Q> n-A ? f . 4 •> j? ** \ / \ /iJz COLLECTION OF PURITAN AND ENGLISH THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY Z&£- PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY ^3/1 *r> a J *, V R E A SON Ki OF ?mCfr\ AND RELIGION. O R THE CERTAIN RVLE OF FAITH, Where the Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church is aflerted, againft Atheifts, Heathens, Iewcs , Turks;and all Se&aries, Wl T H- A REFVTATION OF Mr STILLINGFLEETS Many grofs Errours. By E. W.ov-sU^] Author of the Boo\ called, FROTESTANGY WITHOVT PRINCIPLES- i Poteram ..... Omnes Propofitionum rivulos, vno Ecclefiae fole ficcare. H/Vr. contra Lucifer, c. vlt.fim. PRINTED AT ANTWERP, By Michael Cnobbaert, in the Year 1672, Termijfu S«/wwr«w. THE PREFACE TO THE READER- Bligwn , that choife Evangelical Pearle. Match ij. the befi In- heritance, and richefi Treafure Cod hath bequeathed to Chrifiians % though found and flrongly guarded, meet's yet With many yvbo fang ftnee, had their W)eak attempts*"? nailed, would haue thrown it out of the World* Jtbetft's deny a Deity, the onlyfundation of %eltgim,leWes oppo/e Chrift, the great Majier of Truth , and Heretiques bana againft an mdenced Ioniser fal Church , that large field wherein thk precious lewel is found, ibefe Aduerfaries We encounter, andourdefign is both tolmbegutle and filence them. In the fir ft pltice we attaqw thofe grojfer °Ene^ mies, Jthtifls, leWes, Turks, and Infidels. This done , We enter ypon the main matterrandfremdly treat with our Mo- a 2 dern The Preface dern Setlaries by the force of plain and Undeniable Yrinch pies : Ifthefe ftandi^hich none can ibake) 'Eroteftanty falls to nothing. I call thisTreati/e the R trie of Faith, H>bere you bane the Inducements ^hich lead to the know- ledge of true Religion clearly pr&pofed, andUrongly Main* tainedagainfi allQppofersjtohofe cauilsand Calumnies re- pugnant to truth^ill appear as they are Ttain and fore eles , after due ponder at ion of the Principles yve rely on: TJ?e prudent fear ch after Religion is euer made and fir (i begun with &eafin,or a rational difcourfejorl hold this Principle indubitable. Hone can ajjent to the high re^ uealed Myftenes of Faith 3 without preuious euidence had of their Credibility laid forth toredfon. NoTb becaufe Atheifls^ Arians , and all Heretiques , hold yphaf they teach reafonable, it isneceffary to diftmguish between falle and true Reafon , as alfo rigidly to Examin W?at euer belongs to that whole Matter, which is amply done in the 14 th. ljth. and, 16th. Chapters of the third IDi/cour/e, where we pro)>e that %ehgtonisonly%eafo~ nable^ which Heaven itfelfe declares reafonable 7 byfuch ^uifihlejmfible^andilluftrious Maths 4* haue gained Milli- ons to believe in Chrifl , and no other but Gods Infinite ToWer and wifdom, can produce. Hereupon, We lay forth thejtgnal Marks of the %pmm Catholick Church, clear Cognifancps of an Infinite Toyer and VVifdom,ML rack* TO THE R EADER. Tacks mofi eutdent, Conner fions of Nations wrought by Her; Succefoon ofPa/iors/uerfince the Apoftles preached }loith a flriBlomty of one Faith in all that Trofefjed Her Doflrin. We look next l>pon this late rifcn Proteftancy anJfndit naked, Utterly flrip't of all fuper natural Mottoes: No Mira- ties , no Conuerfonsy no Ttnity inYdith to countenance the Nouelty, and therefore conclude that the Vrofeffors of it ^oho feemingly llandfor%eafon, and flight an evidenced Churchy are mofi Vnreafonable, and as dayly experience teaches >meer Scepticks in Matters of Religion. Clemens Rom. in Recog : D. Petri, hereafter eked , giloes this loife Counfel to euery prudent feeker after Truth, before all things examin Dozll by the light of ratio- nal Motiues; whether one that pretend s to fpeak in the name ofGod^and call's himfelfe a Trophetfent to preach, proues himfelfe to be really fo. Thus much learned ( and the knowledge is eaftly gained, becaufe grounded T?pon eut* * dence)belieue boldly all he teaches, though Ins ^oclr'm be fublime, and -ferns difficult to Wok reafon. The firfl conuerted Chriftians loere thus induced by the LuUre of our Sauiours glorious Miracles and other Sig- nal bonders , fa o~ton him as he im , a great Pro- phet, or the true Meflias fern from God, and afterward beheued y>bat euer pon his olm Infallible Word. Apply Tohat is here /aid to the %j>- nian tytholick Church , you mil find this great Truth a j made The Preface fnade mamfeU in the following $)tfcourfes. Tri%. That as no Prophet , no Do&or , ever came neer Chrift our Lord in the wonders he wrought, fo no Society of men fince the world flood , was, or is Comparable in Miracles and other Cognizances of truth , to the Roman Catholick Church. She as I nolo [aid, and no other Society y shelves you a Continued Suaefiion of Taftors, offrinces, and (peo- ple fince the fir ft Plantation of the GofpeL She mid no other \hath been always referenced allNatwm ol?er,and Was timer oppofed by Orthodox Qhrijiians. She giuesyou a large Catalogue of Innumerable Trofefjors eminent in learning jn WifdomrandfanBity of life. In Her the ancient VrediSltons offrophets, are literally fulfilled. Her T>niuerfal extent far andneer, is euidentjTbeConuerJions Wrought by ber,Eui* dent. The Courage andConflanc} of Martyrs who dyed for her Faith , Euident. Her ancient Toffefiion of truth (for Confeffedly she Was onceOrthodox ) is Undeniable , And this is the Church, G entle Reader , our Sectaries would deftroy, This Oracle, though figmlt^d With fo many lUuftrious Math, and Indications proceeding from God, infpiteof Heaven, they iniurioufly Calumniate m Idolatrous, and He- retical , And Confequently make thofe Millions and Millions, who both liuing and dying %edoufly fougk to ferine no ether but the great God of Truth in this blejfed Society , Fools % to the Reader* Tools , Madmen, Idolaters, and Heretiques. I fay Cala ru- inate ,for all theyhaue done hitherto, or can do for the future, comes to no more hut to a flatiniuriousCalum* ny,asis euidencedm the third Difcourje. C 19 whe- re you are told, that whoever impeaches an ancient Church (once acknowledged Orthodox) of Idolatry , and proves not his charge %by clear and Undeniable Principles , Ca- lumniates mufl Ttniuflly, and fins damnably, Protejlants dofjy ask there largely proued,and the truth is mani* feji in their own Writings. They tell Tos the %pman Qatholick Church though once right in Faith, changed Her ancient !Do£lrin , We iuftly T>rge them to proT>e the Ajjertion by fome J>nquellionable Principles ,more convincing, or of greater W?tgbt andftrength to perfwa- de what they ajjert, then the publick judgement of all found Cbrifliam lining at that time, to perfwadet I?e Contrary, And Mark a ftrange Proceeding r the Qalumny it felfe is re- t«rnedl>ponJ>s, Without either Proof or probable Princi- ple to uphold it, but their own bare and prooftes Word. We are told again , there Was euer a Qathohk Qhurch without blemish, at leajt in fundamentals , ( for that Ar* tick of the Creed, I believe the Holy Otholick Church was true in all Ages ) Vfe ferioujly demand J>bere, or in what pan of Chri/lendom that Orthodox Church (dininftfrorn the %pman Catbolick) had its being x The Preface being at that time, when the %pman fell from QJmfl , dnd became Idolatrous I There Was fucb a Qhurcb which cen* fur ed and condemned the fuppofed%oman Err ours, ornot^ ■If not, the World T>pon tbofe fuppofed errours j Was wholly C hurchles. Grant an Orthodox Church diflinfl from the %{oman, She certainly oppofed tbofe Imagined falfe %oman Docirins , which then began toirfetlthe Moral Body of Chrifiians, and Confequently that Offojition loos a thing as notorioufly hwWn, a* loudly noifedfome Centuries fince , a* it is Notorioufly known andnoifedy that our Se&aries hauenoWe£j)iedibofefilfe(Do£lrins, We T?rge them to bring to light that publick known OppoJJtion of their Ima- gined Church, again/l the%oman GatboltcASociety fancied a Changling% And what haue We i Deep fdencefromfomey and from fuel? m darefpeakyflfe Suppojitions for Tr 'oofs* JmWortby Calumnies for an Anfwer. Tleafe to fe this Jr* gume?2t fully bandied. T)ifc, x. C. 6. Time Was, the World KnoWes WeH,when our Aduer* faries auoucbed they could proVe their *P rot eft amy , and re- fute our QatbolichDoBrmby plain and exprefs Scripture, We come to the true Trial in this Treatife , and in lieu of God's Word, find their fioohs full fraught with meer far* fetch Gloffes. Not one Tajjage 1 boldly affert, (and put Seflaries to the Troof) fauours this Troteftancy , as it is dijlinguished from fopery } and the kno^ti Hereftes of former to the Reader former jfges* TSLtito that nothing from Scripture can le .alleged Contrary to our Qathohck (Doftrin, is manifeU ypon this one principle , ypbub none shall oj>er throw. What Scripture faithfully interpreted teaches in thefe ^eighty matters of Religion ,/ome Orthodox Qburcb deli- vered in foregoing Ages : For example. If Scripture deny Adoration 4o Cbriflm the BleJJed ">aaament\ or Tranfub- jhntiatwn^an Orthodox Church ^tohtch cannot clash Hekh the Verities of God's ^ord^in fome Age or other tnaintai- hed tbefeTrote flam Tenets } and published them to Qbri- flians , 'But no Orthodox Church euer fided "frith SeSla- ties >or taught (uch DoBrins , Therefore their pntence to Scripture agamUour CatholickTenets is fnuolom 7 and implies no more but afalfe fuppofition for a Proof. And this fir am of turning bare Suppojttions into proofs , Tokith neTter go beyond the jtrength of their o^m Tmproued AjJ?rtions,fo ijniuerjally trancends all their Tolemkfa that Iftandajtonisbed, to fe men t>ho Teillbe accounted learned, wholly bufied in doing Nothing. %e{leB I befeech you a lit- tle. They haue been told , and \ remind them of it again in tbi s Treat ife, tba< "tohoeuer makes the Roman Church Idolatrous or Erroneous >vnuft hold the fuppofed Idolatry and err our fo remediles an Eutl} thai none on earth canredrefs either } becaufe all the Proofs or Yrinciples thereby the Reformation should be made> Ttnll euidently appear lefipon- b derem L The Preface throw to Evince this Qhmh guilty of err our , then Her fole Authority is to perfoade the Contrary ,ii<. That she neuer erred. Wherefore Sectaries Confeffedly fallible men 7 defperatly adventure to reform T>$ , and cannot but fpoile all they go about to mend ^hilft they Euidence not 7 Tb/>//f/ they plead not %by the Author tty of an /indent Or- thodox Church "tobich taught that ^ery Vroteflancy they teach now , and decryed thefe Suppofed Topisb errours as loudly M they decry them : But to do thus much is impofii- ble , as manifefily appears by their own Writings , For tell me I be fetch you , whoever yet heard TroteHantinalltho- fe Weak skirmishes madeagainfl Catholick%eltgion 3 Say plainly and prove it. Such a Church reputed Ortbo- doxfiue or Six Ages f nee, taught as We teach,fenfed Scrip * tures as Wefenfe them, Chrijiians then Ttriiuer folly betieued no %ealfrefence , TZofacrifice of the Majfe lo,Mo/i .mdently, No. 1 shall highly extollthe man that Will dare to proceed fo tngenuoufly , but find none engaged in thk right Way of Arguing. Its true, fome who leap olverthe heads of all their more Immediate Anceflors , between Luther and the three or four frH Centuries , tell T>s tho/e Primitiue Chrijiians Were good Proteflants like tfom. Ill luck Say I that Troteflancy had^ not to be intailed fyory jam SucceJJors in following Ages, for moft certainly Jince tbof? J to the Reader* ihofedayes,the^orld neuerfaV T rote ft ant before Luther. Ih a 7eor d the jiffertion is a loud Untruth , an Iptftoortly beggln& °f Qufftion* and bejides implies a fancied fuppofi* lion ford froof. To sholp this, Tfre reduce tbefe ranging Spirits to a leffer compafs , and oblige them to name but onefroteftant,neerer their shameful \euolt from our la- tholick Society. Here they /land grauelled, as mute as fishes ^and are highly angry , becaufe ^e touch them Inhere they arernoft loeak* Thisyvantof a Church to ground Troteflancy tyon^ makes their Tolemich to be as the) appear ^ rambling, faint, shallow, and fo disfalUfaHory }that great patience is requi/ite toperu/e them. Wonder nothings thy can do no better, %ebells they are againft an antimt Church , and their handling Controuerfies may "todl be compared loith the proceeding of %ebells in a Common Wealthy Tfrbocu- rioujlymarky and diligently attend to yvbat euer may fern Welcome to your ignoi -ant Reduced, and dhgu fled Mult'itu* destTbat, be it 'what you W/, is fomented, that's laid forth) and inculcated. It is no ne^esto tell you , that our Mini/ten in England no^> for a long time , bane had a number of f educed Teoplt bread in their &m rebellious bofomes , and brought T>p in a fpirit of Schifm , "toho God knoTttes ham heard little , but of the Idolatry, of th Superjlttions , and ^ickednes of fome TrofeJJed Catho- licks. The Preface licks. 0, fay thefe Incendiaries, We will nourish thisfo* ptiar humour with food (unable to its palate, We will Write Books of this Toptsh Idolatry, we haue tongues? and can poy fen With delight , W Will lay forth in folio what We conuiue of the \oman Super ft uins , and the wickedms of Topes. VVe know Well to Canil,andboW to enfnare the ^vulgar^on Whom We depend, when our Cauils are once out , though neither reducible to Principles }nor fubieEl to the Cenfure of any ludge (for We own none ) let them shift for themfehes. Our only carets to talk on^ though We prolte nothing , yind chiefly to be Wa)j in one parti- cular ^ It is ne^er to mention any thing of a Church which taught T rote ft amy before Lutber ^meddle With that Mif chiuous difficulty We are Iwdon , for really We bal>e no futh Qburch. This in a Word (and much Worfe) a fProteftancy,6sis amply declared in the following Treat L fe , Where ym alfo haue the diflin&tue Cogni fames of QhriJTs true Church , the%ule of Faith , and the Proper- ties of a Rule explained; Withall > an eafy Way Where- by to put an end to thefe Unfortunate Controller fie s. ^ou haue moreover the Infallibility of the tf^oman Qatholick Church afferted, Faith refolued into its true Principles , Mr Stillingfieets groffer Errours difcoueredy The Reafonable- nefs ofCatholick Religion laid forth to euery rational man7 And to omit other QueHions {ail cannot be hinted at TO THE F BADE IU dtintbenarrol&cdmpajfeofa Preface) you haue this great Truth proved. Jn^. That if the \vmdn Otholuk Cburcbhath taught hut one fal/e jirticle, and oblged all Cbrifiiam to belieue tt lender pain of damnation > there neither a at (his da)\ nor Ipos before Luther any true faith in the lb or Id. Wherefore Seftaries loho haue made it their chiefe bu fines to impeach uur Church of Idolatry j and Herefy ( and the louder tfcy cryed , the more they thought to deftroy T>s) haue done thetr l?tmoH to ruin all the Churches on earthy and proue themfelues thereby both Faith* ks and Church! es. But enough for a Treface. Open and read. Approue or condemn > as reafon shall guide you. In cafe you Condemn y pleafe to fay , Why , and she^o me Inhere I erre in Principles. Pardon the faults of the Printer uphich are many (he is a fir anger to our Language) except again/} mine boldly ,tf you find any^ but do it Tvith Charity , and Jlilf for this I muft inculcate again and alam7 Remember Principles, Farewel *3 L A N ADVERTISEMENT FOR Mr STILLINGFLEET Sr. *£^M. Lain dealing is the bed , you shallhauc it in ^^^this short Advertifement from a friendly Ad- ~Mmi$i uerfary ( no Enemy I allure you ) who de- ®^4 fires to do you good, againft your will. If I be rightly informed , Both you and ibme others find your felves dillatisfied vpon this fcore, thac your Rational Account ( as tis called ) comprehending the Grounds of Protefiant Religion, remain's yet vntouch't, or not anfwered. Before I reply to thefe complaints, I shall take the boldnes to requeft one fauour at your hands ( you will much oblige me by it) which is to point out that Chapter or Paragraph through your whole Book , wherein the hidden treafure of thefe Protefiant Grounds lie, and to giue me in a few lines, one or two of them plainly fet down in halfe a Sheet of paper. I fpeak of Grounds for Proteftan'cy, as it is your peculiar Religion diftind from Popery , and all known Condemned He- reties. Fob me not off , 1 befeech you , with any ge- neral talk, Tell me not I muft feek better and shall find, For, Sr , I allure you though I haue made a dili- gent Search after your Grounds, they are yet fo far rcmo- ued from my fighr , that 1 cannot find one. Where- fore, An Advertisement fore, bccaufe you are more Conuerfant in your own writings then others , and , Plus vident ocult quam oculus , I beg to beenlightned by you. if you fail to do this, the world will iudge as J do, that you haue abufed the Rea- der with a Title , wherevnto nothing in your volumi- nous Book anfwer's. I mean you haue no more touched vpon Grounds for Proteftancy ( as Proteftancy and mark my words) then for Arianifm, or any other falfe Religion* In the perufal of your Book I fe what beguiled you. You , Sr , thought to throw that little dirt ( wherewith fome haue furnished you ) in our faces, was enough to make your bad caufe Specious , and to prop vp your Proteftancy, as if forfooth to Cavil at vs, were to efta- blishyour Novelties. Know good Sr, that both Arians and all other gone Heretiques, were as fierce in their Cauils againft the Church as you are , but did they therefore either ground or eftablish their falfe Doftrins contrary to Gods Truths > It is a grofs errour to think fo; For as it is one thing foolishly to brandish a Sword, andanother fitly to vfe a Buckler, fo it is a quite diffe- rent bufines flightly to impugn Catholick Religion, and another to defend Proteftancy* Tht firft you haue at- tempted like your old Heretiques, and with as illfuccefs; But the fecond, which is to maintain Proteftancy, or to fettle that vpon folid Grounds, neither is, nor was,nor euer shall be done by any, wherefore I tell you in this Treatife ( read it if you pleafc) This Proteftancy is wholly vngrounded, God never revealed one Article of it (as Proteftancy) nor did ever antient or modern Or- thodox Church teach fo much as one of your Particular Tews*, L for Mr Sttllingfleet Tenets, And for this reafon I fay. its falfly called the refor- med Religion, hauing neither Ellen ce, nor the Properties of Religion belonging to it. Now tor as much as Concern's your Clamours be- caufe you think youi Book neglected , or not yet An- fwered. Fir ft, give me leave to tell you , it is a great Vanity to rife to fo high a conceiptof your felrc or of your Book ( as if you were the on;y Dere.der of jour Faith) and a greater to publish it to the world, what think you, Cannot Prottllancy be impugned without taking you or your work in hand } Its little wifdom to iudge fo. A Souldier, good Sir, who intends fo inuade an enemy takes no directions from him , how to en- ter his Country, much lefs bufies his thoughts about re- mouingeuery ilraw, or euery little block that lies in his way, bur marches on, as he thinks belt to compafs his Defign. To ouerthrow your Protellancyjs our Defign, and you moll vnreafonably prefcribe, what we are to do , That is, we mull either attaque your Fort and meddle .with your Account, or you think nothing is done. Why fo 1 befeech you ? Grant, which is not true, rhat thofe who haue written fince your Account faw light , palled byit without much notice, they might well do f o , loo- king on it as a Block not worth remouing, vnlefs, as I lay,you will haue them to obey your Commands, and aflault what Outwork you pleafe. if it Sr, your Caufi demote mind,xlen your Account '. 2.. Why do you ( or fome body for you) not only shamefully llopp all the PrelTes,in fo much that fcarfe a sheet of paper can appear in pu- biick; But moreover, why haue you (when all liberty is granted to fcrible and print what you pleafe) omitted to Anfwer 1 . An Advertisement Anfwer thofe Bookes, which dire&ly impugn your Doc- trin. That excellent Guide of controuerfm is the One> and Proteftancy without Principles, the other : And you haue done this with much vncivil fcornful Langua- ge, with'a mcer forced Pish from the teeth outward at the end ofa Preface,as if, forfooth;you wouldbe thought to Say ; You Could Anftoer but Will not , whereat the naked truth #(at leaft wife men Iudge io) you Kould Anfwer hut % Cannot. Sr , believe me , it would have been much to the purpofe, and far more fatisfa&ory to your Proteftant Brethren , had you , when you faw your Proteftancy (tofpeak moderatly ) well shaken in thofe two Books , replyedto fome particulars, and shewed where either the Principles were falfe, or their Difcourfes failed , Bat you Cowardly quitted the field, fate down filent,bufying yourfelfc with reprinting a few Sermons, whereof the world had no need at all. And this ( t'is thought) was done to cloak your Lazines , your ignorance or both, becaufe you could not Anfwer, yet we are called on to quarrel with you , whilft you like a Priuiledged Perfon exempt your felfe frommedling with vs. That is we mud fpeak, and you fay nothing. But, Sr, let vs come neerer the point and tell you truth. Whatever you account fubftantial in your Book, hath been anfwered by your two fcorned Aduerfaries, andif any thing be yet wanting , it is amply fupplyed in this Treatife. To ronceiue what I would proue , pleafe to Note. There are two wayes in anfwering a Booke. The one is to follow an Author ftep after ftep , by exa- mining feverally each piece of the Whole : The other is to Confider the Principles whereypon frhe Whole re- c " lyes* for Mr Stilungfleet. lyes , shewing them either falfe in themfelucs , or not connextwith thofe Conclufions which should follow from them. Veftroy Principles , you deftroy &ll. Thus the Motion of a Watch may be fpoiled two wayes, either by difordering cuery wheel in it, apart, or by breaking the Spring. The faired Palace ever was,is mine d, if either you feparate euery (lone from (tone, or if you vndermi- nc the iu ndation and blow vp the wholeJFabrick, though many of the ftoncs ftrongly Cimented, cling yet toge- ther. The firft way of anfwering by piece-meal , is te- dious andobfcure,andas things are with vs (by reafon of the difficulty in Printing and transmitting Bookes inta England) almoft impofllble, The other is clear and eafy, both are fatisfa&ory to euery rational man , and I hold the fecond mod neceflary, For, in all our Dilcourfes the- re muft befome firm Principles laid wherevnto we redu- ce, and from whence we draw what we Aflert, which fe- ueral wayes of difcourfing, Compofe the two different Methods , Analytical and Synthetical, obferucd by Philofo- phers and Divines. Neither is the Foundation more necelTary toahoufe ,or the weight to a clock, then Prin- ciples are to a Difcourfe , which then is good , when the grounds ftand firm, and the Dedu&ions of the particular Conclufion from them, clear: But if either the Principles be falfe and alien , or the Deductions not Coherent , the whole Difcourfe fall's to nothing. Apply what is here fayd tayour Account, or rather to the Religion it Allerts, and you have all I would Say, Your Account, Sr, was writ to vindicate Proteftancy,and mull ftand vpon the fame Principles with that Nouelty* therefore whatever shak's and ruin s the Principles of Pro- An Advertisement. Proteftancy, neceiTarily shak's, and ruin's the Principles of your Account , But your Suppofed Principles or Grounds of Proteftancy arebroken,yea demonstrated no Grounds at all , in the Book intitl'd Proteftancy without Principles, where they arc proued either falfe , or no Prin- ciples peculiar to your Religion, as it is diftirxft from the DoArinof other Societies, called Non*Protettants > And confequently when true , they haue no Connexion with Proteftancy, nor can lead in any conclufion for you, And where they are falfe , their falfity is laid before your eyes, and an vtter fubucrfion of your Caufe, and Ac- count with it, becaufe neither can (land, when your fup- pofed Principles are dcftroyed, or rather found never to have had Being. And thus your Book is folidly An- fwered. If you defire to fe more ruin yet fallen vpori you , read this Treatife , and be pleafed to refleft vpon thefe three things in your Account. The length of it t The Obitclions againft Catholic!^ Religion , and finally your Principles for Proteftancy. We find tw^o of them , but mifle the third. The length mighty tedious , and ( too often without fubftance) wearies a Reader, God help him ( fay I ) that vndergoes the. druggery to turn ouer all the vneuen ftuffwhich lies heap'c vp there. Your Obiedions , vfually borrowed from Mr Chillingworth andfome other Proteftant Writers, are for the moftpart common , and fuch as haue been anfwered ouer and ouer: Where you think them peculiar to your felfe ( as they lay in my way) I haue reioyned, and if fome be omitted, that's only to Say, euery ftone in your Fabrick is not touched, or medled with, But for as much as con- cerns your Principles in behalfe of Proteftancy * I As- c % fert for. Mr Stillingfleet. fert Confidently, you haue no,.e, and vpon this, ground, I fay once more your Account is anfwered. Goe on therefore, and vilify the works published agciinft you as you pleafe, call them Woelfack*, Rats, or Flies, add more opprobrious language to gain you credit among your fimple and too credulous Vulgar, with In- telligent Readers you preuail nothing, who well percei- ue, it Matters not to your Intent, if thofe pyool-facks re- cciue and break the force of your greateft shot againft our Church ; if the Rats gnaw the beft ligaments wo- ven in your Account, if but one of thefe flies enter your throat , and bereaue you of breath ( fome report of a greaT man ftifled by a Fly) And truly itfeems byyour deep filence, or nor anfwering fince thefe Books came forch j that fome of the greater fort haue halfe chok'd you. But enough. To fay more after thisftrainr were to rallie like you, and to offend the learned world, which requires fubftance in thefe ferious matters, without contempt , flowting, and empty words. Had you , Sr , gone the right way to work, you should either haue kept in your difdainful language , or taken Proteftancy without Erinciflesin band , Shewing , where the Author miftook your Principles , Or whether his exceptions were blamable, becaufe he thought them either Com- mon , and not belonging to you, that is . wholly alien from your caufe, wholly impertinent to Maintain Pro- teftancy. This proceeding had been Satisfactory , but difficult and aboue your force , Therefore you wifely waued it, knowing well it was eafier to giuc sharp wods, and fnarlear your Aduerfaries , than to come neer and bite, with pinching Arguments. My Am Advertisement My proceeding with you , Sr* is quite contrary, f fligh iiv>r y-'Ur perfon, r>ut Uy plainly where your great miitake lies in handling Concrouerhes. You run head- long into the deep Myftenes or Faith by the ill conduft of your weak, or nor well fighted rcaibn, and after a few rtagg ring thoughts fpent in weighing, and mufing vpon the difficulties, which appear toyou m theMytte- ries, you will needs tell vs whit's true, what's falfe , and therefore boldly take, and reieft, as you like bed. It is a perplexed way, Sr, which will neuer make, you either Good Chriftian, good Diuine , or fo much as a mean Proficient in Chrifts School. In following it, you are juft like one ( as I tell you in the Treatile ) that takes wholfome Pills into his Mouth , chewes them, find's chem bitter, and fpitt's all out. Hence it is > you fpit at the Do&rins of Tranfubftantiarion, of Pur- gatory &c. becaufe forfooth, they are diftaftful to fenfe and shallow reafon. And truly, Sr , it is wonderful , that you haue not long fince by this procedure , caft off the Doftrin of the lacred Triniry, For moft certain- ly might fenfe and weak reafon plead the Caufe here , far greater difficulties would occur againft that fublimc Myftery, then euer Proteftants yet propofed againfl: our other Catholick Tcnents. In a word , Sr, if you d^fire fatisfa&ion in matters of Religion , b jfy not your head With the examination of the Diuine Myfteries Confiiered in themfr.lues, they arc aboue your reach, but contrary wi- fe,confider well, how. and by what means they are made Credible to reafon, which is done as SL Auftin, cited af- terward,teU's you, by firft finding out chat clear marked, and fignalized Church , whereby God /peaks > This c 3 Oracle for Mr. Stillingflebt. Oracle once difcouered ( and the Difcouery grounded vpon Emdcnce, is cafy )Hear and Believe Her , She is wi- fer then you ,and never think to shake fo ftrong a For- trefs, by devifmg petty Arguments againft Her Do&rin (no fooner feen then folued) becaufe , forfboth , you can- not Comprehend it. But it is high time to end and I shall dofo, withooe word more of good aduice. Fooles they fay may fame- times give a wife man Counfel. Sr, if you intend to write any more, Confider for your own fake , what you write, weigh things well in your thoughes, before they pafs your pen. Haue alwaies this one reflexion in mind. Its ea/y toCauil.eafy to talk^mucb , but mod labori- ous to make fure what you fay , by fburfd Principles, And Principles your Aduerfaries euer haue an Eve to. Had you complyed with this Aduice , the greateft part of your Account (if not all) might well have been fpa- red. Never rely on*the vain prayfes of your vulgar Readers, all is not gold that glifters in their Eyes , nor do they alwayesfpeak as they think* For as much as concern's your felfe , shew , sr , rather the ftrcngth of a Father in louing your works, then the weaknesofa fond Mother that hugg'sher Brats, though moft defor- med, lam told, you imagin it a great Acchieuement, and your felfe the conquerour, in hauing gain'd one pri- uateman T. C. to follow your triumphant Chariot f Abufe notyauriudgement there i& no iuch matter, for in good fober earned by what 1 haue perufedin 1 . C. lis booker at her fi&ris to be an anfver to yours, then yours to his. Abftain hereafter from opprobrious Language , left you meet with fbme ruffing Adverfary that will pay you in your An Advertisement • your own Coyn. Plcafcto rfe your Buckler better in behalfe of Proteftancy,and tell me when your Negatiue Articles are thrown away (trfary\ THE THE CHAPTERS IN ORDER. THE RVLE OF FAITH Wherein the infallibility of the Roman Catho* lick Religion is eftablished againfl: Atheifts, Heathens, lewes, Turks, and all Se&aries. CHap. I. Whether true Religion he in the World i The ^Affirmatiue proued Jgainft Athijls. At btifm, evident- ly SheTvd* improbable. I Chap. II. Reafon metis all feds or Religions not Chriflian. Whether Gentilifm , Iudaijfm ; or Turhifm , bee erroneous ana improbable > i-j Chap. III. Chrijlianity as it Jlands in oppofition to leWes , Turcks 9 Infidels and Heretiches , is the only true Reli- gion. 2 1 Chap. IV. Whether ChrWian Religion Jince its fir ft Propagation hath not been in like manner prejerued pure , and further fpread by Dunne Prouidence , aboue the Po^er of Natu- re* 2$ Chap. V. Whether all called Chrijlians Belieue intirely Chrift' s /acred DoElrin > K^ind whether meanes be afforded to arriue - to the knowledge of true Chriflian Religion* 29 Chap, VI. Of our Sectaries err our in their fear ch after true Religion, F The Chapters in Order! Religkn, As al/o of Mr Stilling fleets inconfequent Way cfkr* guing, 32* Chap. VH, More of this fubieSl. Doubts concerningthe few- ral editions offcripture. None extant more pure, then the Vulgar 'Latin, AbftraB from Churth Authority, there is no Certain* ty cf the besi Edition. Sectaries Comparing the Pre/en t Copies with the more ancient giues no a/farance. {^ Word with Mr Stillingfleet. 4% Chap. VIII. How neceffary it Was to hue one leSlion of Scrip- ture in the Church. A "Word of the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles. Of Mr Stillingfleet s mijlakes and inconsequences concer- ning them, Ohieclions angered. 55 Chap. IX. Proofs demonflrating that Proteflants haue not fo much certainty of Scripture , as excludes apofftbility of reaso- nable doubting. A Word of Mr Stillingfleet s Weahjdijcourfe With a Heathen. 67 A Vifiourfe between a Heathen and a Chiftian. 7 1 Chap. X. The fir ft and eafiejl Way to find out true Religion d not by Scripture only, though all Chriftians lad moral certa- inty of the right Canon , and fen fe alfi , which is to fay , the mecr owning Chrifls Doclrin, is infufflcient to proue it , to all fort of People. 80 Chap. XI. The Proteftant takes aWaytbe only means to know true Religion by, Plis proofs , whether He defend9 s Proteflancy or impugn9 s Catholic}^ DoBrin , are Unreducible to Principles; and neuer goe beyond the Weaknes of his own vnproued Ajjer- t\on, Meer glojjes ftp port all He faith, which is euidenced by a brief handling one Controuerfy , touching the B, Sacrament* Theodore t wrong d by Sectaries, cleared. His Doclrin is moji Catbolic\. 85 Theoderets Te/limony alleged aboue , Contains mojl Catholick Doclrin, 94 d Chap. The Chapters m Or.d ek CHAP. XII. ^ADtgrejpm concerning the Real Prefence. The Fathers plainly ajjert it. Seersries gloffis friuolous. The agree- mint of the Church and Fathers make a Dottrinindubitabk. The Catholick^s certain Principle. A word with Mr SttUing- fleet. 102, CHAP. XIII. Mr $tilling\leet grofly abufetb the Fathers that offer t the Real Prefence. His vnprincipled glojes are not only dubions, and therefore Worth nothing^but moreouer highly im- probable. 1 19 CHAP. XIV. It is farther proued that neither Scripture alone* not any other Principle di(lin6l from an Vnerrtng Church , tan with certainty decide Controuerjies in Matters of Religion* or Regulate Christian Faith. 138 CHAP* %V\ The other mentioned Principles about,are inefficient to decide controuerjies, Or to Regulate faith. 152, CHAP. XVI. One word more of Mr Sullingfleets Gloffes, and bis vne xcu fable abufe of other Fathers. 159 CHAP. XVII. VVhy theGloffes of Sectaries are impertinent and Weightiest Mr Stillingfleet mi/interprets other Fathers. Ofhh Vnskjlful Speculation concerning Idolatry charged on Catholicks. Chap, XVIII. The Proteftant after all hit Glojfes can not ascertain any yof true Religion. He Would make Controuer- pes an endles work^ 180 Chap. XIX. The loft defigne of Sectaries Gloffes difcouered. They end nothing. The clear Way to end Controuerjies of Re* hgion. A dislinttion between Authority and Principl'd Au- thority. Of the improbability of Protejlancy. 1 92, Chap. XX. A Word to one or two Obietlions. It is further proued, That Controuerfies are ended with Proteflants , who haue no E fence of Religion, but falfe opinions only. 205 Chap. XXI. Protectants granting Saluation to Cotholickj h i war The Chapters in 0&i>Eiu dear Inference dram from their Conception \endControuerfiet cf Religion. What force their concefiion lath. Why they granted fo much. The Argument is clearly propofed. Mr Stil/ingfleet mums no probable Anfoer. A fuUdifcoMrytf his fallacies. ^l2 THE SECOND DISCOVRSE, OF The Church and Rule of Faith Chap. I. Neceffary Principles premifed relating to the Centre- uerfy noH> in hand, concerning the true Church Aid Rub of Faith. M* Chap. II. The Rule of Faith afigned : The properties of a Rule. What is meant by the Church } Ancient Tathen Ajfert that the Church is eaftly found out. Her iharfo 9 more clear, than Her Ejfential Doftfin. 248 Chap. III. The Rrotejlant has neither Church euidenced by Mar\s of Truth, nor true Dotlrin made credible to redfon* His T»bole Faith is built y>pon fancj. 2,56 Chap. IV. The one and only true Church of drift, tv as, is, and shall euer be the Holy , Apoflolical , and Catholic^ Roman Church. Her Antiquity and Confiant Perfeuerance in the Ancient primitive Voftrin, 'mthout Alteration , proue The Lsiffertion. %66 Chap. V. Afecond Reafon shoeing) That if the Roman Catho* lick Church erred but in one Article of Faith, there is Wt* Ax M The Chapters in Order. no Fundamental Faith in the World. Were Emur in this Church, it is a remtdtUfs Ettl,and cannot be amended by any, least of all by Proteflaats. ' ij6 CHAP. VI. Other Evidences of the. Roman Cburchzs Perfeue- ranee in the Primitiue Faith, Without change or Alteration. Whether wickednes of life net ejf.tr Hy indue eth Err our into the Church ? The Donatijls and Protest 'ants A*g*e , and En dtke. 285 Chap. VII. Maniftfl and ' moH Undeniable Miracles peculiar to the Rowan Catholick^ Church only , prone H;r Orthodox , Tvithall show that She jlill retains the Primitiue Doc- trin* 296 Chap. VIII. Miracles euident in the Roman CatholickChurch, Nolefs iuduce All nolo to belnue Her Doclrin , Tnan Apo- ftolical Miracles Anciently Perfivaded to helteue that Primiti- ue Dotlrin. The Denial of Miracles ImpofibtUtat s The Conuerjion of lews and Infidels. 302, The Admirable cure brought hy Blejft d S.Xauerius in the Famous Citty of Naples, vpon a worthy Religious Per/on tailed F.Marcellus iMaftrilli , a Nobleman by birth, and hy Profefiion of the Society of Iefut. Tl?e Proof hinted at ahoue, reaflumed. } 1 1 Chap. IX. A Word to a few Obiettions, a alfo to Mr jlilling- fleets VriWorthy Exceptions againfl that euident Miracle trough at Zaragofa in Spam, 3x1 Chap. X. Other Marks and Signes, peculiar to the Roman Ca- thollick^ Church proue her Orthodox , And make Her Doc- trin euidently credible Thefe laid forth to Senfe and Re of on, difiinguish the true Church from all Erring Societies. Inferen- ces drawn from the Dottrin Here deliumd. 3 33 Chap. j The Chapters in Order CHAP, XI« Chrtfi and bis Church made manifef to a Heathen. No Prophet comparable toChrijt,no Church comparable to the Roman Catholic^ Our glorious Chrijl hfts Exhibits a glo- rious Church. Hit U pond the Only true M^ia* , And the Roman Catbolkk^ church His only true Sponfe. Ho* the Heathen Dijcourfesy if rational, ^And truLnu 549 Cm?. XH. The Aduerfaries cf the Kwtan Catfolkk^htrch plead ynreafmahly. ADifcoueryof their falluus. The caufe of all Brrom concerning Religion, Tbs only mean* 9t& feme dy ErifQUr. 3 '. -* Arguments dra7»n ft om what nfaid, RefUcliom made *»pon the premifed Dozinn. 377 Chap. XIII. Oiler Inferences draw from the precedent D,c- trin. Atbeifls and Hereticks Argue alike. The Motiws of Cre- dibility lead to a total Belief of Tvhat euer the true church Propofei. A ^ord of Mr Tborndicks MijlaJ^s concerning the Church. 18 1 A VFord of Mr Thorndtks Mijla!^es dif ottered in His Booh^ rf Forbearance. 387 Chap. XIV. Whether there be a Church of one Denomina- tion infallible, not only in Matters miscalled Fundamental, but in all andeuery Doclrin She fropofes , and Obliges chri- Jlians to belieue, m Faith > Chap. XV. Viuine Faith in> this prejent State of things, ncces- farily reauirs a Church infallible, The Keafon hereof. The Church neither Defins, nor tan Define by Humane Autho- rity only. Her Definitions % more than morally certain, are Infallible. Sectaries Recotirfe to Moral certainly in Mat- ters of Faith , a moft frigid fU a. Their Fallacy U difeouered. Qbieftions Anfaered. 408 Other* The Chapters in OrdeiC Other ObieBions propofed by Sectaries, Solued> More of Mo- ral certainty. 419 Chap. XVI ♦ Principles premifed to tbe following Do firm. The Roman Catholick church is a church of One Denomi- nation. She, and no other Society of christians , islnfalli* hie. Othet Grounds of Her InfaUibiltty laid forth. The J«- fallibility of Councils maintained againft tJMr Stillingfleets Suppojed Truth and Reafon. There are no principles the- reby Approued councils can he proued fallible* SeEiarin conuincedby their oTtnDoffrin. 413 Chap. XVII. More of this fubiefi, A further Search mad* into Err ours called intolerable* Whether the Roman catho- licity church mufi he fuppofed by SeBaries to haue already Committed intolerable Err ours, Or only, whether She may fot the future vrr Intolerably > The VoElrin of Protectants pro- ued Falfe , And moft inconfequenu 443 Chap. XVIII. T^o Aduerfaries mainly Oppofit to True Re- ligion. The laft and mofl Vrgent Proof of the thurches In* fallibility tahfn from the Necefity, the Notion and Nature ef true Religion. Mr Stilling fleets Obiettions found Tveak^and ^eighties. Moft of them already Propofed and Dijfolued by others. A short Reflettion made ypon fomefelt. 452, Chap. XIX. certain Principles , nhere vpon the churches Infallibility ftand's firm. The End of Diuine Keuelation is to teach all Infallibly. Euery Do&rin reuealed by the fia(l Ferity is no lefs infallible, then true. Its one thing to teach Truth , another to teach Diuine and Infallible Truth. Secta- ries Strangely vngrateful. A T»ord of Mr Stillingfleets'toeak Obieflions. ' 465 THE The Chapters in Okdir c THE THIRD DISCOVRSSE OF The Refolution of Faith: CHAP. I. Some chiefe Contents in thi* Difcourfe briefly declared* Mr Stillingfleets M>eak^ attempts againfl the churches infallibility and the Refolution of Faith. The cat ho* lick^ flay of tefoluing Faith, the yery fame "frith that of the Primitive chriflians. Of the miftakes lehich run through Mr Stilling fleets ivhole Difcourfe. 477 Chap. II. Mr Stillingfleets 5-th Chapter. Part. 1. exami- ned, is found FVeightles. The Tveaknes of his Arguments dif couered. His Firft and chiefefi Argument retorted andfol- ued. 483 Chap. 11 1. More of this fubkEl. OVtetTions i^Anfwred. A Tpord to ^Mr Stillingfleets forcelefs Injlances. Motiues of ere* dihilitj euer Precede Faith. Whether the rational Evidence of the Truth efChufi*s Thttrin, tan be a CMotiue to belie* ueit. . 493 Chap. IV. More of Mr Stillingfleets Err ours. Of that odd kjnd of Faith he feems's to maintain, grounded on Moral Cer- tainty. What Influence the Motiues of Credibility haue ypon Faith > Other Parcels of his Dofitrin Examined, and refuted. Ohiettitns- Solued. 505 Chap. V. More quarrels Anfaered. Mr Stillingfleets tndea- ueur to tattb Cathlit\s ink Circle, demonflrated both Vain and 1 f The Chapters in Order? and improbable. Hit Okie client are force lefs* A^ord to an in/earned Cauil. 516 Chap. VI. Mr StilUngfleet folues not His Aduerfaries Argu- ment : A Ttord of his tedious Sbujfing. The Mounts of Cre- dibility both difiingutsh the Church from all other Hetero* dox Communitier, and prone Her Infallible. The Agreement ^nb the Primary Docirin , no Mark^ of the church. More Miftakes and Err ours difcouered. Of Mr Stillingfleets dou- ble Faith Jtho Belieues, but notypon Diuine the Te/limony , That the Books of Scripture contain Gods Word in them: Tet Believes the Docirin in thofe books, to] be Diuine. 523 Whether YP€ Square circles in our Rtfolution of Faith. The other mentioned Points in the Tittle of the chapter, difcuffed. Vpon Vphat ground thofe Articles called the fundamentals of Faith are belieued, in the Opinion of Seclaries. 534 Chap. VII. T^eceffary Principles premifed to the Refolutionof Faith. God can Speak^ in a Language proper to Himfdfe. His external language is twofold, when God fpea\s not immediatly , He mujl be heard by his Oracle. VVhat the exacl Refolution of Faith imp lyes} 545 Chap. VIII. The main Difficulty in the Refolution of Faith , Propofed. What Connexion the Mottnes baue vlnth the Di- uine Reuelationl Of their weigh and efficacy. God's o7vn Language net imi table by his Enemies. Faith tranfeends the certaint) of all Motiues, Th main Difficulty fined. Of our great Security tu B aliening God, Though we bane not Eui- dence of the Diuine Teflimony* Chap. IX. tie ifhcle Progrefs of Faith Explained in order to its lafl Rcfolutnn. Of Hat if»licb the Fathers Call the light of Faith. Its it holly different from Sectaries Friuate Spirit. From Twhva Fan': hath Infallible Certainty. Obiec- T he Chapters in Order ObieBhns Sofoed. 5^* ClIAP. X. The eafiefl'Vpay of ri fduir.g Faith ,L&id forth in rt»* Proportions. The evidence of Credibility furl far declared. Sec* tunes haue no Euidence cfCredthhty. It is as cuidently Crf- dible that God no^Jpeak^s by the Church, as that Be did anciently Speak hy the Prophets. 5~° Chap. X!. Sectaries Obieclicns fohed. Ihe fallible Agree- ment of all Concerning the Qancn of Scripture, no I reef at alla No Vniuerfal Cenferafor the Sectaries Scripture > or the Serfe ef it. Hoty the church is both the Ferity belieued, and the Motiue, T^hy Tve belieze. Other Difficulties Examined* 580 Chap. XII. TheUslObiediouPropoJed. whether the churches Tefiimony way he called the Formal Obiefl cf Faith. Otter Notes and Chnf derations , Concerning The Refoktion of Faith. 58* Chap. XIII. Protectants haue no Faith to refofoe, Jndtfcn that account are freed from a vicious Circle. Seme yet are in it Circle. Ttoo Sorts cf Sectaries refuted. 596 Chap* XIV. The Mt&akes of feme Sectaries in this Contro- uerfy. Its necejjary to distinguish between true Reafon , and fallacious Reajoning. Triuate Reafcn Halle to Errour. Prin- ciples prefuppofed to the Decifion of this QueUion. Rcafm eaji/y finds out true Religion, by a rational Euidence pre- uioiM to Faith. 603 Chap. XV. From whence the Euidence hitherto mentioned Proceeds > That Religion only is reafonalle , "which Heauen declares reafonalle . The Declaration Vs euidentlj made in be- halfe of the Roman Catholic^ Religion . Who is the mifled reafining Han > Other Particulars handled. The readtefl ^ay to Conuince Sectaries. 615 Chap. XVI. ClieElions fohed. Sectaries pretending not to Se the Churches Euidence > are cither blind, or wilfully shut their t Ejts. L The Chapters in Order.. ■ Eyes. The Ajjertion clear /? proved, ^A Parallel of the Pri* tnitiue% and the prefent Churches Euidence. HoTP far Reafon ma) he fajd to Regulate Faith. 625 CHAP.. XVII. A DigreJJion Concerning Dottor Stillingflects Difcourfe, Where h treat s of the Protestants Faith redu- ted to Principles. He is all a long quite he fides the matter handled , and Sayes no more for Frotejlancy, than fir Aria* nijfn, or any other Vierefj.- 639 Chap.XVUL The Doit or s Inferences, proued no Inferences f hut untrue Affet tions. Hauing anfaer'd his Principles and Inferences, Satisfaction is required to fome fw guefttons propofed. 652,. Chap. XIX. The fuppofed grounds of our Protejlants Refor- mation manifeftly oucrthroTw. Proteflancy no Religion hut m improhtbk Novelty. The iomlufxon of this Tvhok Trea- tife. 66$ COVRTEOVS READER. YOn will foon perceiue by the many literal faults in this Treatife, that « Granger to our language printed it, and that the Cortt&or vfed not dili- gence. Such errata as thefe are ( hane for haue, Sponfe for Spoufe, Profylite for Piofelyte. Sufptncc for Sufpenfe. fymtons for Symptons. Citty forCitic Chnftans for Chnftians. Chuih for Church wich for which , hanfom foe handfome Rehgon, for Religion muft for moft, with many moiclikc them ) I Icauc to your charitable Correction. Some greater faults are here noted PAge. *. For ciuillized. Read ciuiliz'd. line %%] read an vniveifal. Page J.I.fjJ r. voluntaiily.P 4 \.:1. for nonne r.none p.5.1 i4.rftriary. p 10 1 j.r.Cru rocs. 1. u. r. then, and 1. 27. for v. hem r. when. Synogogue , for Synagogue, Cod for God>hypocricy,for hypocrify.diftmguiched for diftinguisned , and the like Errata following I omit. P. i2 inthel itlc.By reafonablc. r, byreafon.P. 18. 1.31. r. it hath p. 20. 1. 19 For Eliiir. Eifi. andl. jj.r Atcoran. p-3$. I»f. dele, the.p. 36. 1. $.r. Concern, and 1. 13. r. Churches care. p. 58. 1. 3i- '• per- fected, p. 61.I i^.r.^Tncu^PTsllo.r.meaning.p.ioi.l^i.r haueit,p. 104. Li6. r.full p. 107.I 21 t innumerable, p. 1 16. 1 2. r (aying. 1. 6 r.reply, and I* J3.r.Fathers#p.l2». 1 ij.r, Mali. p.n^. 1. 52 r.^/^o^. p 144.I 6 r.isitp. I6i. 1. 15- r. Say lis it. p. 164. J.i. r Romanosard.i. 2. r.whofe Faith, p. 167, 1, 3. r.dcfperate. p. 17$.! 4 dele :. p. 174. 1. 20, r. Speculation, p. I79«J.9« r» Apothcofcs,andl.i6\r. itnfc,and,J.26.dele.a.p. iSc r. gleanings, p 187. 1.4.r. fnfpence. p. it9. J. 20. r. decides, p. 191. I. 23 r ©bfolcte.p. 190. inTitulo.r. afccrtain.p i^o.l.ij.r.gutfTcs.p. 2oe,l.i.r.ftanding. and in the Title r. way.p. H4J.7. r.TJtlc. and I.36 r.difcourfe: p. 224 I. ^.r. Solution. p. 228. inmarg: 1. Conccflion.p.2*l.l.2.r Mafs in the Church, and 1. 4 dele the word Church.* p. 25 6.1. 3. read for very the name. p. 239. 1 3.r.pen to paperp.i$6\l. 25. r kin* ted at. p. 266. lin. vlt. r. Euidcnt. p. 27c. in Marg. r. vnanfwcrablc. p. 276. in the Title of the Chapter, r. world p. 335. 1. 12. r.ChrifVs kingdom. P.341.U8. dele the. p. 343. |. 2c. r. Apoftafy. Afterwards you haue Dcuide for diuidc. Moflias for Meflias. Apoftacy for Apoftafy. Fabrik forFabrick. Scnfuallity for fenfuality, Exceptor for Acceptor. Legardemain for legcr. peccadilio for peccadillo Cheiubins for Cherubims. Sernphins for Seraphims. Numbertles for number lefs. Nauatiani for Nouatiani. Commifloned for Commiffio. ned. TciPs for refl's banding for bandying, yets for yet. rhus for thus. Chi- mera for Chimaera p. 369 J. $, r. blafphemeand Contemn. Parail'd for pa- ralleled, p. 390. 1 21. dele which, you haue moreover, rancked for ranked. Thifitians for Fhyfitians. phifick for phyfick. bountiffully for bountifully, aparttion for apparition, limitated for limited, lewish for lew ish. trairoroufly ior traittroufty. Aftcry\ard for afterwards, vpnardfor vpwards. Acquiefe for Striata, for acqu'.efce. All plain Errara and eafily corrected, p. f 3 £. 1. i r, for bclicuc. r. biliefc. p.tfro. I. 17 r. without lb. p.6ii. 1.16. for there, r, three, p. 616. I.4. dele comrn. There are yet mm/ , and very mm/ faults in Orthography andinterpun£tions vncorrecte J, courteous Header as you go e along, vouchfa- !c to correct them with your pen. Difc. 1. after p. 353, pleafe to correct the Errour in the next Page , and read p. $f4. p. 34L 1.1. dele the. p. 583. in the Titlcr. Chap. 13. And p. 4?r. jn the Title for. 19. r. Chip. r. p. %\6. in the Title of the Chap. r. vnlc- arned. p. 677.I. for thy r. this, and in the Aduertifementp. j9 1. 14 r. Achicuc- acat, in the f rcfaccP. <)■ !, i?.r,tranfcend's. FIRST D1SCOVRSE, Of true Religion. TOattaineacIear knowledge of true Chriftian Religion is the chiefe Defign of this wholeTreatife. V Ve arc therefore inthefirft place, to difcuile matters ferioufly with Chrift's profes fed E nemies, and to proue that the pro pagation of our Sauiours facred Doc trin, hath been a Diuine work about the force of nature. Thus muchperfor med, we Shew how Sectaries erre i their Search after Religion, and euinc that it is not found by their priuat pondering Scripture alone, much lesf by any vnprinciprd Glofles. Laftly , ii this Difcourfe , we lay forth an eaf way, whereby all thefe vnfortunate D<- bates concerning Religion, may com; to a happy period, Tt THE RVLE OF FAITH, Wherin the infallibility of the Roman Catholick Religion is eftablifhcd againft Atheifts Heathens, Iewes, Turks , and all Sectaries, CHAP. I, Whether true Religion he in the^orld* The Affirmative prolted Againft Athetils. Atkeifm, evidently Shelf d\ improbable. x . *T* He queftion may perhaps feem doubtful to many, upon 1 thefe grounds. Firft. Who euer admit's of Religion rauft different either hold it true upon the Authority of others , or becaufe he is ^JJJJJJJJ periwadedit can be found out by his own fearch and induftry. \^ truev^ligim he relies on Authority , He meet's with as many Pretenders to truth as there are different Profeflbrs of Religions on earth. The Tht mofl of lew pleads for his as the raoft ancient, the Chriftian for his, the men pretend Turk for his , the Heathen for following the light of nature, and t9 tu every one thinks well of his own way, and votes his own Religion beft. If therfore a fearcher after truth relies on Authority , He can no more ( lay thefe) take the Chriftians word than the Hea- thens, the Heathens then the J ewes, the J ewes then the Turks , the f Ariansthen the Catholicks , the Catholicks than the Proteftants , T^f^^] and Confequently ought in prudence to reject all Religion. thoifi. 2r. On the other fide , if He chufe a Religion by the force of his private judgement only, or own induftry, He is caft into a La- byrinth and shall never find an exit. He is obliged in prudence to make a diligent fearch into all the different Se&s which are, or have bin fince the firft creation of things : He is carefully to A examin % Difc.i.C. i. True%eligton proved. exaroin the caufesof them , the grounds they rejy on , the con- nexion or coherence they have with one an other ; He is to con- verfe with the learned of thefe different Religions , or read their books , and then to pitch by his own erring judgement on what likes him beft , which perhaps may be word of all. This task you fee is immenfe and no Idle unfuccesful than laborious, mans life is fpent, before halfe the work be done. Therfore it feems, none can come to the certain knowledge of true Religion either by Au- thority or reafon. E^o, faith the Opponent , there is no fuch thing as true Religion in Being. True Re!L 3* Contrariwife I fay. True Religion mod evidently is in the gionisinbe- world. The Affertion is grounded on this certain verity: God eter- ing. The naUy exifting by hi mfelf without caufe, and infinite in all perfection r™IJ?nofthe\s in Being j therfore true Religion cannot but bee alfo. For Grant flich a Betny as God is , neceffary of himfelf without any fuperiour caufe, it followes He is to be adored by all rational creatures elTen- tially inferiour to him, and not by any falfe, or mock-worship, but Of the ado- m sPtrU ant^ Tr«f b, for fuch an adoration only fuites his Divine natu- re/'™ dm to re. This reafon is reinforced by the light of one indubitable Maxim. God* Ouod univerfis videtur , e(l verum. What appeares to all , or at leaft, to the moft Civillized Nations to be a Truth, is fo: for fuch a uni- verfal confent of nature is the Dictamen and voice of God the Au- thor of nature ; But all Nations ever owned fome Religion , ther- fore this agreement of God and nature is a Truth. The minor is evi- AUctvilli. jent (t0 foy nothing of Chriftians) out of the very writings of Hea- ^attons thens who allure us , though people are found fo barbarous as to mm L live without lawes , learning, or civil goverment, yet no whole nation was ever yet heard of, but owned fome kind ofNumen, fbme facririce, fome homage, fbme worship due to a power either faf/ly ,.~ . or truely judged worthy of Reverence and honour. Neither is the t rfJ9Ve/ force of the Argument infringed by laying, many and very many ' Nations erred in the Truth of Religion , which may feem as great an Evil as to have none, for thus much is only proved at prefent, that the voice of nature more ealilyownes Religion then itprofef- fcs one true j That therfore being the univerfal Teftirnony or Ge- neral dgalnft AhefiU. 3 nerai content of all, cannot be falte. H£c tefi'wonid amm& (irsTer- tullians Do&rin which S. Cyprian borrowed from him) quanta vera, tantojimpltcia , quanto fimplcta , tanto vulgaria Sec. T Lis general \iutb by bon ttmcb more pure andfimple , by fo much it's more vulgarly k^»otont by hoT» much more vulgarly knoTvn, by fo much its more common, by hoiv much more common , by fo much it's more natural, b) ho^> much more natural , by fo much it's more Divine. Omni literatwa nottus ( faith Tertullian) omnt Dottrina agitatius, omni bomme Majm> 'Tis a learning more known and refolved in mans mind than all other learning , greater then man is , and therfore a certain trnth fetled in all by the Author of nature , God himfelf. Now that many err in the truth of Ty eattfe of Religion , proceeds without doubt too often from want of inftru- Miftak'mg dtion : fometunes from pride, ignorance, or Malice in the Teacher, trm Reli. which is the deplorable cafe of condemned Hereticks : Sometimes , &lon- and this is mod ufual ,it comes from an obdurance of heart begot , by a cuflome of mining and tranfgreding againft the very light of nature. , For , this cuftome brings a punishment with it , that it darkens the "mind notorioufly, and makes realon a ftranger not only to weighty rational motives which forceably draw us to good, but more over it fo ftupihes , fo dulls and indifpofeth a foul , that the impreflions of grace (not wanting to the moft barbarous) touch, as it were , on flintly rocks, and produce either a weak barren fruit, or rather no penitential fruit at all. Would therfore the moft obdu- rate Scythians, or any other uncivilized People yeild to the ordinary grace allowed them for the avoiding of fin , known contrary to nature : God who illuminates every man in the world , would give more light, until they came to the knowledge of truths necelTary , ttecefatate medij, to attain faluation. For this is an undoubted Maxim of Divines. God is not wanting in neceffaries, and , Tacienti quod in fe eft non denegat gratiam. He denies not grace to fuch as endeavour by the ordinary means afforded them to avoid fin contrary to na- ture , but if careles of that duty which nature obliges to , they vo- luntariley plunge themtelves into an Abifs of horrid tranigrefiions , the obdurance now mentioned foil owes : The powerful opera- tion of grace lies ftifled , and much deaded in fuch hardned hearts, A z and 4 Difc. i. C. i, Atheifis hy rea/bn , and Confequently fenfe and love of pleafures bear greateft /way there, which makes reafbn a ftranger to Gods truths, and from hence grofT errors concerning Religion take their rife and have their origen. The objection above, purely fallacious, fuppofeth thofe different Pretenders to true Religion to be all of equal Authority, and cafteth mans weak and erring reafbn on too long and laborious k work. True Religion is known with IelTe Adoe , then thefe Ad- verfaries Imagin , as we shal shew hereafter , and folve the objection in its due place. 4. I argue 2. from the aflumed principle. God txiftt Therefore true Rtlt$ion U , and difcourfe thus. There are and ever have been feveral Religions profefTed in the world, and all are not falfe,for if all were falie, God, whofe exiftence we now fuppofe, would fee him- felfe not at all adored in fpirit and truth , but rather Univerfally fcorned by an erroneous worship, as if men had been created for this end to mock and abufe their Creator -9 And this feem's contrary . Trom fate to the light of reafon. Now further. All Religions are not falle, Religions , iY^o . one onely is true , becaufe two or more which hold Contra- one only true, di&ions can not be true 5 and if one be true , every rational creature *f prove . «s QJ^^ggj to f0How that when 'tis clearly propofed , and to worship his maker by a right way of Homage : but this obligation muft flip— pofe the truth of Religion in being , becaufe nonnecan be obliged to embrace a foolery, or to worship God by a meer nothing. You will fay , one may be bound to follow an errour or an erroneous Confcience , therefore the proof taken from this obligation, evin- ces not the actual truth of Religion. Anfw. When we are bound to follow an errour in a matter of chiefe Concern , the Contrary truth , which all should affent to , Co really is , that we may be unbe- guiled, and fet right; but if all Religions arefalfe, there is none true fuppofable , and Confequently the Univerfal errour of all is a remediiefTe evil. If therefore God requires a true exhibition of worship from his Creatures He cannot permit all to err Univerfally, and for this reafbn true Religion is in being. You may reply . God is independent of us all, and need's notour Homage, or adoration. Very true, but nun depend's upon God, and by the inftincl: Convinced unreafinable. j inftin& of nature , is obliged to adore him in truth , which inftinft as we shall prove prcfently, originally proceed's from the Author of nature , and therefore God alfo obliges all to pay him the true tri- bute of praife and no Counterfeit worship. Some Perhaps , may object. Religion feem's not Capable of a demonftration , becaufe that which is true defafto depend* s on God's free Revelation , the Credibility where of can be evidenced , but not the truth. I anfwer, in the general afTertion already made , we abftract. from the particu- lar proofs relating to true Religion ; we treate with all , who own a Deity , and fay, thefe (if God had not elevated man to fupernatural, beatitude, or, omitted to reveal the fublime myfteries, of faith) had, in that State been obliged to adore theyr Creator with no falfe ho- mage and thus much reafbn evinces , although we cannot (as the objection proves) ftrickly demonstrate the truth of Chriftianiry,but only its Credibility , whereof more , and very amply, hereafter. In the mean while 5. Methinks I hear fbme , who ftand much for reafbn, fay, that Atheifts (rational men) oppofe all Religion, and why may not their Plea be heard in Co weighty a matter ? Anfw. Its not my-tntention at prefent to combate too long with Atheifts , they are utterley At**fa* overthrown by the learned Arguments of innumerable grave Au- \^aJ^ thors I have other Adverfaries to treat with: However , becaufe hU, their pretence is reafbn , obferve, how they deftroy not only Reli- gion but reafbn alfb, yea, and extuinguish the very light of nature with it. 6. The ground of Atheifm h this prodigious accurfed Principle. There is no God , no fupreme Po^er, no Numen, no Providence ( for jfjeae(ttfA^ acknowledge a God and Providence, reafon evidently concludes , Principle »f He is to be adored \n fptrit *nd truth, and this worship or Adoration M$ifm* we call Religion,.) This AfTertion ther*,, God u not, is a prime truth, or the firft verity with Atheifts., wheron all their human actions depend,by this fuppofed verity they are regulated during their mortal life. Contrariwiie, This AfTertion. Gvd u an eternal Evn% by him- felf , is a prime Loud falshood with them, to be fcorned by every one. Hence I argue. That firfl fuppofed verity. God it not r de- pram 6 D i fc. i . C . i . Atheifts by reafort, praves the will , extinguifeth the light of nature , makes men exe- crable , enormoufly wicked, impious, facrilegious", takes of all fear of fjture punishment and hope of reward, For if there be no God, or no lupreme power to punish hainous oriences , the moft hideous fins imaginable would ceafc to be pernicious , andconiequently every one might without check or torment of Conference, ir it lerved his ends, kill and deflroy all he meets with. No wrong, no open injuftice, no Treafon, no rebellion, can be invented lb mon- ftrous , but may be done without reproof of Confcience , if this Principle hath influence upon what we act. God T*ho can neither , .. punish, or regard , u vox in Betng. And thus you fee , how that hrft deftroLs the Arch-truth of Atheifts. God is not , horridly depraves and vitiates l^ht of rea^ the will, makes it favage, and brutish, which ex rermtnis is evidently fon. fals , for Truth confident as truth, is a perfection of the underftanding, and cannot per fe pervert nature , or wren- the will in man to all wic- kednes. On the other fide you fee, that this Arch-falfity of Atheifts. God is an KterntlBtingy by its own force and light rectifies nature, makes men upright, juft, obedient , fubmiflive to lawes and gover- nment ; which is impoiTible $ for fuch a grand errour fetled in mans intellectual faculty, is by it (elf as wholly unmeet conftantly to pro- duce fuch laudable effects , as Truth is to deceive , or cold water to warm us. You fee. 3. that unlefle villany and wickednes be deemed wifdom, and virtue and juftice be accounted of as madneffe, Atheifts muft change the Proportions and fay : God ifyremaws a [upreme Truth, God is not : is a (upreme errour, and withall Conclude , that the firft intellectual Truth cannot make men wicked , nor the ririt errour make them virtuous. 7. Some perhaps will reply againft our firft inference. Nature it felf abhorres the impieties now mentioned/and that's the Atheifts Mature ha* Rule) although God were not in Being. I anfwer. Nature doth lb her impref- now ? becaufe it receives thofe impreffions from God, the Author pons from Qr Qrace anc[ natLlre ? bllt deftroy this firft Author , Eo ipfo , you houtGod no Polish thofe very firft lights of nature, and make it fhipidly brutish.. truth canbe- The reafon hereof a Prion is moft convincing. Nature is endowed known. with thefe hrft lights , becaufe it receives them from an indefectible J and Convinced umeafonMe. y and unerring intellectual Being, for i£ this firft Potter or fieing, which gives exigence and light to nature, could err, or be deceived in ilich univerfal Notions, nature which takes its Being from this firft intel- lectual power , would lofethofe communicated lights , and fall to nothing. For example. Here is a participated light, or a Truth common to all rational men. Do m you ^ouid be done by, and nature univerfally approves it. I ask why is this a fuppofed Truth > You anfvver becaufe all agree in it. Beitfo. But I fay, if allthofe who agree in it, receive the light from a power that is defective, ignorant, orliable to errour , this very eonfent of nature like that rirft erring Principle, cannot but be defective, and ignorant , becaufe no effect exceed's the virtue or perfection of thecaufe it comes from. 8. Will you fee this clearly? Suppoiethata Cafual meeting or concourfeof Atomes made man rational, as Atheifts will have it, and indued him with the Truth now mentioned, without the in- fluence of a fupreme intellectual Power. This rational thing called man , judges,difcourfes, defines , and delivers, as he thinks, certainly DuaAtomei the firft natural verities. Very good. But we inquire further, and ^nowled** Ask from what caufe he had this power of judging, and defining to am, truly? For, if he received it from one that's dull, ignorant or deceipt- ful in all he judges , and defines , He cannot but participate of the nature of that firft Principle , which is dull and ignorant. Thus much is clear. For if I receive my knowledge from one who is diftracted mad, or falfe in his conceptions, and regulate my felf or others by fuch a communicated light , all I know or teach by virtue of that kn©wledge,tranfcends not the nature of that Principle which is now fuppofed, ignorant, erroneous and deceiptful. 9. Summon therfore all the Atomes together which made man rational , and imprinted on him the firft lights of nature , I demand of thofe Atomes , could they Aniwer , How it came to paffe , that a company of Dull infenfible things , void of reafon and difcours could by meer chance, produce man intellectual, and not only intellectual, but unerrable alfb in fbme Principles called natural ? I fay all that this man judges is falfe, becaufe the Principle which gave him being, (void of light and underftanding) cannot indue him with unerra- 8 Difc. i. C. f. Atheifts by reafon. y, r unerrable Truths. For , tfemo dat quod non habet ; No caufe gives my nom to its effects f what it precontains not. Infenfible Atomes thertbre, torn judge cannot make man feniible , nor irrational Atomes , reasonable, nor truely , if ftupid Atomes , devoid of truth imbue him with the rirft true Prin- God exift c}pies. Therefore man is no more to be believed in thefe firft not* lights of nature, than if Apes or Parots should fpeak them, becaufe, as we now fuppofe,they proceed not origfnally from any intellectual ^ Power, but only from meer duft or infenfible things, void of under- ftanding. The Sceptiks therfore erred not, when upon the fuppo- TfteSeepttks flt[011 that God made not man, they concluded : we know nothing, ub* n°n we iUt%e °^not^^ng truly, but what might be excepted againft, and falfefuppofi. rationally oppofed. If therfore nature err's not in thefe rirft Prin- tion. ciples, now acknowledged true and rational, afcribe it to nature, but leave not of there , but fay thefe lights come from God the Author of nature, who neither will , nor can deceive us. Here then is our grand Principle. God and nature camiot err , therfore the verity and certainty of thefe firft known truths depending on God and nature, are free from errour. And i o. Hence we have an other clear demonftration againft Atheifts. EitherGod in'dowed man with reafon and thefe firft lights of nature, An other or a^ of us, even Atheifts may be juftly deemed mad , and befotted demonjlra- with fooleries , but all (including Atheifts) are not mad , nor erring tion againft in thefe firft lights of nature , Erjjo God indued man with thofe firft Atheifts, lights. I prove the Major. It is perfect madnes in the judicative power of man -to deny the truth of thofe firft lights, but the truth of them muft bee denyed , in cafe we receive our judicative faculty from a Power inferiour to God, for, if we receive it not from an in- finite Being , we have it from fome inferiour erring caufe, which may deceive. ( Atomes for example) but neither atomes nor any inferiour fallible Power, can tranfufe into us a certainty of not erring in thofe firft lights. The reafon is given. The lights we have, goe not beyond the perfection of that caufe which imparts them to nature; This caufe, what ever it be is inferiour to God, and therfore cannot but be liableto errour,and may deceive us. Obferve this dilcourfe well, for it is the ground a Prior i , of the Churches in- fallibility, wherof more hereafter. 1 1 . You J Convinced unreafonahle. 9 11 You haue other arguments moft concluding againft Atheifts, but Icannot infift on all. Here is one and a fpeculation of a great Diuine. A Being exifting by it felf in- A##r«fc»«* hnitly perfect , or without mixture of imperfection , is exconceptu ArlHme**' fuoformali , or , Apprehended vnder that Notion no chimera , nor impoffible Obiect ( as impoffible obiects are diftinguished from poffibilities ) therfore it is poffible. I proue it. All Chime- ras or Impoffibilities efTentially imply imperfection , becaufe they cannot be , and confequently vpon that account want perfection, but this infinite Being concerned by man wants no perfection ( r fay conctiuei , for I neither yet proue nor flippofe any thing , but only fpeak of an obiect thus reprefented to an vnderftanding , and fay that obiect is no impoflibility becaufe infinitly perfect , without appearance of flaw or imperfection.) Now further ; if fuch an obiecl: ex terminis be poflible , and not impofible> it is of neceffity actually exifting , for it it haue not an actual Being , it wants per- fection, and requires a more perfect caufe to produce it , which is contrary to the nature of that which I conceiue , and form in my vnderftanding ; But if it be actually in Being , I haue all I feekfor. Ens aftu exiflens, an actual exiftency without any firpe- riour caufe , infinitly wife , without blemish or imperfection,and this we call God , the Origen of all things , Creator of Heauen and earth. But I waue thefe {peculations , moral arguments without them haue weight enough , and could we fay no mo- Moraijr. re but thus much only ; That Atheifts in a matter of Eternal fal- guments i»~ uation ( the weightieft point imaginable ) deliberatly embrace that tbit matttr Doctrin which can neuer do them good , if true ; and eternally f**J m$9 damn them, if fab ; it were enough. Obferue well. Were Atheifm true,the Profeflbrs of it dye like doggs , and Co do all others with them , thefe men therfore will not hereafter laugh at Belieuers for adoring, a Deity ^ but if their Doctrin proues fals in the other life, all true Chriftians may {com their impudency, or rather deplore their eternal mifery which will follow , not on- ly vpon the account of Atheifm, but for other enormous fins committed againft God and nature. Now if the Atheift faies he B fol- io (Difi. l. C. t. Atheifis h) reafon followed the Di&ate of his reafon, this ( were it fb ) at moft excu- fes him from the fin of Atheifin , but frees him not from damna- tion , if guilty of other criems againft the light of Nature. If he fay again , he fully enioyes his pleafures in this life , whilft Good Chri- thofe who belieue a God, liue in reftraint and fear. He pleads pans in Non-fenfe , for a good Chriftian , if we exclude fome horrid tki* life ha- fins which nature ex ecrat's , may haue his dignities in a com- ae more con mon wealth , his lawful pleafures , and recreations as much as dibeilis, any Atheift ; herein he hath no preheminence before others, no nor ib much content as is allowed good Chriftians 5 There- fore on all accounts he is in a worie condition them Chri- ftians , for he liues contemned here the whole world ouer , andean expect no happines hereafter. 12. Others argue and methinks very fblidly. Though Gods exiftence were not demonftrable , Atheifts may neuer the leff be not only conui&ed of error , but iuftly alio look't on as in a damnable ftate , vpon the account of rheir Atheifin. Here is my reafon. The very rules of nature and ciuilrty oblige vs to refpe& all according to the outward apptarames of their qua- lity and condition , when we haue no iuft reafbns which ren- - , .- der them fufpe&ed. It would be open iniuftice to treat any tonuifted of on^ > either in language or actions like an inferiour fellow , errors whofe traine or garbe (peak's him a Prince , or nobleman* though a I should certainly err in iuftke and morallity , should I deny Duty wre any one that refpect which the Common reputation ofhisvfr- ^,f,^*"tues and accomplishments, hath gained him (though perhaps r not deferued) whem I haue no Convincing proofs, that he is not what he feem's. There is no Atheift of them all , boe would think him jfelf highly iniured were he flighted m this nature, and with good reafon too , for the meer poflSbility ©if being deceiuM in a mans quality or virtues , can be no> Hifficient warrant for any to deny him that honour y which his. virtues in all app earance challenge as hfs due. i j. T fay therfbre, were the Deity fuppofed fndemonftra- bfe y that cannot excufe the Atheift from performing thofe ' - - " ~ - duties. Cominced unreafonabte. H duties which fiich a Being , in all appearance , moft infinite wife , and omnipotent may challenge , of praife and Adoration , pro- portionable to his worth : For , if the Atheift exact's all punctilios of refpeel: from others , which the exteriour garbe of his dignity may intitle him to, he cannot without the higheft wrong , and vio- lating the law of nature ( Doe as you toould be done bj) deny to God, after Co many fignal appearances of his dignity , the due relpecl: and honour , wherunto that fupreme excellence moft iuftly laies ciaime. ypfarin th 14. Now if you make inquiry after the appearances of that eKCeutnu \f fupereminent excellence in a Deity, they farr furpalTe allthofe g<><* an- other appearances which can poflibly concurr to create in any an *?*• opinion of mans greatnes , virtues , or accomplishments. No Monarch , no Prince , no Potentate , no nobleman can giue fb many euident fignes of worth and excellence (duely laid ciaime to) as God euidences of an infinite greater fupereminent worth , due and proper to himfelf. Euery one knowes, that wifHom , power , and worthy actions , enoble man; and beget in all a Vni- uerlal fame of excellence. What think ye? Doth not the crea- tion, the continual preferuation , and admirable Oeconomie of this vifible world loudly (peak the wifHo'm, power, and noble works of a Deity ? Do not thefe raife in all a vniuerfaf fame of his Being > Haue not all ciuilized nations (agreeing in the truth) the very beft of philofophers in paft ages , and all Chriftians ( the nioft wile and learned body of men which the world euer yet few) purchafed to God, vpon euident appearances, more immor- tal honour and renown , than euer Prince or Monarch gained fuitable to his ftate and dignity? If therfore to deny a Prince to be what he feem's , when all imaginable appearances {peak him Prince, be moft iuftly deemed a crying iniury contrary to the light of nature ; much more to deny God his Being is a greater wrong, when all the teftimonies of grace and nature proclaim him God. One word more and Tend this point. So many emi- nent and fignal miracles both before and after our Sauiours comming, which could: proceed from no other caufe but God , ei- B 2, ther 1 1 ©i/c. i.C.i, Athelfts by reafonable ther euidently demonftrate his Being (as we shall feeprefently) 'or make the truth fo apparantly credible, that,tis a degree of mad- nes to deny it. The Atheift therfore , who without proof or principle denies God , and depriues him of that refpect which ought to be paid vpon outward iigns and euident appearances of his excellence , impiously oppofes right reafon , and tin's damnably ; Nor can the fuppofed indemonHr ability of God, more excufe him from damnable irreligion , then the pofitbility of being decerned in any mans worth or accomplish^ virtues ( whem apparent Ci^n^s make them euident) from wrong and open iniuftice , as is now faid. 1 5. Laftly the Atheift who pretend* s to belieue nothing , be- lieues ( it's true differently) as much , yea and as hard things , as TkeAtheiflt any Chriftian doth. The Chriftian belieues a God he neuer law, lir*' anc* l^e Atheift an infinite feries of caufes , or a ftrange concours fiwjwicf ' °^ *nuifible Atomes he neuer faw. The Chriftian belieues the difficult *°ul ne neuer faw to be immortal , the Atheift , who yet neuer things then Taw fo much , holds it vanishes into nothing. The Chriftian Chri/ttAns, faith an infinite wifclom rules the world , The Atheift fayes no , but either fate or chance, (as much imperceptible to fenfe as God is)Gouerns all. You fee therfore, how thefe men who pre- tend to belieue nothing , belieue as much as any, for T»e all belieue, but with this difference , that the Atheift imprudently iudging incredibilities belieuable faftens on theVn , and leaues to Chriftians a belief of verities not only prudently credible, but moft true and cer- tain. Mark their blindnefle and a iuft iudgment of God with it. They reiedt. things credible , and in lieu of thefe pitch on moft ijefperate improbabilities , and this ineuitably : for , not to belieue credible verities forceth them to belieue the contrary , incredible foo- leries. The Atheifts arguments run all vpon fals fuppofitions where of fee more In the fecond difcourfe. God they fay, feems carelefTe in gouerning the world, whilft He fuffers the innocent to be opprefTed , and vniuft men to enioy mnch happinefle. Mark firft, They fuppofe fbme innocent , and others vniuft, wheras if we deny God , there can neither be innocence nor vaiuftice , as is now Conuinced Ttnreafonable ij bow demonftrated. 2. They meafure Gods infinite wiflom in gouerning his creatures by their short fallible Conceptions and fuppoie him vnabie to punish the wicked , and to reward the iuft in a future life. But enough of this fubieft , moll amply y handled by others. CHAP. II. fyeafm reiefts aU feSis or Religions not Ckriftian. Whether Gentilifm, ludaifm ; or Turcifm% bee erroneous and improbable? 1. VI/7 EE here exdude profefTed Atheifts vowed enemies of all Vr Religion, And now treat with other Aduerfaries but very briefly , they are either Heathens , Turks , or Iewes, lift if you pleafe with Thefe all condemned Hereticks , as Arians , Pelagians, Donatiftsand the like rabble of Aliens from truth , who really deferue not the name of Chriftians. Htnthem 2. The Gentils or Heathens that adored many Gods as JJ^ Mars , lupiter , Apollo , and therfore plain Idolaters, ( becaufe they make deceafed men Gods) are now of no account in the world. Turks, Iewes , Chriftians and all other decry their vanity, or to fpeak in S. Chrifbftoms worts z-ipfius Chrtftt vtrtute dtppatt (urn , They are wafted , diflblued , and brought to nothing by the virtue of Chrift our Sauiours preaching , ^Hutumitate temporum perierunt > Time has worn them out , we need fay no more. 3. Turkcifm which hath gamed a great part of the world , and a far greater , then. euer any particular Hei^ery gained, is euidently no more but an open Tyranny. The fword, no word of God, doth all. Power, and carnal pleafiires, which corrupted nature ealily embraceth, vphold this Religion. More critelty followes the Profeffors of it, thenluftice, ndelity,or any mora! virtue; yet moral virtue , grounded in nature , euer accompanies B 3 true 14 ©//?. r. C. 2. %ta[on reieSIs all true Religion. Again , and here is a Demonftration agalnft Turkcilm. Mahomet (who held himfelf a Prophet only , and no jGod) appeared fome centuries after Chrift , yea and owned both A demon- chrift , and Moyfes to haue been great Prophets , fent from God. aainfi Hence I argue. If fent from God; the Doctrin they deliuered was Turkcifm true. Therfore Mahomets Alcoran is falfe , which contradict s not only Chrifts Doctrin , but that alfo of Moles and the Prophets. The contradiction is euident by the Alcoran ; and the inference , Ergo , The Alcoran contradid's God himfelf , {peaking truth by thefe Prophets , is as clear. Therfore either God contradicts him Of, laying one thing by thefe Prophets , and reuoking it by Mahomet, (which is impoiTible)or Mahomet is a lyar. Yet more. Let Mahomet iudgeas he pleafeth of Chrift and the Prophets, He and his,are obliged to fatisfy one Demand : viz. What Do&rin that was, wherby men were faued, before his preaching > And I (peak of Doctrin, not of Ceremonies or temporal pofitiife La\res. He will not lay , all from Adam to his dayes were damned for want of true Doctrin , nor can he haue recours to the Multiplicity of Gods owned by Heathens , thefe He meets : Therfore he muft acknowledge true Dotftrin taught before his being in the world, but this Doftrin, Mofes , Chrift, and the Prophets truely deliuered , or there was none taught in the world, This faued fouls anciently , therfore , if belieued , it iaues them (till; once it was true ; therfore it is now and will beeuerfo, But Mahomet oppofeth him felf to this true reueaied Doclrin , ther- Mahomets ^>re He oppofeth God fpeaking by thefe Orades. ' Hence 1 argue. etrtur Very A Religion which began fifty ages after truth was taught in the late, oppofue world,and exprefly contradict that taught truth, is falfe; Mahomets to ancient Religion is euidently fiich, ergo it is falfe. I fay that contradicts 1 * the • ancient true Doclrin, to preuent an obiection which may arife out of ignorance. For fome may fay : Chrift our Lord long after Moles and the Prophets , deliuered Dodtrin contrary to them, therfore the Argument againft Mahomet conuinceth not. I anfwer ■> It is one thing to reueal Truth a new not anciently belieued , and an othcrto abrogate ancient receiued verities. Chrift, befides cancelling fyjtjgions, not Cbrijiian. 15 cancelling the Ceremonial lawdeliuered more truths, then were explicitly declared by the Prophets, but neuer contradicted any Do&rin proceeding from God , by the mouth of his Prophets , as Mahomet did. Hence S. Auftin and other Fathers Affirm, that Chrifts Church reuerences the Doct-rin of Moles and the Prophets, and that faith hath euer been the fame from the beginning of the world. 4. The Iewes who make their Religion moft ancient, are notwitManding clearly conuinced of errour , and here is my firft Argument. A People difperfed vp and down the world , that Mifa*f!d haue had now for itS. ages neither tjftnse nor Form of true Religion , fJSewhb* nor the effects or fruits of it, cannot profeir true Religion, and mtttfenttn conftquently are not the lawful heires of the Prophets ancient Faith, frmrf But the Iewes are thus euidently difperfed,and want the Effence , RiiiSt0**» fhe Fonn , and efFedte of Religion, Ergo. I proue the Mirtof . A facriflce elTential to Religion which could not , according to their law , be offered but in Hierufalem only : A Temple and Priefts alio euidently fail them (for no Sacrifice no Prteft) Iudges, Prophets and miracles , cognifances alio of true Religion , which neuer failed in their greater! Captiuities , now by the iuflr kidgement of God leaue them, therfore the very1 Form and order of Religion wholy reuerfed , manifeft this people , once > Vopulum iam non populum , heretofore blefled , now aceurfed for their obftinacy. And if w£ fpeak of other efTeds , or fruits of Religion y their Thafmudick Fabfes , their vnfettable atfaricey their cheating and Cozening otherst, then* open HypoCricy ( for gain They exteriouriy profeffany Religion ) now Catholfcks, now rroteftants, now Arians , or what yOli will. Thefe efFe&sIfayr demonftrate a want of the very Soul «, of the hfe of virtue , and Religion in chemi All which is manifeft t6 otnr eyes ami fenfes. j. To add force to this moft weighty Argument. S. Cypriatf chiefly in his firft book Aduerf. lud&oi , shewes all along how Their they were fortold by the very law and ancient Prophets of thefr &fW*m iofing Religion, andfttture dereli&ion , after ehriffe Q^ffm^%%hm^ viz, 1 6 Difc. i. G; *. %eafon metis all viz. That Their firft lawes and carnal circumcifion were to ceafe, and a new law with fpirkual circumcifion tofucceed. Ifoy. 8. Mich. 4. That an other order and a new Teftament should be giuen, Ier. 31. That the old Paftors were to leaue of their teaching, and new Doctors come in their place Ier. 3. and. 31. That no other but Chrift himfelf was to be the true Temple and boufe of God, 2. Reg.' 7-That the old (acrifices of lambes and beafts should not be ofFered.Ifay 1 . That the old Priefthood was to fail, and a new Prieft and king raign for euer. Pf 1 09. 1 . Reg : 2. That the greater People , the Iewes, should become the lefle , and the Gentils far leffer become greater Gen. 15. Ofee , 2. That a Church once barren shouLd haue more Children than the Syno- gogue euer had.Ifa. 5.4. vponthofe words, lucundare slenlU. Thus S. Qyprian through thofe feueral short chapters of his firft book. An4-wefeeall theie prophefies literally fulfilled after the comming of our Sauiour , and the eftablishment of the Chriftian Church. Thofe hearts are ftupid , and eyes blind , that perceiue not the Jewish fynogogue vtterly abandoned. Yet more. If you will lee this Chriftian verity amply laid forth, read the 9. chapter of Daniel, the Prophet w*?ere tne Holy Prophet after a large declaration of the Peoples Daniels iniquities and a iuft affliction laid on them for their Sins , an prediction. Angel told him that Chrift should come , and be flain , and v.26". that thole were not to be his People,who would deny him.verfe 27. Hefortold the ceafing of their facrifice, and v. 24. denotes 4. things : ForgiuenefTe of fins , infiifion of Iuftice, fulfilling of Prophefies , and the annointing of the Holy of Holies : All which particulars litteralljrand moft exactly agree to our Sauiour , and to him only. Thus the Prophet Daniel. But that which I would naue euery one to ponder is the prediction of Chrift our Lord Matth,. 2.1. in the parable of the vineyeard , where fpeaking to the chief Priefts and Pharifies , he clearly prophefied of their ruin , ,, and reiection before it happened. A certain housholder, faith the of the GoftcU planted k vineyard dec. and let it out to husbandmen , T»ben tht vineyard, time of fruits dre^ nigh , be fent his feruants to recetue the fruits. Thofe husbandmen feafed vpon the Seruants , Beat one , killed an other and §{tGgkm% not ChriJlUn. 17 and (loned a third. Here our Sauiour clearly alludes to the (lain andftoned Prophets. Again this Housholder fent forth other feruants more then the former , who were treated in like manner. Laftly he lent his own Son to them , laying, they will reuerence mv Son , but, faith the Text, They apprehended him alfo , caft him out of the vineyard and killed him, and thus the Iewes abufed and maflacred Chrift our Lord. Next our Sauiour propofeth this queftion to the elders amongft them. W> en therfore the Lord of the Vineyard shad come, tohat >ifl be do to tbefe hufbandmen ? They anfVer. Malos tthtle perdet. He will bring thefe naughty men to naught,and let his vineyard out to other husbandmen , that shall render him fruit in duefeaibn. Now followes the very life and foul of the The for a of whole parable, lefmfaid to them , fume you not read in Scripture , the that parable. slone M>htch the builders reiefted,the fame is made into the bead of the corner? Thu is done by our Lordy and it is merueilous in our ejes\ idea duo vobis , Therfore I fay to you : The Kingdom of God shall be taken atoay from) ou, and shall be giuen to a nation > yerlding the fruits therof. Sec. The Chief Priefts and Pharifies, faith the Goipel, knew he meant them. The kingdome therfore wherof our B: Lord fpake , and fortold should be giuen to an other,appear's manifeftly Gods own glorious work, laid open to our eyes and fenfes in the Chriftian Catholick Church. 6. Hence Tertullian lib. aduerfus Iudxos C. 8. drawes an other forcible argument againft the Synogogue , from the large Ditt9Wu extent of Chrifts glorious Kingdom , now eftablished. Obferuc well.Itwas prophefied, faith this learned Doctor, Daniel. 7. that . Chrift should reign euery where , not like a Salomon in the Confines of Iuda?a , nor like a Nabuchodonofor from India to ALthiopa, nor like an Alexander of macedonia , who was neuer Matter of fo ample a Dominion as Chrift Iefus poiTelTeth. No. Chrtftt regnum (they are his words ) vbife porrigitur , vbifa credttur , vbifyregnat , vbi^adoratur. The Kingdom of Chrift is extended euery where , is belieued euery where, reigns euery where , and is adored in all places. And thus , the Roman Catholick Religion , though neuer To ftrongly opprelTed , is euery where , whilft C Mahometitm miracles as Chrift. 1 8 D i fc. 1. C. t. %ta[on metis alt Mahometifme andHerefy arereftj-aindtofuch and fuch Dominions) If Therefore the Iewes own a MefTias v Chrift our Lord who hath founded fuch a kingdom , is the only true Melius. I proue it. Were he not, but that an other is yet to he expected, God could not haue permitted thofe manifeft Miracles , fignes and wonders wrought by him to haue introduced an errour in place of the ancient true Religion , which the Iewes profeiled. Iudaifm therfore would haue flood ftili vnshaken in its ancient vigour , had not Chrift lefus powerful works , brought it to an vtterruin. But thefe, (and its Chrifts own Argument,) Iohn i^. // I bad not done Kc prophet fo It or kj anions ft them Sec.) far fuipafled in worth, Maiefty, and greatnes fount m all the wonders of Moles and the Prophets ; For none of them euer raifed themfelues from death to life again. None of them reuiued one like Lazarus 4. daies buried. None had the fea and Elements at command like Chrift. None shewed fuch wonders at their death, as our dying Lord did. None fed fo many thoufands in the defert with hue loaues and two fishes. None cured any with thehemm of their garments. None wrought fuch ftrange Converfions , as Chrift Sec. I palT ouer other fignal wonders related in the Goipel, as the Prophets miracles are recounted in the old teftament , and briefly Argue. Where greater fignes and miracles , which cannot but proceed from God , euidence Religion , there is true Religion. But moft vndeniably, Chrift shewed greater fignes and miracles at the founding of his Kindom , then either Moles or the Prophets manifefted, therfore he taught true Religion , and by virtue of thofe wonders reuerfed Iudaiim , and made it improbable. I fay greater and mark wel my Reafon. Had not Chrifts illuftrious works moft eminently lirrpaffed thofe of Mofes and the Prophets , but been as it were equal with them , Chrift' s glorious Kingdom could neuer haue come to &> mighty a growth , to fo vaft an extent as now it is , it could not haue wrought fuch ftrange conuerlions as we fee it done, the whole world ouer. why? A leffer or equal Euidence for Truth can no more obfeure or lefTen an other greater or equal Euidence, then one candle darken an other , (as we fee the light of the fun doth. )Therfore that euidence which made the Synogogue credible The reafon cfenr fauiourt Large extended Kwgdem, %?ligions , not Chrijlian. ip credible to the Iewes , was to be taken away with a fir greater light of manifeft %nes and wonders , shewed to Chriftians.For If wefuppofethe Euidence equal in both cafes ( feing no Religion is manifeftly true of it ihlf without antecedent motiues ) wc might all yet as lecurely profeff Iudaiim , as Chriftianity , and Tlierfore our Bleffed Lord fpake a moft profound Point of Do&rin , when he (aid. Had be not Wrought greater bonders amongft them^ then eutr any did , they Jfrould baue been excu fable and Without fin , which Dochrin implies this great verity , that true Religion where * euer it is , pleads raoft powerfully for it felf , yea dead's and vanquishes errour by a raoft clear Euidence of glorious works,and Miracles. And mark well this Diicourfe, it is deitrucliue of all Herefy , as shall be proued here after. 7. Who euer deiires more of this fubiecl: may vouchfafe to read that excellent Epiftle of Rabbi Samuel Marrocbianus then a. Conuerted Chriftian , to Rabbi Ifaac an ifraelite. You haue it Tomo. 2. Biblioth. Patrum Collain print fseculo 11. pag. 421. He writ the Epiftle after the yeare icoo. 6. Centuries fince , or there about : and it contains, 27. short chapters. The work is admirable , and raoft expreile for Chriftianity. In the firft Chapter he laies forth the horrid TransgrefTions of the Iewes , ,. their Idolatry and killing of the Prophets , and faith Gods wrath ai}courrso^ was appealed for thefe fins 5 as Scripture allures vs , when our MarrochiL people ( fiith he ) were fet at liberty. But noW Vre haue been nut dfyerfed and ftattered a tboufand yeares and more\ and Gods indignation tonuerted t» jet folUtoet vs euery Where , nee in Prophetis promhtitur finis, and there chrt(it*' is no end promiffed in the Prophets , be caufe of our wickednes ; "' And if you ask what enormous guilt that was ? He anfwers in his 6. Chapter, pondering thefe words of the Prophet Amos c. 2. • vpm three crimes of luda I Will Conuert , or as the Rabbi reads, trtnifrant , put aWay , but vpon the fourth I will not conuert, beeaufe they haue fold the tujl for fdver'. Paueo Domine. I tremble, faith Marrochianus , when I read this fentence , for this iuft man was not Ioleph fold into /Egypt, nor the fourth hainous wickednes ( which he proues manifeftly ) but was the iuft Urdleftts > whom Ci' the' io Difc t. C.2. ftjafonreieSls afl&c. the Iewes fold for fllver , and here is the greateft and mod crying 'fin for which we are punished. In the 19. Chap. ( I cannot infift on all ) He faith, that Prophely of Zach ; C. i$.ftnkethc shepbeafd and bis sheep shall be difperjed , was fulfilled , when the Ifraelites firiit that great Paftor of the Apoftles, lefus, then it was that they , anciently his flock , were fcattered vp and down the face of the earth , and that the Apoftles fucceeded in the place of our Prophets : For jface tb*t Time we leftes baue bad no Pafiors , no Prophets, no vifions , nofacrifce, no obferuance of Mofes laM> , no Holocauft, no form of Religion &c. Thus he difcourfes through feueral Chapters , and in the laft , the 27. after he had declared what great refpect. the very Turcks and Saracens shew to Tefus Chrift , and his blelTed Mother Mary ; Of Chrift , their Alcoram faith , that He is the true Meffias , yea and preferr His Genealogy before Mahomets , for Mahomets parents were Idolaters and had their Origen from Agar the handmaid , Chrift defcended by a lineal fucceflion from Ifaac and the Prophets by a right line , to the bleiTed virgins birth. The Alcoran more ouer faith , that E///J ( in the Arabick tongue 'tis lefus ) knew all things , the whole book's of Mofes , the fecrets of mens hearts , had power giuen him to work Miracles, to cure all difeafes , to caft out Diuels , and therfore own him as a mighty great Prophet , and the true Mtflias. Much honor and refpect alio is giuen by the Turks to our blefled Lady , as you may read in that Chapter. After, I fay , a larger Difcours of thefe two flibie&s , our Chriftian Samuel concludes , that the Iewes haue been a deferted People for a. thoufand yeares , we may add 600 to them. The Turks 'abandoned* yet daily increaie by the force of armes?and Chriftians alfo ftrangly propagate by the power and virtue of Chrift , both oppoie vs. Kins aurem nihil profictmus , tefttmonium multorumflit contra nos , we Ifraelits yet aduance nothing , in fo much that the malediction of Ruben light's vpon vs. Non crefcas , we are ftill , and shall be ignominious , we profper not. Such is the iudgement of God ag^inft vs. This and much more , Marrochianus deliuered Six agesfince againft his Nation. CHAP. Ill, Iewes J Cbriftianity as oppofite to leioes i?c. 21 CHAP. II r. Xhrijliamty as it Jlands in oppofttton to le^es , Turks , Infidels and Heretickes , is the only trutftjligion. T He AfTertion is an euident Inference out of the former difcours , for if true Religion be in the world , and not found amongfl Heathens , Turks , or Iewes , Thole only called Chriflians enioy that blefling , or there is no Religion at all in being. Though the Proportion (land's firm on this lble proof, yet 'lie flrengthen it with two Conuincing Arguments. The firfl. x Where we euidently find the marks, cognifances , and Thefir* iignes of true Religion , there it is,but Chrifls Do&rin only which * * we call Chriftianity is vndeniably manifefled by clear lignes and cognifances of truth , and therfore is the true Religion. I proue the Minor. A caufe is bed known by its effecls , the tree by its fruits , the fun by its light , Faith by its works \ and theExiflence of God by the emanation of his creatures. Bud no other Religion whether it be that of Iewes , Turks or Heathens euer shewed to the world the like effedls of Truth , the like glorious Miracles, the like auflerity of life , the like contempt of tranfitory Goods, the like efficacy of Doclrin, or, brought fo many Infidels from incredulity, fo many from fenfuallity to a holy virtuous life , as Chrifl and his Apoflles gained fbon after the firfl promulgation of the GofpelrTherfore thele mod illuflrious marks and cognifances of Chriftianity, as clearly conuince that God deliuered truth by the Preaching of our blefled Lord , and his Elecl: Apoflles , as any erTedl in nature demonflrat's the caufe it comes from. The Marks are manifeft to our eyes and fenfes, and plead mofl powerfully for our Chriflian Do&rin. No other feci: falfly called Religion, has euidenced the like fignes, and this , I am fare no Chriflian can deny. C 3 z. A 21 Difo i. C j. Christianity }as oppoftte to lesvestsrc* 2. A fecond argument is fo \reighty,in the behalfe of Chrifls facred Doctrin , that though we had no knowledge of God or Prouidence vpon other Principles,that which I am now to propole, JnOther would make both moil vndoubted. I argue therfore. That taken from Religion whofe Author, Founder , and chier Preferuer is God ( we but m'ratU~ here fuppofe with Iewes and Turks the actual exigence of a Deity ) tnnaf is manireftly the true Religion , for God cannot found or teach Ckiijtum falshood , but Chriftian Religion \ as taught by Chrift and his Benson. Apoftles , had and has God for its Author, Founder, and Prdlruer, therfore it is the only true Religion. I proue the Minor. A Religion drawn into a law of liuing holily, which Miraculouily began, and was fpred the whole world ouer , aboue the power and force of nature,is manifeftly from God,andiubfift's byDiuine virtue only, (Diuels neuer help'tin fo pious a work) but our Holy Chri- itian Religion, was and is (till thus miraculously fpred and preferued alio, all Nations ouer,aboue the power and force of nature , therfore it is from God, and fubtifts by his Diuine virtue. To proue that it began miraculously , and was propagated aboue the power and Tow things rorce 0f namre ? ue are to ponder thefe four things. i. The C he props'- ^blime Doctrin of Chriftian Religion. 2. The condition of U\t\on ofthe thole firft Mailers who taught it, and in what difficult circumftances. (Joful. 3- The Quality and number of fouls gained to belieue it. 4. By what means they were induced to AiTent. Obferue well : You will rind in euery particular a Prodigious work aboue the force of nature, and no other but Gods powerful kand concurring with it. Thus it is. 3. When the world lay as it were inadeadfleep of (In and" ignorance thoughtleffe God knowes, of cafting fo much as a thought towards Heauen , or of louing any good, but what fenfe and corrupted nature liked of. A new Do&rin fad to fenfe , and mighty difficult to reafon was heard of. Blejfed art the foot tnlpnit. Humility fcarje heard of before, T»as then crjtd vp for a grtat vtrtue : Drongi- Tfere to be foremen , tafres obeyed , mftict obferiud Sec. But was icn- fuallity only thus Crofted in its propeniions ? No. A load of high Miseries beiides , was laid on Reafon alio , which feemed to rack 1 Is the true%eligton 53 rack and torture it. God one in eflTence and three diftincl: perfons. God an Itfant born of a vtrgin. A Lord Iefus , true God and man , after a wearifbme life Scourged by impious hands and finally Cruci- fied. fuch(with much more J was the ftrange Doclrin of Chriftianity. How euer( and here is the Miracle or prodigious work.) it got ground , fpread it felf far and neer , and though contrary to fenfuallity , and aboue Reafon , yet millions of fouls fo firmly belieued it, though auftere and hard, that innumerable haue dyed for it. Now if this be not a wonder, or a prodigious work aboue the force of nature , we may well conclude with. S. Auftin lib. 22. de Ciuit. c. <;. This to be the greaxeft Miracle of all , that God conuertedthe world without Miracles. , 4. The. 2. confederation yet encreafeth the wonder of this admirable work. We know great effects require proportionable caufes of like ftrength , and virtue. A weak child lift's not vp a weighty burden , nor can a. mean handful of naked men defeat a puifant Army. Ponder well the Propagation of Chrifts Gofpel , and the Conuerfions of Nations to Chriftian Faith, vilible to our eyes , the work is without difpute , great , noble, and glorious. But fay by what caufe , by what inftruments , or Minifters did God effect it ? Did he lend Angels from Heauen to preach a Tririuyy a Crucified Sautour, &c. or force Chriftians to a belief of thofe ujfleries by ftrength of arms; No. Rex nofter Pactficus , Our Diuine Iefus is the God of peace. Non in Commotione Dom'wtts. No tumultuous fpirit brought in his Do&rin. Caluins tragical pro- ceedings in the late begotten Herefy was not heard of , when Chrift our Lord and his Difciples preached the Gofpel. Some perhaps will fay that Gods great intention when he firft laid the foundation of Religion, was to deftroy Idolatry and toeftablisha T , new law againft Iudaifm , and therfore proceeded as the world inftruments vfually doth, in weighty matters.. He finely made choife of mod the Gofpel expert Aduocates, of the wiihR fbtlofop hers yof the profoundeftludges, *** Mated. and moft eloquent Orators on earth, and by thefe pleaded for Chriftianity. 'Tis an errour, all was contrary : Our euer glorius God did his own work by twelue poor Fishermen, ignoble, ignorant, 24 Dilc. i. C. jXbrifiiamty }as oppofue to Ie^es (src. ignoraiUjfTiendleflTeand deflitute of all that the world makes account of, yea, and he shewed this power more by thefe weak Inftruments; and their fucceffors in after ages, than he did before whilft he liued with them, to manifcft that the work was his Principally , and theirs tnftrumentally This Doctrin is Co fully dcliuered by the great Apoftle of the Gentils, that we need not S. Chriibftoms Eloquent Diicours onthefubiecl: in his fermon. Chrisl is God. To illuftrate it further (though that alfo merits a ferious reflection ) I Kill dejlroy , faith S. Paul i. Cor. i . 19. The TPtfdom of the 7*>ifey and reietl the prudence of the prudent Sec. Hath not God made tkelfifdom of the frorld foolish ? for btcaufe in the itifdom of God, the Teorld did not by T^ijdom knoTP God , it plcafed God hy the fooltshnes of Preaching to faue them that belieue Sec. Tor that Khtch is foolish to God ,is Ttifer then men , and that Jfhtcb is the infirm of God, is flronger then men. See your vocation , Bretheren , that not many Wife according to the flesh , not many might j, not many nobis , but the foolish things of the toorld, God hath chofen , that he may confound theTi>ile,and tbeTfeak^ things of the Tvorld , that he may confound the slronn ; and the bafe things of the Ttorld , and the contemptible, God hath chojtn, and thofe things Jthtch are not , that he might deslroie thofe things fxhicb are, that no flesh may "lory in his fight. Which is to lay huma- ne power had no hand in this glorious work , and therfore it is as manifeftly aboue the force of nature, as if Chrift Iefus had fent 1 2. little Children to conuert the world, for 'tis no lelfe a miracle to lee lb great a work done by 12. poor fishermen, then by 12. young Children. 5. 3. Confider the number and quality of fouls gained to our Chriftian belief , and ask whether they were a few only, or of Co flexible a temperas to credit any thing vpon hearfay. You will anfwer they were not few. Witnelfe the conucriion of whole na- tions, and if we Conlider nature,no leffe. obftinate than numerous. Incredulum illud genus humanum,£dth Arnobius lib. 1 . Contra Gentes. Mankind moft ftubborn and incredulous , contrary to its former The number liberty and education, fubmitted to the yoke of Chiift,which truth , gained in as tnjs Author obferues, were it not as euident as day light , would numerM. jiaue \yQm thought impoflible. Perhaps you'l lay ( though many), they Is the True %e1igion l J they were yet fimple and ignorant and therfore eaflly wrought on. No. A Learned Dyonifkis,a Clemens Romanus,and innumerable other great capacities , called on , came in to the Church , {uch choiieones (God cooperating with his weak inftruments , ) were drawn out of errour and darknelfe,to the light ofthe Gofpel. Now ifyouaskinthelaft place, by what means thefe conueriions were made 2 The Gofpel anfwers Mark 16. 17. By fignes and mamfejl "bon- ders from Heauen. Going info the Ttorld preach the Gofpel to all creatures Sec. and them who belieue , thefe fignes shall follow. In my name tbey shall casl out Dtuels ,Jpe«k. ^itb tongues, as the ApofUes did , in the feaft of Pentecoft. They T^ent forth, faith the Text, preached euery Inhere, our Lord forking Ttitb tbem> and confirming the Tvori frith fignes fyh'uh followed. Signes therfore and Miracles works of Diuine virtue without violent hands or humane induftry caft down Idols , outed Iudaifm and induced Aliens from Chrift to belieue his facred Gofpel. Thefe Arguments , as I now* {aid , fo forceably euidence a power aboue nature in the establishing of Chriftianity , that if we had no other Proofs for the Exigence of God , thefe alone without difpute Conuince moft fufficiently , the being of a Numen aboue vs , who has demonstrated his prouidence in laying the foundation of Chriftian Religion, fo firmly. CHAP. IV. Whether Chriftian %eligwn fince its firft Tropdgtticn bath not been in like manner prefer ued pure, and further fpread fa (Diuine frouidence^ about the portozr of Nature ?' 1. T AnnVer Affirmitiuely and fay , that the Augmentation L or further growth of Chriftian Religion , is to be efteemed no lefTe a work of prouidence and Diuine AfTiftance , then its firft - D ' : efti* l6 Difc. !. C. 4 Chrijlidnky Tropagated _, .-. eftablishment was. One reafon is. The Do&rin preached to t\ further enumerable People not Cnnftian in the Apoltles time , was the spread fame fublime learning (of a Trinity, of the Ivcarnatun , and other ahoue the difficult Myfteries ) The ftubborneiTe and incredulity of thofe who force of Na. keaR| ic( atlaft induced to belieue ) were alike in them, as in the hrft conuerted Chriftians, Propenfionsto fendiallity which they quitted, as ftrong, and violent -y The number of thofe after gained fouls, you may hold far more, their wifclom not inferiour to the former , and the quality of innumerable (witnes fo many Emperours , Kings and Princes) drawn in following ages to Christian ity,much exceeded thofe firft conuerted by the Apoftles. Clear and manifeft miracles (effects of Gods power only ) haue been more numerous, in the Centuries fince the Apoftles preaching , then before. What euer therfore proues the firfl Propagation of the Gofpel miraculous , or a work aboue the ftrength of nature , as forceably conuinceth the Truth we here plead for. Now if fome obiect! Thefe later Preachers of the Church fent abroad to preach Chrifts Do&rin , had much more of the humane learning , then thofe firft. great mafters of ChriiVianity, and therfore might well by natural Eloquen- ce and humane literature gain many without Diuine AfTiftance. I anfwer, when the Poets perfwade me that Orpheus harp and harmony tamed wild beads and moued ftones , 'He belieue( and not Sooner) that wolues became lambs , that the ftony hearts of Infi- dels were formed, and made fubiedt. to Chrifts facred law , by the power of humane learning only. What? that natural knowledge , got by induftry, could vanquish Idolatry, obfeure Iudaiim,and draw- innumerable Heathens to deny fenfuallity , to Hue a mortified life % and belieue in a crucified Sauiour ? is not only a Paradox aboue expreffion , but a vaft improbability > z. You know there are two things the world (land's for , Pro aw & focti, that is for Religion and earthly commodities. Religion ^ you fee, hath the Preheminence. Imagin now , that a Heathen Prince should fend the moft Eloquent and learned Doctors within his Dominions vpon this hard enterprife , To gain a forrein Monark and People highly auerfe from foni^his Jawes^and comands, Withallv j About the force of 'nature 17 Withallito abandon their old Religion and admit of a new one , without the leaft hope of any worldly intereft; Nay contrary ,moft allured to lofemuch, which nature seek's after; Would inch a Policy( think yee) take? or couldthele Doctors though neuer fo Eloquent haue confidence to bring about their deflgne y by wit jot Jearning only ? No. You will iudge it impofTible to gain fo human* much as one fble Prouince, when no motiue of earthly commodity learning,** enters, but much againft it. Here is our very cafe. The Church *blt t0 £**' of Chrift in ages following the Apoftles, fent abroad her Miffioners, mTt*Q and Thefe commirlioned Preachers, haue not only deftroyed Altars erected to falie Gods , moil obftinatly defended by Gentils , but introduced a new (acred Religion in place of them , mightily oppolite to ienfuallity and what euer the world loues: (here is the tribute payd to Chrift) can we therfore think that wit did this work? or perfwade our felves , that a little breath drawn only from natural knowledge, threw down thefe Altars ? No.a Diuine virtue-, and that moil Powerful did the deed, God only wrought thefe Conueriions , no IciTz admirable, then Euident to our eyes. Wbeii S. Peter, as we read in the Gofpel Luk. <;. 4. launched forth into the deep at Chrifls command,and drew vp great Multitudes of fishes, both he and others flood amafedatdie Miracle: And more iuftly may all admire the far greater multitude of men, drawn out of a gulf of fin and ignorance then fortold , Ex hoc Tye ^^.^ urn eris homines captem, by the labours of thofe firft Matters and 0FfoliuCut their SuccefTors. Say therfore, was the draught of Ushes great, ofperdiihn> and all cry ed a Miracle , And the draught of fours out ofmiwulou*. perdition far greater, and nature only did it > No certainly. Belieue it , Had the Paitors of Chrifts Church toyled only by that weak irrnrument of humane knowledge , the Idols of the Gentils would yet haue flood , and all of them might well haue bemoaned their loft labour with S. Peter. Magtfler per totam noclem laborantes nihil cepimus. Mailer ail night long , we haue been hard at work, and got nothing. 5. And here briefly (to fay a word in pafling) is the true reafon why our modern Sectaries are fo vnlucky in any con- D z uerfions , 1 8 Difc. 1. C. 4* Cbriftianity propagated. uerfions, not only of Heathens,but of others alfo named Chriftians, to their new Religion. They launch forth , 'tis tme , but without commifTion , and therefore work not by the virtue of Chrifts command , wit alone and a little wordy learning doe all , make a noife , and their books to fwell , but draw none of Judgement to them , vnles liberty and a rich Benefice ( two powerful Preachers to corrupt nature ) catch feme. The thing is euident , for where haue we fuch fignal conuerfions wrought ofpariicu.^y Sectaries without hope of any worldly fortune , as now (to Ur Conner- om^ ancient times) our very dayes , and late ones too, shew vs> /tons. Where haue they one like that Generous and learned Queen Cbnjhna of Sweeden , who quit a Kingdom to become Catho- lick I Where haue they fuch a Prince as yet Hues , the grand Turks own Brother , not only Catholick , but more , a Religious man of Blelfed S. Dominicks orders Its needlefTe to giue you in this place a Catalogue of many German Princes , true members now of the Roman Catholick Church, who were not gained by any worldly motiue to abandon Herefy ( as they haue done) but ftrongiy called on by Gods grace, without delay obeyed the Amnions , as now lately did that great Commander in France Count Manshal Turene , whofe glorious Conuerfion witneiT his ProfefTion of Faith , was grounded on ferious thoughts relating to Eternity , and not vpon any humane intereft. Thefe very few, but great changes, before our Eyes with others innumerable known to the world, are plain efTedh of fupernatural grace, and manifeftly shew, that more than wit or humane knowledge had a hand in them. 4. Hence I argue. That Religon is from Cod , and therfore true , which He concurres to , and propagates Catholtck by his fpecial grace and virtue ? The Chriftian Cathoiick 'Religion Religion only , hath been thus propagated by Gods fpecial mtraculotts- gYCLct and virtue, therfore it is true.- To add more weight to ud Jtktrfire ^is argument, I ask whether thofe Conuerfions wrought by true. the Apoftles them ielues are to be held miraculous .. that is aoous Aboue the force of nature 2 9 aboue the force of nature , or not > If you deny , blot out thofe words of the Goipel, as moft vntrue Mark 16. 20. Domi- no cooper ante Sec. Our Lord cooperating f»iib them, and fay all Apofto- lical conuerlions were wrought by natural caufes only, And grant next, Mahometifm and Chriftianity thus far equal, that as Mahomet driues all to his belief,by the (word ( the caufe isnatural) fo the Church drawes all to it by wit , policy and humane lear- ning, and this means is altogether as natural. Now if you fiy thofe firft Conuerlions were truely efte&s of grace , and wrought by Gods fpecial affiftance , This fequele is Clear : The like made in after ages by the Church,fxr more numerous, as difficult and wholly as glorious , proceed from the fame fountain of Goodnes , God's Diuine grace and fpecial Affiftance. And note, I fpeak here of real Conuerlions, wrought in Belieuers vpon fblid motiues(the Church shewes you millions of them ) not of hypocritical changes pre- tended for God and Religion , when worldly intereft has a hand ^^^ in them. Thefe are as foon diftringuished by their falfe luftre , J^SlTk. as a comet from the fun , they laft not long , but fall like blaling ftarrs. We meddle not with them. Thus much of a short digreilion which makes way to an other querie , and 'tis as folio weth. CHAP. V. Whether all catted Chrifiians Belieue intirely Chrift's facred Dottrin ? And whether meanes he afforded to arriue to the knowledge of true GhriUtan %eligion? 1. *T" Hefe queftions largely handled in the other Treatife , are J. foonrefolued vpon certain Principles. I fay therfore firft. All called Chriftians belieue not truely and intirely Chrift D 3 • Sacred jo Difc. i. C. 5. All called Chriftiam, beaeue Sacred Do&ria , and proue it ; If Hymenals and Alexander Timoth. 1. c.i. 20. once true Belieuers made shipwrack of their Faith ; if the Arians Monothelits, Pelagians., Donatifts, aud fuch known Hereticks named Chriitians , haue fallen alio > and loft true belief of Chriftian verities iufficienriy propoled ?This fequel js euident. All of tkem though named Chriitians, haue not Faith intirely good , nor indeed any Diuine Faith at all. See theother Treadle Difc ; 3. c. 2. n. 4. 2. I fay. 2. All and euery one may with ordinary diligence come to the knowledge of the true Chriftian Religion , I proue Means the After t ion. Diuine Faith , without which we cannot poftibly ftifpcunt to pjca£ G0J ? ;5 determinatly necelTary to faluation 9 and eonfe- Rcliticn. quentlythe Religion where true Faith is taught, is alio necelTary. Therefore both theie after Ordinary diligence vied may beknown ; vnlefte we wil lay, that God firft makes fuch things neccflary to faluation, and then remoues them fo hir out of light., that none can know by prudent ordinary diligence what thefe necelTary things are. I fay necejjary to fkluatton , not to difpute with Melchior Canus and others of the neceflity of faith to the firft unification of a Sinner. This difficulty we waue , and Argue, 2. God as we now fuppofe with all Chriftians, yea with I ewes and Turks alfo , is the Author of true Religion , which he reuealed to the world, for no other end but mans happines , and eternal faluation, therfore if he deiiresallto be iaued by true Religion, which is the final end therof9 He cannot , vnles his Prouidence fail, but afford meanes to know wkere it is profeiTed , otherwife ( which ill befeem's an infinite wifdom) he would fet vs all on work to gain Heauen by the belief of true Religion , and withallleaue vs lo in darknes ., that we cannot with all prudent induftry , come to the knowledge of it ; which is to fay , He will haue vs know the end of Religion , and yet conceal the meanes leading to the knowledge of it. 3. Again 1 argue. 3. God who obliges not to impoflibilities , laies a ftrait command on all to belieue true Religion( and not to aflent to any fals feci) therfore it may be known, and clearly diftin- not CbriftUn (DoSJrin. $ i diftinguished ,at leaft from the errours of inrldels,lewes,and Turks. Known I fay, but how >. Not by its internal light immediatly , for no Religion euer yet was its own felf-euidence ex terwinis , or pru- dently got admittance, becaufe the Profeffors of it Cryed it vp as true. Therfore the credibility of true Religion, which muft be IW»1«B- laid open to Reafon by force of Conuincing motiites , is made as &°n M mt well diicemable from Herefy ( deftrucHue of faluation ) as from %H^(t :r Turciim, or Iudaifm , yea , and may be no leffe clearly difcouered by its proper fignes and luftre than a true Miracle ; for example , that of S. Peter , from Simon Magus Sorcery. This cannot be denyed, vnles God,as I now fayd, either command's impoiTibilities, viz, to find that out , which cannot be found , or licenceth vs to embrace any Religion called Chriftian , whether good or bad,true orfals (it imports not) becaufe the beft , if it can be round , is no more but a meer Probability , or like vncertain opinions in Philo- fophy, which may be reie&ed or followed according to euery priuate fancy. This execrable Doctrin of the indifference to any Religion, learned in the Diuels fchool , is now adaies much in the mouths of many, and , I fear , too deeply rooted in the hearts Nor a thing of lbme later Sectaries. But of this more here after. In the mean *»**&«***• time you may conclude. If true Religion be in the world , its made difcernable not only from Iudaifm bur Herefy likewife ; and if it haue this dtfcer nihility it can be known, if known , it in- duceth an obligation to be belieued with Diuine Faith , if it grounds certain Faith Subieftiuely taken in him that belieues, it is no Opinion, and confidered Obieftiuely it implies thehigheft certainty Imaginable, ietled on God's Reuelation as is largly proued in the ether Treatife. Dilc. i. c. 5»n. 6.7, CHAP VL JDifc. i. C. VI. SeFlaries erronrs. CHAP. VL Of our Seflaries errour in their fearch after true ftjhgion. As aljo of Mr Stillingfleets inconfequent Twy of Arguing. o Ne errour common to all condemned Hereticks , is in the firft place to find out true Religion by the book or* holy Scripture alone* A molt improbable way , as the ancient Tertullian learnedly obferues lib de Prseicrip. cap. 9. 1 ^ . but chiefly cap: 19. at thole words often cited. Ergo non ad Sinptwas piouocandum &c. The reafons of my AlTertion well pondered are moft conuincing, 1. The Sectary laies hold of a book which he iayes teaches truth , and yet knowes not in his Principles nor shall euer know tnftihbh , whether the book he owns con- - tain's the Do&rin of true Religion , or ought to be valued as Gods attured word, which is to fay in other terms; He learns infallible truths of a Matter , before he hath infallible certainty of this Matters teaching truth , infallibly. That the Sectary wants infal- lible afTurance of his book is euident, for he faith, no word of God, written orvnwrittem no infallible Tradition, no infallible authority on earth , afcertain's him of the Scripturts Dimnity. So Mr: Stillingfleet in feueral places chiefly part 1. c. 6. Pag 170. Therfore he, can haue no in fallible Ailiirance of the Dcctrin contained in hlue not Scripture , and confequently no Diuine Faith grounded on that infallible Doctrin, as I shall shew hereafter. How euer , grant him an indu- ajfurvnee o/bitable afTurance in a general way of fome books of Scripture , hee their Bible, natn not yet fo much as moral certainty of that precife.Cdww he receiues, excluding other books which he denies as Scripture, For no Orthodox Church , no vniuerfal Tradition , no confent of Fathers, no definition of any Council, approues his Canon , or ex- plodes thofe books reiected by him , therfore the fe&aries Canon, ivherof Stflaries errours $ J wherof there is Co Much doubt, can glue no moral afTurance of Gods reuealed verities, vnles it urere without difpute a liquid truth , that their Canon only is Gods word, which cannot be fuppofed, whilfl (b learned and numerous a multitude of Chriftians oppofe it, as defe&iue and imperfect. Yet more. Suppofe he giues you the exa& number of Canonical books , hee gain's nothing , becaufe the very Do&rin ofthefe books is no more but a Tranfla- tion , and therefore vnlefTe the Translator or Printe^haue faithfully complyed with their duty, and preferuedthe books in their ancient purity, no Protectant can affurehinafelfor any , that what we now read, is without change or corruption , pure in the very BecelTary points of Faith. If you (ay you compare them with the ancient Original Copies of the Hebrew and Greek ; I anrwer5the very beft Originals men can light on now , are no more but meer Traufcrip- tions , and consequently may haue been corrupted by the Trail- {briber , the Printer , or Librarian. Therefore the Sectary hath no 0*h!naU Moral certainty of the bare letter in Scripture., if he cannot shew myp extant , vsthe hand writing or Autograph's of the Prophets, and Apoftles, are only wherof there is no danger, becaufe he neuer law any. Hence I tranfcrip. argue. He who hath not infallible certainty of the very letter of tionu Scripture , want's infallible certainty of tbt Doclrin contained in Scripture, but the Proteftant hath no infallible certainty of the letter of Scripture, Therefore he want's infallible certainty of the Do&rin contained in Scripture: for no certainty of the letter, no 4**&*\ - certainty of the Do&rin drawn from thence. But if he has not Tft*r*f" certainty of the Do&rin he can haue no infallible faith grounded on it: Therefore Scripture alone is an unmeet means to teach him , what either true Faith, or Religion is. 2. Mr. Still ingfleet to folve this vnanfwerable Argument Part, i . c. 6. p. 196. faies , we beg the Queftion , when we require an infallible Testimony for our belieuingthe Canon of f cripture, yet grants fuch a certainty, as excludes atipofrbiluy of reafonabU doubting. and Chap. 7. p. 211. declares himfelf further thus. Gue me leave to wake this fuppofnion , that God might not haue gtuen this fupernatural " hnce toyour Church, Ttbtcb jou pretend ma{es it infallible j whether E mm J4 Mr* Stillingpetu inconfecpiences* men through the vniuerfal confent of per font of the Chriftun Church in all ages, might not haue been vndoubtedly certain , that the Scripture Tt>e haue toas the fame deltuered by the Apoilles ? I anfwer , if you take leaue to make that- flippofition , licence me to tell you , you haue not that certainty of Scripture which Diuine Faith both fuppofeth and requires* And here is one reafon ( to omit others infilled on here after) Deny this infallible alTurance of the books of Scripture , you haue no greater certainty, that God endited thoie words we now read, than you haue aifurance that Ariflotle wrote his Topicks, or . t Ca*far his- Commentaries; And dare you, or any fay, that we receiue anfwer ^dii our Bible vpon flo fiirer ground? Or can you Imagin , if Chri- fatisfafiorv, ftians accept thefe books vpon a Teftimony lefTe thenvndubitable, it may not be fufpected that a thoufand gross errours haue entred the Copies by the negligence, orinaduertency offiich astranfcribed them ? Belieue it. Were Ariftotles- Topicks matter of Diuine Faith, none would dy after the fallible conueyance of them to our age,vpon this perfwafion ; that nothing fubftantially firft writ by that Author, hath been changed or altered Since ; and the lame I alien of the Bible; vnleiTeyou (ay that the words of Scripture were writ in fome celeftial and incorruptible Matter, yet to be read by all, or grant , which is truth ; that as God by fpecial Prouidence can fed them to be writ pure , : fo alfo he yet preierues them without blemish, and now witnelTech the truth by the Teftimony of his in- fallible Church, wherofmore largely hereafter. At prefect I will only anfwer your difficulty about that fallible certainty , which you affirm, excludes allpofibtlity of reasonable doubting , and lay firft. The vniuerfal confent of perfons of the Chriftian Church-in all ages, neuerapproued the intire Canon of your Scripture : for not only the prefent Roman Catholick Church , but the ancient councils alfo , receiued books which you reicct. This truth is fo manifeftthat it need'sno further proof,therefore your Canon want's ^ the approbation of the whole Chriftian world , and confequently you haue not ib high a certainty of Scripture , as excludes all pojfi- b'tltty of 'reasonable doubtm^ I anfwer. z. And it is a demonftration - againfl Protsftants^who lay the whole Chriftian world for a thouiand years Mr. Stilltngfleets inconfequences. 35 years at leaft , erred in Doclrin contrary to the yerities of Holy Scriptures , for , if we goe up from Luther to the 4. th or 5. th age after Chrift, you'l mid none but condemned erring Hereticks and Roman Catholiks, no leife actually guilty (fay Sectaries) of thefe profefled errours: )f praftng to Saws ,0k' an vnbloody Sacrifice of the, the 4 father real prefence Sec. Thus much fuppoied ; I both aiifVer and Argue Argument t againftyou. If the whole Christian world was for that vaft time tahen (b ftrangely infatuated , as to mantain errours contrary to Scripture, f' . . when the true Doctrin therof no leffe concerned their eternal Jfeti errours Saluation, then the true letter -3 it cannot poilibly be fuppofed vpon any weak Probability( much leffe on fuch a certainty as excludes all rea(bnable doubt) that thefe befotted Chriftians preferued the letter of Scripture pure and intire , whofe errours are now imagined mod grofTagainft the Doctrin contained in God's word. Obferue my reafon. It is much more eafy to conceiue ( if at! held corrupted Do&rin ) that the very letter of Scrtpture was by negligence or ignorance cf thefe Corrupters of Doctrin 3 alio corrupted , then to imagin the records preferued pure , and Millions of Chriftians to read them , and after the reading, grofly to miftake Gods verities regiftred in that book. And here I muft mind M. Stillingfleet of his proofleiT and inconfecjuent way in Arguing. 3. You Sr. fay firft. The whole erring multitudes of Chriftians before Luther preferued Scripture pure , yet ibrfooth , thefe filly men taught one Do&rin after an other , contrary to Scripture. They perufedthe book interpreted it, yea preached it, to their own confufion , and condemnation. You fay. 2. It is not poflible that Mr. fitting: thefe writings could be extorted out of mens hands by fraud or fleets *rgu-\ violence vnder their eyes,or fuffered to be loft by negligence: Yet ,ww" you make it not only poflible , but grant the Do&rin therof to ftmu haue been loft and peruerted by fraud, negligence, violence , or all together. You fay. 3. Thefe ancient Chriftians were profeffed enemies to the corrupters of the Bible : yet you hold them dear friends to the deprauers of Gods verities, regiftred in the Bible. You fay. 4. The intereft of eternal Salivation made thefe Chriftians . careful to preferue the Bible in its firft integrity: knd yet you make £ 2, ' them ^6 Mr. Stiliingfleets inconfecpiences. them fupinly careles in preferuing the verities contained in Scrip- ture, as highly neceiTary to faluation. You fay^f. The eternal concerns of all Chriftians Co depended vpon the fafe preferuation of thefe Sacred Records that if they were not true , we are all mod mi- ferable. And I reply. The eternal concerns of all Chriflians as highly depend's on the pure Do&rin of Scripture as on the outward fecured Records^ for what auails it to haue pure Records , and draw poyfbn out of them >. You grant the whole world was miferably infatuated with falfe Doctrin for ten whole ages , though it had the letter of Scripture pure , and yet the purity of that book preuented not the mifery of mifchieuous errotirs. You fay. 6. When once I fee a tohole Corporation content to burn the publicly Charter , and fubslitute a And, further ne^ one m lts ^\Ait j an^ ffa not t0 (,e fufpgfled or difcouered ; When I vrged a L- tbtU fa * Magna Charta fotjledy and neither King nor People befenjible of *& ni • y^ ^ tbcat^hen all the Korld shall cenjpire to decern themfeluts and their Children: t maj then fufpecl fitch an impofture as to the Scripture , but not before* Anfw. Ex ore tuo te ludicot and retort the Argument in your own words. When. I fee not only a whole Corporation but a whole ample learned Church , waft or depraue the old Legacy of Chrift facred Truths bequeathed to it,and a new learning fubftituted in its place,and this change not to be fufpected anddifcoueredrwhen I shall fee that Magnum Depofitum of his Doctrin once committed to the Church escare to be foisted,and neither King , nor Prelate, nor People found,, fenfible of the cheat : when all the world shall con- fpire to deceiue themfelues and their children by teaching fals Do&rin in place of Chrifts verities:. Then I shall , and muft in pru- dence fiifp eel an impofture, a change, an alteration in the very book of Scripture., This later you shamfully grant to haue happe- ned , when vpon the pretence of hideous errours you abandoned all other Chriftian Societies in the world , and vnfortunatly made a Schifm with Luther from the true Roman Catholick Church, therefore you may not only weakly fufpectjbut muft mod iuftly fear the flrft, which is,that you haue not true Scripture. 4. Hence I lay, what euer Argument proues the book of Scrip- ture hitherto preferued pure , proues likewile the Doctrin of the preient events what it Mr. Stifling: inconfequences 37 prefcitt Church as faithfully tranfmitted and Con u eyed pure from £*,nfi age to age to our verydayes. Contrari wife , if there were anyv^s* Principle (as there is none) whereby this Do&hn could be shew'd falfe or ftained $ All might ( if realbn haue place ) ioyntly acknowledge a non-affurance of the Scriptures purity; For that c Church which may lofe true faith and Corrupt Chrift's Do&rin , 0fchliji$ may more eaiily lofe or corrupt Chrift's Scripture , vnlefleyou DoSirinmay grant, which is horridly impious r that Gods fpeeial Prouidence moreEafity had only care to keep a Bible incorrupt,and at laft,like one careless,. Cm^tV1^ permitted the Doctrin of that book( wheron Saluation eflentially JJJL^ depend's ) to be extorted out of the hearts of all Chriftians for a thoufand yeares together. Ponder thefe truths Mr : Stilling : and ConfefTe ingenuoufly, if your Principles hold good , you haue not fo much as any probable certainty of your Bible. 5. Perhaps one may fay if the letter of Scripture be corrupted the very foundation of Faith is shaken , but if fuppofed pure and vnalrered , though all Chriftians, Papifts, and Hereticks erred in the Dodrin therof , yet they may be reclaimed from errour by the pure Euangeiical preachers, now fwarming in England, Pittiful. what no help then for a beibtted world before thefe late men appeared,, who here fpeak at random > Theyflrft tell vs vpon a meer [uppofu'ion without any femblance of proof, that Scripture was euer preferued pure though all Chriftians abufed its Do&rin ; wheras we contend vpon moil grounded reafbns , that if all erred in the do&rin drawn from Scripture, the letter cannot be fuppofed pure, becaufe a Church carelefly negligent in thepreferuationofChrifts Dodfoin > cannot be thought careful enough in preferuing the true Records of his Dodhin -Now the Anf.rer without proof is, though all erred Dodtrinally, yet none of them maimed or marred the Bible, which befidesa Moral impoflibilitv, implies a pure begging of the Qijeftion. See more of this particular in the other Treatife Difc. 2. c. 2. n. 8. Again> TFthefe Euangeiical men pretend to Conuince vs of our errours Vch*t ^y a pure book of Scripture, they are obliged to shew vs fbme ftf*rt> «ne Copieat leaft,wherof we may haue fuch certainty as ex- ° W ** E J eludes Urtej are j8 Mr Stillingfleets tnconfyuenies] . eludes a Tofiibiltty ef all doubting. But this no Proteftant can do, who ftttnldthe jtei^s all editions now extant except perhaps his own- The Tyanfcriben Vulgar latin,which Mr,: Stillingfleet call's the great Diana of Rome , cffcrtpture , of high credit in the Church for a thoufand years , pleafeth not^, much more rj,]ie Clementine and Sixtine Bibles , not different in any Material iw; * h Pomt touching Faith, are vnderualued. Set thefe afide, I defire "Mr : Still : or any Proteftant, to show me a Copy, whole Authenticalnefs is Co agreed on by the confent of all Christians, as may exclude reafbnable doubting of its purity. It is vtterly i.mpoflible. If thefe men anfwer , we mpfthaue recourfe to the A utograp\?s% or ancient Manuftnpts of the Hebrew and Greek, I deny their fuppoiition., for thefe now extant, are no firft Origin nals, in a word no more but TranfcriptionSe What greater fecurity therefore , haue we of fuch copies then of the Vulgar latin > vnleffe you fay that the Tranfcriber (who euer he was ) becaufe he wrote Hebreto, Caldee, or Greeks , could not tell a lye , or was determined to follow in euerv Material point of Faith the Hagiographers Copy mo.ft faithfully. Qrantthis , and I Argue: If God by fpecial Prouidence Co aflifted the memory, the will,and hands of thefe Tranfcribers , as to write nothing but what was exactly found in the firft Original Scripture; with much more reafon will He euer affift his Church to admit or approue of no Scripture , nor Do&rin , but what is genuine , pure , an If you lay the s. Hkrom Copy you follow is not the fame which S. Hierorri vfed, it is more ^fended, then you know , He had as many lections , and perhaps more , J?*3? than you haue leen , and can you fay which he followed , and which he did not 1 Well. But fuppofe he made vie of an other Copy different from -wKat pleafeth you , the Queftion is , whether that be of lefTe credit then yours > And this fble point cannot be decided in your fauour by any probable Principle. If you fay y S. Hieroms Tranflation feem's contrary, to the Autheiltick Greek Copies. I anfwer firft, you do not only auouch more then your know, but vtter an improbability ; for if there had been any Ma- terial difference between his Tranflation, and the Greek he made* vfeof; innumerable learned Doctors in the Catholick Church would haue-eipied the errour, and difcouered it , before you were* born. Pray you remember your own dilcours P. H <;. and. 21 6'. where youfavjyou may be mfficiently aflured that no Material corruption is in the Books of Scripture without our Churches Teftunony, becaule Catholiks of old were alwayes as vigilant to prellrue the Scriptures purity, as Hereticks ready to depraue it: ' For you fay, when Maraoh began to clip the Text Irtn&m prefently took notice and rebuked him , and fo did Te rtullian , and Epipbanw refpe&iuely to others, who refcued Scripture from the violent hands of fuch as attempted to falfify it. Lay then' yours on your brefl and once fpeak ingenuously , tanyou-perfwadeyour felf, if any 40 Mr. Stitlingfleets inconjequtnces. .. any confiderable errour had been in our Vulgar Edition,either con~ when trary to Fa*tn or Good manners , that thofe many' worthy learned vould haue Catholicks in the ages after S. Hierom would not haue noted it, noted errours m& releafed it from Corruption > What 1 For a thou&nd years , ^thivuU was tjiere no irerj£US% no Tertullian , no Epipbanius , no Ambrofe Sec. thlrc bee t^iat t0°^ notlce °^° important a matter whereon the faluation any. of fouls depended > Again ( And this Argument euer pinches) was there no Irenatts , no Tamilian , in all thofe ages, ( when they (aw the Doctrin of Scripture go to ruin by thefe fuppofed erring Papifts, that refcued the Dodrin from errour, as they did the letter of fcripture from corruption 1 7. You tell vs. 2. That among thofe multitudes of le&ions in the new Teftament obferued by Robert Stephen, which were perhaps occafioned in the general difpertion of Copies by the Multitudes ofTranfcriptions,through the ignorance or carelemefT of the Tranfcribers , there are none which feem material or intrench vpon the integrity of Scripture , as a rule of Faith and manners : They are therefore , % you, but racings of the s\m , but no Hounds of any vttalpart. And is itpoflible? Can you find more then fuch racings in the Vulgar Latin > can you difcouer a wound in any vital part therof ? I challenge you to (peak to the caufe in this particular, but I know you cannot. Why therefore may not the Vulgar bee admitted amongft the reft * The reafon of my affertion is. You cannot find fuch a wound in the Vulgar, vnleff you produce a Copy of Scripture more genuine and pure without Diipnte , but this , whether you haue recourfe to the Greek or any Latin tran- flation will, be more doubted of by whole multitudes of learned men, then the vulgar now read in the Church: Therefore you cannot come to fo much certainty of any Scripture as excludes a poffibility of all reafonable doubting. Which truth feem's fo euident ad hominem that it needs no further proof, but this only, The Sectary faith , our Vulgar tranflation is not pure, we fay and proue it, his English Bibles different from the Greek in the new Teftament,are Corrupted, ( fee many of thefe errours noted before the Rhems Teftament ) , Therefore if the Proteftant reiect's the '" "" ~ ' bomt Mr. fiiUingfleets inconjequences*. 41 now Authentick latin Edition he has no fuch certainty of any Tbtvmlph Tranflation extant, as excludes a pofibtltty of all reafonable doubting^ Latin vnlelT he makes his own parties opinion for what he faith vndu- ntetled, bitable and our contrary aiTertion improbable , which is foul J^'/f *"" play. ^ Certainty of 8. Some fechry may reply; He excepts not agamft the Vulgar am Tr»n- Latin which is our Sixttne and Clementine Bible , as guilty of any flam. Material errour , but of IefTer faults only, and with fuch charitable eyes hee look's on all other verfions Thus much integrity ,1 hope, Mr. StiUtng : allowes it p : 116. where he takes notice of a peculiar S^'" handofDiuine Prouidence in preferuing the Authentick Records o£™'y*^r Scripture fafe to our dayes. By the way : it's pitty he omitted to iMtn Bt^ note alfo the like prouidence in preferuing the Do&rin of Scrip- ture pure fo long : But hereof we haue laid enough already. All therefore I note at prefent is. 1. If God shewed a particular Prouidence in preferuing Scripture, pure to our dayes, the Vulgar Latin according to Mr ? Stilling : Cannot be guilty of any material errour, for were it guilty , this peculiar Prouidence would haue failed in the great moral body of the Roman Catholick Church , which hath read this Scripture , and held it incorrupt for ten whole ages ; And Confequently Mr : Stilling : muft acknowledge a want of fpecial Prouidence in order to the preferuation of all authentick Records euery where. Grant thus much , and no Sectary can haue fo great moral aflurance of fcripture as excludes all reafbnable doubting , for , if God hath permitted a whole ample Church to be deluded with a Bible notably corrupted : The Certainty of Scripture,which excludes all reafonable doubting, fail's the (ectary, who ekher muft admit of an other latin Tranfla- tion diftinft from ours , or haue recourfe to the Greek Text , but he approues of no latin Tranflation as totally pure and incorrupt , (though S. Hierom obferues in his preface to the Gofpels. Totfunt F.xemplaria quot Codices , there are many of them) Therefore He muft haue recourfe to the Greek, which is vfual. 9. Hence I argue. If God shewed not particular Prouidence in preferuing our latin Edition from notable errour, fo diligently E reuiewed *i /n Argu- ment in behalf "e of 0kr Latin Edit ton. 41 Difc.i.C 7. IDouhts concerning the by S.Hierom,and approued alfo not only by many learned Writers in after ages, but by a whole Church ; it is no lengthen temerarious to allow greater fecurity to any Greek Copy j for can the Sectary fay, that Gods peculiar hand ofprouidence alwais io attended the Tranicriberor Printers of the Greek Copies , that nothing could be written but pure Apoftolical Scripture , and with any counte- nance own a want, a defec1:,a fubtrac1:ion,of this peculiar prouidence to a Scripture , approued of by a whole Church } Obferue well the difficulty. Where Gods ipecial Prouidence is , there we haue infallible alTurance , you grant God's ipecial afliflance to thole Tranfcribers of the Greek Copies , (otherwife the Authentick re- cords had not come lafe to our hands,) therefore you cannot ratio- nally deny it to that Scripture , which the Church approues. CHAP. VII. ftj- if this More of this /ubieft. Douhts concerning the fetter al editions of fcripture. None extant more pur e^ then the Vulgar La- Latin. Abfirablfrom Church Authority , there is no Certainty of the heft Edition. SeSiaries Comparing the Trefent Copies Vitb the more ancient giues no affurance. A V>ord with Mr. StiUingfleet. THe firft propofition. If the Protectant reiecTs our Vulgar Edition as not Authentick, or as viciated in any material point touching Faith and manners , He improbably pretend' s to haue Co much certainty of Scripture as excludes a poflibility of reafonable doubting. To proue the AfTertion I will here giue you a few PoftuUtu vfually held indubitable by moft learned men, who haue writ large preludes ( called PioUgomen* ) to holy Scripture. Neither Catholick nor proteftant shall rationally except againft my fuppo- Aigreflion Concerning the different Editions of Scripture ftemtedioHS to the Rea- der, he may pajje to the 9. Chapter , sphere toe 'i . will pod our "Difourfe Continued figatnfi SetftrttS, Editions offcripture 4j fuppofitions. Firft it is Certain , that the greateft part of the old ry £rn Teftament was Originally writ in Hebrew , but whether that ancient (ufpofition Copy hath been euer fince preferued pure, chiefly after S.Hieroms time or notably corrupted by negligence or malice , is very doubt- ful. Learned men ftand for the Aftirmatiue , and none , I think , can deny fome lelTer errours when greater are pretended. You may fee thefe different opinions of Authors in ProLgotwn : Ad Btblia Maxima , And the particular fiippofed errours largely noted by Salmeron Prolegom : 4. It would be too long a work to infift on this fubiect , and not for me to determine what is true : All I contend for here , is an vncertainty whilft great Authors are op- poiite , and this is done , to conclude , what I intend againft Sectaries. 2. It is again certain that the greateft part of the new Teftament was writ in Greek , but here we meet with the fame difficulty , and inquire. Whether the Greek by chance or inaduertancy has been corrupted fince the Apoftles time > This at leaft ( if not more ) is xhefecond doubtful : Graue Authors hold the Affirmatiue. See Serarius in fupjjUjhtbih Prolegom : Cap. 1 3. and Bonfrer, c. 14. and the errours noted. If Proteftants deny them , or think their own authority weighty enough to Contradict our Doctors, the matter in Controuerfy, is ftill doubtful. So much I plead , and no more. 3. It is certain that all other Bibles are only Tranflations , or Tranfcriptions o?Tht third. the Original Hebrew and Greek. The Greek verfion of the 72. interpreters out of the Hebrew (or as wee vfually fpeak the 70. ) is only a Tranflation wherin many doubts occurr. One is , whether that Tranflation be the firft , For Clement Alex ; and Eufeb : cited Bibl : MaxikCt. 18. c. 2. feemto hold an other more ancient, before the time of Alexander the great. How euer , admit, which is perhaps true , the 70. verfion to be the moft ancient , we haue yet matter enough of Difpute concerning it,and one great Queftion is whether at this day , that verfion be yet preferued pure , The ancient Archetyps wherof , more probably are not now extant, but when or where loft , remains vncertain. See Bib : Max : feci:. 1 8. c 10. Authors fay, it is corrupted through the ignorance or negli- F X %ence 44 Dflc. i. C. 7. (Douhts Concerning the of 'be ief> tuagint. genceofthe Librarians, or the Printers. See Bib t Max. c. 8. 