyed to us by another more plain and easy. The Motives which illustrate the Church are this plain exterior Language; Induced by them, we hear the Church speak, And upon her Testimony believe that other sacred Language of God, delivered in Holy▪ Writ. 11. A. 4. Principle. The Resolution of Faith is then exactly made, when all the Causes or conditions whereupon it depends, what the Resolution of Faith implies? and when exactly made? are plainly laid forth, until we fall upon the very last Cause or Motive of our assent, given to the Divine Revelation. Briefly. The final Cause of believing is, that in this our short Exile we live virtuously, as Faith requires, and after enjoy eternal Happiness. The material Cause or Subject of Faith is Man's understanding. The intrinsic Formal cause is no other but Faith itself, which as truly makes à soul believing, as vision received in the ●etina of the Eye, denominat's it seeing. Thus far there is no great dispute, nor much can be questioned concerning the resolution of the very Formal Act of Faith (as distinguished from the Obiective) which is made by à reflex Contemplation upon it, as it tends in to all those causes and Conditions, whereon that act depends. The only difficulty therefore remaining, concerns the Formal extrinsical Motive, which all Say is God's Divine Revelation. 12. Now one Question may be. From whence have we Catholics greater assurance, of our Doctrine, or why Say we That, that stands firm upon the Divine Testimony, and reject the Arians and Protestants Doctrine as à Novelty, or not built upon the same foundation, whilst all of us pretend to Scripture? The Arians say Christ is not the highest God. We assert the contrary. Protestants teach the Church is fallible. We the contrary. In rhis Opposition of judgements, who An easy difficulty can certainly Define what God has spoken? To this (and it is the least of difficulties) we Answer. God who cannot deceive has given so many Divine and manifest Signs, in behalf of the revealed Doctrine which the Church teaches, that none can Question the Truth, unless he will either Solued upon this Principle, That God cannot cheat the world. say: An infinite Wisdom cannot declare his own Interior mind by clear exterior Signs; Or which is worse; That he has established an Oracle, and set it forth with strange Supernatural wonders, only to make à fair Appearance, though the final End be to cheat all that believe it. 13. Now here is the only Question. Whether these Arians, or Protestants, have any better evidenced Oracle by more, (or equal) Signs and miracles, which teaches their Tenets, than the Roman Catholic Church is, that Teaches ours. Can such an Oracle be evidenced, They might talk of the Assurance of their particular Doctrines, but till this be shown, which will never be, silence must prove the best Answer. CHAP. VIII. The main Difficulty in the Resolution of Faith, Proposed. What Connexion the Motive, have with the Divine Revelation? Of their weight and efficacy. God's own Language not imitable by his Enemies. Faith transcends the certainty of all Motives. The main Disficulty solued. Of our great Security in Believing God, Though we have not Evidence of the Divine Testimony. 1. THe real Difficulty in this matter which Mr Stillingfleet hits not on, is so common to all Christians, The Difficulty common to all. that Sectaries are as much, yea more obliged to solve it, than the Catholics. Thus I propose it. The last Resolution of faith, is made into this Obiective Truth. God has re●ealed the Incarnation (the like is of any other Divine Mystery) None knows Evidently the Mystery of the Trininity in itself. but the Revelation appears, and must appear Obscure to him that believes, For 'tis neither its own Selfe-Euidence, nor can be evidently applied by any other Medium, especially if the Motives of credibility, have not infallible connexion with the Divine Testimony. Thus much supposed, which none The ground of the difficulty. can deny, it follows, that the intellectual Faculty, when the Revelation is obscurely proposed, stands as it were hover, and cannot, for as much as yet appears, be more inclined to assent infallibl● then to descent. 2. If you Say ●●e Will after à full Sight of the Revelations credibility, can determine the understanding to assent su●er Omnia, or Infallibly, 'tis Answered, This seems impossible. First, because the Motives whereby the Object is made credible, can settle in us no other judgement, but This. God's Testimony and the thing attested by it, are most prudently thought to exist, or appear so highly credible, that it is the greatest folly, not to believe, But this judgement, you see, neither reaches to the Verity of the Revelation in itself, nor to the matter revealed, therefore Faith cannot as yet, be elicited. 3. Again. The will cannot move the understanding to assent The will Seems to help nothing in this particular. to an object, Sub ratione veri infallibilis, under the Notion of an infallible Truth, unless manifest reason first convinces the intellectual Power, that it Exists, and is infallible. But all the reasons preceding Faith, bring with them no such Conviction, for all are here supposed fallible, Therefore if the understanding yeild's an infallible Assent to that, which is not rationally convinced to be infallible, it proceeds temerariously, and doth more than it can do, for it goes beyond the limits of Prudence; saying. This is infallibly so, though it has no reason to judge it infallible. The force of what is now said, will best appear in this Syllogism. A Truth (though really à truth) Proposed The whole difficulty proposed in one Syllogism or represented, as obscure, cannot move the understanding to an infallible Assent, but the Divine Revelation is proposed and represented as an obscure truth, Ergo, it cannot move the understanding to an infallible Assent. 4. To Solve this pressing Argument many learned Divines ascribe, and Methinks most reasonably, so great an Evidence to the Motives of credibility, so strong à connexion between The judgement of learned Divines. them and the Divine Revelation, that it's impossible to separate what God has conjoined. Viz. The Truth of his Revelation, from the evident appearance, or rather the real Exhibition of so many glorious Miracles, so much blood shedding for Christ, so great Sanctity, Such innumerable conversions wrought upon Millions etc. These and the like Signal wonders, taken atlogether, God cannot permit to be done in his name, and with all their Circumstances to confirm à Faith which tends to no other end, but Holiness of life and everlasting happiness, unless the Divine Testimony were really in Being, as these Signs convince. Where in the force of Church▪ Motives lies. 5. To illustrate more this necessary Truth, be pleased to consider à little, wherein the weight of our Church Motives lies, and first behold them as they are Positives' Signs, Miracles, Sanctity, Conversions so positine, that neither jew nor Gentil can deny one of them. 2. Carry well in mind this negative Truth also. The want of Arguments to the Contrary. I would Say; Nothing like à rational Proof can be alleged against them, but what equally discredit's the admirable Wonders of Christ, and high Apostles. Add hereunto. 3. That no Society of men, be they Heathens, jews, or Heretics have hitherto shown or shall hereafter show Signs Comparable to these in confirmation of any doctrine apposite to that, which the Catholic Church teaches. God's exterior voice, net imitable by the Devil, or any false Prophet. 6. From what is here hinted at, and the Principles already laid, I Discourse farther. God can speak to creatures in à Language worthy himself, and so proper to his own great Majesty, that no false Prophet can forge, counterfeit, or perfectly imitate it. The Assertion seems manifest, For if his own Language be forgeable, or imitable by Enemies, It is impossible to judge by any Sign, whether he, or the Devil speaks. Nay, it follows clearly, that God Cannot speak at all in à Language worthy himself, or powerful enough to gain Belief, For if His voice be not distinguishable from that of an Enemy, How Shall men yield à surer Assent to God when He speaks, than to an Impostor that speaks like him? 7. Thus much supposed, these two things follow inevitably, Church Motives certainty Speak Something. and in right Order. First. Something is certainly signified by these Marks, and signal Motives manifest in the Church, and consequently they are either God's Voice, or the Devils: Take which you will. If God's own Voice (for etiam factis loquitur Deus, Saith S. Austin) it is so clear and discernible by itself from another cogging Gipsy Language, that all may know it proceeds from God: Or if this cannot be known it avails him not what follows, if the Language of the Motives be an illusion to speak, when the language he utters, cannot possibly be discerned to be his. Contrariwise, if you say The whole Aggregation of Motives are à mere illusory language of God's professed Enemies, you undo all, you destroy the Evidence of Christianity, you annul our Saviour's most glorious Miracles, and render the Apostles admirable wonders, not only insignificant, but contemptible to jews and Gentiles. Let therefore the man appear in public who dare boldly Assert. All the illustrious Motives and marks God either Speaks by them, or Christianity Perishes. of the Catholic Church (which as I said certainly signify something) are the Language of Devils, or false Prophets, when it is evident they induce to believe à Doctrine most Pious and sacred. If you Affirm, Christianity goes to wrack. Say no, or acknowledge such supernatural Signs to proceed from God, we have enough, the very Lustre of ithem so discountenances and abashes Heresy that it appears, as ●t truly is, in the highest measure improbable. 8. Hence we see ('tis the second inference, and the chiefest thing I aim at) an inseparable Connexion between these supernatural Signs, and the thing signified, I mean between the Motives and the Divine Revelation: For if it be certain, that such Signs The Connexion asserted follows: from hence. proceed from God (which is indubitable, unless either Devil or false Prophet fourge them) None can doubt, but that God's interior Revelation actually exists, as the Motives Morally Evident, do Convince. 9 You will Say, If the Motives have an Infallible Connexion with God's internal Revelation, that very Revelation, and Consequently the Mystery Revealed, must also appear evident Faith not Evident, though the Motives have an Essential Connexion. in Themselves, to all Believers, And so faith would be Evident. I deny the Consequence, because the Assent given to that Connexion, which implies the highest Moral certitude conceivable under the degree of most strict Evidence, is Science and not Faith, For it says no more but thus much. The Divine Revelation, not seen in itself, but only by the light of external Signs, is, by virtue of these Signs, made evidently Credible, Now this evidence, Faith, as Faith leaves, Or lays aside, And firmly adheres to the Divine Revelation only for itself, as Contradistinct both from the Moral Evidence of the Motives, and their apparent Connexion with the Revelation. 10. The reason is taken from the Notion of Faith, which essentially tends obscurely upon its own Object, as the most ancient Fathers assert, whose words, because known to Every one, I wave at present, and will only mind you of what some Protestants teach. Faith, Says one, and the Twilight seem to agree in this Properly, The nature and tandency of Faith. that à mixture of darkness is requisite to both; with too refulgent light, the one vanishes into knowledge, as the other into day. Thus much granted, 'tis clear, that no Evidence of the Testimony assented to, can move to Faith, not only because we should in the case of Evidence be necessitated to believe, But upon this account also, that the certitude of Faith, taken from the Supremest Verity, is of à higher Strain, and far surpasses all the certitude we find in Nature, or in the Motives inducing to believe: For were it possible, as it is not, that these Motives, and all the previous Proofs leading to Belief, could deceive, it is yet more impossible, that God's infinite The excellence of it surpasses all created Certitude. Veracity deceives any. Now by Faith, we lay hold upon this most Supreme, or, All-comprehending Infallibility proper to God alone, not communicable to any creature. And in this sense, Faith far transcends the Certitude of the forementioned Connexion, which is known to be Infallible by Natural Discourse only. 11. It is true, The more evident these Motives appear the better they induce to believe, yet for that reason have less to do with the very act of Faith, which as I said, rests upon, and lays claim to no lower à Verity than the most Pure and Supreme only, And if it rests not here, it is no Faith. I say, Supreme and Pure, and for this reason also, we exclude Faith relies upon the most pure and supreme Verity. the connexion between the Motives and Divine Revelation, from the Formal object of Faith, because the Connexion implies à Complexum, or Mixture of two things known Scientifically, and therefore is unmeet to ground Faith. One may reply. The exterior words of Scripture taken with the Divine Testimony are Objects of Faith, therefore these Motives assented to upon the same Testimony can, also terminate Faith, For we all believe The same thing known and believed that the Church is Holy and Universal. Answ. Very true, because the same thing can be S●itum & Creditum, both known and believed upon different Motives▪ known by the force of reason, which see's the Connexion between the One and the Other, and believed also upon pure Revelation. Thus we know the Existence of God by the works manifest in nature, and withal believe it upon his own sole word, or the Divine Testimony. 12. Upon these Principles we Answer to another Objection. To believe, Say some, is to trust God whom we believe, which How we trust God by Faith. is impossible, if his outward words, or exterior Signs be necessarily connexed with his interior speaking. For how can we trust, when an absolute Assurance, is had of his Testimony? Answ: This is done very easily, when the Assurance given is extrinsical to the Testimony, and far inferior to the Supereminent Infallibility of God that speaks. Now this Motive only, and no lesser certitude ground's supernatural Faith. In à word we trust, because we transcend all created Certitude and rely upon the most Supreme Verity, by an Obscure Assent of Faith. 13. Others, Object. 3. We suppose all this while, the Motives inducing to believe more persuasive and efficacious, then Church Motives proved efficatious. can be evinced by reason: For why may not God separate the exterior appearance of à Miracle from the reality of it, And So permit the Dive I to delude us all? I Answer. 1. This Criticism first reverses the most glorious Miracles which Christ ever wrought. I Answer. 2. Though the appearance and reality of à Miracle be separable, yet the evident Signs of Sanctity manifest in innumerable, The Evident Appearance of whole Nations converted to the Catholic Faith, are inseparably conjoined with the reality of interior Sanctity, and real interior conversions. All Collectively taken, most Convincing. Now in the weighing these Motives, One is not to be thought of singly, but pondered with the rest; Altogether indubitably evince, that God speaks by them: Or if you Still Deny, Say I beseech you, whose language they are? I Answer 3. The obsolute Power of God cannot permit (If He positively intends not to lead all into error) That à false Miracle be wrought and God cannot cheat any by à false Miracle. done in his name, to confirm à Doctrine suitable to his Goodness, and the increase of Holiness. In this Case therefore, The Miracle must b● real without guile and deceit, For were this cozenage possible, God could have ●o language proper to Himself, Contrary to what is already proved. Thus much premised. 14. We are to solve the Difficulty another way, perhaps The Difficulty solued another way more plain and easy, And therefore distinguish with Divines, à Twofold certitude in every act of Faith. The one (called the Certitude of Infallibility) arises from the supernatural Principles which concur to the very act of Belief, And these not liable to error, can never operate but when the Divine Revelation really is. This certitude may be had, though we no more experience or know it by any reflex Consideration, than One who is directly A twofold Infallibility explained. moved by the Holy Ghost to write à Truth, need's to know that he is divinely assisted; And it implies not only the mere Truth of the Act, but moreover an infallible Determination to truth; The other called, Certitudo adhaesionis: or à firm Adhesion belongs to the Believer, and is not grounded on Evidence, as it falls out in Science, but upon most prudent Motives proposed to Reason (which clearly discovered) the Will by her pious Affection commands, and determins the intellectual Faculty to Assent indubitably, The he art or will furthers our Assent. For, cord creditur ad lustitiam. Rom. 10. The Heart or Will can thus further and incline the mind to yield, when 'tis evident credible, that God speaks, and eternal Salvation depends upon an assent, which is given without fear or hesitation. 15. S. Bonaventure eminent for Sanctity and Learning. 3. Distinct. 23. art. 1. Quest. 4. speaks most pertinently and profoundly to my present purpose. Est certitudo speculationis, & est certitudo adhaesionis etc. There is, Saith he, à speculative certitude S. Bonaventure. and à certitude of adhesion, or of cleaning fast to what we believe. The first has respect to the intellectual power, the other to the pious Affection of the will. If we speak of this firm adhesion, it is Both clearly distinguishes and. far greater in faith, then in Science, because faith makes him that believes more certainly to adhere to the truth revealed, than Science doth, to any thing known. Hence we see, that men truly faithful, cannot by Arguments Torments, or enticements be inclined to deny in words à believed Verity, which r●●e in his wits will do for à thing he knows, unless it be upon this account that faith dictates, he is not to Lye. Stultus etiam esset Geometra etc. A Geometrician would be Explain's this twofold Infallibility. very unwise, who for any certain Conclusion would undergo death (as thousands have done for their faith). Whence it is that one truly Faithful, though highly learned in natural knowledge, would rather lose it all, then deny one only Article of Fa●th, so strong is his adhesion to truth believed. What this great Doctor Asserts, need's no Faith no Speculative operation. further Probation, For if it be certain (as all confess) that Faith is no speculative knowledge grounded purely upon Evidence, (discoverable in the Divine Revelation) it must of necessity be à practical Assent in order to the effects now mentioned, of suffering, and dying for Divine Revealed Truths, when occasion is offered: Now that such an Assent may be elicited upon Prudent Heretics without Motives, assent to fooleries. Motives has no difficulty, whilst we see condemned Heretics by mere pertinacy, so Stiffly fastened to their Errors without Motives▪ that it is very difficult to make à Divorce between Heresy, and their Phanfies. 16. One may object first. The understanding cannot practically Assent to à thing as indubitably true by any Command of the Will, when this Power is utterly unable to change the nature of Motives, or to make them appear otherwise then they are, That is, highly Probable, yet uncertain. I Answer (to omit What force the will hath. that Heretics without Motives, pertinaciously assent to mere fooleries) The Will can with another Help (whereof more presently) Supply the inefficacy of those intellectual Lights, which prudently evince this truth. It is evidently credible that God speaks by the Signs laid before me. God's peculiar Language, his Seal and Signature appear more clearly in these Evidences, t●an in any Prince's commission sent me, when I see his own Seal and Hand writing. O, but yet we have not Evidence of his Testimony. No thanks to thee poor Creature, to Assent, hadst thou Evidence. Know therefore His Majesty is too far above us all, to humour As reasonable Creatures, we are Obliged to submit such à Curiosity. As reasonable creatures we are obliged to submit our judgement to his, though it be not evident he Speaks, for this Duty the highest Power imaginable requires of us (who infinitely surpasses all created Excellence) That, upon à most credible Appearance of his speaking, when nothing makes the contrary probable, we yield an Assent answerable to his supreme Excellence, that is firm, certain, and Infallible. Who then dare stand trifling in so weighty an Affair as concerns Salvation? Or, who dare tell our glorious God? Lord, I find myself obliged to believe, And See great Sovereign the Signs and seals, Witnesses of your Speaking, Yet because all possibly may be counterfeited, I will, like one little Loath to yield, deal both warily and Sparingly with you; You shall have no other faith Upon à Credible appearance of God's Speaking. from me, but what is faint and meagar; In fine, à poor miserable and moral certain Assent. Is this think ye to proceed Nobly with God? No. If we believe, our faith ought to suit his great Worth and Dignity, or really we believe not at all. 17. From what is Said, Two things follow. 1. That our Security is greater whilst we believe God, induced by most prudent Motives, though we see not the Evidence of his Testimony, Than to believe the most evident Assertion of any man living, esteemed one of the very best Reputation. The reason is. If God speaks, I am certain he deceives not, And therefore Two Certainties compared together. cannot mistrust his Veracity, But If man speaks, whom I know liable to error and deceit, The main ground of Certainty fails, For though I hear his voice and have evidence of his words, yet neither give me absolute Assurance of Truth. 18. The Question therefore is? Whether I may not more prudently believe God who cannot deceive, though I want evidence of his Testimony, than to believe man, that by error or The difference, declared. mistake may deceive, when I have only Evidence of his outward words, which are separable from Truth? In the one case words, are evident▪ And I have with them some degree of moral certainty concerning Truth, In the other; I have infallible certainty of truth (If God speaks) and the highest moral Assurance imaginable of his speaking, before I believe. 19 It follows. 2. That Evidence in the formal Object assented to, is inconsistent with Faith, which implies à prudent, and withal à most infallible practical Assent in order to an Faith quite different from Science appretiative Esteem of the will, and those effects, mentioned by S. Bonaventure. Therefore it is of à quite different nature from Science, whose tendency is Speculative, and sees clearly the Object assented to. But I know some will yet require further Satisfaction in this hard matter. I shall endeavour to comply with their wish, in the next Chapter. CHAP. IX. The whole Progress of Faith explained in order to its last Resolution. Of that which the Fathers Call the light of Faith. It's wholly different from Sectaries Private Spirit. From whence Faith hath Infallible Certainty. Objections Solued. 1. FAith saith the Apostle. Rom. 10. 17. Comes by Hearing, Again. V 14. How shall they hear without à Preacher? Faith comes by hearing. But how shall they preach unless they be sent? All then must hear the Divine Verities and believe what they hear taught, by men lawfully sent to preach. Now because God has been pleased to speak by different Oracles, anciently by his Prophets, by Christ our Lord, his Apostles, and finally by the Church (all together make up but one School as it were of Divine learning) His One great Truth to be heard. whole endeavour ever was in all ages to have this truth Taught by these Oracles. viz. God is the Author of the Doctrines which all are obliged to believe, and to make thus much highly Credible, He never sent as I said above, Prophet, Apostle, or Christ himself to ●each, but jointly Authorised them to show the Royal Signs and Seals of his own Sovereignty, Miracles I mean, and other Supernatural wonders, whereby they were proved commissioned Oracles, to speak in the name of God. 2. To our present purpose therefore. None can believe, What necessarily proceds Faith. A natural proposition of the Mystery. with à Motive above the power of Nature. r●less he hear. Which is to Say: That Viâ ordinariâ before the Hearer elicites Supernatural faith, à natural Proposition of the Mystery revealed, necessarily precedes that Assent. Yet more. He that Teaches is not barely to Say. Unless you yield assent, you will be damned, But he must also propound some Motive of prudent credibility with the Mystery, which Motive, so far surpasses all the Power in nature, that it manifestly appears to be God's work, or his own unimitable language, as is already noted. 3. Besides it is not sufficient that the Preacher tell's us, God is the Author of his Doctrine, clearly confirmed by Miracles, but he is to make the Assertion morally certain either by working à Miracle Himself, as Christ and the Apostles did, or in want of that, to bring in strong Arguments and witnesses, whereby Moral evidence by witnesses. it may appear, such supernatural Wonders have been done, to confirm that God is the Author of his Doctrine. Now this Moral evidence by witnesses, is equivalent to the seeing of Miracles done before our eyes, which falls out in all evidence called Moral, For I am now no less assured by most credible witnesses that Cardinal Altieri was clected Pope of Rome, then if I had been present at his Election. After this natural Proposition made of any Divine Mystery, some apprehensions of its Verity (or credibility rather) easily follow in the Hearer, which also are natural. 4. Thus much done by the Preacher, One desirous to learn truth discourses, and perceives so great à Concern as Salvation The prudent judgement of Credibility. depends upon his believing the Mystery proposed, that at last, he is brought to this prudent judgement of credibility. God cannot deceive the world by such exterior Signs, as are here proposed by this Preacher, therefore I ought in prudence to yield my Assent, and believe. Now here enters another Principle; wholly necessary to make Faith certain, which may well be called the last hearing of God's Voice, or his powerful Invitation to believe with full certitude, and it consists in an interior illustration of Grace imparted God's powerful invitation to believe. to à soul, whereby the Object of Faith with its credibility, is represented another way, more clearly than before, yet so, that no Mystery is seen evidently. 5. Hereupon, the Will prevented with divine Grace begins to work by her Pious affection, after that previous judgement The will preveated by grace Commands, had of the Mysteries Credibility, and the interior Divine illustration, which is the last speaking of God to à Believer. The Will therefore affectioned to the Happiness propounded, moves the understanding to elicit most certain Faith, Super omnia. The The intellectual Faculty Obeys and believes. Understanding Obeys, and forthwith believes by an infallible Assent the truth of the Mystery, though not seen evidently. 6. Hence you see, This infallible Assent proceeds from à Twofold Voice of God. First from the Motives previous to Faith, whereby it's evidently credible that God speaks, though the The Twofold voice of God Motives were fallible; But the last Voice of his Divine illumination, which represents the Revelation more indubitably than mere Motives can do, takes all doubt away, And we come to an absolute certitude in Faith, upon this interior sacred language of God, called by the Fathers, Alta Doctrina, à high learning. Caelestis Doctrina, The Language of heaven, which opened Lydia's The last ● voice called high learning heart. Act. 16. 14. And made her to attend to such things as S. Paul delivered. And might I here speak à word in passing, I can avouch in all Christian Sincerity, rhat treating with many reconciled to our Catholic Faith, I have heard some Ssy (and it was à singular comfort to me) that such Miracles, so strange Conversions, as the Catholic Church has made, Her long Continuance, Maugre all attempts against Her; The eminent Sanctity Gives certainty to Faith of innumerable who profess her faith, appear to be Gods own glorious works; But besides these outward lights, which convince much, God (Said these) seems to Speak to our very hearts; and tell's us. Truth only is taught by this Oracle, and upon so clear conviction, we find ourselves obliged to believe. But as S. Austin profoundly observes. Lib. 1. de Praedest. Sanct. Cap. 8. Valde remota est à sensibus carnis haec Schola, in quâ Deus auditur & docet. The School where God is heard and teaches, is very remote from flesh and blood. 7. Answerable to what is here noted of God's interior voice by Illumination, the illuminated S. Austin. lib. 11. Confess. Cap. 3. S. Austin confirm's our Assertion. speaks most significantly, Where he desires to Hear and understand, How God in the beginning made Heaven and earth. Scripsit hoc Moses, Scripsit & aebijt &c. Moses wrote this, but he his gone from us. Now he is not before me, for if he were. I would hold him fast etc. And for your sake entreat him, to lay open these things. I would give good ear to his words. If he spoke in Hebrew, I could not understand him, but if Latin, I should know what he Said. But how should I know that he Speaks Truth? And if I knew so much, Truth inwardly teaches. should I know it from him? The Saint Answers. Intus utique mihi, intus in Domicilio Cogitationis etc. Inwardly, where my most secret thoughts dwell, Truth verily spoken not in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, or Certainty arises from that interior learning. any other babarous Language, without mouth or tongue, without à rustling noise of words, would tell use. Moses speaks Truth. Et ego statim certus, And I presently made certain (Mark whereupon his last certitude is grounded) would confidently Say to that blessed man. You speak truth. Thus S. Austin, who in the 8. Chap. now cited, calls this light à secret Grace, given by God to take away the hardness of hearts in Matters of belief. And his Doctrine Scripture Speaks fully this Sense. is consonant to these, and like Expressions of Holy Scripture. 2. Cor. 4. 6. He hath shined in our hearts, to the illumination of the knowledge of the Glory of God. Esa. 54. All shall be taught of God. Matth. 16. Flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father which is in Heaven. john. 1. 2. 27. His unction teaches all things. john. 6. 44. No man can come to me, unless the Father that sent me, draw him. john. 10. My sheep hear my Voice. etc. 8. From these and many other Passages, The most ancient Fathers, (especially S. Austin and our Venerable Bede) teach that none can Hear, and Assent to the exterior Proposition The Holy Father's Inferences. of the Divine Mysteries, unless at the same time the light of Grace work's interiorly, and proposes all after another way more efficaciously. Read S. Austin towards the end of this 8.th Chap. at those words. Cum ergo Euangelium praedicatur etc. Where he tell's you, when the Gospel is preached, some believe and others do not. Those, saith he who believe, when the Preachers outward words sound in their ears, Intus à patre audiunt & discunt, interiorly hear Gods own Voice and learn, what he teaches: Others, who believe not, Hear words Chief S. Austin●. spoken by the Preacher, but hear not that interior Divine Language, and therefore learn nothing. 9 Gant than first, That the Motives inducing to Faith were supposed fallible, because perhaps we have no reflex Evidence of their infallible Connexion with the Revelation. Grant also, that the exterior Proposition of Divine Mysteries, retain's Obscurity (which is true) yet this Secret, this persuasive illustration of Grace, (being as I said the last hearing of God's Voice) The illustration of grace supplies the Inefficacy of Motives, can on the one Side, supply the inefficacy of the Motives, And on the Other, so accomplish the Mysteries exterior Proposition, that it brings faith to its full certitude. Do then the Motives Shine less clearly, or leave Some Capacities, as it were, in à wavering condition? The illustration gives more light, and And adds more Clarity drives doubt away. Is the Divine Testimony, merely considered according to its outward proposal, obscure? The Illustration adds new clarity to it, and makes Faith most certain, yet still without Evidence. Et ego statim certus; And by virtue of this light, I say confidently with S. Austin, what I believe, is infallible true. 10. To Illustrate yet more this necessary Point (I speak to Catholics (Sectaries will not hear me). Read the Angelical Doctor. S. Thomas. 2. 2. quest. 2. a. 3. Where as his manner is, He object's. It is dangerous to give an assent to things when we know not, whether that which is Proposed be true or false, as it seems to fall out in matters of Faith. Ad. 2. he Answers. As man by his natural light Assent's to natural Principles, so the virtuous The Angelical Doctor's Doctrine, man by the Habit of Faith rightly judges of what belongs to that Virtue, And therefore, per lumen Fidei divinitus infusum, By the light of Faith divinely infused, he assents to the Mysteries. S. Vincentius Ferrerius also in his Sermon, upon the sunday within the Octave of the Epiphany, pondering our Saviour's Answers to the Doctor's Questions in the Temple, speaks to our S. Vincen●ius words, conformable. purpose and very significantly. Christ's words, Saith he, veniebant ad Cor Doctorum cum lumine, came to the hearts of those Doctors with light, and they Said. O verum dicit. The Child speaks Truth. Again. Christus loquebatur Divinâ virtute, Christ spoke with à Divine virtue, and all the Doctors understanding him, assented. Pro certo verum dicit. Most certainly he speaks truth. Thus. S. Vincentius. 11. The Principle whereon this Doctrine relies, All must admit. Viz. That an act of Faith is wrought in à Soul by Faith à work of the Holy Ghost. the operation of God's Spirit, and therefore the Holy Ghost must not be excluded from that work, which none can do but Herald Now what we Assert in this particular, is, that the infallible certainty of faith comes from this interior Illumination, as it more lively set's forth the formal Object assented to, or help's to à clearer Proposal of the Divine Mysteries. 12. And thus in à word we have the whole Progress of faith in this present State, explained. First, à natural Proposition of the Mysteries precedes: This begets à natural apprehension of their Credibility. After some consideration, there may arise an imperfect judgement of Credibility: But, should the W●ll offer as yet, to incline the mind to Assent only upon what appears hitherto, it could not move to à Faith which is an Assent Super Omnia, or most certain. Therefore The whole Procedure of Faith briefly laid forth. the illustration or powerful Invitation of Grace (by which, as I said, the Object appears another way and more clearly) is infused, whereof the soul is Recipient. The will now after other Preparatives, thus strengthened à new, commands boldly the understanding to Assent upon the safest Principles imaginable. Viz. Upon God's infallible Revelation accompanied with his own Divine light, which makes Faith to grow higher in certainty, than all the Reason or knowledge in this life, can arise to. For as S. Thomas observes, Humane knowledge derives its Certitude from Man's natural Reason, which may Err, but Faith has its infallibility, Ex lumine Divinae scientiae from the light of The efficacy of Divine Light. God's divine wisdom, which cannot deceive, and therefore is most certain. 