THE RVLE OF FAITH,
Wherin the infallibility of the Roman Catholick Religion is established against Atheists Heathens, Iewes, Turks, and all Sectaries.
CHAP. I.

1. THe question may perhaps seem doubtful to many, upon Different judgements Concerning true Religion these grounds. First. Who euer admit's of Religion must either hold it true upon the Authority of others, or because he is perswaded it can be found out by his own search and industry. If he relies on Authority, He meet's with as many Pretenders to truth as there are different Professors of Religions on earth. The The most of men pretend to it. Iew pleads for his as the most ancient, the Christian for his, the Turk for his, the Heathen for following the light of nature, and every one thinks well of his own way, and votes his own Religion best. If therfore à searcher after truth relies on Authority, He can no more (say these) take the Christians word than the Hea­thens, the Heathens then the Jewes, the Jewes then the Turks, the The diffical­ly about the choise. Arians then the Catholicks, the Catholicks than the Protestants, and Consequently ought in prudence to reject all Religion.

2. On the other side, if He chuse à Religion by the force of his private judgement only, or own industry, He is cast into à La­byrinth and shall never find an exit. He is obliged in prudence to make à diligent search into all the different Sects which are, or have bin since the first creation of things: He is carefully to [Page 2] examin the causes of them, the grounds they rely on, the con­nexion or coherence they have with one an other; He is to con­verse with the learned of these different Religions, or read their books, and then to pitch by his own erring judgement on what likes him best, which perhaps may be worst of all. This task you see is immense and no lesse unsuccesful than laborious, mans life is spent, before halfe the work be done. Therfore it seems, none can come to the certain knowledge of true Religion either by Au­thority or reason. Ergo, saith the Opponent, there is no such thing as true Religion in Being.

3. Contrariwise I say. True Religion most evidently is in the True Reli­gion is in be­ing. The reason of the Assertion. world. The Assertion is grounded on this certain verity: God eter­nally existing by himself without cause, and infinite in all perfection is in Being; therfore true Religion cannot but bee also. For Grant such à Being as God is, necessary of himself without any superiour cause, it followes He is to be adored by all rational creatures essen­tially inferiour to him, and not by any false, or mock-worship, but in Spirit and Truth, for such an adoration only suites his Divine natu­re. Of the ado­ration due to God. This reason is reinforced by the light of one indubitable Maxim. Quod universis videtur, est verum. What appeares to all, or at least, to the most Civillized Nations to be à Truth, is so: for such à uni­versal consent of nature is the Dictamen and voice of God the Au­thor of nature; But all Nations ever owned some Religion, ther­fore this agreement of God and nature is à Truth. The minor is evi­dent All civilli­zed Nations own à Nu­men. (to say nothing of Christians) out of the very writings of Hea­thens who assure us, though people are found so barbarous as to live without lawes, learning, or civil goverment, yet no whole nation was ever yet heard of, but owned some kind of Numen, some sacrifice, some homage, some worship due to à power either falsly or truely judged worthy of Reverence and honour. Neither is the One difficul­ty removed. force of the Argument infringed by saying, many and very many Nations erred in the Truth of Religion, which may seem as great an Evil as to have none, for thus much is only proved at present, that the voice of nature more easily ownes Religion then it profes­ses one true; That therfore being the universal Testimony or Ge­neral [Page 3] consent of all, cannot be false. Haec testimonia animae (its Ter­tullians Doctrin which S. Cyprian borrowed from him) quanto vera, tanto simplicia, quanto simplicia, tanto vulgaria &c. This general Truth by how much more pure and simple, by so much it's more vulgarly known, by how much more vulgarly known, by so much its more common, by how much more common, by so much it's more natural, by how much more natural, by so much it's more Divine. Omni literaturâ notius (saith Tertullian) omni Doctrinâ agitatius, omni homine Majus, 'Tis à learning more known and resolved in mans mind than all other learning, greater then man is, and therfore à certain truth setled in all by the Author of nature, God himself. Now that many err in the truth of The cause of Mistaking true Reli­gion. Religion, proceeds without doubt too often from want of instru­ction: sometimes from pride, ignorance, or Malice in the Teacher, which is the deplorable case of condemned Hereticks: Sometimes, and this is most usual, it comes from an obdurance of heart begot, by à custome of sinning and transgressing against the very light of nature. For, this custome bring's à punishment with it, that it darken's the mind notoriously, and makes reason à stranger not only to weighty rational motives which forceably draw us to good, but more over it so stupifies, so dulls and indisposeth à soul, that the impressions of grace (not wanting to the most barbarous) touch, as it were, on flintly rocks, and produce either â weak barren fruit, or rather no penitential fruit at all. Would therfore the most obdu­rate Scythians, or any other uncivilized People yeild to the ordinary grace allowed them for the avoiding of sin, known contrary to nature: God who illuminates every man in the world, would give more light, until they came to the knowledge of truths necessary, necessitate medij, to attain saluation. For this is an undoubted Maxim of Divines. God is not wanting in necessaries, and, Facienti quod in se est non denegat gratiam. He denies not grace to such as endeavour by the ordinary means afforded them to avoid sin contrary to na­ture, but if careles of that duty which nature obliges to, they vo­luntarily plunge themselves into an Abiss of horrid transgressions, the obdurance now mentioned followes: The powerful opera­tion of grace lies stifled, and much deaded in such hardned hearts, [Page 4] and Consequently sense and love of pleasures bear greatest sway there, which makes reason à stranger to Gods truths, and from hence gross errors concerning Religion take their rise and have their origen. The objection above, purely fallacious, supposeth those different Pretenders to true Religion to be all of equal Authority, and casteth mans weak and erring reason on too long and laborious à work. True Religion is known with lesse Adoe, then these Ad­versaries Imagin, as we shal shew hereafter, and solve the objection in its due place.

4. I argue 2. from the assumed principle. God exist's Therefore true Religion is, and discourse thus. There are and ever have been several Religions professed in the world, and all are not false, for if all were false, God, whose existence we now suppose, would see him­selfe not at all adored in spirit and truth, but rather Universally scorned by an erroneous worship, as if men had been created for this end to mock and abuse their Creator; And this seem's contrary to the light of reason. Now further. All Religions are not false, From false Religions, one only true, is proved. ergo, one onely is true, because two or more which hold Contra­dictions can not be true; and if one be true, every rational creature is obliged to follow that when 'tis clearly proposed, and to worship his maker by à right way of Homage: but this obligation must sup­pose the truth of Religion in being, because no one can be obliged to embrace à foolery, or to worship God by à meer nothing. You will say, one may be bound to follow an errour or an erroneous Conscience, therefore the proof taken from this obligation, evin­ces not the actual truth of Religion. Answ. When we are bound to follow an errour in à matter of chiese Concern, the Contrary truth, which all should assent to, so really is, that we may be unbe­guiled, and set right; but if all Religions are false, there is none true supposable, and Consequently the Universal errour of all is à remedilesse evil. If therefore God requires à true exhibition of worship from his Creatures He cannot permit all to err Universally, and for this reason true Religion is in being. You may reply. God is independent of us all, and need's not our Homage, or adoration. Very true, but man depend's upon God, and by the [Page 5] instinct of nature, is obliged to adore him in truth, which instinct as we shall prove presently, originally proceed's from the Author of nature, and therefore God also obliges all to pay him the true tri­bute of praise and no Counterfeit worship. Some Perhaps, may object. Religion seem's not Capable of à demonstration, because that which is true de facto depend's on God's free Revelation, the Credibility where of can be evidenced, but not the truth. I answer, in the general assertion already made, we abstract from the particu­lar proofs relating to true Religion; we treate with all, who own à Deity, and say, these (if God had not elevated man to supernatural, beatitude, or, omitted to reveal the sublime mysteries, of faith) had, in that State been obliged to adore theyr Creator with no false ho­mage and thus much reason evinces, although we cannot (as the objection proves) strici [...]ly demonstrate the truth of Christianity, but only its Credibility, whereof more, and very amply, hereafter. In the mean while

5. Methinks I hear some, who stand much for reason, say, that Atheists (rational men) oppose all Religion, and why may not their Plea be heard in so weighty à matter? Answ. Its not my intention Atheism proved most unreasona­ble. at present to combate too long with Atheists, they are utterley overthrown by the learned Arguments of innumerable grave Au­thors I have other Adversaries to treat with: However, because their pretence is reason, observe, how they destroy not only Reli­gion but reason also, yea, and extuinguish the very light of nature with it.

6. The ground of Atheism is this prodigious accursed Principle. There is no God, no supreme Power, no Numen, no Providence (for The accursed Principle of Atheism. acknowledge à God and Providence, reason evidently concludes, He is to be adored in spirit and truth, and this worship or Adoration we call Religion.) This Assertion then, God is not, is à prime truth, or the first verity with Atheists, wheron all their human actions depend, by this supposed verity they are regulated during their mortal lise. Contrariwise, This Assertion. God is an eternal Being by him­self, is à prime Loud falshood with them, to be scorned by every one. Hence I argue. That first supposed verity. God is not, de­praves [Page 6] the will, extinguiseth the light of nature, makes men exe­crable, enormously wicked, impious, sacrilegious, takes of all fear of future punishment and hope of reward, For if there be no God, or no supreme power to punish hainous offences, the most hideous sins imaginable would cease to be pernicious, and consequently every one might without check or torment of Conscience, if it served his ends, kill and destroy all he meets with. No wrong, no open injustice, no Treason, no rebellion, can be invented so mon­strous, but may be done without reproof of Conscience, if this Principle hath influence upon what we act. God who can neither punish, or reward, is not in Being. And thus you see, how that first Atheism destroyes the light of rea­son. Arch-truth of Atheists. God is not, horridly depraves and vitiates the will, makes it savage, and brutish, which ex terminis is evidently fals, for Truth considered as truth, is à perfection of the understanding, and cannot per se pervert nature, or wrest the will in man to all wic­kednes. On the other side you see, that this Arch-falsity of Atheists. God is an Eternal Being, by its own force and light rectifies nature, makes men upright, just, obedient, submissive to lawes and gover­ment; which is impossible; for such à grand errour setled in mans intellectual faculty, is by it self as wholly unmeet constantly to pro­duce such laudable effects, as Truth is to deceive, or cold water to warm us. You see. 3. that unlesse villany and wickednes be deemed wisdom, and virtue and justice be accounted of as madnesse, Atheists must change the Propositions and say: God is, remains à supreme Truth. God is not: is à supreme errour, and withall Conclude, that the first intellectual Truth cannot make men wicked, nor the first errour make them virtuous.

7. Some perhaps will reply against our first inference. Nature it self abhorres the impieties now mentioned, (and that's the Atheists Rule) although God were not in Being. I answer. Nature doth so Nature has her impres­sions from God. wit­hout God, no truth can be-known. now, because it receives those impressions from God, the Author of Grace and nature, but destroy this first Author, Eo ipso, you abolish those very first lights of nature, and make it stupidly brutish. The reason hereof à Priori is most convincing. Nature is endowed with these first lights, because it receives them from an indefectible, [Page 7] and unerring intellectual Being, for if this first Power or Being, which gives existence and light to nature, could err, or be deceived in such universal Notions, nature which takes its Being from this first intel­lectual power, would lose those communicated lights, and fall to nothing. For example. Here is à participated light, or à Truth common to all rational men. Do as you would be done by▪ and nature universally approves it. I ask why is this à supposed Truth? You answer because all agree in it. Be it so. But I say, if all those who agree in it, receive the light from à power that is defective, ignorant, orliable to errour, this very consent of nature like that first erring Principle, cannot but be defective, and ignorant, because no effect exceed's the virtue or perfection of the cause it comes from.

8. Will you see this clearly? Suppose that à Casual meeting or concourse of Atomes made man rational, as Atheists will have it, and indued him with the Truth now mentioned, without the in­fluence of à supreme intellectual Power. This rational thing called Dull Atomes impart not knowledge to any. man, judges, discourses, defines, and delivers, as he thinks, certainly the first natural verities. Very good. But we inquire further, and Ask from what cause he had this power of judging, and defining truly? For, if he received it from one that's dull, ignorant or deceipt­ful in all he judges, and defines, He cannot but participate of the nature of that first Principle, which is dull and ignorant. Thus much is clear. For if I receive my knowledge from one who is distracted mad, or false in his conceptions, and regulate my self or others by such à communicated light, all I know or teach by virtue of that knowledge, transcends not the nature of that Principle which is now supposed, ignorant, erroneous and deceiptful.

9. Summon therfore all the Atomes together which made man rational, and imprinted on him the first lights of nature, I demand of those Atomes, could they Answer, How it came to passe, that à company of Dull insensible things, void of reason and discours could by meer chance, produce man intellectual, and not only intellectual, but unerrable also in some Principles called natural? I say all that this man judges is false, because the Principle which gave him being, (void of light and understanding) cannot indue him with [Page 8] unerrable Truths. For, Nemo dat quod non habet; No cause gives The reason why none can judge truely, if God exist not. to its effects, what it precontains not. Insensible Atomes therfore, cannot make man sensible, nor irrational Atomes, reasonable, nor stupid Atomes, devoid of truth imbue him with the first true Prin­ciples. Therefore man is no more to be believed in these first lights of nature, than if Apes or Parots should speak them, because, as we now suppose, they proceed not originally from any intellectual Power, but only from meer dust or insensible things, void of under­standing. The Sceptiks therfore erred not, when upon the suppo­sition The Sceptiks erred not upon one false supposi­tion. that God made not man, they concluded: we know nothing, we judge of nothing truly, but what might be excepted against, and rationally opposed. If therfore nature err's not in these first Prin­ciples, now acknowledged true and rational, ascribe it to nature, but leave not of there, but say these lights come from God the Author of nature, who neither will, nor can deceive us. Here then is our grand Principle. God and nature cannot err, therfore the verity and certainty of these first known truths depending on God and nature, are free from errour. And

10. Hence we have an other clear demonstration against Atheists. Either God indowed man with reason and these first lights of nature, or all of us, even Atheists may be justly deemed mad, and besotted An other demonstra­tion against Atheists. with fooleries, but all (including Atheists) are not mad, nor erring in these first lights of nature, Ergo God indued man with those first lights. I prove the Major. It is perfect madnes in the judicative power of man to deny the truth of those first lights, but the truth of them must bee denyed, in case we receive our judicative faculty from à Power inferiour to God, for, if we receive it not from an in­finite Being, we have it from some inferiour erring cause, which may deceive. (Atomes for example) but neither atomes nor any inferiour fallible Power, can tranfuse into us à certainty of not erring in those first lights. The reason is given. The lights we have, goe not beyond the perfection of that cause which imparts them to nature; This cause, what ever it be is inferiour to God, and therfore cannot but be liable to errour, and may deceive us. Observe this discourse well, for it is the ground à Priori, of the Churches in­fallibility, wherof more hereafter.

[Page 9]11 You haue other arguments most concluding against Atheists, but I cannot insist on all. Here is one and a A speculatiue Argument. speculation of a great Diuine. A Being existing by it self in­finitly perfect, or without mixture of imperfection, is ex conceptu suo formali, or, Apprehended vnder that Notion no chimaera, nor impossible Obiect (as impossible obiects are distinguished from possibilities) therfore it is possible. I proue it. All Chimae­ras or Impossibilities essentially imply imperfection, because they cannot be, and consequently vpon that account want perfection, but this infinite Being conceiued by man wants no perfection (I say conceiued, for I neither yet proue nor suppose any thing, but only speak of an obiect thus represented to an vnderstanding, and say that obiect is no impossibility because infinitly perfect, without appearance of flaw or imperfection.) Now further; if such an obiect ex terminis be possible, and not impossible, it is of necessity actually existing, for if it haue not an actual Being, it wants per­fection, and requires à more perfect cause to produce it, which is contrary to the nature of that which I conceiue, and form in my vnderstanding; But if it be actually in Being, I haue all I seek for. Ens actu existens, an actual existency without any supe­riour cause, infinitly wise, without blemish or imperfection, and this we call God, the Origen of all things, Creator of Heauen and earth. But I waue these speculations, moral arguments without them haue weight enough, and could we say no mo­re Moral Ar­guments in-this matter sway most. but thus much only; That Atheists in à matter of Eternal sal­uation (the weightiest point imaginable) deliberatly embrace that Doctrin which can neuer do them good, If true; and eternally damn them, if fals; it were enough. Obserue well. Were Atheism true, the Professors of it dye like doggs, and so do all others with them, these men therfore will not hereafter laugh at Belieuers for adoring. à Deity; but if their Doctrin proues fals in the other life, all true Christians may scorn their impudency, or rather deplore their eternal misery which will follow, not on­ly vpon the account of Atheism, but for other enormous sins committed against God and nature. Now if the Atheist saies he [Page 10] followed the Dictate of his reason, this (were it so) at most excu­ses him from the sin of Atheism, but frees him not from damna­tion, if guilty of other criems against the light of Nature. If he say again, he fully enioyes his pleasures in this life, whilst those who belieue à God, liue in restraint and fear. He pleads Good Chri­stians in this life ha­ue more con­tent then Atheists. Non-sense, for à good Christian, if we exclude some horrid sins which nature ex ecrat's, may haue his dignities in à com­mon wealth, his lawful pleasures, and recreations as much as any Atheist; herein he hath no preheminence before others, no nor so much content as is allowed good Christians; Ther­fore on all accounts he is in à worse condition them Chri­stians, for he liues contemned here the whole world ouer, and can expect no happines hereafter.