9. Re/iat ergo. Whence it was, that thole Laborious Doctors of Alcala , at the perfwanon of Cardinal Francifcus Ximeno yevnfton Archbishop of Toledo, and afterward , the Doctors of Louain , making a diligent fearch after many Greek Copies, corrected no few faults in the then extant tranfcribed Copy of the Septuagint ,yet this very correction was far from the purity of that ancient verfion, which the Fathers vied. See Bib : Max : now cited , where vpon that other verlion of the 70. taken out of an Ancient Manufcript of the Vatican Library , Anno Dom. 1585. Came forth by the induftry of Cardinal Anton : Caraffa , wherin moft learned men laboured nine whole years , and it was perfected about the be- ginning of Sixtus f. Raign. The greateft difficulty yet remains. It is moft certain,the verlion of the 70. Interpreters differs lb no- tably from the Hebrew Text, chiefly in the computation of years , or point of Cronology , that our venerable Bede , though a great Scholler and one as humble as learned , ingenuously confelTeth , he cannot reconcile thofe Antilogies. See Bib : Max : c. 8. fine. Who then can tell me when we rind thefe lections of the Hebrew and of the Septuagint oppofite to one an other, which is to be preferred ? Moft learned men ftand for the Hebrew, as many for the 70. You may lee thefe difTenting Authors quoted in Proleg : Bib : Max : Sect: 18. c. 11. and how fome to accord them , (ay , That the Holy Ghoft would haue the Septuagint now to add to the Hebrew , now to diminish according to his good plealure. See Bib : Max : cap : 8. fine. 3. But let vs proceed to a further matter of doubting. Long after the Edition of the Septuagint, came forth three other Tran- flations made by three vngodly men. Aquila , Sjmmacbus , and Tbeodotio. Aquila Pont'mus , once a Gentil became Chriftian, but denying Chrift , ibon turned lew learned the Hebrew language, three Tran. ancj too critically tranflated the Hebrew into Greek ^lmoft word fattens. forworcj. His fpleen againftthe 70. Interpreters was fo great, that contrary to the verity of Scripture , He rendred fome places ipeaking of our Sauiour , moft perfidiously and wrefted all to a confufed Venerable Belt lud. gtmente Ofother Editions of failure* 45 confufed and Sinister SenSe. Symmachus one of Samaria , twiSe circumciSed became at laft a. Profeffor of the Ebion Herefy , and Translated the Hebrew into Greek, not as Aquila did Verbatim , but rendred the fenfe more perfpicuouily. Theodotion rirSt Bap- tized, then a Sectary of Marcions and Ebions errours , laftly a ProSylite , embraced Iudaifin ( and therefore S. Hierome in J. Habacuc call's thefe three , now named , Semi-Chnfltanos , half Christians ) followed a middle way between Aquila and Symmachus and translated Scripture with greater Simplicity , more agreable to the 70. veriion. 4. An other Edition aicribed to Origen, not becaufe he made anew veriion, but with an i mm en fe labour , to con feme the 70. "*mij Greek pure , flrft compofed his Ten apU or a Bible branched into ary% 4. Columns. The firSt contained the 70. verfion , the 2. Aquilas^ The 3. Symmachus his Translation. The 4, that of Theodotion. Afterward this great Doctor , learning the Hebrew language, made his HexapU , that is a bible with 6. Columns. The firft contained the Hebrew Text , the 2. the Hebrew in Greek Characters, the other 4. the Verfion of the jo. of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Now becaufe there were two more Greek Verlions called ihtfift and Stxt Editions , Origen compofed his OttopU , or Bible distinguished into 8. Columns. If you will hauemoreof the <;. Edition, called by (bme titer ecuntina ', or of the Stxt named Sicopohtana , as alio of the Lucian and HeSychian Lections , read Bib : Max : in Proleg : Sect. 18. Cap : 9. and Bonfrer. in Prol : c. 17. Thefe two later were only corrections Douiu of the 70. no new Translations. Concerning all theie verlions relating to many doubts occurr as you may fee in the Authors now cited,an J tbe/g ver* you will meet with no fewer concerning the Caldee Paraphras offt9m* the jdW TeSlament , called Tax gum. The Syriack veriion or interpretation of the new TeStament extant in that noble laborious work of Arias Montanus called Btblta Regta> is not without blemish; Se Serrar : evi ?. nor the Author of it well known , and I belieue our Sectaries will not approue feueral Titles or inscriptions men- tioning what was wont to be read on certain feaft dayes , as on the F 3 venera- 46 Difc.l.C. 7, Doubts Concerning the veneration of the Holy Crofs , and in certain fafts , and the Commemoration of faithful ibuls departed this 'life &c. 5. To lpeak here of the many latin Editions and feueral doubts concerning them, would be too long work for my defigne ( which is only to point at difficulties concerning both Originals and Tranflations ) That ancient one called by S. Auftin. itala , highly commended lib : 2. de Doclr : ChrifH. and read in the The Itals Church before S. Hieroms time , hath no known Author. The verfton, more late amongft Catholicks , are Santis Pagninus his verfion of commended the 0]j Teftament out of the Hebrew , firft corrected by Arias kj s.Aufttn. jvfontanus , though the Correction pleaseth not Bonfrerius , and it was moft pittifully corrupted by that Runnagate Printer Robert Stephen , wherof fee more in Bib. Max : Se&. 20. Cap : 2. and Bonfrer : Cap. 18, Sect. 1. An other you haue of iftdore Clarius> which neither Canus nor others approue. A third, of Francis Vatablus. Doctor of Paris, and a found Catholick , but the vngodly Robert Stephen corrupted that verfion, as you may read in Bonfrer. and Bib. Max. now cited. I mention nothing in this place of the Armenian and Gothick Bibles. Se Bib. Max. Sect. 20. cap. 3. And am as filent of the Tygurin verfion printed anno 1 <; 39. by Chriftopher Frofchonerus, a moft corrupted Tranflation by Hereticks , (wherof you may fee more in Bib. Max : now cited cap. 2. ) Read alio if you pleafe Serrarius cap. 18. 9. 1. Of Sebaftian Munfters , of Bliblianders , of Caftalions and the Geneua Tranflations Sec. You will find none of them of any account, but with Sectaries only. 6 Thus much briefly premifed ( for we haue not faid half of what might be alleged ) concerning the doubts and vncertainty of KefcBion var*0Lls editions, I here appeal to euery diftintereiTcdiudgement m*devpon and ask whether it be not mighty difficult , or rather imp oflible , theft doubts, to fay abfolutely by the force of our priuate fallible knowledge, by witt or humane induftry only: Tim booh^ This Edition is Gods true fincere ^ord, as it was writ by the Hagiographers ? And here I muft mind Mr : Stilling: of his not well coniidered Doctrin,who P. 196". feems to ownfo great certainty of Scripture as excludes the Editions cf /capture 47 the pofibtlity of all reafonable doubting, and pag 21 f. alTerts. Wc may be fujfictently ajfured that there are no Material Corruptions in the books of Scripture^ Without pur Churches Testimony. Good Sr. leaue of thefe generalities , and tell vs plainly of what Edition you fpeak? What particular verfion haue you , which muil: be fuppofed fo authentick, or fo free from all errour , as may ex- clude a poiTibility of reafonable doubting , before you haue the Churches Teilimony or toleration for it > Name one , and much ,iqU*/th» is done. Will you follow the Hebrew and Greek Copies now propofedto extant? You fee mod learned men , whole knowledge and s*B****s. Authority is not inferiour to yours, fay both are corrupted , and thus much alone weakens the certainty you pretend to ? Will you admit of the 70. Tranflation as pure and Authentick "> Be pleafed to reconcile the Antilogies , between that and the Hebrew Text, or fay that the Septuagint, though euer of great veneration ! in the Church , hath its errours. Will you plead for what Aquila or Symmachus haue done ? Thefe are euidently corrupted, and in points ijioft Material touching Chrifl our Lord. Will you fay that all Copies , none excepted, all Tranflations whether Greek or Latin now extant are pure Scripture in the Materials of Faith and manners > It is highly improbable , and therefore hitherto we come to no Solid Principle , to no certainty which excludes the poiTibility of reafonable doubting-. O laith Mr: Stillingrto proue that no Material Corruptions flamed the Scripture now extant, W*(thatis Sectaries ) diligently compare the prefent Copies with the moft ancient M $ S. M?s obferue the citations of OffeftAries thofe ancient Fathers who liued when fbme Autograph's were Co^Pari»s extant, and then ( moft likely ) we haue the pure word of God. [SR!? You compare ? Pray you anfwer > were there not others in the mote am%ini Catholick Church before Sectaries troubled the world , as in- Copies. duftrious in comparing Copies and Manufcripts together , as you haue lately been ? Was S. Hierom , think you , negligent in this particular > Or did the Primitiue Church before S. Hierom when it read that ancient Edition called Uala , and preferred it before all other Lections , fail to examin which Copy was beft? Yet Great dili- 48 Difc. u C. 7. By the Hebrew and Greek > Toyes. Difpute the Queftion rigidly , there is lefle affurance of thefe fuppofed Originals integrity, then of the Vulgar Latin Co induftrioully examined not only by the belt Hebrew and Greek Copies now extant , but alio by other ancient MSS. and .commentaries of the Fathers. 8. I cannot therefore imagin what Mr : Stillingfleet'aimes at , when he tell'svs page.21 {. that Doctor lames who had taken the pains to compare not only the Sixtine Clementine Bibles,but the Clementine Edition with the Louain Annotations , makes it appear, there are icooo. differences in the Louain Annotations from the Vulgar Latin, and that thefe differences arile, from VoUor la Comparing it (that is fure the Vulgar Latin )with the Hebrew, *»« oppofed, Qpxfc and chaldee- What would the man haue think yee > Will Editions ofjcripture 49 Will he fuppofe firft , that Thomas lames hitt's right in euery tiling he faies ? The learned lames Gretfer whofe authority is euery whit as good the whole v/orld over as that of Mr. lames. Tom. i . Ad lib. 2. Bellrpag. ictfo. denies all this , with a Mentitur tertib T ho mas Umes , Decern millia verborum &c. Read Gretfer I cannot tranferibe all he hath. Again will he fay , that the Vulgar Latin is to be corrected by the Louain Annotations , or thefe by the Vulgar, if any thing were ami fs in either > Or 3. If thefe pre- tended differences arife from the comparing all with the Hebrew, Greek , or Chaldee , can Thomas lames be fuppofed to know the laft energy and force of euery Hebrew , Greek , or Chaldee natienai word ( when there is controueriy ) better then the Authors of the txceptiont Louain , and Correctors of the Vulgar Latin > Here we may againft Mr. come to an endles wrangling about the Genuine fignification q£ l*nM* words , but decide Nothing. God help vs , if the knowledge of true Scripture depend* s on fuch petty Nicities, and fruitles quarrelling. 4. And this is to be noted. Were thefe differences more then are made by Mr. lames , The queftion would then be, whether they imply any Material alteration concerning faith or Manners , or introduce notable errour contrary to God's reuealed verities , or finally bee meer verbal differences, grounded 011 the obfeure fignification of Original words > If Mr : Stilling ; only pretend's this later , let him remember his own exprefTion of racings of the skj» > and know , that there was neuer Tranflation in the world , which may not be thus Cauilled at. If any Material alteration be pleaded he both fpeaks a lowd vntruth , and contra dice's himfelf , when he takes notice of a peculiar hand of Diuine Prouidence in preferuing the Authentick records of" Scrip- ture fafe to our dayes. 2. He is to name that Authentick Copy , either Original or tranflation , by the indifpurable integrity wherof, thefe fuppofed errours may bee cancelled, and Gods pure reuealed verities put in their place : But to do this after Co immenfe labour and diligence vfed in the correction of the Vulgar, will proue no lelTe than a vain attempt , or rather a defperate impofilbility. Vpon this ground. G 9.I lay ___ ':> jo Difc. i.C. 7. ^Doubts Concerning the 9. I lay firft. Who eucr denies the Vulgar Latin to be Authentick true Scripture , hath, ho tpj», leile aiTurance of any other Edition now extant, and conllcmcntly,not To great certainty Am JJferthn Qf. Scripture as excludes a Pofsibthty of all te* finable doubting, I ^rCM * prone the Affertion. That man may rationally doubt of Scrip- ture whoreiects the ilrongeft ailiirance imaginable , and makes choile of a weaker, But this is done, if he doubts of, or denies the Authenticalness of the Vulgar. The reafon is firft becaufe He hath no other Edition , as is now (aid , examined with more care or greater induftry , and this ground's the higheft humane ailurance conceiuable. 2. Bccauie the Vulgar is ap- proued by God's Holy Church which giues infallible certainty, if therefore the integrity of the Hebrew , and Greeks be not vnqueftionably authentick , he wants that certainty which excludes a-Pofstbihty of doubrwg, And Much lels ailurance hath the Sectary of his own later tarring' Editions of Scripture, which breed nothing but confuiion to the very Authors , and all who read them. ic. I fay. 2. If the Sectary hold's the Vulgar Latin Au- thcntick Scripture, yet makes it guilty of fome leiTer faults, tyhatif and therefore endeauours to correct it by a more authentick hffsr faults Copy , he cafVs himfelf vpon meer vncertainties and , labours be putended «n ^^ ^fie reafon is. To doe thus much , he muft fuppofe yul lf that other Copy he would correct by , to be more pure than the Vulgar, and this cannot be proued vpon any receiued Prin- ciple. Now if you obiect. Authors Commonly deny not fome obfeurities or leiTer verbal faults to haue been in the Vulgar , I anlwer that's nothing to the purpofe were all true , for it doth not therefore follow, it can be corrected by any other Copy which is more Authentick Scripture , A kite authentick Bible may help herein, when other lections are accuratly examined, yet may be faulty in greater matters. 11. I lay. 2. No Tradition no Teftimony which is fallible and may be fals , can giue fo great ailurance of Authentick Scripture as Diuine Faith requires , or that alTurance which ex- cludes Editions of fcrtytiiYe. 5 l dudes a portability of reasonable doubting, which Is to fay in other words: The infallible Teftimony of the Church is abfolutely ATe(i\mony neceiTary to afcertain vs of Authentick Scripture. The conclu- in fallible, a fion is directly againft Mr : Stilling : who page 116. makes the necejjary to certainty Chriftians haue of the books of Scripture fo fallible , *fint**» that it may be falfe , yet enhaunfes the certainty of the Doctrin *crVit4re> there contained to a note higher, of infallibility. We shall fee theleuity of this diftinction fully difcouered hereafter , and our Aftertion proued in a more proper place. All I will fay at prefent , is. No man can be certainly allured of true Scrip- ture vnles he firft come to a certainty of a true Church inde- pendently of Scripture. Find out therefore the true Church and we haue all we feek for , I mean true Scripture with it , vnles one tend's to a high degree of madneile and AiTert's, that the true Church of Chrift cheated into an erroneous Bible, was depriued of pure and authentick Scripture. 12. And here I will propofe an Argument for the Vulgar Latin which Mr : {tilling : shall not anfwer. In what euer Society of Chriftians we find faith intirely true , we haue there Authentick Scripture : But from Luthers time vpward to the 4. or f . age faith intirely true , was only found in the Roman Catholick Church , and in no other Society of Chriftians , Therefore the Roman Catholick Church which read fo many ages the Vulgar Latin as Authentick , had true Scripture. I prone Anar^n- the Minor, wherin only is difficulty. If the Roman CniSffcft memprouing erred for fo vaft a time in any point of Diuine Faith, ^ere^T^1* was no faith intirely true the whole Chriftian world ouer, be-^^i,;, caufe all other Societies denominated Chriftians were kncwti condemned Hereticks , and confequently had not true faith , Therefore either the Catholick Roman Church enioy'd t BretTing , or we muft grant a want of faith for ten ages th You JJ^ fee, He (lights the Teftimony of two or three Fathers ( needed we relief from them) and I am fore the vnanimous agreement of all Fathers makes no where the content of the Church in all antecedent ages , contrary to our pretent Churches Tradition. From whom therefore shall we learn ? On what vndubitable Principle can we reft , or (ay fuch was the Tradition concerning Scripture in pas't ages but from the pretent Churches Teftimony? It is impofTible to pitch on any other Proof which is furer y or half (o fure. i£. What followes is yet worte. Yob vs not offtoith the tra* dition of your Church tnfteadofthe C*thoU*k- Good Sr. defigneyou, or name plainly that Catholick Church diftinft from the Roman. G 3 Cathoiik ancient tr#- A weak Jirgurrmti retorted. Tradition tnote and vmtterfal. 54 Difc. i.C. 7. © cults Concerning the Catholick in all ages • and ( to vfe your own words ) we shall extol you for the only perfbn that euer did anything memorable on your iide 5 but if- you do not this , as I know you cannot , (for all other before Luther were profeiled Hercticks )'tis you" thatiuggles and fob's vs off with meer empty words. He (till goes on thus , worfe and worfe. If I should once fee jou proue the infallibility of your Church, the Popes fupremacy , Innocation of Sainn , the Sacrifice of the wafts Sec. by as an vnquLslionable and vniutrfal tra- dition as that is, "frhtrby Tte recewe Scriptures, I shall yeild my felfrp as a Trophey to jour braue attempts. Contra 1. ad Hominem. If I should once fee you proue all Churches fallible , the Pope r,o fupream head, "So b vocation of Saints , no refutation of Images, no Sacrifice of the Mafs Sec. and the reft of your negatiue Articles : If I could once fee you proue Wo Sacraments only , luslificaiio" bj faith only, Cbnfis not rtal pretence in the Holy Euihauft , by as vnqueftio- nable and vniuerfal Tradition as that is v\ hereby Scripture is receiued , we wTould yeild alio to your braue attempts. Anfwer this if you can , or for bear hereafter to weary a reader with euident improbabilities. And mark well why I call them fo. 16. Hauewenot a more vnqueftionable vniuerfal Tradition for the books of Scripture, if Tradition be drawn from the voice of all called Christians (whether Catholicks or Hereticks ) then there is for the very primary Articles of true Catholick Faith > A Trinity for example, the Incarnation, the neceflity of Grace , Urioinal fin Sec. Yes moil: afliiredly , for innumerable Sectaries admitted Scripture , and yet denyed thefe efTenrial Arti- cles, therefore as their Denial made the confent and tradition of all called Chriftians lefs vniuerfal , for flich Doctrins , fo their admitting Scripture with others , heightned that Tradition , or made it more general. Say now , Sr. Had thofe Hereticks argued as you do, how little would they haue gained? if 7»e should once fee you proue a Trinity, Or Original fin Sec. by as vniuerfal a Tradition as that is thereby Scriptures are rccaued, fre Vould acqute'ey but this is not pofilble , for both you and wee admit Scripture , and confequently make that tradition more vmuerfal, yet we deny your Editions ofjcripture. jf your primary Doctrins , and therefore all tradition is not Co ample for your Doctrins , as for the books of Scripture. Here is your vnreafonable realoning Mr. Stilling : You know well Hereticks who owned Scripture with vs , denied a Sacrifice of Mufs . - Inuocatton of Saints and other CatnolicK Articles, and you 1 haue naye wayof vs to take a tradition from thefe men , to vphold the Do&rins arymng. they denyed : Tuft as if an Arian should bid me proue a Trinity from all Tradition , euen of his Church , when he admit's Scrip- ture and denies a Trinity. If you reply , you vrge vs not to bring in the tradition of all known Aduerfaries of the Catho- lick C hnrch for thefe now named Articles , but only the vniuerial Tradition of the Catholick Church in all ages , we haue already anfwerd , that's beft known by the prefent Churches Teftimony , no other proof can parallel it. And thus much of the AuthenticalnefTe of our Vulgar Edition free from all material Corruption. A further difficulty may yet be moued concerning leiler faults , and the preferring it before all other Latin Copies. CHAP. VII L Ho*to necejfory it "tods to haue one kBion of Scripture in the Lhurch. A yvord of the Sixtine and Qtmentine Bibles. Of Mr: Sttllmfleets mijlakei and incon- fequences concerning them. OhieBions answered. J* XI Otejirft. It was very meete to haue among (b much 1 X confufion and various lections of Latin Copies , one certain , approued and fet forth by the mother Church, to the end her Children might be yrim labij of one tongue and ipeak one j 6 Difc. i.C. 8. Of the fixttne and. . „. one language in their reading, preaching, and publick expounding tffiriptttn , Koly Scripture. Note. 2. Though the Council of Trent fefs.4. nccejp*ty0 declares this Edition of the Vulgar to be Authentick , andpre- ferr's it before all other latin Editions , Qua ctrcuinferuntur> which are now abroad , it doth not thereby detradf. any thing , from the credit and authority of the ancient Hebrew , and Gree^ Copies , whereof Authors diiputc (whether they be pure or no ) whiift the Church is iilent and defin's nothing. Neither doth the Council reieel: the Veriion of the Septuagint , or that ancient Latin Copy called ltala, (read in the Church before S. Hierom)as Vnauihentnk^ in any material point : for this Argument is conuincing to the contrary. As it is madnes to fay. ChrifTs Church had not **J true Scripture tince S. Hieroms time, fois it a defperate impro- Mgestru* babilityto affert ., She wanted that , in the ages before S.Hierom, Scripture, which is to fay: The Church had euer authentick Scripture. Moreouer , shall we (think yee ) iudge , that God , whofe Pro- Utdence neuer failed , Hiffered his own fpoufe to be beguiled with falfe Scripture for 15. ages, and that now towards the end of the world he will prouide vs of a purer hook , by the hands and help of a few fcattered Sectaries. 2. Note 3. Tranflations may be faulty three wayes chiefly. I. More ambiguity and darknes may lye in a translated word than in the Original , and this fault ( if any ) is remediless , becaufe the latin , or a Vulgar language reacheth not alwais to the full Energy and (ignification of an Hebreto or Greek exprei- fion , wherof you haue fbme examples in that learned Pre- Ho*> Tran* face to the English Rhems Teftament anno 1600. 2. Cor- Jj"t*mjm*J ruptions may creep into a Verfion by the inaduertancy or ignoran- ' ceof the Tranflator, who is neither fuppofed prophet nor in- fallible , and thus Authors fay , that S. Hierom , though pro- digiously learned , was not euery way infallibly fecured from leiler errours , yet this Prouidence God hath for the good of his Church that he will not permit any conliderable deprauation to remain in all Copies. If therefore one be faulty, all cannot be thought fo , and the faults of one, by carefully comparing it with Clementine Bibles. with many, and a diligent inspection into other Copies, may be corrected. See Greg. deValent; lib. 8. Analy. C. 5. puncto 4. 3. dly Lejfer deprauattons eften (nter k verfton through the mijtakjs of Punters Librarians Sec. Of thefe you had many in the Vulgar Latin before the correction of the Sixtine and Clementine Bi- bles, and they are icarle auoidable chiefly after feueral reimpres- iions, as we daily fee in other books. Thus much premifed. 3. Liften a little to Mr; Stilling : ftrange inconfequences and jjroundles exceptions againft the Corrections of Sixtm and Clement. He faith the one Bible differs from the other, as appears by thofe who haue taken the pains to Compare them , stilliwfletu in fome thoufands of places. A great number indeed. But the groundlejfe ilrft queftion will bee whether thefe Pain-takers ought to be exceptions. belieued vpon their bare word , without further examination > This, Sr. you luppofe which cannot well pals, before the parti- culars come to the teft, and bear the cenfure of your Aduerfaries, wholly as learned as you haue any. But fay on. Are thefe fup- pofed differences any more but like the racings of the skin ; or do they giue any mortal Jbound to the Vital part of Scripture ? If you only aiTert the rlrft, you may not only Cauil at your English Bibles , but alfb at all the latin tranflations vied in the Church both before and after 'S. Hieroms time, for they haue fbme ver- bal differences, which you may call petty and inconfiderable faults. Now , if you afTert that the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles are Materially corrupted tn points of Faith and manners , or to vfe your phrafe , Vitally bounded y what is become , I befeech you , of that peculiar hand of Prouidence you own , in preferuing the authentick Copies of religion fafe to our dayes > Or ( which much imports you to anfwer ) by what other more authentick Copy can you without endles difputes and vncertainties , correct the Vulgar > This one particular will giue you work enough , before you come to a certain decilion of the difficulty. In fa word, becaufe I think , many know not too well , all that concern's thefe two Editions of the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles , I shall add here a few notes to improue their knowledge, and perhaps yours alfo. H 4. Learned L j8 Difc. i,£,S. Of the ftxtine ml. 4. Learned men , difcouered leffer faults in the VulganLatinj. andthat which was found,. 4. Regum. c. 14. v. 17. feemed£Greek , as well in thefe as in a number of other particulars? .Whtlft therfore Sectaries differ from vs , they either err or, not, if they err; let them correct what's amifs , If contrary to confeience they deny the .errour, they are forced to grant that, inter limites recli , with in ^chelimits of Truth there may be a latitude, a variety , or dirle- . H 2, rent 6o Difc u C. 8. Of the ftxtine and. rent expreffions, and you will not find Co much between S'txtut Edition and that of Clement , nor any Corruption deitructiue of Faith or manners r but {lighter differences only, , which alter not the genuin fenfe of Sciipture intended by the Holy Ghoft , if wee exclude Typographical raults , which hinder not the inte- grity of a Verfton. 6, Vpon theie grounds, Mr. Stilling ► obicctions pag. 214. Come to nothing , where he firft teli's vs , and truly , of the infinite pains which Pope Sixtus took in his Correction , and after So much adoe, shall we ( faith he ) bclieue that Sixtus neuer liuedto fee his Edition Compleat ? Anlvv ; You muft belieue it vpon humane faith, for it is certain , God took him out of the M fi'W wor^ before he few it perfect , though his intention and aime fleets was, co recall the whole work to the prefs again. Now this ebittiions , Recognition , His Succeilbr Clement made , anfwerable to his fitted, wish and defign. Mr. Stilling : obie&s 2, Sixtus his Bull now extant( and therefore fufficiently proclaimed ) inioins that his Bi- ble be read in all Churches without any the leaft Alteration. Anfw : This Iniun&ion fuppofed the Interpreters and Printers to haue done exactly their duty euery way y which was found wanting vpon a fecond reuiew of the whole work, fitch commands therefore when new difficulties ariler not thought of before , are not like Definitions of Faith , vnalterable T but may, and ought to be changed according to the Legislators prudence. What I lay here is indifputable , for how could Sixtus after a fight of fiich faults as cau fed him to intend an other imprem*on inioyn no al- teration , when He defired one , and what he could not do,his Succeflor Clement the 8. th did for him. Now whether the Bull was lufficiently proclaimed, matters not , for had Sixtus liued lon- ger y He would as well haue changed the Bull in order to the particulars now in controuerly , as amended his Bible. 6. Mr ; Stilling : obie&s. 3. All that Sixtus pretend's for the AuthenticalnelTe of that Edition, is the agreement of it with the ancient and approued Copies both printed and M S S. than which, there can be no more firm or certain Argument of the true, and genuin Clementine BiMes. 61 genuin Text. Anfw. After all his labour He preterms this , but ^J^fxtm with a caution often repeated in the Bull, quoad hut fieti pftft t pretewPi. prout optime furi potuit. &c. That is as Veil as then could be 8cc. The firm or certain Argument there! ore is. The Church euer preferued true and Genuin Scripture, which is either to be found in the ancient approued Copies both printed and mttwfcrtpt, or no- where Thefe, Pope Sixtus diligently fearehed into r therefore his Edition is true genuin Scripture r which no Catholick denies, if by true and genuin Scripture we vnderftand , not an Exclufion of all leffer faults , but of greater contrary to the purity of Faith and Religion , and fo far Sixtus Edition is blamleiTe , although as Tanner now cited, n. 8 J. obferues , perhaps not altogether fo circumfpectly done, nor euery way fit to the publick edifica- tion of the Church, ivberin there is a latitude Jfcitbm ths Compafs of truth , and integrity. And who euer read's Pope Sixtus own Bull before his Bible , can force no more out of it but this truth , that many faults which had got into other Copies, are accuratly corre&ea in his Edition , wherof no man can doubt -, with all , Many fault* that it contains the Vulgar Latin Edition amended at leauy n many *m€ii(ied by things, and confequently is authentick Scripture. Sixtus faith not , txius he amended all leffer faults wheron Religion has no depen- dance , but rather difclaimes bufying himfelf with fo final! a feruice. 8. Mr : Stilling : obiects 4. The vaft difference between the Clementine and Sixtine Bibles lay in this,that Clement corrected the Vulgar Latin according to the Original in aboue two thoufand places , when the contrary reading was established by Sixtus. Anfw : Here is no proof but only three improbable AfTertions. Who afTures you , Sr. of any vaft difference between thefe two Editions > Or infornfs you fo exactly of aboue two thoufand different places ? Or , why finally do you tell vs of a contrary reading established by Sixtus > A reading, Good Sr, may be diffe- rent,and yet not contrary in any material point of faith or manners, ^Ji*'?* and fo far Sixtus is defenfible. If there be any other difference or sixtus his Contrariety not touching on Faith and Religion , becaufe the ex- Edition, H 2 preflion 6i Difc. i. C. 8. Oftbejixtwe and predion is longer or shorter, leffe clear in the one , and more fignificant in the other verfion, this concern's vs not , both may be right within the compafs of truth , and without any material fault. But faith Mr : Stilling : if the Latin Copies be a fure Rule to iudge of the authenticalnefTe of the Text by , much more shall the ancient Copies ofthe Original Hebrew and Greek, be a . furer Rule. Anfw. : Had we now the authentick true Copies ofthe ancient Hebrew and Greek we should foon accjiiiefce , but Sectaries know well this is more then doubtful , yea almoft certain that both are corrupted , how for 'I lay not , but morally fpeaking the Hebrew Tbt Hebrew cannot but be corrupted by reafbn of the great iimilitude in text ,/y many letters, and the accefs of points added by the perfidious able to Cor* ^iajvreths after S. Hieroms age, which may change the fence r- ■' of Scripture , and very .. notably . See Gretferus D'efens. Bellar: Tom i. lib. 2. c. 2. I wonder why Mr: Stilling.: is fo earn eft for the Greek , which our English Sectaries vtterly leaue when 'tis for their purpofe. I haue told you enough already of I mages tranflated for Idols : Elders for Priefts : Ordinances for Traditions &c. And might add more, that Eeza thinks thole words rpv KouvoLv Luc. 3. 37. of Cainan tp no purpofe in the Text, and therefore leaues them out. Others w'hen the. Vulgar .Latin makes for them follow that , and not the Greek : Take only this one inftance (Authors giuc many more. ) The Vulgar reads Rom 8. 37; certus (urn enim I am certain : The Greek 7rt7r'cifoiu**> in the old Vulgar Latin anciently vfed in the Church ( Sixtus neuer laid, He corrected all the lefler errata's ) Clement purged it of more, and reftored that ancient Copy ( Co farr as diligence could do ) to a greater integrity. Was not this work laudable and praiie worthy in tliefe two worthy Prelates ? Neither of them can be raxed of any errour introduced contrary to faith, or the purity of Religion, And we vrge Sectaries to fpeak a probable word againft our AfTertiorL ii. By this and the precedent difcoursyou may learn firft , that Mr:; Stillingf; fpeaks at random when he tell's vs p. 213. of an abundance of Corruptions in the Vulgar Latin , and yet cannot find fo much as one Contrary to Faith and Religion. You Tee. 2. Not one Hee amufes and abufeth an ignorant Reader , whil.fl: he afferts conu^ioni there are fome thoufand of places wherin Sixtus and Clement differ. intheVulgari There is no difference at all in any one point that' s (fjential or mate- Cofitraryt° rial, other differences which arife, either from the Printers errours , att ' or diuerfity of Lections , as long as we read what's true and the Church approues , is neither lyable to Mr ; Stillingfleets Cenliire ., nor can be iuftly blamed. You fee. 3. That when Mr; Still : talk's, of Thomas lames his comparing the Stxtme, Clementine Bibles , with the Louain Annotations , and then mentions ten thoufand differences from the Vulgar Latin, which differences arife from the comparing it with the Hebrew,Greek,and Chaldee,He vnderftand's not Matters roo well. Becaufe neither Sixtus nor Clement were obliged to regulate themfelues by the Hebrew , Greedy, or Chaldee tyhat theft Their induftry only being to correct the old hmn(ltala) Lection, two Popes called by S. Gregory the ancunt Translation (moll: Authentick Scrip- c^'tefymm ture) which , howeuer was done , both after a diligent fearch into * ' the Hebrew and Greek, and a careful inflection alfb into other Copies. And here by the way, you may perhaps difcouer a piece £>f Mr; Stillingfleets cheat,about the ten thoufand differences men- tioned aboue. Be pleafed only to penile the firft words, of Gene- sis where you will find a different found of words. The Vulgar read's I in 66 Difc. l.C $. Of the fxtineand. isre. In principio (reauit Deus Calum & terrain , and Co it is in the Chalice and Samaritan Copies. The Roman fcptuagint : in principle fait Deus, Others afcribe this Lection to the 7c. Dais creauit in principh, Some out of the Hebrew read Creauit Indices. Aquila read's. In Capitulo fecit Calum. The Syriack. Creauit Deus ejfe Call & ejfe terra. An other Syriack, In fapientta CteaVtt. The Arabick. Primum quod -. creauit Deus fait Calum &c. Others, Creauit Elohim & Cxlos. Others famine for in Principio , read, cum Principio, All which imply no more but different are nicer triuial verbal differences, and thefe perhaps with many like mt *lwaie$ them through the whole Bible, made Thomas lames number' dnfercnt, SVrell vp to then thoufand. Molt petty and pittiful doings, whilft nothing appears of greater eoniequence. ' If any defire a litteral expofition and reconciliation of thefe and other lections through the whole Scripture, He may perufe the Author ofBlbl:Max: Comprehending ninteen great volumes. You fee, 4. If the Church had true authentick Scripture before the corrections of Sixtus and Clement (wherof no man euer doubted) shee has it full after the* Council of Trents approbation , much more free from lejfer faults, than formerly. You fee, 5. If the Sectary reiect:s the Vulgar Latin now corrected, he has no fuch afTuranee of any true Bible in the world , as excludes a pofTibility of doubting the Scriptures integrity, and confequently , that Scripture femes him not to find out true Religion , or build true Faith vpon with fecurity. You fee. 6. that all the exceptions fectaries make againft the Corre- ction of Sixtus and Clement , vltimately cxamined,empty themfelues into no more but only into flight, torpid , and iniipid Calumnies, vnworthy men of iudgement and literature. You fee. 7. the Secta- ries Carping at euery thing, is iuft like him who (aid. Quicquid Spirit^ &1**™ tmpugnabitur. Had the Church not at all corrected thefe leiTer faults , the fectary would haue blamed it as negligent , looking- to nothing, now it has done that good Seruice, it is found fault with, fio 1: is. Quic I' boldly alTert it, and vrgehimto produce but clear for one. The reafon is. What-euer Teftimony of a Father is alleged fret'ftfiwey. for his fenfe, will be at moft ( if't come thither) fo notably am- The reafon biguous that weighed with all circumftances , it may well haue a is gktn. Catholick meaning : That fenfe therefore mull: ftand good without conteft, when it an fivers to the iudgement of a whole learned Church , and the Sectary ,hat-h nothing to draw it to his particular opinion ( neither vniuerfal Church nor vniuerfal Tradition ) but only a few ambiguous words capable of interpretation , and his own fancy to boot, Nay I -fay more? He hath not lb much as any little appearance HjH the Heathen dtfconrfes. 7 1 jfppeararice of ambiguous words for his fenfe. Pray you tell me, (and let Proteftants shame me if they can) where has he any hint of a Fathers doubtful words for his mine djir/iwg afiijlince only allo- wed the Church , Poiitiuely excluding infallible afsiftmce ? For iuftificationbyVaitb only ? Tor t^'O facraments only? For 'a figneonly of Chrifts prefence in the Eucharift ? yet thefe fenfes he vend's as the genuin meaning of the Holy Ghoft , without proof or probability , therefore fancy only plaies here. And thus you fee the firft part of my AlTertion demonftiatiuely proued viz. That Proteftants haue not fo much as a weak probable aflurah- ce of that which is the very life and effence of Scripture, I mean , of the true fenfe intended by the Holy Ghoft : Yet you know TerlHUims Tertullian faith. Lib. de Prxfcript. cap. 1 7. Tantum veritanobslre- it^m:ntt pit adulter fenfus : quantum & corruptus Stylus. A fals fenfe depraues Scripture as much , as if the words were corrupted. Thus much premifed and fo fully proued, that fe6taries cannot return a proba- ble anfwer, Tie add one coniideration more to confirm what is laid. A Dtjcourfe between a Heathen and a Chrifttan* 7. Imagin that a well difpofed Gentil Philofopher half perfwa- ded of the truth of Chriftian Religion , addrelTes himfelf to the moft knowing Proteftant , or Arian ( and not to dilTemble the for- ce of the Argument ) to fome learned Catholick alio. He find's them ftrangely deuided about their Canon of Scripture, about their Tranilations , and which is to our purpofe now , at high difference concerning the meaning alfo. The Arian teli's him he hath the true fenfe, fo doth the Donatift , the Proteftant, and Catholick How m[n likewife. The wife man is not fo foolish as to belieue any of them £. e '* | vpon their bare word, although Stentor-like they cry , this and no ^a-J. ayui\ other is Diuine Dodrin. Therefore he concludes, if reafon may fiript me, haue place, This way of finding what he would know , without the help of feme other Principle diftinct from Scripture,and ths fallible AlTertion of particular men oppofite to one an other , is Tie heathens Vffcourfc, The heathens Jirgumer.t Clearly pro- poftd again ft fcftarhs. ?l With a Qbriftwu (b highly diiTatisfi&ory and wholly infufficicnt, that it cannot fettl him in the truth of Chriftianity. Nay, he may wel argue further If I, yet no Chriftian , cannot fo much as know' thefe very book to bee Diuine becaufe you fay they are fo , when we Gentils a Iewes (in part) hold them only humane.; If I though I own them Diuine , can Icarn-from none of you, what they fay (for I find you all at high contradictions .about the fend) How will you induce me by this your Bible only to become Chriftian > Or , how can you when you difpute with one an other,lb much as propofe a probable Argument out of Scripture in behalf of your different Tenets , For none of you yet know by Scripture only the true meening of it : You firftfuppoie a fenfe and then argue, wheras you should clear the fenfe and proue it , or your Argument fill's to nothing. For example. The Proteftant find's in Scripture,that the Holy Eucharift is called Bread , fuppofing Bread to iignify natural bread or at moft bread deputed to a holy vfe ., the Catholick denies this fuppoiition, and fenfe alfo. Hee reads again in S. lames c. 4. There is one LaTtr- gmr and tudge TW/o can dejiroy and free. Ergo faith the Proteftant, there is no other viiible iudge in the Church to end Controuerfies. As odd an inference as if one should conclude, becaufe it is laid in Scripture. Bee not yee called Mafters for your Mafttr is one , Cbrift , no other ought to be called Mafter , and therefore this fenfe and fup- pofition in alfo denied. And thus it muft needs fall out, whilft the Sectary has not one exprefs word of Scripture for his nouelties, wheras, faith the Gentil,the Texts feem clear enough for Catholick Doclrin taken in an obuious fenfe , yet not fo clear , but that a peeuish GlofTer may peruert all by his wilful fancy. 8. Yet the Gentil Argues. You Chriftians fay , there is true Religon amongft you, and that God,the Author of it, hath allowed means abundantly fufficient to knowit, Means I fay whereby not only Gentils , Turks, and Iewes , but Arians and other Hereticks alfo, may be reclaimed from their errours. Thus much you muft grant, or fay that Chrift hath left an vnbelieuing world vndcr an impoflibility of being conuerted. And if this be true, that is, if meanes be wanting to know the verities of Chriftian Religion 9 The J Wkh i Chrip/um. ■ 7j The GentiJ may blamlefly remain as he is , and Co may the Turk , lew and Heretick alio. Now faith our Heathen. Tis euident , Scripture alone without further light , is no meet means to reclaim any of them , for the Gentii flights your whole Scripture , and can that by it felf draw him off his contempt ? Again The Bonzij in that va,ft Kindom of China pretend to an other Bible, writ long iince by their fuppofed great Prophet called Confujius (and the book is not like the Turks Alcoran fluffed with fooleries) but as I am in- formed , fome who liued long there , and knew the language well, fay, it contains moft excellent moral precepts tending to the preferuation of iuftice andiCiuil life. The lew denies the new Teftament,The Arian and others the fenfe of our Scripture. How therefore can Scripture alone proue efficacious to conuert thefe aliens from Chrift , or be fuppofed a fit means obliging all to be- lieue , when yet they know not without more light what they are to belieue , or why > An other way therefore muft be found out, whereof more afterward. In the mean while. 9. I truely (land aftonished , when I confider how pittifully ur PAUmZ Mr : Stilling : endeauours to (blue this moft conuincing Argument. fiet return* Read him who will. Part. 1. Chap. 6. from page 17$. to P. 17^. wprobable and he shall find him tedioufly running on , but ner'e a whit more *"{***• forward in hisiourney where he ends, then at the beginning. T' is all along a pure Pet it 10 princtpij, and worfe. The Queftion moued, is , How the Proteftant can conuert a Heathen, or proue infallibly that the Bible is Gods word. Mr ; Stilling ; Anfwers, his Lord Primate vndertakes not this task in the fir ft place , nor offer's to Conuince a Heathen that the Bible muft be infallibly belieued to be Gods word. No, but firft , the excellency and realbnablenes of Chriflian Religion Conftdered in it felf is to be proaed f by shewing , that the precepts of it are iufi, the promifes fuch as may induce any rcafc lia- ble man to the praclife of tbofe precepts , that the tobole Dollrm is very Rifely contriued, that nothing is vain and impertinent in it , that tbofe things frhicb feemmofl hard to belieue in this Dottrin are not fuch things as might haue beenfpared out of it , as though God did intend only to puz- zle mens reafon Kith them. And thus he goes on in his draught , & or We make* ** mcerfup- fo fit ion his ft oof. Ihifienct •fCrtdibi' itiy laid forth to rta- fori before btliife. 74 Hoyptbe Heathen difcouYfes. or idea of Chriftianity, and Co proues the Truth of Chriftianity by telling a Heathen, What it is , or what it teaches. The Heathen mod iuftly except's againft Thefe proofs (fo may a Chriftian too , if no more be (aid) and profeffes all this talk hitherto beiides a meer begging the Queftion , feem's to him a pure cheat , and fallacy. You proceed ftrangely , faith the Heathen , for what is a fuppofed verity amongft you Chriftians , you turn into a proof againft me th.it denies your fupppofition. You labour to take my difficulties away, by propofing to me thole very things , which caufe them. Mark well.. You firft make the excellency and reafonableness of Chriftian Religion m it felfe a fit medium to prone Scripture Gods in- fallible word , wheras that fuppofed reafonableness of your Religion , is as dark and obfcure to me, who am no Chriftian , as the infalli- bility of your Bibles Doctrin. Therefore you proue onevn- known thing by an other wholly as much vnknown. I deny both your Bible and reafonableness of your Religion , proue the one or both , or you (peak not one word to the purpofe. ic. You fuppofe. 2. a Principle which neither Catholick nor proteftant euer yet owned, viz. That, that which you cal> Chrf flitn Religion is known ex termini* to be true by a meer declaration of its Dodfrin, wheras no Dodtrin , euen the moft Primitiue was euer made difcernable from errourby a bare faying it was true, without fbme precedent Euidence of its credibility laid forth to reafbn: And therefore you are told in the other Treatife againft Mr : Poole, n. 2i. That if Chrift and his Apoftles had appeared in the world, and only preach't the high Myfteries of our Faith, or fpoken as you do , of the excellence and reafbnablenes of its precepts , or promifes , without further euidence , they would haue no more drawn Iewes or Gentils to their Dodh-inthen twelue little Children could now draw vs to the belief of many other verities , (not yet reuealed) had God inspired them to teach witho ut miracles, or any other fupernaturai wonders. My reafon is. As the Bible euidences not it felf to be Diuine fcriptare, Co the intrinfecal reafonableness of Chriftianity is no ftrft euidence to it felfe, both therefore muft bee' proued by Clearer Principles. Belieue it. Had Chrift and his With a Cbrijllan. 75 his Apoftles only infilled vpon the reafonablenefs of Cbriflianity , the very Iewes would haue iilenced them alleging greater preuious eui- dence for their Religion , shewed by Moles and the Prophets. )• Saith the Heathen , becaufe you dare not meddle with the mo- tiuesof Credibility which you Scornfully call a Grand Salad too of* ten lerued vp by Papiftsyou Ipeak at random,when you giue me no other fatisfa&ion to my difficulties than by telling me , they are worth nothing. You Affirm. 4. Nothing is impertinent in Chri- ftian Religion. Ianfwer. The belief of a Trinity, of God made an Infant \ Your whole ftory of a Serpent tempting Eue , and of Samp- Mr.(imng\ fon, with your Myfterious book of Apocalyps, feem to my ku- proofs found mare vn&er (landing not only impertinent, but improbable. You tell wighthjs, me. f. of Chriftian Religion agreeing with thofe books you call the Bible , That is , you would (ay , the Chriftian Doctrin of the Bible agrees with the book , which is idem per idem and therefore highty dilTatisfactory, vnless you proue both the Bible and Do&rin by further Arguments. You fay 6. The Heathen ought to belieue fome thing besides that , he hath heard or feen vpon the report of honeft men. He anlwers , he doth , fo farr , as thofe reports moue him to alTent , and therefore denies not the matter of faft , that there was once fuch a peribn in the world as Chrift , but becaufe you fay all this Teftimony is no more but moral , and may be falfe, the Heathens belief goes no higher. Iuft fo the Turksr belieue there was fuch a man as Mahomet , the Chinefes ltich a man as Confufitu , but what get we , by iudging there were fuch per- fons as thefe in the world? Doth it here vpon foilow,all they taught, „ ,* was true or infallible Do&rin? No fuch matter. You lay. 7. pr9Uedf ^ The Heathen muft belieue that Chrift dyed, rofe again , wrought many miracles , andfent his Apoftlesto preach his Do<5h in. &c. He anlwers, thele being Articles of your faith regiftred in Scripture, you,Sr, either vrge him to belieue them, as you ought to do^ cer- tainly and infallibly , and this you cannot exa&, for you belieue them becaufe they are in Scripture, and yet you haue not proued to the Heathen lb much as probably , that Scripture is of Diuine iofpiration , Therefore you fuppofe what he denies , and pittifully beg the Queftion. K z 11* Qr. 7 6 HoTfi the Heathen difcourps ii. Or. 2. You will haue him yeildanaftentto them vpon the humane teftimony of many Chriftians which you fay is fallible and may be falfe , and that auail's nothing , for thus the Turks belieue the Alcoran the Chinefes their bible vpon the Teftimony of innumerable witneiTes. You fay. 8. None can qurftion whether the Dotlrin be Diuine , T*ben the Perfon Tt>bo declared it to theJfiorld ^as fo Diuine and extraordinary a Perfon holy m his conuerfation, brought vnparalled miracles , xofz from death to life, con' The quefthn mfed Tfttb bis Difciplcs, and gaue euidence of their fidelity by laying dofrn Still begged their Hues to atteft the Truth Sec. Contra, u Replies the Heathen. Here is again the lame Petitio principii , for either you belieue theie particulars becaufe Scripture record's them , and then you fuppofe Scripture to be true and Diuine, which he denies , or becaufe falli- ble men report them ( you own no infallible tradition ) and this aduances not your caufe at all, for the Turks and thofe of China talk as much of their Mahomet, and Confufim vpon fallible, and perhaps falfe reports alio (for yet the Heathen knowes not what Religion is true ) And next wonders why you fpeak of miracles , of power ouer euil fpirits, of men laying down their Hues dec. when, you Sectaries either deny , or flight all the miracles euidently done in the Catholick Church, as alfo the power She manifeft's in cafting out Diuels &c, And if we mention Martyrs, Catholicks haue more , who layd down their liues in defenfe of the Doctrin of this one Church,than differed for Chrift, whilft the Apoftles preach't to the world. You hint fome thing at miracles (like one half afrraid to meddle with fuch Motiues)and fay thefe wonders prone the truth of Apoftolical Doclrin. Pray you Sr Anlwer? When you plead by mi- By what racks Doe you only allow thofe which Scripture relates , or others miracles alfo known by Hiftory and humane Authority ">. If you rely on Sectaries, the firit, you fuppofe what now is in Queftion. Viz. That Scripture fh*d. is infallible and of Diuine inipiration , If you own miracles regiftred in Ecciedaftical hiftory, and the liues of Saints , you haue, as I now faid of Martyrs , a greater number wrought in the Roman Catholick Church in the ages after Chrift, than were done whilft he and his Apoftles lined. Slight fuch a Cloud of witnefles as atteft With a Cbriftian. 77 atteft thefe later wonders, and fpeak no more ( as you doe) of any certainty grounded vpon the report of honeft men ; Own them vpon humane authority as morally indubitable , and you proue by virtue of thefe Miracles ,that theDochrin of the Catholick Church, is ftill Apoftolical and Orthodox. 12. Now here by the way I mud lay open your fallacy, A dilemma, when you recurrto miracles recounted in Scripture only , and f"*™!0'- reiect others wrought by the Church. Thus I argue. Either you claries uh fuppofeand belieuethe Do&rin of Scripture to beDiuine,be- victim Cm caufe you find the Miracles of Chrift and his Apoftles recor- *& ded there, ( and propofe thefe as the firft Motiue , and induce- ment of your belieuing Scripture ) or independently of Scripture Miracles , you proue the Doctrin to be Diuine ; yea , and the very miracles recounted there , to be indited by the Holy Ghoft. If you belieue the Diuinity of Scripture induced therevnto by Miracles related in that Holy book , you aduance nothing , for all you fay is, that you proue Scripture, Dimne becaufe it recounts thefe bonders , Ttohich are as obfcure to a Heathen as the Diuinity , or the facred Doclrin of Scripture is , Therefore you make a mod vicious Circle , for you proue the Diuinity of Scripture by Miracles internal to the book^> and the Miracles themfelues ( not otherwife known) by the Diuinity of Scripture. Now if you lay you know the Scrip- tures Diuinity antecedently , or before you recurr to Miracles related there, Scripture-Miracles are vfeles to your purpof e, for , if the fuppofition ftand, They are yet no more but obiecls of Faith, and therefore cannot feme you as motiues and inducements to belieue that very Diuinity, which is now luppofed known aliunde, and moft fufficiently without them. 1 2. One may ask, if God had neuer done any other Mira- cles but fuch as Scripture relates , whether thefe are not fuffi- cient to work belief in all > The Heathen anfwers negatiuely , and makes them inefficient, becaule Scripture is not proued MirAC^ Diuine by them. And all may anfwerfo, if Scripture be not JjJS^Jj otherwife firft proued Diuine, before wehaue recourfe to mi- Convince net racks internal to the book. Howeuer , admit gratis they were k Heathm, K 3 fijffr; 78 Holo the Heathen difcourfes fufficient , the mod you can inferr is , That , the Primitiue Church which shewed them was Orthodox, but whether any other Church yet preferuesthe lame pure Do&rin , may bee well que- ftionedby a Heathen. And here in paffing, you may note a lin- gular Prouidence of God , who age after age has illuftrated his Church with moft manifeft and vndoubted miracles , whereof more largely hereafter. Difc. z. C. 8. 14. You lay laftly. That which God chiefly requires from a Heathen is the belief of the Truth and Diuinity of his Doct-rin. He anfuers he is ready to do fo, when you proue the Dqct-rin to be Diuinely infpired , and infallible. But hitherto you handle things fo faintly, that though the matter you treat be excellent in it ielf , yet your proofs( moft difatisfa&ory ) come not home to con- uinceit. Your mishap is iuft like that of an ill lawyer, who has a;good caufe in hand , but knowes not how to handle it. Your whole Method is vnmethodical , your proofs prooflefTe, your A Good iumbling moft intolerable. In a word , you giue no rational L^'Ht, account of the reafbnablenefs , of the Truth, of the Diuinity, Mr* * or of the infallibility of Chrifts Dochin. Therefore faith the StiUingjleet- Heathen , Tie fufpend my iudgement till I meet with a more knowing Aduerfary, who I hope will not proue Truth bjfimplj filing be [peaks it > but Conuince it vpon vndeniable Principles. ♦ 1 5. But our Heathen hath not yet done with Mr : Stilling : for he faith plainly , Though all the proofs hitherto hinted at might pafs, or were fuppofed valid , yet there is not one word fpokentothe purpofe, in behalf of Proteftancy. If you won- der at the bold AlTertion , ponder well his realbn. You , Mr : Stilling : haue treated all this while of the excellency and rea- fonablenes of Chriftian Religion , confidered no man kno\\res how. Pray you lurk not in flich General terms , but tell me particularly what Chriftian Religion is thus good , excellent , and reafonable ? Ifgoodand excellent, it muft be now found in the world. Is it Arianifm? Pelagianifin > Donatifm > Quakerifm > Thefe fe&s profess Chriftianity Are they all excellent and reafonable? Affirm it openly if you dare? Perhaps you will fay no. Is it Popery? By With a Cbriftian. 79 By no means. For may your word be taken , it mama ins falfe 0ur j$mr* and erroneous Do&rin ,. and that's neither excellent nor reafonable. fary Cannot Is it Proteftancy > Yes furely. This is the excellent and reafo- /*>» which k nable Religion. And is it poffible? Can you perfwade yourfelf mongf° without further proof than your own proofleife word , that the m™n\ / '" perfect draught or idea of Chriftianity lies fo fair in the new excellent and Nothing ofa few iarring Proteftants, which all other Chriftians reafonable. in the world decry as falfe and improbable? Can you think that a foul-mouthed Fryar as euer liued, and a Nunn facrile- gi 011 fly coupled together, laydthefirft foundation of this excel- lent and reafonable Omfttan Religion ? Speak out, and tell vs what you iudge , or hereafter leaue of to vent fuch improbable Pa- radoxes 5 I fpeak of a Religion now extant in the world or known. 4. hundred years agone to preuent your wonted fub- terfuge of running vp to the Primitiue Church, amoftvnrea- fonable pLea when you cannot fay probably what that Church taught , but only by the Tradition of the prefent , which you mofl cauflefly and vnworthily rere&. But hereof wee haue faid enough in the other Treatife. Perhaps you 1 reply. You de- fend that Church which hold's Do&rin agreable to Scripture, [ marry , Sir , but where shall we find it out > Amongft you Proteftants think yee> when you know not probably the fen fe *btf*m+m of fcripture in one only controuerted Text, much lefs fo fully, ™£m?* as excludes a pofibility of doubting , nor shall you euer know, ' ' * whilft you own a fenfe Contrary to the Roman Catholick Church, as is already proued. CHAP, X* £o Difc. i.C. 10. By fcripture only^none CHAP. X. ' The firft and eafieH'toay to find out true Religion is not by Scripture only , though all Chriftians had moral certainty of the right Canon >and fenft afo7 Tbbich is to fay, the meer cloning LhrijlsDoSlrin^ is inefficient to proueit, to all fort offeople. i . ^T"* He Affertion may feem ftrange had we not an euident 1 proof at hand , and tf is thus. The lewes , Turks , and Pagans ( although all Chriftians now and euer agreed in fome chief verities concerning Chriftian Religion , as that lefus is our Redeemer ) reied the Do&rin as fals, and foolish i. Cor. i. u. 23. • We peach CbrtH Crucified , a (candal to the le^es , and a foolery to the Gmttls. Whereby you may well learn , how enormoufly Mr : Stillingfleet erred aboue when he told vs , that the meer excel- lency and reafonablenefs of Chriftian Religion carries with it irs The proof of own Pro0^ Our Afle-rtion is contrary, and grounded vpon this ourAfftrtion Principle. The Myfteries of Chriftian Dodhin confidered in oppojueto themfelues , tranfcendall humane Capacity, and as the Apoftle Mr. faith Icandalize weak reafon , Therefore the Myfteries meerly tttlltngfieet. j^ fo^ t0 £ jevv or Gentile are no conuiction , becaufe they are aboue the reafon of the very beft Belieuers. Now if you fay , they ought firft to be belieuedby faith without any preuious inducement , This is the worft of fooleries , for none of the Primitiue Chriftians , fo much as belieued Chrift or admitted Apoftolical Do&rin , without rendring firft fome fatisfactory reafon ( diftincl: from their faith ) why they reiecled the ancient Sinagogue and aflented to that then new preach't learning. Some preuious can Fihd true %cibAon* 8 1 preuious light therefore, diflincl from theie ahftrufe Myftcries, which God laics before the eye of humane reafon induceth all, whether Iewes or Gentils , to the true belief of Chriftianity , and Confequently the meer fuppofed verity of the Doctrm only , dark in it Celt] is no abfolute mark or hrft felf euidem Principle , whereby we are immediatly moued to belieue fuch high fecrets. ™ ***** *$ Pray you tell me , should any one goe amongft fbme vnciui- D^r,„ m liied People , who either haue heard nothing , or very little of yw/i Lutd.n*. Chrift , and only relate the ftory of his facred Birth in a poor cc. (table, of his obfeure life from the 12. th year of his age till he began to preach &c. Would fuch Barbarians , think yee , alTent to thefe ftrangt things either by the force of humane reafon , or Diuine Faith, without further pi oof or motiue to make all good> No certainly. Yet all istiue and very true, yea, and moft reafonable , but the verity alone is infufficient to per- fwade any that 'tis true. 2. From this short difcourfe , whereof more in the fecond part, thefe vn deniable inferences follow. 1. That Sectaries alien: they know not what , when they make the true Preaching of the Gofpel and right vfe of Sacraments to be marks of the true Church. For the true Church (be it where you will ) hath euer its marks antecedently fuppofed to the true preaching of the word, which marks, iirft manifeft that myftical body (at leaft in a general way as I shall prefently declare ) and thus known by a natural euidence , she propofeth the Myfteries we belieue. Here , , . is the reafon a prion of my AfTertion. That which is the firft obieci is known y of our Faith cannot be the firft obteel ofonr knowledge , the Myfteries of herm*rks> our belief lay d forth by the preaching of Gods toord , are the firft obietts before** of Faith , (for thefe we belieue , and as belieued they are obfeure) bslieue. therefore they cannot be the firft obtecls of knowledge (if we fpeak ftrictly of knowledge ) or marks preuioufly inducing reafon to belieue. Whence it is, that reafon hath its euidence or prudent inducements laid forth vpon other extriniical Principles, before we belieue. Belief therefore, whether you take it for the obieel: affented to, or the L ad An Obit* olion. Briefly Joined. The iuAgi. mem of Cre- dibility, not attained by examining the Myfteries ef Faith, 82 Difo 1. C. 10. Bj Scripture only, none act wee affent by ( being as I fold obfeure ) can be no mark to It felf or to the true Church we belieue in, for a, mark is euer more known than that obieel: is whereof it is a mark , or which is pointed at. 3. Some perhaps will lay. The Church is vfually defined. An A(]>mbiyofthofe Ttbo profess the true Doclrin of Chnft, therefore true Doctrin moft eflential to the Church , muft necelTarily be known before we know the total eilence of the Church. Ergo true Doctrin or the preaching of the word is a mark whereby we firft find out the Church , and confequently the Church marked with euident clear motiues , is no inducement to belieue true Doctrin. The Argument is an euident fallacy. Firft becaufe the Illiterate and flmple Chriftians belieue in the Church and haue faith fufficient to faluation , though they neuer arriue to an explicit belief of euery particular Doctrin taught by it. 2. They either explicitly belieue all thefe particular Doctrins by Faith , and this is impoflible , becaufe all of them were neuer propofed explicitly or, know them ex termtnis to be Diuine Truths by humane rea- fon , when they are propofed, and this is moft vntrue. For who * can fay that this truth, chrtft is God and confubftantial toitb his Father, is a verity more known ex termini* by humane reafon , than the contrary errour ofthe Arians is > You fee therefore the obiection is forceles : For , as one who reades Ariftotle or Plato knowes what is faid , or the fubftance of the Doctrin by the fenfe of their words , yet remains ignorant whether it be true or fals, without further reafbning and infpecftion , fo a Gentil that reads our Chriftian Doctrin in the bible may know much of its fenfe,, or what is laid , yethemuftboth dtjcou> ft and reafon well, before he come to this fetled iudgement. All I read ( not euidently true ex terminis ) is yet tndubttabtj f§. Now this iudgement is not firft- got by examining the particular verities which Scripture or the ' Church teaches. No. There is a farr eafier way whereby reafon, after a further difcourfe concludes .-that either God hath cheated The blood shedding of Mar- the world by the Miracles, thefanttity can find true fyjligion, 8j Martyrs, and all thofe conuerfions wrought by the Church , or we inuft grant , That, what the Church teaches is true, And this general Judgement arifing immediatly from a due Pondcration of the motiues of' Faith ( which is Science )diJpofeth an vnderftan- ding to belieue this great Truth. God fpetks his eternal verities by that Church ( be it yet where you will ) Wuh Chrifl lefus founded. And in this fenfe we fay , a general Notion or knowledge of the Church manifested by flipernatural fignes , is vfually necefTary to the belief of euery particular Do&rin deliuered by it , andconfe- quently particular Do&rins can be no firft mark , or fign of this Oracle. Thus much is here briefly hinted at to folue the obie- clion. Hereafter , the whole Analyfts shall be moft particularly difcufTed in its due place. 4. A. 2. inference. True "Religion is firft found by its marks and cognifances, before the pure and incorrupt books of Scripture The true ^ cm beownedas Diuine. We come therefore to a knowledge of ? •?*+ thefe incorrupt books by the help of that Chriftian Society where J*"^ L„6W true Religion is taught , and cannot firft kngfy where true Religion th booh of is by the books of fcripture only. I fay. Fir si fc«oB\ For without fwptnre> all doubt when incorrupt Scripture together with the fenfe is once admitted vpon the authority of Chrifts Church , we argue and forceably as the Fathers anciently did, againft Sectaries by Scriptu- res But all fuch arguments prefttppofe the Books proued Diuine, and facred. The reafon of the inference is. Thefe Books only contain a fimple narration of our Chriftian verities , which both Iewes and Gentils flight , therefore though we cry neuer fo loud Sctipture is Diuine , and written by the Holy Ghoft , we effect nothing with thefe Aliens from Chrift , vnlefs we firft conuince the truth by proofs diftinft from Scripture it felf. And as little is done , if Chriftians of a different belief difpute by Scripture,when ^odifputing neither the Canon, nor the fenfe is agreed on. For example. %Scri?l™e Marcion produceth his Bible, The Arian his, and his fenfe, A third °thl*Cmon a Scripture without S. lames Epiftle, or that to the Hebrewes,Our and fenfe be Sectaries Crowd in with their^book , whilft others as learned reiecl agreed on. h Z their 84 Dilc.i.C. 10 Say Now , but vpon a folid Principle , who is in fault > The Sectary thinks wee vnderftand not the Fathers , and we are fure , he abufeth them with farr fetch't glories. He faith their words are clear for his fence , and we pro- felSjthe Contrary. Hitherto we come to nothing like a Principle. The Controuerfy therefore driuen on no further , but to the fe- ctaries bare, Yea and our, No, hangs yet in the ayre wholly vnde- cided. The reafon is. Though the Fathers words be neuer Co plain for our Catholick verities, yet after the Sectary hath laid his gloffes vpon them , they are moft vnworthily made by him as doubtful , and a matter of as great conteft , as the very fenfe of Scripture is, which both of vs would haue cleared by the Fathers teftimony. That is. There is as much adoe ( may Sectaries glofTes haue place) to vnderftand , what a Father teaches concerning the fenfe of fcripture , as to vnderftand Scripture it felf, before we haue recourfe to the Fathers. To recurre therefore to their interpreta- tion in Controuerted matters whilft Sectaries as much darken that by rv t m ■< ' end it. cm find true Religion 85 by their glofles, as thcyobfaire the Scripture Ve diipitfe about , is euidently amoft vnfit way to end any Controuerfy • vnless that ,'„ d^-,, which is the very matter of Dilpute between vs, can be iuppofci k n> meet meet and fufficient means to end it, which is impofliblc. Now if Principle it the iectary blames vs becauie we reiect that fenfe , he drawes from either Scripture or the Fathers, and he alio reieel; ours , what haue we but wrangling 1 Both parties hitherto only word it,and ftand charing at one an other, without Principles. God therefore hath prouidedvs a furer and eaiierway to end debates about Religion, whereof more in the fequele Chapters. CHAP- XI. The Troteftant takes cftoay the only means to knoTo true Religion by. His proofi , whether He defend* s Tro- teftancy or impugn s Latbolick DoEtrin } are Unreduci- ble to Principles , and neuer goe beyond the Tveaknes ofbisoVm Ttnproued Affertion. Meer gtoffes Jupport all He faith , which is euidenced by a brief bun- dling one Controuerfy , touching the !B. Sacrament. Tbeodoret Wrong d by SeElaries, cleared. HisfDottrin is moll Catbolick. N Otefirft. If God aslfiid abeue, once eftablishedtrue Religion among Chriftians , He made it Co difcernable from all falfe fe&s , that it may be found out by prudent reaibn. Ommlturaturanotttu faith Tertull. lib. i. de Teftimonio animal Its more known then any other learning. For to fay on the one fide, That an infinite wifdom hath planted true Religion in the L 3 world, L 86 Difc. l, C. 11. Tmejtants make Proofs of true Reli* giony eajy and Co». Hwang, The feci Aries proofs, as d**k*t his P. trin. One rtafim oftur Affer* Hon, world, which shall not perish, and on the other , to aflert it cannot be proued or found out, is firft to caft a blemish on Prouidence and next to free all from the obligation of embracing it , becaufe none can be obliged to embrace that which cannot be known by reafbn or rational arguments. Note. 2. The Docbrin of Chrift which eiTenrially conftitutes true Religion, (land's mod: firm vpon indubi- table Principles appliable to the Belieuers reafbn. If therefore a Want be found of fuch proofs , and doubts arife, whether ChrifVs Doclrin be taught or no $ None can by doubtful or ambiguous Principles only, abfolutly fay. This is Cbrifis Doclrin , and Confe- quently the proofs of true Religion anfwer to the freight ints of the matter, that is, they are clear, conuincing, and exclude a pofTibility of reafonable doubting. Thus much fuppofed. 2. I fay firft. who euer endeauour's to shew by arguments what Tenents of Religion now held amongft Chriftians are pure and Orthodox (when the matter is of Controuerfy, ) and cannot bring his proofs to a Clearer Principle, then the particular afTertion is which should be proued , argues improbably. The Proteflant in all the difcuffed matters of Religion doth fo , that is , he neuer goes beyond the ftrength of his own weak afTertion , but eludes all by talk wholly as dark and weightles as the very AfTertion is y which -should be proued ; therefore he Argues improbably. 3. To proue the Minor proportion wherein the difficulty lies. Take a wciw of all our Proteftant Tenents as they differ from Catholick Doctrin , or Conftitute this new reformed Religion and ask, what Proteftant dare appear and venture to proue, That Yaith only iuslifies : The like I fay of his other negatiue Articles , Of no red Pre fence , of no Inuocation of Saints of no Sacrifice of the Mafs. Sec. I abfolutly affirm , He cannot make one of thefe Articles good by any vndoubted Principle, or eftablish any of them by a proof frhich is clearer , than that dark article is, frhich should be proued. One reafbn is. Thefe Do&rins oppofite to the Latin and Greek Church alfo , are not euidently known as truths by the light of nature , or by any receiued Principle grounded on Reuelaticn. No ancient Church reputed Orthodox held them 7. hundred years agone. true Religion Ttmhwton. 87 agone, and Consequently no vniuerfal tradition is for them, The only difficulty is, whether Holy Scripture or the Fathers gene- rally patronize inch Dodhins ? And to fauour Sectaries all that's pofiible, we will here moue no doubt of the letter of their Bible, but withall alTure them , it will be impoflible to draw fuch new learning out of that Book, and the impojhbthty will be thus mani- fefted. As long as thefe men cannot proue their new Dodtrin to be transmitted to them from as good and allured authority as their book of Scripture is tranfmitted (but vpon less fure grounds, or less allured tradition) fo long their dodt-rin is naught and ftands vnprincipled. But this is fo , as we shall fee prefently. And you may by the way note here the difference between the Catholick . and Proteftant. The firft,proues euery particular Tenet of his Faith cele^"'*' by as fure a Principle as he proues his Bible to beDiuine, (the the proofs ef Church allures him of both) but the Sectary euer fall's short in Catholic this and cannot giue you foftronga proof for his particular Do- a'adprou. &rin, ashe doth for the very letter of his book, which he flip- *ants> pofes teaches that Dodtrin. 4. But let vs come to the point which chiefly vrgeth, and take one particular Controuerfy (we cannot infift on all) and ask the Proteftant. How he proues that the real prefence of Chrifts lacred body (as Catholicks afTert ) is not expreffed in the literal fenfe of thofe words. This is my body. His negatiue affertion moft cuidently is not there in plain terms. We therefore vrge him to make it good by a proof that's clear or more conuincing than his elfin dark and yet vnproued Negatiue is. And is he not obliged think yee to produce a ftrong proof indeed , when he hath fo many powerful Aduerlaries to contrail: with? i. The clear words of Chrift now alleged 2. Along Catalogue of moft ancient Fathers vfually cited by Authors oppofite to him. 3. The Authority of the Greek and Latin Church, for both Churches mantain the real fubftantial prefence to this day. 4. The express Dodtrin of general Councils, which define our Dodfrin pofitiuely , and Wegntrnfo condemn the flguratiue prefence of Sectaries 5. Euident Miracles '{j-^I wrought in confirmation of the Myftery, related by authors o^ nen% moft £8 Dife. I. C. If. Trotejldntsmakc. moll indubitable credit. Thefc are no flight grounds of our Do- chin. Let vs fee by what ftrong receiued Principle the Sectary endeauour's to weaken them, or ( which is immecfiatly to my pur- note) proues his new negatiue Yofitioiu Has he the express letter of Scripture for his Negatiue : Cbrift is not (ubfla>:tially prcjent in the Eu- /;? Not one word in the whole Bible is like it, much contrary. The Sectary anfaers not to any. man WW we tajlly require cf Scilarus. Doth the fense of Scripture after all places are compared together fauour him ? No. What euer fenfe he drawes from thence tee- mingly to his purpote , will be as obfcure and remote from the nature of a proof or any known Principle, as his own improbable pofition is , and therefore mod vnfit to perfwade it. Has he as vniuerfal Tra- dition or the vnanimous content of Fathers for his negatiue, ( or for that fenfe he would force out of Scripture) , as he and we haue for the letter of the Text now cited ? Nothing at all. And to show you how iuftly I propote this cjueftion , call to mind what Mr : Stilling: exacl's of his Aduerfary Part. i. c. 7. P, 216. lflsbould> saith he, once fee you prcue the infallibility of your Church , the Popes fupremac) , Inuocaiion of Saints &c. by as vnqueftionable and vniuerfal tradition as that is Whereby We receiue the Scriptures , I would extoll you for the only perlbn that euer did any thing confiderable on your fide. Thus he fpeakes after this precaution giuen. Thinly not to fob vs off, With tie Tradttton of your Church in Read of the Catho- fik , with the ambiguous Teftimonies of two or three Fathers , inftead of the vniuerfal confent of the Church fince the Apoftles times. Your own words Mr ; Stilling : shall here condemn you. The Queftion is whether your J$e%attuey Chrift is not really prefent in the Eucharifl , as Catholiks affirm , be Orthodox Do&rin ? We exact as rigid a proof from you, as you demand of vs , but fob vs not off with your own talk ( Tradition you haue none ) nor with the ambiguous Teftimonies of two or three Fathers , but giue vs the vniuerfal content of the Church fince the Apoftles time , as clear for your negatiue, as you demand of vs for the articles now mentioned ; Or if this be too much , giue vs but only the indu- bitable tentiment of any Church, reputed Orthodox , four or fiue hundred years paft for this your fente and affertion , and 1 will applaud true Religion Tmhxfton. ?p applaud you as a moft lingular perfon. But this you shall doe , when you haue turned all faith out of the world j that is neuer. I fay therefore you haue no more but the ambiguous Teftimonies of two or three Fathers ( nay you haue not Co much) for this Nega- tiue Do&rin ; which vpon that account proue nothing, becaufe thy are as dai^for Jour fence, as the Doclnn is, 7b Inch yon TvouU pout by them. $. For example. You may allege fome paflages out of S. Au- (tin , chiefly that contra Adimant. C. 12. Our lord doubted not to (ay , This is my body Men he gauea fign of his body. The obuious fenfe whereof without torturing the Text , is thus. Our Lord gauevnto his Di-fciples the Confecrated (pedes and accidents or bread , which were a fign of his Body there contained , and doubted not to fay, that what he gaue them vnder thoje accidents , was really his body. Let now any one probably inferr , that his S. Aufon's facredbody was not then prefent vnder the accidents of bread, words faucuv becaufe S. Auftin faith thofe accidents were a fign of his body ' not abfent , for a lign or figure implies not the ablence of the thing rignified by it. Well , but grant contrary to truth all you can wish , The words at moft are ambiguous, and therefore no fit Principle to ground an article of faith, as is now noted. You may next allege that known Teftimony in Theodorets Dialogues, The MfsliCAlftgncs after the faticlif.catwn recede not from their nature,but remain in thiir firsl fubslance, figure and form; arefeen and touched as before. I annVer , Theoderet plainly fpeaks of the Myftical fignes ^oreof which are feen and touched , not of the inward fubfhnce of bread Theoderet and wine, which are no immediate obiect of our lenfes , thofe fig- afterward. nes recede not from their nature, but remain in their form and fi- gure as before^ and t'is Catholick Doctrin whereof more prelently. But grant the vtmoft. The words are only dubious and therefore infufficient to allure vs of an article of Faith, when contrary to the receiued Doctrin of the prefent Church. I alTert yet more. Though any Father should fay, That the fubftance and nature of bread and wine ceafe not to bee , there is nothing yet concluded againft vs , for by thefe words fubslana or natura , the outward M Has- TertullUns fenfe, rnoft plain mi tafy. A reply of fectaries. tnfivercd, ■ 90 Difc. 1. C. 1 1. Trotejlants make Mafiinesse, or Corpttkncy of bread and wine may be well vndcrflood , which as Theoderet iaies remain. The reafon, is. In ordinary Speech we often giue to qualities which flow from the eiTence or nature of a thing the very name of the thing it felf. Thus we fay an exceffiue heat is fire, a MafTy heauiness is lead , or a ftone , wheras heat and heauiness in common philofophy,are only natural qualities or properties diftincl: from each fubftance , relpectiuely. Such locutions, were they found, are at moil dubious, but we (land in no need of any far-fetch't gloffes. 6. Laflly Tertullians fpeech lib. 4. contra Marcio: cap. 39. ex Cap. 21. Lucae contains no difficulty. Chrift taking bread into his hands and diftributing it to his Difciples made the fame bis body , faying this ts my Body; That is, a figure of my body. Obferue the words. Made the fame his body > and all is clear? What did he make fo >. I anfwer. That bread which in the old Teftamentwas a figure of his body ( according to the words of the Prophet. Mittimus lignum m panem ems. Let vs put T^ood into his bread , that is a Crois into his body) he makes now in the new law rnoft truely and really his body. Whoeuer read's Tertullian , will find this to bee the genuine fenfe of his whole Difcourfe in the place cited , where firft heieer's Marcion. Taciebat advanitatem Marcionis vt panisCru- cifigeretur, Then faies , Marcion vnderftand's not, that bread in the old Teflament was a figure of ChrifYs body, as the Prophet Ierimic fpeak's. Conijctamus lignum in partem em, fcilicet , (They are Ter- tullians own words) Crucem in Corpus e'tus. That is a Croft into his body. See Pamelius his learned notes vpon this pafTage , chiefly. n. 661. and. 66y. and you will eafily free Tertullian from all ambiguity in Speech. There are yet other Authorities much wea- ker produced by Sectaries , but thefe now quoted feem iiiffjcient for my chief aime , whereof more prefently. In the interim I ex- pect from thefe men a clamorous reply. 7. They will certainly tell vs the fense and explication now g:uen to thefe Fathers are no more but meer vnproued guefTes, or thoughts of our fancy. I might firft anfwer. This fenfe imme- diatly flowes from tke plain words which we admit, according to the true %jllgton Tmkflvton* 91 the rigid grammatical fignification of euery particular fmtence. But let vs wane this, and ask, whether the contrary fenfe of fectaries be any more but meerly their vnproued gl-oiTes , or thoughts of: fancy? I lay they are foy and confequeritly as dark , and wholly obfeure , as that Negatiue Proportion is, which should be proued by them. They ftorm , and lay the fenfe is clear for them , I ft i fly deny it, and afTert the conttary. They perhaps will vrge me to proue my fenfe; I wr^e them to proue theirs , which cannot be done by the Fathers own words without a Hirer Principle ; For, you fee, the words oc- calion the quarrel, but that which is the caufe of our diftentions can neuer end them, or bring vs to any acquiefcency , without a further Principle. And thus we ftand Andabatarum more, winking and fighting. The one faies. Yea , The other. No. without fruit or further progress , and are yet farr from ending diffi- culties. 8. Now here is that which I would haue all to refle& on, for it is of mighty importance, viz. That controuerfies between the A refl*&io* Catholick and a fe&ary , cannot but be an endles work , if both "J^J* fy endeauour to decide them by Principles, and vary as much about tecontro- '* the fenfe of thofe Principles, (which are fuppofed to end the Dif- uerfus. ' pute ) as we do about the veiy matter in queftion. This is euer io, whilft the fectary meet's an infallible Church or her vniuer- fal Tradition. Obferue well : The matter now in queftion is , Whether Chrift be really prefent in the blelTed Sacrament > We allege his own Sacred words. The Sectary faies we miftake the fenfe, and confequently will not haue the difficulty decided that way. To know the Truth , both of vs examin all the other pafTa- ges in Scripture relating to the Myftery , both read the originals , and the different verfions, both compare Text and text together, nothing is yet ended 5 Still we ftand at variance about the fenfe , which should decide matters between vs. Next Jwe read the Holy Fathers (for our Sectaries like not Tradition) they produce their H d;a«2 Teftimonies; we interpret. We produce ours; Theyalfo inter- tesartmZ pret. Obferue well I fay. Are we not as much at variance about enMea. the fenfe of thefe Fathers, which are fuppofed a Principle to end M z our AmftpAYAl- Ul between Ariani and <)1 DHc.uG. ti. V rote ft ants make our debates, as about the very meaning of Gods word ">. And doth not the matter in queftion Hill remain vndecided > Mod euidently yes. Therefore, vnlessfome other means be afforded whereby we may come more eaftly to the knowledge and belief of the reuealed truth in this Myftery, (may Sectaries glofTes haue place) all are caft into a labyrinth of feeking, without hope of finding what God will haue vs to belieue. In a word the plain truth is thus. 9. Sectaries will haue vs to difpute of Religion , but on fuch. Terms as shall be fure neuer to end one difficulty. That is , they will haue vs to reafon about matters of higheft. confequence , and with it deftroy the bvft ground of all reafonmg. I fay therefore. If Religion were to be proued by Scripture only (add to Scripture the authorities of Fathers ) when euery one makes that fenfe of fcriptu- re orthodox, which he conceiues to be lb -y Religion ere this day had been long fince deftroyed. For the Arian would haue his fense paffe for truth , The Pelagian his , The Monothelite his , The Proteftant his. All thefe different fenfes admitted, deftroy the very T.Jftnrtals of Chriftian Religion. And for this reafon I would fain learn of any knowing man, What that owned Principle is, whereby the Sectary proues the fenfe he giues of Scripture to be more certainly a reuealed Truth, than that glofTeis which either Arian or Pelagian forceth out of the very book which Proteftants read > I afTert boldly, they are all alike : GuefTes and meer fancies guide them , and nothing els. The Arians- lenfe is not clear , no more is the Proteftants : The Arian has no vniuerfal Tradition for his fenfe, no more hath the Proteftant. The Arian has no vniuerial confent of Fathers, no more has the Proteftant. The Arian has no Church euer reputed Orthodox which owned his fenfe , no more hath the Proteftant.. Now if the Proteftant recurr to the Primiti- ue Church , The Arian will go Irgher to the very Apoftles preaching , and auouch that his fenfe was taught by thoic firft Matters of the Gofpel. I fay it once more, they are all alike, there is no difference between them. The Arians glofs is as good as the Proteftancs v and the Proteftants wholly as bad as the Arians- 10. Hence. true Religion Ipnkno'ton* 93. 10. Hence I fay. 2. The Proteftant cannot aduance any thing like a proof in behalf of his own new opinions, and he is as fart from Principles , when he oppofes Catholick Do&rin. You haue the reafon giuen already. No proof, lefs fure than the true fe.nCc of Scripture , taught and deliuered by a Church confefTedly ortho- dox. No proof, lefs firm than that Churches authority and her receiued Tradition, can indubitably afcejtain any of Chrift's Sacred Do&rin. But it is euident Protectants want fuch proofs , when they either plead for their own opinions , or impugn Catholik Dodrin, And to make good what I fay, I appeal to their own c°^fams. writings and ask euery iudicious Reader, whether he euer yet heard yy ?„!!?"** Protectant whilft he afferts no Tranfubslantiation, ( for example ) No writings. Sacrifice of the Mafs no Inuocation of Saints , fay plainly and pofitiuely vpon a folid ground : Such an ancient Church reputed Orthodox con- ftjfedlj denied Tranfubslantiation, Inuocation of faints , the Sacrifice of the Altar Sec > Such a. paiTage of Scripture fenfed and interpre- ted by that Orthodox Church , or general confent of Fathers agreeing with known Scripture and Cmirch Doctrin , decried thefe Catholick Tenets ,. as we Sectaries do now > Has euer Proteftant ln "h** I fay , gone thus plainly to work ? No God knowes. Tie highly sfaUrL extolltheman that shall offer at it. What then is their {train of handle con. writing. All along a meer cheat. They either argue negati- trouerfiu. uely. We find not, forfboth, Such Doclrins in antiquity (which is falfe)and, though true, t'is to no purpofe ; Or, they cite you two or three ambiguous Teftimonies of the Fathers , gloss , and fenfe them as they pleafe, and then cry victory. Thus MrrStil- lingfleet proceed's as you shall fee presently. I fay, No fuch mat- ter. An ambiguous Teftimony of a Father gloffed or fenfed by you, is wholly infufficient to ground faith vpon , or to afTert ab- foluteJy : This is (thrifts Doftrin , without an ancient Orthodox Church ,. which indubitably maintained the Pofitioh and that fenfe you would draw from a Father. And mark well what I fay, for we shall afterwards end all controuerfies by it. In the mean time who is there fo far from reafon , that can perfwade himfelfe , that I or ajvy ought to reieel what my Church teaches, becaufe a M J Sectary y\ Difc I. C» II. V rote ft ants make Sectary offer's to draw fome few Fathers to a new fenfe -which 110 Orthodox Church euer heard of? When all know , or should know , that no priuate mans opinion , no doubtful Text , much telle Sectaries gloiTes added to an ambiguous fentence, can alTure me what ChrifVs Doctrin is , which , as I laid , euer ftand's firm vpon vndubttable Principles , or a Belieuer ought not to own it as Doctrin truely reuealed. ii. But before I prefs this point further , and shew vpdn what certain Principle the Catholick relies , when the Scriptures fenle ( the like is of the Fathers) is debated , I muft needs entertain you a little ( becaufe it much auail's to my prefent purpofe ) with a few known Authorities of Fathers which either conuince our Catho- lick Doctrin of Chrifts real Pretence in the Eucharift , or ( we may boldly fay) no truth was euer eftablished by thole great lights of the Church. I fay only a felt : for it is not my intent to collect , tii half of what is viually quoted by Catholick Authors , my chief chiefi 'yinten- ayme being thus much at prefent, to make this truth manifeft. dtd inciting That at long The Heretick fuppofed it} otherwise he had been more than fensless to haueproued his pretended Tranfiibftantiation of Chrifts hu- mane nature into the Godhead, by vrging a parity taken from that other Do&rin of the Tranfiibftantiation of bread, into Chrifts body. His inference had been without life moft langui- shing , had he drawn the false Do&rin of his conceited change , from an other as falfe. viz. From no real change made In the bread after confecrati on. For how lame an inference would this haue been ? Bread in the Sacrament remains, as it was before, fubftan- tially bread, only deputed to a holy vfe , that is , not really changed at all , yet from thence I will conclude , that Chrifts humane nature is really changed into the fubftance of his Diuinity. As who should fay. Becaufe bread is not iubftantially changed into Chrifts body , I will infer that the humane nature is changed into the Godhead , which is pure nonfenfe. And as great Nonfenfe would it haue been , had he only fuppofed the extriniick facramental change of Proteftants or from thence drawn his inferen- ce , that Chrifts body was really changed into his Diuinity : For the moft which can be inferred out of this facramental change only , is that Chrift's humane nature admit's in like manner of fomc new extrinfecal denomination. 15. Now that Thepderet or the Orthodox fuppofes alfo the known true Religion Imknolpn. £7 known Dochin of the Church in this Myflcry is manifeft vpon thefe grounds, i. You fee how he was prouoked by the Here- tick to deny the real prefence and change of bread into Chrifts body. After fanttificat ion koto dust thou call them 1 Again. Dose thou belteue that thou takes the body and blood ofchrift &c 2 Ob- ferue I befeech you. Might not Theoderet thus ftrongly pres- fed, haue quite ouerthrown his Adueriaries argument, had he belieued as Proteftants belieue , that the inward fubftance of bread is not changed into Chrifts body > For vpon this fup- pofition ke should haue replied. Thou ask'st me what thefe things are after fan&ification ? I anfwcr they are fubftantially bread Me**tn and wine, though/Sg»« of Chrifts body and blood. I anfwer, I take ^ uai 0\jAn , not Orally the true body and blood of Chrift , but bread and wine gt% only made a Sacrament. If therefore they (till remain bread , and wine as before , I acquit my felf clearly, and render thy argument forceleffe, for thou cans'r not infer, becaule I and the Church hold bread and wine , not fubftantially changed in the Sacrament,That Chrifts humane nature is really and fubftantially changed into the Diuinity. But Theoderet., as you hear, return's no fuch aniweJr, but politiuely ailerts the contrary plainly enough. They are the bo* dy and blood of Chrtft. I receiue that body and blood, dec. Though jie warily forbeares to exprefs the change too fignificantly , be- caufe perhaps of fome prefent 9 not yet admitted to the Myfteries. Again. And here is my. i. ground. Theoderet who was an Orthodox Father , penned this Dialogue, and therefore as the lear- ned Brereley oblerues , neither could nor would haue propoun- CUarre*. ded the hereticks Argument vpon the Churches then receiued fonsproue Do6trin of Tranfubftantiation ,( which we fee manifeftly done) **tfitt°fi had that Doftrin been then ftrange , vnknown, or reputed falfe. ° ' Much lefs could he haue wrote as he doth. That the Symbols after the Prieft's inuocation are changed and made other things had our Se&a- ties Dodtrin of no Tranfubftantiation been then taught by the Church and reputed true. 3. Theoderet's great circumfpedion was needleffe. I may not fpeak^ openly ,for it islikjlyfome are prefent -&c. If he had belieued no other prefence of Chrift in the Sa- N cramentj 98 Difcii.Cn. Troteftants make The Centtu ri/l's Ctnfure Tbeoderet. Theodore?* Jfftriim. crament, than that, which Proteftants call Sacramental : He might" well without temple in that opinion, haue declared their fenfe , and faid openly. The Sacrament before confecration was a plain piece of bread, and fo it is fubftantially bread afterward. Thou fpea- keft improperly Ertmftes , whilft thou fuppofeft the Symbols changed and made other things. I tell thee , they are not changed intrinfecal!y,but totally remain in their inward fubftance as they* were, only iignifying Chrift body and. blood as they are deputed to a holy vfe. Thus the Orthodox should haue both anfrered and excepted againft his Aduerfary, had Proteftant Do&rin been in thofe dayes owned by Chriftians , but he goes on in a quite different ftrain, as is already declared. Hence I fay , this part of the Dialogue isfo inuincible a proof againft Proteftants in behalf of the real Pretence that it cannot be anfwered y and therefore the Centurift's with, other Hereticks quoted by Brereley. pag. 1 1 1. andpag. 2,58. hailing charged S. Chrifoftome with the Do&rin of Tranfubftantiation , cenfure Theoderetvpon the famefcoreas one that fpeak's dangeroufly in the matter. Thefe men it ieein s,, iawno great force in the later part of the Dialogue which our modern Proteftants fo much vrge , and fol lo wes thus. 1 6. When Eraniftes had afferted that the Symbols by thd inuocation of the Prieft are changed and made other things y and from that change inferred , that our Lords body after his Afcenfion , was conuerted into the Diuine fubftance. The Orthodox Anfwer's. Thou art caught in the netts , thou hajl Tbouen , Tor, the Mysltcal fymbols after Sanclificatton go not altay from their nature. Tor, they rewam in their former effence , and figure , and form , and may beften and touched as before. But yet they are vnder flood to be thofe things , Mich they are made , and belieued and adored to be thole things, as they are belieued. Thus the Latin interpreter render's Theoderet's words ( you shall haue prefently an other Le&ion) though truely to read them as you fee here r after due reflection made vpon the precedent part of the Dialogue , is fo fully enough to af certain euery one of this learned Father's meaning, that I wonder any iudicious Man can fcruple at it. The genuin fenfe is. Thou. Eraniftes true \eligion ymhicfon. f$ Iraniftes mamtain's that the vifible cfrcumfcribed body of our Sauiourwas after his Afcenfion fwailowed as it were vp, or totally finpfafc changed into his Godhead. To illuftrate this thy Dodtrin , thou red. takeft a proof from the Myftical fignes or Symbols of the bleffed Sacrament, and not only from the inward fubitance of bread, which .thou acknowledged changed. I tell thee thou art caught in thy own net,the parity fail's there,for the Myftical fignes remain tofenfe as before in the fame exteriour form and fubftance , they are feen , felt Sec. Dareft thou Erantjiei fay, Chrift's iacred body retain s yet the fame exteriour form it had on earth 5 Has it yet in Heauen the fame dimenfions , as thefe lymbols hatie after Conlecration 1 Isitvilible, or extended > Anfwer as thou pleafeft. Here is an ynanfwerable Dilemma for thee. Either thou mamtains't that AiiUmm*. Chris'ts glorious body Is now vifible and extended as the Symbols ;of the Sacrament are, Or, contrariwife^r fenfible , not feen , not ex- tended. Grant the firft : Thou denies't thy own Dodtrin , and muft affert that his whole glorious body is not conuerted into the Godhead. Grant the fecond, or fry, it has not the lame exte- riour form, the fame viflbility and extension , Thy inftance , and proofs taken from the Symbols of the Sacrament , are Eo ipfo made ■null , and forcelefte , for thefe fignes keep the fame form as before, .they are perceptible to fenfe , extended dec and thus thou art both caught and conuinced. 17. By what is now (aid you find Theoderet's difcourie mot folid againft the Heretick , who would needs infer., grounding Jiimfelfe vpon the change made m die Sacrament , that Chrifi's whole humane nature was conuerted into the Diuinity* Thus much faith Theoderet9 is euidently falfe, for thefe Symbols remain in their ext eriour for w, vnaltered, but Chris'ts humane body with thee remain s not fo , for all in it , the very exteriour is changed :into the Godhead ? Therefore thy proof , taken from the lymbols Theederet of the Sacrament , not changed at all,is void of ftrength, faint , and oribfte*V* weightlefTe. Now that Theoderet fpeak's only of the outward °llj-u50t Symbols of the Sacrament , is manifeft. Firft by what is noted accidents .already where he faith we are partakers oftbstrut hod) and blood remaining. N i of Theodtrtts Textt du- How th* Cardinal read's ♦ ioo Difc I. C. II. VroteJliDits make of Chrift. 1. By his anfxer, to the Hcrctick , where he openly pro-- fefTeth, that though thefe fymbols are feen and handled as before ,• yet to the vnderftandwg, and Faith , they contain the things we true- ly belieue. That ts Chrtft's real body and blood. And thus much He proues in the following words where he afferts, that they are to be ado- red no otberfrtfe than ChrisTs immortal body tsnoT* adored , fitting at the right hand of His Father, for in both places , as you may read in the text , the fame word of Diuine honour is referred to Chrift in the Sacrament , and now glorious in heauen. 1 8. You muft here haue a word of the other Lection already hinted at which clears all , and takes away the leaft, shadow of a difficulty. The moft eminent and learned Cardinal Perron pro- pound's it, and proues it alio abfolurely the beft , by fix ftronge Arguments Liu. 2. De V Eucbariftie Chap. 12. P. $39. Firft faith he There is certainly in Theoderet's Greek Text a dubious form of lpeaking, perhaps vfed on fet purpofe becaufe of fome Au- ditors prefent , not yet initiated, or firft inftructed in thefe Myfte- ries. The Original words are thus. jwiW y*£ trr» t>5V ^t9ri^X9 §v rices HjfiroC %Yip(£ rov $l$ovf, tyqofxTcL ssi ^ &\ rou iiSovsivjf 7r£QTi$ae srlcie Sec. That is For they remain, and, in the form , and , in the figure of the fir ft fubslance, and all difficulty ceafes. For by this conftruction Theoderet only fayes , the acci- dents or fpecies of bread and wine remain, intimating nothing at all of any inward fubslance of bread remaining , nay, his whole context fuppoles the inward fubftances changed into Chrifls body. 19. If this Conftrudion be admitted, fo that the Genitiue cafe vViW, be as it is a Genitiue,. and the other two follow in form of Latin ablatiues , you haue this Connatural fenfe. Manent in prior is ejfentU & form Ji &figura. The Symbols remain in the form and figure of then firft efonee, which preiudices nothing the real Transmutation «f bread into Chrift's body, but much confirms it. But fuch a Cor* true %eligion Imkn&ton. I o i ConftrocYion , add's the learned Cardinal, or Iran fpo fit ion of words is not only poflible , but very frequent in the Greek Lan- guage , whereof he giues examples , and one out of Theoderet- rot'uAi* Sitrxorx rfc Qvcitac-. That is. The boh of our Lord of the nature. In lieu of faying. fl*«|** t?; ^v««j w ^hyht be adored. For as none can adore one that meerly takes vpon ri**'sfi- him the Maiefty of a King , who is not ; w ith an Adoration due to that Maiefty , fo none can honour or adore Chrift in the Eu- charift with an honour due to Chrift, when truely and really he is not prefent, but faith Theoderet Chrift is to be really ado- red in the Eucharift , and Confequently he is really prefent there. 2i. For the reft I remit the Reader to C. Perron who in the following Chapters diffolues , and moft clearly , what euer can be obie&ed againft his Doctrin. To end this point , be pleafed to reflect vpon this one particular. Had Theoderet faid. The Symbols remain in their firft efTence , figure , and form , and included in that very fpeech, as our Aduerfaries will haue the very fubfiance of bread, He had fpoken moft improperly which ill f.*' r€^Cm befeem's Co learned an Author, for vpon this fuppofition he (peak's as incongruoufly as if one should fay. Peter this very hour Ttfho is h'tmfelfe both Soul and body, remain's in him felfe , that is, T, ,. in bis Soul and body. But if you read with the Cardinal Thus. na[s rea(jm~ Car iff dtmeurenty & en U forme, & en la figure de la premiere fub- clear' sail. flame. They remain and in the form, and in the figure, of the firft fubftance of bread ( before Confecration really formed and figured by them) the Conftru&ion is good y the fenfe moft clear, perfedt, and without exception. N 3 22. Thus i ex Difc it G 1 1. Fathers afftrt 11. Thus much I hauc noted to fatisfy the Gentleman , znl hope neuer to hear Theoderet obiefted hereafter againft Tranfub- ilanriation. If I doe, I shall lay an old obferuation of mine al- waies proues true , and t'is, That the beft Arguments of Sectaries, Printed and reprinted in their little books, are like old thread-bare garments quite out of fashion caft off and reie&ed, I mean , aniwe- redouerand ouer by Catholick Authors, yet Brusht vp , muft appear as new. And this , less blamable , may pass ( for they can do no better, ) but methinks it is intolerable , that they bring again to light fuch worn-out {tuff, as you fee now done in this particular, and dare not inform the Reader , how often it hath been torn a pieces. Yet the wor/t of all remain's ; Viz. That they build rheir faith vpon land, one dubious Authority of a Father ( if yet dubious ) fupports it , and feem's to thefe new fpirits ground enough , to foment Schifm , to maintain a rebellion againit aa ancient Church , which neuer bclieued as they do. CHAP. XII. A $)igrefiion concerning the %eal Trefence. The F«*- thers 'plainly afftrt tU SeSlarits glojfts friwlom. The agreement of the Church and Fathers make a (Doclriii indubitable. The Cat ho* IkKs certain Principle. A Word mh Mr: Stillingfleet %, T> Efore we produce thefe Testimonies and lay open Mr t D StilHngfleet's Miftakes , turn I befeech you to his Account of Proteftancy. Part, J, c, 3. page, 5^7, Where he treat's of Tranfubftantiation and calls it an vvreafonable Doftrin becaufe re- pugnant to fenfe and reafon alfo. It feem's contrary to fenfe f Sm Difc. L C. 11. the real prefenct. w j for fenfe tells vs, what we fee and taft is bread after confecration ; and reafon vpon that fenllble fuggeftion, ought to conclude , it ftill remains fubftantially bread. Obferue I befeech you , how the Gentleman to maintain his proofs drawn from fenfe , is not only forced to reieel; the plain fenfe of Chrift' s words according to the letter. (Tbutsmybodj Which is giuen for you : This ts the Chaiice rf the new Teftatnent , Drub is , or, shall be shed for you) But more a^s/j,™ . ©uer , how he is thrown into a defperate quarrel wherein he will quarrel's neuer come offhanfomly ; For , he is engaged to make not only with a!l the Profeffors of the Roman and Greek Church , who indubita- Gb$jli*mt, bly belieue the Real prefence , more than ftupid ( becaufe oppofit *™mt* to that he call's fenfe and reafon ) but befides , He contraft's with a far greater moral body of Chriftians • I may rightly ftile it the Reprejentatiue of all named Chriftians in the world , excepting a few Proteftants. Tie shew you how.- At this day there are in that famous Temple of Hierufalem dedicated to the Holy Croft ( cal- led the Church of the Sepulcre) Catholicks Y Grecians r Abjfins ( thofe moft ancient Chriftians ) Syrians ,. Marontts , Georgians ,. and others. All haue their Altars in one and the lame Church, and all ( though different in fbme Doctrinal points , and Ceremonies ) vnanimoufly belieue a true vnbloody Sacrifice , and with it the real prefence of Chrift , after Confecration. No moderne fe- Varies haue place here witneiTe Prince Radziuill in his Itrofolj. Teregrin. Antwerpe Print 1614. Pag. 109. Nay, they are fo mean- ly thought of, that when the Prince named Lutherans , Zwin- glians &c. The party he conuerfed with , demanded whether they were Chriftians. What Chriftians (aid he > and haue no Prieft , no Altar no (acrifice ofFerredvp to god in this lacred place , where Chrift wrought our redemption ? you may fee morejhereof in the following page of this Author. In the mean while shall any fay that a Reprefentatiue , of fo many Chriftians are to be deemed fooles vpon this account that they contradict fenfe and reafon > It is fo vaft a Paradox , that though Mr ; Stillingf: should write volumes on this fubieel: , He would neuer fpeaka probable word againft fuch a cloud of witneffes. You may add here- The Chine- fa difficulty, Moft Con- cerns the incMnAiion. IAy fulling jiee: argnes improbably* K4 Fathers ajjert herevnto if you pleafe , thofe many Chriftians conuerted to ou* Catholick Faith in that vaft kingdome of China ( a People, the whole world knowcs moft ingenious) All of tliem , as I hauc heard from two worthy men, a long time Miflioners there ( the one is yet liuing ) who reclaimed many from their erroufs, raife moil difficulties before their conuerfion againft that one Myftery of our Faith , the Incarnation of the Diuine Tvord , but after fatisfa&ion receiued in this particular, they fubmit eafily to the belief of other Catholick verities, and neuer Scruple in the leaft at the Myftery of the Eucharift, as a Doctrin Contrary to fenfe and reafon. And they proceed mod rationally , for in real truth, there are incomparably greater difficulties in this one Myftery of the Incarnation, to fay nothing of the Trinity, ( might weak reafon decide the cafe ) than in the other. What J That God who is eflentially immutable be- comes man by a vnion betwixt the Diuine word and humane na^ ture , which vnion toucheth Co intrinfecally on that Diuine Per- fon,thatwemuft truly fay, This word is now intrinfecally affe- cted otherwife then he was before $ and to conceiue all this done without a real change ( may the Common notion of mutation ftand. Uutari est rem alitei fe habere) is a difficulty Co great, (fay good Diuins) that it hath rack't many a ftrong wit , and yet can fcarfe be well (blued. Vtramque enim Subftantiam in vnam conueniffe perfonam. &c. (They are words of S. Leo Sermo. 5?. deNatiu. Dmi) nifi fides cr edat , fermo non explicat. That is the Myftery is very abftrufe. I verily belieue Mr Stilling : Metaphyfick will not reach Co high as to giuefall fatisfaction herein, though he is pleafed to plead euidence dralbnfrom fenfe and reafon againft the B. Sa- . crament , as if forfooth, the full portion of both, were like a legacy bequeathed him and a Ccw Sectaries , whilft fo many Fathers , Co many Schoolmen, foo many profound Doctors of our renowned Church, rnufthaue no fmall share allowed in either, but are as you fee cenfured like men fensless , and vnreafonable 2. Say, I befeech you. Who can perfwade himfelfthat thofe three worthy eminent Cardinals, Bellarm'wy Ferron, and Richelieu (all haue writ on this fubiect and are famous the whole world oner for t%e \eal [>r eft nee. joj for their great wiiHom and learning) who dare, ifiy, without a meafureless audacity, caft thefe ( could we vrge no more ) into the Catalogue of dull, Tenfles , and vnreafonable men ■> None would haue ventured on iuch a vaft improbability but one who either knowes not , or cares not what he iaies. Now add to thefe the content and acknowledgment of the whole Orthodox world , you may iultly fay, it is much harder ; or there is more violence offered tomans vnderStanding in concciuing , that God who is eifential Verity (and therefore inclined to preferue the Church he founded in truth) should permit all thofe millions of Christians who haue belieued the Real prefence, to be fo long deceiued in their Faith ; than to fubmitvpon lb great authority, to the very myftery ft e bditue. Reafin mtr% For by fubmitting to the myitery, we proceed rationally , and pru- r*c^A> by dently iudge , that an infinite power can do more than our weak t^y'yfiigm capacities reach vnto -, but if we lay, his Goodnes hath permitted uxn tiJC the Church to be fedueed by a gro& errour age after age , or that Mtjiery* fo many Christians haue been cheated into a falfe belief of fo high a Myftery;* we force our vnderf landings more, we clash with an eui- dent Principle, and mutt afTert, that God has no care of his Church, or of mans faluation. The blame therefore if we be in errour, would at laft redound to God, as I shall amply proue in the next Diicourfe. 3. Thus much noted, Let vs look a little into the Strength of Mr Stillingf : weak argument , which muft run thus. What I fee feem's, ®r is bread to the Eye and taft , yet t'is not bread but ChriSls facred body , therefore the Myftery is contrary to fenfe. One distinction ouerthrowes this lame diicourfe. I anlwer in a word. What I fee feems, or is the inward fubftance of bread , I deny it , What I lee feems, yea really is, the outward accidents or gnat is Gods hue towards mankind} Bthold Tfcbofitretb abviit Jttib bis Father, in one and the fame moment of time is toucbed ij the hands of vs all, and {metb htmfelf to fnch as are dcfirous to rccetue And unbrace him, Theophilact c. 4. in 16. Matth. the %eal frefence 107 z6. Matth. Bread is tranjelemented or transformed by an ineffable opera- tion, although to vs it feern s bread. Becaufe toe an freak. <™d baue Faeth™etea* honour to eate raft flesh, ejpecially the flesh of man, for this reafon bread pak in m appears, but in the ejjcnce andfubflance it is not bread. Again, Chrift bthafe. [aid not, this is a figure , but thus is my body, for by an imjfable opera- tion , bread is changed &c. Indeed it appears Bread , bnt it is really flesh. Yet more. How often do the Fathers,S. Cyril of Hierulalem, S. Chrifoftome and others exhort vs not to come vnto the Eucha- rift as vnto fimple bread and wine , for fay they > it is the body and blood of Chrifl according to our Lords affirmation. Although fin fe fuggesl the Contrary, yet let faith confirm thee, ludge not of the thing by thy tafl &c. Again, knoto this and toith full certitude belieue > that the bread feen is not bread, though it feemsfo to the tafl, but the body of Chrifl , and that toine feen is not toine, though tafl iudge it to be toine, but the blood of Chrift. Though, iaith S.Chrifoftome,what toe fee,feents to our fenfe and thinking to be bread , let Gods faying (This is my body) Master our fenfe and reafon. Let vs doe this in all things ejpecially in the Myfleries , not regarding alone the things, tohich Ite before vs , but holding fasi to his toords , For by his toords toe cannot be-coufened) our fenfes may be decerned, his toords cannot be vntrue, our fenfe is often tims beguiled Sec. Thus thefe Fathers known to euery one ( to omit in nu- merable others ) fpeak and belieue , thus the Church of Chrift fpeaks and belieues al/b, and both as you fee , ftand oppofite to Mr Stilling : weak plea drawn from Senfeand Reafon. 6. I might yet cite S. Chrifoftome. In. i. Cor: horn: 24. other At*, who laith. The kingly body in heauen , is fet before vs on earth. We thorities. touch it , and do not only touch it , but eate it. This body , the barba* Chrifijloml rous Magi after a long tourney adored toith fear and trembling. Thou ?*'h*fiM , ( add's the Saint) See ft him not noto in the manger, but on the Altar , D*mrws not held in a toomans arms , but by a Wtefl prefent &c. Therefore in his Oration of S. Perhtlg : he explain s himfelf further. Truly, this table fupplies the place of the manger, for here alfo is our Lords body laid. Pafchafius a latin author , who liued about the year 800. is fo express for the real Prefence and Tranfubftantiation in his book De Corp. & Sanguine Dmt, that the Centurift's Cent. 9. C. 4. O z Col. ThtTe/lu tnony ofS, Ignatius Msrtjr, sltetr. SvTuftin's *lfo m9Jl fenififant. /|o8 Difc.l.C. 12; Fathers ajfprt Col. 21 v Vr&torhu dtSacramen : Pag : 288. and other Sechries ? charge him-, with the Doctrin of Tranflibftantiation and oral eating of Chrifts body. No less plain and express is S. lobn Damafcen* lib. 4. Ortho. Fid. : whofe dilcours on this fubiedt though long , is moft fignincant. As bread y faith he, naturally meat , and Hume , and floater by drtnk^ are changed into the body and blood of him that eates and drinkjs. So this bread propofed , the ftine and Tbater alfo by the inuoca- tion and commtng of the Holy Gbosl , are in a miraculous wanner conuer- ted into Chriffs body and blood , neither are tbeyttoo, but one, and tht fame. Our lord htm [elf hath (aid. This is not a fign of my body , but my body. This isnot a fign. of my bloody but my blood. Hence Prsetorius now citedP . 288. reiecis the Do&rin, and call's this miraculous Tranflibftantiation held by S. Iohn Damalcen flight and fabu- lous , fodo other Sectaries with him alfo. 7. There are yet more, ancient authorities moft prefling tooar purpofe, were it not Aflum agere to fay again what has been lb often noted. Firft the Teftimony of S, Ignatius Martyr who liuedwith our Sauiour and was Scholler to S. Iohn,feem's to me vnaniwerable. Epift. ad Smirnen : not far from the beginning. Tbey, faith he(that is certain Sacramentarians) admit not Eucharifts , and oblations , becaufc they do not Confess the Eucharisl to be the flesh of our Sauiour lefus Clmfl, It bub fresh fuffered for our fins , and bis Father gracioufly railed from the dead. SoTheoderet , 12. ages fince. Tom. 4. Dialogo. J. reads. And Iaac Voffius who foil owes the Florentine Copy, differs little , or rather nothing at all. None can reafonably call the Epiftle into doubt which VofTius places before the other Epiftles and the fenfe as you fee is moft clear. 8. The fecond authority as pregnant, is taken out of S. Iu- ftin Martyr in his Apology for Chriftians, viually called the. 2. Apology, Paris print 161 <;. Towards the end at thofe words, co yxe usKoiycv olgiov , s*$s Koivov 7foua>. Sec. for Tve take not this Eucharisl as common bread and common drink^vut as lefus Chrtfi our Sa- uiour by the T»ord of God Tvas made flesh , and bad for our faluation flesh and blood i fo alfo after the fame manner , Ti>e are taught, tbitthe food With by the prayer of the Tvord is by him confecrated. T»ub think}- the %eal$refence. 109 fankifiifof* °f ^huh food our flesb and blood are by transmutation nourished, is the flash and blood of that lefus Chrift Kbicb %as Incar- nate* And for proof hereof, he allegeth Chrifts own words. This is my body. This is my blood. Thus S. Iuftin [peak's who liued not long after the Apoftles about the year i$o. and nothing can be more express in behalf of Catholick Do&rin. I know fpme Sectaries Cauil at the expreflion. K#r» ptTot&cxw. by tranfmuta- tionr and think Iuftin held the Eucharift to be food for the body, ^ff™' but his fenle is clear, for he faith only, That the fame food which ■ fmu&™ nourishes our bodies by real tranfmutation, « made afttr confutation the very bod) of Chrtft , and therefore Gafpar Laurentius a learned Caluiniftin his OrtbodoxusConfenfus. Pag .-368. tranflates Iuftins $ Ju»in,s words out of the Greek thus. Sumimus autem bunc panem & banc umrtnret potum non vt Communemy fed eo modo quo edocli fumusylcCum Chriftum feruatoremnoftrum^babuiffe pro falute noslra, carnem & fanguinem : fit etiam cibum ilium ex quo noftra Qaro & fanguis aluntur, poftbenedi- clionem ipftus , effe carnem & Janguinem Domini. That is in plain English. The bread or food which naturally nourishes our bodies is by vertue of Conlecration made the facred body of our Incar- nate Sauiour. Conformable hereunto , Gelenius alfb quoted in the Annotations vpon S. Irenseus aduerfus Hserefes lib. 4. C. 24, n. 26. renders S. Iuftins words. Sic per verbum precatwnis & gta- it arum aclionis , [acratam abipfo alimoniam y qu&mutata, nutrit no- ftra* carnes & fanguinem , lUius Incarnati lefu carnem & fanguinem effe didicimus. The Interpreter alfo I follow , fignificantly renders the fame fenfe. . Alimoniam , vnde Sec. The food from whence , from which, or where with, we are nourished, this very aliment is by Confecration made the body of our Incarnate Iefus. Well, but admit that Iuftine call's the Eucharift nourishment to our bodies , he makes it not therefore Corporal food , but Spiritual , which TatberT'tsil nourishes them to a ioyful relurre6Hon or to immortality, and thus the tucka- the other Fathers, chiefly S. Irenams now cited c. 24. verflis fi~ rift Nourish* nem fpeakes. Quomodo , faith he, rurfus d'tcunt &c> How do mt"r thefe Hereticks plead again , that our flesh shall come to corrup- 9 " tion, and not take life from the body and blood of our Lord , O j where mtntfin* no Difc. i. C. l?. Fathers ajjert A Conuin* cing Argu- ment, which Settariss Cannot anfwer, What ft fo- nt i art rtliged to. where with it Is nourished? Again. Sic & cdrpora noflra &c. and thus our bodies receiuing the Eucbartft, are not corruptible , bauing hope of a ioyful refurreclion. But enough of thefe authorities. Whoeuer defires more may perufe Cardinal Perron in his. 2. book of the Holy Eucharift. Out of what is laid already, I argue. 9. Either the now quoted Fathers and the Church alfb, haue moft. impioufly betrayed Chrifts caufe in deliuering falfe Do&rin contrary to fenfe and reafbn , or worthily defended a Chriftian verity ^ Grant this fecond, we haue our intent. But if Sectaries fay thefe Fathers cheated the world into a false belief, and impious- ly erred in their expreflions : Ponder firft, what a frontles impuden- ce accompanies the reply. Next make this true inference. It U impofiible, that fuch afuppofed vniuerfal errour should euer be rafed out of the minds of men , by the force of any thing T^hicb has the likelybood of i receiued Principle. For , what proofs or vndoubted Principles can poflibly outweigh the express words of Scripture , our Tradition , rhelentiment of the Church, and the iudgement of the Fathers now alleged ? Therefore if we be in errour , the wit of man cannot vnbeguile vs vpon rational proofs and Principles. And here I vrge Mr Silling : to bring to light his contrary Principles as full and fignificant ( that is, Scripture as clear , Fathers as clear, Tradition as clear,the Iudgement of fbme owned Orthodox Church as clear and vndoubted ) for the opinion he hold's, as we now alle- ge in the defenfe of our Catholick verity, Belieue it, if he fup- pofe , as he certainly doth , the Church to haue erred Co grofly for a thoufand years, The Fathers to haue beguiled the world with their miftaken and moft improper expreflions on this fubiecl: , when they meant no fuch thing ; He ought to faften vpon found Principles indeed before we yeild ; and muft not think to ouer- throwour DocTrin or foile vs , with a few gleanings pick't here and there out of antiquity, fet forth with a hundred falfe and fancied gloftes. Volumes may be filled with fiich flight fluff, which comes no neerer to Principles , than improbability to Euidence. Will you hear in paffing one of his improbabilities? Jf a man , faith he. P, <$6y. viay be bound to belieue that to be falfe Wtch fenfe iudges to tU$jal prefence If J to be true (he means which weak reafon vpon the difcouery of fcnfc fudges true, for our outward fenfes make no iudgement ) What ajju- rancecan be bad of any Miracles brought to confirm the Chnjitan Doclrin} OrTvhataffurance bad the Aposlles ofClmfls refurrcction , if their fight might be decerned about its proper obutt Sec > I am aftonished to read this, and anfver briefly. Chrift's Refurre&ion , (the like I fay of Miracles ) was moft vndoubted vpon the difcouery which fense and reafon made in the prefence of fuch obiects , becaufe no contrary Principle , fo much as weakly , flood againft that euidence , and therefore reafon could no more doubt of what was obie&ed to fen- fe, then I now doubt of writing thefe lines. But all is contrary in the prefent Myftery. For here the vnanswerable words of Scriptu- re, the Authority of my Church, the Clear Teftimonies of Fathers, the voice and vote of Chriftianity force fubmiflions on me to belie- ue the Diuine Reu elation , which is either certainly known vpon thefe grounds, or we boldly fay, no Chriftian verity was euer yet known vpon any fure Principle. 10. Perhaps Mr Stilling : may roundly grant , that the Greek and Latin Church erred in this Doctrin of the real prefence for many ages , and confequently that innumerable learned Doctors haue not only been befotted them felues , but moreouer haue ba- fely drawn millions of Chriftians into a damnable herefy of belie- uing that to be Chrifts body , which really is not : Howeuer , he will honour the Fathers Co far , as to afford them the fauour of his glofTes. Contra i. If the Church and all Chriftians erred fo vafl a time in profeffing this Do&rin , Mr Stilling : is obliged to name feme Churh reputed Orthodox. 3. or 4. hundred years paft (for then there was a true Church in the world) which held his opinion, or as exprefly denyed the real Prefence, as our Church , both then, and now mantains it, and this will colt him more pains than to writ an other Account of Proteftancy, for I am fure there was neuer any fuch Church on earth. Contra* 2. If He interpret^ the Fathers , He may as well interpret our Church Do&rin , and make all belieue , that we Catholicks hold not yet the real pre- fence. Obferuethe fame language in all. That JPich infeen is not bread, A word 1 # $ut Adnerm furies (Iran- U^4/, if fe claries deny Church authority and explicate the Fathers? The Church ami Fathers fptak alike of this Myflery. ScXariet gloffesvn- principled, fPOrth SO- t*bing% ill Difc. I.C. 12. Fathers sjjert bread, though it feem's fo to the taft , But the body of Cbrtfl. Our ferfes may be decerned , Gods Trord cannot decetue vs. The bread indeed u made the flesh ofchrtft, and the ftine bis blood Sec. Thus the Fa- thers deliuer their lenfe.. and it is the Churches language alfo. If therefore Mr 'Stilling : can Co gloss thefe words of the Fathers, as to make them fpeak Proteftancy , or not to deliuer our Catho- lick Do&rin , I should not wonder, if in the next book fet forth lie aduentures to draw the very Definitions of the Council of 'Trent to his Protectant opinion of no real prefence. If he did fo, 1 am lure his attempt would proue as vn fuccesftil in the one cafe , as 'in the other. ii. Well. But permit him to interpret the Fathers, and to fall foule as he is wont to do , vpon ourfuppofed Church errours ; what is the vtmoft that followes 2 Thus much only. Meer talk without 'Principles. For I ask vpon what Principle may I or any know, that his glolTes ( which ftriue to dead the very, obuious fenlc of the Fathers plain words) hnpHe not altogether as little fatisfac- tion , as little afkirance , as the very Doctrin doth which he would defend by it 1 Iffo(and fo it is moft euidently ) as his Do&rin before his gloiTes was improbable to the reft of Chriftians , fo his interpretations goe no higher, but are euery whit as impro- bable. ii. I muft therefore tell Mr Stilling : that vnless his expla- nation of Scripture and Fathers rely on a certain Principle dtttwft from , and extrwfitk, to his glofTes, they are worth nothing. For what email's it me to read his glofTes, when no receiued Principle vp- hold's them but fancy ? Reflect a little. I read in Scripture. This is my body. My Church tell's me the literal fenfe is true. The Fathers as you haue heard , and the Tradition of two Churches confirm this fenfe : Now comes Mr Stillingfleet and firft reject's my Churches'authority, then begins to ftrain the Fathers Tefti- monies with his glolTes. Stay, Sr, fay I. I except againft your glos- fes , and iuftly ask whether they are true or Counterfeit Coyn ? If true , they itand vpon Principles now briefly hinted at. Proue this and Tie reuerence your glofTes ? but if you fail ( and fail you muft) Difc.I.C. 12. the%eal frtfem. \\j rnuft) your Doc'trin and glofTes are both alike Counterfeit , and thoughts of fancy only. 13. Hee may reply. When Proteftants cite , the Fathers, againftthe Real prefence,For example, That 0$$. Auftm, or Thcede? ret mentioned aboue , we Catholicks explicate them , and now (which feem's foul play) we except againft his GlofTes, For,If we in- ^n 0*iaz terpret , why may not Hee doe fo aifo? A word only in palling con- uon* formable to what is noted aboue. If to decide this one Contro- uerfy of ChrifVs Real Prefence, recourfe be had to the Fathers, and the two aduerfe Parties do no more but load fuch Teftimonies as are alleged with their priuate interpretations , the Dilpute will neuer be ended , Becaufe priuate glofTes leaue the two DnTenters as much at iarrs as they were before : God therefore, as I haue often faid , affords an eafier means to know his reuealed Truths. Now my Anfwer to the obiedion is. The Catholick then only blames the Proteftant's wilful interpretation, when it sham fully out-faces, the clear words of a Father, and when the GlofTer has no vndu- bitable Principle diftindt, from his glofs wheron to fettle his Doctrin , as he has not in our prefent Controuerfy. Obferue well. The Fathers fay, What Tvet fee is not bread > but Cbrifts very body. The Sectary interprets, lhat Tteefee is not common bread w- dctdt but Chnsls body tiguratiuel) or Sacrament all j. The Fathers fay , it is not figurat \udj only, but really his body. So Theophi- . ^ lact and S. Iohn Damafcen cited aboue. Had the Sectary who Mnj t\)t interprets thus, an vndoubted Reuelation for his Gloss , deliuered ria(oni*uen* by any Oracle of Truth , Scripture , Traditions or Orthodox Church , there would be good reafon to giue him hearing , But when we euidently fee, that the beft and only proof of his Doctrin is no more , but the very gloss he makes, without Further Princi- ples, weiuftly except againft him, and hold fuch glofTes impro- bable. 14. Now all is contrary with the Catholick who neuer in- terprets any Authority but when t'is dubious , and if it be fo , it neither helps the Seclatj, nor hurts the Catholick , and therefore ought In reafon to be cafl afide as either impertinent , or as weak and P force Difc. i.G 12 Father; tjfirt Chrifs T>cBr'm not frsued by glojfes, or any ambi- guom Tejli- tnony. The Cathol luk Vrinci- tics, Sectaries kaue none fuck. "4 forcelesse in all difputes of Controuerfies. The fundamental Reafon already hinted at, is. The true Do&rin of Chrift, is not proued by Glofles or any doubtful Teftimony , but ftand's mod firm vpon known and indubitable Principles ( or , if in order ta Chriftians it want's fuch fupports, it cannot pass for ChrifVs Doc- trin ). An ambiguous Teftimony therefore which feemingly oppo- fes this true Dodlrin Certainly Principled, is moft impertinently alle- ged againft any Tenet of our known and owned Catholick Faith. i f . Vpon this one fole ground now clearly laid forth , I confidently Affirm, all Controuerfies in Religion might be eafily ended, would Sectaries pleafe to lay Preiudice afide , and follow manifeft reafon. Tie shew you how. Write down firft the two contrary Tenents of Catholicks and Proteftants. Cbrisl is realty and fubftantiallj prefent in the Eucbartft. Cbrift is not teally and fubflan- tially prefent. Next examin well the Principles wheron thefe Con- trary Do&rins rely or are fuppofed to rely. The Catholick vrgeth firft, ChrifVs plain words. 2. The Authority of his Church and faith , his Churches Docbrin is the very fame that Christ words literally taken, express. 3. He ponder' s the clear Testimonies of Fathers , and difcourfes thus. When I find the moft fignificant expreftions of Fathers confonant to our Sauiour's plain words, and to the owned Doctrin of my Church, I muft afturedly reft on thefe, as indubitable grounds, or Confess , that There neither is or was euer any Principle for the founded Article of Chriftian Faith. Examin next the Sectaries Principles. Has He any words in Scripture as clear as mine, or to this fenfe \ Ibis is not my body, but a Sign only of it ? Euidently No. Has he any, Church efteemed Orthodox by the Chriftian world , which without Controuerfy taught this Doftrin of a fign only three or 4, ages fince? Name fuch a Church ,He will fpeak's to the purpofe. Has he Fathers fb numerous, Co express and clear, for his Sight and figure only , as the few Teftimonies now alleged are in behalf of Catholick Do&rin? If he haue let him pleafe to produce them. Tie doe no more but lay my Teftimonies by them, and if after theperufal, oraiuft Parallel Difoi.C. it* the \Rjal prefence H$ Parallel made of both , All the world iudges not thofel quite, to be moll conuincing( may the literal funic itand) and his both dark and ambiguous , I will vndergoe any Cenfare. You haue heard how loud and express the Teftimonies briefly hinted at, and innu- merable more are for our Catholick Verity. I challenge Mr Stilling : to Confront tliem with others as openly fignilicant for hisopintori. I verily think he will nener goe about to doe what is defired , but fob vs off with killing Hies , and no niaii knowes 1 6. In the interinrl Argue. I am either obliged to renounce A* AfZH~ the obuious fence of thefe Authorities which I fee euidently Con- ^^our"* fonant to the words of Scripture, and to the Do&rin of my Churchy QAiyuck or, by force of thefe Proofs am ilill to belieue as I doe. Grant frinciples. this iecond , I ftand on fecure ground : But , if I am obliged to renounce the obuious fenfe of Chrifts words, my Church Doc- trin , and the expreftions of thefe Fathers" &c. Our Adueriaries are bound , if a fpark of Charity Hues in their Hearts, to plead by ftronger Principles which may fettle me in an abfolute Rentm- tiation of my Do&rin , and withdraw me from the fuppofed er- rour I Hue in. Is not this iuftice and Charity think ye >. And is not the Compliance moft eafy I For , if their Do&rin be Chrift's Doctrin, and mine not , Theirs {land's , as I now told you , vpon clear and indubitable Principles, And Principles of that nature are eafily laid forth to euery ordinary vnderftanding. Now I fubilune : But it is euident, the Sectary hath no fuch conuincing Principles , which can oblige me to renounce the plain literal fenfe of Chrifts words and the Fathers already cited. And this I proue. What euer * Principle obliges me to renounce, or to deny the plain literal fenfe of fuch words, mull: giue alTurance, that thole expreffions literally ^ynont vnderftood are dangerous , and apt to induce Chriftans into gross me rrom olif errour, for if literally taken, they do no mifchief , or be not apt to Catholick induce into dangerous errour , why should I Deny their obuious Tenet, • fenfe, becaufe Ptoteftants will haue me do fo S But there is no Principle fo much as meanly probable, whereby thefe expreflions are proued falfe or inductiue into dangerous Errour $ for were this P z realty 1 1 6 Difc" I. C* xi. Fathers affert really fb , fome Church or Author of Credit , would long fince" haue noted their ouer much vehemency , in fayng more then was true concerning this Myftery , which none euer yet did. There- fore I may ftill and without Reproof hold where I am , and adhere to their literal Doctrin, which my Church teaches. 1 7. Some may teply. Sectaries vrge vs not fo crudely to reiecT: the Fathers Teftimonies , as only to moderate or rectify their fenfe by the help of our Modern mens gloiTes , which is a blamles pro- ceeding , for we do fo with Gelafius and other Authors when they feemingly make againft our Do&rin, and Proteftants do no more. Anfw. Proteftants do more, for their interpretations euer imply a peremptory and ablblute denial of that very literal fenfe which the Father words exprefs. For example S. Cyril faith. Catech. Areplyof Myftag. 4. He that changed Ttater into "ft ine by his fole T*tll , hath alfo fcftarm changed K'tni into blood. The expreflion inuol'ues a parity , and anfyferetf. implies thus much. That as water was really changed into wine at Cana in Galilee, ib wine was really and iiibftantially changed into Chrifts blood. Sectaries as peremptorily deny this real and fubfiantial ckange of wine into blood y as if one should now deny the Real and fubftantial change of that water into wine. Confe- .quently they renounce both the parity,and open fenfe ofthe words, And , ( which is euer to be noted) ,. wilfully do fo ,. when they haue nothing like a fure Principle diftindl: from their glofs to ground ■their denial on. C©ntrariwife, the Catholick in this debate denies no exprefs fenfe of any Fathers Teftimony, but only makes Inqui- ry into the Signification of words , which are confeiTedly dubious. Take here one inftance Gelafim faith. The fubflance or nature of bread and wine ceafe not to be. Firft I make no account of this Gelafius, Author of the book De duobm naturis Chrtfti. Contra Euttch : Ke was not that holy Pope fo called, but rather Gelafins CtzMtnus as Beliarmine notes de Scrtptortbus Ecd : Howeuer thefe two particles fubflance and nature may, ex plaeito , indifferently iignify. either the inward (ubflar.ee or outward Mafinifffe of bread and v ine, for natural qualities which flow from an EiTence , haue, or ften fuftain , as was noted aboue , the name of that Eifence they ■> come Difc. i. C, i j the %eatyn fence \\? ^omefrona. Now the Catholick rciiounceth no obuious fenfe ,' but only contends that Nature and [ub fiance may fignify } as is moft OfGeUfiml vfual , the outward corpulent forms of bread and wine which ceafe {*? m much% not to be , And he giues this fignirkation to thefe two words , f* a^Tti^ becaufe Scripture Church and the Fathers , wheron his Doctrin irrefragably depends, forceth him to it , And he doth well when it cannot be proued by any probable Principle that Gelaiius relates to the inward fubftance of bread and wine. Thus much may be faid y if that authority were worth any thing. Read, I befeech, you Bre- reley, In bis Lyturgy of the Maffe cited abouepag : 259. you shall find there this Authority moft exactly examined , and that in very truth , this Gelafius who euer he was , ipeaking againft the Eutt- chians as Theoderet did,vndeniably defends our Catholick Doctrin of the Real prefence and Tranfubftantiation alfo. Open the book and r.ead,you will be fatisfyed. I cannot dwell longer on thefe long fince defeated Obiections. 18. There is yet an other Reply. Sectaries may fay, we flip- pofe all this while Scripture and Fathers clear for our Catholick Doctrin. The Suppofitiou is denied, becaufe they quote (t'is true not many) but /bme Fathers and Scripture alfo, to countenance their new opinion. By the way here is occaiion again , to reflect on what is often noted, viz. We quote Scripture and Fathers, and they explicate all -y They cite alfo ; and we do the like ^ and if nothing but a Return of explications thus pass from one to the other, we are as much iarring as we were before, without hope of ending Controuerfies this way. Now my Anfwer to the firft part of the Obiection is. We Catholicks fuppofe nothing, but only take the very words of Scripture and Fathers in a literal fenfe , and ^Inoih^r fay their expreflions are exactly conformable to the Doctrin of the n$h% Roman Catholick Church, which was neuer cenilired by any Orthodox fbciety of Chriftians. Vpon thefe Principles therefore, Scripture , Church, and Fathirt we ftand immoueabie. To that which followes I Anfwer. Sectaries haue not one fyllable of Scrip- ture in fauour of their Nouelty ( and to omit a rehearfal of thole tnuial Arguments drawn from certain pafTages, where they conceine P 3 the An Argt* went which Sectaries Cannot foinc. How Sett A- tin tndea~ ttout te folne 1 18 Difc. 1. C. 12. Fathers affert the Sacrament is called hread the fruit of the vine &c. ) I conuinc£ my Affertion by the pofitiue ground abready eftablished, which none shall ouerthro\r. If this be the true fenfe of Scripture , when it fpeaks of the BlelTed Sacrament. Chris! toln is aboue in heaum is not really prcfent on the Altar , but in his pgn only , Or , that the bread after Confecration is really what it was before natural bread , only deputed to a holy vfe j If this, I fay, be the true lenfe of Gods word, Chrills Orthodox Church exprefly deliuered it to Chriftians as the true meaning of the Holy Ghoil: fome few ages before Luthers Reiiok, for then their was an Orthodox Church on earth; But no Orthodox Church then taught fo, or fenfed Scripture as Sectaries do now, Therefore vnless that Church was ignorant and knew not the meaning of Scripture , or Malicious , and' concealed it from Chriftians , our Sectaries "fenfe is riot.Scripture. To confirm this Reafon. All know , that the Roman Catholick Church then , as well as now,abfolutly renounced the fenfe which Sectaries force out of Scripture, and for that caufe was not (fay they) Orthodox in this particular Doctrin, but no other Church confeffedly Ortho- dox, taught it at that time, Therefore, it was not thought the Scriptures true meaning. All I would fay is briefly laid forth thus. 19. The true Church of Chrifts euer deliuers the true fenfe of Scripture at leaft in weighty and fundamental Matters,fo much Pro- teftants grant , But , No true Church deliuered this their fenfe three or four ages before Luthers reuolt, Ergo it was not the true meaning of the Holy Ghoft,.buta whimsy lately inuented. This Argument I hold demonftratiue. You will perhaps ask, What is that thefe men can pretend to, hauing neither Scripture nor Or- thodox Church to rely on > Tie tell you in a word. They allege firft two or three weak and ambiguous Sentences of Fathers , which the Catholick admit' s , not in the fenfe of Nouellifts , yet according to the clear plain and obuious fignification of words , as is now declared, and He prudently giuesthis fignification to am- biguous words, becaufe the Do&rin he owns {land's firm vpon other indubitable Principles , Scripture , Church, and Fathers. The Sectary D ifc. i. C. \l. the %ea\ prefence. 1 1 9 Sectary euidently wants fuch Prineiples5and therefore vapors as well as he can with a few moft weak and vnconcluding Authorities. The next thing relyed on, is much, worfe and purely nothing but fancy. He reads Scripture and thofe euident Teitimonies of Fa- thers ( as manifeft for our Church Poctrin as it is clear that the Church teaches it) and theie, forfooth, he endeauoursto obfeure by a number of his own improbable glolTes , without the leaft shadow of any cjiftinft Principle., which giues fo much as a Co- lour to his fancied interpretations. You shall lee this truth moll manifeftly proued in the enfuing Chapter. CHAP. XIII. Mr : StiUingfleet grofly ahufetb the Fathers that ajjen the %eal Prefence. His Unprincipled gloffes are not only dubious and then/ore ^orth nothings but moreouer highly improbable. T* fTP Hough I am very loath to ipend time on trifles and as X vnwilling to catch flies, as Mr Stilling : is to kill them , (T'is his own phrafe ) yet I muft do fo in fome meafiire, or permit a number of foule improbabilities to pass vnexamined , which are laid forth in a pretended Rational account cf Vrattftancy. I shall only entertain you with a few of the GrolTer fort, wauing many of leffer moment, and I doe thus much to defend a Chriffcian Verity which my very Soul Adores , For I am well allured, If our belief of ChrifVs real Prefence in the Euchariftbe anerrour, Chriftandhis Church and innumerable Fathers alio, haue decerned vs. 2. One Authority alleged againft Mr. Stillingfleet, you haue in bis own page 568. And t'is a known paffage of S. Cyprian de Q&na. Dmiy or of fomt other Author not much inferiour to him , if we belieue Mr Fulk againft the Rhcm's Teftament. In 1 . Cor. 1 r . 5. Cyp/tjns Authority t examtwd* IW flitling- fieetsreefc- nino, not [olid. his fecond slrgurrettt, won Jlg^t, 120 Difc, I. C.13. Mr. StiUingfleet afafes and Erafmus his Annotations vpon S. Cyprian , Bafil print ann# 1558. fol. 287. Mr Stilling ; contend's it is of a later Date, yet is pleafed by an Addition of his glolTes to vnfente the words as well as he can , and at laft make them to fpeak Proteftancy. 3. Xhe Authors words are Thefe. This common bread changed intc fiesb and blood giues hfe. The bread "toh'ub our lord gaut to his Difci- fes being Changed. Non efUgie fed natura, not in outward form or femblance, but in its inward nature or(ubslancey by the Omnipotency of the Ji'ord, ts made flesh. 4. Mr Stilling : AlTerts all this proues not Tranfubftantiation, first, becaufe the Author Saith Christs words. Vnkss ye eate the fiesb and drink, the blood of the fon of God, you shad haue no life inyoUyZve not to be vnderftood after a Carnal tente. Anfw; That's true, yet your Inference, Sir, is moft improbable. The Principle you muft rely on, is. None are to think as the Capharnits did, witness S. Auftin , that they were to cut into pieces Chrifts Sacred flesh, and eate that as we do Common meats , And your inference ill deduced run's thus. Therefore the inward fubftance of bread is not changed into hit body. This inference , I fay , is null 9 for both thefe are eternal truths and well coniist together. Bread is changed into Chrisls body , yet "tot neither cut that body a pieces or eate it, as the Capharnits groslly imagined. f . He argues again and more improbably. This Author (faith he ) by the effects attributed to the Sacrament , calling it food which nourished to immortaility, cannot poffibly be concei- ued to fpeak if Christ's Corporal pretence , becaufe Jfe Cat bolters conffi Cbrifis body remain's no longer in our body, (hen the Accidents of bread and Kine are there. I verily think the man was bulled with other thoughts when he wrot thefe lines. For what tenfe haue we here? Christ's Sacred body really prefent giues grace and is no longer preterit then the Accidents of bread and wine remain , Er^o , bread and wine are not Really changed into his body. This I fay is a moft improbable inference. For the effects of the Sa- crament which imply the production of Grace , may and muft {land with Chrift's real Pretence, though that production of grace Sacra- the Fathers. 121 Sacramentally giucn, latYs no longer then his BlefTed body is vnder the forms of bread and wine. 6. But an other doughty Argument is drawn out of S. Cyprian's words, which Mr. Stilling : cites in his Margent. Sedimmortalttatit alimonia datur a Commun'tbus cibis different , corporate [ubftantU retinens fpec\em*(edvirtutis dtuin& inuifibtlt efficiemii prolans adtffe prefentiam. His third And He vnworthyly renders them thus in English. That irnmor- Argument tal Nourishment is giuen vs which differs from common food , ProMe* that it retains the Nature of a Corporeal fnbslance , but prouing the mh$nt* prefence of a Diuine power by its intrifible efficiency, so that , faith he^what prefence of Diuine power is there, is shewed in regard of the effects of it, not in regard of any fubftantial ehliige of the bread into the body of Chrift. Sr , I vtterly deny your prooflefTe, So That , and fay your deduction is more then improba- ble. This Author faith exprefly common bread changed into flesh , by the omnipotency of the word giueth life and immortal nourishment, which is Diuine grace , and therefore the Diuine power appeares in both, firft in the fubftantial change of bread in- to Chrifts body, next in the effect , or production of grace in a worthy Receiuer, and you improbably conclude, it shewes it felt" in regard of the effects only. 7. Like one half guilty of iugling you goe on. I kttoT* pa fpiil quarrel 1»itk me forrendring Corporate fubftam'u retinens fpeciem : By retaining the Mature of k Corporeal fubslance. Anfw : I do fo indeed, and will proue you a cheat for your pains. Firft, becaufe you make this Author fpeak nonfenfe, for if Corporate fubftantia TherS retinem Speciem, may be Englished. By retaining the nature of a Cor- ^fj^t"tf% portal fubftance sy o\i may as well render it by retaining the fubftance , of a corporeal fubftance becaufe nature and fubslance are herefyno- mima'SjAndifthisbelenfe, we haue a pretty Tautology ox rather non -fenfe with it thus. It differ's from Common food, jet returns the fubftance of Corporeal fubfiince, or common food , and in real truth is ftill natural bread or Common food. Wherasif we read, it differ' s from common food, yet retain's the outward forms or external Ac- cidents of a Corporeal fubftance or common food the fenfe is good, Q^ clear. 