13. Some may Oppose. In this Discourse of the Divine illustration, we seem to favour Heretics, who talk much of their light. It is à strange Objection, Saith F. Granado. Controu. 1. de Fide. Tract. 1. D. 5. Whilst all acknowledge this Light All Catholics Acknowledge this Light. to be, Gratia per Christum, à Supernatural grace purchased by our Saviour, which raises us above the force of natural Principles, and moves to believe most firmly, And the Motive is, the Divine Revelation itself, invested or appearing, in God's own Divine Illustration. To what is pleaded in behalf of Heretics, I Answer. Heretics talk every whit as much of their Faith, Heretics Claim to Faith and light, makes neither Divine. as of their Light. Do we therefore agree with them in faith, because they Say, theirs is as divine, as ours? No certainly. For the like sound of words, implies neither the same reality of things, nor any agreement at all. Why then should we favour the light they pretend to, which like their faith, is à mere illusion, and no more symbolizes with the Illustration of Catholics, than their faith doth with true Faith? 14. I ground my Assertion on these three Principles. S. Paul Saith first. No man can believe unless he here's, nor hear without à Preacher, Therefore in this present state of things, an exterior Humane Proposition of the Divine Revelation necessarily precedes the true light of Faith, and that light is The Pretended light of Heretics Proved an illusion. not given to believe, viâ ordinariâ, unless one authorised to Preach in God's name, Proposes the Revelation suitable to the natural way of hearing other Verities, by our senses, Imagination, and humane understanding, Otherwise, that would be possible which the Apostle makes impossible. Viz. To hear and believe without à Preacher. Now further none can be à fit Minister to propound the Revelation, but he that makes his Proposition good by à Miracle, or some supernatural wonder, otherwise à mere Impostor, may as well gain credit by Saying he speaks God's truths, as the very best of the Apostles. But no Protestant, is able to do thus much, none of them all can say with truth. God has revealed my particular Doctrine, First because none of them can propound their Doctrine, as warranted by Supernatural Signs. add Seal that very exterior Proposition with à Miracle, As every Preacher in the Catholic Church can do, Therefore the illustration he pleads for is mere Fancy, and nothing else. 15. Again, and here is my second Principle grounded also upon the Apostles words. How shall they Preach unless they be sent. Which is to say. He only is fit to Propose Gods Divine Revelation, who proves himself commissioned to Preach, by Supernatural Signs and indubitable Miracles, For thus Christ our Lord sent by his eternal Father, thus the Apostles sent by Christ, and the Church ever since (all showing Wonders above the force of Nature) proved their Mission; withal evinced, That God only empowered them to teach as they did. Now here is the main point we urge. Can the Protestant, 2. They have no Commission to teach. who certainly never yet wrought one indubitable Miracle to countenance his Doctrine, give in Evidence by some one or other Miraculous work, That an Oracle sent him to reach, He might speak more boldly, But this being impossible, The light he pretends to, is just like his doctrine, An Signis fatuus, vain and void of all reality. 16. 3. Our latter Protestants seem to attribute no other certainty to the very act of Faith, than what is moral, and necessarily consequent to à humane fallible Ratiocination, T' is much like to the Assent we elicit, when we say Caesar or Pompey 3. Their Faith being only moral and fallible, Cannot Proceed from the Holy Ghost. have been in the world. If this Doctrine be defensible, its impossible to declare, how either Faith itself, or the illustration previous, can proceed from the Holy Ghost: For did the Spirit of God work with à Soul, when it believes, The certainty of Faith, would without all doubt, go beyond that assurance which is only humane, moral, and fallible. Now we Say quite contrary, That Faith is an absolute Infallible supernatural Assent, whereby all aught to adhere to Mysteries most profound, or above all humane Reason, And consequently, we derive its certitude The Catholics faith most certain. from God's Infallible Revelation, invested in his own Divine light, and readily return him à double Obedience of our whole interior, of the Will, and Understanding together, and believe most undoubtedly. 17. One may Object. 2. As none can discern true Gold A harder Difficulty. from another metal very like it, unless there appears in the Objects some real Difference, so it is impossible to discern à true Revelation, from one merely apparent, or false, by any Divine light, unless there be an Obiective diversity or discernibility discoverable between them, which cannot be assigned. 18. This Objection (proposed by no Sectary) is to the Purpose. To solve it, I must remind you of that Solitary Man Commissioned Proposed by no Sectary. to preach, after his Vision had in à desert place, who goes abroad, tell's what he had heard and seen in his own natural Language, But gains not belief. He useth another Idiotism, Speaks in God's name, and as one sent from God ought to speak, That is, he evidences his Mission by supernatural Signs, work's Miracles, or proves them wrought in confirmation of his Doctrine: All now adore him as à Prophet, All believe. This Language some Divines rightly call an extrinsical Form of speech, which is Supernatural Quoad modum, because it contain's wonders done above the force of nature, and proceeds from the Faith of him that teaches, as also from the Belief of the whole Church besides. Please to observe. As man's natural speech, is apt to beget in à Hearer à natural knowledge of his internal Conception The language of God▪ whether exterior, or interior that speaks, and the thing spoken of, So this Supernatural Language is apt to beget in one well disposed, à Supernatural apprehension of his internal conception that speaks, and the Mystery likewise spoken of. Now because this exterior Language is God's proper Form of Speaking and most peculiar to himself, it carries with it Ex natura rei, it's own signature, it's own Discernibility, in so much that its distinguishable from all other Carries with it, it's own discernibility. ways of speaking which are false, or come not from the first Verity. And this peculiar mark of God's speaking, (very discoverable) the previous light of Faith perceives, as most different from all other counterfeited Languages. And thus you have the Obiective Diversity sought for, fully pointed at. 19 Hence you see first, That none can propose A false Mystery, for example, the Incarnation of the Holy Ghost, invested in all and every due Supernatural circumstance, requisite to believe Two Inferences deduced from this Doctrine. à revealed Truth. Something appertaining to God's exterior Language, and the natural previous Proposition, whereof we have now spoken (though both Miracles and Mission be falsely pretended) will ever be wanting. You see. 2. That when two Mysteries are propounded together, the one false, the other true, both in the same natural manner, neither of them contain's à sufficient proposal Inductive to supernatural Faith, nor can God according to ordinary Providence, give his Grace to believe in such Circumstances, whilst the Preacher abuses his function, and teaches things he was not sent to teach. CHAP. X The easiest way of resolving Faith, Laid forth in two Propositions. The evidence of Credibility further declared. Sectaries have no Evidence of Credibility. It is as evidently Credible that God now speaks by the Church, as that He did anciently Speak by the Prophets. 1. THe first Proposition. Faith which comes by exterior Hearing is resolved into the first Verity, speaking In to what faith is resolved? by one or more lawfully sent to preach, who prove their Mission, and make their Doctrine evidently credible, by Signs both prudent and supernatural. You have in this Assertion first, Faith's Formal Object (God's increated verity) Specified. You have. 2. the Appendants requisite to beget Faith briefly hinted at, whereof more presently. 2. If therefore any Ask why we believe this or that Divine Mystery; The Incarnation for example? Some Answer the One and the same Answer returned by All. belief is grounded upon unwritten, or Apostolical Tradition, Others upon the words of Scripture, others finally recur to the Churches infallible Testimony. All of them speak but one and the same thing, comprised in these few words. God Saith it, who cannot err, speaking by One or more, lawfully sent to Preach. 3. Inquire again. But from whence have we Assurance that God has said the Divine word was made flesh, for the Doctrine to us, is neither Evidently true, nor Evidently false? I Answer God Himself gives infallible Assurance hereof, And who can do that better than He? Here Faith precisely considered, as an Upon what Verity Faith finally relies? intellectual Assent, finally rests; In so much that if you multiply demands to the world's end, no other Answer can be returned but this only, Eternal Truth has said it, or reveals that he All further Answers impertinent, the Reason hereof. Speaks this Verity. All further Questions proposed and replies given, though different in sound are really Synonimal. The reason is, because the last Motive of Faith can have none before itself, for to run on in Infinitum with Motives and stop not where, is to make no Resolution at all. 4. I know à Heathen Philosopher may abuse the Sense of the An Objection Proposed in the name of à Heathen. Apostles words. 1. Cor. 1. 18. And say we now preach foolery indeed, Gentibus Stultitia. For what can be more devoid of reason, then to believe most infallibly, whilst the mind yet in darkness doth so, having by the very act of Faith no evidence why it believes Infallibly. I Propose this Objection in the name of à Heathen, for no Christian, whether Sectary or other, can use it, because Christian Doctrine teaches, that none can be saved without Faith, which as I now said, is neither Evidently true, nor Evidently false, ex Terminis, Therefore all that believe are inevitably cast upon à necessity of choosing à Doctrine whereby Salvation may be attained, though it be not like the first Principles in nature, it's own Self Evidence. 5. Now to satisfy the Heathen and quiet à mind too inquisitive after Evidence, both have what they ask, Evidence enough; It is neither meet for God to give, nor man to have evidence of the Mysteries. not of the Truth of the Mysteries in themselves, For as on the one side, it is not meet that Gods great Majesty should impart such an evidence (who I hope may keep the like distance from his Creatures, as Great Monarches do when they intimate their Commands by only showing the Seal and signs of Sovereignty to subjects) So on the other side, it is not fit that man have evidence of the Mysteries, because it is incompatible with à perfect Subjection, with that merit and Obsequiousness which The reason hereof. God requires of his rational Creatures, who are to walk to heaven by an humble and dutiful Faith, or shall never come thither. 6. And here by the way we may justly admire the Sauciness of some half Atheistical Spirits, who find themselves puzzled in the search of the most obvious things in nature (none of them can say how, or by what, one poor flies wing is knit together) yet will forsooth, have God to give Evidence of his own deep Secrets (the greatest Mysteries of grace) or Cannot believe. Experience teaches, how prompt and ready every good Subject is to obey his Prince, at the least beck, sign, or insinuation of his will, Though the Intimation carries not with it strick evidence, yet in this matter of man's Submission to God, when both his glory and our eternal Welfare are Concerned, innumerable stand hover and doubtful, Questioning whether God requires firm The perverness of Atheistical Spiricts. Faith from them, And why? Because an Evidence suitable to their fancy seems wanting. 7. Humour once such à Curiosity or give them à greater light of Evidence, the next thing required will be, that God interiorly teach all by Himself, without Church, Pastors, Doctors, or any. And if this serves not the turn, He must either please to open the Heavens at à call, and (once à year at least) visibly instruct them, or there is no drawing such Spirits, Evidence of Credibility enough. out of à state of Incredulity. I Say contrary, the Evidence of Credibility apparent in those manifest Signs and marks which illustrate true Christianity (à great mercy of God he gives so much of it) is abundantly sufficient to induce the most obdurate heart in the world to believe with such an Assent as suits God's great Majesty, that is, with à Faith most firm and Infallible. Observe an undeniable Evidence. 8. It is evident That ever since the first Plantation of Christianity, The Appearance and Credibility of true Christianity. there has been à Continued Succession of Pastors and Doctors, who taught the Belief of one God and one Saviour jesus Christ, with other Articles of the Catholic Faith. It is Evident, that innumerable Professors of this one belief, have been eminent in Learning, wisdom, Sanctity of life, and Contempt of the world. It is Evident, that the Predictions of Prophets uttered whole Ages before our Saviour preached, agree only to one Christian Society known the whole world over. The Universal extent of this great Moral Body is evident. Unity in Doctrine, Evident. Admirable Conversions wrought by this Church, are evident. undeniable and most glorious Miracles, Evident. The Courage, the Constancy, the profound Humility of Martyrs, and finally their bloodsheding, the last Testimony of loyalty (Authors worthy of credit number them to eleven Millions) are Evident. Here in few words, you have The Evidence, indisputable. before you no Romance, no Furb, no fraud, but most clear and indisputable Evidence. Now ponder first but seriously; And Ask whether God, after the sight of so many illustrions' Marks. Manifested to all, could permit, those Millions and Millions The impossibility of deception in this Evidence who loved truth, and hearty sought to serve no other, but the great God of truth To be deluded, with mere Fancies and fooleries? Were this possible, might we not all, charge plain Cozenage upon an Infinite Goodness, and most justly complain: Si error est quem Credidimus etc. If we believe an error, it is you great Sovereign, that has deceived us. 9 In the next place cast your thoughts and seriously also, upon all Sectaries pased and present since Christianity began. You will find (and here likewise we plead by Evidence) no Succession of Pastors lawfully sent to preach, no Conversions of Nations wrought by any. No eminent Sanctity, no Universal Sectaries utterly destitute of all Evidence of Credibility. extent of their Religion, no Unity in Doctrine, and which utterly ruins their Cause, nothing like à Miracle among them. How then dare these Novellists destitute of all outward appearances of Truth, or any thing like Evidence, go about to make their Religion credible by mere toys and trifles? These I call trifles. Here to snarl at à Pope, there at abuses in the Church. Now to fill Volumes with Criticisms, now to patch together à few broken Sentences of the ancient Fathers; That is in à word, to be everlastingly quarrelling, and never to Propose Sectaries new way of Arguing. so much as à probable Way how quarrel's may be ended. Can such trifles I Say (and here in brief you have the utmost Sectaries can do) extinguish the light, the Lustre, and Evident Credibility of God's own manifested Oracle? Let common reason judge in this case. Now we go on in the Analysis. 10. Having Said abready, We believe because God has This evidence explained, the Analysis, goes on Clearly. revealed the Incarnation, (the like is of any other Mystery) and being impossibilitated (if we stand within the formal Term's of Faith) to allege any further intellectual Motive of believing than this; The last of all. God has revealed, what I Assent to. It necessarilly follows, that every other Question relating to the Formal ob●ect of Faith ceases here. But if it be demanded, how the Understanding dares rest most firmly on an Object not evidently seen, we pass from that Power (without breaking off the Analysis) to the Will and Say, she can by her pious Affection command the intellectual Faculty to Captivated itself, in Obsequium fide●, and believe most undoubtedly. 11. Now if another Question ensue's. How the Will can bring the Intellect to so much Obsequiousness? The Answer The Power of the will Over the Understanding. Manifest impiety not to believe. is at hand. It doth so, because God has showed by all those most prudent and manifest Signs already laid forth to Reason, that He is the Author of the Doctrine we believe: In so much, that it is not only the highest imprudence imaginable to disbelieve, but Wickedness to do so, in à matter of such Consequence. I say Wickedness, for after à full sight had of the rational Motives inducing to Faith (seeing none can arrive to Evidence of the Mysteries) One of these three ways must be What reason forces upon Every one. followed. To believe nothing. To believe mere Fooleries: Or finally to believe à Doctrine which God has distinguished by Evident Marks and Signatures, from Heresy and falsehood. To believe nothing either is, or tends to Atheism, and that's Wickedness. To believe Fooleries, no wise man will hear of. Therefore all are bound to believe, and if so; Faith must be Evidently prudent and rational, I mean so manifested by supernatural Wonders, that reason is proved unreasonable in case it denies Assent. Now I Subsume. But these Supernatural Signs, One only Society of Christians Evidences, and it is no other but the Roman Catholic Church, Therefore she only proposes Faith One only Society Proposeth Faith which is rational. which is rational, and consequently obliges all to believe her Doctrine. 12. Hence you see that every one in the Choice of Religion, is to ponder in the first place, those weightly Arguments which make an Election prudent: And then it is prudent (not otherwise) when Signs from Heaven Gods own Marks, heighten What makes an Election Prudent? the Religion's Credibility so far above all other false and forged Sects, That these at the first full Sight, appear (as they are) horrid, ghastly, and contemptible. 13. If you will Discover more clearly, what I would have reflected on in this Particular. Be pleased to compare Heathenism, judaism, Turcism, and finally Aeresy with one glorious Roman Catholic Church. Speak plainly; Can you find in these any thing like the Miracles, the Conversions, the large Extent, the Unity and Sanctity of this one most Evidenced Oracle? I need not prove the Negative (You cannot) for its Demonstrable to sense. Heathenism and Heresy, are now things of Scorn the whole world over, judaism, 'tis true once had its No Society Comparable to the Roman Catholic Church, in this rational Evidence. Signs and Miracles, wherein it far surpassed Heresy (which never had, nor will have any like it). However, Christ's Illustrious Kingdom, his Church Militant, vastly surmounts that Ancient and now decayed Lustre of judaism. And thus much briefly of the Evidence of Credibility, which once had, Faith most firm easily follows, and without it, none can believe. 14. A second Proposition. Faith in this present State is resolved into the Authority of God; the first Verity speaking by the Church. This way of resolving Faith is both plain and easy, The Plainest resolution of Faith. and very suitable to the common Apprehension of every one, learned and unlearned, who if Questioned, why they believe any Divine Mystery, readily Answer. Sic docet Sancta mater Ecclesia. So our Holy Mother the Catholic Church teaches. And they Answer well, For the First Instrumental Principle where into Faith is resolved, must be so clear and Conspicuous à Rule, that all may easily learn the Doctrine delivered by it. 15. The Assertion is plainly laid forth. Deut. 30. V 11. The Assertion Proved by Scripture. The Commandment I command this day is not above thee, nor far off, nor situated in Heaven that thou maysed Say: Who of us is able to ascend into Heaven to bring it to us? That is. To know where true Faith is taught, we need not to weary ourselves with much Speculation, or expect that God in Heaven, lay open the sense of Scripture by Enthusianisms or any Private Revelation. Nor placed beyond the S●a that thou may'st pretend: which of us can pass over the sea and bring it to us. And hereby That endless Labour, that everlasting Inquisition Sectaries endless Labour. made after Truth, proper to Sectaries, seems rejected. Originals must be examined, Passages of Scripture compared, History sought into, Libraries turned over, Languages learned, Yea, and the very particular Mysteries of Divine Faith, must be weighed by humane Reason (and thus they descend into the Abyss of God's secrets) before they come to Satisfaction in Religion. All is toilsome, all dissatisfactory, all endless. A more short and easy way is at hand, For saith the Scripture. juxta est serm● valde, in ore tuo. The word is very near thee, in thy Mouth and in thy Heart to do it. And the Apostle. Rom. 10. 8. Applies this very Passage to the Word of our Christian Faith. Hence I argue. 16. But the Church is that first Instrumental Principle, The Church, is the first Instrumental Principle. and most easy Rule which teaches our Christian Verities, Scripture teaches them not so plainly, Therefore Faith may well be resolved into the first Verity speaking by the Church and whoever resolves it without all dependence of this living Oracle, put's the Conclusion before the Premises, as we shall see afterward. 17. I prove the first part of my Assertion. 1. It is as evidently credible that God speaks to all by the Church, as that he anciently spoke by the Prophets and Apostles, For we have the same supernatural Signs manifested in all these Oracles à The Churches Evident Credibility▪ parallel with that of the Apostles. like, as is largely shown above, and Consequently have with them the same Grounds of an Evident Credibility, But Evident Credibility; induced the Faithful to believe those manifested Prophets and Apostles, Ergo, the Churches Evident Credibility, every way Parallel, induces all in this present State to believe this Oracle. 2. God is equally infallible, Yea one and the A second reason same Verity, whether He speaks by one single Person or many, and must be heard with all profound Submission, Provided, that the Oracle He speaks by, be made immediately Credible A third, and by the lustre of Supernatural wonders, as most evidently the Church is. 3. The Church, Answerable to the Prophets and Apostles, is à Living Oracle, and upon that Account able to Solve all doubts which may occur in controverted Matters, but the Clarity of à living evidenced Oracle, ready to decide all such difficulties, makes the Rule of Faith easy, and much auails to à clear Resolution. 4. Our Analysis into God's Veracity Speaking fourth reason by the Church, Stands firm upon that first Principal and infallible Motive, the Divine Testimony itself, I call it Principal because the Church is only Instrumental as we now said, whereby God speaks: And this Resolution is made without any danger of à Process in Infinitum, or the least Shadow of à vicious Circle, as Shall presently appear by giving the last Analysis. 18. In the Interim, know thus much. To prove the second The other part of the Assertion it manifest. part of our Assertion. viz. That Scripture is not à Rule so perspicuous and clear in delivering the very Chief Articles of Faith, as the Church is in controverted Matters, were to prove à plain Evidence, For what can be more manifesed, then that we, and all Heretics pased and present, are at endless debates concerning the true Sense and meaning of those very words we read in Scripture? Yet the Ruel of Faith (Sectaries confess it) ought to be clear open and manifest to all. I wave all further discourse upon this Subject, and here adjoin our last Analysis. 19 One demands, why I believe that great Mystery of the Incarnation? I may well Answer first. God's own sacred The last Resolution given. Word, which we call Scripture Asserts it. The next Question will be, Why I believe this to be Scripture? I answer. The same God speaking by his own Oracle, the Church, affirms it. A third Question follows. Why do I believe that God speaks thus by the Church? I Answer the Ground of my Faith in All Demands answered. this particular, is God's own speaking and the very same with that he spoke by the Apostles. As therefore his Own word, uttered by those first great Masters, upheld the Primitive Faith, without any further ground, or Process in Infinitum, So his own Speaking Our resolution the same with that of the Primitive Christians. by this Oracle of the Church, upholds mine. And I can go no further; For the last formal Object of Faith, has none latter, That One word of Truth is enough to believe upon. Again, as those first pious Christians, had any moved à doubt concerning their Inducements to Faith, would have answered. The blind see. The lame walk, strange Miracles are wrought by ehese blessed men, And therefore we both must in Prudence, and will believe that God speaks by them; So I likewise bring to light the same Signal Motives Evident in the Church, and The Motives alike. Say, I both must, if prudence guides me, and Will believe that God speaks by this Oracle, known as well by Her Miracles and supernatural Signatures, as ever any Apostle was known. 20. And thus you see first, as I noted above, How we pass from the Formal Object of Faith (God's own Testimony proposed by the Church) to the Prudent Inducements of believing, whereupon the judgement of Credibility (not Faith it self) is ultimatly Why we believe? And how we prove by rational Motives grounded. Now these Inducements being laid forth to reason, The Will commands an absolute Assent, which rests upon God's word, spoken by this Oracle. You see. 2. All danger of à vicious Circle avoided in this way of resolving Faith. For when I believe that God speak▪ s by the Church, I resolve not the Belief of that Truth, into another antecedent Revelation taken from Scripture, yet wholly obscure, and no way so immediately Credible as the Church is, (for if I did so, a Process in Infinitum would necessarily follow) But I believe that word of Truth for itself immediately, and rest there, As the ancient Christians The word of truth believed for itself relied upon the very words spoken by the Apostles, without recurring to any former, or surer Revelation. If therefore those happy Believers made no vicious Circle in their Faith (having no t●o Propositions proving one another to make à Circle of) We in our belief are altogether as free, from that faulty Circular way, in our Resolution. It is true, All of us, if The primitive Motives, and ours, the same. Questioned about the Evidence of Credibility, most bring to light Motives inducing to Faith, They theirs; We ours; both are à like significant, both Supernatural, as is already explained. 21. You may gather. 3. out of what is here and formerly noted, how easy it is after à full Sight had of those signal The illustrious Signs apparent in the Church. Motives (and they more set forth the Church's Glory, than any Train of attendants can illustrate the greatest Monarch) That the first connatural Language which God speaks by the Church, is this general Truth. There only his Special Providence are God's own Voice. Directs and gou●rn's, where the illustrious Signs of his own Sovereignty manifest, That he teaches by à Voice peculiar to Himself. But these Signs most evidently, are seen in one only Society of Christians, the Roman Catholic Church, Therefore he teaches by this One only Oracle, And the necessary Lesson he will have all to learn is; That he has called all to one Communion what we learn by them. of Faith in one Church, Evidenced by Supernatural wonders. This fundamental Verity we believe, And it is the first Act of faith we elicit, Or, that Primigenial Assent which connaturally arises from God's own voice delivered to us by this Oracle, without depending on Scripture, if we make à right Analysis. This General truth once established, and none can rationally contradict it; We now proceed to solve à few Objections. CHAP. XI. Sectaries Ohiections solued. The fallible Agreement of all Concerning the Canon of Scripture, no Proof at all No universal Consent for the Sectaries Scripture, or the Sense of it. How the Church is both the Verity believed, and the Motive, why we believe. Other Difficulties Examined. 1. I Speak here of Sectaries Objections, knowing well, some Divines who make the Church's Proposition most infallible Sectaries Objections only, answered (and herein all Catholics agree) yet hold it insufficient to be the last Principle, Whereinto Faith is resolved: For say these, it is only à necessary Condition by virtue whereof the ancient Revelation is infallibly applied to us. In this Strife (purely Theological, and some what as, I think, de Nomine) I shall not long busy myself, being chief to attend to what Sectaries do, or can propose against our Doctrine. 2. The first Objection. If the Catholic after à prudent Consideration had of the known Motives already specified, can believe what ever the Church teaches, and Consequently resolve why Sectaries cannot resolve their Faith into Scriptures his faith into the Authority of God speaking by that Oracle: Why may not the Sectary as well upon this one judgement. viz. All acknowledge Scripture to be God's word, as easily believe, and resolve his faith into pure Scripture, independently of Church Authority? Answ. Such à Belief and Resolution is impossible, because as we said above, none can in this As Catholics Do into the Church? present State assent to this general Truth. Scripture is God's word, or believe so much as any Verity in it, if the Authority of an Infallible Church be rejected. To the pretended ground taken from the Consent of all Christians owning Scripture for God's word, I have partly answered. That consent alone induces not any to believe one revealed Article by an Infallible act of Faith, if those whole Consenting multitudes, be all supposed fallible. First, every one knows, the multitudes of Turks agree thus far, that their Alcoran is God's word, yet such an agreement though very Universal, induces no wise man to believe any Divinity in the Book, or to own its Doctrine as Divine, and sacred. 2. And this reason hinted at above is, more à Priori. 3. The Agreement of all Christians; is truly an effect of Faith, or rather of the Objects Credibility antecedently presupposed The agreement of all, Concerning Scripture is an effect, Credible upon other grounds, before men agreed so universally in that Christian truth: For this Causal is good, Therefore Christians agreed in that Truth, because it was previously made Credible upon other sound Motives: And not the contrary. It is credible; because all conspired in à Consent so universal. Wherefore, if very many, who now own Scripture to be Divine, should leave off to judge So, and reject the Book or any Part in it as fabulous, That would not diminish its ancient Credibility; And no more, Not the Original Proof of the Scriptures Credibility. Say I, would the Addition of any new Consenters, who now reject it (should, they agree with us) heighten one whit our Belief, or make the Truth we Assent to more Credible, than it was before. And this proves, That the Original Credibility of Scripture is not grounded upon any universal fallible Consent, but stands firm upon other stronger antecedent Motives. Nay it cannot Originally depend thereupon, Seing that Consent is an Effect of those other previous Motives, as S. Austin often cited, fully and most amply declares. Be it how will. 4. The greatest Difficulty yet remains, for if we inquire of The Sectarles Plea taken from any universal fallible Consent, is groundless. Sectaries, where we may find this common Consent, we have but à very slippery Foundation to stand upon? Because not only Heretics of old, denied the greatest part of Scripture, But, to come to cheese nearer times, the Machiavellians and Socinians also called Christians, hold many things in that Sacred Book so far above all humane reach, that they Say, it is unworthy God to require from any à firm belief of them. Add hereunto the multitudes of Heathens, jews and Turks, who imcomparably whole Multitudes against Sectaries. surpass Christians in number; All these, you know, unanimously reject our Scriptures. How then can the far lesser number of Witnesses agreeing in one consent Plead so much as probably against such multitudes of Opponents, If no other motive be alleged in behalf of the Scriptures Credibility, but only the Consent of few, against many. 5. But to silence all Sectaries hereafter, Who insist so much upon this universal Consent, we will here gratis suppose the Argument drawn from thence to be most convincing, Yet withal Assert, it so little advantages the pretences of Protestants, That Sectaries plainly Convinced. it utterly ruins their undefensible Cause. For where have these men, any universal Agreement of Christians for their Canon of Scripture? Where have they it in behalf of their jarring Opinions? Where for their Negative Articles? Where for their particular Sense of Scripture, which not only the Roman Catholic Church, but others also reject as false, ungrounded, and Heretical. If therefore this Common consent for the Bible Observe the Proofs. were more Universal than it is, it help's not Sectaries, whilsed their singular Opinions, their Canon and Sense, And in à word their whole Religion (as Protestancy) is so particular to Them selves, That the rest of Christians, ashamed to own it, will be no Partners with them. 6. And thus you see, where the Weakness of this whole Plea lies. They will have à universal Consent for the bare letter of Scripture; Let that be so. It's nothing to the purpose, if afterward, without any thing like à Universal agreement they misinterpret the Book, and make it speak what God never meant. But this is done, and I prove it upon an undeniable ground thus. The Book of Scripture misinterpreted Proves nothing. Whilst these men cannot name, or Design à Church reputed Orthodox five or six Ages since, which as universally maintained their new Doctrine, as She then owned the old letter of the Bible, They misinterpret the Book, And gain no more But Sectaries do So, and 'tis proved. by urging that universal Consent for the mere letter, than the Arians, ●r worst of Heretics gain. But to name such à Church for their Novelties is impossible, and consequently no less impossible, to resolve one Article of Protestancy into God's Divine Testimony, expressed in Scripture. 