12. Others argue and methinks very solidly. Though Gods existence were not demonstrable, Atheists may neuer the less be not only conuicted of error, but iustly also look't on as in à damnable state, vpon the account of their Atheism. Here is my reason. The very rules of nature and ciuility oblige vs to respect all according to the outward appearances of their qua­lity and condition, when we haue no iust reasons which ren­der them suspected. It would be open iniustice to treat any Atheists conuicted of errors though à Deity were not demon­strable. one, either in language or actions like an inferiour fellow, whose traine or garbe speak's him à Prince, or nobleman. I should certainly err in iustice and morallity, should I deny any one that respect which the Common reputation of his vir­tues and accomplishments, hath gained him (though perhaps not deserued) whem I haue no Conuincing proofs, that he is not what he seem's. There is no Atheist of them all, but would think him self highly iniured were he slighted in this nature, and with good reason too, for the meer possibility of being deceiu'd in à mans quality or virtues, can be no sufficient warrant for any to deny him that honour, which his virtues in all appearance challenge as his due.

13. I say therfore, were the Deity supposed indemonstra­ble, that cannot excuse the Atheist from performing those [Page 11] duties which such à Being, in all appearance, most infinite wise, and omnipotent may challenge, of praise and Adoration, pro­portionable to his worth: For, if the Atheist exact's all punctilios of respect from others, which the exteriour garbe of his dignity may intitle him to, he cannot without the highest wrong, and vio­lating the law of nature ( Doe as you would be done by) deny to God, after so many signal appearances of his dignity, the due respect and honour, wherunto that supreme excellence most iustly laies claime. Wherin the excellence of God appe­ar's.

14. Now if you make inquiry after the appearances of that supereminent excellence in à Deity, they farr surpasse all those other appearances which can possibly concurr to create in any an opinion of mans greatnes, virtues, or accomplishments. No Monarch, no Prince, no Potentate, no nobleman can giue so many euident signes of worth and excellence (duely laid claime to) as God euidences of an infinite greater supereminent worth, due and proper to himself. Euery one knowes, that wisdom, power, and worthy actions, enoble man; and beget in all à vni­uersal fame of excellence. What think ye? Doth not the crea­tion, the continual preseruation, and admirable Oëconomie of this visible world loudly speak the wisdom, power, and noble works of à Deity? Do not these raise in all à vniuersal fame of his Being? Haue not all ciuilized nations (agreeing in the truth) the very best of philosophers in past ages, and all Christians (the most wise and learned body of men which the world euer yet saw) purchased to God, vpon euident appearances, more immor­tal honour and renown, than euer Prince or Monarch gained suitable to his state and dignity? If therfore to deny à Prince to be what he seem's, when all imaginable appearances speak him Prince, be most iustly deemed à crying iniury contrary to the light of nature; much more to deny God his Being is à greater wrong, when all the testimonies of grace and nature proclaim him God. One word more and I end this point. So many emi­nent and signal miracles both before and after our Sauiours comming, which could proceed from no other cause but God, ei­ther [Page 12] euidently demonstrate his Being (as we shall seepresently) or make the truth so apparantly credible, that, tis à degree of mad­nes to deny it. The Atheist therfore, who without proof or principle denies God, and depriues him of that respect which ought to be paid vpon outward signs and euident appearances of his excellence, impiously opposes right reason, and sin's damnably; Nor can the supposed indemonstrability of God, more excuse him from damnable irreligion, then the possibility of being deceiued in any mans worth or accomplish'd virtues (whem apparent signes make them euident) from wrong and open iniustice, as is now said.

15. Lastly the Atheist who pretend's to belieue nothing, be­lieues (it's true differently) as much, yea and as hard things, as any Christian doth. The Christian belieues à God he neuer saw, The Atheists belieue differently, but more difficult things then Christians. and the Atheist an infinite series of causes, or à strange concours of inuisible Atomes he neuer saw. The Christian belieues the soul he neuer saw to be immortal, the Atheist, who yet neuer saw so much, holds it vanishes into nothing. The Christian saith an infinite wisdom rules the world, The Atheist sayes no, but either fate or chance, (as much imperceptible to sense as God is) Gouerns all. You see therfore, how these men who pre­tend to belieue nothing, belieue as much as any, for we all belieue, but with this difference, that the Atheist imprudently iudging incredibilities belieuable fastens on them, and leaues to Christians à belief of verities not only prudently credible, but most true and cer­tain. Mark their blindnesse and à iust iudgment of God with it. They reiect things credible, and in lieu of these pitch on most desperate improbabilities, and this ineuitably: for, not to belieue credible verities forceth them to belieue the contrary, incredible foo­leries. The Atheists arguments run all vpon fals suppositions where of see more In the second discourse. God they say, seems carelesse in gouerning the world, whilst He suffers the innocent to be oppressed, and vniust men to enioy much happinesse. Mark first, They suppose some innocent, and others vniust, wheras if we deny God, there can neither be innocence nor vniustice, as is [Page 13] now demonstrated. 2. They measure Gods infinite wisdom in gouerning his creatures by their short fallible Conceptions and suppose him vnable to punish the wicked, and to reward the iust in à future life. But enough of this subiect, most amply handled by others.

CHAP. II.

1. WEE here exclude professed Atheists vowed enemies of all Religion, And now treat with other Aduersaries but very briefly, they are either Heathens, Turks, or Iewes, list if you please with These all condemned Hereticks, as Arians, Pelagians, Donatists and the like rabble of Aliens from truth, who really deserue not the name of Christians. Heathens now, of no account.

2. The Gentils or Heathens that adored many Gods as Mars, Iupiter, Apollo, and therfore plain Idolaters, (because they make deceased men Gods) are now of no account in the world. Turks, Iewes, Christians and all other decry their vanity, or to speak in S. Chrisostoms worts: ipsius Christi virtute dissipati sunt, They are wasted, dissolued, and brought to nothing by the virtue of Christ our Sauiours preaching, Diuturnitate temporum perierunt, Time has worn them out, we need say no more.

3. Turkcism which hath gained à great part of the world, and à far greater, then▪ euer any particular Heresy gained, is euidently no more but an open Tyranny. The sword, no word of God, doth all. Power, and carnal pleasures, which corrupted nature easily embraceth, vphold this Religion. More cruelty followes the Professors of it, then Iustice, fidelity, or any moral virtue; yet moral virtue, grounded in nature, euer accompanies [Page 14] true Religion. Again, and here is à Demonstration against Turkeism. Mahomet (who held himself à Prophet only, and no God) appeared some centuries after Christ, yea and owned both A demon­stration against Turkeism Christ, and Moyses to haue been great Prophets, sent from God. Hence I argue. If sent from God; the Doctrin they deliuered was true. Therfore Mahomets Alcoran is false, which contradict's not only Christs Doctrin, but that also of Moses and the Prophets. The contradiction is euident by the Alcoran: and the inference, Ergo, The Alcoran contradict's God himself, speaking truth by these Prophets, is as clear. Therfore either God contradict's him self, saying one thing by these Prophets, and reuoking it by Mahomet, (which is impossible) or Mahomet is à lyar. Yet more. Let Mahomet iudge as he pleaseth of Christ and the Prophets, He and his, are obliged to satisfy one Demand: viz. What Doctrin that was, wherby men were saued, before his preaching? And I speak of Doctrin, not of Ceremonies or temporal positiue Lawes. He will not say, 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, these He reiects: Therfore he must acknowledge true Doctrin taught before his being in the world, but this Doctrin, Moses, Christ, and the Prophets truely deliuered, or there was none taught in the world, This saued souls anciently, therfore, if belieued, it saues them still; once it was true; therfore it is now and will be euer so, But Mahomet opposeth him self to this true reuealed Doctrin, ther­fore He opposeth God speaking by these Oracles. Hence I argue. Mahomets errour Very late, opposite to ancient truth. A Religion which began fifty ages after truth was taught in the world, and expresly contradict's that taught truth, is false; Mahomets Religion is euidently such, ergo it is false. I say that contradict's the ancient true Doctrin, to preuent an obiection which may arise out of ignorance. For some may say: Christ our Lord long after Moses and the Prophets, deliuered Doctrin contrary to them, therfore the Argument against Mahomet conuinceth not. I answer; It is one thing to reueal Truth à new not anciently belieued, and an other to abrogate ancient receiued verities. Christ, besides [Page 15] cancelling the Ceremonial law deliuered more truths, then were explicitly declared by the Prophets, but neuer contradicted any Doctrin proceeding from God, by the mouth of his Prophets, as Mahomet did. Hence S. Austin and other Fathers Affirm, that Christs Church reuerences the Doctrin of Moses and the Prophets, and that faith hath euer been the same from the beginning of the world.

4. The Iewes who make their Religion most ancient, are notwithstanding clearly conuinced of errour, and here is my first The Iewes à dispersed People with­out essence or form of Religion. Argument. A People dispersed vp and down the world, that haue had now for 16. ages neither Essence nor Form of true Religion, nor the effects or fruits of it, cannot profess true Religion, and consequently are not the lawful heires of the Prophets ancient Faith. But the Iewes are thus euidently dispersed, and want the Essence, the Form, and effects of Religion, Ergo. I proue the Minor. A sacrifice essential to Religion which could not, according to their law, be offered but in Hierusalem only: A Temple and Priests also euidently fail them (for no Sacrifice no Priest) Iudges, Prophets and miracles, cognisances also of true Religion, which neuer failed in their greatest Captiuities, now by the iust iudgement of God leaue them, therfore the very Form and order of Religion wholy reuersed, manifest this people, once, Populum iam non populum, heretofore blessed, now accursed for their obstinacy. And if we speak of other effects, or fruits of Religion, their Thalmudick Fables, their vnsatiable auarice, their cheating and Cozening others, their open Hypocricy (for gain They exteriourly profess any Religion) now Catholicks, now Protestants, now Arians, or what you will. These effects I say, demonstrate à want of the very Soul, of the life of virtue, and Religion in them: All which is manifest to our eyes and senses.

5. To add force to this most weighty Argument. S. Cyprian chiefly in his first book Aduers. Iudaeos, shewes all along how Their dereliction foretold in scripture. they were fortold by the very law and ancient Prophets of their losing Religion, and future dereliction, after Christs comming [Page 16] viz. That Their first lawes and carnal circumcision were to cease, and à new law with spiritual circumcision to succeed. Isay. 8. Mich. 4. That an other order and à new Testament should be giuen, Ier. 31. That the old Pastors were to leaue of their teaching, and new Doctors come in their place Ier. 3. and. 31. That no other but Christ himself was to be the true Temple and house of God, 2. Reg. 7. That the old sacrifices of lambes and beasts should not be offered. Isay 1. That the old Priesthood was [...], and à new Priest and king raign for euer. Ps 109. 1. Reg: [...] That the greater People, the Iewes, should become the lesse, and the Gentils far lesser become greater Gen. 15. Osee, 2. That à Church once barren should haue more Children than the Syno­gogue euer had. Isa. 5. 4. vpon those words. Iucundare sterilis. Thus S. Cyprian through those seueral short chapters of his first book. And we see all these prophesies literally fulfilled after the comming of our Sauiour, and the establishment of the Christian Church. Those hearts are stupid, and eyes blind, that perceiue not the Iewish synogogue vtterly abandoned. Yet more. If you will see this Christian verity amply laid forth, read the 9. chapter of Daniel, where the Holy Prophet after à large declaration of the Peoples the prophet Daniels prediction. iniquities and à iust affliction laid on them for their Sins, an Angel told him that Christ should come, and be slain, and v. 26. that those were not to be his People, who would deny him. verse 27. He fortold the ceasing of their sacrifice, and v. 24. denotes 4. things: Forgiuenesse of sins, infusion of Iustice, fulfilling of Prophesies, and the annointing of the Holy of Holies: All which particulars litterally and most exactly agree to our Sauiour, and to him only. Thus the Prophet Daniel. But that which I would haue euery one to ponder is the prediction of Christ our Lord Matth. 21. in the parable of the vineyeard, where speaking to the chief Priests and Pharisies, he clearly prophesied of their ruin and reiection before it happened. A certain housholder, saith the The parable of the vineyard. Gospel, planted à vineyard &c. and let it out to husbandmen, when the time of fruits drew nigh, he sent his seruants to receiue the fruits. Those husbandmen seased vpon the Seruants, Beat one, killed an other [Page 17] and stoned à third. Here our Sauiour clearly alludes to the slain and stoned Prophets. Again this Housholder sent forth other seruants more then the former, who were treated in like manner. Lastly he sent his own Son to them, saying, they will reuerence my Son, but, saith the Text, They apprehended him also, cast him out of the vineyard and killed him, and thus the Iewes abused and massacred Christ our Lord. Next our Sauiour proposeth this question to the elders amongst them. When therfore the Lord of the Vineyard shall come, what will he do to these husbandmen? They answer. Malos malè perdet. He will bring these naughty men to naught, and let his vineyard out to other husbandmen, that shall render him fruit in due season. Now followes the very life and soul of the The force of that parable. whole parable. Iesus said to them, haue you not read in Scripture, the stone which the builders reiected, the same is made into the head of the corner? This is done by our Lord, and it is merueilous in our eyes; Ideo dico vobis, Therfore I say to you: The Kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be giuen to à nation, yeilding the fruits therof. &c. The Chief Priests and Pharisies, saith the Gospel, knew he meant them. The kingdome therfore wherof our B: Lord spake, and fortold should be giuen to an other, appear's manifestly Gods own glorious work, laid open to our eyes and senses in the Christian Catholick Church.

6. Hence Tertullian lib. aduersus Iudaeos C. 8. drawes an Tertullians Discourse. other forcible argument against the Synogogue, from the large extent of Christs glorious Kingdom, now established. Obserue well. It was prophesied, saith this learned Doctor, Daniel. 7. that Christ should reign euery where, not like à Salomon in the Confines of Iudaea, nor like à Nabuchodonosor from India to Aethiopa, nor like an Alexander of macedonia, who was neuer Master of so ample à Dominion as Christ Iesus possesseth. No. Christi regnum (they are his words) vbi (que) porrigitur, vbi (que) creditur, vbi (que) regnat, vbi (que) adoratur. The Kingdom of Christ 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 so strongly oppressed, is euery where, whilst [Page 18] Mahometisme and Heresy are restraind to such and such Dominions) If Therefore the Iewes own à Messias, Christ our Lord who hath founded such à kingdom, is the only true Messias. I proue it. Were he not, but that an other is yet to be expected, God could not haue permitted those manifest Miracles, signes and wonders wrought by him to haue introduced an errour in place of the ancient true Religion, which the Iewes professed. Iudaism therfore would haue stood still vnshaken in its ancient vigour, had not Christ Iesus powerful works, brought it to an vtter ruin. But these, (and its Christs own Argument,) Iohn 15. If I had not done works amongst them &c.) far suspassed in worth, Maiesty, and greatnes No prophet so potent in miracles as Christ. all the wonders of Moses and the Prophets: For none of them euer raised themselues from death to life again. None of them reuiued one like Lazarus 4. daies buried. None had the sea and Elements at command like Christ. None shewed such wonders at their death, as our dying Lord did. None fed so many thousands in the desert with fiue loaues and two fishes. None cured any with the hemm of their garments. None wrought such strange Conversions, as Christ &c. I pafs ouer other signal wonders related in the Gospel, as the Prophets miracles are recounted in the old testament, and briefly Argue. Where greater signes and miracles, which cannot but proceed from God, euidence Religion, there is true Religion. But most vndeniably, Christ shewed greater signes and miracles at the founding of his Kindom, then either Moses or the Prophets manifested, therfore he taught true Religion, and by virtue of those wonders reuersed Iudaism, and made it improbable. I say greater and mark wel my Reason. Had not Christs illustrious works most eminently surpassed those of Moses and the Prophets, but been as it were equal with them, Christ's glorious Kingdom could neuer haue come to so mighty à growth, to so vast an extent as now it is, The reason of our sauiours Large extended Kingdom. it could not haue wrought such strange conuersions as we see it done, the whole world ouer. why? A lesser or equal Euidence for Truth can no more obscure or lessen an other greater or equal Euidence, then one candle darken on other, (as we see the light of the sun doth.) Therfore that euidence which made the Synogogue [Page 19] credible to the Iewes, was to be taken away with a far greater light of manifest signes and wonders, shewed to Christians. For If we suppose the Euidence equal in both cases (seing no Religion is manifestly true of it self without antecedent motiues) we might all yet as securely profess Iudaism, as Christianity, and Therfore our Blessed Lord spake à most profound Point of Doctrin, when he said. Had he not wrought greater wonders amongst them, then euer any did, they would haue been excusable and without sin, which Doctrin implies this great verity, that true Religion where euer it is, pleads most powerfully for it self, yea dead's and vanquishes errour by à most clear Euidence of glorious works, and Miracles. And mark well this Discourse, it is destructiue of all Heresy, as shall be proued here after.