122 Difc. I C. 1]. Mr Stitllno fleet abufes clear , and open to eueiy Reader. But we muft go on. Yoir contend that the word Speciet in this place Signifies Katun or a folid body , and not the external Accidents becaufe Sp'aes anno- nan*. Speaes largsuonali s -Curator Specetuw , whereof we read in the CiuiJ law express the fubftance of things not the Accidents ; and fo S. Ambrofe muft be vnderflood , when (peaking of our Sauiours changing water into wine, he faith. Vt rogatm ad nuptias aava (ub- flan-uiu m vwifpetum c§mwutaret. Now no man will fay , that he changed the fubflance of water into the external Accidents of wine,, but utti tl ' enatu e of T»ti r, Therefore Species may fornetimes figni- Mat the fy fubftance. AnnV ; All this is true , yet nothing to the purpofe, m*rJ Sf*cui for can you or any man proue , becaufe species figniiies fomeri- i%»*>«. mes*;nrf, or ubfiame that it alwaies doth fb > We read in Scrip- ture. Daniel 13. Sptues Itcepit te. Ifa. f2.. non tft et Species neefc dacr. Daniel 10. Species mea immutata iv Tim. 3. H abates Speciem pieiatu Sec. Will you tranflate Nature or fubftance bath de- ieiutdshet? There has no nature or fubjlanec in Chris! of whom the Prophet fpeaks. My nature or fuhsiance h changed. Waning put) in nature or fubflance ? All is ridiculous, and therefore though Specus may iometiines llgniry fubflance or kj'dy vnless that figni- fication hold vniuerfally , thefe in-ftances of Species annonaru and Species vihi proue nothing. You will ask perhaps , becaufe the wordisambiguous, how we may know whether in our prefent Controuerfy, Species., fignifies shape, form, Accidents, or fubflance? AnnY ; This rule is certain, when the word Species fland's in oppo- fition , oris diflinguishedfrom an inuilible Nature or ejfence , it muft of neceffity fignify the external shape or form of a thing and not the fubflance : So when the Apoflle exhorts vs. i* Thefs. ?.. c 5"*, 22, Ab $mni fpecie mala abfhnete vos. The fenfe is. Abftain not inth.it pUct onty fr°m mward malice, but (and here mark the oppoiition) imew, from aflSfoT* or femblance of euil. And when Sv Cyril faith Or at 4. Mjflag r vnder the Tjpe or [pedes of bread is gfu en the body of our Lord, he euidently diftinguisheth the ¥o?m or shape of bread from irs fubflance. And io S. Cyprian doth m the words alleged. Cvt$qt*Iu SubJItnus immhs Spu'ttm , retaining the exte- ik>ur the Fathers. ixj riour shape or form of a Corporeal fubftance, and mote plainly thus. The bread being changed not in tti out Ward Form andfembUnce , but in it's' inward nature and fubftanee by the Omnipotence of the T^rd, is made fish. 8. Mr Stilling: again page 570, in his Anfwer to S. Cyprian. Thu common bread is changed into flesh and blood* faith , fife ¥\ot slants do not deny a Sacramental change of the bread into the flush aud blood of Cbrift, but onlj that (ubftamial change Jvbicb ye Papifls offer u Pray you, Sr tell me what is the Terminus a quo , and the Terminus , ad quern, Gfthis your myfterious change > You acknowledg fome thing . - . chmged into tbtjlsb and blood' of Cbrift ? Is the fuMance of bread the e^0t%\ fermimu a que, or that which is changed into the flesh > No , t'is mb/stis too plain Popery. Is bread made a Sacrament , or a sign of €shnftrf *k*nged into body changed into the flesh of Chrifts? Euidently no, for neither f^f^4 the Sacrament , nor that -which you call a Stgn of Chrift's body is *' changed into flesh. Note well the Empbafis of your own words., of fome thing changed into the flesh of Cbrift and lay on Gods name what it is > You may reply, you (peak only of a Myftical and Sacramen- tal change. That's not to the purpoie now, the Emphafts of your words point at ioraething created or tncreated , changed into the flesh and blood ef Cfatft, tell vs plainly what that is, or in good carried your exprefllon fal's too. short of any intelligible fenfe > • 9, 3 In. cafe you run on trifling with your Myftical and Sacra- mental change only,made vpon the accidents or mbftance of bread, the Author now cited podtiuely allots more. viz. Pants non efjgte fed natura mist at w. The bread which our Lord gaue to his Dilciples being changed, not in Outward farmland appearance, but in its triJpjrd ridiuw and jubftonce by the Omnipotency of the word is made flesh , where 'tis plain your extrinfecal facrainental change palling only vpon the accidents of bread,or on the fuafcin- ce (which you fay remains ) is excluded , and a Real Conueriion u . $*'£* of t\\Q inward fubftance of bread is pofitiueiy afferted by S. ; roteflmt* Cyprian. You Anfver. Some great Criticks haue aiilir ed you extrinfecal that the place is corrupted, and that the ancient Manuimpn {Change, read otherwife. N00 effigu net natura mut&Uts, neither changed Q^2, ill 1 24 Difc. i. C. 13. Mr Stilkngfltrt ahufes. in outward form nor fubftance. You fee to what defperate shifts thefemen aredriuen. Tis wonderful they cite not fome great Criticks for a Contrary lection of Chrifts words. 'Hoc non eft corpus piemn This is not my body. Well. I fay firft , if thofe nameless and vnknown Criticks err , and the Author fpeak fenfe as we now read without the Critifciim. (Non effigie fed ti.tru?a »M4tm, not changed in outward form but in its nature ) Tranfubftantiation is aiiertcd,and your contrary Doetrin is condemned. I fay. 2. This Crttiitfm is improbable, and not only turn's the words out of fenfe into pure Non[en(e 5 but moreouer implies an invpoffibility. Tie shew you how. The Criticifm will haue vs read thus: Panis ifte quern Dominus Difcipulis porrigebut non tffig'te nee vatura mutxtm Omnipotent a verbtfaclus eft Caro. This bread which our Lord gaue to his Difciples being changed neither in its outward form nor inward fubftance , is by the Omnipotency of the word made flesh. Obferue well. This bread remaining bread in outward s\uK> and inward *xlu!d*m fubJ!at!Ce> ismade the flesh of the Son of God. An vtter impos- ' ' fibility. For no more can bread remaining bread in shape and fubftance , be made flesh (facliu eft caro ) than Lots wife remaining what She was flesh and blood in outward form , and inward fubftance , be made a pilllar of fait. The Omnipotent power of God cannot change one fubftance remaining what it is , into an other. T'is true Luther faid Chrifts body was really prefent with bread , but neuer thought of making bread remaining bread, to be that other fubftance of Chrifts body. ic. Mr Stillingfleet telfs vs more. P. ^72. that Subslance and tuture with the Fathers ( and we confess it ) are not alwayes taken properly but fometimes more largely for Accidents. Why therefo- re may not thefe words. Stinatuva mutatm'mS. Cyprians Con- text bear that improper fenfe I I Annver and asK firft. Why may they not alfo betaken properly \ When they clearly de* liuer a Do&rin conformable to a whole learned Church, and your contrary forced gloss hath no Principle to ftand on but fancy > Had you any ancient Orthodox Church 9 vniuerfal Tra- dition i or the plain content of Fathers for what you aflert, you might the Fathers 115 aright fpeak more boldly, and -I would then fay S. Cyprians word5 are falfe, but without iuch helps,to torture a Text as you do,to turn ^ood fcnfe into nonienfe and this without proof or Principle is more then intolerable. Nov/ here reflect a little on what hath been often noted. You fay, the words are improper and render voyrfenfe. I fay they are proper and figniricantly fpeak what the Church teaches. Pray Aniwer. By what Principle shall you and I come to a deciiion of this one difficulty > Hitherto, if nothing be added , we haue no more but our two contrary, jarring opinions. And are not Controuerlies , ( may this drain hold ) made an endles work ? To add more I Anfwer. 2. If tli is Author fpeak fenfe. Not changed in its outward form but in nature. Your gloss is Nonfenfe. Obferue well. He fpeakes of rhereafm bread held in a Priefts hand , and faith tirft. This bread is not why we changed in irs outward form or Accidents. Then he put's his Ad- reiitt it. uerfatwe. S'd. but it it changed in nature- and. fu '/fame If therefore Nature here , figniftes as you would haue it, the out\i ard form or accidents of bread , you mull read the words thus. Bread is not changed in its nature and Subslance yet it u chanted in nature and fubfhnce , which, is non-feme. I prone it. Nature and fub- ftance with you import the exteriour form or .Accidents of bread, bread is. not changed in this exteriour nature and Jubftance , faith the Author, yet you fay it is changed in this very nature and fub- ftance. Yet more. S. Cyprian afTtrts a change in one thing, not in an other. I ask what is changed , and what is not changed? If the exteriour Accidents of bread,as contradiftinguished from the Seftaries interiour fubftance be changed, this mm tour (ub si once of bread, as carimtfa1 diflingutf bed from accident*, is nor. changed, and if, (.which is true), this "L"'^ *** inter tour [ublUnce be changed , the form and accidents of bread are not wat not4 (hanged. Take which you pleafe , and talk no more of your Acci- dental Sacramental change made after confecration y For 1 ask again what is thus Sacramentally changed > Are. the outward Accidents only changed or made a Sacrament > Grant this -7 and it followes youhauebuta very leaniords. fupper confuting only of a few Accidents after your Wordy Confer anon, which reaches not to the Q^ 3 inward Il6 Difc, I. C. I}. Mr Stittngfleet abufes. inward fubftance of bread, Confequently this inward fubftance it not fo much as Sacrament all) changed. For the Author laith, one thing is here changed, and not an other. Imagin therefore , He fpeak's of your extrinfick Sacramental change, you will neuer force fenfe out of his words, whilft he laies a change on one thing and excludes it from an other. For, if he iaiesthe in ward fubft*n~ ce of bread is Sacramentally changed, he denies that to the outward accidents, and if he fay thele Accidents are Sacram jnnliy changed , he denies that Sacramental change to the inward fubftance or bread. Let then nature and Subftance (ignify either the accidents or Iubftance of bread as you pleafe , let vs alfo falsly fuppoie, the Author fpeaks of your Sacramental change only, you can neuer make fenfe of his words. One thin* u changed , hut not an ., , r * ether. By all now faid you fee, Sir, how flight your obiection fiver to a iS > when you Argue, Either nature and jubjtanie in the ratners, tveak ohm- are alwaies taken properly , or fome times not fo, but improperly tion. for accidents; if alwaies properly, we haue three Fathers ( (ay you ) againft Tranfubftantiation. If fometimes improperly, Nature in this place though we read, Sen efftgtt fed natura ttfe&aiks, may well (ignify not Iubftance,. but the outward form or accidents of bread, I haue now Anlwered, though Sarurc or Suhftance may fometimes haue that ilgnification yet here it -cannot, becaufe of the euident oppo- iit'ion betwixt rW,and Acadtnt^iwd the in en it-able nonfenfe which followes it % nature in this place fignifies *awnt& But what a loss of time is it. to follow th ere vaft improbabilities? .1 mud make? snortcrwork with the enfuing Authorities. . -ii. The. 2. Teirfmony citedP. 572-. is that of -S. Gre- . gorv Kyis Tom. 3. Orati. ' Catech C. 37. 'and (rand's thus in Mr' Stilling" 'With good rcjfhn do'W'e bfhri-c that the bnad being S. Gregory fanctifitdbj Gods' frcrd is changed into the hody cf the T*w6 N^r7 cf C,°^' Ag^in.. The nature of ifc rkfr*$ toe fee bemo th.tnoedyOr **Ule Trxnfel'. ■h:nted into'him Sec. And Mr Stilling: Aliens thofe expres- f ion's are vtterlyiniignirlcr^nt for Tranfubftantiation , for faith he. We Protefhnts deny not a change in the elements after Confecra-; rion/but fay it is Sacramental, and you (Pan ids ) fay it is aSubftm- tial tin Fathers. 127 cu-.l change. Anlw. And we follow the Energy of the plain gram- matical lenfe. Bread is clanged into the body vftbe frord of God. Bread is I'ranieUmc'tedy You infill only on an extrinfecal and Sacra- mental change , which you admit in the water prBaptifm caft vpon an Infancy et yon dare not fay that water is Tranfelemented , or chan- ged into an other Sub/la* ce. This to your Conftifion S. Gregory alien's in our prefent Myftery , and you fay it (till remain's to be proued that the fubftance of bread is changed. What trifles are thefe I I proue it by the very words , thus. Bread is a fubftance , the San-t tell's you into what it is changed, into the very body of the toord of ^vd, Ergo he faith one fubftance is changed into an other. Here is the proof. You yet goe on. The word f/jtrecTroiuB-oH , is fre- quently yfed by the Fathers and S. Gregory himfelf for ah Acciden- tal' change,, when T'is not capable of any other fenfe.. So S. Gr*- gflfj fpeaking of die shining of Mofes face, faith, it was ^2 TX7ro/^cr^ a Change into that which was more glorious ; Again, affir- ming , the foules of men fxirebvotyi^yctt , to be changed into that which is more Diuine by the Doctrin of Chrift ' he can furely intend no other but an Accidentaf change. Aniweiv Had I no more againit Mr Stilling : but the manifeft trifling I here See in a fefious matter, that alone might mod iuitly dilpleafe. Pray , Sir J reflect. Doth S~ Gregory by thefe Inflances of Mo fes face chan- ged into Glory y or by the Souls of men changed into that which is Diuine, fo much as feemingly fauour the meer extrinfecal change which you afcribe to the Sacrament? Euidently No. For thefe changes were Real and intrwfecal in their refpediue Subiecls, Glory was really in Moles face, as light is now in the fun. This fained Sacramental change in the Sacrament is only Moral , and extrinfecal, Therefore flich inflances are to no purpofe. For can you make this probable inference 1 Moies face was intrinfecally changed as the ayr is^ when it receiues light,, er^wehaue the like intrinfecal Phyiical' change in the Sacrameritrwhen by your Con- fecration bread is made an outward Sign only of Chrift' s body. Doth that bread really . shine like the face ofMofes > Or will any fay when a Counter h fet for a. Croltn „ as bread with you Hand's Inflances impertinent* ly apfari. And proxed impertinent* ia8 Difc. !♦ C. 13. fl/r Stillingfteet abufes. ftand's for Chrift's body , that it is intrinfecally changed as Mofes face was? 1 2. In a word the whole cheat is plain. You lay hold of the word Accidental which is ambiguous, and may either fignify a Real intrinfecal change made in Subiects as is now declared,(and this with you has no place in the Sacrament ) or meerly an extrinfecal acci- dental Denomination, whereby bread is made a Sign or Sacrament, And this you own, which God knowes, has no fimilitude with the Real changes where of S. Gregory fpeaks. Could you make a right Parity you should lay ; That , as Mofes face was really changed by a glorious light , and a Soule by Regeneration, fo bread after coniecration ( made in trinfecally more glorious ) is really changed either in its accidents, or fiibftance, or both; But this you cannot pretend to. O, but it is made a Sacrament and now is what it was not before. And you Sr, are made a Bachelour of Diuinity and are not as you were before , is your face, your fubftance , or Acci- dents fo really changed in you, that they appear intrinfecally more glorious to men and Angels > Well , but perhaps the word ^ * j iMranQifirtf may be accommodated to a meer extrinfecal Acciden- wjtptre . t_^ change , as when one of a common Citizen is made a Magiftra- te. Anlw. Whether Co or no it imports little, for in the in- ftances now alleged, and in this Teftimony of S. Gregory , fuch a fignification has no place, where the Terminus a quo, and,4 *$rov £1£ot#1 . Later terms. Mr flitting : glcffisim- frebaeli. i jo Difc. I. C. I j. Mr SlilKngflett abufes and Co we shall be Cbr'tftopbort, Carrying Chris} \»b?n "toe receiue his body and blood two our members. Soon after he faith. Do not therefore confider this as meer bread and meer wine, for it is the body and blood of Cnfl according to his own words ; for, although fenfe fuggeft that it is bread and wine ) yet let faith Confirm thee , and do not iitdge of the thing by thy taft , but hold this moft certain by thy Faith, that ihe body and blood of our Lord are giuen thee, Co that there ai rue no doubt at all in thee. Again, towards the end of this 4. Catechefis , he repeat's and moft energetically the verity he would haue vs learn, tccvta fioiB-co¥ vjft 7rXtigobich is jeen by vs, although it feem to the fenfe of our tail to be Jtine, yet is it not T*t*e,butthe blood of Chrift. Thus this ancient Father and worthy Bishop Ipeaks Co fignificantly , that the witt of man shall neuer force on him any other fenle but that which the Roman Catholick Church taught in the Council of Trent , and teaches to this day. 14. Now liften a little to Mr Stilling t gloiTes and fay in Conlcience , whether they haue Co much as afeeming proba- bility? Firft he tells vs it is euident (and it was for his purpoie to cry Eutdtiue at the begining ) that Cyrills defign here is to per- iwade the Catechumens ( from whom the Myfterious pretence of Chrifts body in the Sacrament was wont to be concealed ) that the bread and wine were not meer common Elements, but defigned for a higher vie, to xhtbu the body and blood of Chrift to Belieuers* Is this, Sr , your Euidence > Is it euident that Cyril here intended to inftruft the Catechumens only? We read that the Saint was a laborious Preacher and complyed with that Charitable duty euery Sunday , and day in Lent. Surely all who heard him were not Catechumens , and why may not thefe inftru&ions contain part of that Doftrin he publickly deliueredtohls Auditors? All you can proue is that his firft Catechfo was to the lately Baptized y but thit this of the B. Sacrament concerned them only , is not probable. Turn to the Edition of S, Cyril Paris print 1609- Yoi» the Fathers. 131 You will find after the Dedicatory Epiftle vnder tins Title* De fcnptti CynlL That in his laft Hue Myftagogical inftitutions hegaue (olid food and explicated the Diuinc Myfteries of our Faith, of Bapttjm, C brtfm ,the Eucharift , and that great Sacri- fice of the Mass , which Certainly belong to Chriftians of riper knowledge than Catechumens were. Again. Fft be euident that s Cyril' h the Saint in this Catechefis concealed the Myfterious prefence of ****<",. Chrift in the Sacrament, He miffed extreamly of his intent , for no r'^^ Catholick can fpeak now with greater cleanty of the Myftery , or more fully exprefs the Churches fenfe then S. Cyril did aboue thirteen ages fince. Yet one word. Say I befeech you what need was there then of concealing this Myfterious prefence , i'ft be no more but as you fay, a piece of bread deputed to a holy vfe , or a meer fign of Chrifts body prefent \ Such a Myftery requires no fecrecy at all , Catechumens might as well haue heard of it without torturing their vnderftandings , as now they hear of the Sacrament of Baptifm. Laftly is it euident , that S. Cyril aimed at nothing but to show that bread and wine were not meer common Elements but things deilgned for a higher vfe , or as you fay , to Exhibit the body of Chrift to Belieuers > Tis improbable, Firft becaufe you add that to the Text which neither the words , nor the fenfe bear. S. Cyril faith. Do not confider them as meer bread and Wine, Then he tell's you pofitiuely what they are. Tor they are the body and blood of Chrift, Now your Gloss , deftgned for a higher vfe to exhibit the body and blood ofcbrisl to Belieuers , firft Deads the very life of Cy- rills words, and then run's into nonfenfe. I therefore Ask whether . this gloss : Bread and Wine exhibit the body and blood of Clmft to B or fignifies lefs then this r. or, only exprefles your euer yet come ale d Sacramental prefence, you cheat the world with ambiguous dark Term's, and in good earned know not what you lay. 15. Anfwer therefore * What is Chrifts body and blood to be Sacra- ment all] pre fent, ^hen really the j are not vpon the Altar, but abfent in Heauen only } The queftion deferues an Anfwer, For you, Sr > di- stinguish between a Sacramental and a Corporeal Prefence, you grant the firft, and deny the fecond. That which you grant is a Prefence of Chrifts body and biood diftinguished from the Catho- lick Real ( or as you call it ) Corporeal Prefence : Vouchfafe to enlighten vs a. little concerning it, which you page 574. feem to Gut statu*- make real ^ There is , fay you , a Real prefence of Chrift in and "frith oh" VTgh' ti)m ^^at ls> uianc* wn^ bread > andwine ) to the fouls of Belieuers. (cn(e% Very good. Giue vsl befeech you the total Obied! which thefe Souls haue before them when they belieue a Real prefence cf Chrift in and Ttttb bread and Kine vpon the Altar* Is this obieel: Chriji bimfelf whom they pull , as it were , by Faith out of Heauen at the time they receiue your piece of Bread * No. Chrift ftill in Hea- uen, is yet Locally diftant and therefore not really prefent in and Jvuh bread and l»ine , Vnless he be in two places at once,. And Con- fequently the Faith of thefe Belieuers has. no real Obieel prefent to faften vpon. Is it that Chrift is prefent in the Signes of bread andwine, as Cadar is in his Image* Pitiful. He is thus prefent in euery Crucifix ^though really diftant millions of Miles, This, no way makes him actually there in and Ttttb bread and tyine, as you AfTert. Doth finally this your Obieclnue prefence imply only thus much , that Chrift by his power ( though really abfent ) work's theTame effects in a worthy Receiuer, as if he were actually there* the Fathers. m there >. No. For he works the fame effects, and ( though ab- lent) produceth grace by the Sacrament ofBaptifm as if he were prefent , dare you Therefore fay he is in as peculiar a manner Really prefent , in and With the Water of Baptiim,as he is in this Sa- crament in and With bread and Wine? Yet more. Such a Moral TheSeftarht Prefence directly contradicts Chrift's words. This is my body. It Sacram^tal directly contradict' s S. Cyrills words. Though it feem to the taft to * *?#» be bread it it not bread, but the Body of Chnfts. It directly contradicTs a\\ ^niho. that vnanf rerable Truth : As Water Was changed into "Wine , fo "Wine is rity, changed into blood etc. 16. And thus, Sr, you fee how impofHble it Is to glue your poor Belieuers any thing like a Real obiect , which may be called a true 'Real Prefence ; though I hold you obliged to help both them and me to a clear Notion of it: Becaufe Chrift's Sacred body and blood are Real things, you attribute to thefe two Real things a true real Pre ftnee in arid 'With bread and Wine (which cannot but denominate them really prefent with thefe two Subftances vpon the Altar)There- fore you are obliged to tell me, what that is A parte ret , which I once more fay, is impoilible 5 For , as your Sacramental prefence , in your fenih, is a word no man vnderfland's, fo your Doctrin is as wholy vnintelligible. Yet I haue not faid all. In this your difcourfe of a Sacramental and Real prefence, you would fain take fome aduantage againft vs by other words of S. Cyril. Do not confi- der them as meer bread and Wine , for they are the body and blood of Noaduan: Chr'ift , according to his e*WnWord. Hence you infer, it is plain, tagegiuen He [peaks of a Sacramental prefence^for he doth not oppofe the body and blood Se^^ries by efCbrisl to the fubjlance rf bread and Wine, but to meer bread, id eft, That ^jJtfS- they should not look^on the bread and Wine as naked fignes , but as Signa cyrtlj efficacia or efficacious fignes. Anfw. Firft The Saint has not a. Syllable of either signet or signa efficacia. Next , your Speculation about meer bread , is ameer nothing. For meer bread, is bread without Confecration y S. Cyril oppofeth the body and blood of Chrifl: prefent, to meer bread y Ergo He oppofeth them to bread wit- hout Confecration, but bread without Confecration, or meer breads is the very Subftance of bread, Therefore he oppofeth the body and R 5 blood A meet quibble about The change made in Chrifm tpholiy diffe rem from that in the Eucharift. 1J4 Difc. I. C. I}. Mr Stillingfleet abufes. blood of Chrift prefent, to the fubftance of bread , vnless you caw rind the Meerness (might one lpeak fo) or nakednes of bread diftinck from its fubftance, which is not only improbable , but impos- fible. 17. Vpon this folidand vndeniable Ground , it imports your caule nothing , whether two? in S Cyril iignifies, Species , as it is commonly rendred by Interpreters, or as you fay , ti at Tt>buh doth figure or repre[enty for , as long as this verity ftand's vndoubted , that vnder the Type or Species of bread Chrift gaue his own body , and That, that body is oppoled to the very Sub fiance of bread , the ex- predion is fo clear and the fame with our Catholick Do&rin , that were a hundred GlofTes more laid vpon the word two?, All would not do, nor rack it to any contrary meaning. You Reply S. Cyril (peak's of fuch a prefence as hath relation to the Receiuer. Speak out Sir. What is it, that has relation to the Receiuer only > The very body and blood of Chrift vnder the Type of bread and wine ( which are changed out of their nature as water was at Cana in Galilee) Thefe fubftances of his body and blood , as really prefent , work their effect in a worthy Receiuer, where you euidently fee , that the Real Prefence of Chrift's Sacred body and blood is pre fuppvfed to the efFeft or to grace wrought in a Soul : Therefore to talk of a prefence which hath relation to a Receiuer only , wit- hout the true fuppofed real verity of Chrift body and blood prefent, is no more then a peruerfe and an improbable Gloss , if S. Cyril {peak fenfe. 18. Your next Gloss vpon thefe words. ( It is not bread though it feem to the taft to be bread but the Body of Chrift) is worfe if worfe can be , For you only frigidly fay. Hereby is meant no alteration in the Subftanceoftt,but only that it is not That common Bread, it T*as before. Sir, the contrary is now demonftratiutly proued againft you. But you hope to help your felf by an Inftance which S. Cyril hath of Chrifm in his 3. Myftag. Pag. <;z^. where he Seem's to Parallel the change made in Chrifm, or holy oyntment, with the Change of bread in the Eucharift. By the way. If Chrifm be lb facred a thing , it is a shame you haue no more vfe of it in your Church the Fathers* i?y Church, but let that pass, and mark the Parallel and your own mt- ftake with it. A change there is in both , bread and common ointment, but as different in Themfelues as they are differently ex- preiTed by this Father. The one change is Real and mtrmfetal made in the Subftance of bread and wine, The change of common oint- ment is not fo, but Morai, into a grai >, or Gift or Chrift. S Cyrtlls words take away all ambiguity. S>e> iaith he, That thou thinks not this ointment to be common or meer ointment, for as the bread of the Eucba- nft after the Inuocation of the Holy Spirit is no longer common bread, but the body of Cbnfi (here is the real change) So this holy ointment , is no hngtr naked or common ointment afrer it u tonfecrated *A7k<* %£i?f5 s> cy*W* X*t«rp*. but a grace or Gft of Chrift , and the Holy fpirit , which "£%£™ operates through the prefence of the Diuinity. Here is the other ^# **" and a quite different change. Bread is made the body of Chrifl , Chriim his holy and (acred Gift. The Parallel or parity therefore,as I now faid y lies in this , That both bread and Common ointment are changed from what they were ( and this is enough for Cyrtlls intent who only proues Chriim to be a holy thing ) but it rail's when he pofitiuely and exprefly dtuerfifies the nature ofthefe chan- ges, of bread into Chrtsls bod^\ of Common ointment only in'o a grace or a gift of Cbrift* And Hence, Sr, your Queftion, whether we may not as well proue a Tranfubftantiation in the Chnfm as we do in the Euchanft , is both fond and friuolous. We Anfwer No , becaufe the real change of bread into ChrinVs body fully exprefieth Tranfubftantiation y the Terminus a quo , and ad quern , being Real, and Substantial. The other Change of ointment into a Gift of Chrift , denotes a moral change quite different and no- thing like the other r which is moft reaL 19. Your next and laft Gloff. abufes S. Amb. De ijsqui m- '/™lro/e ttantur, C. 9. who iaitiu Bread is no longer that Stb?cb Nature has iess ^ukA framed tr , but tha'. fbhuh the Bnedtftun of Conflation basmtda it. then others. You Anfwer. It is the body of Chrift , but not in our gross fenfe. Pray Sr, Inform vs a little of your more quaint meaning? Say, how bread is Chrifts body if it ftill remains as fubftantially bread after the Benedi&ion , as water inBaptiim remain's fubftantially waterl 136 Difci.C. 13. Mr Stillingfleet abufes water? Doth the water wherewith an infant is washed , ceafe to be water becaufe it is a Sacrament > No certainly , yet bread if S. Ambrofe fpeak truth , ceafeth to be that Ttrhich nature framed it. You endeauourtomake Thefe words forceles , becaufe S. Cbrifoft. Aft : Horn. 23. faith of baptifm, I'ts virtue is (0 great that it fuffet's in whether we will grant not men to be men^ and then you wifely ask it Tranfubjiantiat's them ? Friuolous. The Saint only fpeaks of the virtue ofBaptifm, which, as he obferues makes vs fons of Adop- tion , That is, it Changes a foul from the miferable fhte of Sin into a happy slate of grace, and lb permit's not men once infected with that leprofy, to be men as they wtre before, vnregenerate. And the- refore, he adds in the enfaing words. The great poller of the Holy Gboft is that it Transform s our Manners and makes them compofed. "What is here of any thing like Tranfubslantiation , or of a ceafing of that which nature hath framed 2 But enough and fully enough of M» Sttllwgfleets mod improbable gloffes, fo I mud and will term them , vntil fome furer Principle than fancy giues them more {Irength which shall neuer be. 20. To end. Fie fay a great Truth. Had this Gentleman twenty Cjprians , twenty Cynlls , twenty Auflins as clear and express for his Opinion of the Sacrament , as the Teftimo- nies now cited are fignificant for Catholick Do&rin : Had he a Church reputed Orthodox which as indubitably mantain'd his Opinion rlue or fix ages fince , as the Catholick Church then 'nion, as wee held , and yet hold's our Catholick Doclrinj Finally, had he Scrip- Vroduce in ture as plain f0r his Sign or Figure of Chrifts body , as it is euident- ly clear for the Real Prefence , I verily think no prudent man could or would belieue any thing of this great Myftery , And con- fequently all might rationally doubt of euery article in Chriftian Religion : Becaule Fathers vpon the Suppofition,are directly con- trary to Fathers,Church, ftand's againft Curch,and Scripture againft, Scripture. Butnow when he hath not one Clear Teftimony of a Father, much less the Sentiment of any Orthodox Church, nor Co much as a word of Scripture contrary to our Catholick PofitionjI mud Conclude that his GlofTes already laid on thefe Fathers are not only tmprobablty but more than highly improbable. z 1 . Per- tiad this Jduerfary fo much Authority for hy opi bfhalfe of Catholick VoftrinHo man Could belitue any thing. the Fathers '*r? builds jaith vpon hts &j&& Glojfss, ai . Perhaps Mr S tilling flett may reply. His g!ofles,.Tis true , becaufe they are the Sentiments of a. fallible man , are indeed lyable to errour; but He bidds me look well to my Refutations, and bewa- re of fettingto high a value on them whilil I oppofe him , For my Oppoiition, ( becaufe I may miflake) amount's to no more , but to a weake de gree of Fallibility ,fo that, Hitherto He and I fland vpon equal Terms. Anfw. If the conteft be thusmuch only, whether his GlofTes are not clearly refuted , the Iudicious Reader after.a due Ponderation of my Replies, is fo far to iudge between vs. But here is not all, I muft Say more. Though I am as'fallible in excepting againft His glofTes,as he is in making them, yet my Faith depend* not vpon my Exceptions but vpon the Doctrin of my Church, The express words of Scripture, and Fathers , Thefe obli- ge me vnder pain of damnation to belieue as I doe, But all that Mr Stilling : hath for his Faith, is only the vncertainty of his own coniecl:ures( ancient Church he has none , nor express Scripture , nor one Clear fentence of any Ancient Father) And will hee Dare to oblige me vnder pain of damnation to belieue his GlofTes (or the opinion he would mantain by them ) vpon no other Ground but his weak Conjectures ? I appeal to his own Conscience for an Anfwer. Well. Be it how you will, thus much is euident ( and T'isthe only thing I aime at in this whole Difcourfe ) if Scripture and Fathers be interpreted in high matters of Faith by two Ad- uerlaries of different Religions ,when no furer Principle is at hand to rely on, but the fallible GlofTes of the One, and a contrary fal- lible combating with thole GlolTesin tht Other , they may both (as the world goes now) fit long at the fport, before one Contro- uerfy be ended. Therefore God, as I faid aboue , has Prouided vs of an eafier way to end thefe weighty difficulties, or, we may All then met? turn Scepticks. Some may fay 5 The old mode of the World was GUjfest todifputeby Scripture and Fathers, dare we reieel: this way of arguing as infufficient? Anfw, No truely .° It is an excellent way amongft Chriftians (though infignificant to Heathens ) when the Aduerfe Parties can Clear the fenfe of Scnpture and Fathers vpon certain Principles, But if the very fenfe of Scripture and Fa- 5 ^S O the* meay® to end C«5« trouerjies i38 Difc I. C, ij. Scripture alone , *. 4 What Vrin- tiples Seel a ties Can Tret end ti> diftincl from «j» infallible Ghmcb. thersbe called into- Qiieflion As now a daies it is by Sectaries, We muft of neccmYy haue Recourfe to an other more Clear, eafy, and indubitable means of ending all Debates euer in vie among the Holy Fathers , Whereof more afterward. In the Utorim the enfuing Chapter may giue you entertainment. CHAP. XIV. It is further proued that neither Scripture aLne> nor anj other Principle diftmft from an Vnerring Churchy can f^ith certainty decide Qontrouerfies in Matters of l{ eligton > or %tgulate Qhrijiun Faith. is, *T* His AlTertion not flightly proued in the othi I Difc. 2. C. 4. I hold fo certain , That the 1 ler Treatise* wit of man shall not rationally contradict it.. And to giue yet more light to what is there laid , Be pleafedto exclude, or mentally only to caft afide All thought of an vnerring Church y of her infallible- Tradition al fo,ofthe Definitions of General Councils, For all thefe( which Sectaries hold fallible) are Ejfmtal to an vnerring Church, If any fuch thing be in the world y whereof we shall Treat afterward. Next look about you, And conllder well what remain's to end Controuerlies withall ,. or to regulate Diuine Faith. You haue firft Scripture which a Pagan wholly and a lew partly reie&s , Yet with fuch. Aliens from Chrill, a Chriftian can argue rationally yea and clearly conuince them,as I shall proue in the fecond Difeourie. After Scripture, you haue the fublime Myfteries of Faith , the Fa- thers Doclrin laid forth in their Volumes , and the Hiftory of the Church. Here are all the Principles imaginable left Sectaries , be- fides their priuate Spirit, which can be no more a found Principle to them, than the contrary sptru is to Their. AduerlarieSr z. Let no rule of Faith. iyy 2. Let vs now See how weakly the Sectary endeauours to end any Controuerfy by theie Principles withont an infallible Church , And be pleaied euer to attend to the Aduerfary he Treat's with. If he attempt's to do go@d on a Heathen by Scripture , cr bring's in the Reafonableness of Chriftian Religion , The Heathen , and lew alio laugh at his Folly, And wish him to proue his Book to beDiuine. If he proues that by the Vniuerfal Tradition of all Called Chriftians., the Heathen perhaps will not yet quarrel with him ( as I may hereafter) about the Fallibility or Infallibility of Tradition* but defires him to goe among the Cbinefes and lay his Bible down by That hook which their iuppofed Prophet Confufim wrote,. full of excellent Moral Precepts. Thus much done the Conteft Begins. The Sectary faith his Bible is Authorized by a great Prophet , called Chrift. A learned Bonzius Anfwer's , and his is alio Authorized by a great Prophet called Confufim, The Sectary faith all Chriftians own his book(vpon a neuer interrupted The Prote- Tradition) to be indited by the Spirit of Truth , The Bonzius fitmtsCn^ replies , All China of a mighty vail Extent age after age, hath the teP *tth" like perpetuated Tradition for Jiis Bible. What foil owes but that cI»LrwV Thefe two Aduerfaries , perufe their Bibles? The Bonzius read's thi Btblt? ours, and Realbnably ask's , whether the Sectary can infallibly pro- ue fuch ftrange Myfteries as are reginred there, (for example, a Tri- mty ,the Incarnation of the Dtume Tpord) to be Truths Reucaled by Almighty God > The Sectary aniwers. All the infallible certainty be batb of tbefe particular Verities laftly Relies only vpon Scripture it felfe. For what euer Principle can be imagined diftinct from that Written "\vord whether Church or Tradition , is Fallible and may decei- ue. If lo, faith the Heathen your Bible gain's no Credit with me, Becaufe you proue the Myfteries contained there by that which taufes my doubt , or is the matter in Queftion, for you lay all I read , is of Diuine infpiration becaufe your Bible relates them , and the- refore make that a proof of your Doctrin , which is the Matter in queftion , or caufes my doubt. O faith the Sectary read on with Hu- mility and you will find , that the very Maiefty of the /fyfr, the Energy of the TOrdswiH quit you of doubting j And to eafe you of too S z much 140 Difc. i.G 14 Scripture alone ^ much pains, know we Proteftants hold That the Belief of a very few chief Articles , or flmple Truths ( as that Ufus is the chrijlilht TbeHea. ^ Diuine Word is incarnated Sec) is faith enough to gain Heauen. Con- ^'zinTh*' tra* RePnes tne Heathen. I fee no other Maiefty in the Style of Protefittnts y?ur Bible tnan in mine , and other pious books. The exteriour plea. Syntax or ioyning of words together is common to all fuch Wri- tings. But aboue all I wonder why you talk to me of no man kno- weswhat fplendor shining in the bare Letter, when you fay that shines not to Pagans, but only to thofe who haue the Spirit of God, and are the Eleft amongft you, Now to what you Add of a ftw chief Articles necelTary to be belieued and no more , I anfoer firft. Your Scripture faith no fuch Thing, nor tell's me or you which Articles are necelTary , which not , and if it did fo , you are only where you were before in darkness , Since you proue not fo much as one of thefe few Articles to be of Diuine Reuelation, but by the book Jthich records them; And this you do whilftl iuftly queftion not only the book, but the Truth of this very article, which you ma- ke Diuine , becaufe it is in your Bible. But enough of this fubieel: at prefent , whereof lee more C. 9. n.7. All that is laid there and further enlarged here? makes this Truth not only probable but de- monftratiuely euident > That Scripture alone is no vniuerfal Means to end ControuerGes debated between Chrisliam and no Cbriftians ( which is the only Thing we now infifton) yet lefus Chrift hath left fufficient means whereby fuch Aliens may be reclaimed from their Errours,and attain faluatron. Scripture doth it not for all , There- fore a more fatisfa&ory wa)r muft" be thought of. 3. Now if we begin to fpeak of the Fathers with a learned The lathers Heathen, t'is labour loft , for He who belieues not the Diuinity of ofnoAutho. Scripture will little regard- the Fathers Authority. To tell a my with a j-feathen 0f tjie high Myfteries of our Faith augment's his Diffi- ■ e* en* culties, puzzles Reafon , and rack's his vnderftanding. To weary him with a long narration of Ecclefiaftical hiftory is moft imperti- nent, when as yet, He neither belieues Scripture, nor Fathers: Yet this man may be conuerted to Chriftian Religion if he follo- vres Realon,,Vnless vve fay which is intolerable to hear , That our Lord no rule of Faith. 141 Lord lefus will haue this poor man loft , or left 'without means to attain Saluation by. 4. The next Aduerfary the Protectant may attaque shall be , if youpleafe, a Roman Catholick (we will here to gain time omit his Conteft with Arians and other Hereticks) And his whole Thefe3arhs endeauour , if he goe Clofely to work , mud either be to *"™£ , Eftablish his own Proteftant Tenets by Scripture, Fathers , and Anti- JfJ* ** °* quity, or forceably to dilTwade all by virtueof thefe Principles from vain[ an(i the Belief of our Catholik Dodrin; I fay it is impoilible to do ei- wty. ther, Becaufe the Sedary has not in the whole Bible one clear and exprefs Text for any one Tenet of Proteftancy as fis reformed ; Nor fo much as one clear and exprefs Text againft any one Doclrin of the Roman Catholick Religion. Therefore , as Scripture cannot Pafs an obligation on him to belieue one Article of his new Faith , fo it cannot oblige him or me to disbelieue one Article of our Roman Catholick Dodrin ,For vpon this fuppofition , it neuer meddless withtheone,and often omit's tofpeak of the other, in plain, open and fignificant Terms. For example. Scripture neither ex- prefly denies Tranfubftahtiation with the Proteftant , nor in that plain open Term affirm's it with the:Catholick s it neither clearly Saies there are Two Sacraments only; nor in exprefs Words all owes of Seuen : It neither clearly denies Purgatory , nor vnder that express tyon/aiTerts it. How then can the Proteftant when he hath not one clear fyllable in Scripture for what he hold's in thefe particu- lars, nor a word againft our contrary Dodriiis, euer probably ven^ Hot one tare to decide thefe and the like controuerted Matters by the plain *ext. m and exprefs letter of the Bible > It is impoflible. TheReafonis, t^twfor it cannot determine that whereof it freaks not clearly , nor become Troteftancy an intellectual Rule,or Meafure whereby we are to iudge what's true, nor cm or what's falfe concerning thefe controuerfi es,if it Meddles not with *g**»ft c<*~ them in exprefs Terms. I fay in express Terms : For what euer is less then that, or not express , mnft either bee the Sectaries Gloss or his fallible Dedudion,I reied both,and appeal to him who wrote the original Book with all it's candor and fimplicity. If I find Proteftancy there , well and good; If otherwife, no Gloss no De- S J dudion tkolick Vottri/i. Tie jSJfir- ti n, profit d. nhier Con* iefiures mte Frote- flams only peofs. i/p. Difc. i.C 14. Scripture alone] Auction shall preuail with me to belieue the Nouelty vnder pain of damnation, vnless he who tampers with a Text, firft , bid's me be- lieue vnder pain of damnation that he is an vnerring man , or that his Gloiles or deductions are infallible, which I am lure is not God's command. Again, If I find nothing plain and exprefs in Scripture again ft my Catholick Doclrin (but much for it) I should be worfe then foolish to change my ancient. Faith vpon the flight ground of farfctch't Gloiies and fallible inferences. 5. Shall I fay yet more clearly what! Jhere aime at 1 Some Chriftians there are now in being who Belieue the true Doctrin of Chrift fo firmly, that though an Angel preach't Contrary (Galat: 1. 8.) They ought not tot>e-remQiied tf om it 5 if therefore Proteftants belieue their own Doctrin Co ftedfafUy , and fay that Papifts ( for example) err in the Belief of Chrift's true Doctrin, they are to JEuidence it by a more indubitable Principle , than that is which the Apoftle vnderftand's by theprsdchmg of an Angel, But fuch a Prin- ciple can be no other nor less certain than plain and open Scriptu- re, How Therefore can the Proteftant fo much as weakly hope to diftwade from Popery and perfwade to bis opinions by meer guefTes , weak inferences , weightles conieetures &c. without plain Scripture? Now to shew you he hath no more but, guefTes , Let him.pleafe^c Difeufs rigidly with me but one point in Con- trouerfy by Scripture only. That of Tranflibftantiation wherein he think's to haue inoft Aduantage , may perhaps occurr, and like him k>eft. I fay after All he can allege for his opinion , or againft our Catholick Doctrin shall be.no more but meer Conitttures , :mpr$ba~ hie Ghjfes, vncertain Topicksrfobe Suppofitions and the like; And are thefe think you weighty enough to eftablish his Opinion which he hold's to be reuealed Doclxin > Ko certainly. The Doclrin of Chrift ftand's fbfure vpon certain known Grounds that an Angel though he preach otherwife, is not to be belieued , and if it be not thus ftedfaftly founded, it is not as I obferued aboue, Chrift's Dqc- trin. How eafy were it for the Sectary to end much of thele de^- bates by a due examination of this one Controuerfy. I vi-ge him, to it . yet you/ 1 fee, he will refiife this Modeft Challenge. __ ; - .■ ^ wh . no rule of Faith. 14 j £. Wherefore I shall neuer comprehend why. thefe men troubk the world as they do with writing Controuerfies. What is their aime >. Is it to draw any one Soul to Proreftancy , or only to giue a proof of wit , and show that they can fpeak againft God's truths which an Angel cannot DilTwade from ? If this later be intended , the Arians of old did fo before them, And the Diuei can do it much better than either Arian or Sectary ; If it be to conuert men to Pro- teftancy, The Attempt is delperate , vnless they come ftrongly ar- med with plain, express, and Significant Scripture , Whereof there is no fear at all ; For had they clear Scripture againit one fort of their fuppofed erring Chriftians ( Papifts tor example) they would not fpare vs one whit, but moft willingly Silence vs with Gods own plain language. This we look for, but in lieu of it, what haue we* Fancies, Contfcluresy Glojfayfnuolous Dtfcourfts. And thus forfooth Popery mufi down ( I marry).and Proteftancy be thought the pure and moft refined Religion. 7. By what is (aid already you fee how vnluckily thefe men run Sectaries out of the way of all probable Arguing, whilft Scripture is made fo arZue im" clear, that, by the light thereof, All Controuerfies now raffed Probiibb* amongft dilTenting Chriflians, can be determined. Is it fo conuin^ cing and clear > Proue you no Purgatory, no Inuocation of Saints by plain and express Scripture. Is it fo conuincing and clear? Proue you plainly that to deny PUrg*to*p9*^Efanfubfiam$4tt$B9 isasne- ceffary to Saluation as to deny a Quaternity of Diuine Perfbns. Now if it be not clear in fuch matters. Why keep you a coile about thefe Negatiues ? Why do you threaten vs with God's iud-r gements for mantajning the Contrary Do&rins > Why haue you not only made an vproar in the world about Doftrins meerly vn- tieceflary , but more ( which may lay forrow at your hearts)why ha- «. . tie you shamefully Separated your felues from an Ancient Church, opinions, whereof your Anceftors were members > And this is delperately thecauferf done for a Company ofse^atm w>tmons , Though it import's not Sectaries oneftraw whether they be belieued or no. Contrariwife , if you s*tm****i\ makethe Belief of thefe Non- Articles neceflary to Saluation they guft be proued by the plain and exprefs word, of God , which is Of Stftmes Jirnfle Truths. 144 Difc. i.C. 14. Scrtpture aloue, vtterly lmpofllble, and therefore I faid right , that Scripture cannot end Controueriies between diffenting Chriftians , Catbolickj for example and Prot eft ants. 8. And thus much in effect our Newer men grant who. talk much of a few fimple Truths fufficient to faluation called fundamen- tals. Is is not enough faith Dr Taylor in his. 2, DhTwafiue. P. 168. That toe are Chrijttans , that toe put all our hope in Godtoho freely giues vs all things by bis Son lefrn Chrift? That "toe are redeemed by his Death, that toe are members of his body in Bapttfm. that he giues vs hufpintjbat toe do no Eutl, that toe do tohat good toe can &c. Is not this Faitb vnto Right eoufnefi, and the Confepon of this fatth fufficient vnto faluationl Obferuewell If fuch a faith of a few Nouellifts , and the like fimple Truths which no Arian denies vnder fuch general Terms (and cannot be proued fufficient by plain Scripture ) be enough to Saluation , what need had Sectaries to Calumniate our ancient Church, and expofe Chriftianity to the fcorn of Iewes and Atheifts for lefler Matters ( as they think) than thefe fundamentals, or few fimple truths are? J)o we difown any of them? No. We are Chriftians as well as they, we put our hope in God,we fay all things are giuen vs by his fon lefus. Chrift , we are redeemed by his Death &c« Wherein then lies our Offence? O, we hold ftrange Nouelties , Inuocatton of Satnts. Purgatory, Tranfubftanttation. I deny they are Nouelties, but belt as you will. They are out of the lift of your fimple Truths, and in your Principles no more but Opinions, and can you haue fiich cruel hearts as to persecute vs, banish vs,and shed our blood for meer Opinions? Where is your Charity ? Again I argue Adhomwem, If to hold a Purgatory be only an Opinion , your denyingit is no more but an opinion alfb, There- fore you cannot prone your Negatiue by plain and express Scrip* iure,for if you do fo? it well be no longer an Opinion , but a reuet* led T>«f/',and certain Do&rin* \ Conuince this if you can and then tell vs that Scripture decides all Controuerfies between vs , or laies an obligation on vs to belieue more then Thefe feto fimple Truths art \ No Pm v amy for example, So Tranfubftantiation ; or fay plainly , that Scripture doth not put an end to thefe Controuerfies 5 whidi • {Truth iseuident by manijfeft Experience- g. It no rule of Faith. 14J 9. It is ftrange to fee how endleiTe Sectaries are, and to no pur- pole at all, in quoting Fathers for the Clarity and fufficiency of Scripture in allthings neceiTary , but afterward jpoil all with a new ^ruture Whimfey, For they make iuft lb much as they pleafe(a few Simple j^es wt Truths ferue the turn ) to be NeceiTary and lufficient. Here are ho» many three inluperable difficulties. FJxft. They (peak without book,,- are wceJf*' For God neuer told them in Scripture how many or how few of V« thefe Truths , are neceiTary and Sufficient ; Therefore if I admit this Principle , the Proteftants fole Word muft fecure me , though I know well , that their word is neither a neceiTary , nor a lufficient warrant for my laluation. Hence, i. I vrge them to show by plain Scripture the number.of thefe fundamentals precifely neceiTa- ry. 2. I muft tell them. If Scripture be clear in a few Funda- mentals and fo much only be neceiTary and fufficient, this reafona- ble Quxftion may well follow. What's the reft of the Bible good for with them > Moft certainly the far greater part of it, where it fpeak'snot of thefe few NecefTaries , may be caft away as vfeless and impertinent. 2. Thefe Nouellifts Pronounce , and Proue againft themfelues, in all fuch .Controuerlies as are now in debate between them and Catholicks^For, if Scripture which tell's vs of all NeceiTary and Sufficient things to faluation(comprifed iruo. few fim- ple Truths whereof there is no ftrif now) omit's , whilft it mentions Se£tariet thefe , to (peak plainly in behalf of our Proteftant Opinions. No trme *&*"& Sacrifice. No Tranfubftantiation. Sec. With what Confclence can ***&*** they tell vs( and They haue often laid it ) that this Book alone can decide thefe controuerfies, and recall vs from Popery to their new mode of Proteftancy ? I would willingly haue Satisfaction to this one difficulty. 1 o. Well ; To anfwer all they can pretend to out of the ancient Fathers for the Clarity and fufficiency of fcripture in order to things neceiTary ; be pi eafed to obferue, that the learned Ttrtullian againft Marcion (but chiefly in his book At Pr&fcript : cap. 16. at thofe words. Wt art not to recurr to Scripture , therein there is no Victory, or a very vncertain ont &c. ) And S. Auftin. S. Cbrifoftom with Others , may perhaps feem, to a less diligent Reader , to be of con- T trary 146 Difc. 1. C. 14. Scripture alone, diftmgui ttnd. trary Judgements. Tcrtulltan now cited , faies Scripture is infuf- ficient to decide Controueilies Concerning Religion amongft Chri- fHans. S. Aufim. De Bapt. Contra Donat : lib. z. C,. 6. plead'smuch for it's fufficiency. I lay here is no Contrariety : both {peak well, both deliuer Catholick Doc'trin. Know therefore , that Scripture Two parts of 1S deuided into two Parts or Seclions^s you may read in Sixtus Senen- Scripture, fts. Lib. 6.BtbL Annot : 152. Who cites S. Chrtfoflom for it. The one vfually called Pars Dtrefta, or direct part treat's of theabftrufe My- fteries of Chriftian Faith, and this ( which is Matter of Conteft be- tween vs and Sectaries ) Tertuliian reiecYs , and hold's inefficient to end difputes, And fo doth S.Auflm alio. Eptftola. 49. Ad Deo gratia* The other named, Pars reflexa and the clearer which fpeak's of the Foundation of Chriftian Religion, ofthe Extent ofthe Church diffufed the whole world ouer,o/ its markj and Signes, of its Perpetuity and infallible Apfiance, of Nations flocking to it, &c. This part , I fay (the book being once admitted as of Gods Diuine word) is lb perfpicuous, and clear that it filences all Sectaries and euidently (ub- uert's their Errours. But to tell me,it is clear and fufficient enough to decide differences, when we drrputewith contentious men about the particular Myfteries of Faith ( the Trinity , for example , Tranfub~ flam tat ion, the number cf Sacraments Sec.) And the very fenfe of Scrip- ture, which should end all, is not agreed on by the two dilfenting Parties -, To alTert this I fay , is not only aj Paradox but a manifeft improbability contrary to all experience, And therefore I will extort this confeflion from our Aduerfaries (may they pleafetoahfwer) that as they shall neuer proue one of their Proteftant Opinions , fb, they shall neuer oppugn one Catholick Doctrin , by clear and express Scripture. 1 1 . Some obiecl: S. Auslin difputing againft Max'iminus an Arian, who faith. Lib. 3. C. 4. 14. S:d nunc nee ego Nianum dec. But noto, neither I ought to allege the Nuene Council^ nor thou that of Arxminum^for neither ami bound to the Authority of the one, nor thou to the Authority ofthe other, let vs contend by the Authorities of fcrlpturt Tbhicb are com- mon "toitneffes to vs both. Here two things fcem clear. Firft. That 5. Auflin reic£kd the Authority of the Nicene Council, as Sectaries do S. Attjitn*s Difuurfi. With an Arian. uo rule of Faith. 147 Ac now the Church* 1. That He held Scripture a fufficient Rule to coiiuince an Arian. A word only in palling. Dare the Sectary offer thus much ? or till pule with the Catholick for the fuppofed obf^ut th Truths ok pure Proi^i^my, or his Nfegatiue Articles by Scripture only, ^f "* as he here iuppofeth S Anliin did Argue in other Matters with * J Maximums* I would willingly fee.fbme attempt made this way , but am fure, He will not dare to do it. Becauie he laith His Pro- teftancy, or tliefe Negatiues are not reuealed, but only a number of tnhriour truths which cannot be proued by Scripture, To what purpofe then is it to allege any Testimony which makes Scripture fufficient to decide Controuerfies , when the Proteftant ingenuou- sly grant's he can proue nothing of his pure Proteftancy by plain Scripture > Hence I Say all the Quotations of Fathers haled in to proue the fuffidency or Scripture , help not the Sectary at all. fre- ndus , for example , call's it the Rule of Faith. S. Auflin. A Diuine ScBarm 'Balance, Theoplnlw Alex: A firm foundation. Gerfon , A Sufficient and qtoteF*- infallible Rule. Moft true if we fpeak of the fcriptures Clearer part, thtfi ton* yea and of the obfeurer alio, when it is interpreted by an infallible rwOT*«. Oracle. But what makes all this for pure Proteftancy , or for its Negatiue Opinions > Doth Scripture regulate this new Faith , whereof it is vtterly fllent> Doth it weigh fuch Negatiues , or tell vs what they are worth? Is it a firm Foundation to eftablish thele fancies? A fufficient and infallible Rule which meafures vs out, No Sacrifice on the Altar, No purgatory ; No Tranfubftantiation} Toyes, trifles. There is not a word (poken in the whole Bible contrary to the oppofit Verities of Catholick Religion, or in behalf of Pro- teftancy. Therefore though S. Auflin appeald to Scripture againft , ' an Arian, and had his reafons for it, yet our new mens Plea is more then impertinent, when after their Appeal they find not one fen- tence for Proteftancy , or againft Catholick DocTtrin. Now to S. Auftm. 12. Ifiyfirft, The Saint reie&ed not the Authority of the K'tcene Council which he euer honourd , but only waued that as an + * * Ali* vnmeet Principle in his conteft with Maximmus , who no more regar- the j^^ ded the Nicene Definitions , than Sectaries now do the Council of Co$meUi T z Trejatj 148 JDifc. i. C. 14. Scripture alone. A cU*r Cm&m, tyhAt ifS. jittflm bad srguedfrom the Direft fart of Scripture ? Trcntj Therefore as we Argue not from that Council againft themy fo S. Auftin then argued not from the Nicene Definitions. Thus, our Catholick Witers haue annVered a hundred times, yet we muft haue this Crambe recocla feruei vp again,as a new vnfauory Obiec- tion. I fay. 2. S. Auftin by his Appeal to Scripture recurr's not to the bare letter, which, he Saith y is a body without a Soul , but to the true genuine Senfe Thereof y which he fuppofeth known in that Scripture which we call the Reflex part , and yet is more clearly known by the Vniuerfal confent of ChrifVs vn erring Church ; For it is one and the fame thing with Sv Auftin, to belieue the Churches fenfe of Scripture, and to belieue Scripture itfelf, Which nioft mamfeftly commend' s vnto vs Church Authority. Had then the Saint argued thus againft his Aduerfary, He had conuinced him by the Clearer Vart of Scripture. Though thou exceptefl again ft the Stcene Council , yet thou canst not deny ^ but that Scripture commend' $ a Church founded by Chrift, dijjufed the Whole World ouer 5 what euer Therefore this Church deliuers concerning the fenfe of Scripture , That is the fenfe of the Holy Ghoft> And can be no other, for a Church Which foerues from the true fenfe ojGods Word, is no Church founded by Chrift. But the Vriwr* fal Sentiment of this Church oppofeth thy err our > Therefore the true fenfe of Scripture Which this Church plainly deliuers , ftand's ofpofit to thee alfo , And thus thou art conuinced by Scripture itfelf. 1 3. Perhaps you wil ask whether if S. Au/lin had argued from the Obfcurer Part only which treats of a Myfterious Trinity , one God in Effence , and three diftincl Verfons , not jo plainly exprefTed there, He could then haue conuinced his Arian Aduerfary of errour? None can better fatisfy the doubt than S. Auftin himfelf. lib, con- tra Crejconium C. 33. where he ipeaks of an other Matter of Faith, viz. of Bapt'tfm conferred by Hercticks, which though not clearly exprefTed in Scripture, is yet held a true and valid Sacra- ment. His words are. Proinde cjuamuu huim rei certi deScripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum Sec. Although no example of this thing (the validity of Baptifm by Hereticks) can certainly be Shown by Scripture yet the Verity ofthcie Scriptures is held by vs in this particular. Cum hoc facimus quod vniwf* urn placuit Ecclefta , when no rule of Faith. 149 when we now do that which plcafes, or is agreabie to die Vniuerfal Churchy which Church, the Authority of Scripture if felf comments, Vt quoniam , As that becaufe the Holy Scripture cannot deceiue ( whilft it commend's the Church) and euery one fear's to be decei- ued in the obfcurity of this Queftion: Eamdem Ecclejiam de ilia confu- lat. Lethimconfult the Vniuerfal Church of this particular, Which holy Scripture Without all ambiguity Doth demonstrate. Thus 5. Aul'w moft profoundly S. Auftin. And he giues an Anfwer to the prefent Mmfelft difficulty, viz. That if the Obfcurer Part of Scripture fp^ak not Anfwsrs- plainly in the debate betwixt him and an Heretick , the Heretick is to address himfelf to the Church and learn by Her what the fenfe of Scripture is. Without light borrowed from the Church, we haue only words about thefe high Myfteries, but not fully fen- fed Ttords , chiefly when we argue with contentious Sectaries , whofe glofles depraue the plaineft Paflages in Holy writ , as the Proteftant doth ChrhYs clear Proportion. This is my body. If there- fore we go on in fuch a conteft with words not fully fenfed , we may well end our lines, as S. Auftin notes , before we end one Controiierfy. 14, And thus you fee, as the One Part of Scripture is a body without a foul before it be rcceiued by the Church 5 fo the Other Partis alio, before it be both receiued and fenfed by this Oracle ofTruth. Vpon this ground all thofe other Teftimonies vfually alleged by Sectaries Out of S. Auftin againft the Donattsls, Of Opt am MeleuttanttSy and S.Cbryfdftom for the clarity of Scripture are clearly folued ,for here is S. Auftins Principle. The fenfe of Scripture intended Tie fenfe by the Holy Ghosl.and the fenfe of Chrifis true Church concerning Scripture, of Scripture can neuer clash , but is one and the fame. If therefore I know the fen- and the fe 'of the" Church ', I haue with it the fenfe of Scripture alio, but with chwch*i. this difference, That what Scripture, often exprefles less clearly, *^"r ' Chrift's Church deltuers more full) ', arid Explicitly. Whence itfollowes J that if the Churches fenfe conclude againft' thefe Sectaries, the Scriptures fenfe, where it is obfciire, is in like manner con- 15. You may obiecY Scripture Is in the nobleft'-manncr in- ^~ " " " 7 1 ' fallible, i}0 Difc, I« C. 14. Scripture alone, fallible, For it hath its infallibility from God immediatly, and may Avell be a diftincl: Rule , or Principle , from that fenfe which the Church giues of it. Why therefore should not Sectaries haue recourle to that firft and nobltfl Principle without relying on the Churches interpretation > I haue aniwered , becaufe they know not (guels they may and mifs) what Scripture iaies in a hundred dif- ficult Paifages . Therefore they are torecurrto the Church, or nui ft make vfe of their own fancies to fenie it. The Argument , purely fallacious , is much to this fenfe. Chrift our Lord when he taught his Diiciples was in the nobleft manner infallible,/;^* ,. Truth it f If, the Apoftles were only infallible in their teaching and -ton ' further Explanation ofthofe Verities they learn d , by a Singular wfatrU, Grace or participation of Infallibility. Why then should not Sectaries rely only on the firft fure Principle , thrift's oM>n Tvordi flowing from the Fountain of infallibility , without depending on the Apoftles Doctrin , not fo eminently infallible ? Now be plea- fed to hear S.Auftin pondering thofe words. Pfal ; 57. Alienatifunt peccatores &c. Where he makes this Parallel betwixt Chrift and the Church , and follies the Difficulty. Ex veritatis ore aortosca Cbriftum ipfam verttatem. Taught by the mouth of Truth, I ack- nowledge Chrift Truth it felf, ex veritatis ore agnofco Ecclefiam par- ticipem veritatis. And by the fame mouth of Truth, I acknowledge the Church partaking alfo of Verity, That is, I own the Church to be , nor. Truth it felf, not Scripture it felf , but a Copartner of Truth , with Chrift, and Scripture. I own it to be , not Infallibility it felf , yet Co eminently infallible by a lingular grace or participa- ted Infallibility , That to difputc againft it is moft infoknt madness : Witness the lame S. Auslinm Episl. 118. C. f. ad L*»:Ifhedare todofo, Saith the Saiut, Serm: 14* de verbis Apoft* C. 18. or rush Violently againsl this impregnable Trail of the Church, let him know* his doom, ipfe confringttur He is shattered in pieces. Hence you fee firft , that no mans priuate Iudgement can be contrary to the Churches fenfe giuen of Scripture, without thwarting Scrips ture it felf You fee. 2. That Scripture and the Church are not two Principles , looking as it were different waies,but one and the I no rule of Faith* 151 the fame, morderto oat direction" arid regulating Faith, whereof ^^ST more Hereafter. Chunk in 1 6. In the mean while you may ask , why our Sectaries keep order to alt., fiich a Coile about the Clarity of Scripture concerning things neces- iitmMmr fary > It is hard to fay what they driue at , For if all this pretended €'&e* clarity dirTuied it felf through euery paflage of Holy writ, worle it is for them, and to their vtter confufion. Obferue My reafon. The more clear Scripture is made by Nouellifts , the greater is their shame, whilft they cannot proue by it's fuppofed clarity (b much as one Proteftant Dottrin, nor probably oppugn one Article of but Cathoitck faith. Therefore nothing is gained this way: Nay all is los't by Their cafting off Church Authority, when after that Tricked Faft , clear Scripture leaues them as Scriptureleffe, as Their own malice has made them Churchlejfe* It is true. I fee fbme Colour for their Pre- tence to Scripture, and thus it is. Like men lawlefTe , they haue shaken of all other receiued Principles of Chriftian Religion. Speak, of a Church ,She is fallible,and has actually erred.. Cite Fathers, fbme pitifully gloss them, others roundly reie& them as men meer- ly Fallible. Mention Tradition, the very word is odious. Now for ftark shame , whilft they bear the name of Chriftians, it is hard to throw away all Chriftian Principles. What's done therefore ? Wfy St&a< I'le tell you. They lay hold of a bod} without a Soul , I mean , rtes take the bare letter of Scrrpture without the Senfe, and this is all that's f^f§ t0 left them. 1 fay Without the fenfe, whereof you haue feen enough Utter of already, for when the fenfe of God's word is controuerted between Scriftkrr. them and vs, and their fenfe run's contrary to the receiued Church Docfcrin, no probable Principle can make it defenfibk , and vpon this Ground I faid right, They are as Scripturetejfe as Churchleffe AH this is moft true, and I well vnderftand it. But why thefe men la- bour fo earneftly to make the Bible plain, when not fo much as one plain paflage is found there for Proteftancy ,. or againft our Catholick Do&rin, is a Riddle aboue my reach, I vnderftand it not* Let then as much as you will of the book be clear, whilft the Clarity fauour's not one of our Se&aries forged Nouelties, nor Contradi&'s one of our Catholick Tenets , it neither help's rhe Prote&mt i y I D ifc. L C. 14. Other Principles inefficient Proteftant nor hurt's the Catholick. In the next Difcourfe we shall treat of the Church, and more oportunely folue there a few obie&ions of Sectaries, .CHAP. XV. The otfor mentioned Principles Alone aye inefficient to decide controller fies ^ Or to Regulate Faith. mi i , *TP He next Principle after Scripture, we named the Myfteries 1 ofChriftian Religion ., which certainly cannot regulate Faith, or determine Controuerfies concerning Religion. For a Rule is the meafure whereby we iudge what is true.and what is falss, but no man nidges this by the Myfteries themfelues fit/if «ai.,b.ecaufe thefe propoled without further light, are not only oblcure but highly Tranfcend all natural difcourfe, And therefore Reafon would reiect them, were it not curb'd and rectified by an other Superiour moft certain and infallible Rule , diftindi from the Myfteries. .A further ground and more a Priori is. That man who Iudges of Religion by the Myfteries belieued , makes, in real truth his own fancy or weak reafon to ■ regulate Faith , and is fureto erre. Tie shew you how, Giue me one , as yet not fetled in any Faith , that caft's his thoughts vpon all the different Religions now Pro- felTedin the world, ludaifm, Mabometifm. and Cbrittiamty. He call's them all to the Tribunal of his Reafon which is guided by ifchtt weak t^e Myfteries of each Profeflion, And is refolued to pitch on fb BM{7 . much , as feem-s fuitable to his Judgement. Reafon certainly, if bracet if left k proceed Reafonably . will only pick out of euery one, fuch u itfelft. Myfteries as are Facile, and no way torture an Vnderftanding. Much may difpleafe this Seeker after Truth in ludaifm , yet per- haps not all. The filth and Fooleries in Turcifm like him nor, — • - - yet Difc. I. C. 15. To regulate Faith. l^ yet fomething he may approue. Finally he fall's vpon Chriffianity and there rind's thole infuperable difficulties of a Trinity y the I»ur- natis??, Original fin dec. Thefe luite not with his Reafon, and con- fequently are reiected , Therefore ( if Chriftianity be true ) a false Religion cannot but haue more (way with him, than the vndoubte'd reuealed Verities of Iefus Chrift. Thus much feem's clear. Per- haps you will ask why I inftance in an Vnbelhuer,who is yet to chufe his Religion ? When I should show that Christians, euen thole we call Sectaries , ought not to end Controuerlies or to regulate their Faith by the apparent eatines , or difficulty of Myfteries within the bounds of Chriftianity, whereof many are in difpute between them and Catholicks. Anlw. I haue inftanced thus on fet purpqle to lay open the great Err.our of all Se,cf.aries , who leauihg the Tkefe »h» Conduct of Chrift' s Church run along with this fuppofed Vnbtlieuer.y9tbelie^ For as he , after a confideratipn had of feueral Myfteries found in ^mf the Religions now named, takes out of each what is eafieft , and Aukein ' beft likes his Fancy, or weak reafon^ So Sectaries ptoceed, Though their Choife they walk in a leifer compass, and for the moft part limit Themfel- of Religion* ues to fomething taught by men called Chriftians , whether true or falfe, imports not. Within fuch bounds they ta]ce and leaue as freely what pleafeth, as any Vnheheuer doth, and vfually throw off Myfteries moft difficult to fenfe and Reafon. Thus the Arian reie6Vs a Trinity becaufe it is a hard Myftery , and not plainly expreffed in Scripture., The Pelagian denies Original fin vpon the fame ground, and Proteftants jthunder againft TranfubffaMta- thtt , becaufe the word is not in Holy Writ , and the Myftery feem's repugnant to their Reafon. All therefore are alike as ill Self-chufers with in flich a compass as any Vnbelieuer , who ma- kes a new^Religion on his own head,guided by no other Rule, but fancy,or what feem's to him reafonabfe. The fole caufe of this Self- chufing, is the Sectaries falling off from the .conduct of Chrifts vnerring Oracle,T/; The final fen- tence is paft , the iuft Cenfure already giuen. The Fathers we- re , as we are now, plain Papifts. I eafily grant all. 4. Shall I yet fay more concerning the trial of Protectants Opinions, or the fuppofed errours of Catholicks by Fathers,and tell you? Sectaries haue no Gufto to it at all. And becaufe it mainly import's nrft, to difcouer their want ofEuidence and next their fallacious proceeding in this particular , I will briefly do both and remit all here noted to the prudent Cenfure of euery Iudi- cious Reader. Thus it is. There is not one controuerfy now ProteJIants difputed,in whicrrour Proteftants do fo much as offer to plead by »"***&* a General Confent of Fathers, (and Mr Stillingf: likes not to be "£fa f fob'd off ;with Two or three TefKmoniesj Read their writings of co„.ent 0e the Real prefence of Prayers for the Dead, Inuocatlon of Saints , of 'a Fathers* Stcrifice vpon the Altar , of .the inf^tbHity of the Church , and tell me V z after 156 Difc. 1. G 15. Other fmciples wfufficlent after you haue perilled all, How many Fathers you rind clear and i exprefs for Proteftancy > A fight of" four or fun would help much, But hereof there is no danger, for you haue n'ot one clear and cxpres ( I lay more, not one Co much as probable ) againftthe Iw- fallibtlit) of the Roman Catholick Church ,. Againft praying for the Dead&c. And therefore wonder not that Mr Stilling 1 Part. 3. C. 6. P. (T41. where he treat's of Purgatory, talk's much of the Fathers Fancies and Imaginations , And of an itching Curiofity fbme haue to know more concerning the future ftate of fouls, than God has reuealed , But after all produceth not one Tefti- mony either clear or probable againft our Catholick Do&rin. 5. Do youdefrre to fee more of this want in behalf of Pro- teftancy, And how little there is to countenance the Nouelty* Turn again,, to Mr Stiliinf :. Part. 2. C. 1.. P. 293. Where you find a Title threatning ruin to vs all. The Ronun Churcb,not the Catholick Church. Say, I befeech you , who would not haue expected after fuch a clap of Thunder , a whole Torrent of Fa- thers-to haue followed for his purpole? But in lieu of thefe %ZlniTtdi what haue wt * Marr^ > He tell's vs First- His BishoP makes iieueof a £reat ^ea^ °^ difference between The Church, And A Churchy and lAibtn. fbme difference alfo between a True Church and a right Church, next he fall's foul on his Aduerfary , for his not well confidering what the Primate had faid : Laftly ( to pass by a few ieers ) he fpeak's much of the Vniuerfal fpreading of the Churches Doc- trin and Vnity thereof, which is due to the Roman Catholick Church only, But after his long Difcourfe and the rapping Title with it , you haue neither fentence nor lyllable of any Father , which lb much as meanly iniinuates,That, that ancient Moral body (as it comprehends all Chriftians vnited in one Belief) is not the only True and Orthodox Church ia the world i Yet here had been a moft fit place to haue pleaded by plain exprefs Au- thorities ( I mean fuch as directly proue the Roman not to be the Catholick Church ) Belieue it , were there any fuch in the Fa- thers Volumes, Mr Stilling : to make his margents glorious, would haue brought them to light with a witness , But of this main point Difc* I. C. 1 5- To [regulate Faith. 157 point he is vtterly filent , becaufe he had nothing to Cr/ , Arid therefore wifely Slip's afideto other Bjf-Matters , and leaues his Title to shift for it felf. 6". Hence you may well conclude that our Sectaries are drl- uen into ftrange Straits; when we vrge them to pro ue their Pro- teftancy. We flrft call them to plain Scripture for a Final deci- ^{'Trf™* fion in this particular, but wanting where with all , they fit vs are Cajl right with a return of Antifcripturai gloifo. We prefs them imo. again to name any orthodox Church , which fiue or Six ages ilnce profeiTed their Houeltits : Not a word is Anfwered. We ma- ke Inquiry after Councils held by Proteftancs before Luther, for the Proteftant Religion. Silence,deep Silence,not one is found: Mention only Oral Tradition ; they ftbrm at you , becaufe they know Proteftancy has none We appeal to the authority of the moft ancient Fathers , you fee how we are ferued, with Ttords and empty Titles Nothing is or can be alleged clear , Nothing expres , Nothing probable. Finally, to leaue them without aH excufe; We call them agam to an account, and Ask whether they will haue their caufe tryed and iudged by their own Doctors, Luther, Caluin , Zutnglm and the like > No fatisfaction is found here. Luther condemn s Caluin more violently , than the Prelatick Party in England doth the Quakers, and Send's trre AfTbcia- tes of Caluin to Hell, for denying the Real pre fence of Chrifts ProteJ?*M* body in the Sacrament, And Caluin is as fierce againft Luther 'c^tradlti* in this particular.. And thus all Sectaries haue oppofed one prettjlantu another from the very beginning of this woful Reformation. Some plead for our Catholick Doctrin , Others are contrary as you may read at large , almoft in euery Page of the Pr ot e~ (tants Apology. We therefore know not what thefe Nouellifts would or can belieue , whilft thefe endles differences about Belief thus turn their heads, -and make them to belieue iuft no- thing , but what euery fancy pleafeth. What a Religion haue we here \ View well it's exteriour, you haue only Horrour and confufion to look on. Altars pulled doton , Cbifters demolished , f'totts places prophanedx Stately Churches turned into fluttish barns , 1 2 bx Neither ln- ttrtour nor extcriottr •valuable in protejlancj. Sectaries proceed vnwortlily with the lathers. 158 Diic. I.C 15. Other Principles inefficient by a barbarous Reformation. Enter into the Interiour , or call a ferious thought on that which should elTentially conflitute Reli- gion , you rind this Proteftancy a meer new Nothing , as Scripture leiTe as Churchles , without Tradition , without the content of Fathers , or any Chrillian Principle to vphold it , yea ( and this vtterly ruin's all ) without any Agreement in Doctrin amongft themlelues. May we not Therefore iuflly deplore the lad con- dition of Thoufands now within our once mod Catholick En- gland , to fee a Tbm^ which Hand's on no Principles but fancy , moll earneftly flood for , by men of excellent natural parts , and theft English too, whofe Progenitors (the world knowes it, fully as wife as They) were all Roman Catholicks > But what will ye S Good Reuenues , A merry life , a hanfbm wife , and Self Interefi will haue it fo. And thus much of the want of clear Authori- ties in behalf of Proteflants. 7. We are now to Ipeak a word of their fallacious , or ra- ther open iniurious Proceeding with the Fathers. And to ma- ke good what I am about to Say , you may pleafe to reflect vpon the Notes in the other Treatise, Chiefly. Diic. 4. C. 2. n. 23. 24. Where you are told That the great work of Prote- ctants , is nor fo much to proue Their own Religion , as to fpend time in cauilling at ours , And by fuperficial GlolTes to driue fenfe out of the Fathers mod fignificant Doctrin , and then to tell the world, they are not for Popery. And ( thus (may their glolTes haue place) no Religion (neither theirs nor ours ) can be proued by the Fathers. This mod vnworthy Procedure with thefe, great Lights of the Church lenghthens Proteflants books , And makes Mr Still ingfleets Account to fwell into the bulk you fee. Might I here (by the way ) Ipeak my thoughts concerning it ; I verily belieue there was neuer Bock fet forth , which lefTe deferued it's Title , than this. He call's it : A Rational Account of the grounds of Prote- ttwt Reliyon y yet if any one, after a diligent perufal of the who- le Work , can show me but one Article of Proteflancj proued by plain Scripture 5 by a General cemfent of Fathers , by any ancient Account , Difc. i.C. IJ. To regulate Fail b> 159 ancient Church Do&rin , or vniuerfal Tradition , I do at this prefent engage , to euince by my Anfwer , That hi is %rofly mistaken. The faireft Occafion Mr Stillingfleet had to fpeak home for Proteftancy , was. Part. *. C. 7. Where he treat's of their way of refoluing Faith , yet euen here he fill's fo Ttterly from the Caufe , that he faies no more for Proteflancy, than Arianifm. See the other Treatife. Difc. 1. C. 9. You will ask perhaps wherein then lies the Subftance of. his book > I Anfwer in two things chiefly. Firft in a tedious wordy quar- rel with Catholick Religion; ( His flurting at it is endlefle) T^oimP^ 2' In a grofs Abufe of the Fathers by his intolerable GlofTes. £*£* Of neither shall he giue a rational Account to God at the day t^e ' ruuu. of Iudgement. To prone what is here hinted at, Read I be- net of Mr feech you the following Chapter ,. which I place here on fet StiBng s purpofe to lead in a further difcourfe concerning the GloiTes ©f Sectaries , Withall to lay forth their emptiness and fraud ; And finally to show whither thefe Vnprincipled^ life-less. Whim- feys , tend at laft. Thus much performed , you shall fee Prote- ftancy appear like it felf , a meer Nothing. CHAP, XVL One yord more of Mr StiUingfieets Glojjes^ and bis J>nexufahle abufe of other Fathrs. U *Tp Hough much is faid of this fubiecl: already , yet be- I caufe here is Occafion again , I shall briefly point at two or three of Mr Stillingfleet's notorious Abufes. To profe- eute all or the half he has , would make this Treatife as big a$ his volume. We begin with that known PafTage of S. ti'tetdme. Eptfl. 57. Ad Damafum , where the Saint faith. The Churcb is built vpon S. Peters See, and tobosoeuer is out of the Communion of that Qbmcb (whereof Pope Damafu$ was then hend)rj Profhane , **■ Aben^ S Hieroms ah u ft A. Mr StUUnf: demand impertinent. i^o Difc. i. C 16. Other ancle it Fathers Mien, and belongs to Antichr'isl Sec. This in brief is the Subftance of S. Hierows Dcclr'w. Mr Stilling: Part 2. C. 1. P. 311. Irn-- putcs not plainly thefe Expreffions to heat or flattery , although, Saith he , it locl^s the wore fufpicious , beiaufe at that timeS. liter otne bad a gnat picque aga'mjl the Eaftern Bishops, And then tell's v$ to no purpofe , what occafioned the Quarrel. Reflect good Jveader. Is thishanfom, to make a Saint and mod profound Doc- tor to Speak in fo weighty a Matter againft Truth , and his owjr confeience , moued therunto by flattery and no man knowes what Imagined Piques? Suppofe he earnefUy flood for Truth againft thofe Bishops,muft He Therefore be thought either to flatter or to deny truth now, when he writ's to a Pope , his lawful Superiour > Vpon what Principle doph this vngrounded calumny Stand 2 Pray you Anfwer. 2. After fome Pajergons , not worth the mentioning. Mr Stilling: Sales. When S. Hurome Pronounces thofe Ahem and Prophane* who are out of the Communion, of the Church, it either belongs not to the particular Church of Rome , or if it doth, it makes not to our purpofe. What mean thefe words, The particular Church of Rome ? The fole Diocess of that Citty ? No. S. Hieromt fpeak's of the Church built vpon S. Peter , or of all Churches vnited in Faith with that See, where Damafus then fate, which only (excluding Aliens, That is all heretical Societies) make vp the true Vniuerfal Orthodox Church , as shall be demonftrated hereafter. Well faith Mr Stilling s Suppofe I grant that S. Hierome ipake of the particular Church of Rome (he means, ort'is Nonfenfe, of all Churches of the lame Faith with the Roman) yet this co- mes -not home to the purpofe, vnless we Catholicks proue our Church to be as Orthodox now , as She wras in thole Primitiue times. We proue , -Upod or. irToue you on uoq s name , to whomprouing belongs, That this Church is less Orthodox now, than formerly. Who euer ftand's in a known old path as we Doe, ought not to prouf he ftand's there , [Olim poftdto prior pofideo » is his proof) but one that ftart's alide , and takes to a new way (as you touc d_one ) should tell vsa why he left the other high Difc. i. C 16. ffofly mftnterpretti. ioi Road wherein his Anceftors walked > No prince proxies his R/gfa and Tir/f to a Rebel , but if any be To vngracious as to rebel , that man muft show why he did fo , or fufter for it. But of this fu- bie6t fo much is faid in the other Treatife that I hold it vnans- werable, More shall be added in its due place. In the mean while you fee A pretty way of arguing , which run's vpon an idle Suppofition, viz. That the Roman Church is altered from it felf, fince S- Hierosras time* The improbable Suppofition is firft to be proued, before the Argument haue any force,tillthen we may lawfully iudge, that S. Hierom's Teftimony concludes againft this Aduerftry. Pray tell me, If I, vpon a bare Suppofition , shonld af- fert that Mr Stilling : is no good Diuine , and thence infer , he is H*s /ja^ vnfit to write Controuerfies , might he not moit luftly be angry , p0f}ttonnot and well deny my Alfertion , becaufe the Suppofition whereon the prmed. Affection ftand's is not proued > No more, fay is t'is proued in the prefent Matter, viz. That our Church Doclrtn is altered from it felf fence the primttiue times. Proue that vpon found Principles , and you will doe more then Euer Rroteftant did hitherto. 3. Hence all Mr Stilling; following talk of Paralogies fall's to nothing. It is he faith, our perpetual Parahgifmy when the Fa- thers are cited in praife of the Church of Rome although fomet't- nns their Rbetortc\ sTfrell'd too high in their Encomtafticks, (They are his words) That we will needs haue thefe praifes to be vnderftood as well of that Church in our prefent age, as in the Fathers time when it better deferued them ; And he add's. As though, it Were not pofible for k Church to be eminent for purtty of Doftrin in one age, and to decline from it in another. Anfwer. All this is worfe than a Paralogtjm or any captious way of reafoning , for it tend's to non- fenfe vnlessthe main Suppofition be proued, to fcif ,That the Roman Apoftolical Catholick Church, once certainly pure in Do&rin has or Can decline from her Purity in afrer ages. Mr Stilling; knowes well that Catholicks, who hold their Church in- fallible , make the receding from its Purity a thing impoffible. How fenfles then is it in this place, where that Qu eft ion of In- fallibility is not bandied, firfl to fuppofeour Church fall en oft from X iw Still 1 1 *?$ Suppoftd which should bi frosted. No other Church Catholick but the "Roman, t6t Difc. I. C. 16. Other ancient Fathers. its old Do&rin , and then to tell vs the Fathers Encomium! hauc nothing to do with it in this prefent ftate ? I argue thus , and Mr Stilling: P. 314. feem's to approue it, Vpon the Suppofi- tion that the Roman Catholick Church has not fwerued nor can fuxrue from it's rirft pure Dodtrin , The Fathers hiogtums are in this age as due to it, as in any other. But the Supposition muft ftand firmly built, as you shall fee hereafter , vpon fure grounds and Principles. But contrariwife this way of arguing is Non-fen- fe ? Tie fuppofe vpon no grounds, the Roman Catholick Church to haue erred , and then lie do an open iniuftice and deny it the due Commendations giuen by the Fathers. It is iuft as if one should fay. Tie fuppofe a man hitherto reputed honeft , to be a thief and then Tie deny him iuftice , and hang him vp. 4. I fay vpon no Grounds^ And to proue my Affertion, ask > With what Church then vifible in the world were Chriftians obliged to Communicate, when all fee S. Hterome will haue them to Communicate with fome Church > Mr Stilling : Anfwers with the Catholick Church. Very Good. I Ask again , whether the Roman Church , and all other Churches vnited in Faith with it r were rightly called the true Catholick Church* Grant this you yeild the caufe , And Confess that Chriftians were then obliged to be in vnionwith the Roman Catholick Church. Contrariwife , if you deny that to haue been then the true Church , you are caft vpon endless difficulties, and here is one which cannot be folued, Vpon the denial you , Sr, are obliged to denote, or name an other Catholick Church diftinct from the Roman , more pure in Doc- trin at that time, than She was7And that not only the Romans, but all others were Aliens and Prophane J*>ho tare not the lambe or communicated not in faith, with your new found fancied Church in the aire. I fay fancied, for to point at flich a Church on earth is as impoflible, as to proue known condemned Hereticks to be good Catholicks, whereof fee more in the other Treatiie. Difc. 3. c. 1. 5. Mr Stilling, to shift off the difficulty will perhaps fay I When S. Hierome wrote This, The RorruaChnrch was truly Ortho- Difc. i.C. i6 grojly wifinterpreted. 16$ Orthodox , and that He accounted all Aliens and Prophane who communicated not with it. Moft true Do&rin : But fee what followes. Be pleated to fall lower to the third or fourth Age after S. Hterome , There was then , I hope , a Catholick Church in the world, wherwith Chriftians Communicated in Faith ; but mod euidently there was not any Then reputed Orthodox , if we exclude the Roman from being fo , For all other Societies name- able 9 though called Chriftians were profeffed Hereticks; With JVjj*£ thefeno man was obliged to communicate, Therefore all were /om ^ either bound to Communicate with the Roman Catholick church Church , or with no Church at all. Hence I infer that the Ortfodi* Fathers Elogtum's giuen to the Roman Catholick Church were &* the euer moft iuftly due , not once only, during the Primitiue times, om * but now alfo and in all Ages : Withall I alTert, That Mr Stilling: denying this Truth , fpeak's his own fancy without proof, or the leaft appearance of any probable Principle. And he will be as wholly vnprincipled, if I firft fuppofe ( as I may if my Creed be true) That there is now at this very houreatrue Catholick Church on earth , and should next demand, where that Church is, in whole vnion Imuft Hue and dye? Will He pitch, think ye , vpon an vnion with the Artans , Grtcians , Abyfitns Anabaptifts Vroteftants or Quakers? Light where he plealeth , he can only vent his fancy without Proof or Principle. Now caft as it were this fancy into a ballance with thofe moft weighty fignificant Teftimonies of ancient Fathers , who pofitiuely preis for com- munion with the Roman Catholick Church , and you will fee a ftrange vneauen Parallel (conceited whimfyes , And ftrong rea- fonable Arguments , laid together). Yet wonder nothing, for weak fancy is the ftrongeft Aduerfary Catholick Religion nat" # s. Cyprian* 6. You haue yet an other Authority grofly mirvfed by Mr Teftimony Stilling : Page 315. And t'is a known Paftage of S. Cyprian in propofed, his 55. Eptftle to Come lius, where he complains of certain factious Schifmaticks,TW;0ny. i6\ Difc i. C. 1 6. Other ancient Fathers from Prophaneand Schismatical per font. Nee cogitate eos ejfe Remanoz Sec. not thinking them to be the Roman styhof* Faith the Apoftle commended) ad cjuos perfidta habere non pofitt accejfum, to whom fal- shood,vntruthr vnfaithfulnes , cannot haue Access, Thus S. Cyprian And I put much force in thofe words. Bos efc Rowanos- Thofe who thenliued to be the Romans, prophetically commended by the Apoftle, which words taken in an obuious fenfe argue, that true Faith should neuer part from the See of Rome. But Mr Stilling : conceal's this force , and translates. Not confidertng that the Romans Sec, No less energy lies in the other following words- To Whom vnfaithfulnes can haue no Auefs , which feem to exclude 4 pofobtltty of falshood from the Roman Church. 7. Now liften a little to four ftrange GloiTes laid vpon this VainGlcfii one Text. Three of them are the Bishops, and one Mr Stilling? ThfreT kieS daim t0> The BishoPs S*»W» &rfidia can hardly ftand here for errour in Faith. And why not my Lord* He An- fwers. It properly lignites malicious falsbood in matter of Trust, or in facl: againft the Diicipline And gouerment of the Church. And I lay, it as properly ngnifies Vnfaithfulnes , or Vntruthy And therefore excludes errour in Faith from the Romans $: yeaitmufe haue this fenfe here, becauie its oppoied to the Faith of the Ro- mans fo much commended by the Apoftle,. which? was true Chriftian Faith. Verfidia therefore fignities the quite contrary ,. that is errour in Faith, But grant the fenfe tobeasthe Bishop gloffeth y it excludes at lea£ from the Romans to whom S. Cyprian wrote, a Poiibility of doing any thing againft the Dis- cipline and Gouerment of the Churchy or of being maliciouily falfein Matter of TrufiL If this be fb r much? more are they ie- cured by virtue of thefe words, (Ad quos perfidta non poftt habere aceffum) from a poCrbiHty of erring in Faith , for what auaiTs it W hace a Church garded horn vniuiil dealing in Matters of Tru& , if yoa make it lyabbs to Enrour m &he main* Ejfential ^ which is true Fmh.ythz rejy g?okmd of Softmion,, And Princi- ple caole alio of *»# pow&ng amongst Chri£lrans> Perhaps* tke- & jjLmwili &y. $m €jp'sm m Ms Eiogtum receded only *&£" firfi Di fc. i. C. 1 6. grofly mlfinterpreted. |6j tomans commended by the Apoftle, not Thofe who lined in his , Bime. Contra i. That is not only faid without Proof, but Gb/trefam improbably falfifies the Saints express words. Eos ijf Homtines, as ted. h now noted. Contra. 2. If $. Cyprian only relate to the Ro- mans whom tiie Apoftle taught y what need is there to keep a coile about the ligniri cation of Ptrfidia ,' when thofe fkft Chri- ftians had for their Inflrucior an Infatlible Apoftle,- If therefore S. Paul could not err in faith , Perfidia , may wdl exclude all misbelief or errour in Matters of Faith from that Apoftelual Church. And here we make way to difcouer the Bishops leuity in his fecond Gloss. 8. Suppofe faith he y it be granted that,. Perfidiar Signifies errour in faith, or Doclrin , yet it belongs not to the Romans abfolu- tely , but with a refpect to thofe rlrft Romans \ whole Faith was commended by the Apoftle. Contra 1. Vpon what certain Principle doth this confident Affertion fiand 5 It btlongs not ab- folutely to the Roman Church 2 Proue thus much by a fure Prin- ciple, and fometbing is faid to the purpofe. But without a folid Probation we look on it as a whimfey only r or a thought of fancy. Yet more. What mean's his Lordship by thofe dark words. With a refpeft to thofe p(i Romans f Will he fay that the firft Romans were infallible in Faith and make thofe others to whom S. Cyprian wrote fallible ? This muft be his meaning or nothing, For if both were equally infallible, or both alike fMltble , he gains wST| nothing by the wo*d , Refpeft , to the firft Romans,- Therefore Gloftre. hemulV hold that ancient Church of Roms to be more infallibly ##*<*„ founded in Faith, than the later Romans were to whom S. Cy- pi r*H wrote -r Admit this, He makes the Saint not only to flatter £ whole Church T bu£ to fpeak Nonfenfe> alfov For in effect he faith thus- much,. Your Anceftors the Romans , were fo lecured from errour inr Faith> that they could not decline from Chrift's Doctrhr 7 but you now are fir a very tottering Condi- tion 7 far yoa may fwerue front she Faith of your Anceftors^. you may perhaps belieue as they did, and perhaps not, Howe- tter I will footh you vp and praife you ? as a Church impofr Ut Stilling mijtnterprc* iAtton. 2bth Strai- ned *nd inconfiftent with S. Cy- prians fenfe. 166 Dili. 1. C. 16. Other ancient Fathers ble to erre with , an Ad quos Perfidia habere non pofitt accejfunu You are men Co faithfull that no Misbelief can touch you. The Iaft Glols of the Bishop is thus. S. Cyprians Elogium leerns ra- ther a Rhetorical infinuaiion , than a Dogmatical Affertion. Mark the proofles word, Semsy t'is only a thought of my Lords fancy, which I am fure feem's far from a dogmatical Affertion. What I That a Saint and worthy Bishop should Rhetorhk.it in fo weighty a Matter ? But enough of this nothing. 9. To make ibmething doe at laft, Mr Stilling : Page. %i7* laies his Glofs by my Lord's, and has a good opinion or it. To giue every man his due, it is better than any of the Bishops. He (ayes in a word , (after a relation of the prefent ftate of Rome at that time , when thofe Schismaticks , Feliufiimm and Torturaius came thither ) that, Perfidta , may well denote the Fals- ness and treacherous dealing of thofe two Perfons,who feemed good Catholicks , but were not fo , and fought to ioyn in Communion with Comelm and the Catholick Party , but meant it not. Now iiich Iuglers should haue no Accefs to the Pri«- ctpal Churchy or to thofe Romans , whofe Faith the Apoftle fo highly extolled, fo that Perfidta Refpects not the Romans , nor excludes Errour from that Church, but laies falshood (as was well deierued) on thofe Scht(maticks. This I take to be Mr Stilling : meaning. Contra. 1. The Glofs, euery one fees, vio- lently ftrained , makes the allufion between Fides and Perfidia , inflgnificant. 2. It is inconfiftent with the Authors whole fenfe , who fpeak's ( not of perfidious men but ) of Falshood and Vntruth, which could not haue Accefs to that principal Church. For it is euident , that perfidious perfons , as Mr Stilling : tell's the Story, actually had Accefs , And therefore could certainly haue it , when Fortunatus and Feltctfitmus came to Rome. 3. Make the moft you can of this Glofs it reaches no further bnt to a meer far-fetcht Guefs , and what is gained by That? Can Mr Stilling : eftablish his Opinion of the Chur- ches fallibility on no Hirer grounds ? Ca« he hope to driue me by gueiTes and GiofTes, not only from the Obuiousfenfe of Fife. f. C. 16 grofly mi/interpreted. 167 of thefe words , but alfo from the clear ExprefTions of innu- merable other Fathers who ftand openly for an infallible Church* It is a difperate Improbability. Yet fo it is : Thefe felfcon- ceited GloiTes and nothing els , Vphold Proteftancy in euery controuerted Matter. The infinite number of them , and the Stories Mr Stilling : tell's to no purpofe at all , fo enlarge his Rational account , That if you fling thefe away , you may eaiily put the remainder of that Book, into a fmal uettmo-jexto. 10. Be pleafed to obferue a little. We lay, and Chrift faid it before vs, Hill ^ates should not prcuail againji the Church founded by Diuine Prouidence , But fancied GloiTes difputes it at laft w*W* • \ „ r 1 • 11 tth itt -1- fea 10 mans* into a Pop ib titty or being peruerted by Hell , and Merely alio. fta prwA We fay , it is the Pillar and ground of Truth, but GloiTes laid vpon thefe words muft be thought fo ftrong as to shake it all in pie- ces. We fay, Chrifi Ifrtll be Ttith bu Spoufe to the end of the world. Hold there , fay Sectaries, our GloiTes tell you, No, For this pro- mile was only Conditionally True , in all that fucceeded the Apoft- les. A fitting AfTiftance we allow it, fuch as pleafes our fancies, But no more. We fay with S. Cyprian S. Hurome , S. Irenaus and other Fathers , that the Church neuer depart' s from ftbat She once bdd-j that in Her is the Rule and fquare of Vaitb ; that in Her , is the Spirit of God, That She is thelfelfpring of truth, The duelling place of Yaith &c. But a companie of GloiTes fpoil all this Docirin, And fo rack the fenfe of thefe clear ExprefTions , that one may boldly fwear,the Glofs and Text are fworn enemies. CHAP, i6Z Difc, i. C.17. Why SeSlaries Gkjfet CHAP. XVIL Why the ^Glo/fes of Sectaries are impertinent and ^eight- ies * Mr Stilling fleet mtjinterpreu other Fathers. Of his Unskilful Speculation concerning Idolatry (^harged on Qatholicks. ' M Vch is iaid in the Other Treatiie. Difc. 4. C. 4. n, 8. of our Protectants GlofFes, Here you haue a fur- ther difcouery of their weakness , And t'is the only thing aym'd at in this , And the precedent Chapters. In a word thus I conclude. That man who in Matters of Controuerhes defend"? aDofttinvpon no furer grounds then meer doubtful And vn- A» aJTertion certain Gloifes are, added to Scriprure and the Fathers , (which clearly Utd feem contrary to his Do&rin ) moil euidently ftand's vnprinci- firth. pl'd, proceed's weakly , and proues nothing. But the Prote- ftant makes his weak , and douhtful Gloffes , charged on fuch Authorities as are produced for our Catholick Tenets y the fole Support , the only Proof of his contrary Do&rin , Therefore He proceeds vnreafonably, and proues nothing. You shall fee this euidenced in the prefent Matter now briefly hinted at , of the Infallibility of the Roman Cttholuk. Church. Mr Stilling ; AiTerts , She is fallible. I ask how He proues the AfTertion I What ? By exprefs Scripture, vniuerfal Tradition, the vnanimous Con- fent of Fathers , the Definitions of any ancient Church or H#»S*#4- Council? Thefe are excellent Principles : Could He fettle ries proceed kjs opinion vpon all , or vpon any one of them we haue done to weakens, ancj muft yeild. But he proceed's ftrangely, and I inuft needs tell you How. The man hopes to weaken our proofs drawn from the Fathers in behalfe of the Churches infallibility, And thereby to eftablish his Pofition. She is fallible, I demand , how can * Dif c. F.4 C. 17. arevrtpertinent ? 16} can our Proofs be weakned? His Arfwer muft be (for he has no other ) I trill fo tamper with thefe your alleged Texts that at laft I'le make them proue nothing for your Churches Infalli- bility,'And confequuitly I may hold my Contrary T*o/itto'> ( of her Fallibility ) very well established. The inference is worth nothing, but let it pass. I Ask. }. .What is it he will tamper wirhall , or how.can he make null thofe manifeft T>x's which clearly lye open, to euery eye caft on .the Fathers,* And cuince, (as we shall fee hereafter ) that the Church is infallible > Mr Siillinfleets (train through jhis whole book (For, Facia loquuntnr) return's the beft "Anfwer. My Gnelfes (fairji he)" And GlolTes kid on the Fathers , when Teem ingly contrary to Proreftanc Dodrin Shall make them (peak another language , no way fa- uouring the Churches infallibility. 2. Here we come to the point , 'And demand in the lift pla- ce. Whether thefe GlofTes are to clearly their Own Selfe • Eui- dinct , that by their very light they lay a Truth before an vnder- Their Gkt~ (landing not to be contradicted. For example. Whether S. fi* ™fi¥* Cyprian in the Pailage now cited , gaue only , as Mr .Stilling : faith, a taftof his old office of $. Rhetorician, And fpake not dog- matically > Is this I fay an yndeniabieTruth } Moft euidently no. For ftretch'itto the furtheit it can be-no more but 4 moft doubtful and vncertain Glossal iay tis highly Improbable. Now be pleated to reflect. The Affertion concerning the Churches fallibility is no Self-euidenccd Truth nor clear Ex ter mints ( no more is our contrary Doctrin of the Churches infallibility ) To giue it Therefore proof and weight, thefe Gloffes arecaflvpon the Fathers, who « feemingjy at [eaft fauour infallibility ; But thefe very Glojfa Which should do that feruice are as vncvident , as vncertain , And donbtful as the very Doclrin isy Thq should enlighten and lend proof too , Ergo they aduance not at all the Doclrin concerning the Churches fal- Itbility. For, proofs which are as vncertain as the very Doctrin is which should be proued , can neuer raife that to a greater meafure of certainty than it had before fuch proofc were thought $r\ Pleafe to mark what I fay. The Doclrin of -the Churches """" ,Y fallibility Euidenc*, The force of our Argu- ment more jignificamly txpejfed. Cur Aduiv furies reply refuted. 170 Dlfc. l C. 1,7- Wh) SeSlariesGojps fallibility hero flippofed by Jewries is vncertain , and for that rea- fon lies in it's Vnemdevce^ vntil lblid Proofs, clear it , or expel both ■. the vnenidence and vncertainty, But theli GlofTes when they ap- J)ear,j are as vneuident and vncertain as the Doctrin is , There- ore they cannot raife the Do&rin to any higher degree of certainty, than to meer vneutdtnet and vncertainty: I "tooutd bxut tbii noted y For it is a ground whereby I shal show hereafter Pro- teflancy to be a. mofV improbable Religion, And Therefore will . deliuer it once.. more in thefe plainer Terms. If the Sectary has • no furer Principle whereon to found his yet vneuidenced opinion, , of the Churches fallibility then Doubtful GlolTes laid on Scrip- ture and Fathers ; (as euidently he has not) And Thefe Glofles, which should, proue that Doctrin be as deuoid .of ftrength as remote from Principles , as vncertain, or doubtful, as that very, . yet vneuidenced Doctrin is $ Itfollowes clearly, That both the . Do&rin and the GlofTes fall to nothing but only fubfift by fan-.. cy, which is a real Truth. From all now faid I inferr, thafc- whoeucr interpret's , muft haue his Do&rin firmly grounded v'pon certain Principles diftincft. from his own interpretations (as the Catholick euer hath) or nothing is proued. 3. Mr Stilling : may reply, His intention whilfthe interprets thefe Fathers is not to proue immediatly his own Opinion of the Churches fallibility, but only to show our alleged Teftimonies come not home, or want for.se to proue Her infallible. Now to shew our proofs forceles in order to what we hold, is not to make good his. contrary A.fTertion : For thefe two. things, are very diffe- rent; To maht null o'tr proofs , Aid to eflabltsb bis o^n Doflnn. AnuV* . I grant they are different. But neither is, nor can be done. Not the firft. '. Becaufe thefe Glofles are no S If-tuidenu prouing, That the Fathers fenfe.is rightly hit on : And Principles di fluid: from thefe GlofTes-, whereby it may be shown what Doc- trin the Fathers del iuered in this particular, Mr Stilling: hath not any fo much as meanly probable. To the fecond I Anfrer. If He offer's not to proue his Tenet of the Churches fallibility by the little ftrength thefe gloffes haue, I auouch it boldly, All fur- ther i Cifc. I, C. 17* &>'* vnperiinent. 171 .- ther Probations foil hinvand for that rcaibn he is either forced to make vfe or* fuch poor fluff to prone wiihall or muft fit down 'J&Lenty And grant his Tenet cannot be proued. He may perhaps tell vs our Cnurch has erred de fccto , Jbp it is fallible": And here is his Principle. I AnnVer its no Principle to me, but an Herefy; And as Aiferted.by him 'tis as much, yea more , doubtful than all his gloiTes are laid together, He may reply. 3. His Gloifes may at leafl be thought probable. I vtterly deny that , And here is my ground. Solely considered they euidence not their own probability, But need further proof and probable Prin- ciples 'to rely on^ But iuch proofs are wanting to found Probabi- lity vpon, Therefore thefe gloiTes are [uppofed only , not proued proba- ble. Had Mr Stilling ; plain Scripture , any Orthodox Church, or Fathers clear for t\n Declrin maimaimd by him , He might well talk of the ftrength Of his G/o/w > but to make GloiTes probable, Tht$e8*. wben.no probable ground fupports the Doftrin ,for Whofe fake rtes ?lt'^e', he Glojjjt , is not only loft labour, but share's much of Non-fenfe, jjj ir&nkk Again. Were thefe GloiTes probable. 5 (which I shall neuer grant) ourAnfwers to them ore at leafl as probable; And what gain's either Party to their caufe by skirmishing in the dark with weak Probabilities only > 'Matters of Religion, which muft ftand s vpon fure Principles ( or there is no fuch thing as Religion in the world) would be iuft like weak Opinions in fchools Tenable or . not tenable as different iudgements pleafe to Opine, might. To- picks, And probabilities only , Iway in fb weighty .a Caufe. 4. Vpon this ground you haue Euidence enough, againft thele pretended Probabilities of Sectaries (whereof more pre- fently) Be pleafed to obferue it, -The Catholick faith. The Roman Catholick Church is infallible* No., faith the Proteftant. She is fallible. Here lies the contradiction . If both thefe Aduer- faries AfTert lb boldly,, each of them ( fuppoling that God hath i reuealed the one or other part of the Contradiclion ) muft foli- dly prone what he AlTert's in ib weighty a Matter. And can any man perfwade himfelf, that an Infinite wifdom hath laidThac- Truth whereon fo much depend's and is now reuealed toChri- Y z ftians \?l Dife. u C. 17. Why Scclarkf Olojfet Thohulou: ftians ( whether it be tW Churches fiHibility or the contrary ) hi truths of _ ^,€}j obfeuriry, orretnoued it fo far from prudent Reafon, That nJ proved*^ M man can ^-r'd ^t oL.t\ or pf due ic>4>ut by the dark glirnjffes of fy Gw/^, weak GuelTes ,*of vncertain Topicks and Probabilities y which of their om nature eafily •■ throw men into errour > Orant thus much, We rlrft do tniiiry to Cods Reuelatfon. Next we are left in fliipene^, Arid kkow not what- to belieue; And here I ask whether Mr Sti-llingfleetwil* oblige me vnder pain of dam- nation -ftedraftly to belieue the abfolutc fallibility of the Roman Catholick Church? If he doth,, no weaker Principle then plam Scripture can be- my Security -, And this I require of him. If he recoyle aild produce not plain Scripture, He is more than imprudent , to force on me a new Faith contrary- to the Jud- gement of a whole Church , vpon no ftronger proofs than 'weak gueffes are. Laftly, may^Topicks auail here, we lay an impofTfc ble obligation oil our fclues -whilft all mull lay, God will haue vs to belieue and with all certainty what he hath reuealed in this particular; Yet when we come to examin the Grounds and Proofs of our certain belief , All* Proofs vanish away into Topicks cl lit 't am* vncerta^n fancies. Hence I conclude* , if the Proteftant »9 weak Tom jaffirm's, as he doth, that our Church is fallible , He muft proue picks. the AlTertiori by indubitable Principles, And the like obligation lies on the Catholick; who faiths --She is tnfalltble ; And this by the grace of God shall be proued in the next Difcourfe. ^ . In the wurim if you defire to fee more of much in fury done to the ancient Fathers, turn only to Mr Stilling: 3. Part. C, 3. P. 58. Where he oppugns our Catholick Dodcrin of praying to Saints , And you may well fland aftonished at his-Vnprin^i- pled Glories. He- iaitlv rlrfr. The •■■ExprefBons'of Fathers which item mort to tfjuntcnaftce this 'Ihuocntion , are only K'ttor'ual f.Gitnf'icj,.. Has- the Au^rtion any -probability think you^ Read only the Teftimonics alleged *by Cardinal Btuarmin de* Sard ; Bcatitudvie. Cap. 1 9. Br Gr dinjl Perron (large vpon this fubiec'tj And Cardinal Richtlutt. T*din$ pour conutrtir ciux (]ut ft font ftp ire a de i:tgU(i\ Lij, Chiefly Pa^e ^10, ( Ix h not now rry mzem to jran-«- Difc. i. C. 17. wf impertinent i 17 \ •tranfcribe thofe many vnanftrerable Authorities alleged in behalf of our Docl:rin)And if after the perufal you fee not plainly that both Mr Stillmgfleet and his Lord doe 'grofly abufe the Fathers, deny me credit hereafter. 6.' To conuirfce the firft 1 of vniiift proceeding , tfe only in- Mr stilling: fiance in one particular. P. ?8<>. Where he faith that S. Gregory *f*?n"bt4* Kyfjn in his commendation of S. Theodorm the martyr, made vfe df f'tL*t Rhetorick in his Apoftropbe to the Saint, without any folemn In- uocation. It is vtterly vntrue. The words of S.Gregory art Thefe. Paris Print, 1615. Page ion. And 1017." when the Scythians threatned*uin to thevCountery;« Pray for v$>m*kt inter* ttfm to him Vrbo is our Common Lord and King % As jou are a fottldier fight for vs and defend vs, And as you are a martyr, fpeakjreely for your feUoto [truants , A- few lines afteft And if more Prayers be needful affemble together the Ttbole Quire of your Brethren Martyrs , and ioymlf intercede for vs. Put S. Peter in mind, tnoue S. Paul and the beloucd Vifcipleof our Lord ,that They be foicitvus for the Churches , Tihtre the) once Tvore chains, pafjsd dangers , And finally dyed. Iiidge ', good Rea^ der, whether this* recourfe made to a Saint in time of danger be only a Rhetorical flourish, when the very words imply a mod fo* temn and ferious* Inuoxadon 4 Pray for vs, Make inter ce§ion. Let nil the Martyrs ioyntly become Petitioners in our behalf in tbefe our ne- itStties, are no flourishes but holy and Hearty Imiocations. Yet more. When all the Fathers in the Council of Calcedon. Act. iii Tom. i. Concil Pan. xiP. 340. No less publickly, in the Express for prefeneeof the whole Council, than pioufly inuoked the Holy inuocatim martyr Flauianus thus. Vlautantu posl mortem viuit. Martyr pro nobis oret, Flauianus Hues after Death , let that ' Martyr Pray> for vs. Can k any one in ConfcieriCe think that this was only a Rhetorical flourish > Or that the learned Theoderet acted only a Rhetoricians part \ whefi in • his Hiftory of Saints He conclu- des euery life, as BeUarmin obferues , with an earned Petition that by the holy interceflion of thele happy (buls, now in Bliss, he; might haue aide and diuine Afliftance * S. Auftin was a good ft&etorician, yet n& man will lay , he made-vfe of flourishes tit Y x th*r- w-r- «r. - - - Pelirinat *74 Difc. I Ct 17. Why §tfi ark* Gifts that plain and deuout prayer to our Bleflcd Lady, Tom : 9, lib hlT'coifcc. Medttaf.C. 40. Holy and imwacula'e Virgin Mother of God , Motbir ted out of ofottrlord lejiu Chrifi vouchsafe to pray for me to lim, Cuius merutfti &. Aujim ef fit i tew plum, for whom you haue deferued to be made a worthy Temple ' He mean's the Temple of her (acred body , wherein her only Son our Sauiour, pleated to inhabit nine months toge- ther. A whole volume would be neceffary to allege other Fathers in confirmation of our Catltolick Do&rin. But thefe few mani- .feftly prouethat Mr Stilling : grofly erred, when he raid , that the Exprellions of Fathers which teem to Countenance the inuoca- tion of Saints , look only like BioiTbms , and pretty flourishes in Rhetorick^Withalljtbat his fecond AfTertion (viz. The Church did not then admit of the Inuocation of Saints , but only of the Commemoration of Martyrs) is no more but a dream, or a moil improbable faying. 7. It is not now my intent, when I only touch a few , to tax Mr Stilling.0 of many other gross miftakes in this one controuerfy, whereof I verily think his own Conlcience accufeth him ( but I leaue that to God). Howeuer , becaufe contrary to his vfual manner he enters vpon a preculation , which I am confident he vnderftand's not, I will doe Co much fcruice as tavnbeguile both him and his Reader, Mr Stilting 1 8. Page 595. he faith, I cannot pofZtbly fee but that kind of speculation, tyorsbip Jthub TPas giuen by the htathens to their Damons, Was drfeK- ftole vyon the fame grounds that tht Inuocation of Saints is noTP. Here is all. Mr Stilling 1 fee's not the difference : Ergo , There is none. Let that pass. Next Auguftui Cafar is brought in for an Infhnce. The Senate , faith he, decreHtfat Diu'we honours shall be giutn to Au* guslw, And Tfie cannot think that by Virtue of this decree Auguflus ajfumed a Diu'we nature «r, Ucame abfoiutly God. No indeed. For, no decree of a Senate can make a Sinner either God , or Saint. But the Queftion is > what honour the Senate intended to giue that Roman Emperour* You fay it was Diuine. What that Diuine honour was , decreed as due to him , neither you nor I , Sr,know coo well, aor doth it much import ys to know at pre- ftnr, Examined, Difies 'Gltiffes prehcnfion of the Heathen and the Catholick? Muft both of them be fuppo fed to err- fbgrofly, as to own Auguftus a Saint \\\ Heau en as the Patriarchs and Apoftles now are Or muflthe Ca- tholick only iudge fo > This later cannot be vnless you make the Catholick moil inuincibly ignorant. Howcuer , iuch an errota* is poflible, For as a man -by inuincible ignorance may iudge one to' be a Prince who is not, in like manner He may be Co inuincibly beguiled as to think Aug ullus a Saint who is not, And fo may the Heathen ( though t'is very difficult ) be decerned alfb. Vpon this Suppolition of inuincible ignorance which you,Sr, neuer reflec~t.e4 InuipcibU on, I Anfwer. Neither the Heathen nor- the Catholick doe , or jgnorame can commit (we muft Still vfe your improper Phrafe) Formal IdoU- excufes»ll (rjybutnjarertal oriljy The realbn is euident. ■- For-though Augu- crint, tfiw be really no Saint, yet that middle kind of excellency now mentioned , is vpon the Suppofition inuincibly apprehended by hcth ns if He were one , And confequently the apprehenfions had of Cafars Sanctity , the inclinations of their Willi to Teftiry their deuption t,o him, And external anions may be equal , yea one and the lame in- both /but without fear of any formal falfe Ho- mage , becauie inuincible ignorance takes off that formal Crime, And thus far, if we ipeak of ilnful Veneration , there is no diffe- rence between them. The inftance now hinted at dear's all, ic. One comes among vs from a ftrange Countrey nobly atten- ded, demeans himfelf like a Prince , or fome, -great Perf on , and though in real truth he \% no more but a Counterfeit, yet He imploieshis wit Co well, diflemblesTo dexteroufly, That all inuin- cibly iudge him to be what&e is not, a Perfbn of honour : They apprehend a middle kind of excellence in him between a great Monarch and an ordinary man , Reuerence>him accordingly by their external actions, and inclinations of their wills, and therefo- re commit (might one fpeakfb) fbme:kind of Ciutl material ldo» Utry, But are excufed from the formal offence , becaufe of their ig- norance , which is both inculpable and inuincible. Thus the cafe is in our prefent Matter, whilft the Ratio formalis of the Heathen and the Catholicks Adoration is one and the lame, that 33ifc. i.C. 17. are impertinent. 177 i$9 whilft Sanctity, or what ds you will, i* inuincibly apprehended hi dead C&jar, which is. nor. 1 1 . Exclude then this cafe of inuirrciBle ignorance , which though diffembled by you , laics open the whole cheat, The reft of your difcour-fe conies to nothing. Obferue it. You talk o"f a middle kind cf Excellence apprehended in C&far between Diuine and Humane. You should haue faid plainly Firft. What this excellence is as it fraud's in the Apprehenfions of a Heathen and Catholick? You will haue it. 2. To be fome thing which nei- ther belongs to the Supreme God nor to a meer mortal man , Therefore what euer you imagin, is no real Obiecl: in C£(*r , nor any Excellence due to him. Whence it followes that all thefe Ap- prehenfions, or iudgements rather, (for apprehenfions folely con- lidered are neither true nor falfe) which attribute that middle Ex- cellence to Au%alht$ are falle in themfelues, becaufe not conforma- ble to their Obi enhip giueti itp Augufiui which belongs not to him. If fo ; The Ca- *"**; tholick and the Heathen continue in their Idolatry. Contrari- wife,if you fuppofe thefe iudgements inuincibly erroneous,which can fcarce haue place in the Catholtck vnless he be ftrangely ignorant, what euer Adoration followes vpon them is only a ma- terial Offence without the Formal fin, as is now declared. Whe- refore I verily think you, Sr, vhderftand not your felfe too well, when you rirft fuppole the Ratio formalti of prayer or Adoration the fame in the Catholick and Heathen , And then tell vs , we are not to enquire whether the Apprehenfion be true or fulfe, but Tvhat the ru- ture of that ad of Rd'tgion is , )\ hub U confequcnt vponfutb an appreben- fion. 12. Sr, in cafe of inuincible ignorance, it little import's to fn- in this prelent ftate , when mens iudgements are cleared of errour and inuincible ignorance , can you rind no difference ? The difference is mod palpable : For that Deity is not in being , The Saint really is in Heauen. The Heathen adores his Dxmon milled by a false improbable Opinion and Therefore commits Idolatry , The Catholick worship's a Saint, affured of the Truth by a iudgement moft certain, And therefore what He adores is worthy Adoration , vnless you can Vniaint thofe who are in Heauen, or proue they deferue no Re- ference in *jiat hippy State, ■ finally , the Heathens iudgement , becaufe vn. eafonable , and againfi the light of nature , if it owns a Deity in Ctfar , is culpably iinful 5 and ought to be laid down : The Catholicks Iudgement point blank contrary , ought not to he put away. Now, Sir if you fry. All the Heathens worship of Difc. i. C 17. are impertinent 179 of their Demons orinferiour Godsfirok from inuincible ignorance or their Excellence ( which is more then you can proue or probably maintain) Here is yet the difference between them and Catholicks, that Theie are neither formal nor material faife worshipers, The Heathens were at leail materially fa, - 14. What follovves in Mr Stilling: is not like his (peculation any choife Matter but vulgar only , refuted again and again. As. 1. That the Rites of Canonizing Saints Aniwer to the Rites of .the ancient Emperours Apothtufis. 2. The Formal reafon of Idolatry lay in offring vp. thofe deuotions to that tobtcb i>>a$ not God, T^bub only belongs to an Infinite Btivg. Let the ExpreiTion paffe. •Catholicks , I am fure , offer vp no fuch deuotions to Saints as they Adoration doe to God, knowing. well todiftinguish by the internal Acts of veydife- their Will between the Supreme Excellence and all other power infe- rent* riour to Thar. 3. Saith Mr Stilling .-: it is not poilibleto conceiue any Act which doth more express our fence of an Infinite Excellence , And the ProfeiTion of our fubiection to it, than Inuocation doth. Pitiful. He should haue faid , then fuch a particular In- vocation doth, tending to anlnfinit Maiesly-' For we inuokeand call vpon men now Tilling to AiTift vs wTith their Prayers, And likewiie Address our fellies to the Saints in Heauen, Yet no man can gather from fuch deuotions any thing like an acknowled- gement of an Infinite Excellence in men now liuing, or the Saints in .Heauen, But enough of tliefe weightles Arguments, to touch them is to refute them. And thus much of this, And the other former Digreffions, Now we are to i profecute further Two neceffary points CHAP, 180 Difc.i.C 18. SeSlaries djctrtam none €HAP. XVIIE , The Troteftant after all bis GloJJes can not a/certain- any } of true %eligion. He "toould make Qon* itouerfies an endles Thjrk n \7'Ou haue been ofen told abouc , that Sectaries would 1 fain make controuerfies a long work, I muft now giue you the vltimate reafon Thereof, And withal proue it impoffible to know in thefe mens Principles, what is a Chriftian Truth, and what not , Their Gloffes and impropable way of Arguing iaies all which can be (aid in darknes and obfcurity. z. To proceed clearly. I fuppofe firft, that Chriftian Truths P • s . at rcueaicd , or Contained in Chrtfts Do&rin are infallible , and fotoftd " **an^ ^lrm vpon infallible Reuelation. I may here alfo fuppofe. a. That either we Catholicks, or our Proteftant Aduerlaries , euen in luch Tenets as we differ , Belieue and profess Cbnftun Truths. For example. Tranfubjfanttation or no Tranfu! ftantiation f is a Chriftian truth. The Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church, or Her fallibility is a Chriftian Truth, for they are Con- tradictories held by Chriftians , Therefore the one or other muft be owned true, if maintained as Chriftian Doctrin. I fuppo- fe. 3. That neither part of thefe Contradictions -, Tranfubjtan- fiation, or no Tranfubliantiation (in like manner we difcourfe of all other oppofitx Do&rins ) are held their own Selfeuidcnce or manifeftiy true Ex termnu like the firft Principles in nature , If Therefore aiTented to as Chriftian Truths by the one contrary. Party, or the other; They muft be proued by lure Principles- extr in fecal to the JDo&rin which each Party> embraceth. 3. Now you shall fee What work Sectaries make in thefe Disputable Matters, And how nothing can be certainly known Difc-i.Gi i8, of true tRjligiort* 181 by Them, or owned- a$ a Chriftian verity. I would fay , It AnAfifm Can neither be [>roucd in their Principles, That to deny- Tr$*jubr wntnttU, flantiation (let this- one inftance ferue for all) is a Truth, or, that to hold T-rtnfttbfiantutm ,is an Errour. Here is my rea- fon. When Principles whereon folid proofs should liibiift are not, Proofs muft of necefllty fail, But in thofc- GoRtrouerted Matters Sectaries haue no Principles at all to Argue by , Therefore proofs muft fail. The Minor is euidenced thus. All imaginable Principles whereon Proofs can ftand in this conteft, muft either be infallible^orat leaft. morally certain (Meer Pro- bability want's ftrength to vphold a Chriftian Truth-) But the Sectary cannot proue by any either infallible ox Moral certain Prin- ciple , that his Tenet is a Chriftian Truth , And ours Contrary to him is an Errour, Ergo. The flrft part of my AlTertion feem's euident. For you know whathauock the Senary makes of all infallible Principles , Scripture only excepted , (which I am fure fpeak'snota word in his behalf, nor againft vs). All Churches with him rAll Tradition, All Councils , All Fathers alfo are fallible and may deceiue. Therefore thus much is indiiputably clear, He cannot proue infallibly ( I fay no more yet ) that his Tenets are Chriftian Truths; or infallibly , That ours contrary , are Er- rours, For no man can more deriue an infallible proof fronv a meer fallible Principle, than fetch gold out of dross or light out of Darknes. Whateuer Therefore he plead's by next, is vn- der the degree of infallible certainty* And what is it think ye> O , He has Moral AlTurance (and here is the Principle ) that his Tenets are Chriftian Truths ,.and Ours false or erroneous. Very $*f&k good. I ask ( Though moral certainty auail's nothings , as we *nnc¥es Shall lee hereafter ) How he proues no Tranfubslanttatton to be a inUlUbiT Do&rin morally certain, When the Contrary is exprefly defined in Votlrio, three General Councils, And held by a learned Church > Has he any Council fo renowned,as either the Lutheran or Trtdent'tneywhich euer owned his Negatiue, as a Chriftian Truths Has he any Church as Yniuerfally Ipread the whole whorld oueras the. Roman Cathor lick is, which mauntained his Do&rin three or fonr Ages iince.? Z 3 Euidentiy it ^ i8i Difc I. C. 1 8, St claries a/certain none Euidently No. Vpon whatthen, ground's He his Moral certa- inty? I'letell you in a word. All he can pretend to., or plead in I his Controueriy comes to no more , if- it reach fo far , But to two or -three dubious Authorities, taken from thofe Fathers who T» ere Profejfcd members of the Rowan Catholicl^Churcb ; And this little (lender part He makes not only to ftriue againft the iwhole Church , but moreouer giues it fo much ftrength as to •Impeach That great Moral body of errour, And vtterly to ruin the Doclxin which hath been taught age after age ; That is to Compared fry. The lefler Part, ( or rather a meer fuppofed part ) rnuft be tvtihthe thought lb powerful as to make a happy war Offenfiue and De- n>kole. fenfuie againft that whole Moral body whereof it was a member. Is not this aftrange Simplicity? 4. Be pleafed to take here one Inftance from Ciuil affaires only. Suppoie you haue a Parlament confifting of three hun- dred and three iuft, vpright, graue and moft intelligent Perfons , who firft treat of fome weighty Matter relating to the good of a Kingdom or Common wealth , And after long deliberation Enact what in prudence is thought bed in order to its Setle- ment. Suppofe withall, that twro or three of a different iudge- merit withftand the A&, and hold what is concluded not well done. Will any one think ye, not only afcribe a greater moralCertain- ty to thofe three dilTenting votes,Than to the other three hundred, But more ouer decry the far more numerous votes( though of Perfons equally wife) as vniuft , impertinent, and remote from An InjUnce the meaneft degree of moral Certainty? And this is done, (reflect feriously) vpon no other ground, for no other reafon, but be- caufe Three are wilfully fuppofed, by a third Party looking on, ftrong enough to oppofe the greater Part, If this inftance like you'bewer , make vfe of it. Imagin that a Synode Conllfting of 303. 'Proteftant Mintflers define as they think , What's beft to hold within the Compass of Proteftant Religion .* Imagin alfo that three oppofe Them , Can any of that Religion allow more Moral certainty to the three votes, than to the other three hundred, if we'refpeft Authority meerly? Certainly no. 5: Qm i Difc, i. C. 1 8. of true Religion. i8i f . • Our very cafe is here fuffieiently expreffed , and the in- ftances eafily applyed to our prefent purpofe. The Roman Ca- f^Z^ tholick Church is, you know, a great Moral body comprehending *utp0r§ not hundreds, but thoufands and thoufands , whereof innumera- ble are now and in paft Ages haue been moft iuft, vpright, pru- dent,-and without Controuerfy moft eminently learned. Thefe vnanimouily Enact as it were ( whether in the Reprefentatiue of Councils, or by the vniuerfal voice and vote of the whole Church,) That Praying to Saints, prayers for the Dead , or which we now iniift on, the Do&rin of Tranfubflantiation 5 are not only Tenets mot ally . . certain, But more ouer Articles of Diuine Faith; OurAduerfa- ^J™"* ries to oppofe this vnqueftionable certainty, produce three or four imperii' Authorities not clear (as is fuppofed done in Parlament) but nently *iU~ weak and ftrained , and hope hereby to reuerfe , to vnuote , what &*< thefe thoufands haue decreed contrary. Three or four witnefTes, And thefe at moft dubious^ are here brought in againft [>«*«/«&- slantiation , to make our new mens opinion Morally certain,and yet Thefe thoufands, moft wife and learned , though they clear- ly vote and profess againft it , cannot , forsooth \ gain fo much credit with a few Sectaries as to aduanee the Doctrin to moral Certainty , For here we waue thequeftion of infallible AfTuran- ce. What Doings are thefe ? What dates do Tte hue m 1 The whole Catholick Church teaches* as She euer taught , that the very Subftance of bread is really changed into Chrifts Sacred body , And now ( o ftrange times) one Theoderet though no way oppofit is haled in, to reuerfe the Doctrin. One, muft ftriue againft, and conquer Thoufands. It is , we fay, a pretty feat to kill two Birds with one bolt, But here we haue a greater ex- ploit, Theodoret is fuppoied to leuel fo right with a darker ex- preflions ( if yet dark ) That he deftroies the Faith of two Churches at Once, the Greeck and Latin. Councils and emi- A parallel of nent learned councils , haue defined in our behalf , and one Authorities. Tamilian , Though herein he fpeak's moft Catholickly , is pick't out to plead againft them. What's one againft innumerable ^ Tradition both Ancient and modern deliuers the Truth we Pro- : PuSn.> with an Addition, A further proof of out Afftrtior., 184 Difc. I. C. 18. SeElaries afcertain none pugn, And* an vnknown Gelafius , fet vp by Sectaries , mart-be thought powerful enough to repeal and contradict our fore Fathers Tradition. What Doings are thefe > Can the Sectary hope to beate down that ftronge Fortress which Hell gates could neuer yet shake by fuch flight and forceless Armour t Alas, goe to tingle vo- tes, we oppofe our lu&ms, our Cyrills, our Cyprians our Chrtjojioms , clear and exprels againft one Theoderet were he doubtful. Now adde to thefe The weight and graue Authority of our Church and Councils, There is no Parallel no Companion betwixt vs. Yet more. Suppofe thefe few Authorities were clearly contrary to vs, the Proteftant only has at moft three votes , as it were in Parlament againft Millions, and what gain's he by this ?f His pretended Mo- ral certainty ftand's not firm like an vn contradicted Truth , againft fuch a Cloud of oppofit witneiTes. And. 6". Here you haue a further reafon of my Affertioil. As long as this Principle ftand's fure in nature, A "tobole body is greater than a Part , and a Part thereof leffe extended than the tohole , So long it will be indifputably euident, That the vote or voice of a whole moral body( I mean of a Vniuerlal Church far and neer extended ) carries with it greater Moral certainty ( For all this while we touch not vpon infallibility) than a fmall and flender Part can haue , were fuch a part found fo inuincibly ignorant as to contradict the whole. All I would lay is. No more can a few particular members (Though Angels for knowledge) conteft with the contrary jud- gement of our ample Church, Than three votes in Parlamcnt , with the Contrary iudgement of a whole Kingdom. No more can the Authority of particular men equalize, much less furmount in weight and worth , the Senrimfcnt of a whole Moral body , than a hand , For example , Surpass in bigness the whole man. As the one exceed's in quantity and Extenfton , fo the other doth in weight and tntenfian. 7. Hence you iee firft. How poorly Sectaries play at imall Game , when hauing no ancient Church of their own to recurr to, They are fain to run for refuge to a F^Jb Fathers profejfed members cfour Churchy And here like people picjking Salads, gather vp fome fmall fragments which now they clip, now mangle, now peruert^ The nap Difc. -i.'C. 18. of true Religion. 3% now Gloss, now dress after their new fashion, And at laft feme all fairly vp In the larger Margents of their little English Books. ZaTtf With thefe they flourish and vapour as if, for (both , a finall Salaries parcel were able to contrail with the for greater Moral body, or arguing. a few ftolen gleaning ( were all true they idy) diffident to Vnuote what euer this Oracle of Truth hath defined contrary. Leaue of,Ibefeech you Gentlemen this Trifling, giue vs weight for weight, mealarefor meafure, Pleafe to plead by found Princi- ples or youlofethc caufe, Dodge not with vs, we deal nobly with you. 8.. Wee gme yo-u plain and exprefs Scripture. The Church is a TiUar and ground of Truth. She u founded vpm a Rock&c, And you Scriptureless men , return vs your fancied GlofTes, We quote innumerable Fathers mod fignificant for our Catholick Pofitiom9 -And you fob vs off with ©bicurtties , with Crutcifms and flich ilmple ftufT, We appeal to Tradition , you haue- none. We, (And this mainly import's) show y.ou a Church , a Vilible and a moftV glorious Gh-ureh , which timeout of mind, Belieued as wc ■ belieue , And would gladly know where your Orthodox Church was, The Se£i& which four Centuries ilnce approued or published your Nouel- rm F[ea' ties; And youiike men laimg your way, go wandring about till at .* mt**~ laftyou fall vpois Theoderet's Dialogues, And with one iingle Paflage ill efpied and worie applyed, hope to vndoe the whole Catholick caufe, It is not one nor ten Theoderets, though they ipeak far more clearly than is done,, That can preiudice our Do&rin , whilfhyou haue neither Churchnor Councils for. yours. Thefe Principles we demaiad of you , but you haue them not. Therefore you are eaft: into an impoffibility of writing Contro- , ueriies hereafter , For the few Shreds of Fathers vnluckily cut out by you are too flight, to obfeure the greater Lights of our Chriftianity, of our Church, of our Councils, of our Tradition and innumerable Fathers* Belieue it, had the Fathers. you Quote f© ', much Strength , as you imagiu , others would haue .read them Wore your eyes were open , better ludgements would haue weighed vrfcat force they had } before youxltithtrs and QMins w~- A a re linen;* i?6 Difc. I; C. to. Seclules after tain nont re in Being. But That wifer world now gone to Eternity waued \ ilich Cauils, And knew well ,. That what a.Tir/w or a Owe laics - may be right, And may be wrong , But what the Church or* Chrift Defines and teaches , cannot but be found and Orthodox, if God (peak's Truth. Here is the Principle whereon Chriftians fecurely relied in pail-Ages, before our later Sectaries troubled- the world. 9. You fee, 2, .iivwhat a pitiful! cafe Sectaries are, when no* more is alleged againft: our Catholick Do&rin ( And reft allured They haue no more ) but a few {battered Authorities now takenr ' Authorities k°m one, now from another ancient Father,- Therefore I diP- •f no weight cour^"e thus. The Authority is either exprefly plain againft vs *tfillt (which I neuer yet law in >any Doctrinal ConteiV between the - Catholick and Protefknt) or Contrariwife 7.doubtfuly and ambtruom. If doubtful; it decides nothing, nor can the Proteftant though He Vow's it Clear, make itfoe, whilft the learned Catholick auouches the Contrary^ Hitherto both of them (land vpon Opinions and 1 end nothing. Neither can: the. one or other yet abfolutly Say by virtue of fuch a Pailageonly. Tour Doftrtn is Falte , And wine 8 Tw, For a. Principle rationally apprehended dubious, deter— rnin's none to an abiblute true iudgement , one way or other, - Let vs therefore fuppofe contrary to Truth , That the Sectary prcduceth a Father indubitably* clear againft Catholick Do&rin. Thanks be to God Thefe great lights of the Church are not ib *carce with vs, But thatwe.are.abie ro confront that one Autho- rity with the plain Teftimonies of other Fathers far more nume- rous. And thus much I here engage to do, may it pleafe Secta- ries to come to a iuft Tryal , and fully examin with me this one poiwt of T run fubjhna anon y now hinted at : And if after the Con- tuft we do not only match our Aduerlary , but quire outvie him. with maty more Teftimonies fully as clear and clearer , We ttfiyj then rationally ask what's one clear Authority worth ? I lay yet more. Though we falfly fiippole thefe particular contrary Au- thorities to lie euen % or equal on both Stda , I mean , as pregnant for the Sectary, as for the Catholick , yet I neither lofe mycaufe, hqej Difc, u C. J 8, cf true %4'Ugmu 18; nor he gain s _ J\is , /^ecaufe.neither of vs can abfolutly fay vpon ., Moral certainty , which £o&rin is J Chriftian Truth , And *aH*lJY-v\tl which not. For in this conflicl; of Authorities Suppofcd equal y veree^Ual both incitements are left in fufpcnce, The onefiith I quote onfoikfi- clear Authorities for my Twf^ The other anfwers Hee doth fo to* too, And Therefore 'hitherto ftand lb equally polled Th.it nei- ther may cry Victory : .; Neither can yet pretend to fo much Moral certainty as excludes AH # safimable doubting , bgcaufe both Parties mud doubt, whilft the Authorities of the one abate the force of the other. What then foilowes from the Fathers 'Teftimonies were they thus, equally diuided _5 That .is , -if as many cteady. flood, for the Negatiue ,of no Tranfftbftan-tiation, And i uft as many clearly for the Contrary Poiitiue i I An- fwer, This, fallowes, Tha? we and Sectaries muft of neceiTity, (Kill Ti>* few*)* ffr*rb) either appeal to a third certain concluding ..^Principle , or.itand doubtfully opining (as is often clone in . .„ .fchoois) without a final l>ectfion. For, to Belieue any thing w9Svm certainly as Catholicks belieue, if that Principle be exdiuUdy or, arguing -cu% „to know any thing yet morally certain, as Sectaries pretend of doubt fid to know, is vtterly impofTible , Because a Principle purely &***¥*** probable, is euidently too weak, either to Support any^jgrm •Belief, or to ground fb much Moral certainty of a Chriftian 'Truth, as excludes a poibbility of doubting. io, You will Ask what then is there which may raife thefe two Aduerfanes from that low degree of meer Opining to -h higher degree of. certainty 3 I shall fully .Anfwer the Queftion in the next Diicourle, Here I fay.ip a word. 'No Principle can do this, But one only which the Sectary want's, And the Catholick has to rely .oh, which is the Tradition , the Voice and open declared ludqenttnt of Chrifts Catholick Church here on earth. This faithful Oracle raifes vs from the^fuppofed State .of our guefllng Probably, to. the .higheft degree of not only Moral , but alio of Infallible certainty , .Though >now we prefs .not that againft our Aduerfaries, The Sectary Therefore who difdain'sto learn pf this Oracle what Chriftian Truths are, shall A a £ i,i)e.u§r Vrhat the Se&ary can SUad. On rphat Frincipl* the C*tbc &k Stand's k88 Difc. i.Q iS. Sectaries a/certain none neucr come to his Mora! certainty, though the Suppofition alrea* dy made of Authorities tqual flood in vigour. Iudgethen ,1 be* feech you, How defperate his Caufe is -now,. How remote from- all fuch certainty lie facto, (whether he impugns our Docrrin , or*- plead's for his own opinions ) when he hathnothingto rely on i . but only a few dark and dubious PaiFages of fome ancient Fathers ? n, I lay dubious Pajfa<>es y for in Truth (if Co much. ) they are no more , Aud Therefore though we haue hitherto iuppo-.- fed Authorities tutnly laid on both . fides (To Show that no- thing help's the Sectary out of his labyrinth ) yet now I muib tell the Story as t'is. All he has in this world to plead , cc-* mes only to a kw miimterpreted Authorities , And with fuch poor Gleanings, clurchless wan as He u y he thinks to Out-braue* a whole Church, Tp decry Tradition , to vnfenfe the Fathers, to rob vs of our right, And finally to throw vs out of the Pcffes- fion of thofe ancient .Chrift.ianTiuths , which both we and our Anceftors haue profefled age after age without Alteration. What think ye \ Haue a few rack' t and tortured Sentences (Add to them as many, Cautls , .as- many Crittctfms as you pleafe) force enough to do fuch worlders? Can thefe gleanings , mifinterpreted as you haue Ceeny better inform vs of the ancient Primitiue Truths, than the General voice, or vniuerJal content cf a whole Church now in being ? It is improbable. Grant therefore ( which I do not} That we know not too well the fenle of one T beoderct, or cf a Tertulliati Sec, The Catholick cleares his Doctrin , And drawes it from fiirer Principles, viz. From the voice and open declared Iudgement of his Church , And molt deferuedly look's on the Sectaries attempt as highly improbable „ who will needs know what Doftrin we are to hold now, or, was anciently held amongft Chriftians , by. a Fathers Teftimcny, when the very fenfe is fupr pofed doubtful, And lies in obfeurity.. That is, He Drill kno\9 more than can be ^noftnyHe Tvill force light out of darknesst And deriue the moral certainty cf his Dcttrin from tneer doubtful Principles, which is impoflible. And thus thefe men proceed in all other Contror ueruesj. Di(c. I. C. iS. of true flight. *% uerhes , though- Confcious , .that a whole ample Church decries their D ocarinas raise And the open abule of Fathers alio. O, frith the Senary, I little regard what the Church decries. Anf •• : Andmuch less do I regard what you cryagainft.it, When the whole flrength of your Clamours vltimatly reiblued, comes to no more but to fancied GloiTes , laid vpon- ambiguous Authorities. What in God's name would you. What can you pretend or intend? : Shall clamours, Think ye,. and your few clouded pppofe^;* Teftimonies force me to leaue my ancient Faith , when I euidentr SecLriti ly know , That the Church I line in , call's louder on me and Clamour*,. more rationally command's me to Belieue as I doe ? This audi- ble known voice of Chrift's Church dull's your clamours, infi- nitly Outweigh' s your Glo lies, your gueiTes^ And the doubtili! Sentiment of any priuate Father: . 12. The Sectary may reply. I haue now fuppofed , without Proof, the Fathers abufed by him , whereas , if the Suppofition hold's , its only doubtful whether it be io or no. Aniw ; Thus much is oi*ny fuppofed doubtful, That neither of vs can learn by words precifely ob&ure, what Doctrin to.embrace , or what to reie&,.Beforeaiurer Oracle lpeak's and decide, the Controuerfy. Catholicks fay this Oracle is the Church, The Proteftant who has no Church to recurr to , (land's trifling with his obicure Pas- fages , hoping at laft to make fomething of nothing , to hammer out of dark fentences- the Clear Moral certainty of his new Doctrin Though contrary to die whole Church,, And thus He abuieth both Fathers and reafon alio ^ Becaufe as I faid iuft now, / doubtful Principle yeilds not fo much certainty* If He fay. 3: His quoted Authorities are fufficiently clear to ground the Mo- ral certainty of his Doctrin againilthe Church , it is a. delperate , improbable Speech,, For Moral certainty( which should pass as an vncontradicled truth) mod euidently lofcth that force, when a whole Church manifeftly contrxdicTs it. But hereof enough is Said in the other Treatiie. Difc. 1. C. 6. n. 3. 1 3. You will ask perhaps , What is to be done if we meet with a Father fo clear and exprefs againft Church - Do&rin that he A,a 5 " '" " cannot ivp© DjTc. t. G. ,18. Seflaries tfjertam rm$% Jdtuktfrfr cannot poflibly be brought to a Catholick fenfc, I Ajifwer psftd and Suppofe thus much , which I think was neuer yet heard of in fiktt** ^ny Conteft betwixt tl\e Proteftant and Catholick', Tie abfolutly deny ihe.Authority and a4^ere to Church-Dc&rin ; For, as the whole body is greater than §. part , fo the Judgement of a whole Church is the (tronger Principle here, and ought in reafon to regu- late and bear fway, before the fentiment of any prfuate man, who by weakiies or inaduertancy may flip afide into Errour, I lay through TMdknet or xncogxumy , for if he obftinately oppofe the Church , He is no Father in that , But an Heretick. 14. Whoeuer refle&s well on what is noted already will fee, I hope ', How neer we are to an End of disputes with Prote- ftants if the Conteft arife from the Authority of Fathefs; Here , A is the Ground of what I am to Say. All the, Authorities which can tbmiits can be quoted in.Points now Controuerted are either plainer efteemed t< quoted ) plain for Catholick Do&rin both by the learned of our Church , and Sectaries alfo , A,s is amply proued aboue lj Or Contrariwiie , are at mod flippofed doubtful , 1 Affert it boldly , the Sectary has not one plain Teftimony for him in this debated Matter of Trtnfubft&itiatUn ,An What can be more flight or -more remote from Reafbn , than after a long Profeflion and quiet PoiTeflion had of our Catholick Verities, To fee a few Sectaries ( late Strangers to Chrifj^nity) ftep in amongfV vs, And after Co many Age^j firuttvp and down in a corner of the world, As if They , forlbothBy;their bringing to light again ThtproctV nothing but a lift of old abfokte worn"- out Herefies, could now *w •/'*«• Afcertain Papifts , How much of their DocTrin is Orthodox , And *£"" ' How much not > And this (o ftrange Boldnes ! ) is doneTpon- no other Principle , than vpon &fcw mifconftrued words of lome few ancient Fathers , without" alleging plain Scripture or the Au- thority ef any Church, forthismoft vncouth and ftrange Pro- ceeding. What can be more flight than to follow the lefTer Light- ( or rather no Light at all} And to prefer* That before the, luminare nuius, which hitherto has illuminated the whole world * What can be more flight than to ftandgueffihg at the fenfe of Fathers , To Glbfs their plaineft Teftimonies , when theft guefTes and Glolles are vn principled and haue no more Support y than she fanc^ of him who rna&es them> You shall now fee skitter lyi Difc. t, C. 19. 7 he clear may whither thefe Gloffo tend , And an End put to Contrau&r- fies, CHAP- XIX. *£he Ictjl defgne of Sectaries Glojfes y difcoutreJ. Tfjg end nothing. T1>e clear nay to end Controuerjies of Religion. A di/linBion between Authority and Trincipl'd Authority „ Of the im- .pokqhilhy cfTwttJlmcy. 1 > y^\ Ote. When Sectaries Gloss Scripture or Fathers cleai A ^i Catholick Religion, and after much tugging violently fear for for- ce lbme piece of their new Do&rin from Paffages leffe clear, JfrUat Se&a- Their aym is to keep, vs off from the laft found Principles of ending vies *ym at * Controuerfies. Mr ^tillingfleet, like one haunted with two con- hythir trary Spirits ,t has a nffe Talent this way. Now He charm's at jf"* darker Paffage out of all obfcurity ? And make,s it fpeak Prote- {tancy- So he giues .light to Theoderets Myfltcal Symbols : Now He does the contrary feat, And cad's as clear words as euer Father vttered into Co much darknes , That it is hard to know what is laid. Take here one inftance, You haue it in his Page. 217; Where he Interpret's that plain paffage of S. Aujlm.Tom. 6. contra ~Eptfi. Fund: C. 5. I Ttould mt belie ue the Gofpel vnless the Authortty tf the Church moued me therunto f And to omcure this moft ma- nifeft and profoundly well :exprened Truth , The Gentleman ipend's three whole pages in Gueffes and coniectures, And all is to Vnfay what: the Saint had moft euidently AlTerted. Firft , forfooth , he tell's vs, What the Controuerfy was which S. AuRm then difcuffed, 2. What Church that was which moued him to beiieue the Gofpel, Here He Gueffes and Miffes, 3. In what gfay and manner , the Churches Authority did moue- him ? And Difcc I. C. 19. To end Controuerfiesl 19 j 411 this particular Mr Stillingfleet errs grofly , who will needs p:r- fwade vs, That s. Auftm belieued not the Diuimty of Scripture vpon S' ***** the Churches Authority, But only the Authenmslneu of the Kit- ™*dllb[!u tings of the Apoftles and Etiangeliils : As if to belieuethe Authcn- re, ticalnessof the Goipel , could be ieparated from belieuing that very Goipel to be Dtutne. Its a whimfy As shall appear' afterward. In the mean while you fee How all thefe Coniectures laid toge- ther ( I medle not with them at prefent ) are incomparably Idle clear than S. Ausltns plain Words , Yet I muft fo far put cut my eyes, as to efteem them the only light to regulate my Judge- ment by , and Confequently make Non-fenfe ot's. Aujttns clear ExpreiFion. Is it not reafonable think you, Before I do fo, To ask firft by what Principle I may know That thefe Coniectu- res hit right? i. . Now here you hauc what I wish the iudicious Reader fe~ riouily To reflect vpon. Suppofe one should follow Mr Stil- lingfleet through all thole windings and Turnings wherewith he encumber* s this one short Sentence of S. AutU>-- And Aniwer ftep by ftep to euery Paragraph in order. Suppofe Heethat vnder- ^ aJ *"e takes fuch a Task should in like manner proceed through all The defiredto Gentlemans Rational Adount ( as Tis Called) And attend to his refitcto*. difcourfes, reply to euery particular of h;s endles GloiTes , laid on Scripture and other Fathers. Suppofe Thirdly, He should rigidly Examin euery circumftance related in the Stories of that volumi- nous Book ( Doe only thus much and you draw the book dry For befides cauils you haue no more) How many volumes think ye would This way of Anfwering bring forth to the world, be- fore the whole Ausuntwcst Aniwered ? And when all is done, Much, God knowes , is not done to end Controuerfies with Sa- tisfaction. Thus the conteft goes on. 3. Mr Stillingfleet like one afFraid to meddle with found Principles begins to GlolFe , His luppofed Aduerlary , becaufe no better {tuff isgiuen to work vpon , goes not yet deeper into difficulties , But turn's to the Scripture and Fathers , Read's and Iudges by His own Reading That much is interpreted amiis in B b this 194 Difc. i. C 19. The clear Tvay Much Con- fuftonfollt- rpes this try* The Catbo licks Fri*- more eafy AndfUin. this Rational Account, Therefore Vnfhjjes as fafr as Mr Stillingtieet Gl'ffed, And hopes He doth very well. Mr Stillingfleet diicour- fes ; This Aduerfary doth lb alio , But rinds , or pretends to find ( I fay no more yet ) His difcourfes vnfound at the bottom, And too weak to bring in a good Conclulion. Mr Stillingfleet relates his Stories , let forth with a number of circumftances , Our fuppofed Adueriary difcouer's^As he thinks) many a Flaw , many a Miftake, much iumbling, much diforder in the Narra- tion of his Circumftances. Reflect well good Reader. Doe you not fee here a ftrange Confufion > When after the vtmoft done by thefe two Adueriaries, You haue two quite different Do&rins raifed from the lame Authorities of Scripture and Fathers ? And that after the recourfeofbothto Hiftory, You haue two as diffe- rent Stories told you , as Tea , and No. In like manner after Theis long difcourfes , You haue two contradictory Conclufions drawn out, And laid before your eyes to read. Vpon what Principle (if no more be Said) can the yet perplexed Reader come- tola much certainty of our Chriftian Truths , as is necefTary to Sal- uation ? By what means shall Fie know, whether of there Twoy relates the truer Story,. Glo fTes , or difcourfes better? O, Ho mull perufe Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, Scripture alio > And the Volu- mes of Fathers And then iudge. Pitiful. More than half the world want's means to doe this, And He who is able to comply- with that laborious Task , muft at laft truft to his own Iudge- ment. Howeuer , giue me one who will conform Himfelfe to what he Reads , and not draw all to a preiudicated Iudgement, That man will rind out Catholick Religion. 