7. A 2. Objection. Christian's faith seems not resoluable into the Divine Testimony speaking by the Church, because How the Chutch is both the Truth belieaed. And the Motive also why we believe. the Church is Res credita, ot, the Material Object believed, Witness that Article of our Creed. I believe the Holy Catholic Church. Therefore it cannot be Ratio Credendi, or the Formal Object, which moves to believe. I Answer first. Sectaries must solve this Difficulty, For is not the very Doctrine contained in Scripture according to them, the Res Credita, or the Material Object believed. The Incarnation I hope, whereof we read in Scripture (the like may be said of every other Mystery) is the Truth believed with such à faith as they have. And the Sectaries must solve this difficulty very same Word of God, wherein thief Truths are contained, is also the Ratio Credendi, or Formal Object moving to believe. For demand why they Assent to the Incarnation? 'tis Answered, because God has revealed it in Scripture. No other Motive can be pretended. Therefore the same Scripture, differently considered, is both the Material Object, or Verity believed, and likewise the Formal, which moves to believe. And thus we Say, The Church's Proposition, Or rather God speaking by the Church, may well be the Truth believed, and à Motive also why we believe, wherein there is no Difficulty at all. Take here one Instance in known Philosophy which teaches, that light both terminates our Vision, and so considered, is the Material Object seen; withal, it moves By two Instances we ciear, what is asserted. the Power to see it, and upon that Account, is rightly called the Formal Object. In Acts of Faith you have the like Instance. For example. When the jews Assented to the ancient Prophets, uttering these words. Haec dicit Dominus etc. Our Lord speaks thus. They believed that God spoke by the mouth of those Prophets (it was one of the Materal objects Assented to by Faith) and they believed also for those Prophet's words (as God's own Voice) and had respect to them, as to à Formal object, Why they believed. 8. A 3. Objection. If the Church be the Primum Credibile, or the first Believable Oracle, whereby God speaks to all How, and in what Order we believe the truths Proposed by the Church? in this present State, We are to declare, how and in what order, those Truths are delivered by it, which all are obliged to believe: And this cannot be done without Confusion, and perhaps danger of à Circle also We have partly Answered above, where it is said, That as the Apostles after the Knowledge had of our Saviour's Miracles, believed first in à General way, He was the true Messiah; So we, in this present State, induced by all the Motives of Credibility already laid forth, believe first in General, That this Manifested Oracle is Christ's own Spouse, This general Assent first precedes. which infallibly teaches the right way to Salvation. And this truth we Assent to immediately upon the Church's Proposition, or rather upon God's Testimony speaking by the Church, without depending on Scripture; Just as the Apostles believed Christ our Lord to be the true Messiah, upon his own Testimony proved Credible by Miracles, and other Signal Wonders. Thus far there is no Confusion at all, nor any danger of à vicious Circle. Now further. This General truth admitted, we proceed to the Belief of other particular Verities proposed, and herein also follow the Apostles Steps and practice, who assented to every single Article which our Saviour delivered afterward, upon his own Word. Why therefore may not we also Afterward we descend to other particulars. believe every particular Article proposed by the Church, speaking in the name of God, If (which is already proved) the same God delivers Truth as well by this Oracle, as he did anciently by the Prophets and Apostles. No disparity can be given. 9 Hence I Say, whoever will make à full Proposition of Divine Faith, and give à Satisfactory Resolution thereof, must both Propose and Resolve it into God's Authority speaking by this one Signalised and evidenced Oracle. And here in few words is the ultimate reason of our Assertion. If we exclude the infallible Authority of an evidenced Church, neither the Canon of Scripture, nor any verity in it, nor its true sense, which Heretics deprave, can be admitted as God's infallible word. Therefore S. Austin Spoke most profoundly, where He The reason why faith must be resolved, into God's Testimony Speaking by the Church. professes: He would not believe the Gospel without Church Authority. Hence it follows, That though one might believe the Mystery of the Trinity, or the Incarnation, for the truths revealed in Scripture, yet if à further Question be moved concerning the Authenticalness of these very Scriptural Expressions, All, if they will finally resolve their Faith, must rely on God's Testimony speaking by the Church, and believe that very Doctrine to be Divine, because She own's it as Divine. 10. Thus we said. Chap. 20. n. 11. That the infallible Authority of the present Church consummates the ancient Revelation, which long since past and remote from us, cannot move to believe, unless Her Testimony conueys it to us, and in this sense compleat's it; And what way of believing or resolving Faith can be more easy, then to Say. I believe the This way of believing most easy. Incarnation, both because S. john wrote it, and because God speaking by the Church, saith he wrote it. These two Indivisibly taken may as well make up one total Motive of believing, as the Royal Prophet's Testimony, and. S. Peter's infallible declaration added to it. Act. 2. V 25. became one entire total Motive to those first believing Christians. I say Indivisibly; And The Church's Testimony not merely à Condition. therefore the Church's Testimony concurres not merely as an extrinsical condition previously assented to, but jointly terminates Faith together with the ancient Revelation, as shall be Presently declared. Herein also there is nothing like confusion, but the greatest Clarity, free from all danger of any vicious Circle. 11. A. 4. Objection. The Motives inducing to believe that God speaks by the Church, or that all are called to seek their Salvation in this one Evidenced Oracle, are Church Doctrines. For we all believe that the true Spouse of Christ is Holy, How the Motives inducing to believe united in Faith, universally spread the whole world over etc. Therefore they can no more rationally induce to believe, that first necessary Truth. Viz. All are called to one Communion of Faith, Than one Article of faith obscure in itself, rationally induce to believe another, wholly as obscure. We have Answered above. These Motives may be considered two ways. First, as they are evidently perceptible by sense, and so naturally they precede Faith, and induce to believe. 2. As attested Are Doctrine of the Church also. upon Gods own Authority speaking by the Church, And in this Sense they precede not Faith, but are Articles believed, wherein there is no Mystery at all, if, which is certain, The same thing can be both known and believed by different Assents, upon distinct Motives. A. 5. Objection. Scripture when newly written, and proposed by the Evangelists or Apostles to the Primitive Christians, In what sense Scripture was Complete to the Primitive believers. was to them so total, and complete à Formal Object to ground faith upon, that they needed no Authority of the Church to complete it more, Therefore it's still à full and perfect Motive of believing, in order to all this very. Age, independently of Church Authority. The Objection brings with it its own Solution, For if those Holy Writers of Scripture were Infallible (whereof no man doubts) and proposed all they wrote as God's Divine word, That very Proposition was fully as certain to them, as any Church Authority, whether past or present, can be to▪ us. Hence I say, though Scripture was then (That infallible Publication supposed) à full and complete Motive to ground faith upon, yet now it Cannot be so Qu●ad nos, or in order to Believers in this present State, without more, not because there is any want in Scripture, considered in itself, But upon another account that Circumstances are very Why not so now to us, without Church authority? different, and notably changed since those first days, For now we have neither Apostle nor Prophet at hand, to Testify or publish the Scriptures Divinity; The ancient signs of Credibility which adorned those first blessed men, and made Scripture most acceptable, are out of our sight; Therefore God's Church succeeds with her Lustre, and Supplies, as it were that want, or takes the place of those deceased Prophets and Apostles. 13. By what is here Said, you may easily understand the Two Terms, explicated. sense of those two Terms, Quoad se, and Quoad nos frequently used in this matter, though not free from Sectaries Cavils, Who say; Whatever is Quoad se, considered in itself à Formal Object, must be so in order to others, because it is à Relative, and cannot but have respect to our understanding. Answ. All this is true, after à full and infallible Proposition A Revelation may be in itself Divine. made of the Object; Otherwise most certainly à Revelation may be in itself both Divine and infallible, though it appears not so to all, for want of à due application to Believers. Again, It may be in some Circumstances à complete Motive to ground faith upon, and in another State cease to be so. Many Verities in Scripture, when first written and proposed by Apostolical men, were complete Objects of faith to the Primitive Christians, yet are not by virtue of that Proposition Thought it appears not so to all. now, so to us, Because They neither writ in this State, nor immediately Propose the truths contained in Scripture. Hence it is, that the Church, as we said, Supplies that defect, and compleat's by her Proposition those ancient Revelations, which issued from Christ and his Apostles. And for The Church's Testimony Clear. this reason Her Testimony, Quoad nos, is more clear, more known, and more immediately Credible, than Scripture can be. 14. 3. Difficulties may arise concerning the Scriptures Canon, and sense also, which none can decide but the Church only, and upon that Account, She is more Credible and more And necessary for other Reasons. immediately known to us, than the Scriptures abstruse Sense, which is very often remote from us, before God speaking by this Oracle, lays the truth open in clearer Terms. And what wonder is here? Whilst Sectaries confess, (to understand the true sense of God's word in matters most Fundamental) other Rules and means must be used. The Original Languages are to be examined, several Passages compared together, daily Reading and pondering the different places with much Prayer also, seem What Sectaries acknowledge. necessary. What is this to Say, but that their reading, pondering, and comparing, are in order to them, means and Rules more immediately known▪ then the hidden Sense of Scripture? Herein then lies the difference, that we in Lieu of their fallible reading recur to an Infallible Church, and Say her Testimony is more perspicuous, easy, and clear to us, than the dark Verities in Scripture are to them, after all their pondering and comparing. CHAP. XII. The last Objection Proposed: Whether the Church's Testimony may be called the Formal Object of Faith. Other Notes and Considerations, Concerning The Resolution of Faith. 1. A 6.th Objection. If God, (whereof no man doubts) once said in Scripture. The Word was made flesh, its needless to speak the same Truth again by the Church, Nay, this God has spoken the Same Verity by different Oracles. seems impossible, unless the Church's Testimony be properly the Formal Object of Faith. Answ. The first part of the Objection contains no difficulty, for it is certain God has spoken the same Verities by distinct and different Oracles, by different Evangelists, for example. And why cannot he as well speak them again, by an Evangelist and the Church? If the Church be absolutely infallible, for the Diversity of the Organs or Oracles He speaks by, diversifies not at all his Sacred word. 2. Now to what is hinted at concerning the formal Object. A question proposed. I Ask, whether this Assertion in Catholic Principles be not de Fide, and revealed by Almighty God? Every Doctrine proposed by the Church is true. The Catholic Answer's affirmatively, And here is one Verity, as an Instance for many. The Church is infallible, or cannot err. I Ask again, whether this very Proposition made by the Church, may not be believed upon Her own Authority, What som● Divines answer. by an Act of Divine Faith? Some Divines Answer negatively, and Discourse thus. The Assent given to the Authority or Proposition of the Church is not Faith, but rather an extrinsical disposition to Faith, So that by one Assent we first Say, The Church's Proposition is infallible, and afterward by à true Act of Faith, believe the Truth proposed by Her, upon God's pure Revelation contained in Scripture, or upon Apostolical Tradition. 3. Though this Discourse, which defends the Church's absolute Infallibility, gives no advantage to Sectaries, yet it seems Their Answer Seems difficult. difficult for two reasons chief. First, if à firm and infallible judgement terminated upon the Churches never erring Proposition, which fully declares Christ real Presence in the Eucharist, for example, Precedes the true belief of that Mystery grounded on Scripture, or Apostolical Tradition, That very faith as grounded on Scripture, would be à necessary obscure act generated by the Discourse, or inevitably inferred from the Connexion between the Churches infallible Proposition (not assented to by Faith) and the Divine Revelation in Scripture. The Inference is clear. For the Church Says infallibly, Christ is really present, And I Assent to that Truth, but by no Act of Faith (say these) Yet from thence I evidently infer. That He is really present, and this is done before I believe the Verity by Supernatural Faith. I think this cannot What is necessarily inferred upon that judgement. be granted. Some Answer that previous judgement is only à condition disposing to believe, and not the Cause or Motive why I believe. Contra. Call it cause, call it condition or what you please, by virtue of that judgement, I Assent to the truth of the Mystery in itself, and from thence must necessarily infer that God has revealed it, before I believe it by supernatural Faith. And this is to Discourse, not from the formal Object of Faith to the material (which may be probably defended) but from one Principle purely extrinsical to Faith. viz. The Church's Proposition obscurely known, to the Divine Testimony and the matter revealed. 4. A second Reason. God truly speaks by the Church which is as well known by its own lustre and Miracles to be à Divine Oracle, as ever Prophet or Apostle were known to be so, The Church immediately Credible. by their Signatures and Miracles. No Disparity can be given. But these Prophets and Apostles were made by their Marks and Wonders, immediately Credible, therefore the Church holds Parallel, and is also by itself and for itself immediately credible. And hence it follows, That the Church's Infallibility may, and must in à General way be believed, before we come to an infallible Belief of Scripture. For to Say, I must first believe by true Faith the Church's Infallibility upon Scripture, And to Say again, I cannot first believe that very Scripture to be Divine This way of believing, implex and intricate, or to speak truth, But upon the Church's Testimony, seems, if not impossible, at least à very implex, intricate and à difficult way of Believing. I say first believe, For none in this present state can know the Scriptures Divinity, without Church Authority. 5. For these and many other Reasons I Conclude, that this Proposition made by the Church. She is an Oracle teaching all The Church can ground an act of Divine Faith. truth whereby men may attain Salvation, is à sufficient Motive to ground an Act of Divine Faith upon? The learned Suarez, to omit many other Divines. Disp. 9 de Fid●. Sect. 9 n. 14. Speaks most profoundly, and pertinently to my purpose. Ipsa Ecclesia seipsam proponit ut veram, & quia &c. The Church proposes Herself as true, and because she is sufficiently and evidently proposed, therefore she obliges all to believe such à Verity, no less than other things appertaining Divines teach So. to Faith: Just after that manner, as à true Prophet who sufficiently proposes truths revealed to him by God, Consequently, Sufficiently proposes himself to be à true Prophet. Moreover. Disp. 3. de Fide Sect. 11. n. 11. Quod Ecclesia definite, Deus per Ecclesiam testificatur. What the Church Defines, God testifies the same Verity by the Church. Scripture accords Scripture is Consonant where the Church is called the Pillar and ground of truth. The Father's accord so universally that à Volume would not set forth their expressions. Take only these two in place of many. S. Cyril. in Conc. Ephes. Tom. 1. de Nicaenis Ancient Fathers Speak most significently. Patribus. They (the Fathers there) were inspired by the Holy Ghost ●ot to recede from Truth. Non enim i●si loquebantur etc. For they spoke ●●t (but Christ our Saviour witnessing) ●t was the Spirit of God and the Eternal Father that spa●e in them. S. Greg. Lib. 1. Regist Epist. 24▪ Is yet more significant, where he professes no less Reverence to the four General Councils, then to the four Evangelists. 6. Whoever read's these and the like Authorities cannot but Say, the Voice of the Church as it Proceeds from that Oracle, is the Voice of God, And therefore Divine, certain, and infallible, Or contrariwise must grant, it's only Humane, fallible, and may ●r. Speak so: And it follows first, that if the whole Church should err in the most essential Points of Faith, God would not be yet Said to deceive any, because his increated Authority Speaks not by it; nor is engaged to rescue this his own Spoufe from error. It follows. 2. If any one denied, either Purgatory, or Transubstantiation explicitly defined by the Church, and not so clearly expressed in Scripture, He would not be guilty of Heresy, though he perversely refused to believe these Articles, precisely upon this account, That the Church Defines them. The Inference is Reason also proves the Assertion. clear, for in doing so, He denies not God's Revelation, because the Church's Definitions (no Divine Testimony) are in à lower rank, and much inferior to all, that God has spoken. It follows. 3. We believe the Church's Definitions by à very different infused Habit from that, whereby we Assent to the Truths revealed in Scripture, and to find such à supernatural and Infallible Habit distinct from Faith, when we Assent to the Church's Definitions, seems to me à new learning, unknown to Antiquity. 7. Thus much and more well considered, which might be Said in behalf of Christ's glorious Oracle, And this one Principle added, which all Catholics grant. viz. That the Church and Scripture Speak always the same truths, and can never be at Variance, 8. Why may we not in this present State, resolve Divine Faith into the first Verity Speaking by the Scripture (or Infallible Faith may be resolved into Scripture and the Church together. Tradition) and by his own Oracle the Church also? For example We believe the Sacred Trinity, the Incarnation, Original Sin etc. because God revealed them in Scripture, or first conveyed them by Apostolical Tradition; But these Verities which the Apostles and Evangelists long since made Credible, are now remote from us without the Church's refl●x Testimony, whereby God ascertain's all in this State, that both Scripture is Divine, The reason. and that his Church speaks the very same Verities in Scripture, And consequently we Assent to every particular upon à Twofold Motive or rather, upon this one Formal Object, jointly, and indivisibly Scripture and the Church make but one joint indivisible Motive taken, because Scripture and the Church Assert's them. Neither is there the least Difficulty in joining one reflex Testimony with another former, or anciently delivered, whereof we have examples in Holy Writ, For we all believe, God made à Covenant with Abraham of multiplying his Seed, because Eternal Truth said so some Ages before Moses. Again, we believe that Verity, because the reflex Testimony of Moses reiterat's the same Verity, anciently spoken to Abraham. Gen. 17. 4. An instance Other Instances of the same nature you have above, and more are found in Holy Writ. 9 Thus much supposed, It's (Methinks) easy to Say (if all be not de Nomine) how the Church's Testimony may in one Sense be called the Formal Object of Faith, and not in another. Consider it as Divine, infallible, and God's own Voice, proceeding from no humane Authority, but from the First Verity speaking by How the Church yeild's to Scripture? this Oracle, it well merit's the name of à Formal Object. Compare it again with the Primary Revelation, which it only compleat's in order to us, and consequently presupposes more Ancient, more excellent, and all things considered more worthy, it must yield to Scripture, And may be called an intrinsical condition, whilst it Declares what anciently was Revealed. 10. Now if any Ask wherein the Excellence and Dignity of Scripture consists, when you compare it with the Church's Definitions? Divines answer. 1. Every word and reason in Holy writ is de Fide, but not so, in the Church's Definitions, where the Sense only of the Definitive sentence has weight, as coming from the Holy Ghost's Assistance. 2. The Church The excellence and dignity of Scripture▪ has her limits, and Defines nothing but what was long since revealed or necessarily connexed with the ancient Doctrine, And upon this account the Hagiogrophers are deservedly called our first great Teachers, who made first every Truth they wrote à matter of Faith. 3. When she Church Defines or interpret's Compared with the Church. Gods word, All is done for Scripture, and looked upon as the end of Her labours. But what is performed for another, yeild's in worth and weight to that other it is done for, as S. Austin observes. Lib. de Magist. c. 9 Whoever desires more of this Subject may read Bellar. Lib. 1. de verbo Dei C. 15. and Serrarius, in Proleg. 6. 7. 9 12. 11. To solve other difficulties proposed by Sectaries, please to Note first. This Primary Act of Faith. All are called into the Communion of one infallible Church, whereby God teaches the true way to Salvation, is grounded immediately upon the Authority One Primary act of Faith, is grounded on Church Authority. of this Oracle, manifested by her Marks and Supernatural Signs, Although yet the Book of Scripture be not admitted as God's word; Notwithstanding, when it is once owned as Divine upon Church Authority, I can believe this Oracle's Infallibility, with another Act of Faith grounded on Scripture, How Scripture also terminates that Faith? yet if we make à search into the ultimate Principle, or final Resoluent of that very Belief, We must as is said above, come at last to Church Authority, whereby Assurance is given, that such à truth is Scripture. 12. Note. 2. This General truth supposed of the Church being immediately Credibl●, or known by her Motives as an Oracle, which teaches the right way to Salvation, it therefore follows not, that every other particular Verity (for example) the ●●pes Supremacy, the Infallibility of Councils &c.) can in like manner be first and immediately Credible, or believed explicitly, when I Assent to that General Truth, For it is enough that such Particulars, be consequently, or, afterward assented to, upon the Divine Revelation in Scripture and the Churches own Proposition, as is already declared. 13. The Reason is, because the Marks and Motives manifest in the Church immediately induce to believe, that She is How other particular Truths are believed afterward. God's Oracle, constituted by Providence to guide all in the way of Truth, But how or in what manner this Duty is complied with, must be learned by the Practice and Doctrine of the same Church, by Scripture, and Tradition also. Now that it is most Connatural to know first in à General way, The Church's Infallibility, before we descend to believe every Doctrine She teaches in Particular, you may well conceive by the Instance given above of the blessed Apostles, who first acknowledged Christ our Lord, as à true Prophet sent from God, before they believed many other Verities, which afterward were taught by that great Master, and learned by them. 14. Note. 3. In the Resolution of Faith into Church Authority, we understand not in the first place the Church Representative▪ We understand by the Church, the wh●le moral body of christians united in one Faith. What the Belief of Councils presupposeth? consisting of the Head and Members convened in General Councils, but rather this whole large diffused Body of Christians united in one Belief all over the world, Wherein the way to Salvation is laid forth to all. The Reason of my assertion is, first. Because that more explicit and distinct Faith had of General Councils, Connaturally, as we now said, presupposes the other General Truth assented to. Viz. This manifested Society of Christians is God's Church, and the only way to Salvation, and the truth is assented to by Faith, antecedently to the belief of the Church's Representatives. 2. Because all Catholics asfert, that the whole Moral Catholic Body consisting The promises in Scripture belong Properly to the universal Church. of Pastors and Hearers, cannot totally err, or Swerve from Christ's Sacred Doctrine: Whence it is, That those Promises of the Gospel. Hell gates cannot prevail against the Church. The Spirit of truth abides with it for ever, most Properly and Primarily belong to this one diffused, and united Society of christians, To the Pastors as Teachers, to the Hearers as Scholars or Lear●ers, And if the First (according to Christ's promise) teach infallibly, the instructed must learn also infallibly, And thus the whole Moral body guided and directed by the Spirit of Truth, is that strong Fortress whereupon all must rely at last, if à ●ight account be given of Faith, or the true Analysis be made. Neither can what is now said, Prejudice in the least the infallible Authority of the Church Teaching (I mean of the Pope and Council assembled together) for this notwithstanding, is most properly called the Church, has and holds the keys whilst it vnlock's the Mysteries of Faith, and lays open Explicitly A lawful Representative, properly the Church also our Christian Verities. Children teach not, Layicks teach not, women teach not, Therefore the Church Representative properly teaches, although it be not first known, viâ Analyticâ, that is, when faith is brought to its last Principles. 15. Note. 4. When Sectaries demand, where doth the Church taken universally as one diffused Body, teach, that She is Infallible, or, that She deliuer's Gods truths, Whilst yet, neither Scripture nor Councils which teach so, are reflected upon, or known in All Oracles sent by God to teach, were first made Credible by Motives, that Priority of nature, when we believe that great Moral Body is an infallible Oracle. If this I Say be demanded, I Answer by proposing à like Question. Where did Moses, where did the Prophets, or Apostles explicitly and signally Say at their first Appearance. We are Infallible, we are the sure Rule of Faith, and because we say it, you Hearers are obliged to believe. Not à word to this Purpose. What then was done? God Honoured And so the Church was, and i● yet. and privileged such Persons with Miracles and other visible supernatural Wonders; These Evidenced, They actually taught the truth, and were credited upon their Teaching, not because they Said in Actu Signato, They taught it; but because really they did so in Actu exercito, and confirmed all by Signs from Heaven, And thus the Church teaches to this present Day, and gain Belief. CHAP. XIII. Protestants have no Faith to resolve, And upon that account are freed from à vicious Circle. Some yet are in à Circle. Two Sorts of Sectaries refuted. 1. I Prove the first part of the Assertion. The Protestants supposed Faith, is either reduced to the Belief What the supposed Faith of Protestants, is? of their own Negative Articles, No Transubstantiation, No Sacrifice of the Altar. No Purgatory etc. Or, to à Faith common to all called Christians, which consists in believing One God, and one jesus Christ, as à Redeemer. This, or something like it, must be called Faith common to all, For to believe the Sacred Trinity, the Incarnation, with other great Mysteries, is no common Faith, because many deny these Articles. Now my Assertion is. What ever can be conceived out of the The Object of this Faith must either be their Negatives, List of these Negatives, or is not involved in that Common Faith, ceaseth to be an Article of Protestancy, as Protestancy. For example. To believe one God, is à Tenet common to jews, Turks, and Christians, That's no Article peculiar to Protestants. To believe the Sacred Trinity, and the Incarnation, is common to Catholics, Protestants, and other Heteredox Christians, therefore no singular, no Special Protestant Doctrine. Besides these, imagine whatever can be Imagined, you must either Or à Doctrine▪ Common to all Christians. pitch upon things which not Christian has obligation to believe, or finally, upon such Doctrines as Catholics own, and are disowned by Protestants. 2. Thus much Supposed, it is demonstrable, That the Protestant has not Faith to resolve, who first doth himself so Their Negatives no revealed Verities. much justice as to Cashier all his own Negative Articles from being truths spoken by Almighty God, which therefore are not resoluable into the Divine Testimony, because God never revealed any of them. Again, his Articles common to all Christians without more, cannot be resolved into Divine Revelation, unless, he first excludes with the Arians, The belief of The Trinity and Incarnation, as not necessary to Salvation, And afterwards proves by plain Scripture, or the Authority of an Orthodox Church, that such an Abstract Doctrine wherein Catholics, and all Heretics agree, is sufficient to save Souls. But to Evince either, by Scripture or any Church Authority, will be wholly as impossible, as to prove, that the Negative Articles are Doctrines revealed by God. 3. Upon these grounds my Proposition stands so firm, that none can contradict it. For, if whatever they do or can believe A Doctrine Common to all as Unsound, a● their Negatives. as Protestants, be evidently such Doctrines as God never revealed, it's manifest they have no Faith to resolve, and consequently are easily freed from all danger of à vicious Circle; But this is so, For cast away Their Negatives, All that remains as matter of Belief to them, can be no other but the Common faith now mentioned; Or, if they require more as necessary to Salvation, That More will either be Confessedly no Their particular Doctrines not revealed Truths. Doctrine revealed by God, Or not peculiar to Protestants. For example. Suppose the Protestant lays Claim to these two Articles: Scripture Contain's all things necessary to Salvation. Or thus. What Scripture speaks plainly is the Protestants Doctrine, and no mor●. I say first. Neither of these Articles are Confessedly truths revealed by God, And this I assert, not only because The Roman Catholic Church denies them to be truths, in the Sectaries sense, But upon this Account Chief, that it is impossible, to Show, where or in what passage of Holy Writ, God ever said plainly. Scripture Contain's All things necessary to salvation: Or that such Doctrines as are plainty expressed there (without more) Comprehend Matter enough to Salvation. This cannot pass for an indubitable Principle, whilst evident Experience tell's us, That What Sectaries accounted clear Veritios, Others do no● such Verities as Sectaries hold clear and indisputable, are yet to this day Controverted, and not esteemed clear by many▪ who go under the name of Christians. Observe well. 4. What Verity can be more clear, than the Incarnation of the Eternal word? Yet Arians deny it. What more clear, than the real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Yet the Caluinists reject it. Therefore when we Come to Examine, which Verities are clearly expressed in Scripture and which not; we are thrown into à Labyrinth, whilst no other judge is made use of but the bare words of Scripture, manifestly perverted, when Opposite to the Interpretation of à Universal Church. 5. But here is my least Exception. We will Contrary to truth, grant gratis, That Scripture Contain's all things necessarily to Salvation; Withal, that the plain Doctrine thereof, is matter enough Sectaries clearly convinced by their own Principles. for Belief. The Sectary yet gain Nothing, unless He descend's to the Particular Tenets of Protestants (Mark my words) And truly Assert's. These and these Doctrines are plainly set down in Scripture. These, and these Doctrines I am (as Protestant) Obliged to believe under pain of Damnation, and no more. Thus much I say aught to be done, which is utterly Impossible, And the Reason is. Either those Doctrines laid claim to, will not be plain express Scripture; Or, if plain and express, they cease eo ipso to be the particular Tenants of Protestants. The last reason of all, rests upon à Truth already proved, and 'tis, That Protestants have no Essence of Religion, and therefore have no Faith to resolve. 6. In passing, you may Ask. What Say we to such Protestants, as make the Negatives now mentioned, Articles of their Faith? These we dispatch in à word, and urge them to prove their Negatives by Scripture, which is impossible. But what is to be done, if they Pretend to believe the Catholic Doctrines (the Trinity, the Incarnation, or any other revealed Mystery) upon God's divine Testimony? 7. Here we must distinguish between Protestants and Protestants. Two sorts of Protestants refuted. The older sort believe the Scriptures Divinity attesting the Incarnation, For example, by virtue of à secret and hidden Divine Spirit of God working in their hearts, this being the only light or means, whereby that Divinity is laid open to their intellectual The Private Spirited men, plainly in à Circle. Eyes. These inevitably fall into à Circle, for they prove Scripture to be of Divine inspiration, because the Spirit tell's them so, And again they believe this interior light or Spirit to be from God, mon thereunto by the very light or letter of Scripture, not known at all to be Divine, but by this hidden Spirit, which is as much unknown as Scripture, without their light. But because the recourse to the Private Spirit in the Resolution of Faith, is amply refuted by every Polemic Author, And now much underualued by our latter Sectaries, I'll only briefly Propose one Argument against all that Patronise it. 8. Either this Spirit is Scripture, or really distinct from A Convincing Argument against the Private Spirit. Scripture. Grant the first. Scripture; no Self evidence, is yet believed for itself only, and so no more is Said, but that Scripture is believed because 'tis Scripture, without all further Probation. If secondly you distinguish this Spirit or light from Scripture, it follows that the Divinity of God's word is Assented To, and believed Upon à Motive, which is not God's word, For this supposed Light of the Spirit, not at all contained in Scripture, is no revealed word of God, and consequently Scripture is believed, for That, which is no Scripture. 