7. Who euer desires more of this subiect may vouchsafe to read that excellent Epistle of Rabbi Samuel Marrochianus then à Conuerted Christian, to Rabbi Isaac an Israelite. You haue it Tomo. 2. Biblioth. Patrum Collain print saeculo 11. pag. 421. He writ the Epistle after the yeare 1000. 6. Centuries since, or there about: and it contains, 27. short chapters. The work is admirable, and most expresse for Christianity. In the first The Excellent discourse of Marrochia­nus conuerted to Christia­nity. Chapter he laies forth the horrid Transgressions of the Iewes, their Idolatry and killing of the Prophets, and saith Gods wrath was appeased for these sins, as Scripture assures vs, when our people (saith he) were set at liberty. But now we haue been dispersed and scattered à thousand yeares and more, and Gods indignation yet followes vs euery where, nec in Prophetis promittitur finis, and there is no end promissed in the Prophets, be cause of our wickednes: And if you ask what enormous guilt that was? He answers in his 6. Chapter, pondering these words of the Prophet Amos c. 2. vpon three crimes of Iuda I will Conuert, or as the Rabbi reads, transferam, put away, but vpon the fourth I will not conuert, because they haue sold the iust for silver. Paueo Domine. I tremble, saith Marrochianus, when I read this sentence, for this iust man was not Ioseph sold into Aegypt, nor the fourth hainous wickednes (which he proues manifestly) but was the iust Lord Iesus, whom [Page 20] the Iewes sold for silver, and here is the greatest and most crying sin for which we are punished. In the 19. Chap. (I cannot insist on all) He saith, that Prophesy of Zach: C. 13. strike the shepheard and his sheep shall be dispersed, was fulfilled, when the Israelites smit that great Pastor of the Apostles, Iesus, then it was that they, anciently his flock, were scattered vp and down the face of the earth, and that the Apostles succeeded in the place of our Prophets: For since that Time we Iewes haue had no Pastors, no Prophets, no visions, no sacrifice, no obseruance of Moses law, no Holocaust, no form of Religion &c. Thus he discourses through seueral Chapters, and in the last, the 27. after he had declared what great respect the very Turcks and Saracens shew to Iesus Christ, and his blessed Mother Mary: Of Christ, their Alcoram saith, that He is the true Messias, yea and preferr His Genealogy before Mahomets, for Mahomets parents were Idolaters and had their Origen from Agar the handmaid, Christ descended by à lineal succession from Isaac and the Prophets by à right line, to the blessed virgins birth. The Alcoran more ouer saith, that Elisi (in the Arabick tongue 'tis Iesus) knew all things, the whole book's of Moses, the secrets of mens hearts, had power giuen him to work Miracles, to cure all diseases, to cast out Diuels, and therfore own him as à mighty great Prophet, and the true Messias. Much honor and respect also is giuen by the Turks to our blessed Lady, as you may read in that Chapter. After, I say, à larger Discours of these two subiects, our Christian Samuel concludes, that the Iewes haue been à deserted People for à thousand yeares, we may add 600 to them. The Turks Iewes abandoned. yet daily increase by the force of armes, and Christians also strangly propagate by the power and virtue of Christ, both oppose vs. Nos autem nihil proficimus, testimonium multorum stat contra nos, we Israelits yet aduance nothing, in so much that the malediction of Ruben light's vpon vs. Non crescas, we are still, and shall be ignominious, we prosper not. Such is the iudgement of God against vs. This and much more, Marrochianus deliuered Six ages since against his Nation.

CHAP. III.

1. THe Assertion is an euident Inference out of the former discours, for if true Religion be in the world, and not found amongst Heathens, Turks, or Iewes, Those only called Christians enioy that blessing, or there is no Religion at all in being. Though the Proposition stand's firm on this sole proof, yet 'Ile strengthen it with two Conuincing Arguments. The The first Argument. first. Where we euidently find the marks. cognisances, and signes of true Religion, there it is, but Christs Doctrin only which we call Christianity is vndeniably manifested by clear signes and cognisances of truth, and therfore is the true Religion. I proue the Minor. A cause is best known by its effects, the tree by its fruits, the sun by its light, Faith by its works, and the Existence of God by the emanation of his creatures. But no other Religion whether it be that of Iewes, Turks or Heathens euer shewed to the world the like effects of Truth, the like glorious Miracles, the like austerity of life, the like contempt of transitory Goods, the like efficacy of Doctrin, or, brought so many Infidels from incredulity, so many from sensuallity to à holy virtuous life, as Christ and his Apostles gained soon after the first promulgation of the Gospel: Therfore these most illustrious marks and cognisances of Christianity, as clearly conuince that God deliuered truth by the Preaching of our blessed Lord, and his Elect Apostles, as any effect in nature demonstrat's the cause it comes from. The Marks are manifest to our eyes and senses, and plead most powerfully for our Christian Doctrin. No other sect falsly called Religion, has euidenced the like signes, and this, I am sure no Christian can deny.

[Page 22]2. A second argument is so weighty, in the behalfe of Christs sacred Doctrin, that though we had no knowledge of God or Prouidence vpon other Principles, that which I am now to propose, would make both most vndoubted. I argue therfore. That An Other taken from the miracu­lous propaga­tion of Christian Religion. Religion whose Author, Founder, and chief Preseruer is God (we here suppose with Iewes and Turks the actual existence of à Deity) is manifestly the true Religion, for God cannot found or teach falshood, but Christian Religion, as taught by Christ and his Apostles, had and has God for its Author, Founder, and Preseruer, therfore it is the only true Religion. I proue the Minor. A Religion drawn into à law of liuing holily, which Miraculously began, and was spred the whole world ouer, aboue the power and force of nature, is manifestly from God, and subsist's by Diuine virtue only, (Diuels neuer help't in so pious à work) but our Holy Chri­stian Religion, was and is still thus miraculously spred and preserued also, all Nations ouer, aboue the power and force of nature, therfore it is from God, and subsists by his Diuine virtue. To proue that it began miraculously, and was propagated aboue the power and Four things Considerable in the propa­gation of the Gospel. force of nature, we are to ponder these four things. 1. The sublime Doctrin of Christian Religion. 2. The condition of those first Masters who taught it, and in what difficult circumstances. 3. The Quality and number of souls gained to belieue it. 4. By what means they were induced to Assent. Obserue well: You will find in euery particular à Prodigious work aboue the force of nature, and no other but Gods powerful hand concurring with it. Thus it is.

3. When the world lay as it were in à dead sleep of sin and ignorance thoughtlesse God knowes, of casting so much as à thought towards Heauen, or of louing any good, but what sense and corrupted nature liked of. A new Doctrin sad to sense, and mighty difficult to reason was heard of. Blessed are the poor in spirit. Humility scarse heard of before, was then cryed vp for à great virtue: wrongs were to be forgiuen, lawes obeyed, iustice obserued &c. But was sen­suallity only thus Crossed in its propensions? No. A load of high Misteries besides, was laid on Reason also, which seemed to [Page 23] rack and torture it. God one in essence and three distinct persons. God an Infant born of à virgin. A Lord Iesus, true God and man, after à wearisome life Scourged by impious hands and finally Cruci­fied. such (with much more) was the strange Doctrin of Christianity. How euer (and here is the Miracle or prodigious work) it got ground, spread it self far and neer, and though contrary to sensuallity, and aboue Reason, yet millions of souls so firmly belieued it, though austere and hard, that innumerable haue dyed for it. Now if this be not à wonder, or à prodigious work aboue the force of nature, we may well conclude with. S. Austin lib. 22. de Ciuit. c. 5. This to be the greatest Miracle of all, that God conuerted the world without Miracles.

4. The. 2. consideration yet encreaseth the wonder of this admirable work. We know great effects require proportionable causes of like strength, and virtue. A weak child lift's not vp à weighty burden, nor can à mean handful of naked men defeat à puisant Army. Ponder well the Propagation of Christs Gospel, and the Conuersions of Nations to Christian Faith, visible to our eyes, the work is without dispute, great, noble, and glorious. But say by what cause, by what instruments, or Ministers did God effect it? Did he send Angels from Heauen to preach a Trinity, à Crucified Sauiour, &c. or force Christians to à belief of those Mysteries by strength of arms; No. Rex noster Pacificus, Our Diuine Iesus is the God of peace. Non in Commotione Dominus. No tumultuous spirit brought in his Doctrin. Caluins tragical pro­ceedings in the late begotten Heresy was not heard of, when Christ our Lord and his Disciples preached the Gospel. Some perhaps will say that Gods great intention when he first laid the foundation of Religion, was to destroy Idolatry and to establish à Ty what instruments the Gospel was dilated. new law against Iudaism, and therfore proceeded as the world vsually doth, in weighty matters. He surely made choise of most expert Aduocates, of the wisest Philosophers, of the profoundest Iudges, and most eloquent Orators on earth, and by these pleaded for Christianity. 'Tis an errour, all was contrary: Our euer glorius God did his own work by twelue poor Fishermen, ignoble, [Page 24] ignorant, friendlesse and destitute of all that the world makes account of, yea, and he shewed this power more by these weak Instruments; and their successors in after ages, than he did before whilst he liued with them, to manifest that the work was his Principally, and theirs instrumentally This Doctrin is so fully deliuered by the great Apostle of the Gentils, that we need not S. Chrisostoms Eloquent Discours on the subiect in his sermon. Christ is God. To illustrate it further (though that also merits à serious reflection) I will destroy, saith S. Paul 1. Cor. 1. 19. The wisdom of the wise, and reiect the prudence of the prudent &c. Hath not God made the wisdom of the world foolish? for because in the wisdom of God, the world did not by wisdom know God, it pleased God by the foolishnes of Preaching to saue them that belieue &c. For that which is foolish to God, is wiser then men, and that which is the infirm of God, is stronger then men. See your vocation, Bretheren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, but the foolish things of the world, God hath chosen, that he may confound the wise, and the weak things of the world, that he may confound the strong; and the base things of the world, and the contemptible, God hath chosen, and those things which are not, that he might destroie those things which are, that no flesh may glory in his sight. Which is to say huma­ne power had no hand in this glorious work, and therfore it is as manifestly aboue the force of nature, as if Christ Iesus had sent 12. little Children to conuert the world, for 'tis no lesse à miracle to see so great à work done by 12. poor fishermen, then by 12. young Children.

5. 3. Consider the number and quality of souls gained to our Christian belief, and ask whether they were à few only, or of so flexible à temper as to credit any thing vpon hearsay. You will answer they were not few. Witnesse the conuersion of whole na­tions, and if we Consider nature, no lesse. obstinate than numerous. Incredulum illud genus humanum, saith Arnobius lib. 1. Contra Gentes. Mankind most stubborn and incredulous, contrary to its former liberty and education, submitted to the yoke of Christ, which truth, The number gained in numerable. as this Author obserues, were it not as euident as day light, would haue been thought impossible. Perhaps you'l say (though many), [Page 25] they were yet simple and ignorant and therfore easily wrought on. No. A Learned Dyonisius, à Clemens Romanus, and innumerable other great capacities, called on, came in to the Church, such choise ones, (God cooperating with his weak instruments,) were drawn out of errour and darknesse, to the light of the Gospel. Now if you ask in the last place, by what means these conuersions were made? The Gospel answers Mark 16. 17. By signes and manifest won­ders from Heauen. Going into the world preach the Gospel to all creatures &c. and them who belieue, these signes shall follow. In my name they shall cast out Diuels, speak with tongues. as the Apostles did, in the feast of Pentecost. They went forth, saith the Text, preached euery where, our Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signes which followed. Signes therfore and Miracles works of Diuine virtue without violent hands or humane industry cast down Idols, outed Iudaism, and induced Aliens from Christ to belieue his sacred Gospel. These Arguments, as I now said, so forceably euidence à power aboue nature in the establishing of Christianity, that if we had no other Proofs for the Existence of God, these alone without dispute Conuince most sufficiently, the being of à Numen aboue vs, who has demonstrated his prouidence in laying the foundation of Christian Religion, so firmly.

CHAP. IV.

1. I Answer Affirmitiuely and say, that the Augmentation or further growth of Christian Religion, is to be esteemed no lesse à work of prouidence and Diuine Assistance, then its first [Page 26] establishment was. One reason is. The Doctrin preached to Christianity further Spread aboue the force of Na­ture. innumerable People not Christian in the Apostles time, was the same sublime learning (of à Trinity, of the Incarnation, and other difficult Mysteries) The stubbornesse and incredulity of those who heard it (at last induced to belieue) were alike in them, as in the first conuerted Christians, Propensions to sensuallity which they quitted, as strong, and violent; The number of those after gained souls, you may hold far more, their wisdom not inferiour to the former, and the quality of innumerable (witnes so many Emperours, Kings and Princes) drawn in following ages to Christianity, much exceeded those first conuerted by the Apostles. Clear and manifest miracles (effects of Gods power only) haue been more numerous, in the Centuries since the Apostles preaching, then before. What euer therfore proues the first Propagation of the Gospel miraculous, or à work aboue the strength of nature, as forceably conuinceth the Truth we here plead for. Now if some obiect! These later Preachers of the Church sent abroad to preach Christs Doctrin, had much more of the humane learning, then those first great masters of Christianity, and therfore might well by natural Eloquen­ce and humane literature gain many without Diuine Assistance. I answer, when the Poets perswade me that Orpheus harp and harmony tamed wild beasts and moued stones, 'Ile belieue (and not Sooner) that wolues became lambs, that the stony hearts of Infi­dels were softned, and made subiect to Christs sacred law, by the power of humane learning only. What? that natural knowledge, got by industry, could vanquish Idolatry, obscure Iudaism, and draw innumerable Heathens to deny sensuallity, to liue à mortified life, and belieue in à crucified Sauiour? is not only à Paradox aboue expression, but à vast improbability?

2. You know there are two things the world stand's for, Pro aris & focis, that is for Religion and earthly commodities. Religion, you see, hath the Preheminence. Imagin now, that à Heathen Prince should send the most Eloquent and learned Doctors within his Dominions vpon this hard enterprise, To gain à forrein Monark and People highly auerse from him, his lawes, and comands, [Page 27] Withall; to abandon their old Religion and admit of à new one, without the least hope of any worldly interest; Nay contrary, most assured to lose much, which nature seek's after; Would such à Policy (think yee) take? or could these Doctors though neuer so Eloquent haue confidence to bring about their designe, by wit or learning only? No. You will iudge it impossible to gain so humane learning, notable to Con­uert souls. much as one sole Prouince, when no motiue of earthly commodity enters, but much against it. Here is our very case. The Church of Christ in ages following the Apostles, sent abroad her Missioners, and These commissioned Preachers, haue not only destroyed Altars erected to false Gods, most obstinatly defended by Gentils, but introduced à new sacred Religion in place of them, mightily opposite to sensuallity and what euer the world loues: (here is the tribute payd to Christ) can we therfore think that wit did this work? or perswade our selves, that à little breath drawn only from natural knowledge, threw down these Altars? No. à Diuine virtue, and that most Powerful did the deed, God only wrought these Conuersions, no lesse admirable, then Euident to our eyes. When S. Peter, as we read in the Gospel Luk. 5. 4. launched forth into the deep at Christs command, and drew vp great Multitudes of fishes, both he and others stood amased at the Miracle: And more iustly may all admire the far greater multitude of men, drawn out of à gulf of sin and ignorance then fortold, Ex hoc The draught of souls out of perdition, miraculous. iam eris homines cap [...]ens. by the labours of those first Masters and their Successors. Say therfore, was the draught of fishes great, and all cryed à Miracle, And the draught of souls out of perdition far greater, and nature only did it? No certainly. Belieue it, Had the Pastors of Christs Church toyled only by that weak instrument of humane knowledge, the Idols of the Gentils would yet haue stood, and all of them might well haue bemoaned their lost labour with S. Peter. Magister per totam noctem laborantes nihil cepimus. Master all night long, we haue been hard at work, and got nothing.

3. And here briefly (to say à word in passing) is the true reason why our modern Sectaries are so vnlucky in any con­uersions, [Page 28] not only of Heathens, but of others also named Christians, to their new Religion They launch forth, 'tis true, but without commission, and therefore work not by the virtue of Christs command, wit alone and à little wordy learning doe all, make à noise, and their books to swell, but draw none of iudgement to the [...] [...]les liberty and à rich Benesice (two powerful Preachers to corrupt nature) catch some. The thing is euident, for wh [...] haue we such signal conuersions wrought by Sectaries witho [...] [...]ope of any worldly fortune, as now (to Of particu­lar Conuer­sions. omit ancient times) [...] very dayes, and late ones too, shew vs? Where haue they one like that Generous and learned Queen Christina of Sweede [...] who quit [...] à Kingdom to become Catho­lick? Where haue they such à Prince as yet liues, the grand Turks own Brother, not only Catholick, but more, à Religious man of Blessed S. Dominicks order? Its needlesse to giue you in this place à Catalogue of many German Princes, true members now of the Roman Catholick Church, who were not gained by any worldly motiue to abandon Heresy (as they haue done) but strongiy called on by Gods grace, without delay obeyed the summons, as now lately did that great Commander in France Count Marishal Turene, whose glorious Conuersion witness his Profession of Faith, was grounded on serious thoughts relating to Eternity, and not vpon any humane interest. These very few, but great changes, before our Eyes with others innumerable known to the world, are plain effects of supernatural grace, and manifestly shew, that more than wit or humane knowledge had à hand in them.