4. Be it how you will, The Catholick has a better And far more eafy Principle to rely on in fo weighty a Matter , whereof we shall Treat largely in the next Difcourfe. The Sectary has no other Ground to fet footing on, But his own priuate Fancy. And here is the true Reafon why he loues a life to itand dal- lying with you vpon Authority and litftorr. Goz no further, He is fure to haue fome Reply at hand , For it is eafy to trifle a- long time, whilfi you only giue him this Authority And that: VmcL DMc. u C. 19. T(? tnd Cmtrcutrfief* tip1} Tared of Hifbry toquarrel with. The one, as we haue feen, 3f e wreft's to what Senfehe pleafes-j On the other He can put To fair a Varnish by conceding ibme Cftcurriftarices , and ium- bling others together, That the eyes of a vulgar Reader are ea- ifily dazled. In the mean time He warily waues (And is well con- tent to doe fo ) The lad found Principles which only can end Controueriles. Wherefore , Methinks one cannot rlt the Secta- ries. Humour better , than to attaque him with Authorities , And next leaue the Glofling them to his fancy , To recurr to Antiquity , And permit him to put an other face on the whole Story. Thanks be to God the Catholick Writers of our own Nation ( to fay nothing of others) who handle Matters moil pro- foundly , And in real truth haue already brought thefe debates to a Period, giuenofuch Aduantage to Sectaries, But relying $>h*i Sett*. .on found Principles , as learnedly meet theie Gloifes, as our hew ties would men wilfully make them without Principles. Yet this is Truth, be at i As nouellifts can do no more But 'Gloss without Principles , So as I faid now , They are well enough content if the Catholick vrill doe fbmethirjg like, them , And only interpret or difcourle vpon Authorities ; And this I call the less , or not the Usl plain way of Ending debates. Goe no further , they think Them fel- lies (afe. For example. Read S. Aufttn in the place now cited. I Ttould not belieue t'< e Gofptl <3cc. Ponder His whole Context , at- tend to his learned Dhcourfe , Mark well how He both diiputes and proues ; That be would not betieue the Gofpel as Gods Diutne Word but vpon This foltd ground, That the Authority oft'e Church, then when lie wrote, moued him to belieue lb. Delcend yet to other particulars taken from his moft Connexed way of Arguing, Allege all plainly againft the Se&ary which hath been done and moft laudably again and again by Catholick Authors , Yet after all, you fee Mr Stillingfleet begins new Quarrels as 11 ercely , as if nothing had been faid , And if one should vnrauel what he hath wouen in his three pages , would not he , think ye, to prolong thefe vnfortunate Strifes poffibly find fomething to except againft .you ? And muft not -you to vnbeguile the Reader once more $h j, . reply, i$6 Difc. i. C. 19. Tk clear *4jt reply, And except again ft all his new Exceptions ? How long-may controuerfies not yet brought to the laft plain Principles , run on without ending > A shorter way Therefore muft be thought ofv And thus it is. <;. Take only that Pofitiue Doctrin which the Proteftant plainly , j - makes his own dogmatical Allertion , when he either Adds his w*yof e»* nevv Gloss to an obicure Authority,. or caft's one clear for Catho- de r Haue you any Orthodox Council, which without Exception as Clearly defined it , as you now As- flrt it ? Haue you any Tradition , u hich by a continued Stisces- lion hk Church and Councils which taught Vro- ttftancj. Difc. i. C. 19. To end Qontfcuerfteu vyy 6011 Age after age conueyed vnto you the Tenets you pretend to find in fome few Fathers , And now publish to the world as Cbri<> ftian Truths > If you ground your Glories or Dodtrin on inch excellent Principles, we Catholicks are certainly in Errour,And ought to conform to your reformed Gofpel, But if you rail ( and fail you muft ) to doe thus much,jf you only giue vs empty GlolTes without further Proofs,, we look on them as flight things caft off by the Orthodox world , as both vnprincipled and vnpa- tronized. Therefore Scnpturehss as they are, Churcbless as they are, they fall of Themielues to nothing, And bring vtter ruin to your new Machin of Proteftancy. 7. I doe you no wrong when I draw you off your GlofTes Topoint at to an Orthodox Church^ ( The world was neuer without one). Say therefore, in Gods name,.where,.or when was liich an Ortho- dox Chriftian Society in Being that pofitiuely taught no Tranfub- slantiattott. So facrtfice oftbe Mass, No tnuocatton of Saints &c> Where or when were your Councils which pofitiuely defined thefe Doc- trins &c> You may AnfiVer , and truely. You haue indeed neither Church, nor Councils , Nor Tradition Express for thefe your Uegattues. Very right. Therefore I wrong you not in faying, your whole Caufe lubfift's vpon Conie&ures, cauils, And GlolTes, Becaufe now you call your felues into an Impoffibility of pleading by any better Principles than meer guefTes are. Thus much fup- poled, Say, I befeech you , Wharauail's it, if, when an Authority h plain for Popery, that you can by a nimble glofs darken it> Or tf objeure ; You haue A Fiat lux> at hand, and can charm it into fb much Clarity as may fuffice to dazle the eyes of a vulgar Rea- der? What Satisfaction haue I here,, or what gain you by this Proceeding , when you know we haue more witneffes ready to atteff , yea to dye for our Cathrolick Verities , than you haue hairs on your head, or GlofTes in your book ? What gain you to your caufe could you miifinterpret all the Fathers that euer wrote , when you without the warrant of any Orthodox Society haue yet i whole learned Church , Her Councils and Tradition againft you ? And al! the ftore of Ammunition left you to attacjue this Bb 3 great 198 Dilc. !. C 19, The dear "toy. ther^L fit- Srcat 0rjck °' rr«^?} ^ very finally no more , God knowcs , bat i tisfttiion is flash of lightning borrowed from the Ignis fatuus of your far-fetcht jj/«f% fiiofles. Glois on, Cauil on, coniec1:ure on to the worlds end , As long as no known or Owned Principle diftincT: from Gloffes .send conieccures Support's them, You only beat the aire ,or , (to vie a pretty late phrale amongft you , ) lapwing-like Pew moft -when njrrijeft from the neft. I mean, you are then moft fierce to end Controuerfies , when you are furtheft off from Principles, which only can end them. 8. Thus then you should proceed had not God and Truth filenced you. I, E. S. B. D. declare to you honed Papifts , That in the Sixth or feauenth age after Chrift, His true Orthodox Church, politiuery taught no 'Tranfubflanriation. Such a Council , either informer or later Ages expreily defined fo. Then, and before alio , Church Tradition was vniuerfally for my Doctrin, And thus much I can make good to the lcarnedeft Romanift among you. Wonder not Therefore when you quote your Jufltns , your Cyprians , your Chrifottoms, feemingly contrary to my Church Doclrin , That I interpret all- 1 am Forced to doe fo, or rfom Sefia- agaiiift conference muft defert my old Mother Church, Her Councils vies ought and Tradition likewife , From which You haue too liccntioufty toplsad, fwerued, to fide with your luslim and I know not who els. Could the Sectary plead after this manner , His GlolTes would haue force , But he neuer meddles with the Firft main Bufims Plain Scripture V Hot a Word. Fa- thers plain > "Not one. O yes , Tertullian is drawn in to help* at a dead lift , fo is Thtodnet y - And one or two more. Very true. Buthe is a glofled Tertidban^z gloffed Theoderet Sec. Separate then thefe Glolles from the Fathers genuin Do&rin , giuethem the Sectary to manage, you fee him in open field compleatly ar- med ready to- encounter Church , Councils , Tradition , And all the other Principles of the Catholick world, " Are not GlolFes think Glcffes ye ftrong and prodigioufly powerful, which haue not only force to fl™ng?ty plead againft a whole Church, But more ouer to implead her of ^°Vl ^^ palpable errour > This Church is fuppofed to haue changed Her ries^ ancient Doctrin , And Sectaries will reform it not by recurring to any other more Orthodox Society of Chriflians, But by meer guelTes and GlolTes. That is. The fallible Glops and guefes of men tonfeffedh fallible , mull reform a, Church Ttbich kola's Her felfe in- fallible, And proues italfo. 9. Thus itis , Chriftfan Reader. I" lpeak plainly, And can defend my AiTertion. Befides meer begging the Queftion in all Difputes, belides Cauils , And weak conie&ures , The Sectary hath no more left him to oppofe our Catholick Tenets , but meer vnprincipled GlolTes. I neither word it nor wrong Prote- ftants in faying thus much; Perufe if you pleafe their writings, chiefly Mr Stillingfleets Account , you will rind ( when the Churches Infallibility, or Tr an fub/iantiation Sec. Happen to be handled, That GlolTes laid on the Authorities vfually quoted for Catholick Doc- trin , euer take vp the mod room. - And which is worfe , yea pitiful in a Rational Defender of Proteftancy : Teu shaU neuer fini through this whole Book ( waue Cauils conie&ures and GlofTes ) one found Principle laid plainly forth, nor fo much as hinted at , in behalf of any Proteftant Article. What think ye I Shall YetMo/t Chriflians , who would fain haue a Church to Hue in , fee the »M*«»^ old Houfe of God pulled down by vnhandy GlofTers, before *t9 * They haue a better built vp, And well fetled on good Founda- tions*- Fulled doTPti. W7hat lay I? Alas our GlolTers haue not ftrength too Difc> i. C. 19. The clear TWfy. ftrength to vntile it, much less force to demolish that long Handing Fortress. Yet Gloffes chiefly, And t'is a fad thought for the Sec- tary , fupport his vndefenfible Schiimmade in the defperate quar- rel againft that Church which gaue his Anceftors Baptiim. Thefe only (there is no more) muft plead in behalf of his inhuman and barbarous Reformation -, Thefe finally muft anfwer before an Impartial Iudge at that great day of Doom for all his merciless cruelty practiied vpon the deceafed , and fome yet liuing Catho- iicks. Sad thoughts, I fay, they are to goe to bed with , to rife with, to banquet with, which like Ghofls will haunt him to his dying day, And lay Torment at his reftles hart in his greateft iollities, And mere in the houre of death. mr9 I0« After all you fee the Conclufion and an end put to Con- HonaqainA trouerfies. If no Orthodox Church vphola's this Vroteftancj, or any ar* Sectaries. tide of it. (which is euident). No Councils nor Tradition can fupport it. if no Council* uor Tradition fupport it. It has no Principled Doc- trin. If no Principled Dottrin, No Moral certainty. If no Moral certainty, ( for meer groundles GlofTes cannot giue Any againft all the Powerful Motiues of our Church ) there is no Probability in it. If no Probability, The thole Reformation muft be reduced to fancy only. There we found it, And there leaue it. 1 1 . Now, if any except againft our cafting off Proteftancy from the meaneft degree of Probability induced to Iudge otherwife vpon this, ground, That many learned men defend it. I haue AnnVered aboue. Meer Probability is inefficient to fupport Chnftian Truths. Here I both anfwer and Ask. 2. where were the many karned Defenders of this new Faith, when one Luther flood vp alone againft the whole Chnftian world , And firit broached his Proteftancy ? If at that time there was no Authority nor reafon for rhe Noueky, Process of time hath gained it neither. Look then into its Rtje or Firft beginning, you'l find it vn- found at the bottom, yea vtterly improbable vpon this certain Principle , That the Singular Do&rin of one disgufted Rebel aga- inft a whole church and Thoufends more pious and learned then Himfejfe, can merit no Belief > but deferues (what it has), to be Anathematized. 13* We Difc* if C. 19. $0 end Controutrjtts loi xi. We mud yet infifta little vponthis Point, And lay forth the Vanity of our Aduerfaries pretence to Probability , which done, you shall fee controuerlies are ended. Sectaries May fay. ^rou fancy If their own Authority makes not Proteftancy Morally certain, m^robab^ it cannot butraife it to a high degree of Probability. We deny this , And shall pretently Ask, why their Authority more aduan- ceth this Religion to Probability than the meer Authority of Arians brings Arianilm to Probability 2 At pretent we do not only oppofe the voice and vote of the Roman Catholick Church againft this Plea, But the Authority alfo ofGraaans, Afafitm and all other called Chrislians , who with one vnanimous Content decry Proteftancy as improbable. Compare therefore votes with votes , Authority with Autltority, There is no Parallel; For, for one that de- fends it , you haue hundreds , yeaThoufands that Contradict the Nouelty. Thus much is indifputably Euident , if we precifely Conlider Authority as it were In Abftracto , or oppofe the Votes of diiTenting Parties againft it. But here is not all. We muft goe further, And diftinguish well between x bare Authority , and a rational grounded Authority. For this is an vndeniable Truth. Reasonable Principles euer precede, or are prefuppofed , when Reli- gion is pleaded for To the consequent Authority of thofe ( whether many or ^t\v) that Teach % or Profess it. Hence all fay. If the firft conuerted Iewes to Chriftianity, Had not had moll weighty Inducements propoted to realbn before they deterted Iudaiim and belieued in Chrift The change had been molt imprudent; Nay, all had been obliged, as is proued in the 4. Chapter, To hold on in that Profeflion {till without Alteration. So neceflary it is to haue rational grounds laid firm in the Foundation of Re- ligion, before the Proieflbrs allow it either Moral certainty , or (b much as Probability. Thus much premited. 1 3. We draw Sectaries from all Self- Voting , or further plea- ding by their own Authority , And force them in this Conteft , if SecJariss Proteftancy be detenfible, not to lay , but to proue by Principles , drawn off" diftmcl from their o^n bare votes, Thete two Proportions. 1. That their own God who is Truth it felf , And once laid his Truths the foun- **»««*ij C c dation toi Difc. i.C. 19. The char -forty. dat,ion of the Roman fcatholick Church, permitted that faithful Oracle to become Traitorous, to teach Idolatry, to tell the world loud Lies for a thouland yeares together. And that all this hap- pened, when there was no other Orthodox Church on earth to vnbeguileThofe poor deluded ChrifHans. The fecond Propor- tion to be proued , is* That thefe Millions of fouls learned and vnlearned who firmly belieued this Church And dyed \\h*tthe happily in it, were All mad, All Idolaters, All befotted and feduced Senary is to by Fooleries : And (which is a Paradox aboue Ex pre (lion/That w#* a knot of late vnknown Nouellifts pretending to Reformation, dare now attempt to teach men more learned than Themfelues; To make thefe fuppofed mad , >//*, The idolatrous, Orthodox; the befotted 3 Reafonable ; The Seduced, right in Faith again ; And that this was r and is yet done vpon a meer proofles Suppofition, ( that T»e are mad and befotted ) which ftand's on no Principles , And for that reafon is contradicted by the vait number of moil knowing Catholicks, And the whole Multitude of Chriitians Be- fides. 14. When thefe two Proportions are made probable vpon good Principles, Wee shall liften to our Sectaries Authority , But if they fumble herein , Only talk and proue nothing,. Wee reiect their vngrounded Authority And fay, The more votes they mul- tiply without Proofs , the less weight they haue. You shall yet fee how we.ightles Their Authority is, might we here infift longer vpon one Matter of fact which ends all Controuerfies. In a word.. All know the great Controuerfy between Proteftants Tbi difficult am* Catholicks comes to this. Whether they or we teach ty propofid Apoftolical Doctrin ? Whether they or we lay forth the gen- UtwetnCa- uine (enfe of holy Scripture ? Neither Party faw or heard the tholicks and ^pottles Preach. Neither pretend's now to Enthuftafms , or pri- frotejtanti. uate Reuejations concerning that Doctrin ; The whole caufe the- refore is to be tried, and decided by Witnefles of foregoing Ages, fuch Teflimonies and Tradition mull clear this Matter of fact. A pretence to Scripture only without precedent lawful Paflors , ^ithout Doctors , without Witnefles teaching that fenfe and Doctrin Dilc. i.C. 19. To end Qonmmfitu 10 } Dovhin which the one, or other Parry (land's for, is here both vfeles and impertinent. It then The Proteftant makes his Doc- trin Apoftolical, His fenfe of Scripture, Orthodox j The Catho- lick replies. Be pleafed to giuc in your laft Euidence, produce your Witneifes ; your Paftors , And Doctors Four Ages fi nee , That taught as you teach, Andfenfed Scripture as you fenfe it. My Church (add's the Catholick ) euidently demonstrates a con- tinued fucceffion of Her Paftors that taught as I belieue , ( as shall be proued hereafter ) And shewes as clearly a. Succelion of the fame Doctrin and Faith with thefe Paftors. Her Antiquity is vndoubted , and her pleading Pofifiton in preferuing the true Senfe of Scripture and Apoftolical Doctrin , is as great as any King on earth can shew for the Poffeffion of the Crown he weares. Now , faith the Catholick , Wee examin your pede- greeof Paftors and Doctors, And after fome few Aicents by a rhtfirlt Ketrogradation come atlaft to the year 1^17. There we find, p'eadby and moft euidently, a Luther, or Caluin To be the firft men in -F'tafffa the world that profeiled Proteftanifin , that interpreted Scripture **"**** as you interpret, or owned your Religion. With thefe late Runagates you muft ftop , No man on earth can aduance or bring your Genealogy further, Therefore to fpeak in the words of the Ancient Optatus Meliuitan. Lib. 1. Contra Parmen : At that time, you Were fans without Progenitors, fucctfiots Without a Pedegrec Nelfc Teachers without commfihn , Proteftants indeed ,but without Principles. if. Hence I argue and it is a demonstration againft Secta- ries. If neither Church, nor Councils , nor Paftors , nor Doc- tors, nor any Orthodox Chriftians in forgoing Ages euer owned, or fo much as heard of Proteftancy before one vnfortunate Fa* therles Luther broached it; If no Antiquity, fo much as once mentioned one Profeffor of that Religion ; if no Tradition han- ded to Luther the new Faith he taught ( all which is without difpute manifeft ) Proteftancy moft euidently is vpon this very account both an VnWitneffed and an VnprmcipUd Religion, And not only improbable , but in the higheft degree improbable. But Gc 1 no 204 Difi:. I. C. 19. The clear ^aj, no Authority can releafe an vnprihcipled Nouelty from its own intrintick, mifcrable andtffwttal slate or" improbability, Therefore our Sectaries votes( of no weight at all) cannot make it probable. And thus Controuerfies are ended , becaufe an improbable Re- ligion ( And for this reafon improbable, becaufe vnprincipled ) is not defenfible. 1 6. To add more to this Difcourfe I Ask, whether one Anus oppoling the whole Church rcprefented in r.he Nicene Council , l?impl"li- defended Probable Doftrin or no > You will anfwer No. Very bUas good. Yet he quoted Scripture ( and might oneinfift vpon the ArUnifm, exteriour letter or found of words) more plain and exprefs in the behalf of his Herefy, .than all the Proteftants on earth can pro- duce Fathers plain and Exprefs s for their Nouelty of Proteftanifm. I would fay. Neither Theaderet nor any other Father, fpeak's half fo clearly to the Do&rin of No Tranfubftamiation. No Sacrifice $f the Mass Sec. As thefe words ( to omit others).. My Father u greater then I, ( may the exteriour letter regulate here j feemingly exprefs an inequality between the Father and the Son. Now if the feeming clear lbund of Scripture made not Arius his Doctrin probable againft the Church Theny much less can the more obfeu- re Teftimonies of fbme Fathers, make the Do&rin of Proteftants probable againft the Church N<7ft\ And if we fpeak of follo- wers that Arius gained in his time, There is no companion , He Had more than euer England had Proteftants in it. 1 7. One may yet reply. The Nicene Fathers cited plain Scripture againft Arius. Very true , And fo do Catholicks againft Proteftants , For, Chrifts Sacred words. This U myltodj, are as fignfricantly plain againft Proteftanifm, as any Text thole The Brians Fathers then v-rged , or yet can be vrged againft Ariamfm. *ot,(rcnum~ But this you fee did not the deed, nor was then the laft con^- mrtoJv uiction , And why ? Here is the reafon. Becaufe as Proteftants now wilfully Gloss this plain PalTage of Scripture and many o- thers,Sothe Arians then wilfully GIoiTed all thofe Scriptures al- leged by the Nicene Fathers, And yet hold on in that ftrain to our very dayes , as you may read in Crelli'w and Volk^lm. Yet » more. only. Difc I. C. 19. To end Controuerfies lof more. As the Acian Party then only- Gioiled but without the help of -any antecedent Church Do&rin known to the- world *■ or vniuerfal Tradition to fettle their GloiTes on 5 So our Protec- tants now do the very fame , There is no difparity betwixt them^ They Gloss, 'tis true , but giuevs Cburchles GloiTes. Finally-, as thofe Fathers at that time did not only reiect the Arians GlofTes , but eftablished alfo* their own Definitions vpon Scrip- ture interpreted by the known deliuered Do&rin of the then pre fen: , and the more Ancient Church ( for they reprefented both ) And thus ended that Controueriy , So we Catholicks proceed againft Proteftants, And bring all debates to the like laft period. The Church , or nothing » muft end them. Without recourfe had to the known and owned Do&rin both, of this prefent and precedent faithful Oracle , They and we may inter- pret Scripture long enough , They may Cauif , And we may hold on in our Aniwers to the end of an other Age , without hope of ending fo much as one Controuerfy. But of This enough is- faid .alceady. CHAP. XX. Atiord to one Or tW ObieSlions. It is further prouedr> That Qontrouerjies are ended yvitb TroteHants, tpho baue no BJJence of ftjligton 7 but falfe opinions only. 1. O Eclaries may obie& firft." We Suppofe all this while ^ O But proue not , The Orthodox world to haue hitherto maintained the Dodlrin now taught by the Roman Catholick Church concerning Tranfubftdtitituon , Inuocation of Saints Sec. Therefore our Difeourfe ieem's vngrounded. I anfwer. 1 . The Reply is nOjt to the Purpoic in this place, whilft we only press Cc ? Seftariei- Him Csn* Tb$firfl Obitciion Aijftpered* A ftcond Ohiettio* Tropofed, io6 Difc. i. C. 2o. Trotejlancy has noEJJence Sectaries to giue in Proofs for their Contrary Pofitions. This wee fay They Cannot doe : Now if wee bee as farr of From Proofes, or Cannot ground our Tenets vpon yndubitable Prin- ciples ; Controuerfies are ended without more Adoe ; Becaufe both of vs, (if the Supposition hold's, ) haue no Articles of Re- ligion to Propugn, But weak opinions, which ( whether true or falfe) import not Saluations Nay , the Truth of them , could it be known, is icarfe worth any mans Knowledge. I Aniwer. 2. Our Proofs ( to fty no more now ) Stand firm vpon Church Authority, once at leaft owned Orthodox , on our Councils , and ancient Tradition neuer yet repealed , nor excepted againft , But by Hereticks only. May it pleafe our Aduerfaries to come Clofely to the Point and plead in behalf of their Tenets , by the Authority of any like or better Chuxch than ours is, We haue done, andmuft yeild ; But this they know is impoilible, And therefore neither will nor can Aniwer our Diicourie. If they fay our Church , ( where its contrary to Proteftancy) ha* erred, Vrge them to proue the Aflertion by any Principle , either equal to(pr ftronger than) our Church Authority is, And you will haue them driuen again to their GlofTes , or to fome few gleanings of Fathers^ In a word to no Principles. 2, They may obiec"h %. We haue tooK much pains to proue Nothing againft Proteftancy , For we know , fome late Profeffbrs namely Doclor Brambal and Mr SttMngflett , ftifly main- tain thefe Negatiues of Na Tranfubflantiation , No Sacrifice of the Mass, No Inuocanon of Saints &e, To be only pious Opinions or /«- feriour Truths, Neither reuealed by God , nor BffmtialtQ Proteftant Religion , Therefore whilft we vrge them to ground fuch Ne- gatiues vpon plain Scripture , vpon the Authority of an Ortho- dox, Church, Councils , Tradition &c. They tell vs we meddle not at all with the Effenttais of Proteftancy , But only difpute againft Opinions, And, Contrary to iuftice , force them to pro- ue meer opinions by Scripture, Church &c. wich is more then ire can prefs vpon them , or doe our felues , For haue not wee Catholicks many Opinions in Schools , which none pretend to ground Print's Difc i.C-io. Kcr ffimpku tiSf ground vpon fo ftrong Principles as we fettle our Articles of Faith on > Yes moft afTuredly :- Opinions then and Articles of Faith cannot but be very differently Principled. And thus the Proteftant difcourfes in the prefent Matters , Here faith He, ^JJm^ is the only difference , That Catholicks lay Claim to more Ar- tion fotwee~n tides of Faith And the Proteftants to Mmt« Our more mi- Faith and merous Articles , ouer and aboue His fundamentals , He calls opinion. opinions , Holds vnprincipled , And hopes to fettle his fewer articles , or the Ejfence of his Religion vpon Excellent folid Grounds. $. Hence k followes , that all Controuerfies hitherto agitated between vs come to no more, but to a flight skirmishing about different opinions only ; For we and they agree in the ElTence of Religion. Vnlucltf opinions furely , Cries the Sectary (and He would feem to iighas deeply as we , But has not felt fo much Smart) which haue caufed endles Broiles, ftrange confufion,and a Shameful Schi fin in the Chriftian world. Thus much- 1 con- ceiue fbme later men, who exprefly teach the Dodtrin would haue vs learn, And becaufe it is a new inuented way of defen- ding this falling Proteftancy , I hold my felf obliged , Firft to difcouer the whole fallacy of the dilcourfe , Next to shew how Proteftants themfelues put an end to all Controuerfies. This done the Obie&ion is foon anfwered. 4. The fallacy lies here , That Proteftancy is fuppofed to haue an Effence when really it has none , but is wholy made vp of worfe then false opinions. The false Suppofition ftands glo- rioufly in Mr Stiliingfleets empty Title. A rational Account of the The fallacy, grounds of Proteftant Religion* The man furely imagins Proteftan- difcouered. cy to be a Religion ( which implies an Ejftmt, ) yea and groun- ded too. I fay the contrary, it has no Eflence, and confequendy N«? grounds. To proue my Affertion , Doe no more but caft out of Proteftancy all the Negatiues it has, which confeffedly are no Ejfenthls. And next fix your thoughts on the little which remain's , And is called Proteftancy. You will fee the Ejfence after thefe Negatiues are gone, dwindle to nothing. Moft furely lo8 Difc. i.'C. 20 Trotejlancybas no fffince Curdy this is not its Fffnce To brfieue thtfe Nevatiues , pious opinions, or tnferiour Truths , For if God neuer reuealed the Negatiues , He neuer reuealed to any, That the Belief of their [uppofed putj con* ftttutes the Ejjence of Vroteltancj. An other Efjence Therefore muft be found out, if it haue any, Aud may be it is this. Belteue the Creeds or a Dottrw common to all Chnfttans ( our Aduerfaries hint at both ) and you haue the T»hole Fjfence of this Religion , Yea., and Faith enough to attain Saluation : And thus they reduce their Faith to fewer Articles than we doe. I might Say a word in palling , And reduce all true Chriflian Faith to a shorter com- pendium, viz. To one only Article of The Apoftles Creed. I belteue the holy Catholic^ Church. That is, who euer own's the Another -true -Church of Chrtft, and firmly adheres to all She teaches SiSarim after a due Propolal made of her Articles., And dies in that pretence of Faith -y fuch a man iointly belieues both the Church and Creeds behtutngthi 4/p# But jfne run away with one half only, or Talk of Creeds, as Sectaries doe, without a Churcky And exclude from His Belief that Church which approues the Creeds, He feparates. that which cannot be feparated , And is a Self-chufer ^ In a word he neither belieues Church nor Creeds , And confequently has no Chriftian Faith. 5. Hence I fay. This very Airertiom I belteue the Creeds in the (en'e of Sectaries now explicated, is fo far from being a Prin- cipled Truth , That it is no more but an Errour , or a procfles Proteftant Opinion, As bad or worfe as any of the Negatiues are. If therefore they make it an ElTential Article of Proteftancy , Wee preft them according to their promife, to giue a rational Account of it before God and man. And here our Queries aboue come in again. Haue you, Gentlemen, any Diuine Reuelation, That this half Faith of belieuing Creeds, after your bold rece- ding from the Church is ib futficient for your Saluation and mine, That more is not required ? Did euer Orthodox Church expreily teach this to be fufficient * Did euer ancient Council define fo, or vniuerfal Tradition deliuer the Do&rin \ Speak plainly plead by all, or any one of thefe Principles , And I haue ■Bile. i. C. io, Tior Trhiciples. rop done. But 'tis impoffibJc. Perhaps you will fry AH 'Antiquity and the Fathers likewife highly commend the Apoftles Vreed as k short Abridgment of our Chriftan Faith. Anfw : So doe we as highly , But know there are different Lections of it , whereof you may read in your own Doctor Vshers Diatnfa, De Symboli* 9 London Print. i6j,j. Sent to his friend lo*tt>!i$ V of tits. We know again, (may Credit begiuentoS. Hierome. Epift:6i. Ad Pammdch. ) That this Creed was not writ m Cbana c? atramento , but in tabulis Cordis, And Therefore we muft truft to Tradition for the beft Lection. All other Creeds euen that afcribed to S. Athanafius ( A GrzcU mterpoUtum drelTed vp a new by the Greeks, Saith Dr Vsher ) The Church either made or has approueJ. If then I muft build my faith on theft Creeds y I cannot diirorcc it from the Church. For y Propter quod rnumijuodfc t*h ,eft tllud & mAgU tale. If I belieue my Creeds, much more muft I belieue the Church which either made or Authoriled them. 6. In a word here is all we demand, And If Sectaries can Anfwer they fpeak to the ' purpofe. Let them but name any The Beliefs Orthodox Council, Nay , one ancient Father that faies , Faith V f**?* is then fully and fufficiently Catholick , if one belieuesthe Creedsy church Though at that very time He pertinaciously reiec^'s the prefent infepurahh^ Church we Hue in, Or will not hear that Doctrin which She teaches aboue The exprefs Doclrin deliuered tn the Creeds , Let him , I fay, do thus much And he fpeaks to the purpofe , But it can- not be done , Becaufe both the Ancient and modern Church condemn's all who flight Her Doctrin , though not exprejly con- tained in the Creed. In this oppofition therefore, That which the Sectary would make the Ejfence of his Religion is only his falfe opinion, and in real truth hath neither Moral certainty , nor io much as Probability, As is already proued. He may reply. All he pretend's,is, That the Creeds compleatly contain Matter enough ofChriftian belief, (To Add more is vnnecelTary ), And Saies withall, Hee flights not that Ancient Church, which either com- posed or approued the Ancient Creeds , but blames the Later Church which hath turned weer opinions into -Articles of faith, J>d An4 Talfe OpL nions (uppo- fed the Es- fence of trttefiany. TarticuUf Troofe Tkeuofl 210 Djfc. I. C. : Your Title fuppofeth this Doct-rin well grounded ( The grounds of Ptotislant Migiin) An- fwer I befeech you, giiie me fifft without fumbling that Doc- trin peculiar to Proteftancy, which eflentially makes it a Reli- gion. Giue vs the Specific at difference of it, if t haue any 1 And Ac.Mm0 Next, Ground this Doftrin ( be it what you will ) vpon the prap,/eu to vndubitable Authority of fome known Orthodox Church, Or- Scftmts, thodox Councils, or vniuerlal Tradition , but Fob vs not off with your vnproued Opinions , Tell vs no more of belieuing Creeds onlj , The Scripture only , the Four tirft general Councils only without more ( thefe Onehes we except againft ) Yet doe you only thus much as I now require ^ (T* is eafily done, if your caufe be good, ) And I will recall what euer I haue written againft you , And craue pardon for my rashneffe. But the Catholick knowes well becaufe Herefy can haue no grounded Doclrin, This task is impoflible. I am now to shew the Protectant the impoffibility of it alfo. 9. Imagin one who belieues the Creeds , as the Sectary pre- tend's to doe, yet fo , That interiourly And from his very heart He abiures and flights all thofe Negatiue Articles called the opinions of Proteftants. (Ifpeaknot hereof his exteriour de- meanour nor Countenance his diffembling i'ft be Co ) My Que- ftion is this. Whether fuch a man haue internal., eflential , fufficient faith to make him a true belieuing Proteftant I He hold's himlelf one vpon this conuincing Reafon , That he firmly belieues what euer the Profellbrs of that Religion main- SeSfaries tain as both elTential and fufficient to Saluation. Belides He muft***to knowes well, No obligation lies on him to belieueby faith ,the ^'J^y Negatiue Articles of Proteftants , neither can he, becaufe God Articksof has not reuealed them. Such a man therefore hath compleatly Faith. eflential Faith enough, and is a true belieiring Proteftant , or if Dd2 he Ill Difc. i. C. lo. T roteftanty hteno Ejjetice He be not yet gocfo high, or haucnot the Protcftant Faith com- pleatly, neceilary andiurrkiait to iaue him, He m Lift help it out by belieuingfome one .or other: Protectant Opinion, And Con- fecjuently the Belief of Opinions muft either conftitute him ef- fentially a Pr'otejiant, Or He will neuer be one, yet this Is moft vn- true, for God obliges none to belieue viircuealcd Opinions as Articles, of Faith. 10. We muft goe yet further. Su'ppofe this man. belieues the Creeds, The Roman Catholick Church and euery particular Doctrin She teaches, iuft lb as the beft Catholick Belieues, And whereas before He only flighted the opinions of Prote- ftants, now in place of them he rirmly adheres to. the Contrary Catholick. Portions *., vi7. ... To The Popes Supremacy. Tranfub- fttntiarion. An. vnbloody Sacrifice, Praying to Saints toorbiping oflma- -*W/K / £*/> And in a^wordto all that the Church obliges me to belieue. ty farther " This man in heart is certainly Catholick. I- Ask whether he is yet vrgU. a true belieuing Proteftant 2 In our Sectaries Principles i Hee is. ForHrft he belieues his Creeds or Doctrin Common to all Chri- ftians, And there is the Eflence of their failing Faith. O but all is fpoiled by belieuing the Church, And what euer Do ho iudges all the Negattue Articles of ^ Ailtmnm? Proteflants false, Ami btlimes the Contrary Pofttiues taught by our Ca~ tholuk C arch As reuealel Truths, U yet Proteftant , or not. if not; the* belief x^f (ome thing els (Truth or vntruth) is (ffxntially requiftte to 'make him Proteftant , But the belief of Tbaf(bc it what you will) tiolt fuperadded to Conftttute htm a Belteuing Proteftant , « no Truth reuealed bj God, But only a Proteftant Opinton , without tobich he Grants the Effence of that Religion , V.rgo mosl euidently the Belief of Opinions ejfenttally conjittutes him a belieumg Proteftant , Consequently fome Dottrin which God has not reuealed makes him Prote- ftant, And the belief of bis Creeds is not Faith enough to make h'm one. Thefe Inferences leem eutdent , if not , I petition* Mr - Stillingfleet to -difcouer where the fallacy lies. 11. Now on the other rule , if fuch a man as belieues his , Creeds, the Roman Catholic!^ Church, And all the Articles She tea- ?routn£ dies iuft as I belieue them , be notwithstanding eiTentially Pro- inlen^ teftant ftill, We is both Proteftant and Catboltck^t either. Catholick a^amji He is , whilft He AlTents to all without. Referue which the Heoiartes, Roman Church teaches ; And he is alfo Proteftant , for He be- lieues his Creeds , And what euer our new men require as efTen- tial to their Religion. Wherefore- -vnless The not - belteutng their SegatiueSj or his fubmiss yetldmg to our Pofitiue Contrary Doclrins , deftroy that eflential Faith of his Creeds (which is impoiTible) ) He is in thefe Principles ,- both at once Catholicjue and Pro- teftant. . 13- And thus you fee How Our new men end Controuer- fies , For how in their Principle's , There is no more quarrel Dd 2 about :zi4 Difc. i. C. -20. Troteftancy 'bos no EJfence about Religion , The whole conteft being purely brought to this> whether Party Opines more fecurely, iuft as the Ttwmfls and Siotijh (worthy learned Catholicks ) difpute whether Schoole teaches the better Opinions, Though if the Suppofition '(land , it will be v^ateur difficult .to find out difputable Opinions between vs. AAHtrfcrj M- ^e k how you will, Mr Stillingfleet mult of neceflity nobit^ito. change his Tittle [The grounds of Proteflant Religton] For now Proteitancy with him confifts with Popery, or rathe* is Popery , And Popery, // "ft-e [peak. ofRtligio?iy is confident with Proteftancy: The Eflenceand grounds of the one and the other cannot but be the Tame, if (which is euer to be noted) Proteftancy as Pro- teslancj hath not one true ejjenttal Article of Orthodox Faith peculiar to it felft , For hauing none , The Abettors of it muft either bee Catholicks, or Profess no Religion. i^. And here by the way you may note the difference be- tween vs. As the Catholick owns all which the Church defi- nes to be de Fide And necelTary to Saluation , So contrariwile , the Proteflant owns nothing within the compass of Hit Articles to be de Fide , or in like manner necelTary , For both He and I may boldly renounce what euer he hold's at Vroteftant without danger of lofeing our Souls. And hence it is that Opinions only, and false ones too , elTentially conflitute this whole Reli- gion. I {peak here of Articles proper t$ Proteftancj , For to be- lieue the Creeds , the/c«r General Councils , to AlTert that the Sa- craments giue grace to the worthy Receiuer, that Faith and re- pentance are necelTary, or what els can be thought of, as Matter of Diuwe Faith , All, I lay, and euery one Constitute the elTence of Catholick Religion , and are known Doctrins of the Ro- man Orthodox Church, in fo much that the Proteflant has no proper , Special , or peculiar Tenet of Religion left him at all (which is true) to propugn. And for this reafon He is obliged hereafter , lure humano , er Diuino to write no more Controuer- fies of Religion , wanting Matter to write of, And no less obli- gation lies on him to leaue off all further quarrelling in behalf of his improbable Opinions. I would willingly fee this plain duxoufe anfwered. i6> Some Difc i; C 20. Kor frincipltsi lif (thefe and our Sectaries Tenents, is, that Catholick opinions , lick opi- probable, are euer reduced to probable grounds, our Sectaries niom differ opinions contrary to the voice and iudgement of a whole Church, Xrottfiancy. can haue no fuch foundation And for this caule we iuftly im- pugn them not as Falfe Optmons only , but as Herefies. Now to the laft Plea of Sectaries making fewer Articles of Faith than the Church doth, The Anfwer is eafy. It belongs not to them, pod knowes , wholly vnknown to the world one Age paft , To giue vsnow a right meafure of Faith, The attempt is no less vain , than prodigioufly bold. But Say on , How will they Abbreuiate ? By what Rule > By what law > By their impro- bable opinions. Here is all. Well therefore may they La- ment thefe vnlucky Opinions, which haue ruined many a poor Soul and giuen infinit Scandal to the Chriftian wprld. Vabomi- m tilt per yum Smdalum vemt* CHAR Di Cc. i.G li. tfoteUanU granting fduation &c. i\7 CHAP. XXL Troteflants granting Saluation to Catholicks by a clear inference dra^n from their Ccticeftion end Controuer- Jies of Religion. What force their conceftton bath* VVhy they granted fo much. The Argument \s clearly propo/ed. Mr StilUngfeet returns no probable Anfoer. A full difcouery of his fallacies. i. Q Omemay think the particular Matter now hinted at too t3 largely handled being fcarce worth halfe the labour here fpent vpon it , And They iudge right , Should I once lb much as offer to proue , as Mr Stillingfleet fondly Imagin's , the Ro- man Catholick Church a fare way to faluation becaufe Prote- ftants Say fo. Far bee it from mee to entertain fuch a Thought, For whether They fide with vs, or not, Wee haue abfolute Ayr^ Certainty of our Faith independently of Their fufFrages , or ceitaintf Voting vs in a Secure way to Heauen. Wherefore Should of Faith Sectaries recoile , And fay wee are all damned ( as fome haue without de- done) wee regard it not, That would no more LeiTen the Cer- P'»j">f*of tainty wee now haue of found Faith , than Their Cafual Gran- ' Mm% ting vs Saluation in the way wee are in , Heightens it. 2. 'Tis true , were it doubtful ( or no more but Probable ) whether Catholicks Could bee faued in their Religion , The agreeing of Sectaries with vs might feme for fomething , But now, when the Certainty of our Do&rin Stand's , as wee here Suppofe mod feeure vpon an Infallible Principle ( which is Church Authority) The Proof taken from the Agreement of both Parties is an Impertinency, And in real Truth, De fubttcio E e non their Con teffion i\% *Difc. i.C. 2t. froteftants grambivSatudtio*. bm (uwonente , That is , Nor to ha fuapoied , if ( which is euer to bee noted) wee should goe about to ftrengthen our Catholick Doccrin , becaufe Hefetiques Agree with vs. 3. Howeuer,though the Agreement, Coniidercd in it felfe, bee no more but a fallible Proteftant Opinion, yet hid by the other indubitable Doctrin of the Catholick Church Tis a Truth as aliened by them, And ties their tongues lb fift , that They shall Netrer hereafter ipeak a probable word againft our Catholick Faith., Again , the Conccdion prefTcs Sectaries Ad bominem , who admit Scripture, vpon the .General Agreement of all. Called Chriftia'ns. If therefore They argue well : Both joti Cdtboitckj and Ttee Proteftants bold thefe booths Diu'we , Ergo y They are fo. Wee Argue as itrongly : Both Parties alio grant faluation to Catho- ment*?ainfi ac^s> er§° They are fo fecure,that it is impoffible to plead againft themvpon the Truth , Though as I laid now, The Sectaries ConcefFion heightens not one whit our Certainty , whereof you may fee more n. 20. In the Interim pleafeto know, The only re3fon why I-dilcufs this Controueriv more at Large, is, firft to difcouer Mr Stillingfleets grofs fallacies, Next to Show that Proteftants, are forced at lau to Put an End to Controuerlies , Seeing the moft Learned that euer wrote, ingenuoufly acknowledge the Roman Catholick Faith, to 'bee a fafe, fecure , and abundantly fufficient Means to attain Saluation , which is to fay , A true be- lieuing Catholick Cannot bee Damned vpon the Account of Wanting Faith, if other Chriftian Duties bee Complyed with. 4. Now if you Ask what forced Sectaries to grant thus much to Catholicks? I anfwer it was no kindness God knowes, But ftark shame ( to touch here on no other Motiue) which ex- torted the Conceflion from them , For would not both Heauen and earth haue Clamour'd had They damned all their own Anceftors , all the learned and ignorant of the Roman Catho- lick Church far and neer extended, for want of Diuine Faith ? Yet this followes , Becaufe without Faith it is tmnofiible to pleafe' They ierrd millions Difc. U C. 21. To Qathokk^nd Contnmrfes tip millions and millions of Souls to Hell, Thus much premifed I Argue. <. That Faith which the Roman CathoHck Church and Pro- , teftants alfo iointly own as furncient to bring a man to Heauen, 0flut,DQC\ is intirely perfect, And cannot be rationally oppofed by either ,r<5o Party. But the Faith of a true belieuing Catholick is mch \ Faith, Therefore it is entirely perfect, And cannot be more ratio- nally Oppoied. Now further, If it' ltand's thus firm vpon Church Authority ( That's the certain Principle) And the Concern of Aduerfaries As an ouer-meafure (though w eighties ) it cannot be rationally excepted againft by either , both Parties owning it fuf- ficient to Saluation. Therefore All controueriies concerning Faith are clearly ended in behalf of Catholicksj Vnless meer Qa- uils may pass for rational Arguments. 6. It is truly Pitiful to fee how vainly Mr Scilliiigfleet- Part. 3. C. 4. Page. tfu. rtriues to Euert the force of this short Difcourie. Sometimes The difficulty is not Co much as touched by him. Sometimes Hee mirhkes the Queftioii, And euer beggs it. Now He run's away with half a Principle s which lead's in a lame Concluiion. Now falfe Suppoiitions pass for Proofs. Now Protectant Opinions enter in, as found Doctrin. Here he wrong's our Catholick Authors , There He contradict' s himfelfe. *ln a word you haue nothing through His whole fourth Chapter But I know not what, ftrange Confufion. Thus He Begins. 7. Proteflants confess there is .4 Ptfibtlity for fome to efcape (Dam- T^ Adu&+ nation) in tbt Communion of the Rontan Church , But it is as mm may f*rtgitiif> tfcapetoitb their hues in sbip^rack^ But they (ProteCtants ) vndertake C0Hr^' to ma\e it. widen y Thert can be no danger , if they obferue tle Pri«- cipUs of Prote slant Religion. Mark rlrft How {Irak hearted The man is, in granting as little as may be. viz. A meer Pofiibility , And of feme only to be laued in the -Roman Faith , hoping Thereby to remoue his own Ancestors and Millions of Pious Chriflians as far from Heauen as a Pofiibrttty concerned by Htm , is from an Actual Being. I know other Proceftahts ipeak more roundly And fay abfolutely , Saluation may be had in the Roman Catholick Ee ft Churchy Frwed wtak and dmg. Tbt 8 If it Damn's them , The Belief of their Creed's cannot faue them. (Vnlessyou both damn, and fauc them at once) Contra- rywiie, if the Belief of the CreeaVfaues them, Roman Religion cannot Damn them, for now vpon the Suppofition it deftroies not that failing Faith of the Creeds, But ftands well with it here, And therefore cannot damn any hereafter. What followes is yet worfe , if worfe can be. You, Sr, Say. Page. 613. Hit Lordship dans not den) a pofitbility of Valuation for the Roman Catho- lick , but he is far from Affeitmg it of thofe , T»ho either knoHr the corruptions of that Church , and yet continue in them, or of fuch J)?k$ fitfully ntnlecl the means, hereby they may be conuinccd. 13. Here is firftafalfe Suppofition for a Proof. Of knoHtn Corruptions , And a pure begging the queftion befides. Here is. 2. The half Principle of his Lordships bare laying laid hold en without more, which inferr's no Conclufion, But only thus much, . That my Lord {pake ( and perhaps not) what he thought, Or if Hee didfo wee Catholicks are not of fo eafy Faith, as to belieue Notbingbut him. Here is 3. A pretty piece of Non-fenfein thofe words. Con/upon in $m he is far from Averting it of thofe T^ho kjiol* the Corruptions of the Relies tfjat cburj, &c. As, if forfooth , one truely Catholick could $ Setlatus. jcnow ancj ownany Corruptions in his Church And yet remain Catholick. Thefe two things are ineonfiftent, To n main Catho- lick » And to iudge this Church corrupted in any point of Doclxin. Such men My Lord may lift among his Proteftant Belieuers. In a word His Proportion is de Subteclo non fupponente , And fo is alfb what crowd's in next. Of Thofe >/;* ncgleft the means afforded by Proteslants fufflciently Propofed Sec. Here is again the falfe Sup- pofition, not proued , wee neuer yet heard of any fuch means, nor shall here after, I am fure your Rational Account affords no- ne. 14. You add prefently a defperate word And t'is , That hit lordtbtf Sputy of fuch Catholic. \tlvh ofe mm ignorance txcufetb^ben 1H ~ vr- the fundamentals axe kdd &c. &Zo you and your Lord da tut A&. the learned of our Church That intierly belieued the Githolick ftn/Lto J&4 Faith for aThoufand years and vpward. You Damn our B.da% i*m»mr*U* our Berturdiy our Dominions t out Brunoes, not to be lifted amongft Lear"^ the Ignorant. You Damn more ouer all the learned Catholicki' who haue lined (fince your Hefely began) in Ha\)y Germany ySp4mt trance, and m other parts of the world. Bethink your felf well, whether this can pass for either Catholick or Charitable Doc^rinf And neuer more raile at vs vpon the account, That we Condemn you, For, for one we comdemn, you damn Thoufands. Compare the ignorant , amongft you ( late begiuners ) with the ignorant of our Church. Paft and prefentj The learned amongft you with the' learned of our Church confelTedly Popish for a Thoufand years and vpward , There is no parallel in the number. If then you damn many, why may not we condemn the late riien fewer Multi- tudes amongft you, wilfully diuorced from the Mother Church. Again we damn not your Perfons. No. One Supreme Iudge Catholich only , is to Pronounce the final Sentence vpon vs all , But we damn nont , condemn your Herefy, And fay as Tou ought to /peak of the Arians, but Cen- Telagians , Macedonians &c. (and all fuch known Renegados) That demn Htrt- you haue no better Faith than thefe. look^ jqu to the Confe* "' quence. i c. Your next Demand is. When we grant a pofiibility of" Saluation to thofe of the Proteftant Chvrch in cafe ofinuinci- ble ignorance , HoV? Ttt dare deny it frhere there is a preparation of pimd,to find out and embrace the moft certain Way to Heauev > What's this? Are you yet only in Preparatiues to find out , and emir act ? Is one whole Age gone, And Truth not yet found out among you? The Catholick firmly belieues, Abetter Religion cannot be S€^aritsart found than that is He now embraces , And you are Still in a ftate -^m^*** of feeking, and preparing for it. Sr, ameer Preparation to take Phyfick in a mortal infirmity cures none , no more can a Preparat- ion to belieue, if one meet not with the right Faith, & ue any-. Good Phyfick actually applyed, cures the body, And Faith actual- ly informing the IbuTfiu'cs vs, Our Aduef fa *y wanes ihrmam dignity. xi\ Difc. i\ C. It frotejldnts granting Saluation. 1 5. It is not now my intention to dilpute that cafe of inuincible Ignorance , great Diuines fauour not the Opinion. See our learned Countriman Thomas Southwell. Analjps fidei Difp. 3. Cap. 9. n. 150. And Michael de Elizalde de forma vtra Religionis wuenienda. Quejli^j. n. $96. The reft which followes of men being faued by The Terms of Gojpel (A language I vnderftand not) And of our Stalking to the intereft of the Church of Rome, is vain Talk, (euery Arianwill fay as much) Butnoclofe Arguing. 17. Page. ^14. You offer at a Salution to our Argument already propofed. ir is mosl fafe for Saluation to take that Way Which All parties agree in. To this you neuer directly Anfwer, But whol- ly vraue the difficulty. Firft you tell vs again without Proof of the Errours and corruptions in our Church , And fay it is hard to conceiue there should be that Faith and Repentance, which you make necefTary to Saluation with fuch a multitude of errours. Sir, Thefe fancied errours either deftroy Diuine Faith of the Creeds and Fundamentals, Or do not. If deftru&iue of Faith, You contradict your Self, And falfify your own Propofition which faies, Catholickj may be jaued in their Religion, For without Diuine faith no man can be faued. If thefe Suppofed errours deftroy it not , Faith ( The ground of Saluation ) is apt of it's owti nature to produce in a Soul Contrition^ Repentance, pious Conuerfation , The fear and hue of God &c. Vnless we wilfully hinder fuch holy effects of Grace. And here you haue an vnanfwerable Dilemma. 1 8. Suppofe thefe mifcalled errours deftroy Faith , There is no Poflibility of Saluation at all ; Suppofe they deftroy it not But AMtmma. confift with it, much less can they vnroote Repentance, Piety, the loue of God, and the other virtues which bring men to Hea- uem The reafbn is euident. EfTential Errours, were There any ,' ftand directly oppofite to Chrifthn Faith , which is true , there- fore in the firft place they muft shake , or rather deftroy that ground of Saluation, before they reuerfc Repentance and other Chriftian Virtues. Now if you fay we haue indeed a kind of Faith, but fo defettiue that it beget's no Repentance no piety &c. You fpeak only your fancy, deftroy the very Eflence of Faith , Ani Our Aduer- ttntmtsi. Difc. I, C 21 .To QatholkkS} enlfyntrouerfes. 225 And Confequently the Catholick muft at lad be damned for Kant of Faith, or, if you make the Errours fo minute as not to rafe out Sluing Faith , that frauds in being ftill , fo do other Chri- flian virtues likevnfe. and Sjluation with them. The Argument is conuincing. 19. Page. 61$. You are wholly befides the Queftion, And fall vpon particular cafes impertinent to our prefent purpofe. You rirft. inueigh bitterly againft Death-bed Repentance , where you deliuer intolerable Doct-rin. 2. You vniuftly Calumniate, f^^ZZ* As it Catholicks taught Repentance notneceifary before death, whereas the world knowes , both Doctors in Schools, and Prea- chers in their pulpits moft Zealoufly inculcate the great danger of continuing in Sin, and delaying Repentance. Sr, thefe difficul- ties worth examination , And throughly Canuafed by others , are in this place impertinencies , Therefore though you would lead me aflray, yet Tie not follow you , But press you to Anfwer directly to the point in hand. Giue me a man , For example , An humble S. Francis, who liued euer a Penitential life, and delayed not Repentance vntil death ( there haue been innumerable in the Church v profoundly humble and penitential ) the Queftion is, whether you dare damn iiich vpon the Account of wanting true Faith , true Repentance , the fear or hue of God 8ccr}. Damn fuch And you deny the pouTbility of Saluation to all Catholicks^ Saue them , And you grant that true Repentance, piety and other Chriftian virtues are confident with Catholick Faith. And thus I remoue you from your particular cafe of Death-bed repentance, For although all fuch were Damned (which is hideoufly impious to AfTert) Yet you fee our Queftion has a large extent in or- der to millions of other Belieuers, who liued piouily all their life long. Now if you Say that Do&rin which holds Saluation poiTible to one who euer liued a lewed life, and only repenfs at death is pernicioufly impious , you only vent your Opinion, And here is an other impertinency. 20. Page. 61 j. You come to that which is the proper bufiness , And t is to examin the ftfength of our Inferences. Ff Trot ctfants tl6 Difci.C. if. froteftanh grmttngS 'akation Awlnfanc* Prottflants grant leeway be faucd, And the Church afferts it alfo. To tough i». this you fay his Lordship returns a triple Anfiver,, Who firfl be- gins with the confepon of Proteslants. TbisVas'the Kay of the Dona- tifts of old , Tbbich TvouH hold as tyell for Them , as the Church of Rome. To proue the AfTertion you inflance in one particular of Baptifm. Both Catholicks and Donatifts granted Baptifm Jtas true Among the Don miffs > but the Donatifts denied it to be true Bjptifm among the Catholic^ Ckrifiians , Therefore on this Pimciple the Dona* tills [tde is tin furer fide y if the Principle be true. It is the fa f eft ta- king that fray, "Khich thedffmng Parties agree on* Anfw. i. Here is no Agreement concerning the main point of Saluation , For the Catholicks and Donatifts iointlj and vnanimcpfy neuer openly ConfefTed that Catholicks could be faued , as now we and Pro- To mpurpo. teftants by one confent fay it- But let that pass. z. The Ca- ■& tholioks and Donatifts agreed that Baptifm adminiflred by Here- ticks was valid and good. That's true Do&rin.. But both par- ties neuer agreed , that it was lawful for a Catecumen to take Baptifm from the Donatifts, vnless in Cafe of neceflity. See SAu/lm Lib. i. de Bapt. c. z. 2. O , but thus much followes. The Donatifts Baptifm is morefafe than that of Catholicks vpon this- Principle, That both Parties agree'd fo far , and it is fafeft to take, that way wherein differing Parties agree, confequently the Catho- licks Baptifm is less fafe 3 becaufe the Donatifts denied it to be true. 21. Anfw r This whole Difcourfe is a meer Paralogifm ; the A Panic- Fallacy lies here, That the Opinion of difTenting men is fuppo- ■ gifmanfwe- fed to Add more fecurity, more certainty to Church-Doclxinjtharr red, the Do&rin it felf deriues from that Oracle, of Truth, I fay Contrary. As fuch Opinions, when true, Add no moTe weight The *?"** or certainty to that Do&rin than it had antecedently from the Z'olndof Church, So if false; They make not the Do&rin less certain. ImAnfwr. Take one inflance, God reueals this Truths The Diuine Tford ajjumed Humane nature, One preaches the Truth But Adds no degree of certainty r> the Doclxin in it (elf , which in the higheft: degree was moft certain , before his Preaching. An other talfly (. as* Difc. L C. it* ToQatboIich ^ndControutrfies. u? (as Arius did)oppofes the verity, it is not Therefore less cer- tain in it felf beeaufe He contradicts it. And thus we difcourfe of our Church Tenets , indubitably moft certain vpon Church • Authority , whether Hereticks deny or gram , (That Matters not) the Do&rin {land's firm ftill as before , And as we fee by daily experience neither rifeth higher in certainty, nor fall's lower in the iudgement of Catholicks^ beeaufe Sectaries fide with it , or i>end againftit. 22. Thus much proued The Paralogifin is at an end. The Catholicks held The Donatifts Baptifm valid; fo they would haue done had thefe Hereticks duely Miniftred it, and with all ( which is poffible ) afterward denied it valid , So independent Church Do&rin is of diifenting mens opinions. The Donati/ts again flighted our Catholick Baptifm, the Church regards it not, For as the Opinions of the Goodnes of their own Baptifm beightned not the Churches certainty concerning it, So their Contrary Opi- nion of its inilirficiency made not the Truth less certain to the Catholick. Apply what is here noted to our prefent cafe, and you will fee the like Conclufioru Protectants Say, we may be Sectaries $i^ iaued in Catholick Religion. The Opinion is true, But as alTerted **»g mitb by them is no more but an Opinion, which therefore Add's not vs nmher one grain of more Certainty to Catholick Dodhin, For had they •J~'*'/t'r denied vs a pofsibility of Saluation, as now by meer Chance they 0Hr drum* grant it, Catholicks would haue giuen as little eare to That, as t/m They now doe to their many other falfe Opinions. So it is > Church Do&rin as I now faid, neither fall's nor rifeth in certain- ty, vpon the account of our Sectaries Opinions. 23. You will Ask what then gain we by the Conceision of Protectants when it giues vs no more AfTurance in this particu- lar, than we had before from the Church > I haue anfwered abo- ue. We gain thus much, That they cannot rationally impugn any Catholick Do&rin without contradicting Them felues , For if confeiTedly, This bring $ men to Heauen, the Religion is found, And implies no elTential Errour, The concefsion then , as I faid, ferues well as an Argument ad Hominem to ftop the mouths of Ff 2 Se&aries? 2iS Difc. i.C. 2 1. Trotejtants granting Sahttion Vrk*t their Sectaries, And showes withall, That they end controueriks For its Zxerjfun horridly vniuft to difpute againft a Faith which all - grant fanes Struts for ? fouls. We pretend no more, nor can pretend it , , And here is the Reafon. 23. No Catholick (nor indeed any other) doth or can belieue a Chriftian Verity vpon this ground or Motiue, that Sectaries fay- its true , for their laying lb, is neither Gods Revelation nor the Churches Doctrin, Bur a meer Opinion as taught by- them, But an- opinion (chiefly theirs) is to weak to ground any faith vpon,There- fore if I belieue, as I do ,Saluation moft fafe in the Roman Catho- lick Church , I belieue it vpon a Motiue totally diftincl: from the Proteftants Aflertion. It is true, their Aifertion or llding with vs may induce one to reflect on the great power Truth has in working vpon men moft refractory , Though it Adds no new degree of certainty to Catholick Doctrin. I haue inilfted lon- ger vpon this point becaufe itvtterly deftroies what euer Mr. Stil- lingfleet can lay againft vs, vnless lie will quarrel vpon this fcore, that I here fuppole my Church Doctrin moft certain, which- is not the Queftion now, But may well be fuppoied in all good law of diiputation, And shall, God willing, be pro ued in the next Dilcourle. 24. Page. 6 15?. you proceed to a lecond Aniwer of his Lordship , And Argue thus. If that be the fofeft which both Parties agree in, the Principle makes much for the Aduantage of Proteftants, And why ? We Cathoiicks are bound, Say you , to Tlje$eci&. b'eheue with you in the Point of the Eucharift , Tor all fides agree rhsArgu- '%n tfa fefcfo 0j tfo church of England , That m the mod buffed Sa- fenM?^e39 iramth't tfo Tfortfy Recewr is by his Vauh made Spiritually partaker J™™bJi% of tl;e t?lie a^d Real body and blood of Cfmsl , truly and really &c. Anfw. i°^ If we bel-ieued As yon clo, The motiue of our Faith would be y As is now laid , quite different from the Motiue of your Opinion, And Co k is de faiio in the belief of euery Catho- lick My fiery* ButI wane this? And lay Your Principle is ill 2W>fyed, For you and we agree in iuft nothing concerning the Sucharift %bm thus-fer only ? That what we fee lw& Uks breads Wc Difc, i. C 21 To CatholicksjendContrcfyerfies. 229 We fay that very Chrift who was born of the Virgin ; and fuffe- red on the Cross is really and fubftantially prefent vnder the form's of bread after true Confecration , You by a ftrange fancy lay hold of Chrifts Prefence exifting in Heauen, And think thereby to make your felues partaker of his real body. We fay Chrift is rruly \\vrth » Ergo Chrift commanded both to kicks, is no Confequence, nor agreed on by Catholicks. 1. Both Churches , fay you, Agree that the Euc*a- rift u a Sacrifice of duty , of Praife , of Commemoration &c. You know, we abfolutly deny your Snppofition , and lay you haue no true Sacrifice , confequently neither praife God , nor Com- memorate Difc i . C. 2 i. To Catholicks, end Coutrouerjtes. i\ i memorate Chrifts PafIion,but grievoufly offend him in your taking a bare piece of bread r Here is no Agreement. And thus we fpeak of your Mafs or Liturgy , For there was neuer Mafs in the without a true Sacrifice , you haue no Sacrifice, Ergo no Mafs Church. The grolfeft errour therefore is that you haue rafed out the Sacrifice y moft elTential to a Liturgy. 28. Page, 621. You fay. His Lordship Anfwers truly, that the Agreement of differing parties u no Metaphyfical Prinuple, The c$»>in. but a bare contingent Prcpofuion Which may be true or fal\e , ai the gentprop9{U matter Uy to Which it is applyed. Aniw. A contingent Propo/ition^ tton* What's this Sr I If you mean that the Proteftant party vented it by chance , He not quarpel with you , But out it is in print , And applied to the Poflibility of Saluation , which you allow Catho- licKs. Let this concefhon ftand , it cannor but be true vnlefs you fay, Both parties err in the AiTem on, And then we are not only out ofthe Queftion, but highly blame you vpon this account, That all your pains in difcufling (6 largely the matter hitherto , has been to no purpofe , For one line might haue ended All , had you plainly Said. We Proteftant s fouly erred when We granted Saluation to Catboluk* m their oWn Religion. Be it how you will. I fay this Proportion. Saluation may be had m Catholick^ Religion , is So true, that h cannot be ralfe , becaufe the greatefl Authority on earth, the vniuerfal Church of Chrift owns it as an vndoubted verity , and could this/? ofobly be afals hood , neither we nor Proteftants can belieue any thing which the Church teaches , as is amply proued in the fecond Dilcourfe. &cv For to what purpofe should I be- lieue the Trinity , tfoe Incarnation T the Creed or any thing els, when is fo true that Church which proclaims thefe as Truths , may after all damn th*t'tean"- me? The very uglines off uch a thought carries horrour with it, m ''*''"- And ftark shame decries it ^ as Abominable. Your Lord and you fay next. Theconfent of difagreeing parties is neither Rule nor proof of truth y No man can refotue hts Faith into it , but Truth rather is, or should be the Rule to frame 7%fnot to force Agreement. Aufw. Al this h very right , Therefore we neuer make your confent either Rule •©r proof of any Catholick Verity > much lefs do wee refblue our Faith 232 Difc. t. C. 20. *P roteftants graining Salvation. Faith into your Agreement ; Church Doctrin Stands firm without you , it was true before you were in being , And the euidence of it forced you to content with vs. Now a word, to your other two or three inftanccs. And. zy. In real truth, Sr. I much wonder you (aw not their Lame- nefs , before you thruft them into your Page 621. And that Oiler in ^ou wou^ ^'m allow them Strength to weaken this Truth. \\\e (tanceipro. and Vrottftants Agree thus fur ti at CttJ olul^ Religion can faue vs , <&c- t^d .weight I (ay Contrary , The inflances are fo remote from your deiign, *#- That they prouejuft nothing. One is. The Orthodox Chnjtians agreed Ttttb t e Artans, that Chrift was of like nature with his Fa- ther., But added, tieeltoas of the fame nature, hrao , Say you , it u (dfeft to bold Jtyi/b the Avians. To hold what I befeech you > You Anfuer , that Chrift was of the like nature. Very good, lhat Met/eft either e^clucjed the farne nature or included it 5 Grant the firft, you make the Fathers Hereticks , which is impoifible, For they held the lame nature common aud Confulslai.tial to the Fa- ther and Son. If their concefllon (which is true) included the fame nature , The Orthodox party and Arians agreed not in the fame hypothefis , confecjuently your inftance is to no purpofe.at all. In a word this euer and vnexceptionably holds good. The Doctrin which Hereticks Iewes and Turks agree in with Catho- licks is molt true ( fo you and we agree about faluation now dif- cuiTedy but it doth not follow , that fo much only , or that no more That's truth ** true' ^our WW& of reflecting vpon this Only or, no More makes wherein all your inftances impertinent And your inferences Ergo , It is fa- Catholicks . ft si holding T&itb the Arians moft vnconcluding j For though the and Here- Doctrin be true when the Arian fide with the .Church , yet it de- ncki agree. rjues nQ akf0iute fafeiy from tnat consent of Hereticks. 30. Vpon thefe grounds all the reft which followes fall's to nothing. Some diljintino parties ( Say you ) agree that there ought to be a Resurrection from Stn , and that this Refurrution is meant m rf*- rets p^ges of Scripture , But they deny the Refurreclton of the body after Death. Erop it Will be the Sufesl to deny the article of the Reftnreclion, Again^ Djffen&ag parties , as lefresyTurc!^ , and Sell ai us awe littb Can)!)- D\£c.uC*li.ToCathoticfo, endCoMrcfoerjieu 2j| Catholic^, that there is but one God , Ergo by virtue of this Principle, men > ifl be bound to deny the Trinity. Laftly. Difjenting parties Agree fully T*itb vs That Clmtf is man $ but Hereticks deny His Godhead. Therefore it frill be fa f si belieuing that Chris! is meer man , And not God* Anfwer. With much wearifomness do I read thefe more than pitiful improbable inferences. Not one of them arifes from Pre- mifes which lead in any thing like your Concluiion. Reduce but Bremifesput one to right Form ( one femes for all ) and you will fee your which infer folly. Thus it is. That Dottrin in TV huh Catholic ks and Heretic kj ™Zmc\h- agree is fafe and true Dottrin 4 Catholickj and Heretickj agree in this *lon* Dottrin that Chri/iis man ( but not man only) ergo that is fafe and true Dottrin. Here is the utmofr. your Premifes can infer 9 And I grant all. Chrift is truly man. Sol grant the Douhrin of a Refurredtion from fin , of one God only to be moft found and Catholick , But here is your grand miitake and open fallacy with it. You feem to perfwade the Reader , that becaufe Hereticks agree fo far with the Church , Therefore it is fafe to deny what euer other Do- •dfcrin She maintains. Sr , She maintains the Truths now mentio- ned , yet not only Thofe But many more And herein there is no Agreement , confecjuently no good concluiion for you vpon any agreed Principle, For thus much only followes from thence , That fo far as Tve Agree , fofar true Dottrin is taught, Apply this to our prelent matter and all is plain. You and we agree thus far , that Saluation may be had in the Roman Catholick Religion. Moil: true. We difTent from you concerning the Charge of Superfti- Anmher tions and gro'fs Errours impofed on vs., from this you can infer f^acydif. no Couclufion againft vs vpon the Principle of Agreement , now C0H6U • Suppofedin the other Do&rin of Situation, which goes on roundly ^without all contradiction. I would fay. We agree about Salua- tion and that's a Truth $ we differ in other points , here we muft difpute vpon other Grounds^ And lay that agreed on Principle afide , for immediatly it lead's in no concluiion in fuch matters. 31. Shall I now tell you where your whole Fallacy lies* It lurk's in that pretty Term , Safeft , For you thought to infufa into it this Senfe. So much Dottrin as fve and Hmtrikj agree in, G g is only *]4 Difc. i.C. zo. Trotejlants granting Saluation. is only the £*/hat eutdence haue you but that the agreed on Principle , is one of thofe Falsboods >. I haue ans- wered, i. If the Principle , beefuppofedfalfe you might haue roundly iaid Co at the beginning , and fpared all your fuper- fluous labour ipent to no purpoie in this fourth Chapter. I Anfwered, 2. The true Church , euen when Proteftants con- fent to it cannot Agree in a falshood , for the true Church (peaks truth , And He or They who fide with it cannot fwerue from truth in that. You fay. 3. It ought to be a fafe Principle indeed, and no vncertain Topical Argument , nhich men should venture their fouls vpon. Anfw. If men muft be faued in the true Church (be it yet where you will ) And in this we All agree , none can in confeience call the Do6hrin of it Topical or vncertain, as shall be proued afterward. In the mean while Say I beieech you, what fafer Principle haue you to rely on in this weightiy matter D * . of Saluation , which will not be more Topical Than that is Mi/called which the true Church teaches , And you approue. You know, Topical. or should know there was neuer any true Church fince Chriftia- nity began , which denied Saluation to the Romam Catholick. Nay all Orthodox Chriftians euer granted it. You fide with all thefe Orthodox Chriftians and what greater Authority can there be on earth > Yet this Principle muft be called by you To- fkal and vncertain. Say then what's more certain > Will you lea- ve the voice and vote of all Orthodox ProfeiTors and run to Scrip- ture ? Alas , The whole book Saith no where fo much as fee- mingly , That you Proteftants are in the Safe Tt>ay of Saluation, And we Catholicks not. What euer Argument therefore is drawn from Scripture , will be a lefle fatisfa&ory Principle ( yea none at all j And infinitly more Topical in order to faue jouy Than what the church teaches, and you hold with it, is, to fave vs. Now if you let goe this Princ/ple of plain Scripture, as youmuft(orrievrge you lo produce that plain Text which /i*« Gg 2. ;•«. t]A Difc. i. C. ii. TroteftantsgrantwgSluatmtt. you, and Damn's Catholicks) you haue nothing left toftandon but meer Misinterpretations and GlofTes , which indeed merit not ib much as very name of Toptck** Anfiverto II' ^ou % 4* Heathen ifm if our Principle hold, will be mnObitBion proued the iafeft way to Saluation ,. For fome v(you ( Catholicks ). taken hem agree ihar many of them may be faued without any explicite knotolrdyi UtAthem/m \)ai{ 0j Gfoift , But v ey deny you ian be fatted by it. Aniw: Here the old fallacy is on foot again , And a pretty Antilogy with it, For if the Heathens deny we can be faued by an explicite knowled- ge of Chrift, They mull certainly haue fome explicite knowledge of huii; Or if they haue no fuch explicite knowledge , How can they deny Saluation to vs by Chrift > They cannot deny what they neuer heard onv But let this pass. I Anfwer, 2. You are quite befides the Queftion and once more out of our Principle , For you ioinc together two opinions only. viz. whar the Heathens and fome Catholicks hold in order to the Salua- tion of fuch Aliens. And We in the conteft with you, make vfe of a Do<5trin which all the Orthodox Churches on earth haue euer taught : This is more certain than any opinion can be, and only (in order to the inference about the Saluation of Catho- licks ) Add your opinion to it. 3. After you haue [aid all, you only conclude thus much ,. that a Heathen may be (aiied without any explicite knowledge of Chrift. The Concefnon fo far is good Tpon the opinion of Catholick Doctors, but doth it follow from hence that ib much only is true, or that no more Do&rin is Safe? This you ought to infer or you proue nothing. 34. Page; 6i%. You only tell vs what his Lordship fries. Vir. That the Raman Church, and the Church of England are but tJ)ro s ~ . diftinft members of tht Catholic^ Church , fpread oner the faw of tire *vnC»th+> ^arth,. Ohierae good Reader^ our Adueriaries both here and els Htks k fart where often make vsa part, at leaft, of the Church Catholick, #f iht C*- VpoD that Cancefiiori 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 Jaoecf , or in real Truth They furpafs- Mahumet w malice. Far i£ Mahomet who held Moles an<" " ™ ""■'" Chrife Difc. I. C. 21. ToCatbolich^endControuerfies, 1]? Chrift two great Prophets neuer dared to damn thole millions of Mahomet fouls that belieuedinthem ,And had liued from Moles vntilthe monfawu- wicked man fet forth his Alcoran , much less can thefe men who r*M* then hold vs Chriftians , and part of the Catholick Church damn thofe • Se^anu^ innumerable profeflbrs of this great moral body for want of Faith , who haue been hncethe. 5. or 6. vage vntil Luther ap- peared in the world. You next put vs to our proofs. If >€ can prone that the Roman Cburcb ts properly the Catholic^ Church it Self ,^e are to Speak^ out Sec. Sr, though we are not to proue that we keep in the Kings high way where the world has fctn vs fo many Ages, But might moft iuftly force you (late ftrag- lers) to proue you haue taken a better path 5 Yet what you deil- re is fo amply euinced in the other Treatife vpon feueral Occaiions chiefly Difc. 3. C. 1. 2. 3. That none of you hitherto haue dared to Anfwer. The proof briefly is reduced to this plain Difcourfe, Three dayes before Luther shamefully deferted the Roman Catholick Communion, there was a true vifible Church ©n earth, but that only was the Roman Catholick Church for all. other Societies, name which you will, were erroneous and here- tical. Ergo the Roman Church, or none, (for Proteftants were Tht Reman, not then in the world) was the true Faithful Orthodox Church %^°?t , of Chrift j And is fo Still after our Sectaries late Reuolt from chunk it. 35. You Cloy our ears- again with his Lordships feuere Sen- tence concerning the Leaders of our Church , who refufeto hear, Her Inftrudfcion y. And his Charity extend's fo far as to think them all loft fouls , though many that fucceed them w thefe Errours , Tttthout obstinacy, may be faued. AnfV i His Lordship neither is j nor was, nor Shall1 euerbethe Judge of the liuing and the Dead, Therefore we little heed his heauy Doom , The man has his al- ready. But fay I befeech you? Where was the Church before Luther whofe Fnftrucl:ion the Catholick Leaders refilled to hear? was it your English Church? Alas, it was a thing, neuer heard of in thofe Dayes. Was k the Church of Artans, Pelaguns, and loch like comdemiicd Hereticks, mnft our Leaders be damned foi' Gg. j. not A qui (lien F np) fed Concerning. The Church Catholic k) Defperate Voclrin. A mm imfertir*er.y 2}8 Difc. I. C. 2i. Trotettanti granting Saluation. not hearing thefe > No certainly. Say then for Gods lake where was the Church , they should haue haue harken'd to and refilled to hear > Here, Sr,we vrge you, may we vfe your own Phrafe to [peak out, to pronounce, and proue. Again. How dare you with any Conscience fuppofe , that To many learned, mod pious and virtuous Prelates, Paftors, Doctors, Religious, went againft their own Conferences to lead Them fellies and millions of Souls into Perdition > whereof innumerable gaue all they had to the poor, fome built Churches , Others founded Monaftcries, others Vni- uerlities, Others, wrho might haue liued like Princes in the world, shut themfcluesvp in Ceils togainHeaucn at laft, yet thefe , for footh, muft be Mifleaders with you, And damn themfelues and whole Millions for nothing. The Diuel in Hell hath not malice enough to harbour fuch a thought , And I verily perlwa- de my felf that neither the Bishop that's gone, nor you, Sr, when you wrote your Account, where fo far infatuated , as to Iudge it pro- bable. Your Papers lpcak not alwaies your own Conicien- ces. 16. You Still run on with nothing. Many , Say you , bold the foundation it felf Doclrinally, "»/;Tbat %Vtll be aboundatitly fufjicient u your Difc. l.C. li. To Catbolicks^end Controuer/tes* 239 your purpofe , that Ouri lannot popbfy be any fafe fray to (ablation. Anfw. Very right indeed. But thefe ifs end no Controuerfies: Set, once more pen paper and proue vs guilty of damnable Er- rour , and you'l damn Co many, that very few of your Proteftants will be left in a ftate of Saluation. Tie make the AfTertion good hereafter. In the interim you Tell vs, Wee palpably beg the Queftion Whilft TPt fappofe the J&hole Church is on our fide , and againfl you, Tfbicb is a notorious falshood. Sr, words are but wind. I shall by the Grace of God Euidence this Truth fo notorioufly in the next Difcourfe , that you, if reafbn may haue place , muft confefs, Ca- tholicks are the only Orthodox Church, And Confequenly grant, that Controuerfies are ended between vs. Conditional VropQjitiom, here mjigni- ficant. THE THE SECOND DISCOVRSE OF The Church and Rule ofHaith HEre wee cometo handlea ma- in Matter in Controuerfies , And firflEuidencethetrueChurch by Her Marks and Glorious Mira- cles. The Roman Catholick Church is proued the only Ortho- dox Society of Chriflians, and Ru- le of Faith alfo. VVeeEuinceHer abfolute In fallibility , and shew by Reafon , That if She hath taught but one falleDoctrin, and obliged Chriftians to belieue it, there is now no true Faith in the world. CHAP, Difc.i.C. i. Ttinciptes pmnifed relating <licki Church , Although he glues neuerfo great Alms , And shed hit blood for Chrtft , j.t he cannot be faued. I waue other excellent Authorities known to euery one verfed in the Fathers, And need not to take more pains when Proteftants themfelues own the Doefcrin. The Ark^ Kas a type of the Church , faith Perkjns, in symo Celum : Tvith mr. 785. extra quam omnes intertbant , out of which Ark All dyed , and all are damned who are out of the Church. Again In Caput. 9. ad Series Galat. Thofe Tlho are not members of the viftble Church , are Cedent. not memD*£rs of the Catholick Church. Humfred. Ad Ration, y Cawptant. We condemn all ftbo are not aggregated to the nfiblt Church of God. Finally Caluin , the Matter of Se&aries* Lib. 4. JnftitUo C. [. 4. makes it abfolutly neceirary to be in vnion with Chrifts viilble Church. 3. The ground of this Truth is (o folidly laid down in Scrip-* ture, that none can contradict it, For here the Church is called The Ground the Kingdom, the Body, the Inheritance of Chnsl , purchafed at a dear cf our Ca. rate, the effufion of his lacred blood, A Ctttj built vpon a Moun- tholick taWt The Ho uftt the Temple of God, the Hierufalem, the Pillar and Trutb firmament of Faithy8cc. Whereby it appears,Thatwhoeueris out of this Kingdom, out of this Citty, out of this houfe and Tem- ple of God^ whoeuer is not a. member of this Myftical body or shares not in this purchafed Inheritance, or in a word out of the true Church (be it where you wiil,I yet define nothing ) is in a damnable condition. A fad thought for all Sectaries , becaufe k is certain^ that Chrifthas not compofed his Church of fuch Members as rightly belieue the reuealed Doctrin taught by the true Churchy and of fiich as oppofe it* Vnity and Diuifion in V»*ij **". points of Faith ase inconfiit^nt in the fame Orthodox Church, F*2? **»* z^&zftxQy tne effential forme of it, which is one Faith. Now wjlasti* if our Aduerfarxes talk of a vnity in Fundamentals , they are ******* rot only euidemly convinced of Errour in the other Treatife , C!m*b ]&x& vpoa this Tery Account became Separators 60m the Church, and' Difc. 2. C. I* to the prefent Contrcuerfte. 24J Stnd without Principles Aflert that which neither Church nor Scrip- ture teaches. Who euer hold's not the Catbolick, fattb entire shall Yensh eternally , faith S. Athanafm in his Creed, but an entire Belief excludes all diftin&ion between fundamentals and others, as is ma- nifeft. I little value fome Protectants GloiTes made vpon this Text, for GlolTes with me are weightles , when they ftand vnprinci- pled. 4. The 3. Principle. What the true Church of Chrift teaches -concerning the fenle of Scripture , That's the fenfe intended by >the Holy Ghoft, and Consequently moft true. The reafon is. Truth cannot be contrary to truth ^ The Church and Scripture neuer Clash, But alwaies ipeak one and the fame verity. This Sectaries muft grant , who define the Church to be art Ajftmbly of men profpng the pure Word of God , Therefore it cannot decern or teach an Errour contrary to that pure toord, Or if it doth fo , it coa\eth , §§ ipfo , to be God's Oracle*, And the true Church of Chrift. <;. Ifthefe men (till go on trifling with their wonted diftin- ction , of Fundamentals , and not Fundamentals , And allow a Perfect vnity of Do&rin between the Church and Scripture in The Dijlin- things abfblutly neceffary to Saluation,but not in others. This is to 8*on be- define,and not to define, to build and deftroy, to teach and cheat in tween Fu*~ one breath, For a definition, which makes known the nature of a *"™ntali Thing, muft ftand in its open fenfe without reftraint, and exactly f^^ ' agree to the thing denned, Mark now. Chrifts true Church is the Thing defined, and the Definition charged with endless reftrictiue Terms, is drawn to Non-fenfe , fot it tells vs, the Church is an AfTembly of men profefling the pure Word of God, But how far > In a few limple Truths , called fundamentals , in others it may err, and profess as much falshood as you pleafe agatnfi the Verities of Scripture, So that the true Church , not defined at all 4 is made by thefe, a fair and foul Spoufe at once ; fair in a few vnalterable neceffary Truths, but foul, vgly , and deformed (becaufe erroneous ) in a hundred other matters. Mark the Paradox, and call it a flat Herefy , which feparat's him who alien's it from the Catholick body. Thus it is. Chrifts Church is true, Hh 2 and 244 D i fc l . C. I . Principles premlfei relating and falfe, pure and vnpure , right and wrong, louely and hateful together. The Inhabitants of this Citty of God, of this Tem- ple and fafe dwelling place, are in it by belieuing a few fimplc Truths , And at the lame time out of it , by belieuing more Fallkies. This is Mr Stillingfleets ftrange Do&rin , who thmk's there is no Church now in the world of one Denomination free from Errour. To what dcfpemte improbabilities doth HereJy driue men > 6. The 4. Principle. The receiued Doftrin of Chrifts Church , chiefly in all points of Controuerfy is euer as clear y and often more clear , by what She teaches, than it is in any ex- Churcb prefs words of Scripture. The AfTertion is vndubitable.. For Dotlrin who ices not, but that the whole Catholick Do&rin , of the cZ 1^* facred Trinity, of one God and three diftindt Perfons, of the Fa- Definitiom. t^ier impr°duced > the eternal Son begotten , and of the Holy Ghoft proceeding from both, is more plainly deliuered in Church Doctrin, than in any ientence, or fentences of Holy Writ. The like I fay of the high Godhead in Chrift, which the Arians deny ; Of Original fin , reiedled by the Pelagians , and other Articles of our Chriftian faith. And thus much is euident againft Sec- Kot altpxies diaries, for do not they make their own Do&rin , of their Cm* Jo infcriptu or Sacrament , when they call it a Sign, a Figure &c. more plain re,a> >e£la than any wo.rds are for ft) [n Holy writ ? And will they not alfo ritsgrant* graut (T'is an Argument ad hominem) that our Catholick Tenet of this lacred Myftery, laid forth in the Council of Trent. Sess. 13. Can. 1. is more exprefs and plain Popery than lies couched in Chrifts own words This u my body, Though the Popery is there clear enough to euery Reader > Yes mod aiTuredly , For if our Doclrin ftand as plain in Chrifts words , as in the Chur- ches Definition drawn from thence , Sectaries cannot ( as they do) admit of the one and fcornfully reieft the other. There- fore they muft fuppofe Scripture more dark and obfcure , than either their own, or our Churches Doc~frin is. And hence it followes that the very Arians were not fo much Hereticks vpon-the account, that they oppofed any moft clear and expreif fentenc* Difo fc.C. I. To the brefent Ccntrouerfy 245 fentence in Holy writ ( for really it's hard to find one manifsjlly exprefs againft them), as for contradicting plain Church Doc'trin, or the true fenfe of Scripture deliuered by this Oracle of "truth. Their Herefy then proceeded firft from lb me words in Scripture • feemingly clear in their behalf, as, My Father is greater than I, i. . From no Text fo manifeft,but that ftill place was left them to Glolfe as they haue done, and in their Iud&ements with fome */' ' r 1 r t -i i 1 r i r Anuns wtr$ appearrance or truth , yet Hereticks they were and io dele-rue- KCCOltri(fi dly accounted of, for contradicting the Church's clear Doctrin. Heretics, Be it how you will , thus much I am lure of, They neuer man- gled or mifufed any paiTage in holy Writ , when contrary to their Herefy more shamfully , than our Proteftants now mangle and abufe our Sauiours Propoiition. This is my boJj. 7. By all you fee this Principle well grounded. Wateuer Clarity Scripture hath chiefly in Matters of controuerfy (aud clarity helps much in the Rule of Faith) Gods true Church, Which cannot but fpea\ the Scriptures fenfe , in entry particular, deliuers it moji clearly y Wherefore S. taifln told Manicheus , Tom : 6 contra Epifl : Vttndam. C. 14. That if hee was to belieue the obfeure Myfteries of Chriftianity , Hee would alfent to them vpon the weighty Au- thority of People and Nations celebrated and fpread abroad, By the confent of all learned, and vnlearned , which confent implies the vniuerial Agreement of the Catholick Church, And to efta^ blish this Doctrin more firmly , He allures vs. Traft.' 18. in loan: That all Herely which intangles fouls and caft's them into Hell, s. Au/lin? proceed's from this one miiery , that Good Scripture is not rightly lu*gtment vnderftood by them. Hence alfo Hee told vs aboue , Lib. 1, concerning; contra Crefcon. C. 32. That if any doubt arile concerning the ok- scrtfiHr*> fcurity of Scripture we are to haue recourfe to Chrifts holy Church, and receiue from Her latisfoction. To which purpofe, S. Cyprian ipeaks moft pioufly. Lib. de Vnit : Ecclefia?.. llhus lade mtrimur Spiritueius animamur , adulter arinon potest fponfa Chrisli. We are nourished by the milk, we are animated by the Spirit of this faithful Spoule of Chrift, which cannot play the Harlot, or be- come an. Adulteress. Hh 3 The taiihim 246 Difc 2.C. 1. Principles premt/ed relating 8. The laft Principle. The Rule of Faith is plain , or its own Self-euidence , apt of its own nature to conuince the moft obftinate Aduerlary , whether lew, Gentil or Heretick , And for this reafon muft bee immediatly credible by it'Self , and for it felf , otherwife it mud fuppofe an other diftindt Rule yet more plain, more euident, moreconuincing and more immediatly cre- dible, And that Rule a third, a fourth, And Com infinitum , which is impofFible. Again, the Obiectiue Rule we Shall now fpeak of, Anfwer's to the thing regulated by it , which is true , certain , and Diuine Faith. This Rule then muft not only be true , and Xrhat the certain in it felf, but alio certainly applyed to Belieuers , For a cer- Ruhof tajn ^u|e jn |t fetf dubioufly applyed to an vnderftanding , auaii's only to leaue all in Sufpence and lead's none to any further Acqui- ticcncyy but to a wauering and vncertain Opinion , And this is neither fuitable to firm Belief, nor to the Rule it felf, which ought to establish vs in Gods reuealed truths, without doubt and hditancy. Grant this Notion of a Rule to be exacl( and none shall iuftly except againft it) All we haue laid aboue of the Scrip- tures Inlufficiency , to regulate Faith , or to decide controuerfies, is no less than a Demonftration againft Sectaries , Whereof fee more in the other Treatife ? Difc. 2. per totunu Scripture Certainly is not plain in all things necelTary to be belieued , for were the true fenfe of it (which indeed is only Scripture ) as plain and indifputably clear for the Arians , or Proteftants in euery particular controuerfy , as their Dodtrin is plainly deliuered by them; Or contrariwife ; were the fenfe of it as plain and indif- putably clear for the Catholick Do&rin in Matters of debate, as the very Doctrin is taught by the Church, All Contention would foon ceafe,becaufe either They,vpon the Suppofition, muft become Papifts, or wee turn Arians and Proteftants, Or finally be forced to deny plain Scripture. A moft conuincing Argument. 9. The difficulty therefore is not ( and Sectaries feidom touch- it ) whether Scripture be true , were the fenfe known or out of Controuerly, but what that true fenfe is, which lies in obfeurity, 2nd cannot be known , without a certain Interpreter. Here is the Difc. 1. C. 1. to tbeprefent Controuer/y 1^7 the only Queftion debated between vs and Sectaries. One may Reply. It is no good objection to fay learned men differ about thefcnfe of Scripture, Ergo it is not fufficiently plain, becaufea great wit may wreft the plaineft words God euer ipake to a fini- fter fenfe. Contra, i. But who knowes, when two learned Par- ties conteft in this Matter, which of them is the finifter Wrefter? Contra z. When a whole Society of men as the Arians were, and Proteftants are now , Tamper with a Text , which touches an eiTential point of Faith, And diiTent from others as learned as Themfelues about the meaning , The fenfe cannot be fuppofed more cletr for the one than the other, without 'an other Rule certain and Definitiue* Pray you fay. Is the fenfe of thofe words, My Father is greater than I , indifputably clear for the Arian 2 Or the fenfe of Chrifts words. This is my Body without controuerfy clear for the Proteftants Doctrin concerning the Sacrament, when a whole learned Church oppofethbothlF.uidently No. There- fore our Nouellifts muft grant; that Scripture is not only obicure , in thefe two places, But more ; That a Iudge is neceflary to afcertain all of its true meaning , as well in thefe , as in a hun- dred other PafTages. Again , if Scripture want this clarity y it cannot be its own Self-euidence, much less conuince an obdurate Aduerfary. Nay I fay, though it were clear and the fenfe thereof agreed on by all called Chriftians , yet both lewes and Gentils fcorn the Diuinity of the book , And fay if 't be of Diuine infpi- ration, That muft be proued by; a certain Rule extrimecal to Scrip- ture, Therefore it is not immediatly credible by it felf, crfor it jdf. Laftly were Scripture plain initfelf, yet (And this vtterly ruin's Sectaries ) The certain Doetrin of it, can neuer be applyed indu- bitably to any vnderftanding , For our Nouellifts fay , becaufe all Teachers of Chriftian Doetrin are fallible , none can make an in- fallible Application of it to any, or teaeh that Dodtrin infallibly , which is in it felf infallible. See more hereof in the other Treasife* Difc ; i* C, z. andC, 4, N» 8, The only difficulty concerning Serif tut*. Sectaries mttfl ack- nowledge an Obfcurity in ScribUirt, CHAR ?4% Difc. 2. C. l. The %uk of Faith afiigml chap. n. , Ihe %ide of Faith aligned : The T roper ties of a %ule. What ts meant by the Church ? Anciem Fathers /JJert that the Qhurch is eafily found cut. Her marks, more clear , than Her Bffential Thus much done, we Shall ealily find outthoie Chriftians , who are Members of this happy Society, or eifentially coiiftitute that viiible morarBody, called the Holy Catholick Church. \\hath ?? Concerning the rirft. We {peak plainly , and vnderftand meant by by the Church a viiible Society of true Belieuers , vnited in one th* Chunk. profeflion of Chriftian Faith and the communication of Sacra- ments , vnder the Conduct and Gouermettt of Chrift' s lawful CommifTioned Paftors. I lay no more yet, hoping no Sectary -can iuftly quarrel with the Notion of a Church, expreifed in fuch general Terms , And therefore wane at prefent that other worn-out controuerfy agitated by Protectants, viz. Whether the Predeftinate only make vp the true Church , or great Sinners alfo may be included, That is not at all to our purpofe now , when we only feek after a Society of Chriftians vnited in the true Faith of lefus Chrift, who owne a due fubmifiion to lawful Commiflioned Paftors, whether thofe who teach , or are taught, be' Saints, or tin- ners, concerns them, t'is true, but not our prefent 'Queftion. Of fuch Belieuers there cannot be two or more Churches, but one only ; And to auoid all confufion , or the mingling of different Queftions together, we here moue no doubt concerning the Head, or chief Authority of this Church, but immediattly Ask, whether nin.9ft\^ there is now, and has euer been, fines: Chrifts time, a viiible difFu- qHefiton led Society of Chriftians , who haue faithfully belieued the Ortho- proofed, dox Do&rin of Chrift , and vpon that Account well merit to be called the Profeflbrs of the true Catholick Church > Of this 'Vniuerfal fpread Society our Sauiour (pake moft clearly, or of none. tt'eQ gttei Cau not preutd agtinft it. The Spirit tf Truth abides frith li it f 1 jo Di fc X. C. I. The %ule of Faith afiigned. U to the end of theTvwld&c* I think no Sectary will deny fuch a Church. 6. The only difficulty now is to find out this Orthodox and large difriifed Body of Chriftians, vnited in one true Faith, and the fincere Worship of God. And nothing is more confonant to reafon, more exprels in Holy Writ , or more clearly alTerted by the ancient Fathers than that the true Church laies forth Her pwn euidence or clear Difcermbility whereby She is difttnguished from all Heretical Sects, That is , She lies manifeftly open to all eyes , and Cannot but bee mod eafily known. She is a Citty built vpon a mountain zThe light of the "toorld : A Tabernacle placed in the fun. Jpfa eft Ecclefta faith S. Auftin hpift : \66. In fole \*ftta. The Church is pluced in the fun , Hoc eft in manifrjlattone omnibus not a vfque ad terminos terra. That is , She is known by Her own apparent and manifeft Euidence all the whole world ouer. And becaufe no one Father touches this point with greater Energy than S. AuPiny Hear yet more Traft:i. m. J. loan : Poffumus digito Sec. 2nd emtnt we can Pomt & tne Church and demonftrate it with a finger,and concerning They are blind who fee it not. ; Lib. z. contra CrefcomCap. }6. Tbechnr. Extat Eccltfia. The Church is in Being apparently clear and con - chesEui. fpicuous to all. Again , L/£ .- 2. Contra Petti : C. 32. IZeminemla- Ut vera Ecclefta. The Church of Chrift lies hid to none. And Lib : Contra crefconiC. 63. The Church fo clearly pre fents it (elf to all jort of men euen to Infidels, that it flopps the mouths of Pagans Sec. See alfo this great Do&or, pondering thofe words of the. 30. Pfalm. Qui videbant me foras fugerunt Sec. obfeurius , faith Hee , dixenmt Prophet £ de Cbrifto, quam de Ecclefta Sec. The Prophets haue fpoken more darkly of Chrift, than of the Church, And I think this was done, becaufe they fafr m fpirit , that men Would malej Par- ties againft the Church , and not contend fo much concerning Chrift ready to contend about the Church. Chris! almoft euery Where Wdt preached , by the Prophets in fomt hidden or couered Myflery , Ecclefis aperte, but the Church was pointed at fo clearly that all might fee it, and thofe alio who were to bee againft it. I waue other Authorities, for t'is tedious to prouc a Manifeft Truth, or here to deuce. Difc. 2.C.2. 77?e properties of this Qjile. 251 to tranfcribe plainer Teftimonies relating to this fubie<£h Thus much premifed. 7. I lay firft. Though Church Doclrin be more clearly ex- preiTedby the Church chiefly in all Matters of Controuerfy, than in Scripture ; For example : you know the Church deliuers the Confubftanttaliity of the eternal Son, with greater clarity than Scrip- ture exprelTeth that Truth , Yet no man can proue to reafon this clearer Do&rin to be immediatly true, vpon this ible ground, (Mark my precife words) that the Church teaches it. My meaning is. The Church yet not manifefted to bee God's Oracle by marks extrfnfecal to its Do&rin, leaues Reafon To in fufpence that it Cannot fay. This is the Oracle Dtbicb teaches Truth, or , that the Dodtrin of this not yet euidenced Society is Diuine, and Ortho- dox. The Aifertion is fo amply proued aboue that it is needles to press the Arguments further in this place. All I fay now, is, that we dilcourfe in like manner of Scripture and Church Do&rin preciiely confidered as Ejfential Dottnn, not yet made Credible by jignes and Mottues. As therefore the Verities of Scripture , are not known to be Diuine Ex terwinis ibecmfe I read them in that Ho- ly boak, But muft haue them proued Diuine vpon a certain Prin- ciple diftin£t from Scripture , So the Verities of the Church are not known Ux termini* to be certain, before I proue the Church by Clear Motiues to be the Oracle of Truth whereby God fpeaks to Chriftians. what I AlTert is euident in Chrift our Lord and his Apoftles , when they firft began to preach, For neither lew , nor Gentil belieued that Sacred Do&rin vpon their bare prea- ching, Nay, It fcandalized the one, and feemed a foolery to the Other, But when they (aw it confirmed by Euident Signes and Wonders, by eminent Sanctity of life, by vndeniable Miracles , and other Signal marks which the Author of Religion laid open to Reafbn , Both Iewes and Gentils , were gained, moued to be- lieue by Such Inducements no less prudent than forceably perfwa- iiue. 8. The reafon of all a Priori giuen aboue, euinces thus much : None can indubitably and immediatly own the Do&rin of either Ii 1 Church Ah 4JPr- tton concer- ni gChu th Darin, The Do8ria of Scripture, or The Church, not p roue d true by s*)ing its truet ija Difc. 2. C. 2. The \ule of Fai& ajfignei. Church, or Scripture as true and Orthodox but by oneofthefe t\ro means. Either the light of natural Reafon difcouers that Truth, Or it muft be known by Faith. Reafon alone, too weak: to comprehend the Sublime Myfteries reuealed in Holy writ or Th* reafon taught by the Church , . boggles at all, And , left to it felf, reiec~t,s tfwjffcr- at leaft the harder Myfteries , as is manifeft in both Iewes, and f«#». Gentils. Now to know them by obfcure Faith is wholly im- poftible , vnless one haue fufticient AfTurance before hand; groun- ded on other prudent extrinfecal Principles , That both Scripture, and the Church - teach Diuine , and certain Do&rin. To know thus much , the Rational man muft difcourie And in this prefent ftate of things , firft find out the Church , by her Marks , and- Signes vifible to all. If reafon complies not with this duty, the Faith. we draw from thence is no Faith, but , a precipitous foolish Credulity* For who can prudently affent to the high Myfteries of Chriftianityy vnlesse Reafon firft fee it is prudent to do fo ? This is what the Apoftle deliuer's in -few but mod pithy words. Scio cm credtdi , & certus fum. That is, I firft know why I am to belieue by Reafon, and then ftedfaftly belieue without fur- ther reafoning,. But enough of '. this in the Chapter cited: aboue. 9. The. 2. Proposition. If the Do&rin of Chrift's Church precifely confidered according to its Ejfence y bee not ex exterminis manifeftly true , or proues not immediatly that the Church is Orthodox vpon Her own meer laying that She teaches Truth > It is euident, She muft be proued Gods Oracle by Motiues, ex- trinlecal to Her Doclrrin. Now thefe Motiues purely confide- fed as Inducements to btlieue, are not Articles of Faith , but fenfibley. Th*Chu7th reafon able, and of fiich weight^that they powerfully incline euery jirft proutd well difpofed vnderftanding to this rational affent. At God ancient* Orthodox by \y fpakj by Mofes , by Cbrtft , and bis Apoftlesy So he now alfb fpeakV rational . ^s own tmc church, And lead's men vnder her fafe Condu&- mh"* toSaluation, 20.. The ground of my Aflertion,is no less euident , than the ve*y Poiition it filfc. Firft, Chrift himfelf neuer proued his Doc-, BBfftM Difc. 1. C. 2. The properties of this %itle. 25^ trin true by meerly faying it was Co , but confirmed it by fignes and wonders which made it immediatly credible as is fayd already, So alfo did his Apoftles , And Co doth the true Church to this day. 2. Vnless Chriftians haue thofe prudent Inducements pre- uioufly applied to reafon before they belieue the Holy Catho- lick Church, The wife prouidence of God' muft' be fuppofed fo neglectiue , as not to let men know after a prudent and diligent fearch, which or where his true Church is , Though Scripture Compares it to a glorious Sim, moft villble to all And the Fa- thers fay, they are blind that fee it not. 3. All thofe Millions of Chriftians who belieued the true Church ,who liued and dyed happily in it, ( innumerable shed their blood for the verities of it) were not a People mad nor befotted vpon this Account, becan- As the PwL fe They proceeded iuft as the Primitiue Chriftians did, that al- miiue waies belieued vpon Rational Mbtiues. Thefe Motiues then fir'ft CW'"»* enlightned the reafon of the moft ancient Chriflians, And reaibn m^t ,j? afterward preuented by grace , fubmitted to all the Church teaches. ueffoare But much more of this hereafter, becaufe of greateft Confequence, though it feem's Sectaries haue little regard to "the Euidence of Chriftianity Drawn from' rational Mbtiues;" n. The. 3. Propoiition. The Marks of Chrifts Church manifesto all, are more feniible and clear than the efTential Doc- trin is, marked by them ; They are peculiar to the true Church only, and diftinguish Her from all Heretical Communities ; Fi- nally taken all together, and not by Piece-meal , conuince this truth. That God (peat^s to Chriftians by this Church. Enery part of the Proportion proues ir felf. Firft a Marie is more clear and fenilble than the thing marked by it, For , who euer had {e'en our BlelTed Saufour walking here on earth , and obferued his holy life, whoeuer had heard his facred words , and feen his Mf- racles would haue laid , his Sanctity , words, and Miracles, were more clear and euident to all , than his Doftrin was of bting God dnd man. Therefore the firft Chriftians belieued that great My- ftery induced by euident works, and wonders. 2. Thefe Marks ire peculiar and proper to the true Church only. You haue I i 3 tlm wee. The force cf prudent Motints. ft. >, earth They difim. gHtsh the trtte Church fremfalfe Ccmmum- tses. 254 Difc.2. C. 1. The %uk of Faith aligned. the reafon hereofin the other Treatife. b\(c. 1. C. 8. Becaufe it is not poflible , if a true Church be now on that God can permit a false Society to equalize, it , much less to furpass it in the luftre of fuch Motiues as forcibly perswade to difcern between lhaty and all heretical Communities , For were this done, Falshood would be made as credible to reafon,as truth , And God would be guilty of Arguing less efficacionfly in behalr' of his own Church, againft Iewes, Gentils , and obitinate Here- ticks. Obferue well the Strength of this Argument. I-fay in a 11. word. If an Arian could truly AlTert : I haue as many forceable Motiues, And marks of truth belonging ?o my folio vers and Doc- trin , As the now fuppofed true Church of Chrifl can shew for it lelf , could he fay with truth I will euidence the like Anti- quity, the like Perpetuity, the like lawful Million of my Paftors, the like vnity in Faith, the like conuerlions of Heathens, wrought in and by my Church , The like fucceflion of Bishops prea- ching my Dodfcrin from Chrifts time to this day , The like fan- &ity, the like miracles , as any Church on earth can demonftrate: Could an Arian , I fay, (or lew either) fpeak all this with truth, no Orthodox Chriftian could argue the one or other of Falshood in Doch'in : For grant thus much, Thefe very men might much better handle and interpret Scripture than Proteftants do, vtterly deftitute of all fuch Marks. The lew , if the falfe fuppofition ftand would draw the old Teftament to his fenfe , and lb would the Arian the nelt ; And who could rcproue them could they shew you a Church bearing.thefe iignes of diuine Authority \ Hence , Sectaries that only Gloss Scripture , and neuer had any thing like au euidenced Church which taught the Do&rin they now maintain , and fo earneftly Gloss for, are moft reproueable, And vainly attempt to draw any prudent man to a belief of their No uelties. 1 3. By all you fee how important it is to haue a Chriftian So- ciety clearly marked, and diftinguished from falfe Communities , with euident Signes , and rational Motiues before we recurr to Scripture. r> i fc. 1. C.2. The properties of this %uk. 255 Scripture. All faith depends on this greater Euidence laid forth to reafon, as Shall be demonftrated towards the end of this Dif- courfe. 14. I would haue euery one ferioufly to reflect on what is now faid, and once more to know, That Chrifts Church like a glorious Sun euidenceth Her felfe by the Luftre of ilgnal Marks, though her efTential Doctrin belieued by obfcure Faith y appear's notEuidenf. Find me then out a Church euer in being iince Chrifte time , vnited in one Faith , glorious in Miracles and conueriions of Heathens, wherein Bishops and Paftors lawfully fent,haue preached Chrifts Doctrin age after age; Giue me a Church which was neuer cen Hired or taxed of Errour by any Society of known Orthodox Chriftians,^, and She only,is Chriit's true Spoufe, All other late rifen Affemblies , are Conuenticles of Satan ; And thefe Marks do not only diftinguish Her from all fuch Conuenticles, as is now noted, but Coll, ctiutly taken conuince church this Truth, That God {peak's to Chriftians by this Q*acle, whe- Sheweuheft reof you haue more in the following Chapters. Marks, if. In the Interim we muft enter vpon a further difficulty and next enquire, which among ib many Congregations as now are and haue been in the world , is the only manifefted true Spoufe of Chrift > For all, as I faid aboue , make not one Church vnless Chrift hath compofed this.myftical Body of fuch members as rightly btltcne , and of others that iniurioufly oppoje his facred Do&rin. Nowbecauie the chief controuerfy is between the Pro- teftant and Catholick , The firft pretend' s to a Church which teaches Chrifts Doctrin ; The Catholick vtterly denies the Pre- tence and pleads for his O^n Oracle euidenced by prudent Moti- ues. This I fay being the Conteft, we are in the firft place , to vnchurch the Proteftant , and then proue by vndeniable Argu- ments ? where and with whom the true Church of Chrift is. CHAP. 256 Oifc.t. C j. TroteJlanU froued Cburcbhs CHAP. III. The frotefloHihM neither Qhurcheuide need by Marks iff Truth , nor true DoBrm madexredible to reafou. Hts whole. Faith is built Ipon * Fancy. 1. *~jn He Marks of the Church, as is now &id,are Co dear to 1 reafon, that they make the Oracle manifeft to all fort of people, to the learned and vnlearned, to lewes , to Infidels , and much more to Hereticks who pretend to belieue in Chrift. All of them are alike concerned, and obliged to make a fearch after the true Church, and when t'is found to belieue it. 2. Now to find it out , I Afk , whether our English Pro- teftants (with thefe we chiefly diipute ) like well of the marks ^wfltons already hinted at, or will reie& them > I propofe my doubt with all touimes can^or' Will they dare to lay That their Church, asitdeliuers Froteftants Do&rin , or, as it is now reformed in England, was euer fince Chrift time In Being, and viiible to the world? Can they produced SuccelTion of Bishops , or Pallors , that taught Prote"flaney Age after Age, without intermiflion * Can they show what Conuerfions thefe Proteftant Paftors wrought vpon Heathens to their faith , iiue or fix Centuries ftnee 3 Can they produce in- dubitable Miracles , donebyfuch Paftors? Moft euidently No. Therefore our later Proteftants reiecl thefe , and the other like Motiues,as flight and impertinent,to euidence their Church (which yet fay they,teaches Chrifts Do<5fcrin)and Wilily do fo , becaule they haue none -of them. Well. To 4eaue them without excule, to lilence them for euer ; Here is an vn anfwerable Dilemma. Either the marks now kinted at are admitted or, reie&cd. Sup- pofe them owned as clear cognifances of the true Church, or of Her Orthodox Do&rin, we moft juftly urge Proteftants to proue, what Dif. 7. C* y fretejlants proueiCburchles. iff vrhatlknow willneuer &e made probable. Viz. To shew That they had a Church three or four Ages fince inuefted in the iignes, and marks, now mentioned. On the other fide, if which is ufua! , fuch marks be flighted as unmeet to manifeft the true Church, it muft bee granted, They haue no euidenccd Church , and Confecjuently no true Doctrin with it. Hence I Argue, Who euer belieues , in an uneuidenced Church , defti- tue of all Signes and marks of truth , belieues in no true Churchj The Proteftant belieues in fuch an vneuidenced Church, There- fore he belieues in no Church : But he who belieues in no Church belieues a Do&rin more than improbable, or abfolutely folfe , And this is fincy or worfe than fancy. 3. What anfwer think ye do Sectaries return to this Argu- ment ? A ftrange one indeed. They tell vs the only Mark of T^ return the Church lies not in any external Notes , but appears in the noJf™A*1* written word of God , and the Purity of Scripture. So Alftedius. *""' Lib.de notti Ecclefia C. 29. Whitaker Comro.z. p. 5, C, 17. and Mr Stillingfleet here and there , feem's well pleafed with the fancy. Contra. 1. The Church had her Marks before Scrip- ture was written , what euer fenlible Signes Then diftinguished that holy Society from all heretical Conuenticles , makes it yet known to the world and Still as clearly point's it out, For, the writing of Scripture nothing at all obfcured , the exteriour luftre of thole Signes , or prudent Motiues. Contra. 2. A Mark which makes an obfcure thing known is euer more clear andfenfible, than that is which is marked by it. The Church , Say Se&aries, r, c, , is obfcure and muft be firft known by Diuine Scripture , But this mort f/,4r/- very Diuinity of Scripture , is more obfcure than the Church manifijltd ( For it is not its own Self-euidcnce , nor known ex termini* to th*n serif- be Diuine ) Therefore vnleff this Diuinity be made manifeft by m%* an other light, it cannot glue to all the firft notice of the Church, which appeares More clearly to fenfe and reafon., by its own Signes, than Scripture doth. 4. Hence it rollowes. 1 . That , Scripture , which should firft mark out the Church , cannot do it j being more obfcure K k than 25S Difc. i.C^Troteftants prouedCburchleu than the thing marked by it. It followes. 2. That the Church thus marked, is its own Self-euidence , not Farther demonftrable to Reafon. Who euer therefore depriues the Church of her ex- ternal Motiues , or takes from her the glory of Miracles , of Antiquity, Conuerfions, &c. Shall long grope in the dark, before Hee find's either Church , or Scripture , You will fay. Scripture known by the vniuerfal Tradition of Chriftians , may well mark out and firft difcouer the true Church , Tradition being- a thing moft known , and Seniible to all. Contra. This very Tradition either fuppofes a Church fignalized with other *"/!* rational Motiues , or excludes them j And imports no more but pleading lne kare Content of Chriftians , that accept of Scripture as Gods • Tradition is Diuine word. Grant the -firft -y we haue all that's wished. Plead . only by the Second , or tell a Heathen ( who may be gained to be- lieue the Church ) That all Chriftians vniuerfally own Scripture as Diuine , and mention nothing of Miracles or other Motiues manifest in the Church , He will foon reply. The Chinefes haue alfo vniuerfal Tradition or a general confent of a People largely diflfufed for their Bible; The Turks haue it for their Alco- ran, yet fuch a Tradition alone is no Mark of God's word or the true Church. Why then should it be a mark to Chriftians, if no more be laid ? $. And the Heathen eafily makes his Plea good by this con- uincing Reafon a Priori. Before this vniuerfal Tradition was , before you Co many Chriftians agreed in the Belief of your Bi- ble, the Dodfcrin Thereof was made credible vpon other Motiues, Thefe Motiues are not now extinguished, or of lefTer account ThtHeathts becaufe you haue agreed, on the Scriptures Diuinity; Nay they exception muft be prefuppoted to haue been before you agreed , Tor this yAtnJiTra- jgrement u not the caufe of the Bibles credibility, but an effect of the ttionony* ^^ That is. Therefore fo many Chrislians haue agreed by a vni- uerfal Cwfent, that Scripture is Gods T*ord , becaufe it l»as made credi- ble to Reafon Antecedently y to an Agreement Co vniuerfal , But the ground of this Agreement was no other but the Authority of the Orthodox Church glorioufly euidenced , by the Luftrc of her' Difc. 2. C. j. Troteftants proued Cburchtes, 1 J9 iier Signes and Motiues Sec. -This Principle alone , vtterly ruins Mr : Stillingfleetsj Refblu,tion of Faith , as shall be made clear in an other place. 6. Again faith the Heathen , you Proteftants difcours not probably , you iuft proceed as one doth who laies Colours be- fore a blind man and bid's him iudge of them. You lay , that bothlandlewes are blind , and cannot difcouer the light which lies in the Scriptures Diuinity. If this be fo, how canyouima- gin that I may find out the true Church by the light of Scrip- ture (chough admitted vpon Tradition) which I can no more look on than an owle on the Sun, at Noon-day > Neither will i.t help you at all , if you Say. Scripture interpreted both Mark's , and manifefl's the true Church, For I muft rirft know that Scripture is Diuine , before I gtue credit to any Inrerpreter, And though I were afcertained of that Diuinity , yet I am ftill to feek whether your Interpretation, or the Arians be better , and this I cannot know without a fure Rule extriulkk to Scripture, And all fallible Interpretation. Yet the Heathen hath not done, but pinches the Protcftant shrewdly. Admit, faith he, that Scripture Mark's out the Church, and giues vs the firft Euidence of it , when it tells vs. The Clutch is a Ctttj built vpon a Mouutain, and founded on k Rock, That all Nations shall flock^ to it. That Cbrift Kill be Kill) it to the end of the florid iThat iteuer bady and T»ill haue PaftorSyViJi* Hedeatly ble^and audible, till Tve all men in one Vn\tj of Tmb. That it is the tonmnca Pillar , and ground of Truth Sec. Can you , my good Proteftants , Seflarie*. show me fuch a Church belonging to you three or four Ages (ince when, you had not one fingle man in the world profeffing your Proteftant Religion? Where was then your Proteftant Citty vilible on a Mountain > What Rock ftood it on in thofe daies , when it was not in being > What Nations, what Iewes what Oentils did it then conuert to your Nouelties > How was Chrift then with it, and taught it all Truth , when there was no fuch Church to learn his Do&rin? Giue me a Catologue, of your Vifible Paftors at that time, or tell me how your Church was then a PdUr , an Oracle of truth, whilst all it teaches now is falli- ble, and may be falfe 1 K k 2, ' 7. Hence 260 Difc.2. C.j. Troteflants proued Cburchles; 7. Hence I argue. What Scripture faith is trae $ Scripture 4n Ar With whom can they rationally vnite Themfelues > whofe fenfe mu ft they belieue and own as the vndoubted meaning of the Holy Ghoft? To doe any thing prudently in fo weighty a Matter is impoffi- ble, Vnless they firft come to the knowledge of Chriits true Church, which as well Afcertain's them of the Scriptures fenle in all Controuerted points of Faith , as it doth , of the Book's Diuinity. Now further. It is not polfible to know the true fenfe of Scripture but by the Churchy it is not polfible to know the Church, but by her Marks, (the eifential Doetrin Thereof no more mark's it felf as true , than Scripture Docfcrin denotes its own Diuinity ) The Sectary therefore that rob's the Church of her Marks and the external Glory of Miracles , Conutrfions , Perpetuity Sec. is guilty of three hainous crimes at once. 1 1 . Firft he makes the Conuerfion of a lew to Chriftianity Seftaru* moft impoflible. Tie show you how. The lew Admits of the m*keth$ old Teftament and drawes from euery paffage which fpeak's of c™**erfioQ Chrift and the Church, a Senfe quite different from that which 'V?, * Chriftians own. The Proteftant admits both the Old and New ## Scripture, And as we may Suppofe, is at a hot difpute with a lew concerning Chriftian Religion. First faith the lew, Lay, Sir, your New Testament afide, which is no Principle with me , Be- cauie it neither euidencesit Self immediatly to be Gods word^ nor can you proue it Diuine vpon any fure ground extrinfecal to the Book. Therefore we must Argue by a Principle common Kk 5 to . %6i Difc. i.C. }. Trotejlants prcued Cburchles. to vs both, The old Teftament only. You read There, I read alfo,You know the Original language,fo do I,You compare Text with Text, I doe the like , You Glofs, and I Glofs againft you , Yet after all is done, you draw one ftnfe out of this very Scripture, and would prone Chrift to be the true Meffias, I draw from thence an other Tht Afir- cjuite Contrary, And lay He is not. My demand is, whether Chrift, tion^roHsi. y-^om y0tl Adore, hath prouided men of better means (Than your Gloifes and mine are) whereby we may certainly know what the fenfe of this Scripture is > If he haue done fo , it can be nothing but a Church manifefted by Supernatural Signes and miracles, (for God now teaches none by Angels or Enthutiafms) if the guidance of a Church be wanting we are all left; in darkness, And know not what Senfe to make of Scripture? and this ill be- feems the Goodnes of a Sauiour, who, as you fay, came to enligh- ten the world and teach all truth , which is not done , For he leaues Reafon in Darkness and Teaches not where his true Church is. It may well be the Proteftant will except againft his Aduerfa- ries GloiTes,but He is foon filenced , for Saith the lew, you , good man, when you treat with Papifts interpret Scripture as you pleafe,and why may not I proceed Co with you, And vfethe like liberty ? 12'. Thefecond crime committed by the Protectant , who de- priues the Church of Her external Signes, is, that he Eclipfes that great light of the world ( which as Origen faith shines to all ) And make it as Oblcure , as fome Proteftants make their Church inuilible before Luther. What I fay is certain , For no n man can find the Church by reafon, when all rational Motiues are riefar/eJf. taken from it, And held impertinent to illuftrate that great moral ty 0f Body. Hence you fee the third fin of Sectaries relating to Scrip- ture. This Book alio lofeth all credit with Chriftians , becaufe it Euidenceth not its own Diuinity, nor can any Signalifed Church tell vs, it is Diuine , or certainly declare the true fenfe thereof, to either learned or vnlearned. 1 3. My laft argument againft the Proteftant is no Topick,nor bare Probability , but a plain Demonftration. The Title laith ; This Difc 2. C. J. Trotefiant* proued Cburcbles 16] This reformed man has no Chriftian Doccrin made credible to _ , , - Reafon , whilft he belteues as Proteftant^ To proue the Allertion, conmntmg Three Principles are here Suppofed. Firft , that the Markes of Argument, the Proteftant Church or of its Doclrin lie ( as thefe men will haue it) in the Purity of Scripture only. 2. Th.it their Church Docfrin is either contained in the 29. At tides , or implies fo much as all called Chriftians Belieue , and no more , Though plain He- reticles in many particular Tenets. 3-. That this Proteftant Com- munity as it Teaches, is either the whole Church of Chrift exclu- ding other Societies , or only a Part of the vniuerial Church, Thefe Principles Suppofed , you haue my Demonftration. 14. Scripture Marks the true Dodrin of Chrifts Church, but it neither mentioneth nor marks out the Doctrin contained in the 39 Ar tides ,for. our newer men call thefe infer iour Truths only, And hold them not Regiftred in God's word. . Neither doth it AlTert fo much as darkly, that a Mixture of Truth , and Fal- shood , ( fuch as all Hereticks haue owned and do own ) is the Doctrin of the true Catholick Church 5 Leaft of all , That a Doctrin common to Arians , Proteftants , and Catholicks , is fuf- scrhtwt iicient to Saluation. Laftly, it faith no where , that the Proteftant difowns. Church containing that reformed Dodlrin , is by it Self the Protejlancy, whole true Church of Chrift excluding all other Societies , nor fo much as a Part of it , And this I prone. 1 5 If as reformed, it be a Part of the true Catholick Church, the ProfefTbrs of it haue now, and had before Luther fome Partners i*ho ioyn'd with them in the belief of their reformed Doclxin , But before Luther , they had not one foleman in th.€ world that belieued as they belieue, and fo wanted fellowship , becaufe, neither they, nor their Partners were at all in Being : Now at this inftant , they haue no Society of men, called a Church, ( run ouerall the world ) which tide's with them , or hold's either the. 39. Arthles, or a Doctxin common to all Chriftians, to be the true Doclxin of Chrift, or of his vninerfal Church. All this I fay is euident. And. 16, Hence you fee, in what plight thefe men are; who pre- tend A dent inftrence agminfl Sectaries. A Reply Anfoered, 264 Difc. 1. C. 5. Trotejlants %proued Qhurchles. tend to a Church marked and made euident by Scripture , and when they haue that focred Book in their hands, it is impoflible to find Co much as one Sentence orfyllablein behalfeof Pro- teftancy. Thole other exteriour Signes of Conuerfions , Mira- cles , Antiquity &c. are of no Account with them , And were they otherwife , moft euidently they belong not to the reformed Doctrin of the English Church. Here is a piece of lad ne- wes for Sectaries, who haue a Church neither Spoken of in Scrip- ture, nor manifefted to Reafbn by one Supernatural wonder. So vneuiijeiiccd a Thing it is , And Confecjuently vpo.11 a double Account , no Church at all. 17. The Sectary may reply. When he AfTerts Scripture Mark s the true Church or Her Doctrin, the meaning is not that it lpeak's exprefly the Tenets of Proteftants , but only Saies, it is a fufficient Repofitorj of all things neceiTary to Saluation, and deliuers fo much plainly. What euer therefore is not plain- ly taught in fcripture ceafeth to be necefTary. Contra. 1. Pro- teftants granting thus much , may feek long before they fiud Their particular Tenets, becaufe Scripture deliuers none of them cither exprefly, or by any clear Deduction. Contra. 2. The lew and Heathen regard not the plaineft Truths in Holy Writ before the book be proued Diuine,The moft plain Verities auailc nothing with them , Yet God hath afforded means to draw them to Chriftianity. But it feem's our Sectaries in all their talk of the Scriptures clarity, neuer reflect on thefe Strangers from Chrift, nor point at[the means whereby their Conuerfion may bee wrought. Contra. 3. The Arian and the Orthodox as highly differ about the fenfe of plain Scripture, as the Pro- teftant and Catholick , about the fenfe of Chrifts own words. Thu u my body , And thefe differences , either touch on fundamental Matters,, or there arc none fiich in the whole Bible. Contra. 4. The Proteftant only tells vs what he faith of all things neceirary contained in Scripture, and fpeak's his own Sentiment boldly, without either proof or Princi- ple. 1%. Some Difc %. C. 3. fProteftantsproued Cburcbles. 1&J 1 8. Someobiecl: firft. God can endite a Book in as plain jn obie* words as any man can fpeak, and t'is not fiippofed , that he affec- ftio* foluei* ted obfcurityin his own Scripture , already written. Contra, i. af Scripture be not oblcure. How is it That Chrift told the Sa- duces they miftook the true meaning of it ? How is it , that thefe Proteftant Pillars Luther and Caluin,fb groily contradict one an other in their Commentaries made vpon holy Scripture , And this in'points moft material? How is it that innumerable others called Chriftians ProfeiTe to reuerence, to Read , to ipend the greateft labour vpon Scripture , and when all is done draw out of it plain Contradictions in points , as is nowfaid, moil Fundamental? Contra. 2. We queftion not what God can do, but lay he hath not endited Scripture plain, de faclo. S. Peter. Epift ; 2. 3. 16. Speaking of S. Pauls Epiftles, is my warrant. In which , faith he , Certain things an bard to be vnder flood, fthtcb the vnlewned , and vnjlMe depraue,as alfo the reft of Scripture, to their o^n perdition. And the words relate not only to the Myfterious Matters u hereof the Apoft- le wrote , but to his Phrafe and forme of writing alfo, Therefo- re the Greeck Copies haue both in tohich things , and m which Epijiles , And all Expofitors hitherto , euen S. Auttw, hauc acknowledged an obfcure way of fpeaking in S.Pauls Epiftles, chiefly in that to the Romans. Yet we are not to fay that God affecls Oblcurity ( the word is vnmeet ) but fpeak thus : Tr^JX' His prouidence purpofely would haue Scripture deliuered in ^^out fuch a dark manner , that all might haue recourle to a liuing barshnefi. Oracle , ( His true Church ) which fpeaks more plainly , and cannot fwerue from any verity in Scripture , No offence is gi- uen to pious ears , In a word you haue a Verity exprefTed with out harshness. See S. Auslm lib. 2. de Docl. Cbri/i : c.6. And S. Ambrofe Epift. 44. Again vote Scripture moft plain , what gain Sectaries by the Clarity , when they neither haue plain , nor oblcure Text through the whole Bible for their Proteftancy > 19* Hence we Anfwer to an other petty obiection* Scrip*- L 1 tore %66 Difc.2.C.4, The %oman Catholick Church. ture ( fay fbme ) relates many Things not neceflary to Salua- tion , Therefore it cannot be fuppofed to omit things necef- fary. Contra; i. Ergo it fpeak's ibme things of pure Protes- {tancy , or nothing in that Religion, as reformed , is necef- fary to Saluation. I would willingly haue an exprefs Text for this reformed Nouelty , and thefe few difficulties folued. Contra. 2. Though the whole Bible were without difpute moft plain, or told vs all things neceflary, yet this neither mouts lew nor Gentil, nor drawes any to Chriftianity without fur- ther light , as is already proued. We haue shown aboue how Scripture contain's all things neceiTary in the Reflex Part the- reof. It is now our Task and intent to Mark out the true Church of Chrift ( the only Rule of Faith) which decides all Controuerfies Concerning Religion. CHAP. IV. The one and only true Church ofQhrift , Teas, is, and shall euer be the Holy, Jpojlolical, andCatbol'tck%p- man Church. Herdtttiquity and Qonftant Terfeuerance in the Ancient primitiue fDoEirin , without Alteration^ prouesThe Ajjertion. u T Ttshardtoilluftrateamanifeft Truth, bccaufe what euer X reafonsarc brought to light for it, furpafs not much the Euidenceof the thing you" would make clear. Who euer goes about to proue by Arguments that the Sun is the moft luminous Body in the Heauens will haue much to do , becaufe that*s eui- dents to ourfenfes, and fg is the true Church of Chrift, faith S.Auftin^ Difc. «. C 4. is Tk only true Qhurch 167 S. Auftin , digito demonflrari pouft , She can be pointed at with your finger. Origen adds Horn. 35. in Mattb. She is like a fun, calling her beams from one part of the world , to the other. Howeuer , becaufe we now treat with men , who either fee not, or pretend not to lee , I will giue them all the Euidence gathered from demonftratiueSignes which a heart can wish for. 2. I fay firft , before we come to more conuincing Arguments. Antiquity is a certain Note of Chrift Church. The reafon is. As God was before the Diuel , and Truth before falshood, So the Orthodox Church , whether you take it from Adam , or from the firft preaching of Chriftian Do&rin , was before all f^/"'^ Sects and Herelles. The Roman Catholick Church only which truu Qhwnh Chrift founded , and is Co much extolled by the Apoftle , has this Precedency. It was , when the Arians were not , we know their firft Rife , it was when the Pelagians were not , we know their Beginning , it was when rhe Donatifts were not , their Origen is as well known , as that of Proteftants, which firft pee- ped out with one unfortunate Luther , fbmething aboue an age lince. Might not then the Roman Catholick Church , more ancient than all thefe Sectaries, haue moft jurlly queftioned , each of them at their firft appearance , as the learned Tertullian. Ltb : de I'refcrtp. did thofe of His time > Qui eftis vos? who are you new men> Vnde & quando vemftts ? From whence came you? Vbi wn dm latuiftts? Where haue ye been hid lb long ? No body yet law you , or heard of you. I waue the Testimonies of other Fathers, ( chiefly of S. Austin and S. tiierome) though noneprefles this Argument drawn from Antiquity with greater efficacy , than Optatus Meliuitan. Lib 1 1. contra Parme* ntan. They are known to euery one. But this Mark muft not goe alone. 3. I fay. 2. Antiquity, and a neuer interrupted Continu- ance of the fame Vifible Society Age after Age, and the fame Tf3^knrt» Dodbrin vpheld without change or Alteration , clearly euidences nef4erCkan- Chrifts Church. This Scripture ftrongly AfTerts. ofee. 2. who- gU her re the Church is faid to be efpoufed to Chrift in Smpiwnum Dofoin. LI 1 for i68 Difc. 2. C. 4. The Roman Catholick Church for euer. Math: 16. Hell gates shall neuer preuail again slit. Math.. 28. Clmfl frill be frith it to the endoftbefrorld. vpon which PaC- fage, S.Hierome fpeaks mod clearly. g«i vffa ad confummauonem f&iult &e. He frho promifed to be frith bis ofrn Difcipks to the end of ^ y the frorldybotb sbofres tbat tbefe bleffed men shall euer Hue ( in their fuccelTbrs ) And that be frill not depart from the true Belieuers. Videtur fuut lima Sec. They are words of S. Ambrofe lib : 4.. Hexam. The Church maybe feen like the moon eclipfed, but neuer perishes, She may be clouded and ouer caft with darknes , but cannot faih. Reafinproue The reafon is. If Chrifts Church could fail , not only all me- tbe/ijjerticn mory of his facred Pallion with the other Myfleries of our Faith but the whole Scripture alio would for that time of her fuppofed Deficiency haue been no obie&s of Belief. None could them haue faidwith truths I belieue tbe Holy Catholick Cburcb ,. or haue had Access to it,becaufe it was not then in Being. Now further. As the Church cannot fail, fo She cannot Alter from her felf or change Chriits Doctrin. For if She did fo , She were no more Orthodox , Chrift could not own Her for his Spoufe- PonderS. Auftins Difcourfe on this fubiect in Pfal: 101. Exiftunt qui dicunt Sec. There are fome frbo fay. This is not the Cburcb of all nations frhicb once fr as. No. That's gone, and thus they Speal^> faith the Saint , becaufe they are not of tbe true Church, u impudentem 2d nt vocem> %^A non tftylM* tu tnilla non es. O impudent fpeech, it is not the fame Church it was, becaufe thou art not in it. Vide ne tu idea non Sis. look to. thy felf, least thou be not , for the Church will be , although thou were not in the world. Then he de- cries this Do&rin of the Churches failure as moft abominable y, deteftable, and pernicious •? And in Pf aim. 60. politiuely Aflerts- the permanency of it to the end of the world. 4. Hence I argue. But the Roman Catholick Church only,. The prolan natn- euer continued in being without interruption and neuer mnvrged. changed , or Altered the Do&rin which She firft learned of Chrift5 Proteftancy which began one only Age fince, moft euidently wants this continuance , and euery year put's on a new counte- nance. Therefore the Roman Catholick Church ? and not that ries obieci. Difc. 2. C. 4. iiThe only true Church. 269 of Proteftants , is the Spoufe of Chrift. That the Roman Ca- tholick Church ftood permanently in being ener iince Chrift, is as demonftrable, as that Protectants were not before Luther. The Viflble perpetual SuccefTion of our Popes , of our Bishops , of our Paftors and of our Catholick People in all ages , is an irrefragable Proof. Neither do Sectaries much cauil at this Perfo- nal SuccefTion, or the exteriour Permanency of our Church(for that's euident) But here is their Plea. This Church ( lay they) ^hat Secl*m once Orthodox changed from her felfe , forged new Articles of faith, Contrary to the primitiuc Doctrin , Herein lies the great Charge. Now if I demonstrate, that the Roman Catholick Church once confefledly Orthodox , hath euer iince been Viflble in the world, and neuer fvverued from the pure Primitiue Do&rin in after Ages, She is certainly the Church of Chrift ftill without Alteration. You will Ask how can this be euinced? <;. Some may think 'tis beft done by Paralleling our pre- fent known Church Doclrin with that of the Primitiue Times. Very good. But by what means shall we come to a right Pa- rallel ? One may Say. Make A diligent Inipechon into the Records, and Writings of thole worthy Fathers, who liued in the firfl Ages, And all is done. I Anfwer. This Rule precifely confidered help's nothing. For what if thole Fathers neuer medled with, moft of the Controueriies, now agitated between vs and Sectaries > And us no wonder at all if they did not,For may not a new Sort of Hereticks rife vp to morrow, whole Er- rours neuer entred into the thoughts either of the Fathers, or of any man now lining > Again, What' if moft of thofe ancient Writings be loft , (many certainly are) we are at a Stand. But finally , what if doubts arife concerning the fenfe of thofe ftw preferued copies yet extant? can Sectaries Glofles or ours either determin what's right Orthodox Dodtrin by them 2 No. The- refore as I faid aboue , no man can come to a full, exact, and fatis- BJ w^At factory knowledge, of the Primitiue Truths, but by the voice and Tradition of the prefent Church. Reiecl: this voice of the pre- theprimi- fent. Church ? we are caft into darkness, we may diipute long but tiueDofomt JL 1 3 end means one may come to An Argu- ment pro- utng the Roman Catbolick fur* tn Voftrtn. 270 Difc 2.C 4. the %pmanCatholick Church end nothing. Now becaufe it lies not in my way to Treat of that excellent Rule of Tradition, learnedly handled by others, I'legiue you three Conuincing reafons, And proue my 'AfTertion. viz. That the Roman vmuerfal Church, once Orthodox, neuer changed the ?ti- tntt'tue Doftrin. To show this, Two certain Principles are to be reflected on. 6". Firft. God had alwaies an Orthodox Church on earth founded by Chrift , which was, and is pure without mixture (at leaft) of notorious damnable Errours , and which neuer taught Chriflians any shameful, false Docftrin ; for had it done fo in any Age, it had then ceafed Bo tpfo to be ChrifVs pure Church. The 2. Principle. Proteftants confess , ( and t'is a certain truth ) that chunh Jlil the Roman Catholick Church continued Orthodox without No- table errour, for the hrft three or four Centuries. 7. Hence I argue. If this Church once pure , abandoned ChrifVs Doclrin in after Ages , or forged new Articles of faith contrary to the Primitiue verities, that Change Tfas Notorious, shame- ful, and damnable , as we shall fee prelently. But it is not pos- ilble, that She euer made fuch a shameful , Notorious change, And here is my Reafon : Had She done fo, Chrift in that Age when this fuppofed Alteration began , would haue had no Orthodox Church on earth free from gross and culpable Errour, and Con- fequently his own pure Church would wholly haue been abo- lished. 8. You will Ask how I proue this > I Anfwer moft euidently. Begin if you pleafe from the third Age , when the Roman Church was pure , And defcend to Luthers dayes , you will find all the known Societies of men called Chriftians, to haue been either Orthodox Belieuers , Or grofly erring in Faith, yea plain condemned Hereticks, And fo reckoned of by Proteftants. Such were the Anam , Neftorians , Ptlagtans , Monotbelits , Donatifls &c. And all others nameable , excepting Roman Catholicks. But thofe gross erring men , euidently taught not Chrifts pure Doclrin without notable Errour , much less constituted either a Part, or the whole Orthodox Church, which Chrift eftabli, shed One reft/on vrged, 'me Difc> 2. C. 4. is the only true Church 27 1 shed in truth , Therefore if the Roman Catholick Church went to wrack alfo , if She erred notoriously with thefe known erring Societies, the Orthodoxifm and Purity of the Tthole Church ceafed to be in the world. And this is impoflible. 9. Here in a word is all I would fay. Chrift had euer a Church Entierly pure on earth , for he founded one pure, which should alwates continue in that integrity laid in Her very foun- dation ; But no errour was laid in the foundations of the Roman Catholick Church once ConfeiTedly pure , therefore no notor rious Errour itained it in after Ages ; Or, if any filch errour fouled that once fair Spoufe of Chrift, thisSequele is euident: Tbhe T»a$ at that ttme no pure Church in Being, vnless our Nouel- lifts pleafe ( and perhaps they may do fo in time ) to make Artans9 Donatifts , and fuch a rabble of men, more Orthodox Christians than their own Progenitors were, and all the Roman Catholicks are now, the whole world ouer. 10. You fee I iniift vpon notorious Errours, Arid do Co on fet ^h] purpofe to preuent a Reply of fome newer Sectaries , who (ay the *^lt ^e9 Church of Rome hath indeed Her Errours , Butnotfundamen- erronrs tal, or deftructiue of Saluation. And will you know the reafbn of this trifling ? * Here it is. If they fay She was not Orthodox in fundamentals, there was no true Church in being for a thou- fend years before Luther, and this no Chriftian dare Affert , And if they make her Orthodox in euery Article She taught, both Herefy and Schilm fall's shamefully vpon Proteftants , Who dare not grant they abandonned a Church Entierly pure and blamless, when they left it. Hence a middle way was wifely (or rather moft fimply) thought of: Our Church , forfooth , rauft be what Prote- ftants pleafe, partly true-, viz. in a Cew Fundamentals , and partly \ falfe in other Matters of less . concern, which thefe men, elected by God, were to reform, and tell exactly what was amiss , or how far it hath erred , &c. And therefore name themfelues the Reformed Church. , Well. . Let this whimfy pass , largely refuted in the other Treatife , and in paffing take notice of a pitifull Chijrch indeed which Chrift. had by thefe mens own CoAfefTion ten *7i Difc. 2. G 4. the %pmm Catholkk Church. ten whole ages before Luther. It was a meer deformed Moil" fter made vp of Linzy wolzy ftuff, of tawny Colours , offomc- thing, and nothing , in a word of Truth and Fahbopd. But here is not all. 11. I am to proue much more, if Proteftants Principles ftand firm. viz. That neither we nor they, had any Orthodox Church, in fundamentals before Luther, and Confequently no true Church was in being for ten whole Ages. Now moll euidently, Se6ta- rieshad nothing like a Church, for they were not in the world, And it is as euident , if their Charge hold good againft our Church, it had bin much better neuer to haue appeared than to fee it turned into fo many vgly shapes , into fuch an vn&shio- ned Monfter as thefe new men make it. In a word this ancient Catholick Society, if Sectaries lay right ( and Mark euer the Sup- Tatthtotalljf potion ) erre(i noTorioujlly in the very fundamentals cf Faith , and ^'ftariis neither btlieued tn Cbrifl, nor Creed, and therefore there was no Or- thodox Church before Luther, nor yet is , to this day. If I euidence not this vpon the mppoiition now made , neuer Credit me here after. To doe it, pleaie to obferue that by a fundamental Er- rour in Faith , I vnderftand a Dodtrin , which if falily taught , contrary to Chrifts verities, is as damnable to thofe who teach it, as the Arians errours are at this day damnable to Arians. Hence I Argue. 12. What euer Society of men forges new Articles of Faith contrary to the Primitiue Docbrin , or tell's the world a loud lye, that God reuealed fuch things as he neuer reuealed , but vt- terly disowns and yet execrat's , And more ouer obliges all Chri- ftians, after a fufficient propofal 7 to belieue fuch faliities vpon Di- uine Reuelation , and this vnder pain of damnation , doth open iniury to Gods Infinite verity, Alfert's that which Eternal Truth neuer taught And therefore fins damnably, or errs in the funda- mentals of Faith. But Proteftants , lay , the Roman Catholick Church long before Luther did fo , ergo She finned damnably and erred in the very fundamentals of Faith. That She did fo is euident vpon their own charge, For this Church taught an rnbloed) trmci}>le$. The Apr- tion mani- fejlljprcued Difc. t. C. 4. is The only true Church 275 vnbloody Sacrifice neither Chrift nor the Viimmue Church taught fo : It defines TratjfwfLwttation to be an Article of Faith , Chrift and his Primitiue Church neuer did fo. It maintains Purgatory , Praying to Saints &c. Chrift neuer deliuered fuch Dochins,nor the Primitiue Church belteued fo. Now further. Thefe are all loud Lies if Sectaries fpeak Truth, and our Church obliges all Chriitians to belieue them as truths reuealed by an infinite Verity vnder pain of damnation, which yet, as they fuppofe were not reuealed. Therefore She firft openly iniures Gods Veracity, which can be no light Offence, but mortal and damnable, And consequently errs in the very fundamentals of Faith, Therefore vpon that account is now no Orthodox Church , nor was lb be- Wherein th$ fore Luther. And here briefly is the vltimate reafbn of all that's Sin of all Said. The enormous Sin of all Hereticks paft and prefent con- ^fre!^ki fifts in this only, that they pertinaciouflycharge, or faften vpon r? ' God a Do&rin Hee neuer taught,this alone makes them Hereticks, but the Church of Rome, fay Sectaries, hath don fo, ergo She was, and is yet Heretical. 13. If this Argument which I hold demonftratiue conuince not , I will propole an other and then briefly folue one or too ObiecHons. The Arians who deny a. Trinity of Diuine Perfons, are guilty of a fundamental Errour. All grant it. Ergo the Ro- man Catholick Church was, and is as guilty , or rather more guilty if Proteftants doe not Calumniate. I proue it. The Arians errour related to a fublime and fpeculatiue Myftery which tranP cend's all humane Capacity, But one fuppofed Errour of the Ro- man Church ( as Sectaries tell the Story ) is worfe and more gross , to wit, a plain , palpable and practical Idolatrj. Why? She Adores a piece of bread for God , wherefore if Idolatry was euer in the world, She commits that grieuous Sin And errs damnably, Another But no Sin can be greater, no Errour is more deftruc"tiue of Chri- Argument ftian faith , than Idolatry ; If then our Church be guilty of ^rled* that crime, She is far enough from being fundamentally Orthodox. Here is the Argument. 