9 The newer Sectaries with whom Mr Stillingfleet Sides, suppose à fallible Tradition, as à Preparative to receive the mere Books of Scripture, which once owned upon the account Other resolve Faith into the internal Evidence of Scripture. of Tradition, The Resolution of their Faith is made into the Divine Light, which Shines in the very Doctrine of God's word, That is, into the rational Evidence thereof. So▪ Mr. Stilling. P. 226. And P. 222. Discourses thus. Though Tradition doth not open our Eyes to see this light, yet it presents the Object to us to be seen, and that in an unquestionable manner. To give his Doctrine Tradition, Say these, Conueyes the Book, more Lustre, he set's it forth with the sparkling of à Diamond. Nay not à man, Saith he, very probably believe that à Diamond is sent hi● foom à friend, upon the Testimony of à Messenger who brings it, and yet be firmly persuaded of it, by discerning the Sparklings of it? He He would Say, Tradition resembles the Messenger that hand's Scripture to us, but the very innate Splendour and Sparkling of its Doctrine is that, which Faith must be finally resolved into, without regard had to Tradition. 10. This way of resolving Faith differs from the Former, that it makes the pure Verity of God's word considered Obiectively in itself, the last Resoluent, or the only Formal Object of believing, How these men differ from the Formar. whereas the more aged Protestants superadd to that, an internal vital act, called the Private Spirit, or an infused instrinct of Grace, whereby the Scripture is clearly discerned to be Divine, and into this Instinct, as à Medium Cognitum, or the only means to see by (which both discouer's the Scriptures Divinity and its sense) they resolve their Faith. This way being already rejected. 11. We now Argue against Mr Stillingfleet, and Say first. The similitude of à Messenger delivering the Diamond is nothing The Similitude of à Diamond, Proofles to the Purpose, For were that Diamond found in the streets, à skilful jeweller (And who more skilful than Protestants, when they read Scripture) would soon know its worth by his Art, and presently tell you, whether the sparkling were Counterfeit or no. Can the Sectary, as easily discover the Divinity in Scripture by its innate Light and Splendour? Speak plainly. If The Disparity plain, between the Diamond and Scripture he can, Tradition no more conduces to its Sparkling, then if à Boy first put the Book into our hands, or were found by chance in the Highway, For as the Diamond Sparkles by itself, without dependence of the hand which gives it, so the Scripture must do, if it have that splendour in it, whether Conveyed by Tradition, or not. Nay, if another Scripture were now dropped down from Heaven (were the Parity of the Diamond worth any thing) All skilful and well spirited Protestants might without any Tradition, know it to be God's word. This double resolution Supposed, 12. Yet more. Our Adversaries maintain à twofold Resolution of Faith. First into the Books of Scripture, and these Books, fallible Tradition without any Divine light seen as yet, Conueyes to us, For Tradition, as they say, is not Divine. 2. ●to the internal light of the Doctrine contained in the Books, And into this light of Doctrine they Resolve their Faith, not ●to Tradition. 13. Now here you shall have an unanswerable Dilemma. The Tradition which only Conueyes the Books, as Contradistinct from the internal Doctrine, makes that very Divine Doctrine to sparkle we Argue against Sectaries more, than it would sparkle without Tradition; Or not. If ●ot: The light, the Splendour the internal Lustre of that Doctrine, Considered as Doctrine, is, and must be independent of Tradition, and Shine as I now said by itself as à Diamond doth, though the Books were found in the Streets. Contrariwise, if the Tradition of the Books Augments in the least, or makes the internal Doctrine there contained to appear more Divine, than it would appear without Tradition; That very Tradition must be à joint Motive, whereupon we believe the Divinity of Scripture. I prove it demonstratively. That ●hich lays before the intellectual Eye of à Believer, the Lustre, light, and Sparkling of the internal Doctrine contained in Scripture, is the true cause, or à Partial Motive at least, The force of the Argument. why He believes that Doctrine, Tradition doth this, Ergo it is à Partial Motive why he believes the Doctrine, Or if it ●ail's not at all to discover that Lustre of the Doctrine, the precious Diamond of Scripture, may be well discovered and known without Tradition. I would willingly hear what our Adversary's can reply to this very plain, and as I think, no trivial Objection, without reminding us of their kill flies. 14. To Say more in this place is needles, having proved in the other Treatise that the Majesty and sparkling of Scripture, what the true Majesty of Scripture is. lies not in the exterior Syntax, or in any outward Connexion of words (common to other pious Books) But Contrariwise, in the Special Assistance wherewith God directed the Hagiographers to write, as also in his own Divine Volition which Sealed and approved all that's Writ, as Verities issuing from no other fountain, but from Truth itself. Herein consists the Dignity, worth, and Majesty of Holy Scripture. 15. Now because that Divine Assistance and God's internal Volition, whereby Scripture is approved as most sacred are no Objects of sense; It necessarily follows, that none can discover The true Excellence, not discoverable by our exterior Sonses, the true Excellence of that Holy Book by any Inspection, though most diligently made, into the Syntax or outward words of it only. Hence I said, Had. S. john not at all recorded that truth in his Gospel. The word is made flesh, bu● some other without Divine Assistance, had left the Verity written in Velume, The words and Truth also would have been the very same, now and then, yet very different in their value, if Considered, as Proceeding from the Spirit of truth in the one case, and from no Divine Assistance in the other. 16. By this its plain, that the Majesty of Scripture lies not in any expression of outward words. However admit gratis it did, doth that Majesty think ye, help any to understand its Though the Majesty of Scripture lay in the words. true Sense in Matters controverted? Evidently no. For manifest experience teaches that whole Multitudes of dissenting Christians, both read and Reverence the same bare letter, Yea, and have the same Majesty of words laid open to their view, yet so notoriously oppose one another, and in Points most fundamental concerning the genuine Sense thereof, that plain contradictions That would not avail to understand the Sense. are forced out of this sacred Book, after their Reading. But enough of this is said above; And much more you have of Mr Stillingfleets strange way of Resoiving the Protestants faith, in the other Treatise. Discourse. 1. C. 9 Where you may see that Protestancy is never meddled with, nor brought to any better Resolution by him, than Arianism or à worse Heresy. Yet I Say, he took the right Course, for in real Truth, Protestants have no Faith to resolve, which truth will better appear in the following Chapter where we examine, whether true Religion Can be found out by Reason. CHAP. XIV. The Mistakes of some Sectaries in this Controversy. It's necessary to distinguish between true Reason, and fallacious Reasoning. Private Reason liable to Error. Principles presupposed to the Decision of this Question. Reason easily finds out true Religion, by à rational Evidence previous to Faith. 1. SOme who endeavour to make à Friendly Agreement The Attempt of some Sectaries, between Reason and Religion, wholly omit to discuss the mainest point of all, which concerns Christianity. And 'tis in à word to tell us, whether amongst those innumerable Religions now swarming in the world, (whereof certainly many are false, and Only is true) men by the force of prudent who Omit the main Business concerning Religion Reason, can come to the Knowledge of the true One. This is the Vnum nec●ssarium worth our knowledge indeed: For, what avails it to hear of an Agreement between Reason and Religion, if I cannot by the light of Reason find out that Religionwhich God hath established? It would be but à comfortless Word should One Say. Sir, There is à rich Inheritance in the world belonging to you, but neither you, nor I, nor any other after all diligence used, can tell you where, or what it is. 2. This, and it is à grand Omission, may be well grounded The ground of their Omission. on another error, these Authors Maintain, who first make, à Religion according to their own Fancy, and then offer to Show the Reasonableness of it; Whereas All justly expect to have at least in à General way, some Hint of that full Doctrine which Christian Religion comprises, before we Cry it up as reasonable, or yield our Assent to it. Thus much neither is, nor can be done by any Sectary; And mark how we are left dissatisfyed. 3. After some general Duties pointed at, which belong to Their Distinction of Fundamentals and others, improbable, natural Religion, we hear of à Distinction between the Fundamentals of Faith, and Others. Then we are told, that All the Fundamentals, are contained in the Apostles Creed, And that, if we go beyond the Creed for the Essentials of Faith, none can Say, where we shall stop. Answ. Sir, you are told in this Treatise where the stop is to be made, And there also, you will find this late Invented Distinction of Fundamentals and no Fundamentals, cast away as unsound Doctrine. All I will Say at present, is, that you build upon Sand, you make à mere fancied Supposition your Proof, in Calling That à Reasonable Religion, which the greatest Part of Christians rejects, as both false and Improbable. 4. What Scripture I beseech you, what Orthodox Church Why improbable. what received Authority, Nay what Reason, ever yet made à few owned Verities (and the fewer the better) of Christian. Religion, The whole, the full, and only Essentials of it? If this once pass for sound Learning, I see not why à Turk, that Own's one God, and Christ our Lord as à Very great Prophet, May not as well account those two Articles the Essentials of Christianity, as our Sectaries do their Few Fundamentals; For if we once begin to Divide Christ's sacred Doctrine Nothing less, and more valuable in Christ's Doctrine into different Shreds, More and jesse Valuable, Say I beseech you, where shall we stop in the Division? And thus your own Question is retorted. 5. You tell us indeed, you take some few Fundamentals to be Religion, and can prove so much Reasonable. I Answer The ground of our Assertion. you Mislake, For no half Pieces of Religion can be proved reasonable, without the whole entirely taken, and Assented to. Here is the Ground of my Assertion, and it is amply Proved in this Treatise. Either All that Doctrine which Christ our Lord taught, And the Church ever since delivered as Faith, is Fundamental, Or Nothing at all can be Fundamental. 6. Other Flaws I find in this Gentleman's Discourse, but have not time to pursue half of them. Here is One, and of main Importance also. He never rightly distinguisheth, between that Object whereupon Reason rests, And the Object of Faith, Considered in itself. Reason ever precedes Faith, A want of Distinguishing between the Object of Beason, and Faith. and is grounded upon those rational Motives which Induce to Believe. Faith, precisely Considered as Faith, relies upon à quite Different Object, God's pure Revelation, and Cannot Discourse, For the Reasons given above, not here to be repeated. Only know thus Much in passing, That the wrong done by this Author to the Learned Perron, Veron, and Others, hath its Origen from this Oversight, of not distinguishing between the Object of Reason, and Faith. These Saith He, loudly declaim against Reason, All know it very well. I Answer, they declaim Perron and Others Causelessly blamed. against Reasoning or Arguing, in the very intrinsic Act or Tendency of Faith (For Fides non quaerit cur, aut quomodo) is most true, and So you and the whole world must do, if you Believe. They declaim against Reason, or all rational Discourse built upon Manifest Motives Inductive to Faith, is à Calumny, and most untrue. 7. Another Mistake. The Divine Authority of Scripture, is to be proved by Reason, and only by it. Yet more. The great Argument Another error. for the truth of Scripture, is the Testimony of the Spirit in the Miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles. Sir, I thought ye all pretended to believe the great Miracles of Christ and of his Apostles by Divine Faith, founded upon God's Revelation in Scripture; This granted, the rational ground why you believe such Miracles, Cannot be your very Act of believing them, But must be extrinsical both to your Faith, and its Immediate Object also. What I Say is Manifest, For Questioned by à jew, upon what rational ground (I say rational) you believe the Incarnation, or any Miracle in Scripture, you will not answer the reason of our believing is your Belief, but must fall upon prudent Motives extrinsical to Faith, Otherwise you Confound again the Object of Faith, with that of Reason. 8. You Say moreover. Though Reason Cannot of itself, immediately prove the truths of pure Revelation, Concerning the Trinity, for example, or the Incarnation; Yet it Demonstrates the Divine Authority of the Testimony that declares them; And that way, (Viz. by demonstrating the Testimony) proves even these Articles. Evidence of the Divine Testimony infers evidence▪ in the thing attested. This Certainly is à Mistake; First because great Divines teach, That if the Divine Testimony be demonstrated, Or evidently proved to exist, The Verity attested by it is also evidently known. Therefore who ever has evidence of this Truth. God that Cannot err, Reveals the Trinity, must evidently infer The Trinity is, And So Faith would be evident both in respect of its Formal Object, and Material also. But here lies not my greatest exception. 9 I say in à word, There is no Principle in Nature or Grace which has force to demonstrate (and mark my word) That No Principle gives Evidence of the Divine Testimony. God ever said; The Mystery of the Trinity Exist▪ s. And first, the Doctrine in Scripture, (no Selfe-Euidence) demonstrates not its own Verities. The Belief of Orthodox Christians, terminated upon the Divine Testimony, is Faith, and under that Notion, obscure. Infallible Tradition you own not, and Though you did, it would Lay no Evidence of the Divine Testimony before Reason. Nothing then remains, if you seek for Rational Evidence, but that you recur to the known Motives of Credibility, which Induce to believe, Now, Sir, These Motives demonstrate not the Truth of the Divine Testimony, Evidence of Credibility and Evidence of truth, But only make it evidently Ctedible. And here by the way I must needs reflect upon another Mistake. You seem not to distinguish between Credibility, and Truth; Nor between Truth and Infallible Truth. A thing may be Credible which is false●: Are to be distinguished. As if three or four of good reputation, for aught I know, Should Conspire to inform me of the death of à Friend in England, who yet life's, The Relation to me would be prudently Credible, yet false. Truth implies à Conformity with its Object, and Cannot be false. Infallible truth in the present matter of Faith, requires moreover the Influence of Supernatural Principles, whereby the Act of Faith is determined to rest upon its own Object, the First Verity. All these Particulars are largely explained in this Treatise. 10. Thus much briefly noted (Though more might be said) we Shall Examine by the help of Good Principles, How far Reason can proceed in Matters of Faith; And whether by prudent reason, all may Come to know, where true Religion is taught and professed? 11. Cardinal de Richelieu. Traitte pour Conuertir ceux &c. Lib. 1. C. 11. well observes with the best Philosophers, That when à Verity stands sure upon one clear, rational, and indubitable Principle, its needless (though sometimes not amiss) to bring in more Proofs. For, frustra fit per plura etc. One solid Ground is equivalent to many. 12. I am you see engaged to answer the Question proposed. All debates concerning Religion may be decided by Reason. Viz. How far reason is to meddle in matters of Religion, And Say in à word. All debates in this most weightly Affair, may be decided and easily, by Reason only. But to clear the Assertion from Mistake, we are first To distinguish between à nicknamed or miscalled Reason, And that which really is Reason, There being no word more abused, or fallacious than this, This word, Keason, abused by many. which upholds all the Heresies in the world, Yea and Atheism also. For Every Atheist, every Arian, Every Donatist, lays claim to Reason, And thinks his own Error built upon reasonable Grounds. 13. I Say first. The private Reason of fallible men, considered as private and fallible, Discerns not easily between truth and falsehood, chief when the contest is about this or that particular Controverly of Religion. The Assertion stands firm upon this indubitable Principle. None can prudently acquiesce in so weighty à matter as Religion is, to that which The weakness of Private, and clouded Reason of its own nature may probably be clouded with Ignorance and Error (to say nothing of passion) And for that cause, seems unable to discern between Truth and falsehood, But the private Reason of falltble men considered as private and falltble, may be so clouded, that it discerns not between Truth and falsehood, Therefore 'tis most unmeet to decide in particular Controversies. 14. To confirm what I Say: Imagine that à Protestant and an Arian, were at an earnest dispute concerning That which each Party believes. Both plead by Reason. What result An Instance think ye can follow upon the contest, whilst both the one and other may justly avouch, Neither of us know our own Ignorance or weakness? Therefore unless you with whom I Argue can ascertain me, And I you, That our Reason is purely disinteressed, free from mistake, and all clouds of Ignorance, We must of necessity quit this Tribunal of our own private Reasoning, and take rccourse to some judge that gives Satisfaction, And finally declares, whose reason is more reasonable. 15. One may Reply, And 'tis the only Objection of Sectaries. Were it possible to find our such à judge (as it is not) the private Reason of these two Disputants, And of every other particular Man, is, in points of Religion to ponder well the Sentence given, 'tis He, and no other, that must The chiefest Objection of Sectaries▪ conclude within his own Interior, whether the Sentence giuen be reasonable or no, And consequently the last umpirage, the final Decision of all in the choice of Religion, is brought to every Man's private Reason. Here is the true Rule of Faith, (Say these) when that choice is made; For to say Men are damned for Proposed in their own Terms. not following the judgement of another, whilst their own Reason holds it not Reasonable to do so, is harsh Doctrine, dissonant to the Principles of nature itself, And to all evangelical liberty. Wherefore though Atheists, jews, and Turks be justly reprehensible, because they abuse the Principle of following Private Reason, yet Sectaries who use the Principle with moderation, And ever believe something within the compass of Christianity, seem not blamable. Here you have the Ground of all Heresy. 16. To Overthrow this false Pretence, and to lay before you à manifest Truth, its necessary to premise à few Postulate, before we come to our Second Proposition. I Suppose first, with all Christians (jews and Turks accord also) That God Principles pr●mised to the has established one true Religion only, The Verities whereof, as revealed by the first Verity, are infallible. I Suppose. 2. The end why he revealed these Truths, was that all Should believe them, and believing, gain eternal Happiness. Now seeing the Apostle. 2- Tim. 1. 12. send's afore his Belief à measure or Decision of this Controversy. degree of knowledge. Scio cui credidi; I first know, it follows, that all prudent Believers must have the Evidence of Credibility, before they elicit Faith. I Suppose. 3. That God's eternal Design in establishing Religion (which comprises revealed Truths) was to have it known or found out by easy means, obvious to the Reason of every one, learned or unlearned. And certainly its far more easy, to know by sensible Marks and Signatures, where, and by whom true Religion is taught, than with an industrious and almost endless Scrutiny, to find it out by examining every particular Tenet, contained in it. 17. The Ground hereof is clear, for true Religion cannot Two Reasons showing, but Show its own facile, Obvious Marks, and rational Discernibility, Otherwise the Ignorant and Unlearned, would be exempted from all obligation of believing, seeing none can Assent to the high Mysteries of Faith, without Previous Evidence of Credibility, laid forth to Reason. 18. Now if you Reply, The learned in case of Ignorance and obscurity are to instruct the illiterate, I Answer, That's very why true Religion is easily found out. true, But if after all Instruction they bring not the Learner to à due Degree of previous Evidence, The Instruction void of substance becomes both vain and fruitless. Again. And here is my second Ground. The Purpose of Almighty God in founding Religion, was not to puzzle men's wits with it, or to set them at endless debates concerning so weighty à Concern, But if it be not obvious and easily found out by its own rational, and clear Indications represented to Reason, There arises (not from Man's malice as now à days falls out) But from the very Nature of it, everlasting Quarrels, which breed distaste, and rather invite all to loath, then to love Religion. 19 Hence I boldly Assert, could Religion not be known without so many Injunctions, as Sectaries usually lay upon us. The Sectaries way of Seeking is, Were it not attained, before an exact perusal made of the Fathers, and Councils large Volumes. Did it lie in Obscurity, till such and such Inferences were drawn out of Scripture. Had it dependence upon This and That Deduction framed by every fancy, that reads God's word, were Libraries to be turned over, and Languages to be learned as necessary to settle all in Truth. Can I Say, none come to the true knowledge of Religion long, tedious, and dissatisfactory. without without foe much Ado, And so many endless Encumbrances, The most of men might well Supersede all further Disquisition, and rightly judge, all further Enquiry too intricate for them, being out of the reach of that we call, easy and obvious Reason. God I am sure, Disowns such Perplexity in the Religion he founded, who tell's us Deuter. 30. 11. His commands (And what's more severely commanded then to embrace revealed Truths) are not hid from us, nor far off. We need not to The word of truth is near us. ascend to the Heavens, or Cross the Sea to find them out. No. The Word is near to us, in our mouth and heart etc. But of this enough above. 20. A second Proposition. Reason clear from Passion finds out (and easily) True Religion by an undoubted Evidence, before debates arise concerning particular Controversies. One Proof of our Assertion is already hinted at. God obliges all to embrace true Religion, and consequently afford's means to know it, for to Say on the one side, He will have us to believe, and on the other, not clearly to give light concerning what we are obliged to believe, is to assert that His Goodness Abandon's the care of our Salvation, and leaves all in darkness Now further. The Obligation of believing arises from The clear obligation of believing arises not from Faith itself, nor from the Evidence of the Mysteries assented to, for no man saith (as is often noted) I believe because I believe, or because I see the Divine Mysteries Evidently in Themselves, but contrariwise He Speaks thus: I therefore believe, because I find myself anucedently to my Faith, obliged to submit to the Divine Testimony with à clear Evidence, known before we believe à most firm Assent, But that which lays so strong an obligation on him, must of necessity be à clear judgement grounded upon Obiective Evidence, nothing less certain, can avail in this weighty affair concerning Faith. 21. I prove the Assertion. Whoever firmly believes upon God's infallible Revelation must antecedently judge, He cannot err by believing; or, if He judges he may err or be deceived, it is impossible to believe fimly upon the Divine Revelation. The Assertion Proved. What I Assert is clear; For to Say, I will infallibly believe because God Speaks infallibly, and withal to keep in mind this judgement. I may be deceived by my Faith, is plainly to Say, I do that which my Conscience tells me cannot be done, Therefore that previous light must arrive to Evidence of the Objects Credibility, whereof more presently. 22. Now you shall see how the force of our Argument hinted The Argument taken from the Obligation of believing at, is drawn from the Obligation of believing. Ask any whether one thought ready to elicit Faith, holds himself bound to Assent with à firm Adhesion, because God speaks; Or Contrariwise, stands as yet Hover and uncertain, what to do. In case he clearly sees his Obligation, that necessarily implies the evident judgement we plead for, And hence arises à firm Faith. But if He remains in à wavering Condition, ambiguous whether to believe or no, He can no more resolve to Assent firmly upon God's infallible Testimony, than one in à journey doubting which of two ways to follow, can prudently prefer Further urged, the one before the other. A judgement then which bring's all to an invariahle State of believing, is absolutely necessary: And hence Divines Teach, that none can believe before he finds himself obliged to do so, And when He see's clearly that obligation, he is bound under Sin to believe. 23. A further Reason hereof is thus, and seems very convincing. Whoever believes induced by à doubtful or probable judgement, without that degree of Evidence now mentioned, Pash Faith, blamable may justly fear lest by his too forward Assent, He imputes to God à falsehood, reckoning that amongst the Articles of his overhasty Belief, which was never revealed. This open wrong Sectaries seem to disown it. Sectaries endeavour to avoid, who before they believe the Verities in Scripture, Prerequire à high Moral certainty grounded on Universal Tradition, whereby Assurance is given that the Books are Divine. As therefore à mere probability would be too weak an Inductive, to lead in that Faith they pretend to; So it would be in our case also, and Consequently all must Come to à degrce of Credible Evidence previous to Faith, or Faith cannot stand firmly grounded. 24. Now seeing Evidence is necessary. There difficulties may occur▪ concerning it. The first. What we understand by the Three difficulties, concerning this Evidence. Evidence hitherto only spoken of in General Terms. 2. From whence it proceeds? 3. What Christians have it? These particulars discussed, we shall easily make way to our third Proposition, as also to the last Decision of the Difficulty proposed. 25. Briefly, Evidence in this matter of Religion implies so strong à light, so great à Moral certainty (at least) That every well disposed Understanding, may without fear or hesitancy boldly Say. God founded this Religion. If this be error, you great Sovereign have deceived us. This or none is the sure way to Salvation. All other Sects are improbable. And to this sense that stout Champion What this Evidence implies▪ of jesus Christ F. Edmund Campian Spoke undantedly. Testor Dei Solium, & illud tribunal ad quoad stabo etc. I call Heaven to witness, And that high Tribunal where I shall once stand to give an Account of all I have said. Aut nullum Caelum esse, aut nostrorum esse. That is. Either we Catholics are right in Faith, or There is no Faith. Either Heaven is Ours, or there no such thing as Heaven. The Evidence here touched on, though called Moral, is not yet inferior to Physical certainty, Why Called Moral? but bears that name, because the Nature and Tendency of it is such, And of so great Conviction, that it quits every rational Man of doubt, and peaceably settles the mind in à quiet State, when the choice is made of true Religion. Arnob. Lib. 2. Cont. Gent. Proves the truth here asserted by and excellent Argument à Posteriori. Nisi aperta res esset etc. Unless, saith he, Arnobius his Argument. Christian Religion had been manifest and more clear to all than Dayclight, Incredulum humanum Genus etc. Man's nature most incredulous and hard of belief, would never have consented to the difficult Mysteries of it. Hence S. Austin. Lib. de verâ Relig. C. S. Austin and S. Chrisostom accord. 2. Tells us, none can doubt which amongst so many Religions is true, And the only safe way to Salvation. S. Chrysostom. Serm. Quod Christus sit Deus. Says more. Viz. That the Man is wholly stupid, Mad, and devoid of sense, who sees not so clear an Evidence, or, goes about to Contradict it. 26. The Reason hereof more largely handled in the other Treatise. Disc. 1. C. 8. is taken first from the infinite knowledge and power of Almighty God, who in founding Religion engaged as it were in à Dispute with Hell, Heresy, and all Opposers. He engaged; Therefore He is sure to Convince, The fundamental Ground, of our Assertion otherwise it had been vain to have Commenced the Dispute (He began it not either to be foiled, or to have it end in shame, or finally to leave the matter doubtful). Now further, if He be sure to Convince and conquer, He doth it by the power and efficacy of rational Arguments, laid forth to all that have the use of Reason, For, He Argues in behalf of these: But clear Arguments are potent Orators, and plead so powerfully that they induce Reason to acquiesce, and quit the understanding of all doubt. Herein lies the Evidence we inquire after, whereof more presently. 27. I Say Clear. For were the Arguments doubtful, all would be left in Suspense which Religion to embrace. Were Probability insufficient. they only probable (or more probable) then the pretended Arguments of Sectaries, of Arians (for Example) are, They destroy not eo ipso Probability in Arianism, or in any other false Sect, Therefore the Conviction drawn from these Arguments must be so strong, That one (as is now noted) may without Hesitancy The Strength of this Evidence. boldly Say first. Induced by the force of Evidence, its manifest to reason that God has founded one only true Religion. 2. Induced by the force of Evidence, I''s manifest, This and none but this, is the Religion, He founded. 3. Induced by the force of Evidence, its manifest to reason, that All other Sects called Religions are false, And not only false, but in the highest degree perniciously improbable. 28. These Assertions Stand firm, upon this one Principle. God Gouern's the world (whereof not Christian doubts). He The works in nature speak God's power and Wisdom gives Being to every creature; His Power and Wisdom are most discernible by these works in Nature. And shall we have no clear knowledge think ye of his Wisdom, care, and singular Providence drawn from the Noble works of Grace, laid open to all men's View, and most manifest before our Eyes, in that admirable Fabric of true Christian Religion, founded by him? Shall the works in Nature speak plainly their Creator, And the Admirable wonders of Grace, be silent And shall the manifest works of G●ace be silent? of their Author? The common Sense of all rational men disclaims the Paradox, And must, if induced by Reason, acknowledge an Evidence in that Oracle whereby God vouchsafes to Speak. But if à false Sect could either Surpass in its Marks and Indications (or so much as Equalise) The true Religion, That Specious Evidence leading to believe would Cease, and be so much eclipsed that none could by the force of Reason Say. This is the way that leads to Heaven. This is the Religion which God founded, And consequently all might shake of the Obligation of believing, seeing none can believe without à previous Clear knowledge had of what, He is bound to Assent to. The Religion therefore, I am obliged to live and die in, must be Clearly made discernible by its Marks, from all false Spurious Sects, or This obligation ceases, whereof enough is said already. CHAP. XV. From whence the Evidence hitherto mentioned proceeds? That Religion only is reasonable, which Heaven declares reasonable. The Declaration is evidently made in behalf of the Roman Catholic Religion. Who is the misled reasoning Man? Other Particulars handled. The readiest way to Convince Sectaries. 1. IT remains now to Examine from whence the rational Evidence here pleaded for, proceeds? Methinks That received Maxim in Schools. Qui dat Formam dat Consequentia God who founded Religion ad formam, Help's much to Answer pertinently; For if the Cause that gives à Thing being, gives it also what's consequent or belongs to its Being, And if all unanimously agree concerning the Cause and Author of true Religion, This necessarily follows, 2. The same God and infinite Goodness that founded Religion, lays also be fore us the Evidence we Propugn. But Lays forth its rational Evidence. an Evidence proceeding from such an Author (whose works are perfect) and is annexed to the Religion which Wisdom itself gives Being to, must needs be clear, and have force to Convince the most obdurate hearts; May Prudence Sway, and Passion be laid aside. To explicate what is here said, is to prove it. All know that God, who will have us walk to our last End by obscure Faith, gives no Evidence of the Mysteries Considered in Themselves, For none knows the Trinity, or that great work of the Incarnation by any Evident It is called the Evidence of Credibility. On what it is grounded. Principle clearly proposed to Reason, Therefore the Evidence we seek after, must be Extrinsic to the Mysteries believed, which Divines rightly call the Evidence of Credibility, and it is grounded upon those visible supernatural works of Grace, which an infinite Power only can produce, And upon this ground I Said, The same God that found's Religion, lays before the Eye of reason its rational Evidence also. 3. Hence I boldly Assert (and 'tis no less of singular comfort to all Faithful believers, then of shame and Confusion to Heaven's declaration. jews and Heretics). That Religion only is reasonable (and brings with it an Obligation of believing) which Heaven itself declares reasonable. That Religion only is reasonable, which Evidently Supernatural Signs. bears the Marks the Characters, and Supernatural signatures of an Infinite Power and Wisdom. That Religion only is reasonable, which ha● been approved by the public judgement of the very best, the most choice Publicly approved. and learned, who have lived since the Creation of the world. That Religion only is reasonable, which by God's special Assistance hath wrought Admirable Conversions. Never Censured. Strange Conversions, gives in Evidence of undoubted Miracles, preserue● unity, and was never yet Censured by any known Orthodox Christian. That Religion finally, is only reasonable, which Assures every one by à present Universal Tradition of à Church diffused the whole world over; What God has Said, what Christ hath taught, and what Doctrine the Apostles preached. Here is both Reason and (in Tradition) the Rule That gives Assurance. of Faith with it. Find me out then such à Faith, such à Religion as evidences these Illustrious Marks, the Cognisances and Signs of Heaven, that's only reasonable, or none ever was, or can be accounted Reasonable. 