4. Hence I argue. That Religion is from God, and therfore true, which He concurres to, and propagates by his special grace and virtue? The Christian Cathoiick Catholick Religion miraculous­ly propaga­ted, therfore true. Religion only, hath been thus propagated by Gods special grace and virtue, therfore it is true. To add more weight to this argument, I ask whether those Conuersions wrought by the Apostles them selues are to be held miraculous, that is [Page 29] aboue the force of nature, or not? If you deny, blot out those words of the Gospel, as most vntrue Mark 16. 20. Domi­no cooperante &c. Our Lord cooperating with them, and say all Aposto­lical conuersions were wrought by natural causes only, And grant next, Mahometism and Christianity thus far equal, that as Mahomet driues all to his belief, by the sword (the cause is natural) so the Church drawes all to it by wit, policy and humane lear­ning, and this means is altogether as natural. Now if you say those first Conuersions were truely effects of grace, and wrought by Gods special assistance, This sequele is Clear: The like made in after ages by the Church, far more numerous, as difficult and wholly as glorious, proceed from the same fountain of Goodnes, God's Diuine grace and special Assistance. And note, I speak here of real Conuersions, wrought in Belieuers vpon solid motiues (the Church shewes you millions of them) not of hypocritical changes pre­tended hypocritical Conuersions▪ not Valuable. for God and Religion, when worldly interest has à hand in them. These are as soon distringuished by their false lustre, as à comet from the sun, they last not long, but fall like blasing starrs. We meddle not with them. Thus much of à short digression which makes way to an other querie, and 'tis as followeth.

CHAP. V.

1. THese questions largely handled in the other Treatise, are soon resolued vpon certain Principles. I say therfore first. All called Christians belieue not truely and intirely Christ [Page 30] Sacred Doctrin, and proue it; If Hymenaeus and Alexander Timoth. 1. c. 1. 20. once true Belieuers made shipwrack of their Faith; if the Arians Monothelits, Pelagians, Donatists, and such known Hereticks named Christians, haue fallen also, and lost true belief of Christian verities sufficiently proposed? This sequel is euident. All of them though named Christians, haue not Faith intirely good, nor indeed any Diuine Faith at all. See the other Treatise Disc: 3. c. 3. n. 4.

2. I say. 2. All and euery one may with ordinary diligence come to the knowledge of the true Christian Religion, I proue the Assertion. Diuine Faith, without which we cannot possibly Means sufficient to know true Religion. please God, is determinatly necessary to saluation, and conse­quently the Religion where true Faith is taught, is also necessary. Therefore both these after Ordinary diligence vsed may be known; vnlesse we wil say, that God first makes such things necessary to saluation, and then remoues them so far out of sight, that none can know by prudent ordinary diligence what these necessary things are. I say necessary to saluation, not to dispute with Melchior Canus and others of the necessity of faith to the first iustification of à Sinner. This difficulty we waue, and Argue. 2. God as we now suppose with all Christians, yea with Iewes and Turks also, is the Author of true Religion, which he reuealed to the world, for no other end but mans happines, and eternal saluation, therfore if he desires all to be saued by true Religion, which is the final end therof, He cannot, vnles his Prouidence fail, but afford meanes to know where it is professed, otherwise (which ill beseem's an infinite wisdom) he would set vs all on work to gain Heauen by the belief of true Religion, and withall leaue vs so in darknes, that we cannot with all prudent industry, come to the knowledge of it; which is to say, He will haue vs know the end of Religion, and yet conceal the meanes leading to the knowledge of it.

3. Again I argue. 3. God who obliges not to impossibilities, laies à strait command on all to belieue true Religion (and not to assent to any fals sect) therfore it may be known, and clearly [Page 31] distinguished, at least from the errours of infidels, Iewes, and Turks. Known I say, but how? Not by its internal light immediatly, for no Religion euer yet was its own self-euidence ex terminis, or pru­dently got admittance, because the Professors of it Cryed it vp as true. Therfore the credibility of true Religion, which must be True Reli­gion is not its own selfe euidence. laid open to Reason by force of Conuincing motiues, is made as well discernable from Heresy (destructiue of saluation) as from Turcism, or Iudaism, yea, and may be no lesse clearly discouered by its proper signes and lustre than à true Miracle; for example, that of S. Peter, from Simon Magus Sorcery. This cannot be denyed, vnles God, as I now sayd, either command's impossibilities, viz, to find that out, which cannot be found, or licenceth vs to embrace any Religion called Christian, whether good or bad, true or fals (it imports not) because the best, if it can be found, is no more but à meer Probability, or like vncertain opinions in Philo­sophy, which may be reiected or followed according to euery priuate fancy. This execrable Doctrin of the indifference to any Religion, learned in the Diuels school, is now à daies much in the mouths of many, and, I fear, too deeply rooted in the hearts Nor à thing indifferent. of some later Sectaries. But of this more here after. In the mean time you may conclude. If true Religion be in the world, its made discernable not only from Iudaism but Heresy likewise; and if it haue this discernibility it can be known, if known, it in­duceth an obligation to be belieued with Diuine Faith, if it grounds certain Faith Subiectiuely taken in him that belieues, it is no Opinion, and considered Obiectiuely it implies the highest certainty Imaginable, setled on God's Reuelation as is largly proued in the other Treatise. Disc. 1. c. 5. n. 6. 7.

CHAP. VI.

1. ONe errour common to all condemned Hereticks, is in the first place to find out true Religion by the book of holy Scripture alone. A most improbable way, as the ancient Tertullian learnedly obserues lib de Praescrip. cap. 9. 15. but chiefly cap: 19. at those words often cited. Ergo non ad Scriptu [...]as prouocandum &c. The reasons of my Assertion well pondered are most conuincing, 1. The Sectary laies hold of à book which he sayes teaches truth, and yet knowes not in his Principles nor shall euer know infallibly, whether the book he own's con­tain's the Doctrin of true Religion, or ought to be valued as Gods assured word, which is to say in other terms; He learn's infallible truths of à Master, before he hath infallible certainty of this Masters teaching truth, infallibly. That the Sectary wants infal­lible assurance of his book is euident, for he saith, no word of God, written or vnwritten, no infallible Tradition, no infallible authority on earth, ascertain's him of the Scriptures Diuinity. So Mr: Stillingfleet in seueral places chiefly part 1. c. 6. Pag 170. Therfore he, can haue no in fallible Assurance of the Doctrin contained in Sectaries haue not infallible assurance of their Bible. Scripture, and consequently no Diuine Faith grounded on that Doctrin, as I shall shew hereafter. How euer, grant him an indu­bitable assurance in à general way of some books of Scripture, hee hath not yet so much as moral certainty of that precise. Canon he receiues, excluding other books which he denies as Scripture, For no Orthodox Church, no vniuersal Tradition, no consent of Fathers, no definition of any Council, approues his Canon, or ex­plodes those books reiected by him, therfore the sectaries Canon, [Page 33] wherof there is so Much doubt, can giue no moral assurance of Gods reuealed verities, vnles it were without dispute à liquid truth, that their Canon only is Gods word, which cannot be supposed, whilst so learned and numerous à multitude of Christians oppose it, as defectiue and imperfect. Yet more. Suppose he giues you the exact number of Canonical books, hee gain's nothing, because the very Doctrin of these books is no more but à Transla­tion, and therefore vnlesse the Translator or Printer, haue faithfully complyed with their duty, and preserued the books in their ancient purity, no Protestant can assure himself or any, that what we now read, is without change or corruption, pure in the very necessary points of Faith. If you say you compare them with the ancient Original Copies of the Hebrew and Greek; I answer; the very best Originals men can light on now, are no more but meer Transcrip­tions, and consequently may haue been corrupted by the Tran­scriber, The best Originals now extant, are only transcrip­tions. the Printer, or Librarian. Therefore the Sectary hath no Moral certainty of the bare letter in Scripture, if he cannot shew vs the hand writing or Autograph's of the Prophets, and Apostles, wherof there is no danger, because he neuer saw any. Hence I argue. He who hath not infallible certainty of the very letter of Scripture, want's infallible certainty of the Doctrin contained in Scripture, but the Protestant hath no infallible certainty of the letter of Scripture, Therefore he want's infallible certainty of the Doctrin contained in Scripture: for no certainty of the letter, no An argu­ment against sectaries. certainty of the Doctrin drawn from thence. But if he has not certainty of the Doctrin he can haue no infallible faith grounded on it: Therefore Scripture alone is an unmeet means to teach him, what either true Faith, or Religion is.

2. Mr. Stillingfleet to solve this vnanswerable Argument Part. 1. c. 6. p. 196. saies, we beg the Question, when we require an infallible Testimony for our belieuing the Canon of scripture, yet grants such à certainty, as excludes all possibility of reasonable doubting. and Chap. 7. p. 211. declares himself further thus. Giue me leaue to make this supposition, that God might not haue giuen this supernatural Assistance to your Church, which you pretend makes it infallible; whether [Page 34] men through the vniuersal consent of persons of the Christian Church in all ages, might not haue been vndoubtedly certain, that the Scripture we haue was the same deliuered by the Apostles? I answer, if you take leaue to make that supposition, licence me to tell you, you haue not that certainty of Scripture which Diuine Faith both supposeth and requires. And here is one reason (to omit others insisted on here after) Deny this infallible assurance of the books of Scripture, you haue no greater certainty, that God endited those words we now read, than you haue assurance that Aristotle wrote his Topicks, or Caesar his Commentaries; And dare you, or any say, that we receiue Mr. Stilling: answer, dis­satisfactory. our Bible vpon no surer ground? Or can you Imagin, if Chri­stians accept these books vpon à Testimony lesse then vndubitable, it may not be suspected that à thousand gross errours haue entred the Copies by the negligence, or inaduertency of such as transcribed them? Belieue it. Were Aristotles Topicks matter of Diuine Faith, none would dy after the fallible conueyance of them to our age, vpon this perswasion; that nothing substantially first writ by that Author, hath been changed or altered Since; and the same I assert of the Bible; vnlesse you say that the words of Scripture were writ in some celestial and incorruptible Matter, yet to be read by all, or grant, which is truth; that as God by special Prouidence caused them to be writ pure, so also he yet preserues them without blemish, and now witnesseth the truth by the Testimony of his in­fallible Church, wherof more largely hereafter. At present I will only answer your difficulty about that fallible certainty, which you affirm, excludes all possibility of reasonable doubting, and say first. The vniuersal consent of persons of the Christian Church in all ages, neuer approued the intire Canon of your Scripture: for not only the present Roman Catholick Church, but the ancient councils also, receiued books which you reiect. This truth is so manifest that it need's no further proof, therefore your Canon want's the approbation of the whole Christian world, and consequently you haue not so high à certainty of Scripture, as excludes all possi­bility of reasonable doubting. I answer. 2. And it is à demonstration against Protestants, who say the whole Christian world for à thousand [Page 35] years at least, erred in Doctrin contrary to the verities of Holy Scriptures, for, if we goe up from Luther to the 4 ^.th or 5 ^.th age after Christ, you'l find none but condemned erring Hereticks and Roman Catholiks, no lesse actually guilty (say Sectaries) of these professed errours: Of praying to Sain [...]s, of an vnbloody Sacrifice of the, the A further Argument, taken from the papists sup­posed errours real presence &c. Thus much supposed; I both answer and Argue against you. If the whole Christian world was for that vast time so strangely infatuated, as to mantain errours contrary to Scripture, when the true Doctrin therof no lesse concerned their eternal Saluation, then the true letter; it cannot possibly be supposed vpon any weak Probability (much lesse on such à certainty as excludes all reasonable doubt) that these besotted Christians preserued the letter of Scripture pure and intire, whose errours are now imagined most gross against the Doctrin contained in God's word. Obserue my reason. It is much more easy to conceiue (if all held corrupted Doctrin) that the very letter of Scrtpture was by negligence or ignorance of these Corrupters of Doctrin, also corrupted, then to imagin the records preserued pure, and Millions of Christians to read them, and after the reading, grosly to mistake Gods verities registred in that book. And here I must mind M. Stillingfleet of his proofless and inconsequent way in Arguing.

3. You Sr. say first. The whole erring multitudes of Christians before Luther preserued Scripture pure, yet forsooth, these silly men taught one Doctrin after an other, contrary to Scripture. They perused the book interpreted it, yea preached it, to their own confusion, and condemnation. You say. 2. It is not possible that Mr. stilling­fleets argu­ments retorted these writings could be extorted out of mens hands by fraud or violence vnder their eyes, or suffered to be lost by negligence: Yet you make it not only possible, but grant the Doctrin therof to haue been lost and peruerted by fraud, negligence, violence, or all together. You say. 3. These ancient Christians were professed enemies to the corrupters of the Bible: yet you hold them dear friends to the deprauers of Gods verities, registred in the Bible. You say. 4. The interest of eternal Saluation made these Christians careful to preserue the Bible in its first integrity: And yet you make [Page 36] them supinly careles in preseruing the verities contained in Scrip­ture, as highly necessary to saluation. You say. 5. The eternal concerns of all Christians so depended vpon the safe preseruation of these Sacred Records that if they were not true, we are all most mi­serable. And I reply. The eternal concerns of all Christians as highly depend's on the pure Doctrin of Scripture as on the outward secured Records; for what auails it to haue pure Records, and draw poyson out of them? You grant the whole world was miserably infatuated with false Doctrin for ten whole ages, though it had the letter of Scripture pure, and yet the purity of that book preuented not the misery of mischieuous errours. You say. 6. When once I see à whole Corporation content to burn the publick Charter, and substitute à And further vrged against him. new one in its place, and this not to be suspected or discouered; When I shall see à Magna Charta foisted, and neither King nor People be sensible of such à cheat, when all the world shall conspire to deceiue themselues and their Children: I may then suspect such an imposture as to the Scripture, but not before. Answ. Ex ore tuo te Iudico, and retort the Argument in your own words. When. I see not only à whole Corporation but à whole ample learned Church, wast or depraue the old Legacy of Christ sacred Truths bequeathed to it, and a new learning substituted in its place, and this change not to be suspected and discouered: when I shall see that Magnum Depositum of his Doctrin once committed to the Church escare to be foisted, and neither King, nor Prelate, nor People found, sensible of the cheat: when all the world shall con­spire to deceiue themselues and their children by teaching fals Doctrin in place of Christs verities: Then I shall, and must in pru­dence suspect an imposture, à change, an alteration in the very book of Scripture. This later you shamfully grant to haue happe­ned, when vpon the pretence of hideous errours you abandoned all other Christian Societies in the world, and vnfortunatly made à Schism with Luther from the true Roman Catholick Church, therefore you may not only weakly suspect, but must most iustly fear the first, which is, that you haue not true Scripture.

4. Hence I say, what euer Argument proues the book of Scrip­ture hitherto preserued pure, proues likewise the Doctrin of the [Page 37] present Church as faithfully transmitted and Conueyed pure from An inference from what is sayd. age to age to our very dayes. Contrariwise, if there were any Principle (as there is none) whereby this Doctrin could be shew'd false or stained; All might (if reason haue place) ioyntly acknowledge à non-assurance of the Scriptures purity; For that Corrupters of Christs Doctrin may more Easily Corrupt the words of scripture. Church which may lose true faith and Corrupt Christ's Doctrin, may more easily lose or corrupt Christ's Scripture, vnlesse you grant, which is horridly impious, that Gods special Prouidence had only care to keep à Bible incorrupt, and at last, like one careless, permitted the Doctrin of that book (wheron Saluation essentially depend's) to be extorted out of the hearts of all Christians for à thousand yeares together. Ponder these truths Mr: Stilling: and Confesse ingenuously, if your Principles hold good, you haue not so much as any probable certainty of your Bible.