14 One may Anfwer , it is only the Sectaries Opinion ( which Mm is 274 Difc. C. 4. Toe %pmm Catholick Church tvrcur and fin, fall he*. *tilj> on Sectaries. is. fallible and may be falfe ) that we are Idolaters. What then? \ ou Ncuellifts hold the opinion, you print it, you publish it, and pedwade Thousands , and Thoufands poor beguiled fouls , we are Idolaters, and they ludge fo of vs, And as long as- that Iudgement {land's immoueable, they cannot own vs Orthodox Chriftians in- Fundamentals. But let vs come more clolely to the point, and fpeak or" rhe thing in it felf. 1^. Here is a Dilemma. We are Idolaters, or not; Grant the flrft ; We err in the fundamentals of Faith, and were no Or- thodox Church either before or after Luther. Contrarywife , if we be not Idolaters but only Adore the Sauiour of the world,, really and fubftantially prefent, vnder the Forms of bread and winer Ye Gentleman, do not only hideoufly calumniate a whole An- cient Church, And fin damnably; But more ouer F.rr in a funda- mental point of Faith , For, if the Second part of the Dilemma fubfihYs. viz. That we Adore not a. piece of bread , but that very Chrift fubftantially prefent ( vnder the Species of bread ) who dyed on a Cross , The whole errour , the whole Sin , you charge on vs, fall's heauily on your Selues. You firft tell the world a plain lie and lay God neuer reuealed ChrifVs real Pretence,, in a confecrated Hoft as the Catholick Church belieues , whereas vpon the Suppolition now made, He has reuealed it ; Therefore you contradict God , you injure an infinite Verity , which is a hideous fundamental errour. Of fuch coniequence it is to Tax. a whole Ancient. Church of falie Do&rin, That to fay fo , is a flat Herefy, and the Calumny without repentance is damnable. 16. 1. Youobligeall you teach, and this vnder pain of Dam- nation, not to fall down or Adore Chrift , fubftantially prefent in. the Sacrament ,, yet vpon the fuppofition ( which is euer to be mindedj he is really there and claims the higheft honour the iii-r premeft worship, as moll due to his facred Perfon. This you icornfully deny , and both err and fin damnably. One may Anfwer you adore Chrift in Heauen, and that's enough. Contra. He merits Adoration whereuer he is prefent, for if he should viiibly, appear to any of you all, you would (if Chriftians ) fall down Dilc. 1. C. 4. is the t>nly true 'Church. 17* and Adore him : Here he is in the Sacrament vpon the Suppofition, and you difdainfully deny him homage and veneration. This in a word is all I would fay , and it is an vnanfwerable Dilemma alfo. 17. If you Accufe vs iuftly, we are Idolaters , and were no r*y(* Orthodox Church before Luther, if your Accuiation be , as it isy Dthmma, moil vniuft, you Sin damnably , you vnchurch a pure Church and err fundamentally. I proue it. Who euer should Say this veryhoure: The pure Primitiue Church of the firft Age was guilty of Idolatry, belides a damnable frn, errs fundamentally >For he makes a Church tainted with falshood , which God (aid was euery way pure, And for that Reafon contradicts Gods Veracity, You Sectaries lay the lame foul Afperfion on a Church, which the Suppofition now makes pure and Orthodox , Therefore you (in damnably, err fundamentally, and vnchunh your Selues byjt. 18. I would willingly fee this Dilemma Anfwered, and with all haue euery Reader to take notice of a iuft Iudgement ofGod fallen on Sectaries, whofe whole labour hitherto hath been to" charge errour and Idolatry on vs , and the higher they went in fuch Peculations , the more they thought to deslroy vs ; neuer reflecting A •„* luim that in doing fo, They haue done their vtmoft to deftroy all the gementM. Churches in the world by Calumnies , and Confequently to ruin l*non Themfelues; For mod euidenrly if their was no true Church in the Se3*'"s. toorld bifore Luther , they are no members of it at this day, but mijera- blj Cburchlcs. Grant the firft , the fecond is an ineuitable Confe- rence. Mm z CHAP. 2/6 Difc. 2. C, j. If the \ontan Qhnnh has erred CHAP. V. *A fecond fyjafon showing , That if the Roman vLat bo- lick Chunk erred but in one Article of Faith, then is no*to no Fundamental Faith in the WoilJ. Were En our in this Church it is a re- mediless Euil and cannot bee amended by any> leajlof all by Trot eft ants i. Q Ome as wasfaid aboue may obi eel: . The Roman Ca- O tholick Church before Luther was right in a few funda- mentals for She belieued in God, in Chrift , owned a Trinity &c. So far, and a little further perchance She may be reputed Ortho- dox, yet erred in other Matters which Sectaries delire to amend , and Co to fettle Chriftian Do&rin again on it's old foundations. Oblerue how I muft labour to make that an Heretical Society vpon our Sectaries Suppoiition , which was and is the only true Church in the world; And therefore fry. If our Church hath erred but in one only Matter of Chriftian belief , She isTraite- rous , difloyal to Chrift,and can be belieued in nothing. To proue the AfTertion , Suppofe an EmbafTadour fent to a forraign {late ifM/kln" XV'1Z^ this deep Charge, that he vtter nothing in his Princes name ont Article* but fo much only as he is commiflioned to (peak. Suppofe again, the man declares fome few truths to the ftate as his Lord com- manded , But withall forges twenty other vntruths on his own head, and fYifly affirm-s his order is to deliuer all he iaith in his Matters name. Would not fuch a man think ye be a Traitour vpon a double account "> Firfl becaufe he exceed' s the bounds of his Commiflionand deliuers that he had no order for, But chiefly becaufe he (peaks vaft faliities, wholly Contrary to his iud- gemerjt who Tent him, 2. The The Church it traiterous And confe- quert'ly net Orthodox. Difc. i. C. 4. There is no true Faith in the TecrU. 177 2. The Application in eafy. The firft Teachers of the Gos- pel were legates fenrrrom God to a great State ; the whole world , For in ovmnn terratn cxmit (onus eoruw. They taught etiery where and well for fome short time our Chriftian Verities , as the Prince who fent them Commanded, But their Succeffors, the Paftors and Doctors of the Roman Catholick Church in after Ages, had, Say Sectaries, the ill luck to mifcarry, to turn Traitours , for, befides a few fundamental Truths vph eld no man knoweshow, They did not only exceed their commiffion 'in deliuering Docl:rin to all Nations which Chrift their Mafter neuer allowed of, but more ouer 5 forged of their own heads twenty vntruths. PurgMorj, Praytng to Saints, Tranfabjlanttarion Sec. And fpake all in their Princes name, Said alfo they had Commiffion from Chrift to teach lb. This fact, ifthe Charge be true, is Treafbnable, they iniured Chrift and his Verities and betrayed their truft -y But a Church fo per- fidious cannot be Orthodox. Therefore if Sectaries do not Ca- lumniate, Chrift had no Orthodox Church in the world before Luther which I intended to proue , and Confequently Proteftants are yet no true Church at all. 3. I lay moreouer. Ifthe Roman Catholick Church hath taught falie Doctrin but in one onely Matter of Chriftian belief , She can be belieued in nothing , yea I may rationally fufpe& her falfe in all She teaches. Iuft io it is. If the book of Scripture deliuer's one Do&rin falfe which Chriftians now belieue , I can- not credit it in any thing. The reafon is ; One and the fame Motiue of my belief duely and equally applied , euer" moues to an equal AiFent, or to None at all. For example. I belieue Chrift dyed for vs,becaufe Gods word flies iby Here is the Motiue of my AlTent; I belieue alfo that he afcended into Heauen,becau- fe the fame word of God (peaks it , here is the lame Motiue. Imagin now by a fuppofed impoffibility , that this latter Article is Gods word, hut futfly I cannot belieue our Sauiours Death vpon Jaifei'n0nc the Motiue of God's word , For if this word be falie and once Article deceiue, ;t may as eafily be falfe and deceiue me twice , And there ******** is no poffible means to quit me of my errour, Becaule whoeuer *<"'/'• Mm j endeauours A Church *7% Difc.2. C. 5. If the fyman Church has erred endeauours to do that, is of less Authority than God's word,' which is now fuppofed to deceiue me. It therefore the Firft Verity can reueal an vntruth , none can belieuc either man or Angel /peaking of the high Myfteries of our Faith , and Conie « cjuently All muft ft ill remain in Errour. 4. Apply this Difcourfeto the Roman Catholick Church which pretend's at leaft (I iay no more yet ) to be Gods Oracle, and to fpeak in His name. She fpeaking in his name allures me, that Infants are to be Baptized, I bclieue Her vpon her word; She alio tells me , there is a Purgatory, but we muft now fuppofe with Sectaries, it is a great vntrurji, if io 3 1 cannot poilibly belieue Her in the other Do&rin of Infant Bapufw. For if she deceiues me once She may well doit again, and which is to be noted, There is no means left vnder Heauen to vnbeguile me or to draw me out of my fuppofed Errour $ for who euer attempts to do that, is of less Authority than my Church., which is fuppofed to teach, to err in Her teaching , and ftifly to maintain the Errour. Scripture cannot help here, vnless it be clear vpon an indubita- ble Principle , that the fenfe of it, and Do&rin of my Church can differ in points of Faith , which muft be proued, and not Sup - pofed. If Fathers be alleaged Seemingly contrary to this known Dodhrin , my duty is to explicate them, and rather to draw the Fathers to what the Church teaches than to renounce Her Au- thority , and adhere to the dubious and yet vriknown Senfe of any Father. $. Now here is a short confideration For Sectaries. I raid, AKefieftton whoeuer fuppofeth the Roman Catholick Church to haue erred, jot rf artes. muft iovnrjy own jc f0 remediless an Euil , that all the men on earth cannot help or remoue the fuppofed errour from this Church. The realbn is. All the Proofs and Principles ( letting plain Scripture afide whereof there is no danger) which may be thought pertinent to impeach Her of errour , will fall infinitly short and pro&e less ponderous , less fubftantial to periwade that She has erred, than her fole Vote, and own Authority ( whilft she anathe- matizes the falshood) is to perfwade the contrary. Viz. TJbat She irtes Diic. T. C. t. There is no true Faith in the ^orld. 279 She neutr errtd. Hence Se&aries,. confeiTedly fallible men , who Se$at may eafily fpoil all they goe about to mend, aduenture delperatly Attempt to reform the Church,when the very Principles they should reform deperaf* by (were there any fiich in being ) are incomparably of less weight, and w") f ftrength and force than the Authority of this Church is, which faith She cannot erre. Howeuer She muft be reformed (and here is the wonder ) before they know whether She has erred, or haue the leaft afliirance of their own half accomplish^ reformation. Who then fee's not, euery attempt made againft our Church this way to bee, as really it is , a folIy,an vnaduiced Enterpriie no less impoflible , than in the higheft manner improbable > Mark what a task lies on them. 6. Firft they are to proue Sht has erred, which was neuer yet done 2. To giue in Principles whereby they will reform. 3. To „ , J - Shew themfelues well fetled in a perfect Reformation. 4. To arit6 +raM0 euince that all thole innumerable learned men of our Church from the Fourth to the prefent Age haue been ftupidly blind , bereaued of iudgement and befotted with Errour. ?. Wheras other Chriftians both more aged and moft learned elpyed none of thefe Errours , They are to proue that God made choife of fiich vncommiflioned men to perform a work fb long neglected by the Orthodox world. But of thele particulars enough is laid in the other Treatife. 7. Hence two things follow. Firft, that Sectaries only lofe time, when by alleging a ftw dark Teftimonies of the Fathers they offer to ouerthrow any Doctrin of our Church. Alas, what this Oracle pofltiuely Serin's is a ftronger Principle than twenty du- bious Authorities of Fathers ( if any fuch were ) in appearance contrary. It followes. 2. That the Roman Catholick Church muft of necelTity be either owned Orthodox in all Sht teaches, or cannot be belieued in any thing. 8. Wherefore I fay a great word. If this Church hath de- cerned the world in teaching a Purgatory , for example ; neither T^e nor Stclanes can certainly belieue , tbat Cbrtfi i»as here on earth or Redeemed vs. For Ask, why belieue wee this great Myftery? If yoa Anfwe£- One Try our in the Church Ve/troyesall frith, The Vhim*. te reafon of the djfertion. 2?o Pifc I. C. 5. If the %oman Church htts erred An(wer Scripture reueal's it , you are Qtieftined again. How know you that Scripture is Gods word which Ex termtnu euiden- cts not it felf > You muit Anfwer Vniuerfal Tradition and all the Churches in the world haue owned the Book for Gods word. Very good. But The Church hitherto fuppofed moft Orthodox, among Co many Heretical Societies, and Her Tradition likevvife haue actually deceiued all •, For She is now Imagined to haue taught the false Do&rins of Purgatory, 7 ranfubftanttatton &c. Therefore you cannot belieue Her, or any Tradition , for Erring in one point of Faith , She is not belieuable in any (This prin- ciple (land's firm) Much less can you tniftto the Doctrin or Tradition of known Heretical Churches, whether Arians^ Pelagians or others, For all thefe haue erred and moft grofly, Therefore you haue no certainty of the verities contained in Scripture , nor can you belieue this one Prime Article. Cbrtft dyed for vs , by Diuine Faith. 9. Let therefore the Sectary labour all that's poflible to con-? tract the fundamentals of Faith into the shorteft room Imagi- nable , let him mince them almoft to nothing, let this one Arti- cle, lefts is the Cbrtft be Faith enough for all : I fay if the Ro- man Catboltck. Church [peaking in the name of God , as She pretends to fpeak^y hatb taught but one falfe Article , and obliged Cbrijlians to belieue it vnder pain of damnation , (Purgatory for example ) none can noVr vpon any Mottue knoi^n to the ttorld firmly belieue That lejus is the Chrijl. So pernicious, is one known errour of the Church, that it ruins's all belief of other Articles , nor can fuch a Church be more trufted in any thing She (peaks , than Scripture relied On , were it falfe in that Article, lefus is the Chrtft. 10. The realbn a Priori is. All Faith is at laft reduced, or finally refolued into Gods Diuine Reuelation,whether he (peaks by this or that Inftrument , by this or that Oracle, imports nothing. The difference of the Oracle he (peaks by , dtuerjifies not faith , which alwaies tend's to one Center, and refts on one fure Ground, Gods Veracity. If he (peaks by a Prophet that's his Oracle , If by an Apoftle he is made an Oracle, If by the exteriour words of Difc. 2. C. j. There is no true Faith in the fmorU. 281 of Scripture, they are Oracles , if by the Church, She-is his Oracle. Now further. Snppofe any of thefe allumed Oracles (peaking in the name of God declare a falfe Do&rin to Chriftians , the Falfity Vlttmaily redound'* to G-.ni, who owns them as Oracles, yet by them teaches the world Faliities. It fail's out here; As if a Prince should fend a Legate to a State who fpeak's in his name, and cheat the whole State by his Embady : would not all deieruedly vpon the Suppolition, more impute the Cheat to the Prince than to the Legate that ipeaks in his name "> The parity is exact and proues , if either Scripture, Prophet, Apoflle, or Church (peaking in the name ot God deliuers falfe Doclrin, God himfelf deceiues vs , and therefore Rich, de S. Vitt. Said well in this fenfe alfo. Si error eft quern credimm &c. If we belieue anerronr, T'is you,Great God who haue decerned vs • But if God can once deceiue , either hnmediatly By Himfelfe, or meduilj by his Oracle, The whole Syfte- me of Chriftian Faith, is destroyed. What I lay would bee true , Although He should make a ibkmn protection of Speaking Truth , For euenthen he cannot oblige me to belieue, becaufe he may deceiue in that very Protection , and deliuer a falfity, if the fuppofition hold. 11. Here then is the final Conclufion. As fubieftiue Faith in a Belieuer is Indmifible fClut uy it is eitbtr wholly good or DpoHy naught None can haue a piece of Faith without the whole vertue, (an q^^ Arian cannot belieue Chrift to be a Redeemer , if He denies the church pro* Trinity) So if one Matter of Faith propofed by the Church be pofe o»e falfe really Contrary to what She defines , None can belieue any Article she thing She teaches, For, the meer PofTibility of decerning Chriftians c,an !e ■ in one Article , impoffibilitates the Belief of alt She propofeth. notbim. And this proues the Church abfolutly infallible not in fbme points only, but in all and euery Doctrin, whereof you haue more in the, 1$ 16 and 17 Chapters following. 12. Some may reply. I fuppofe all this while the Church made fo ftedfaftly God's Oracle as not to err in any Dot- trin She propofes , which is Vetttio Vrintipy or a begging of the Queftion. Contra, And Ye Gentlemen whilft you impeach Nn Her 181 Difc. r. C f. 'if the^oman Church his erred Her of" Errour Suppofe Her Inftrununtum dmtd(umy an Oracle torn, as it were , from Gods sjpuial Afiifianct , iuft as if I. should Suppo- fe the words of Scripture feparated from, the Spirit of truth.. You fuppofe Her a fair fponie, yet make Her a harlot, when and as Oktn as. you pleafe. You acknowledge fome Church or other (find that out where you can) to teach Truth-, yet you like petulant Schollers will forfooth be fo wife , as to tell her where she miffeth in Her Leflon and correci Her for it; And you- haue. done it to the purpofe, For you haue deitroied Her Monafte- ries , rob'd Her Altars, prophaned Her Temples, abufed Her Chil- Gcddetemti dren , banished fome , and hang d vp other. Are not thefe fine if the Doings 1 Contra. 2. I fuppofe nothing but what is manifeft, Church that Chrift euer had a Church on earth ( once more find it where t*n Err. yOU can) ancj tnat Q0 J fpeaks to Chriftians by this Oracle, which he will be with to the end of the world, And againft which Hell gates shall neuer preuail. Now I fay, if this Church which God (not!) makes his own Oracle,.and promifes to teach Truth by it, can deceiue but in one Matter of Faith , God btmfelf decerns vs? Aaid this Church cealeth Eo ip(o to be Catbolick , yea, and God to be the Eternal Truth. For it Matters nothing, if he can deceiue y whether he do it bj Scripture , or the Churcb. Solue this Argument if you can. 12. You may lay. 2. The whole ground of this Difcourfe a Fallacy and comes only to thus much. If a man once tell a liehemuftbe thought. a lyar in all he fpeaks. Sa it is. The Church fpeaks an vntruth in fome things , £rgo it doth, fo , or may do io inall,feemes no good conference. Contra. If an Embaffadour once be found in an Vntruth when he fpeaks in his Princes name, I think few Monarchs or States will no more belieue him in like occafions, Than giue credit to one conui&ed The dijpart^ Qf periuery when He fwear's, vnless what he (wear's bee proued ZtaTe'man true independently of his- Oath. But let this pass. The difparity Jrrint.and between a priuate man and the Church is mod notorious. The the Church Firft confidered as one (ingle and priuate , hath no Commiflion tofpeak in Gods name, or to teach the whole Chriftian world what Drfc. 2. C. J. There is no true Faith i?t the ^orld. 283 Avhat is, or what is not Chrift's Do<5triri; The Orthodox Church is impowred to do this , or to teach nothing, if then She errs but once, the Errour makes Her infamous, redound's to the Dammage of all Chriitians feduced by Heryyea and to God bimfflfe 9 as is now declared. Hence I (ay the Church cannot teach truth by halfes, as Sectaries would haue Her, or now Hit right, now mils. She cannot be Orthodox in a few main Matters called Fundamental, and erroneous in others. No. She is either Gods Vice-gerent in all She deliuer's as points of Faith, or in nothing. She muft when she pretend' s to fpeak in Gods name truly do fo, or She cannot fpeaK, nor pretend to ipeak, but muft beiilent. This Verity is further laid forth in the Chapters now cited, where we treat of the Churches Infallibility. 14. In the mean while , if any Shou'd Obiecl: The Church vainly pretend's to be fo far an Oracle of Truth, as not toimpofe onnsfalfe Dodhin And thesi demand , from whence She had this Priuiledge of Infallibility * I Anfwer. Whoeuer trifles with fuch *%j%^ obiedt.ions in this place, ( to be folued hereafter ) little vnder- (0Hrfctiiid,s. ftana s the force or our Arguments. Mark I befeech you. It is now a flippcfed Prkiciple ,( Sectaries will haue it fo ) that the Roman Catholick Church hath forged new Articles , and impo- fedthe i>eliefe of them on Chriftians which God neuer Reuealed. Grant thus much, She iniures God, fin's damnably, And there- fore is no Orthodox Church, But if She neither now be Orthodox, nor was fo ten Ages before Luther, There was not then , nor is yet any true Chriftian Church in the world, And confequenrly Prate- flams I aue no Church. The more erring Therefore they make the Roman Catboluk. Church , the more are they dure lejfe. This is what I Prefs and expreis at prefent , and would willingly haue my Argu« mentfolued. if. There is yet an other Objection fcarfe worth thepaper,, you shall haue it, fuch an one as it is. Proteftants talk much of Aweightkst Papifts Blindnes, And to free the Roman Church from damnable ObitcHon. fin or formal Fundamental Errours , may perhaps fay She hath indeed erred before Luther , and {Hills Idolatrous, But may be Nnit excufed T$uching vpon the Ignorance of Catho- UckstfolHed. l84Difc. 2. C.4. ]f the Roman- Church Ims erred Pray, where shall we find knowledge if' ignorance haue place here ? Such ignorance may perhaps be in fome particular men, But to Tax a whole Church with it, is not only to make £0 many Councils, fo many profound Doctors as haue taught- the world worfe than Idiots for a. thoufand years, but it is to iniure Chrift, to tell Him he has indeed eftablished a Churchy yet mark'd itfo obfcurely, remoued it fo far out of the Sight of Chriftians , that the.moft learned of all could not diicouer the Truths it taught for ten long Ages ,, though all Antiquity Allures vs that Chrift' s Church is one of the moft manifeft things in the world. Again, Suppofe our Church were blind and inculpably ignorant , .who for Gods, fake . muft open Her eyes now, and vnbeguile Her? Muft a ^tw late fcattered Sectaries Doe the wonder , that are to look to their own vincible ignorance y And therefore ( if learned) Sin vpon that account damnably. 3. If our Church may be excufed vpon the icore of ignorance , excuie alio the Artans less learned , the Pelagians , the Donattfls Sec. And fay there were neuer any formal finful Hereticks in the world, yea Iewes , and Turks may thus be acquitted of formal Sin , and Errour likewife. But aboue all free, I befeech you, our Sectaries from further pains- taking, as alfo from the leaft hope of amending Matters , were there any thing amifs, for you may well reft allured , if ignorance hath caft this learned Church into fuch an AbylTe of Errour, it is not to be expected that the far weaker knowledge of Prote- ftants , can draw Her out of it. I wonder men of Modefty dare offer to impute ignorance to the Roman Catholick Church, And prefume to teach more learned then Themfelues. CHAP, Difc.i.C.6. More of our Churches urc* 285 CHAP. VI- Otha Euldences of the %oman Churches Terfeuerance in the TrwnUue Faith 7oitbout change or Alteration. Whether Itnckednes of life mcefjarily induceih Errour into the Church ? The Donatijls and Trotejtants Jrgue7 And Err alike. 2. T Argue. 2. God had euer a true Church preferued free JL from Errour for fo many Thoufand years as palled between Aficond , Adam and Chrift. It ftood all that vaft time inuincible againft Argument Herefy;and was neuer ftained with falfe Do&rin. The Truth is indubitably owned by Chrift our Lord3 who came not to change fo m«ch as one ma of Do&rin taught by the Prophets, but only to perfect it by reuealing other Verities , not explicitly known before. Now Mark a ftrange Paradox auouched by Sectaries. They fay boldly, That our Chriftiaii Catholick Roman Church which certainly God Himfelfe eftablished, And enriched with his own Verities, only continued Orthodox for Three or Four Ages, and then ( O difmal time ) left off to be what it was ; loft Chrifts reuealed Truths , became the whore of Babylon, Apoftated from it Selfe ■ and cheated the world into falfe Do&rin. What faies the prudent Reader 2 Is it Pofltble that the Ancient Church of the Patriarchs and Prophets ftood without change or blemish for ^raw"from 4. or 5. Thoufand years r and Chrift's own Spoufe became fmut- pro^ie ched and vgly within the compass of three or 4. Ages ? Is it Ajfertion of Probable that the lelTer light of the Synagogue lafted folong, Stearics- And the Glorious fun of Chrift's own Church , appeared dark andEclipfed fbon after The world had Caft an Eye vpon Her? And this, to encreafe the wonder happened then ( Sectaries muft Nnj f^y) An Argu- mtnt again? SccfarJts. t§6 Di(c*i.C.6«Mor* ofourQhurches Qmtxmmci fay) when euidently There was no other true Church on earth,vn: less you will take in Anans , YeUgtans Sec and fuch open Hereticks to make vp a Catholick Society , mod vnfit ( all know ) to teach Chrifts Orthodox Doctrin. I wish Proteftants would well pon- der the force of this one reafon, And return an Anfwer. 2. My laft Argument is a Demonftration againft Se&aries,who fay. There was al rayes an Orthodox vifible Church fince Chrifts time : For this Article of our Creed was euer profeiTedly true in all Ages. I b luut the Holy Cath$hck. Church. They fay again,There was a time when our Roman Catholick Church once Orthodox, began to innouate , to bring in new Do&rins of an vnbloody Sa- crifice , of TrantubftantiartOH , of praying for the Dead , of Purratory &c. Now be pleafed to obferue the Demonftration. When the Roman Church began thefe new luppofed Doctrins and actual- ly erred , There was at that very time an other Orthodox Church in the world, or toasnoti If not; Chrift had then no Orthodox Church on earth , and Confequently that Article of our Creed was falfe. IbeheuetLe Holy Catholick Church, For no man can truly* belieue in a Church which really is not. If contrarywife they own a pure Orthodox Church to haue been on earth when the Roman began to erre , That (becaufe Orthodox and pure) was cer- tainly a Society of Chriftians diftincl from the then fuppofed fal- len and falfe Church of Rome. 2. Hence I argue. Eirher that Orthodox diflind Church, (eniible of Gods caufe and the Honour of Chriftian Faith, vigo- rouly oppofed., cenfured and condemned thofe imagined errours of the Roman Church now fallen, or Carelcfly 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 a command from Chrift to do it ) to crush , and fuppress falfe Doctrins, whe.i they firft rile vp, or begin to infe.cl: the body of Chriftianity. This duty that Church. neglected, and for that caufewasnot Orthodox. cleAtsnd Moreouer, the Roman is alio Suppofed actually drawn from Truth, Coumuf'mg* Condemned Hereticks made vp no Church. We had then in thofe daies a ftran?e world indeed , when Chrift the Supreme 5 Head Difc. z.C, 6. In the Ancient Faith. 287 Head looked down from Heauen , and- few his Myftical body the Church pitifully Corrupted , whm he cait an eye vpon poor Chriftians, and round them ail Churchless. 4. It* Se&aiies ownfuch an Orthodox Society, which oppo- fed and cenfured the Roman Errours , that muft be a Truth qs Notcrtoujij kj;oMn to the world as it is now fuppcied , that uic Church of Rome had Errours Koronoujly hno^n. And Here I delire the Iudicious Reader to reflect on what I Shall propofe, And wish our Adueriaries to Anfwer. Can they Imagine the Errours of the Roman Church openly difcouered lb many Centuries iince, and judge that no Orthodox Chriftians then lining (who beheld Truth run to ruin ) made Oppofition againft them > The Errours , fay Proteftants, were palpable ( for our new men eipy. them now ) yet no Orthodox Chriftans are heard of to this day, who then flood vp for Gods caufe, and defended the Ancient truths of Chrift againft this fuppofed erring Church , This yet lies in darkness The Fault muft be noifed as both criminal and publick , And yet there is no newes at all of fuch as lent a helping hand to redrefs it. $,. Again , Can it be imagined that the Roman Catholick Church which Age after Age condemned innumerable Hereticks, And giues in an exacl: Catologue in order as They rofe vp, ( The*- Sectaries fe particulars are exacxly known ) And yet that no Author, Friend p*r*dexes or Enemy Can bee found, who giues lb much as the leaft hint m ' of any found Chriftians that condemned the now decry ed Errours of this one Church > Finally (and here is the wonder ) muft we luppofe our Church to haue grolly erred- a, thoufand years fince, when yet all good Chriftians were filent and reprehended it not, And that how after ten whole Ages are paft , And Millions of Souls damned for want of Faith , A company of iarring Pro- teftants Can probably begin to talk of them, toJReproue, to Argue, Vfij} im.r^ and offer to fettle Chriftianity right vpon its old Fundations > babilhUv- No thought of man can fall vpon more defperate improbabilities , yet they pafs as current among S&aries. But of this point more hereafter in the 1 J Chapter. 6: now 288 Difo t. C. 6. 'More of cur Churches Continuance 6. Now here is the Conclufion , and the true Trial of this caule. It is poflible that our new men , who pretend knowledge in Antiquity, name an Orthodox Church which 'openly Protefted K hat Sec a- againft thefe iiippofed Errours before Protectants were in Being. Obliged to *tis po^ibleto tell vs when this Church ftrongly Acted againft Joe, but the Roman Errours. It is PoiTible to fay what became of that Cannot, Orthodox Church at laft y whether after it had done that great work and Cenfured the Roman Doctrin,It quickly di (appeared, Or ftill remain's in the world. It is I fay, PofTible, that Secta- ries Euidence thefe particulars of moft high Concern, or impos- fible,lf the firft can be done, we Catholicks ought to Reform. But Imuft vnbeguilethe Reader, and abfolutly AlTert. All the Proteftants who now are, or shall bee hereafter, Shall as fbon de- ftroy all Chriftian Faith as name any Orthodox Society , any thing like a true Church which cenfured thefe fiippofed Roman Errours, Therefore (And it is an euident Demonftration) Our Ca- tholick Church once true, continued fo in all Ages, Or there was none in the world Orthodox, The Articles She maintained then , and yet defends are no Errours^, but Primitiue Verities. And thus the whole Plea of our new men Concerning Errours entring the Church defaflo, ends as it deferues in a flat Calumny. What do they think to bring Errours to light now, whereof the moft learned Churches in the world neuer took notice before > Will they fpeak of falfe Doclrins when all Orthodox Societies faid nothing of them> Dare they accufe and condemn a Church which Millions of Souls fo highly reuerenced that the beft of Chriftians liued and dyed happily' iii it > Nothing can be more exotical. Wherefore I fay , when our Nouellifts can work this Perfwafion into mens minds, That Crowes once white, turned Their At- black in time ( though no. body muft fay when) Then, and not umpt impof- before, they may perhaps hope to make vs mad, and induce fible. All to belieue, that our Church Anciently pure became tainted in time with gross Errours , though when or in what Age this deformity appeared they know not, nor Can euer know, becaufe the Change is de fubjefto non fupponcnte, notfuppofable. 7. One Difc 2. C.6. In the Ancient Faith 289 7. One may reply. Though the Sectary cannot point at an Orthodox Church which condemned thefe now Suppofcd Roman Errours,yethe has plenty of witnefTes to ground his Afiertion vpon, For in paft Ages, many, though reputed Hereticks, vehe- mently decryed the Doctrins of our Church as soudtm S per- iling rrom the primitiue Truths. An/w ; Very true indeed. For thus Arius of old decryed QoniubftavtiaUty and the Supreme Godhead in Chrift, Pelagius, Original fin, The Monathelits two wills in our Sauiour, Humane and Diuine , Lutheran vnbloody Sacrifice, And the Diuel after all, Jf you'l belieue him, will oppo- fe euery Truth which Chrift taught. But what is all this to the purpoie? which yet to my great wonder I find vrged by fome> Is the Authority of thefe condemned and confeifedly known Hereticks , precifely confidered , to be parallell'd with a Church which was neuer condemned by Orthodox Chriftians? Muft ' *?[*' the condemned Party be heard when it Accufes, And the Innocent w\t^j0Ut or neuer cenfured Church be Suppofed guilty , after the whole proofs, world held her blamless and has iudged well of Her condemna- w^iless. tions pas't vpon Hereticks ? Compare I fay , the Authority of the Church time out of mind proued Innocent , with the Au- thority of Hereticks known moil: guilty, There can be no Pa- rallel , may we precifely refpect Authority. Wherefore if the Oppofition of Hereticks hath any force , Their charge againft the Church muft ftand vpon Strong proofs and found Princi- ples diftincl: from Their obn voting Her Delinquent. Thefe Prin- ciples we ieek for in all our Difputes with Proteftanrs , yet hi- therto neuer heard of Any, and belieue it, Wee hold their own Authority of no greater weight than that of Arians, or , of any other condemned Hereticks. 8. Others , quite driuen off all ground of rational Arguing will needs faften Errours vpon our Church, becaufe, forfooth , in fuch an Age the p.th For example after Chrift , or The- reabout, fome Popes were less good and People much debauched. /fn other Then , moft likely , was the Nick of time, Say thefe, to bring fw$U Plea, in Iranjubjiantiation , the Popes Supremacy and what other Errour O o you 7ti*8id and proved un rtafonabic lpo Difc. 2. C. 6. Move of our Churches Continuance. you will. Aniw. A mofl pitiful Plea, not worth the paper it blot's. I shall not fo much, refute it, for it merit's not thelabour; As Shew how it deflroyes the Belief of all Chriflian Religion. 9. Pray you confidcr Chriftianity in the greatefl Latitude Imaginable. Call Arut;s>Dorjatttfs, Proteffa^ts And Catholickj alio Chriflians. Grant , which is true , that there haue been very wicked men amongfl thefe different Profeilors. I lay if this- Argu- ment haue weight.- Some feu* fkpts, and many Veip'eMtre net good for one Age chiefly ^ Ergo debauchery tn- manners more then probably brought in falfe Doiinm vnder the Notion of Chnsli.tn Truths , A: lew- or Gentil may. Argue as- weJ-1 , and infer that Viciousness of lite hath, deftroyed all Truth among Chriflians, if euer They had any. For why, should lewdness haue. less force to Subuert all Truth taught by. the Church of Rome than fome only ? It hath, fay Sectaries ,, brought in much Errour, Therefore , faith the lew, it may as well haue corrupted all Chrift Doctrin. 10. To reinforce this Argument , J told you aboue , if the Church of Rome.., had but once propofed one Article to be belieued by, Diuine Faith y which is falfe , She is not to be credited in any thing. . If you Reply , it is euident That though falfe in many Tenets, She yet taught iome Articles true, As that Cbnft is our Redeemer. The lew Anfwers , and fo do I too, She Taught and teaches fo {til! 5. but that. This u Truth , if debauchery of life bee ineuitably connexed with falfe Do<5lrin , shall neuer be made Probable , For this Church is either entierly found in Doftrin , or Entirely deluded. One may Say. Scripture is ^eui- dently plain for fome Primary Articles of Chriflian belief Anfw. The lew lcom'sthe Reply, and maintain's this Truth, as I alfo do. If it be once proued that the Church of Rome impofed on the Chriflian world Falshoodin place of Truth ,. Tranfub/iantit- t'ton , The Sacrifice on the Altar Sec. She may as ealily haue cor- rupted the whole Bible and made that Book falfe in a hundred important Paffages , whereof enough is laid in the other Treatife. No true Church Therefore , no Probability of true Scripture. 31. Let vs now proceed to others called. Chriflians the mofl known Difc. 2. C 6. In the Jncknt Faith 291 known Arch-heretlcks, you will haue the fame Conclufion. Arlus for example, a ftubborn proud Fellow had many Allbciates like Himfelf, yta and certainly taught ionic Doctrins falie, There- fore, Saith the lew, All He dcliuered was falfe alfo. The Di- uel learned Luther .to broach His new Gofpel , and the mans enormous Viciouihess is known to the world by as credible Au- thors as Plarina or Nitoidi Cleinan<^ijs , who make Popes and People ib impious , Therefore all that Luther taught cannot hut beevponthe Argument propofed,Jiio{tiu{lly excepted againft Another as pernicious Do&rin.; Forgrofs Errours like a Torrent follow Simple Ar- Deprauation in manners. Caluins Pride, Deceipt,and Coufenage, ^Hme^f) to lay nothing of that hidious Sin for which he w?.s branded , rtte are vpon Record , And all know what Rebellion , what tragical Doings enfued^pon the wicked mans Apoftasy. Who then can harbour lb much as a good thought of any Doctrin He tauglit euen that Chrift dyed for vs? Hence, faith the lew , if Wickednes of life and Errours in Dextrin be inch inieparable Companions And all Sects or Religions -mineable haue had ProfelTors wicked, Farewel Chriftianity , yea and Chrift Himfelf alio. For, if the Impiety of ibme , lead's Erroneous Do'ctrins into a whole Moral Body, that one crying Sin of Iuias might more eaiily haue corrupted the Firft Apoftolical Colledge lmal im Number, Than the incomparable leiTe defects of Popes depraue the great Moral Body of ihe Church. O, but Chrift fecur.ed the other Apoftles from Errour. Anfw. So he doth his Church, And the lew will as ibon belieue the one as the other, who Argues thus. 12. Chrifiiamtj fro* veuer without Sw^Ergo neuer without Erreur^ if the Argument have force. When Therefore thefe new men Say ~ , . Gods Prouidence feem's equally concerned to preferue the Church 0fUfe Cem. from things equally Pernicious ( But vtcioufnes of life is as p(rm- p*red nuh (ions to Christianity , and as deflruftwe to the End cf it , as En ours in the loft of Deftrin) They know not what they Say. The Argument is cuery T*:tb. way defectiue ? 1 3. Firft its vtterly False , that Wickednes is Co pernicious as Errours again ft Chriftian Doctrin, For Errours deftro'ies Faith Ooz the Particular Abu [in can nn vnhal- fofi' thg Crmrch Sectaries Argue like heretic keS ef old. 2qiD\fc I. C. 6. More of out Churches Qontimivut the ground of Saluation , and immedeatly oppofeth Gods infinite V^ruuty , Wickednes in Manners deftroies Grace and other Super- natural virtues , yet leaues the Foundation vnslviken. Again. By what law do thefe men Suppofe that God preferued not his Church Holy in thofe dayes ? Doth it folio v becaufe foine were wicked that She loft all Sanctity 'i Will they Say if the English Church had euer San&ity in it, All vanished into Smoak in the late diifentions and deplorable Tumults ? There were neuer fuch Doings at Rome in the worft of daies as EngLnd then She. ed to the world. O but th^re were then many Holy and Godly men that fuffered. Bcitio at prefent , I loue not to recriminate. For one of yours Holy ,wehadThoufands in that Age you except againft the whole world ouer^ in England Germany, Span, France. L>enma>\ Sec. moft humble > pious, virtuous and profoundly learned. What do you think,. that a few Abu fes in Italy not half fb bad as you make them , can Vnlullo* an ample Church? Yet here lies the Strength of your weak Argument. The iniquity of fome , chiefly of Popes and Prelates ruins not fan&tty only , But moreouer induceth Errour. into the whole Moral Body of Chrift. You iuft proceed, as if One should at- attempt to proue that a goodly Building , which yet vifibly ftands fair to the Eye, and firm on Sure roundations, is all shat- tered and pulled down , becaufe you can lead a man to the By- places of it and show him in it lbme Naftiness. The Inftance is moft Pertinent. You find filth Here and there in the fair Houfe of God , and though there be more of it before your own doores , yet your Church muft be fuppoled Holy and Ortho- dox, And ours contrarywife falfe and impious. 14. But I wonder nothing at this lame way of Arguing. I.'7> dntu of lift m fome ( not in all forts of men as is vainly Sup- poled) Vni Ancl '.fits rh' Churchman! brim's m Errour Sec. For iuft lb Hereticks of old Argued againft Catholicks. Read S. Aujttn. Tom. 7.ad liter PetUiant Ub. 2. Through his feueral Chapters chiefly. Chap. 39. Petilianus obiected as thefe men do , And I will Anfver as S. Aujhn did. Tiun ts no bit t ernes m bony , nor dross Difc. a.C. 6.1n the Ancient Faith* *9J dross "frith pure go! d y Saith Petilianus. We Donattfts are the purified gtl'lyHH Cat olnk,: full of bitttrnes and dross. Sec. S. Auflin Anfrer's. This is to Vapour like a mad man, And to proue nothing. Atten- ds z,i*am4, itoou *iundit to the Cockle onl -, and mi to the \#\nat {As Hho should ftf thou b fonu be, jar all arc not Kicked ) Thou confident the Seed of the Enemy [often m the V,orld>and regards mot the feed of Abraham , in Vrhom all Nations shall be bltffed, Quafi vero vos tarn fi is wajfa purgara. Thou talks't as if y- > for, oath, Vrere only the pur- ged Mass of men, the fiireet honj , the pure gold , the refined ofle and none but you. It is not Co. There is much naughtines among you, And the faint showes wherein it was. i$. In like manner one might eafily lay forth the lewdnes , the Hypocriiy of no few Sectaries were it not that s\ AuSHn tea- ches vs to v(e better Arguments, and therefore C. 32. Saith. HomS%ju„ Factjcamur ergo Sec. let vs agree on this. Thai thou netther ObiUi to lli* **&*** me our Tricked men , nor I thine, to Ties. This bargain once made , *£a™ '' *'* thou will haue nothing to Say againft 1 at ,ted f Abraham , noi» diffufed ounrall Natio s. But Petilianus, I shall press thee with an infoluable Argument, and Ask, Why y-e Uonatilts naue impioufly Separated your Stluere at bad a* thou fanciefty \hat Throng hath the Clatr of S Peter , or t-e Courch either , done thee? if thou persuade thy Self, that thofe Ttbo dehuer the la* ydo not exactly comply Tbith it > Oo 5 k»W> 294 ^£ *•£• <$• ^^ of our Churches Continuance £ho>, that cut Lord Ufm [peakjug of the Vfwi/ies, long fince filenced thee. Dtcunt & non fuiunt. They fay but do not. If then thou woulds't diflfame either Church or See , tecaufe men in works are not anfwerable to their words , thou knowes't not what to fay but only to reproach without Reaibn. Thus and much more BlciTed S. Auftmy and He ouerthrowes our Aduerfaries whole Plea by it. Though I verily hold them no fuch ftran- gers to common reafon , but that they faw well the Argument Cannot but a^rea^V propofed enormoufly impertinent , to proue either the (eehUAYgu- See of Rome or that Church impious or erroneous in Doc- mentvoid cf trill. force. 1 7^. The true Reafon of foyfting in fuch fimple fluff, is an itching to Cauil,becaufe they can not clofely difpute againft Catho- lick Do6trin vpon rational Principles, hauing none to vrge agatnft vs. What remains but to fcratcb (it is a late ftrain got in among them ) and to rub vpon old foares, the perfonal defects of others abroad , whilft God knowes , they haue more fettered wounds to look on and launce in their own Brethem at home > Thus I fay, they mull: nip and taunt or write no more Contro- uerfies, Though it is done to their own Confufion, For fuppofe all were true which is laid of lewd and wicked men in the Church Whyfefta* (as in real Truth the half is not) yet the impiety of thefe men rinbringto neuer came to that height as to make vpon fuch Cauils , the li'htjiuh pure Spoufe of Chriil: a Harlot; on Frontlesly to impeach Her of stt/ffi Errour, or quite to defert Her as our Nouelliits haue done moft shamefully. No: Though wicked, they know weJl, that Cockle growes vp in the dime field with good Corn, and that the Sin offbme may ftand with the Sanctity of many in the Myflical body pf Chriil:. The HarueiV, as the Gofpel , and S. Aujhn teach, is to Winnow all, and to Make the Separation. But enough and more then enough of this flight and forceless Obie&ion. 18. I haue yet one word to fay of errours wrongfully Charged on vs. Were this Suppofition true that the Roman Catholick Church had Apoftated fo shamefully in any Age, as Sectaries Ima- £in^ Had She been made of a beautiful Spoufea harlot, Had "'" '" " She Difc. 2. C. 6. In the Ancient Faith. 19J She fallen from the primitiue Truths into falfe Do&rin , And confequently Cheated Chriftians into Falfities for a thouland years together; Chrift Iefus our Lord had been obliged by virtue of Aneptthn his promife already made in Scripture to haue appeared Again , for 8t8&iu. To haue fent an Angel from Heauen , Or to haue vfed fome other extraordinary means to eftablish his Church a new, to raife vp thewalles of his now Suppofed ruined Hierufalem , which he built fo ilightly , that it all fell down in the short Compass of three or four Ages. I fay All , For , if the Church be falfe in one Article, I can traft it in nothing. The Promifes in Scripture of Hell gates not preuailing againft the Church , of Chrift' s being with Her to the end of the world, are manifeftj Yet now vpon the SuppofTtion , Hell and Herefy haue dcftroied the whole Building , and He BleiTed Lord, look'd on , law his own work defaced , yet after all his Engagements of preferuing it in Being, repaired nothing. Thefe are harsh Heretical Paradoxes vn- fit for Chriftians to hear, yet the Sectary (will he nill fie) muft ©wn them to his Confuiion, 19. To establish more this great Truth, That the Doclrin of our Church is at this day the lame with the Primitiue ; I might well Argwe from the Corifellion of our Aduerfaries , Lutlnr Chiefly and Caluw, who grant fo much in many particulars, As that of Merit , of Free Ttiill , Lirnbus Patrum &c. But withall fay Anti- quity erred no less than we do now, And therefore Caluin pro- feiTsrh he foil owes none of the Fathers but S. Auftm ,, Though when He pleafes, he is too bold with the Saint and fcornfully reiedt's his Authority alfo. SeeBellarr de notis ecckfu lib : 4. Cap, 9. I might alio show that our Sectaries Nouelties , for the Y\e^K " ?' greateft part3 are nothing els but a -Lift of old long fince difr ties are, perfed and condemned Herefies now brought to light again, and knit together in one bundle to poifon the world withall. They haue renewed the Herefy ol the Donatifts , who taught that the Church of God had perished throughout the world except in ibme few obfeure Corners. They renew the Herefy of the Ar'tans teaching it vnlawful to offer Sacrifice for the dead. They rcne\tf 296 Difc. l.C. y.Manifefi Miracles yproue renew the Herefy of the Eunomians , faying that by Faith only man may obtain life Euerlafling. You haue with Thefe men the Herefy of the Iconomachiuns in breaking down the Images of Chrift onr Lord and His Saints, reuiued again. Of the Berengx- rians denying the true Body and blood of our Lord Iefus Chrift really prefent in the Eucharift , as likewife of the VigiUntians that flighted the Inuocation of Saints, denying Honour due to the Rclicks of holy Martyrs. But I need not to infift vpon thefe and many more reuiued Herefies, they are things Vulgarly known to all, largely laid forth in the writings of our Catholick Author*,. Se Bellar ; now Cited » CHAP. V-II. Manifejl and mofl Undeniable Miracles peculiar to the %pman\Catkolick(.hurcb only , prone Her Orthodoxy Vhbalt sboV? that ShejliU retains the Trimh t'me (DcBrin. B Y this word Mir acle, 'or Miracles, I vnderftand a fiiper- natural work done by Almighty God aboue the power and force of Nature. For there is no doubt, but that God, who ^""t *t created Nature, has within his boundles Omnipotency Superemi- "ktirasks nent effe&s o( Grace, which far furpass the little tAigbt of all Creatures made by him. Thefe are finite ; The Author of them infinite, And can do more. 2. 2. This Principle is certain. God hath wrought innume- *toty Mm* rable Miracles , not only to Teftify He can do more then Na- iUstr* ~ ture,bnt with this express Defigne aha, that by the Manifefta- we*ghu tionof fixcix wonders, All may come to the knowledge of thoie Oracles _ Difc. 2. G 7. Cur Catbotick Church Orthodox. 297 Oracles whereby He fpeaks , and Reueals moft fublime Myfteries .far aboue the reach of our weak Reafon. Now whether thefe Oracles be Prophets, Church, or Apoftles, feems one and the lame thing, If they be equally Manifefted by miraculous Effects y and fpeak in his name who AiTumes them to teach the world. 3. I lay mantfflcd Oracles by Signes , And (ay it for this End , That all may reflect vpon the depth of Diuine wifdom , which may on the one fide Seem too rigorous in obliging vs to belieue moft Difficult Myfteries, neither feen by Eye nor heard by eare , Thsyfadlt. Wne it net , That on the other fide , the burden is lefTened and our tat* Faith. Faith much facilitated by the Euidence of moft prudent and conuincing Motiues, For t'is a great Truth. Son fine teflimenh reliquit Semetpium bentfactens de C&lo. His Goodnes fo fauorably condelcend's to our weaknes , that though he remoues not Vne- mdente and Obfcurity from the Myfteries belieued, Yet he makes them all fo euidently Credible to prudent Reafon ( Bern fattens de Cxlo) by the Luftre of Signes and Wonders , That the man who belieues not after a Sight had of fuch glorious Marks , itand's guilty before Gods Tribunal of damnable Sin. 4. The third Principle. Miracles eminently great in num- ber and quality (for exampje the railing of the dead to life) Chiefly, when wrought by Perfons of Singular virtue to Confirm our Chriftian Faith, are from God , and euident Signes leading to the knowledge of true Religion. None can doubt of the AiTertion , feing Chrift our Mord. Matt. u. When Queftio- ned whether He was the true MefTias , proued the Affirmatiue by iiis Signal Miracles. The blind fee, the UmeTfialk^> lepers are Clean- - , , , fed, the deaf bear , the dead rife again &c. Which is to fay in the know- other Terms. Thefe wonders fpeak in my behalfe , and plainly Udgeoftmt Teftify that I am the Meftas j For only to fay, I am a Prophet lent Religion, from God without prouing the Truth to Reafon by Signes and wonders Conuinces nothing, Induces none to Belieue. Therefore John. 10. Chrift remitted the vnbelieuing Iewesnotto the Eui- dence of his Doctrin, ( for really no Doctrin of Myfteries aboue Reafon, though moft true, is or can be its own Self-eui- P p dence ) Our SMuhm pleased by hnbiiracles. Thy were Sieves of I* skip. Why tht Jewti were tAXii of lucre unlit)? 298 Difc. ft, C.7. Mam/eft Miracles ,proue. dence) But to his manifeft Miracles. The Works fr hie h I do in the name of my Father Theft giue Teflimony of me. Again. If )ou frill not belitue me belteue my 'frorkj> R\zttz& S. Paul might haue Long preached the Sublime Doctrin of Chrift , and without Fruit, vnless Miracles had confirmed it, which he call's the Signes of lis Apoftlesbip. 2. Cor. \i. And How long think ye would Nabu- chodonozer haue remained in his Idolatry vnless He had beheld that prodigious Wonder wrought by God vpon the three Ifrae- lites in the fiery Fournace. Darnel 3. But when he (aw them walk in the flames nothing hurt , He cryed out. B'ejfed be the God of Sydrack^ Mifacl^ and Abdenago , . frho hath fent his Angel Sec. Miracles therefore are powerful Inducements to Bcliefe , which Truth might be yet more largely demonflrated by the Wonders of Moles, of Eliasof the Prophets and Apoftles, But thefe I waue and briefly take notice of our Sauiours facred words Iohn 1 $. If I had not come and fpokjn to them , the) s'couli not hauef.nr.ed, but now they haue no excufe of their fin &c. And to show, that Speaking only was no furficient Conuiclion, The Text add's. if 1 had not done among them frork* frbichno other man hath don , tbej should not haue finned but nolp the) haue feen t and hate meyand m) Father Sec. <;. Three things follow from hence. Firit That eminent Miracles of their own Nature are Marks of ChriiYs DoCtrin and true Religion. 2. That Our Sauiour mod iuftiy condemned the Iewes of infidelity, not fo much for reletting his word or Preaching , as for not belieuing after they had feen it confirmed by Wonder's from Heauen , For t'is- Said plainly. Had they not feen thej had not finned. A Do&rin Therefore attefted by Miraculous fignes, and wonders renders the Vnbelieuer guilty of Infidelity : Confider it alone , deueited of fuch Marks, what haue we? High Myfteries preached, Butfrithout Proofs antece- dently laid forth to Reafon 5 Truths taught , but yet vnknown whether fo or otherwife. In a word we haue the Decrees of a great Monarch obliging all to fubmiffion, but without his Seal, or Signature. And Difc. i. Q.7*Qur Catholkk Chnnh> Orthodox. 299 6". And Hence it is that our blefled Lord impowred thofe firft great Matters of the Gofpel Matt. 10. not only to teach his Sacred Verities, but to teach Perfoajiuely , by the vertue of Miracles. Goe and preach , faying the Kingdoms of God is a: bund Cure the fick^ra'fe vp the dead ydeanfe the Lepers 9Cdft out Diuels Sec. And they did fo. Mark^ 16. 20. They Weit abroad , preached euery tobere, God Cooperating Stub them, and confirming their Doclrtn by Signes Jfich followed, Or to fpeak in the words of S. Paul. Heb. 1 . God toitball Te/ltfjin^ by Signes and "bonders and diuers Miracles Sec. A third iequele. If thelewes had not finned by meeting Chrift and his Do«5hrin ( which then was new) in cafe he had not wrought ries jfr§ *~ greater Miracles amongft them than euer Any did before him, bUmabUX How highly imprudent think ye , How notoriously culpable are our Sectaries who belieue the new opinions of one wretched Luther or Caluin, without ib much as one Miracle wrought, to make them probable > 7. A fourth Principle. True Real Miracles are Still neces^ fary in the Church and fortold to be Co} by Truth it feif. loam 2. Amen, Amen> I fay vnto you, be that belteuts in me, the frorks tbhtib I doe he shall doe, and greater Tforkj than thefe sb.tU he doe. I fay purpofelyy True real Miracles, mindful of S. Cbrijosloms profound Dif- courfe vpon thefe very words in his Book againft the Gentils. There bauebeen, faith the Saint certain Mafters {you may call them lmpoftors ) who had their Difciples and talk't much of Wonders whilft they liued; but none of them euer came to the impudency s. chri- as truely. to Prophefy of Miracles to be done by them after death, fi/1"****- No : A luglermay do fomething ftrange, Tthilfi he is on the Stage, But **&£*** take him off the Theater , Throat him out of this life, The cheat appear a , Be is ytorth nothing. S. All is contrary in our Sauiour ,who here foretold of grea- ter Wonders to be wrought in after Ages by his true Belieuers, Than He had done in this Mortal life. And if we Speak of great Conuerfions (which all moftiuftly account Miraculous)the; Truth is Euident , For our Blefled Lord conuerted but few , in Companion of thofe who followed in the Church after his Death. Pp 2 (A pa- TLeApoR. les wrought the great eft K' tracks after CbriJTs dfetfyjion. (les are new hiei eJjAry ? T»9 other Reajons 4 listed. b this world Signes followed them, They cafl out Dtuels , dead, fpakj Vtth m)v tongues, conuerted Nations, laid hand on :he Sick , &c. And the like Supernatural through all Ages after the Apoftles. 30 o Diic. 2. C.7< Mamfeft Miracles ypr cue (A parallel of other Miracles we shall fee prefently). Yet more And t'is worth Reflection p whilft Chrifts Difciplcs conuerfed with Him, the Gofpel record's little of their Miracles , But after his leauin raifed tie effects haue been vilible in the Church through all Ages after the Apoftles. So true are the. words of Chrift. Greater Th'tnos shall be done. And the meaning is not, that euery true Belieuer should work Mi- racles, (For fo Chrilts promife would not bee truly fulfilled , becauje All do them nvt ) But that fome choife elected of his Church, as it happened in the Primitiue times , Members of this Myftical Body, should haue the Priuiledge. v 9. One Reafon of my AiTertion is. If Miracles, Gods own Seals and Characters , were NeceiTary at the firfl preaching of the Gofpel to induce all to belieue Chrifts Do&rin, or to diftin- guish his Truths from the Errours of Iewes and Pagans , The like Neceflity is for their Continuance in after Ages , not only in refpect of Infidels, but erring Christians alio. For , no fooner had Chrift founded his Church , But the Diuel railed vp iiis Chappel by it, Peftiferous Hereticks from Simon Magus, haue been in euery Age his Chaplins.. All of them Pretended to Truth ,. with an Ecu bic eft Chrtfius , Loe we preach Chrift. In this Confufion of Seels , it was abiblutly needful , to Mark 011 1- that happy Chriftian Society which taught fauing Faith and Shewed where God was adored in Spirit and Truth. Now no Mark can be more Palpable or more attra&iue , than the Glory of indubitable Miracles, Chrifts own Cognifances, and the Clearefc Euidences of Apoftolical Doftrih. 10. 2. Miracles are necefTary in the Church-to frirr vp Chri- ftian Faith, and Deuotion with it, which would foon stow cold were it not that Diuine Prouidence frequently quickens both, by thefe exteriour Signes and wonders. Wherefore, as His Goodnes works inwardly and plyes our hearts with Grace , fo outwardly alio (to Teftify that nothing is wanting) He moues vs to Belieue H Difc.2. C. 7. Our Caibolkk Churchy Orthodox 50 t>y no less vifible Inducements than Thofe were, which Jfrrft made the world Chriftian. 11. 3. The Continuation of Miracles Clearly appeared in the firft riue Centuries after Chrift , And as Authority makes them indubitable, So reafon alfo proues them necelTary vpon this very Account, that the Conueriion of Infidels Grangers to Chrift, was not wrought on a fuddain,or all at once, But fliccefliuely Age after Age , If then Miracles were necefTary to conuince our Chriftian Verities when Chrift and his Apoftles iirft preached to vnbelieuing Iewes and Gentils, no man can probably iudge them Vieless in after Ages , when the like Barbarous, the like Ignorant and vnciuilized Nations who neuer heard of Chrift or Scripture became Chriftians ,. Induced , to lb happy a change, not becauie they beard truths Taught , But becaufe they faw all confirmed by Eutdent Stones and Wonders. 12. Reflect I befeech you a little. Were not the Natiues of thofe vaft and remote Regions we call the Indies ( whether Orient or Occident) a People as ignorant of our Chriftian verities and as much auerted from Chrifts Doctrin, when S. Francis Xauerius, and other laborious Miffioners firft preached There, as any Na- ont^ear rions were to whom the Apoftles preached Chrift ? Yes moil father iU»* certainly. In both cafes the diitl.im and ignorance may well be fiutU paralled. Imagin now that S. Xauewu had only opened his Bible ; And told the ruder People of the high Myfteries of Chriftian Faith, would this think ye , though neuer fo lpecioufty laid forth, haue gained credit > No.- But when their eyes beheld Miracles, and glorious Miracles accompaning His laborious Preaching j The B deaf, dumb, blind , and.frck inftantly cured. When they law (Unceof the Sanctity, the Aufterity and Innoeency of His virtuous Life. Mifliomrs When they heard him indued with the Gifts of tongues. ftnlt0 When they knew that after a noble contempt of the world , &'*'* The bleiled man fought nothing but God , And fearing neither death nor dangers Couragiouily trauelled from one end of the world to the other &c. Then.it was they began to look about Bbem r to open their eyes more, to Renounce Idolatry and fub- P p 2. vap&. 3d DiTc. 2. C. isO/^bat height Miracles are mit to Gods truths, moft manifeftly euidenced by glorious Mira~ cles. Then it was that the Saint (Gods grace concurring) con- ucrted Thoufands and Thoufands > All which is vpon certain Record , and witneiTed by thofe who haue written the wonders. Howeuer grant that S. lAumm wrought but one or two Miracles ( when many more cannot without impudency be denyed him ) our Aflertion fubfists , that Miracles are neceilary , for the reclai- ming of Infidels, And if he did none at all , This as S Auflin an- ciently obferued vpon a like occafion , is the grcattft VVonder of all , That he conuerted innumerable Heathens to our Chri- ftian Faith , without Miracles. CHAR VIII. Miracles evident in the tf^oman Catholick Chwch > No less induce All no^> to belieue Her ^DoElrin^ Than Apojlolical Miracles Anciently Ttrfoaded to belieue that Trimitiue (DoElrtn. The Denial of Miracles Impofiibilitat'sThe Qomerjion of leaves and Infidels. i. f I fay firft. Clear and Vncjueftionable Miracles, of the 1 like Quality with thofe which Chrift and his Apoftles wrought , haue been euer fince , moft glorioufly manifeft in the Roman Catholick Church, And in no other Society of Chriftians, I hope none for Proof of my AiTertion can .expect that I write Volumes, or bring to light again in this short Treatife fo much as the hundred Part of thofe prodigious wonders which are vpon Record in the Hues of Saints , in the death of Martyrs , an4 Eccleliaftical Hiftory. Baronius large Tomes giue you innu- merable Difc. 2. C. 8. in the %pman Church. joj merable in euery Century, And Bellar: Lib 4. de noris Bate : C. 14' Hint's at a few from the firft Age to the 15. I muft waue this longer work, and briefly Argue thus. 2. Chrift Spake Truth in the Text now cited. John 14. 12. Trophefyinz of future glorious Miracles to bt librougl t by thofe who be- 7 • ,,t ,. lieued in him. But the indubitable Miracles wrought in the Ro- mWmU% man Catholick Church ew/y, through euery age proue that Pro- tuinu phefy exactly fulfilled , or tjfeftttSUj Euidence the Verity of it; ChrifaFr: Therefore none can doubt of Miracles done in the Roman Ca- ? .ft Av?" tholick Church, if Chrifts Prediction be true , and this Propor- tion be alio proued. viz. That, This Church only, hath effec- tually manifefted the truth of that Prophefy , or shewn Rich Wonders as haue proportion with Chrifts own glorious works, and the Apoftles. 3. Now to clear the Truth , Here is my Principle. When I read a Prophefy in Scripture, I fubmit to it by Faith, but when I See it actually Accomplished or made manifeft by real viiible Effects And both Senfe and vndoubred Hiftory difcouer fo much euidently, Reafon , grounded on Senfe and Hiftory, Can not but prudently aifent to the Verity. What I would lay is clear in all the Ancient Propheiies of Chrift , and his Church. Take this one inftance. The Prophets, Daniel chiefly and Efay, Foretold of the large Extent of Chrifts glorious Kingdom here on earth , of whole Nations flocking to his Church , of Her teaching thofe T^e Punc*~ •Truths which were belieued from the Beginning; But i$>t,en all ttw'*'$on* r • • f • • i«rTi° D n OHf/ljJer ton faT» Jt>ttb thetr eyes innumerable Heathens gained to our Clrriftian u arounUed. Faith, and heard of other Conuerfions conueyed to them vpon certain Relation (for few or none of vs law the latter Conuer- fions wrought in Chins, lapan, and the like remote places) when 1 lay Authority neuer Queftioned giues vs certainty hereof, Then all bless God, And conclude , That what the Prophets fortold of great Conuerfions, hath been Wfibly fulfilled; And that Chrifts Church is dayly more and more enlarged, Anfwerable to thofe Predictions. 4- Hence I difcourfe . further , and Altert, that the glorious Miracles Fathers, produced tpitw-jjhof M tracks. ■S. Hitrcmet words. S.Ambrofe ats lye wit- iHSS, 304 Difoi.C. 8. Of Tobat Wight Miracles an Miracles which (land vpon indubitable Record, and haue been done in the Roman Church only , moil notoriously Euidence without Difpute the actual Accomplisment of our Sauiours own words. The Hoiks Tip hub I do,te ihall do aljo and greater tbau tbeje jbaU he do. If you Ask how I prone the Aflertion >. I appeal to" Senlc and certain Hiilory. Senfe Hrit (aw thefe Miracles done, and certain Hiftory which Supplies the want of Senie, conueyes them to vs, though innumerable are liuing at this Hour , who haue been eye WitnelTes of Miracles. Now here we might enter vpon a long work and Recount what the Fathers and Hiftorians both ancient and latter, haue of this SubiecT:. Read if you pleaie thefe few. 5. \ren&*s Bishop and Martyr who liued about the year 180. lib : 1. Cap. %j. And fans The number of thefe Diuine works which God hath manifeited in his Church the whole world ouer, are numberles. A little before , He mentions thek particulars. Some casl outDiuels , other Prophefy , other i lay thtir bands on tbefuk and cure tlnm; yea and rat fe vp the dead, Kbo lined With vs for many years. Tertullian of the fecond Age Lib, ad Scapul : And Eufeb. lib. 5. giue you a large Catologue of moil: glorious Mi- racles. The like doth S.Bafil. Lib, de Spir: S. Speaking of that worthy Bishop of Neocafarea. S. Gregory , deieruedly called Thaw maiurgus , for the wonders he wrought. S. Atbanafitts and S. titer om relate the Miracles of S. Hilarten, S. Martin, And the lames Hierome. Lib. adiierfus Vtgelantium c. 4. Saitn that the Signes and wonders raanirefted in the Temples of Martyrs proue mightily beneficial, both to Belieuers and the Incredulous. Refponde ( they are his words ) Ouomodo in Viltfmo pulucre Sec. Anfwer , Vigi- lantius, how it is that we fee fuch Signes and virtue prefent in a little vnualuable duft , and dead mens ashes? S: Ambrofe, an Eye- witness of Miracles wrought by the Reliques of S. Geruafius and Protufius Epft. 85. for proof of them, Appeal's to fenie and the Iudgement of others. You haue knoWn, faith He, N47 yon haue feen, wan) iifpctyfid of Diuels , many When they touched the garments of Skats , freed from their Infirmities &c. S, Aufttn Lib. 22. de Ciuit : C. 8. & Difc. 2. C. 8. in the^pman Church. 305 C~ 8, & 9. Is large in relating the Miracles wrought by the glo-' s Atinim rious Martyr S* Stephen • And Lib. Contra. Eptsl. Tundam. C. 4 5. Emdimt. Saith, That the true Church of Chrift is proued and demonftra- ted by Miracles. Our Venerable Bede a great Scholler, a worthy vertuous man , And highly efteemed the whole Chriflian world ouer , certainly deferues credit, when. Lib. 4. Hifior. He re- count's the Miracles of the glorious .V. Cutbbert Bishop of Lindes- fern and of others within our England. Are any iiich feen now .a dayes wrought by Proteftant Bishops > No God knowes, Their new Faith is a great flranger to all old Miracles. 6. Fall if you pleafe lower and read S.Bernard in the life of S. MaUibyz worthy Bishop of Ireland, what wonders haue we there ? The ancient Miracles of the Church, Saith S. Bernard, were apparently, manifeft in S. Malachy. tie bad the gift of Pro* 5< Bernard pbefy, Cured tbe Sitk^, changed the minds of men to the bttter , and raifed in the Life vp the dead. Now if you will hear of S. Bernards own Miracles, efs.Aia- Head Godfridus who lined with him. Lib. 4. C. 4. and wrote k*«7» His life, you haue innumerable. T'is hard , iaith Bellarrnin,to Recount all, And as numberles are the known Miracles ot thole iwo admirable , Saints Blefled S. Domimck^ and the Seraphical S. Iranct?, Founders of two mo ft glorious Religious Orders. S. Fran- cuy To omit his other certain wonders , was Himfelf a Miracle of Aufterity and Pen nance. The like was S.Dominick , who as we read in his life railed three dead men to life. And for three you Jiaue more reuiued by an other of His holy Order , I mean that admirable Saint Vincent'ius Terrenus. So the pious and learned S. Antoninus Arch-Bishop of Florence Recounts in his Hiftpry. 3. Yart lib. 2$. And who dares lay that fo great a Doctor And mod modeft Prelate, was fo Frontless as to write that we read, not long after the death of S. Vincenttus, without AiTiirance and Cer- tainty. The whole world would haue decry ed the Folly, Had it been a Fourb, an Impofture j or a fabulous Story. 7. By what is now faid of Thefe and other infinit Operations of grace which I am forced to omit , you may inferr nrfr. That the Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholick Church are not olsi Our Sa. uiou*iPro~ fh-fy falfil* led tn the Churches Mir At Us. Miracles made Credit ble vj.en hu- mane Au- thoruy. $06 Difc 2. C.S. Of vhat -freight Miracles are inferiour to thofedone by the Apofties, And confequently if our Sauiours Propriety was feen manifeftly fulfilled inthofe firft Apo- ftoiieal Wonders, it hath been alfo as effectually ^accomplished in thefe latter of the Church. I fay, in the Rotnaoluk Chunk, For all thofe now named, whom God priuiledged with the Grace of working Miracles, were of the fame vnion in Faith with this Church , and no other. It followes. z. That Humane Faith , when no iuft Exception comes againft it, But the fool-hardy Spirit of vnheKeuing Heathens and Hereticks , giues Mortal Ailii ranee of Miracles. The Miracles of our Sauiour euidence this Truth. He raifed Lazarus from death, lobn 1 1. A Touch of his garment cured the infirm woman. Matt. 9. He reftored fight to a blind man, lobn. 9. Obferue T befeech you. All Iewry beheld not thefe Wonders, But fome only, Yet they were wrought for the good of All , and without doubt proued conuincing Arguments of Chrift's great power to innumerable , who actually faw them not , But only heard of them, and Afinted to Jbbat tbej beard, vpon humane Authority prudently credible. Therefore our Sauiour Suppofed That humane Faith ( aud this before the writing of Scripture ) was a Sufficient Means to conuey to others a Moral certainty of his Miracles. I lay yet more. If God euer efficaciouily intended to worck a true Miracle iince the Creation of the world by any of his creatures, Humane Faith was , and yet is the Firsl and moft Connatural way of Conueying it to the knowledge of others. Who therefore excepts againft this vfual courfe of Pro- ui Jence deftroies a Principle of Nature, and can belieue nothing of Supernatural Effects , but what he either fees with his own eyes, or find's regiftred in Holy Writ. 8. Ask now. How many Auftms , How many Cbryfojloms , how many Cyutis , how many Bedes and Bernards , haue vpon their Credit, and Reputation allured vs of Miracles wrought in the Roman Church only, like to thofe in the Primitiue Age? They are numberless. Did Chrift our Lord reftore life to the dead, iight to the blind , health to the fick > The Profeflbrs of our Catholick Church , by his virtue, haue done the very fame, and the Authority alleged. Difc. 2, C 8. In the %omanQhurch 3 07 the Miracles are more numerous. But now, and here is the chief demand. Were our Sauiours glorious Works made Credible to thoufands no Eye-witnefTes vpon Humane faith and Authority , before Scripture regiftred them > So it is. Behold we haue our Auftitu, out lusltns, our Baftls , our Bernards vnexceptionably plain for the Churches Miracles, and none-can without Impudency, and the violation of all humane Credit, probably Cauil at what the- fe haue written. None can without making very Saints Impoftors and guilty of that enormous fin of grofly decerning Pofterity , pare away fb much as any fubftantial parcel of what is Recorded. Therefore vnless all humane Faith perish, its defperate rashness to deny mod glorious Miracles to haue been in the Roman Ca- tholick Church , which was my AfTertion. 9. And to confirm it more. I Ask why do Sectaries to dis- grace our Miracles, introduce, I know not w hat Stories of the Heathens wonders > Are thefe credible or no 2 If not; reieft them boldly as Impertinences ; If Credible , it feems humane Faith is of ibme weight with Sectaries when they read of the Heathens fopperies, though of no Account for true Miracles wrought by the Church of Chrift. Again , this Faith is much worth with thefe men, when to lay a foul Afperfionona Pope Seftariesin or Prelate , they fill their Books with a hundred petty Stories, &*fif**- whether true or false imports little. Herein their eafy Be- liefe fwallowes all, But if a Father or Choife Hiftorian mention a Miracle, its a Tourb, a dream , sififttotj, and what not. 10. One word more and I end. Ameer pretended Humane Authority, which really is not, And therefore nothing worth, is shamefully made vfe of to patronize that crying Sin of Secta- ries Schifin. Our Church, Say they, Changed Her ancient Faith, the Charge at moft relies on Hiftory or Humane Faith , God neuer told them fo. For example. The Lateran Council firft brought in the Do&rin of Tranjubslatittation , ibme Pope or other firft inuented Purgatory &c. Suppofe all this were as true , as t'is hideoufly falfe , Hiftory or nothing muft make it good , and yet in our prefent cafe it is no warrant for known Miracles. Thus Q^q z Faith ccs. TJtiwane Imth now Valuable now not wifh Sifta* fits. Calnins Miracle. Seftarits lexpt$*nA Turks dif- tlaim Mtra- tin. 308 Dif. ?. C. 8. Of 'tokit height Miracles are Faith rifeth and fall's in value as our New mens fancy pleafes. Belfcue it, had bleflcd S. Ambrofe (cited aboue) , in lieu of that Miraculous Cure wrought on a blind man at Millah , when Him- ielf was prefent(and innumerable of that Citty law the wonder) related a ftroy preiudicial to either Pope or Clergy , How often think you would that haue been told and reiterated in the Writings of Sectaries ? But now when Hee fpeaks of a fupernatural Work of grace, done at the Reliques of the holy Martyrs Gerua- fius and Protafius, not a word is (aid. No , all palTes in Silence y as if Chrifts own Marks and the Churches glory ( vndoubted Miracles ) deferued no Memory, but Contrary wife Scorn and con- tempt. 11. I laid in the Affertion , that the grace of true Miracles, (meaning fuch as exactly Anfwer to our Sauiours glorious works ) is proper and peculiar to the Roman Church only. The proof -hereof is eafy. Firft , Sectaries pretend not to- work Miracles , For they fay, that power eeafed long flnce , though I might here mind them of Caluins great wonder , and really it was a ftrange one , For whereas God's Saints reftored life to the dead , this great Sinner , hairing pcrfvraded one Br ideas of Oftun to fainhim- f elf dead , depriued the poor wretch of his life Or, rather God- to lay open the fraud and Hypocrify of both the one and other, turned the Viftion into a Verity y for really Bruleus who Counter- feited himlelf dead , to get Caluin the renown of working Mi- racles, was after all the Minifters long prayer, found dead indeed* The ftory is known and writ not only by Hierome Bolsec in Vita Calvmi. C. 13. But by others alfo. And here I wish Sectaries to- giue fom^e credit to humane Authority. 12. Now as Proteftants diiclaim Miracles , fo do the Iewes alfo, for they neuer had any after our Sauiours Gomming. T'is* true, that Pond vpon Probatica. loan. 5. Or as many will haue it, the Pond it Cdfy fo called becaufe the Sheep ordained to Sacri- fice were washed there , continued Miraculous, whilft Chrift our Lord preached, But loon after eeafed , And fo do all other wonders amongft that abandoned People* The Turks who fay* ~ ~ God Difc. 1. C. 8. In the %pman Cbnrck 309 -God gaue Mahomet the fword and Chrift the Power of working Miracles , pretend to no fuch fnpernatural effects at all. No more in Iufticecan Heathens or the Donatiftslay Claim to any, whofe wonders were but trifles, compared with the Glorious works of Chrift and His Church. None of them all conuerted whole Nations to Chriltian Religion , none of them railed vp the dead. None of them after death wrought any Miracles. See Tertullian writing of the Heathens. In ApologiC 22. 13. And S. Auflin againft the Donatifts. HomiL 13. in loan. De Vtilit. Credent. C. \6. As alfo Lib. 10. de Ctuit. C. 16. 13. I lay. 2. If the Miracles of Chrift and the Apoftles ra- tionally proued againft Iewes and Gentils, the Credibility of Apo- ftolical Doctrin, The very like Signes and fupernatural effects moft euident in the Roman Catholick Church, as rationally proue againft Sectaries the Credibility of our now profeffed Ca- tholick Doctrin. I would fay. Church Miracles conftantly wrought in all Ages fince Chriftianiry began, are no less effica- cious to draw Sectaries to the Belief of our Church Doctrin , than thole the Apoftles wrought were to induce Iewes and Gen- tils to the belief of Apoftolical Doctrin. Here is one Proof. The lame Signes and Marks of Truth when equal in Maiefty , Worth , Quality, and Number euer diicouer to Realbn the lame Truth , For, God can no more deceiue by fuch works of Grace than by his own Diuine word, Interrogemus tpfa Miracula faith S. Aufitn. Ttaci:u\.. in Han: Quid nobtiloquantur deCbnlio. Let vs ask of Miracles what they lay of Chrift? Habentenim jtintel- Ugantur , hnguam fuaw. They want no tongue to (peak with , their Language is plain for Chrift. Iuft ib Say land proue it, Church Miracles Speak as planly for the Church. Wherefore if the Roman Catholick Church moft clearly giues in euidence of Her Miracles equal in wrorth, quality , and number with thofe wrought by Chrift and his Apoftles , it followes , that as thofe nrft Apoftolical wonders were fufficient to conuince Iewes and Gentils of the Truth of Chriftianity, So thefe latter alfo wrought tt» the Church are of like force , and no less efficacious - to The ancient ani modem Miracles compared togethtr. Vrhtt the ApojiUidil, the Church doth. The Uke op. pofition ma- de againfi Chrijt's Miracles and the Churches. jio Dtfc. I. C. 8. Of vhat might Miracles are conuince Sectaries of what euer Doclrin She teaches. Now pon- der well what the Apoftles did. They turtd tbefuk , dtp ffd Di- uels, raijcd the Dead , conuerted Kattomy &c. But thefe very Mira- cles haue been done in the Roman Catholick Church , yea and greater too, Ergo we haue the like Euidence of Truth in both the primitine Age and this , Confequently with it the fame Truth. The Euidence hath been partly laid forth already, and shall be further proued prefently. The Sequel is vndenia- ble. 14. I fay. 3. No otherwise, nor vpon any better ground can the Sectary Oppofe the Miracles of our Church , than Iewes and Gentils haue oppofed and yet doe oppofe thole of Chrifl and his Apoftles. Obferue well. Will the Sectary Say our Miracles are wrought by the Diuels power > So the Iewes Ca- lumniated Chrift own Glorious works. Will he Say , they are only fained by poor deluded or bold-lying Catholicks > So the Iewes (peak of Chrifl's own Miracles to this day. Will he Say that fome Miracles auouched true , haue been afterward euidently Counterfeit , and why may not thoie the Church glories in , be ran eked with ftich > Contra. And why may not Chrifts own wonders be alfo lifted with them? The Argument, if of any force equally concludes agatnft bcth 5 For if the Forgery of fome proue all forged , ChrinYs own Miracles no more efcape the Cenfure^than if one should fay, (t'isS. Auftms inftance ) all women are naught, becaufe fome haue been fo. Let then the Sectary show vpon good Principles That Church Miracles haue been forged, and he (peak's to the purpoie. In the interim, he may well think, his bold incredulous Humour makes none for- ged. 1 f . One may reply. There is a vafl disparity between our Sauiours Miracles regiftred in Scripture, and thofe we plead for, only attefted vpon humane Faith. I Anfwer in order to Chri- ftians there is a Difparity in the Tefltmony , But that fall's from the purpofe now. Firft becaufe Chrifts Miracles were known and admitted vpon humane Authority, before Scripture was writ- ten Difc I. C. 8. in the %oman Church. 3 1 1 ten. 2. And chitfly, becaufe both Iewes and Gentils as much flight our Scripture teftirying thofe wonders, as the Miracles them- felues, And make little account of either. 16. But when they read thefe things in Scripture , and more- ouer hear what Miracles God hath Conftantly wrought in euery age ( yea almoft euery year ) in his Church, and yet continues that fauour to our prefent dayes ; When they hear and read of the Miracles which that one facred houfe of Loreto Euidences , the publick Monuments and Teftimonies whereof are vndeniably Authentick , and able to conuince the moft obdurate Gentile. When they read or hear of the continual Miracles done at the Reliques of S. lames at CowpojlelU in Spain the infinite number of Pelgrims reforting thither from all parts of Chriftendom ( befides Records) bear witness of thofe great Benefits. When they read or hear of that perpetual Miracle Cten in France , ex- hibited to all mens eyes in the Sacred Viall of S. Mary Magdalen, wherein the precious Blood gathered by that penitent Saint at our Sauiours Paffion is yet perferued , and Vilibly boyl'svp on the very day hefuffered after the reading of the PalTion. A whole Nation teftifies this , thousands and thoufands haue feen it , and Spondanus. ad An : i 147. Saith, he beheld the viole in the Church of S.Maximin. 1 7. When again, they hear or read of the vndoubted Miracu- lous Cures wrought vpon the blind, the lame , and all fort of di- feafed Perlbns by the IntercefTion of our BleiTed Lady at Mon- Migtf,(English vfually call the place Sichem ) The euidence whe- reof is fo vndeniable without difpute , that luflus Ltpfius in fuo Afpricolli to the Reader, moft iuftly faith. They are not men (but rather beafts) or purpolely shut their eyes , that See not • thofe Miracles as clear as the Sun- For , Saith He , many cf them haue been manifeft to our. eyes and fenfes. And Eryaus Puteanus fpeak's as fully the fenfe of his Predeceilor. See his Pke&cc ad A/prtcot. He hue in , are fo want' ftft, fo many and moH ftupendteus , that if any doubt of them , Voterit &d* both lewes and Here ticks con- uinced. By what particular Miracles , they are Conuinced, Two certain Mirac c$ related. Jii Difc. 2. C. 8. The glorious Miracle & de vmuersa Kuminis potentia dubitare, He may as well doubt ok allthepowprGod hath, They are plain truths, rigoroufly and mofl feuerely examined , teftihed by Eye-witnefTes,and now vpon Record &c. I am forced to omit innumerable latter Miracles, ( The work would bclmmenfe to recount but halfe) yet one moft certain , and no less famous then certain , you haue here fet down. Another truly wonderful, followes in the next Chapter. Senfe, Experience Realbn and all humane Faith goe to wrack, if either be boggl'd at. Thofe iudgements arc peruerfe , Thole hearts harder then ftones, that dare deny them Credit. The Admirable cure brought by BlejfeJ. S. Xauefm in the Famous Citty of Naples Tppon a Vouky Reltgious Terfon called F. Marcellm Ma/lnlhya Noble man by birth , and by f2rofefiton of the So- ciety of lefiM. The Proof hinted at aboue, reajjumed. Marcellm wounded. iS. In the year 1534. The Vice-Roy of Naples Count Mon- terej, pleated to keep a Magnificent Solemnity at his own Palace in Honour of the euer BlefTed Mother of God. Amongfl orher Altars richly adorned to fet forth the Feftiual day , The care of one Altar was committed to F. Maftrilli , who ftanding on the lower fleps of a ladder, and cafually looking vp at one that took of Tapiftrie nailed to a higher part of the wall , met with a fad Accident. Behold a. Hammer of two pound weight fell directly vpon the Temples of his head, it-ruck him down , left him fenfeless , and grieuoully wounded. In this Peril, Firfl taken vp by the hands^of others, Hee was pretently carried in a Couch to his own Colledge. Doctors of Phyikkand Surgeons without delay called for , fearched the wound and found it Mortal. Forth with, Di(c. 2, C. 8. Of Saint Hauerius. 31 j With, a burning feauer following vpon the Hurt ■ Co increafed the clanger inthatnoxius aire (a great enemy to wounds) andvnfea- fonable winter time, That all idt hopeless, despaired of Marcel- lus Recouery. -Befides his mouth by the Contufion of Nerues ?*•**■» was fo ciofed vp, that the poor Patient could take no fufknance. '^fperate To help That , The Doctors (neceflitated to vfe violence ) forced *nUwhy* it open , and thruft an Initrument down towards his ftomach , hoping thereby to clear the palTage and lit it to receiue fome nourishment. But with little good fuccess , For the Cruel Remedy became an vnfpeakable torment to the afflicted Patient. Soon after followed ftrong Conuulfion fits (plain Symtoms of death ) and betides a Dead Paliie , which wholly took away the vfe of his left arme. 19. Whoeuer deiires to fee more of this defperate danger, And how neer Maixellus was at deaths doore, may pleafe to read Da- niel Bartolnw his fecond Part of Afia. lib. 5. at this Tittle Vlm- perio dc Toxongum. Page with mee 441, and. 442. And alio Michael de Elizalde. Forma vera Religtonis. Quft-.zy. N. 478. P. 319. who liued at Naples , and wrote this Miracle not long after it happened. In this condition Marcellus continued many dayes, despaired of by the very befl and moft expert Phifitians. Wherefore the Conclufion was to implore the mercy of God Death ex* in his behalfe, to commend him as the manner is , to the prayers petted, of the Community, and finally to adminifter Extrem vn&ion , For his obftructed Mouth and breft full of Clottered blood, kindred the taking the Holy Eucharift, or laft Viaticum. The Doc- The Doners tors prudently aduiced to prepare him for death , For they found g*i*e Ma?m him now pall: all hope of Recouery , Nay, ail of them with ce^ouer% one Confenr abiblutely Concluded, Marcellus could not Hue till the next morning. 20. Now here begins the Miracle. The 2.d of Ianuary four houres within night, The Fathers that watched with dying Ma- The Miracle ftrilli, obferued Hedid not only moue and turn Himfelfe to the begins, wall, but heard him fpeak alfo 5 which feemed to them a wonder, For before Hee lay fpeechles not able to vtter a word, much R,r less Vtith J. Xa-fif >H4 /ftariio \ Marcellus htivow. Reliques applied to the wound* S. Xaneritu Comfortable words. The Miracle moft Eui- d*M* 3 14 Difc. t. C. 8. The Glorious Miracle less to moue his weak body. But what followes clears all , The motion came from a ftronger hand, And thus it was. £1. S. Xauerius appeared in a pilgrims weed very Glorious to Marcellus, And with a Smiling Countenance demanded , whe- ther He would rather dye at prefent, Or according to his former defire bee fent Miifioner into the Indies? In palling pleafe to know,the virtuous man euer languished after that Million, Though hindred from it by Superiours , becaufe of his tender and weak Conftitution. £2. Marcellus Anfwered I am ready to doe whateuer God pleafes^ Yet according to my former purpofe, may that be gra- teful to the Diuine will, and granted by Superiours, I am in heart prepared to dye a Martyr for Chrift amongft thofe Indians. Xaue- rius herevpon pronounced the form of a vow which the lick man (as the words were fpoken by the Saint ) repeated after Him. By this vow He obliged himfelfe to renounce Country, Friends, and whateuer is in the world to bee lent to the Indian Million. You haue the Form of the vow in Bartoli now cited. Page 444. In the next place a Relicjue of the Holy Cross and fome others alio which Marcellus had about his neck,,were applyed by the help of S. Xauerius to the wound in his head. Still the Fathers pre- fent heard Marcellus fpeak for a long time together , fbme thought them words of a diffracted brain , others iudged Otherwife. Af- ter thefe and many other Circumftances related by the Authors already quoted, Xauerius Spake to this' Senfe. Marcellus bee of good: Courage, you are nol» perfecllj cured. Your defire is granted, you shall goe to the Indies and there dye a Martjr* This faid the Saint disappeared. 23-. Without delay at all , Marcellus loock'd on as a dying man reuiued j inftantly late vp in his bed, called for his cloaths , Yea, faith. Elizalde , Extltt i leclo leap't out of his bed , And with a ftronge Cheerful voice lard. I am T»eU , Izmperftttly Cured, And fo it was indeed. For the Mortal wound caufe of His Malady quite Clofed vp , appeared no more , And which is a wonder, she hair of his head cut of by the Ghirurgeons to facilitate the CUXSy Difc. 2. C. 8. Of Saint X 'auerius 315 cure, was reftored as formerly. So Elhalde teftifies. n. 4S0. it*. Jlttuii Cdpillt dd Vulntru Curationem erafi. His Paleness and weakncs, went away , Colour , ftrength and agility returned in that very Inftant. What need I fay More 2 Marcellus a Moment before at Deaths door, becomes found , healthful , and perfectly well. 24. Thofe who attended Him called together the Fathers of the houfe many in number , to bee Eye-witnefTes of the wonder. .Ail came with ioyrul hearts, and Firft proftrate on the ground with much deuotion gaue immortal thanks to God for the cure, then Embraced Marcellus who took a little fuflenance , which he had wanted for a long time. That done , the Superiour com- manded him forthwith to write down exactly euery particular hee had heard or feen that night , and to ilibicribe all with His own hand. Hee did fo. The next morning, when whole Multitudes .came to pray for Marcellus foul ( the Hun.ble man was indeed M^e much beloued and honoured all Naples ouer ) They found him hnowntothe perfectly rccoucrd , faying MaiTe at. S. Xauerius Altar. Pre- Ctmrnsmiif fLmtly the Miracle manifeft to all Eyes was loon diuulged through *T*"7^ the whole Citty and held lb indubitable , that iome thought it needless to giue His Eminence the Lord Arch-bishop Informa- tion of it. Howeuer that was done and mod exactly. The Doctors , the Surgeons, the Fathers, and other Eye-witnefles alio Ex.imin'd of the wonder were ailembled before His Eminence, and All vpoa W* °«tf}' Oath folemnenly taken, auouched boldly without doubt without helitancy the naked Verity, and vndeniable Truth of the Mira- cle. Now if any would bee further informed of the great Seue- >rity vfually held in the Sacred Congregation of Rf/*j at Rome , when Miracles are brought to the Teft before that high Tribunal y Though the whole world knowes the rigour, you may by the •occaiion giuen of this one wonder, read Elizalde. N. 485. This Short Relation permit's mee not to iniift vpon So many large particulars. In lieu thereof, bee pleafed to hear what F. Eli- zalde ( one learned and a great Diuine ) fpeak's of his owne knowledge, n. 481. Much to the fenfe,as followes. 2f. I Was faith Hit in S(*m 7*hen this gr^at Miracle im trough' Rr 2 Ij A learned tnans Tejli- mom Con- cerning this Miracle, rvhiijl he li- ved at Na- ples. Marcellus his Martyr dome, fir an- ge, and Miraculous, 3 1 6 Difc. 2. C 8. The Glorious Miracle by S. Xaumm , And although I am of an Humour 'incredulous enough not eafily draTvn to belteue fucb "frovdirs, yet vpon the feueral Tefti- monies which came in great number from euery part of the tyorld-, I found my felfe turn then conmnced of the Truth. No"B> I haue lined at Naples Tvell nigh three y tares ^ and Conuerfed^itb many ', "fc ho TV ere in the Colledge at the time of this lender ful cure , And 7tttb oneparti- cularly ( a man vpright and tuft) that Tfras in the Chamber to hen Xauerim appeared to Marcellus. J haue attenriuely confidered'frhat euery one [aid, and after a diligent inquiry made , percetue ( as it euer falls out in a point of Truth) no d.fference amongft them, but Contrary'totfe, find ally vmtu labij Speak, the fame , agreeing in one Relation. But let vs omit our ofrn Tritmffes. Italy, Spaine and the other parts of t^e Chrtfttan Tvorld neuer quefltoned the Miracle , but held it certain , and mofi prudently did fo , For fcarfe any thing can be more Authentick remaining within the Limits of humane Faith. Vpon this certainty it f^asf that Rti Catholic^ Mate sly familiarly treated Mth Marcellus a longtime together , dtjiring his prayers , and bountiiftilly offered all ArTiftance in order to his further voyage y fo -Uketoife did the Dulles andVrtnccs- of that Court- Nay, all fort of People came flocking to the pious Paffen- ger , as if Hee had been one fern from Heauen , or raifed from the dead. Happy >' ere they that could fpeak^ "toitb him, touch bis garments , or recciue any little (mall trifle from His hands. Thus all reuerenced the Holy man. So great Renown the Miracle had gained euery where, Much to this fenfe Elizalde writes. Let vs now go on. 26, Soon after the Miraculous cure, Marcellus began his long iourney towards the Indies, and in the year 1638. arriued at "Nangajaqut in Iapan , where taken prifbner > Hee firft endured that ufual and cruel Torment of water ( known to euery one ) but came out found, not hurt at all. The ftanders by aftonished at the Spectacle, prefently commanded the Executioner to ftrick of his. head. The Barbarous man attempted to doe it , but on a fud- dain made ftrengthles , wholly benummed, was not able to moue his hand. "Where vpon Marcellus faid, delay no longer , but in Cods nane dee thy' duty* The fatal blow at thofe very words was gi- uen^ And The Virtuous Marcellus became a Martyr and dyed for Difc i. C 8. Of Saint. Xaterm 317 * for Chrift , according to the Prophefy of S. Xaverius- 27. Now here I Ask what iuft exceptions can Se&aries make againft this Miracle , 4tufi i vpon uatb , ngedt) examined , and v*mtrf*U) btlmed >. Will they fay Marcellus was indeed woun- No ittft ex* ded ( for that many Seculars faw), yet the wound was but flight, "P • ■' not mortal and perhaps no more but a raring of the skin \ Say H**fl lfjt fo. The Doctors and Surgeons had been worfe then hearts , lirac e' to torture the poor Patient as they did by forcing dow. into His Stomack the Inftrument already mentioned. Befide-4 &«r- tting feautrs y Conuulfion Fits y Palfies(o£ themfelues mortal) vfiially \* . enfue not vpon flighter hurts. Will they fay The Aparition of the Saint to Marcellus was either an Illuiion , a dream at mod , or a diftemper of a dying mans fancy ? That indeed might haue fome colour, had wee not Euidence againft it. For what can bee Anfwered to the ftrange effect , the Miracu- lous cure, I mean , which fo fuddainly followed in one short Moment of time? This (cltar Self-eutdence ) (peak's truth , and proues that God had a hand in the cure. None can Cauil at it, none can contradict it. Perhaps fbme will lay. AH was a fourb, a cheat, and Fiction, The Fathers, Doctors, and Surgeons by compact fained one Mortally lick that was not , to gain Iefuits the renown and Glory of a Miracle. 2.8. What's this? who are here accufed and condemned? Giue eare a little Gentle Reader. A flat Calumny will haue vs to belieue That All thole venerable Fathers , thofe expert Doctors, Thole experienced Surgeons , with others alfo who beheld the Miracle , All I fry , Though jfiey called God to witnefTe by Solemn Oath taken vpon the lacred Golpel , That the cure was real and Miraculous were notwithstanding worfe Tt . ^ then very Villains, forfworn , bale, abiect, and periured Perfons. fslfelf *tcm> And this wee.muft Affentto, vpon no other proof , but be- fid, caufe Malice likes well to Calumniate euer itching to decry God's own Glorious wonders. Betides , wee muft belieue thofe high Tribunals where the Miracle was moil rigidly exa- mined, and after examination vnanimoufly approued , to haue R r 3 been Tribunals Condemned, The Calum- iy reitfted. The Miracle potted tint. ;iS Difc. i. C. 8. The Glorious Miracle been Co notoriously vniuft, fo impioufly partial , and wickedly milled , as to oblige Pofterity to own vpon humane Faith, a Lie, an Impofture , In a word, that to be Gods Glorious work ( a true Miracle) which really was not. Is it not impudency think yee to harbour fuch defperate Thoughts ? The Diuel himfelfe (though Father of lies) would be ashamed to calumniate lb boldly, without fame Colour or apparence of proof; Yet here vve haue not any. 29. Now Tie proue the Sectaries Aflertion to bee a flat Ca- lumny , and withall further euince the truth of the Miracle. S- Xauerius,as wee haue heard, afcertain'd Marcellus of his cure, and likeuyfe iJrop!efyed , that Hee should goe to the Indies and there dye a Martyr for Chrift. I know Malice may Cavil here , And deny all. But Mark what foil owes. Vpon the Ailurance of this Prediction Marcellus Himfelfe , the Reuerend Fathers alio and others relyed, when they fo Confidently gaue out , That hee should lofe his life at Iapan , and dye a Martyr. Reflect I befeech you. Had it not been in the higheft meafure impru- dent, nay more than a foolish Preuamption of thole Fathers to haue rilled all mens eares with that Prophetical Speech , vpon meer future vncertainties > The performance whereof-, (all know well) was liable to a thoufand Difafters and Caftialities , in that iwmenfe voyage from Europe to the fur theft paits of the Vorld. Speak impartially. How ealily Might Marcellus (none of the flrongeft Comtitutions ) haue dyed in the way I What if Pirates had lei- zed on the Ship , and caft him ouer board ? What if the VelTel had perished by Tempeft with the virtuous Man, and other PalTengers? How much Icorned would the Fathers haue been, who certainly were neuer fo ftrangely befotted as to expofe themfelues and the reputation of their Order to a publick con- tempt vpon meer Contingencies and weak Con iectures. Hence 1 infer , They had by virtue of S. Xauerius Prophely a high Moral AiTurance of the euent , The Propriety ipoken fome years before Marceflus his Martyrdom , was true , And the real Effect of his death proued it true , neither Diuel nor Mortal Difc. 2. C. 8. Of Saint Xaueria*. 5T9 Mortal man could certainly foretel Things fo remote , and yet c , , to come. God therefore was the Author of that Prediction, the ^(ra^ And Confequently His Diuine power by the means of the Saint , wrought the Miracle. 30. Its high time now to reaiTume what I began with , and faid above. "When Iewes and Gentils read our fcriptures which with them may well deferue as much credit as Humane faith giues to C#fars Commentaries or any other Hiftoryj When they rind in that Sacred book how ftrangely Chriftianity was firft eftablished , and introduced by the virtue of our Sauiours glorious Wonders. When they fall lower and fee ( though ftill vpon Humane Faith) an euident Continuance of the very like Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholick Church through^ euery Age. The Conuiction is by good law fo ftrong, the The Proofs Proofs for vndeniable Miracles fo manifeft to the dulkft Gen- hinted at tile , that He may as well deny ( as Lipfius Saith ) the Sun to *koHttvrged shine as doubt of thofe moft glorious vifibie wonders vnqtie- . ftionable ,. in this one Society of Chriftians. . And this hold's true , Although no more but Humane faith rcft'ing on moft Certain Authority inform's vs of thefe Miracles, For fuch a Faith, as great Diuines Oblerue , often comes to fo clear a degree of Certitude, that you may well call it an vndubitablekjndofEuideri' T*e*ekto ce. How certainly do we hold ( it is S. Auftins Inftance. lib. 6. 1^,™™' Confess. C. $. ) that we are born of fuch and fuch Parents ? How certainly do we belieue and vpon humane Authority, Saith Suares, Tom. i. de Incarn ; Difp. Ji. Sect. i. That Titus and Vefpaiianus deftroyed Hierufalem > And can any Cordial man Queftion , if He lay preiudice afide , but that true and moft glorious Mira- cles haue been as certainly wrought in the Church , as that thofe two Emperours deftroyed Hierufalem , or that fuch are our Parents I I appeal to euery ones Conicience for An- fwer. Ji. By all now fafd we fee firft , that what euer can be propoied againft our Churches Miracles , hath like force againft Chrift's own glorious works, And I challenge Proteftants to 3*0 Dif. t;C 8. The Glorious Miracle i?c. Segaries ^int kut at one Argument which doth not equally ftrike -at iuftly npre- both. We fee. i. How Hideous a Sin Sectaries commit, hen/ible, who Scornfully flight all thole known and moft euident Mi- And why. rades Wrought an ong Chriftians , fince the Apoftles times : By this their vnwerthy Procedure, they rob Chrift's Spoufe of Her ^reateft Glory , falfify His own facred words , Prophefying of greater wonders than he did , And finally make the Conuer- fion .of- Ievves and Heathens to Chriftianity impoffible. For , giue me a naked Church without Signes , without Marks , without Motiues inducing to truth ( and the moft conuin- cing Signe of all , is the Glory of Miracles ) Nothing re- main's propofable to a poor Inridel that's meet to conuince his Reafon , But the bare letter of Scripture , or the effen- tial Doctrin of the Church , which folely confidered more affrights weak Reafon , ( naturally auerfe from high Myfte- ries ) than brings it to any Submiffion or Acquiefccncy. I fay therefore the fin of Sectaries is grieuous , Whilft Miracles are flighted, by doing fo , they flight the Church, yea Chrift himfelf , and haften apace to Atheifm. CHAP. Difc. t. C. 9- ObieBfons dgainjl To Aflat this we muft not only know how farr his power reaches, but more haue AiTurance alfo Of his actually doing fuch Won- ders. And thus much (manifeftly improbable) neither is nor can be afcertained vpon the weakeft Principle within the compass of nature or grace. We vfuallyfay , the Diuel appears with a Clouen foot, That is, you may ealily difcern his Villainy, And we know he neuer caft's out euil Spirits like Himfelf from poiTefted Perfons, which yet hath been done and frequently in God's Church. He can, it is true y if we belieue Hiftory take vp the Deuided Parts of a dead man and act with them for a while, But there is no fuch Motion , no fuch Operations in the dead aflumed Corps , as haue been feen in many Miraculoufly reftored. to life. Be it how you will, We arefure God can doe, yea and hath done great Miracles, when therefore all imaginable Circum- ftances forceably induce vs to belieue that they are his own glo- rious works, it is I hope more wifdom to Afcribe them to an Omnipotent Power, than to Father them vpon Diuels. 3. Some who plainly fee, its a degree of madness to doubt of fo much humane faith as Teftifies of Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholick Church grant many haue been done, But then Obiect. 2. God did them to manifeft that Chrift is the true Meffias,or to work a. Belief invs of fo much Do&rin tnly as is Common to all Chriftians , but not to confirm our Popish Errours , of Praying to Saints , Purgatory Sec. Contra. This Argument alfb impugns our Sauiours great Miracles, which were not wrought (one may lay ) to confirm all the Do&rin he taught , but a Part or parcel of it only. Contra. 2. If Mira- cles Mark out a Do&rin common to all , or confirm fo much truth And no more -y It feem's ftrange, that Arians, Pelagians and Proteftants work not Miracles as frequently as the Church doth , For thefe men own a Dottrin common to all Chriftians^ yet Difc. 1. C. 9. Miracles j SolueJ. 323 yet show none of thefe wonders. Contra. 3. There is not one Do&rin taught by our Church, (and held erroneous by Sectaries) which is not Sealed, Signed, and Atttfled by euident Miracles. We haue innumerable for thrifts Real and fubflantial Prdence in the Euchariltj As many for the Inuocation of Saints , as alfo for the Honour due to holy Reliques. Innumerable proue that third place of Purgatory Sec. All thefe ( may good Authors deferue Credit) are vpon vndoubted Record. And what iuft Exception haue Sectaries againft fb great Authority > Tie tell you. Their own incredulous Humour. Here is all. Whereas , could they fpeaktothe caufe , they should giue vs weight for weight, and Oppofe what we Allege (in behalf of Miracles ) vpon grounded Principles. That is, they Should euince poiitiuely that our Au* thorsare meer Cheats , and fain Stories , when we read of Mira- cles wrought in confirmation of praying to Saints , the Real Pre- fence. And this in all law of Difputation they are obliged to do vpon folid Proofs indeed , diftincl: from their own Incre- dulity , or a meet Saying , Such Records are falfe. But do what ye will Sectaries can neuer be driuen to difpute vpon Princi- ples. 4. A third Obiecl:ion. S. Auslin. Lib. de Vnit : Ecclefia. Saith. We therefore fay not , We belieue becaufe fo many Wonders are done all theWorld ouerin holy places, for What euer We find in this kind, ideo funt approbanda quia in Ecclefia Cathoitcd fiunt , are to be approued becaufe they are wrought in the Catholick Church. Hitherto, the obie&ion is of no force , For the Saint only Saies , No new Miracles ought to gain certain credit, But fuch only as are wrought in the Church , or fuch as confirm Her Do&rin , or finally haue the Churches Approbation. Now becaufe he depu- tes againft the Donatifts, and fuppofeth the Church known vpon other grounds expreffed in Scripture, tier Vnity Chiefly and vni- uerfal extent ouer the World, before thefe latter Miracles were heard of. Let us , Saith s. Auflin , waue this Plea of Miracles ( you Donatifts allege yours, and I mine ) and Argue by Scripture only , and fee what Church Scripture commend's antecedently known, 5s i before Miracles truly allegti for entry Doftrintbe Church teaches* S. Auflin Alleged againft Mi- fades Speak 5 no. thing for Settarits, K»tt> the £24 Dffc. 2. G. p. Obkciions agnlnft. before thefe latter Miracles came to our knowledge. Which is to lay , though the after Particular Miracles added to others formerly done, may much ftrengthen our Faith,, yet abfelutly slin: 'pica- sPeakwg> ^aith depend's not of them, Becaufe the Church we belieue deiaguinjt in 1S Efficiently manifeftedby Her Vntty, Ptrpuuitj , and Vmuer- iheuon*. fallity exprelTed in Scripture. R&c Junt cau(& noslr* document a , h&t *¥*> firmament*. Here in lies all we haue to Say , Whilft we conteft with you Donatifts that own Scripture with vs, yet Cauil at our Miracles. Who euer read's this one Chapter exacUy And dra- wes any other fenfefrom the whole Context than what is now briefly hinted at, will much oblige me may he pleafe to diico- uer it. <;. One yet may Obiect. S. Auflin Saith more , and it feem's much againft vs. Non ideo tpfa manifeftatur Catholica quia h&c in ex fant. The Catboluk Church is not vpon that Account mamfsltd to you Donatifts , becaufe thefe Miracles are brought in it, I Aniwer. 1 . The words vnderftood as Sectaries interpret Euert as wholly the Miracles of our Sauiour , who faid. If you 7t>tll not belieue me , belieue my Works. 2. The Sectaries Ccnih impugn's alfb the exprels Doctrin of S. Auftin. de Vtilit. Credendi. C. 17. Where He Afterts that Hereticks are condemned by the Maiefty of Miracles. Beti- des, Their fenfe is nothing to the purpofe , becaufe in this very PalTage He fpeak's of latter Miracles known to S. Ambrofe at Millan , And Saith , Hee will no more infill on Thefe ^ than permit the Donatifts to talk of their Falfe-vifions $ For the Church is fufficiently manifefled without them vpon a Surer Principle ( the XHylUe Holy Scripture ) which the Donatifts admitted, and therefore W*/M/. whilft They pretended to Miracles as well as S. Auftin did, Hee racltswith prudently waued tliat Difcours , and Argued by Scripture only,Iea- ihtVona- uing Miracles to their own worth and weight, r Say to their tifis. cvvn vYCiobti which is gathered from this great Doctors Dif- courfe. 6. Our Lord UfuSy faitb he, arofefrom the dead, and manifested Himfelf to bis Difciples and offered b'u facred body to be touched by their hands , jet , Uaft that might be tbgugbt a fallacy, he indeed it meet to confirm km Difc. 2. C. 9 Miracles Sclued. 32J his Refurrettion more Principally by the Teftmony of the la7» , the Prophets and Yfalms , shoeing All things Tvere no)\> accomplished \m htm. Whence I inferr , as the touching his Sacred body was Proof enough, though not the chiefeft of his Refurrection, when Scrip- ture was at hand to make that moft manifeft; So Miracles alio , wrought in the Church manifeft. that Oracle but not Principally Rear0„ to the Donatifts , who ought to haue belieued more firmly the yWn% Churches Docfcrin vpon that one potent Proof of the Apoftle. 1. Tim : 3» 15. The Ptllar and ground of Truth , than for all the latter wonders done in the Church. Yet thefe haue a mighty force and are ftronge Inducements, fo far as Motiues can reach , hut not the chief and Principal caufe of any ?nans Belief or Ajfcnt. Read then S. Aufttn's words thus. The Church is not made manifeft by her latter Miracles to a Donatift who Cauils at fuch wonders, but Principally by Scripture which he admit* s , and U?;fl like Prote- ftanrs be tryed by , You haue the Saints full Senle and a great Truth with it, whereof there can be no doubt at all , when. Lib. Contra Eptft : Fundament:. C. 4. j. He Demonftrat's the Church by Her Miracles. 7. To end this point between S. Auflin and the Donatift, as alio between Catholicks and Proteftants, I lay all Controuerlies are fully tried and happily ended by Scripture only. But how? Not becaufe any can pretend to find euery Ten^t of Faith clearly let down in fo many express Terms of holy Writ , For the Pro- How snip. teftant pretend's not to fo much in behalf of his Doctrin, But turedecidts thus the Orthodox difcourfes with S.Auftw. Scripture cutdenth all Contra points at the Church of IESVS Chrift knoltn by Her tezrh ami ma- ™r[i€i.. nife/l Signes , by Htr Antiquity, Her large Spread ouer the iPholc D?orld9 by the Succtpon of Hit Taslors and Doclors, Miracles , and the like Sig- nal Motiues. Thus much once clearly laid forth in the written Word, that Holy Book remit's him to the Church Clearly marked , commend' s Her, faith S. Auslin , and command's him to hear and learn what euer She teaches. 8. Whence it is, that our profound Dccftor DHpnting the Cafe, whether the Baptized by Hercticks were to be rebapti- Ss 3 zed. The Ortho- tichi flronge held. . A fourth Obieciion fibed. Cod ean no more deceiue by hit own 'ftorki then hk? Words. p<$ Difc. 2. C. 9. Obktlions dgmfl. zed, laboured not to decide the Queflion by any exprefs words in holy Scripture (wholly (ilent in this particular ) But contrary wife teaches , that the Church which is difFufed all ouer ( and no Party of Donatifts shut vp in a corner of Afrique ) was to giue Sentence herein , For She is that great Oracle , which Scripture commend's. Read lib. 2. de Bapt. C. 4. And de Vmt: Eccles. C. 22. Thus briefly you fee the true difference between the Proreftant and Catholick , The firft has not a word of Scripture for his Tenets , much less any Orthodox euidenced Church. The Catho- lick relies On a Church fpread the whole world ouer, known by Miracles, Conuerfions&c. And Scripture command's him firmly to bcliene what euer She Propofes as Faith. Qui vos audit me audit. Whoeuer hears the Church hears Chriit, And in this Ser>fe Scrip- ture manifefting Gods own Oracle, which cannot but propoie truth, end's all Controuerfies. ^ #. A 4-th Obie&ion. Iulian the Apoftata as S. Gregory Na- zian. Or At. 1. in lultan : And Theoder: Lib : $. Hifh. C. 3. atteft, droue away Diuels with the Sign of the Cross , Therefore wic- ked men can doe Miracles. And why may not Almighty God for Reafons beft known to his infinite wifdom do itrange won- ders, and permit an Arian to Say, All are wrought to Confirm his falfe Doctrin. Contra. Both Parts of the Objection equally impugn the Primitiue Miracles of Chrift and the Apoftles. To the firft I aniwer. An Heretick may work a Miracle to proue Catholick Doctrin , but neuer to make his own Falfe Opinion probable. The Reafon is. God who is Truth and Goodnes it felf, can no more deceiue by his ovvnTforkj, than by his own Words. S'tcut human* confuetudo faith S. Auftin. Epifi : 49. verbis Viuina potentia , etiam fa ft is loquitur. As man fpeak's by words , fo God fpeak's by his works. But the Works or Wonders now Spoken of becaufe fupernatural proceed from God , And as is fuppofed deceiue , Therefore it ill befeem's an Infinit Truth and Goodnes to do them. Vpon this Ground I fay likewile , Di~ nine Prouidence will neuer permit his own glorious Works {Seals and Sigr.es of Truth) to be abufej by wicked men. But of Difc. t. C p. Miracles Sohed. 327 ®f this particular I intend to fpeak more largely hereafter. 10. Wee now Come to Mr. Stillingfleets Cauils you haue fomeofthem. Part. I. C. 5. p. 134. And 135. Where he doth not fomuch, impugne Miracles as would haue them done by fuch MrSttQfog. Perfonsashe likes well of 5 Popes for example, that pretend to anfwtud/ infallibility. And if (which is eafy ) we produce many wrought by Holy Popes, His next Querie perhaps may be. Why all all of them are not Miraculous men alike 2 In a word I like nottofearch into the depth of Gods fecret Counfel , And there- fore briefly difcourfe of perfons fauoured with fiich Graces . as S. Auftin doth of different Places. Tom, 1. Epift. 137 to his Clergy and people at Hippo , where hepropofeth this Queftion. Quare in ahjs locis b We haue £«0"fc» fome brought at Milian : in Africa though full of Saints Bodies , not fo ? He return's this wife Anfwer grounded on the Apoftles wotds. 1. Cor. 12. Konom- ties Sancli &c, All faints haue not the Gift of curing difeafes , all difcern not fptrits ,ita nee in omnibus memorijs Sanftorum* &c. So God And fir ft who divides his Graces according to his own beft will, doth not y, °J~. thefe wonders at the Memory of euery Saint. And who dare en- c\e% ^ rome^ ter into his fecret Counlel , or afk why he doth fo? Why raifed W not he three dead men by S. Dominick , and not one we know of by h others. S. Auftin > Dividit propria unicu'tque prout vult , He is Lord and di- ftributes his own fauours as he pleafeth. And thus we Anlwer Mr. Stillingfleet whonextSaith fome thing of Miracles done in Corners. What can the man mean ? Are all the wonders wrought at Loteto Composlella , Stchem and other places feen to innumerable , and All vpon certain record to be callid Corner Miracles \ Be pleafed to hear worfe yet. 11. Page 135. Think not faith Mr. Stillingfleet We are of fuch eafy faith, that the pretended growing out of a leg in Spain , or any of your famous Miracles brought bypurVriefts in Italie bill ptrfvvade vs to beheve your Church infdltble. Again r after his Talk of Diuels Mr Stilting. doing no feats when Oppofers are by , He utters this fcornful Ian- ^L^j^ guage. it u an eaftj thing for a Stump logroll? a. leg in its pajfage from a^inn tkt Spam Miracle wrought at Zuragofa. 3 28 Difc. t. C. 9. ObieFtions againft. Spain h'nher , For ft ma crefcit eundo. And in defplte of Truth , cad's out too much bitter venom to obfcure a Glorious work of God, wrought by the Interceffion of our BleiTed Lady vpon a young man at Carlar Augufta or Zaragofa in Spain ( v\'here you haue her miraculous Statua Set on a Marble Pillar And for that reafon is called , Weuftra Sennora del Pilart ) It is one of the mod euident and cleared Miracles which I belieue hath been done in the memory of any man now lining. I haue the whole Printed Relation by me both Latin and Dutch, written by Peter Kettrat Doctor of Philick , and dedicated to his Excellence Don Fran- cifco Marquis of Caretto and Grana , Embaffador Extraordinary from the Emperour to His Catholick Maiefly. The Subdance whereof is thus. 12. Ego ab Ctfaraugufta Vetito ejrc. F come from Zirx^a and Iring t) dings cf a Miracle not heard of tn any age. A young man had bn leg cut of and buried, Tbhtch T*as Miraculoufly n Stored again, by the Intercefiion of the moft Sacred virgin. My Lordyl here prefcnt you JPith a Gift it is not mine, but our Bleffed Ltdtes , to ^hom immor- tal thanks are due for the fauour. Giuen at Madrid ibid. Mart, Anno 1642. I haue befides the Licence of the Vicar General, Von Gabriel de Aidant a appointing the whole Narration to be Printed , which begins. Nos el Licenciado Confultor del Sanfto of- ficio Sec. Subscribed. Lie. D. Gabriel de Aldama. And vnderwritcen. him after* T&ards at Madrtd, thither be came at the command of hu Catho- lic^ Matt fly , and fa)i> htm going on both le^gs. I fa* the Ma*K* Ttohicb the' BUffed Virgin had ltfiy Jtbere the leg T&as cut of , Aid not only I, but all the Fathers of the Imperial Colledgt bebeld tba (I might addvpon certain Relation innumerable other Eye-witneffes and of noble Men too, then in the court of Spain ) I knew toe young mans Parents , J ktitvv the Chtrurgion that cut of the leg. Giuen at Madrid. 12. Mart* 1641. Vnderwritten. Hierommm 'Bri^jJs. 1 4. We may add herevnto the Approbation of F. Iofeph Crefpo, T^e Ucena Prior of S. Martins Mona/lery in Madrid , who knew , as he faith , °fHJliCa' this Miracle to be moft true , and witneiled it vnder his own Mait^y hand. 4. Marty. 1642. Laftly. Vacultas Rtgia, or his Catho- lick Maiefties Licence , is thus annexed. S'gnata a O, Auguftwo de Arteaga & Canmzares , Scrtba Qanurs. B>eg't well, wakened him out of fleep. Was Mir* 1 j. On a fudden the yet not too well awaked youth, brake iulcufy re. forth into thefe words. I dreamed I toas in our Ladies Chappel of Jtcre*. piUriy and annointe&my leg "frith the ojle of the Lamp burning there. The poor Father ouerioyed replyed Render, my Child, immor- tal thanks to God, our BlelTed Lady hath reftored thee thy leg, Hitherto, the youth before his Father fpake reflected not on the Miracle. All this noyfed abroad, drew in many Eye - wknelTes that night, and the next day more, who accompanied the young , . r man tc the Church , where , to the end all might behold the ' cUdtHuhe* Miracle, His foot , which yet ftood much wrefted to one fide,came before a Multitude of people to its own natural Pofture, and thofe who faw him the day before wanting one leg, oblerued him now walking ftrongly on two, found and whole. 18. Thus much noted by a publick Scribe andipread abroad, foon after called the youth to Csfaraugufta , Where he had his ludges afFembl ed , witnelTes examined , Lawyers pleading and the W 7h'ty whole caufe moil rigidly difcuUed. All which performed , The iJXmm moft mucous Lord Arch-Bishop of Zaragofa, D. Vetro Apao- TtnfiMMt l"**** publickly gaue Sentence the 27. day of April. Anno 1542. faafy p*m that the refloring of that leg was a Work aboue the force of na- ture. Di[c 2. C. 9. Miracles Svhted. $1 nature, and therefore might without doubt be deferuedly eftee- med, A prodigious Miracle. Thole who attefted the fame, after due examination ,and fubfcribed their names were as follow. 19. Don Antonio Xauirre Prior of S. Chriftina. D. Ioannes Perat official of the Metropolitan* Church at Zaragoca. Don subfcribei Virto de Vera Archdeacon there. Don loan Piano a Frago by many. alio Official. D. Philip Bardaxi Interpreter of the (acred Ca- nons. D. Didacus Chueca Canon of Caviar augufta. D. Mar- tinus Irribarne Canon and Reader there. F. Bartholomeus Foyas Prouincial of S. Francis order. F. Antonius Ortm Pro- vincial of the Minims of S. Francis de Paula. D. Dominicus Cebrian , the firft Reader of Diuinity at Zaragcia. The fen- .tence giuen,was published and declared by great Doctors of the Canon aud Ciuil law, D. Aegidius Fufter ; and Michael Cypres a publick Notory alio. It was figned by D. Antonius Albert Zaporra xhe Apofiolical Notary , and chief fcribe of the Ecclefiaftical ^n^nom Court at Caviar Augufta. D. Thomas Tamayo de Vargas the extant m the Kings Hiftoriographer of Spain and the Indies has published it Spanish in his Annals extant in the Spanish language,, Printed at Al- Annate. cala. 20. The Relation end's thus. Videant \uretici an hoc tarn fa- die &c. Let Herettcks loo!^ JKell to it , whether they can as eafily flight this , and other ftrancre Miracles done in our time amonq the In- . ' , / j 1 r in c n , 1 r l j , the Relattet* dians , as they [corn the rejtoring of S. Ubn Damajcens hand at the Jntercepon of our Bltffed lady. Tim T»e now freaky of, is Tefttfyed by Eje-toimtjjes. Both Spaniards and French were Spectators. The whole caufe lafted long vnder a mofl feuere Examination , and finally to make the Glorious works of God known , Sentence was Juridically pronounced by a worthy Arch-Bishop as is now [aid. Quod ft rei tarn not& con- tradtcere auftnt. And if Sectaries jet dare contradict fo manifesl-a Verity. Quis illos &c. T»bo is there that will not lool^ on them. As impudent , and lift them among incredulous Iewes ? »i. Yet our Mr Stillingfleet, forfooth, Shifts all off with a, leer. It is an eafy thing for a Stump to grow a leg , in its pajfage from Spain hither. What will not this man write to his petty T t 2, purpole • 33* Difc. 2. C. 9, ObieSlions agawjl isc. fiLis cheaf' PurP0^e ^l c^mQ in his way > What will he not pare away and open * and add to a Story remote from the knowledge of the vulgar fraud. ( His book is full of fuch fraud) Will he not think ye, fay any thing before the illiterate and ignorant, in the high Myfteriesof Faith, whiift he blushes not to cheat and deceiue his Reader in a matter of Fact Notoriously known to the world? If he thinks I haue forged this Relation , Hee shall haue the very indiuidual Copy I made vie offent him, the Bulk is not big. If he doubt's of the Authority of thefe witnefTes already produced , and fay yet all is a Fourb,ril fay as eafily , I am fooled in belieuing there is fuch a man in the world as Mr Stillingfieet whom I ne- uer (aw , And next will force him to exchange Principles with Vchat7s re» me * ^tc^e' You Sir fay its a fourb, a pretended , no real Cure. quindof I &y Contrary, The Cure was real and a great Miracle. Proue Him I now you Your AiTertion vpon as good Humane Authority as I haue proued mine And we come to Principles , fit to decide in the prefent Matter. Fail to do this, your AfTertion hath not fo much as one leg to ftand on , befides fancy , or lbmething worfe. CAHP. X- Difc. 2. C. 10. Other Marks of ere. 33 j CHAR i Other Marks andSignesy peculiar to the %omanQatho- lick Qknrch proue her Orthodox , And make Her ©o- Brineuidently credible. Thefe laid forth to Sen/e and Weafon , difttnguisb the true Church from all Erring Societies Infe- rences dragon from the Doftrin Here deliuered. I.T7 Ery little may fuffice , concerning the firft part of the V Title , our Catholick Authors hailing done the work to my hands whilft they treat moft largely and learnedly , of the Amplitude, and Vniuerfallity, of the Roman Catholick Church, of the continued and Succeflion of Her Bishops,Paftors,and peop- le , of Her Vnity in one and the fame Faith , of Her SandHty , of the efficacy of Her Doclrin in conuerting whole Nations to Chrift, which S. Auftinjuftly hold's miraculous. The Largenefs of this great moral Body ( rightly called by Sectaries a growing Religion which no perfecution of Tyrants could hitherto liippres) For time, extends it (elf without difpute to all paffd Ages llnce Chrift, , And The large. if we fpeak of place , the growth fuccefliueiy , was Co great , That, *ffl°f the In vrnnem terram extvtt (ot>ns eorum , it hath been preach'd with im- c? c'c*s menie fruit to all Nations , Anfwerable to that of the Royal Pro- phet, Ffalm* 2. where the eternal Father ipeaking to Chrift our Lord , as man , giues him an ample Kingdome , fpread all ouer for his PofTeflion. Ast of me and I Wiilgtue the Genttlsfor thj Inheritance, and thy ?op$\on , t he U(i ends of the earth, 2. Hence wefirftdiftinguishthe Church of Chrift from the lewish Synagouge , limitated to one time , (till the comming of our true Tt5 Meftas> 3J4 Difc.i. C.io. Oilier Marks Meflias ) And to one place alfo , For the Sacrifice efTential to that Religion , could not be offered but in the Temple of Hierufalem only. We diftinguish both Church , and Doclrin likewife from ViflinguL Mahumattfm , Ndtoriantfm , Eutythtamfm , and other Hereiies in iheithr the Eaft ^ whjch neuer got any confiderabie footing in thefe We- stti* ^tm Parts °f EuroPe Finally we diilinguish it from Lutheram[m,Cal- viam\m , and Proteftamfm, a confufed Mixture of both : and other late Dodrins. Thefe and their diflenting Heads flay in our Nort- hin Climats , without fruit or Progrefs made into A[ia , Affnca, Grte- ce , or the like remote Countries , wherefore fome doubt not to auerr , and raoft truely j That the Holy Orders of S, Dominick, of S. Francis , and of the Society of Jefus are further fpread , more diffuled through the world at this day ,J than all the Sects or Subdi- uilions of Proteftants euer yet were , or I think will be. But the Kingdoms of Chrift's Church, as Tertullian Cited aboue. Chap. The Ampti. *« «• 6- well obferues, Vbtqut regnat , reignes euery where , and is tude of euery where belieued , Nor can thefe latter Sectaries now in an cbri/t's agecj World > hope to Propagate further ; For if S. Auftin. De Vmt. KvngcUme, Eff/^ c. 14. Thought it enormously improbable , that Donatifm then fo early, could diffufe it felfe the whole world ouer, much Ids can our confined Proteftants very late Teachers after fo many Centuries, when Herefy euery where lyes a gafping , Hope to draw forreign Nations to a Belief of their Nouelties. 3. The realbn a Prion is. A greater extent , a further increafe feem's inconfiftent with the very Nature of thofe who profeffe this Religion , For once liuing in the Vine, and drawing Nutriment from thence, they wilfully cut them felves off , and feparated from the Church, Therefore as S. Auftin faith they lie where they are, Withe- riband ^f«^,without Luftre, or any Enlargement. Again; as they began this new learning without GommiiTion to teach,So they can fend none hereafter Authoritatiuely , to fpread it further. Hence ProteJIancy * Argue, That Church only is Chrift's true Spoufe which euer increafes was from the firfi; Rife of Chriftianity , and fucceffiuely got Polfei- not. And in the four Parts of the world, But thus the Roman Catholick m& Church was , and is Still difFuled ( here is Chrift's promifed Inheri- tance) . Difc 2. C. la. Of the Catholick Qhurch. 337 tance ) Therefore She is the only true Church. Contrarywife, the narrow , confined , and iarring multitudes of Sectaries Matte- red vp and down in a few corners in Europe , All late. Beginners, and shameful Defertors of this Ancient Society, neuer had fo am pie an inheritance , and Conlequently Their pretence of being the true Church of Chrift is more than improbable. 4. We may yet fubioy n to the Amplitude of our Religion the euer vifible and neuer interrupted Succeflion of Bishops ? and Paftors , in the Roman Catholick Church from CJbrifts time. A Mark no leffeuident to ienfe , than openly deftructiue of He- refy. This fucceflion long fince Prophelied by Daniel. Cap. 2. ChriH Kingdom shall neutr bt dtjsipAted ,. and foretold by the Apoftle Epbef. 4. 1 1, He %aue fome ApoJIUs &c. Sett's forth the Glory of it. VVe need not in this place , to weary the Reader with the known Authority of S.Auftin politiuely A-flerting. Contra Eptft. fundam. C. 4. That the Succeflion of Paftors from,S. Peters time held him Thefuutf- m the Catholick Church and the Argument is moje fully urged fionofL*\*- again. Lib. de uttlit. Credendi C. 17. Wee need not tell any "r'ed "' with S. Cyprian. Eptft. j6. That , that man is not in the Church, nor can be thought a Bishop who iucceeds to none , but hath his Authority and Origen from himielf. Thefe and other for- eeable Testimonies we waue , and urge Sectaries , as the ancient Tertullian did the Hereticks of his time 5 Ltb.de prafc. Evdvant ordt- nem Epifcoporum fuorum &c. Let them vnfold the Catalogue of their Bishopr from this day to Luther „ and from Luther vpward, and here we call not for Hufiits , VValdenfes or fuch like men, but for a continueddefcent of Bishops , and Paftors y Lawfully ordai- ned , and commiffioned by Authority to preach Proteflancy; We p „ call indeed but hear of none, before the daies of that vnfortu- hauenene] nate Luther. Therefore as I laid aboue r they are fons without Fathers, they would be thought fpiritual Children, but are fo Vnbegotun that no body owns them. $. Reflect a little , Gentle Reader , andceafe not to wonder at the greateft Paradox, I think , that euer entred into the thought of man, Holy Scripture Af certains vs , that Prouiden- A Paradox rnaintertecl by settarus. Demands propojedto Sc ft tries. Kb Anfwtr ginent 336 Difc. 2. C. 10. Other Marks art Difc. 2. G. 10. of tbeCatbolkkChuYch. p? we were condemned. If finally we vnexceptionably euidtnce mod glorious Miracles to haue illuftrated our Church , euen after Her fancied Falling from the Primitiue truth , after she became the whore of Babylon , our new men muft either deny her fuch Miracles (if (6 , we vrge them to ground the denial on Principles equal to our contrary Probations) or will certainly be forced to confels , That God brought Miracles m a Church t^bich bad hrcughi in shamtful Errours and quite forfakjn the Primitiue Dottrw. Obferue well the force of our Argument. Its improbable to fay , That God fauoured this Church with the Glory of Miracles , Had She raliliyed His reuealed truths. And it is as wholly impro- bable to deny Her the Glory of Supernatural wonders. Se6taries worn-out Obie with thefe or the like Injunctions. All of them may Marry, prouided they keep Comugal Cbaflttj , All may faft but when the humour takes them , All may profefs Pouerty , but experience no- thing of the hardship. All may obey but in greater matters only, not in others , freely left to their choife. Would not fuch a Founder vainly pretend to Reformation t that laies no more Chriftian Duties on any ? Would not euery man look on him as One that peruerts Religion, and laugh at his folly ? This is the cafe in our Proteftants mending matters. Therefore I fay once more the Reformation is not from God , but a humane and very fenfual Inuention. Enough is noted already both here Conuerfcn and in the other Treatife of the Efficacy of our Catholick Do&rin ofNmioma Demonftrable to our Eyes and Senfes, in the Conuerfions of great Mira- Nations to Chrift. Maximum Mtraculum Saith S. Thomas I. Con. •*• Gent. C.6. It is the greateft of Miracles , and a manifeft Teftimony that God Aflifterh this Church to doe fuch wonders. We pafs now to coniider fome Truths , grounded on the Doclrin already deliuered.' i j . One is ( and it giues comfort to euery Soul ) that our Lord I E S U S Chrift though Abfent from vs , liues yet as it were Vtfihlj , shewes himfelf Mamfe/ily , Adte ftill Miraculoujlf in the Myftical Body of our Catholick Church , and the feuerai Difc. 1.C 10. Of the Qatholkk Church. 741 feueral Members Thereof. His Power appeares m Her Miracles, chin our His Wifdom in the learned , the certainty of His Doctrin in the lord works Churches Infallibility ), The Antiquity of his Truths in Her yei in and long continuance. His Mercy appeares in the Charitable , His V/*^ Obedience in the Perfect Religious , His Pouerty in thousands who haue left all for his loue , His Submifiion in the humble, his wearifom labours in the painful Miffioners, His Retirement in Her the Ermits , His Patience in the mortified , His Purity in Vir- gins, the Efficacy of his Diuine word ( laft mentioned) in the Efficacy of the Churches preaching, His Holy life appeares in Her SancYity , and finally his Sacred death in innumerable glorious Martyrs. Frame then a right Idea of our BlefTed Lord, we be- hold his admirable Perfections Shining in the Church , And con- Tf?e rt>"r% abufed by the one or other duTenting Party who iHjhe. force vpon it quite contrary Senils. And by what means can anyone come to the knowledge of Him ortheie that abufeit, if Church Authority be excluded or decide not in this moft weighty matter > We need not faith Mr Thorndicke ( in his Book of Forbearance. P. 2.) The Henfin ofibe Bnmuiue time* to tell vs y Kb.tt Irrdigioiii preteufes >may be jet forth in Scrip: are Vhrtf*. Our elvn Fanatikj would furnish (port enough Tfrttb the FooLrics t ey pretend as from Gods spirit becaufe they can d.ltner their bhnfcnfe in the P'r.rafe cf Scripture : Again. This t^o tdgU fond of holy Scrip- ture , may prone an edged tool to cut their shins Ttith , Ttbo : I them , ami ham not skill to handle it. Much better xvcvt it lay I , were the Abufe or ill handling of the Book only found a- mong a few Fanaticks , But the euil is fpread further , you Gentlemen are all alike , whether Fanaticks or Proteftants , that handle , glo^, and interpret Scripture by Priuate reaibn , con- ttary to theludgement of an uniuerial euidenced Church. 13. A third Truth. The Church thus manifefted by Her Marks which are Obie&s ofSenfe, and induce reaibn to iudge that She only is Gods Oracle ; Catholicks neuer call into doubt Her EfTential owned Doctrin , nor feek for further Evidence the- reof, becaufe there is none in this prefent State , But humbly fubmit to all she Teaches. This Euidence then once attained, which arifeth from the Churches Marks , And hath drawn Mil- lions to belieue her Doctrin, We next turn to our Bible , and ifchatthefe learn there , that the Language of thefe Motiues (for etiam frciis McwiV l0qUiUir Dens, faith S. Auftin aboue, God fpeaks by his works ) *** ' and the Language of his own written word is one,and the fame. That is what theie Inducements point at , God expreily deliuers in holy Scripture. Obferue an exact, parallel. 14. The Antiquity of our Church , and here is one fenfible Mark we plead by , giues Alfurance that the rlrft Founder was our Lord Iefus Chrift - No Sectary call's this truth into Que- (lion, and the Goipel confirms it, Luc. 24. 48. Beginning from Hteru - Difc. l. C. io. Of the Catholick Church. 34} VUrufalem &c. Her Conftant Perfeuerance , vifible in all Ages, Cod reueah proues Her indeficiency And this is matrn'feft in Scripture. A in Scripture, Citty placed on a Mountain Hill gates shall not prenyl agatnft Her. Omnium etiam tnfMltum oculis exhibetnr faith S. Auftin. Lib. Cctu Crefcon : C. 6$. The Church is Co well feen by all, that the very Pagans cannot contradict Her. She showes you a continued Succeffion of her Popes , Bishops , and Paftors from the begin- ning, and Scripture alio Epbef. 4. 11. And he gam fome Apoflles Sec. longfince foretold it. She glues in a clear Euidence of Her Miracles through euery age, Our BlelTed Sauiour prophe- sied it should be fo. lohn. 1^. 12. Matora horum facitnt. They shall work greater wonders. None can deny mo ft Miraculous Conueriions of Kingdomes, and Nations to Her Faith , and the Propbefies Prophets euery where Proclaim the truth. Many Nations shall °f^ni^i flock t° Uer- Zaihar. 2. 11. She Shewes how Her Do&rin r^^ was propagated through the whole world, And therefore is called the Vtfible Catholic^, or Vniuerfal Church , Scripture alio Confirm' s it. Dccete omnes gentes. Teach all Nations. Dom'inabttur a mart vftfe ai mare. She shall, raign from fea , to fea. Finally to iay much , in few words, which might be further amplifyed. Is it true ( which the Church demon ftrates) that Hereticks, as Arians% Neflvnans, Pelagians i Eutichyans, Lutherans, and Caluimsls , oncePro- feited Catholicks, shamefully abandoned Her Vnion, and for that Caufe iuftly deferued the reproachful name of Hereticks, and Se- parates >. Scripture Foretell's vs of the Breach and Apoftacy. lobn. 1. 2. 19. Ex nobis prodierunt. They left vs , D?ent out from rs,f>rbad the) been of vs they H-ould baue remained. And thus both Church and Herefy are vifibly pointed at by clear Marks , and Gods written word alio- Videndum ( it is the Expreflioii of Optat, Mileuit. Lib. 1. a little after the middle) Quis inradue cum toto orbe wanjertt , quti foras extent 2 We are to lee who They were that continued in the root, with the whole world , and who parted from it. We are to lee who erected another Chair diftinct from that wliich was before. Call thefe and boldly, Hereticks , ftraglers from the Church „ and tire Verities of Chrifts Gofpel. And }44 Difc. 2. C. 10. Other Marks Se&aries Vrged to Seftaries Grattelled at Euery J^ueftton. And here by the way, we vrge our Nouellifts, to point at a vifible Orthodox Society , which the Suppofed erring Church of Ro- me abandoned,, as clearly as we lay forth to them, the time, the place, the circumftances , not only of their own impious Reuolt, But of all other more ancient Hereticks from this Catholick Society. Could the Sectary do thus much, Kee might (peak more confidently. i$. To end the matter now in hand You fee by what is faid already, If Chrifts words haue weight. Maib. 1$. \6. in ore duurum vd trtum Stct omne verbum ; That Truth (land's firm vpon the Teflimony of two or three vnexceptionable Witnefless, Wee here introduce two Teitimonics in behalf of our Church which none can except againft. Gods olvn voice (peaking to realbn by Miracles and the Motiues now mentioned, is tb< One, And his own (acred reuealed word, which mod iignihcantly teaches what thefe Motiues (peak, is the Other. Hence I fay Sectaries cannot difpute againft this Church, without proofs drawn from Motiues as ftrong, and Scriptures as clear as are now alleged in our behalf. We prels them again and again to giue in their Euidence , and ferioufly demand whether Proteftancy was confelTedly founded by Chrift, Or, but once owned Orthodox by any (bund Chriftians, As all acknowledge the foundation of the Roman Catholick and the Orthodoxifm of it , to haue been established by Chrift our Lord. We further enquire after a vilible Succeflion of their Paftors, after their vilible Miracles, their vilible Conuerlions, made in foregoing Ages. Nothing is anlwered, nothing is or can be pleaded , nothing in a word is returned probable. Therefore Proteftancy is an vneuidenced Religion , no Motiues counte- nance the Nouelty, no Scripture (peaks for it, and Confecjuently cannot but be in the higheft degree improbable. 1 6. A fourth Truth. A Church which wearcs as it were Gods own Liuery and beares the Signatures of Divine Autho- rity in Her Miracles, Prodigious Conuerlions &c. Co far Eclipfes the falfe luftre of Heathens , Iewes , and Hereticks , that realbn concludes. In this one nuuifefted Oracle it u , that Eternal Wifdom deli^ / o reafon> then Hk words* Difc. 2.C ia Of the Cathokk Church 347 ^eliuers his Diuine Truths, Or, there is no fuch thing as k reuea- led Truth , taught in the world. This iudgement moft ratio- nal, once well fetled in an vnderftanding without further debate, aends all controuerlles of Religion. So forceable and perfwafiue is the language of God's own glorious works. 17. Imagin I befeech you that God should now lay the Heauens open , and euidently declare to the whole world in moft iignificant and clear words, That the Roman Catholick Church is Go(is ^ his own faithful Oracle, and exactly teaches thole truths he reuea- fpeak m led. All, whether Heathens., Iewes or Hereticks, would fubmit, less plainly and , if reafonable yeild Aifent to fo great an Euidence mani- fefted hy Txords. And what shall his own glorious fporks of Mi- racles, the known language of Heauen , euer fpoken fince Chri- ilianity began proueless perfwafiue than words, but once only deliuered? Inttrrogtmus Mir acuta faith S. Auftin cited aboue , hen the 7*a* not. Perkin Warbecks difguife , was but a Peccadilio compared to this shameful coufenage. The fin of Mahomet who neuer made Himielfe God but a Prophet only , came not neer the Malice of this one iiippofed abhominable loud Vntruth. It fol- lovves. 3. That our fuppofed Impoftor ( I haue a horror to pro- nounce the word ) defer uedly merited , And yet merit's for His vn- excufable Hypocrify , eternal Reproach, contempt and ignominy, m the jufl judgement of God , men , and Angels. Hence I Argue. f. God is juft', and hath Prouidence oner the world, But our juft and wile God neuer fince Chriftianity began, Set Marl^ or S-gn of Ignominy , vpon our Bhffed S amour , as he bail) done xpon other ]mpofiors. Our juft and wife God euer fince that wicked People nailed him to a Crofs , hath been fo far from honouring them or rewarding Their impious Fact. That , mod vilible, and feuere Punishments haue proued the only Recompence and bed Reward. The Temple ruined, their Difperfion followed vp and down the world , where they liue contemptible , chiefly infamous for Hypocrify , and Auarice. ( Se alfb this Argument more enlarged aboue Chap. 2. n. 4. ) Our moft juft God , hath not only taken of all Marks of Ignominy , but euidently to our Senfes declared by real Effects His innocent Lamb our louely Sauiour worthy of Honour Benediction ^ and Glory. So true it is, We read. Apocal.j. i^.D'gnuseft Agnus, qui occtfus esl &c. The iuft Tribute of Pray fe and Glory is vifibly paid him ( Co Prouiden- ce hath ordained) not only by Kings, Princes , Learned and vnlearned, by all Nations far and neer, But by the very Turks aifo. 6. And is it poiTible ( reflect I befeech you ) that God who is no Exceptor of Perfons , could haue punished fo dreadfully , thefe abandoned Iewes , had they done well , in crucifying our Lordjefus? Is it pofTible , that his iuft, and wife Prouidence, could euer haue crowned a Counterfeit with fo much Honour, and renown, as our Sauiour hath {gained , or permitted A cheat not >ue ow Difc. l. C. if. Evidenced to Heathens*. }J) hot only to be Reuerenced as the true Son of God fo long (though he was not ) but moreouer to draw Co many Millions and Millions of Souls into errour as belieued in him , for (ixteen Ages and more. The Paradox is Co defpcrate fo highly improbable , That one would as foon deny both God and Prouidence , As once feriouily harbour it in his thoughts, Obferue my Reafon. j. The Light of nature dictates , abftracling from Authority Row. 2. 9, That as on the one fide , Shame, Ignominy, and Confufion pursue horrid Workers of iniquity , So on the other, ?roU} Glory, Honour and renown infeparably follow the manifeftly ]^n^Jntt declared juft , and innocent. But Shame , Confufion , and Ignominy , Gods luft Stgnes of indignation , yet vifibly follow that wicked xzct of People , the Authors of our dear Sauiours death, contrarywife , Glory and renown , euer fince he dyed , haue been his due reward, and own inheritance, Therefore if G6d fpeak's, ^4 ^f as He doth , by tbefe Signal Iffecls of luftice , The Tewes fo long i^es feuerely punished, ftand like guilty Criminals in that high Tribunal Criminal, of Heauen , There fentenced anfwerable to their Defert as Workers of iniquity 5 And our Holy Lord Iefus , Co long honoured the whole world ouer , receiues the contrary Sentence, And is by viiible efre&s there proclaimed juft and Innocent. A Domino faclum eft islud &c. It was not chance but a Signal work of Prouidence , that the Stone thefe Builders reiected , became fo glorious as to fupport the nobleft Fabrik God euer made. 8. Apply what is is now faid to the Roman Catholick Church , We shall fe an exact Parallel of proofs , deliuered in Al^tuti the fame Terms. Chrift our Lord called Himfelf Eternal Truth Jf^ whok in all he taught. Our Church ftil's Herfelf , Gods own Oracle, j)$8rm. in all She teaches, Now whilft Co high a Prerogatiue is claimed, She either fpeakes Truth or lies moft impudently. Grant the firft. Viz. That this Church (peaks Truth , she is to be belieued in &11 she teaches, Say fecondly , she falfly makes Herfelf Gods own Oracle , when she is not , Diuine Prouidence which cannot duTemble,nor Defignto ruin Souls by the falfe Do&rin Yy *"" of To the Reman Catholick Church, She fiou* mhes. Made renowned* lew* And Utrsiifte$t 3 74 Difo t- C 1 1 . Chrift and UU Church. of an infatuated Oracle , T»ould long before this day , haue either deftroyed Her , or marked Her out as a Cheat by fome euident Sign of Juftice , as he hath marked oth^r fille Oracles (letoe: r Tmkj , Injidds , and Hertttckj) with Contempt , ignominy , and Dilgrace. The fin is fo hideous , that it well dclerued a greater Punishment , and would haue been inflicted vpon this Church alio if the Suppolition ftand : Vnleff as is now faid , we AiTert (which is abominable) that Gods exprefs Will was , that She should poyfon whole Nations for fo many Ages with corrupted. Do&rin. But All is contrary. To ourvnfpeakable comfort the' Roman Catholick Church fail's not , She keep's her Pofture ftiiL She flourishes euery where , euen amongft thoufands and thou- fands that dare not (intereft will haue it fo) Profefs Her Do&nny And without any Ieaft Note of infamy proceding from God y (fybat D'mls or Malice tnuent or vent agamjl Her y i#e heed not) Teaches not only , the moft pious and learned in this neerer world , But the wifeft alfb of the whole Vniuerfe. Thus we dilcourfed of Chrift our Lord , and the Argument hold's as ftrongly in behalf of our Church. 9. Again. Hath God whofe Counrfels are juft, Crowned our Sauiour with Glory and Renown? Has he alfo who knowes well where to infti& Punishment > manifefted his Wrath vpon an vngracious People that condemned Him ? Ponder I befeech you firft, How vifibly Prouidence has made his own Spoule the Roman Catholick Church , Renowned , And wonder not , the Son of God paid dear for the Renown , and ga^ve his life for it. Vt txhihem ipfe ftb't gloriofam EQckfiam. Epbes. f. ij. That he might exhibit and prefent to Himfelf and the whole world a moft glorious Church. All this ,1 fay , vifibly Appears , to our eyes and fen&s, r o. Ponder. 2. Where and vpon whom , God hath Set Marks of ignominy , and infli&ed moft rigorous Punishments. What vpon lewes only , that oppofed and condemned Chrift > Are thefe only Marked SLndCbafttfed^ No. Thofe rebellious Spirits alio > Thofe firft Renegados > I mean the chief Arch-hereticks that Seuerly Puniihed, Difc*i. C. ii. Euidenced to Heathens. 35$ ' that oppofed and condemned his Church , Vile , and abiecl: in life, dying, felt Gods heauy hand of Iuftice. Uanulum was #eadaliue. Montanm hanged Himfelf. Alius voided out his bowels and filthy foul together , in a Priuie. God ftrook Mian the Apoftata dead, and the ground opening fwallowed vp his carkaiFe. tieftorm wicked worm-eaten tongue brought the wretch to a miferable end , And Iohn Caluin confumed with vermine, difpairing dyed like an other Herode or Antiochus. I need not Here relate any thing of Luthers fudden death after his merry flipper. Read Bellarmin. Lib. 4. de tiotit Ecdefia C. 17. where you haue thefe , and other more fearful Examples of Gods Seuerity. 