4. We are now in the last place to Examine, what Prophets, what Teachers, or finally what Church, have been Signalised with these strong pleading Testimonies, with these Signs and Marks of Who, or what Religion can show these Masks and Signs? Power and Wisdom? The jewish Church had them in some measure, when Almighty God. Exodus. 9 16. told Moses Posui te etc. I have placed thee my Servant, ut ●stendam in te fortitudinem meam, to show my Power and Might, And that by thee, my name may be spoken of through the whole earth. Certainly Christ our Lord manifested yet far greater Wonders. john. 15. 24. If I had not done among them works which no other Man hath done etc. Whilst the blessed Apostles preached, none can doubt of their Miraculous Signs, which Heaven Evidenced, and God himself manifested by them. Thus much supposed, and no Sectary can Question the certainty of my Supposition. 5. I will come nearer home, And to lay Forth the Evidence of the Roman Catholic Church, Speak this great truth. None but She, ever Since those Apostolical times, hath had not only the like Unity in Faith, The like Supernatural Marks and The effects of power and wisdom wonders wrought in Her, by an Infinite Power and Wisdom, But also more Miracles, greater Conversions, à greater number of Believers, and Consequently à more Universal consent of Hearts joined together in one Belief. In à word as full an refulgent in the Marks of the Roman Catholic Church Evidence every way, as the Apostolical Church was made glorious withal. Therefore Reason cannot but acknowledge, that this Oracle ever since these first blessed Men preached, is the only Marked and Manifested Church in the world. Deny the Evidence we Propugn; it's own Sensibility and Visibility Obvious to all, that have Eyes to see, or Ears to hear, is our Proof, And because it stands upon clear Principles both Sensible and Visible, we do here Challenge all the Heathens, all the jews, and all the Sectaries in the world, to bring to light any thing The Evidence because Sensible, i● undeniable, like it, in behalf of that they call Religion. But there is no fear hereof, For such an Attempt would be desperate, yea utterly impossible. 6. Now if on the other side, the Evidence here pleaded be granted the Church, We have our Intent, For this Principle If granted▪ we have our Intent. stands firm. Where God preserves the same Evidence of Credibility, Where He set's before all the legible Characters, the Public Signatures of his own Power and wisdom, There Reason cannot but acquiesce. By such lights and no other, it must be guided, and take direction to find out Truth. Upon these Grounds, 7. I Say lastly. True Religion is easily discovered by Obvious, By what Reason true Religion is found. reason, And in this sense, Reason Regulat's Faith, but. know withal; That, that Man's Reason only is reasonable in this weighty matter, which has for its Object the Signal Marks of an Infinite Power and Wisdom now hinted at, and Argues by them. Whoever therefore makes choice of Religion, and is not induced to believe by these public Indications. which. Heaven True and misled Reason, distinguished. manifests, errs grossly, is seduced, and judges falsely. And, thus we distinguish between false and true Reason. The misled discoursing Man makes his own formal Act, Reason, whilst he pitches on à Doctrine, and avouches that reasonable, before he knows by any rational Motive, whether God be Author of it or no. So Sectaries proceed in every thing they believe, as Protestants. Contrariwise, One that's guided by right and prudent Reason sees, before He believes (Scio cui credidi) that weighty Obiective Evidence, whereby Millions have been gained to Christ. Hence I Say. As that Man only believes with Divine Faith, who Assent's unto what God has Revealed, So He only follows Wh●t bose are that follow reason in points of Faith? true reason, who is induced to believe upon God's own Evidence, laid forth to Reason. For I hold this Principle indubitable. The Author of Religion, gives it also à rational Evidence of Credibility. Whoever follows not that Light, runs astray, and cannot believe. 8. By all hitherto noted we may yet more clearly Discover, what is meant by this word, Reason, in our present Controversy? Briefly, it imports (as is already said) an Intellectual light grounded By all said: we better understand what is meant by Reason. upon the Evidence of Supernatural Motives, which God from the beginning of Christianity hath manifested to every rational Understanding, and by it induced the wisest of the world, to become Orthodox Christians. 9 A second Inference. By this easy obvious Rule of Reason grounded upon rational Motives, All Controversies relating to Religion are clearly ended. For find me out the forementioned Evidence of Credibility, Those signal Marks, I mean, of an Infinite Power and Wisdom, We have with them the manifested Oracle, whereby God Speaks to the world. Now whoever refuses to hear God's own Language spoken by such an Controversies ended, by reason. Oracle, is of necessity thrown into à State of perplexity, For thus, if reason regulates, he must Discourse. Shall I deny this Evidence of Miracles, of Conversions, of Vniversallity to the Roman Catholic Church? I deny that which the whole world How Reason discourses in this matter of Religion. owns, and is visible to Sense. Shall I grant all, and Say its forceless, or infufficient to induce to believe that Oracle? I Destroy the rational Evidence of Christianity, yea of the Apostles Themselves, And cannot believe either Prophet or Apostle, were such Messengers sent now from Heaven to teach me. For no particular Prophet, no Apostle, ever shown the like full Evidence of Credibility, as this one Oracle has manifested to the world, for fixteen Ages. 10. A. 3. Inference. Sectaries never yet took, nor can Sectaries follow no probable way of ending Controversies. take the easy, right, and Reasonable way of writing, much less, of Ending Controversies. This one Principle proves the Assertion. As the Truth of Christian Doctrine stands firm, when an Evidenced Church teaches it, So by the Nullity of an Evidenced Church, you may, in this present State, easily gather the uncertainty, and falsehood of any Doctrine taught Contrary to that Oracle. But most evidently Sectaries have not Evidenced Church which ever taught their Doctrine, or opposed ours; Therefore they are impossibilitated to write, much more to The Reason why they cannot. follow any short, easy, or rational way of ending Controversies, by an Evidenced, Oracle, which yet as St Austin cited above against the Donatists saith, is, in the first place to be found out. This found by her Marks, and Signatures (And Digito demonstrari potest Adds the Holy Doctor, its pointed out with your Finger) all further Contest ceases, or might we speak in Cardinal de Riclelieu's own words, lately quoted, Seems little profitable, because The true Church cannot but Ascertain all of true Doctrine. 11. Hence you have à 4th Inference. Sectaries who in all their quarrelling polemics Still insist upon particular Controversies. The Real presence, Transubstantiation, The worshipping of Images etc. And dare not so much as offer to have their Protestancy Sectaries make known the weakness of their own cause. tried by the judgement of any Evidenced. Orthodox Church, Publish to the world the weakness of their undefensible Cause, and plainly give over to plead by Reason. 12. I'll tell you à Story for the substance very true, concerning à Discourse between à Pert Novellist, and à Catholic. The first would needs debate the Controversy of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The Catholic, though Sectaries manting an Evidenced Church. not very learned, yet of à good judgement; willing to see some effect of the Conference, prudently demanded, upon what Grounds the Dispute was to be held on, and finally ended? The other replied upon Scripture; But said the Catholic, what shall be done, If you and I agree not about the Sense of Scripture? Novellist. We are if things be so, to Appeal to the Fathers. Catho. But what if we vary as much about the Sense of Fathers, as about Scripture? Novellist. We are then to recur to the Primitive Church, and examine what Doctrine are driven off all grounds of Arguing She delivered, relating to our Question in those purer times? Catho. O Sir, We are yet in Darkness, far off from the last sound Principle, For how shall you and I, after our private perusing those few ancient Records left us, end our debate, whilst you'll turn them to one Sense, and I to another? Novel. Reason shall end all. Catho. That I wish for, But quit me yet of one Scruple. What if your private Reason be biased one way, and mine another? Or, what if you judge that Reasonable, which I do not? Here the Novellist like one struck dumb, spoke not à word. 13. Yet the Discourse might well have gone on, for I would have further inquired, whether to do as all the Christians what is to be judged reasonable? in the world, learned and unlearned have done, be not reasonable? None can deny it. Then I would have inferred. But all these Innumerable Christians, The very Apostles themselves, and others have upon prudent Motives Constantly judged it reasonable, to submit to Mysteries above the reach of humane Reason, Ergo that must pass as à reasonable Principle; But the Reason cannot be taken from the very Act The Evidence of Credibility, not taken from Faith. of submission, For that is Faith, nor from any Evidence in the Mystery believed, or obscurely proposed, nor finally from Scripture alone, for that Book Considered in itself, is not its own Evidence, Therefore the Evidence of Credibility, Or the Evidence Proposed to Reason, is extrinsical to what ever I believe, and fundamentally lies in the Marks, and Signatures of Christ's own manifested Church. 14. Hence I Conclude with this Dilemma, and hold it unanswerable. Either God has set before all men's Eyes An Oracle (which now teaches truth) most discernible by clear Marks and Motives from all false erring Societies, Or omitted to do so. Grant the first, Reason is as much obliged to believe A Convincing Dilemma. that Signalised Oracle now, As the Primitive Christians were anciently bound to believe the Apostles. Say Contrary; There is no such Marked Oracle distinguishable from erring Sectaries, Reason is left in à Labyrinth, and shall never find out true Religion, Wherefore Protestants who seemingly stand for Reason, and slight the Doctrine of our Evidenced Sectaries unreasonable. Church, are the men amongst all other, most unreasonable, and as daily experience teaches, mere Sceptics in matter of Religion. 15. A 5th. Inference. The readiest way to convince à Sectary How they are easily Convinced? (and one though no great Clerk may easily do it) is in the first place, at least, to wave that long tedious work of handling particular Controversies (which depend upon Authority) and to plead by Reason; Thus I would Argue, and have often done so, with good Success. You as à Protestant, lay claim to à reasonable Reformation, and consequently to à Reasonable Religion, Say I beseech you, from whence have you the Moral Evidence, which makes this Reformation Credible to Reason? I speak not yet of its Truth, for Evidence of Credibility e 〈…〉 preced's the anouching of it true. We Catholics proceed candidly, Evidence of Credibility is first to be laid forth. and propose to the reason of every one learned and unlearned, the very Marks and Signs of truth, manifest in our Church, which Christ our Lord and the Apostles evidenced to the sirst Converted Christians. You set up à new faced Religion, and when that's done, put it out of Countenance, because Reason sees nothing in it, which has appearance of Credibility. You avouch it true, before you make it Credible, which Sectaries avouch their reformation true, before it be made Credible. is to put the Conclusion before the Premises. 16. One perhaps will Say first. The reason of your Reformation stands upon this rational Ground, that we Catholics were deformed, or out of all right fashion in our Religion. Lamentable. And are you the doughty Doctors that must mend what was marred, and prescribe à new Model of Religion? Can you Say what is, or what is not Catholicism? It is too much Boldness not only to teach more learned than They make à false supposition, their Proof. you Selves, But à high Injury also, to make à mere Supposition (and very false too) to pass for à rational Proof. You know we deny your improbable Supposition, And you upon no Principle call it reasonable. However; Suppose the falsehood, that we are out of Fashion, doth it therefore follow that you are got into the right Mode of Religion? No truly; If the Supposition stands, we are both out, And both need à new Reformation. 17. Some may yet Reply. Sectaries regard not that new coined word of Evident Credibility (à Term wholly Popish) They endeavour to prove the Truth of Protestancy by Scripture and Fathers, And to do so much, is more than to make it Credible. Contra. 1. Were it possible (as it is not) to prove the truth of Protestancy, That's besides the matter here in hand, They are still besides the matter now agitated. whilst we only Treat of ending Controversies by Reason. Now all know that Authority, whose Credibility must first be Evidenced before it have weight (precisely considered as Authority) is not the Reason here spoken of. For Example: I Assent to the Mystery of the Incarnation upon Gods own Authority, that's Faith, but no rational Inducement to believe. What we demand of Sectaries, is to have the rational Motives which induce to believe this Protestancy, laid open before the Eyes of rational men? Herein we require Satisfaction, but have none. 18. Contra. 2. Can these men prove their Protestancy by If the Reformation could be proved true. Scripture and Fathers, it should, Methinks, be very easy to point at an Orthodox Church which Six Ages since, publicly owned the particular Tenets of it. Here is my Reason. Whatever Doctrine the Scripture and Fathers teach, the Orthodox Church conceal's not, but openly Professeth. She is not ashamed, if Orthodox, to teach what God has revealed. Now further. Some Orthodox Church must have owned it. Had such à Church ever owned this Reformation, it must either have been like an invisible Ghost, not perceptible (which our Newer Sectaries Disclaim) or contrariwise discernible, by the like Marks and Signatures of the Apostolical Church, And if their Doctrine was ever taught by it, They are to talk no more of its Truth, before Its Credibility be evidenced to Reason, by the Marks and Signs of that Church, which is now supposed to have taught pure Protestancy. That is in à word, They are first obliged to Say plainly, what Articles of Faith, Protestants (as Protestant's) hold Essential to their Religion, And then to make so much Doctrine, and no more, first Credible, then true, by the known Authority of an Orthodox Church. But This is impossible. Hence. 19 And it is the last Inference, whereby one grand Cheat of our Sectaries is discovered. Long have we inquired but without Satisfaction, Where their Church was before Luther? The Common Answer returned by some latter. Protestants, making little Account of an invisible Church, is much to this Sense. Our Church was there where it now is, and where it always was, The same Christian Church as before the Reformation, Having lost nothing that made it so. And if you Object. The Church in How our Adversaries. Shuffle. England before Luther was certainly Popish, now its Protestant, Ergo it is not the same Church, They Answer and vow it to be the very same, though it ceased to hold Popery. 20. Much might be said against these mere Empty words. I'll here only entertain you with two Reflections upon the whole. Paralogism. First it makes the worst of Heresies defensible, For might not Arius have pleaded in like manner. My Church They make the worst of Heresies defensible, is where it was before, The very same Christian Society, though changed into Arianism, as the ancient Religion in England, now is into Protestanism. So also the Pelagians, The Macedonians, and all other Heretics could have Argued, excepting perhaps à few Donatists, who confined the whole Church to their little Part in Africa. Again, As the Thing is reform., it passes with Protestants for à Part of the Catholic Church, Therefore as reform, it's supposed à Piece of Reasonable Religion (Sectaries And their Reformation unreasonable, pretend not to an unreasonable Reformation) And if'ft be So, before the Professors of it talk of the Truth of this Reformation, They are obliged to make it Credible, by such Miracles, Signs, and wonders as an Infinite Power and Wisdom (and no other) Proposes to Reason. But all is contrary. They begin, Becauss stripped of all rational Motives. and bring in à Reformation so naked and stripped of rational Motives, that none can Say. God himself declares it reasonable, by any Signature, which may be esteemed an effect of his Power and Wisdom, Or in à word Supernatural. 21. And here in passing, You have the true Reason, why Sectaries in their polemics, keep close to the Procedure of all condemned Heretics. The Arians, for Example, never Sectaries follow the strain of Condemned, Heretics. went about to give Reason the least Satisfaction, in behalf of their Rupture made with the Church, but leaving that Rational way, pleaded by Scripture. So do Protestants. Before they had Shown any thing like à rational Evidence of Credibility, to countenance that shameful Divorce, They voted it Just. So do Protestants. Waving the Ancient Sense of Scripture received by the Church, they glossed it after their fashion. So do Protestants. Tradition, that strong Tenure whereby the Church holds Her best Inheritance, or Derives Christ's Doctrine down from Age No Motives Proposed to Reason. to Age, The Arians slighted, And so do Protestants. But All this while, though we earnestly wish to hear of Motives proposed to Reason, whereby this Reformation may be made Credible, we are turned off with mere Talk, And never yet heard, or shall hear os more Evidence for That, than the worst of Arians, can allege for Arianism. Wherefore, I conclude, Protestancy is an unreasonable Novelty, and consequently no Religion, for merely to Say à Religion is true, and from God, before it be made Credible by Supernatural Signs, upholds Arianism, Donatism, Quakerism and the greatest fooleries in the world. CHAP. XVI. Objections solued. Sectaries pretending not to See the Church's Evidence, are either blind, or wilfully shut their Eyes. The Assertion clearly proved. A Parallel of the Primitive, and the present Church's Evidence. How far Reason may be said to Regulate Faith. 1. AGainst our pleading Evidence of Credibility for Catholic Religion manifested by the Lustre of supernatural Motives, One may first Object. Every Man's private Why the Evidence of Credibility is most Convincing. Reason is to judge whether this Evidence Convinces, or no, And consequently the last judgement belongs to the Tribunal of private Reason. I have Answered. The Evidence (upon two rational Principles) is so great that it cannot but convince, First because the Author of it is no other but God, who certainly was no Impostor when he set before Reason the light of most glorious Supernatural Signs, And by virtue of Two Reasons them, hath induced both jews and Gentiles to believe in Christ. 2. Because, That which the most Wise and Learned of the Christian world, have judged Evidently reasonable, May upon so great Authority, be supposed Reasonable. But All those Vast Multitudes Converted to true Christian Religion, have judged the Evidence of Credibility manifest in the Church, both rational and convincing, Therefore, it is so. 2. Hence it follows. 1. That the, true judgement concerning The judgement long Since given, now is not reversable. this Evidence, was long since given, antecedently to the weak Censure of this or that particular man, who now would Cavil at it. 2. That all Exceptions made against it, are evidently unreasonable upon this ground, That those Thousands and Thousands most Wise and Learned, who owned the Evidence, And have been induced by it to believe; must (if Misled) be No other Inducements, excogitable. accounted not only temerarious, but also Mad, besotted, and grossly Seduced by Fooleries. This cannot be Granted. Perhaps you'll Say. Those Wise and Learned believed upon other Inducements, Distinct from our Church's Motives. Answ. Not one can be Assigned distinct from these, if we speak of Motives Proposed to Reason, as is proved already. 3. A. 2. Objection. Sectaries for all this, Pretend not to see the Church's Evidence. I Answer; it is not for want of Light, but for want of Eyesight, That is, bebause they will be blind Thousands, As is now Said, as Wise and Learned as they, have Sectaries want not light, but Eyesight seen the Light and followed it, Why then do They stumble in Darkness, when the same Evidence is Set before their Eyes? I have no other Answer, but what Truth itself Delivers. joan. 1. The Son of God, The Light of the world came amongst us, Et mundus eunt non cognovit. The world would not know him, Both jews and Gentiles wilfully shut their Eyes, to the Signal Marks of his sacred Preaching, And so do Sectaries at this day, to the Church's Evidence. 4. Some may Reply. What we now Say, is only to Preach, and not to Prove, For how can we Evince that Sectaries Shut their Eyes to any Light of Evidence? Answ.. They wilfully Shut their Eyes Enough is proved Already, However to come closer to the Matter, and to leave them without all excuse, I'll Add one word more, which shall be Convincing. 5. Pray you Imagine, That some of our Sectaries had lived in those happy Days, when the Holy Evangelists set forth the Life of our blessed Saviour, And the Apostles preached his Sacred Doctrine to the first Converted Christians: Would not An Argument drawn from the primitive Evidence. They think ye, have as readily believed what ever Doctrine those Blessed men than wrote, and Preached, As the other vast Multitudes who came flocking in, believed? Yes Certainly, Their Obstinacy, though great; would not have surpassed that of jews and Gentiles, These yielded, after they heard such Oracles speak, And so I think Sectaries would have done also. 6. Now I Demand (and the Question is very pertinent) upon what Evidence of Credibility; By what prudential Motives laid forth to Reason, could These men (had they then The Primitive Evidence of Credibility, was not, as some may Imagine been in the world) believed that S. Matthew (for example) wrote truly the Life, and Preached exactly the Doctrine of jesus Christ? Did God Ascertain all men then living by private Revelation, that the Evangelist was his Divine Oracle? Or, did He openly proclaim that Verity to the world by an audible Voice, in the Air? Was an Angel sent from Heaven to testify, that S. Matthew delivered Truth, and nothing but Truth? Or, was the Holy Ghost seen in any visible Form to suggest all He spoke and wrote, And to secure his tongue and hand from Error in every Syllable, in every least jota? No. Although God could have done all this and more, yet we read of no such Wonders. 7. Say Therefore, Upon what prudent Motives, by what Evidence of Credibility would Sectaries, had they then lived, been Induced (with jews and Gentiles) to believe the Words and Writings of this one blessed Evangelist, or of any other The Brt●●itiue Evidence explained. Infallible Oracle? The Gospel Answers. Luk. 16. They went forth and preached every where; Our Lord working with them, Confirming the word with Signs which followed, And the Signs are known to all. They cast out Devils, raised the Dead, cured the Infirm, Suffered persecution, Converted Nations to the Faith of Christ; which was one, and perhaps not the least, among their many other glorious Miracles. The great Apostle Heb. 2. 4. Speaks most significantly this Sense. God withal testifying by Signs and wonders, and divers Miracles and Distributions of the Holy Ghost, according to his will. Here we have the Apostolical Evidence laid before us, And by it the Doctrine they taught made Credible to Reason. Hence I Argue. 8. But most certainly the Roman Catholic Church, and The Roman Catholic Church only Shows the like Evidence, no other Society, demonstrat's the very same Miracles, the very same Signs and wonders, not one Excepted, as is largely proved above, And to raise Her Glory above that, which à short, time allowed not the primitive Christians to See, Hitherto never wanted the trial of à 1671 years' Persecution from Heathens, with an Aduentage. Turcks, Heretics, licentious Catholics, and Devils also, And yet, to God's Glory be it, She keep's Her Posture Still, immoveable, Invincible. 9 One word more. Had we lived in those happy Days, Particulars insisted on. we should have seen or heard of à great Conversion, wrought by our Saviour upon one Zacheus, à Principal Publican, à rich man, and à Sinner. A plain Miracle cries one of the Older Protestant's, And therefore The Conversion comes in with an Ecce. Behold the wonder. It this so? was it indeed à Miracle? strange Conversions. Ecce. Behold Innumerable notorious Sinners, accustomed to vice Converted to the true Faith, and reclaimed from their lewdness by the incessant Labour of this one Roman Catholic Society. 10. Again, Had we lived in those Days, we should have seen or heard of à Courageous S. Stephen who sealed with his blood, that very Doctrine which the Evangelists wrote, And the Apostles afterward Preached, We should have seen or heard how Martyrdoms zealously the blessed man prayed for his merciless Persecutors, And from thence have concluded, no other but God, gave the Martyr that Courage to fight on to the end, and Charity to die as He did most Gloriously. Here cast your thoughts again upon the Roman Catholic Church in after Ages, and Manifest in the Church. Ecce, Behold, for one S. Stephen you have had Thousands armed with Courage, with Charity, and Constancy, who as behoved true Valiant Soldiers of jesus Christ, stoutly shed their blood for that very Doctrine, She maintains at this day. 11. Thirdly, had you lived in those days, you would Contempt of the world in those Primitive tirnes. have heard à new Doctrine preached contrary to corrupted nature, and the world's Vanity, you would have seen moreover whole Multitudes of Converts, repair to the Apostles, and cast their wealth down at their feet, calling nothing their own, but God only, who rich in Mercy was their Possession; And would you not have Said, after to great à wonder, such Preachers were certainly inspired by the Holy Ghost to teach, And that those who complied with the Doctrine, were faithful Servants of the most high God? None can doubt it. The like in the Church, at this day. Now. Ecce: Behold, the very same Learning is yet, and has been ever taught in the Roman Catholic Church, And to prove by real Effects, of what Power it is, Thousands, overflowing with worldly Fortune slighted all, and to contemn the Vanity retired Themselves; Some into Desert places, others to the Solitude of Religious Cells, where rich in Virtue, they lived and died happily. Thus much, for à hint only. 12. Besides, we have in this ancient Mother Church, other More Advantages yet. Rules of Perfecteon. great Advantages of Holiness and Devotion, answerable to the Practice of the Primitive times. We want not those, who earnestly strive to observe the highest Rules of perfection, and to follow the footsteps of the most blessed Saints, that now are glorious in Heaven. We want not Means to reclaim Imitation of Saints. Means to reclaim sinners, Submission. the most obdurate Sinners; and to help on aspiring Souls in the Exercise of mental Prayer, and Divine Contemplation. We want not Doctrine worthy of God, set forth in the profound Mysteries of our Faith, nor à dutiful Submission to them by the greatest Capacities of the world. We want not our Fasts, our long Abstinences, and other Corporal Mortifications Hard lodging, poor Fare, course Apparel, watch, And the like medicinal Austerities weary not out, but prove delightsome to Innumerable, that might have had both pleasure Fasts and Austerities. and plenty in à secular Condition. 13. By the little here briefly hinted at, you may learn (though à volume might be written of this Subject) How exactly the Roman Catholic keeps Parallel in every particular with that Primitive and most perfect Christian Society. The The Parallel Every way, Exact. Evidence of▪ Credibility is the very same in both Churches. The signatures of Divine Power and Wisdom, are no less illustrious in the Church at this Day, than when the Apostles preached. 14. Hence I Argue, And remind the Reader of my Proposition above, much to this sense. Sectaries either See, or A most pressing Argument drawn will not See the Evidence of our Church Motives, already spoken of. These Conversions, these Miracles, These Martyrdoms, These Austerities etc. Appear to them no less clear Effects of Gods Divine Power now, than the very like Signatures or Motives appeared to the first Converted Christians, when the Apostles Preached. Say; They are no less clear, no less persuasive From what is Said already. now, Sectaries are as much obliged to follow this light of Evidence, And to believe the Church, as they would have been obliged to believe the Apostles, Had they been Eve-witnesses of their Wonders, and heard them Preach. Say Contrary. The Evidence of Credibility seems much abated, from what it was in those Primitive times, I'll first urge these Novellists to give à Disparity between that ancient Evidence, whereby Nations were Converted, And this we now plead for, And if none can be given (as manifestly there is none) I must conclude they are either blind and See not, what the whole world has seen, Or which is à Truth, that they wilfully shut their Sectaries Obstinate. Eyes, and upon that Account are perversely Obstinate. 15. Again, Because such Miracles, and those other Signs are manifest in the Roman Catholic Church, and in no other Society of Christians, I will Demand, what God (for they God's Intention was not, to delude any, are the works of his own Power) intended by them? Was his meaning think ye, to fool the world? To delude poor Christians? To countenance and Colour falsehood, by His By His admirable Wonders. own admirable Wonders? Most certainly, No. For, they have not only inclined, but obliged all to believe Christ's Doctrine under pain of damnation. Again, Truth itself can oblige none to Err, The very light of nature teaches, there never was, nor will be any necessity for God to work Miracles, in Confirmation He love's truth for truth. of Falsehood, which He abhors, loving Truth for Truth, as well in others, as in Himself. 16. Some, who for stark Shame, cannot deny all our Church's Miracles, grant many, and withal Assent to the other signal Motives already Specified. Yet. 3. Object. None of them have any necessary Connexion with Truth. I have Answered above. This Argument either destroys the first great Evidence of Christianity, manifest in our Saviour's wonders and the Apostles, or becomes forceless. Besides, the Ground of it The ground of chis Objection, worth nothing. hinted at, is null, For I have proved already à necessary Connexion between à Real Miracle, and Truth, upon this convincing Principle. True Miracles, as is now Supposed, are, and have been wrought in the Church, And by no other but by the Infinite Po●er of God (they surpass the force of Nature) Therefore Wisdom itself either deceives, equivocates, and openly speaks Real Miracles infer truth untruth, when He shows these supernatural wonders, Or this Inference stands firm. A real Miracle and Truth are necessarily con●exed. 17. Others Argue. 4. And more impertinently. Were All that profess the Roman Catholic Religion, holy and virtuous, we might better plead for the Church's Evidence of Credibility, But many, and very many are great Sinners, and this seems much to obscure Her Evidence. Now if we retort the Wh●ther sin and sinners can obscure the Evidence of Credibility? Argument upon Sectaries, and tell them also of their lewd Livers, that Dar●en Protestancy, it's easily replied, (and very truly) They have no Evidence of Credibility to Obscure. Therefore We, who certainly have it, and not They, are obliged to Solve the Objection. Answ. That's quickly done. And to solve it, I am once more to lead our Novellists to those happy Days of the Primitive Age, and Demand, Whether all The Answer is negative, and then, were Saints? No certainly. We read of à wicked judas, who betrayed his Master, Christ our Lord. Say I beseech you, would that have extinguished the lustre of Christ's Glorious Miracles, or withdrawn them from believing in the true Messiah? We Read also of à covetous Demas that abandoned S. Paul, and returned to the world. Demas me reliquit, diligens hoe s●culum, would his bad Example have obscured the Apostles Wonders, Proved by many Examples in the Primitive times. or made the Belief of His Doctrine, less firm? Finally we read of an incestuous Corinthian, infamous for Luxury, would Sectaries think ye thereupon, have been dismayed, or given over the Practice of Virtue, because he was naught? Not at all. For if Wise, they know, that Cockle and Wheat grow up together in the same large field of the Church, and it will be so (the Gospel is my warrant) until the Harvest, makes the separation. Say then, did those judases, those Demases, those Incontinent Livers dishearten any, or Eclyp's in the least that Apostolical Evidence We speak of, when vast Multitudes were found faithful and eminently virtuous? You will Answer No. Why therefore should lewd Livers at this day, Eclyp's, Sin Eclipses not or discountenance the Glorious Evidence of the Roman Catholic Church, whilst we find in it, Innumerable just, Innumerable strong in Faith, confident in Hope, Zealous in Charity, And The resulgent signs of power and Wisdom. moreover, which is ever to be noted, behold to our great Comfort, God's own illustrious Signatures most apparent Age after Age, in this one Blessed Society of Christians? 18. Some to Oppose what we said above, Object in the. 5. Place. The Church cannot be according to the Principles Another Objection of à Catholic the Rule of Faith, But contrariwise, the Catholics own internal judgement of Reason, must regulate, For this makes the best Catholics in the world, to believe the Church. If you will have à Proof Hereof: Ask any knowing Orthodox Christian, Why he holds the Church His Rule of Faith, He cannot Answer, because He believes so, but will presently tell you, He is assured of that truth by prudent Reason. Answ.. No man, whether Sectary or Catholic, can make his own internal judgement, though fancied reasonable à hundred times over, the Rule of Faith, Unless more be added. Now If you inquire Pretended Reason, without rational. Evidence, no Rule of Faith. after what I express by this word. More? I Answer. It implies an Obiective Evidence, set before every rational understanding which laid hold on, makes à the judgement Reasonable, without this Obiective Light, or Evidence, every condemned Heretic, may nickname things, and call his own fancy Reasonable, though He hath nothing like à rational Motive to settle it upon. This is the main thing to be noted, in our present controversy. 