5. Perhaps one may say if the letter of Scripture be corrupted the very foundation of Faith is shaken, but if supposed pure and vnaltered, though all Christians, Papists, and Hereticks erred in the Doctrin therof, yet they may be reclaimed from errour by the pure Euangelical preachers, now swarming in England. Pittiful. what no help then for à besotted world before these late men appeared, who here speak at random? They first tell vs vpon à meer supposition without any semblance of proof, that Scripture was euer preserued pure though all Christians abused its Doctrin; wheras we contend vpon most grounded reasons, that if all erred in the doctrin drawn from Scripture, the letter cannot be supposed pure, because à Church carelesly negligent in the preseruation of Christs Doctrin, cannot be thought careful enough in preseruing the true Records of his Doctrin: Now the Answer without proof is, though all erred Doctrinally, yet none of them maimed or marred the Bible, which besides à Moral impossibility, implies à pure begging of the Question. See more of this particular in the other Treatise Disc. 2. c. 2. n. 8. Again. If these Euangelical men pretend to Conuince vs of our errours What sectaries are obliged to. by à pure book of Scripture, they are obliged to shew vs some one Copie at least, wherof we may haue such certainty as ex­cludes [Page 38] à Possibility of all doubting. But this no Protestant can do, who If God assisted the Transcribers of scripture, much more he assist's the Church. reiect's all editions now extant except perhaps his own. The Vulgar latin, which Mr: Stillingfleet call's the great Diana of Rome, of high credit in the Church for à thousand years, pleaseth not, The Clementine and Sixtine Bibles, not different in any Material point touching Faith, are vnderualued. Set these aside, I desire Mr: Still: or any Protestant, to show me à Copy, whose Authenticalness is so agreed on by the consent of all Christians, as may exclude reasonable doubting of its purity. It is vtterly impossible. If these men answer, we must haue recourse to the Autograph's, or ancient Manuscripts of the Hebrew and Greek, I deny their supposition, for these now extant, are no first Origi­nals, in à word no more but Transcriptions. What greater security therefore, haue we of such copies then of the Vulgar latin? vnlesse you say that the Transcriber (who euer he was) because he wrote Hebrew, Caldee, or Greek, could not tell à lye, or was determined to follow in euery Material point of Faith the Hagiographers Copy most faithfully. Grant this, and I Argue: If God by special Prouidence so assisted the memory, the will, and hands of these Transcribers, as to write nothing but what was exactly found in the first Original Scripture; with much more reason will He euer assist his Church to admit or approue of no Scripture, nor Doctrin, but what is genuine, pure, and Orthodox.

6. To reinforce this argument. I licence Mr: Stilling: to chuse amongst so many lections of the new Testament as he saith, are collected by Robert Stephen, one or two he likes best, and then I demand whether that lection agrees with the vulgar latin or differ's from it? If't agree, there is no reason to quarrel with the Vulgar; if it be different in any material point, we are cast vpon the greatest vncertainties immaginable, for the dispute will then be, whether that Copie which he followes, ought to be prefer­red before the Vulgar Latin? And here, Sr. you and I must come to clear Principles. Wee say first. The Vulgar latin translated, or at least Corrected at Pope Damasus Command by that learned [Page 39] and profound Doctor S. Hierom, hath been read in the Church The vulgar latin of long vse in the Church. without reproof, for à thousand years and vpward. None but one Rufinus (and this only at the beginning whilst S. Hierom liued) excepted against it. S. Austin, all know. Lib. de ciuit. 18. c. 4. 3. highly commend's S. Hieroms great labours, and learning in the three tongues. Not any in the ensuing ages found the work repre­hensible, innumerable worthy Authors haue approued it. And now, O strange time! à few Nouellists whose whole industry is only to pull down, to build nothing, disdainfully call it Romes great Diana. Be pleased, Sr. to answer and giue me as strong à proof for the Authenticalness of that Copy you follow (if any diffe­rence be) as I giue you for our Latin Translation? If you say the S. Hierom defended, against Cauils. Copy you follow is not the same which S. Hierom vsed, it is more then you know, He had as many lections, and perhaps more, than you haue seen, and can you say which he followed, and which he did not? Well. But suppose he made vse of an other Copy different from what pleaseth you, the Question is, whether that be of lesse credit then yours? And this sole point cannot be decided in your fauour by any probable Principle. If you say, S. Hieroms Translation seem's contrary to the Authentick Greek Copies. I answer first, you do not only auouch more then you know, but vtter an improbability; for if there had been any Ma­terial difference between his Translation, and the Greek he made vse of; innumerable learned Doctors in the Catholick Church would haue espied the errour, and discouered it, before you were born. Pray you remember your own discours P. 215. and. 216. where you say; you may be sufficiently assured that no Material corruption is in the Books of Scripture without our Churches Testimony, because Catholiks of old were alwayes as vigilant to preserue the Scriptures purity, as Hereticks ready to depraue it: For you say, when Marcion began to clip the Text Irenaeus presently took notice and rebuked him, and so did Tertullian, and Epiphanius respectiuely to others, who rescued Scripture from the violent hands of such as attempted to falsify it. Lay then yours on your brest and once speak ingenuously, can you perswade your self, if [Page 40] any considerable errour had been in our Vulgar Edition, either con­trary Catholick authors would haue noted errours in the vul­gar, had there been any. to Faith or Good manners, that those many worthy learned Catholicks in the ages after S. Hierom would not haue noted it, and released it from Corruption? What? For à thousand years, was there no Irenaeus, no Tertullian, no Epiphanius, no Ambrose &c. that took notice of so important à matter whereon the saluation of souls depended? Again (And this Argument euer pinches) was there no Irenaeus, no Tertullian, in all those ages, (when they saw the Doctrin of Scripture go to ruin by these supposed erring Papists, that rescued the Doctrin from errour, as they did the letter of scripture from corruption?

7. You tell vs. 2. That among those multitudes of lections in the new Testament obserued by Robert Stephen, which were perhaps occasioned in the general dispersion of Copies by the Multitudes of Transcriptions, through the ignorance or carelesness of the Transcribers, there are none which seem material or intrench vpon the integrity of Scripture, as à rule of Faith and manners: They are therefore, say you, but racings of the skin, but no wounds of any vital part. And is it possible? Can you find more then such racings in the Vulgar Latin? can you discouer à wound in any vital part therof? I challenge you to speak to the cause in this particular, but I know you cannot. Why therefore may not the Vulgar bee admitted amongst the rest? The reason of my assertion is. You cannot find such à wound in the Vulgar, vnless you produce à Copy of Scripture more genuine and pure without Dispute, but this, whether you haue recourse to the Greek or any Latin tran­slation will, be more doubted of by whole multitudes of learned men, then the vulgar now read in the Church: Therefore you cannot come to so much certainty of any Scripture as excludes à possibility of all reasonable doubting. Which truth seem's so euident ad hominem that it needs no further proof, but this only, The Sectary saith, our Vulgar translation is not pure, we say and proue it, his English Bibles different from the Greek in the new Testament, are Corrupted, (see many of these errours noted before the Rhems Testament), Therefore if the Protestant reiect's the [Page 41] now Authentick latin Edition he has no such certainty of any The vulgar Latin reiected, Protestants haue not Certainty of any Tran­slation. Translation extant, as excludes à possibility of all reasonable doubting, vnless he makes his own parties opinion for what he saith vndu­bitable and our contrary assertion improbable, which is foul play.

8. Some sectary may reply; He excepts not against the Vulgar Latin which is our Sixtine and Clementine Bible, as guilty of any Material errour, but of lesser faults only, and with such charitable eyes hee look's on all other versions Thus much integrity, I hope, Sectaries must approue the Vulgar latin Bible. Mr. Stilling: allowes it p: 216. where he takes notice of à peculiar hand of Diuine Prouidence in preseruing the Authentick Records of Scripture safe to our dayes. By the way: it's pitty he omitted to note also the like prouidence in preseruing the Doctrin of Scrip­ture pure so long: But hereof we haue said enough already. All therefore I note at present is. 1. If God shewed à particular Prouidence in preseruing 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 Consequently Mr: Stilling: must acknowledge à want of special Prouidence in order to the preseruation of all authentick Records euery where. Grant thus much, and no Sectary can haue so great moral assurance of scripture as excludes all reasonable doubting, for, if God hath permitted à whole ample Church to be deluded with à Bible notably corrupted: The Certainty of Scripture, which excludes all reasonable doubting, fail's the sectary, who either must admit of an other latin Transla­tion distinct from ours, or haue recourse to the Greek Text, but he approues of no latin Translation as totally pure and incorrupt, (though S. Hierom obserues in his praeface to the Gospels. Tot sunt Exemplaria quot Codices, there are many of them) Therefore He must haue recourse to the Greek, which is vsual.

9. Hence I argue. If God shewed not particular Prouidence in preseruing our latin Edition from notable errour, so diligently reuiewed [Page 42] by S. Hierom, and approued also not only by many learned Writers in after ages, but by à whole Church; it is no lesse then temerarious to allow greater security to any Greek Copy; for can the Sectary An Argu­ment in behalfe of our Latin Edition. say, that Gods peculiar hand of prouidence alwais so attended the Transcriber or Printers of the Greek Copies, that nothing could be written but pure Apostolical Scripture, and with any counte­nance own à want, à defect, à subtraction, of this peculiar prouidence to à Scripture, approued of by à whole Church? Obserue well the difficulty. Where Gods special Prouidence is, there we haue infallible assurance, you grant God's special Authentick re­cords had not come safe to our hands) therefore you cannot ratio­nally deny it to that Scripture, which the Church approues.

CHAP. VII.

1. THe first proposition. If the Protestant reiect's our Vulgar Edition as not Authentick, or as viciated in any material point touching Faith and manners, He improbably pretend's to haue so much certainty of Scripture as excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting. To proue the Assertion I will here giue you à few Postulata vsually held indubitable by most learned men, who haue writ large preludes (called Prolegomena) to holy Scripture. Neither Catholick nor protestant shall rationally except against my [Page 43] suppositions. First it is Certain, that the greatest part of the old The first supposition Testament was Originally writ in Hebrew, but whether that ancient Copy hath been euer since preserued pure, chiefly after S. Hieroms time, or notably corrupted by negligence or malice, is very doubt­ful. Learned men stand for the Affirmatiue, and none, I think, can deny some lesser errours when greater are pretended. You may see these different opinions of Authors in Prolegomen: Ad Biblia Maxima, And the particular supposed errours largely noted by Salmeron Prolegom: 4. It would be too long à work to insist on this subiect, and not for me to determine what is true: All I contend for here, is an vncertainty whilst great Authors are op­posite, and this is done, to conclude, what I intend against Sectaries.

2. It is again certain that the greatest part of the new Testament was writ in Greek, but here we meet with the same difficulty, and inquire. Whether the Greek by chance or inaduertancy has been corrupted since the Apostles time? This at least (if not more) is The second supposition. doubtful: Graue Authors hold the Affirmatiue. See Serarius in Prolegom: Cap. 13. and Bonfrer, c. 14. and the errours noted. If Protestants deny them, or think their own authority weighty enough to Contradict our Doctors, the matter in Controuersy, is still doubtful. So much I plead, and no more. 3. It is certain that all other Bibles are only Translations, or Transcriptions of The third. the Original Hebrew and Greek. The Greek version of the 72. interpreters out of the Hebrew (or as wee vsually [...]ak the 70.) is only à Translation wherin many doubts occurr. One is, whether that Translation be the first, For Clement Alex: and Euseb: cited Bibl: Max: sect. 18. c. 2. seem to hold an other more ancient, before the time of Alexander the great. How euer, admit, which is perhaps true, the 70. version to be the most ancient, we haue yet matter enough of Dispute concerning it, and one great Question is whether at this day, that version be yet preserued pure, The ancient Archetyps wherof, more probably are not now extant, but when or where lost, remains vncertain. See Bib: Max: sect. 18. c. 10. Authors say, it is corrupted through the ignorance or negli­gence [Page 44] of the Librarians, or the Printers. See Bib t Max. c. 8. 9. Restat ergo. Whence it was, that those Laborious Doctors of Alcala, at the perswasion of Cardinal Franciscus Ximeno The version of the Septuagint. Archbishop of Toledo, and afterward, the Doctors of Louain, making à diligent search after many Greek Copies, corrected no few faults in the then extant transcribed Copy of the Septuagint, yet this very correction was far from the purity of that ancient version, which the Fathers vsed. See Bib: Max: now cited, where vpon that other version of the 70. taken out of an Ancient Manuscript of the Vatican Library, Anno Dom. 1585. Came forth by the industry of Cardinal Anton: Caraffa, wherin most learned men laboured nine whole years, and it was perfected about the be­ginning of Sixtus 5. Raign. The greatest difficulty yet remains. It is most certain, the version of the 70. Interpreters differ's so no­tably from the Hebrew Text, chiefly in the computation of years, or point of Cronology, that our venerable Bede, though à great Scholler and one as humble as learned, ingenuously confesseth, Venerable Bedes Iud­gement. he cannot reconcile those Antilogies. See Bib: Max: c. 8. fine. Who then can tell me when we find these lections of the Hebrew and of the Septuagint opposite to one an other, which is to be preferred? Most learned men stand for the Hebrew, as many for the 70. You may see these dissenting Authors quoted in Proleg: Bib: Max: Sect: 18. c. 11. and how some to accord them, say, That the Holy Ghost would haue the Septuagint now to add to the Hebrew, now to diminish according to his good pleasure. See Bib: Max: cap: 8. fine.

3. But let vs proceed to à further matter of doubting. Long after the Edition of the Septuagint, came forth three other Tran­slations made by three vngodly men. Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotio. Aquila Pontinus, once à Gentil became Christian, but denying Christ, soon turned Iew learned the Hebrew language, Of other three Tran­slations. and too critically translated the Hebrew into Greek, almost word for word. His spleen against the 70. Interpreters was so great, that contrary to the verity of Scripture, He rendred some places speaking of our Sauiour, most perfidiously and wrested all to à [Page 45] confused and sinister sense. Symmachus one of Samaria, twise circumcised became at last à Professor of the Ebion Heresy, and Translated the Hebrew into Greek, not as Aquila did Ver [...]at [...]m, but rendred the sense more perspicuously. Theodotion first Bap­tized, then à Sectary of Marcions and Ebions errours, lastly à Prosylite, embraced Iudaism (and therefore S. Hierome in 3. Habacuc call's these three, now named, Semi-Christianos, half Christians) followed à middle way between Aquila and Symmachus and translated Scripture with greater Simplicity, more agreable to the 70. version.

4. An other Edition ascribed to Origen, not because he made Origens great indu­stry. à new version, but with an immense labour, to conserue the 70. Greek pure, first composed his Tetrapla or à Bible branched into 4. Columns. The first contained the 70. version, the 2. Aquilas; The 3. Symmachus his Translation. The 4. that of Theodotion. Afterward this great Doctor, learning the Hebrew language, made his Hexapla, that is à bible with 6. Columns. The first contained the Hebrew Text, the 2. the Hebrew in Greek Characters, the other 4. the Version of the 70. of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Now because there were two more Greek Versions called the fift and Sixt Editions, Origen composed his Octopla, or Bible distinguished into 8. Columns. If you will haue more of the 5. Edition, called by some Hierecuntina, or of the Sixt named Nicopolitana, as also of the Lucian and Hesychian Lections, read Bib: Max: in Proleg: Sect. 18. Cap: 9. and Bonfrer. in Prol: c. 17. These two later were only corrections Doubts relating to these ver­sions. of the 70. no new Translations. Concerning all these versions many doubts occurr as you may see in the Authors now cited, and you will meet with no fewer concerning the Caldee Paraphras of the new Testament, called Targum. The Syriack version or interpretation of the new Testament extant in that noble laborious work of Arias Montanus called Biblia Regia, is not without blemish; Se Serrar: c. 15. nor the Author of it well known, and I belieue our Sectaries will not approue seueral Titles or inscriptions men­tioning what was wont to be read on certain feast dayes, as on the [Page 46] veneration of the Holy Cross, and in certain fasts, and the Commemoration of faithful souls departed this life &c.

5. To speak here of the many latin Editions and seueral doubts concerning them, would be too long work for my designe (which is only to point at difficulties concerning both Originals and Translations) That ancient one called by S. Austin. Itala, highly commended lib: 2. de Doctr: Christi. and read in the Church before S. Hieroms time, hath no known Author. The The Itala version, commended by S. Austin. more late amongst Catholicks, are Santis Pagninus his version of the old Testament out of the Hebrew, first corrected by Arias Montanus, though the Correction pleaseth not Bonfrerius, and it was most pittifully corrupted by that Runnagate Printer Robert Stephen, wherof see more in Bib. Max: Sect. 20. Cap: 2. and Bonfrer: Cap. 18, Sect. 1. An other you haue of Isidore Clarius, which neither Canus nor others approue. A third, of Francis Vatablus Doctor of Paris, and à sound Catholick, but the vngodly Robert Stephen corrupted that version, as you may read in Bonfrer. and Bib. Max. now cited. I mention nothing in this place of the Armenian and Gothick Bibles. Se Bib. Max. Sect. 20. cap. 3. And am as silent of the Tygurin version printed anno 1539. by Christopher Froschonerus, à most corrupted Translation by Hereticks, (wherof you may see more in Bib. Max: now cited cap. 3.) Read also if you please Serrarius cap. 18. 9. 1. Of Sebastian Munsters, of Bliblianders, of Castalions and the Geneua Translations &c. You will find none of them of any account, but with Sectaries only.