11. Finally muft we fay , that our Lord lelus is proued no Impoftor vpon thefe reafcns , That no falfe Prophet fincc the Creation purchafed the like vniuerfal Fame , None euer had fo vniuerfal an Applaufe , or the like Tribute of praife paid Him > Is it true jThat euer (nice Chriltianity began , the powerful hand of Prouidence hath not only refcued our Holy Iefus from all Reproach ( iuftly merited) but moreouer by fignal Effects of indignation , made his Enemies contemptible? Nothing can be more manlfeft. You may then boldly Conclude Je^°wn in like manner. The Roman Catholick Church is as demon- catholick ' ftratiuely proued no Cheat but an Oracle of truth , vpon the church. lame grounds. Her vniuerfal vifible Extent , the continued SuccefTion of Her Paftors , the Conuerfions, and Miracles wrought by Her inuite all with a loud Venire AUremm , incite all i not only to behold and Praife this magnificent Building, but alfo to Adore the Founder of it 5 For , if it be true as was faid ahoue, that the vifible works in nature point at God the only Author of them. Cdtli enarrant gbrtam ejus, The Heauens declare his Glory. It is alfo clear , that thefe vilible Effects of grace , Miracles , Conuerfions obuious to euery Eye , fet forth the glory of the Roman Catholick Church. Now how deferuedly she hath gained this Renown, let the world judge. 12. Wifdonii faith Salomon , built Herfelf * houft* Prouerb.^ where Yy 2 Pillars Hofrgained Hiritiques definable. #6 Difc. 2. C. ii. Cbriji and His Church Pillars flandfrm , a T*ble is plentifully furnished , Vi&ims are immolated Sec. The whole PafTage. S.Cjprtan. Lib. i. Epift,). Applyes to the great Sacrifice of the Altar offered vp vnder the Forms of bread , and wine. I uaue the Application and vrge only aa euident truth , And Tis , that Our Church built vpon Chrift the Corner-Stone , vpon thofe ftronge Pillars the Apoftles , hath flood firm lixteen Ages , and here is Her Glory. For if Glory (witneis S. Ambrofe) be nothing els , but Clara cum laude notitia. A clear knowledge with Fame and Renown,The long Continuance and ample extent of this Church , could we fay no more , hath juftly purchafed Her a large Renown the whole world ouer. Now mark where the contempt lies, which is a bate Efteem of a thing vnworthy value. All know the Arians built, the Pelagians built, the Donatifts and other Hereticks built., but their vnfteedy difordered Houfes foon fell down , and came to nothing. What faies Reafon when Ruins are compared with this long (landing Edifice? 1$. Next caft a ferious thought, vpon the Inhabitants of this houfe of God. You will find all vnited in one Faith adoring one Ieftis Chrift, Louing one Mother his fpoufe , looking on one laft End, Their hope and Happines And if through frailty differences doe arife abating charity , our Aduantage is far aboue all other Societies in the world t. Wee haue a fupreme Oihsf ad- Paftor (God be euer blefTed) that can command , and like a uantagtsin Father exhort to peace , in Abrams language. Ne fmt qutfo jurgia th* ct,nrtht &c# jarrs muftnot be in the houfe of God, Fratres eritm fumtts, For we are all Children of one louing Mother. Here is the Churches Glory. Wher-as on the Contrary fide, nothing but Dilcord , and that remedilefs , the known euil of Lucifers pride,. And in the highed points of Faith , finfeparably hant's the rambling. Fancy of iiich , as haue wilfully diuorced themfelues from this one vnited Society. And Here is matter enough of Contempt , and Companion alfo. 14. In the laft place confider well the vaft multitudes who are r and haue been Domefticks in this houfe of God, In the very Difc.2. C. IV Euidenced to Heathens* tf7 very Entrance we meet thofe Candidati dternitatU (as Tertullian (peaks) Nouices of Eternity , the newly admitted by the Sacrament of Baptifm , and no Society of Chriftians can show the like number. Here we haue Chembins admirable in Knowledge, Th§ TnhahL Doctors I mean, profoundly learned, Seraphins inflamed with tamsofthe' Diuine loue,that refl in the height of Contemplation. Here koufe efGod, we find Penitent Souls bewailing their fins , innumerable Martyrs mm^m^ shedding their blood for Chrifl, numberlefs laborious Miflioners trauelling far and neer to propagate His facred Gofpel. Here . finally we haue (for tis long to recount all) Abrahams glorious multiplyed Starrs. Gen. 15. 5. Kings and Queens, whole kingdoms and Nations profeflmg the Faith of this one Church. The Geniils T&alk^ by Her light , and Princes in the bright nes of Her nfing. Lift vp thy eyes and fee , faith holy Ifaias , All thefe aflembled together : And if you Ask what the duty was , and yet is of fo many conuened Multitudes > The Royal Prophet , that long iince forfow in Spirit a continual Oblation offered vp , Anfwers > Pfat. 9. 1. In temph ejus omnes dtcent glortam. Ail in this Temple and facred Houfe shall incefTantly render praiie , and glory to God , the Author of So noble a Structure,Therfore Pfalm.%6* 2. He rightly Concludes, Gloriofa difta funt de te O Ctvitas Dei. Glorious things are fpoken of thee, O Citty of God : Thou begans't In Hierufalem , waft* afterward extended to all Nations , becams't permanent , and becaufe permanent, Glorious. Thus that whole Plalme , (peaking myftically of CJirifte Holy Church. The(e are Truth's not only proued, as. you fe by Scripture, but alfo euident (and this I : vrge) to our eyes , and ienfes. Now next confider thofe feat- ~ tered, diflipated , and iarring Multitudes of Heathens , Iewes ; and Hereticks , And let reafbn , if a fpark of it Hue in any , iudge , whether, this be not euident without Difpute. Viz. - That as no Prophet euer came neer to Chrtfl our . Lord in glory and 4 Parallel . renown , So no Society of men fince the l*or!d flood , T*as,or U , com- *f'&>f& f arable to our. glorious Roman Catholic \ Church 9 All other bejides this "churck" b*Ppy vnited moral Body appear at they are abieel &, and. cjmremp- tikle. Yy 3 1 5, And Horn the Heathen U Conxitited. The efficacy ef Church Manuel, 358 Difc. 2. C. 12. Chrifl and His Church. 15. And thus we Euidcnce Chrifl our Lord and his Church to a prudent Heathen , not rirft by making the intrinfkk Reafona- bleness of the elTential Docfrin the main Proof -of its verity, as Mr Stilling : {imply Argues, aboue. Dtfc. I. C. 9. (For it is truely ridiculous to draw the Pagan to belieue a Doctrin, asreafbnable and Diuine,whilft yet he knowes not,vpon any rational Induce- ment, whether it be from God, or no ) But this way takes effectual- ly. When you lead him on by a clear light extrinkcal to the Doc- trin, when you fet before his Eyes, fuch Marks , Signes and won- ders as cannot but proceed from God , MirucLs Conue^ji ns Sec. When you Shew him How flrangely the Doctrin of Chrifl and his Church , though fublime and difficult, was miraculoufly Spread the whole world ouer , when you Demonilrate how marafeftiy Diuine prouidence hath Age after Age Honoured Chrift and his Church , andfeuerely Chaftifed the profeiled Enemies of both. When finally you make it manifeft that there is no Virion , 113 Form, no fashion of Religion in any Society now on earth, but in the Roman Catholick Church only. Then the Heathen , if rea- ibnable and deiirous to learn Truth, mull: confers that God fpeaks Truth by this one Catholick Oracle only, Or there is no luch thing as a reuealed Verity taught in the world. 16. Out of what is laid already I infer flrft. If that Maxim of Philolbphy be vndoubted, Fruftra fit per plura dec. It is need- les to multiply many proofs in behalf of a Verity, when one moft clearly conuinceth it. This Argument alone , drawn from the glorious Marks of our Catholick Church, which cannot but proceed from God , proues Her his own faithful Oracle , With thefe Stones toe baue the thing fi™ified. Thefe in a General way fettle in euery reafonable vnderfhnding this fundamental Truth. God [peak's to the toorid by his euidenced Church. I fay ma General "fray. For as the viiible works in nature , proue this General Truth. Ipfe fecit nos Sec. A mighty power made vs , we made notour Selues, though as yet none comes thereby to an expli- cit knowledge of many Perfections in God ; So the Marks and Motiues manifeft in the Church, conuince this General Truth alio. Difc. 2. G. 12. Euidenced to Heathens 359 alfo. That the fame Power which made Nature giues being to thefe , the fame Power which preferues nature, preferues thefe glorious Signes for our inftrucYion , And Confequently it folio- wes, Thatastheviilble world is proued Gods own work, fo this vifible glorious marked Church is proued his own Oracle, Though yet neither the Heathen nor any knowes euery parti- cular DocTrrin, which God teaches by the Church. In like man- ner great Diuines alTert , that Chriils own Difciples owned (irft our bleiTed Lord as the true Meflias, and a great Prophet, loan. 1. 41. Inuevimus Mefiiam , We haue found the Meffias, before they learned the other high Myfteries of his being the natural Son of God , the fecond Perlbn of the BlefTed Trinity, the Redeemer of Ifrael Sec. fee Suares. 3, Part. Torn. 1. Dt]pu.}i. Sett* 4, 17. A fecond Inference. The General Truth nowfpokenof well eftablished. God teaches the fforld by a Church Signed with Supernatural wonders, All further difputes ceafe concerning the particular Do6lrins She teaches , though fublime and aboue the reach of our weak Capacities. For none , whether Heathen , lew, or Heretick, can boggle at a Doctrin which God reueal's, But God, faith prudent Reafon , reueal's fuch and fuch Truths , The Incarnation of the Ditune T»ord, the Trinity , Original fin Sec. by a Church which moft preiTmg Motiues euince to be His own Oracle , Therefore it is my duty to Submit and belieue euery Do&rin She propofes. 1 8. The Ground hereof feenvs clear. For as there can be no endles Progreis or going on in Infinitum in the intrinlecal for- mal Obieft of Faith , becaufe Faith at lall relt's vpon one fure Principle, An infinite V%rixy\ So we can haue no endles Pro- cefs in the extrinfiek Lights, and Motiues , whereby we are in- duced to fix a firm Belief vpon that one fure Principle Therefore in what euer Society of men Reafon finds thefe Motiues, itreft's, without further Enquiry after ftronger, which cannot be found 7 But moft euidently reafon finds them in one only Oracle the Roman Catholick Church ( as is now proued ) and prudently sefetb How rex fin difcourfes vpon thefe Euident Motiues. feature not fo immedi- Atly Graft. hit aahel Church, }6o Difc. t. C. u. Clmft and Hi&Churck refteth there as vpon lights which tmmediatlj manifeft the Church> and make Her Doctrin euidcntly credible. Scripture, t'istrue, is the obiect of Faith, but not fo immediatly credible as the ' Church , for independently of Scripture ,1 can belieue the Church as the firft Chriftians did before the Book was written, but men generally in this prefent State cannot belieue Scripture without the Churehes Teftimony , As is already, and shall hereafter be pro- ued more at large. 19. A third Inference. Who euer pretend's to a Doctrin reuealed in Scripture and hold's it of Faith, has either a Church which teaches it euidenced by the Marks of our Lord Ie'lis Chrift , or He publisheth a falshood. Which is to lay in other Terms. If the euidenced Church of Chrift pofitiuely owns not , or rciects fuch a Doctrin, that Doctrin, Eo ipjo , is fpurious , forged, and not it Vide. Hence it is , that when our BleiTed Lord, CommilToned the Difciples to Preach his facred Verities. Math. 2,8. 19. Goe and teach all Nations. Hee fent them abroad with the Characters , Marks , and Enfigns , of his own Preaching. Mark 16. 2< Our Lord fvorkjng &itb all, and confirming the frerd frith Signs that fottoTted, And here by the way, I can neuer diffi- dently admire the open folly of Sectaries, that wholly Churchlefs, will yet needs perfwade vs into new opinions vpon their own bare word, That they teach truth. It is impofTible. Nay I fay more, Although ( which is falfe) they should fpeak Truth , they ought not ( Churchlefs as they are) to be liftned vnto. For fuppoie one should prefent himfelfas an EmbalTadour from a Prince to a for- reign State, but without Credentials, or Authentick letters iuftifying his EmbaiTage, no State can or will admit him , though he fpeaks truth. He muft not only do fo, but show his Authentick Com- miflion that he (peaks truth , deliuered by the Princes own or- der, or he is fent back vnreceiued in the quality of an EmbalTa- dour. In like manner I fay. No more can any one elTentially •vncommiflioned pretend to teach Chrifts Doctrin, whilft he is Anln^ance not fent to teach by Chrifts own euidenced Oracle, than this vn- commiffioned Legate to fpeak in his Princes name. Many a man A UwfiA h-ltjfionre- quiredt* teach our Chrtjlian truths. Difc. 2. C. it; Ekidencedto Heathens. 3 6 1 man knovres the law well, and is fit enough to pronounce a iuft Senrence , yet fitt's not on the Bench nor giues it , becaufe he is not Authorifed to do fo. And thus we difcours of all He- reticks, no members of the euidenced Church, though , as I laid, they deliuer truth by chance, they yet deferue not the hearing, • wanting power and Authority to teach it. 20. S. Cyprian Episl. i. Speak's very pertinently to our pre- sent purpofe, Quod vero ad Eatiatiam perjonam pertinent Sec. For as much as concerns Nouatians Perlbn, I would, dear Brother, haue you know in the firft place , we are not to be curious con- cerning what he faies , when he teaches out of the Church. s. Cyprian Omsquii tUe eft , & qualtscunqu: eft . Chrtftianut non eft, qui in Cbrtfti Confirm** Ecclefia non eft, Whoeuer, or of what condition foeuer he be, ibiDoftrin. '■■ is no Chriftian , that is not in the Church of Chrift. And hence S. Auftin in his frequent Dilputes with the Donatifts,pres- feth this point moft efficacioufly, Ub.Je vnit. Bales. Cap. 2. Qu*- ftio inter nos verfatur , vbifit Eidefta vtrum apud nos aut illos f Here lies the main Bufinefs , whefe the Church isv, whether with vs or them? Again, Epft. 16$. Qk&ritur vtrum veftra an noftra fit Eccle- fit Dei. We demand whether yours or ours be the Church of God^ which muft be knowii, faith Optat. Mileuit. lib. 2. By Her Marks , and Characters. And therefore we faid aboue, though S. Auftin made vfe of Scripture againft the Donatifts , it was not done to decide euery particular Controuerly by the bare and obfeure words of that holy Book. No. The profound How Scrips Doctor aymed not at fuch impoflibilities,his whole drift being turemani- to teach the Donatifts a great Verity , which we all fubicri- fiff* th* be to. viz. That Scripture once admitted as Gods word, wit- hout Difpute clearly demonftrat's the Church by Her vifible r fenfible Marks, Antiquity , Miracles, Conuerfions , D t git 0 demon" firari poteft , We can point at Her with our finger Saith S. ^ Auftin. The Church therefore thus manifefted we haue enough, and rely on Her as a faithful Oracle in euery Do&rin She profeffeth. Se Cardinal de Richelieu. Trattte pour conuerttr ceux *&c. lib. 1. C. 7. §. Ceft encore. Where he exactly renders Z% S.Au- fa Difc. I. C H. Cbrtft and Bis Qhunti as Antiquity , Vniuerfallity , a viiible Succeflion of Paftors, euident Miracles, which cannot but proceed from God , belong to one only Chriftian Society , the Roman Catholick Church. I fe moreouer a flrange benign Prouidence held forth in preferuing Her from innumerable attempts of Adueriaries. No lew , no Heathen, no Heretick can show the like Signal Marks and Proofs , of Gods loue y as this one Catholick Oracle demonftrat's. Therefore all other Societies are falfe Seels milled by erring Prophets , accor- ding to Chrifts own Prediction. Math. *4» For there shall rtfefaU *n& Cm- fe cbnsls , though they clamour neuer £0 loud. Ecce bic eft tlnjion, Cbriftus. Loe we preach Chrift, and his truths. ThusReafbn teft's {atisfied, yet becaufe the Heathen fees whole Armies banding againft the Church , and rationally hold's their Ar- gument:^ Difc. 1. C. it. Fallacies of the &c. $<$J Arguments like tbeer caufe very weak , He is defirous to hauc the Fallacy of tome chiefe Aduerfaries laid forth to his re a {on • For your Satisfaction be pleafed to read the following chapter. CHAP. XII. The Jduerfaries of the ^pmamCatholick Church plead Tvnreafonably. A (Difcouery cf their fallacies. The caufe of all Errour concerning ftjligion. 7 be only means to remedy Errour. T He enemies of the Roman Catholick Church are chiefly reduced to thefe four ClalTes , to Atheifts , Heathens , \etots , and Herethbj. A word briefly of their fallacies in order. Some Atheifts there hauc been ( and perhaps Lucian was one), that rp cafl orf all thought of Religion more exprefly denyed Diuine Prouidencc , than they did the Exiftency or a God. And a chief rheAthtlih Argument to omit others of lefT weight , is much to this fenfe. j>Ua. A IXumen Infinitly wife and powerful, shewes his careful Proui- dence in gouerning the world , But an euident Principle oppofes this careful Prouidence , and no contrary Principle of equal ftrength Seem's to eftablish it , Therefore reafon well denies Pro- uidence. Now here is the euident Principle. The OpprefTion of iuft men , manifeft to our eyes , the preuailing of the wicked againft the iuft , of Turks againfl Chriftians , to fay nothing of other much vifible Confufion and Difcorder; prouea neglect of Prouidence , and no contrary Principle half fo ftrong or euident connincesit; none counterpoifes the weight of this clear proof now hinted at, ergo Reafon, reafonably denies Prouidence. Thus the Atheift. The Pagan Argues, That Religion is klfe Zzz whicjst ^64 Difc. l.C. n. Fallacies Of the Cbuah. How the which holds Myfteries ridiculous , and impoftibie , but Chriftiartt * Heathens teach that God is one EfTence and three Perfons. Both feem im- st$d lews pofTible. The Iewes vapour againft a crucified Sauiour, and lay drgu; its vnworthy God to become man , and to dye ignominioufly vpon a. CrolT. Laftly our modern Sectaries that own Chrift, co- me limping after the reft , and except much againft the Romam Catholick Church. She, Say they, has changed the ancient Articles of the Primitiue Faith and introduced Nouelties in lieu of tiiem , She maintains errours contrary to fenfe in Her Do&rin of Tranfiibftantiation ; And much more feem'samifs. 2. I lay firft. All thefe and the like Arguments are meer vn- found Paralogifms , and prone iuft nothing againft Prouidence, againft Chrift, or the Romam Catholick Church. Before I dif- couer the fallacies be pleafed to note, i. That God whofe exi- ftence we haue proued. D$fc, i. C. l. is a Being incomprehen- fible, and far tranfcend's the reach of our narrow Capacities. The very Gentile Philofophers owned the truth agreeing in this Prin- ciple , That humane reafon is as weak to know what God and diuine Myfteries are , as an owle is to behold the Sun at noon-day. Note 2. Reafon in man, often too bold enters into Diuine Myfte- Principles nes , though confeious it walks in a Labyrinth not fo much as frmifed half-fighted in the fearch it makes , and this lefs than Half-infight tofiluethtJ into Diuine truths , is the caufe of Atheifm , of all Herefy and fe\obte~ the moftgrois errours nowraigningin the world. The Apoftle. mans. ^ ^m ^ ^ Point's at the mifled. Semper difcentes. . They are al- waies learning , but neuer come to the knowledge of truth. No- te 3. Reafon in the inueftigation of Religion and Diuine verities, may tend two different waies , Directly , and Reflexly. Direct rea- fon , as is now laid , fall's vpon fome great Myftery in faith , finds it harsh , yea moft difficnlt to be vnderftood , and What follows > The flint man with his] feeble reafon either reiecTs the Myftery^ or remains fo perplexed in the fearch that he can refolue nothing. His procedure is iuft like a man vnfkilful in Mufick , that hearing 1 one Note alone which feern s harsh , flights all without more Adoe, whereas he should liften to the whole Harmony before he iudges. In- Difc- 2 C. 1 2 Aduerpries dtfcouered. 565 Jn like manner we often proceed with God by a Half-pondering Diuine Myfteries. Contrariwife , reflex Reaibn labours nor to Conquer difficulties by it felf, or any half confideration but pru- dently waues that way , and has recourfe to a furer Principle, w-ner- of more prelently. Thus much premifed. 3. A lecond Proportion. The fallacy, of Atheifts in their Arguments againft Prouidence , chiefly arifes from this ; That the dmtt Ittdpmcnt of weak reafbn runs headlong into Myfteries confidered only by hairs or in themfelues, without attending to 0f J^eiSi the Solution , moft eafily attained by a Iudgement which is re- Diftouer.eA flex and Prudent. For example. The Atheift denies Prouiden- ce becaufe iuft. men fiiffer , and the impious Prcuail againft the iuft, and hence inferr's negligence in God: Here is one harsh vntuneable Note to his eare, but reflects not Firft, That, that which he calls Nature is as negligent, and much worfe left alone without God. He reflecYs not. 2. That if God were iuppofed to Rule the world , there would yet be fools enow to rind fault , and think fome thing amifs in the Goiierment. He re- flects, not. 3. That if God be an ' intellectual Being infinitly wife, his thoughts areas far aboue our thoughts as the Hea- uens aboue earth , And therefore aduentures defperatly to re- iecl: Prouidence which his shallow head neither doth , nor can Vnderftand. Finally He neuer reflects , that to deny all diuine ForeGght caft's Reafon into more Mazes ; than to grant it* For deny it, wemuft fay, That this admirable and well orde- red work of nature Gouern s it felf. The Sun , Moon, and Starrs, moue themfelues. We muft lay, That the vaft and fwift cir- culation of thefe Celeftial Bodies depend on no Superiour caufe $ rgrJ J~ vnlefs we faine many vnknown inuifible Gods, or Genii, Eter- toatunt n*l of tbemfeluts , And lay Thefe run about with the Heauens, *g*injt and regulate that admirable Motion. But to AfTert this without R**/p».- Proof offer's more violence to our intellectual. Faculties than to own one powerful Being, effentially- wife, and therefore i7^*- lam ouer all Hee Gouern's. In a word you fee here , this great Fabrick of Nature ( fome rightly compare it to a Clock or Watch) Z23 and: 366 Difc 2. C. 1 l. Falhciom If the Churches and find in it nothing like confufion , but contrary wiiejUouefy Order, a Harmony moft gracious befeeming God , Yets fay the foolish of the world, we ate to diuorce it from his f acred Proui- dence : That is , the Clock can moue , the wheeles can turn about without a Superiourhand that winds allvp and orders all. And why I befeech you > Mark the reafon of fuch as haue no Rea- fon. Free Caufcs, men I mean indued with Liberty, abule li- berty oppreil the juft , rahe tumults , breed confulion , and Scramble who can get the greateft heap of duft together -, Ergo faith the half ey'd Atheift, (refptciens ad pauca) there is no care had of vs, which is to fay. Men comply not with their Duty but afcufe their own Free will , Therefore God is blameable becaufe he either makes them not meer Animals , Brutish , or forces not Virtue vpon them againft their wills. Its an Errour. ZhtMhub 4* Thus much then concern's God. To indue rational Creatu- »f liberty res with Liberty to command the right vie of it • but not to be jriioHnfs refponfable or held negleftiue , if They abufe it. No, this nt to Cod. touche$ them ( for T'is their own worjc ) that, doe Euil. Let thea t\\c Euil remain where it is ( Prouidence can forgiue , but notfor- get ) And ferioufly confider the louely Harmony , the rccreatiue Order vifible in the works of Nature ( here is Gods own admirable ,Qeconomy ) doe only thus mucji , and reafon fo euidently difco- tier'sa depth of Wilclom in thele works , that it cannot but ex- claim with the wile man, S4p. 14.3. Tuao Pater proutdentia gubernat* Your Prouidence, 6 Father, gouerns all. This dpne caft your thoughts again as much as you will vpon the Monfters in natu- re , which man freely beget s , and freely brings forth. What fol- lowes I Ipefeech you but rhus much only > That Qod , after fo many menacings fo much Terrour laid, before vsr if we transgrefs, leaues liberty to its own free choife , and will feuerely punish the Offenders j But that Spurious Progeny of euil Works he own s Vihtfip* inot. Therefore no Argument can haue force againft Prouidence lift to aft vpon this account , That liberty is permitted to ad as liberty re- tvuhofit quires, without Compullion. Were God forgetful or negligent 5 (fm}Hjipfi. would he not 2 or could he not punish fin now? or hereafter, A- ' •""" : ' " theift Di&. 2» C. \i. J$uer[dYtes Ji/ccuered. } 67 theifts" might vapour more boldly ■, But hereof there is no danger, for nature it (elf leaues this deep impreflion in all ( let who will Gouern it) that one fupreme Regent hates Iniquity, and that as he often doth vifibly in this life, So he will more rigidly take Reuenge in the future. Mibi r'wdifta : & ■ EgPfetribuAm* RomJu. la. And this confideration alone of both prefent (moftclea?) and future Punishments , fo blunt's and dead's the Atheifts Plea, that their beft Arguments fall to nothing , and are indeed refol- ued inta pure Non-fenfe. This, conlideration alone , that God will reward thevniuft fufferings of the Virtuous, is comfort enough for them , and euery rational prudent Creature. 5. We aje next to difpatch the main bufinefs with thefe Ad- utrfaries , who defire to haue as ftrorrg Proofs in behalf of Pro- uidence, as they allege againft it. I will therefore for the bet- ter Satisfaction of all , produce three moft conuincing Arguments. One is ± The Deity we all Adore is not inexorable , but , as clear and manifeft Experience teaches , and moft known Hiftory in c ■ , all Ages relates , hears often the Prayers of iuft men in time o£ proof0f pr0j Tribulation releafing them from fudden danger , when no huma- uidtnti. ne Power can help in the Exigency, Innumerable after earneft Prayer and hands lifted vpto Heauen , haue found ipeedy AC- fiftancc , fbme in the peril of Shipwrak efcaped , others thrown to hungry lions haue been left vntouehed , others caft into rhe fire not fo much as fcorched , volumes might be writ of mch particulars. Therefore there is a Supreme Numen , that has care of vs, the Sun, Moon, and Starrs hear not, nor can lend ay- de in fuch prefEng Neceflities , And to recurr to no man knowes what invifible Spirits, is, as we now laid, lefs intelligible and far more difficult, than to own one powerful Being of Himfelf that both can and doth relieue at his good Pleafure. 6. 2. The knowledge of future things Sublime , and abouc the reach of all Creatures , Argues a Power Omnifcicnt , and Omnipotent. The reafbn is. The Prenotion of what's to co- me, not yet limited to any Being in itfelfe, nor as yet deter- gunatclycxifting^ neceffanly arifes from an infinite Knowledge and The know- ledge ofju. turethtngt f routs a Po- wer Omni- ftient. A third and n>os? con- uinctng froof. j 68 Difc. l.C. II. Fattudes of the Churches and efficacy of light , which extends it Selfe to what euer can be' known j for that power which comprehend's things future, much more comprehend's all paft and prefent , and therefore has an infinit Extent , which we call Otnntfcience. Now I lubfume. But an Intellectual power is in being, that by virtue of f^ts o^n light kjioTtes future Truths wherof none can doubt, becaufe he has actually communicated part of his knowledge to others , For example, to the Ancient Prophets , who moft exactly fortold things to come relating to Chrift our Lord , and the Glory of his Church; Such Secrets highly Diuine, they had not as men nor were they known by any Principle within the bounds of Na- ture , therefore God Ommfctent imparted all j And he did fo not in vain , but for this great End, That mortals may fee how an infinit Goodnefs condefcend's to inform vs of Truths whereby he manifeitly tender's our Happineis5 And this alone demonftrat's Prouidence. That the Prophets foretold truths to come is euident by the books of Scripture , writ whole ages before they happened, and the Euent vifible to our eyes , proues the veri- ties of the Predictions. AVhat haue your Aftronomers who more often mils then hit in their . Predictions comparable to thefe Proprieties in Scripture? Nothing at all, if (which deier- ues reflection ) we conlider the Emmency , the Depth , and high importance of theMyfteries reuealech 7. My 1 aft proof taken from one Manifefl Abfurdity, is no lefs than demonftratiue. Suppole Prouidence be denyed, it followes, That thofe Millions of men who fince the worlds Creation adored God , whereof innumerable were wile , vpright, and holy , haue all been belbtted and ftupidly beguiled in A- doring that which is not. Nay more, This alfo is confequent, That a few abiect, ignorant, and delpicable Atheifts , are only indowed with the light of a Truth , which once eftablished , ma- lejs Virtue odious , Honefty , and Goodnes highly contemptible. I pro- ue the confequence. If Prouidence be a chimera , All our acts of Reuerence , of Fear , Obedience, Religion and Gratitude ten- dered to God, effentially blefled with that fore-feing Power are Difc. 2, C. 9. Muer fanes JifcouereJ. 3 69 3S8 diflbnant to reafon, and in themfelues abominably finfuh Contrary wife , All ads of Contumely , of Blafphemy , and Con- tempt of Prouidence 9 ^are conibnant to reafon, and moft lau- dable. The more therefore , we blafpheme , contemn Diuine Prouidence , the more laudably we operate , and as highly merit praife , as one doth that contemn's an Idol fet before him to worship. For Prouidence, Say Atheifts, is an Idol , Ergo to adore it is madnefs , to -contemn it , moft Praife worthy. Thefe and other like Sequels are fo harsh , fo Abominable, and contrary to Harshfe- the light of nature , that I think the boideft Atheift now fining, *$l?*£- dare not in a ferious moode own them as Truths. And thus tfoeLk, much briefly of reafonable Arguments in behalf of Prouiden- ce, to oppofe that flight Plea of Atheiftical Spirits already Pro- p.ofed, and diflblued. 8. The third Proportion. As Atheifts plead fallacioufly againft Prouidence ^ fo Heathens Iewes , and Hereticks follow clofely the like Strain in euery Argument propofed againft the Myfteries of Faith taught by Chrift and his Church. Atheifts and I would fay. As the Atheift run's headlong with his weak Heretiquts Iudgement vpon Difficulties , fo thefe now named , erre as he **&*** Ufy erreth. They make Direct Reafon to fee more than it can fee, to Comprehend Myfteries incomprehenfible , and quite caft aflide that Prudent reflex Reafon , which allay es all , and giues moft Satisfaction. For example, The Heathen Com- prehend's not that great Myftery of the Trinity , and there ftand's puzzled. Good caufe , fay I , for if a Cockle shell contains not the whole Ocean , why should thy shallow head comprehend the Trinity ? Were this p©4Tible , either thou muft be God , or God leaue of to be what he is. The lew vnderftand's not how God became man , and dyed igno- minioufly vpon a Crois. Obferue a ftrange Stupidity faith Di- uinely S. Chrifoftom. Lib. Quod Chriflus fit Dew , towards the end. Thefe Aduerfaries of Chrift read of contempt and Dii- grace,and credit all. They read in the fame Scripture of our Sum outs Admirable Miracles and belieue nothing. Here is want Aaa of 3 TO D i fe. 2. C . 1 2 . Fallacies of the Churches of Reflex Reafon. The Heretick boggles at the Doctrin of Tranfubfhntiation , and wonders that a Church made vp of tionpuwcL ^*kle men can be held infallible. And from, whence comes this boggling > What caufe is there of wonder \ He Anfwer's. Tranfubltantiation feems contrary to Senfe and Reafon. Very good. I Ask again , to what Reafon is it oppofit 2 Grant gratis the Vtmoft , it only feem's contrary to that not wei-fighted Reafon which more often beguils than learns vs Truth , or which lofeth it felf in the Search of deep Myfteries , where it can find no Exit. But Anfwer I befeech you? Is the Doftrin op- posite to that Other wife Prudent iudgement , whereby all know or should know,T/;.af reafon is neuer more reafonable , than toben Hillon ' lt ^*m °ff ntfoning in high matters aboue reafon ? No certainly nafombltt ^or ^QnY once l^'ls one c*ear Chriftian Principle, or fay that's only belieuable and no more , which weak reafon Approues^ We deftroy the very Effence of Faith and can belieue nothing. The Do&rin of Gods Free-afts , of a Trinity , of the Incarnation^ of Tran fubftantiation , and the other like Myfteries is quite re- nounced, if Co much only gain s belief y as weak reafon (puzzled in the Myfteries) fee's Reafon for. 9. I fay therefore. This Direct purblind reafon cafVs vs vpon WbatefftSls Difficulties ^Reflex reafon .foiues them. The firft makes vs meer mak reafen Scepticks yea (and followed) Atheifts too, The fecond good produces. Chriftians : The Firft remains in darknefs, the fecond finds light. The firft would turn all faith into Science , the fecond faith , No , Si non credideritis non inteUtgetis, Vnlefs you belieue you shall not vnderftand. The firft , though no more but a handmaid, would rule , bear fway , and command , the fecond curb's that petulancy , and bids Her Obey. Now the only difficulty is to show what is meant by Prudent reflex Reafon, and of what confo- quence it is in matters of Faith. Bovsf the 1 o. Briefly this reafon ftands not long vpon the Myfteries fefex and reuealed bat , leaues off that loft labour and relies wholly , on pudentrta- tne Authority of one Mafter,that reueals them. Hence Clem. formed*. j^m<> in Recogn, r>, pari giues this wife counfel. Antt Omnia ,&c. Before Difc. 2. C, 12. Jduerjaries diftouered. 371 Before all things examin well by rational Motiues , whether he be a Prophet that fpeaks * This done , ponder no more but belieue boldly all he Saith. And wonder nothing at the principle , for it is far more ealy to find out the Prophet by his marks , and fignes , than to vnderftand the fiiblime Doctrin he teaches. S. Ireimis I Ltb.9. C.9. 1. fpeakes conformably. Kon emm nos aliter dtfccre poteramus qutfunt Dei y'mfi MagtRer nofter verbum exiftens homo faclm fuijfet. We could not otherwife learn thofe Secrets God Jias reuealed , vnlels our great Mafter , the Diuine word , had been made man. Which is to fay, the Reafon we call reflex and prudent , mod eafily finds out the Mafter that teaches truth, and hauing once found him it relies on his word , whilft direct Reafon ftayes intangled in difficult Myfteries , and learns nothing. Hence alio it is , that S. Thomas and others moft profoundly. Obferue a notable difference , in our proceeding, when we harken to God , and to man. When we treat with man , we rigidly Vchat man examin the things he f peak's , and if found abfiird , or impoflible, (Pe*V* " ** reiedfc them * We obierue the coherence of his Difcourie , and /*"?'* iudge whether it be confonant , or diflbnant to reafon. B«t G$d/aitb to proceed thus with God, who can neither deceiue , nor be mt. decerned , is Impudence; Enquire then no more but thus much only , what God faies , and reft Satisfied , his own fole word , is warrant enough. ii. We come now to apply this Doctrin more home. The Primitiue Chriftians, after a prudent fearch , found out by euident fignes , and wonders , the great Mafter of the world Chrift our Lord , and were commanded to hear him Matth.ij. 5. Ipfumlaudtte. And becaufe he proued Himfelf by manifeft fignes , to be a Doctor and Prophet lent from. God , They belieued the Doctrin he taught , vpon his oTtn toord , though very fublime and aboue weak reafon. Now here is a Point of confequence worth our ferious ponderation. 12. Can any one imagin,that our great Doctor of truth An applies left vs all comfortles , or io deftitute in his Abfence , without "on of the Paftors without Prophets , v/ithous liuing Oracles that yet lpeak ° 1ln* Aaa z in j7t Dlfc 2. C.i2. Fancies of the £hurches in his name , and deliuer with all certainty thofe Verities t£ taught , and will haue euer taught ? Reflect I befeeck you. This great Mafter faith No. lohu.zo. \6. As my Father fent me,fo I lend jou. Matth, 2.0. 19. Goe and reach all Nations. Lu'^e.ic. 16. He that hear's you hears me. And to thefe Paftors he promiies bis prefence and continual apflance to the end of Ages. Matt. 28, 20. There U yet \ will be with you euer to the end of the world. And the a teaching vtYy excellency } the very nature , of Diuine Learning requires this AiTiftance , and mull , if Diuine, depend on an Oracle which cannot but fpeak in Gods name Truth , and Truth only. For how is it po&ible to conceiue the vail moral Body of Chriitians, of fo different tempers diffufed the whole world ouer , knit firmly together in one fauing Faith ; if no certain Oracle laies forth that learning, which God has reuealed, and will haue all to belieue. 13, The Sectary may Anfwer , Scripture is his Oracle , he needs no more. Contra. 1. Chriftianity had a liuing Oracle before Scripture was written , did then that Oracle ceafe to be becaufe Gods truths were committed to paper or parchment £ Contra 2. And mark I befeech you , how vnwarily weak reafoia The Plea tf (already reiected) works milchief to it felf , and others. Reafon Se. *"?* reads Scripture, and when that is done, it fett's endles iarrs in- compofable debates not only between man and man , bnt , which is worfe, between God and. man ^Therefore Scripture thus handled can be no Oracle that vnites all in one Faith. Thefes Iarrs between man and man are man if eft , for the Arians, Pelagians, Protectants, and Catholicks read the book , and you fee what fighting there is about the Senfe , which only indeed (and not the bare letter) is Scripture. Now that Ibme of thefe many Contend alfb writh God , is vndeniable. For God approues not all thefe different fenfes becaufe contradictory , Therefore fome draw a falfe meaning from Scripture , and thefe Some (let the fault light yet where you will) oppofe the true Senfe of the Holy Ghoft , yea act ftifly to their Eternal shame , againft that noble perfection in God, his jndeceiued Verity and this I call contention or quarrelling with l God Difc. i.C. 12. Aher furies difcomed. }rj God (Truth it felf ) which as you fee , our Sectaries will haue Cpe on without redrefs , becauie they allow of no Doctor no Teacher , no Oracle , that can end the Strife y or reduce the erring Party to due fiibmiflion. 14. I fay therefore , And here is my laft Proportion. The ... • Roman Catholick Church , which prudent reafon eafrly find's teaching out and no other Society of Chriftians , is Gods own Oracle, Orach* What she teaches , we learn 5 what she reiecTs :, we reiecl: , Her named. Definitiue word is our warrant , without furtherdubious fearcj| •■ made into the Myfteries propefed. The proof of my Affertion, depend' s on this brief diicourfe. 1$. God obliges all poor and rich , learned , and vnlearned, to embrace true Religion , And confequently afrord's means to find it out, being a matter of fo much weight as concerns Saluation , But the NecelTary means to find true Religion , is to come to the knowledye of that Oracle which Propofes and teaches truth with all certainty , For no man teaches Himielf but learns , if wife , of a better Mafter; Scripture you fee Ends not our Controuerfies. The Myfteries of Faith are not our Doctors , becauie thefe in themfelues obfcure , are belieued after Reafon has found out Gods -lining Oracle , Therefore all Chri- ftians muft own a Teacheif , an Oracle of truth eftablished by Almighty God , commiffioned to enlighten and to initrud: the world. Hofr shall they bear faith S. Paul Rom. 10. 15. without a Preacher. Obferue well a teaching Oracle is to Propofe Euangelical Do&rin. But btfto shall they preach vnlefs they they be ^he Church fent ? Here you fee the Million and commiffion of Euangelical Commijfio. Doctors plainly pointed at. Now further. As none can but ned to teach, own fuch an Oracle 9 fo all muft likewiie acknowlegde it Co ij*(jfU^}^ Vifible by Marks and Signes , fo obuious to fenfe and prudent reafon , that the moft fimple may dilcern it from Heretical Com- munities ; For this Oracle teaches the pooreft fort of men , therefore Prouidence has made the euidence thereof plain, and fuitable to the meaneft capacities. / 16. Here we See again the difference , between the efTential Aaa J Dodri* alL Bow fru- dent tea fori difccurfes. The Chur- ches clear tutdence. 374 Difc. 2. G 12. FaHades of the Churches Do&rin of the Church , and the Churches outward luftre manifeft in Her Signes. The firft is not got by long Paufing vpon the Myfteries of Faith , nor by rigidly examining the, things reuealed, as we difcufs Do&rins probable or improbable in Schools. No. The Chriftian faith not , I will either KnoH? how God can be one Eflence and three diftincl: Perfons,, How the Incarnation is poflible, or I will belieue neither .; For goe this way to work, he doth like one that takes wholfom Pills and chewes them , But finding much bittemes , foon lpits them out. Thus then he should proceed guided by a Reflex prudent difcourfe. My only fearch is to find out that Oracle whereby God fpeaks to Heathens , Iewes , Chriftians and Hereticks j There is fuch an owe manifested, or none can Belieue any thing. This once found, I examin no more, nor intricate my felf in the Myfteries pro- poled , but will humbly Submit to all that's taught. This wiiclom I learn from the Primitiue Chriftians , who moft eaiily knew that Chrift our Lord was the true MeiTias,and one fent from God by the Wonders he wrought , though they little yet vnderftood the depth of thofe Myfteries he deliuered , and obliged all to belieue. Thus much Premifed. 17. I Proue that the Roman Catholick Church is God's only Oracle. And firft Her exteriour Marks and figns giue in as clear euidence of Her being the only Diuine Oracle, as the wonders which the Apoftles wrought euidenced them to be Diuine Oracles, With this luftre we haue a Church moft vifible, and difcernable, from all vnorthodox Communities. None can Parallel Her in known Miracles , in Antiquity , Perpetuity , Con- uerfions &c. 2. This Church hath taught the world euer iince Chriftianity began , and no Orthodox Society but She only is nameable , which deliuered the Sincere Doilrin of Chrift ; For hint at any , they are manifeftly proued condemned Hereticks. 3. She was neuer cenfured in any Age of errour by fo much as one confeiTed found Chriftian , Nay I (ay more (and haue proued it aboue) She is fo infallible , that if she erred but in one Article , She then ceafed to be Gods Oracle. 4. This Church showes Difc. 2. C. 12. dduerfaries difcouered. 37J fliowes the Million of Her Paftors, and deriues Her Comiflion to teach the world, from God, and our Lord Ieflis Chrift. 18. The firft Million concerning the teaching of the new Teftament Originally came from Almighty God , that lent his only Son our Sauiour to preach. Iobn. 14. 24. The ftord you baue heard is not mine but his that fent me , the Fat furs. Luke 4. 14. He fent me to Euangclize to the poor. Now Chrift our Lord, fent the other Apoftles. Mark^ 16. K. G-n*% into the Ibhole Trorld preach the Gojpel to all creatures. Thefe firft Mafters , had their SuccefTors lawfully commifTioned, they fent others age after age , in fo much that the Million of Orthodox Paftors legally authorized to ad- minifter Sacraments, and to preach Gods word , neuer yet failed m the Roman Catholick Church fince Chrift' s being vpon earth, nor shall fail hereafter to the worlds end. ip.Thefe Truths well weighed, And after many ferious thoughts found as they are vndeniable , Prudent realbn account's all that can be obie&ed againft our euidenced Church , worfe than folly. And here is the ground a Priori of the folly. Thefe Aduerfa- Se^arin ries thatOppofe vs, quite miftake the right way of Arguing, mt<*ke tht ( were there any) For , whereas they showld firft find out Gods J muin* great Oracle which teaches truth, and obiecl: that againft vs, They wholly waue this matter of higheft Importance, And, fo far as weak Realbn can work , draw Arguments from the dark Myfteries of Faith. One finds difficulty in the Trinity and reject's it, Another in the Do&rin of Tranfubftantiation and hold's it impoflible. That is, weak reafon , as much fet's vp its own light againft God , as if one should offer to extinguifh the Sun beams by the dim light of a candle. 20. Obferue I befeecrr you a ftrange Procedure. We eui- denee a Church, we proue Her Gods Oracle by the Characters, Signesand Marks manifeftly laid open to all mens eyes , we fay this manifefted Oracle which has drawn Millions of fouls to the Catholick belief cannot beguile vs. Our Aduerfaries one the other fide Say ( notwithstanding this reafonabie Euiden- ee) God lpeaks not by Her , Becaufe the Mjferks are hard and abo- ue 1?6 Difc. i.C ii Fallacies of the Churches They plead ue Rca^on ; whereas indeed the quite Contrary should be inferred, mojifimply. viz. Becaufe they are myfterious. God fpeaks by fo euidenced an Oracle. And here is the Reafon of my lnferen.ee. 2i. Had the abftrufe My fteries taught by the Church been a humane Inuention only, and not from God , the fuppofed Inuen- tor of them (who euer he was) liadbee^i worfe then mad to Pro- pofe fo many, to our shallow Reafon. He should rather haue followed the ftrain of all other Hereticks , and with the Arians The reafon denyed a Trinity , with Proteftants caft of Tranfubftantiation , of their But this you fee is not done, The Church fpeak's truth plainly, weak plea- becaufe She knowes there is an other light , a Wronger Euidence ■ *'**• which leffens, facilitates , and conquer's thefe feeming Difficulties. If therefore there be euidence enough of Credibility for this one Propofition. God fpeaks to all by this knoton Oracle , Reafon pleads «o more , but yeilds to one that cannot erre. 22. It may perhaps appear Strange, if One confider with what plain Simplicity the Holy Euangelifts wrote the Gofpel of Iefus r. thrift , where they leem to furnish the Iewes with Arguments againft our Sauiour. They declared how He was contemned t> reproached, Scourged, haled from Tribunal to Tribunal , and fi- nally Crucified. Here the Aduerfaries of Chrift Exclaim , and . Ask what's more Difficult? Could God poflibly (Say they) of the Euan- perrmt n*s onty f°n to be thus abufed, when 'tis writ, Maledic- gelijlswri- tus quipendit in ligno. Curfedisthe man that hang's on aCrofs? ting our Sa. The Euangelifts feared not the Obiecl:ion,but, related the Story tihurs life. as jt was# >jor £{£ tney to gaul tnejr great Mafter applaufe Couer or diiTemble his Sufferings as Policy might haue done , had humane Wifdom only made the Book. No. They pro- ceeded candidly; And why all this Sincerity think ye 1 The An- swer is eafy. They knew well , that the Victory which our Sauiour gained after all thefe Offerings, The Renown he purcha- fed vpon the Cross , the Miracles he then and formerly had wrought , were fo forceable Euidences of his being the true McfTias, that no contrary Humiliation, euen to death it felf, could o.bfcure that greater light and rational euidence of Truth. Therefo- re Difc. *• C. 12. AduerfarieSy difcvuered* 377 re whole Multitudes beholding the wonders at his facred Paffion after the Centurion had cryed out, This man indeed Ttas iufi re- turned, knocking tber bresls. Luke. 23. 48. And in his lifetime, iaid. Quid facimus > What do we doe ? Tbti QhrtH works fo many wonders,, That if we difmifs him, All will belieue in him. Arguments faa'ton from tybat is faij. fyefleStions maje T>[>on tbv f)remijed Doftrin* Chrijft*ni 2$. Hence I Argue. If the euident Light of our Sauiours uu chunk glorious Miracles was fufficient to vanquish Incredulity , and to Preu^ work a Belief in all of his truely being the Son of God, not- *fX%T withftanding the difficulty of the Myftery ; It followes clearly that the vndeniable Euidence of the Roman Catholick Church already laid forth, is as fully fufficient to vanquish the Incredulity of Heathens , WWes and Heretic ks t And to work this Perfwafion in all ( notwithftanding the high Myfteries propofed ) that She is Gods Oracle. For here is my Principle, and mofl vndoubted. That as the Verity of Chriftian Religion is to be learned from that known Oracle which bear's ChriiYs Enfigns , without dispu- ting the Sublimity of the Doctrin, Co the falfity of a Doctrin is proued, (Not by the difficulty thereof), but , is clearly gathered , from the Nullity of an vneuidenced Church , which teaches h^ An vneuidenced Church therefore is no warrant of true Doc- xrin. 24. And here you haue briefly the fundamental Reafbn , why no Heretick, can probably oppofe the receiued Doctrin of our Catholick Oracle, or defend his own contrary to it], whilft he is Churchless , I mean fo long as he giues in no Euidence The true of an other Church diftincl: from the Roman Catholick , as An- reafonwhf^ cient, as vniuerlal as She is^ as glorious in Miracles as She is , as fa- no Ht*'u(c* :mous for Conuerflons as She is, as Vncenfiired as She is, as com- t^f ^JYf^ B b b oai-ftio- SeBaries Etter decline the Sentence of an Eui- fenced Church And trip time away. 378 Dlf. ?. C. !l. Fallacies the Church. miffioned to preach, and teach the world , as She is , I fay whils'r. no fuch qualified Church can be eiridenced , which contradicted our prefent . Catholick Doctrin, and maintained that of Sectaries , folong the Proteftant cannot defend his own opinions, nor ra- tionally oppofe our Catholick Tcnents. For here, asS. Auftin anciently obferued difputing with the Donatifts , lies the main Buiineis and it decides all Difficulties. Vtrum v-fUa , an no fir a fit EccUfu Dei. Whether yours, or ours, be the Church of God. Let then this one point, worthy Debate, be rigidly examined; And 'tis eaiily done may the euer acknowledged Marks, andSig- nes , of the true Church haue weight with Prudent reafon, We are all without more Difpute reunited in one Ancient Faith. 24. And who can ( if his caufe be good) decline this modeft Offer? When t'is known, that thefe publick Signs haue rix'd , and eftablished this publick Iudgement in all through the Chri- ftian world. That a Church fo vndeniably Ancient, lb Miracu- lous, and drawing Souls to Her, cannot but be Gods Sacred O- racle? But Sectaries in all their Polemicks waue this worthy Queflion concerning an euidenced Church , and vnworthily to the great Wearifomnes of euery Reader, ft'and pitifully trifling with a few long fince defeated and worn-out Controuerfies. I fay trifling , For is it not more then flight and friuolous , now to Hurt at the worfhiping of Images , now to pelt the Pope , now to quote a half fenfed Sentence againft Purgatory, now to mifrelate a Story, now if a wickednes lie in a 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 Spotles Re- putation of Chrifts Spoufe > Say for Gods fake to what purpofe is this > when the Knowledge of that Vnum nectjfartum which cannot but be known, viz. Here is Gods euidenced Oraile Co clearly ends all Debates , fo iuftly determin's what's true , and what's falfe, in thefe and the like particulars , that none can , vn- leffe led on with a Spirit of Contradiction withftand the iuft Sen- tence of this One euidenced Oracle. 2$. If the Sectary reply , notwithftandingthe Churches Eui- dence Difc. 1. C. 1 2. Aduerfaries^difcoitered, 379 dence, many things She teaches appear doubtful to him. I haue Anfwered. Difc. I. C. 18. Proofs only doubtful 9 yea though Probable alfo, (which is not) want pith to gainfay an Euidence owned by the publick- Wifdom of the Chriftian world: But the mo#aneietit greateft Part of the Chriftian world Alwayes owned thefe Truths. chriJtUns Firft. That God has, and euer had, a. Church Vitible on earth. z. owned, That his Church may be known by Her Marks,Signes and Moti- ues, and that the moftmeet Signes to Diftinguish Her by,arean- fvverable to thofe , manifefted in Chrift our Lord. 3. That rhe Roman Catholick Church only, Euidently shewes thefe Signs , and by Virtue of them demonftrat's Her felf to be Gods own Oracle. Here you haue my Principles already laid forth , And a Petition with them to Proteftants , to infringe or weaken but One of them , vpon Scripture-Proof, vpon the irrefragable Te- ftimony of Fathers , or by Virtue of any Principle which may appear probable to the vniuerfal Senfe , or rational Content of fuch as haue been owned Orthodox iince Chrift liued on earth. But to do this is vtterly impofTible. 16. Defcend now if you pleafe to particular Controuerfies , you shall euer find that nothing but the twilight ofweak Rea- fon , meer Doubtfulness I mean , iupport's Proteftant Religion. It is doubtful fay thefe Aduerfaries , whether Purgatory be , or Doubts and no. It is doubtful whether Praying to Saints be Orthodox Cauilsare Doctrin. The Popes Supremacy ouer the whole Church is ™emy Doubtful , and Queflionable. Very Good , let thefe Propofi- fYQUilaJi. tions pais yet as doubtful. Perhaps Purgatovy is not , Perhaps it is. Perhaps inuocat'ion of Saints is Orthodox Do&rin , Perhaps no , For neither the one , nor other confidered in Themfel- ves is a Truth Euident Ex terminis , or fo much as Morally certain. Now here is the iuft Trial. The Proteftant poflti- uely denjes Purgatory. I pofrtiuely Ajfert it. Both Propoiitions are hitherto fuppofed doubtful , Therefore He who maintains truth is obliged to raife his Propofition from that low State of a poor Perhaps or doubting, to a higher Degree of certainty. The Bbb 2, Catho- 380 Difc, £ Cii. Fallacies of the Churches &rc. Catholick fpeaks plainly and Argues thus. Gods euidenced Ora- cle which beares the Marks , the Enligns of Chrift Iefus , and taught the world from the Beginning , obliges all as well to belieue a Purgatory , as a Trinity of Perfons. I cannot therefore, Saith he, without a Forfeiture of all Reafon and fir i- uing againft the Publick wiiciom of the Chriftian world , Own this a faithful Oracle in the Propofal of the one Myftery } and hold it Perfidious or Traiterous iir the other. Here is the Catholick s Euidence. Now Mark well. The proofs of the Proteftants Proportion , (There is no Vurgatory ) are euer as remo- d I- tefrom Certainty, as miferably dubious , as his very Affenion is. I red and &y n0 Proof goes aboue the Strength of one poor deficient and froued. 'freak. Perhaps. If he allege Fathers Contrary to Purgatory , or any other Catholick Tenet , His own reafon yet in a cloud tell's him. Perb*ps , He hitt's on the true Senfe , Perhaps not. If he plead by Scripture he neuer get's aboue the degree of doubting, If he take recourfeto Hiftory or any other Principle what euer, He shal find himfelfat the end of his labour, where he was ar the Beginning as doubtful in his Proofs as in his AfTertion* And why > He hath no euidenced Church to rely on. Bur more of this hereafter. Seealfo. Difc. 1. C. n. CHAP, Difc.l.G i J. Inferences dra^nfrcm is* a 381 CHAP. XIII. Other Inferences drawn from the precedent fXo&rin* Jtbeifls and Heretkh Argue alike. The Mm- ues of Credibility lead to k total Belief rf •fybat ener the true Lburch fropofetb A Ipord of Mr Tborndicfo Mistakes Concerning the Church* THe firft Inference. Pr< All that's pleadable in Behalf of roteftancy or any» particular Tenet thereof, is not only •doubtful but highly improbable, vp'on Thefe two Principles. Firft , that a Church euidenced by the very fame Marks and Mo- nties which Chrift our Lord Shewed to the world , reiect's the T p . . Nouelty, ( And no Authority on earth can Conteft with an Oracle */w< fo clearly Manifeft. ) The other Principle. No Society of Chri- ftians ilgnalized with tHe like Motiues as the Roman Catholick- Church Demonftrat's , euer maintained fo much as one Tenet of the Proteftants Do&rirt. Here the ingenuous Reader is de- fired to reflect a little, how we proceed. 2. I proue my Catholick Do&rin by the Publick Authority of an euidenced Church, ( That's my Principle ) And our Ad- uerfaries to Oppofe me come armed with1 two or three maim'd dark Sentences , of the Holy Fathers and think this enough to • e * T caft Popery out of the world. No fuch Matter my good Coun- t$o» again? trymen , There is yet much more to do, before youfpeak pro- the church bably. You explode Tranfubflantiation , Purgatory , Imiocation of is nHjt Saints. We Ask whether you euer had a Church as Euidenced, Andwh* as Ancient , as vniuerfal , as Commiflioned to teach as ours , which publickly maintained your Tenets and cenfured The Roman Catholick Do6i:rin? Show vs fuch a Church vpon folid Principles the work is done, you giue weight For weight , Euidea- ce for Euidence^ and may Speak boldly, Nay I lay more,you may Bbb 3 well . 381 Difc. t. C i;. Inferences dragon from. well triumph, Forvpon the Suppofition , we are vanquished; But Fail to do this ( and fail youmuft) you are filenced , yea, impoffibilitated to write more Controueriies. Se more of this Subiedt aboue. Dilc. i. C. 19. 3. A fecond inference. The Atheift and 'Proteftant plead alike. That " is. As the one Argues againft God , iuft Co the other doth againft Chrift's Church. All Jcnow the more an- cient Atheifts offer' d not pofitiuely to Demonftrate the Non- exiftence of God , for there is no Principle to ground that The Atheifti Senflefs AlTertion vpon , But chiefly excepted againft the Proofs Vcayefar. drawn from the vifible works in Nature and thought thefe fo f?ln*?a? weak to Euince a Deity , that there might well be none. Thus that cfSe* our Sectaries proceed. For ftark shame they dare not deny a ftaries, Church of Chrift, Yet their whole labour is fo to obfcure Her Euidence, that no man can pofTibly find out the Oracle by Sig~ ties , Miracles , Conuct fions , and Antiquity, Therefore as the A- theift in effect denies God , or at leaft ftand's doubtfull of his Being, So the S'e&ary, to parallel him, becaufe He denies the Churches glorious Euidence, cannot but remain e doubtful, whether there be any fuch Oracle or no. Again as the Atheift bewrayes his folly in giuing the Lie to the vniuerfal Iudgement of mankind, when he Saies the works of Nature p?oue not a Deity , So the Sectary runs the fame Carreer , betrayes his fol- ly , and giues the Lie to the whole Chriftian world , when he faies , the Manifeft works of Grace , vifible in the Catholick Church conuince Her not to be God's Oracle. 4, A third inference. The fole Euidence of the Ro- man Catholick Chnrch vifible by Her Marks , fo clearly con- A Chunk uinces and carries on the whole Catholick Caufe without excep- clearlyeui- tion , So utterly vanquishes the Proteftants Plea ofErrours en- dencedcan. tring into this great moral Body , that it is highly improbable, not be ex- yea a flat Calumny to impeach Her of any. Here is my reafon. aainit Meer doubts , or crafy Topicks can not reuerfe Euidence , But the Churches Antiquity, Her vaft extent, Her Progrefs, Her Miracles , Her Conuerfions and the other like Signes , are ex Difci. C, 10* 7 he precedent TtoFtrifi. 38 j tx fenfatis , fenfibly and vndeniably euident j Thetefore all im- pleading Her of Errour is more than improbable , vnlefs She has erred in shewing fuch Marks as haue made the world Chri- ftian. Now further. If this Euidence ltand's firm , Her Do- dfcrio is made euidently Credible by it . that is , fo worthy of Acceptance by diuine Faith , That Reafon , after fo much Light feen , is obliged vnder pain of damnation to yeild Ailent to the Doctrin. For , as none can prudently believe , before this Eui- dence be attained. (Qui at o cttdtt.levis eft corde, Ecclef. 19. 44. One too quick in belieuing is not wife ) So none after t'is had , can without damnable fin Difbelieue. 5. Hence I Argue. The Do&rin of the Primitiue Church was made euidently credible to reafon ( That is ) worthy of all Acceptation in the three or four firft Centuries , or was not; If not ; none could then belieue , with diuine Faith- For the Tne^^rnui. Euidence of credibility necetfarily preceed's Faith , And as Faith *J -^1- Trsit felf is ftrong , moft certain , and victorious ouer Incredulity j ( lebn 1. 5. 4 Tbts u the victory tobich onercom's the TXorld , ovr faith), So this preuious Euidence, anfwerably brings Reafon to fo firm a State of belieuing c.rtainly , that nothing Propofa- ble can Eclipfe that clear and manifeft light. 6. Contrarywife , if thofe Primitiue Chriftians had the Eui- dence we fpeak of, and were thereby obliged to belieue, We Ca- tholicks are Moft lecure , for the very fame Euidence ftill conti- tsWi*ani. nues to this Age in the Roman Catholick Church. Miracles go ^0™the on , Conueriions of Nations go on , the SucceiTion of Paftors ikolkk goes on , The fulfilling of Prophefies goes on, Sanctity of life Church. in Thoufands andThoufands, is manifeft to our eyes and ihn- fes. Euery day the Church growes older , and which is enough to conuince the moft obdurate Hererick , the louely vnion ,the vnanimous Confent , of fo many Nations thoughcdifFerent in tongues, in manners in Education , ( confpiring , and openly Profeffing one and the fame faith ,) hath not only gained our Church a publick Reputation the whole world ouer , but more- ouer a 384 Difc. 2. diy Inferences dra^n from puer proues this great Truth , That she, and none but she, is Gods Sacred Oracle. 7. If then ( and here lies the force of my Inference) it had been a flat calumny and more than vadly improbable, to haue The force of taxed the Apodolical Primitiue Church of Ertour after fo great the infer en* Euidence laid forth to Reafon in Her Marks and Signs, it is no lefs (Infill in the Proteftantnow, no lefs vngodly at this day, to accufe the prefent Church of corrupted Dectrin , whilft She frees her felf from the Calumny , by giuing in the very fame Euidence of Credibility. For here is my irrefragable Principle. The like full euidence ofraotiues lead's reafon to draw Thence a mod: firm and certain Faith. Deftroy this Euidence in any , that proues Himfelf to be Gods Oracle , you mud deny it to Chrift our Lord when he preached , To the Primitiue Church alio, and finally to the Modern Catholick Church. Do fo, All Faith perishes-, Grant it to both the Ancient Church and this now in being, All plea- ding againd our Catholick Doctrin is meer Vanity. . 8. , The Sectary may reply. Though the Euidence we inflft on hath fome weight. Yet it followes not , that all the Do&rin *Bion?ropO' our ^nurcn teaches is made euidently Credible , For he can iud- red„ ly except againd the Do&rin , relying vpon other folid Grounds, and mod approued Principles. Scripture , for example , the Au- thority of holy Fathers , the Records of Antiquity , the Form of the Primitiue Church , are his Principle , and by thefe he hopes to prouc our Churches Do&rin Falfe , which done the Euidence we build vpon , fignifies nothing, 5. I am very willing to folue this Obie&ion , the Anfwerl ho- pe , will show vpon what vnfteedy foundations Proteftancy ftand's. To proceed with all clarity. This is Queftionable , whether we, or Protectants , teach the Do6hin of Iefus Chrift. And becaufo it is here .impoflible to defcend to all particular controuerfies , we will fall vpon one only much debated ( one femes for all ). Viz whether Traniiibftantiation, or no Tranfubftantiation , be Ortho- dox Doclrin. " The truth yet lies in darknefs, there is no Self- Eui- dence either ia the Affirmatiue or Negatiue , T'is yet no more but doubt- An Qbie- Difc, 2. C. i$. Tloe precedent tDoflrin. j8y doubtful , or a meer Perhaps , whether tjje Proteftants or we Speak Truth $ Gods reuelation which only can giue certainty is ^here tht yet obfcure to vs both , and as little cuidenceth it Self, as the Ve- ^ff^h rity we enquire after. By what means then can we raife our felues Hif aboue this ftate of Doubting to fo great a degree of certainty , as to Say without fear. Tranfubfiantiation is Orthodox Doftrin. And the contrary , is not fo. i©. The Catholick ( towaue in this place other proofs) recur's to his Church , And faith this Publick euidenced Oracle , as well raises him to a State of certainty for his Tenet, as the euidenced Primitiue Church raif d the firft belieuing Christians from their doubts to Security. For the like full euidence ajwayes lead's £o a like certainty of Belief. The Proteitant , J*auing reiecled our prelent euidenced Church , hopes well ^and will needs find ■flawesand falikytooin Her Do&rin, not by confronting Her Euidence , or dsnoting an other Church , As ample , as ancient, as miraculous, as She is , which held his Doctrin , for this , though it should be pleaded, (if we come to a clear Decifion,) is vnpleadable , becauie the Proteftant has nofuch Oracle. What's done therefore > I'll tell you , and you may iuftly wonder. He shaks of this clear Principle of an euidenced Church and pretend's, ( though there is no fuch matter ) to launch into the vaft Ocean of Scripture , Councils, volumes of Fathers , ancient Records c and thinks to carry on his caufe this way. Here He pick's vp one dark Senten- ce of a Father , and triumph's with that , There on another. He- re vpon the leail hint giuen he Snarles atone piece of Popery, there at another. Here he guefses , and there he miflcs. In a word the man is bufily idle , doth much, and iuft nothing , run's •on , but is out of his way , utterly loft, without the guidance of God's euidenced Oracle which only can draw him out of the La- byrinth. And if you Ask, why he is out > I Anfwer his Errour lies here , that both in this aud all other Controueriies , he makes his falfe Suppofitions to pafs for proofs againft euidence. 1 1 . You shall fee what I here AfTert Made Good. To proue no Tranfubilantiation the Se&ary read's Scripture , Fathers , An- Ccc ticjuity, Hort> the Catholick Peoceed\ The Senary takes k Contrary . 3 $6 Difc. 1. C I }. Inferences dragon from tiquity,or what els yoft wilt. Beit fo. He read's but not alone, For the learned Catholick bear's him companie and read's alfo. Mark now. The One after his reading glotfes', fo doth the ot^ her. The One compares PafTagc with Paffage , fo doth the ot- her. The One difcourfes , So doth the other. But when all is done ( and here lies the mifchief) the Proteitant impofes one fenfc vpon the perufed Teftimonies, and the Catholick another T&htchUa- quite contrary. This day ly Experience teaches, viz. That we staieof* differ noc *° much about the words we read as about the fenfe of doukwr. Scripture and Fathers. Therefore this alfo is Euident , That the Proteitant aduances not his Do&rin ( if yet he get fo high ) aboue the degree of gucfling only , whilft he pleads by his glofTed Scripture, and Fathers , For as long as the Catholick , wholly as learned and confeientious as He is , and an ample Church befides, oppofes his far-fetch'd Senfe out of the Fathers , He cannot without Impudency, and making a fall e Suppofition to pafs for his Proof, cry it vp as certain : Now further. As the fenfe he drawes from Scripture and the Fathers is no more, but at moft doubtful , ( I fay improbable ) fo his AfTertion concerning no Tranfubftantiation , or what euer els he holds contrary to the Ro- man Catholick faith, is wholly as much wauering, or purely doubt- ^hateuetH ful : But that which \s only doubtful and no more is too weak, doubtful either to ground any Chriftian Tenet vpon , or to Contraft with CjJ? '*** tne Roman Catholick Church , whofe Dochin is indifputably ma- de euidently credible. Therefore unlefs aweake Vncertainty can reuerfe Euident Credibility , the Sectaries Plea againft the Church, is not only improbable , but highly improbable. 12. To conclude this Point. Here is an vnanfwerable Dilem- ma. It ispofTibleto Denote , and point at another Church (which without difpute taught Proteftant Do&rin and oppofed ours ) as Ancient , [as large , and eucry way as Euidenced to fenfe and reafon , as the Roman Catholick Church is, Or it is not poA 4&i!iimA> fible. IfpofTible, controuerfies are ftrangely ended , for prouc me once fuch a Church , I lay plainly. There is no iiich thing as true Faith in the world worthy defenife. Why * Becaufe if the Sup- pofitioa Difc. 2. C i}. The precedent tDoclrin. it? pofition hold's two different Churches euidenctd a like, equally as ancient , as efficacious in Doctrin and glorious in Mirac]es,clash with one another, Say and Vnfay , approue , and condemn. The one condemn's Proteftancy , The other Popery , One will haue Tran- fubftantiation bclieued , The other not, which is as wholly de- ftructiue of Chriftian Faith , as if Scripture it felf should plainly Speak Contradictions. 13. On the other fide , If the Sectary can neither name, nor point at a Chutch ( euery way as euidencedas the Roman Catho- tfoeuiden. lick ) which exprcfly propugned Proteftancy and oppofed Popery, ced Pr###- He shall neuer utter probable word again ft any one Article of our Qant Catholick Faith j For throw an euidtnced Protectant Church out of churchfi9 the world , All that is allegable in behalfe of its Doctrin , or againft tmtffJZ ill either End. in a flight difcharge,of a few fcattered vnweighed Sentences of holy Fathers (no fooner read than Anfwcrcd ) or , as we dayly Experience , in grofs Miftakes , and bold Calumnies laid on our Doctrin. And can thefe think ye extinguish the vifible Lu- ftre of our Chureh, can thefe lefiefl the euident Credibility of Her Doctrin, or bring fo known and owned an Oracle into open dis- grace , or pubiick Difreputation \ It is impoffible. The moft vi- gorous Abbettors of Protcftancy may not only blush to Affcrt it, bur will be bafled did we once Hue to fee the happy day , when our iuft caufe might be propofed, and heard in a Pubiick Diipute,befo- L earned and impartial Iudges. ji Word of Mr Tbomjih Mi?lakes difcouered in Hi&Bo'.k of Forbearance. 14. Though I Honour Mr Thorndick , and hold him muck more wife , Learned, and moderate, then fome late voluminous Writers haue been , yet becaufe Truth will out , I muft not differ.- ble but Speak truth , And therefore Say in a word. Hit If bole atte- mpt dgawfi the Roman Catboluk, Church U jp tAfy And the feebleneU Ccc z of Church Motiues\ ei. t her prone that Oracle pure in all She teaches, or in No- thing. 388 - Difc. I. C. 13. Inferences drffin from of it Cannot but appear to euery Reader that penetrans the force ofthe Principles already eftablished. My wish indeed was to haue. Vnderftood his meaning betterin ibme particular paiTages, For he- re and there, he feem's to me a little obfcure , yea, to build with one hand and to Pull down with the other, How euer by what is clear we haue enough , and may well refute his Errours. 15. Page 19. In the Book now cited He takes leaue to bla- me all thofe who declare in behalf of the Proteftant Churchy that it depart's , or Separates from the Church of Rome. For , Saitta he , feeing it hath bin granted in , and by this Church , euer ftnce the Refor- mation that there it , and alfrayes Was saluation to be had in the Church of Rome as a true Church , though corrupted \ I am very confident, that no Church can Separate from the Church of Rome , but they mu[i make Them- felues thereby Schismatickj before God. I grant. 1. Such, are Schifma- ticks as leaue this Church ,. I grant 2. Saluation was , and will euer be had in this Church , Yet fay. 3*. It is Calumny , yea a plain Contradiction , to grant Saluation attainable in this Church, and to impeach Her of Errour or corrupted Do&rin. The Ca- lumny is vncjueflionable becaufe the Marks ,.Jthe iignes and exte- riour Euidence of our Church already infifted on , either proue her Gods Oracle as found and faithful in all She teaches as the Primitiue Church was , or conuince nothing. What then can thefe Aduerfaries ayme at > Will they grant Her no lefs ilivftrious in Marks, and Motiues which induce to faith than the Apoftical Church was , and yet make Her a Monfter , a harlot , and prefidiouily falfe in propofing Faith > Haue fo many learned Doclprs Age after Age taught Her Docfcrin, To- many Martyts shed their blood In defenle of it , fo many Saints wrought glorious Miracles to confirm it , and after all can it vpon no proof but vpon a vain and moft yniuft Suppofi- tion be called falfe and vnorthodox ? Nothing can be mo- re extrauagant. You mull therefore either deny the Euidence we plead by , (which is vndeniable) or own this Church entirely found in euery Do&rin propofed, as Faith. Whence it is that when lewes. Centals , and Hereticks , conuert themfelues to Catholick Religion Difc. 2. C IJ. The precedent Dofirin. 389 Religion , drawn thervnto by the iight of euident Motiues, they frankly belieue no Part , but all Church Doctrin without Exception. And the Reafon of belieuing thus Wholly and not by halfs , is giuen aboue. C. f. 6. where we Demonftrate , that if the Roman Catholick Church has erred in the proposal but of one Point of Faith , and obliged Chriftians to belieue that vnder pain of Damnation , She is not only traiterous to Chrift, and therefore can be belieued in nothing , But moreouer at this prelent day there is no true Faith profefTed in the Chriflian world. Contrarywife , if She be true and vnerrable in all teaches, She is to be belieue^ in euery Article without referue. 1 6. Now to the double Contradiction in the words alleged. It is granted Saith. Mr. Thorndicke that there is , and alfrayes Icai Salu.ttion to be bad in the Church ef Rome as a true Church, though corrupted. I Anft'er this is implicatory. For if true , She is not corrupted in Do6trin $ or if corrupted in Doctrin She is not true ^ Vnlefs one makes by meer fancy a Chimera of the Catholick Church , and iayes a true Church may be corrupted which is impoilible , for truth excludes corruption : Therefore no Orthodox Christian euer owned a Church partly true , partly falfe. You Sr , lay. 2. Saluation may be had in this Church. Very good. Ergo Her Faith is found able to produce in euery foul Repentance , the loue and fear of God , and what euer els is neceffary to acquire Heauen , Or if it want this EfTential Perfection and bring not men to a fecurity of Saluation , it is no Faith at all , and confequently Catholicks mnft be damned for want of diuine Faith , hauing no true Church to belieue in. See more. Difc.i. C.zu m. 7. Finally , wheras you AiTert. No Church can Separate from the Church of Rome , but they muft make themfelues thereby Schifmatiek^s before God , The Inference Sr , is true, but moft clear againft your Selfe , And proues that both you and the Proteftant Party are Schiimaticks before God and man roo. For this matter of Fact , Viz. That you Separated from, and rebelled againft the Roman Catholick Church is as euident, as That England 7 once Catholick , communicated with Rome in Ccc 1 Points The Reafon of belieuing entirely > and not by haifes The Contra- diction euin- ced againft thU Author. Troteflants prouedSchsf* matich. One clear 390 Difc.2. C. 13. Inferences Jrfftn from Points of Faith , in the vfe of Rites, Liturgies, Sacraments , And afterward diuorced it felf from that Communion. Reply , or tell vs you had caufe to do fo , and fo far qnly receded from this Church , as She receded from Her Ancient purity , You make again a falfe Suppofition your Proof , your fdf Judge in a caufe you haue nothing to doe with , And the louely-Spoufe of Chrift loyal and .perfidious , Chaft and a harlot with one breath. ..17. Yet one word more. You fay the Church of Rome is a true Church wherin Saluation is had , though corrupted. Hence I Argue ; Either you in England are now at this inftant againft Mr feparated from .this Church, as it ismTrue>or not; If feparated Thotndick. from it , as true , the Reformation helongs to you only , you are to cancel your own Errours , according to the form of Doclrin in our Church, for She, tf true, is fo far pure that she cannot be reformed. And thus . much you feemto grant P. II. It is out of hue to the Reformation , that I infijl vpon fuch a Principle as may ferue to re-vnite vs With the Churih of Rome -y being 7*>ell ajfured , that We can neuer be Well reunited , With our Selues oiherWtfe. Ihttnot only the Reformation ,b tit the common Chriftiamty muft needs be*lo(lin the Diutfioni , Wbuh Which Will neuer haue an end otherWift. What is this to fay, but to wish the English Church reformed by the Roman Catholick > Therefore fomething (if thefe quoted words bear fenfe) is amifs,not in the Roman , but in the En- glish Church ,. which needs Reformation. Now on the other A 1 j fide , ifyou (ay the Roman Catholick was and is a true Church, and that the English alfo is altogether as true as she , or hath not feparated from the Roman in matter of true Doclrin ; it fol- lowes ineuitably , if the Suppolition hold's , that neither of them needs Reformation in matter of Truth (for here we ipeak not of Rites and Ceremonies which are alterable.) To what purpofe then is it to talk of reforming either Church , in point of Truth, when both are Suppofed fo true, that neither can be reformed, nor differ , if true in faith , from one another > 1 8. Perhaps you may (yea and muft) reply , if your Difcourfe haue fer$*c t tu char. Difc, 2* C. 13. The precedent 'Djftrln. 391 haue fenfe. Though they are true in Do&rins called Funda- mental , yet both haue their leiTer corruptions , and thefe need Reformation. This is all that can be Aliened , For if both are ralfo in fundamentals neither of them at this day is .the Orthodox Church of ■ Chrift , and confequently both the Romania's and English wanting fundamentals , are People effentiaHy Churchlefs. Now vpon the Suppofition 'of lefler corruptions only not fun- damental , you haue a dreadful Inference againft Proteftants , And as true , as dreadful. Viz. That their firft Separation from the Roman Catholick Church was damnably Sinful , though She were here falfly (iippofed to haue erred in fmaller matters j This ,1 Say followes , not only becaufe the Ancient Fathers exprefly teach, - thir<*ln< No Reformation can be of fuch Importance , as to counteruaile the danger of Dilutions , And that all things should be rather tolerated than to confent to Schifm in the Church 5 But vpon this other account alio , that the Reuolt of Proteftants from our Ancient Church hath laid fuch a vifible dilgrace vpon a noble Kingdom , That none but the powerful hand of God , with the wifdom of our Gracious Souereign and the States concurrence, can take it of. The Nation , we fee with our eyes , is ftrangely Touching ■ diuided , hideoufly difcompofed , Religion is of the hinges, and ffy!?e men generally are fo transported into Extrauagancies ; that none fi0mi»Eng^ can fay what the Religion is which England ProfelTes at this Und. day, There are (b many Se£te , fo many Diuiiions , fo many Tub-Preachers , fo many woemen-Gofpellers , lb many Quakers, io many Fan ati cks , fo many Leuiathan-JVfonfters , that you may read and iee without turning to the Bible , a Babylonian Con- fufion , amongft them. Would Popery , Sr. think ye , (you are ' as I vnderftand moderate , and learned) had that continued , laid England vnder fuch a. publick Difgrace as this Rabble of men, and Fanaticks haue done ? Let the world iudge. 19. Now if you Ask , from whence came this fearful Diforder, which to my forrow makes our Country ridiculous to forrain Nations? I anfwer. The firft Rent, the firft Rupture, the firft . Schifiii of Proteftants frora the Catholick Church, occafioned ~ """ _ alt i The Origm pfall theft lament able DtHtfionSi The Tana- ticks Argu- ment againft troteslants. AU feclanes will reform, and none can to it. The Church which re- form s other erring S$. con in mtt/i not need any reformation. 392 Difc. 2. C.lj. Inferences Jra^n from all. Here is the Source , and Sole Origen of thefe vnfortunate, Reuolutions. Wherefore this Argument propofed by a Fawatick againft Proteftants is vnanfwerably conuincing , Ad bomtnem. (I fay ad bomtnem ; not that I approue Fanaucilm). As ye Proteftants without recourfe to any other iudge but your Seines vpon your own Authority quitted the Roman Catholick Church , and thought your Facr reafonable; So we Fanaticks , without recourfe to any but our own tender Confciences, (knowing you began a Re- formation not yet compleat) leaue Protefhncy , And hold our fact as reafonable as yours : And thus others by your flrft Example may reform Religion to the worlds end Yet all of vs (may thefe men Say) make but one true Church , For if Mr. Thorndicke Page. 9. Anfwer's pertinently to that demand. Where his Church was before Luther. There it > as , faith he^here it u. The fame Church reformed , Ithicb Teas depr aided afore. If this Anfwer I fay be good , Pray you why should Fanaticks , Nay why ought the Arians , and worft of Heretickes be excluded from being of one and the fame Catholick Church > For the Church feems to Sectaries an ample field , and embraceth all called Chriftians though differently reformed The only difficulty then is , t» find out him,or fe Thofe,who among fo many dilfenting Reformers (the whole world ouer) haue happily made the bell: choile , in mending Religion. The Proteftant you fee reform's the Catho- lick, the Puritan, the Proteftant , and the Quaquer will reform all at once , vntil fome new Sectary peep out , that bring* s in a better Fashion. And is it poflible , shall all thefe vnreformed People reform one another > This difficulty cannot be folued in Proteftant principles. 20. I fay in a word. It is impoffible to reform any erring Society of ChriiKans, but by the Rule Doclrin and Authority , of fome one Church , which niuft be owned fo pure , that She can- not be reformed in what She teaches. The reafon is clear. For a fallible and deformed Church , can no more help to reform another like wife fallible or unreformed , than the blind lead the blind. Hence methinks Mr. Thorndick 9 who hold's Proteftancy as Difc. 2. G 13. The precedent (DoStrin. 59^ as fallible , and as much out of order as Popery , Speak' s little to the purpofe Fage.n. where he faith. Then is m FoTbtr in this Chur ib and Kingdom (he means England) to reform it [elf in matter of Religion*, but only by that Form , and to that Form tobkb may appear to baue betn held by the to hole Primitiue Church before the Corruption tatne in , Tthich 7t>e pretend to reform. I cannot but fmile at this word Appear. Pray you Sr, Say to whom muft it Appear 1 What? To you or me, or to any priuate fallible man > You talk as if , forfooth , . the Primitiue Doctrin were fo apparently Manifeft to People , that euery one by opening Books and reading Au- tiquity , may with a wet finger clearly difcouer the true and Or- thodox Form of Religion , Wheras the contrary is euident, For haueriot we and Proteftants (to omit others) now for a whole Age perufed founcils , and Fathers , and after all , do we not fee with our eyes , that what feem's Orthodox Do&rin to one Party , feem's not fo to the other > It appears manifeflly to me, that the Primitiue Fathers , fo openly maintained an vnbloody Sacrifice vpon the Altar , that the wit of man cannot without violence , wrefl them to a contrary fenfe ; doth the Truth appear fo to Proteftants > It appeared to S.Cyprian Epift. 55. ad Cornel. niffentions and to me alfo,That Hereiy and Schifm , take their Origen arifes after from this 7 That the fraternity of Chriilians anfoerably to Gods com- the pemfal wand , Obey not one Prieft {and one Judge) T»bo is Chnfls Vtce-gerent oftbeprimi- imthe Militant Church on earth. Will Se&aries read and vnderftand ****&*& this as I doe > It feemed clear to S. Hierome cited aboue , That one out of the Roman Catholick Church , wherof Pope Damafus was then Head really belonged not to Chrifl , but to Anticbrifi^ and Therefore ought to be efteemed an Alien from the houfe of God , X Terfonvnclean , and propbane. Will the Proteftant after his reading thefe words own the Do&rin pure and Orthodox * No he dares not. 2.1. What then is the Refult , though we read thefe and a hundred other PalTages in the ancient Records fo Plain for Po- pery 1 Experience tell's vs , nothing els enfues but an endles conteft about their Senfe , and croffing one an other with contrary gloffes. Ddd This The plaixejl Authorities Connince not Sectaries rohctt is re quired of Mr Thorndick A NemiRe- former of Religion in ihefeold dajes of the rporldt wtuU appear ridi- wlotts to fill. 394 Difc. 2. C. l$. Inferences dragon from This is all that can appear to Mr Thorndick. Wherefore Vnlefl Recourfe be had to better J rinciples then to meer Appearances, Diiputes may goe on till Dooms day , without Satisfaction , or fruit to any. Be it how you will. My hearty wish is that Mr Thorndick , who hitherto Stayes in Generalities , would pleafe fully to'fet down that whole Plat-form of Religion, which he conceiues exact , and fuitable to the Primitiue Church. Were this done ( which will neuer be) I am confident, His Extract or Draught would appear lb imperfect , and mishapen a Buliness in the iudgement of Catholicks and Proteftants alio, That as the oil e Party cannot, but look on it with, difdain , Co the other would. reie& it as vnworthy Acceptance. 22. Beiides,wouldit not feem a new wonder to Strangers abroad. Yea and as ridiculous as wonderful,, were rhey told, that after fo much labour fpent about reforming Religion in England, we haue yet at prefenta thoughtful Gentleman there , that's very bury in Setting forth the laftand belt, Edition of Vrottsltncy Reformed ', which perhaps may proue worfe than any other gon before. Naught it muft needs be, for this Reafon , That the means he would re- form by, has no Proportion with the defigned End.. For by the light of a few dead Manulcripts, written 14. or, 15, Ages Since, He offer's now to amend all the Churches in the world,, though the very fenfe of thefe Writings which muft be the Rule of his Reformation , is neither well known to Himfelfe , nor yet agreed on, by thofe difTenting Churches he would reform. What think ye > Were this fenfe yet to be learned, (the want whereof caufes endles Errours among Sectaries, ) would not common Pru- dence rather take it from a liuing Oracle, which has taught the world time out of mind, than from a late Nouellift that Profes- fes himfelf fallible , and Therefore may moft eafily Mifmterpret the beft Records ? This liuing Oracle at leaft promiies infallibi- lity ( Which Shall be proued prefently) And therefore is a Surer Principle to rely on, Then The Fathers Sentences long Since Written ,whil ft Sectaries make Their fenfe and true meaning a. Matter of Conteft. 12, Yet D i fc . i . C. 13* The precedent ith you for euer. Hell gates cannot preuail againfi the Church. Thus much premifed. 7. The Difficulty now agitated is. Whether the Roman Ca- tholick Church and Her approued General Councils be fo fe- cured from Errour, That She cannot fwerue from that firft Sup- port of Truth, (I mean God's infinit Veracity) But muft when She teaches , Teach that exactly which God hath reuealed, and will haue after a fufficient P ropofal, Vniuerially belieued. Secta- ries Difc.2. C. 12. Denomination ,hfaMle 399 ri'es fay , She may, Yea actually has fwerued from God's Reue- lation , and in great Matters too , though not perhaps in the Vrhat Vro. primary Vundammuils , ( as they are Called) or in Fundamentals ttjiants *u Simply necefftry to Saluation, And they were forced to this wicked fert' Doctrin vpon three naughty Motiues. 8. Firft to giue Scope , or rather to inuite Libertins to hold or deny fo much of Chriftian Religion as pleafeth their fancy ; And do we not fee the liberty effectually laid hold on in En- gland amongft Phanaticks, and ilich giddy People ? All this gid- And why ? dines came firft from the reformed, or rather the deformed Nouelty of Proteftancy. They doit. i. to make Controueriies Endles, For deny the Churches Infallibility , Cauils go on ; Grant Her infallible Difputes are ended. 3. This is done, to quit themfelues of an Infamy iuflly laid vpon them , of being both Schifmaticks and Heretiques at once, which shall neuer be claw'd of, do what they can. For thefe vnfound reafons, er peftilent T^g c , Motiues rather , The Church forfooth mull needs be fallible. /;f* jjrerm Catholicks on the other iide , maintain the contrary , And fay xion. there is a Church fo Infallible, that She cannot err in any thing She teaches , as Faith. And thus much God willing shall be euincedin the following Difcourfe. But to do it exactly, lam briefly to lay open to all that haue eyes. The Abiec"t, the Defpe- rate and Defolate condition of a fallible Church. You haue here my firft Propofition. 9. A fallible Church is efftntially Constituted, in a State of public^. A fallible 'Rebellion and Hosldity Ttith it Self, Wages TPar againfi Infidels without Church is hope of ' conuincingyOr conquering any : And therefore cannot be Chrift's «** State Orthodox Church, To declare further what I would lay know °f rdellic», firft, That Sectaries own a Catholick Church much larger than the Roman Catholick , And make Themfelues Part of it. Con- ceiue now (which though very hard is yet poffible) , that the Reprebmatiue of this great Moral Body meet's in a General Co- uncil 7 and difcuiTes the Queftion now in hand. Viz. Whether tkue hi k Church of one Denomination Vrtferwd infallible by Diuine AHI- without fo- nt e One Church be Infallible 400 Difc. t. C. 14. There is a Church of Afliftance? Part of the Reprefentatiue , and thefe are Proteflants, Oppofe the total Infallibility of euery Church. Part ( Catholicks I mean )Say one Church is infallible, and that is the Roman. The Difficulty propofed can be decided, or not. If not ; This great tie means to Reprefentatiue meet's to no purpofe , but only to make more wmttit. Strire in the world. If it can be decided, God has prouided means whereby the truth of fo weighty a Matter may be known , But there is no fuch means left , vnlefsfome one Church or o- ther ( or all together ) be owned infallible , Therefore an endles Hoftility goes on, in this fuppofed Reprefentatiue. 10. That all means fail may Sectaries Votes haue place , is indifputably Euident. You shall fee it clearly. The Catholick Party Appeales to Scripture , alleges thefe and other like Pafla- ges. He Who bear's jou bears mey and from thence infers, Who euer bear's the Church hear's Chrift, an Infallible Teacher. The Church is. the Pillar and ground of Faith , and hence concludes , She is infallible. The Spirit of Truth shall remain With the Church for euer. Vaftors , and Doclors , are appointed by Vrouidence to preferue the faithful from Tfrauering in Faith , and all erroneous Ctrcumuetrtwn. hell gates cannot preuail againft the Chutch ejre. What can be more Significant, if plain words haue fenfe for the Infallibility of fome One Church > Yet all thefe and many other Teftimonies fo shrink to nothing, (may Sectaries GlolTes ftand in force) That no man can fay what God (peak's in thefe Scriptures or know the Truth now debated .Viz. Whether any Church be infallible or not , This means failing of its End which ought to compofe our Strife, Hoftility is as vigorous , as when the Difpute began , for yet we know nothing certainly. 1 1 . PalTe from Scripture to Fathers, We haue there mod pregnant ExprefTions. The Church cannot be adulterated. Cyprian de Vmt Eccle: What She once receiued from Chrift, She euer hold's. Idem. Episl- ad Come. She is a pure Virgin in Faith , and eannot be *ches~infalli\. decerned or (educed, nor ouercome frith any Violence, being vpheld by bititjt Her Virginal integrity. Fulgent, Epift. ad Yrobum. Cap. 5. Her Fanh is inuin able , cum to the Powers cfHell. Eufeb Ctfar. Tr&par. Euang. lib. 1. The Script* 9*. And Fa- thers Speak fignificantly the Chur Difc.-l C. 14* &eribmination7inf4llible. 401 lib. i.C. 3. If ay fear to be dueiued by the ob [mruy of a Qutfthn , let him Confult that church concerning it, Witch the Scripture Dtmon- flrais without any ambiguity. S. Auftm. lib. contra crefcon. c. 33. What think ye > Is not the Churches Immunity from Errour clearly established > No fay Sectaries , For though we cannot confront thefe PafTages of Scripture and Fathers, with others as iignificant for our Plea of Fallibility 3 Yet we do , and muft deny Their plain Senfe.5 We do, and muft fay., The Roman Church has been adulterated, otherwife we are Schismatic'ks. We muft Sectaries dt- fay, that though once pure She loft what she had receiued; And nya\lyw therefore is now no Virgin1, but a Harlot. We muft Say , Her ™£mTlues Faith is Vincible, That it is not fafe to confult Her in dubious schifmatiks. Matters, for She can return no better Anfvver , than what is fal- lible and may be.falfe. Thus Sectaries. 12. Hence itfollowes firft; That our great fuppofed Repre- fentatiue, made vp of Prcteftants , Cittholitkj, and all other called Chriftians ftand's without redrefs in an open Rebellion , in a pu- blick Hoftility with it Self, And consequently taken in its whole Latitude is not Chrift's Church, Becaufe the Church ofcbrisl is es~ fentially founded in Vntty, This fuppofed Repre fentatiue , torn as you fee in pieces With intejhne Diuifhn-is not onet And therefore moft deiolate, For, Omne regnum diuifum in fe defohbitur. And here by the way, I take leaue to tell Sectaries ,T' is but Folly to talk as They doe, of aCatholick Church wider than the Roman, Or of a lawful Reprefentatiue pofTibly to be conuened in Vnity, out of the Body of all named Chriftians , Forasfuch a Church(con- toM Wa- ndered in the largeft Extent) which ftands diuided in Faith is kescfSe-&4- not Orthodox; So flich an alTembled Council , made vp of Co ries. many iarring Belieuers ( confidered vnder that notion of Hofti- lity and Rebellion ) can be no legitimate Council. The rea- fon is. Chrift neuer owned a Church profeffing more Faiths than one, nor lawful Councils coniifting of other Members than Orthodox Chriftians. You will then fay Hereticks, are not to Vrhst Here. be admitted into Councils lawfully called. I Anfwer they are t'"ksb*uet* .admitted, but how.? Freely to difpute, not. to Teach. 5 to pro- ^u^iiu Eee .P°fe 402 Difc. i. C. 14. There is a Church of one pofe difficulties, but not to Regulate Faith , to acquiefe In the Churches Definitions, but not to define , remaining Here- ticks. 13. You fee. 2. That a Church fallible in Her Defini- tions concerning Faith , vainly attempt's to reclaim Infidels ani Hereticks- from their Errours. Wherefore the Nicene Fathers Condemnation of Alius might haue been iuftly excepted againffc and pleaded reuerfable vpon this ground, That what they defi- ned (becaufe fallible ) might be as far from Truth, as the very Er- rours they Cenfured, and defined againft. Nay I fay more : If that Council was then- fallible, it lies yet at the mercy , not only of Arians , but of all Chriftians at this day, to admit, or reiedt, Strange [*. the Nicene Cenfure, or rather , if Prudence haue place, tofus- tpteh tf xhe penti their Iudgements and fay, no man knowes what to belieue. ) till* ^ ° ^UCk ^ar^ness> vPon iuc^ ^zard , and indifferency , Chri- ** ' ftians are caft, if God's Church or that Council could err. One inftance.may giue you fome light. 14. Imagin a- Heathen at that time, when Arianifm feemed profperous , and carried much vogue in the Eaft, well inclined to embrace Chriftian Religion, VVithall Suppofe the man firm- ly fetled in this Iudgement, That Catholick Religion (much refembling Arianifm ) was Co fallible, that both the one and other might be falfe. Say fbefeech you How indifferent would this Iudgement haue made the Heathen , to either Religion* Nay would it not, had intereft fwayed neuer fo little , haue drawn him more to Arianifm >• Yes moft afruredly. For thus he might Bestl ^aue ^ifcourfed 5 anc* prudently. What, they call Catholick Re- difcourfts ligion and Arianifm are much alike, both fallible both maybe falfe. My Intereft now when ArianifTn flourishes, carries me thither. T'is true , V meet there with fallible Docfrin which- m.iy be raHe ( God knowes how thiirgs are ) but the mischief is I can find no? better amongft Catholicks, nor in any other So- ciety of Chriftians. Now if all I can learn be no better but fallible, and pjrhaps falfe Doc'trm too, I may as well learn that from the Arians as from Catholicks ,. or rather ought to fufpe&r _ .... ^ Difc.2. C.14. (Denomination, Infallible. 40 J all Chriftian Religion of Errour , becaufe none of that Pro- . feflion can aflure me infallibly , what God has Said. But fudi (i*def m* Doctors faith the Heathen who may as eafily teach me to againflk iniure an Infinit Verity , and afcribe that to God he neuer fallible reuealed , as lead me to acquiefce in his reuealed truths , (were R'l'i*0»' any fuch truths in being ) deferue no Credit, Therefore I neither can , nor will belieue any thing. 1 f . Before we make a further Step to one or two Propo- rtions which decide this Controuerfy, a few difficulties are to be cleared againft the precedent Difcourfe. One is. Hoftility cea- ses in the ample Council now mentioned, would all, which is ealy, Agree in one Truth, That Chrifts Church is infallible in "Fundamentals only, or fundamentals Jimplj necefjary to Saluatiott. Anfw : This is to fay If that were done ( which neuer was , nor can be done ) a Reunion followes. Alas , it is not yet agreed on by all nor euer will be ( vnless fome quit their Errours) °ne c*se** which and where, Chriits true Church is. It is not yet nor can be * . agreed on , How many or few thefe fundamentals are, For though Catholicks and Proteftants Vnite in a belief of the Trinity , and call that a Fundamental Article, The Arians ftand out , and H „.<,. oppofe both. The means then here thought of, is fo far from ceafanot eftablishing Vnion that it increafes Diuifion, And fb it will euer but tncrc*. fall out whilft a Church of one Denomination , is not acknow- fes h *he ledged infallible in euery Do&rin She teaches, and obliges Chri Se^arteS flians to belieue vnder pain of Damnation. Se more hereof a- boue. Chap. 5. ». j. 16. A. 1. Objection. DilTentions in Councils ( witnels tho- fe at Bam1 and Florence) or the Accefs of Hereticks cannot les- fen their Power, or Anull their Definitions, Therefore our Plea taken from the Hoftihty in a moftample Council Euinces no- thing. Aniw. I grant the Antecedent arid fay , Though Here- tiques and diilenting Chriflians meet together, yea, Though fomc too bufily aduance opinions dilTonant to truth and Orthodox Do&rin , Yet God's gracious and watchful Prouidence, which drawes good out of Euil /And often conuert's War into Peace, Eeei wiU The Argu- ment taken From Hofti- lity Conuin* 404 Difc# 2. G M* There k a Church of one will with all Afliiran.ce effect that fuch a Council either break vp and Define nothing , Or, if a Definition ifliies forth that only shall be defined which is certain , and infallible. Thus much is granted. Yet I deny the Confluence and Say^ The Argument drawn from Hoftility Conuinces. Here is my reafon. That Ima- gined Reprefent at iue confift's, as we now fuppofe , of Arians, Pro- teftants, Catholicks, Socinians and all other called Chriftians^ For thefe, asibme think, Colle&iuely taken, make vp the diffufed Church of Chrift more ample than the Roman, Or, if fo many Conftitute it not, Let Sectaries pleafe to tellvs what Chriftians are to be excluded, or precifely how many are the Members of this diffufed Catholick Body ? In the mean while vouchfafe to Confider the force of my Argument,grounded vponan impla- cable Hoftility. 17. This whole diffufed Moral Body euidently maintains Contradictions. For example, Cbrtfi is the bigbesl GodyCbnlt is not the bigbeft God, Our Lords Sacred Body is fubftant tally prefent in the Eucharift : That Body is not fubftantially prefent. As therefore this large Society of Chriftians, now fuppoied but one great Church holds contradictions , So it muftbe granted, that the Reprefenta- tiue of it alfo hold's the fame Contradictions , Or, ceafeth to ipfo to Reprefent the whole Diffufed Moral Body.. 1 8. Hence one of theie three Sequels ineuitabJy followes, The firft. If this Reprefentatiue ftill continues to Reprefent ( which is euer to be noted) and proceed* s to a Definition, an- fwerable to the Sentiment of the large Moral Body in Diuifion, it neceflarily Defines the Contradictions of thofe Churches to a p /* ' be Orthodox Docfcrin , and were this done There is More then fifmy As- Hoftility enough, For thus impoflible Contradictions, are both Definable and Ueheuable, Or, it followes 2. that our imagined Reprefent itiue break's vp, and leaues all points in Controuerfy as "Wholly vndecided as they were before; And this which implies an endles Hoftility, would, I think, be the Refult of that Coun- cil , And vpon that Account appear a ridiculous Represent** im» Or, 5. This followes. That forae one Part or other in the; fertion* Difc. %* G *4- fcenominatm Jn fallible. 405 the Reprefentat'tue muft lay down Arms, and acknowledge one Church of One Denomination abfoludy infallible, in whofe Sentence all are to reft. Without this Acquiefcency in one Orthodox and Infallible Church ,, Errours in Faith goe on as we fee hitherto in a remedilelfe condition. This truth S. Auflin. Lib. de fymb. ad Catecbum. C. 6. Saw well , where He (peak's profoundly to my prefent purpofe. Ipfa eft Ecclefia fanfta, Eccle- fia vna &c. Sbet and she only u the holy the one Church , the Catho~ liih Church, Khich fights againft all Hercjies^she may fight , bat cannot be foiled. And Might I here Digrefs a little , I could Demonftrate That neuer Herefy yet of any Fame in the world appeared iincc Chrifts time, but it was Crushed cenfured , and condemned by one only Oracle the Roman Catholick Church , to whofe Sentence the very belt, of Chriftians dutifully Submitted , relying on our Sauiours fecure Promife, Hell gates cannot preuatl againsl that Oracle. 19. A. 3. Obiedion. Scripture alone though all Churches were fallible , is fufficient to teach infallible Faith necefTary to Saluation. Anfw. Of all Obie<5t.ions propofable, this is leaft worth. Far had Scripture that fufliciency, it may , I hope ,be yet Enquired , Whether the Church alfo , which cannot clash with Scripture , has the like Prerogatiue of infallibility. Scrip- ture was infallible when the Apoftles preached , and yet their Preaching was as infallible as The words they wrote. But here is not my greateft Exception. I lay scripture and all the Ve- rities in it goe to wrack if the Church be fabllible , For grant this, we haue no infallible Certainty of the Scriptures Canon , of it's fubftantial Purity or Immunity from corruption , of it's true Senfe in a hundred controuerted paiTiges. VVe cannot belieue that Chrift is God , or That his Alcent into Heauen was real , and not a vain Villon. We Cannot belieue what Sacraments are, nor know the number of them without the Church, Therefore vnlefs this Principle ftand vnshaken. It is immduily more certain that the Church , mantfefted by Her Markj is Gods ofrn Oracle, Than That Scripture , Jetting Church Authority a fide is Gods Word , we can E e e 3 belieue S. Aujiitt Speaky$ what wt Affert. Scripture without the Churches infallible Tefiimonfy bfeib force* 406 Difc. 2. C. l^Xhereii a Church of one belicue nothing. For who fee's not but that very Book would foon haue been out of credit , had not God by fpecial AiTiftancc preferued as well it's Doctrin pure in Mens hearts, as He prefer- ued the words in Velume or parchment , And this by the means of a watchful liuing Oracle his infallible Church. 20. Again, and this Rcaibn conuinceth. Were Scripture iudged fufficient to teach Saluifical Faith complcatly , independently of the Church, Or were the Church (when that Judgement is) The After* held not only errable but actually erroneous, How can any ha- ttm tspro- ujng tlie^c two iluJgemelus ( scripture Infallibly teaches Faith com- pltatty ). The Church btcaufe erroneous fails in this Duty ) Account bimfelf a. Heathen or Publican ( as our Lord Salth ) though he absolutely refiiie to hear the Church \ His refufal Certainly is pru- derit and defeniible vpon this ground , That Scripture doth all learns him enough, Therefore none can oblige him to hear the Church , which may miilead and Propound falfe Doftrins, For no man in his wits will liften to- a Fallible Oracle, whilfthehas another at hand , that teaches all Truths infallibly. 21. If you reply. Such an one is at leaft obliged to hear the Church in Fundamentals, but not in others. The Intelli- A Reply an- gent Perfon Asks ., whether Proteftants who lay that obligation fwered. vpon him of belieuing fundamentals only, own that Afftruon jo i«/<*/M/e, thac to beheue t;he Dijltnttion is an Article of their Faith? If they fay it is a fundamental Article and that he is obliged to be- lieue fo , Proteftants doe not only maintain one infallible fun- damental Point peculiar to .themfelues, difowned by the Roman - Catholick Church (for She certainly reiecTs the Diftin&ion ) £ahui3ed but moreouer now become infallible Oracles, in a Matter of of Errour. greateft Importance , which cannot pafs , becaufe they are Pro- feiTedly fallible in all.they teach, Therefore may truth haue pla- ce, the DicHn&ion giuen between fundamentals, is both Vnfun- damental and fallible Doctrin, And fo without More we are freed from all Obligation of belieuing the Church , for that Diftinc- tion failing to be a fundamental truth, The Church is abfolut- ly fallible in fundamental Doctrin. Well then may we not hear Her Difc. i. C. 14. ^enomtnationjnfallible 407 Her at all, without any Note of being looked on as Heathens, and Publicans. 22. Some perhaps , great Patrons of Chriftian Liberty , and freedom of mind in matters of Faith , may obiecl:. 4. The Church cannot exercife Her Authority ouer mens lodgements, or oblige any to an internal Aifent, Her power being limited and to thus much only, as to order and regulate the Exteriour A Reflection for this end , that Vnity and peace May be preierued without m*de ^on- publick Diffention. Anfw. Thefe men certainly neuer fay their c*r#'f* Creed. / hdimt the holy Catholic^ Churchy that is in mind inte- ub'rtmu Hourly, I giue Aflent to all the Catholick Church teaches , Now if this Doctrin (land, They may well not yeild Aifent at all to any Doctrin the Church teaches , but like - Hypocrits may outwardly be fair Catholicks , and inwardly foul Hereticks , And *his is , to Profefs one thing , and belieue another. Chrift is ashamed of them. Luke. a firm Affent to \hat euer God fpeak^s So vltimatly reft's vpon his Infallible Veracity, folemifed ^at *f* truc Belieuer yeild Aflent to him as He fpeahj^and be- * * caule He (peaks , All the power in Heauen cannot Separate In- fallibility from that Belief. Herein conlift's the Perfection of all Diuine Faith , That without fweruing , it tend's vpon a Verity Infallible , and without Hefitancy hold's that infallibly true, which the infallible Verity Reueal's. A letfer Perfection than this is not The per fee ' Faith , And a greater the Apoftles had not , if we precifely rel- tion of peel: the Motiue of their Aflent, Hence all mud Diftinguish a faith. twofold Infallibility, One intrinlick, and infinit, proper to Gods Verity , The Other anfwerable to a creatures Capacity., ( finit , t'is true ) , yet Infallible , and fuch the Apoftles Faith was. 2. Thus much Suppofed , not eafily gainfaid by Sectaries , the infallibility of one Church which we fay is the Roman Ca- tholick , Stand's firm. And here is the Reafon. As Faith re- lies vpon an infallible Verity that reueal's Truth , So it alfo reft's vpan One Vrinct. Difc. 2. C. IJ. si Church infallible^ 409 vpon an infallible Oracle , which ( without danger of Errour ) Applies and Propofes that very Truth yet obfeure, to Belieuers, For it little auail's to haue a Verity infallibly Reuealed , if a fallible Oracle which may both Miss and Miflead , be our beft On* ground and only Guide, or Proponent. The Church therefore which °fthe Saith Indubitably, I Propofe what God Reueals, muft beinfallible, Sjj^ anfwerable to the Infallibility of Diuine Reueiation. Ruin the One or Other Infallibility , Faith can be no more but an vncertain AiTent, And confequently no Faith at all. 3. To Reinforce this Reafon. Pleafe only to caft a ferious , Thought vpon fuch as haue been iuftly reputed Hereticks , and reinf,nL vpon their Procedure. The \ Arians after the reading Scripture denyed the high Godhead in Chrift., His Eternal Coufubftantialiry alfo to the Father, And erred. The Pelagians reie&ing Original Sin , fwerued likewife from the Verities of Chriftian Religion ; fo did the MonotheKts that impioufly bereaued Chrift of his two Sacred lVillsy Diuine and Humane. The true Church , All know condemned, and yet condemns thefe Tenets as Heretical. Right fay modern Sectaries , And it was well done. Very Good, if Tbell done, herevpon enfues another troublefbn Queftion , and it is. Whether that true Church , whilft She condemned thefe Errours and defined the contrary Truths, proceeded Doubtfully , Probably , vpon Moral Certainty only, or Spake as Gods Oracle ought tfth$ to fpeak, Infallibly* If She Denned doubtfully, it is yet alfo Church fa doubtful whether Chrift be the high God, and ConfuMantial to j^sdm^' his Father, Vnlefs Scripture (now fuppofed God's word) in exprefs Terms clear the doubt , and raife the Do&rin to abfolute Certainty, which moft euidently ts not done. 4. The whole Conteft then is , Whether the Church or Arians Interpret Scripture better. , For the Obiect of my AfTent when I belieue the eternal Word, Confubjlantul, being not Ex- prefs Setipture , but an Interpretation only , it followes , if the Interpretation which the Church giues be fuppofed doubtful,She wrong's the Arians , and all other Chriftians , whilft She obliges them to belieue the Myftery otherwife than only , Sub dubio or Fff doubt- She wrongs both Artani and All Cbrtjlians The Sena, ties Plea of Moral Cer- tainty exa- mined. A quefihn fropo fed to Stfiarits, 410 Difc. 2. C. 15 fDiuwe Faith requires doubfully, which is not to belieue at all. Again Tf the Churches- Definition get a Step higher , to a degree of Probability and no more;. The Arians Opinion for ought we know yet , may be as tenable as the Contrary Doftrin now fuppofed Orthodox, And Confequently the real Confubftantiality of the Son to his Father, is no more any Obiect of Faith, but meerly a difputable Matter like this or that Opinion in Schools, earneftly tofTed to and fro , But neuer ended, Doubts therefore*, And meer probabilities reiecl:ed5 tooweightles for Church Definitions, 5^ We are next to look a little into one only Refuge left Sectaries , called Moral Certainty. T'is a dark cloud, they are la- tely got into , our Endeauour shall be to diflipate it. They may fay. When the Church condemned Arianiiln ( the like is of any other Herefy ) and defined the Eternal Word Confubftantial. The Definition ( much aboue Probability) though not abfolutely Infallible , was yet fo morally Certain that no man can , but moft. vnreafonably , doubt of its Verity. In paffmg y I may without Offence take notice of Sectaries Inconfequences, and Ask , if Mo- ral Certainty be at leaft had from Church Definitions, when She interprets Scripture, though the Do£trin be not formally expres- fed There, Why are not Her Definitions euery whit as Morally certain againft Luther and Caluin, though what She Defin's be not in exprefs Terms Gods word? I would alfo as willingly learn, why Proteftant Do&rin is not efteemed ouer all the world fo Morally certain as thefe Ancient Catholick Definitions are ? But let thefe Queries , not eafily Anfwered pafs, We come to the main- difficulty , and demand. 6. Whether this Pofitiue Doctrin. Cbr'ifi is the Hiobefl God, and Confubliantial to bis father be a Fundamental Article of Chri- stian Faith finally refoluable into the Diuine Reuelation , And ad- mitted as moft. Fundamental by Proteftants > I verily perfwade my felf they will Say it is : If not 9 This followes ineuitably , that there is no fundamental Article in our Chriftian faith. Vpon the fuppofed ConceMion I Argue. But If the Church be falli- ble, this Pofitiue Do&rin, Cbrift it CQttfubfttntUl. is no Article of Di(c 1. C."iy. A Qburchhfaffihk' 4* * -of Faith becaufe it cannot be refolued into an infinite Verity infallibly Reuealing Truth, Therefore it is only a Moral humane Perfwafion at moil:, which may be falfe. 7. The Proof of the Minor , will beil appear if we Ask why Sectaries belieuethat pofitiue Doctrin ? They cannot An- fwer, Scripture exprejlj Teaches it; For moft euidently that's not fo. Will they fay the Myflery may by good Difcourie be de- The true duced from Scripture > I Could wish to fee a clear Deduction , *r^T/Lrfr yet fear it. Howeuer Suppofe that done, new Doubts arife con- certain, cerning the certainty of the Deduction, which can be no more but morally certain , moil: infurficient to ground Diuine Faith. The true AnlVer therefore muft be, or none. The Nicene Coun- cil, The both pas't , and Prefent Church faithfully interpreting Scripture , Dehnitiuely deliuered the Doctrin , and vpon this ground we belieue the Myftery, 8. Nowhere we come to the main Bufinefs, and Ask again, whether God fpeaking by this Church as his own Oracle , Pro- poses that Doetrin and obliges all to belieue it, Or , Contrary- wife , whether the Church diuorced as it were from Diuine Am- • flance teaches vpon Her own humane fallible Authority , And ^ c&w- obliges all to belieue the Myftery > Grant the firft , The Deli- chei [njaium nations of the Church are infallible , becaufe an Eternal Verity bilityfur- fpeaks infallibly by Her. Say fecondly , That the Church wholly ther mined Vnafsifted , teaches and Defines vpon Her own fallible humane Authority , the Doctrin we learn from Her of the Incarnation^ of the hightft Godhead in Cbrifl , of his being Confub/iantial , of the Blrffed Trinity , of Original Sin , beget's no Faith , Becaufe if the Suppoticion hold's , that AfTent relies not at all vpon an Infallible Verity fpeaking by the Church Afifted , but vpon a weak and fallible Human Authority which cannot fupport any certain Be- liefe, For it is mod: prepofterous to Say , that men meerly falli- ble, as all are left to Themfelues, can AlTurevs , what that Doc- trin is, which God Reueal's Infallibly. Now we Come to this Moral Certainty. 9* And one Perhaps will (ay , Such men , though fallible , ' Fff 2, may The Chur- ches Dtjwi- tions More then Moral- ly Certain. The Nature efMorri certainly briefly bin- ted at. 4 \r Difc. I. C 1 5. (Divine Faith requirei may at lead giue Moral Ajfurance of the truth of the Do&rln, ani that's enough. Contra. 1 . Moral alTurance which euer implies fome weak Degree of fear of the contrary may ip rigour be falfe* But the Church , which obliges all to belieue Her Doctrin vn- der pain of Damnation fpeak's without fear, and Saith boldly. Godreueal's as I teach, Therefore her Doctrin iffalfe , is the Diuels Doctrin. But none can fay, That the Nicene Definition againft Arius was the Dodtrin of Diuels , But Contrary wife a Truth reuealed by God , and Belieuable Fide Diuina, Ergo it was infallible, and more than Morally certain. Contra. 2. God Speaking by the Church gmes greater Certainty than Moral , And if he do notipeak at all by Her, the Definition now remoued from Infallible AlTiftance Vphold's not Faith , as we shall fe pre- fently, nor can it be prudently iudged morally certain. 10. Though much be laid in the other Treatife. Dtfc. 1. C. 4. G. againft this Pretence to Moral certainty ( Sectaries cafually light on it becaufe, forfooth, they brook not the word. Infah Itbd ty ) yet here wre muft wholly weaken that Plea. I fay The- refore, could the Church (as She cannot ) Define or teach wi- thout Gods fpecial AlTiftance, Chriftians would either not attain to fo great certainty of Her Doclrrin, as is Moral $ Or if no greas- ier could be had , That certainty would not be Diuine Faith, Euery one knowes Moral certainty to be a kind of knowledge, where- by men iudge fiich things are, or are not, without great Hefi- taricy or any reafonable caufe of Doubting, It is vlually grounded vpon fome vulgar Perfwafion, or common half owned Euidence, which the moft of men truft to prudently , When no furer can be had. Thus wre lay. All People in Common Conutrfauon fpeak^ not at way i's contrary to their thoughts. Some mean "toell inthetr P?o- ceedtng. Rnme and Conftamnople art nolo Citties in being. Thefe and the like AfTertions may in rigour be falfe, Yet our Iudicatiue faculty without Violence readily yeild's to all, induced thereunto by a Perflation vulgarly receiued whereby we fay , That as fuch things are Commonly reported , So they alio are vfually belieued, and Commonly true. In a word the greateft part of Moral cer- tainty Difc. 2. Clj. A Church Infallible. 41J tainty may be rightly ftiled a kind of half Suppofed Euidence, current in the world , which may Deceiue, yet eafily deceiues not. 11. Now be pleafed to reflecl:. The fublime Myfteries of Faith, remote from all vulgar Apprehenfions and half owned Eui- dences, are neither viiible like Conftantinople,.feen by innume- rable Eye-wittnefTes, Nor allured vpon any either Fallible or de- ceiuable Authority , nor finally belieued vpon a meer hnmane pru- dential Difcourfe only. No. They lie in a higher . Region aboue our natural knowledge in the Abyfs of Gods infcrutable Wifdom , and the more remote they are from Senfe Or any Half-euidences, the more they ftand in need of an infallible Pro- ponent, Whereby All reft Afcertained of their being Eternal Truths. Hence I Argue. None but God aboue who Reueafs, and an infallible Church which Propofes the Myiteries can giue AiTurance of their being Diuine Truths , or fay abiblut'ly They ought to be belieued anfwerably to their Dignity, as Diuine. Now further. But, if God reueal's them as- his own Truths for this End , that all belieue them infallibly , the Church cannot but. Speak in the name of God , and independently of this Vulgar humane knowledge , Propofe them alfo infallibly as Diuine , Or if She could turn vs off with no more but a Moral Perfwa- fion of their (eemw? Gods truths., yet may not be fo , The Strength of Faith vanishes into a. dillatisfacliory Topick , into a meer Terbaps thus. 1/ may be &e Belieue Truth , it may be not. In a word we belieue not as the Apoftles did, infallibly. 12. Hence none, I think, shall euer comprehend how this Whimfy of Moral Certainty got into our Proteftants thoughts , For had Chriftians agreed in that Certainty , or had they laid: Becaufe the Myfteries of faith are propofed fo weakly , We can belieue Tbith no Stronger affurame but Monly They muft haue receiued and leam'd that Do&rin (not from their own fancy) but from fome Superiour Power, fome known Oracle that taught fo, which either reuealed , or propofed the Myiteries as only Morally certain , and no more. But to point at anyfuch Ora- Fff. l .fte.. A rejleftioir No Power deceiuable cangrcnnd Faith, The ineffi- ciency of Moral Certainty* 414 Difci. C. i J. (Dittine Faith requires Taithonly cle ls impoflible, And here is the reafon. All know, thatGocT Morally eer an infallible Verity, cannot Reueal any Truth only Morally lamrtieded Certain. Chrift our Lord taught his own Verities infallibly, Co by aU that a|fQ jjj tjie Apoftles who were Strangers to this low and half "briflitnit* lame Affurance. No ancient Chriftians nameable profelTed a lefi certainty(of Faith ) than infallible in the Church which taught them. The Roman Catholick Church you fee forcon- uincing Reafons , laies claim to diuine Affiftance when She Tea- ches; and difclaims this petty kind of Certainty , which may be falle : From whence then came the Perfwaiion of that certainty into mens Heads when neither God, nor Chrift, nor Apoftles nor Ancient Chriftians , nor any Orthodox Church euer fauoured it > 13. The true Anfwer is, immcus homo hoc fecit. An old Enemy to decry the Infallibility of Gods own Oracle conueyed the Th A It is Anfwered they verily think and per- fwade Themfelues that the Myftery lies couched in Holy Writ. But Ask again , whether that Thought or PerfvvaOon be not fal- lible , they Anfwer, affirmitiuely. Ergo , Say I , their Faith which cannot goe beyond the ftrength of that weak Proportion, is alio fallible and confecjiientiy not Diuine. 1 j. Here you fee firft , the abfolute Neceffiry of an infallible Proponent in Points of Faith, which Sectaries haue not, And therefore can belieue nothing Diuinely ; And truly Catholicks would be in as bad a Condition ( yea really fto Catholicks ) An j^^ eould the Church only guefs at thefe high Myfteries, could She bltpropo- propole them vpon a humane errable Authority only, Or in a nent, word, Define Fallibly. You fee. 2. Vpon what ground the n"gJf*y feith of a Gatholick is infallible , For being demanded why He belieues Siftaries haue no fatth moral- Ifeertatn. Jn OUeCm Uon* Moral Cer- tainty, grounded on Senfible Euidence giues not Faith any sijfwance. 416 Di(c 2. C.15. fDiuine Faith requires belieues this, or any other Myftery, his An fiver is, God reueal's them. Queftioned again who giues him Co much AfTurance * A fatisfa&ory Reply is at hand. He belieues fo , becaufe an AfTifted Church, which cannot Err, Propofes all Her Myfte- ries infallibly. Take away Diuine Afliftance, She is errable and may deceiue euery one She teaches. 16. One may here demand whether the Proteftants Belief of the Trinity, or of any other high Myftery growes vp to lb much Certainty frith ibem , as is Moral > Anfiv. 1. It import's little whether it do or no , So long as their Faith is meerly fal- lible. I Anfiver 2. If we Speak rigoroufly, Their Belief is not morally certain. Here is my reafbn. Their own Diuining in fo abflrufe a Matter cannot raife the AfTent fo high, And if they would borrow, as it were , Certainty from the Catholick Church, e and Apply that to Themfelues,They know well this Oracle Qw- nes no other Certainty in the Belief of reuealed Truths , but what is infallible , and cannot be Falfe. 17. By what is laid already we ealily Solue a common Obiec- tion. Moral certainty feems often equiualenty yea wholly as Satisfacto- ry to reafon, as that is fre call Pbyfical , For one that neuer faw Conftantinople can no more Queftion the Being of fuch a Citty, than doubt of the fun's shining at Noon day. Anfw. All is moil: true, but nothing to the purpofe, For, that certainty The- refore equalizes phyfical , becaufe ( Originally grounded vpon a fenfible vifible Euidence) it is taken from innumerable WitnelTes who haue feen the place, This makes the common Report indu- bitable , and conueyes vnto vs a certainty as firm , as if we law .Constantinople with our Eyes. But the Myfteries of Faith lie, as is now noted in a higher Region, and are neither propofed nor conueyed to vs by the help of any vifible or fenfible Eui- dence; And were they infomelow degree morally certain vpon humane Reports, that would neither match, nor be fo ftrong as natural Euidence is. Wherefore God interpofes his own Afli- ftance and raifes the Propofition of thefe Myfteries and our Be- lief Difc. 2. C lj. A Qhurch Infallible. 417 .lief of them, to a yet higher Degree of certitude far aboue either Moral or Phylical , For whether we confider them as Truths reuea- led by an input Verity , or propofed by the Church Diuindy Afii- fted , They itand firm vpon infallible Principles. And thus we baue their Truth indubitably conueyed , And the Conueyance you fe, admits of nothing but Infallibility. I fay the Truth , For without doubt there is a ftrong vifible and fenfible Euidence in the Marks and Motiues which Denote Chrifts Church ,and make Her Doclxin in the higheft manner indubitably Credibly But hereof you shall hear more partly in the Obie&icns, But mod .amply in the third Difcourfe. iS. To end this point concerning Moral Certainty. I Ask Moral Cer- (and for Anfwer appeal to the Iudgement of euery rational man) tamtytn what cold comfort would it haue been to the Primitiue Chri- \ riid ftians, had the Nicene Fathers after a refolute Definition iilued p/M# x»W forth, whereby the Confultftumulhry of the Diuine Word was Aflcr- why} ted , and a Peremptory Anathema Pronounced againft all that belieued it not, Declared themielues and Senfe in this frigid man- ner? It is fo indeed Defined. But we only mean thus mucli, That the Dodtrin is morally certain and may befalfe. Would not Arius think ye haue flighted the Definition > And might be not haue Argued to the purpofe Thus > If no man can hold himfelf happy for being actually in Errour, He cannot Certainly think himfelf out of the danger of an vnhappy Sta- te, if he be expo fed to the danger of Errour, But the Moral certainty you defend thruft's you vpon the danger of being in Errour , Therefore your Condition is none of the fureft , Nay it is as bad as mine, For the worft that can befall my Doctrin, which I pretend Scripture for, is, That it may one day prouc falfe, and fo may yours too (Good Fathers) if in the leaft degree fallible. 19. Hence You fe firft, That the Definitions of Chrifts eui- denced Church muft either be owned infallible, And then meer Moral certainty hath no place, Or Hereticks may endlefly ca~ 4iil at Her Do&rin and boldly lay , nothing is taught nothing Ggg can Tfi ex rep t agatnjt the Churrhes Infallibility **ftroy*$ *«tth. The StB*. ties Para- dox, lnftrences, What euer makes Faith true msl-es it Infallible. 418 Difc 2. C 15. Diume Faith requires can be belfeued infallibly. If you Reply. Many cauil and except againft the Churches Infallibility. I anfwer. This is to fay r Exception is made againft a Truth which either muft ftand vnshaken,or Faith ( made no more but a tottering Opinion) is deftroyed. And Mark in what a Diftrefs poor Chriftians are, who Ask. Domtne quo tbtwus > Lord whither shall we goe to learn Eternal truth > Proteftants will needs draw vs from a Church hitherto held infallible, And to aftord a better prouifion of Truth, remit vs to Them fel ues , who confeiTedly are falliUe in all they Teach. A Paradox beyond ExprefTion. The Church u (uppofed fal- lible , and Proteftants are really fallible. Where then is our Security I From whom shall we learn Truth.? From no body. But more of this hereafter. 20. You fe. 2, There is not one receiued Chriftian Princi- ple ib much as feemingly fauourable to Moral certainty only which may be fals , or which forces That vpon the Churches Definitions. Whereas , on the contrary , Scripture Councils , and Fathers Pofitiuely Averr Church Doctrin to be infallible. You fe. 3. To pretend to true Faith or to true Religion diuorced from Infollibility, Deftroyes Both, For although euery Truth be not infallible , yet Truth and Infallibility infeparably meet ii> Faith. Wherefore this Inference inuiolably hold's good. My Catho- lick Faith is true Ergo it is infallible. For Faith relies vpon „ And is vltimatly Reiblued into God's infallible Veracity , which ( with the Concurrence of other Principles requifite ) Transfufes into it a Supereminent infallibility aboueail natural Certitude. That Then fore Tvhich makes Faith truey makes it alio Infallible. Now- further to- our prefent Purpoie. God as we here Suppofe re- liealed tbe Confubftantiallity of his Son Infallibly, But the Myftery lies dark in Scripture, The Church impowred to Propofe exactly eternal reuealed Truths, Anfwerable to Her Truft and the weigh- tines of the matter, (peak's not like one faint hearted , Forfooth y Morally fpeak'mg Chrisl is the highesl God. The Tfrord is Confubslan* tial, But AfTertsit without all Peraduentures , And ftrik's Arianifir* dead with one only Definition. And thus Faith ftand' s firm; vj>or& DiFc. *. C. 15. A Church Infallible. 4ip vpon a double infallibility , the One infinite and Effential to God's Verity; The Other, the infallible Propoficion of an A (lifted Church, For as She Propofcs the oblcure Myfteries of Faith , lb we be- lieue. Whereof more prefently. Otfar Obieflions propofed by SeSlaries } Solved. More of Moral certainty* 21. One, though enough broken already, muft appear again in our New mens Terms, or nothing is done. Thus they Dif- courfe. If Chriftian Doctrin be in Co high a Degree Morally / Certain , As it is Certain that Cadar , Pompey and Cicero were men once in Being, None can realbnably doubt of the Doctrin, And why may not Such an Afiurance Content vs , without our pretended Infallibility 1 I read this in Mr Stillingfleet more then once , And had 1 not feen it with my own Eyes, I Should ne- uer haue thought, That One ProfeiTing Knowledge in Diuinity could haue erred Co enormoufly. To lay open the foule Mi- ihke. 22. All know the Certainty we haue of Cxlars once being in the world was firft grounded vpon a Viilble .clear Euidence , for Innumerable law the man , heard him Speak, whilft He liued on earth. The Verity euer lince conueyd. down from Age to Age Continues ftill to our dayes , And here is all the Moral Certainty men can haue of Caviar, of Pompey , or of any other, lb remote from vs. Pleafe now to obferue. As Carlar and Cicero were feen by many Eye-witneiTes , So Chrift our Lord was both heard and feen by Innumerable when he Preached, andfuffered on the Crofs. The Euidence to thoie Spectators was Senfible and Phylical,To Iewes and Gentils now , its Moral, who vpon a Vniuerfal report Say without boggling, There was ©nee a man in the world called Chrift , as they lay , There was once One, Called Cxfar. But (and here we Come to difcouer Ggg 2 Mr Mifiaks concerning Moral cer~ tainty. Tefsj Chrift was vpon Moral etrtainly is not to be* Ueue in Chrift. What is to belieue in ChriJ}, Faith is tnort thtn morally Certain A Conuin* rir.gtezftn hmof* 420 Dife. *. C. 15. (Diuine Faith requires Mr Stillingfleets Errour) DoThefe Iewes and Gentils therefore belieue in Chrift , or Allent to his Sacred Doctrin by Vaith be- caufe they Iudgc vpon Moral Certainty, He was once on earth > Is this Truth ,1 fay , As it is grounded vpon a Common Report , or Morally Certain the Obiecl: of Faith > It is more then ridicu- lous. For grant That , All the Iewes in Europe at this Day may be well thought to Belieue in Chrift , becaufe they haue Moral Certainty of his once Being in the world. 23. To Belieue in Chrift Therefore , is not to Say, fuch a man once had his Being , he Preach'd, and fuffcred ( for this lay* open to Senfe ) Butimplyes Much more. viz. To AiTert in- dubitably vpon Diuine Reuelation. That the Man called Chrift Iefus was truely the Higheft God , The only MeiTias , The Re- deemer of Mankind , Confubftantial to his Eternal Father and finally to AlTent to Euery Doftrin he taught. Thefe and the like Truths ( neither viflble nor (eniible, like Ca?far ) are Obiects- of Diuine Faith, far enough remoued from Phyfical and Moral Certainty, And we firmly AlTent to All, not becaufe they are feen with, our Eyes , or Scientifically known , Or finally Conueyed vntovsvpon the weak Support of Moral certainty, But becaufe God an Infinite Verity has reuealed them. Here is our Ground. Now This Reuelation being not euidently known by virtue of any Principle in Nature, muft be Belieued (together with the. Oblcure Myfteries, Atttsled) by an Act of Diuine Faith. 24, And Hence it followes , That as no Obiedt. {asfeenor Euidently kno^n) Can terminate Supernatural Faith ; So no Mo- ral Certainty can be elTential to it, Or vphold it. The vltimate Reafbn hereof is moft Conuincing, and Briefly thus. What euer God reueal's (as it is reuealed )is Certain and Infallible Doftrin. Whe- refore , He or thofe that take from this infallible reuealed Doftrin, its own mtrmfecal Certatnty , And make it no More but Morally Certain Wrong God the fir si Verity, and iniure'all Chriftians, who are to learn it at Infallible , But Sectaries do So , That is, they vnnaturely turn Gods infallible Doctrin out of its own intrinlecal Certainty, and Say its only Morally Certain to vs , Therefore they wrong that Difc. I. C if. A Church Infallible. 421 that firft Verity and abufe all Chriftians. This Principle alone Prouesthe Churches Infallibility, And vtterly ruin's the Prote- ftants Pretence to Moral Certainty, whereof you Shall haue More hereafter. 2$. Now to deal fairely with Mr Stillingfleet, let vs at pre- fent falfely Suppofe Moral Certainty a furficient ground of Faith, what Good for Gods fake get Proteftants by that? Can They tell vs where the Church is, whofe Do&rin muft be reputed only morally certain ? The Arians call themfelues a. Church, fo do the Grxcians , the Proteftants likewife , and finally fo do Catholicks. Are all thefe different iarring Doctrins Morally certain? Euidently No. For the ProfelTors of them maintain Contradictions, vtterly Deftru&iue both of Moral and all other Certainty. Some One Society therefore teaches it, For more than One ( if diuided in faith ) cannot , This One muft be Signali- zed and pointed out, which no Proteftant can do, For if he na- me his own Church he hath the whole world againft him , and will be forced to proue his Aflertion vpon indubitable Principles : And if he point at the Roman Catholick Church, he ruins his own caufe,. For two oppoflte Churches cannot teach Doctrin morally Certain. Now if he can point at no Church of One Denomination teaching Docfcrin Morally certain , This certainty is only an infignirkant word in the aire , appliable to no Chri- ftian Society. 26. A fecond obiech'on. The Motiues of Credibility though commonly held only Inducements morally certain, fo Denote the true Church , that all may find it out, Therefore though Church Doctrin were only morally Certain , and not Infallible , it may fufficiently lead to belieue that Do&rin which God has Reuealed. Anfw. Here is neither Parity nor any Inference confequential, And the want of distinguishing between the Credibility? of Reuea- led Doclrin and its Truth , breed's the Confufion, The Moti- ues then only make the Do&rin euidently Credible y and remit vs to the Church which teaches Truth , She propofes the Doc- trin , and vpon Her Proportion Faith relies 3 which therefore Ggg 3 jxijift-' Church Dnlrin only Morally Certain , SeRarieiytt gain N»- thing. Faith ulits not vpon Motiues in* during to Beliefs. If She AnnVer's tru- ly Shedorh fb , I am fecure vpon this Principle, that an Oracle teaches which cannot Deceiue. But if it be replyed, She is only impowred to Propofe reuealed Truths fallibly , and I by my in- ternal Aflent clofe , as it were , with That , or lay hold of the reuealed obieel iufl Co as it is propoled fallibly , mofl euidently my AiFent and Belief, is no more but Fallible, 7. In this Matter then as in all others^ we are exactly to at- tend to the Propofal of Obiects, for as they are laic? forth to vs, (6 much weight they haue. For example. A real Good in it S'Afe is by mi (lake Pmpofed to me as an Euil , I adhere to that Qbiecfc as it is propofed , and mufl Adhere to Euil , becauie it appear's lb to me. In like manner, an infallible Truth, is Pro- pofed not as it is in it Selfe, infallible , But dilcoloured, and defa- ced , by a viciated Proposition which is fallible y Therefore by force of that weak Declaration it appear's no other to me but weak and Fallible : And none on earth can vnbeguile me , or Propofe it with greater certainty , Becaufe all are now Suppo- i\:d fallible in their Teaching. 8. One Inflance may yet clear my meaning. The Prote- ctant reads Chrifts Sacred words. Matt. 16. This is my Body. And Propofeswhat he conceiues to be belieuable by Faith , But doth it fallibly. Imagin that the Roman Catholick Church alio could Say no more for Her Dodfcrin, or the Senfe of thoie Words, But as the Proteflant doth lb fallibly that all might be Falfe,it is clear That none , whether Catholick or Proteflant , can haue Certainty of the Doclrin , which Chrifl our Lord deliuered in that one short Sentence. Why? Both declare their fallible Sen- timents only and Validly concerning the Sacrament, So far their teaching reaches and not farther. Therefore the Faith which H h h 2, should Uv htlietfs not by Ob'teBs but by our inte- riour A&i. As thing; are propofed fo they are to all thai belieue. An Inftanfs Scripture alone makes no man in- fallible. And fptyt &Q» abufsd Vihat Ca- tholicks rew quire btfidti the bare «« Letter of Svipturt* 42b Difc. 2. C. 16. Tbe%j>manCdtBolkkCBurcb should be had of the Myftery dwindles into nothing but into a fallible Opinion , by virtue of that imperfect Teaching. 9. Hence we learn, that a Dodlrin though infallible in Gods word without more Help , makes no man ( though he be a Pro- digy of wit ) an Infallible Teacher. The reafon is. Infallibility Proceed's not from Scripture eafily mifinterpreted , but immediatly from Gods fpecial Affiftance , And this Afsiftance which fixes an Aflumed Oracle vpon Truth vnenably , no malice can wreft to falshood. Now that the Book of Scripture as dayly Expe- rience teaches, is horridly peruerted to a Sinifterfenfe, needs no proof , For all know , what ruin Hereticks haue ( to the vtter- moft of their Power ) endeuoured to make of the chief Articles of our Chriftian Faith , though they aknowledged Scripture to be God's Diuine Word. There is fcarce One which remain's Vn- peruerted. Some Deny the Neceflity of Diuine Grace , Others , that great Myftery of the Incarnation , Others an Equality in the Vmine Perfonsy Others our Sauiours two Wills, Diuine, and Huma- ne. Thus the Pelagians , the Antitrinitarians the Apollmarians and Monothelits taught and deceiued The world. And when Scripture is Alleged in behalf of euery Orthodox Truth , All you haue from them is a return of ouerthwart GlolFes. Grace r maft fignify what the Pelagians pleafe , The Word made Tlesb , what the Antitrinitarians fancy , and fo of the reft; Whence it is Euident that scripture Alone without more light , clears not fufficiently its own Truths, For here you Se the mod Primary Atticles difowned and Confequently Scripture abufed by Priuate Spirits, which therefore makes none infallibly certain of God's reuealed Do&rin. We Catholicks. require a further Help, One faithful io, Oracle to teach, which in this conteft about the Senfe of Gods Word end's all Strife, and Saies both plainly and infallibly. Thus and thus an Infinite Verity [peaks in Scripture : Yet Sectaries are offended with vs, becaufe we can alTert without hefitancy. VVc belieue infallibly tobat Truth it Selfe Reueal's infallibly: Nay more,. They are angry with God for hauing done them the greateft. Fauoux Difc.l. C. 16. proued Infallible, 429 fiuour Imaginable. For to put a Period to thefe endles A pgtlai debates railed among Chriftians , To teach all Infallibly by Mercy of his own vnerring Oracle what may and ought to be belieued Cod makes Infallibly , is a flgnal Mercy for which due Thanks can neuer fe#arie* be rendred. Diibwne the Mercy , we Hue and shall Hue , in °^tn e ' a Spirit of Contention to the worlds end. 1 1 . Now if you Ask why the Church , after She has pro- poled the Senfe and verity of Scripture, more ealily begets infallible Faith in Her Children , Than the bare letter of Gods word can doe without Her > I Anlwer. The facility (Di- uine affiftance Supposed) ariles from the Clarity of Her tea- ching known to all Vniuerfally , whether Orthodox or others. Whence it is , that few of our Aduerfaries fcarce moue any doubt concerning the Senfe of the Churches vniuerlal receiued Doclrin (for that's plain) but chiefly Queftion the Truth of it. Whereas all is contrary in our conteft with the forenamed Hereticks, For there is no Dilpute whether Scripture be true, , The debate only being what it Saith , or what the Senfe of tbu§m Godsfacred word is? Here we fight in darknefs before the debated Church Speaks and Declares Her Senfe , And if She be $i- *** Sefttu uinely AfTiftedto teach truth , as is already and shall be more rus* amply proued in the lequele Difcourie y that doubt, alio ceafesy and vanishes into nothing. 12. In the mean while , Some may Object, i. The greatefl part of Chriltian Doclxin is now agreed on , and Suppofed by Catholicks and Proteftanss both true and infallible , what neceflity then haue we of any other Oracle beiides Scripture,, to teach infallibly ? Anlw. The Agreement is Null , and the Suppoution deftroies it felf ,if all that taught ChrifHan Docftrin fmce the Apoftles time teach it fallibly, For How could any AnOhhtlhn agree in this , That fuch and fuch a Doctrin is Jjpth-- true ^»/«"r^. and infallible r when He , or They (yea. all) that teach may, becaufe fallible ,.erre in their very teaching, and call that in- fallible Doctrin, without Aflurance giuen of its Infallibility? Do Therefore all own the Verities in Scripture infallible (not, Hhh x infallible TheSeftariet Suppofition dftiroj/et it f'lfe. Aunolher TLrrour oj Sfffaries. Se&arits rltarly con- uinced. 4 1 o Di fc. 2 . C. i 6. The %om&n Catholic k Church infallible ex Ter minis) We muft ioyntly own with that, an Oracle which Propofes thefe Verities infallibly , or can belieue nothing. And by this you Se the Suppofition deitroies it Selfe , For to Suppofe a Do&ria infallible , when none can Propofe it anfwerably to its Merit , as infallible , or infallibly , is as impiica- tory , as to Suppofe without Proof, the Stairs in Heauen equal in number , and from thence to infer? they. are to be iudged equal. The Parity holds exactly. 13. Obiecl:. 2. Whoeuer , though fallible ., Deliuers by chance Infallible Chriftian Dochin , Teaches the very fence that Chrift taught. Anfw : Very true. But he giues no Aflurance That he doth Co , For a fallible Deliuery of a Truth , as yet only Suppofed not Proued infallible ^ raifes it no higher but to fuch a State of Vncertainty , that one may iuftly doubt whether it be ChrHVs infallible Docfrin or no* 14. Obiecl:. 9. The fallible teaching of an infallible Verity may well conuey vnto a Hearer that which God has Reuealed. For why may not an infallible Verity,^ Reueahd, though fallibly Prcpoied haue influence vpon Faith , and work in Belieuers a moil: firm AfTent ? Anfw. It is vtterly vmpoffible ; For a fal- lible teaching of an infallible Verity not yet Propofed as infal- lible by any, neither Suppoles the Truth Certain vpon other prin- ciples (and this is euer to be noted) nor mahs it infalltble. It Suppofes no Truth taught infalliby , for Proteftants Say None now can teach lb , All Doctors being fallible : And mod eui- dently it makes not that Verity infallible , For the Verity (as reueaied ) *as antecedently Infallible before this fallible teaching medlcd "frith it , Which therefore can not make it Infallible. By what is laid , you fe our Sectaries Suppofition of fome Chriftian Do- drin acknowledged infallible is pure Sophiftry , for none can AfTure them ib much, if All that teach it be fallible. The very Apoftolical Doctrin refpe6tiuely to vs now liuing lofes i'ts Infallibility , if this Suppofition (lands , That all Teachers are fallible. Now We Proceed to a Second Argument and Dif- courfe thus. !J. If Difc.2. C. 16. proued Infallible. 4jl rf. If the whole Church (the like is of any General ap- T^e churl proued Council) can err, She may not only traitoroufly betray ekes lufalli- HerTruft, But moreouer doe fo much Mifchief to Chriftians W"y father byvnitingall in Errour,That they muft remain in it , without Pr0M& redrels or remedy, For if the Church may miftake , whilft She Teaches , No man on earth can be rationally Suppoied wifer than She is, nor goe about to Vnbeguile the deceiued by Her. The Euil here hinted at is fo Notoriously horrid , the Perple- xity it caufes fo Great , that either Church Doctrin vnauoydably becomes defpicable, (whilft euery one may iuftly Quarrel with it) Or this Principle muft ftand vnshaken , that the Church cannot teach a Falshood. 16. Some Sectaries feing. the Force of this vnanfwerable Ar- gument , hold the Church DirFufiue infallible in fundamentals, Yet neither name nor can name thofe Chriftians who conftitute an infallible Church larger than the Roman , whereof enough is laid both in this , and the other Treatife. In the next place y ?eL their whole Strife is to Oppofe the Infallibility of the Churches /^M/,-,' Reprefemattues in her General Councils , But methmks inconfe- of Council^ quently , For what euer Realbn proues Immunity from Errour without 4 in that diftufed Moral Body , Conuinces as forcibly the like reaf°»* Priuiledge in its Reprefentatiues, Which are not Coiiuened to deceiue , But to teach God's reuealed Verities 17. Mr. Stillingfleet. Part. 3. C. 1. 2. P. 505. After a larger Prologue to very little Subftance , Tell's vs. It is not any high challenge of Infali'btltty , in any Perfon , or council , Which mufl put an end to Controutrfies $ For nothing but Truth and, Reafon , can euer do it , and the more men pretend to vnreafonable T* ayes of deciding them, fajlead cf ending One , they beget many* I {ay contrary. If the Church and Her Councils be infallible , Controuerlies are ended without more Adoe , For all know vpon that Supposition , What to belieue and what to reiect. And if they be not Owned infallible , there is no fuch thing or things in being as Truth , and Reafon , which can put an end to Controuerlies. To explicate the Aflertion is to proue it. 0 18. Dos- The Infalli- bility of Councils ajjmed. Theweaknts of two far- ties fUaitng faUibly. 4 1 1 D i fc . 2. C - 1 6 The %om.an Cithollck Church 1 8. Doc then no more but caft away all. thought of- an In- fallible Church , as alio of Her infallible Councils. It is clear, that euery Doctrin Taught fince the Apoftles time has been deliuered FuJhbly y Tis clear likewife , All that teach it at this day (highly dilTentirig among them felues) Teach fallibly, Imagin now that two aduerie Parties , Ten learned Proteftants on the one Side, And as many learned Catholicks on the Other, meet together and leriouily Diiculs this Point , whether Proteftancy or Catholick Docirin (as oppofed to Proteftancy) be the true Religion 2 ( the like is if any particular Controuerfy rail vnder Debate.) I fay the Attempt to decide any one controuerted matter is Vain and ImpolTible , if both Church and Councils be Suppofed fallible , And conlequently Mr. StiliingfLets Truth and Reafon are no more but meer iniigniricant Words. The Reafon is. Whilft fallible men plead for Religion vpon Principles as fallible as they are that Argue , the Remit of that Difpute ne- cefTarily carried on by Arguments and reafoning purely fallible, can end in nothing but in dilTatisfadtory Topicks , if yet ft come fofar. But this is fo , and obferue well. The Proteftant plead' s for his Tenents , or oppugn s our Do&rin and doth it fallibly: The Catholick Anfwers , and fallibly too ; The Proteftant Re- plies , but hath no infallible Principle to ground his Reply vpon, no more hath the Catholick , if the Suppofition hold's, any other Anfwer but what's Vngrounded , and Fallible. Say I befeech you,do not both Parties , bulled in this Conteft vpon vncertain- ties , run on in Darknels ? Haue we yet the leaft hope of Satis- faction > Or fo much as the Truth wre all leek for yet diicouered in this weak skirmish , Whilft Fallible men , and Fallible Ar- guments , and Fallible Principles are the only Support of the whole Difcourfe > Moft euidently no. All are left where they were before in a deep Perplexity. 