19 Now here is the whole Contest between us and Sectaries. We ground our judgement of Credibility upon such an Evidence of Motives as Converted the world, We say, An Infinite The Catholics rational Evidence grounded. Goodness cannot permit the world to be led into Error, by Evident Miracles, evident Conversions, and other both Signal, and Supernatural Wonders. All this is Reason, and undeniable reason, The Signs are Manifest, Sensible, and Visible. In the next place, We urge Sectaries to speak in behalf of Protestancy, or to give in the like Evidence for that Novelty? They recoil, draw back, and talk ('tis true) of Reason, but turn us off with the bare word alone, having no obiective Evidence to ground à rational judgement upon. I Sectaries have none at all. speak truth, And will defend it. No more can these men, if you set aside A selfe-wilful Persuasion, satisfy Reason why they believe as they do, than the worst of Arians tell you, why they believe Arianism. 20. It would be ridiculous in this contest, to bring in Scripture as à Rule of their Faith. For first we here inquire not after the Object of their Belief, But call for rational Motives, whereby they are induced to believe Protestancy. 2. We Say, Though Scripture were in à General way owned Scripture here not pleadable. The most immediate Rule, and the Sense of it could be known by the private Reason of some men in the world, yet The Sectary gain nothing upon the Concession, because He knows not, nor shall ever know upon any sure Principle, That his The Reason. Reason hath the singular Privilege to hit right on the Scriptures true Sense, whilst all His Adversaries (and they are very many) openly oppose it, as improbable. 21. One may yet reply. For as much as The Sectary Believes, which is not much (For it lies in à few Fundamentals) If the protestant abstract's from what Doctrine he likes not. He has the same Evidence of Credibility as we Catholics have, And so far ioyn's with us in Belief: In other Matters of Contest, He neither Believes, nor Disbelieves, but Abstract's from all. Contra. 1. Thus the Arians and all Heretics proceed, who first choose, and lay claim to so many Tenets of Christian Doctrine as pleases Fancy, and then tell us, They have Reason to choose, to Divide, and separate from the rest. We why may not the Arian do the like? demand (and here is the main Point)▪ what rational Evidence have they to do so? Who made Beggars (For all they have, they took from the Church) such bold Choosers? Again, if they prescind or abstract, They are obliged to Design an No Church favours this Doctrine. evidenced Orthodox Church, which abstracted like them, and positively taught so much Doctrine is precisely necessary to Salvation, And no more. This is impossible. O yes. The Primitive Church seems to have abstracted from many Doctrines now taught by the Roman Catholic. Contra. Who tell's you so? Your lame Negative way of Arguing? We read not of Purgatory, nor of Transubstantiation etc. Pitiful. The evidenced Roman Catholic Church by Her Constant Tradition speaks of both, and also positively avouches, that all now taught, was then Anciently delivered, Here is our Principle, and we Sectaries urged to name the Orthodox Church, which abstracted as they do now. urge Sectaries to oppose it by producing the Authority of another more ancient Church, which Spoke then, as they speak now, Or which abstracted from such Particular Doctrines, as they would abstract from. But this is Impossible. Out of all I Conclude, Sectaries have no Evidence of Credibility for any Doctrine believed by them, and Consequently no true Faith at all, but Opinions only, and those false too. Now we must solve two or three difficulties of another Nature. 22. A. 6. Objection. Reason Assures the Catholic, that God speaks by the Oracle of the Church. Ergo, his Another Objection. Faith is ultimatly resolved into Reason. I Deny the Consequence, For if we make à right Analysis, The Act of Faith is not yet in Being, in that Sign, or Priority of Nature, when Prudence tell's Him. God speaks by the Church. The nature of that judgement, serves only to induce the understanding to Faith, or to fix it upon an unvariable state of Believing, And Consequently must be resolved, into its own clear Principles, Previously penetrated, before the Catholic believes. Faith follows, and relies immediately upon its own Object, which is God's Revelation proposed by the Church, or by Scripture infallibly interpreted. Now, 23. If you Object. 7. It is my private Reason which The equiuccation discovered. makes me to believe the Church. I Answer. The Proposition is equivocal, For it may either signify, what I call Reason independently of all known Obiective Evidence, makes me to believe the Church, And that Sense is very false, Nay its impossible, One sense false. to hold every internal Act, not resoluable into Obiective Evidence in à matter of such Consequence, Reasonable. This as I said above Patronises the worst of Heresies, and Atheism also. 24. Or Contrariwise, the Sense may be. The Church The other true, when the judgement is grounded on rational Evidence glorioussly marked by clear and Convincing Motives, known, and applied by my formal Act of Reason, makes it Reasonable, and that's most true. Wherefore, every rational judgement in the present matter, must be fixed upon rational prudent Motives, distinct from the Act we judge by. The judgement is no more but Conditio applicans, à Condition, whereby the Obiective evidence is laid hold on, and set before an Understanding. The Ground hereof is clear, For we know not by Objects extrinsic to our Knowledge, but by vital Acts which intervene between the Intellectual Power, and Objects. Now if any Ask, why may not this judgement mistake and err? I Answer first, by Proposing the like Question. Why might not the judgement of the Primitive Christians, when they saw or heard of the Apostles great Wonders, have also been à Mistake or Error? Solve Why this judgement cannot be erroneous. the one, you solve the other. I Answer 2. The judgement cannot (if it pitch upon what really is the Obiective Evidence) be Erroneous, For no foundation of Error, as we now Suppose, Lies there; Therefore, none can be derived from thence into any understanding. A pure fountain yields no pudled water. 25. A. 8. Objection. Faith is an Act of à reasonable power, and consequently Conformable to Reason, Therefore. Faith Considered two ways Reason regulates Faith, or is its immediate Rule. Answ. The Act of Faith may be Considered two ways. First, as it is à prudent reasonable Submission to God's Revelation. 2. As it's terminated upon the Revelation proposed by the Church, or As prudent, how it is resolved. any other infallible evidenced Oracle. Consider it under the First Notion of à prudent Submission, it ever Implies, or rather presupposeth, the rational prudent judgement now mentioned, And this judgement previously set fast upon such Motives, The resolution otherwise, if considered as it relies upon the Divine Testimony. as converted the world, may well be Said to denominate▪ the Act of elicit Faith, à rational Obsequiousness, Yea, and its extrinsical Rule also, as will appear to every one, that makes à right Analysis, or brings Faith to its last Principles. But consider again the very Act, itself, or precisely as it tends upon the Divine Revelation proposed by an Infallible Oracle, it reason's not at all, nor more proues; or Scientifically knows its Object (as Faith) Than Science as Science believes. This Proves that submissively Believes. Not can Faith, which ever presupposes its Object and Rule proved to Reason, Scientifically prove either, without lossing what is Essential to it, I mean Obscurity. See more hereof in the other Treatise. Disc. 1. C. 5. n. 12. 13. 26. By all hitherto Said you see▪ How the Private Reason Particular Controversies examined by this and that particular Authority not easily ended of this or that Man may more easily swerve, or lose the right way of Arguing, when à Dispute is held upon particular Controversies, then when it's brought to the Censure and easy Trial of an evidenced Church. This Oracle Speaks clearly, Whereas if the debate be of particular Points examined by Scripture, or Authority, We find by experience that two Adversaries seldom or never agree upon the Sense of those very Authorities, they would have Matters decided by. 27. You see. 2. The Sum of all handled in this Chapter The sum of all hitherto handled, to be as follows. The Catholic holds his Faith infallible, which essentially relies upon à Revelation Divine, and Infallible. Now because God proposes not by Himself or immediately His own sacred Doctrine to Every faithful Believer in particular, He hath established à Church, and made Her an Oracle briefly hinted at to speak in His name. She comes as it were, between God and Believers; And conveys unto us the true Divine Doctrine of the first revealing Verity. Now because, She is an Oracle immediately Credible by supernatural Signs, which an Infinite Power and Wisdom Demonstrates, We justly call Her the Infallible Rule. Though Scripture faithfully interpreted, be our Rule also, but not so immediately Credible. The Church once discovered, by the Evidence of an Assent grounded on convincing Motives, Regulates Faith, plain Reason previously resting upon those Motives, tell's us, God speaks by Her. Here we rest, by this Rule we are guided. 28. Hence you see. 3. Whoever deprives the Church of her Lustre and Signal Wonders (manifest to Reason) makes her Doctrine, and the very Scriptures also not worthy Belief, Ill ' Consequences follow, the Denial of Church Motives. dead's Faith, Eclipses Gods revealed Truths, and doth the utmost to bring in Atheism. In à word He makes Christian Religion unreasonable, which is utterly to Destroy it. what I say seems manifest. For Suppose, we had, had no Miracles since the Apostles times, no Succession of Commissioned Pastors, no further Conversions of Nations. No more eminent Sanctity in this great Moral Body, after that first Age; No Martyrdoms, no Generous contempt of the world. Who I beseech you would, or Can have certainly believed, either the Sacred Trinity, or the great Mystery of the Word Incarnate, upon the bare report of à few fallible uncommissioned Men or women, that might Perhaps have Spoken (and Perhaps not) of these, and other sublime Mysteries, but without The world, not with standing most glorious Motives Shown, is much incredulous. rational Motives. Appeal now boldly to the Tribunal of Reason, and Ask, whether such à Doctrine, appears not to all Prudent men more than improbable? Whilst experience teaches; that à great Part of the world both now, and in former Ages also (though the Church ever shown Herself the only glorious evidenced Oracle) remains notwithstanding in à State of Incredulity. What then would so many Nations have done? without them, would have not believed any thing. How cold would Their Faith have been? Who would have believed, had all the After-motives of Faith perished, and nothing been heard of but high Mysteries mentioned, without supernatural Signs Confirming the Doctrine, In à word without all Evidence of Credibility? Hence, 29. You Se. 4. The hideous sin of Sectaries, who do not only rob the Church of her Glorious Marks manifested to Reason, and so make Her Doctrine and whatever Scripture teaches, The sin of Sectaries. incredible; But to ruin all, They will have the Mysteries of our Faith talked of, but not one Taught Infallibly, And thereby destroy Faith itself. Thus Reason and Religion go to wrack at once. 30. You Se. 5. It is impossible without subverting Christianity, to Separate the evidence of Credibility grounded on Convincing Motives, from true Christian Religion. Wherefore Evidence of Credibility not Separable from true Religion. I conclude, That as God has ever hitherto, assisted the Orthodox Church to Teach Truth, So also he has, and will preserve in Her the evidence of Credibility, whereby all Rational men may find truth, And indubitably Assert. This and no other, is the only Society of Christians, which teaches God's revealed Verities, and can best inform us of every Doctrine the Church taught in foregoing Ages. CHAP. XVII. A Digression Concerning Doctor Stillingfleets Discourse Where he treats of the Protestants Faith reduced to Principles. He is all à long quite besides the matter handled, and Says no more for Protestancy, than for Arianism, or any other Heresy. 1. KNow Courteous Reader, that when this Treatise The Occasion of writing this Chapter was under the Press and towards an end, there came now very lately to my hands A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome. A stolen worn-out Cavil, by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Doctor, as I interpret, of Divinity, though in his Account he was only B. D. and therefore, hitherto named by me plain Mr Stillingfleet. The fault (if any) is easily amended, He shall have his due hereafter, and be called Doctor. In this Discourse, which very candidly I have not read, nor I believe ever shall; For the matter appears very trivial, and looks like à rhapsody, I find towards The Doctor's quick Dispatch, the end of it à Flurt, and no more, at à Book Entitled Protestants, without Principles. I know, Saith he, no other Answer Like one Loath to engage. necessary, not only to this present demand, but to à Book called Protestants without Principles, the falsity of which, will appear by what follows. 2. You may well imagine, I hastened to this. What Follows, And saw in the next Page, Six Principles agreed on by ●oth Sides. 1. That there is à God, from whom Man and all other Creatures had their Being. 2. That the Notion of God doth imply, that he is à Being absolutely perfect. 3. That man receiving his Six Principles, remote from Protestancy. Being from God, is thereby bound to obey his will, and so on to the sixth, which, Methought, seemed as remote from Principling the Protestants Faith, as if he had told us. Adam was tempted by Eue. 3. The next Leaf turned over; I found this Title, Contrary to Protestancy without Principles. The Faith of Protestants reduced to Principles, with this Addition. These things (viz. The six Principles) being agreed on both Sides, we are now to inquire into the particular ways which God has made choice of for revealing his will to Mankind. He should also have said. And Concerning the Faith of Protestants (here lies the main Business) if mankind be concerned in it, but this is waved. 4. Nay more is waved, whereon all depends. Observe I A promising Title. But the main matter is waved, beseech you. We have here à fair Title. The Protestants faith reduced to Principles, before we know what these men believe. Yet most certainly, we should first have had some light concerning their Belief, before we hear talk of its Principles. We should know how many Articles the Professors of it maintain as necessary to salvation, How many also they reject as Heretical? We should know what it is, one may boldly renounce Particulars omitted. as an Opinion, proper to Protestants; And what it is he must hold, as Protestant, or be damned? All this I Say and more, Should in the first place have been fully explained, to the end we may have some hint of the Thing Principled, before we are informed of its Principles. The Proof of à Thesis ever presupposes the Thesis plainly set down. You never heard of any Tenet publicly exposed in Schools, to The pretended Faith of Protestants Cannot be known. All may abjure that Faith without danger of Salvation. the Examination of others, But every Opponent knows, what's Asserted. All here runs in à contrary Strain. A Faith is spoken of reducible to Principles, which is so remote from all humane understanding, that none shall, or can ever tell me, what i● is. Or speak thus, And you speak truth. What ever the Protestant maintain's (as he is Protestant) though called Faith, may, without danger of our Souls, be boldly renounced by him, by me, and the whole world besides. 5. The Convincing Reason of what I now Assert, is so groundedly laid forth in this present Treatise, that no Sectary shall overthrew our Proofs. Read I beseech you, The. 1. They have no Essence of Religion. Disc. C. 20. n. 7. and what follows, you find there à Sect of men called Protestants, but without the very Essence of Religion. Read also the. 2. Discourse, you have there in several places, the whole Faith of Protestants brought to à List of mere false Opinions, or rather to flat Heresies. Their Their Negatives, disowned. Doctrine Common to all Insufficient. negative Articles, of not Praying to Saints! Of no Transubstantiation are cashiered by them. The Doctrine common to all called Christians, without more, is à plain Fourb, unless they deny the sacred Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation also, with Arians. Their Pretence to believe so much of Catholic Doctrine as pleases their Fancies, is not singular to them, but common to others, not Protestants. 6. Now (and it's ever to be noted) we inquire after the singular Faith of Protestants as contradistinct from Popery, And Where the main difficulty is? And what Should be Answered? all other known Heresies, And desire, That this Faith as it is Peculiar, may be reduced to Principles? I Say the Reduction is utterly impossible, and the Reason is best expressed in few words. Their Faith is Fancy, They have nothing like Faith to found on Principles. But to See this proved, You are once more wished, to read the Discourses and Chapters already quoted, for I will not take so much pains for the Doctor as merely to blot Paper, and repeat in this place, what is there Convinced. Thus much Noted. 7. Be pleased to hear two Propositions, which come nearer to our present matter. One is. Whatever Faith the Sectary 〈◊〉 Claim to, as peculiar to Protestancy (be it what you will) if Two Propositions. contrary to the received Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, is not reducible to Principles. 8. Another Assertion. All the Principles, tediously made use of by the Doctor (we may Suppose him very conversant in the best) are wholly impertinent, And have no more to do with the Faith of Protestants; No more support that Novelty▪ then if one should tell you. Abraham begot Isaac. If I prove this, you'll Say, the Doctor has ventured upon à desperate Attempt; If not; I disgrace myself. 9 To go on and prove. We must first well distinguish The Doctrine contained in these Principles, between the Doctrine contained in these Principles, supposed to uphold the Protestants Faith, and the Application or Inferences drawn from it, in order to that end. The Doctrine is sometimes true, sometimes false, and often (not well expressed) dubious. But the Application of it to Protestancy, And this And the Application, are to be distinguished. most Concerns the Doctor, when true, is as remote from the purpose, or no more Concerns the faith of Protestants, then if one should Say. God made the world, I say when is true, for if false or dubious, it's wholly impertinent. 10. Thus the Doctor gins (and pity me that I trouble the Reader, and myself also with mere Parergons', which relate The first Principle. not at all to Protestancy) First. An entire Obedience to the will of God being agreed on to be the condition of Man's happiness, no other way is in itself necessary to that end, than such, whereby Man may know what the Will of God is. Answ. This general Doctrine, though true, Support's no more the particular faith of Protestants (be it what you will) than the Faith of Arians, or Pelag●ins. For all these and Catholics likewise, may grant. A mere parergon, to the present Controversy. There is no other way necessary to happiness than such, whereby à Man may know what the will of God is, yet must withal acknowledge the Inference, the Reduction, or Application to this or that particular Doctrine, wherein these Parties descent from one another, wholly impertinent, unless more be Said. For Example, the worst of Heretics hold with Catholics. There is no other way to be saved but by Christ jesus our Redeemer, But as the Arian never offers, immediately to draw from thence his Denial of à Mysterious Trinity, So the Catholic would be as far to seek, should he adventure, without more, to build the Infallibility The reason, why it ●s impertinent? of the Church, or the Doctrine of Transubstantiation upon that General owned Truth only. The Reason is. A Principle Common to all, or more, Considered as Common, stands firm, gives light, 'tis true, so sar as it reaches, but cannot possibly extend itself, to all the different Tenets Whereupon Men fall, when they vary and descent among Themselves. Here the Principle becomes useless without more light, or à new Supply of other Proofs, which relate immediately to every particular Doctrine, really true, or pretended to be so. 11. Thus you See the Doctor's error, whilst first he gives The Doctor's error. you à Principle common to all, And will next build the particular Faith of Protestants upon it. I Say this is impossible, For à truth so General, (as is now noted) gives no more Support, or Light to Protestancy, than to Arianism. Had the Dr better explained these General words. There is no other way than such, whereby Man may know what the will of God is, And then adjoined. But Protestants in behalf of their new Faith, Teach and Prove such and No application made of the general Principle. such to be the only only ways, whereby Man may know the Will of God, and Papists cannot do it; He had offered at something, But in doing so, He would First have receded from the General true Principle, And next have spoken à loud untruth, because Protestants have no such ways. Now only to tell us, what all the world knows, and to make that à Principle for Protestancy, is certainly more than à strange Impertinency. Yet this Strain runs through all his other miscalled Principles. 12. Observe it in the three following Paragraphs. Man, The want of Application, holds ●n Saith He, being framed à rational creature may Antecedently to any external Revelation certainly know the Being of God, and his dependency upon him. What's this to the Purpose? All is true, but the Truth is so General, that it reaches not at all to the Protestants particular Faith. No more do the other two which follow immediately, as every Reader will easily perceive, at the first view. 13. Perhaps the Fift in order may prove better. There can be no other means Imagined whereby we are to judge of the truth of Divine Revelation, but à faculty in us of discerneng truth and falsehood in matters proposed to our belief, which if we do not exercise in judgeing Another Principle proves nothing, Unless Sectaries suppose themselves, the only upright judges. the truth of Divine Revelation we must be imposed upon, by every thing that pretends to be so. The Assertion Still too General Euinces nothing for Protestancy, Unless these words (If we do not Exercise). (We must be imposed upon) Signify that Protestants only are to judge, excluding others, both Catholics and all called Christians. Say that Protestants only can judge, you speak à Paradox. Allow others à Faculty in judgeing, the Question will be who judges best? Which is far from being decided by this abstract Principle, Therefore as its worth nothing, it concludes Nothing, without à further Application. Now if you desire to See how Reason proceeds in judging of Religion, Read the. 3. Discourse. C. 15. 14. The sixth Way or Principle. The Pretence of Infallibility in any Person, or Society of Men, must be judged in the same Way, and by the same means that the truth of à Revelation is. Say good The Doctor speaks of à way, but t●ll's us not, Reader, who can know what to do by force of These General Terms, whilst neither Way nor Means in particular, are so much as hinted at? The Arian takes his way, The Protestant another, the Catholic proceeds contrary to both. Therefore unless the Doctor can prove that Protestants take What Christians follow it? the right way, and All the rest of Christians do not (and it must be proved by à Principle distinct from this General one) He abuses the Reader, and will seem to speak in behalf of the Protestants Faith, though he comes not near it. 15. The. 7th. Principle. It being in the Power of God to make The 7th. Principle as bad, as the rest▪ choice of several ways of revealing his will, we ought to inquire what way God has chosen? Answ. Once more who are these We, that aught to inquire? What, Protestant's only? Have not others before Sectaries were born, both sought and found the true way to Salvation? But let this pass. The Principle too General concerns not Protestants at all, before it be shown upon better Proofs, that they only have hit on the right way, which neither is proved, nor can be made probable. 16. The. 8th. and 9th. Principles only fill Paper, and concern not the matter now in hand. In the 10th.. we are told, that God can as well declare his Will by Writing, as by men Infallibly assisted. Answ. All grant God can clearly declare his mind in Sectaries have not the singular grace, to understand Scripture before all others. Writing, But the Question is, whether this be done de Facto, in the Holy Book of Scripture? S. Peter cited above, Says no. However, suppose it done, A second Question follows, and 'tis à hard one. Viz. Whether that singular Privilege of understanding Gods declared Will, expressed in Scripture, can be granted Protestants, before all others called Christians, and particularly before their Elder Brethren, the Roman Catholics? Affirm, The Paradox must be evinced by à strong Proof in deed. Say No; or grant that others besides Protestants may as well understand it, as They, The Principle no more Concerns them, them the rest of mankind. And thus you See, The Application of all true Principles to Protestancy, ever Fails, and Cannot but fail. 17. The 11th. Principle is true, But touches Protestant's no more, than other Christians. The 12th. Where 'tis Said, we are to judge by those writings (of Scripture) what the will of An untrue Supposition. God is in order to Salvation, is no Principle, but à false Supposition, in case the Authority and infallible Interpretation of the Church, be rejected. But grant all. Ask again, who are those, We, that must judge? What Protestants only? Or others What follows, if all diessenting in the high matters of Faith, may judge? with them? If all may judge, and differ, as is most evident, in the highest matters of Faith after the perusal of Scripture, A new Question ensues, Whose judgement is finally to be stood to, which shall never be decided without introducing another Principle, whereby all must say. Such an Oracle judges for all. 18. Hence I briefly Answer to 13th. and 15th. Principles (The 14th. is à mere Parergon) In the first we are told. It is repugnant to the Design, to the wisdom and Goodness of God, to give infallible Assurance to Persons in writing his will, for the benefit of Mankind, if those writings may not be understood by all persons who sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them▪ in such things as are necessary for their Salvation. Answ. And mark, How remote we are yet Who are the Sincere Seekers. from Protestancy? Grant those writings may be understood by all who take the right Way, and endeavour to know their meaning, Nothing follows, whilst the Doctor proves not by another distinct Principle, that Protestants only are the sincere Inquirers, excluding others, who after all endeavour used, Dissent Still▪ want of Application from them. This not done, he turns us off with à general Proposition, making no Application of it to his own particular Cause. You will See what I would Say, by this one Syllogism. Evidenced by this one Syllogism. Those writings may be understood by all who take the right way, and endeavour to know their meaning, But Protestants do this, and Papists do not. Here the Minor is evidently dubious (I say absolutely false) and therefore the Application of the general Principle to Protestants, fails, But this failing; or not applied home by another Proof; The general Proposition no more Supports Protestancy, than Arianism or Pelagianism. Of this want of application which transcends all the Doctor's Principles, when true, you shall have more presently. 19 In the mean while take notice of it again in the 15th Way. These Writings being owned as Containing in them the whole will of God so plainly revealed, that no sober Enquirer can miss of what is necessary for Salvation, There can be etc. First its false, that the whole Will of God, is plainly revealed in Scripture. And An Untruth. Supposed. had we no more, but Thus much only. Viz. The vast multitudes of Christians who zealously defend that sense they Conceive of Scripture, yet contradict one another in Points most Though the Assertion were supposed true, it helps not Protestant's. Essential, Proves it false, whereof enough is said in the several parts of this Treatise. But let that Pass. Suppose it à Truth The Propositions or Proofs must run thus. No sober Enquirer can miss of knowing God's will, or of what is necessary to Salvation. Now add this Minor. But the Protestant only, is the sober Enquirer, For No Arian, No Pelagian, No Quaker, No Papist soberly inquires, excepting the Protestant. Thus much must be Assumed or to the General Proposition Vnapplyed, help's the Protestant no more than others, that execrate his Doctrine; For if these or any of them, may be listed among the number of sober Enquirers The Reason hereof. (its ridiculous to exclude all) and yet reject Protestanism, The general Proposition (for aught appears yet) may be applied as well by every one to his particular Religion, as by the Protestants, to Protestancy, Therefore it signifies Just Nothing, before à right Application be made by distinct Proofs, to the One only true Religion. Some may reply every Man is to inquire, and Answer for Himself. Pitiful That's to Say, we must always be Sceptics, ever learning and never well taught. Weak reason and fancy are thus made Sectaries after their long Enquiry have no Union in Faith. our Doctors, if this Principle be owned. See Disc. 2. C. 17. Per totum. In the Interim know, this long enquiring after one whole Age, brings no union in faith to Protestants, who are as the world Sees; at endless jars amongst themselves. 20. The 16th Principle Opposes such Men as pretend to infallible Assistance, without giving an equal degree of Evidence, that they are so assisted as Christ and his Apostles did, by Miracles as great, as public and convincing, as these were. Answ. This This Principle is first against Protestants. Principle is quite besides the matter. First, because Protestants own à Church infallible in Fundamentals, without giving an Evidence equal to that of Christ and his Apostles. Why then may not such an Evidence as proves the Church Infallible in Fundamentals, be further extended, and induce All to believe▪ Her Infallible, in every Doctrine She teaches. 2. The Principle Secondly, false. is false. We have Apostolical Evidence in the Church ever since those Primitive times, as is largely proved Disc. 1. C. 14. 15. 16. And Disc. 3. C. 3. Lastly it is no more Thirdly, though Supposed true, it help's not Protestant's. but à Proofles Assertion against the Church, which lays claim to Infallibility, And cannot though it were true, advantage Protestancy one whit. Please to observe my Reason. Suppose the Catholic Church, and the Protestant party were like one another, equally fallible, upon what Principle can the fallible Protestant Party plead better, or Say more for his Cause, than the Supposed fallible Roman Church in behalf of Her Doctrine? Both of them, as is proved in the second Discourse, would in this case, be à Public scorn to jews and Gentiles, whilst they The reason hereof Convinces. Outbrave one another, with the Mere Nothing of fallible Principles, And (which is ever to be noted) can stand on no surer Ground than what is fallible, and may be false, if no Church be owned Infallible. 21. In the. 17th Principle we are told its absurd, to pretend the necessity of an Infallible Assistance, to assure us of the truth of Scripture, And at the same time to Prove the Assistance Nothing yet for Protestancy from those writings, from which nothing can be certainly deduced. Answ. Here again is nothing for Protestancy. For Suppose which is false; we prove not an Infallible Assistance, Are therefore Protestants in à better condition than Catholics? How The Church's Infallibility is first Proved. But to speak truth, the Doctor wholly Mistakes, we prove the Church's Infallibility independently of Scripture. Read Disc. 3. C. 5. In the. 18. Principle we hear talk again of the best Means for understanding the Scripture, but whether we Catholics, Arians or Protestants happily light on't, is not so much as hinted at by the Doctor, wherefore I Said above, these Generalities prove nothing, without à nearer Application, made by Proofs, yet more immediate. 22. The. 19th Principle. The Assistance which God hath promised to those who sincerely desire to know his will, may give them greater Assurance of the truth of what is contained in Scripture, than it is possible for the greatest infallibility in any other persons to do▪ Supposing they have not such assurance of their Infallibility. Answ. All this (were it true) is to say Just nothing concerning Protestants, unless they be supposed the only Men who sincerely desire to know God's Will, for if any other called Christians Sectaries gain nothing by this abstract Principle. of à different Belief, be as Sober Inquirers, or desire as earnestly to know God's will, as Sectaries, What gain they by this remote abstract Principle? Now to Suppose all other Christians negligent, in the Inquiry after God's will, and Protestants only the zealous Seekers, comes nearer to à bold Presumption; than to any thing like the nature of à Principle. In à word here you have all. The Application to the Protestant Faith is wanting. But what will you? The Doctor cannot Unless they Suppose Themselves, the only sober Inquirers. Want of Sense. be drawn to plead for his own cause. Finally, sense is wanting in that last clause. Supposing they have not such assurance of their Infallibility. Which is only to Say. Supposing the Church be not Infallible, Catholics cannot believe Her Infallibility. 23. The 20th Principle. No Man's Faith can therefore be infallible, merely because the Proponent is said to be Infallible. Answ. But if This Principle concerns not Sectaries▪ the Proponent be both Said, and Proved Infallible (and this is amply proved) Faith with the Assistance of God's Grace may well, yea and must depend upon it, and be infallible. However, let all here Said pass. There is yet nothing drawn from the Principle more concerning the Faith of Protestants then of the More than the Arians. Arians. Observe well. Both hold the Proponent of Faith which is the Church, Fallible; Make now the Inference. Ergo the Protestants Faith seems more sound than the Arians, is à pure Nonsequitur, not at all Deducible from this Principle alone, nor indeed from any other. 24. In the three following Paragraphs. 21. 22. 23. You have only gross Mistakes, though if all were true, Protestancy has None can infer, if Taith be infallible, no advantage by them. The Substance of all is thus. If Divine Faith cannot be without an Infallible Assent, all other Infallibility (He means in the Proponent) is rendered useless. Answ. Why so I beseech you? The Apostles Faith was certainly Infallible, That therefore an Infallible Proponent of Faith, is unnecessary. did that render our Saviour's Infallible Doctrine Infallibly proposed, useless? In like manner the Church teaches Infallibly, The Faithful Man elicites Infallible Faith, grounded upon Her Doctrine, Doth this make Her Teaching Useless? When the internal faith of every Believer so necessarily depends upon an Infallible Oracle, that none ever believed without some one or other, absolutely Infallible. 