6 Thus much briefly premised (for we haue not said half of what might be alleged) concerning the doubts and vncertainty of various editions, I here appeal to euery distinteressed iudgement Reflection made vpon these doubts. and ask whether it be not mighty difficult, or rather impossible, to say absolutely by the force of our priuate fallible knowledge, by witt or humane industry only: This book, This Edition is Gods true sincere word, as it was writ by the Hagiographers? And here I must mind Mr: Stilling: of his not well considered Doctrin, who P. 196. seems to own so great certainty of Scripture as excludes [Page 47] the possibility of all reasonable doubting, and pag 215. asserts. We may be sufficiently assured that there are no Material Corruptions in the books of Scripture, without your Churches Testimony. Good Sr. leaue of these generalities, and tell vs plainly of what Edition you speak? What particular version haue you, which must be supposed so authentick, or so free from all errour, as may ex­clude à possibility of reasonable doubting, before you haue the Churches Testimony or toleration for it? Name one, and much A question proposed to Sectaries. is done. Will you follow the Hebrew and Greek Copies now extant? You see most learned men, whose knowledge and Authority is not inferiour to yours, say both are corrupted, and thus much alone weakens the certainty you pretend to? Will you admit of the 70. Translation as pure and Authentick? Be pleased to reconcile the Antilogies, between that and the Hebrew Text, or say that the Septuagint, though euer of great veneration in the Church, hath its errours. Will you plead for what Aquila or Symmachus haue done? These are euidently corrupted, and in points most Material touching Christ our Lord. Will you say that all Copies, none excepted, all Translations whether Greek or Latin now extant are pure Scripture in the Materials of Faith and manners? It is highly improbable, and therefore hitherto we come to no Solid Principle, to no certainty which excludes the possibility of reasonable doubting. O saith Mr: Stilling: to proue that no Material Corruptions stained the Scripture now extant, We (that is Sectaries) diligently compare the present Copies with the most ancient M S S. we obserue the citations of Of sectaries Comparing Scripture with the more ancient Copies. those ancient Fathers who liued when some Autograph's were extant, and then (most likely) we haue the pure word of God. You compare? Pray you answer? were there not others in the Catholick Church before Sectaries troubled the world, as in­dustrious in comparing Copies and Manuscripts 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 Itala, and preferred it before all other Lections, fail to examin which Copy was best? [Page 48] Yet more. If we come to later times and ponder well, what dili­gence what vigilancy, what industry attended the Correction of the Sixtin and Clementine Bibles, Sectaries may blush at their Osci­tancy, and too sleight Cauils at our Vulgar latin. Read the preface to Sixtus 5. Edition, Antwerp print 1599. with other refle­ctions made in Bib: Max: Sect 20. c. 4. and you will see so great à care and industry vsed in this correction, that humanly speaking more could not be desired.

7. Many Copies and old M S S. were at the Popes command sought for, and brought to Rome, Not only some chief and selected Cardinals in the time of Pope Pius the 4. but other great schollers also, profoundy learned in the knowledge of Scripture, and skilful in the Hebrew, Syriack, Chaldee, and Greek, began the Great dili­gence vsed in the Cor­recting the Vulgar. Correction of the Vulgar Latin, and to accomplish the work, diligently examined these ancient books, these M S S, the best Originals of Hebrew and Greek, and commentaries also of the most ancient Fathers &c. Speak therefore of humane industry, we may boldly say, our Vulgar Latin hath been reuiewed, and corrected with greater care, than euer version was set forth by Sectaries. But if these men will still pretend to find any Material errour in the Vulgar, I only ask by what more Authentick Copy can they, so much as probably hope to amend it? By the Hebrew and Greek? Toyes. Dispute the Question rigidly, there is lesse assurance of these supposed Originals integrity, then of the Vulgar Latin so industriously examined not only by the best Hebrew and Greek Copies now extant, but also by other ancient M S S. and commentaries of the Fathers.

8. I cannot therefore imagin what Mr: Stillingfleet aimes at, when he tell's vs page. 215. that Doctor Iames who had taken the pains to compare not only the Sixtine Clementine Bibles, but the Clementine Edition with the Louain Annotations, makes it appear, there are 10000. differences in the Louain Annotations from the Vulgar Latin, and that these differences arise, from Comparing it (that is sure the Vulgar Latin) with the Hebrew, Doctor Iames opposed. Greek, and Chaldee- What would the man haue think yee? [Page 49] Will he suppose first, that Thomas Iames hitt's right in euery thing he saies? The learned Iames Gretser whose authority is euery whit as good the whole world over as that of Mr. Iames. Tom. 1. Ad lib. 2. Bell: pag. 1060. denies all this, with à Mentitur tertiò Thomas Iames, Decem millia verborum &c. Read Gretser I cannot transcribe all he hath. Again will he say, that the Vulgar Latin is to be corrected by the Louain Annotations, or these by the Vulgar, if any thing were amiss in either? Or 3. If these pre­tended differences arise from the comparing all with the Hebrew, Greek, or Chaldee, can Thomas Iames be supposed to know the last energy and force of euery Hebrew, Greek, or Chaldee Rational exceptions against Mr. Iames. word (when there is controuersy) better then the Authors of the Louain, and Correctors of the Vulgar Latin? Here we may come to an endles wrangling about the Genuine signification of words, but decide Nothing. God help vs, if the knowledge of true Scripture depend's on such petty Nicities, and fruitles quarrelling. 4. And this is to be noted. Were these differences more then are made by Mr. Iames, The question would then be, whether they imply any Material alteration concerning Faith or Manners, or introduce notable errour contrary to God's reuealed verities, or finally bee meer verbal differences, grounded on the obscure signification of Original words? If Mr: Stilling: only pretend's this later, let him remember his own expression of racings of the skin, and know, that there was neuer Translation in the world, which may not be thus Cauilled at. If any Material alteration be pleaded he both speaks à lowd vntruth, and contra­dict's himself, when he takes notice of à peculiar hand of Diuine Prouidence in preseruing the Authentick records of Scrip­ture safe to our dayes. 2. He is to name that Authentick Copy, either Original or translation, by the indisputable integrity wherof, these supposed errours may bee cancelled, and Gods pure reuealed verities put in their place: But to do this after so immense labour and diligence vsed in the correction of the Vulgar, will proue no lesse than à vain attempt, or rather à desperate impossibility. Vpon this ground.

[Page 50]9. I say first. Who euer denies the Vulgar Latin to be Authentick true Scripture, hath, Eo ipso, lesse assurance of any other Edition now extant, and consequently, not so great certainty of Scripture as excludes à Possibility of all reasonable doubting. I An Assertion proued. proue the Assertion. That man may rationally doubt of Scrip­ture who reiects the strongest assurance imaginable, and makes choise of à weaker, But this is done, if he doubts of, or denies the Authenticalness of the Vulgar. The reason is first because He hath no other Edition, as is now said, examined with more care or greater industry, and this ground's the highest humane assurance conceiuable. 2. Because the Vulgar is ap­proued by God's Holy Church which giues infallible certainty. if therefore the integrity of the Hebrew, and Greek be not vnquestionably authentick, he wants that certainty which excludes à Possibility of doubting, And Much less assurance hath the Sectary of his own later iarring Editions of Scripture, which breed nothing but confusion to the very Authors, and all who read them.

10. I say. 2. If the Sectary hold's the Vulgar Latin Au­thentick Scripture, yet makes it guilty of some lesser faults, and therefore endeauours to correct it by à more authentick What if lesser faults be pretended in the Vulgar. Copy, he cast's himself vpon meer vncertainties and, labours in vain. The reason is. To doe thus much, he must suppose that other Copy he would correct by, to be more pure than the Vulgar, and this cannot be proued vpon any receiued Prin­ciple. Now if you obiect. Authors Commonly deny not some obscurities or lesser verbal faults to haue been in the Vulgar, I answer that's nothing to the purpose were all true, for it doth not therefore follow, it can be corrected by any other Copy which is more Authentick Scripture, A lesse authentick Bible may help herein, when other lections are accuratly examined, yet may be faulty in greater matters.

11. I say. 3. No Tradition no Testimony which is fallible and may be fals, can giue so great assurance of Authentick Scripture as Diuine Faith requires, or that assurance which ex­cludes [Page 51] à possibility of reasonable doubting, which is to say in other words: The infallible Testimony of the Church is absolutely A Testimony in fallible, is necessary to ascertain Scripture. necessary to ascertain vs of Authentick Scripture. The conclu­sion is directly against Mr: Stilling: who page 226. makes the certainty Christians haue of the books of Scripture so fallible, that it may be false, yet enhaunses the certainty of the Doctrin there contained to à note higher, of infallibility. We shall see the leuity of this distinction fully discouered hereafter, and our Assertion proued in à more proper place. All I will say at present, is. No man can be certainly assured of true Scrip­ture vnles he first come to à certainty of à true Church inde­pendently of Scripture. Find out therefore the true Church and we haue all we seek for, I mean true Scripture with it, vnles one tend's to à high degree of madnesse and Assert's, that the true Church of Christ cheated into an erroneous Bible, was depriued of pure and authentick Scripture.

12. And here I will propose an Argument for the Vulgar Latin which Mr: stilling: shall not answer. In what euer Society of Christians we find faith intirely true, we haue there Authentick Scripture: But from Luthers time vpward to the 4. or 5. age faith intirely true, was only found in the Roman Catholick Church, and in no other Society of Christians, Therefore the Roman Catholick Church which read so many ages the Vulgar Latin as Authentick, had true Scripture. I proue An argu­ment prouing the Vulgar Latin Au­thentick. the Minor, wherin only is difficulty. If the Roman Church erred for so vast à time in any point of Diuine Faith, there was no faith intirely true the whole Christian world ouer, be­cause all other Societies denominated Christians were known condemned Hereticks, and consequently had not true faith, Therefore either the Catholick Roman Church enioy'd that blessing, or we must grant à want of faith for ten ages the whole world ouer. But if this Church had Faith intirely true, it preserued also Authentick Scripture (for where true faith is there you haue true Scripture) If not; it followes that wee haue no assurance at all either of the one or other. Therefore if all [Page 52] Churches vniuersally erred in points of faith, no Church can giue so much assurance of authentick Scripture, as excludes à Possibility of reasonable doubting. See more here of in the other Treatise Discours. 2. c. 2. n. 8.

13. Now we are to solue à difficulty which may arise from our former discourse, where 't is said. If one rely on humane authority which is fallible and may be false, so much mistrust, so A difficulty proposed, and solued. many doubts occurr concening the Originals and various Lections, that none can haue indubitable assurance of Scripture, How therfo­re could the Church without moral certainty (and greater too) had of the Authentick books, antecedently to the Councils declara­tion, determin so peremptorily, this Edition of the Vulgar to be Authentick, yea and to preferr it before other Latin Copies? I might here first by the way demand, vpon what certainty can the Sectary prefer his Edition (take which hee will) before the Vulgar Latin? What euer moral assurance he has independently of the Churche's Testimony for his Bible, the Church has greater for Hers. But to solue the difficulty positiuely. I say the Church after all moral diligence, proceeded in this particular vpon an The Catho­like Princi­ple ascer­taining Scripture. vndeniable Principle, which is, that God by special Prouidence preserued as well Scripture free from Material corruption, as Church Doctrin pure and orthodox: in both, wee Catholiks rely on peculiar Prouidence, and all must do so, vnless they, will rob Christ's Sponse of all the treasure she has, and violently take from her not only Orthodox Faith, but Scripture also.

The Church therefore in her Declaration depended not on à meer Moral fallible certainty, which may be false, but vpon infallible Tradition. This gaue indubitable assurance of the Scriptures purity, free from all material errour. Here is her last Principle. And thus you see à vast difference between the Church and Sectaries. The Church plead's possession of Authentick Scripture vpon Gods gracious Prouidence, and hath it warranted by indubitable Tradition, the Sectary reiect's this infallible ground, and run's away, with no man knowes what Certainty, and in doing so, cast's himself vpon the greatest doubts imaginable concerning scripture.

[Page 53]14. Perhaps you will say, Mr: Stilling: p. 213. relies in this matter on the vniuersal consent of all Christians, and Therefore includes the Testimony of the Roman Catholick Church. I answer first. Hee hath not the consent of this Church for all those Editions He approues, and Consequently the greatest part of à vniuersal consent fail's. I answer 2. He Sectaries Cannot rely on the Churches infallible Testimony. neither doth nor can (remaining Protestant) admit of the Catholiks surest Testimony or Tradition, for our Church own's in this most weighty matter, an infallible certain Tradition, Mr: Stilling: reiect's that, therefore he hath nothing from our Church which fauours his Assertion, drawn from the most assured consent of all Christians concerning Authentick Scripture. And here by the way, I cannot but take notice of this Gentlemans weightles obiection Pag. 216. who grants, there can be no certainty as to the Copies of Scripture, but from Tradition. But think not to fob vs off (saith he) with the Tradition of the present Church instead of the Church of all ages, with the Tradition of your Church, instead of the Catholick &c. with the ambiguous testimonies of two or three Fathers instead of the vniuersal consent of the Church, since the Apostles times Answ. I verily perswade my selfe He The surest principle to know ancient tra­dition. speak's not as he think's, for tell me vpon what surer Principle can men now possibly be better informed of Church-tradition in all ages, then by the tradition of the present Church? You see, He slights the Testimony of two or three Fathers (needed we relief from them) and I am sure the vnanimous agreement of all Fathers makes no where the consent of the Church in all antecedent ages, contrary to our present Churches Tradition. From whom therefore shall we learn? On what vndubitable Principle can we rest, or say such was the Tradition concerning Scripture in pas't ages but from the present Churches Testimony? It is impossible to pitch on any other Proof which is surer, or half so sure.

15. What followes is yet worse. Fob vs not off with the tra­dition of your Church instead of the Catholick. Good Sr. designe you, or name plainly that Catholick Church distinct from the Roman [Page 54] Catholick in all ages, and (to vse your own words) we shall extol you for the only person that euer did any thing memorable on your side; but if you do not this, as I know you cannot, (for all other before Luther were professed Hereticks) 'tis you that iuggles and fob's vs off with meer empty words. He still goes on thus, worse and worse. If I should once see you proue the A weak Argument re [...]orted. infallibility of your Church, the Popes supremacy, Inuocation of Saints, the Sacrifice of the mass &c. by as an vnquestionable and vniuersal tra­dition as that is, wherby we receiue Scriptures, I shall yeild my self vp as à Trophey to your braue attempts. Contra 1. ad Hominem. If I should once see you proue all Churches fallible, the Pope no supream head, No Inuocation of Saints, no veneration of Images, no Sacrifice of the Mass &c. and the rest of your negatiue Articles: If I could once see you proue two Sacraments only, Iustification by faith only, Christs not real presence in the Holy Eucharist, by as vnquestio­nable and vniuersal Tradition as that is whereby Scripture is receiued, we would yeild also to your braue attempts. Answer this if you can, or for bear hereafter to weary à reader with euident improbabilities. And mark well why I call them so.

16. Haue we not à more vnquestionable vniuersal 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 necessity of Tradition more and Lesse vniuersal. Grace, Original sin &c. Yes most assuredly, for innumerable Sectaries admitted Scripture, and yet denyed these essential Arti­cles, therefore as their Denial made the consent and tradition of all called Christians less vniuersal, for such Doctrins, so their admitting Scripture with others, heightned that Tradition, or made it more general. Say now, Sr. Had those Hereticks argued as you do, how little would they haue gained? If we should once see you proue à Trinity, Or Original sin &c. by as vniuersal à Tradition as that is whereby Scriptures are receiued, we would acquiese, but this is not possible, for both you and wee admit Scripture, and consequently make that tradition more vniuersal, yet we deny [Page 55] your primary Doctrins, and therefore all tradition is not so ample for your Doctrins, as for the books of Scripture. Here is your vnreasonable reasoning Mr. Stilling: You know well Hereticks who owned Scripture with vs, denied à Sacrifice of Mass An vnreaso­nable way of aryuing. Inuocation of Saints and other Catholick Articles, and you'l haue vs to take à tradition from these men, to vphold the Doctrins they denyed: Iust as if an Arian should bid me proue à Trinity from all Tradition, euen of his Church, when he admit's Scrip­ture and denies à Trinity. If you reply, you vrge vs not to bring in the tradition of all known Aduersaries of the Catho­lick Church for these now named Articles, but only the vniuersal Tradition of the Catholick Church in all ages, we haue already answerd, that's best known by the present Churches Testimony, no other proof can parallel it. And thus much of the Authenticalnesse of our Vulgar Edition free from all material Corruption. A further difficulty may yet be moued concerning lesser faults, and the preferring it before all other Latin Copies.

CHAP. VIII.

1. NOte first. It was very meete to haue among so much confusion and various sections of Latin Copies, one certain, approued and set forth by the mother Church, to the end her Children might be vnius labij of one tongue and speak [Page 56] one language in their reading, preaching, and publick expounding One lection of scripture, necessary. Holy Scripture. Note. 2. Though the Council of Trent sess. 4. declares this Edition of the Vulgar to be Authentick, and pre­ferr's it before all other latin Editions, Quae circumferuntur, which are now abroad, it doth not thereby detract any thing, from the credit and authority of the ancient Hebrew, and Greek Copies, whereof Authors dispute (whether they be pure or no) whilst the Church is silent and defin's nothing. Neither doth the Council reiect the Version of the Septuagint, or that ancient Latin Copy called Itala, (read in the Church before S. Hierom) as Vnauthentick in any material point: for this Argument is conuincing to the contrary. As it is madnes to say. Christs Church had not true Scripture since S. Hieroms time, so is it à desperate impro­bability The Church had in all ages true Scripture. to assert, She wanted that, in the ages before S. Hierom, which is to say: The Church had euer authentick Scripture. Moreouer, shall we (think yee) iudge, that God, whose Pro­uidence neuer failed, suffered his own spouse to be beguiled with false Scripture for 15. ages, and that now towards the end of the world he will prouide vs of à purer book, by the hands and help of à few scattered Sectaries.