19. I Said iuft now , If we We exclude an Infallible Church , and her approued Councils, Truth and Reafon vanish to nothing , *nd that no Principle remain's w hereby thefe Contefts of Reli- gion can be ended. To prone the Aflertion further, I firft vrge * the Difc 1. C. iy. prouedhfattible. 4^ the Prottftant to name the lafl certain Principle, or that vltimate Judge in whole Sentence he dare Accjuiefe , and Say pofitiuely vpon this Principle we muft both rely, This shall Define whether you my Aduerfary, or I yours , defend Truth. The man will not for ftark shame name Himfelf nor any priuate Perfon on earth for Iudge; He cannot recurrtoan Inferiour Council and Oppo- ie. that, againft One Generally receiued the Whole world ouer: He will not adhere to a Schismatical and Heretical Church, and plead by Her in defence of his Do&r in, againft an Oracle neuer yet taxed or tainted of Errour , Or if he doth fo , he gain's no- thing , For all thofe are as fallible as the two Parties now in conteft. Where then is the Sectaries Sure Principle, or laft Iud- ge to ftand' to in thefe Debates ? Or whither will he goe to find out his yet Vndifcouered Truth and Reafon ? Will his refuge be to Scripture > It help's nothing in this Cafe, not only becaufe Scripture omit's to ipeak either explicitly of the half of luck Controueriies as are now agitated, But vpon this Account Chie- fly, That if die Church and Councils be fallible, the Book it (elf becomes a moft fallible Principle to all ,' For neither Ca- tholicks nor Proteftants , nor Arians , nor any , can Say with Aflurance, Such and .Such is the vndoubted >enfeofGods word in Controuerted Matters, if the Churches Judgement be fet light by,and look'tonas fallible. Yet I'll Say thus much. Were the Church fallible , Sectaries may well blush , flrft to decry Her Senfe of Scriptirre , and then to fet vp the far inferiour and falli- ble interpretation of euery iingle Perfon againft the Church > 20, Some may Reply. The grand Principle of Proteftants, is , that Scripture in things neceilary to Saluation , appeares plain to all who vfe ordinary Diligence to vnderftandit, wherein cer- tainly their Truth and Reafon may be found. Contra. And I Prefs hot in this place the Vncertainty of the Principle , which is as difputable as any other Proteftant Tenet , But Say more , it is whollv improbable , Yea and deftroies Proteftancy. It is improbable , Becaufe it cannot be Suppofed that any priuate man or men, haue vfed full Diligence to vnderftand the Scriptures Sen- Iii ie, Setlaries arc vrged to na- me the Ufl ludge i„ the- fe Debates t And cannot pitch on any. The grand Principle of Proteftants, retecied, And why ? Why Should Sectaries his tight on the Scriptures Senfe. And the Church be deluded f The Secla- ties pretence to Fathers ifftpro. 4j4 Difc. rC *6.Tk %pman CathoTtckChnrch fe, And that a Church of a thoufand years ftanding hath neglec- ted a Duty fo necelTary. But thefe priuate men whether Arians, Proteftants , or Socinians , and the Church draw contradictory Senfes from Scripture, And all thefe iarring Sectaries with their different Senfes defend not truth , Therefore fome of them ( let the fault yet light where you will) haue not vied Diligence, nor righly vnderftood God's word. TheQueftion now is (and fome Oracle muft decide it ) where , or in whom , this Misunderftan- ding lies > Moft willingly would I haue this one Difficulty folued and t/is worth the Labour, whilft euery one See's it is no more certain , that the Proteftant hitt's on the Scriptures true Senfe , than tt is certain that the "tobole Church after a thoufand years Diligence , mtftakjs it. Can this think ye be euer cleared in be- half of Proteftants by any proof , fo much as meanly / robable ? It is Impoflible. Wherefore I Conclude , Their Grand princi- ple is rotten at the very root , fail's all that Rely on it. I will fay it once more. If the Proteftant hath no greater Certainty of his Senfe of Scripture than it is certain, That he hitts right, and the Church Err's in her Senfe , His Belief after all induftry vfed (lands vnprincipled, refts on his own fancy, and is not re&i- fiable, Ttbih he tudgesjo. Say the very vtmoft it is no more but a meer hazard , whether he belieues , or no, and this deftroies Pro- teftancy. Thus much of Scripture. zi. The next thing pleadable in behalf of Mr Stillingfleets Truth and Reafony may perhaps be the Authority of Holy Fathers. It isweightles if the Church be fallible, or has Erred. And firft Proteftants fay all Fathers are liable to Errour. I add more and Affert, if that Church whereof They were Members taught or can teach falfe Do&rin , it is a meer vanity to feek for certain Truth , or any fatisfaclory Reafon in the Fathers Writings. What can Streams (the Fathers were no other) be Suppofed pure , and the Head fountain ( Gods own OracleJ) Poyfoned and infected > Did they hit right vpon our Chriftian Verities , when their only Guide ( Chrift's facred Spoufe ) milled Pofterity ? Could they Dedicate all their Labours to make an Oracle renowned, that afterward. Difc. 2. C. 16. proued infallible. 4tf afterward whispered Errours into all mens ears > Thefe are Pa- radoxes. I Say then, it is a ftronger and far more reaibnable Principle to Aflert, That the Church neuer erred nor can erre , Than firft to Suppofe Her erroneous, And next to find truth in the Fathers, who were no more but Schollers , and fuck't the milk of pureft Doctrin from the Brefts of this their Mother , The Catboltck. Church ; If She therefore poyfoned them with fals learning , both She and They yet poyfon vs 5 And coniequent- ly neither the Church , nor Fathers deferue credit , nor can be prudently Belieued. 22. And here by the way I cannot but reflect, vpon a ftran- ge Procedure , vfual with Sectaries in All their Polemicks. Firft TheProce' they Suppofe the Church and Councils errable,yea actually ™Ylc°~ vn~ milled in AfTerting Purgttery , TranfubjiantUtion &c. And to Rec- rearon^u, tify what is thought Amifs , Some few Gleaning of Fathers (how little to the purpofe is feen aboue ) are produced, and thefe, Forfooth , muft (land as it were in battail Array , fight againft a whole Church, and ouerthrow Her Errours. Is this , think ye Reafonable 3 Can it be imagined that God preferued his Reuea- led truths in the Hearts thoughts, and words, of a few Fathers, and fuffered his Vniuerfal Church, with /b many learned Coun- cils ( conuened after the Four Firft ) to fall preiently into fo sha- meful a Dotage,as Sectaries charge vpon Her ? Were the Fathers Then illuminated, and was the Church afterward darkened and befotted > There is none fo blind , But muft needs fe Himfelfe out of Countenance by aduenturing to Defend a Tenet fo highly Contrary to all Reafon. Wherefore I muft earneftly petition the Reader once more to reflect vpon the greateft Folly which ,Me- thinks, euer entred the Thoughts of men. Thus it is. The pri- mitiue Fathers, (not many in number) Who wrote in the Firft Jfy* three or four Centuries in different Times and Places , ( perufed tati^t by few and vnderftood by Fewer ) are Suppofed to Deliuer truth, and exactly the Catholick Verities , (What They iayd was True) thatche And an Ample Vniuerfal Church together with Her Learned Cbunh de. -Councils known to Alljfpread the whole world ouer for a Thou- ***** ™ I ii 2 fand Is ivor ft tktn a Pa- rsdox. CUa¥ Infe. vences Sc8*tics> 436 Dife. i.C. 16 The ^omanCatholick Church fand yeares and vpward , muft be Suppofed Co Abominably finful , fo Fearfully mifled , as to Defertthe Ancient Faith of Thofe Fa- thers , to Peruert God's Truths , And Finally to Bring into the Vaft Moral Body of Chriftians a Vniuerfal Mischiefe , a Deluge of Errour, of Idolatry , And no man knowes what. If this be not pure Phrenfy, there was neuer any. 23. The lafi Principle to ground Truth and Reafon vpon, or to bring Controuerfies to an end,. is Vniuerlal Tradition, but this alfo Fail's to vphold Truth , if the Church be fallible : For who will, or can with certainty truft the Tradition of a Church ( of Co much as take the Book of Scripture from Her) were she branded with this foul Note of hauing Publickly taught , and wilfully impofed a hundred Do&rins vpon Christians contrary to Gods reuealed Reuealed Truths. But more of this aboue. C. <;. 6. 24. After all you fe firfl , Truth and Reafon brought to Ruinr Faith and Religion vn hinged, if the Church and Councils, be Fallible. You fe. 2. Thefe Inferences Setled vpon vndeniable Principles. The Church is infallible , Ergo Controuerfies are without Ferpkxity ended. Contrarywife. Tfoe Church is Fallible r Ergo Con- tentmsgot on without Redrefsyendlefly. Scripture as you haue heard becaufe differently Senfed decides nothing , No more do the Fathers ( Say Sectaries) confelTedly fallible. Church , and Coun- cils are reiefted as errable when and as often as Se&aries plea- ie, Thofe that Difpute of Religion ( Yet more Fallible ) are not to be Iudges in their own Caufe , and without a Iudge Their beft Arguments will be thought by all Prudent men , no more but Vnconcluding Topicks , And really they neither are ,, nor can be better for want of Principles , and fome Oracle Infal- lible 25. Whoeuer defires to haue the Principle I Rely on further established by clear Inferences drawn from our Aduerlaries, needs only to read ML Stillingflcet from page. 534. to the end of that 2. Chapter. My Principle is. There is no poflibility of ending ftrife touching Religion if the Church and Councils be falli- ble, Difc.2. C. 16. proued Infallible. 437 ble , yet Mr. Stillingfleet and his Lord % Say they muft haue fomc end , or They'l tear the Church a funder. My Task then is to show that thefe mens Docrrin Tears all in pieces, and makes Controuerfis En dies. 26, The Determination of a Council erring (fay our Aduerfaries) it to fland in force And to bate external Obedteme at leafi jeildcd to it y till euidence of Scripture, or a Demonslmon to the Contrary , make D*cl'fn*rt" the Errour appear , and vntil tberevpon , another Council of equal Au- facd^ ce»* thorny , reuerfe the Errour, Here is their Pofkion r which breed's /*/»». nothing but Confution among Chriftians , and licenfeth euery vnquiet Spirir , interiourly at leaft , to Cenfure Church Do&rin as abominable if tie tudges it Erroneous , or Contrary to ChrifVs Verities. I fay Inter iourly? And T'is hard to Silence and ob- lige men to external Obedience , if this full Perfwailon remain's jindneceffk- ftedraft in their minds. Gods truths are Ouertbrofrn , by an Erring riiy bringi in Church ,. or a nnfled Council. There is no law humane or Di- Diuijton. nine wich can bind to Hypocrily $ But to fudge one thing Euidently fals , and to Profeis it as true is pain Hypocrily, To auoide therefore this Sin all arc in points of faith not to Speak Contrary to Truth , or hoftility will of Neceflity follow Be- tween the Profeilion of priuate men and their interiour Jud- gements , which cannot but foment Rebellion in the Church whilft People generally line in fuch a Perfwafion that God's Truths are wronged. 27. But here is not my greateft Exception. Pleafe to mark thofe other words. Till Euidence of Scripture , or a De~ monslration makes the Errour appear : Or , another Council reuerfes the Errour of the Former, And fay I beieech you , to whom muft this Euidence of Scripture appear ? To whom muft the Councils Errour be Demonftrable > What to Priuate men , and thefe hemmtbt Fallible > If lb; the Gonteft will be whether thefe Priuate Er- f**dtowhom ring men or the Suppofed Erring Council -y has the greater ' Mp*[*& Euidence of Scripture , Or on which Side the Demonftration '* againft the Errour lies > I fay if the Church and Councils be, fallible , There neither is , nor can be , any thing like Euidence lii J or Cometh tnuji appear, Sedition reign's if Councils 438 DiC?. C.\6.Tht%omanCatholkkChurcb Therefore an be either of the Contenders muft or a Demonftration in endles Diipute vpon meer Vncertainties muft enfue , vnlefs Mr. Stilling iieet laies the Errour vpon whom he pleafes , and makes Himielf Vmpire in the caufe. You will (ay he fup- pofcs the Councils Errours euidently known. Pitiful. To whom I beicech you muft they be known > Its impoflible to return an Anfwer. Again if Suppofitions may once pate for Proofs , I'll goe the Contrary way , and either Suppofe all Councils infallible ( or maintain this Truth : Errours cannot be euidently kno^n ) And why should not my Suppofition , be as good as his > What then remain's but that we bring thefe Sup- pofitions to the Teft , and Examin which is better > And here the Difpute begins again in behalf of what is Suppofed , which can neuer be ended without an infallible Iudge. 28. It may be replyed. Thefe Aduerfaries proue not Coun- cils fallible vpon any bare Suppofition , but only Say thus much: If they were Fallible , the Peace of the Church may yet be Preferued. Contra 1. Peace is infinitly better vpheld were Coun- cils (as they truly are) owned Infallible , For fo euery one would Accjuiefe in their Decrees , as the Chriftian world has done hi- One ? roof of tbeAffertien therto. Contra 1. The Churches Peace is torn in pieces Sedi- tion neceflarily reign's , Debates are endles , if Councils be fal- lible. To proue this. 19. Call once more to mind the AlTertion. Viz. The Deter- mination of an erring Council is to ftand in force , vntil there vpon , an other Council of equal Authority Reuerfe the Errour, Obferue I be- feech you. Both thefe Councils are Suppofed fallible , and of equal Authority. The Second therefore cannot reuerfe the Errour of the Firft , being as weak , as fallible, and of no more Authority than That firft was. Or if thus by Turns one may Annull the Decree? of the other , A third may be conuened which recall's the Decrees of both , and a Fourth which Cashieres all the precedent Definitions , And fo in Infinitum without Stop or Stint. Hence arife endles Quarrels , not only between Coun- cil , and Council (For euery one will Stand for its own Right) But Difc.i. Ct6. proued Infallible. 4:9 But alfo among Chriftians, Who feing the Difcord are thrown into a remediles Perplexity , and can neuer know* what to Be- lieue , or whom to Obey. You will fee clearly what I would expres by one or two Inftances. The Nicene Council Defined the Confubfianttaluy ofthe Son to his Eternal Father. So much is vndoubted. Imagin now , that an other like AiFembiy as fallible as the Nicene (for that with Sectaries was fallible) and of equal Authority , had Defined the quite Contrary Doc1:rin,And let this be alfo fuppofed ( for in Proteftant Principles it is Suppofable) that this Second corrected the Errour of the Firft. What tumults think'ye , what an endles Rebellion would haue en- fued there vpon in Chrift endom, had the One Council thus clashed with the other ? No man in Prudence , could haue Belieued or Obeyed either, becaufe both are Suppofed fallible, and of equal Authority. 30. There is yet one Inftance more Suitable to a Sectarian Humour. Imagin only , another Council Conuened , as Lear- ned , as General , and as fallible as P roteftants Suppofe the Coun- cil of Trent to haue been , And that this reuerles all the Do- ctxin contained in the Tridentine , OfFenfiue to our Nouellifts. Would not this deftroy the Vnity of the prefent Church ? Would not fome Side with the firft , fome with the fecond , or rather would not All (vpon the Suppofition) {corn and contemn the Authority of both Church and Councils? The like Ineonue- nience followes , were the Catholick Church as large as fome Sectaries make it , or embraced all called Chrift ians , If in that cafe Two Councils reprefenting the whole Moral Body should meet , and the later Tear in pieces the Decrees of the former , Would not DifTentions Gvqw as high , and as odious vpon thefe Voting and Vnuoting Councils, as they are now in England whilft Prelatiks Preach One kind of Doctrin , and Fanaticks another quite contrary? And is it Poffible , Do all Eyes fe the Hor- rourof this contrary Preaching in Onelfland, and are they shut vpon a greater more Terrible , were it true, That two of the higheft Tribunals in the Church could ftand in open Hoftility % and Further di- ctated by *n Inftanc*. Another In- ftance She* wing. Ths horrid Incenut- nience of larring Csumils. Sectaries dejiroy their own frind' fief. The Affer- tionfroued Clamours, no Proofs. 4 40 Difc. 1. C. 1 6. The %oman Catklick Church and the One band againft the other? Thus much of DiiTen- tions and Tumults , necefTary Appendants to iarring ReprefentA- Hues. 31. But all is not yet Satisfy ed. Our A'duer&ries Say , There can be no caule of Tumults in the Church , if an Er- rour be euidently Dilcouered, For euery One ought to thank God(not to grumble) when they fe themfelues freed from io great a Mifchief : On the other fide, if the Errour be not Uutdtnt, All are to fubmit to the Councils vnttl a Publtck^ Declaration makjes the con- trary truth manifest, And thus the Peace of Chriftendom feem's well fecured. Anfw. And we will firft begin with thefe laft words. J/ the Errour be not Eutdent or intolerable^ all are obliged to fubmit to the Council vnttl fome public^ declaration Sec. Hence 1 Argue. But there neither is, nor euer was any Euidence of Errour produced againft one of our Catholick Councils ( the Later an, Florentine y or Tridenttne for example ) there neither is, nor euer was, any Le- gal Declaration more againft thefe, than againft the Firft moft an- cient and pureft Councils in Gods Church , Therefore Sectaries by their own Principle are obliged to Submit to the Lateran, Flo- rentine , and Ttidenttne, as well as to others. That there has not been any Publick Legal Declaration made againft them is manifeft, And here is my proof 32. The clamours and Calumnies of Arians Caft vpon the Nicene Council were no Legal Declaration againft That , but moft Vncanonical , Ergo the clamours and calumnies of Prote- ftants caft vpon the now named Reprefentatiues are fully as Illegal and Vncanonical, yea and moreforceles (if more can be ) to De- clare them Inualid, And befides clamours, weneuer yet had, nor shall haue hereafter any Thing from Se&aries. The true Reafon is. Go groundedly to work , There is not one Imaginable Prin- ciple whereby the Ntcme can be proued a more lawful Council then the great Council of Later an was, fo much decryed by No- uellifts ; And if't were Poftible ( as it is not) to Ouerthrow the One by any folid proof, the Other Eo ipfo lofes all Credit and Authority. 33. Hence Oilc 1. C. 16. proued Infallible. 441 3' J. Hence Thefe and the like calumnies vented by Sectaries in Corners. The Later an 4nd Trtdentine Were vnUuful Councils, OueraWed by the Pope , they bad not freedom. Tht'tr Votes ought to be tuounttd Surreptitious. The Conuened it ere not men of vnquejiiona hie Integrity. Some feW by fair Pretences brought ouer the greater num- ber Wanting ludgement , to fide Wttb their Defies &c. Such corner- Calumnies I lay 9 and I read them in our Aduerfaries ( As ealily clattered out by Arians againft the Niceue Fathers) can neuer pals for legal Dularatiuns againft Catholick Councils , whilft euery Proportion want's proof, and euery word its due Weight : That is, what euer can be (aid to this Senfe ftand's Vnprincipled. The- refore vnlefs all mull: be iuft fo as Sectaries will haue it ; Vnlefc fals Suppoikions become conuincing Arguments, and a pure beg- ging the Queftion proue it, Or be able to decide our Differen- ces, We haue Right to cry as loud They. Audiatur & altera Pars. Let Catholicks be heard alio. And when they are heard and return their Anfwers before a lawful Iudge to euery particular, thefe Calumnies will vanish , or rather appear like Themfelues, Forged and far-fetch't Improbabilities. Exclude a Iudge and a iuft Sentence, Sectaries are where they would be in the old Labyrinth of Quarrelling without Principles, or giuing any hope of ending One Queftion in Controuerfy. 34. Now to implead our Councils of Errours? and to pre- tend Euidence for it, is more than a defperate Attempt , vnleft as I lay the Corner-votes of a f&w iarring difperfed Sectaries ( neuer legally AlTembled ) haue Power to create a new kind of Euiden- ce vnknown to the world. Plcafe to reflect a little. It muft, Forfboth, be Euident That the Doctrin of Tranfubftantiation , or Praying to Saints arc Errours , whilft a whole vnited learned Church Oppofes thefe vain Pretences and Defend's the Articles as Ca- tholick Verities. It was neuer yet heard , that Sectaries Scatte- red here an there had Authority to impofe fuch foule disgraceful Names of Euident Errours , or Errours morally Certain vpon Doc- trins lb vniuerfally receiued , when as I fay The moft learned Body of Chriftians that euer was , Vnuotes all they blow into the K k k cares The Arians and Pretem flants Cla- mour and Calumniate alike. A Judge it to decide nil, and not Clamours, Sectaries neuer legally affembUd. Create* new Kind ofEhidenct. Sectaries decline koth Ladgs jindfinal interne. Guv Adxer* furies Dochin, Lead's Jiill 19 to difpute, but to make w end of Ccniroucr» 442 Difca. C;i6. The %pman fcatbolick Qhurch isrc. cares of others , as meer Impertinences. Euidence , Good Rea- der, and Moral certainty lofe force and neuer yet ftood in the Sight or prefence of fo ftrong an Oppofttion. « I will yet lay more. Though we abftrac~c from Church Authority , we Ca- tholicks are able to maintain our Dodtrin againft Sectaries vpon Tradition, the Authority of Fathers , ancient Records Sec. But {till we recjuire A laft Iudge to giue Sentence , whether they or we abute the Principles we plead by (For certainly the one or other Party doth fo ) But this , Nouellifts euer Decline and will haue vs to Difpute without either Iudge or indubitable Prin^ ciples,and ib make, as is now laid , all Controueriies endles f which indeed is the only Thing they ayme at , and I hauevnder- taken to proue againft them. 35. Mr StilLingfleet. P. 539. fpeak's fo fully to my purpo- fe that more cannot be defired from an Aduerfary. He De- mands, boTbitcan be knoTt>n Tt>ben Errours in Councils or the Church are mamfesl or intolerable , and Tvhen not I And Anfwers thus. \Y$ appeal to Scripture interpreted by the Concurrent Senfe of the primitiue Church, the common reafon of mankind, the confcht of Tbtfe and learned men , Suppcfmg Scripture to be the Rule of Paitb. And a little after. If you Ask further. Who shall be Iudge frhat a neceffary Reafon cr Demonstration is? His Lordship tell's you plainly enough from Hooker. It is fuel) as being Propofed to any man and vnderffood, the mind cannot thnfe but inwardly affent to it. Here you haue the Gentlemans laft Principles : And euery one when applyed to our prefent Matter is as much Controuerted between Catholicks and Pro- teftants,as the very Qiieftion now in Difpute. Obferue well. 35. The Queftion is whether the Lateran , Florentine ^ and Tri- dentint Councils haue erred in their Definitions (the like may be moued of all others) Protectants fay , they haue erred; Catholuh Deny it. Both Parties Appeal to Scripture interpreted by the Senfe of the Primitiue Church So far as that Oracle learns vs» And if any PafTage be found there feemingly fauorable to Sec- taries , Catholicks after the Conteft of one whole Age haue been more ready to clear all Doubts y To take of any thing like Imagined 1 Difc. 2. C. 1 6. More of Intolerable <&c. 44 J Imagined Errours , Than Proteftants were eiter yet able to lay iu:h foul Afpertions vpon either Church , or Councils. What then is to be done ? Muft we eternally Difpute concerning that Senfe and end nothing > Muft we Commence new Quarrels Se&arte* about Matters fo often debated ? Muft the old A ft um agere come *(,/„„'**% oner and ouer again? Sectaries like that Sport well, but no Pro- gress is made this way. As yet we only skirmish in the dark. Wherefore recourfe at laft is to be had to a lawful lulge to fo- me known Oracle or other, in whole final Sentence all are to acquiefe, If any lawful Judge, or owned Oracle(Primitiue or latter) Condemn our Councils of Errour, and we licence Se&a- Like weft t$ ries to name either ( Prouided they make not Themfelues Judges, *lear tloem' nor their long lince defeated Arguments Euidences ) We are in- ^HJ deed the guilty Perfons, and They the wife Reformers, But if All ?Yinci£U$. of vs Decline this laft Iudicature, and do nothing but hear our Seines talk vpon Principles groily misinterpreted, by the one or other Party, Diffentions will goe on remedilefly to the great Scandal of Iewes and Gentils j and eontrouerfies of Religion cannot but proue endles. CHAR XVII. More of this fubiecl. A farther Search made into Errours called intolerable. Whether the %pman Catbolick Church mujl be fuppojed bySeBariesto haue alrea- dy Committed intckrable Err our s^Or only y whe- ther She may for the future Err Intolerably ? The DoBtin of Proteftants proved Falf: 5 And Moll inconfequent. 1. * Jt R Stillingrleet to find out Euident and intolerable 1VJL Errours in Councils Appeal's (as you Se) in the Kkk 2 next A DiUmma Or a clear Cenuittion of l- rot e- Jlants. A "Princi- ple Map. 444 Difc. % C *7- More of lntokrahte next place to the Common Reafcn of mankind , and to the Confeni of ftt(e *nd learned men. None could haue more ruined his own caufe , For this Dilemma is vnanfwerablc. The forementioned Councils haue either erred intolerably in Defining the Doctrins. of Tranfubslanttatwn , and of Purgatory, Or haue not erred into- lerably. If not -r Proteftants , as is now faid, are obliged by their own Law to yeild at kaft external Obedience to them, which is not done , For herein they haue made a P ublick Reforma- tion, and call fuch Do&rins Ersours.. On the other fide , if thefe Errours be intolerable you fe by their own words , We mud haue the Common Reaibn of mankind, the Confent alfo of wife and learned men both ready to Oppofe and Condemn them : But this is enormoufly improbable vpon a clear Ground- Do no more but Deuide the Moral Body of Chriftians now at Debate into two C\^csy Catholtckj and Proteftants y For one that makes thefe Councils Illegal or their Do&rins intolerable, you haue hundreds, yea I think thoufands, who auouch the Contra- ry, and clear Both from that vnworthy Imputation* Therefore vnlefs Proteftants engrofs the Gift of common Reafon and IVifdom to themfelues , and allow no little parcel of it either to the Greek or Latin Church, They are to recal what is Said : And if they will haue Reafbn Co faft intailed vpon a few Sectaries, That no* body els can share in it y There is no further Difpute £ All we fay is. God hdp Thtm. 2. But what fay we to Mr Hooker who tells vs neceffary Reafon or a Demonftration is that , Jtbich bein% propofed to any mart avd vnderslood . The mind cannot chufe but tnWardly Affm to it. I an fwer, the Principle, though good , is moft impertinently Ap- plied to the controuerfy now in hand, For haue not we ( As is already noted) Thoufands and Thoufands in the Roman Church mod learned and pious , who hear the Doctrins of the fore named Councils propofed, and inludgement fo inwardly AfTent to all without fcruple , that they would dye for the verities the- re denned ? The Truth is manifeit. Therefore Mr Hookers neceffary: Reaibn, or Demonftration has no place in thefe far more Difc. 1. C. 17. Pretended Eyyouys. 445 more numerous than all the Proteftants are in England , and confequently euery man Stand's not euidently conuicted of our Councils Errours. Now if you fay lb many Thoufands are fool'd , Know Sr, That no few of thefe fools , are wife enough to difpute with you, and to Show you Speak at ran- dom without Principles. 3. Thus much is laid of our Catholick Councils hitherto conuened in the Chureh , now if we return to the old Sup- pofition rand Firft imagin all Councils fallible , and Secondly thin- ke, that the latter, of equal Authority amends the Firft , or a Third the Errours of the Second, and lb in Infinitum y I Say it is ImpoiTible, either clearly to Difcouer the pretended Errours, or to redrefs them , and this I AfTert vpon thefe grounds. 4. One already hinted at , is , that none can by an inward . Aflent (aud Mr Hooker requires that) own any fuch Euidence An U"mn whilft the Council which makes them Errours , is as weak ' and fallible as the other was that Defined the contrary , and Published all vnder the Notion of Chriftian Truths. No more can I , were I yet to Learn reft Satisfyed , in what either of thefe two iarring Councils Define (for the One is as bad as the Other) than I am able to truft to two Minifters Talk , if I heard them Preach quite contrary Do&rin at Pauls Church, » That is, no man can belieue either, vpon their fallible Audio- »- rity. This Principle therefore Stands firm. An mablt Council A faliihk u as vnfit to Teach, or Vnteacb another kkfinfi Erring , in tht high Ctuncil, and yet vnk/ioTvn Mjfteries of Faith, as One Wholly ignorant, of moft vn an vncouth Path , is to direct a Stranger into it , For as Both ^1 '/)&* thefe are to learn the way from a third Guide more skilful, fat m** So both thefe Councils muft take their Inftructions from fome Jlvies of third certain Oracle, Or remain , as they are, Ignorant. But f*"^. Sectaries remit none to any lining certain Oracle , Therefore they cannot but ftill Sit in Darknefs (T'is Gods iufl Judge- ment vpon them) and blind as They are , lead the blind they know not whither. 5. Again (and here is my fecond Reafon) Before the DiC- Kkk 3 couery Thefe Snp- pofed Err ours in Councils. Cannot h difcouered by larring Multitudes. *fyhat if a Council be rut in Being, Vthen diffi- culties arife One Point Examined. 446 Difci. C 17. More vf Intolerable couery of thefe intolerable Errours we ought to haue a Lift of them , and know How many or few they are, And who can Afcertain vs of this ? Are we to diuine at their Intolerablenefs by our own priuate Iudgements ? Or is fome'wifer body to inftruft vs , when there is no Council at hand to do it ? Muft all Chriftians difperfed vp and down the world write letters to one another, Or inform themfelues whether the Errours be in- tolerable > And if fo -whether it be yet high time to cry out againft them ? Or , is it enough to Ask pur next Neighbours what they think of the Bufinefs , and reft there 2 Perhaps fome will hold them inconfiderable , Others of a violent temper hainous not longer to be born with. And can fuch lumbling and Confufion which teares the Vnity of the Church in pieces Pre- ferue Her in peace think ye ? Muft we fir ft Suppofe a learned Council to haue erred, and next rely on vnlearned iarrmg Mul- titudes to Proclaim , Cenfure , and Reuerfe the Errour > If this way be not more than Vncanonical in matters of Religion , there was neuer any. 6. You will Say , the next Council is to mend all the failings of the former. Anfw. Were this, as it is not PoiTible ,. what is to be done in the mean time , whilft there is no Council Jin Being 1 Muft the Church which Belieues the Definitions of the former erring Councils and all Chriftians with it , Err on fo long till this other Council Appears ? Or' is euery priuate man to refolue for himielf what's beft to do in fuch Exigences? Reflecl: I befeech you. How far eafier were it , to quiet all , might Councils once be owned infallible. Yet here is my leaft Exception. I fay therefore to proue what I fayd aboue. If Church and Councils can err notorioufly , There is no means left on earth ., either to difcouer the Errours , or to amend them. 7. The AfTertion will be proued by fitting this one Point to the Bottom. And Much light will be had if we leaue Ge- neralities , wherin Sectaries alwaies lurk , and delcend to parti- culars , Or lay forth the nature of fbmc imaginable Errours. Call Tretentled Errours. Difc.i. C. 17. Pretended knows. 447 Call then Thefe if any be, horrid and intolerable. 8. To teach there u no God , no Chrift , no Redeemer , no Salvation. I Ask whether the Councils in Gods Church can err thus grofly, or are Co fecured by Diuine AfTiftance , as not to Define fucji vaft Abfnrdities r If it be Aniwered , They are fo far at leaft preferued infallible , I clearly Infer , No man can exclude a total infallibility from Councils. If it be Aniwered , Poifibly they may err in this Damnable manner. I infer Again. Ergo , Poi- iibly , Councils , Church , and all Chriftians may vtterly defert Chrift , become Atheifts , Turks , Iewes , Diuels , or what els y£>u will, that naught is. Can this, alio be granted. 9. One may reply , it is indeed poffible , yet will neuer be. Contra. Who hinders the Mifchief , I befeech you, if the Sup- pofitionmay ftand > The Roman Catholick Church , Say Se- ctaries , is^already Idolatrous ,. and long fmce was Antichriftian, when fome English Proteftants made the Pope . Antichrift. Why then may not At beifm , I udaifm , and Turcifm infect likewife the Whole Moral Body of Chriftians , and Deftaoy both Church and Councils > Grant this Poffible , there can be no more talk of after-Councils correcting the former , erroneous, For the Church is now Deftroyed , Chrift our Lord muft pleafe. to appear again , or fend lb me great Prophet to eftablish- a new Church more firm than the other was now ruined , or we are left defolate , vtterly Churchles. ir and implies a:v Ouerlashing more- than intolerable. 3 6. Their vngrounded Miftake lies here r That Principles arc- Suppofed at. hand, cr ready at a call to Decide in this cafe of a Councils Suppofed Errour, Whereas if both Church and Councilicdn?, or do Err y There are no fuch things in being as Principles. Topicks at moft, or an endles - iarring vpon meer Vncettainties lead none* to an Euident Difcouery of Errours , Therefore I fayd right r they cannot be.knornas Euident for want of Principles, and if not known as fuch,. no Power on earth can amend them. Yet good Principles reach thus- far at leaft, as to Demonftratc. that Protectants grofly Miftake in their Clamours againft our- Churches errours De fa do, And here yoa haue my Principles al-. ready hinted at. 17: Either thefe fuppofed Errours;are thoie vnchriftian Te- nents mentioned N. 8- And certainly Councils neuer transgres- fed fo enormoufly as to Define fuch diuellish Doctrins. Or. 2. They are only PofTible falfe Dochrins which may be Defined if Councils can err , but yeL are . not taught. If So j All muft . Say, that as it is horrid to condemn a man for a crime he may commit , though he neuer did it7 So it is the higheft Iniuftice to condemn a whole Church for Falsbood's She may teach ( if fallible) though She neuer taught them. Nothing then remains - fcut to plead, againft our Church Doctrin de Ufa , as euidendyt; and. Difc h C 17. VuttnM Ei rours 471 and Intolerably Erroneous, and herein we will not ipare Sec- taries one whit, but Vrge them, as we doe, to fpcakhome in the caufe. Their Accufarion is euident , we Prels them Again and aeain to nidify it by Proofs and Principles as emdir.t. What .mull: thele errours be deayed as Euident and intolerable , and .can none but Sectaries get lb much as a glimpfe of the Eui- dence ? Away with fuch fooleries* No man can hear them with Patience, iS. By what is faid .already you fe,, that The Doclrin cf Proteftants Shewes it Selfe as it is , not only falfe but mod In- confequent. Mark, I befcech you the Inconiequence. Thele Nauel lifts Define the Church to be an Afimilj of men a*/ o Mie- uc and Profe{s the pure Word of Goi-> But fuch men (find them where you can) as belieue and profefs the pure Word, JKfrft // in it Self Infallible , are certainly infallible if they Belieue it as GotCs infallible Word, Therefore they mull acknowledge an infal- lible Moral Body of Chriftians that Conftitutes an infallible Church. iy. In Lieu of Doing this , They Tear all in Pieces, and Firft :Decry the Roman CatboJick Church as Errable, Yea actually erring -, Next , and this Marrs their own Caufe, they withal! , Erofels themfelues fallible : Whereas, had any thing like confe- quent Doctrin entred their Thoughts, They should at lead haue made Proteftants infallible , being as They Say, new commitjic- ned Doctors lent from God , to amend the Churches Errours. And belieue it their own Infallibility , 'had they cafually laid clainv to it, would as foon haue been perfwaded ( That's neuer) as now -without Trobability or any ;thing like a Principle, They .endeauour to proue the Roman Catliolick Church Fallible. But let this pals. Thus much I Aflert. To tell vs on the One ti- de, There is an AfTembly of men who Belieue the infallible Word of God, And on the Other, To make all that Teach and Belieue it , Fallible , liable to Falfe Doctrin , is not only to proceed inconfequently, but moreouer to Expole Chriftian Religion , to the Scorn of Iewes and Gentils , yea quite to ruin Diuijie Faith , "■ Lll z And Seftariet Dotty in, in con[equeB$) By their »tp& Principles , they should boldfoms Society of men lnfalU° bit. The eentra* ry Dollrin ruins Ftifa 45* Oilc. 2, C. iy.Tle mofitrgnt Troof And finally to make vs all Sccpticks, certain of nothing. 20. If it be replyed. The, Councils, and Sectaries with them, are at leaft prefcrued infallible in things Called the Fundamen- tals of Faith plainly reuealed in Scripture, T vrge them firft to giue in their Proofs for this half or partial Infallibility , which will be more than ridiculous , if once they Appear in paper. Again, if we are all infallible and fecure in a few Fundamen- tals plainly regiftred in Scripture , to what Purpofe do Sectaries keep a coyle about fmaller Matters , called Vnfundamentals? Which are neither intolerable or Confiderable , becaufe Small, Their pre. Much lefs can they be Euident Errours , ib long as a whole tended Eui- Church defends them as Truths , For this Euidence cannot but enceof ^ faile Sectaries (or come to nothing) whilft the Church and They evidently a ^anc^ in Conteft about it. Be it how you will. Here without ZoHrt. a hidge, we are got into the old Labyrinth again of an endles Difpute, which can neuer Produce any thing like Euidence in behalf of Sectaries* CHAP, XVII I. Two Jduerpaies mainly Oppofit to True Religion. The laji and moft Urgent Troof of the Churches Infalli- bility takn from the Necefiity , the Notion and Nature of true Religion. Mr Stillingfleets Obiec* tions found Weak and Weightles. l/Lofl of tkm already Propofed and $)ijfolued by others. A short ^jfieSlion mfc de tyonfome few* To *"TpHere is a Knot of half-witted People who Say, thougk X Religion Seem's indeed neceffary to Preferue huma- ne Difc. 1. C. 18. of the CtkYches Infallibility 45 } nc Society in peace, And to Quer-awe vnriity Spirits , yet the £•## r*^ belt ( were any Good) is no more but h meer Fi&ion , k forged H.-xamaiH- tale, in tine an Errour. Theft men make nature M v r ' ? ^ and muft Consequently maintain two van: Paradoxes. Tkeaae; ^ That humane Societies euery were (That is ) All Kifigdoitij, and Common-wealths (land in need of Fiction and Errour to make them happy. The Proportion is euident .-For if peace , Trail- TiSthnand quility , and the fubduing of vnquiet Spirits, be a. true necefTa- foolery cttn ry Happines to all , And theie cannot fubfift without a fained rn-akt »* Religion , It ismanifeft that Fiction , Foolery, and Errour make m*n haP^h riiem happy , which is as much as to Say, a Conitant Sicklies ieep's the body in health , weaknes giues it ftrength, Pain and Griefe eafe and refreshment. Certainly no less is errour dilTo- nant to a. rational Nature, than Sicknes repugnant to health-.,, cold to fire, or heat to water. 2. The fecond Paradox wholly as bad and clear , keeps Pa- rallel with this other. It is now fuppofed that Religion which is nothing els but Fiction , neceilarily conduceth to the Peace of Kingdoms and Common-wealths , wherevpon their Happines reft's more /eenre , And is better preferued than if this fiction trere not. Hence it followes euidently* To know and Profefs Truth , to quit ©ur Selues of Errour and fiction , robb's vs of Happines and makes humane nature miferable. The Inference is vndeniable , For if Tt>e be happy vpon this {core that H>e hue in a Dotage, "toe are miferable in cafe fc>* get free of it or become Wife, which is againft the light of Reafon,For if God has endued ill! with a defire of true WiiHom and the knowledge of truth, ^J'^V* t£uei> comes from abouc , defcending from that Father of lights. God frem tbsx therefore , rightly ftiled the Father of light , or , as Diuines Speak, jpoftUs Trirtia vtritai the firft vnerring Verity , Pleafed to make known Doftrm* fome few of his Diuine truths in that Book of Holy Scripture. Few I call them , compared with innumerable others , not at all reuealed , which yet his infinite Wifclom comprehend's , Howcuer thefe few ( often darkly expreHed in that rnyfterious Book , or in Terms lefs perfpicuous) Dazle the eyes of weak lighted Mortals, and -wonder nothing , The Apoftle giues the Reafoa j. Tim. 6. J 6. becaufe all proceed from him , Qui luum inhabi- ts inatctRibtlem , That dwell' s in an vnaccefTible light , none can attain vnto. Yet truths they are , the firft vnerring Verity Trutjkret AfTerts it , and therefore ought to be eftemed treafures. If trea- Communi- lures 5 Prouidence will haue them conueyed vnto vs by fecure catciit hands , And if eternal truths concerning Saluation , God cannot hut will , and his Will is a law, That all be Propofed and Taught as Diuine and infallible Verities ,dependingvpon none, n$w to U; (if we vltimately bring them to their laft Center) but vpon the Vibed. PA The mam Dtffiotlgy Tk* nece fiity °f *n Infai libit Oracle. jShtineced beeaufe the lAyflv its fire difficult. 456 Difc. i. C. 18. The moft Urgent Trio/ fir ft Truth only , who neither will , nor can deceiue any. 8. Now here is the Difficulty. Seing it hath pleafed Al- mighty God for reafons bell known to Himfelfe , to leaue moft of the high Myfteries regiftred in Scripture in no little Obfcu- rity , Some exprefs his own Perfections of being one eiTence , and three .diftindfc Perfons , Others relate to the admirable works of Grace erfe&ed by his Infinite Power (Of this nature arc the Incarnation , and the whole Series of mans Redemption.) The Difficulty I fay is to Rnd out a trufty Interpreter , fome faithful Oracle , which can when doubts occurr concerning the darker Myfteries clear all , lay open the Book , and abfolutely AiTert. An infinite verity (ptaks tbm , TtU fenfe and no other « I hat the Holy Ghoft intended* And this is neceflary , becaufe Almigh- ty God teaches no more immediatly by himfelf , nor will haue Enthufianifms to be our Doctors. % Moreouerthe neceflity of Rich a fure Oracle (if Diuine truth muft be learn'd) is proued vpon this ground chiefly. That thefe myfteries , as rs now faid 3 haue both their Difficulty and Darknefs. Natural reafon left to it felf boggles at thetn , Itfkfr, Gtntih, and Her. ticks rcieft the higheft. It is, Say they , mighty hard to believe a Trm.ty , tie Dtuint Word made flesh , God aud man to dye vpon a Cf nfs Sec. What can Reafon yeild fo far, or ful>- mitto thefe as -eternal Verities , when their laft and only Proof is taken from a Book which we fe euidently fenfed different wayes , and fo interpreted , that One in rigour may own the Scriptures Diuinity as the Arians do , and1 yet Co ferr fauour Reaibn , as not to force vpon it the Belief of fitch fublime fe- cr'ets, which offer violence to our intellectual Faculties. Thus the Arians dilcourfe. 10. Now here T iufrly appeal to the common fudgerm of Mankind , and Ask whether our God of truth , who on th one fide perfectly comprehends the depth of his own reueal Myfteries , and on the other % penetrates no lefs our shallow c parties (pulled as we fe in the fearch of the moft Obuiou things in nature) could make choife of men meet ly falhble , and diuorce * Difc l. C.I 8. of the Churches bifSbtlity. 457 tliuorced from Diuine Afliftance to interpret Scripture, whilft all of them none excepted , becaufe errable , may grofly mifta- keand change the ptireft Verities which were euer yet reuea- led, into Errours. What think ye, could God who from Eter- nity forefaw , and yet fees his written Truths depraued , abufed, yea Herefies drawn from his mod (acred words, Could this Al- feing wifHom I lay , put his own Sacred book into fuch Sacri- legious han s , or like well that a few fcattered and diuided Se^ Varies should be the only beft Interpreters of it? 11. I fay yet more. All the men in the world , considered meerly as nature has fram'd them , fallible , would commit the Sin of Preemption , and wrong both God and his verities , did they venture (b far as to interpret Scripture by no other Rule or law but by their own weak Reafbn,and there vpon refolutely define , that Ged is one pure Ejjence , and three real rttsltntt Perfons : Original Stn is (ucb an euil at the Orthodox Church teaches: Children are to be Baptized Sec. To deduce thus much from the bare let- ter of Scripture , and to define euery particular refolutely , is aboue the force of all natural knowledge. Thole then who Interpret the Truths of the firft Alfeing Verity that inhabits light not feen by our natural eyes , muft be fpecially Priuiledged , and either re- ceiue illumination from the Father of Light, or thankfully take infallible Afliftance from the Holy Ghoft the Spirit of Truth, which is both promifed and readily giuen to the Catholick Church. 12. Hence I deduce the Churches infallibility , and Argue thus. Either there is luch a Society of men preierued by Pro- uidence infallible in all they Define and interpret , or not. If you Affirm , The Roman Catholick Church alone has the Pri- uiledge , for all others difclaim Infallibility. If you Deny. The higheft Myfteries of Chriftian Religion are things only fought For , but not found , talked of , but neuer learned. In a word Religion is a meer Scepticifm , the beft that learn it feein iuft likethofe Schollers the Apoftle mentioneth. 2. Tim 3. 6. Sem- per difunta &c. Alwaies learning , but neuer throughly inftru&ed* Mmm }* Vrtfumption in this mat- ttr eafily QommmU, Diuine Af$K fianct ntcef- fmy. A junket Pfoof. The SeRa- rics pretence to their tea- ehng Scrip- ture, ex a. mined. 45$ Difc. I. C. f 8. The tnnft trgent Vroof, If I euiclence not what is here (aid Co manifeftly, That no Senary shall rationally contradict it, cenfure me at your pleafure. 13. A few Queftions will clear all, And firftl muft Demands From whence has that we call Religion its truth > All An- swer from God the firft vnerring Verity. Very right. But we Ask again, Where is the Mafter teaching Oracle which plainly deliuer's thefe reuealeu truths , or clearly Propofes the Myfte- ries now named I Sectaries vfually tell vs , Their Oracle is holy Scripture. Hcrevpon followes a third Querie more difficult than all the reft. Viz. Who Ascertains you Arians, you tUnattfiSy, you fJf lagians , you VrotejUnts you Quakers (All fallible ) that you. rightly vnderftand what you read , and grofly depraue not Gods Word, for without controuerly innumerable called Chriftians do depraue it > Proteftants ( a perfect Reprefentatiue of all the. other) shall Anfwer for alL O fay they,. We read Scripture atten- tiuely, Tte pray for light , lee perufe the Originals , we compare Tajfage With p^ffage, and after much pains taken we both belieue the higheft Myfteries , and moreouer perfwade our Selues , that the new Model of Proteftancy is conformable, or (atleaft) notDis- fonant to Gods word. Here you haue their laft and very beft Principle , For they will not hear of an Infallible Churchy 14. Reflect Gentle Reader a little. Do Proteftants only read, pray , perufe , and compare? No Certainly. The Arians long fince haue done So, yet boldly oppofe Proteftants, and deny the higheft Myfteries of our Chriftian Faith. If then the Arians ArUns alfi Traying^ perufing , and comparing proue no conuiction to Proteftants ^ ?ead,*nd Why should the Proteftants praying or perufing Conuince the Arians of Errour* Again. Haue not Catholicks (think ye) of a longer continuance and far more numerous than Se&aries^ prayed and perufed Scripture? None can doubt it. And* yet they hold the whole Model of pure Proteftancy a Nouelty , and openly, declare it Heretical. Therefore vnlefs Sectaries ha- ue a lingular talent in praying and perufing aboue all other Chriftians , Vnlefs they can produce better Proofs for the Myfte- £€5 of Faith againft the Arians, and ftronger Arguments againfi Caches Oppofe Pro Uslants. SoJiC*. net Difc. l. C. 1$. of the Churches Infallibility 459 Catholicks in behalf of Proteftancy, than the bare letter of Scrip- $gg . cure, And their own weak conferring Texts together , or praying prettnct\9 ivpon them, They do not only make Proteftancy ridiculous, but tending moreouer, euery new whimfy defenfible ^ For was there euer yet Scripture, Fanatique in the world that could not Say thus much > He certainly both profelTes and teaches truth, becaufe he has a Bible, read's that, perufes it and prayes earneftly. And will not any Aduerfary retort the Argument vpon him and defend whateuer foolery he fancies contrary. 1 $. Belieue it, if this way of Arguing haue force the mea- neft Quaquer in England, will make his caufe good againft the makes Pn. ftouteft Protectant, and the Proteftant if he lay. I read , I Ponder teftamy I pray , proues his Religion euery whit as ftrongly againft the ■****&■»• X^naqtier. That is , neither proues any thing. Nay more , the worft of Hereticks , may vpon this ground maintain his Errours againft the Orthodox Church (be that yet where you will ) and could the Church only fay, She reads Scripture , ponders it and prayes, Her cafe would be the fame with the worft of Hereticks, But beiides reading and praying There are other Proofs,whereby One Church only is euinced God's Faithful Oracle 16. From what is now /aid I Argue rlrft. A Principle , which makes falle Religion true , yea all Religions though mod erroneous as credible as true Religion , is' more than intolerable. YheSeffa« But this Principle of Proteftants , Tiff read Sinptute , we ponder ties Vtinti- and pray, makes falfe Religions true , and all Sects though moft & mafte* erroneous as credible as true Religion is, Ergo it is more than in- W* Rei** tolerable. The Minor as is now laid proues itfelf, For euery &tonitrHe- Heretick pretend's to read and ponder Scripture, but if you moue a further Queftion concerning the Senfe of what he reads , he returns you his own fancy as the beft light he has , and makes that his Iudge. This and no other is the Proteftants Principle, and the chief, if not the only fupport , of all Herely in the world. 17. I Argue. 2. And hold it a Demonftration. To make Religion a Scepticifm eternally debatable , without hope ofat- M mm 2. taining Another Qonutncing Argument. 460 Difc. 1. G 18. The wdjl TtrgentTroof. attaining truth atlaft,is wholly as ridiculous,as if two men should goe to law meerlyto wrangle, hopeles of euer hauing their caufe determined. But this Proteltant Principle. We read, Pray and pondtt makes Religion a. meer Scepticilm without hope of euer knowing it , or hauing truth finally decided ( Semper atfientes they are ahvaies learmng but tuner KeLl taught). Ergo it is more than ridiculous. 18. To proue the Miner let vs firft fuppofe , that either we Catholicks, or Proteftants teach and prorels true Religion (both certainly do not, for we hold Contradictions ).Suppole. 2. This faltity , which our Aduerfaries will haue fuppofed. Viz. Thar the Roman Catholick Church after all Her reading , and peru- fing Scripture is as fallible in all She teaches , as Proteftants con- feli'edly are in what they deliuer after their reading. Both teach 46 they dee contrary Dottrtn, lea and fallible Doctrm^jet both tell ycUj they teach true Dociwu Say I befeech yourwhatman in his wits- can belieue Either vpon their bare AlTertions y chiefly if we \rin and Suppofe them of equal Authority > when he find's the Refult true Do.tr m. of their reading, and perufing Scripture, to end in nothing but in open Contradictions , and fees plainly that the oppofit Doc- trin of the One Church, fo much abates the Credit of the other teaching contrary, that in real truth both become Contemptible. And hence I Said, that which we call Chriftian Religon would iuftly deferue Scorn , if no Church teach it infallibly. But here is not all. To difcouermore the grofs errour of Sectaries in this particular, 19. We are yet to Demand vpon whom this tarring Doc- trin of the two difTenting Churches now fuppofed Fallible is to be laid? Or whence it proceeds? Can it come from Gods fpe- cial Afliftance think ye> It is importable. Becaule God teaches no contradictions. Nay, if we coniider it as contradictory , no Spirit of truth can teach it. Therefore we rauft part the Doc- trins , and Afcribe to each Church its own particular Opinion y And then (were that portible ) Examin which is true. 2,0, But here lies the Mifery. 1 fay boldly. There neither ■ Tv teach Cent raty it imp tf "bit, Jl T>oBrlj% taught Dif.2. C. \$. of the Churches Infallibility 461 h nor can be any appearance of certain reuealed truth in either Church, not only becauie all Principles fail whereby to diicern a certain Cbriftian ttuth from Errour,but molt vpon this ground, That we muft now remoue the fallible taught Do&rins of both thefe Churches, from Gods In fait bit Verity and his Special afli- flance alio , and make them lean vpon mans weak and shallow vnderftanding. We haue no other Principle to reft on, if once infallible Afliftance be excluded. But it is manifeft , mans shal- low capacity communicat's no Certainty to Any, concerning the high Myfteries of Faith, remoued from their Center ( The firft infallible Verity ). Therefore all we can learn from fuch Tea- chers, is no more but doubtful Doctrin at moft , or , if it reach to an Opinion meanly probable , there is all , Yet you haue of- ten heard , (and it is a Truth) that no Principle lefs then one which is infallible , Can vphold our Chriftian Doctrin. Whe- refore an vtter ruin of true Religion rneuitably followes vpon this Ground* As Dmne Doctrtn infallibly tau»bt be^ers infallible TattbySo if taught doubtfully, h begets only a doubtful AiTent, which is no Fakh at all. Now were thefe Do&rins refpe&i- uely to each Church probable ( as I think neither would be if the Suppoiition of their fallibility ftand's ) we are only brought to the old Scepttcifm again , and may dilpute of Religion as we doe of Probabilities in Schools, and Co if men pleafe, They may as often change Religion as they change Opinions , or appa- rel. 21. Some perhaps will reply. Proteftants can certainly Say more for themfelues then only to tell you They read Scripture, and compare the Paifages of it together by the light of their own weak reafbns , Could lb much indeed make them accom- plished Doctors able to lay forth Gods eternal truths, it would feem ftrange, mighty bare y and diiTatisfactory to Realon. Anfw. Here is all you haue 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 relyed on, not wholly as doubtful -y and as much controuerted as their very Religon^ Mmm 3 is Proreed's not from Cod. But relies vpon mans tpeak Vn- derjlandinfr No ground less then infallible Supports tfti* ValtgioWi Se&xrm can pretend to no other Vrincspkv 'But 1o their own Cowpam ring Serif* turc. Seftariesfeek to quarrel but to End nothing. A Conuin- cin% Proof of our Affeu lion. 462 Difc. 1. C. 18. Hbe moft Urgent froof is , when they either teach , or interpret Scripture , contrary to the Roman Catholick Church. Obferue their Procedure. If a conteft arifes betwixt them and condemned Hereticks , The Arians for example , All ends in a meer throwing Texts at one another , And the fenfe muft be iuft fo as each Party conceiues. And do they not follow the fame ftrain in euery Controuerfy with Catholicks 1 One Inftance will giue you furficient light, and may well feme for alL 22. They ( Protectants I mean) read thofe words of our Sauiour. This is my Body. So do Catholicks alio. They com- pare Text with Text , and Senfe all as they pleale. Catholicks as wife and learned compare alfo , yet hold contrary Doctrin, and diicouer no little fraud in thele new mens Deductions, and Criticifms. Say now plainly. Who is He that a&s the Sceptick's part > Who is He that would endleily quarrel about the Senfe of Gods word >. Is it the Catholick > No certainly. He is willing to haue the caufe vltimately deci- ded , He Petitions to haue thefe endles ftrifes remitted to the cenfure of one Supreme Iudge , to a Church which manife- ftethitfelf by euident glorious Miracles (neuer yet cenfured, by any Chriflians but known Hereticks) and which finally has taught the world euer llnce Chrift left it. Dare Sectaries do thus much > Dare they appeal to any Orthodox Church , by whofe iuft Sentence thefe debates may haue an End > No. They recoyle y and without liftening to any Iudge but Them felues , would ful continue thefe Debates. Therefore they are the Sceptifts. And to proue this , giue me leaue to propole one Queftion to the Proteftant (He is the man we now treat with). Has he any Church fo free from Cenfure , of fo long Continuance , fo glorious in Miracles as the Roman Catholick is. Has He any Council as generally receiued the whole world ouer , as either the Lateran or Florentine which euer interpreted Chrifts words or Senfed them as he doth ? Moft euidently no. Therefore I faid well , His reading and glofles, and all he can Allege for himfelf > are nothing but His own weak Difc. 1. C. t8. of the Churches Infallibility. 46 J #eak thoughts t as far remoued from the foundation of truth , {Gods infallible Verity) as earth is from Heauen and more. 23. But its needle* to Profecute this Point further , when one only reafon , which none can contradict giues Euidence enough againft Proteftants. I Propofe it thus. What euer Doetrinthey teach peculiar to Proteftancy , or maintain againft the Roman Gatholick Church , either proceed's from Gods infallible Afiftavce , or wholly borrowes ftrength from their own _ • fallible Conceptions , after their reading and comparing Scriptu- Ua(h *D^ re. Grant the firft ; They teach infallible Doclrin , by virtue &rin diuer- of Gods infallible AfTiftance , and confequently are the men ced from who conftitute an Infallible Church. Say fecondly , that all Jjjjj*^?: they teach deriues force from their own weak reafon (guided ■* anc§* only by the external words of Scripture ,. vnderftood as they conceiue,) They teach as the Arians r and all Hereticks haue taught before them , a learning which is not from God. Their Andther*. Doctrin in a word , Diuorced from all Diuine Aide and Af- fore not finance , ftand's tottering vpon their own errable Sentiments, from Oodi, and therefore neither is (which I intended to proue) ChriiYs Doctrin , nor at all refoluable into that firft, Principle of truth, God's vnerring Verity. 24. Shall we to giue feme clearer Light to the Contro- uerfy hitherto handled compendioufly recapitulate a £qw of thefe many rerTe&ions made already in the foregoing Chap- ters ? And then more eftablish the Churches infallibility vpon vndoubted Principles, To d© fo ^ may perhaps benefit the Reader. 25. Say therefore. Is it true that Cbriflian Religion vlt'imately Ahrhfe ?t* depend' s vpon God , the firs! vnerring Verity t No man doubts it, capituUtion Is it true , that innumerable called Chriflians grojly mifcomeiue tbofe of what has reuealed Truths , after their reading and perufing Scripture \ It is no been Said. lefs certain. Is it true 7 That the bare readmg , and pondering Scrip- $eflariK tureno more ascertains Proteslants of the Verities there regiflred ,than lib Arsons*, the Arians or anj other Hereticks ? The truth is vndoubted , For 4^4 Difc. i. C. 1 8. The mofl Urgent Troof Funatkifm. from whom should they haue greater certainty. 1/ it true, That Scripture tu as Sectaries do ? Experience wrefled. proues it. Js it true. That this (ole recourf* to Scripture drifted to Doubtful ^ £mQer Senfo ^ Vp0ijtfs tije wofj faij-e Se$s tn tfj€ jpoyM > u u true9 J"" That Chrisltan Doftrin y doubtfully taught , begefs only a doubtful faith? Comparing is lt true > Tl)at the onty fupport °f Protectants tn points of Religion Texn ,fallL amount's to no more but to their oT*-n doubtful and bare pondering Scrip' hit. ture yor to their various and fallible comparing Ttxts together ? is it Scepticifm. true y That the fe men Ukje Siept'chj H>ould ftand euerUiliugly quarrelling about the fen(e of Gods Tvord , and cannot be tuduced to hear any Judge Ne urge them to make choije oftobat ludge they pleafe ,prou'tded they appeal not to their o^u Sentiments and Gloffes ,44 muth controuertet as P/0- lHoOrthodox tenancy is ? Is it true , That they can name no Orthodox Church ^hich Church. taught as they teach yglvffed Scripture as they glofs ; No Council gent" KorCoumtli fa\iy receiued {Comparable either to the hateran or Florentine) Tvhicb flulieAfii fauours l^tly Interpretations foried vpon Chrifts fiords } Js it true t fiance That the DocJrin they propound confeffedly proceed's not from Gods in' TaUibUFro. fallible Apflance ? Ij if true , That they affume to themfelues the na- fiffirs, of We of Christians , and yet are ashamed to be called infallible Frofeffors faUtbitDo. of tbetoholefyftwe of Chrifttan Religion > Is it true, That they haue ViuineRe. ^ont ^)eir vtmft t0 take from God's infallible Reuelatton its oft n in- vention trinlick nature of Infallibility , by making tt no more but morally certain wronged. in order to our Chrifttan Tatth * Is tt true, That , that half Infalli- Diclrm nt- biltty fome lay claim to, in a feli> yet vnknoton fundamentals ? appear s ucr owned. emn %Q ytoteftants , not any Doclrin opened by the Chrifttan Ttorld, nor can it appear otherlvife , Tk>kil(l a tohole vniuerfal Church decryes Zndles Vif~ it as improbable ? Is it true , That Thefe Nouelltfts raife not their Do- t**Ui* itrin any higher , but only to an endles Cornell , T»hilft no ludge but themfelues musl fpeak^ in the caufe? z6. Are all theie things (I fay) more amply enlarged and clearly proued already fb vndoubted that no Sectary shall euer rationally contradict them ? If the Iudicious Reader find I Ipeak truth , as he will 9 may Preiudice be laid afidc , I may boldly Conclude. Who euer lee's not the deplorable Condition of mifled Difc. % C. 19, The laflproofe oftsc. 467 .mifledSe&aries,whoeuer fee's not alfo an abfolute neceflity of an infallible Church to fet them in the right way of truth Again is wilfully blind , fupinely negligent , Yea vtterly Carelefs of Saluation. CHAP. XIX. •Certain principles , Cohere tyon the Churches Infallibility {land's firm* The End of rDtuine %euelaiton u io teach all Infallibly. Euery rDoRrm repealed by the fiajl Verity ts no lefs infallible thm true. Us one thing to teach Truth , another to teach fDwne mdbifalhbleTrutk Se- ftaries Strangly imgrateful. J fpord of Mr Stillingfleets "Speak ObieBions. 1. VI Ow wee come to the lait certain Principles wh'er- iNl vpon the Churches infallibility {land's mod firmly. Here is one. The Doclrm tykich God reueaCs , as it proceeds from that fir (I vnerring Verity , is not only true but infallible. The Second Principle. Scripture Tvbttb makes none infallible u often abufed bj He- retickj. The third Principle. Some Chrislians are jet m Being That ?"ne$l'd* both teath and learn tbu true Diuine , and infallible reuealed Dottrtri. ? ' The Proof is eafy : For vnlefs fome Teach and learn it , All Teach and learn another Do&rin diftincl: from that which God reuealed, ",:,\ and this neither is , nor can be Diuine , but meerly humane at moft, ple Pr0ted, and Perhaps a foolery. That therefore , which the Prophet AlTerts. iehv. 6. 4^. All shall be Docibtles Dei, docible or caught of God , is not lo , For now if the Suppofirion hold's, N n n . the A Chkreh muj} be ack- nowledged abfolutely >*f*UiUi. Tbt Proof it taken from 1 he End of Eiuine Rt- *eUtion. Dintm rt- neUiion it lobeaffmted H infallibly. 466 Difc. i. C. 19. The loft f roof of the whole Church (take it in what Extent you pleafe) is deluded as the Apoftle Saith Ephes. 4. 14 With the Kind of Dottr'tn^m the Tficfydnes of wen , in Craftints to the circumutntion of errour. And this brings ruin to Chriftian Religion. 2. The. 4. Principle. This Diuine Doctrin is not only true and infallible in it felf , but moreouer fo infallibly Propofed by one vnerring Oracle, That all who will receiue it, are mod indubitably certain of thole very truths which God has reuea- led , and therefore cannot err. Make good this one Propor- tion , We haue an infallible Church eftablished , not only in a few nicknam'd vnknown fundamentals , but in euery Doctrin She teaches. Now the Proof is taken from the End of Diuine reuelatioir which feem's mod Conuincing , For fay L befeech you , Why did God impart truth and infallible truth to the world \ The end was not to improue his own knowledge r being euer Omnifcient. It was nor that the Angels and bleifed in Heauen should belieue , for Faith ceafeth in that happy State,. All there fe intuitiuely what they once belieued. The end the- refore why God reuealed true and Infallible Do&rin was, That we , yet Pilgrims on earth walking by Faith should yeild Ai- fent to it , and belieue all as both true and inftlltblc But this is impoflible, if the Church which immediatly Propofes the Do- clrin can clash with Scripture or with Gods Reuelation , and peruert his Verities. Therefore She muft be acknowledged both true and infallible in euery Docl:rin She teaches. 3. If any reply. It feem's fufficient that the Church teaches Truth , though She neither propofes nor teaches it Co infallibly, but that fome times She may fweaue from it , He deftroyes again Chriftian Religion. Be pleafed to obferue my reafon. If the infallibility of reuealed Dodtrin be loft as it were in the way between God and vs , If the Reuelation appear not as it is in it felfe infallible, when we afTent to it by Faith, That is , if it be not infallibly conueyed and applyed to all by an vnerring Pro* ponent , as it fubfifts in its flrft caufe , infinitly infallible , Faith pe- rishes , we are caft vpon pure Vncertainties , and may iuftl'y doubts s reniM- Difc. 2. C. 19. The Churches hi fallibility. 4^7 doubt, whether fuch a Doccrin , feparated from that other Per- fection of infallibility, be really true or no? To fe this clearly laid forth , Pleafe to make one reflection with me. 4. May not either lew or Gentil , well inclined to Chriftian Religion rationally propofethis Queftion to the Proteftants or to any ? Has God reuealed any Doctrin which is only true , G ., and not infallible 1 You will Anfwer, No , becaufe the fame led uJa'in infinite verity wThich flipport's truth, is powerful enough to vp- ispohfsm- hold alfo its infallibility. Say on I befeech you. Can you who fallible, then pretend to teach truth ( the worft of Hereticjues haue done fo) trut* Afccrrain me alio , that you teach and propofe Gods infallible Truths , mfitfl bit >. Proue your Selues fuch Doctors , and none will euer Queftion further the Truth of what you teach, For if you once make this clear, that you teach the infallible Doc- trin which God has reuealed , the truth infeparably connexed with infallibility, is no more difputable but manifeftly Credible. But if you turn me off, with a fair Story of teaching truth, and Afcertain me not of your teaching it infallibly , euery rational man will mod iuftly doubt of your teaching Truth. And here is the reafon a Prion, 5. Euery Doctrin which is taught as a Verity , founded vpon God (the prsl Yentyfis no lefs Infallible than true y Therefore who euer Afcertains me of the one, muft ioyntly afcertain me of the other j Or if he will diuorce trurh from that perfection of In- fallibility , he giues me no more but at mod the half of that 7J*r? *J* Doctrin which God reueal's. Nay I learn not fo much from famfoftty him, ieingGod owns no true Doctrin ( men can teach natural from truth, truths ) which is not as etntmntly wfallibley as true. Now further. If I be fob'd off with no man knowes what halfes of Diuine Doctrin , That is , if the Proponent parts truth from its infalli- bility, and no Authority in Heauen or earth licences any to Se- parate what God has ioyned together, I only learn the faint Sen- wh€H \V* timents , or weak Opinions of fallible Teachers founded vpon btlteueGecPt f^ncy 5 which God difclaim's And (which is euer to be noted ) reuealeii man by nature fallible can do no more , but only propofe them '" • N n n 2 as . One Church only In fa Hi- bl». A certain Principle, tyherevpon our Anfwers U Stttaries are grwn. dsd. Scripture H tbfcnrt. 468 Difc.l. C. 19. The la/l Troof of as meer humane or doubtfull Vncertainties. But a humane doubtful Proposition , though true , beget's , as is faid aboue, no certain faith in any , Therefore who euer will not vtterly ruin the very life and Effer.ce of Chriftian Religion \ muft abfolutely aflent both to the truth and InfaUibJttj of Religion , and con- fequently acknowledge an Infallible Oracle which teaches and propofes Infallible Verities , Infallibly. But this is only the Ro- man Catholick Church, as is faid aboue, for no other Society of men laies claim to teach Gods infallible truths, infa'Mlj. 6. To folue all ObiecHons againft this Difcourfe , it will much auaile to be well grounded in this fure Principle. Viz. If is one thing to teach trutn , and another to teach Dium and infal- lible truth. Man by natural reafon can teach truth, yet is in- fufficientto teach D-.trine , reuealed , and infallible Truth , this muft- come from a higher Power , either from Dmme Affiance , or Su- pernatural Illumination. If therefore the protectant Should demand, Why we cannot belieue his Doctrin euen when he only Propo- fes thofe general Verities which all Chriftians admit ( He neuer offers to Obtrude vpon you his inferiour Tenents peculiar to Protectants ). Anfwer. They are truths indeed,and infallible truths, but not proued fo> becaufe he Vnafiifted teaches ih m. If he Ask again vpon what foundation do we Catholicks lay the truth and infallibility of that Doctrin we belieue and teach ? Anfwer. Vpon this firm Ground, that Scripture interpreted by an AiTifted Oracle (the Chruch) which cannot beguile any, Propofes all we learn , as true and infallible Do&rin. 7. If he reply. 3. proteftants abftract from the Churches Interpretation and .hold Scripture plain enough in all fundamen- tal Do&rin neceflary to Saluation. Anfwer. He err's not knowing the depth of Scripture, which is fo dark, and vnintel- ligible in the abftruie Myfteries of faith, that vnlefs certain Tra- dition and theSenfeof the vniuerfal Church caft light vpon it, or impart greater clarity to the bare letter , The wifeft: of men will be puzled in what they read , or at moft guefs doubtfully at its meaning , And therefore may eafily fwerue from truth. To fc what I fay , proued. S. Imagta Difc 1. C 19. The Churches Infallibility. 469 8. Imagain only, that twenty learned Philofophers or mo- re , who neuer beard of Church Tradition , or of her Gtnerael re- tetued bo firm , had our Bible drop't down from Heauen with AfTurance that it contain's Gods infallible truths , prou id ed all they read be rightly vnderftood , but not otherwife. Suppo- fe. z. They perufe that one Sentence in S. Iohns Gofpel. In the beginning Was the Word , and that Word Was frith God* This fame fros in thtbeginninir Vt>iih God Sec. Suppofe. $. They alfo confer the Sentence with all other PaiTages in Holy Writ relating to this Myftery. Could thefe Philofophers think ye by the force of their natural difcourfe only acquire exactly tlie infallible truth of the Incarnation 9 iuft To as the Church now teaches and belieues ? No. Euery Particle would put them ypon a further Scrutiny. What is figniried Saith one , by this. In princpto. In the beginning ? What is that Word faith another , which was with God , or how was it with God? Was it One real thing Effential to him , or meerly a breath a Word terminated vpon creatures , without which nothing was made ? All know though the Arians had a Church to teach , yet with that fure Rule of faith they mangled and mif- vfed this very paffage of the Gospel , Therefore difficulties much more would moleft thefe Philofophers y hauing no Oracle to interpret , And as many would arife concerning other Scriptu- res , relating to the (acred Trtn'ttj , Original Sin , and the like My- fteries. 9. Now here is my reflection , and I think euery Intelli- gent perfon will fpeak as I doe. luff fo much as thefe Phi- lofophers haue to glofs with and defcant vpon , So much Se- ctaries may challenge , but no more , if we ieuer Scripture from the Churches Interpretation. Both haue a Body without life , words without fenfe , difficulties propofable concerning their reading, but none to Anfwer them. 10. The only difference between them is ; That the Phi- lofophers , yet ignorant of Church and Tradition haue no Schoole to go to. Sectaries haue both , yet run as it were Nnn 3, from Th moll learn- d Phi. lofofheri ig- norant of Tradition md Church Doftrin, Cannot Vn~ derftand it. An applica- tion made t9 Seftaries* The differen- ce between them and the Vhtlo- whether I u. then follo- wers, or an Ancient Cjhureh k t§ teach} Sectaries maniftftly •ungrateful, And why) Recourfe to the Primiti ut Churchy frinolom. A?o Diii. 2. dp. Tklajl Troofof from Schoole with half a LefTbn , with one part (and t'is much the obfcurer part) of Diuine Learning only , the bare Texts I mean , of holy Scripture , shutting out the Churches infallible Senfe. And what haue you in lieu' of this light > which hath hitherto illuminated Millions of Chriftians? The weak and errable Sentiments of a few difvnited Sectaries. And is this all we can rely on > Do we belieue the Trinicy , the Incarnation and other high Myfteries ( (e obfcurely ex- preffed in Gods word , that innumerable haue miftakcii the true Senfe) becaule a Luther, a Calutn , or their followers ex- pound it "> Or is our Belief grounded vpon that Churches Interpretation which has cuer taught the world ? The One or Other mnit haue influence vpon Faith , if we will belieue. But moll manifeftly the firil (men only of yefterday , and fal- lible) are not our Doctors , Therefore the Church is the only Oracle which Afcertainsvs of the Scriptures Senfe , of its Truth, and infallible Do&rin aMb. ii. Two things neccfTarily follow from this Difcourfe. The one. That Proteftants Shew themfelues ftrangely vngrateful , be- caule they flight an Oracle , which has taught them all they know concerning the Primary Articles of Chriflian Faith , for in real truth the Churches Authority in Her expounding Scrip- ture vpholds that true AfTent they yeild to the Myftery of the Sacred Trinity. So much is granted y Or not. Grant it. I Ask. Why difdain they to hear this Church in other mat- ters ? If you deny. Their Submifiion to this and the like Myfteries wholly relies vpon their own fallible difTatisfacrory thoughts and glolTes. Here Some perhaps will retire to the Primitiue Churches interpretation 5 and ground their Aflent vpon Her Dodfrin. Nothing is got this way , For the mod Primi- tiue expoiition of Scripture was no more infallible , than what the latter Church or Councils haue Defined. But enough is laid aboue , of this Chafing all Controuerfies vp to the Primi- tiue Ages ii. The fecond Inference is. If God has not made Religion a Difc. t. C. 19. The Churches Infallibility. 47 1 a matter of eternal Debate , If all arc obliged to beiieue by di- uine Faith the very truths, yea the fame infallible truths which God has reuealed , and no other of a lower or (lighter Rank; If he has reuealed them for this end , that all may be Afcer- A ficoni tain'd of their intrinfecal Worth , (That is,) of being both Di- t*firtnc§t uine and infallible ; If the whole Chriftian world remain's not at this day in Errour , or is not caft vpon vncertainties what to beiieue y If both the truth and infallibility of all reuealed Do&rin fraud's and fubfift's firmly ioyned together in God , the frtt Vent j (impoffible to be ieparated there). And if Finally as T'is there true and infallible , all are obliged to learn it :- No- thing can be more manifeft then that diuine Prouidence has c- ftablished and impowred Some Oracle to teach and propole that very reuealed Doctrin vnder its own Nature and Notion y as it is both true and infallible. 13. Thus much Suppofed and proued T All further Queftions The Orach concerning the Oracle ceafes , For it neither is , nor can be ano- inching ther but the Roman Catholick Church which has charge to truth ***** Interpret Scripture faithfully , to refcue Gods truths from the lewd ****»/*«** miiufage of Hereticks. Clear therefore once that Sacred Book from abufe , Learn what this one certain Oracle teaches , our Faith is found , Catholic^ , and Apojiohcal. But if Scripture by rea- fon of its Obfcurity deceiues any , or the Church could deuiate from the (incere interpretation of Gods truths there regiftred , The Very life of true Religion is loft , Faich vanishes into er- rour. 14. Who euer ferioufly Conflder's what is already (aid in this and the precedent chapter will find Mr Still ingfieets Scatte- red Obie&ions againft the Infallibility of Church and Councils i£fc£?" vtterly void of ftrength. Some worthy perfon of our Nation (who £#»« he is I know not) in his Guide of Controuerjtes. Difc. 3. has Co weightier broken and vanquished the little force they haue , that I may well fuperlede all further labour herein. There is not one Obiedion propofed , but T'is either firft , euidently retorted vpon Mr Stillingfleet ,Or i. Implies a pure begging of the Que?- ftion* He peak's not truth. A Calumny for a Proof. Thefit/f Ar. gument te- rn ted. And clearly folued. 471 Difc. 1. C \y. Thelafl Trocfof ftion. Or 3. Impugn's all Councils. Or 4. Appears Co flight at the very hrft view , that it deferues no Anfwer. What can be more flight then to tell vs as he doth. P. 508. That we are abfolutely auerfe from free Councils, becaute we condemn all other Bishops but thofe of our Church without fuftering them to plead for themfelues in any Indifferent Council. It is hard to fay what the Gentleman mean's by 'free and tndffaent Councils , for he fetters all with fo many Conditions , that nc- uerany was yet found in the Church fo qualified , as he would haue it. Read him through his 1. and 2. Chapter , as alfo i\ ^7. You will fe what I alTert , Manifeft. It is true, we con- demn all heteredox Bishops (and doth not Mr Stillingfleet re- criminate , and condemn ours?) But to fay we (urfer none to plead tor Themfelues in a free Council is a flat Calumny, vn- lefs that only be free which fome bodies fancy makes free , and no other. A word now to one or two Obie&ions. 15. If you ( iaith Mr Stiliingfleet) require an AiTent to the Decrees of Councils as infallible , There m-uft be an ante- cedent Affent to this Propofition. T»at lcbat\oener Cometh de* tree , is infallible, I firft retort the Argument. If you require an AlTenttoyour Definitions in the Dort-Meeting , Or hold That the conuened there deliuered true Dottrtn. There muft be an antecedent AiTent to this Propofition , That what loeuer thofe Dort-men taught is true Docirtn . before you own it as true As- certain vs of thus much , And you folue your own difficulty. If this Inftance pleafe not , make vfe of another. Your Minifters in England pretend to teach true Doftrw , though not wfalltbly. Say only vpon what antecedent Propofition the Truth of their Do and as the Orthodox dunk luchtu D1fc 2. C. 16. The Qburchet infallibility 473 ttdchts. Here is the Thijis or the vniuerfal receiued Proportion. But thefe Paftors and Doctors when aflembled in Council arc dill Paftors of the Church and lawfully cominiffioned to teach in God's name, both true and infallible Do&rin,Thercfore they are to be heard and belieued in .all and euery Definition, pro- ceeding from that Allembly , Uwblly conuened. Here you ha- ue the Hypothfis as indubitably certain , as the Thefis. 17. A fecond Obiection you meet with in his Page $09. What infallible Tefiimouy h due you (he means Catholicks ) for this, ^thJf %\)4t Councils 4tc Infallible ? It is n$t enough forjou to fiy , That the ntVrtoAawt Teflimor/tes ef Strtpture you produce are an Infallible Tefttmony for it: stluedj Fcr ilwt Tver* towtkt the Scripture t be fob Judge of this peat Coniro- ucrfy9Mhiib)0it deny to be the (ole \ud%e of any. I firft retort the Argument and Ask. Wiiat Teftimony haue you Sedaries(I do not lay Infallible.) But lb much as feemingly probable taken from 6cripture ., whereby Councils ( the greateft Represent atims m God's Church ) are made fallible ? Not one can be alleged. • 18. NowT my Anfwer briefly is. Scripture -once admitted for God's word ( which our Aduerfaries will not -reftec!: on)manw feftly conuinceth the Cnurches infalltbility. To thole exprefs ^iCMt!^'.,. and fignificam Parages of Jioly Writ known to euery one (Tho ^jjm^i Church is the pillar and ground of Truth ) you haue them already , infallibility. We add the iudgement of Fathers cited aboue ( The guide of Controuerfies. C. ^ P. 147. Produces more ). Befidcs, Gods Church which we hold an Infallible Oracle, interprets -Scripture to this fenfe , and here are our aboundantly full Principles for Her Infallibility. Come you Sr, now clofely to the point, con- front vs if you can with as many Paffages of Scripture, as many Teftimonies of Fathers, Or (and this we alwayes vrge)with the Authority of any Orthodox Church which fauours your con- trary Tenet of Fallibility , The Strife is. ended. But hereof the- re is. no fear at all. And thus .you Cc how Scripture is the ludge UBarUs when once admitted as Diuine , and. faithfully interpreted, not uautnomt Qtherwife. firMr 19. A. 3. Qbie&ion. ?4gt. fop. The Decree or Definition ***• Ooo ofk 474 Difc. *♦ C 19. The laji Trotfe of. A third °^ * Council receiues Infallibility from the Council before the rveak obiec- Pope confirm' s it, or not. If not-, The whole infallibility reli» tion retorted des in the /ope, and this lb me Say is not de Ftde vmuerfalr. If it arife from the Council before the Pope conflrm's it ( for that aft of* confirmation followes the Definition ) the Council is infallible antecedently to the Popes Confirmation. I firft retort the Argument. An Aft of f arlament , or a law made for all, receiues its force from the Conuened Members before his Maiefty Conflrm's it, or not. If not j The "whole Power of making fuch a Law refides in His Maiefty , which fome will fay is not lb. If it arife ftom the Parlament , before His Maie- fty Conflrm's it (and that. Confirmation followes the Aft) The Farlament is impowr'd to make fuch Lawes , before His Royal AfTent Conflrm's them. Here is the very fame Form of arguing (though in a different matter ) and you & the weaknes of it. 20. The true Anfwer to the Obieftion is as followes. Euery. Doftrin definable may be confidered two wayes, firft as it Pro- ceeds from God the moft fupreme Verity, and vnder that No- tion, it is both true, and infallible in it, felf before the pope and And folued. Council Define it, (And note , they can Define no other Doc— trin on earth, but what God ratifies in Heauen). .2. It may be confidered as the Doftrin of the Reprefentafiue Church infallibly Afii- fted to teach Diuine truths j And vnder that Notion it is called Church Doftrin , proceeding from the Head and Members of one myftical Body : The Head therefore Separated or folely taken , . Defines not in Councils,.The Members diuided.from the Head define riot , But one and the fame Definition proceed's ioyntly from both Head and members vnited together. The Inftance already hinted at giues light enough. If any reply, The Defini- tion when the Council propofed it, was both true and infallible 2u$Yi T>ec* Doftrin. I dift'mguish the Propofition. It might be then Cer- trintrue tain and infallible Doftrin in it felf (that's true) but as yet it k initftifi, neither known or owned as fuch or called Church Doftrin : is not there- jt ^ tjlcn t^e whoIc Councils or Churches true and infallible. -Z&tw. Doftrin, I deny it.. This is founded vpon both Pope and Council nettt, Difc.2. C. 19. Dfe ChurchsbifJMity. 47J Council infallibly afTifted,as is now (uppo^ed, and already pro- tied, ♦ 21. I find no more in Mr Stillingfleet worth any notice That which followes in his Page 510. ouerthrowes all councils OtLerOfat. or proues nothing. What certainty haue you , Saith he , that ucm m*ued this or that Council proceeded lawfully >. That the Bishops were *s tofw**' lawful Bishops? That the Pope who con-firm's them was a law- ful Pope? That fome By* aids or Inrereft frayed not many > That all conditions were exactly performed &c. I Anfwer firft , and Ask. What certainty haue you of any illegal Bishops , of vnlawful Popes, of Inter eft Swaying all. Here becauie you ac- cu(e , we put you to the Proof. I Anfwer. 2. That Certainty which you or any has of no By ends in the four firft general Councils, of their lawful Bishops-, of no intereft fwayng Sec, The fame we haue of all the approued Councils in Gods Church* To infift further vpon fuch faint Obie&ions ,, is only to loic time or ( might one retaliate in Mr Stillingfleets own language) metrly to k^ill pes , to ran after them , and wake [port tyttb them. And thus much of the Churches Infallibility , ( I mean the Ro- man Apoftolical Catholick Church ) to whofe Cenfure and in- fallible Iudgement I do moft willingly fubmit my Selfe,and euery particular in this Treatife. THE o 06 1 4?6 THE THIRD DISCOVRSSE OF. The Refolution cf Faith r THe fubiee~b here hinted at, is as. all Shelters know very Spe- culatiue. Terms, according, to my little SkiH in the English Tongue,, often Fail to exprefs what is ne- ceflary. Wonder not therefore, if now and then you meet with that which may feemObfcure to a Vul- gar Reader. My Endeauour Shall be to giue the Difcourfe (6 much Light, as that Euery one may per- ceiue the Aduerfary I treat witfv clearly refuted THt. Difc $* C 1. Qaibolkh refolue faith dt (?c. 477 THE FIRST CHAPTER Some chiefe Contents in this fDifeourfe- briefly declared: Mr StiUingfleets *fteak attempts againji theChur* cbes infallibility and the %efolutwn of Faith. The C atholick 7»ay of rejoining Faith, the yery fame T»ith that of the Vrimitiue Lbn/lians. Of the mi/lakes Tihiib run through Mr StiUingfleets Tphole Difcourfi. ii ¥ N the following Chapters, we firfVremoue fuch difli- Iculties as may feem to obftruct the Cleareft Refolu- ^kMtthk don, And all along dilcouer Mr StiUingfleets Errorus. viz. Chiefly third Dif. thofe, moft apparent in his 5. Chapter. 1. We examin what! am[§ Influence the Motiues or Credibility haue ouer Faith > 3. Ne- &**&& cefTary Principles are premiied much auailing to Conceiue the. true AnalyfiSi 4. We Shew wherein the Main Difficulty, lies in this Refolution (Omitted by Mr Stilmigfleet :) and folue it. f. The whole Progrete of Faith is Explained in order to its laft Refolution. 6. The true Analyfis is giuen in two Proportion!. Here we alio treat of the Euidence of Credibility , and folue the Sectaries Obie&ions. 7; This queftion is propoled. Whe- ther the Churches Teftimonj may be Called the Formal Obtecl of Faith 1 8. We Ask what is meant by this word Re^fon, And enquire how far true Reafon Conduces to end Controuerfies > 9^ Pro- xeftancy is proued a moft vnreafonable Religiom 2. Mr Stillingfleet. Part 1. C. f. P. 109. offer's at much , it is to difcouer ftrangeill Consequences , yea grand Abfurdities, OurAjiiuf\ if Faith be refolued by the Churches Infallibility; and feem's* firu'boH* feme yfat. ouer -heated in carrying on the cauic againft his Ad- **»*"*{> Ooo j rcriary. 478 Difc.;* C. i. Catbolick re/olue faith, as vcrfory. Let any man (faith he) wdge whether tbit be not the moft compendious M> ay to ouertbroVr the belief of Chnfttamt-y, Thereis har- dly any thing more really defirufliue to Cbrtfttamty , er that \)as a greater tendency to Atheifm , than the Modern prcterice to Infallibility. The vnreafonablenes of it is fo great , that I knoto not whether I may abslain from calling it ridiculous. And much more to this Senfe. 3. Itfeems by what I read in Mr Stillingfleet T. C. (vvhofe What hU Book I had not then feen) faid that Catholicks in this prcfent ^4u?rjnry State, refolue their Faith after the very fame manner, as the finned. Ifraelits anciently, and the Primitiue Chriftians refolued Theirs. If he laid that, he Spake a Truth ? not only defenfible j butfb Sound and Irrefragable, that Mr Stillingfleet ( to vfe his own pret- ty Phrafe ) like one vnder an Ephtaltes Shall tumble , groan, tos- fe this way and that, and yet not rid himfelf of the vexation. 4. The Do&rin I find plainly deliuered , and the Inftan- ces of the ancient Ifraelits and the Primitiue Chriftians , fo well made vfe of for the Catholick Refolution by our learned Coun- tryman , Th$ma4 Bacon Southwell. Analyfis Ttdei, Difp. 4. and $. That here I muft needs infert fome Part of it , becaufe it much auailes to Conceiuethe eafieft way of refoluing Faith , And well penetrated fo vtterly defeates what Mr Stillingfleet has , that ^J*? much more is not requifite to make void his forceks Qbiec- tions. 5. F. Southwel therefore , Antdyfts V'tdei now cited, cJbiefly n. 18. Speak' s much to this fenfe. Had one asked a true Belieuer in Mofes his time after the Pentateuch was written, "Whybelieue you that God is iuft , wife , faithful in his Pro- , mifes ? Or (if you will haue one particular) why Adam fin- lfraelits nec* m Paradife ? He would haue anfwered Scripture Saith fo, qHeflioned But if again demanded, How know you that Scripture is God's ^bm faith, Diuine word ? Would he think, ye haue Aniwered , I fe that by the very light and Sparkling of the Letter > It is impolfi- ble as shall be proued afterward. Thus therefore He would £aue replycd. Mofes our great Prophet Affirm.' s it, or rather God Difc. j. C !. TfoefrimiriueCfaiJliamdii. 479 God fpeakiog by the mouth of Mofes laics that Verity open to vs , And vpon that ground I belieue it. So we read. n#*/r>. I, 3. Mofes 'fpal^e to the Children of ifrael all Ibi'iih God bad (r.w- tnanded bim to [*) to them. Now if thirdly Qucftioned.. How ^ Proue you that Moyfes was a true Prophet , or God's Oracle , MfiLwf? He could not haue Satisfied by alledging Scripture , without a Vicious Circle , but would haue Said s This truth, is immediatly, and moft midintij Credible by it Selfe , for the Wifdom,. Sanctity,. and Power of working Miracles ^manifeft to all eyes, proue to Reafon , that Mofes is a great Prophet. 5. In like manner Catholicks proceed in their Refolution of Faith. Demanded why we belieue the Myftery of the In- carnation y it is Anivvered Scripture Aden's it. Ask again ,..why we belieue the Diuinity of that Book called Scripture ? It is replyed* The Church afcertain's of That. But how do we know that the Church herein deliuer's Truth ? It is An (Ve- xed, if we Speak of knowledge preuious to Faith , Thofe admi- rable Signes of Diuinity mentioned aboue, and manifeft in this one Oracle. Viz. The Sanctity of life the Contempt of the Ttorldy the continued Ausletity of Pennant* , the height of Contemplation ^ tlu pre- apparent in thouiands and thoufands , And aboue all the glorious rent sr*/#, ' Miracles moll: illuftrious in this one Society of Chriflians proue return the it an Oracle lb euidemly credible, That we cannot , if prudent and ver> fAm* man ifeft Reafon guides vs , but as firmly belieue what euer this A*f»er* Oracle teaches , as the Ifraelits belieued Moles and the Prophets. . Here is only the difference ( And the Aduantage is ours ) that jtititttmu in Lieu of Mofes we haue an ample Church ; Inumerable nAuant*- multitudes in place of one Seruant of God, The incomparable gi*ttifcrvu greater light , I mean , the PilUr and Ground of truth , the Catho- lick Church difFufed the whole world ouer. 6". Anfwerable to this Dodtrin the primitiue Chriflians re- folued their Faith , after the Canon of Scripture was written. Ask therefore why thefe firfl conuerted People , whether Iewec or Gentils , belieued Chrift to be the true Melius, .the Son of God , and Sauiour of the world >. They might haue Anfvrc- 4?o Difc j. C. u 'fatloTichrifotut Faith as red. We read this and much more in Holy Scripture. But how know you, that thefe Scriptures are not fuppofitious or T'*e frimi' fained , as fome Gofpels haue been I We belieue this , Say They, tiue Chri^ vpon the vndoubted Teftimony of thofe bleiTed men the Apo- ilUm iPAjt ftles , who both taught vs , and wrote that holy Book. Yet 0fre[6lutng 1Tiore. How. know you that thofe .Apqftles were not Cheats (for there haue been falfe Prophets and Apoftles) but men Au- thorized by Almighty God to teach and write his holy Veri- ties "> Had, they replyed, We proue this by Scripture it fdf, the Circle would haue been ineuitahle. For to Sty Scripture is Cods Word , becaufe the Apjjlles Ajfert it , and to Say the Apoftlts Tvere infallible Oracles of Truth ^becaufe Scripture tffirm's that y is to Prouc Idem per Idem , And implies a moft vicious Circulation. 7. Their Anfwer then muft haue been , for there is no other. The manifeft Miracles wrought by the Apoftles , Their eminent Sanctity and Holines of life (our Lord working with ,and con- firming their Doctrin by manifeft Signes) proued -them Gods UOmrn Ch-acles , True and faithful commiflioned Teachers. And thus *l&. we diicourfe of the Church Whofe vndeniable Miracles , San- ctity , and Conuerfions wrought by Her , conuince reafon of this great Truth , that She only is -Gods Oracle. All this is faid fuppofing the Canon of Scripture already compleat,For if we goe higher , and confider 4 Church ( whether it be that of the ancient Patriarchs, of the Ifraelits , or finally of the Chri- stians before Scripture was written) Faith muft be refolued into Diuine Reuelation by the means of fome liuing Oracle ( Whe- ther One or more it imports not) who manifefted themfelues -God's commifTicned Teachers by Signes and Miracles. Where- of more afterward. 8. This much premifed (And it is Very eafily vnderftood) Tloru lri- you shall Se Mr Stillingfleets vcrbofe Obiedions brought to fakes chief- nothing , but to meer Cauils and Miftakcs. Three Miftakes fy,f>emed*t chiefly, run through his whole f. Chapter. Firft he ftrangely confound's the Iudgement of credibility necefTanTy prerequired to true Belief, j^ith.the very A& of Faith it Self , whereas tke Refold Difc. j. C. 19. Tie VrimitiueQimJlians did 481 "Refolution of thefe two, haue indeed a due Subordination to one another, yet depend vpon quite different Principles. The Iud- gementof Credibility whereby the will moues and command's the intellectual Faculty to elicife Faith, relies not vpon that Object which finally Terminates Faith it felf, But vpon extrin- (ecal Motiues wtheh perfwade , and Powerfully induce to belieue, Super omnia. 9. Here is the Reafbu. The high Myiteries of Faith., the Trinity y for example; Original Sin y and the like Tranfcend our natural Capacities , or to {peak with ibme great Diuines are na- turally Incredible , Therefore Prouidence hath by the force and efficacy of extrinfecal motiues , raifed them from that degree of ■atural Incredibility , and made all mofl credible to humane Reafon. And this no Sectary can deny, For before that Doc- trin be belieued which he embraces, and before he reiecFs the contrary not belieued by him , He will tell you , He hath Motiues and realbns as well for -the one as the other. Here is all we require at prefent. 10. Mr Still ingsleets fecond errour is, that he diftinguishes not between the nature of Science and Faith. Science is worth nothing -vnlefs it proue , and Faith purely conftdered as Faith , ( mark well my words ) is Worthies, if it proue , For as innumera- ble Fathers affirm, Fides mn'qumt quomodo.F2.kh reafon's noL, nor Ask's 'how -thefe 'Myfteries can be , but limply beiieues. Science makes vie of Principles, Per (e nota, known by them- felues And then difcourfes , AfTuming nothing but what is pro- ued, wherefore no virtue, no validity, can be in the progrefs, or end of a- rational Difcourfe, which was not precontained inthe firft alTumed Principles. Faith, t'is true , has its Preambulatory Motiues, as we haue feen already , yet Scientifically drawes no Gon- clufion from them(ftnd herein Mr Stillingfleet all along begui- les hitnfelf, and the reader ). The Motiues inducing to belieue this Truth. God bos reuealed a Mjfterious Trinity are morally certain, yet there is a more firm Adhefion to the infallibility of that JDiuine Teflimony for which we belieue , than the extrinfecal P p p Motiues Thtfrfl breeds Co&~ fufion. In l he fecond Science and Faith are n)tm Sufficiently diflingu*- shed. The third alfo wants a Oifiin. liton. 481 Difc. l. Q i. Catbolicks refohtValth attire, Motiues inducing to belief either do or can draw from vs. And in this fenfe Faith contrary to Science , goes farr beyond the certainty of all extrinfecal Inducements , as shall be prefent- ly declared. 11. Our Aduerfaries third Mi/lake lies here , That he diftin- guishes not,, between, the humane and Diuine Authority of the Church. S. Auftin Ltb.. con. Eptft Fundam, C. 4. Speaking of the hrft, Saith. The pitfound ^v%\dom of fo many Doctors , the confent of Nationsyfe Antiquity, the continued Succepon of Vajhrs Sec. held him within the Pale of. the Church Cathoiick, yet this Autho- rity precifely coniidered as humane , and therefore fallible , is not iurhcient to ground Diuine Faith. I fay as humane , for though I belieue that the Church has euer been Vtfi>k , with a continued Succeflion of CommiiTioned Paftorsto teach Orthodox Dodt-riny yet my A6fc of Faith no more relies vpon fuch motiues, conii- dered mtcrly m Motiues, inducing to belieue , Than the Primitiue Christians Faith relied vpon the vifible Miracles, which Chrift or his Apoftles wrought. 11. As therefore thatfirft Acl: of Faith, whereby they bel'e- ued our Sauiour to be the true Meflias , was built vpon his in- fallible Diuine Authority, manifefted by Miracles, San <5Hty of life Sec. So that firft Act of Faith whereby eueryone belieues the Church to be God's own Sacred Oracle , is built vpon Her in- fallible Diuine Authority manifefted by Miracles, and other fignal Marks of truth , whereof Scripture plainly Speak's. Hell gates shall not preuail agatnH the Church. She is the Pillar and ground of truth. And fo much is faid aboue. C. 16. 17. that I know well Secta- ries cannot Anfwer. The not reflecting vpon this twofold Au- Jaries Errour thority which Mr Stillingfleet knowes Catholicks do diftinguish, makes his Circle charged on vs fo irregular a Figure , that it look's rather like a Rhomboides than a round Circle, as shall appear prefently , with a further Difcouery of his other mifta- kes. Ome thing I cannot but admire, and t'is, That though Ms 5»th Chapter be tedioufly long, yet the main and moftreal Difficulty Vebat cattfed Aduer- 9ur Difc. J. C I. Mr Stilling: fift Clyster t?c. 485 difficulty concerning the Refoluing of Faith is fcarcely Co much as hinted at. After a Few Pages I will propofe the Difficulty 9 and endeauour to (blue it* CHAP. IT. J/r Stilling fleets 5. Th Chapter. Tart. 1. examined , is found Weightier. The Leahies of hi* Arguments dtfcouered. His Fuji and cbiefeji Argument retorted andfolued. r. I Mail and will wane all this Centlemans Parergons , all 1 friuolous excurlions with his vnciuil language, and if I touch in a word vpon his pretty conceipted leers fcattered here and there , ic shall only be Verirartfennam , as if I little minded them. 2. Thus he begins. Page 1 1 2. The Infallible Tesltmony of j our Chrrcb u the only Foundation for Diuhe Tutb , and tbti Infallibility 0ur ^uerm can only be knolvn by the Motives of Credibility (He means in thfs faries firfl prefent State) Therefore tbit T*ay of rtfoluing Faith u rhreafonable, Argument* ircawfe it requires an infallible Affent vpon probable grounds beyond all Proportion or degree of Euidence , frhich is as much m requiring infallibility in tie Condufion , M here the Prennfes are only probable. Anfw. Our Aduerfary Spoifs a good Difficulty by propofing it lamely , He would fain lay fome thing like that which Ca- The &&*& tholick Diuines learnedly propofe whilft they handle the Refo ^Lrl^ lution of Faith , But (o fumbles and doth it by haifes, that He J reaches not home to the main Buhnefs. 2. I Say therefore tirft. The Argument propofed if of any force, deftroies all Faith euen the moll Primitiue. To pro- ne the Aflertion I Ask , whether the firft Chriftians belieued Pp p 2 ... infallibly AH Difc. $• G i. Mr Stilting : fifth Chpttr. infallibly the Infallible Teftimony of the Apoftles Preachings with a Diuine Infejlrble AfTent? Moft certainly they Did. Yet the Infallibility of that Teftimony was not known (if wefpeak flri&Jy of Knowledge ) but by Mctiues of Credibility which. The Argu. vew no ObiUt of their Faith ( vnlefi you make faith to be Science) mmt rttorm but Inducements only to belieue. Ergo this very Primitiue Faith ** was vnreafonable, becaufe it was an infallible AfTent built vpon probable grounds , beyond all Proportion, or degree- of- that Euidence , whereby thofe pious men were moued to belieue. Hence You Se, though the Motmes which' illuftrate the Church were in themfelues fallible, and not Metaph.yfically conexed with the Diuine Teftimony , yet Faith grounded on that Teftimony cannot but be certain and infallible, and confequently muft Trar/f- cend , or goe beyond all the degrees of Certitude appearing in- the prerequired Motiues. Mr Stiilingfleet- reply's. This is to require Infallibtlity in the Conclufton , Tvhere the Premtfes are only probable, Anfw. He err's not knowing the nature of Faith , which Dii- courfes not like to Science. For example. Make this Sillogifm. Whateuer God reueal's is True , but God reueal's the Incarnation of the Diuine Word , Ergo that is true. The difficulty only, is in the Minor:. But God reueal's, which, cannot be proued by another belieued Arti- cle of Faith , wholly as oblcure to vs as the Incarnation is. I fay proued by Retfon , becaufe the fame difficulty will be as much moued again Concerning the Proof of that fecond belieued Andshept d Article, as concerning the firft of the Incarnatk>n,.and fo in Infinitum. *%*• Therefore all rational Proofs auailing to beget Faith in any, muft of neceffity beextrinfecal to belief, and lie as it were iiv another Region more clear (yet leis certain ) than the renealed Myftery is, we afTent to by Faith. 4, Now to our. Purpofe. We hold this an Article of Faith. The Churih it God's infallible Orach y And therefore Say, antecedent- Xattonal jy to pairn jc cannot- be proued by Arguments as obfcure , or I h*r. of the fame Infallible certainty with Faith, For then Faith ivoultk thu nfaUi- be fuperflujus , or rather toesbov'ibelteuebyafirw and infdlible Ajfent> ($$. befott Opt do belme vpon the Motiue of Gods infallible Reuela- Pifc j C. i found tpetybths* 48? tron, which is impofTiote. Hence it is- that when we goe about to Proue the Infallibility of the Church independently of Scriptu- thg c™.ain re, Yea, and alio independently of all beltemd Church Dodlrin , tv of Fuiib. We mull necelTarily Euince this raitonalh , by reflex Arguments md Motiues extriniecal to what we Belieue,- which are not or the fame certainty with Supernatural Faith it lelf. Now thefe Argu- mhat theft nacnts founded vpon the Motiues of Credibility can goe no Mt'mti mther ( ilretch them to the vtmoft) But only to proue this great Prouc. r-.erity. That what euer we belteue , either of Scripture, or of the Church is moil eutdently Credible aboue all things propofoble o the contrary , And this great light the learned at lead haue , >efore they yeild an infallible AiTent vpon Diuine Reuekition to • he very Dodlrin of the Church, or Scripture either. 5. I Say. 2. Mr Stillingfleet and all Sectaries , whiift They lelieut with an Infallible Ailent the moftV fundamental Articles in Seftariesgw rcripture, goe beyond all Proportion of that Euidence whereby beyond that hey are induced to Bdteue, And consequently mull Solve their own ' ;reak Argument ,. yet flrong Ad bominem againft them. If I iuince not this Truth blame me boldly , And obferue my hoof. 6. The Sectary belieues that Verity which. S. Iohn- expres- >s in this short Sentence, The ^>ord Ivm made Tlesh: That is, he' elieues the Incarnation of the Son of God with an AiTent fb * ^fallible, that it cannot only be falfe, but that he would not isbelieueit vpon any reafon Propofable, Though an Angel should- reach Contrary , But neither this A£l of Faith, nor its Formal )bie(5l(the Diuine Reuelation) arc ex termm'u euidently true, Quoad 9$ , yet mufl be proued Evidently Credible to reafon. , or Faith ecomes vnreafbnable, and rash, For, Qui cito credit huts eft corde. low further. None can proue this, by another k€t or Article f. Faith (no more its own Self-euidence than the belieued In- irnation is) All • therefore which can be done, is to make it eul- ently Credible by Motiues extrinfecal to Belief, by vniuerlal radition, and the Confent of innumerable learned men , who aue both conueyed vnto vs the Words as Diuine Scripture, P p p J and tohereby they are induced t§ beluHe¥ The After: tiw^Pretiedi Ottr Aducr* faty Clearly Convinced, The romti. ftion Mani- feji. Another tnoft •Jon- n lining froof. Hot to be an> fwered. 4K6 Difc. 5. C. 2. Mr Stilling -.fifth Chapter and the genuine Senic of them alfo. But this very humane Tradition , this exteriour Confent of all , or what other Moti- ues can be Imagined preuious to Faith , (becauie fallible,) may deceiue : Yet by the help of iuch fallible Monties Mr Sailing- fleets Faith , if it reft's vpon the Diuine Reuelation is railed higher, and (land's firmer vpon that Ground , than the Euidcn- ce of his Motiues can induce to. Therefore he makes the conclusion Hirer than the Premiies , And goes beyond all Pro- portion and degree of fallible Euidence , preambulatory to his certain Belief. What I Allen: is maniflft. For by Fairh he Sayes the Incarnation is io infallibly true, that it cannot be fal- fe , Yet all the Motiues which induce him to belieue Say, Pof- jibly it may be fdfe , or exclude not a PoiTibilky of falshood. And if this be not to Tranfcend all Proportion of his acquired Euidence , nothing is to goe beyond it. 7. The Argument will be yet more clear if propofed after this manner. Mr Stillingfleet infallibly belieues the truth of that Scripture now Quoted. I Ask by what means can he know That this very belieued Truth is a Diuine Verity , or Scripture > The Anfwer may be , That's known vpon Tra- dition , or the publique Authority of all , not only Cfuiftians but others alfo , who haue conueyed the Book to vs. Very* good. But this Publick Authority , this Conueyance , or what euer Tradition you will , is either of equal infallible certainty with the Belieued Truth of Scripture , Or lefs and much weaker; If lefs and weaker , Mr Stillingfieets Faith goes beyond all propotion and degrees of his preuious acquired Euidence , ' And it be of equal infallible Certaintly ( That is ) If he be- lieues as infallibly the Conueyance of ti o(e Words , For , or Vpon Gods Diuine Teftimony, as he belieues the Dvct Anfw. And I defire to know whether an Infallible Affent to the Apoftles Preaching , was grounded on thofe Motiues which the Primitiue Chriftians faw or heard of before they belieued ? what you fay , I'll fay. Briefly. Many learned Dunnes hold the Motiues of Credibility Metaphy.fi cally connexed with Gods diuine Teftimony fpeaking by the Church, an& A Mi flake in the Okie* Etion. One Inftan- ce which none can boggle at. Clean &IL A ,6htef?io» an f wtred, And retortetk 4$8 Difc. j. C. 2. Mr Stilling : fifth Chapter shewed atfo anc* if tnat opinion be true , the Motiues ground an Infallible impertinent. Afient birt that's Euidence , and no Faith , And therefore moft im- pertinent to your following Inference. tf>f*J you >T»e affirm tin Motiues ground an Infallible Ajfent , there can be no* imaginable nectfii- ty , to make the Tefltmony of our Church infallible , in order to Diuine faith. For , fife Catholtckj, you hope Kill noi deny ,bu) that there are at leaft equal Motuits of Credibility to prcue the Dtutne Authority of the Scriptures, as the ^fallibility of cur Church , And if fo , %h) may not an Infallible aff?itf be gut en to the Scriptures vpon thoe Motiues of Credibility , as T*ell as to our Churches wfaliibiltty ? "Aniw- A ilrange kind of Argument. 1 1. Firft , Sir , you know , or should know , Catholicks hold with S. Aufitn , That no certainty can be had of Scripture without Church Authority (How then do you fay , You hope Tt>e Mill not deny Sec). No Motiues as is proued aboue and in the other Treatife alfo , immediatly make Scripture Credible , independently No Motiues of the -Churches Tradition. No Miracles were euer heard of make sen?- which proued the book of Ruth admitted by you , more Ca- tureeutdent- nonical Scripture , than that of ludttb which you reiecL Did ty credible* any Martyr euer yet dye in defence of Salomons Canticle (that's Scripture fay you) and refufe to dye -for the Book of Wfdom, caft out of your Canon? Or was euer any foul fo oner con uerted by reading the One, than the other > The(e Mtracles,Sr, thele Martyrdoms , thele Cenuerfions immediatly illuitrate the Church, Indefen- and proue-not a Part only hux. Her whole Doctrin to be dew!) of moft Fui dent ly Credible , and worthy of belief, whilft you fc Church Ah. your Signs of Diuinity .and no man knowes what imagined ^' motiues in behalf of Scripture, as little Euidence the Books you admit , as thofe you reieel: , That u , neither indeed haue any Self -Euidence in them , abftraclfng from Church Authority. Your Euidence therefore is a ftrong fancy and noching els. 12. But admit one had Euident Motiues for the whole "Canon or bare letter of Scripture, you haue not any fo much as probable for the Sen fe (chiefly in Controuerted matters) which properly is God's Reuelation , without the Churches infallible Inter- Difcj. C. 2. found Ivelghtlef. 489 Interpretation. Speak , Sr, your Conference, plainly , What can itauaileyou or me, to know that the Book we read is God's No word (Seing innumerable falfe Religions by peruerie Miiinter- fr** pretations are drawn from thence) if that other Principle. 1 1 ita dixit ; God, or Truth it felf fpeaks This and this particular Senfe, lies in darknefs concealed from vs. This Principle then, God jpeal^s this Senfe , being the very vltimate Refoluent and lad foundation of Chriftian Faith , mull, when that Senfe is Obfcure, borrow light from no dark miftaken fallible or doubtful Ora- cle: But the bare letter of Scripture is dark f and grofly mifta- ken by Heretiques , mans priuate Iudgement is fallible , our com- paring the Scriptures PafTages together, is meerly Coniectural , and dubious. Therefore if the certitude of Faith inuft rely vpon what God has fpoken (I mean the infallible Senfe of his facred clhwThe % " word) The Oracle which interpret' s, can be no other but an. infallible Infallible Church. And here I both Petition and vrge Secta- interpret** ties to aflign any other Surer Ground where vpon Faith can "'*». be bui!t , feing all confers we are obliged to belieue that Infal- lible fenfe , chiefly in matters they call Fundamental. This Ar- gument alone could we lay no more , forceth euery rational man to own a Church abfolutely infallible in Her expofition of Scripture. 13. From whence alio it followes fir ft, that Mr Stillingneet much miftakes Himfelf, when he Saith. Both fides I hope agree, Our Adtw- that there are fuffiaent M)tiues of Credibility , as to the belief of Scrip* [ary mijl&~ tures. I anfvver. There is not one firm Motiue for the true km* reuealed Senfe ( and this only is Scripture ) if we exclude Tra- dition , and the infallible Interpretation of Gods Church. Bring -to light but one , and I am fatisfyed. 14. It followes. 2. That, that half Tradition owned by Se- ftaries in order to the conueyance and deliuery of the Books of Scripture , leaues them wholly Scriptureles , and as Faithles as if they had no Bible , For it neither grounds faith imme- Ths haIfs diatly , becaufe it is not God's Reuelatiou , but the fallible Confwt of I^lTwtf men j Nor can k induce as a Motiue to belieue any one par- iet^r% Q^q cj ticular Kotfuffi- cient. Stftaries pernicious Doth in. Concerning iheClearnefs of Scripture, The Rov»A7i Catholick §nly has Sta- bility m $*itk+ 490 DiiCoj* C.t. Ttfr Stilling: fifth Chapter ticular Article of Chriftian Religion , without further certitude had from the lame Churches infallible Tradition and interpre- tation, concerning that moft weighty Point of the Scriptures meaning. Reiccl: therefore this infallible Interpreter , All of vs iuft like Ar tans , Macedonians , OonatiUs , defperatly rely vpon the worft Guides Imaginable , our own fallacious and vngouernable fancies, ancl will needs learn of fuch giddy Teachers, the pure interpretation of God's Word. Thefe we make our Oracles in lieu of Chrifts Church, and in doing ib , may ealily afcii- Be to God a Do&rin he difdain's to own , and become He- retiques by it. The very hazard men run in this wilful Courfe, is an open Iniury to the Supremeft Verity , vnauoidable in our Sectaries Principles. 15. And here by the way, you fe the Vanity of that per- nicious Doclxin published by them , wherewith the world u cheated. Viz. The Senfe of Scripture is plain enough , euen to the vnlearned ,in things nec That the Books of Scripture are Gods word, but with this hall piece of imperfect Learning , they neither know nor can belieue one particular Article of Chriftian Faith , becaule that othez Principle , the laft Refoluent of all Belief , God [peaks infallibly this very Senfe , has no influence ouer their AlTent , and therefore is reie&ed>by them as impertinent to ground Faith vpon. On< inftaaa Dffc.j. C ?. found ' Teelghiles. fyl wftanoe will giue you more light. 17. The Arian and Proteftant agree thus fair , That thofi Words. WW, 1. 5. p. Three pue Tefttn.ony in heauen &c. are Di Both Ariam wine Scripture, yet fo vary about the meaning , and the diffe- and Prote- rence is in a matter moft fundamental , that the One Anient' s fteH*M tothefacred Trinity for thele words , which yet the Other im- T?*'4'*4' pioufly denies. Say now , vpon what infallible Principle doth the Proteftants faith ftand more firm , than that of the Arian? Will Mr Stillingfleet fay the Scripture is Clear > The Arian •takes him off that Plea , and endeauours to obfeure the paiTage, by adding to it no fmall number of his Arian GlofTes. Next And why he Argues thus ad bomtnem , and thinks no wrong at all done. Can yee Sectaries belieue that your glofTes laid vpon thofe Scriptures which Catholicks produce againft you , are ftrong -enough to diuert , and peruert the Senfe or Interpretation of their Vniuerfal Church , and shall my glofles oppolite to your Doct.rin , haue no force to diuert or weaken the late , priuate, inuented Senfe of a few Lutherans > What law is there for this > I call it lute and priuate as it comes from you', for you umtht Aw difdain to ground it vpon any Church Authority abfolutly in- rian argues fallible, in all She teaches. Therefore it is your own Priuate *g*inft S*« Senfe, and not the Churches. O but the Church of Rome in &""**• this particular interprets Scripture faithfully, though She err's in other matters. Pitiful. That is , She hitt's right when Youl giue leaue, and milTes when you think otherwife. 18. One may Say again. The whole Orthodox world euer proued the Myfterious Trinity from that alleged PalFage of Scripture. Contra , Replies the Arian ,1 , and my Adherents who deny the Myftery , hold our Selues as precious a Part of the Orthodox world as you Proteftants doe , And hope we expound * &* Scripture by the help of our priuate Reafoning and comparing umces Texts together , as well as you. Why not Ibefeech you ? Or giue a Difparity. But fay on , And the conteft is ended. Ha- ue you any Oracle , which more infallibly Afcerta'ins you of that Sinfe of Scripture to be .as you glofs , then we haue who giue QjH 2, it No Orthodox tvorU, i thwi an Infallible Church. The diftinft Marks of true Belt*, uers, and All Here- ticks. 491 Difc 3. C. %• M< SllSbig: fifth Chapter (pel it a quite contrary Interpretation y For hitherto we are both alike , and expound all by our priuate lodgements. Grant fuch an Oracle ( Difhnct from Scripture ) v, hereby you haue Aflurance of God's meaning darkly exprelled in thole words, you become plane Papifts ; Own not Any Infallible , you caft your Selues vpon as great Vncertainties as we Arians are thrown, who expound Scripture by our oni natural Difcourfe. No infallible Church therefore , no Stability in faith , no Stability in faith, that lpecious word of- an Orthodox World Signifies no- thing , For this I Defend , and haue Proued it , if all Churches be fallible in their Definitions , there neither is , nor euer was fince Chrifts time any fuch thing in being , as an Orthodox yvmL 19. It followes. 4. That as it has euer been the proper Mark or Character of all faithful Belieuers to yeild Submiffion to the Churches Do&rin , though weak reafon conceiues it dif- ficult, fo Contrary wife , fiubbornly to refift Church Authority has euer been infeparably the Mark and Badge of all Hereti- ques , whether ancient or modern. With this virulent Spirit they began to Oppofe God's Oracle , and held on for a time, But as S. Anfttn obferues at laft ended in shame Conrerentur , faith the Saint , the battered Rock of the Catholick hitherto {land's firm , maugre that Violence , And their Scattered forces- routed and broken > as experience tells vs , are brought to no- thing. GHAP. IB, Difc. 3. C. 3. Moie of this Subkcl (jrc 493 CHAP- II L More of this fubtetf. ObieRiou 4nf^ereL A 'toord to Mr StiJltngfleets fonekfs In fiances Motiues of credibility euer -Precede Faith* Whether the rational EuiJence of the Truth of Chaffs VoibiUy c an be a Mo-iae to belieue iU t. \V7 Hat follows in Mr Stillingfleets. }-. or. 4 next Vv Pages, feem's fo flight that the very moft is refuted by the grounds already efhblished, Yet to Comply with the mans humour , we mud folio w him further. How Saith He can you mak^ the Affnt to your Churches Telhmonj to be Infallible , Tvhen that infallibility u attempted to be proued only by the motiues of Credibility ? A e '^ I Anfver. Iuft as you make the AfTent of the Primitiue Chriftians rttme&% giuen to the Apoftles preaching infallible , So I make the Aifent to the Churches Teftimony infallible. The M-otiues are alike m both Cafes, if not greater for the Church. 2. He Obie&s. 2. 1/ Omne Faith, cannot be built vpon the Mo- itues proung the Ooclnn of Chrtsl , frbat fcnfe is there that it should, be built vpon thofe Motiues , Tbhtch prone our Churches infallibility Here is the old Miftake again. I An fiver therefore. Diuine Faith is not built vpon the -Motiues inducing to belieue , but vpon the Infallible Teftimony of Chrift , and his Church. The Motiues ground the ludgement $f Credibility , The Infallible Tefomw* Sup- T^erecon4 port's Diuine Faith. Now if by this word, Suilt , you mean no ^^ grflr$ more but rationally , To induce , I lay none in this prefent State Mifiaku can be induced to belieue ChrifVs Do&rin reuealed in Scripture, in cafe he reiecl's the Authority of that euidenced Church QjlS. 5 which The third tetorted.ani aafrvtred. d Vifcouery of the whole Fallacy. Obieftions grounded on Infiance, 494 Difc. 2.C. 3. More of this $uhieEl< which botli Aicertains him of the Canon , and the Senfe alfo. Hence, That other Obieclion fall's to nothing. Ho^> can there be an infallible Affent to the truth of this Vropofuion : Scriptures are the 7vo7d of God , Dchtn that Infallibility at the btgbesl is but eutdently Credible ? I Anfwer and retort the Argument. Hour could the Primitiue Chriftians AfTent to the Apofties preaching as infallible , when that infalltbdity at the higheft , was but Euidentiy Credible, before they belieued 1 3. The whole Confufion lies, as is faid,in not Distinguishing between tatth , and the Judgement of Credibility. Infallibility the- refore , whether we Allent to Chrift , to his Apofties, or to the Church ( all taught one and the fame Doctrin) is the Obiect of Diuine Faith, but none euer aifented to any Doclirin thefe Ora- cles taught , infallibly , without iufficient Euidcnce preuioufly had of its Credibility. And thus I belieue by Faith Scripture to be God's word , becaufe the Church Saith fo , But if you Ask , why I h$d all the Church Teaches to be Eutdetitly Credible^ I Euince not this truth by the Infallibility I belieue , But recurr to thofeMotiues whereby She is proued an Oracle as euidentiy Cre- dible, as euer any Apoftle was , And confequently T belieue Her Infallibility with the fame Diuine Faith, as I belieue the Words of Scripture. 4. Page 114. He Obiery to Diuine FaitJ) ,• which feem's vndoubted % For very few in the firfl Ages of the Chrifiian Church recei- ued the Doctrin of the Goipel , from the mouths of perlbns in- fallible. 6. By the way I much wonder, Why Mr StillingfTeer omitted to touch here vpon an other Inftancefarr more dirficult , which both he and all other muft folue concerning rude and illiterate Perlbns ( chiefly if of no great maturity ) who are induced to belieue by the Teftimony, or InftrucHon of their Parents, or of forte other fimple Teachers. Thefe certainly may haue Faith, without acquiring that full Euidence of Credibility whereunto the learned reach, yea, and without any Difcouery of the Scrip- tures rational Euidence , neuer perhaps heard of, much lefsvi> derftood by them. 7. Now I Anfwer to the Obie&iorr.- None makes the Roman Catholick Church in all Circumflances the only fure foundation of Diuine Faith ,. For the firft man that belieued in Chrift ourLord before theCompleat EnV&lishment of HisChurch, had Perfect Faith refting on that great Mafter of Truth, without dependance on the Chriftian Church , For Chrift alone was not the Church, But the fupreme Head of it. Faith therefore in General requires no more, but only to rely vpon God the firfl Verity fpeaking by this or that Oracle, by one or more men lawfully fent to teach , who proue their Miflion and .make the Doct-rin propofed by them Eutdently Credible. In like manner, the Apoftles preached no Doclxin in the name of the new Chriftian Church , whilft our Sauiour liued here on earth , But Teftiiied that he was the true Meffias by virtue of thefe Signs and Another 1n- (lance more difficult. The Chtfch in all Cir- cumstance* was not the only Foun- dation of Faith* The M'tjUke of the fir ft In Jinnee. Suppofed true its jorceies. The Apoftles failed not tn Faith, .496 Difc 2. C. 3. More (f this SublS. and Miracles, which had been already wrought aboue the force of nature. Thus much Suppofed. 8. It is hard I think tor any to Say, where the force lies ifl that Inftance of the Apoftles belieuing the Diuine Authority of the old littawcrit. which innumerable Icwes then difperfed all Iury oucr, and the other parts of the world ( not at all conlcious of Chrift's PafTion) mod firmly bclkued. Why therefore might not the Apoftles belieue the Diuinity of the old Scripture vpon. the Authority of that Church, whereof there were at that time many and very many Profeilbrs in other places diftant from Hicruialem? Hence I lay the Belief of that Article neuer tai- led, But was alwayes preferued entire in both Churches of the leu es and Chriftians, for we all yet belieue the Authority of the old Teftament , And Confecjuently its hard to Conceiue what this Obiection aymes at. 9. Again, admit a total Subuerfion of the Tewish Church, Had not the Apoftles our Blcfled Lord prefent who could well Afcertain them that he came not to Cancel any Diuine Authority of Scripture ( for this was impoflible vnleis God be- contrary to God ) but to fulfil, to perfect, and change the old Law into a better State. O but the High Prieft and the El- ders alfo erred in confenting to Chrifts death. Very true , and the Reaibn is becaufe their Priuiledge of not erring, lafted only to Chrift's comming and not longer, But hence it follow es not, that then there was no*Iewish Church which belieued the »>////- ne Verities of the old Scripture. I verily think, Mr Stillingflcet -miftook one Obieftion for another. Perhaps he wouU hauc faid, that the Apoftles loft faith of our Sauiours Refurre£tion, at the time of his Paflion , But this Difficulty is folued oner and oucr. Firft it is A n fw ered , that Article was not fufficicntly Propofed to them , Therefore we read. Iw%. 18. 34. They vn» &ei flood none of theft thing. This TV or d Was hid from them. Again. Had they failed in Faith ar that time, They were then as Bel- Jarmin obferues. Ltb : 3. de Ecclefia. C. 17. neither the whole Church ( but only material Parts of it ) nor could that impro- bable Difc. 2. C. 3, ObieElions AnpfrereA, 49? bable Suppofcd Errour , haue preiudiced one whic the Faith of Others, who firmly bclieued in Chrift. 10. That other Inftance of the Samaritan woman is foon clea- red, if we diftinguish between theMotiue, or the natural Propo- rtion of Faith which comes by hearing, and the infallible Ora- Toother cle whcrevpon it relies, And T'is ftrange Mr Stillingfleet faw cltare^by not the Diftin&ion. The Faith therefore of thofe other Sa- one Difltnc- maricans that bclieued in Chrift vpon the wonans word , VI- tton* timatcly rclyed vpon our Sauiours own Authority who had conuerled with her , And hence the Gofpel Sayes. No 'ft' ^e Behtuenot for thy Sajtng , for T*e our Stlues haue heard, arid kjt that this than , in very deed , u the Sautour of the Jtcrld T'is true , had this woman , whom the Fathers Suppoie perfectly con- uerted to chrift, been made an Infallible Oracle in all she deli- _, r m uertd , as the Apoitlcs were in their Teaching , or the Church rf(an now is. Her Tcftimony might well haue iupported Faith , but woman pro . becaufe thus much only can be eumced by Scripture, that She pofedwhat zealoufly Propofed what She had heard of our Sauiour, Her tefti- Shth?* mony alone might feme well as a natural Proportion to raife Be- * lief in others , though infufficient to ground in them that Super- natural Aftent , And her words had vpon this Account greater weight, becaufe She confirmed them with a Sign aboue the force of Nature. T>U man has told me all I haue done. I know fome Authors are of opinion , that this Samaritan called Photina firft reduced to the Faith of Chrift her Sifters and Children , which done , She went into Affrica , and there Propagated the Chri- ftian Doctrin with great Succelfe, till at laft both She and her mffcrertt Children were crowned with a glorious Martyrdom. The only Opinions difficulty is , whether She be the fame with that S. Photina whc- Gwmmrmg reof a memory is kept in the Roman Martyriioge the. 20. day *er* of March, fome Greek Authors ftand for the Affirmatiue, Be it fo or other wile, it imports little to our prefent Purpole. Who defires more of this Subiect may read the erudite Godefridus Henshenius. Tom. 3. de Santis Martij die. 20. immediatly after the life of S. Ioachim. Rrr 11. Con- 49s Other In- fiances She 9 A feu teles. In Beftrin Commonly reeeiued. Th* Chnr. (his Infalli. bHity dbfolH- tely neceff*. ry. Difc. 3. C.j. More of this Subiett. 11. Conformable to this Doctrin we AnP.ver to thefe other forceleslnftances, and might fay with fome good Diuines , That all Immediate Propounders or Conueyers of Diuine Reuelatiori in fuch particular Cafes , need not ro be Infallible , For Faith (as Thefe Diuines Teach) requires no more j But firft that the Obiecl: be truly reuealed , and Propofed to one vpon prudent Motiues , Suitable to the firm Allent Hee muft elicite. 2. That by the light of fuch Motiues Hee be induced to fix Belief vpon the Diuine Reuelation , although that full Euidence of Credi- bility which the Church Manifefteth and the more learned attain to . be not yet acquired by him. Thefe Conditions prefup- pofed , Diuine Grace is euer ready to make that mans Faith moft firm and fupernatural , And confequently an Obligaticn> lies on him to belieue. But from this Docfcrin which is Com- mon , no fuch thing followes as Mr Stillingf. would infer. Viz- That the Churches infallibility Seem's vnnecelfary to vp hold- infallible Faith , for may not young Beginners growing more mature (chiefly if folicited to abandon Their iirft Faith) iuftly de- mand to haue more full Satisfaction in all their doubts , and fo much AfTurance concerning that they once alTented to , as not to be remoued from it vpon any falfe Motiues or fallacious Arguments , though neuer fb Specious > Such cafes (Say thefe) fall out euery day. 12. But in this prefent State, none can clear thefe doubts, none can Aflure any that his Faith is certainly true , none can bring the moft learned to a perfect acquiefcency in Belief y but an Infallible Church , Therefore vpon this very Account Her infallibility is proued not only conuement , but abfolutely SJectJftry. And hence it is , That Gods facred Prouidence neuer failed iince Chriftianity began , to haue in readines Some one or other infallible known Oracle , wherevpon faith might reft moft Securely. The Apoftles had for their Mafter the beft liuing Oracle , Cbrtft our Lord. The Primitiue Chriftians learned of the Apoftles. After them the Church perfe&ly founded did fucceed ^ as the only Oracle wherevnto euery one may take recouxfe. Difc. y C.j. Olieclions Jvftoered. 499 recourfe for further Satisfaction when difficulties arife , Though in fome particular Cafes , as is now Said , Her Motiues and glorious Miracles , be not at the firft laid forth moil fully to euery fimple Beiieuer. Ceteram tin bam y faith S. An (I'm , con- tra E^ft. Fund. C. 4. non inteUtoendi viuacitas^jed crdendt jiwplicitas faluam facie. That is. Candid Simplicity , makes thefe more Howyaung iafe,than curioufly to fearch into the vltimate grounds of Be- B'&™ner$ lieuing. The Reafon is, becaufe fewer Motiues (if yet prudent 1* '"*"** and Conuincing) may well feme to induce Beginners, feldom molefted with Difficulties againft Faith , than will conuince O- thers more learned , who often ftruggle to Captiuate their Vn- derftanding , when the high Myfteries of Chriftianity are Pro- pofed. 13. Moreouer , many great Doctors maintain , that in the Two Sol*. particular cafes now mentioned , God by his fpecial Illumination tiowmote. Supplies the want of the exteriour Proportion when that's de- ficient , or lefs conuincing. See Suarez. Dtjp. 4. de Vide feet. 5, and this way alio , we eaiily folue Mr Stillingfleets difficulties. Laftly it is noted in the other Treatife. Difc.i. C. 2. ». 5. *6. Andbothre* That whoeuer is lawfully fent to teach the ChriAian doclrin , cetm Churches own Teftimony , She is without Guile , and cannot deceiue you* 17. And here by the way you fe how differently the Se- h^mou &ary and Catholick proceed , in the Conuerfions of an Vn- rentiy the belieuer , whether Heathen or other. The firft only open's a Catholick Bible, and without further Motiues but what are found the- &>8or$9m># re , bidd's him read the Book. This yet vnconuerted man Saies ^'"'J' the fenfe is dark > He vnderftand's it not. The Catholick on fmee ' Rrr 3 the In the Con- ner [ion of Vnbetiemrs, The ln/l*n- cesofBarfa- titans proued forceles. The nafon here of. joi Dilc.j. C }. Moreof tkSubieEl. the other fide, Propofes a. Church euidenced by the very fame Marks and Signes , whereby our Sauiour and his Apoftles were manifefted to be Oracles lent from God. This Church both proues that the Bible is of Diuine Infpiration , And mereouer declares its Senfe in all controuerted PafTages. Finally after Her Motiues laid fojth , She remit's euery one to Chrifts own words , tie that hears )ou hears me , and our Sauiour remit's vs to his Eternal Father , for he Allures all. lob/1.7. \6. That the Doclrtn dcliuercd by him TbdS not his , hut his Fathers that (ent him. And here is the laft ground of all Diuine Faith , which {land's faft vpon three ftrong Principles neucr yet at variance with one another. The Cburcb , Chnfi our Lord, and God the fir fl Vert- tj, Conlider I befeech you which of the two Teachers pro- ceeds more rationally. 18. You fe moreouer thofe Inftances of the Brittans and Barbarians brought to nothing , For fuppofe firit , which fome Authors aflert, that S. Peter Prince of the Apoftles Preached in Brittany or England, Or that S.Paul, Simon Cananam furnamed the Zealous , AnslobnUu a Roman , and S. lofeph of Arimathia performed that Apoftolical function there , ( whether fo or no I dilputenot). Suppofe again , And herein all agree , that Eng- land receiued the Chriftian faith very early , For it is as certain that King Lucius and his Subie&s , were conuerted by S. Damiamu and his AlTociates , fent to preach by that holy Pope and Martyr Elutherius about one hundred and eighty years after Chrift ; As it is indubitable , that the English Saxons were afterward Con- uerted by s. Auguslin and his followers fent by S. Gregory the great in the fix Century , to do that mod worthy and laudable Duty. Vpon thefe Suppofitions you fee, that the firft Preachers were Apoftolical men , and priuiledged by our Sauiour to work Mi- racles , Marl^. 16. 20. Thofe others in the two following Con- uerfions receiued their CommifTion from Popes , held a ftricl: Vnion vvitti the Roman Catholick Church , and finally made their Dodlrin euidently Credible by great Sanctity , and other Signal wonders, as known Killory recounts. 1 p. Some Difc^.C. 5. Obleclions AnfatnL 50J 19. Some may reply. All thefe Conuerlions would haue been cafily wrought , had thofe Preachers only made our Sauiours Miracles known , and done none Themfelues, I Anf^/er firit y Done they ivere and preiu diced nothing , but rather highly aduan- ted the Glory of our Sauiours wonders, Yea and a^ experience teaches, yet notably facilitate the Conuerhon of Infidels euery where, when God is pleated CO work them by his Seruants. The- refore the Apoftles were impowred not only to Teftify that the Manias did Miracles, but moreouer to do the like themkducs , And for this rcafon , Almighty God has euer hitherto preferued, and will hereafter preferue that lingular Grace of working Mi- racles in the Church. I Anf.vcr 2. None can haue infallible AiTu ranee either of our Sauiours Miracles, or of any other Ve- rity recorded in Scripture , independently offorne actual lilting, actual infallible , and raoft clear euidenced Oracle by Signes aboue the force of Nature, which in this prefent State is the Church , And therefore I faid a great Truth, That Diuine Faith had in all Ages that necelTary Expedient of rational Motiues to induce it , an Infallible Oracle to teach it, and finally to rely on. 20. Hence we eaiily Anfwer Mr Stillingfleets Queflion. P. I it. What, Saith he, cannot men haue vn^utftionabk A[furance that there lra$ fucb a Vtrfon as Cbrtfi in the )Por(d Tvho djtdfrf vsi if the prefent Church be not infallible, Anfw. You might, Sr , haue propofed a wifer Queflion. Know I befeech you That in the forenamed Pro- portion, ihre Ivas fuch a M.xn m Chufi who lined in toe froyld , and dytufor vs , Two things may be Coniidered. Firfl , That the man called Chriftdyedon a Crofs, And this Verity, as wire 6yd aboue, Once vifible , both Iewes and Gentils yet AfTent to vpon Moral Certainty , but therefore do not belieue in Chrift. The Keafon is Manifeft ( and it vtterly deftroyes your Doctrin ) becau- se that Common report , or Moral Certainty is not God's in- fallible Reuelation , which only can fupport Faith. 21. The fecond thing to be coniidered is. That the man called Chrifl dying for vs, was the only Mefias , trulj God , the Redeemer of Mankind. Here you haue the hidden Verities of Chriftiar* A Reply, Anfiverei. in- Vmdent Mottmi duce to FAith and An Infulli bh Oracle frfport it. An vnlear- ned Obiec- lion anfpt- red, Tie hue Church denoted. The [ubiett oj Infalli- bility. Trcm whence In fallibility Frocctd'i? 504 Difc. 3. C. j. More of this Subktt t?c. Chriflian Religion, the Certain Obiects of Faith Conueyedvn- to vs, by no Moral AiTurance but folely vpon God's Infalli- ble Reuclation, whereof more prefently. 22. Page. 119. He cell's vs firft. We cannot fay, what of where that Church is to bub toe (uppofe infallible Nor. 2. What in that Chunk is the proper Subiecl of tnfalltbditj , Nor. $. What kind of Infallibility thu is. Nor. 4. Hoto 7*e can knote token the Church Defin's infallibly. Here is very (light Matter to work on. To the firlt we Anfivcr. The Church , which we do not barely Sup- pole , but haue already proued Infallible , is that diffufed Society of Christians (vnited in one Faith wider one Head) which is mod difcernable from all Societies, by the fame euident Marks of truth, that Chrifl and his Apoftles manifefted to the world. To the. 2. We haue both AnfVered and retorted the Argu- ment in the other Treatife, where it is Said. The Church may be coniidered, Firft as it is Docens,or Teaching, And thus Her Repre- fmtattut moral Body , the Pope , I mean and Council affembled together, for the Reafons alleged. Chap. 17. is the proper Su- biecl: of Infallibility : Again if we coniider the Church as it is Dt(cemy learning, or taught , All thofe diffufed multitudes of Chri- ilians that are vnited in one belief , and own due Submiifion to their lawful Paftors , becaufe they belieue as the Church Reprefentatiue teaches , may be rightly ftyled vpon the Account of their infallible Faith', the proper Subiect of Infallibility. And muff not our Aduerfaries who hold a Society of men infallible in Fundamentals folue this Difficulty, and Declare in what Su- biecl: that half Infallibility is lodged ? To the. 3. we haue An- fwered. Chap. 16. This infallibility which proceed's from the Special Affiflance of the Holy Ghoil , is of filch a Nature,That, that BlelTed Spirit will neuer permit the Church inslrucltng,io Define afalshood, nor the tnflrucled , Vniuerially to fail in faith. To the. 4. I Anfwer. Then we know the Church Defin's in- fallibly , when She obliges all vnder Anathema, to belieue her Doc- trin , and when the Dodtrin is fo fufficiently propoied to her -Subie&s , that it cannot be morally doubted of. But enough of theie Difc. 3. C.4. The certainly of Faith pM% truly Gad aud Man, are the main foundations of Chriftian Religion , And Conueyed to vs by moral certainty, Therefore Mr Stilling- fleet laies the whole weight of Chriftian Religion , hitherto held infallibly true, vpon a certainty which may be falfe. By this con- futed and vndigefted Difcourfe, I hope all willperceiue, what it is to write Controuerfies, with half an Infight into Difficul- ties. 2. I proue it firft both indigefted and erroneous by this vn- deniable Principle. No Authority in Heauen or earth deliuered thefe Verities ( Chritf is the true Mefoas. Cbrtft is God and Man ) vpon Moral Certakity only, Ergo, None can belieue them with fo weak an AfTent, as is only Moral. The Confequence is clear, For if no Authority conueyed or deliuered the Verities as Mo- rally certain only, And I AfTent to them with a. Belieue only Mo- rally Certain , my AfTent is giuen to fbme Authority which hath no Being either in Heauen or earth, Or, Argue thus, and you Conuince. If all Authority Imaginable , wherevpon Faith can depend , Conueyed or deliuered thefe Verities both as Infallible Truths, and infallibly And I AfTent to the Doctrin with a Belie- fe not infallible, but only morally Certain , I leaue by my fallible moral AfTent,. the true Infallible teaching and Conueying Oracles of Chriftian DocTrin ,_and belieue vpon a meer fincied Autho- rity, which was neuer impowred to Conuey God's Verities to any. 3. Now that all Authority ( wherevpon Faith can depend ) deliuered the forementioned Verities Infallibly , is Manifeft. God's Reuelation , was and is infallible. Qhrift our Lord and the Apoftles taught thefe DocTrins Infallibly. The Orthodox Church, Difclairn's this petty way of conueying and teaching Chri- ftian ' Difc. J. C 4. Move than word! only. 507 ftian Do&rin fallibly. Therefore No Authority can be concei- ued, which deliuered fuch Verities (owned euen by Sectaries eflen- tial Doctrins ) vpon Moral Certainly only, or Conueyed them fallibly to Any. 4. Hence you fe flrft. This- Dilemma cannot be Anlwered. Either we belieue , That our Sauiour is the true MufitM ( the like is of all other Myfteries ) becaufe God reuealed it , And becaufe Chrift himfelfe , His Apoftles , and the Vniuerfal Church euer imce taught the Doclrin ; Or Contrarywife , we belieue it vpon fome other Authority Inferiour to , and diftindfc from the Infal- lible Teftimony of thefe Oracles, Grant the flrft , our Faith ftand's firm vpon a Teftimony both Diuine and Infallible , and therefore Cannot but be Infallible. Say. i, We belieue vpon another Authority diftinct from the Teftimony of the Oracles now named , that mifplaced Ailent , becaufe not refoluable into the flrft Verity , A Dilemma is no Faitr 1 at all. 5. Youfe. 2. Whoeuer attempt's to turn thefe high reuea- led Verities out of their onw nature of being Infallible , Or rashly prefumes , to conuey that Doclrin to vs vpon Moral cer- tainty only, which God by Diuine Reuelation, Chrift our Lord, The Apoftles alfo deliuered and Conueyed, as moft infallible certain Doclrin, Becomes thereby a publick Corrupter of Di- uine Truths vpon this account , that He transfigures what the flrft Verity has fpoken Infallibly, into weak Topkks and vn- certain Moralities. The Offence is Criminal , and the wrong done to God not pardonable, without a ferious Repentance. 6. Youfe. 2. That No Authority Imaginable vphold'sthis pretended Moral Certainty of Sectaries in Matters of Faith. And here I deflre Mr Stillingfleet to Anfwer. Will he belieue that Chrift our Lord is the true Meflias, God and man, becau- fe All Orthodox Chriftians afTent to the Verity > I Anfwer flrft. All thefe belieue the truth with infallible Faith?, and why fa^ dare not he do fo alfo ? 2. If he Allan's becaufe they Vniver- fally confent to the Myftery , He build's his Faith not vpon God's Infallible Reuelation , but vpon the AfTent of Other-s Sss i which A 2. Infe- rence. No Am h~ ritji concn- Uable vp- Thit preten- ded moral Certainly. tuyere the main diffi' culy lis i ? ' Moral cer- tainty more rigidly exa- mined, Jour things 19 be Conji' dnsd, jo8 Difcj. C 4. The certainly of Faith which He faith Should only be moral, and fallible. J. Will he belieue the Verity becaufe Heteredox Chriftians Iudge it true? That's neither God's Reuelation, nor Ch rift's Doctrin , And Con- fequently his Faith has no foundation. 4. Will he belieue for the Motiues of Credibility preuious to Faith 1 Thefe conlidertd as Motiues, are nor God's Reuelation , Nor fo much as Apoito- lic.il Doftrife, Beiides as we Shall fe prefently , Proreftants haue no Motiues at all to rely on. Finally will He tell vs, He belieues that Chrift. was in the world and dyed on a Crofs,with the lame Moral allent as He yeilds to the being of Carfar and Pompey ? I haue Anfvered , that's nothing to the Purpofe, For Gentils aiTent to fuch Matters of Fact (once Vitible and Seniible) by Mo- ral Certainty, And yet are Infidels. That therefore which vrgeth at prefent, Concern's the bidden and obfeure My$le>ie$ of Tail b, In the- fe Moral Certainty hath no place at all. The reafon is manifeft For if as reuealed they ftand firm vpon God's infallible Tefti- mony, No Power vnder Heauen can alter their own intrinfick Infallibility , Or Conuey them vnto vs vpon weak Moral Cer- tainty, yet Mr Stillingfleet boldly Allen's. There can be no greater Certainty then Moral , of the Mam foundations of all Religion. Iudge good Reader y whether this be not a grois Miftake, And whether I wrong'd the man, when I told you his Difcourie is vndigefted > and highly erroneous 7 feem's highly to value This late inuented Nouelty of Moral Cer tainty, we will examin the Do&iin moft rigidly , till at las't the whole fallacy be difcouered. To do this , my firft demand is , to what Obiecl: will He apply his Moral Certainty in this Mat- ter of Fact 1 Chrift is the] Mefi.a truly God and man. Thefe four things and no more , can only be thought of. 1. The Matter belieued. 2. The Diuine Teftimony, which reueal's that Truth. 3. The Faith of thofe who belieue vpon Reuelation , And. 4. The Motiues whereby we are induced to belieue the Truth reuea- led, becaufe Ged [peak!* it. Now all know firft , that in Material Obiecfcs purely confidered in themfelues , there neither is } nor can Yet we haue not faid all. Wherefore becaufe Mr Stillingfleet Difc. j. C. 4, More than Mora! only. 509 can be moral Certainty, For euery thing is , or is not . independently of our Iudgements , where only Moral certainty is founded , there- fore God , and all thofe whole things intuiciuely , are exempted from this imperfect degree of Knowledge. 2. There can be no moral certainty in the Diuine Reuelation, which proceed's from an infinite Verity, for this without Queftion is moft Supereminent- ly Infallible. %. If that infallible Teftimony, or Reuelation be in- fallibly applyed to Belieuers , and hath influence vpon their Faith, T^°e effic*cy it cannot but transfufe into it infallible Certainty, if G>d Speak's £ t ?"•* infallibly, for this end that T*'e belieue him tnfull'b1^ And if Faith reft not vpon that Perfection of his infallible Teftimony, it is no Faith at all. Thus we Argued in the other Treatife. Difc. 1. C. 5. 8. It remain's, that we now Say a word of the Mbtiues which induce to Faith, and examin what Influence they haue ouer it, when *? at n', . , 1 ,- 1 «..-*.. 