25. But now Ad rem▪ Make havoc of Faith as much as may be, Destroy Christian Religion, Say boldly (and falsely) Were all Proponents of Faith fallible. the Roman Catholic Church both is, and ever was fallible. Say also, Protestants, Arians, Pelagians, and all the rest are fallible. Speak once to the Purpose and tell me (For here is the only doubt) Why should the Protestant with his fallible Faith, be in à The Protestant yet would not be in à better Condition than the Arion. better and à more Secure condition, than the fallible Papist, or the fallible Arian, with that faith they lay claim to? This the Doctor never meddles with, nor can the difficulty be solued by him. 26. And Hence To rid myself of the rest, which follows (for really I am more weary of this Sport then the Dr ever was at kill flies) you shall See with what Candour I Proceed. I freely permit the Doctor to make use of all his following Principles, yea of the whole Thirty in Number, And say notwithstanding this ample Concession, He shall never Prove or infer from any of them, So much as One true Tenet Though all were granted which the Doctor can rationally desire peculiar to Protestants, which can be owned by these very men, that pretend to believe Protestancy, an Article of Faith necessary for salvation. Here is my Reason. The General owned Truths (as that à rational creature may antecedently to any External Revelation, certainly know the Being of God &c) no more belong to Protestants, than to others. The Doctor's false Principles, as Nothing, yet proved. his 16. and 17. are, though Supposed true, evince nothing for Protestancy, as is already Proved. No more do his other Controverted Principles, denied by innumerable Christians, prove any thing. His obscure Ones (and his 27 and 29. appear to The reason hereof, briefly given. me of the darker sort) must be further explained, For truly I understand not what is meant by those obscure words. Which rejection is no making Negative Articles of Faith, with the rest that follows. Be it how you will, thus much I defend, that, whether the fore mentioned Principles be True, False, Controverted, or Obscure; no Verity peculiar to Protestants can be deduced from them, absolutely necessary to Salvation. 27. I Say deduced, either by lawful Consequences, or by the Addition of any received Principle, And I Speak thus, because Perhaps the Doctor may Answer, He intended no more at present, but only to set down some general Grounds, whereupon Protestancy, by the aid of further Proofs adjoinable, though not as yet not made use of, Can be established. If this be his Reply, I Answer First. He has gone most lamely to work, The Doctor's whole work hitherto, most imperfect leaving the whole Matter undertaken, half done half undone, in à word incomplete. I Answer. 2. There are neither Proofs nor Principles, to go forward withal, I mean, whereby to Evince the truth of one Pure Protestant Tenet, held by Sectaries themselves, necessary to Salvation, And I conjure the Doctor (who must hold his abstract Principles hitherto laid forth, very imperfect) He cannot go on, and Complete it to advance further, That is, to evince by some other more immediate Proofs, the absolute necessity of Believing one Protestant Article. This cannot be done. 28. The Reason why I Speak thus boldly, is the Verity hinted The ultimate ground of my Assertion at in the beginning, and proved above. Protestancy as Protestancy has no truth in it, No Essence of Religion, No One Article Conducing to Salvation. And Hence it is, that the Doctor keep's off at distance, Or rather runs on as you see, partly by assuming false Principles against the Catholic Church; Partly with Generalities, which relate no more to Protestancy then to Arianism. 29. Now here in passing you may well observe The different Procedure of Catholics, from Sectaries. The first tell you plainly what their Faith is. Besides the common Doctrine admitted by all Called Christians, They give you in particular, à list of theer Credends. The Real Presence, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, and in the first place, of the Infallibility of their Church, peculiar to Catholics only. They moreover How differently the Catholic and Sectaries Proceed. Assert, without the Belief of these Articles after à due Proposal made, none can be saved; And, here to omit other Probations, taken from Scripture, Councils, and Fathers, They ground their Belief upon the Authority of God's own universal evidenced Oracle, which hath taught the world from the Apostles Age. 30. The Sectary on the other side, neither dares nor Can name one Article, Singular to Protestant's (Mark my words) Or Preach this Doctrine to any of his Hearers. Such and such particular Articles, you are, as Protestants Obliged to believe, as most essential Tenants of our Religion, or will be damned, if you reject them. The Sectary cannot name one Protestant Article, judged by him necessary to Salvation He cannot build one peculiar Protestant Article, upon plain Scripture, upon ancient Tradition, or any other received Principle, much less Prove its Truth by the Authority of à Church, which ever Shown the Marks and Signatures, of God's Infinite Power and Wisdom. It may be, Some Sectary will here Cavil at our Articles, and Say indeed, we plainly deliver them, but needlessly multiply too many. If this be Objected, I Answer first. The Assertion is no Principle, but à mere vnproued Supposition. I Answer. 2. in this place, it is an Impertinency, where we only urge the Sectary to name but one A possible Cavil answered. Article, judged by him Essential to Protestancy and necessary for Salvation, As we plainly give in our Several necessary Articles. Thus much Complied with, We are as ready to Prove the Truth of our Catholic Positions, as to Evince upon sound Principles, the Sectaries false and Improbable. CHAP. XVIII. The Doctor's Inferences, proved no Inferences, but untrue Assertions. Having answered his Principles and Inferences, Satisfaction is required to some few Questions, hereafter proposed. 1. IT follows, Saith the Dr 1. There is no necessity at all of an Infallible Society of men, to assure men of the truth The first Inference is à mere Tautology. of those things, which they may be certain without etc. Answ. Here you have neither Inference, nor Principle; (In very reality neither true Consequence, nor Consequentia) No Inference; because, it's à mere Tautology, or à bare repetition of what the Doctor had formerly asserted, without Proof or Probability, And Consequently far enough from the Nature of either Principle or Inference. Had the Doctor brought in any thing like an Inference; He Should have Said. Upon such and such grounds already established, It follows, that these and what Should be proved. these particular Doctrines of Protestants are true, and immediately deduced, from this or that Principle, But he totally abandon's the Protestants Faith, and leaves his Fellow-sectaries as faithless, as they were before he wrote these Principles. The True Inference therefore, or all that follows, is, that he hath lost his whole Labour. 2. The. 2. Inference. The Infallibility of that Society of men, yet no Inference. who call themselves the Catholic Church, must be examined by the same Faculties in Man, the same Rules of trial, the same Motives etc. Answ. Here is no Inference, but the same thing repeated again, which for the substance lies in his 6th Principle. what Reason is to examine Now if we Speak of this Doctrine considered in itself, we easily grant, that the rational faculties in men, both may and aught to examine by the Light of prudent Motives, what Society of Christians is Infallible, as also what Divine Revelation is made evidently Credible to Reason. But herein à double Caution seems necessary. The first. That Sectaries assume not to themselves, the sole Faculty of examining and judging, but leave to others à share of it also. The second A twofold Caution to be observed. Proviso is, that Reason in this Search, go not beyond its Bounds, but pitch upon that which is Reasons proper Object, I mean upon those Signatures of God's own Visible Wonders, already explained. These two Conditions observed, All is well. Sectaries will soon See their Error. 3. The. 3. Inference, deduced out of no Principle, falsely No want of Motives, and Miracles in the Church Supposes but proves not, the want of Miracles, and other convincing Motives in Roman Catholic Church. It is largely refuted upon several Occasions, in every one of these three Discourses. 4. The fourth Inference (From whence it comes, I know not) is thus. The more absurd any Opinions are, and repugnant to the first Principles of Sense, and reason, which any Church obtrudes upon the Faith of men, The greater reason men will have, to reject the A Speech like that of jews and Arians. Pretence of Infallibility in that Church, as à grand imposture. Answ. Had à jew, who holds it against Sense and Reason, to believe that God became an Infant; Or had an Arian that denies the Trinity, because the Mystery seems repugnant to his weak Reason, Spoken after this manner, None would have much wondered; But that à Doctor, who pretends to believe these Fundamentals of Christian Religion, Cannot find room enough in his head for reason and Faith, in every particular the Church Teaches, argues some little want, both of the One and Other. But say on, what is it he boggles at? O, à Consecrated Wafer appears to be bread, and is not bread, this is repugnant Sense beguiled. to sense and reason. Contra. Those two Angels that came to Lot. Gen. 19 appeared to the Sodomites like mortal men, but were not so: Was not Reason here, upon the suggestion of Sense How rectified? beguiled? And are not both these faculties now rectified in us, by what we read in Holy Writ, which ascertain's us they were not men but Angels? Thus it falls out in the Mystery of the Blessed Sacrament. Wherefore I Say, Were it not that God, Speaking by Scripture and the Church assures us, that what we see, is not substantianly bread, the whole world would (guided by outward Appearances) hold it bread, as those wicked Citizens judged Lots entertained Guests to be men, and not Angels, But when eternal Truth interposes his Authority, and tell's us by his own Oracles, what is here contained under the Forms of bread, is God in this Mystery interposes his Authority and unbeguils' reason. not bread, but Christ's Sacred body; Reason yields upon this most prudent Ground. It is the highest reason in the world to believe God, though by reason we know not how things are. Here is our Principle, not possibly to be reversed, unless the Doctor proves his Contrary Doctrine by the Authority of another Scripture, or some other Church, more evidenced by Supernatural Wonders, and Consequently more Orthodox, than the Roman Catholic Church is. You may read the First Discourse. C. 12. n. 4. where its Proved, that the immediate Object of Sense Ceases not to be, in this Mystery. 5. Wherefore I Infer, that if the Doctor would have the Infallibility of that Church rejected, as à grand Imposture, because A hint gived to jews and Arians, to reject the Scriptures Infallibility. it obtrudes upon us Doctrines, in his Opinion repugnant to Sense and reason; He ought also by good Consequence, to Invite both jews and Arians, to reject the Infallibility of Scripture, as à grand Imposture, where it Speaks of the Incarnation, and the Sacred Trinity, for certainly these Mysteries, are far more above all men's weak Reason, than this other of the Blessed Sacrament is. 6. The Doctors 5th and 6th Inferences deserve no such names, because they are not deducible from any Principles, being Untrue Assertions in place of Inferences. only his own plain Assertions, and most untrue. Say I beseech you, From what Principles can He infer, That to disown à Church which teaches Doctrine above the reach of weak Reason, is not to Question the Veracity of God, but to adhere to that, in what he hath revealed in Scripture? How can this be done, Whilst the whole No knowing what Scripture Speaks, without an Infallible Church. world see's, the holy Book of Scripture so variously Sensed by dissenting men called Christians, that none can conclude upon any clear Principle, which sense is true, which false, without owing à Church Infallible? I Say, above the reach of weak reason, But not repugnant, as the Doctor supposes, For no Catholic Verity can be repugnant to Evident reason, though much above it. In à word. That Doctrine is repugnant to Reason, from whence two Contradictions clearly follow (now I urge the Doctor to give us any thing like à Contradiction in the Mystery already What's Contrary to Reason, mentioned of the blessed Sacrament) That Doctrine is above Reason, which cannot be known by the aid of natural Principles only, And thus the Mystery of the Sacred Trinity, of the Incarnation, of Original sin, and Transubstantiation also, are so far removed from our natural faculties, that none but God only, can discover them by his Supernatural Revelation. The 6th Inference And What's above it? where the Doctor tell's us, That the Church of Rome, neither is the Catholic Church, nor any sound Part or member of it, is his own bare Assertion, already proved à loud Untruth. 7. Having now done with this List of Principles and Inferences, we may, I hope without offence, justly require the Doctors Express, direct, and Categonal Answer to these few following Questions. 8. The first, and of main importance, though already plainly The first Question Proposed set down, may be thus. What that Essential revealed Doctrine is, now peculiar to Protestants, and held by them necessary to Salvation, which distinguishes that Religion as it is Protestancy, from Popery, and all known Heresies? I Speak of Doctrine indubitably revealed by Almighty God, or taught by any Universal Church, which these men own as à Truth peculiar to themselves, and necessary for Salvation. If à List of some such few Articles peculiar and necessary (mark my words) can without dispute be clearly given in, Protestants will highly advance their own Cause, and most easily point out some ancient Christians, that in former Ages believed as they do now. But Contrariwise, if not so much as one revealed Article of this nature, I mean peculiar to Not one Truth revealed by Almighty God, taught by Protestants, as Protestants. them, and in their judgements necessary for Salvation, can be owned or laid claim to. It follows evidently, that Protestancy as Protestancy, is no Christian Religion, because in the whole Essence of it, you find not one truth revealed by Almighty God, or taught by any Universal Church. 9 In the. 2. place, Dr Stillingfleet who charges flat Idolatry upon the Roman Catholic Church, is desired to Answer Two Demands more. Categorically to these two Demands. The first. If he acknowledge with Dr Bramhal and others, that the first Protestant Bishop's received their Ordination from the Roman Catholic Bishops, or will assert with Luther, that the first Protestants had the Bible from the Catholic Church; My demand, I Say One concerning the ordination of the first Protestant Bishops. is. Whether Mr Stillingfleet will roundly grant that the Protestant Bishops received their Ordination from Idolatrous Popish Prelates, or that Luther and Sectaries had their Bible from an Idolatrous Church? Affirm (and it must be granted) Mr Thorndicke in his Just Weights and Measures. Page. 7. tell● us plainly. If it be true (Viz. That the Papists are guilty of Idolatry) Orders taken from Idolatrous Prelates, argues an ungodly Communication. We cannot without renouncing Christianity, hold Communion with those, we charge with it. And what greater Communion Can there be then to take Orders from such Idolatrous Prelates, and the Bible from an Idolatrous Church? Again, in the Contents of the first Chapter, Mr Thorndicke adds. They that Separate from the Church of Rome, as Idolaters, are thereby Schismatics before God. This truth he proves very amply in the following Pages, And in the 7. P. now cited, Concludes thus. So that, Should this Mr Thorndick's judgement Church declare, that the Change, which we call Reformation, is grounded upon this Supposition, to wit of Idolatry, I must then acknowledge, that we are the Schismatics. 10. Moreover, whereas the Doctor Charges the Church with Idolatry upon this twofold account Chief, That She adores Another Concerning worship and Adoration. Christ in the blessed Eucharist, and allows the Veneration of holy Images, Mr Thorndicke. Chap. 19 in the Contents free's Her from both these Calumnies. The worship of the Host in Papacy (Saith he) is not Idolatry, and he Proves the truth in the Context, because no Papist will acknowledge, that he honours the Accidents of bread, for God. Again. Reverencing of Images in Churches is not Idolatry. See the Probation hereof in his Page. 127. For it is not now my Intent to debate these Controversies, but only to let the Reader know, how clearly the old Doctor (and I think the far more knowing man) contradicts the younger; And this Two Doctor● Contradict one another is done not in Matters disputable, or agitated in Schools, but in à Point of the highest Concern Imaginable touching the very essence of Religion. Wherefore he that Errs in à thing of such weight (unless invincible ignorance excuses, incurr's God's Just The one or other of th●se Doctors, horrid Sinners. Indignation, and Sin's damnably. If therefore Mr Thorndicke clears the Church (were She guilty of Idolatry) from that Crime, He wrong's God, that hates Idolatry. But if our younger Doctor lais an Aspersion so abominable upon the most ancient Mother Church, and thereby send's to Hell all his own Ancestors, with Millions and Millions of other Souls; 'tis He, that draws God's heavy judgement upon him, and for this loud Crying sin, besides Shame and Confusion, will have many à sorrowful thought laid to his heart, before he dies. 11. My Second demand Proposed to the Doctor, includes A second demand, contains two things. these two things The first. Whether the Roman Catholic Church, which the Dr expressy Saith, errs not against the Fundamentals of Faith; yet withal boldly auerr's, that She teaches Idolatry, be not à most open, plain, and manifest Contradiction? I Affirm it is. For to aver on the one side, that She errs not in an open Contradiction. the Fundamentals of Faith, and on the other to say, she teaches Idolatry, which is à fundamental error, is with one breath to affirm. She Errs, and errs not, in the fundamentals of Faith. One A Turk errs not so far as he teaches truth. may reply, so far as the Church teaches truth, She errs not in fundamentals. Answ. No more doth à Turk who holds one God, err in that, yet because the rest of his Religion is false, and destructive of Salvation, he can never get to Heaven by it. In Idolatry makes Salvation impossible, though the Church teaches some truths. like manner I Say, Though the Church teaches twenty fundamental Truths, yet if She spoil's all by maintaining one Point of Idolatry, Her Condition is damnable, and can no more bring any that believes Her whole Doctrine to Heaven, than Mahometism can, which owns the Believe of one God. 12. Hereupon you have another manifest contradiction, and the Doctor shall never quit himself of it. In his Rational Account, He grant's à Possibility of Salvation to Catholics, because they believe in à Church sound (though not every way The Doctor's open Contradictions. safe) in fundamentals: Here again, he taxes Her with the horrid Sin of Idolatry, which most evidently makes Her Doctrine damnable, and Consequently Salvation impossible to those that The Church ●an save her Children. She cannot save them believe it; Therefore unless these two Propofitions which are Contradictory, be true. There is â Possibility of Salvation in this Church to save Souls. There is no Possibility in it to save them, the Doctor's Assertions are as evidently Opposite to one another, as, if you should Say. She can save souls; And she cannot save them. Or, She is à true Church, and she is not à true Church. 13. A third Question. Whereas it is manifest and granted by Sectaries, that the Roman Catholic Church once was confessedly Orthodox, at least for the first three or four Centuries, yet A third Question grounded, on what Sectaries grant as our Aduerfaries assert, failed afterward, and brought in strange new Doctrines, yea flat Idolatry. We urge the Doctor to satisfy Reason in this one particular. viz. Why Protestants deal not as Candidly with us, as we do with them. I would say. We accuse them, for deserting à Church wherein their Progenitors had lived for à thousand years, and as à little Method lately published, observes excellently well, Speak open, and acknowledged Evidence; We tell How plainly we deal with them. them who began this new Mode of Reformation, we exactly Point at the time of its first Rise, we Show how it was Propagated, what Abetters it had, and omit no Circumstance, which may Conduce And how darkly they with us? to à plain discovery of the whole Novelty. Sectaries on the other side accuse the Church of heretical, yea of Idolatrous Innovations, and yet as the Method notes, their charge is so obscure, so utterly unknown, that the very Accusers cannot say, who first published them, Or where they began; from what occasion they had their Origen? who patronised them? Or who opposed them? 14. Please now to mark, what my demand is in this place. The Doctor and his Partisans suppose, these and the like wicked Innovations, of an unbloodly Sacrifice, of Adoring the Sacred Host, what the Doctor is obliged to. to have been evidently brought into the Church, Contrary to the Primitive Doctrine. For that public act of Adoration came not in by night, but was à thing notoriously known, notoriously practised. Is not therefore the Dr obliged, either to tell us plainly, when, where, and how, this visible worship first began That is, to prove by Evidence, what He supposes evidently innovated, we accuse and give in Evidence. Or, to give à reason; Why when catholics evidently prove the Sectaries revolt from the Roman Church; Protestant's cannot upon the like Evidence Prove, that the Roman Church in latter Ages receded from any former Roman Church, pure and Orthodox? Observe well the difference. We accuse them of an actual Revolt from our Church, (whether they had reason for it or no, is not here disputed) The ground whereupon our Accusation relies, is evident and notoriously known. They accuse as boldly as we do, But when their Proofs come to the Test, all of them dwindle into lame guesses, false Suppositions; in à word into Sectaries accuse upon guesses and false Suppositions. à mere Nothing, as will better appear in the next Chapter. 15. Now here is à Point, I would have every prudent Reader to reflect on, for I hold it à manifest Conviction of our Sectaries open Injustice. If, whoever accuses à whole Kingdom (ever known loyal) of Treason against the Sovereign Power in it, aught A Point worthy Reflection. to Produce no less than Evident Proofs in so weighty à Matter. Much more ought he or they, who impeach à whole ample Church of high Treason, plead by Evidence, or sit down Silent. The The Loyalty of the Church evidenced. Loyalty of this Church to the most Supreme Soveragn Christ jesus, is manifest. She hath, as is noted in the Other Treatise, dilated his Empire, defeated his Enemies (perfidious Heathens) gained him Friends, and innumerable Servants. Her repute was never yet stained by any, nor Fame blemished, but only by Infidels, jews, or known Heretics. Now Start's up à little late Knot of inconsiderable Sectaries, who both Cavil and accuse boldly, Of what poor Condition her Accusers are. They impeach this Church of high Treason, For, She hath changed the true Doctrine of Christ, and in place of it taught, and yet teaches Plain Idolatry: She is therefore à Rebel against that King, whom She hath served so long, and most faithfully. Here is à loud and evident Impeachment, an abominable Treason The impeachment loud and criminal. laid to the charge of à Spouse, most evidently Loyal. But where are the Evident Proofs (answerable to this evident Accusation) against the already Loyal Evidenced Church? There are But Proofs answer not. none so much as Probable, as shall be evinced in the following Chapter, where I positively prove, that Sectaries most injuriously Calumniate the Church, without Law, without Authority, or any rational Argument. 16. If Doctor Stillingf. Shall please to return à plain Answer to How the Doctor may gain applause. what is here briefly proposed, as also to the rest which follows Concerning ●his very point, in the next Chapter, he will certainly gain the applause of à singular great Doctor, but if he Fobs us off with his old Raillery of kill Flies of Small Grains, Woolsacks, and such like stuff, the world will judge (as to my knowledge many do already) That He cannot Answer, For thus they Discourse and Methinks reasonably: Had he not found himself more than à little in the briers, that is in plain language unable to Answer such Arguments as are pressed upon him, by those two Authors he Slights, He would most indubitably before this day, have replied to what is Objected, The Dr betrays his weakness in waving difficulties, which urge without mispending time in publishing à trivial threadbare Cavil, as is now done, Concerning the Idolatry of the Roman Catholic Church, which destroys not only Catholic Religion, but Protestancy also, as is amply Proved in the 2. Disc. C. 4th and 5.th In this waving of difficulties, and he is told above which they are, he betrays too much weakness. 17. The fourth Demand is, and it will give the Doctor some trouble. Suppose falsely, the Roman Catholic Church to what Church Succeded in place of the Roman, Supposed I dolatrous? have brought in that abominable Sin of Idolatry many Ages before Luther, It is evident that when Luther and Protestants deserted Her, She was far (if Idolatrous) from being the pure Spouse of Christ, or any thing like an Orthodox Church in the very Fundamentals of Faith. Hereupon à great doubt Occurr's which ought to be cleared. It is. What other Church, neither Idolatrous nor notably erroneous, succeeded in the Place of this supposed Pestiferous erring Roman Society? Such à Church distinct from the Roman, free from Idolatry and gross Error must be Pointed out, and plainly named, or it follows inevitably that the world was then without à true Church. 18. Perhaps the difficulty may yet be more significantly Proposed Christ's Promises made void. if then there was no Orthodox Church in Being. after this manner. When Luther revolted from the Roman Catholic Church infected, as is now imagined, with Idolatry and false Doctrine, There was then another Church in the world pure and Orthodox; Or not. If not; All our Saviour's Promises of being with the Church to the End of the world (He made no Promise of being with an Idolatrous, or any notorious erring Church) are false. Again, All that the Apostle writes. Ephes. 14. 11. of the Continuance of Pastors and The Apostles words also, and Doctors in the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of Christ's Mystical body till we meet in one Unity of Faith (most Certainly he Spoke not of any deluded or Idolatrous Pastors) are likewise utterly false. Nay more, that Article of our Creed. The Creed falsifyed I believe the Holy Catholic Church ceased to be true in those dismal days, when the whole Roman Catholic Church made Idolatrous went to wrack, and the resed of Christians (if not Idolatrous) were all Professed Heretics. 19 Contrariwise, if there was at that time another Orthodox Church in Being, when Luther Separated from the Roman Catholic What follows if then there was à true Church? Society; One of these two Consequences necessarily follows. Viz. That Luther and his Associates (the Protestants) either made themselves Members of that Imagined pure, Spotless, and Orthodox Church; Or founded à new One upon their own Authority, never before heard of in the Christian world. Now further. It is most impossible to nominate any such Christians as Luther and Protestants made à new Church. Constituted à pure Orthodox Church distinct from the Roman Catholic, Therefore Luther and Protestants have by their own Authority made à new One, never before known to the world. 20. There is yet à third Inference which methinks pinches such Protestants as Say: They and we make but one Church Orthodox in fundamentals. How can this Doctrine stand, if the The Church, if Idolatrous errs in the fundamentals of Faith Roman Catholic Church teaches flat Idolatry? For upon this Supposition She errs grossly in that fundamental Point of Idolatry, And consequently Protestant's must either leave her as horridly erroneous, or maintain Idolatry with Her. If it be replied though thus tainted, She yet teaches some few Truths, and Sectaries can exactly tell us which and how many they are; They Sectaries improbable Supposition. first argue upon an improbable Supposition, and secondly make the lovely Spouse of Christ, beautiful and ugly, treacherous and loyal, false and true together, whereof enough is said in the former Discourses. 21. The last question proposed, is, that the Doctor give Satisfaction concerning the Mission of Protestants. In à word we demand who sent them to teach as they do, that the Roman Catholic● Church is fallible and Idolatrous? That man hath no free will? That the Body and blood of our Saviour are not really in the blessed Sacrament, with à number of other Novelties? Our demand A difficult Question Concerning the Mission of Sectaries. is grounded upon the Apostles words. Rom. 10. 15. How Shall they preach unless they be sent. Say therefore, who commissioned these men, who countenanced them to preach such Doctrines? Dare they tell us, that as their English Bishops received Orders from the Supposed Idolatrous Catholic Prelares, So also they had Commission from them (Idolatrous as they were) to teach Idolatry? They never had, nor can have Commission to teach Protestancy. Grant this and they make their Mission not only ridiculous, but null also, and utterly void of Credit. Whither will they run next think ye? Can they pretend to have had their Mission from the Arians, from the Hussits, or Waldenses & c? No certainly, For they teach not in all things as these Heretics taught, And besides never received Commission from them, or The Assertion proved. from any men called Christians, to teach at all. Therefore they are unsent Preachers and consequently in the Apostles judgement ought no more to be heard, than the Arians or Pelagians. 22. Some Sectaries tell us, its needles to Question their A reply answered. Mission, whilst the Testimony of the Spirit assures them that they teach the true Doctrine of jesus Christ. Here is first à Supposition for à Proof, because The whole world, excepting themselves, deny what is now assumed, of their teaching truth. However, admit gratis this false Supposition, The mere speaking truth, gives them no Commission to teach it, For Children, Vagabonds, and Devils also, may Speak eternal truths, yet are not therefore authorized to preach, or made Christ's lawful authorized Ministers. The Reason hereof seems manifest. To teach truth argues no Lawful Mission. To preach truth is an effect of à lawful Mission, and not the cause of it, Wherefore this Causal or Inference, is good. I teach truth, because I am lawfully Commissioned to teach it, and exactly Comply with my Duty; Not the Contrary. I teach truth, therefore I am Authoritively sent to teach it. 23. By what is hitherto briefly noted, you see in what The desperate condition of Sectaries. case Sectaries are, who first suppose à long interruption of Orthodox Pastors in the Roman Catholic Church, and consequently never received Commission from them to teach, and though (which is true) they continued Orthodox, yet these Catholic Pastors never gave them any Authority. Again, They No Church Orthodox or Heretical▪ sent them to teach. scorn to receive their Commission from known Heretics, nor can they pretend it, because being in most Essential points opposite to Protestants, Such Heretics could not empower them to teach Protestancy. For these Reason's Sectaries are obliged to renounce all claim to that Mission which is called Ordinary, because No Church, No Society of Christians, whether Orthodox or Heretical, sent these Novellists abroad to teach as they do, their reformed Gospel. 24. Now if with Luther they challenge to themselves à Calling Some with Luther plead à Mission Extraordinary and Mission extraordinary; Not by men, or from men, but by the Revelation of Christ jesus, Their Plea no less Proofles then Presumptuous, is highly improbable upon this ground, that never any since the beginning of Christianity was sent as extraordinary by Almighty God to preach, who made not his Doctrine Credible by manifest Supernatural wonders. So Christ our Lord did, and the Apostles also. Others that followed in the after Ages, laid forth the Miracles and signal Marks of the Church whereof they were Members, and evinced by Signs the They have neither extraordinary, nor Ordinary Mission. Authority of that Oracle which sent them. But Sectaries who began with Luther to teach extraordinary Doctrine, neither plead by extraordinary wonders (having none to produce) nor can so much as hint at any Church, false or true, which commissioned them to publish Protestancy, Therefore they are unlawful Ministers, never sent to preach Christ's true Doctrine, nor so much as their own false Novelties of Protestanism. CHAP. XIX. The supposed grounds of our Protestants Reformation manifestly overthrown. Protestancy no Religion, but an improhable Novelty. The conclusion of this whole Treatise. 1. I Say the Supposed Grounds, for in very truth Protestancy What Sectaries pretend to? hath not any real Ground to Stand on, as is amply proved in the forecited Chapters, However, because Pretences are not wanting to such as Oppose God's verities, and our Adversaries seem to build the whole Machine of their Reformation Upon what they would build their Reformation upon one Principle Chief, we will here in the first place, Show you what they pretend, and utterly destroy it. 2. In à word. The main ground of our Protestants late The Protestants pretence laid forth. Reformation, or the Chiefest cause why they deserted the Roman Catholic Church, is best declared in their own language. The Roman Catholic Church (Say they) though once sound and Orthodox, yet in after Ages turned from God, betrayed his truths, brought in Idolatry and damnable Heresies. Hence it is we boldly accuse her, hence it is we write against her notorious Errors, and out of love to our Souls leave Her. Nos iussu divino, Babylone Egressi, Saith Rivet, in Sum. Trac. 2. q. 2. n. 3. We, by God's command are gone out of Babylon (he mean's the Roman Catholic Church) not so much for her unpurities, as for Her What Sectaries Assert Idols and Heresy. More he hath in the following words, often accusing this Church of Idolatry and Heresy, Consonant to what Mr Stillingfleet teaches in the several passages of his Account. 