2. Note 3. Translations may be faulty three wayes chiefly. 1. More ambiguity and darknes may lye in à translated word than in the Original, and this fault (if any) is remediless, because the latin, or à Vulgar language reacheth not alwais to the full Energy and signification of an Hebrew or Greek expres­sion, wherof you haue some examples in that learned Pre­face to the English Rhems Testament anno 1600. 2. Cor­ruptions How Tran­stations may be faulty. may creep into à Version by the inaduertancy or ignoran­ce of the Translator, who is neither supposed prophet nor in­fallible, and thus Authors say, that S. Hierom, though pro­digiously learned, was not euery way infallibly secured from lesser errours, yet this Prouidence God hath for the good of his Church that he will nor permit any considerable deprauation to remain in all Copies. If therefore one be faulty, all cannot be thought so, and the faults of one, by carefully comparing it [Page 57] with many, and à diligent inspection into other Copies, may be corrected. See Greg. de Valent: lib. 8. Analy. C. 5. puncto 4. 3 ^.dly Lesser deprauations often enter à version through the mistakes of Printers Librarians &c. Of these you had many in the Vulgar Latin before the correction of the Sixtine and Clementine Bi­bles, and they are scarse auoidable chiefly after seueral reimpres­sions, as we daily see in other books. Thus much premised.

3. Listen à little to Mr: Stilling: strange inconsequences and groundles exceptions against the Corrections of Sixtus and Clement. He saith the one Bible differs from the other, as Of Mr Stilling [...] g [...]und [...] exceptions. appears by those who haue taken the pains to Compare them, in some thousands of places. A great number indeed. But the first question will bee whether these Pain-takers ought to be belieued vpon their bare word, without further examination? This, Sr. you suppose which cannot well pass, before the parti­culars come to the test, and bear the censure of your Aduersaries, wholly as learned as you haue any. But say on. Are these sup­posed differences any more but like the racings of the skin; or do they giue any mortal wound to the Vital part of Scripture? If you only assert the first, you may not only Cauil at your English Bibles, but also at all the latin translations vsed in the Church both before and after S. Hieroms time, for they haue some ver­bal differences, which you may call petty and inconsiderable faults. Now, if you assert that the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles are Materially corrupted in points of Faith and manners, or to vse your phrase, Vitally wounded, what is become, I beseech you, of that peculiar hand of Prouidence you own, in preseruing the authentick Copies of religion safe to our dayes? Or (which much imports you to answer) by what other more authentick Copy can you without endles disputes and vncertainties, correct the Vulgar? This one particular will giue you work enough, before you come to à certain decision of the difficulty. In à word, because I think, many know not too well, all that concern's these two Editions of the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles, I shall add here à few notes to improue their knowledge, and perhaps your's also.

[Page 58]4. Learned men, discouered lesser faults in the Vulgar Latin; and that which was found. 4. Regum. c. 14. v. 17. seemed à chief one. Vixit Amasias silius Ioas Rex Iuda, postquam mortuus est Ioas filius Ioachaz Regis Israel 25 annis. For thus the Louain Bibles Lesser faults discouered in the Vulgar Latin. anno 1572. and other Copies vsually read 25: annis, before the Correction of Sixtus. Yet Abulensis vpon that place Quaest. 15. noted the errour, and said for that number 25. wee are to substi­tute 15: as appears. 2. paralip: c. 25. And so also the Hebrew text, the Septuagint and Chaldee read, yet Michael Paludan: cited Proleg. ad Bibl. Max: Sect. 20. c. 4. seem's to reconcile both these lections, saying Amasias liued 25. yeares after the death of Ioas, but raigned only 15. which helps little to our present purpose. To amend this, and other slighter faults, the Church, as I said aboue, and you may read in the preface to the Sixtine Bibles, hath vsed the greatest industry imaginable. Pope Pius the fourth caused not only the Original languages; but other Copies to be carefully examined. Pius the 5 ^.th prosecuted that laborious work, but brought it not to à period, which Sixtus the 5 ^.th did, who commanded it to be put to the Press, as appeares by his Bull which begins. Aeternus ille celestium &c. anno 1585, yet, not­withstanding the Bull prefixed before Sixtus Edition (then printed) this very Pope (as the preface made anno 1592. tell's vs) after diligent examination found no few faults slipt into his Bible, by the negligence of the Printers, and therefore, Censuit atque decreuit How Cor­rected by Sixtus and Clement. both iudged and decreed to haue the whole work examined and reprinted, but his too sudden death preuented that second cor­rection, which Clement the 8 ^.th after the short raign, of other Popes happily finished, answerably to his Predecessors desire, and absolute intention. Whence it is, that the Vulgar now extant, is called the Correction of Sixtus because this Vigilant Pope began it, which was recognised and prefected by Clement the 8 ^.th and therefore may be deseruedly called the Clementine Bible also. Both are now read in the Church after Clement's Recognition as authentick true Scripture, and make vp the La­tin Vulgar Edition.

[Page 59]5. Some obiect first. If Pope Sixtus made à Brieue, whereby he commanded his Edition so accuratly recognised, to be receiued for indubitable authentick Scripture, and therefore free from errours, How could he afterward find such faults as caused him to intend à new impression of the whole work? Answ: It is not said, He intended to do so vpon the account of greater faults, which essentially vitiate Scripture either in Faith or manners, for No substan­tial errour in the sixti­ne edition mention is only made in the Preface of lesser errata's Espied, when the work was done with this restriction, Preli vitio. That is, of Typographical faults, and these almost vnavoidable, cannot stain the purity of an authentick Copy. But grant more, that Sixtus who had Choice of various lections of Scripture, followed perhaps lesse circumspectly some darker or more ambiguous Copy, which Clement the 8 ^.th after à diligent search into other Editions, brought to greater Clarity, and therfore read's à little differently. Nothing is yet so much as probably alleged, causal of any errour in Faith, or Contrary to the essential verities of Scripture. For as Tannerus well obserues Tom. 3. Disp. 1. 9. 5. Dub. 2. n. 79. Where diuers lections vary, locus esse possit disceptationi & crisi. There may be place for Criticks to debate, which is the best, or to be preferred, And n. 83. Certe, saith he, in hoc genere transigendo etiam inter limites recti, magna potest esse varietas & latitudo. Certainly, in such kind of matters, there may be well be variety and à latitude, within the compass of what is right Variety of expressions with in the Compasse of truth. and true. And this Principle Sectaries must admit, vnless they deny truth to their own Translations, as they ought to doe. For do not they vsually translate [...], Ordinances, we, Traditions. They [...], Elders, we Priests. They [...], Images, we Idols? And is it not euident that we follow the obuious and genuin signification of the Greek, as well in these as in à number of other particulars? Whilst therfore Sectaries differ from vs, they either err or, not, if they err; let them correct what's amiss, If contrary to conscience they deny the errour, they are forced to grant that, inter limites recti, with in the limits of Truth there may be à latitude, à variety, or diffe­rent [Page 60] expressions, and you will not find so much between Sixtus Edition and that of Clement, nor any Corruption destructiue of Faith or manners, but slighter differences only, which alter not the genuin sense of Scripture intended by the Holy Ghost, if wee exclude Typographical faults, which hinder not the inte­grity of à Version.

6. Vpon these grounds, Mr. Stilling: obiections pag. 214. Come to nothing, where he first tell's vs, and truly, of the infinite pains which Pope Sixtus took in his Correction, and after So much adoe, shall we (saith he) belieue that Sixtus neuer liued to see his Edition Compleat? Answ: You must belieue it vpon humane faith, for it is certain, God took him out of the world before he saw it perfect, though his intention and aime Mr. stilling▪ fleets obiections, solued. was, to recall the whole work to the press again. Now this Recognition, His Successor Clement made, answerable to his wish and design. Mr. Stilling: obiects 2. Sixtus his Bull now extant (and therefore sufficiently proclaimed) inioins that his Bi­ble be read in all Churches without any the least Alteration. Answ: This Iniunction supposed the Interpreters and Printers to haue done exactly their duty euery way, which was found wanting vpon à second reuiew of the whole work, such commands therefore when new difficulties arise, not thought of before, are not like Definitions of Faith, vnalterable, but may, and ought to be changed according to the Legislators prudence. What I say here is indisputable, for how could Sixtus after à sight of such faults as caused him to intend an other impression inioyn no al­teration, when He desired one, and what he could not do, his Successor Clement the 8 ^.th did for him. Now whether the Bull was sufficiently proclaimed, matters not, for had Sixtus liued lon­ger, He would as well haue changed the Bull in order to the particulars now in controuersy, as amended his Bible.

6. Mr: Stilling: obiects. 3. All that Sixtus pretend's for the Authenticalnesse 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 [Page 61] genuin Text. Answ. After all his labour He pretend's this, but How and what Sixtus pretend's. with à caution often repeated in the Bull, quoad eius sieri potest: prout optime sieri potuit &c. That is as well as then could be &c. The firm or certain Argument therefore is. The Church euer preserued true and Genuin Scripture, which is either to be found in the ancient approued Copies both printed and manuscript▪ or no where, These, Pope Sixtus diligently searched into, therefore his Edition is true genuin Scripture, which no Catholick denies, if by true and genuin Scripture we vnderstand, not an Exclusion of all lesser faults, but of greater contrary to the purity of Faith and Religion, and so far Sixtus Edition is blamlesse, although as Tanner now cited. n. 83. obserues, perhaps not altogether so circumspectly done, nor euery way fit to the publick edifica­tion of the Church, Wherin there is à latitude within the Compass of truth, and integrity. And who euer read's Pope Sixtus own Bull before his Bible, can force no more out of it but this truth, that many faults which had got into other Copies, are accuratly corrected in his Edition, wherof no man can doubt; with all, Many faults amended by Sixtus that it contains the Vulgar Latin Edition amended at least, in many things, and consequently is authentick Scripture. Sixtus saith not, he amended all lesser faults wheron Religion has no depen­dance, but rather disclaimes busying himself with so small à seruice.

8. Mr: Stilling: obiects 4. The vast difference between the Clementine and Sixtine Bibles lay in this, that Clement corrected the Vulgar Latin according to the Original in aboue two thousand places, when the contrary reading was established by Sixtus. Answ: Here is no proof but only three improbable Assertions. Who assures you, Sr. of any vast difference between these two Editions? Or inform's you so exactly of aboue two thousand different places? Or, why finally do you tell vs of à contrary reading established by Sixtus? A reading, Good Sr, may be diffe­rent, No Contrary Reading in Sixtus his Edition. and yet not contrary in any material point of faith or manners, and so far Sixtus is defensible. If there be any other difference or Contrariety not touching on Faith and Religion, because the ex­pression [Page 62] is longer or shorter, lesse clear in the one, and more significant in the other version, this concern's vs not, both may be right within the compass of truth, and without any material fault. But saith Mr: Stilling: if the Latin Copies be à sure Rule to iudge of the authenticalnesse of the Text by, much more shall the ancient Copies of the Original Hebrew and Greek be à surer Rule. Answ: Had we now the authentick true Copies of the ancient Hebrew and Greek we should soon acquiesce, but Sectaries know well this is more then doubtful, yea almost certain that both are corrupted, how farr I say not, but morally speaking the Hebrew cannot but be corrupted by reason of the great similitude in The Hebrew text, lyable to Cor­ruption. many letters, and the access of points added by the perfidious Masoreths after S. Hieroms age, which may change the sence of Scripture, and very notably. See Gretserus Defens. Bellar: Tom 1. lib. 2. c. 2. I wonder why Mr: Stilling: is so earnest for the Greek, which our English Sectaries vtterly leaue when 'tis for their purpose. I haue told you enough already of Images translated for Idols: Elders for Priests: Ordinances for Traditions &c. And might add more, that Beza thinks those words [...] Luc. 3. 37. of Cainan to no purpose in the Text, and therefore leaues them out. Others when the Vulgar Latin makes for them follow that, and not the Greek: Take only this one instance (Authors giue many more.) The Vulgar reads Rom 8. 37. certus sum enim I am certain: The Greek [...] for I think, or am probably perswaded. Now some to assure themselues of their Predestination, read I am certain, with the Vulgar, not I am per­swaded as the Greek doth. It would be endles to tell you of Luthers ill dealing with both the lections of Greek and Latin. After the wicked man had perfidiously added that particle, Solam, to those words Rom. 3. 28. per fidem, and read by faith only. Hee omit's whole sentences of Holy Scripture in his Translation, as that. Mark 11. 26. If you will not forgiue, neither will your. Father that is in Heauen forgiue you, your sins. 1. Thess. 4. 5. That you abstain from fornication, is wholy omitted by him, and that whole sentence also 1. Ioan. 5. 7. There are three that bear record in Heauen [Page 63] &c. You will find no such Grosnesse in either the Sixtine or Clementine Bible. Yet more. Luther is excellent in the mincing or changing the proper signification of words Isay. 9. v. 6. to please the Iewes, where the Hebrew Text giues the name of God El to Christ and the Greek [...] Luther read's in Dutch stafft fortitudo. To lessen the Blessed virgins plenitude of grace, wheras the Greek Luc. 1. 28. read's [...] properly full of grace, Luther puts à Dutch word, which as I am told, signifies one pretty well gracious and no more. You haue an other notable corruption of the Greek Text Galat. 3. 10. But enough of these abuses, I cannot prosecute half of them. See Tan. Tom. 3. pag. 319.

9. Mr: Stilling: last obiection is à f [...]at Calumny. The Pope, saith He, took where he pleased the marginal Annotations in the A Calumny, for an obiection. Louain Bible and inserted them into the Text. Answer. who would not when he read's this disingenuous and fraudulent ex­pression, Where Hee pleased, but iudge, that the Pope without more Adoe pick't what he listed out of the Louain Annotations, and made that Scripture at his pleasure, which is an open slaunder. In à word here is the truth. Those worthy Doctors of Louain with an Immense labour placed in their margents, not their own Annotations or Comments, but the different Lections of Scripture, yet determined not which was best, or was to bee preferred before others, for they well knew, the decision of such causes belongs to the publick iudicature, and Authority of the Church. The Pope therefore, omitting no humane diligence compared Lection with lection, and those lections, (which vsually differ most incon­siderably, or very little, as I haue often obserued in perusing the Louain Bibles) Clement made vse of, and after mature weighing all, preferred that which was most agreable to the an­cient Copies. And here is all Mr: Stilling: Cauils at, which yet was necessary to be done, to haue one vniform Lection of Scrip­ture in the Church approued by the sea Apostolick.

10. Some may yet obiect. We say the correction of Sixtus An obiection. though in some things faulty contains nothing material contrary [Page 64] to Religion [...] or manners: Clements Correction is only so farr faultless and no farther, for many hold both these Editions may yet be corrected in some less and slighter errata's occasioned by the Librarians or Printers. Nay, perhaps it is not yet in euery particular most perfect, Therefore Clements pains was to no pur­pose, or amended little in the Sixtine Bible. That these lesser errata's are found in both Copies, and may, if the Church please, be yet corrected, is granted by great Authors. Read the Proleg: ad Bib: Max: sect. 19. C. 8. Gretser. Tom. 1. lib. 2. Defens. Cap. 11. Bell. Salmeron. Vega. And others quoted in Bib. Max. Answ: The Preface before the Sixtine Bible reuiewed by Clement, and Sixtus his own Bull, giue ground enough to solue this difficulty. The preface declares the Edition of Sixtus and Clement to be corrected Quantâ fieri potuit diligentiâ, with as great diligence as could be then vsed: yet to say it is absolutely perfect euery way, respecting humane weaknes, is difficult. Howeuer it is to be pre­ferred before all other Latin Copies set forth to this day, as the more pure, and better amended Copy. Again, 'tis said. In hac peruulgatâ lectione sicut nounulla consultò mutata sunt &c. In this Vulgar Lection, a there are many things purposely changed, so there are others which seemed to be changed, left on set purpose, without alteration. And you may see four reasons hereof in the following words of the Preface, Pope Sixtus his Bull speak's as clearly. Ne (que): enim ignoramus saith He &c. We are not ignorant, but that there are many who thought, no few words and locutions of this latin Edition might haue been translated by the latin interpreter, more properly, more Elegantly, more perspicuously, or more Copiously, measuring, as it were, words with words. Verum de his, minuta nimium & angusta concertatio ri­detur. But to insist on these, seems à strife too minute, or worth little. Ne (que) enim ta [...]ti sunt &c. Neither are they of such consequence, but that the Religion of the ancient Church, and the Authority of most holy Fathers ought to be preferred before such Niceties, it being vnmeet and vnworthy, as S. Gregory faith. Vt sub Do [...] regulis verba Caelestis oraculi restringantur. That the words of à Heauenly Oracle be tyed to the lawes or rules of à Grammari [...]. [Page 65] Thus, and much more Pope Sixtus. And hereby you see the The difficul­ty, solued. weaknes of the obiection proposed. Sixtus corrected many faults in the old Vulgar Latin anciently vsed in the Church (Sixtus neuer said, He corrected all the lesser errata's) Clement purged it of more, and restored that ancient Copy (so farr as diligence could do) to à greater integrity. Was not this work laudable and praise worthy in these two worthy Prelates? Neither of them can be taxed of any errour introduced contrary to faith, or the purity of Religion, And we vrge Sectaries to speak à probable word against our Assertion.