1 , , r ■ finence The we either belieue the Doctrtnm Scripture, or the Courches Depm- uotiuet ttons. Mr Stillingfleet. P, 203. Hauing nrft told vs , that the haue vpon Reuelation Which )»as communicated to one , torn obligatory to all comer- Faitbl tied in ff, though they could haue nothing hui moral certainty for it , Con- cludes thus. By thuit appears , that Dp ben JbenoTs Spcaz of the re fo- htipn of Faith, though the vtmoft reafm of our Affmt be that Infallibility, Tvhuh it fuppofed in the Diuine Testimony ,ytt the neareff andmuft pro- ftr Rtfolation of it , is into the Grounds inducing vs to belieue, That fuch a teftimony u truely Diuine , and the refolution of this cannot be into any Diuine Teftimony , without a pvocefs in Infinitum, He would Say, That £>0#r;» a true acl: of Faith relies vpon two foundations , one remote, the fuppofed Diuine Tetltmony, The other moft proper and neareft,To wit , the Grounds which induce to belieue , that fuch a Teftimony is in beings or truely Diuine. And his reafon ( if he has any ) muft be, becaufe thefe grounds, immediatly Apply,or Conuey vnto vs the fuppofed Diuine Teftimony. Now this Conueyance , or Application of the Teftimony, being made by grounds only Mo- rally certain , It followes, that the Faith we elicit Aniwer's not to the ftrength of the Teftimomes Inrallibriity ( considered in it felf) But to the tyeaknts of the Conueyance, and consequently can be no more, S s s 3 bus Our Admr* faries refneues Tan h from in own Gbtect. The Doclrtn refuted. Rational Inducements to Faith are eticr prefup. pojed to Beltefe. Church Motiues Slighted. 510 Difc. y C 4. Tbecertmity of Faith but only a Moral certain Faith, not at all Infallible . And thus you fe , To lay Faith as low as may be, toremoue it from its own Center , and fatten it vpon no man knowes what ^ moral ground's,; Finally to introduce a new , weak ; and vncouth way of belie- uhig, is the beil ieruicc Mr Stillingfleet can do for God and Chri- stians. But, Ad tern, 9. I Say firfL Proteftants haue no grounds diftincl: from the Diuine Teftimony, whereby to dilcouer any one particular Truth , which God has rcuealed. I proue the Aflertion. Thefe fuppo- fed Grounds, are either reduced to the rational Euidence of Chri- ftian Religion, already refuted (as laid forth by Mr Stillingfleet) Or to the Do&rin contained in Scripture , And this Saith He. P4£« 17©. We bdieue by Fanh vpon a Diuine Teftimony , which therefore is not the. antecedent Reafon or ground, Why wre belieue it , For no verity Affented to by Faith , can (as affemed to ) be the preuious Rea- fon of our Affent , or a rational ground iuducing to belieue. Therefore we laid , our Sauiours Miracles belieued by Faith , when we read Scripture, are not the Inducements to belieue them, becau- fe an Inducement to Faith, is euer prefuppofed , and not i'liuolued in the Aft of behenmg. But it is needles to Say more of this, For no man in his wits, if Queftioned by either lew or Gentil, why he belieues the Sacred Trinity, can for the laft Anfwer tell him , He belieues [0 becaufe I e belieues tty or becaufe he read's that Myftery in a book called Scripture. Now befides thefe proofles Inducements, there are no other imaginable , whereby the Diuine Teftimony can be Difcoutied,conueyd , or applied to Belieuers , but only thole known Catholick Motiues ( as Miracles , Sandtity , Conuerlions of Nations &c ) which illuftrate the Vniuerfal Roman Church, And thefe Mr Stillingfleet fcornfuily call's?, mun things , a^rand Salad too often ferued vp , found very dry and intipid. There- fore he has no rational Inducement morally Certain for any one Article of Chriftian Religion, much lefs for the Tenets of Protectants. I Say. 2. If the Grounds or Motiues inducing to be- 10. lieue (let thefe be what this Aduerfary plcafes) haue Infalli- ble Difc. }. C 4. More than Mural only. 511 ble connexion with the Diuine Teftimony , or conuince vpon Meiiaphytical Certitude that God {peak's the Truths we belieue , The Ai'fent giuen to the Motiues is not moral, but highly infallible. Contrarywife , if all Motiues preuious to bcliefe be fuppoled fo fallible , that they may deceiue , Faith neither is , nor can be built vpon them , Therefore Mr Stilling- fleet Errs in Saying. The war eft and mo ft proper Rejoiutton of Faith is into the Grounds , inducing to bdieue , that fucb k Tefttmo* m is Dtvine. 11. Toprouethe AfTertion,! demand , Whether God ob- liges all to belieue his reuealed verities , vpon his vnerring Teftimony , as the only Forma-l Obiecl , or to belieue for Mo- tiues extrinfecal to that Teslimony , which though morally certain, may pofTibly Deceiue ? Grant the firft , Faith ftand's faff vpon its own fonndation , the Diuine Teftimony. Say. 2. It is iointly built on Motiues , as the neareft and mod proper Obiecl: which in rigour may deceiue , it hangs , as it were , Vpon two Heterooeneal Principles , The One molt firm and Infallible , The Other weak and faltiblt j Viz. Motiues which being fal- lible , cannot but contribute as much Weaknefs to Belief, as the infallible Teftimony giues it Certainty , And fb thefe two Principles , by their different Influence , Doe and Vndoe , build and deftroy,wind on and wind off; The one imparts infalli- ble Certainty, the other (hikes it away , and makes Faith no more,, but a fluctuating , moral , and fallible AlTent. ~ a. To aduance this Proof yet further, I Ask Again (if all Diuine Reuelation were by a fiippofed Impoffibility not infallible , but only morally certain,) whether then Chriftians. could belieue the reuealed Myfteries , vvith a, Faith as certain, as they now elicite vpon Reuelation > Anfwer , Tea. That Perfection of infallibility , eilential to Gods Reuelation , would then be vleles and impertinent to Support Faith. . Anfwer, No, or Say Faith, if the. Hyoorhefu lianas, would not be Di- uine and certain. I infer. Ergo , it is neither Diuine nor certain Qg fatto* My reafon is, So far , and not further , Gods. infallible Faith cannot be bnilt on Fallible Mo. tines. The A fieri tion frowA, TheVroof further ex- plained) co®» uincethf 5 it Difc. J. C. 4. The certainty of Faith infallible Teftimony or the Diuine Reuelation has influence vpon Faith , as fallible motiues Apply it to Belieuers, or giue ic leaue (Might one (peak fo) to Support that Affent , But thefe fallible Motiues , which immediatly apply the Reuelation- to Belieuers , permit it not to raife that Ml to any greater certitude , than only moral which may be falfe , Therefore the Reuelation de facto comrrunicates no more Certainty to Be- liefe , than if it were only morally , and not infallibly certain, For here is our Aduerlarles Principle. According to the Proofs and grounds , whereby we difcouer the Diuine Teftimorty to be in l\ Thus much only , That poor Mortals not feing the depth- of things would haue been invincibly deceiued ; But Deception • is remote from God, for his-wifclom penetrans all Truth, and. his Goodnes could not vpon the Suppofition haue obliged any* 30 belieue a falshood , or that to be , which really is not, The-- refore he could not in the Cafe now fuppofed , haue afforded 1 Diuine AfTiftance to make Faith fupernatural , becaufe the Ob- - ieel: by errour apprehended belieuable , really was tiot. Thus- much is true , and God might haue obliged vs to judge, That, the. God's Teslimonjy I grant We ground our faith Dffc. y C. 4. Motetlian Moral only &c* jiy the Motiucs would then haue made the Myfteries evidently cre- dible (though they were not) yea , and perhaps further to belieue Conditio va&y , As is faid aboue. 18. A. 4.th Obie&ion. This Proportion is true. We belie- ue for the Motwe^ Or, we proue that God Speak's becauie the Mo- tiues apply and conuey the Diuine TefHmony to vs. I diftingui- sh the Proportion. We belieue for the Motiues as Inducements , to fettle Faith vpon another Obiect. Viz >it. We belieue for the Motiues , That is vpon them,as either the neareft or more remote Obiect., WhyTXe belieue, I Deny it. Thus the will louesgood , becauie the vnder- ftanding apprehend's or conuey es good to it , yet loues not the knowledge which conueyes it. Fire laid neer to fewel burn's, the approximation burn's not, but is only Conditio appbcans , a neces- sary condition applying heat which burn's. So we fay the Moti- ues auaile to make it moft creMle^that God {peak's, But no more •ground Faith, than approximation burn's , or the knowledge,when we profecute Good , is the Gbied of loue. 19. And here by the way you fe Mr Stillingfleets conftant •Errour, who makes the Motiues inducing to Faith the foundation of •it; Thatis, in other Terms : He Confound's the Iudgement whe- reby we AiTert, the reuealed Myfteries are euidently Credible , %vith the Affent of Tait'i it (elf , And will needs kaue the formal '•Obiecl: wherevpon Faith is built, not only to be the Diuine Reue- 4ation but the Motiues alio , though they can do no more but induce the Will guided by reafon ,to fettle.belief vpon the infalli- fcility of the firft Reuealer, A fourth oUefiicn [olttcd by a clear Inftmct. Mr StiQin%\ Confltmt Errour , difecuereds Ttt«* CHAP, 5K> Difc j> C.j. Other ^aghkttCauU CHAP. V. If ore quarrels Anfocered* Mr Stillingfleets endeauor to catch Qatbolkks in a Circle, demon/hated both Train ami improbable. HuObiec- lions are for celefs* A y>ord. to an 'ink zoned Couth Kit meaning $hfcme. The Church reiefted, no Maiefly in Scripture can gain Belief*. i. jH Rom the Pagelaft cited, to P. 12,3. I find nothing 11 JT Mr Stillingfleet worth any larger Anfwer than is giuen already. Here He tells wsy That many things in Christian Religion are to be belieued before We can Imagin any fuch thing , as an infallible Teftimonj of our Church.. It is hard to gueis at his meaning, for he names not one Article, thus AiTented to. Perhaps he would Say, That the Verities reuealed in Tome books of Scripture, cal- led Protocanonical known by their own proper Signatures or Mott- ues,as the Harmony ySancltty^nd Maiefty of the Style,may be belieued without the Teftimony of an Infallible Church. If Co ; I Anfwer firft. All this Harmony or Maiefly, conlidered only as Obiects of Senfe , or as preuiousily known by their Natural Eutdence (thus far and not further they bear the name of Motiues ) auaile not to belieue any Verity in Scripture, if the infallibility of the Church be reiefted* And therefore we laid aboue , this Sanctity and Harmony are aiTented to by Faith only^after the Church immediatly Eui- denced by Her Motiues , Afcertains vs that fuch Books are Di~ uine. I Anlwer. 2. Grant fuch Motiues may in fome weak man- ner, and particular Circumftances conduce to belieue the Scripts res Diuimty , yet in this prefent State, when we haue a Church mod clearly manifefted , which both Afcertains vs of Scripture and the Senfe alfo , it would be no lefs than an vndifcreet rash- • # nefe- Difc 3. C.J. Anfftered and refuted- 517 ncfs to caft off her Authority, ( being the moft facile and plained Rule) and in Lieu of Her, to rely on another fbrrain, vnrk way of Beiicuing by Motiues , not half fo clear, and farlefs conuin- chig. 2. Thus fome Diuines Teach, though a Heathen after a due Gonfideration of the works in Nature , may come to belieuc that God will reward Good, and punish Euil , yet none do Al- ien, That when our Chriitian Articles are clearly propofed to Animism* him, by the Pallors and Teaciiers of the Church , For exam- ple , That Chrisl dyed for vs. The dtai shall rife again. God J»ill regard the iuft &c. Thatchen if he reiecfc Church Authority , he can belieuc the fo renamed Articles with Diuine Faith. This I Deny, And the reaion is, becaufe that way of belieuing, when a lt* impw* more ordinary and facile is propofed,Seem's temerarious and im- 1** t0 re~ prudent,. And lb it would be, should any now when the Church ta^a ifpai giues vs full AiTurance of the Scriptures Diuinity lay aiide Her 0f Btliimng. Authority, and Say. I will aliblutely belieue this or that Truth to be God's word, becaufe I Difcouer apparent Signs of Diuini- ty, in what I read. 3. In the next place, Mr Stillingfleet Quarrel's with a word. The Roman Catholick, Church, which, in his opinion, is iuft as much as to Say. The German vniuerfal Emperour , That is particular and vniuerfal together, for Roman reftrain's or marks out one Church , vntuer 7 al , includes all. Anfw. It is a meer Quibble exploded by A ***** the Fathers , particularly S. Hierome. Apolog. 1. aduerfus Ruffin. J* \ ??*' not far from the beginning, who call's the Roman Faith the Ca- Fathers tholick. Faith. What , Saith he , is Ruffinus his Faith > It is that wherewith the Roman Church preuaiFs , or another founded in Origens Writings I Si Romanam refponderit , Ergo Catholici (twins* If he Anfwer's it is the Roman Faith , This Inference is good , we both profefs the vniuerfal Faith. Therefore Roman and Vrit-. uerfal are here fynomimal or words of one Signification, which the Apoftle clearly Infinuates. Rom. 1. 8. Tour Futh is renowned Hi Hrhole toorld ouer. Again. Epift. 16. ad Principiam Virg : clrcx mdium. He shovves that the mod ancient Saints addreiTed them- Ttt 3 Felues S Hicrcmys exprefs, Tifimonics. Other Fa- thers Speak with S. hierome. X>hy the Ro- man Church was called Vniuerjal. Mr Stilting: tndeanour more then SPetk, to tatch Catholicks ma Circle. 518 Difc. 3. C. 5. 'Gtber ^eighties 'Cautlu ielues to to the Roman Church, Quafi ad tuuftmum commumonu 'fit* pot turn 3 as to a place of refuge , or of mutual Communion, which was General, Fublick , ana btlen^ed to att. Yet' more. When , Ept/t : 57. ad Dattufum, This great# Doctor pofitiuely teaches ,That ,he was ioyned in Communion , with no other Society of men then fuch as adhered to Dawafw, S. Peters SuccelTor , ( Ttbere vpon the Chunk fras bmit) And that tbofe T»ho eate the lambe But of this Houfe, Jberc propbane. Did he think ye fpeak of anyone particular Roman Diocels, and not of thevniuerfal Catholick Church ? It is con- trary to his Diicourfe, and reafon alfo. 4. Se more of this fubiect in the Epiflle of S. Athanafius to two Popes, \uhm and Marcus^ Read alfo S. Cyprians Epiftle. 52. n. r . And S. Ambrole , De obttu fratris , about the middle , and know withall, The word Rowan added to Catholic^ is not to limit the vni- tierial Iurifdiction of that See , Butto diftinguish Orthodox Be- lieuersfrom 'Hereticks, who were profelled Enemies of the Ro- man Faith. If therefore we may rightly comprife vnder this word Roman all other Chriftian Societies , paft or prefent vnited in belief with this one Mother Church , There is neither Bull nor SoUctfm in fpeech , to call the Roman ( euer One and the fame in Faith ). the vniuerfal Church of Chrift. <;. Page. 127. To catch Carholicks in a Circle Mr Stilling- fleet Ask's, why we belieue Scriptures to be the Word of God. If we Affirm vpon this Ground 9 That the Church which is in- fallible deliuers them fo to vs , He demand's again ( and bidd's vs Anfwer if we can) whether t'is pofUble to belieue the Churches infallibility any other way, than becaufe infallible Scriptures Say, She is infallible , which implies a plain Circle. Anfw. It is very pofTible, For feing Scripture demonftrat's not & Diuinity , nor can be made euidently credible by any light inter- 'nalto the Book, fome other infallible Oracle diftinct from it, muft necelTarily afcertain vs , that the Book is Diuine , And the Doctrin there preferued, is yet pure as the Apoftles wrote ir. But this Oracle can be no other but the Church which proues HcrCdfc by Signs and Miracles to ipeak in Gods name, tvdepen- dtntl) Dil'c. j. C. 5* Anffrered and refuted, $19 tfatlj of Scripture >, therefore the firflact, of Faith , whereby we belieue in a General Tvay the- Churches infallibility, relies noc (as this Gentleman weakly luppofes ) on Scripture , But vpon the Church it Stlfe , as the ino'ft known manifefted Oracle. And thus the Circle is eafily auoyded. , ^ 6. You will fe more clearly what I aime at, by one Inftan- ce taken from the Primitiue Chriftians. Ask what induced them/ to belieue the Apoftles ^Infallibility when they. Preached 3 All ^ circk in Aniwer $ They belieued fo, becaufe thoie blelled men imme- fhtpnmii*- diatly proued themfelues commiilioned Oracles >fent from God, uechriflians, and made their Doctrin euidently Credible by fenfible Signs F^^> and Wonders which furpaffed the force of Nature. Very true. In like manner we belieue th-e Churches infallibility , hauing preuious Motiiies as Stronge to belieue that Truth ho Belieues, but not Itpon fDiuine the Teftimony, That the Books of Scripture contain Gods Ipord in them i Yet fielieues the DoBriu in thofe books, to be (Dtuine. i* "1 N the next place, Mr Stillingfleet labours to folue his 1 Aduerfaries main Argument , the Subflance whereof is. AsChrifl and bis Affiles proued themjelues Oracles fent from God %]fffj* ifj their Tvorkj , Signes , and Miracles ; Again at the Pnmitiue Cbri- !^Jj^# ?* flians induced by fuel) Signes belieued Cbrift and the 4po flies vpon their vH?n TejUmony to be infallible Teachers t So "toebamng euer had the veryhkji Works , Signes , and Miracles manifeft in the Church , are pru* dently indued to belieue Her as an Infallible Oracle yvpon her oton In- fallible Tefiimony. 2. To folue this plain and pre'ffing Argument , one of thefe ^at's re- two things muft be done t Either a Difparity is to be giuen ydredto fo- between Thofe firft Signes and Miracles of the A pottles , and inethe Difm the latter of the Church , or it muft be shown wherin the In- fic#bj. ference made , is Defe&iue or vnconcluding. Viz. That the Church Vvvi emdmtd ;14 Difc. }-. C. 6 Mt Stilling fleet /oluts not tutdenced by Her Stgnes , is not proued God's infallible Oracle , us the Apojlles Were proued by their Signes, to be infallible Teachers, I heartily wish, any would read Mr Stillingflect through all his long Pages of this Subiecl: , And afterwards Gratify me lb far as to Say, where or in what Paragraph the direct Anfwer lies to either of thefe tZothim it Difficulties , I would Own it as a Singular fauour , in the Interim erean be ' g*ue me leaue to Speak truth. He Shuffles all along, Waues the Anjwered. main Matter, and Aniwers nothing. $. Thus he trifles. The Church of Rome u'wfinuly obliged tors ,, could Tve make all good fife Say. Our Attempt is Herotcal and generous, Wbatywuft men bt as much obliged noW to belieue your Church infallible^ as that Mofes and Cbrtfi Were fo I He bonders nothing at the Seuenty in our Cenfures of all our of our Churchy if to deny our Churches infollt- %ieer Trifles foUty bean Offence of fo high a nature. Then he Asks. P. n$0 . Returned. Whether the fame Motittes of credibility belong to our Church, by Which Chnsl and his Aposlles shewed their Teftimonj to be infallible ? We haue Anfwered Yea , and proued the Aflertion largely. Difc, i. C. 7. 8.. 9. And here prefshim to refute our Probations; Or if he hold's them not refutable , to giue a Difparity betwixt the Apo* Jlolical, and our Churches Motiues. 4, But he run's on headlong ,. and to flight the Deuotion and : Charity manifeft. in the Church, talk's of our Superftitious Cere- More ?arer. monies, and burning of Heretiques. To what purpofe are thefe gonsintieH Parergons when a Categorical Anfwer to the main Bufinefs is *faSols4 expected? ? Is it only to giue a vulgar Reader Entertainment, rnJmr*: or to withdraw all who perufe his Book from minding Inhere , and hoW he would Shift ofFthe Difficulty > He shall not do it s for we will follow him clofely, and therefore take notice of one great folly. P- 130. Where he pleafes to Say. How much We haue befooled our felues , in attempting to proue the infallibility of our Churchy in the fame manner as Chrtsl and the AooHles proued their Infallibility, And Mark his Proof expreffed in this proofles Propofition. I»- fi$ltn $. Page. 130. As if one ftill fought to diuert a Reader with a. deep piece of Learning, He tells vs Mans vnderftanding becau- fe finite cannot be in itfelf infallible, without receiuing a partici- pated Infallibility from- an infinite Power aboue it, And a tedious Difcourfe followes herevpon known to euery one, but what is all this Said, ouer and ouer ,.to our Difficulty? Haue we yer any Difparity giuen between the Apoftles Miracles and thofe which the Church Euidences, Or is our Inference already made , any way infringed hitherto? Not a word isy-et returned to either , and therefore the Argument (land's in its vigour without reply. 6. Page. 1 J 1.- He faith drik. The Apoftles deltuered not their Eoftrin from Tbemfelues but immediatly from Godyand confeqmntly their Tefltmony mutt be oV>ned infallible. Anfw. Neither can the Church without Diuine Afliftance deliuer her Do&rin as from Herfilfe , but from God. As therefore the Apoftles were immediatly In- fpired to teach as they did, fo the Church is immediatly Affifted by the fame Holy Ghoft to define as she doth , and vpon this Account her Teftimony muft be owned infallible , For what euer reafon or Authority afcertains the one, afcertains alfo the other. And here we may come to Principles if our Aduerfaries pleafe Let them euince ( and t'is a Truth ) that the Apoftles were fo eminently priuiledged, I will lay down my Proofs by Theirs, and Shew by as great Authority, that the Church has her Priuiledge itlfo of Diuine Afliftance. 7. He Adds. U being mofl vnreafonabk to thinly that God Ttould fauour fuch perfons ( the Apoftles ) frith fo extraordinary a po^er^ho should falftfy their Mtffage , and deceiue the Ttorld. Gentle Reader confidera little. The Apoftles taught" the world for a few years ►only. The Roman Catholick hath ftood inuincible, and taught V v v 3 Milliou* To fay we are befeoled it no Proof, More Shif- ting yet . The Apojlln Diuinely mfpired, tb* Church in- fallibly A#na% The Proefs are ecpal A}*r*d*H The Apoflles taught for a Short time , and Erred not. The Church longer , and grojly erred. church Mo- urns both diftmgutsh tind prone. A fling st Bellurmine to no furfofe. 526 DHe.3. C. 6. Mr Stillingfleet folues not Millions of Chriftians for fixteen Ages, If then it beviireafonable, yea impious to think , that God could permit thofe firft Bleffed men to faliify their meffage, and deceiue with errour for that short time j Is it not I befeech you as highly vnreafonable and impious to Iudge, that an Infinite Goodnes could permit the very Church he founded , made glorious by Her Miracles and other Signal Motiues ( all which Proue her fauoured with a Power extraor- dinary) to falfifie her Meflage , to betray Her Truft, and lead Mil- lions of fouls into damnable errour, during the vaft circuit of a thoufand yeares ? Confider I Say, And blush at his boldnes, who dare impeach this pureft Spoufe of falshood* 8. Page. 132. He goes on. Tbefe Monties of credibility ^ere f^ont to be esleemed only (be notes of Diflmclion of the true Chunk from all others , and not rational Proofs of her infallibility. Anfw. They both distinguish and proue. The Apoftles were diftin- guished from all falfe Teachers, and proued alfo Oracles (ent from God by their Signs and Miracles , The like we fay of the Church , whofe Marks and Miracles are not inferiour to thofe the Apoftles manifefted , and far more Numerous. Shew vs a difparity if you can , or be filent hereafter. 9. Page. 132. I find nothing but firft leaue giuen Bellar- mine,to multiply his fifteen Notes of the Church to fifteen hun- dred. How comes this to the Purpofe ? Or what need is there of multiplying , when One of thofe Fifteen , ( and He tell you which it is ) the O urche* glorious Miracles , hath fo filenced Secta- ries, that none of them all has hitherto attempted to return any better anfwer than this. Bellarmine thou lies't ? He Saies. z. The only certain Note of the true Church, is its agreement Jfitb the Primary foun* datwn of it , in the Doclrin frhsci) n Anfw. No truly. T'is impoffible and here is the Reafon , becaufe in a lelTe fpace then one Age, there would be as many Religions in fuch a Church, as there are Town es or villages in it , And per- haps more. And is not this manifeft in England,, where almoft euery year we haue a new Religion coyned ? Therefore to Imagin a Society of men vnited rogether in the belief of Ghrift's infallible Doctrin, without an infallible Oracle to teach , is a meer ghimera. ^,but euery Man in this fallible Society is bound to That's made a clear Mark which Sec- taries muji Sayt 54ye% dilutable and obfeure* Conditional Propofitions, here¥roo£tiS AfallibU Church cannot hi Cmfonant tf Chri/l'i A Parallel *f Miracles. An luldent Miracle fight ed. Tf)9 CC*M- xhn bet ween Miracles M»d InfaUu kilitj $wn- tti. 52S Difc. 3. C. 6. Mr Stif/ingfJeetfolues not to take care of his foul , and to belieue the infallible Do&rii* of C hrifl. I Anfwer. If to take care of his Soul necefTarily* implies the Belief of Chrift's infallible Doctrin , it is impo£* iible to take that care , becaufe he can haue no infallible A£ furancc of Chrilts Doclxin , without a Church which teaches it infallibly. Hereof enough is faid aboue. 13. Page. 134. He defires to haue fuch Miracles wrought as may conuince Infidels , as to the point of the Churches infallibility. Anfw. He has all he can defire. The Blind />• The Dun.b fpeak, , the Deaf bear , The Dead rife vp t» life again were our Sauiours own Miracles, and conuinced Infidels, but thefe are our Churches likewise, as is largely proued. Difc. 1* C. 8. What would the man haue more? 14. Page. 13$. To his no little difgrace, without any Proof at all , he fcornfully flights that euident and moft known Mi- racle wrought at Zaragoja in Spain. But enough of this aboue, Difc.i. C*$. Here I can add, hauing it from a right Honou- rable Perfon yet liuing , who heard His Maiefty Charles the firft Say, in the prefence of many others* The cure of that young Man at Zaragofa was certain. Some herevpon Propofing a further QuefHon , whether it could be thought a Miracle? His Maiefty Anfwered be it as you will , the thing was done , The leg cut off and buried , was certainly reftored again. 15. In'thefame Page he Queflions whether the Motiues wc produce belong only to our Church > But grant , Saith he., they do belong, its hard to find the connexion between them and Infallibility. We haue Anfwered to the firft No Society of men can shew the like Motiues , and therefore vrge Mr Stillingfleet to produce his Euidence ,That is , To proue they belong to any other Society , But to the Roman Catholick Church only. The other point concerning the Connexion , Nicodemus a Prince of thelewes. lobn, 3. V. i. long fince cleared. Rdbbi lee kjtoH? thou art come a Mafter or Teacher from God , for no man can do thefe Sign$ T^btcb thou doit , vnhfi God be With hmi9 Was Difc. 3, C. 6. His Aduerfaries Argument. 520 Was then our Sauiour proued by the works and the Miracles he did, a Majter lent from God to teach I And did thefe Signs conuince reafon, that God was with him when he taught > None can deny.it. Therefore none can doubt' , but that He was alfo proued infallible by Virtue of His wonders , And confequently the connexion between them and infallibility hold's good. But j^etrue in the Church (and here is our Inference) Euidences the very like fcrence, Signes aboue the force of nature ., therefore reafon concludes that She alfo is proued Infallible. Wherefore, Mr Stillingfleet is either obliged to find a flaw in the confequence , or to giue a Difparity between our Church - Motiues , and thofe .other Primitiue , which he neuer goes about to do. 16. I meet with nothing in His. 136. Page, but loud vntruths concerning our Do&rin of Pennance , as if we indulged fin mt er *' here , and yet gaue men hope of Heauen hereafter. It is a uert tfa Calumny (euery one knowes we teach no fuch Dodhrin) and Readtr* in this place a meer Parergon befides. I therefore flight it, and take notice of another Graying out of the way. P. 137. where he Speak's thus. The Principles of any Conclufion , muft be of more credit then the Conclufion it [elf. Therefore if the Articles of Faith, The Trinity and Refurredion be the Conclufion s ,, And the Vr'mciples by ^hich they are proued be only Ecclefiaslical Tradition , it vwfl needs folio!* , That the Tradition of the Church v> more infaU lible then the Articles of faith , if the Taith toe baue of thofe Arti- cles, should be finally rejoined into the veracity of the Churches Te- flimony. 17. This Difficulty not well digefted , either Proues nothing, or makes euery Refolution of faith void, For fuppofe I be- E«f> K*/J- lieue the Trinity becaufe God hath reuealed the Myftery plainly ™"J *"■* in Holy Scripture. I Ask whether God's Tepmony , fuppofed q^#^ * the Principle of belieuing , be more infallible then the Trini- ty , which is belieued vpon it , here called the Conclufion > Say , The Diuine Teftimony is more Infallible , 1*11 Affirm the very fame of the Churches Propofition , For what the Church (peak's , God (peak's. Anfwer No. And giue this' Xxx reafon. Ht» thi Churches Tefiinjony it tht Clennr frinciple. MeMlftah iifcouerdi %ne Indiui- fible tenden- rjm Faith, 530 Difc. j, C. 6. MrStittingfleet folaes not reafon , Becaufe we belieue the Teftimony and the Myfte- ry attcfted , by one Indtutfible certain Act of Faith , which tend's infallibly vpon both thefe Obiects at once , without making Conclufions, The difficulty ccales. And hereby you* fe firft. How the Churches Teftimony is a Principle to the thing belieued y For euery one knowes , that a Formal Obiedfc com- pared with its Material which lies in darkneis r is the greater Light , and has the preheminence to be irnmediatly known For tt Self, and not for another : Whereas , the material Obiedr. would dill, remain in a State of obfeurity , and neuer be yeilded to , but by the Energy of its formal Motiue. In this fenfe there- fore , the vltima ratio affentiendi y or formal Obiect may be well called the more certain Principle , Though as I now faid , the AiTent be indtuifibly terminated vpon both Obiects infallibly. 18. You fe. 2* Where, the miftake of our Adueriarie lies. He Suppofes faith generated by Difcourie. Firft that we be- lieue the Trinity ( for example ) vpon one Principle. Viz, The Churches Tradition or Teftimony , and then defcend lower to belieue the lame Myftery vpon God's Reuelation diftindfc from the Churches Teftimony , As if, forfooth, the Churches Teftimony were, an extrinfecal condition preparing all to belieue vpon the Diuine Reuelation (This muft be intended or nothing, is faid to the Purpofe) now we vtterly deny the Suppoiition, and Say when we belieue the Trinity , or any other particular Myftery vpon the Churches Teftimony , or rather vpon this reuealed truth; God [peaks fo by the Church , We then elicite not two diftincT: A&s one depending on the other, but with one- indiuifible tendency of Faith belieue at once , the Formal and Material Obiecl together , That is , we belieue God fpeaks the truth by the Church , which is to fay: we Aifent to it becaufe he ipeak's it , bj hts 0 ton infallible Oracle. 19. This one fyllog.fm dear's alL What the Church Sam it true. The Church Saies God has reuealed the Trinity. Ergo that's true. We refolue the Maior , or firft Proportion thus. What 4be Chunh fates k true. That is. What God ipeaking by the. Church'. Difc , }. C. 6. His Adue* far les Argument. Jji Church faith , is true. But God -{peaking by the Church Saies the Myftery of" the Trinity is , ergo , That's true. Where you fee , we only Diicourle (could Faith be To generated which fome Diuines Aflert) from the Formal obiedt. , or from Gods Reue- lation , to the Material belieued. Now Mr Stillingfleet makes thisSenfe of the Maior Proportion , (and here lies his Errour) frl)4t the Church Sates of Her fctf, net imludw>* Gods Reudatton , is TheErrmr an act of Faith and true , -But the Church of her own fole mm Clearly Authority faith , God reuealed the Trinity. Ergo I muft firft tomu" *'« belieue the Myftery by one acl: of Faith vpon the Churches Teftimony ^ as a Preparatiue to belieue it better , vpon Gods pure Reuelation y which is another diftincl: Formal Obiect from the Churches Teftimony. This Difcourfe is implicatory. Firft becaufe the Churches Teftimony , if feparated from the Diuinc Reuelation, can ground no act of Faith. 2. If which is true., it only cooperates with , or confummates the ancient Reuelation in order to the Belief of any Myftery , it can help nothing to bring in a Conclufion, whoily its obfeure as it felf is. That word , Conueunce , beguiled Mr Stillingfleet , for he thought , if the Churches Teftimony conusyes vnto vs the -ancient Reue- J*j*f ^T" lation , it muft be excluded from being infallible , and much e *'* " more from being a io.ynt Motiue with it. Herein lies his Er- rour. .20. It is difficult enough , To Say what He would be at in his two next pages. Some times he will haue no want of Euidence in faith, as to the Reafon inducing to belieue , And if he means, That what we Aflent to :by faith muft be enidently Cre- dible before we belieue , its a Truth , but if he will haue the ve- ry acl: of Faith elicited to be .euident ^ trie Apoftle. Heb. /i. 1. *?** im- , contradicTs him. Fcr ttitb is an Argument, cf things not appsa)ing. ^us ^C(4* Sometimes again fie faith , the AfTent is not requried to what is obfeure and Vnemdent , And then to mollify the Proportion, add's. But abatis eutdent to vs And clmefore credible. In a .word, ,- if he intend's thus much only, That the eudence of credibiii- #r*», ;y precedes the tneuidsnt act of Faith , all is weJl. But by Xxx 2 one The truth of the Trinity emdent to no Bslieuer* r4nOUettion popofid. Xn-fweredty Scripture it 532 Diic.3, C 6 MrStillkgflutfoluesnot one Inftance we may guefs where he crr's. The manner o* the Hjpoftattcal vwiiw > Saith he, a to vs tneuidmt , wherevnto God requires not our Affcnt , but to the truth of the thing u felfe, An- fwer, good Sr , Is the truth of the Hypofhtical vnion in it felfe , or of the Trinity euident to vs > Where lies that E- uidence ? Or vpon what Principle is it grounded ? Here- ticks are found that for the very difficulty of thefe ineuident Myfteries deny both , And the beft Orthodox Chriftians in- genuoufly Profeis ,. they fo far Surpafs all natural capacities ,. That ther is no aiTenting to either but only by an humble fubmiffiue Faith , which elTentially implies Obfcurity.. If the- refore what you fay bo true* We may lawfully jufpend our Af- fent , frhere God gtues not euidence of the thing Afjcnted to , you may Confequently fufpend your AiTent , and neither helieue the Trinity , nor the Incarnation. 21. Page. 140. He demands why we belieue the Reftu> redlion of the dead > We Anfwer becaufe God reueal's it. But Queftioned again why we belieue , that God hath reuealed it > We Anfwer becaufe the infallible Church laies God did fpeak it , whereby it is plain that though our firft Reply be from God's Authority , yet the laft Refolution of our faith is made into the infallibility of the Churches Teftimony : For though God had reuealed it , yet if this Reuelatton ypere not attetted by the Chunlies infallible Teftimony , toe should not haue fufficient ground to belteut it , Therefore the Churches infallibility muft be more credible, then the Refurreclion of the dead 22. To giue a Satisfactory Anfwer, pleaie to hear what I demand alfo. Mr Stillingfleet belieues that our Sauiour is the true MeiTias , becaule Chrift fpake the Truth with his own facred mouth. lohn. 4. 26. And if he belieues Scripture, He AiTents again to that truth vpon S. Iohns Teftimony , And fo firmly belieues it , that if the Euangelift (or fbme other of like authority) had not wrote it , he could not haue belieued S. Iohns Teftimony , or that our Sauiour Spake thofe words, Here is our folution. God long ftnee laid the dead shall rile, but. Difc. J. C 6. His Aduerfaries Argument. 5jj but this Ancient Reuelation being remote from vs > (if folely eoniidered) cannot moue vs to belieue the truth, vnlefs an In- fallible Oracle Afcertain vs that God once fpake it , iuft as S. Iohn allures all that Chrifl laid. I am tbt Mffau. Ask now why Mr Stillingfleet belieues , rhat our Sauiour vttered thofe words ? He will Anfwer -9 God fpeaking by. S. Iohn an Infal- lible Oracle , Affirms it. So I lay God fpeaking by the Church , an Infallible Oracle , affirm' s the Refurre&ion of the dead. O, but independently of Church Authority we know the refurrection is reuealed in Scripture , Contrariwiie we know nothing of our Sauiours words y but from S. Iohns Teftimo- ny. Anfw. we know indeed the Refurrection is alTerted in a Book called Scripture , But that the Ailertion is Dunne , or vttered by Eternal Truth , we haue no more Infallible certain- ty without the Churches Tefttmony , Then if any vulgar Sa- maritan, without Diuine AfTiftance , had fakL Cbrift jpakj thofe words. I am the MefitM. 23. By what is now briefly touched you fe firft,That as our Sauiours own words and S. Iohns reflex Teftimony vpon them , concurr Indiuifibly to the Faith of thefe Aduerfaries $ So the reuealed Verity of the Refurre&ion in Scripture , And the Churches reflex Teftimony which infallibly Afcertains vs that it is reuealed , may well indiwfibly concurr as one compkat Mo* me to our faith x whereof more hereafter. I lay indiuifibly ; And therefore this Faith vltimatly refolued , relies not firft vpon Scripture only , as our Aduerfary conceiues , without any relation to the Church , and then reft's vpon the Churches Teftimony, <# vpon a dislincl Forwal Obiecl , but by one Ample Tendency it pitches on both together. 24. You fe. 2. Its hard to Say what Mr Stillingfleet would haue , when he tells vs. This Principle. The Chunb is infal- lible , mufl be more credible then the Re(urrecTiOfi of ttot Dead. If he mean's ? the Churches Teftimony is to vs in this prefent State , the more knoD?n and neareft Motme , wherevpon the Faith of that Article is grounded , we eafily AiTent. But if he Xxx J think's AnApplia. tton of the l?iflar*c§ clear in Scripture, The ancient Rfuelatioa and the Churches reflex Teflim mony Concurr in* diuifibly to^ Faith, \X>t cleat fy dijiinguiih what car Aduerfary Ccnfound'$t 534 Difc. j. C. 6. Mr Stillingeet Sokes nci* think' s we mud firft AfTent to Scripture, which aflerts the Re- •furrection and own that as Diuine, or the only Motiue of Faith without all Church Authority attefltng it to be Diuine , He err's not Animprottr knowing our Doctrin.; For we Say, no Scripture can be infalli- Speech* ble afiented to as Diuine independently of the Churches Teftimony* Again thole words. Mere Credible, are improper, if applyed to the Formal Obieft of Faith , For the Formal Obiecfc terminates Ee- lief, the Credibility whereof goes before, and is grounded oa the preuious Motiues inducing to belieue. Whether "tte Square Circles in cur %efolution of Faith* The other mentioned Points in the Title of the Chapter , difcujjed. Vjwi yhat ground thofe Articles called the fundament ah of Faith are belieued} in the .Opinion of Sectaries. Zl. In many following Pages we haue little but that the Chur- ches Infallible Teftimony muft be called the Formal Obiecx of Faith, whereof fomething is laid aboue, And you shall haue more hereafter. 26. P. 149. He thinks we Argue like men icjuaring Circles,' when on the one fide we make Scripture obfeure , yet on the other ,giue it light enough to proue the Churches infallibility ,' And then he talk's of an Apocal)ptic*l k*J hanging at the Churches girdle , able to vnlock all the Secrets in it. To the rlrft I haue Aiifirered, Thus much Suppofed , that Scripture is proued Diui- ne, we haue fo great light from the federal PalTages therepf,to infallibility, conumce the Churches Infallibility , that no gloiles of Sectaries shall euer obfeure them. To the leer of the Clxtvs A?oc*lptic& I Aniwer. Some oae or other muft vnlock thcie high fecrctsyj-hen us Scripture Trcu-d Di uine (Set:, mnct i the C» arches Difc. 3. C. 6. His JJutrfaries Argument 5^5 s euident innumerable Heretiques by a wrong key wreft Gods ord to mod pernicious Senfes. The Queftion is whether you, *, or the Church muft rurn the key ? 27. Pagi. 152. After than^gium for our G'oteV'or'i Co often ferued ^Xbofe mute Perfons^tbe good Motiues of credibility ; He is Brifcjue {^rSand- id in earneft refolute , to (blue our Argument, Asking before empty wds md ; Whether it Be not enough to be in a Circle our fetut^ but wuft ed's bring the A'pofllts into it alfo ? Reflect I befeech you. We id aboue, that the Apoflles induced by the Signal works and [iracles of our Sauiour, . Airentedto his iacred Doctrin as moll fallible. In like manner, The Primitiue Chriflians induced by e works and Miracles of the Apoftles beheued them to be infil-' lhtfone eji ble Oracles. Therefore we alfo in this prefent State , hauing mm * [otiues and Miracles of the lame weight and Euidence in the Ro- an Catholick Church , Belieue with a firm AiTent of Faith that le is God's Oracle, and her Doctrin moft infallible.- The short An- m to all this (faith Mr Stillingfleet ) isyThat- the ground T»hy the brtftians did Ajfent to the ApoQles Dottrtn as true , "tots becaufe God wholly \ue fufficient Eutdence,, that their Testimony Was infallible infuch things^ watted berefuch infallibility Teas requiftte. Pray, Confider well , whether is be not a gliding , or rather a plain running away from the ifficulty? We haue vrged all this while the Parity between e Churches Motiues, and thofe of the Apoftles, We haue oued and yet plead, That the Euidence is a like in both. The. hurehes moft manifeftSignesare. The blind fe. The lame T^alk^* he dead rife , Dtuels are dtfpnjfefed &c. And thefe termed by you ifauory Cohorts, and mute good Things^ were the Apoftles Signs (b. Are not you therefore obliged in all law of Diiputation, ^Utali ther toproue,and vpon found Principles indeed, That we falfly Urn of Difm •propriate fuch Motiues and Miracles to the Church, Or, if you Pmini nnot difparage fo illuftrious an Eui Jence , to shew a fault in this re1Mrgi* ference > The Church is ktioKn as toeU by \ur Stgns, to be an infallible racle. 28. Now mark how we are put off with half an Anfwer. God I y°u ?Saue Efficient Euidence , . that the Apoftles Teftimony war Nothing like 0m Anfwer giuen. The Main] faint pre {ft A egain* which can* not be Avfwired. An Argil* rmnt ^rgeit ad botni- mm. 536 Difc. 3. C. 6. My StiHingfleet Sokes not was infallible. None doubt's it. But Say on, what want do yoii find of the very like EuiJence in the Church > Her Miracles are as manifeft , Her Conuerfions as Numerous (and more) Her fame as renowned, Her name as Catholick , finally might we vie your fcornful language , Her Motiues ( no mute Perfons ) fpeak aloud, and Her Colcwartsare euery whit as good, as thofewere the Apoftles ferued vp. To this you Anfwer not a word , but fir ft tell vs with your Aduerlary, that the Apoftles confirmed their Do&rin With Signs that followed , by which Sign es all their Hea-< res were bound to aknowledge them for infallible Oracles; And it is very true. But we proue the like Signs accompanied and fol- lowed the Church in all Ages, therefore her Hearers are alfb bound to acknowledge Her an infallible Oracle alfo. In this place you should haue fpoken to the Caufe and Shewed , Why,, or vpon what Account, thofe firft Signs were lo powerful to Pro-* ue the Apoftles infallible, Andthefe latter of the Church lelTe pregnant to proue Her infallible. This, and t'is the main Point, you Wifely Waue For it is vnanfwerable , and moft frigidly tell vs p. 153. You muft be excufed m to What folloWes. viz. That thofe fame Motiues moued the Primitiue Chriftians and vs in our re/pecliue Times , to belieue the Church* And why not dear Sr > Giue vs the Diiparity, and we haue done, but you cannot. If therefore it be a bold Attempt to deny the Euidence of the Church we plead for, which. S. Auftin. Epifl. 166. compares with the Sun mani- feft to all, vsque ad terminos ad ten a , To the laft bounds of the earth, it is impoffible to weaken the force of our Inference, when we Say. The Church is proued by her Motiues an infallible Oracle* You next Terme this ExprelTion,Tfo formal obiecl of faith], a Coc- cjfm , whereby it appears how little you are verfed in School- Diuinity. 29. It ieem's in the Page now cited, your Aduerfary vrges this Argument , Ad hommew. If a Church be acknowledged infallible in Fundamentals, The laft reafon why you belieue it in- fallible, muft reft vpon this Principle, That the prefent Church doth Infallibly writnefs fo much by her Tradition. To this you return Difc j. C. 6 His hduerfaries JrgnmenL $$7 return a mdft difTatisfactory Anfver, in thefe words. When jou Ask^ Vs ( Proteftants ) &hj tee belieue fuel) an At tide to be fundamental , As %r an inslame. Chrifi Will gtuz Eternal life to them that belt ue htm , toe Anfwer not becaufe the Church Whuh it infallible in fundamentals Delmers it to befo, For that Were to Anfteer idem per Idem', But We tppeal to that Common Reafon Which is in Mankind, Whether , if the Doclnn of Chrisl be true , Thu can be any other than a fundamental Article of it , it being that Without Which the Whole Defign of Chrt- ftian Religion comes to nothing, 30. Good Reader ioyn here two things together. MrStil- lingfleet believes (and Mark the word ) fuch an Article to be Fun- damental, not vpon Scripture or Church Authority , for neither makes the DiftincHon between fundamentals and not fundamen- tals i And again, before he has proued by any infallible Autho- rity that fuch a Diftinftion in his Senfe ought to be made , He brings in the common Reafon of mankind to Iudge in a matter, |Jiich Catholicks Say is de Subieclo non fupponente , not capable of fudicature , Becaufe there are no Things in being as he call's ^undanienrals^ diftinguiiable from others, of a. lower Ranks More- Duer ( And take notice of this) He belieues fuch an Article to be i truth becaufe God reueal's it, and belieues it to be a Fundamen- tal Tw'b vpon this Motiue , that Common reafon hold's it fo. Doth not therefore this one ad: of Faith, rely vpon two hetero- *eneal Formal Obiect > As Faith $ it is built vpon God's Vera- :ity , as Fundamental Faith , it ftand's tottering vpon mans fallible •eafon. 31. What followes is as bad or worfe. It U fufflcient , Say you, That the Church doth deliuer from the Confent of vniuerfal Tradition , We infallible Rule of Faith ( Which to be fure ^contains all things Fun- damental in it) though She neuer meddles With the deciding What Points tre fundamental, and What not. Pray you, Sr, Anfwer. Who shall dare to meddle with thofe fundamentals , were they Suppo fable in your fenfe, if the Church doth not? Whatmuft your priuate ludgement or mine, decide here ? Quo iure ? by what law or Au- thority > whilft Scripture faies nothing, and you will not permit Y y y the The %efia~ ties ^n highly dijfa. ttifaftory , and why ? Faith (land's not vpon two different Mourn Diuine^ani humane. Worfe T)06~ trinyet. Their broken kmd of I aith. The main Vcint con- cerning Scripture, anUitsfenfe, examined. A reafcna- bie Demand. Thefubflan. ee of Mr Stillingpets stopper, 558 Difc. 5. C. 6%MrStilfmgfleet Sokes not the Church to meddle in the Bufinefs , were there any fuch thing to be meddled with , Therefore you leaue all to mens priuate Opinions, to make what they pleafe ftindamental , and exclude from Fundamentals euery thing which likes them not. And here is your fumbling way of Belieuing no man knows what , whilft the Church tells you, that euery thing She Propofes , as an Ar- ticle of faith , is Fundamental. This impregnable Principle we eftablish in Lieu of your loofe Faith, and broken way of Ar- guing alio. Laftly you are out in the main Suppofition , thac Scripture only is the Rule of faith 9 But hereof enough is faid in the firft Difcourfe. 32. The next Thing I meet with worth any Notice, is. P. 158. Wherevnto we alio ioyn his. 17©. Page. It feem's D. Lawd before Mr Stillingfleet wrote his Account , was tfrged to giue a, iatisfa&ory Reply to the Queftion, Why , or vpon tohat ground Vroteftants belieue the Books of Scripture to be the Word of God ? Scripture alone Sayes not which Books are Canonical , much lcile declares their Senfe in matters controuerted. Sectaries reiedc the Churches Infallible Authority And fay, She is not to tell vs which Books are Scripture , or, what their fenfe is , though ad- mitted as God's word. Is it not very reafonable think ye to demand vpon what Ground thefe men ftand , when either they belieue Scripture to be the word of God , or giue an AfTent to the particular do&rins contained in the book ? For clearing theie difficulties , you shall haue Mr Stillingfleets own word's P. 170. 33. This Queflion, Saith he , boto toe knoto Scripture to be Scrip- ture , may import two things. Tirsf , hoT» toe knoto that all tbofe books contain God's toord in them 2 Or fecondly hoto toe knote > the Doclrin Contained m theje Books to be Diuine ? If you then a$k^ me, tohetfnr it be necejfary that I belieue "toitb fuch a Taith , as is built vpon Diuine Teslimony , that thefe Books called Scripture y contain the Vrinciples of the letoisb and Cbrtftian Religion in them , J»bicb i»e cad God's toord, I do and shall deny it ( viz, That This belief is built on mj Diuine Testimony) and my reafon is,becmfe I btue fufficient ground Di(c. }. C.6. His Jduerfaries JrgumenU 539 f*t4s-n what Scripture is \ the very I'rtmiples and Doclrin contained in bs vn^tr- thofe Aminos. For example. Here is one Principle in the ^° , ytf u"rn r ,,\ r.r, Books of old leitament. Gen. 17. 4. God made a Conuenunt With Aha- scritturU ham and his feed for euer. Another in the New. loan. 1. 14* The Word is made Vlesh. Anlwer I befeech you > Can any man truly affirm, that thefe two Principles (the like is of in- numerable others contained in Scripture) ftand not firm vpon Yyy 2 Godv* Principles of Relfgisfi de- nied. An Anfwer- to fueh at here uifiin guish Between the bare wor&s and thejex- fa Words are Diuine, 540 Difc. 3. C 6 MrStilRngfleet folu*s not God's infallible Teftimony , when T'is manifeft , the whole Chriftian world is obliged to belieue them, with a Faith groun- ded vpon the fame infallible Teftimony , that reuealed them? It was Therefore no little Oucrfight in Mr Stillingfleet to Speak here of the Principles of she lefr'tsh and Cfr'tfttan Reinnon, contained in a Book, calUd Scripture, And pofitiuely to Affert , thete cannot be belieued vpon a Diuine Teftimony. This certainly is not Defensible. 36. Some may yet Reply. Two things are here to be coniidered. Firft the bare letter or outward words of Scrip- ture , and thefe we belieue not vpon Diuine Reuelation , but huie them from vniuerfal Tradition , or the content of Na- tions. The fecond , is the Senfe or Diuine Doctrine which thefe outward Sines or exteriour words Conuey to vs. Now this Sente or the interiour Doctrin of Scripture, as contradifimcl from the bare outward letter , we purely belieue vpon the Di- uine Teftimony , cafting the AfTent giuen to the Words vpon other fornin Principles. I belieue Mr Stillingfleet elswhere Saies fome fuch thing as this, or mull fay h. Contra. 1. The meer outward words though pure , are no Books of Scriptu- re , And as feparated from the Senfe and interiour Dodtrin , are neither Principles of the Iewish or Chriftian Religion y, nor m riour God's Teord , For God neuer (pake nor infpi- red others to write words , but he iointly conueyed with them his own Sente, and Dodhin alfo. And Methinks its very hard to belieue this Doclrin. T is w my belo-ied Son as God's fa- cred words , and not to belieue thofe very words to come from God , vpon the lame Diuine Motiue which Support's the Do- ctrin. Motes , faith our Sauiour. lobn*<>. 47. Has written of me. And if you SYtll not belieue hu Writings , hoi* Thill you be- lieue my Words ? Thete outward Signes therefore , the very, words of truth , called by the Apoftle. 1. Tb.jf. 2. 13. Ytrbum nudum Dei. Tvords of hearing , or heard y are in very deed the VVords of God ; and contequently may well , where none can- rationally doubt of their Purity ? be affented to vpon the lame Difc. 3. C. 6. His Aduerfarles Argument. 541 ame Diuine Teftimony , with the Doctrine contained in :hem. 37. The Reafon is. God would haue been the fame Ve- rity he now is , although he had reuealed nothing , that there- Pore which moues or determin's Belieuers to affent to the :ruths reuealed is not only his increated Authority , but the rvu,rt external Reuelation with it alio. Theie Two iointly , F>* :oncurr as one Motiue , whence it is that the Firft Verity , as vtrititify**^ Speakmi , or Reuealmg may be rightly called the Formal Obiect kmg n the :>f Faith. I know Diuines vary about this Queilion. Whe- obieftof ther the external Propoiition be a partial Home with Gods ***'*• internal Verity , or only a neceflary condition whereby that Ve- rity , (the vltimate ground of fatth) is applyed to Belieuers 5 here- in much may be de N'wjwe : But none of them all Say , The exteriour Reuelation is aiFented to vpon one Principle which is not Diuine, and that the Doctrine conueyed by it , is be- lieuedvpon another moft Diuine and infallible. This is a no- V/hatSe8a-~ uelty. Neither do I lee , how Sedhries can find that Luftre, rm should that Maitffy and Diuinity , fb often talk'd of in the pureft words ^ran * of holy Writ , if they be not owned as God's true words vpon his Diuine Teftimony. 38. Let vs now briefly examin Mr - Stillingfleet's Pro- pofition , without depending on what he teaches or mu£ teach , concerning the belief of Words feparated from the Do- clrtn. We blunt , Saith he , t e Doftrin contained in tl-c Books of The D§Sirsfs Scripture vpon a Dnsine Tefltmanj y becaufe God has giuen abundant init frlfe Ewdence .that this Dofirm ^ as (or is) of Diuine Reuelation. Here *x*mn'h are three things Diftinguishable. The Do firm Bdieued 5 The In- carnation for example. The Teilnnony reupaltna^ the matter be- belieued , and finally the Emdtnce whereby that Teitimony is brought to light. Now all our difficulty is concerning the E- uidence of this Diuine TefHmony wherevpon vve belieue any Myftery , and we Ask from whence Mr Stillingfleet takes his Euidence (He has you fe abundance of it) wherewith to proue that God euer Said. . Ibe Dunne tyord Was made fiestrt Yyy 3 39. The The Diuine Te (timony, not its own Self widen* SC. Therefore the Euidence of its Creiit- bdity'muji he taken from extun. fickMotiues. TaUlbleTra. dition no fufficient E- mdence. 541 Difc j. C 6. Mr Stittingfleet flues mt 39. The QueStion feem's reafbnable ,becaufe this Testimo- ny which all ought to belicue,and confequently doth Extft , is not it's own Selfe emdence , nor can it be eutdenced by another Teftimony of Scripture (wholly as obfeure to vs) that God fpa- ke th'at Truth , For Co we should goe in infinitum and Proue owe dark Teftimony by another equally as dark. Infallible Tradi- tion not written , and the infallible Authority of the Church our Aduerlaries reiedt And may Say , Both (though admitted) are Obie&s of faith , and coniequently vnder that Notion appear as little Euident to vs , as the Scriptures Teftimony is , we de- iire to proue. Therefore whateuer is rightly called Emdence in this matter, whereby all would dilcouer an obfeure Teftimony (not yet proued God's word) muft of neceiiity be extrinfecal to the Teftimony tt fel ft, and if extrinfnk , no other Euidence can Poflibly be had , but that which arifes from the known Moti- ues of Credibility , For by thefe the Church is proued an Ora- cle no lefTe Infallible , then thofe firft Mafters of Chriftianrty were. Wherefore Mr Stillingfleet is conftrained whether he will or no , if he giues in any thing like Euidence , to make vfe of thefe good mute things the Motiues of Credibility , which he Scornfully call's CokWorts too often 'ferued vp,or shall neuer proue that God oncefaid. The Dimne Tt>ord is made flesh. Which is to Say , He mud firft euidence a Church , before he Vroues thofe fiords Diuine. 40. It may be replyed ; His Euidence for the whole Book of Scripture and euery particular fentence in it , is taken from the fallible Tradition of all called Christians , and others alfo no Christians. I say fallible , For he owns none Diuine or In- fallible. Contra. 1. The Scripture was acknowledged Diuine, before men agreed fo vniuerfally that it was Diuine , Tradition therefore , which is rather an ErTecl: of our Christian Beliefe concerning Scripture , then a proof of it , prefuppofes fome other more clear foregoing Euidence, whereby the Book was ancient- ly owned as Diuine. This we enquire after , and very rea- sonably ; becaufe the Chinefes haue a vniuerfal Tradition foi thei Difc. 3. C. 6« His Aduerfaries Argument* J4J their Bible , and the Turks for their Alcoran one alfo gene- ral, yet fuch a humane, fallible and weak Tradition proues not thofe Books to be Diuine. Contra, i. And here is an An Ar-U_ Argument ad Hotruncnn If Mr Stillingfleet belieucs the Tefti- mem ad he. monies of Scripture Infallible , vpon fallible Tradition which minem. may be felfe , he makes his Conclufion concerning the belief of euery PafTage in Holy Writ , far more flire then the Pre- mifes are which lead in the Conclufion , And this Docfcrin he reied's aboue as improbable. Contra. %. He has neither vni- seftarieska- tierfal Tradition for the Proteftants Canon of Scripture (difow- uenovnimr- ned by more then half of the Chriftian world) much leiTe fal fallible for its true Senle , wherein diiTenting Chriftians fo much vary, tradition for that none of them all can Say vpon humane or fallible Tra- J^r ber^" dition 7 what the true meaning of the Holy Ghoft is , and confequently this very Tradition , as alfo Mr Still in gfkets dou- ble Refolution of Faith into the Bookj of Scripture , and into the Doftrin , or Senfe , come iuft to nothing. 41^ Page. 158. He Argues the whole Church confifVs of men fubiecl: to errour , That is , All the Parts are liable to miftake , E>£0 the wrhole Church cannot pofiibly be infallible, Afaj}aciota in and of it felfe. AnfiV, Lay open thefe couered Terms , obiection- In and Of it felfe , The Argument lofes force. I Say the- S*/****. refore , Men meerly confidered as nature has made them fallible in order to belieue Supernatural ly , haue in and Of tbemfelues no immunity from errour , yet taken vnder ano- ther Notion , as they conttuute a Curch , they are infallible. That is. There teas , u , and will euer be a Church Teaching > and a Church Taught, Infallible , So that all shall neuer err in Faith. You may eafily reioyn. This or that man , thefe or thofe Multitudes may wilfully abandon Chrift's Doctrin. Too true God knows r And if fo , They are no more members of the Church , but Heretiques or Infidels. Again. If you run §m€nm ouer the reft of Chriftians remaining Orthodox (whether Pa- err All th$ ftors or People) and Say thefe may alfo fall from Faith j I chunk , AnfwerSome may , All cannot • beeaufe God has nromiied euer umnoh fa 544 Difc } C. 6. Mr Stillingfleetfokesnot&c. to preferue a Church in Being , I mean faithful Teachers and faithful Belieuers , to the end of the world. And mult not Sectaries acknowledge thus much , who hold a Church infal- lible in Fundamentals, which vpon that account cannot whol- ly err? 42, Mr Stillingfleet Anfwer's , Though the Authority of the whole Church be not Diuine , yet she cannot err in Fun- damentals , b'tanfe she u tyed to the p(e rf warn. Say , Good Sir, who tyes Her to this infallible vfe ot Mean's , if the whole Moral Body and euery Member of it be fallible ? Grant that God by his fpecial Aififtance ties Her faft , She is for that rea- fon infallible , and muft Vfe the means : Take from Her di- uine Affiftance , and Say She is only guided by the erring Con- ceptions of fallible men , She may ealily fwerue from the Means, The fallacy and reuolr from Chrift. And thus the fallacy is cleared. You, dijeoum , Sr, Suppofe the Infallibility muft be taken from the right vie of means , whereas the contrary is true. Viz. Therefore s e rightly vfes the means , becaufe She ts antecedently preferued infallible by Di- They rightly uine Afi fiance. You luppofe again , that all the Parts of this vfe the Aflifted Church are fallible , And we Say no , For as long as Means , be* tney continue members of it ; So long as the Paftors lawfully com- caufeantcce- nijfXioned teach in Chrift's name, and the faithful belieue their Infallible. infallible Doctrin (There will be euer fuch a Church on earth) So long they are all infallible. If any fall from Faith , whether few or many , Thefe , eo ipfo , ceafe to be Members of this My-" ftical Body , yet the Church fail's not , for the failing of fome, infer's not a poffible Failure in all. ^The want of this Diftin- ction caufed your errour. 43. And thus hauing remoued fuch weak difficulties out of Difficulties the way (thought great ones in that 5th chapter) which to an remoued, we an vnwary Reader may feem to Obftrucl: the Catholick Refo- ^hRe/olu lution °f Fakh ' We wiH m the followIn§ Difcourfe, firft Pre- iim. ' m^e fome Principles much auailing to conceiue the eafieft Resolution , and next declare where the chiefeft difficulty lies which Mr Stillingf. has not done , and finally endeauour to folue Difc. j. C. 7. (Principles premifed to <&c. 545 folue it , without the leaft danger of any vicious Circle. After- ward we shall proue that Proteltants haue no Faith at all to rdblue. CHAP. VII. Nea/Jary Vrincipks premifed to the %efohtion of Faith. God can Speak in a Language proper to Himfelfe* His external language it twofold. When God f peaks not immed'tatlyylie muH be heard by his Oracle. What the exatl %ejolution of Faith imply es* 1, ""p* He firft Principle. God who is an Infinite verity J and {peak's not to ftones, can by a Diuine Langua- ge proper to himfelfe , fo make his interiour mind and fincere meaning known to rational creatures , that all vpon hearing His » *££* voyce may without hefitation indubitably, Say. Thus God ludges^ thu bt Speak's, which granted. All are obliged both readily and firmly to yeild allent to fo great a Maiefty for his own Authority. K The reafon hereof is clear. If God can Ipeak to Mortals , and ^ for this end that he be vnderftood , there arifes an obligation in euery one to belieue him without fear or doubt, Or in cafe it be impofTible after all humane induftry vfed, to learn whath£ ipeak's,none can abfolutely belieue him. 2. A. 2. Principle. Then ( and not otherwife ) this external Language is certainly known to come from God, when it is fpo- ken in his name , and fo fairely appear' s by its own Signatures, Luftre, and Wonders , to proceed from him, That all muft con- fers an infinite Goodnes cannot permit, either Diuel or falfe Zzz Prophet JiOW tkU Diuine Language ii known to proceai pom Cod ? By one Example, Geds imme- diate way of /peaking , it declared. The langua- ge known to proceed from God, And The way of Speaking by 546 Difc.j. C.7. Vrinciptes premifed to Prophet tovfe tile like way of Speaking, I mean by Signs pecu- liar to God , and Withal to vtter a falshood in his name : For were this poflible , we infringe the greateft Euidence which Chriilianity has, and mull: Say , though Chrift onr Lord and his- Apoftles Significantly fpake to all in God's name by their T»on- dtrSy and Miracles , Yet neither Iewes nor Gcntils could be obli- ged ( after a clear difcouery of them) to belieue that they were lent from God, To teach the world. 3; Now becaufe this external Language is- twofold , Firffc Vnuate and Immediate. 2. Pablick^ and Mediate* both for our better Satisfaction are to be declared. Concerning the firft. Imagin that one like another Mofes were in a Defert, and faw a Bush burn, yet not confumed, Drawing neer he hear's one Speak out of the flame, and Asking who it is? it is Anfwered. I am God that fpeakj , and command thee to belieue and deliuerto all what. I Say, And to Euidence that I am God, I fore-tel thee now things,, which shall happen in thy dayes. Belides thou shall fee thefe wonderful Signes to confirm this Truth^ that I Speak. Put thy hand, into thy bofome , it shall become leperous , and prefently pure again, Caft thy rod vpon the, ground I'll make it a Serpent, and without delay turn it into what it was before. And if theia Signs moue thee not, look into the next Thicket , there is one lies dead , b^rbaroufly flain by his Enemies , this man I will raife vp to life , and thy own eyes shall fee the. Miracle. For thefe wonders therefore , thou muft belieue, I am God who fpeak's, and know it belongs to my Prouidence not to permit fuch a fig- nalized. Language to pafle from me, vnlefsit were mine. Thus we baue Gods priuate and immediate way of {peaking. 4, Herevpon this retired man leaues his Solitude, goes abroad, and publisheth to all what he has heard and feen , but yet gain's no credit. He then tells his incredulous Auditors, God has fent him as a MelTenger to fpeak in his name , and proues his Com- miffion by working ftrange Wonders. He cures the fuk^tfpof- fcjfes Duals, raifcs the Deady which done , the moft obdurate hearts AfTent to what he teaches, and belieue he* is no Impoftor , but ., _ aMes- Difc. y C-7. tie %efohtion of Faith. 547 a MefTenger indeed fent from God , For none, as that Prince amongft the Iewes argued aboue. Iobn. 3. 1. can fay he comes from God , and work ilich wonders , vnlefs God be with hirru And this is God's publick way of (peaking by another. 5. A. 3. Principle. Whoeuer grant's that God can fpeak to man by an Oracle diftinft from himfelfe , mud alio (iffo ^fj//* great a Maiefty pleafes not to impart his truths immediatly ) hold it God^peak^s Obligatory,to hear the Mediate Language of that Oracle, where- nottmme- by God (peak's. ti**lj» 6.: Imagin now, you had an earned Seeker after Truth, a meer Stranger to Ghrift , yet thoughtful of a long Eternity, that look's about him, and is refolued to find out what Godhasfpo- ken by the beft Oracles. He read's Ariftotle , Plato , and the like ancient Philofophers, And ponders all moft diligently. What How k Zea. followes? Some few Sparks of light he finds there,butfo mix d bus Inquirer •with darknefs and errour, that the ill Luftre of it , lea ties him afte^ttuthp quite diflatisfied. Perhaps he may hope to learn more from Ma- *T9Cee u hornet's Alcoran. Worie Succels here. For no fooner has he the Book in his hands, but the impudent lies , the horrid Im- poftures, the filth and contradictions difcouered there, fo difquiet He meetrt his troubled foul, that be curies the Book, And rightly Conclud's fir (I with fo foul a language , could neuer come from God. Inquiring prophan 'Duu5" y qui moreouerwho this Mahomet was ? He learn's, he was a Coun- earmng terfeit, an Ignorant, an vnpure and m oft cruel man , onely pray- fable in this, that he owned One' God % Though he neuer ado- red him in Spirit and truth. 7. Thus much done , our Zealots Seeker , hears of a Book „, called the Holy Scripture , highly reuerenced by Chriftians. on tl} Hot He reads and reioyces , for now he meets with a language Scripture. befeeming God , graue , Simple .familiar , yet withall feriou<. The Doctrin and Preceps of the book appear alfo moll (acred, But one doubt occurr's Concerning the ftrange Miracles and wonders in the ^uhts old and newTeftament. So doth another in no few PaiTages,which 0Ultrr tliere Seem fo obfeure , that He vnderftand's them not. Howe- ver , by what is difcouered , moft happy Man were He , ^could Z z z 2. any J4-S DiTc J. C. 7. Principles premifeJ to any Afcertain him of the truth of all now perufed, And indubi- tably proue it to be God's own infallible word. He reek's ^' *n tnisre^es condition , He propofes the Doubts to one 6 *t 1 tj 'act ion. or more °^ Caluins followers , and Ask's how they proue the Scriptures Diuinity> They tell him the Queftibn is as imper- tinent, as if he should demand, how light my be known to be light, and not darknefs , white to be white, and not black. Much diuatisfied with the Anfwer , wholly as bad as that other Proof is,. jindrepairet taken from the priuate Spirit-, The inquifrtiue Perfon hailing to Catko- heard of a known Chriftian Society called Gatholicks, addreiles himfelfe to ibme of the learned among them who pretend to Speak in the name of Chrift and the Church , And allure him that God is the Author of Scripture. This yet reaches not home, and though it were further anfwered, the Church pofitmely tea- ches lb, yet he may iuftly demand. How we proue the truth of the Churches Testimony ? 9. Here whilft Sectaries are lllent, We proceed as the folita- ry Man did , and euidence God's own Language fpoken by one only Oracle. That is, We lay forth the Motiues mentioned aboue ,. which illuftrate the Church and moft prudently conuince, that God fpeak's by this Oracle. The Motiues are her vndeniable Miracles, the eminent Holinefs of life in thousands, the Sanctity Had'm anc* Vnity of her DocTrrin, witnefTed by the confent of lb many ownlanwa- different Nations rwho all agree, and will agree in one and the ge spoken lame Faith, to the end of Ages* We Add hereunto the Con- by the ftancy and fortitude of Martyrs , thofe admirable Conuerfions Church: ^0. Church has wrought y Her amplitude extended the whole world oner , and yet to giue more light, We Ask whether euer fince the firft Creation of things , fuch multitudes of Profeffors fo well vnited in one Faith , lb wife, fo learned , fo pious and virtuous, can be found in any other Religion not Catholick ? Who more exactly complied with the Law they liued vnder , or yeil- ded a readier Obedience to it , then thofe doe and haue done , that make Profefllon of the Roman Catholick Faith. The In- genuous man faith No, and the truth is manifeft* The Heathens fo Di(c 3. C7. the Refolution of F iuh. 5^ "b notorioufly tranfgrefTedthe Law of nature , that few and very :ew obferued it. During Moles Law the Church was but little, yet the Peoples fins were great, And if we compare the Learning, Wifdom, and Piety of the Iewes, with the eminent Knowledge, Virtue, and Piety of thole who profefs the Cathoiick faith, there is no Parallel. Mention modern Se&aries , diuorced from Chrifl uid his Church , what are they ? Men of yefterdavj truely Law- iefs , in a word a very fmali dilioynted company. Their Cri- :ical learning appeares in their Writings, and the virtue they ha- ae,is bed known by their works. Nothing hitherto of God's Language. I mean , no rational Motiues illuurate this Reli- gion No Motiues found in any other Reli- gion but tht Cnthohc k-. 10. Thus you fe Firft. How a Seeker after truth may by prudent Induftry learn , that the Do&rin contained in Scripture , is Gods own Sacred and Diuine word. But. 2. To be Allu- red hereof, an Infallible Oracle, euidenced by Supernatural Sig- nes is to atteft the Verity, for lb Prouidence has ordered , That God's o\\>n mo ft fublt me and Dtuin? language ym'ifl be conueyed to vs by mother more plain and eafy. The Motiues which illuftrate the Church are this plain exteriom Language; Induced by them, we hear the Church ipeak, And vpon her Teftimony belieue that other facred Language of God, deliuered in Holy Writ. 11. A. 4. Principle. The Refolution of Faith is then exact- ly made, when all the Caufes or conditions wherevpon it de- pends, are plainly laid forth, vntil we fall vpon the very laft Cau- fe or Motiueof our aiTent, giuen to the Diuine Retrelation. Brie- fly. The final Caule of belieuing is, that in this our short Exile ive Hue vrirtuoufly, as Faith requires , and after enioy eternal Happines. The material Cauie or Subiecl: of Faith is Man's ynderftanding. The intrinlick Formal caufe is no other but Faith it felfe , which as truely makes, a foul bflteuw<>> as vilion receiued in the ettna of the Eye^ denominat's it feing. Thus far there is no great difpute, nor much can be queftioned concerning the refolution of the very Formal Act of Faith ( as diftinguished from the Obtefttue ) which is made by a reflex Contemplation vpon Z z z 3 it, as, The lap ajfuranse giuen. what the 'Refolution of Faith implies, ? and when exact- ly made f 550 Difc.j. G7. TrinciplespremifeJto&c. it , as it tend's in to all thole caufes and Conditions , whereon that act depend's. The only difficulty therefore remaining , concern's the Formal extriniecal Motiue 5 which all Say is Gods Diuine Reuelation. 12. Now one Queftion may be. From whence haue we Catholicks greater afTurance , of our Doctrin , or why Say we That , that (land's firm vpon the Diuine Teflimony , and re- ie& the Arians and Protectants Do&rin as a Nouelty , or not built vpon the lame foundation , w hi 1ft all of vs pretend to "Scripture? The Arians (ay Chrift is not the higheft God. We ailcrt the contrary. Proteflants teach the Church is fallible. An eaf) dif. We the contrary. In rhis Oppolltion of Iudgements , who ficultj can certainly Define what God has fpoken ? To this (and it is the leaft of difficulties) we AnnYer. God who cannot deceiue has giuen lb many Diuine and manifest Signes , in behalfe of the reuealed Doctrin which the Church tea- ches , that none can Queftion the Truth , vnlefs he will either Soke* vpon fay . ^n inflnjte Wiiclom cannot declare his own Interiour pie That God min^ DY c^ear exteriour Signs ; Or which is worle ; That he cannot cheat has established an Oracle , and fet it forth with ftrange Su- the world. pernatural wonders , only to make a fair Appearance , though the final End be to cheat all that beiieue it. 13. Now here is the only Queftion. Whether thefe A- rians , or Proteftants , haue any better euidenced Oracle by more , (or equal) Signs and miracles , which teaches their Te- nets , then the Roman Catholick Church is , that Teaches ours. Could fuch an Oracle be euidenced , They might talk of the AfTurance of their particular Docirins , but till this be shown , which will neuer be, filence muft proue the vbeft An- ivver. CHAP. VIII. Difc. 3. C. 8. The main Difficulty in the &c. 55 1 CHAP. VIII. The main (Difficulty in the %efdution of Faith } P/u- pofed, What Connexion the Motiue* haue *fritb the Diuine %euelation i Of their weight and ef- ficacy. Gods o*ton Language not mutable by his Enemies* Faith transcends the certainty of all Mo* tines. The main Difficulty folueJ. Of our great Security in Helming Cod , Though "Vpe haue not Euidence of the Diuine Tejtimony, 1. HT He real Difficulty in this matter which Mr Stfl- 1 lingfleet hitt's not on , is ib common to all Chri- Tf,e Difficul* flians,that Sectaries are as much , yea more obliged to folue tyc0mmortr it , then the Catholicks. Thus I propole it. The kft Refo- to all, lution of faith , is made into this Obie&iue Truth. God bos reuealed the Incarnation (the like is of any other Diuine My- ^oae knows ftery) but the Reuelation appear's , and muft appear Obicure Evidently to him that belieues , For T'is neither its own Selfe-Euidence, the My fiery nor can be tuidtntly applied by any other Medium , eipecially tftbeTrmi. if the Motiues of credibility, haue not infallible connexion n~eV* with the Diuine Teftimony. Thus much flippofed , which none can deny, it followes , that the intellectual Faculty, when the - X* A%h- Reuelation is obicurely propoied , fraud's as it were houering, cu\t„% and cannot , for as much as yet appear's ? be more inclined to alTent infallibly , then to dillent. 2. If you Say , the Will after a full Sight of the UewU- Hons credibility * can determine the vnderftanding to alTent fuoer QmnU > or Infallibly , t'is Aiiiwered- This feem's impolTible.- Fir& 5JI Difc. 1;.C.%. The main (Difficulty in the Firft, becaufe the Motiues thereby the Obiect is made cre- dible, can fettle in vs no other iudgement , but This. God's Tejhwony and the thing attefted by it , are mod prudently thought to exift , or appear fo highly credible , that it is the greateft folly, not to belieue , But this Iudgement , you fe , neither rea- dies to the Vmtj of the Reuelation in it felfe , nor to the mat- ter reuealed , therefore Faith cannot as yet, be elicited. Tfo i„ 3. Again. The will cannot moue the vnderftanding to af- Seem's to &m to an obi eel: , Sub ration* vtri infalhbilis , vnder the Notion help nothing of an infallible Truth , vnlels manifeft reaibn firft conuinces the inthupartt. intellectual Power , that it Exifts , and is infallible. But all ctilar. j.]^ reafons preceding Faith , bring with them no fuch Conui- ction , for all are here fuppofed Fallible , Therefore if the vn- derftanding yeild's an infallible AlTent to that , which is not ra- tionally conuinced to be infallible , it proceed's temerarioufly , and doth more then it can do , for it goes beyond the limits of Prudence ; faying. This is infallibly fo , though it has no reafon to iud^e it infallible. The force of what is now faid , will beft The whole appear in this Syllogifm. A Truth (though really a truth) Pro- difficuhy pofed or reprefented , as obfeure , cannot moue the vnderftan- propefed m djng to an {nfaiijbie AlTent , but the Diuine Reuelation is ' ™ propofed and reprelented as an 'obicure truth , Ergo , it cannot moue the vnderftanding to an infallible AlTent. 4. To Solue this preffing Argument many learned Diuines afcribe, and Methinks moft reafonably , fo great an Euidence Tr r j t0 the Motiues of credibility , fo ftrong a connexion between went of Uay. them and the Diuine Reuelation , that it's impoflible to feparate nedDiuinti. what God has conioyned. Viz. The Truth of his Reuelation , from the euident appearance , or rather the real Exhibition of fo many glorious Miracles , fo much blood shedding for Chrift , fo great Sanclity , Such innumerable conuerfiom wrought vpon Millions Sec. Thefeand the like Signal wonders , taken atlogether, God can- not permit to be done in his name , and with all their Circum- ftances to confirm a Faith which tend's to no other end , but Holinefs of life and euerlafting happines, vnlels the Di- uine Difc. ]. C. 8. QZjfotutton of Fiitk 55$ nine Teftimony were really in Being ., as thefe Signs con- Uince- . Where m f. To illuftrate more this necefTary Truth, be pleafed to th« force of •conilder a little , wherin the weight of our Church Motiues chura-Mo- •lies , and firft behold them as they are Pofitiues Signes , Mira- tiues lies, cles , Sanctity , Conuerfions fo pofttine , that neither lew nor Gentil can deny one of them. 2, Carry well in mind this ne- gatiue Truth alio. The H>ant of Arguments to the Contrary. I would Say 5 Nothing like a rational Proof can be alleged a^- gainft them , but what ecjually difcredit/s the admirable Wonders of Chrift,and hie Apdftles. Add herevnto. 3. That no So- ciety of men , be they Heathens , Iewes , or Hereticks haue ki^ *herto shewen \>r shall hereafter shew Signes Comparable to tbefe in confirmation of any do&rin appoike to that ^ wfeich the Catholick Church teaches. 6. From what is here hinted at > and the Principles already c*&ie*t*. laid , I Difcourfe farther. God can (peak to creatures in a Lan- wf VP**{ guage worthy himfelfe , and fo proper to his own great Ma- tytheDtuel, ieily , that no falfe Prophet can forge , counterfeit ., or perfectly or any fdfi imitate it. The A'flertion feerns manife'ft , For if his own Lan- Frcfket. guage be forgeable , or imitable by Enemies , It is impofll- ble to judge by any Sign, whether he, or the Diuel fpeaks. Nay , it followes clearly , that God Cannot fpeak at all in a Language worthy himfelfe , or powerful enough to gain Belief , For if His voyce be not distinguishable from that of an Enemy , How Shall men yeild a furer AfTent to God when He ipeaks , than to an Impoftor that Ipeak's like him? 7. Thus much fuppofed , thefe two tilings follow meuitably, church M$: and in right Order. Firft. Something is certainly iignified by imuj. cer- thefe Marks , and fignal Motiues manifeft in the Church , an ned to be his. Contrary wife, if you lay The whole Aggregation of Motiues are a meer illufory language of God's profeiled Ene- mies , you vndoe all , you deltroy the Euidence of Chriftianityy you annul our Sauiours mod glorious Miracles, and render the Apoftles admirable wonders, not only infignificant , but contem- tible tolewesand Gentils. Let therefore the man appear in pur bjick who dare boldly Allen:. All the iQufinous Motiues and mar- ines of the Catholic k. Church ( which, as I laid certainly fignify fome-* thing) are the Language of Diuels , or falfe Prophets , when it is euident they induce to belieue a Doctrin moft Pious and facred.. If you Affirm, Chriftianity goes to wrack. Say no , or acknow- ledge fuch fupernatural Signes to proceed from God, we haue enough , the very Luftre of ithem fo dilcountenances and abashes Herely that it appears, as t truely is, in the higheft meafure im- probable. 8. Hence we feefT'is thefecond inference, .and' the chiefenV thing I aymat) an infeparable Connexion between thefe fuper- natural Signet, &nd the thing fignified , I mean between the Motiues' and the Dkiine Reuelation : For if it be certain , that fuch Signes proceed from God (which is indubitable , vnlefs either Diuel or falfe Prophet fourge them) None can doubt , but that God's in-- teriour Reuelation actually exift's>as the Motiues Morally Eui- dent, do Conuincei 9. t You will Say ,.If the Motiues haue an Infallible Conne- xion with Gods internal Reuelation, that very Reuelation , and Confequemly the Myftery Reuealed , muft alfo appear euident in Themfduts , to all Belieuers, And lb faith would be Euident. Ideny the Confequence, becaufe the AlTent giuen to that Conne- xion, which implies the higheft Moral certitude conceiuable vn- der the degree of moft ftricl Euidence , is Science and not Fattb , Font faies no more but thus much. The Diuine Reuelation, not feen in it Selfe , but only by the light of external Signs , is , by virtue q£ thefe Signes^ made eutdetitly Cttdible> Now this euidence, Faith* The nature Difc. 3. Q 8. {Rjfolution of Faith. 555 Si Vaith leaues,Or laies aiide, And firmly adheres to the Diuinc Reuelation only for it Selfe , as Conrradisltncl both from the Moral Euidence of the Motiues, and their apparent Connexion with the Rcuelation. 10. The reafon is taken from the Notion of Faith, which es~ fentially tends obfcurely vpon its own Obiect, as the mod ancient Fathers affert, whofe words , becaufe known to Euery one,»I waue at prefent, and will only mind you of what fome Proteftants ^ teach. F4/ffr,Saies one> and the Ttoi~ltgbt feem to agree in this Properly, thai a mixture of dartyefs is requifite to both; Tvith too refulgent light, ^dtTnUen- the one vanishes two ^r.oivledge-, as the other into day. Thus much ^ 0f€aitha granted, t'is clear , thatno Euidence of the Teftimony ailented to> can moue to Faith , not only becaufe we should in the cafe of Euidence be neceffitated to belieue, But vpon this account alio, that the certitude of Faith, taken from the Supreme/} Verity , is of a higher Strain, and far furpaiTes all the certitude we find in Nature, or in the Motiues inducing to belieue : For were it poflible, as it is not, that thefe Motiues , and all the preuious Proofs leading to Beliefe, could deceme, it is yet^more iinpoflible., thu God's in- The excel, finite Vtraat) deceiues any* Now by Faith , we lay hold vpon this unceofit mod Supreme, ox, All-comprehending Infallibility proper to God alone, fmpajfes aS not communicable to any creature. And in this, fenfe , Faith created Cer- far tranfeend's the Certitude of the forementioned Connexion, tttH * which is known to be Infallible by Natural Difcourfeonly. 11. It is true , The more euident thefe Motiues appear the better they induce to belieue , yet for that reafon haue leife to doe with the very act of Faith , which as I fayd ., reft's vpon , and laies claim to no lower a Verity then the moft pure and Supreme only, And if it reft's not here, it is no Faith. I fay, Supreme and Pure , and for this reafon alfo, we ex- . •elude the connexion between the Motiues and Diuine Reuelation , vpaotu*" from the Formal obiect of Faith, becaufe the Connexion implies moft pure a Complexum , or Mixture of two things knolvn Scientifically , and andfupretns therefore is vnmeet to ground Faith. One may replie. The Verity* exteriour words of Scripture taken with the Diuine Teftimony Aaaa 2 are The fame thing known and btlteued how tttf fr«# God by Fatth, Church Motiues proncd gjfUatiiUS, AU Collec- tively t iken, mojl L.on- uincing* 5^56 Difc. 3. C 8. The main (Difficulty in the are Obie£ts of Faith, therefore thefe Motiues allented to vpon the lame Ttftimony can, alio terminate Faith , For we all. belieue that the Church is Holy and Vniuerfal. Anfw. Very true, be- caufe the fame thing can beSntum & Creditum, both known and belieued vpon different Motiues, known by (he force of reafon, which Cee^ the Connexion between the One and the Other, and belieued alio vpon pure Reuelation. Thus we know the Exi- gence of God by the works manifeft in nature f and withall be- lieue it vpon his own fole word, or the Diuine Teftimony- 12. Vpon thefe Principles we Aniwer to another Obiedion, To belieue, Say fome , is to truft God whom? we belieue , which is iuipoiTible ,.if his outward words, or exteriour Signes be ne- eelTarily connexed with his interiour fpeaking, For, how can we truft, when an abfolute AiTurance , is had of his Teftimony fc Anlw:This is done veryeaiily, when the AfTurance giuen isex- trinfecal to the Teftimony, and far inferiour to the Supereminent Infallibility of God that fpeaks. Now this Motme only, and no leffer certitude ground's fupernatural Faiths In a word we truft, becaufe we tranfcend all created Certitude and rely vpon the mofi Supreme Verity,. by an Obfcure AlTent of Faith. 13.. Others, Obiecl:. J. We fuppofe all this while, the Mo- tiues inducing to belieue more perfoafiue and eificacious, then can be euinced by reafontFor why may not God feparate th< exteriour appearance of a Miracle from the reallity of it,An< So permit the Diuel to delude vs all? I Anfwer, 1. This Cri- ticifm firft reuerfes the moft glorious Miracles which Chrift euei wrought. I Aniwer.. 2. Though the appearance and reallity of a Miracle be feparable, yet the euident Signes of Sanctity mani- feft in innumerable , The Euident Appearance of whole Nations conuerted to the Catholick Faith, are infeparably conioyned with the reallity of interiour Sanctity, and real interiour conuerfions. Now in the weighing thefe Motiues, One is not to be thought of fiugly , but pondered with the reft ; Altogether indubitably euince, that God ipeak's by them: Or if you Still Deny, Say I befeech you5 whofe language they are? I Aniwer 3. The abfoiute. Difc J. C 8. 1{cfohtion of Faith 557 ©bfblute Power of God cannot permit (If He pofitiuely intend's not to lead all into errour) That a falfe Miracle be wrought and done in his name , to confirm a Doctrin fuitable to his Good- nes , and the increafe of Holynefs. In this Cafe therefore, The Miracle muft be real without guile and deceipt , For were this coufenage poflible , God could haue no language proper to Him- felfe,. Contrary to what is already proued. Thus much premi- sed. 14. We are to folue the Difficulty another way, perhaps more plain and eafy, And therefore diftinguish with Diuines , aTi*'of9ld certitude m euery ad of Faith. The one (called /be Cer- titude of InfaUtbtltty) iarifes from the fupernatural Principles which- concurr to the very act of Belief, Andthefe not liable to errour,. can neuer operate but when the Diuine Reuelation really is. This certitude may be had , though we no more experience or know it by any reflex Confideration, than One who isi directly moued by the Holy Ghoft to write a Truth, need's to know that he is diuinely aflifted;. And it implies not only the meer Truth of the A3, but moreouer an infallible Determination to truth 5 The other called . Certttuiio adbtfionis : or a firm Adhefion belongs to the Belieuer,. and is not grounded on Euidence,as it fall's out in Science, but vpon moft prudent Motiues propofed to R,ealon ( which clearly difcouered ) the Will by her pious Affection commands, and determins the intellectual Faculty to AfTent in- dubitably, For, enrdt credit ur ad iuftmam. Row. 10. The Heart or Will can thus further and incline the mind to yeild , when t is euident credrble , that God fpeak's , and eternal Saluation de- pend* s vpon an a/Tent, which is giuen without fear or hefita- tion. 15. S. Bonauenttire eminent for Sanctity and Learning. 3. D'tftmct. 23. art. 1. Qveff. 4. /peak's moft pertinently and pro- foundly to my prefent purpofe. Eft ctrtmdo fpeculatior,U , & ift certttudo adbtfionu dec. ihere is > Saith he , a fpecuUuue certt' tude and a certitude of adhefion , or of cleauing faft to what we Eelieue. The frft has refped to the intellclual po Hw , the other to Aaaa $ iH God t an not cheat any by a falfe Miracle. The Diffi- culty joined another way A twofold' Infallibility explained. The he art or willfurthen our Affenh S. Bona***, tnre. Both dear}y dijlinguiihfi and. Explains this twofold teftUibilny. Taith noSpe- chlatiue ope- ration. Heretic ki without Mo tjues , ajfent tofoolertes. IThat force the will bath. 5 5.8 Difc. 3 . C 8. The main difficulty hi the the pie m Ajftclion of the M/. if Ke fpeak^ of this firm adbefton , it is far grtater in faith , then in Science , becaufe faith makes \fim that be- lieitts note certainly to adhere to the truth reueuledytben Science doth, to any thing hno^n. Hence Tve fe , that men trudj faithful , cannot by Arguments Tor went i , or mtictments be inclined to deny tn Words a bel eued Verity , Which none tn bis toil* Drill doe for a thing he kjioWes , vnlejs it be vpon this account that faith dictates , he u uot to lye, Siultus etiam effet Gtomctra ere. A Geometrician irould be very vnWi(e9Hbo for any certain Condufion frould vmlergoe- death (as thoufands baue done for their faith). Wberut it is that one truly Faithful , though highly learned iu natural knowledge , Would rather loft it all y then deny one only Article of Fa th , fo ftrtmg is his adbe- fion to truib bdimed. What this great Dodlor Aiferts , need's no further Probation , For if it be certain (as all confefs) that Faith is no fpeculatiue knowledge grounded purely vpon Euidence, (diicouerable in the Diuine Reuelation) it mull of neeelTity be a practical Aifent in order to the ejfefts noV> mentioned, of fuf- fering, and dying for Diuine Reuealed Truths, when occafion •is offered : Now that fuch an AlTent may be elicited vpon Pru- dent Motiues has no difficulty , whilft we fe condemned Here- tiques by mecr pcrtinacy y Co Stiflyfailened.ro their Errours wi- thout Motiues , that it is very difficult to make a Diuorce be- tween Hereiy , and their Phaiifies. 16, One may obieel: firft. The vnderitanding cannot pra- ctically AlTent to a thing as indubitably true by any Command of the Will , when this Power is vtterly vnable to change the nature of Motiues , or to make them appear otherwife then they are , That is , highly Probable , yet vncertain. I Anfwer (to omit that Hereticjues without Motiues , pertinaciously alTent to meer fooleries) The Will can with another Help (whereof more pre- fently) Supply the inefficacy of thofe intellectual Lights , which prudently euince this truth. It is ettidently credible that God [peak's by the Signs laid before mee. God's peculiar Language , his Seal and Signature appear more clearly tn thefe Euidences , than in any Princes •commtfion fen: we , When I fee his oWn Seal and Hani Writing. O, but Difc. }.C. 8. In the one cafe fiords are euident , And I haue with them fome degree of moral certainty concerning Truth , In the other ; I haue infallible certainty of truth (If God (peak's) and the higheft moral Ailurance imagi- nable of his ipeaking , before I belieue. 15). It followes. z. That Euidence in the formal Obiecfc aiTented to , is inconfiftent with Faith, which implies a prudent, . and withall a moll: infallible practical AfTent in order to an different apprettattut Efteem of the Mull , and thofe effects , mentioned by S. from Science Bonauenture. Therefore it is of a quite different nature from Science , whofe tendency is Speculatiue , and fees clearly the Obiecl: aflented to. But I know fome wiH yet require further Satisfaction in this hard matter. I shall endeauour to comply with their wish , in the next Chapter, CHAP. IX. The Tbbble Trogrefs of Faith explained in order to its lajl %efolution. Of that which the Fathers Call the light of Faith* Its wholly diffe- rent from SeSlaries friuate Spirit. From whence Faith hath Infalli- ble Certainty. ObieElions Solued. 1. TP Aith faith the Apoftle. Row. 10. 17. Comes by Hearing, Taith cm* JF Again. V. 14. HoM> shall they hear without a Preacher} hj hearing. But hoto shall they preach vnUfi they be fent ? All then muft hear the Diuine Verities and belieue what they hear taught , by men lawfully fent to preach. Now becaufe God has been pleafed to Difc, £• G* 9. Ttf Order to Its %e]oht\on. 561 to fpeak by different Oracles , anciently by his Prophets, by Chrift our Lord , his Apoftles ., and finally by the Church ( ail together make vp but one School as it were of Diuine learning ) His Onegreat whole endeauour euer was in all ages to haue this truth Taught Truth to be by thefe Oracles, viz. God is the Author of the Doftrins to hub all beard. an obliged to belieue , and to make thus much highly Credible , He neuer fent as I laid aboue, Prophet^ Apoftle, or Chnsl htmfelf to teach , but iointly Authorifed them to show the Royal Signes and Seals of his own Soueraignity, Miracles I mean , and other Supernatural wonders , whereby they were proued commifiioned Oracles, to fpeak in the name of God. 2. To our prefent purpofe therefore. None can belieue, What**! vnhfs he he>ir. Which is to Say : That Via ordmaria before the ceJfart}f Hearer elicites Supernatural faith , a natural Proportion of the \a^ Myftery reuealed , neceiTarily precedes that AfTent. Yet more, a natural He that Teaches is not barely to Say. Vnhjfe you yeild affent , proportion you irttt be damned, But he muft alio propound fome Motiue of °ftloe prudent credibility with the Myftery, which Motiue , fo far -h^'M furpalTes all the Power in nature , that it manifeftly appear's to tim a^ous be God's work, or his own vnimitable language, as is already the power tf noted. Nature. 3. Befides it is not fufficient that the Preacher tell's vs,, God is the Author of his Doctrin , clearly confirmed by Miracles, but he is to make the AiTertion morally certain either by wor- king a Miracle Himfelfe, as Chrift and the Apoftles did , or in want of that , to bring in ftrong Arguments and witneiTes, whe- Mtr*letdm reby it may appear, fuch fupernatural Wonders haue been done , nce ^ to confirm that God is the Author of his Do&rin. Now this wme*>eK Moral euidence by witneiTes , is equiualent to the feing of Mi- racles done before our eyes , which fall's out in all euidence called Moral, For I am now no lelTe allured by mod credible witneiTes that Cardinal Altieri was elected Pope of Rome, then if I had been prefent at his Election. After this natural Propo- rtion made of any Diuine Myftery , fome apprehenfions of its Verity ( or credtbtlit] rather ) eafily follow in the Hearer , which alfo arc natural. Bbbi* 4, Thus 56* Difc. }. C 9. TbeTrcgrcfs of faith y 4. Thus much done by the Preacher, One defirous to learn Thefrudtnt truth difcourfes, and perceiues Co great a Concern as Saluation judgment depend* s vpon his belieuing the Myfteiy propoled, that at laft , ofLredibiU* he is brought to this prudent Iudgement of credibility. Godcan- V- not deceiut the "toorld by fuck exteriour Signs, 4S are here proposed by this Preacher y therefore I ought 111 prudence to yeild my Ailent,and belieue. Now here enters another Principle, wholly neceflary to make Faith certain, which may well be called the tail heating of Gods Voice, or hit powerful Inuttation to belieue with full certitu- GoiVipo- de , and it confifts in an interiour illuflration of Grace imparted trtrfulmm- to ^ foul, whereby the Obiect of Faith with its credibility, is tat ton to represented another Tvay, more clearly then before , yet To, that no My- ftery is feen euidently. 5. Herevpon, the Will preuented with diuine Grace beginV The will to work by her Pious affection , after that preuious iudgement preueatedby had of the Myfteries Credibility, and the interiour Diuine illu- gr ace Com- ftration, which is the laft fpeaking of God to a Belieuer. The man 5, will therefore affedtioned to the Happinefs propounded , moues Theinnllec- trie vnderftanding to elicite molt certain Faith , super omnu. The TbelTlnd Vnderftanding Obey es , and forthwith belieues by an infallible lelicues. ' Affent the truth of the Myftery , though not (hen euidently. 6. Hence you fe , This infallible AlFent proceed' s from a Twofold Voice of God, Firft from the Motiues preuious to Faith, TheTwcfild whereby its euidently credible that God fpeak's, though the •voiceofGed Motiues were fallible y Butthe laft Voice of his Diuine illumi- nation, which reprefeins the R'euelation more indubitably than meer Motiues can doe, takes all doubt away, And we come to an abfolute certitude in Faith , vpon this interiour facrecf language of God, called by the Fathers , Alt a Ooclnnaya high learning. The Ufl m- CaUfiis Dottrtna, The Language of heauen, which opened Lydias voice called h-eart. Aft. 16. 14. And made her to attend to fuch things as highlear- 5. Paule deliuered. And might I here fpeak a word in paffing, "*£ I can auouch in all Chriftian Sincerity , rhat treating with many reconciled to our Catholick Faith^Ihaue heard lorn e Ssy (and it was a lingular comfort to me ) that fuel) Miracles , fo firangt Cwuu- Difc. j« C. 9. 7« Order to its Refoluf ion. j6j -€ovuerftonsy as the Catholick Church has made, ff^r / The Saint Anfwers. Intus vttq^ ™ar, y mibii intus in Domtcilto Cogitationis Sec. InWatdly, Where my moil fe- tret thoughts d\t> ell, Truth verily fpoken not in HelreW, Greek , L6. 44. N< The illuftration giues more light , and driues doubt away. Is the Divine Teftimony , meerly confide- red according to its outward proposal, obfeure \ The Uluftra- tion add's new clarity to it , and makes Faith moft certain , yet ftill without Euidence. Et ego flatim cettus ; And by virtue of this light, I fay confidently with S. Auftin , what I belieue , is infallible true. jo. Tollluftrate yet more this neceffary Point (I fpeak to Carho- Difc. $. C. 9. In order to its %efohtton. 565 Catholicks (Sectaries will not hear me). Read rhe Angelical Do- ctor. V. Thomo4.z. 2. qaeft.2. a, 3. Where as his manner is , He obiect's. It is dangerous to giue an alTent to things when we know not, whether that which is Propofed be true or falfe, as it feem's to rail out in matters of Faith. Ad. 2. he Anfwers. As man by his natnral Ugbt Ajftnt's to natural Principles , (0 the vir- The Angeli* tuotu man by the Habit of Faiih rightly iudges of Tbbat belongs to c^^ootori that Virtue , And therefore , per lumen Fidei diuimtm injufum , By the light of Faith dmwtly infixed , he aflents to the Myfteries. S. Vincentius Ferrerius alfo in his Sermon , vpon the funday within the Oclaue of the Epiphany , pondering our Sauiours An- fwers to the Doctors Queftions in the Temple , (peak's- to. our S.vinccwhu purpofe and very iigniricantly. Chrifts words , Saith he^ veme* ^rd$, con- bant ad Cor Doclorum cum lumine , came to the hearts of thole- J0****8* Doctors ytith light , and they Said. O verum dicit. The Child (peal(s Truth* Again. Chnftus loquebatur Diuina virtute , Chrift fpake with a Diuine virtue , and all the Doctors vnderftanding him , afTented. Pro crrro verum dicit, Moll: certainly he fpeaks truth. Thus. S. Vincentius. 11. The Principle whereon this Do<5trin relies, All muft admit. Viz. That an act of Faith is wrought in a Soul hy Taith * the operation of God's Spirit , and therefore the Holy Ghoft mgrk °f^je muft not be excluded from that work, which none can doe °'2 °* ' but He. Now what we AfFert in this parcicular , is , that the infallible certainty of faith comes from this interiour Illumi- nation , as it more liuely fet's forth the formal Obiect alFen- ted to , or help's to a clearer Propolal of the Diuine Myfte- ries. ii. And thus in a word we haue the whole Progrefs of faith in this prefent State , explained. Firft , a natural Propo- (ition of the Myfteries precedes : This beget's a natural ap- prehenfion of their Credibility. After fome consideration , the- re may arife an imperfect ludgement of Credibility : Bur , should the Will offer as yet, to incline the mind to AlTent only vpon what appear's hitherto , it could not moue to a Bbbb 3 Faith . /- time. W lite , can am, than all the Reafon or knowledge in this , Humane knowledge dcriues is mhiled , whereof the foul is Recipient. The will now after other P reparatives, thus (trengthn'd a new , command's boldly the vnderftanding to Affent vpon the fafeft Principles imagina- ble. Viz. Vpon God's infallible Reuelation accompanied n>uh his oJirn Diuine light , which makes Faith to grow .higher in cer- tainty to. For as S. Thomas obferues its Certitude from Mans natural Reafon , which may Err , but Faith has its infallibility , Esc lumine Dtutna Cctent'A from the light oi Gods dmine wifdom , which cannot deceiue , and therefore is mod certain. 13. Some may Oppofe. In this Difcourfe of the Diuine illuftration, we feem to fauour Hereticmes, who talk much of their light. It is a ftrange Obieclion , Saith F. Granado. Con- trol*. 1. de Fide. Trad. 1. D. j. Whilft all acknowledge this Light to be , Gratia per Chriftum , a Supernatural grace purchafed by our Sauiour , which raifes vrs aboue the force of natural Prin- ciples , and moues to belieue molt firmly , And the Motiue is pthe Diuine ReueUti&n it Selfe , mueftcd or appearing , in God's o\vn Dmine Illuftration. To what is pleaded in behalf of Hereticks, I Anlwer. Hereticks talk euery whit as much of their Faith, as of their Light. Do we therefore agree with them in faith, becaufe they Say , theirs is as diuine , as ours ? No certainly. For the like found of words , implies neither the fame real- lity of things , nor any agreement at all. Why then should we fauour the light they pretend to , which like their faith, is a meer illiriion , and no more fymbolizes with the Illuftra- tion of Catholicks , then their faith doth with true Faith? 14. I ground my Adertion on thefe three Principles. S. Paul Saith firft. So man can belnue vnlefje hee Wear's, nor bear "Without a Preachei , Therefore in this prefent ftate of things, .in exteriour Humane Proposition of the Diuine Reuelation necef- Difc. 3. C. 9* In order to its \efolutton. 567 necefTarily precedes the true light of Faith, and that light is The Vreten. not giuen to belieue , via or dinar i a , vnleiTe one authorized to ded light of Preach in God's name , Propofes the Reuelation fuitable to Herett^s the natural way of hearing other Verities, by our fenfes , Una- J™^"* ginatwi , and humane vnderjfanding , Otherwife,that would be pof- fible which the ApofUe makes impofTible. Viz. To hear and belieue Without a Preacher. Now further none can be a fit Mi- nifter to propound the Reuelation , but he that makes his Propofition good by a Miracle , or fome ftipernatural wonder, otherwife a meer Impoftor,may as well gain credit by Saying he fpeak's God's truths , as the very beft of the Apoftles. But no Proteftant , is able to doe thus much ? none of them all can fay with truth. God has rtuealed my particular Doclrtn, virQberaufe add Seal that very exteriour Proportion with a Miracle, As none oft htm euery Preacher in the Catholick Church can do , Therefore can propound the illuftration he pleads for is meer Phanfy , and nothing thetr Do' , r J ' ° fain , t#* 1 ^ Again , and here is my fecond Principle grounded alio u &,**!•»** vpon the Apoftles words, UoV? shall they Preach vnleffe they be tnral Sign*. fent. Which is to fay. He only is fit to Propofe Gods Di- uine Reuelation , who proues himfeife comrniffioned to Preach, by Supernatural Signcs and indubitable Miracles , For thus Chrift our Lord lent by his eternal Father, thus the Apoft- les fent by Chrift , and the Church euer fince (all shewing Wonders aboue the force of Nature) proued their Million j withall euinced, That God only impowred them to teach as they did. Now here is the main point we vrge. Could the Pro- tXheyh/m teftant, who. certainly neuer yet wrought one induoitable Mi- no commif- racle to countenance his Doctrin , giue in Euidence by iome ^ontotsac^ one or other Miraculous work , That an Oracle- fent him to teach , He might fpeak more boldly , But this being impofTi- ble , The light he pretend's to , is iuft like his doctrin , An Sig- tm fatum , vain and void of all reallity. 16. 3. Our latter Proteftants feem to attribute no other sertainty to the very act of Faith , then what is moral , and nece£ X.T'ueir Faith being only moral and fallible, Cannot Proceed from the Holy Ghofl. The Catho- Uc I: s faith rno fleet tain, A harder Difficulty. ?r of o fed by m Scclary, 568 Difc. ?, C. neceifarily confequcntto much 9. The Trogrefs cffaitb. humane fallible Ratiocination , we elicit, when we fay C&jat or ijompey is a Humane fallible Ratiocination . T ike to the AfTent haue been in the world. If this Dodfcrin be defenflble , its im- polite to declare, how either Faich it felfe , or the illustration preuious, can proceed from the Holy Ghofl; For did the Spirit or God work with a Soul, when it belieues , The certainty of Faith , would without all doubt , goe beyond that affurance which is only humane, moral, and fallible. Now wee Say quite contrary, That Faith is an ablblute Infallible fupernatural Aiient, whereby all ought to adhere to Myfteries moil profound, or aboue all humane Reaibn, And confequently, we deriue its ccr- titudefrom God's Infallible Revelation, wuefted in his ofrn Dunne li$br, and readily return him a double Obedience of our whole interiour,of the Will, and Vnderftanding together, and belieue mod vndoubtedly. 17. One may Obiect. 2,. As none can dilcern true Gold from another mettal very like it, vnlelTe there appear's in the Obiects fome real Difference, fo it is impoilible to dilcern a true Reuelation,from one meerly apparent, or ftlfa by any Diui- ne light , vnleiTe there be an Obie&iue diuerflty or difcerr.ibtltty difcouerable between them, which cannot be aligned. 18. This Obiection ( propofed by no Sccfarie) is to the Pur- pole. To folue it, I muft remind you of that Solitary Man Com- miiTioned to preach, after his Villon had in a defert place, who goes abroad , tell's what he had heard and feen in his own natural Language , But gains not belief. He vfeth another Idiotilm , Speak' s in Gods name, and as one fent from God ought to ipeak, That is, he euidences his Million by fupernatural Signes , work's Miracles , or proues them wrought in confirmation of his Dodhin ; All now adore him as a Prophet , All belieue. This Language fome Diuines rightly call an extrinfecal Form of fpeech, which is Supernatural Quoad moduw , becaufe it contain's wonders done aboue the force of nature, and proceeds from the Faith of him that teaches , as alio from the Belief of the whole Church befides. Pleafe to obferue. As mans natural fpeech, is apt to Difc. 3. C. 9- In Order to its fijfolution e Incarnation of the Hoi) Goft, inuefted in. all andeuery due Supernatural circumftance , requifite to be- lleue a reuealed Truth. Something appertaining to God's ex- teriour Language , and the natural preuious Proportion , whe- reof we haue now fpoken (though both Miracles and Miffion be falfly pretended ) will euer be wanting. You fe. 2. That when two Myfteries are propounded together, the one falle , the other true , both in the fame natural manner, neither of them contains A fufficient propofal Inductiue to fupernatural Faith , nor can God according to ordinary Prouidence,giue his Grace to belieue in fuch Circumftances , whilft the Preacher abufes his function 9 and teaches things he was not fent to teach. The langua- ge of God , whether exttriour, or mteriour Carries with it , Us own difcer~ mbilhy. Two Infe- rences dedu- ced from this Doftria* Cccc CHAP. X- j/O Difc. J.-C. 10. "the Refoluticn of Faith. CHAP. X The ea/teU Way of refolding Faith , Laid forth in t^o tPropo/itions. The euidence of Credibility- further de- clared. Sectaries ham no Euidence of Credibility. It is as euidently Credible that God nolo /peak's by the: Church , as that He did anciently Speak by the Prophets. k *Tp He firft Propofitibn; Faith which comes by exte- ln u what 1 riour Hearing is refolued into the fir ft Verity , fpea- faith is king by one or more lawfully fent to preach, who proue their refolued i J^iffion , and make their Do&rin euidently credible-, by Signes both prudent and fupernatural. You haue in this Aflertion firft , Faith's Formal Obiecl (God's increated verity) Specified. You* haue. 2. the Appendants reejuHite to beget Faith briefly hinted at, whereof more prefently. Zi If therefore any Ask why we belieue this or that Diui- Omm& ne Myfteryj The Incarnation for example? Some AnnVer the the fame belief is grounded vpon vnwritten, or Apoftolieal Tradition -7 Anfwer Others vpon the words of Scripture , others finally recurr to nmmd by tne churches infallible Teftimony. All of them fpeak but one and the fame thing, compriied in thefe £cw words. GodSatthit » Ttho cannot err , fpeaking by One or more , lawfully ient to- Preach. p Inquire again. But from whence haue we Aflurancethat God has laid the Diuine word was made flesh , for the Doctrine U vs , is neither Euidently true , nor Fuidently falfe 2 I Anfvver God Hlmfelfe giues infallible Affurance hereof, And who can Difc. 3. C. ic. The ftjjolution of Faith. 571 v,nwhat Ao that better then He > Here Faith precifely confidercd , as an Verity Fsitk intellectual Affent, finally reft's 5 Info much that if you mul- &*>*+** tiply demand's to the world's end, mo other Anfwer can be retur- ned but this only, Eternal Truth bos (aid it , or reiuaU that he All further Speak!* this Vmtj. All further Queftions propofed and replies An/ipers giuen , though different in found are really Synonimal. The ™t>«tmcntt reafonis, becaufe the laft Motiue of Faith can haue none be- theReafin fore it Selfe , for to run on in Infinitum with Motiues and flop hertor .no where, is to make no Refolution at all. 4. I know a Heathen Philofopher may abufe the Senie of the Apoftles words, i. Cor. u 18. And fay we -now preach foolery |?*Pr^j indeed, Gsntibus Stultttia. For what can be more dcuoid of rea- m the nAme Ton, then to belieue moa infallibly., whilft the mind yet in dark- <,f a nefs doth fo, hauing by the very act of Faith.no euidence why it Heathen, bdiiues Infallibly. I Propole this Obiecxion in the name of a Hea- then, for no Chriftian, whether Sectary or other, can vfe it, be- caufe Chriftian Dodrin teaches , that none can be .faued. without Faith, which as I now faid , is neither Euidentlj true , nor Evi- dently falfe, ex Ter minis , Therefore ail that belieue p are ineuita- b\y cafl vpon a neceflity of chilling a Doctrin whereby Salua- tion may be attained, though it be not like the firft Principles in nature , its own Selfe- Euidence. f . Now to iatisfy the Heathen and quiet a mind too in- quifitiue after Euidence, both haue what they ask, Euidence enough-, ; not of the Truth of the Myfteries in tbemfelues^Fot as on the Itiinett^ oneiide, it is not meet that Gods -great Maieity should im- t0 Ju$t mr part fuch an euidence (who I hope may keep the like diftance numobat* from his Creatures, as Great Monarchs do when they intimate euidence of their Command's by only shewing the Seal and fiqnes of Soue- the Mjfi*- raignity to fubiecte ) So on the other iide i it is not fit that man rteSt haue euidence of the Myfteries , becaufe it is incompatible with a perfect Subie&ion , with that merit and Obfequiousnefs which T^e n*t* God requires of his rational Creatures, who are to walk to erecS* heauen by an humble and dutiful Faith , or shall neuer come thither, Cccci 6. And Theperuer-t Tiejs of A- theiHical Spirifls. Zuidente of Credibility enough. The Appea« ranee and Credibility tftrueChri* (lianitj. 572 Difc 3. Cio. The%efolutiono} FaitB. 6. And here by the way we may iuftly admire the Sau- cinefs of fome half Atheiftical Spirits , who find themfelues puzzled in the fearch of the moft obuious things in nature (none of them can lay how , or by what , one poore flies wing is knit together) yet will forfooth , haue God to giue Euidence of his own deep Secrets (the greateft Myfteries of grace) or Cannot beliene. Experience teaches , how prompt' and ready euery good Subietfc is to obey his Prince , at the leaft beck, fignc , or iniinuation of his will, Though the In- timation carries not with it ftrick euidence , yet in this mat- ter of mans Submiflion to God ,. when both his glory and our eternal Welfare are Concerned , innumerable ftand ho- uering and doubtful , Queftioning whether God requires firm Faith from them , And why f Becaufe an Euidence luitable to their fancy feem's wanting. 7. Humour once fuch a Curiofity or giue them a greater light of Euidence, the next thing required will be , that God interiourly teach all by Himfelfe , without Church , Paftors , Doctors , or any. And if this femes not the turn , He muft either pleafe to open the Heauens at a call , and (once a year at leaft) vilibly inftru6t them , or there is no drawing fuch Spi- rits , out of a fiate of Incredulity, I Say contrary , the Euidence of Credibility apparent in thofe manifeft Signs and marks which illuftrate true Chriftianity (a great mercy of God he gi- ues fo much of it) is abundantly fufficient to induce the moft obdurate heart in the world to belieue with fuch an AfTent as fuites God's great Maiefty , that is , with a Faith moft firm and Infallible. Oblerue an vndeniable Euidence. 8. It is euident That euer fince the firft Plantation of Chri- ftianity , there has been a. Continued Succeflton of Paftors and Doctors, who taught the Belief of one God and one Sauiour Iefus Chrift , with other Articles of the Catholick Faith. It is Euident , that innumerable Profeflbrs of this one belief, haue been eminent in Learning, wifHom , Sanctity of life , and Con- tempt of the world. It is Euident, that the Predictions of Pro- phets Difc. J, C 10. T!be%efdution of Faith. $73 phets vttered whole Ages before our Sauiour preached , agree only to one Chriftian Society known the whole world ouer. The Vniuerfal extent of this great Moral Body is euident. Vnity in Do&rin y Euident. Admirable Conueriions wrought by this Church , are euident. Vndeniable and mod glorious Miracles , Euident. The Courage, the Conihncy ,the profound Humility of Martyrs, and finally their bloodsheding , the \*& Teftimony of loyalty (Authors worthy of credit number them to eleuen Millions) are Euident. Here in tew words, you ha- ue before you no Romance, no Furb , no fraud , but mod clear and indifputable Euidence. Now ponder firft but feriouily-, And Ask whether God , after the fight of fo many illuftrions Marks. Manifefted to all , could permit , thole Millions and Millions who loued truth , and heartily fought to feme ■ no other, but the great God of truth To be deluded , with meer Phaniies and fooleries ? Were this poflible , might we not all , charge plain Coufenage vpon an# Infinite Goodnes , and moft iuftly complain ; si error eft quern Credtdtmus &c. If we belieue an errour,it is you great Soueraign , that has deceiued vs. 9. In the next place caff, your thoughts and feriouily alio, vpon all Sectaries pas't and prefent fince Chriflianity began. You will find (and here likewife we plead by Euidence ) no Succeffion of Paftors lawfully lent to preach , no Conueriions of Nations wrought by any. No eminent Sanctity-, no Vni- uerfal extent of their Religion , no Vnity in Do&rin , and which vtterly ruin's their Caufe , nothing like a Miracle among them. How then dare thefe Nouelliils deftitute of all outward appea- rances of Truth , or any thing like Euidence: , goe about to make their Religion credible by meer toyes and trifles > Thefe I call trifles. Here to fnarle at a Pope , there at abuies in the Church. Now to fill Volumes with Criticifms, now to patch together a fev/ broken Sentences of the ancient Fathers • That is in a word, to be euerlaftingly quarrelling, and neuer to Propo- fe fo much as a probable Way how quarrel's may be ended- Can fuch trifles I Say (and here in brief you haue the vtmoft C c c c 3 ' S:.da- Tbe EuUen- ce>indijf>uta- bte. Tbtimpofft- btliiy of Mm ceptton m thii&uidmct Sectaries x/f- terly deftitu- te of all Eui- dence of Cre- dibility. Sectaries Arguing. ThU euiden- ce explained, tkeAnaljjis, goes on Clearly, The Power cf the will Oner the Vnder ft an- ting Manifeft impiety not to belieue. What reafon forces vpon^ £uery one. 574 Difc. ]. C. 10. The %efvlutton of Faith Sfi&aries can doc) extinguish the light , the Luftre , and Euident Credibility of God's own manifested Oracle > Let common reafon fudge in this cafe- Now wee goe on in the Analylis. 10. Hauing Said abready , We belieue becauie God has rjeuealed the Incarnation , (the like is of any other Myftery} and being impoftibilitated (if we ftand within the formal Terms of Faith) to allege any further intellectual Motiue of belieuing than this ; The laft of ail. God has reueaUd , ftbat I Ajfant to, It neccilarilly folio wes , that euery other Qucftion relating to the Form A obnet of Faith ceafts hire. But if it be demanded, how the Vnderitanuing dares reft moit firmly on an Obiect not euidently ictn , wee paflc from that Power ( wirhour brea- king offthe Analylis) to the Will and Say , she can by her pious Affection command the intellectual Faculty to Capttuate it fcllc, in Obfequium fida , and belieue moft vndoubtedly. ii. Now if anothei Qucftion enfue's. How the Will can bring the Intellect to fo much Obfequioufnefs I The An- fwer is at hand. It doth fo , becaufe God has shewed by all thofe moft prudent and manifeft Signes already laid forth to Reafon , that He is the Author of the Doctrin we belieue ; In fo much , that it is not only the higheft imprudence imaginable to disbelieue , but Wickednes to do fo , in k matter of fiich Confequence. I fay Wtc k^t dnes 5 for after a full fight had of the rational Motiues inducing to Faith (feing none can arriue to Euidence of the Myfleries) One of thefe three wayes muft be followed. To belieue nothing. To belieue meet Fooleries : Or finally to belieue a Doclrm 'frkicb God has difimguisbed by Eutdent Marks and Signatures , from Hereiy andfalshood. To belieue nothing either is , or tend's to Atheifm , and that's Wickednels. To be- lieue Fooleries , nofwife man will hear of. Therefore all are bound to belieue, and if fo $ Faith muft bee Euidently prudent and rational , I mean lb manifefted by fupernatural Wonders, that reafon is proued vnreafonable in cafe it denies Aflent. Now I Subfume. But thefe Supernatural Signes , One only ^Society of Chriftfans Euidences ? and it is no other but the Roman One only So- ciej i'ropg. fetb Faith" which ura* Mortal. Vcbat makes an Lleciion* DHc, 3. 0 16. The Kejolution of Faith. 577 "Roman Catholick Church , Therefore she only propofes Faith which is rational , and confecjuently obliges all to belieue her Do&rin. 12. Hence you fee that euery one in the Choife of Religion, is to ponder in the firft place, thole weightly Arguments which make an Election prudent ; And then it rs prudent (not o- thervvife) when Signes from Heauen Gods own Marks , heigh- ten the Religions Credibility fo far aboue all other falfe and forged Sects , That thefe at the firft full Sighr, appear (as they J"w^'/> are) horrid , gaftly , and contemptible. 1 3. If you will Difcouer more clearly , what I would haue reflected on in this Particular. Be pleafed to compare Uea- themfm, luda'tfm , Turcifm , and finally Herefy with one glorious Roman Catholick. Church. Speak plainly ; Can you find in thefe any thing like the Miracles , the Conuerfions , the large Extent, the Vnity and SandHty of this one moft Euidenced Oracle? I need not prone the Negatiue (You cannot) for its Demon- strable to fen(e. Heathenifm and Herefy , are now things of Scorn the whole world ouer, Iudaifm , t'is true once had itsv Signes and Miracles , wherein it far furpaiTed Herefy ( which* No Society1 Comparable neuer had,nor will haue any like it). "Howeuer , Chrift's II- *"«£££* luftrious Kingdom , his Church Militant , vaftly furmount's that church , h% Ancient and now decayed Luftre of Iudaifm. And thus much this raiond briefly of the Euidence of Credibility , which once had , Faith" Evidence moft firm eafily followes , and without it, none can belie- ue. 14. A fecond Proportion. Faitk in this prefect State is refolued into the Authority of God., the firfl Verity (peaking by the Church. This way of refoluing Faith is both plain and eaiy, ThdpUtieft and very irritable to the common Apprehenfion of euery one, refolution of learned and vnlearned , who if Queftioned, why they belieue F*"k any Diuine Myftery , readily Anfwer. Sic docet Sancla mater Ecdefia. So our Holy Mother the Catholick Church teaches. And they Anfwer well , For the Firft inUrumental Principle where- into Faith is refolued , muft be fo clear and Con~- %icuou&> The Jiff*, tton trcueU by Scr!j>:ure Sectaries endles La- bcnrt The Church, is the firfi lnpumen- taltrinciple. 576 Difc* y C. 10. The %efulution of Faith. fpicuous a Rule , that all may eafily learn the Doctrin deli- uered by it. 15. The AlTertion is plainly laid forth. Deut. 30. V. VL The Commandment I command tin dav ts not alcue thee , nor farr , off) nor fuuaied in Heauen that thou mays' t Say : Who of vs is able to ajichd into Heauen so bring it to vs ? That is. To know where true Faith is taught , we need not to weary our {clues with much Speculation , or expect that God in Heauen, lay open the fenie of Scripture by Enthufianifms or any Priuate Reuelation. Nor placed beyond the $.a that thou may's! pretend: Which of vs can paffe oiur the fea and bring it to vs. And hereby That endlefs Labour , that euerlafting "Inquiii- tion made after Truth , proper to Sectaries , feem's reiedted. Originals muil be examined , PalTages of Scripture compa- red , Hiftory fought into , Libraries turned ouer, Languages learned , Yea , and the very particular Myfteries of Diui- ne Faith, mull be weighed by humane Reafbn ( and thus they delcend into the Ab}fi of God's fecrets) before they co- me to Satisfaction in Religion. All is toylfome , all dilTa- tisfa6tory , all endlefs. A more short and eafy way is at hand , For faith the Scripture, luxta eft ftrm$ valde , in ore tuo. The Jfrord ts very neere thee , in thy Mouth and m thy Heart to doe it. And the Apoftle. Row. 10. 8, Applyes this very PalTage to the Word of our Chriftian Faith. Hence 1 argue. 16. But the Church is that firft Inftrumental Principle, and moft eafy Rule which teaches our Chriftian Verities, Scripture teaches them not fo plainly , Therefore Faith may well bee refolued into the firft Verity fpeaking by the Church and whoeuer refolues it without all dependance of this liuing Oracle , put's the Conclufion before the Premifes , as we shall fee afterward. 17. I proue the firft part of my AlTertion. 1. It is as evi- dently credible that God {peak's to all by the Church , as that he anciently fpake by the Prophets and Apoftles , For we hauc the ches Euident Credibility. , parallel with that of the -dpofiles, Afecond reafon A thirds Difc 5. C. 10. The %efolution of Faith* j%? the fame Supernatural Signes manifefted In all thefe Oracles a " like , as is largely shown aboue , and Confequently haue with •them the fame Grounds of an Euident Credibility , But Euident Credibility , induced the Faithful to belieue thole mani- fefted Prophets and Apoftles, Ergo , the Churches Euident Cre- dibility, euery way Parallel, induces all in this prefent State to be- lieue this Oracle. 2. God is equally infallible, Yea one and the lame Verity, whether He fpeak's by one lingle Perfbn or many, and muft be heard with all profound Submiffion , Prouided , that the Oracle He (peak's by , bee made immediatly Credible by the luftre of Supernatural wonders , as mod evidently the Church is. 3. The Church , Aniwerable to the Prophets and Apoftles, is a Lining Oracle, and vpon that Account able to Solue all doubts which may occurr in controuerted Matters , but the Clarity of a lining euidenced Oracle , ready to decide all iiicb difficulties , makes the Rule of Faith eafy, and much auail's to a clear Reiblution. 4. Our Analyfis into God's Veracity Spea- fourth rex king by the Church, Stand's firm vpon that fir ft Principal and in- (on fallible Motiue , the Diuine T litmonj it Selfey I call it Principal be- caufe the Church is only Inftrumental as we now laid, whereby God fpeak's : And this Relolution is made without any danger of a Procefs in infinitum, or the lead Shadow of a vicious Cir- cle, as -Shall prefently appear by giuing the laft Analyiis. 18. In the Interim, know thus much. To proue the fecond part of our AlTertion. viz. That Scripture- is not a Rule fb perfpicuous and clear in delivering the very Chiefe Articles of Faith , as the Church is in controuerted Matters, were to proue a plain Euidence , For what can be more manifes't, then that wee , and all Hereticks pas't and prefent , are at en llels debates concerning the true Senfe and meaning of thole very words we read in Scripture? Yet the Rule of Faith ( Sectaries confefs it) ought to bee clear open and manifeft to all. I waue all fur- ther diicourfe vpon this SubiecT: , and here adioyn our laft Analy- fis. .19. One demand's, why I belieue that great Myftery of the Ddd.d Incar- The other part of the Affrtion h The U(l Kefiliaion giutn. All D*- flvfatreA. Our refilu tien the fame with that of tke Primiti- ue Chri- Jiians, The Metints alike. ypby we fa- Iteue? And how we proue by rational Motinci 578 Difc. ]. C. to. The ^.efolutlonof Faith. Incarnation >. I may well Anfwer firft. God's own facred Word , which we call Scripture Afferts it. The next Queftion* will be , Why I belieue this to be Scripture >. I anfwer. The lame God fpeaking by his own Oracle , the Cfmrch, affirm's it. A third Queftion followes. Why doe I belieue that God ipeak's thus by the Church 2 I Anfwer the Ground of my Faith in this particular ,is Gm's oWnfptakjn^ and the very fame with that hee fpake by the Apoftles. As therefore his Own word , vttered by thofe firft great Mafters, upheld the Primitiue Faith, without any further ground , or Proceis in infinitum , So his own Spea- king by this Oracle of the Church, vphold's mine. And I can go no further $ For the laft formal Obiect of Faith , has none latter, That One word of Truth is enough to belieue vpon. Again , as thofe firft pious Chriftians , had any moued a doubt concerning their Inducements to Faith, would haue anfwered. The blind fee. The lame Walk, » ftrange Miracles are Wrought by ebefe hlejfed men> And therefore we both muft in Prudence , and will belieue that God fpeak's by them* So I likewife bring to light the fame Signal Motiues Euident in the Church , and Say , I both wuft> if prudence guides me, and Will belieue that God ipeak's by this Oracle , known as well by Her Miracles and ill- pernatural Signatures , as euer any Apoftle was known, 20. And thus you fee firft , as I noted aboue , How wc pafTe from the Formal Obtecl of Faith ( God's oWn Tesltmony propo(ed by the Church ) to the Prudent Inducements of belieuing , where- vpon the ludgement of Credibility ( not Faith it felfe ) is vlti- matly grounded. Now thefe Inducements being laid forth to reafon , The Will command's an abfolute AlTent, which reft' vpon Goas iter J, fpoken by this Oracle. You fee. 2. All dan- ger of a vicious Circle auoyded in this way of refoluing Faith. For when I belieue that God fpeakts by the Church , I refolue not the Belief of that Truth, into another antecedent Reuela- tion taken from Scripture, yet wholly obfeure , and no- way Co immediatly Credible as the Church is , (for if I did fo, a Proceis mlnfinitum would neceflarily follow) But I belieue that Word of Truth Difc. }. C. 20. The ^efolution of Faith. 579 Truth for it felfe immediatly, and reft there , As the ancient Chri- stians relyed vpon the very words fpoken by the Apoftles , wi- thout recnrring to any former, or furer Reuelation. If there- fore thofe happy Belieuers made no vicious Circle in their Faith (hauing no two Proportions prouing one another to make a Circle of) We in our belief are altogether as free , from that faulty Circular way, in our Refolution. It is true, All of vs , if Questioned about the Euidence of Credibility, moft bring to light Motiues inducing to Faith , They theirs ± We ours ; both are a liKe .fjgnificant , both Supernatural , as is already explained. 21. You may gather. 3. out of what is here and former- ly noted , how eaiy it is after a full Sight had of thofe fignal Motiues ( and they more ict forth the Churches Glory , than any Traine of attendants can illuftrate the greateft Monarch ) That the firft connatural Language which God fpeak's by the Church, is this general Truth, ihtre onlj hu Special Proutdeme Directs and %ouerns , where the tUuftrious Signes of his own Soueraig- inty manifeft, That he teaches by a Voice peculiar to Himfelfe. But thefe Signes moil euidently , are ften in one only Society of Chriftians, the Roman Catholick Church , Therefore he tea- ches by this One only Oracle , And the neceffary Leflbn he will haue all to learn is ; Thtt he has called all to one Ccmniimon of Faith in one Church, Euidenced by Supernatural wonders. This fundamental Verity we belieue , And it is the firft AcT: of faith we elicite , Or , that Primigenial AlTent which connaturally arifes from God's own voice deliuered to vs by this Oracle , without depending on Scripture , if we make a right Analylis. This General truth once eftablished , and none can rationally contra- dicl: it 3 We now proceed to folue a few Qbiedfcions. The word of truth belieucd for hSelfe Theprimiti- tte Motiues , andoursjhe fame. The Mutin- ous Signs apparent in the Church, are God's own Voice, what n*e learn by them. Dddd 2 CHAP. XI. 5 So Difc. 3. C. 11. MoreoftbisfubieSl. CHAP. XL SeStaries Obiettions folued. The fallible Agreement of ' citt Concerning the Canon of Scripture , no Vroof at all No Tomuerfal Confentfor the SeBanes Scripture^ or the Senfe of it. HoIp the Church is both the Ve- rity belieued , and the Motiue^hy Tbe believe. Other (Difficulties Examined. j Speak here of Sectaries Obiections, knowing well, fome Diuines who make the Churches Proposition mod in- %b'uBt!ns k^bk C anc* nerem all Catholicks agree ) yet hold it infufficieht cnly,an[we- to be tne ^ Principle , Whereinto Faith is refolued : For fay red theie , it is only a neceiTary Condition by virtue whereof the ancient Reuelation is infallibly applied to vs. In this Strife ( purely Theological , and fome what as, I thinke, de T$o»urie)I shall not long bufy my Selfe , being chiefly to attend to what Sectaries do, or can propofe againft our Doctrin. 2. The firft, Obie&ion. If the Catholick after a prudent Consideration had of the known Motiues already {pecified , can belieue what euer the Church teaches, and Confequently relol- why Sefia- ue his faith into the Authority of God fpeaking by that Oracle.* rtescann^m Why may not the Sectary as well vpon this one Iudgement. faith into v*z* ^11 acknowledge Scripture to' bee God's word, as eafily Scripture* belieue , and refblue his faith into pure Scripture , indepen- dently of Church Authority ? Anfw. Such a Beliefe and Re- AsCatho. folution is impoflible, becaufe as we laidaboue, none can in this u.c ,oe prefent State affent to this general Truth. Scripture is Go;'s T>;ordy church * or belieue fo much as any Verity in it., if the Authority of an ™ ~ " ~ Infallible Difc. 3. C 1 1. ObieBions foluel 581 Infallible Church be reiected. To the pretended ground taken from the Confent of all Chriftians owning Scripture for God's word, I haue partly anfwered. That confent alone induces not any to belieue one reuealed Article by an Infallible act of Faith , if thofe whole Contenting multitudes , be all fuppofed fallible. Firft , euery one knowes , the multitudes of Turks agree thus far , that their Alcoran is God's word , yet fuch an agreement though very Vniuerfal, induces no wife man to belieue any Di- uinity in the Book, or to own its Doctrin as Diuine,and facred. 2. And this reafon hinted at aboue is , more a Priori. 3. The Agreement of all Chriftians j is truely an effect of Faith , or rather of the Obiecls Credibility antecedently prefup- pofed Credible vpon other grounds, before men agreed Co vniver- ially in that Chriftian truth : For this Caufal is good , Therefore Chrtj'hans agreed in that Truth, becaufe it ^as preuwujly made Credi- ble vpon other found Motiues : And not the contraiy. It is credible-, becaufe all confpired in a Confent (o vniuerfal. Wherefore , if very many, who now own Scripture to be Diuine , should leaue off to iudge So, and reie£t the Book or any Part in it as fabulous, That would not diminish its ancient Credibility $ And no more, Say I, would the Addition of any new Confenters , who now reiect it( should, they agree with vs.) highten one whit our Belie- The agree- ment of all, Concerning Scripinrt is an effect, fe, or make the Truth we AlTent to more Credible , than it was Hat the Orl . ginal Proof of the Scrip* titrei Crt- dibiliy. before. And this proues , That the Ordinal Credibility of Scrip- ture is not grounded vpon any vniuerfal fallible Content, but Hand's firm vpon other ftronger antecedent Motiues. Nay it cannot Originally depend therevpon , Seing that Confent is an Effect of thofe other preuious Motiues , as S. Auftin often cited , fully and meft amply declares. Be it how will. 4. The greater!: Difficulty yet remain's, for if we enquire of T&e"s3arU Sectaries, where we may find this common Confent, we haue Plea taker, but a very flippery Foundation to Hand vpon 3 Becaufe not lrom*ny only Hereticjues of old , denied the greateft part of Scripture But a to come to chefe neerer times , the Machiauelliaw fallible Cots* is Dddd i and ft- fem tmians grumdbjz w Me Mul- titudes again fl Sectaries. Sectaries plainly Comiincedt Ob feme the troofs, The Book of Scripture mtfinterpre- ted Fronts nnbing. 584 Difc.}. C. n. More ofthisfubitcl- (inizm alio called Christians, hold many things in that Sacred Book fo far aboue all humane reach, that they Say, it isYnworthy God to require from any a firm beliefe of them. Add herevnto the multitudes of Heathens, Iewes and Turks , whq imcomparably furpais Chriiliaris in number ; All thefe , you know , Vnanimou- ily reicct our Scriptures. How then can the far leffer number of Witncffes agreeing in one confent Plead lb much as probably againft fuch multitudes of Opponents , If no other motiue be alleged in behalfe of the Scriptures Credibility, but only the Confent of few, againft many. 5. But to lilence all Sectaries hereafter, Who inGft ib much vpon this vniuerfal Confent, we will bese gratis flip pole the Ar- gument drawn from thence to be mod conuincing , Yet withall Ailert,it fo little aduantages the pretences of Protectants , That itvtterly ruin's their vndefenfible Caufe. For where haue thefe men , any vniuerfal Agreement of Chriftians for their Canon of Scripture ? Where haue they it in behalf of their iarring Opinions ? Where for their Negatiue Articles ? Where for their particular Senfe of Scripture , which not only the Roman Catholick Church , but others alfo reiect as falfe , vngrounded 9 and Heretical. If therefore this Common confent for the Bible were more Vniuerlal then it is, it help's not Sectaries , whilst their fingular Opinions , their Canon aud Senfe, And in a word their whole Religion (as Proteflancy) is fo particular to Them fel- lies, That- the reft of Chriftians, ashamed to own it , will be no Partners with them. 6. And thus you fee, where the Weaknes of this whole Plea lies. They will haue a vniuerlal Confent for the bare letter of Scripture; Let that be fo. Its nothing to the purpofe, if after- ward , without any thing like a Vniuerfal agreement they mi- finterpret the Book, and make it fpeak what God neuer meant. But this is done, and I proue it vpon an vndeniable ground thus. Whilft thefe men cannot name , or Defign a Church reputed Orthodox fiue or fix Ages fmce , which as vniuerfally main- tained their new Doctrin , as She then owned the old letter of the Difo y C.n. ObieSlions folues. 583 of the Bible , They mifinterpret the Book , And gain no more But Se%4m h urging that vnwerjal Consent for the meer letter , then the Arians, riesdoSo, or Korfi of Heretiques gain. But to name fuch a Church for and tU pro- their Nouelties is impoMble , and confequently no lefs impoffi- ue(*. ble . to refolue one Article of Proteftancy into God's Diuine Teft'imony , expreiled in Scripture. 7. A 2. Obiection. Chriftians faith feem's not refoluable into the Diuine Teftimony '{peaking by the Church , becaufe How t"e , the Church is .Res credtta , ot , the Material Obieci belteued , Wit- ^ "tc " nefs that Article of our Creed. I beheue the Holy Catholic!^ Truth belti- Church. Therefore it cannot be Ratio Credendi , or the Formal aed. Qbieft , which moues to belieue. I Anfwer rirft. Sectaries mud AnAtheMo- fol ue this Difficulty, For is not the very Docfcrin contained in ttueatfowhy Scripture according to them , the Res Credtta , or the Material we e ime* Obieci: beiieued. The Incarnation I hope , whereof we read in Scripture (the like may be (aid of euery other Myftery) is th^ Truth belieued with fuch a faith as they haue. And the „ . . very fame Word of God y wherein thefe Truths are contai- mtifi foltir ned,is aifo the Ratio Credendi ♦ or Formal Obieci: mouing to this difficulty belieue. For demand why they A-flenc to the Incarnation > T'is Anfwered , becauie God has reuealed it in Scripture. No other Motiue can be pretended. Therefore the fame Scrip- ture , differently confidered , is both the Material Obieci , or Verity belieued , and likewife the Formal ? which moues to belie- ue. And thus we Say , The Churches Proportion , Or rather God {peaking by the Church , may well be the Truth be- lieued , and a Motiue aifo why we belieue , wherein there is no Difficulty at all. Take here one Inftance in known Phi- lofophy which teaches , that light both terminates our Vifion, and lb coniidered, is the Material Obieci feen ; withall , it mo- ues the Power to fee it, and vpon that Account , is rightly aa**°lr^ called the Formal Obieci. In Ads of Faith you haue the li- tiwl wLt ke Inftance. For example. When the Iewes Ailented to the ti ajjertefc ancient Prophets , vttering thefe words. Hu diat Domimis Sec. Our Lord- fpeal^s l\m~ They belieued that God {pake by the mouth How,anilif> tph*t Order we belieue the truths Propofed by the Church} This general sijpnifir/i precedes. Afterward V>e defend toother par. ticulars. 584 Difc.j. C.JI. Uoreofthis Oblecl. mouth of thofe Prophets (it was one of the Materal obiecb Ailented to by Faith) and they belieued alfo for thofe Pro- phets words (as God's own Voice) and had refpect. to them, as to a Formal obiecl: , Why they bluued. 8. A3. Obiection. If the Church be trie Primum Cn- dibile , or the rlrft Belteuable Oracle , whereby God fpeak's to all in this prefent State , We are to declare , how and in what order , thofe Truths are deliuered by it, which all are obliged to belieue : And this cannot be done without Confuiion , and per- haps danger of a Circle alfo. We haue partly Answered aoo- ue, where it is laid, That as the Apoftles after the Knowledge had of our Sauiours Miracles , belieued firft in a General fray, He 7pm the true M-fias ; So we , in this prefent State , induced by all the Motiues of Credibility already laid forth , belieue firft in General , That this Manifefted Oracle is Chrifts own Spoufe, which infallibly teaches the right way to Saluation. And this truth we Alfent to immediatly vpon the Churches Propofitipn, or rather vpon God's Teftimony fpeaking by the Church , w i- thout depending on Scripture ; lull: as the Apoftles belieued Chrift our Lord to be the true Mcflias, vpon his own Teftimony pro- ued Credible by Miracles , and other Signal Wonders. Thus far there is no Confuiion at all , nor any danger of a vicious Circle. Nov/ further. This General truth admitted , we pro* ceed to the Beliefe of other particular Verities propofed , and herein alfo follow the Apoftles Steps and pra&ife , who ailented to euery tingle Article which our Sauiour deliuered afterward, vpon his own Word. Why therefore may not we alfo belieue euery particular Article propofed by the Church, fpea- king in the name of God, If (which is already proued) the "fa- me God deliuers Truth as well by this Oracle , as he did an- ciently by the Prophets and Apoftles. No difparity can be giuen. 9. Hence I Say , whoeuer will make a full Proportion of Diuine Faith , and gi-ue a Satisfactory Resolution thereof, muft both Propofe and Refolue it into God's Authority fpeaking by Difc. 3. C. 11. Obiefiions folutd. 585 by this one Signalled and euidenced Oracle. And. here in few words is the vltimate reafon of our Ailertion. If we exclude the infallible Authority ' of an euidenced Church., neither the Canon of Scripture , nor any verity in it , nor its true fenfe, vvJiich Heretiques depraue , can be admitted as Gods infallible word. Therefore S. Auftin Spake moft profoundly , where He — f§ M -^ profefTes J He J&ould not belieue the Gojpel Tbttbout Churih Autho- wu faith rtty. Hence it followes , That though one might belieue the mufiberefo. Myftery of the Trinity , or the Incarnation , for the truths re- *«**• tnt0 m iiealed in Scripture , yet if a further Queftion be moued con- CoM * : xerning the Authenticalneis or tneie very Scriptural Expnpionsy ^ingb) the All, if they will finally relblue their Faith , muft rely on Gods church. Teftimony ipeaking by the Church ., and belieue that very Do- <5trin to be Diuine , becaufe She own's it as Diuine. 10. Thus we laid. Chap. 20. n. 11. That the infallible Authority of the prefent Church confummates the ancient Re- uelation , which long knee paft and remote from vs ^ cannot mcueto belieue , vnleife Her Teftimony conuey's it to vs , and in this fenfe compleat's it ; And what way of belieuing or re- foluing Faith can be more eafy , then to Say. I belieue the ThU »«y of Incarnation., both becaufe S. Iohn wrote it, and becaufe God belieuing ipeaking by the Church, faith he wrote it. Thefe two Indiuifi- niofieafy. bly taken may as well make vp one total Motiue of belieuing, as the Royal Prophets Teftimony , and. S. Peters infallible de- claration added to it. Acl. 2. V. 1 f . became one entire total Motiue to thofe firft belieuing Chriftians. I lay Indiuifibly ; And therefore the Churches Teftimony concurres not meerly as an The c^Hf- extrinfecal condition preuioufly aftented to % but iointly termi- ' *' m l • > -j won't not nates Faith together with the ancient Reuelation , as shall be meerl k Prefently declared. Herein alfo there is nothing like confu- Condition. iion , but the greateft Clarity , free from all danger of any vi- cious Circle. 11. A. 4. Objection. The Motiues inducing to belieue that God fpeak's by the Church , or that all ar called to leek .their Saluation in this one Euidenced Oracle , are Church n*- E e e e clr'mu HowthtMo- tints indu- cing to belie- ltd of the Chrncbdjo. In whstfen- fe scripture wet* Corn, pleat to the frtmitiue beiteuers. Uky not fo now to vst without Church 0$. thoritjf jl6 Difc. }.C. 1 1, More ofthi* QfieSfi firm. For we all belieue that the true Spoufe of Chrift is Ho^ Ijf yVmtedm Tatth ,vntutr fatty fprtad the tobole "tootli ouer Sec. The- refore they can no more rationally induce to belieue, that ririi neceffary Truth. Viz. A41; are called to one Communion of Faith , Than one Article of faith oblcure in it felfc , rationally induce to belieue another, wholly as obfeure. We haue An- fwered aboue. Thefe Motiues may be coniidered two wayes. Firft, as they are euidently perceptible by lenfe , and fo natu- rally they precede Faith ^and induce to belieue. i. As attefted vpon Gods own Authority fpeaking by the Church , And in this Senfe they precede not Faith , but are Articles belieued , wherein there is no My fiery at all , if, which is certain , The fame thing can be both known and belieued by different AlTents, vpon diftincfc Motiues-. A 5. Obiection. Scripture when newly written , and propo- fed by the Euangelifts or Apoftles to tha Primitiue Chriitians, was to them fo total , and compleat a Formal Obiect to ground faith vpon , that they needed no Authority of the Church to compleat it more, Therefore it's frill a full and perfect Mo- tiue of belieuing , in order to all this very Age , independent- ly of Church Authority. The Objection brings with it its own Solution , For if thofe Holy Writers of Scripture were Infallible ( whereof no man doubt's ) and propofed all they wrote as Gods Diuine word , That very Proportion was ful- ly as certain to them , as any Church Authority , whether paft or prefent, can be to vs. Hence I fay, though- Scripture was then (That infallible Publication fuppofed) a full and compleat Motiue to ground faith vpon , yet now it Cannot be fo Quo- ad nos , or in order to Belieuers in this prefent State, without more , not becaule there is any want in Scripture , coniidered m it felf , But vpon another account that Circumitances are very different •, and notably changed flnce thofe firft day es, For now we haue. neither Apoftle nor Prophet at hand , to Teftify or publish the Scriptures Diuinity ; The ancient fignes of Credi- bility which adorned thofe firft. bleffed men., and made Scrip- ture Difc. ]. C, 1 1. X)bie8iom folueA* $7 tine moll acceptable, are out of our light * Therefore God's Church fucceed's with her Luftre , and Supplies , as it were that want, or takes the place of thofe deceafed Prophets and Apoftles. 13. By what is here Said , you may eafily vnderftand the Tu>* Terms, fenfe of thofe two Terms , Quoad ft , and Quoad nos frequent- ^plicated. 4y vfed in this matter , though not free from Sectaries Cauils, Who ia| ; Whateuer is Quoad fe , confidercd in it felfe a For- mal Obiect , muil be fo in order to others ,becaufe it is a Relatiue, and cannot but haue refpecl: to our vnderftanding, Anfw. All this is true, after a full and infallible Proportion AEeuelatian made of the ObiecT: h Otherwife mot certainly a Reuelatiori may hem it may be in it Selfe both Diuine and infallible , though it ap- Jef