3. To overthrow this whole Plea, I Argue thus. Whoever The ground of their Doctrine overthrown, evidently impeaches an ample Church of Idolatry or Heresy, once universally acknowledged Orthodox, and proves not evidently the truth of his Accusation by clear and unquestioned Principles, but deserts that Society without Evidence alleged against her Doctrine; by this one Syllogism. Acts most unjustly, Errs notoriously, and Sin's damnably. B●t Protestants do So. That is, They evidently impeach à whole ample Church (once universally reputed Orthodox) of Idolatry and Heresy, and have also most evidently deserted Her, without Evidence alleged against her Doctrine, which can be grounded upon unquestionable Principles, Ergo, They act most unjustly, Err notoriously, and Sin damnably. 4. The Mayor Proposition stands firm upon à Principle hinted at above. Viz. That an evident Accusation in so weighty à Matter utterly loses force, unless evident Proofs support it. The Mayor Proposition proved, and confirmed. This may be further Confirmed by one Ratiocinations, in the like Form of Arguing. Whoever should evidently impute to Holy Scripture (once universally received as God's Sacred word) Idolatry and Heresy, or so much as impeach it of flight and incredible Doctrine, as the Machiavellians and Socinians do, without What if one discoursed of Scripture, as ●●ctaries do of the Church? clear and evident Proofs, would be à most desperate Plaintiff, and Sin damnably, because he endeavours to bring into public disreputation God's own truths, which the wisest of the world ever reverenced as Sacred and Divine. And though he should plead (as Sectaries Discourse of the Church) or Assert that the Book indeed was once pure and Orthodox, but afterwards falling into wicked hands, notorious Corruptions, false Doctrines (when or how no body knows) clancularly got in, and spoilt its purity; Though I say, He Should plead after this manner without à clear demonstration, or Evidence of Proofs, He would yet be à most unjust Accuser, and Sin damnably. Ergo, He or they that tax à whole Church once owned for God's Spouse, and most certainly Orthodox, of notorious corrupted Doctrine (with an addition of Idolatry) are guilty of the very same open Injustice, and Sin damnably. The Parity holds exactly. 5. The Minor Proposition. viz. But Sectaries impeach etc. Says two things. First, that they evidently accuse à whole Church, The minor Proved. and have evidently derserted Her, which is manifest Ad oculum. Secondly, that they have done so without Evidence of Proofs against her Doctrine, grounded on unquestionable Principles; And this we shall most easily demonstrate, if our Adversaries will please to own with us these following Principles, or any of them, as most unquestionable. 6. First the plain and express words of Holy Scripture, without Mixture Indubitable Principles supposed, where upon proofs must stand of their particular Glosses, or ours also. 2. The unanimous Consent of ancient Fathers, but still without Glosses. 3. The clear judgement of any Orthodox Church, whereunto we add the express Definitions of ancient approved Councils, and universal Tradition received by all. 4. Manifest Reason. No Principles can be better, or equalise these in worth, Proofs if solid, must stand upon One, or more of them. 7 Speak therefore its high time. Let us not eternally word Sectaries are urged to follow closely the main point, it, but go closely to Work. We are here in à main Matter Concerning Salvation, can you Dr Stillingfleet, or any Protestant in England, as Euiduntly prove that such and such an Article of Catholic Religion is Contrary to all, or any one of these mentioned Principles, as every Grammarian can evidently tell you, that this or that Solaecism is evidently against the Rules of Grammar? I here boldly challenge you; vouchsafe to Answer without tergiversation, if you can rejoin, you are worthy Doctors, if not; be pleased to surcease from writing Controversies hereafter. Yet one word more. 8. You say Evidently, we are Idolaters, because we Adore Christ By Proofs drawn from ihe Principles already mentioned in the Blessed Sacrament. Hold on I beseech you, and prove your Evident Assertion Evidently by plain Scripture, by the unanimous consent of ancient Fathers, by the known judgement of any Orthodox Church etc. When you pretend to have done thus much (But begin you first) I'll boldly Confront you, and demonstrate, that the Scripture you allege is no Scripture, your supposed Fathers are false Oracles, your supposed Councils, your Tradition, and Sectaries Prooss mere Fancies. lastly what you call Reason, merit not so much as the very Names you give them. All this is to Say in other terms, You grossly abuse these Oracles, you either Corrupt their very words (as is most usual) or violently force from them à new perverse Sense, which God never intended to speak by them; And Consequently the Evidence you pretend to, is nothing But à strong Illusion, or an ungrounded Fancy, not resolvable into the Clarity or Truth, of any one of the forenamed Principles. Thus much premised. 9 I prove the Minor positively. If it be à manifest Truth, The minor Proposition proved that Christ our Lord had an Orthodox Church on earth, for the last ten Centuries; If it be also manifest, that the Professors of this Church (be it yet where you will) were either Idolaters or damnable Heretics, it is most demonstrable, that Sectaries cannot Evidently Evince the Roman Catholic Church guilty of Idolatry. 10. The ground of my Assertion is. Whoever evidently Whoever proves the Roman Church Idolatrous, ruins Christ's true Church. proves the Roman Catholic Church guilty of Idolatry, evinces eo ipso, That Christ had no Orthodox Church on earth for à thoufand years. To make this manifest, Please to divide the whole Moral Body of men called Christians into three Classes, into Orthodox Believers (if yet there were any) into Idolaters, and known Heretics. This Division made, I boldly Assert, you The reason hereof. may justly cast away that Class of Orthodox Believers, and call all the Christians in the world according to Sectaries, Idolaters, or known professed Heretics. Catholics you see, are listed amongst Idolaters, because they Adore Christ in the holy Eucharist, as the ancient Orthodox Grecians did; Those Grecians yet of the Schism, pray to Saints, that's plain Idolatry, Say Sectaries. The ancient and modern Grecians, supposed Idolaters The rest of Christians nameable the whole world over, from Luther to the third or fourth Age, (whether Macedonians, Pelagians, or Arians) were all professed Heretics. These and none but these Imagined Idolaters, and known Heretics (à Monstruous heteroclite Progeny of men) essentially constituted Christ's Orthodox Church. Therefore he who proves Evidently, that Catholics The rest were Heretics are Idolaters, and rightly supposes, All others called Christians to have been Heretics, Proves and rightly Supposes, Christ The Inference clear, against Sectaries. to have had no Orthodox Church on earth for à thousand years, which is à desperate Improbability, deduced from our Sectaries Principle, who blush not to charge an ancient Church with that Shameful crime of Idolatry, though no Proof meanly probable (as we shall see hereafter) much less Evident, upholds the Calumny. 11. Some may here demand, why we require to have these Why Evidence is required? supposed Errors and Idolatry of our Church evidently proved against us? Is it not enough to evince this upon moral Certainty? The First Question is easily answered, by proposing another of the like nature. Would not these Protestants justly require An Instance taken from Scripture proves what is required. Evidence from à new Sect of men, should it now start up, and pretend on the one side to believe in Christ, yet on the other, as boldly impute error and Idolatry to the holy Book of Scripture, as Sectaries do to the Church? They would certainly not be satisfied with lesser proofs then evident. Hence it is, that we in like manner, exact neither Topics, nor guesses, but clear Evidence against the supposed errors of our Church; and reasonably do so, First because, She by God's Special Providence, hath hitherto preserved Scriptures pure, without Corruptions in Doctrine. 2. Because all must own Scripture as both Divine and pure, upon the Authority of Christ's Church. Therefore It as highly concerns all to defend the purity of Christ's Church, as the purity of God's written word. it as highly concerns Christians, to maintain the purity of Christ's Church, as to maintain the purity of Scripture, And Consequently, if nothing less than Evidence can bring that Sacred Book into contempt, or Evince it of error, Nothing less than Evidence can cast à blemish on the Church, which gives us Scripture, and ascertain's all, that it is Divine. 12. That other Pretence to moral Certainty is à mere whymsy rejected above in the second Discourse. The Reason there hinted at, much to this sense, Convinceth. A Doctrine in Matters of Religion Contrary to the Public judgement of the whole Christian world, cannot be morally Certain, But what Sectaries The pretence to Moral Certainty refuted. Assert Concerning the Errors and Idolatry of the Church, is à Doctrine Contrary to the public judgement of the whole Christian world, Ergo. I prove the Minor. One great part of the Christian world, is the Roman Catholic Church, She stiffly opposes this loud Calumny of Idolatry and errors laid to Her Charge. Add hereunto the Sentiment of the Chiefest, and the most A Doctrine Contrary to the public judgement of the world, known Arch-heretiques, Who, whilst they were in their wits, that is, before their wicked Apostasy, judged as the Church judged, and believed as she believed. This Universal Consent of an Evidenced Church, together with the Sentiment of Her once Orthodox Members (though afterward wilful Revolters) I call Cannot be Morally certain. à judgement of Christians so public, and undoubted, that nothing Contrary to it can be morally Certain. Give me but one Instance of any Truth reputed Morally certain amongst men, which ever What may well be called this public judgement? merited that name, when witnesses so universal, so numerous, and well qualified opposed it, and I shall acquiesce, But this is Impossible. 13. Here again fitly comes in, what we now Said of Holy Scripture. Suppose which is true, that your Chiefest Arch-heretics once reverenced that sacred Book as God's Divine The Instance concerning Scripture, introduced again. word, with the same high respect as the Roman Catholic Church ever did, and yet doth. Suppose. 2. That Some Abetters of those first wicked men, whether Arians, Socinians, or Others, should begin to charge the Book with false Doctrine, would such à supposed Calumny, think ye, ever arrive to so high Moral That Sacred Book cannot be justly calumniated Certainty, as to bring Scripture into open Contempt, whilst à whole learned Church defends its purity? No the Calumny would not be meanly probable upon this Ground, that neither Probability (much less Moral Certainty) can stand in force, when whilst à whole Church defends its purity. Witnesses of so great worth, so universal, and numerous oppose it. Apply what is here noted to the Church, and you will find an exact Parity. Both She and her own Arch-aduersaries, once maintained Her Doctrine as Sacred, and Orthodox, Now rise up à Company of jarring Sectaries, who will, forsooth, have their Charge of Idolatry and notorious Errors against Her, pass for No more can à few jarring Adversaries justly Calumniate the Church à Moral certain Truth, The Assertion cannot arrive to moral certainty before the whole Body of Christians becomes mad, and makes Scripture itself, no less an erroneous Book than the Church Idolatrous, For here is my Principle. With one most certain Assent, I hold the Church inerrable, and the Scriptures Divine: Destroy the Church's infallibility, or Say she hath erred, you make Scripture eo ipso, à Book of no credit. 14. A. second Argument. Those who exactly follow the A second Argument, taken from the procedure of old Condemned Heretics. strain of all old condemned Heretics, and as wickedly implead the Roman Catholic Church of error, are upon that account like them, that is, guilty of horrid Sin and Heresy. But Protestants do so, Ergo they are guilty of horrid Sin, and Heresy. The Mayor is unquestionable, For if our Modern Sectaries exactly close with the mode of all condemned Heretics, it follows thas as those first Apostates for their malice, were guilty of Heresy, so also these latter are. 15. The Minor is easily proved. Your ancient Heretics Our Sectaries accuse like them, rebel, and would reform as they did. accused as boldly the Roman Church then in Being of error, as our modern Sectaries do the present Church. They rebelled against it, and deserted it, so do our Protestants. They sought to reform it, so would our Protestants. For example. The Arians were as earnest to reform the Church's Doctrine concerning the Consubstantiality of the Son with his Eternal Father; The Pelagians as busy, to cancel Original sin; The Donatists as Zealous to persuade men, that the true Church was not universally Therefore their sin and Apostasy, the very same. extended; as ever Protestants were earnest, busy, and Zealous, to have this present Church reform in her Doctrines of Transubstantiation, of Adoting the Sacred Host, praying to Saints, And what else you will. Now I Subsume. 16. But all these Accusers, all these rebellious Reformers Because all tend to the destruction of Christ's true Church. (as like, as like can be to one another) are wicked, and aim at the Ruin of Christ's true Church, which is Manifest, For had every one of them done what they desired, or reform according to their Capricious humours, There had not been at this day any Orthodox Church in the world. Now here in my Question which certainly deserves à candid Answer. If all Heretics, A difficult question proposed. ancient and Modern reform the Church according to their particular Sentiments, most evidently Christ's true Church is destroyed. Why therefore should I or any, if we were yet to seek à better Religion, rather adhere to the Reformation of à fallible Protestant, than to that other, of à fallible Arian, or à Pelagian? You Shall have à Strange Answer. 17 We are told, when the Arians went about to reform, the Church was pure, but now Her known corruptions force Sectaries, out of true love to their Souls (at least) to reform themselves, Our Sectaries Answer, is an vnproued Supposition, If the Church will learn Her duty by their good example, She may, if not; She must remain in her errors. Answ. Is not this more than ridiculous? First to make an vnproued Supposition their Proof, and then to say nothing, but what both the Arians and other Heretics have put in their mouths, and And contain's nothing but what your old Heretics taught then to Speak. taught them to speak. For did not these wicked men pretend as dear love to their Souls? Did they not Clamour as loud against the Churches imagined errors in those ancient days as ever Protestants have done in these latter? Say therefore why should the Protestants Reformation be esteemed more secure, and Orthodox, than what the Arians endeavoured to introduce? It will be hard to Answer, whilst this Principle stands firm. If all reform, the Church is ruined. 18. Some may Reply. Protestants without all doubt (who have divorced themselves from the Church) therefore clamour so loud, because they have strong Proofs at hand, whereby to Another Reply examined. evince that, that once faithful oracle, is now guilty of notorious errors, which not Arian could then do. Answ. Here is the main Point I would willingly be at, and have examined to the bottom. I therefore press these Novellists to pitch upon some one particular Sectaries are urged to pitch upon Some particular controversy Controversy (Transubstantiation, for example, or this now debated point of Idolatry, in adoring the Consecrated Host) and urge them first, to Argue by the plain words of Holy Scripture. When all they can Say is said, I will demonstrate, that the Arians produce Passages of holy Scripture far more significant (might we rest in the mere sound of words) for their Heresy, The sound of words in Scripture, more plain for Arians then for Protestants than ever Protestant alleged against Transubstantiation, or any other Catholic Tenet. 'Tis true, your Arians make little account of any Authority but what seems to them plain Scripture, or appears deducible from Scripture (and this was the old Protestant way) But our Newer men have some respect to the Consent of Fathers, and an ancient Church: These, we press to dispute closely in Form and to make our supposed errors, or Sectaries Objections hitherto Proposed have been solued. their Contrary pretended truths known, by virtue of any one received Principle. It is Answered, thus much is done in their Books already set forth. We Reply. All their Objections hitherto proposed, have been as fully and clearly solued, as either they or we, solve the Arguments of Atheists against God, and the jews Cavils against Christ, Or, if they have any new ones yet in store, which require further satisfaction, it is certainly most easy to propose them in good Form. This done, I will engage, they shall no sooner appear in public, then have à full and satisfactory refutation. 19 We are told again, such and such Books published Sectaries pretence of Books not answered, rejected. by Protestants have not been answered, As if forsooth, all Books set forth by Catholics were refuted. In â word here you have all. It is very true, the Cavils, The jeers, and tedious length of some books have not been answered, with the like Cavils, jeers, and length, But what's this to our purpose, whilst we urge for Arguments, whereby it may appear to à disinteressed what hath been answered by Catholics, and what not? judgement, that Catholics have forsaken the ancient Orthodox Faith, And that Protestants now lately had the singular Privilege of settling Religion right on its old firm foundations? All Arguments hitherto proposed of this nature, or which tend to infringe any particular Catholic Doctrine, have been dissolved and torn in preces, over and over, Or, if, as I now said, there yet remain any unanswered, our Adversaries may vouchsafe to let us hear them. 20. Sectaries reply. We have indeed offerred to solve their Objections, as also to attaque Protestancy with many Arguments; An other plea of Sectaries but as our Solutions are slight, so our Arguments against them seem light and forceles. Call me to mind one or two only. 21. They have been told, If the Roman Catholic Church be fallible, and Protestants as fallible, jews and Gentiles may Arguments undervalved by them, as forceless justly Scorn Christianity, when they see à fallible Protestant attempt to settle an erring Papist in the right way to Salvation, or à fallible Papist too do the like on an erring Protestant, whilst neither the one nor other can know infallibly, which is the right way to Salvation. They have been told. 2. To make Scripture alone Though most Convincing. the sole Rule or judge in Controversies, increases the Scorn of these Aliens from Christ, who hold it more than ridiculous, to appeal to à judge for the Decision of their doubts, when none of them after the appeal made, can Certainly know what the judge Of Sectaries unreasonable appeal to Scripture alone. Speaks, or this Rule of Scripture regulates. What I say is manifect, for So various and discordant are all rhese in their Interpretations of God's word, that the Arians avouch it Speaks Arianism, Protestants Protestanism, Papists Popery, Pelagians Pelagianism, and so of the rest. Imagine I beseech you, that two who accuse one another of high Treason Should come before à judge and desire to have the final sentence pronounced against the Criminal person (Both I suppose are not guilty) The judge speaks once, and no more, but these two at discord agree not Their unreasonable proceeding declared by one Instance. about the main point, which ● the true meaning of his Sentence, may not Both return home as wise as they came, and contend till Dooms Day, unless some other judge break's off the quarrel, and says plainly. Thou art the Traitor? 22 This is our very case, either we or Protestants betray This Discourse driven home, and applied to these two dissenting Parties. Gods truths, The one or other Party contradicts the first Verity, and boldly avers, he Speaks what he never Spoke. We appeal to Holy Scripture and would have our Debates decided by that Oracle, Two or three Passages (He that here's you hears me. The Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth. He that hears not the Church, let him be as à Heathen etc.) literally taken, denote the guilty Party, But our Sectaries tell us, we mistake the Scriptures meaning, They Sectaries cast themselves into in extricable difficulties vary from us in the main Point concerning the very Sense of our judge's Sentence, Is it not therefore evident, that they must either recurre to some other Tribunal for à final decision, or Secondly ingenuously Confess, they are the men, who will not have the traitorous Party discovered, Or lastly acknowledge, Controversies can have no End, and that God has not left any means on earth, whereby the notorious Depravers of his revealed Truths may be known? One only Instance will give more light to what I have said. 23. We and Sectaries appeal to Christ's sacred words. This is my Body. We understand them literally and strongly plead our cause what different senses are made of Christ's own words? alleging for us, not only the Authority of the western and eastern Churches, but, (if need were) of the Lutherans also. They reject all, yea Say, we grossly mistake the sense of Christ's words, and therefore hold us the Traitors that commit gross Idolatry, in the sight of God and Angels. Consider good Reader, are not such Adversaries obliged to plead their Cause before How the Catholic pleads▪ this judge of Scripture by à Church as universal, by witnesses as Faithful, by an Authority as great, as we produce against them, or to confess ingeniously, This Controversy cannot be decided. They may, 'Tis true Oppose the Caluinists to Lutherans, but to Sectaries allege nothing for their Sense. denote à Church either Latin or Greek, that maintained their Opinion of the Eucharist, Shall never be made so much as meanly Probable. O yes, the Primitive Church taught as they teach. Contra. It's utterly untrue, as is largely proved in the first Discourse. Again that's à thlng yet in Controversy, and therefore far from being à manifest sentence against us, yet their Clamours against our Idolatry are manifest, and as injurious as manifest. 24. These, and yet far more forceable Arguments proposed by Catholic Authors against Protestancy, our Adversaries call Flies, Small Grains, gnawing of Rats etc. We wholly Contrary hold them convincing, and the cause we defend most just. Here both Parties Stick in the height of their heats, Stiff in their ways, without yielding to one another. Is it not therefore full time, and reasonable think A judge distinct from Scripture proved absolutely necessary. ye, to appeal to some judge distinct from Scripture●, by whose just Sentence it may appear, whether we old Papists, or our young Novellists are the guilty men, that impiously oppose God's truths? 25. You see whilst the sense of Scripture and Fathers is not agreed on, we are advanced no further but only to quarrel, as if Contention is not the last end of writing Controversies Contention were the final end of writing Controversies. Or, as if an eternal Debate were desired and after that, to have nothing decided. For this sole Reason, A judge is absolutely necessary, though our Adversaries will hear of none, having an horror to admit of any Church's judgement, whereby the cause now in debate may be happily▪ ended. Yet if we follow the Rule of Catholics appeal to one judge, Reason, what can be more Satisfactory then to appeal to Church Authority in this weighty matter? We Catholics stand to the Sentence of our own evidenced universal Church, She is our Protestants are forced to appeal to▪ another of▪ equal Authority, or their Cause is lost. judge. Are not Sectaries therefore obliged (if their Arguments against us be thought solid, and their cause good) to appeal to the judgement of some other Church, as evidenced by Miracles, and as universal, as ours is, which once taught as they teach, and publicly decried our supposed Errors? 26. What we now propose seems reasonable, because Protestants most certainly (a● they defend Protestanism) will not pretend to publish à Doctrine (with à strict obligation laid on their They cannot pretend to tea●h à Doctrine, which no ancient Church ever taught. Partisans to acquiese in it) which no Orthodox Church ever taught, or if any Church ever taught so, This must be as clearly evidenced, as it is evident, that the Roman Catholic Church taught Popery, seven or eight Ages since. Here in à word is the true trial of their whole Cause. Denote, Point out, or name an Orthodox Church which owned this Protestancy five or six Centuries since, Controversies are ended; But if it be (as it is) most impossible to name such à Church, The Abetters of Protestancy▪ Sectaries prove themselves, heretics. only follow the strain and Method of all Condemned Heretics, and prove themselves by their own procedure Heretics. That is, They plead against Catholic Doctrine, by false Calumnies, weak Cavils, lame conjectures, unsensed Scriptures, and Calumnies, their only Defens●. abused Fathers, without any Church Authority to rely on, And thus all your ancient Heretics have Proceeded. 27. Wherefore to conclude I Say in à word. Protestancy Protestancy▪ proved an Improbable Religion. as Protestancy is à most improbable Religion, or to speak more plainly, no Religion at all. The ground of my Assertion will be best laid forth in these few words. No ancient universal Church, no Orthodox Christians in any part of the world, ever taught Protestancy, Ergo its improbable. Nay more; no Heretical Society The ground▪ of our Assertion. of men ever▪ taught that whole Doctrine, Therefore it is an unpatronized Novelty, rejected by the Universal Christian world, whether Orthodox, or others. And Hence it is, that whatever Protestants can Say in behalf of their own Tenets, or Contrary to Catholic Doctrine, comes to no more but to improbable and vnproued Suppositions. Observe I beseech you. 28. They tell us the Roman Catholic Church once true, deserted Improbable Suppositions, the only Proofs of Sectaries. the Ancient Faith, we urge them to prove the Assertion, and with good reason, because neither ancient Church, nor any sound Christian ever said so before themselves. And what Answer have we? The very Calumny without more, and their own vnproued Suppositions, serve both for proof and Answer. We demand Again, Questions proposed▪ ● when the Church failed▪ when, or in what Age the Church became thus accursed and traitorous to Christ? They fob us off with fooleries, of beards growing Grace, and weeds peeping up in à garden inperceptibly. Is not thy ridiculous? We Ask. 3. Seeing the world was never Since the Apostles preached, without an Orthodox Christian what other pure Church succeeded in place of Roman supposed Idolatrous? How many different Church's will▪ Sectaries own▪ why Should the Protestants Reformation be better, then that of the Arians? Society, what other pure Church succeeded in place of the Roman now supposed Idolatrous, and heretical? None hitherto has offerred to answer this Question, nor can it be Answered, unless Sectaries admit two or three distinct different Churches. The first Primitive and pure, the second corrupted which came in when the Roman Catholic began her supposed Idolatry, The third again pure and spotless, which closely followed the Roman fallen into Error, And this is à mere chimaera. We lastly demand why this Protestant Reformation, should be more liked, more looked on, or held any ways better, than those precedent Reformations of their elder Brothers the Donatists, or Others? Will it be said Protestants came after the rest, or in the last place, and therefore think themselves more skilful, the only gifted men in this business of mending Religion? Plead thus, I answer, They speak improbably, and are worse than all their Predecessors upon this very account, that having For one weighty reason it is far worse. seen the Malice, the weak Attempts, the unlucky success of defeated Heretics in former Ages, will not learn by such woeful examples to be more wise and wary, then to run the Risque with them, and thereby to incur God's heavy Indignation. 29. Whoever desires to make à further inspection into that The improbability of Protestanism further declared▪ in à very unequal Parallel. The first reverenced the other scorned The one hath à head, the other is headless. Tradition teaches the one▪ fancy the other The one far and near diffused, the other hid in corners. Councils and no Councils, Unity and Divisions visible Pastors and invisible, Compared together high improbability, which other Christians Charge Protestancy with, may please to compare à little our Catholic Religion with this other late risen Novelty. If things be well weighed (without Controversy so evident that they need no Proof) The first will be found always reverenced, and never opposed by Orthodox Christians; Contrariwise, the other will appear an object of scorn, not only to the wisest of the world, but also to innumerable that profess it against their own Consciences. The One hath an Ecclesiastical Head for its Guide; The other is an ungovernable Body without head, or joints to tie its jarring parts together. The One shows you manifest and most evident Miracles, The other (if ever nature wrought Miracles) à Miraculous boldness to deny the greatest wonders, God hath wrought by the Church. The One teaches what it anciently received, by à never interrupted Tradition; The other what is suggested by every Private Fancy. The one is diffused the whole world over, The other only Creeps up and down in à few Corners of these Northern parts, in so much that some Religious Orders are further extended than Protestancy. The One hath had several Oëcumenical learned Councils; The other never any, learned or unlearned. The one still retains à strict unity in Faith, the other manifestly is torn in pieces with Divisions. The one gives you à large Catalogue of its ancient visible Pastors, and visible professors, for full Sixteen Ages▪ The other cannot name one Protestant Village, nor one Protestant man, before the days of the unfortunate Luther. 30. The one holds its Catholic deceased Ancestors worthy respect and veneration, The other makes them all besotted Idolaters, Respect and à high dishonour and worse than mad men. The one Religion Stands firmly built upon plain Scripture, and the Authority of an evidenced universal Church; The other utterly vnprincipled, has not▪ one word of Holy writ for it, nor either universal or particular Church, which ever taught Protestancy. The one has Principles and no Principles An Interpreter and no Interpreter Faith and no faith Infallibility, and fallibility, à An ancient Possession, an open urong, Divine Assistance, and no Divine Assistance. à Mysterious Bible and à certain Interpreter, the other à mere body without à Soul, the bare letter without life, words without sense, and Fancy to Interpret. The one resolves its faith into God's infallible Revelation, the other has nothing like Faith to resolve. The one Religion Proves its truths Infallible, The other seek's for fallible Doctrine, and has found enough of what is both fallible, and false also. An Ancient Possession upholds the One, and à public injurious rebellion against the Mother Church gives the other all the Right it hath. The Professors of the one, prove God to have been the Author of it, who yet preserves it unalterable and pure by Divine Assistance. The Professors of the other say plainly that God never revealed one Article of their reformed Protestancy, and therefore need no Divine Assistance to preserve it. The Professors of the One, show you à Church gloriously marked with Signs and Wonders (peculiar effects of God's Infinite Power and Wisdom) which make the Religion evidently Credible to Reason. The Professors of the other, in lieu of such Marks, Show you A glorious evidenced Church, and a mere Naked Nothing, paralleled. à bare Naked Nothing, without Miracles, without Conversions, without austerity, or any thing that appears like à work of God in it, and therefore is most evidently incredible. 31. Thus much for an Essay only which might be further enlarged, but its needles, for you have every particular proved in the Treatise here in your hands. If our Adversaries hold themselves or cause injured, whilst we so highly extol the one What's required, if our Adversaries hold their Cause wronged? Religion, and extenuate the other to Improbability, it will, methinks, be very easy to right Both, by showing plainly (upon sound and very sound Principles) wherein our mistakes lie, or in what substantial Matter we have erred. But still remember Principles. 32. What I here propose Seems reasonable, and 'tis done for this sole end (Almighty God knows) that after our long The sole End why we propose this. Debates, it may at last appear to every one, on which side Truth stands. Now if upon so fair an Offer we have nothing returned, but Sectaries wont strain of Cavils, trimmed up with pretty ieers. I, for my part, have done and shall in place of Arguing further, mildly exhort as Blessed S. Austin once did in We exhort with Blessed S. Austin. à like Occasion. De Vnit. Ecclesiae. C. 19 fine. S● au●em non potestes, quod tam iuste à vobis flagitamus, ostendere, Credit veritati, Conticescite, Obdormiscite à furore, expergiscimini ad salutem. If you, Sectaries, cannot Convince our Church guilty of error, by undeniable Principles (this we justly require) Believe Truth. Let your weak Attempts and fury sleep, Surcease from this frivolous And appeal to their own guilty Consciences. charging us with Heresy, and Idolatry. You know, Gentlemen, you know full well, we are no Idolaters, your own Consciences tell you your Plea is naught, your Cause undefensible, Expergis●imini ad Salutem, Wake, open your drowsy eyes, and look about you. 33. You see our Noble England set on fire by your unfortunate dissensions concerning Religion, bring your tears to After ● long drawsy sleep its time to wake. quench the flames. You see yourselves upon your different Engagements (some brainsick with Fanaticism, some with no man knows what) worrying one another; Wonder nothing, it must needs be so, whilst you are out of the peaceable Fold of Christ's united Church. You have been too long Prodigal Children straying from the house of God, return with à hearty Peccavi, A tender Mother (the Catholic Church) is willing to receive you, and à good old Father, Christ's Vicar upon earth, as ready to embrace you with open arms. You see Atheism enters, and is rife among you; pernicious Leviathans, and other like Monsters range up and down, and poison innumerable. How Should it be otherwise? Atheism follows upon what you have done, For those who Separate from the true Church, soon Separate from Christ also, and cannot after that double Divorce, long Continue Friends to God. Wherefore once more Expergis●imini ad salutem, be The Author's hearty wish, vigilant. Hora est iam nos de somno surgere, it now high time to wake. Your Concern is no less à Matter then eternal Salvation. My earnest prayer is, that Christ our Lord, the Light of the world, may break through the thick clouds of all darkened hearts, and with the radiant beams of Divine Grace illuminate every one, Ad salutem, to endless Bliss and Happiness. FINIS.