11. By this and the precedent discours you may learn first, that Mr: Stillingf: speaks at random when he tell's vs p. 213. of an abundance of Corruptions in the Vulgar Latin, and yet cannot find so much as one Contrary to Faith and Religion. You see. 2. Not one Corruption. in the Vulgar, Contrary to Faith. Hee amuses and abuseth an ignorant Reader, whilst he asserts there are some thousand of places wherin Sixtus and Clement differ. There is no difference at all in any one point that's essential or mate­rial, other differences which arise, either from the Printers errours, or diuersity of Lections, as long as we read what's true and the Church approues, is neither lyable to Mr: Stillingfleets Censure, nor can be iustly blamed. You see. 3. That when Mr: Still: talk's, of Thomas Iames his comparing the Sixtine, Clementine Bibles, with the Louain Annotations, and then mentions ten thousand differences from the Vulgar Latin, which differences arise from the comparing it with the Hebrew, Greek, and Chaldee, He vnderstand's not Matters too well. Because neither Sixtus nor Clement were obliged to regulate themselues▪ by the Hebrew, Greeck, or Chaldee What these two Popes chiefly in­tended. Their industry only being to correct the old Latin ( Italae) Lection, called by S. Gregory the ancient Translation (most Authentick Scrip­ture) which, howeuer was done, both after à diligent search into the Hebrew and Greek, and à careful inspection also into other Copies. And here by the way, you may perhaps discouer à piece of Mr: Stillingfleets cheat, about the ten thousand differences men­ [...]ioned aboue. Be pleased only to peruse the first words, of Gene­ [...]s where you will find à different sound of words. The Vulgar read's [Page 66] In principio creauit Deus Caelum & terram, and so it is in the Chaldee and Samaritan Copies. The Roman septuagint: In principio fecit Deus. Others ascribe this Lection to the 70. Deus creauit in principio, Some out of the Hebrew read Creauit Iudices. Aquila read's. In Capitulo fecit Caelum. The Syriack. Creauit Deus esse Caeli & esse terra. An other Syriack. In sapientia Creavit. The Arabick. Primum quod creauit Deus fecit Caelum &c. Others, Creauit Elohim & Caelos. Others Lections seeming different are not alwaies disferent. for in Principio, read, cum Principio. All which imply no more but meer triuial verbal differences, and these perhaps with many like them through the whole Bible, made Thomas Iames number swell vp to then thousand. Most petty and pittiful doings, whilst nothing appear's of greater consequence. If any desire à litteral exposition and reconciliation of these and other lections through the whole Scripture, He may peruse the Author of Bibl: Max: Comprehending ninteen great volumes. You see, 4. If the Church had true authentick Scripture before the corrections of Sixtus and Clement (wherof no man euer doubted) shee has it still after the Council of Trents approbation, much more free from lesser faults, than formerly. You see, 5. If the Sectary reiect's the Vulgar Latin now corrected, he has no such assurance of any true Bible in the world, as excludes à possibility of doubting the Scriptures integrity, and consequently, that Scripture serues him not to find out true Religion, or build true Faith vpon with security. You see. 6. that all the exceptions sectaries make against the Corre­ction of Sixtus and Clement, vltimately examined, empty themselues into no more but only into flight, torpid, and insipid Calumnies, vnworthy men of iudgement and literature. You see. 7. the Secta­ries Carping at euery thing, is iust like him who said. Quicquid Our sectaries Spirit. dixeris impugnabitur. Had the Church not at all corrected these lesser faults, the sectary would haue blamed it as negligent, and looking to nothing, now it has done that good Seruice, it is found fault with. so it is. Quicquid dixeris impugnabitur. Help it who can. I say God help them who find fault, where there is none. If any desire to haue à solution to some other Silly difficulties against the pretended solaecisms and Barbarisms of the Vulgar, let [Page 67] him read Gretser now Cited. Bib. Max. sect. 19. C. 4. and Ser­rarius. C. 19. quest: 143. And thus much of à digression.

CHAP. IX.

1. LEt vs if you please suppose, that wee and Sectaries had now in our hands the very Autograph's of the whole Bi­ble, as it was once writ by the Prophets and Apostles, or if you would rather, Imagin the book drop't down from Heauen pure, and euery way incorrupt. I say the Sectary has not probable assurance of Scripture, much less such à certainty as excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting. The ground of my Assertion is this vndeniable Principle owned as well by Protestants, as Catho­licks. Viz Scripture solely considered according to the exteriour letter, vnless the true sense intended by the Holy Ghost be had, is no Scripture to the Reader. For example: Because the Arian read's that sacred truth. My Father is greater then I, and stand's meerly vpon the bare sound of words without the sense intended by the Holy Ghost, Hee hath no true Scripture. Whence it is, that S. Austin serm: 70. Temp. hold's Hereticks most vnhappy, because they take the words without the sense, haue à body without Words without the true sense, no Scripture. à Soul, the bark without the sap, the shell without à kernel &c. S. Hierom also in cap. 1. ad Gal. v. 11. speak's to this purpose. Ne putemus &c. Let vs not think, that the Gospel lyes in the words of Scripture but in the sense of those words we read, not in the out-syde but in the pith and marrow of it. There is no need of [Page 68] quoting more Fathers. The Principle is agreed on by all, and most indubitable.

2. Hence I argue. Nothing is more essential to scripture than the sense deliuered by the Holy Ghost: but the Protestant, where he is most concerned, has not so much assurance of the sense in­tended by the Holy Ghost, as excludes à Possibility of reasonable doubting, and I proue it. He is most concerned, when he opposes our Catholick Doctrin and stand's vp in defense of his own opinions, but in neither has he such an indubitable assurance of the Scriptures sense, as excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting, and this I say is euident, For he cannot haue so much assurance if as weighty, yea à far more weighty authority contra­dict's his sense. But it is clear that not only the present Roman Church, but other particular Churches in former ages reputed Orthodox, contradict that sense the Protestant drawes from Scrip­ture, But Secta­ries haue no Certainty of the sense. (when he opposeth Catholick Doctrin or defends his own singular opinions) Therefore he has not so much certainty of the Scriptures sense, as excludes the possibility of reasonable doubting. Now, that the sole iudgement of our present Catholick Church (to dispute the thing no higher) is as great vpon all accounts, as the iudgement of Protestants, seem's vndeniable; And that the Testimony of our Church weakens the assurance of that sense of Scripture which Protestants lay claim to, is most euident, as wee see in school opinions (when contrary to one an other) for no man, whether Philosopher or Diuine, can prudently hold his opinion so certain as excludes à Possibility of doubting when as many, wholly, as learned yea more learned and numerous, after à full knowledge had of it and long Study also, deny that certainty. Thus much I say is euident. Now if the Protestant tells' vs, the Authority of his party weakens as much that sense wee make of Scripture, as the contrary iudgement of our Church lessens his, I answer. The reply here is to no purpose For all I proue at present is, that he want's this certainty, whether we haue it or not, is an other quaestion, and clearly decided for the Catholik cause in the other Treatise. Disc. 2. c. 9. per totum. Again, were all granted the obie­ction [Page 69] would haue. Thus much (which is most fals,) only followes, that neither of vs know assuredly the sense of Scripture, which touches not the difficulty now in controuersy.

3. My 2. Argument is so demonstratiue that if the Protestant A 2 Argu­ment▪ most Conuincing. will please to solue it, I'le neuer trouble him more with diffi­culties. To propose it clearly, know only thus much. That when the sectary read's Scripture and would haue it to his pur­pose, He either ouer reaches the Text, or fall's short of its meaning. For example. To those words of S. Math. This is my body he adds this, as good sense. This is à signe, or figure only of my body. Mark well: We both read the same words, but Catholicks deny that to be Scripture, not because we deny the words, but his sense we say is no scripture. To that of our Sauiour. I am with you alwaies to the end of the world. He adds, I am with you alwaies by à fitting, but no infallible assistance: We say this is no Scripture. To that of S. Iames. A man is iustified by works and not by Faith only, He adds, he is iustified not before God, but before men, we still deny this to be Scripture. And thus sectaries proceed with vs in all other contro­uerted Texts of Holy writ. Whence I argue.

These Additions of à sign only, of à fitting Assistance, of iustification before men &c, are either the true sense intended by the Holy Ghost or Sectaries fancy, but most euidently they are not the sense inten­ded by the Holy Ghost, for this must either be gathered out of Sectaries glosses and additions, not scripture. so many express words of Holy writ which is prodigiously false, or must arise from the Holy Ghosts infallible assistance whereby Prote­stants, as people Illuminated aboue all others giue vs the true meaning of Scripture; and this besides the Paradox, when à whole learned Church contradict's the assertion, is most destructiue of the Protestants own Principle: For they say, the Holy Ghost inter­pret's by none, enlightens none, teaches none to deliuer the true sense of Scripture, but such as do it infallibly, which Truth is most vndoubted. They say again, when they giue the sense of Scripture, or interpret God's word, they do it so fallibly, that it may be false, or if they interpret infallibly; and cannot err, Eo ipso, they are so farr infallible, which they vtterly deny. See Disc. 2. c. 9. n. 8. what [Page 70] then remains but that the sense of Scripture proposed to vs by such fallible Teachers, is only the thought of their own fancy.

5. Some may reply. Protestants after long perusing Scripture, and comparing seueral Texts together, iudge the sense of these and No more are their dedu­ctions. other controuerted places by à lawful deduction, to be as they de­clare. I answer first. They shall neuer come to so much as à probable deduction, and I earnestly press them to make their sense good in the passages alleged, when we now stand to Scripture only. I answer. 2. such dark inferences drawn from comparing Texts together not grounded on the very words, euer imply à mixture of humane discourse, which therefore is fallible and may be false. Whence it followes, that Sectaries can belieue none of these senses by Di­uine Faith, because the last Motiue or formal obiect of their As­sent, is à fallible reasoning only, and this may erre. And here you may learn how necessary an infallible Interpreter of Scripture is, without which we are cast vpon meer vncertainties, and vnauoidable improbabilities.

6. The Sectary may yet answer. To the comparing of Texts together, He add's the sentiment of some Fathers for his sense: I say of some, for t'is euident He hath not all, much lesse the Vniuer­sal consent or Tradition of the Church in euery age. If this be the reply, I may well oppose it in Mr: Stilling: own words pag. 216. Think not to fob vs off with the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three Fa­thers instead of the vniuersal consent of the Church since the Apostles time &c. But what will you say, if he has not one clear Testimony of à Not on [...] an­cient Father Clear for protestancy. The reason is giuen. Father for him? I boldly assert it, and vrge him to produce but one. The reason is. What-euer Testimony of à Father is alleged for his sense, will be at most (if't come thither) so notably am­biguous that weighed with all circumstances, it may well haue à Catholick meaning: That sense therefore must stand good without contest, when it answers to the iudgement of à whole learned Church, and the Sectary hath nothing to draw it to his particular opinion (neither vniuersal Church nor vniuersal Tradition) but only à few ambiguous words capable of interpretation, and his own fancy to boot▪ Nay I say more, He hath not so much as any little [Page 71] appearance of ambiguous words for his sense. Pray you tell me, (and let Protestants shame me if they can) where has he any hint of à Fathers doubtful words for his minc'd fitting assistance only allo­wed the Church, Positiuely excluding infallible assistance? For iustification by Faith only? For two sacraments only? For à signe only of Christs presence in the Eucharist? yet these senses he vend's as the genuin meaning of the Holy Ghost, without proof or probability, therefore fancy only plaies here. And thus you see the first part of my Assertion demonstratiuely proued viz. That Protestants haue not so much as à weak probable assuran­ce of that which is the very life and essence of Scripture, I mean, of the true sense intended by the Holy Ghost: Yet you know Tertullians iudgement. Tertullian saith. Lib. de Praescript. cap. 17. Tantum veritati obstre­pit adulter sensus: quantum & corruptus Stylus. A fals sense depraues Scripture as much, as if the words were corrupted. Thus much premised and so fully proued, that sectaries cannot return à proba­ble answer, I'le add one consideration more to confirm what is said.

CHAP. X.

1. THe Assertion may seem strange had we not an euident proof at hand, and t'is thus. The Iewes, Turks, and Pagans (although all Christians now and euer agreed in some chief verities concerning Christian Religion, as that Iesus is our Redeemer) reiect the Doctrin as fals, and foolish 1. Cor. 1. u. 23. We preach Christ Crucified, à scandal to the Iewes, and à foolery to the Gentils. Whereby you may well learn, how enormously Mr: Stillingfleet erred aboue when he told vs, that the meer excel­lency and reasonableness of Christian Religion carries with it its own proof. Our Assertion is contrary, and grounded vpon this The proof of our Assertion opposite to Mr. stillingfleet. Principle. The Mysteries of Christian Doctrin considered in themselues, transcend all humane Capacity, and as the Apostle saith scandalize weak reason, Therefore the Mysteries meerly laid forth to à Iew or Gentile are no conuiction, because they are aboue the reason of the very best Belieuers. Now if you say, they ought first to be belieued by faith without any preuious inducement, This is the worst of fooleries, for none of the Primitiue Christians, so much as belieued Christ or admitted Apostolical Doctrin, without rendring first some satisfactory reason (distinct from their faith) why they reiected the ancient Sinagogue and assented to that then new preach't learning. Some [Page 81] preuious light therefore, distinct from these abstruse Mysteries, which God laies before the eye of humane reason induceth all, whether Iewes or Gentils, to the true belief of Christianity, and Consequently the meer supposed verity of the Doctrin only, dark in it self, is no absolute mark or first self euident Principle, The rerity of Christ's Doctrin no selfe Euiden­ce. whereby we are immediatly moued to belieue such high secrets. Pray you tell me, should any one goe amongst some vnciui­lised People, who either haue heard nothing, or very little of Christ, and only relate the story of his sacred Birth in à poor stable, of his obscure life from the 12 ^.th year of his age till he began to preach &c. Would such Barbarians, think yee, assent to these strange things either by the force of humane reason, or Diuine Faith, without further proof or motiue to make all good? No certainly. Yet all is true and very true, yea, and most reasonable, but the verity alone is insufficient to per­swade any that 'tis true.

2. From this short discourse, whereof more in the second part, these vndeniable inferences follow. 1. That Sectaries assert they know not what, when they make the true Preaching of the Gospel and right vse of Sacraments to be marks of the true Church. For the true Church (be it where you will) hath euer its marks antecedently supposed to the true preaching of the word, which marks, first manifest that mystical body (at least in à general way as I shall presently declare) and thus known by à natural euidence, she proposeth the Mysteries we belieue. Here The Church is known by her marks, before we belieue. is the reason à priori of my Assertion. That which is the first obiect of our Faith cannot be the first obiect of our knowledge, the Mysteries of our belief layd forth by the preaching of Gods word, are the first obiects of Faith, (for these we belieue, and as belieued they are obscure) therefore they cannot be the first obiects of knowledge (if we speak strictly of knowledge) or marks preuiously inducing reason to belieue. Whence it is, that reason hath its euidence or prudent inducements laid forth vpon other extrinsical Principles, before we belieue. Belief therefore, whether you take it for the obiect assented to, or the [Page 82] act wee assent by (being as I said obscure) can be no mark to it self or to the true Church we belieue in, for à mark is euer more known than that obiect is whereof it is à mark, or which is pointed at.

3. Some perhaps will say. The Church is vsually defined. An Assembly of those who profess the true Doctrin of Christ, therefore An Obie­ction. true Doctrin most essential to the Church, must necessarily be known before we know the total essence of the Church. Ergo true Doctrin or the preaching of the word is à mark whereby we first find out the Church, and consequently the Church marked with euident clear motiues, is no inducement to belieue true Doctrin. The Argument is an euident fallacy. First because the Illiterate and simple Christians belieue in the Church and haue faith sufficient to saluation, though they neuer arriue to an explicit Briefly solued. belief of euery particular Doctrin taught by it. 2. They either explicitly belieue all these particular Doctrins by Faith, and this is impossible, because all of them were neuer proposed explicitly, or, know them ex terminis to be Diuine Truths by humane rea­son, when they are proposed, and this is most vntrue. For who can say that this truth. Christ is God and consubstantial with his Father, is à verity more known ex terminis by humane reason, than the contrary errour of the Arians is? You see therefore the obiection is forceles: For, as one who reades Aristotle or Plato knowes what is said, or the substance of the Doctrin by the sense of their words, yet remains ignorant whether it be true or fals, without further reasoning and inspection, so à Gentil that reads our Christian Doctrin in the bible may know much of its sense, or what is said, yet he must both discourse and reason well, before The iudge­ment of Cre­dibility, not attained by examining the Mysteries of Faith. he come to this setled iudgement. All I read (not euidently true ex terminis) is yet indubitably so. Now this iudgement is not first got by examining the particular verities which Scripture or the Church teaches. No. There is à farr easier way whereby reason, after à further discourse concludes: that either God hath cheated the world by the Miracles, the sanctity, The blood shedding of [Page 83] Martyrs, and all those conuersions wrought by the Church, or we must grant, That, what the Church teaches is true, And this general iudgement arising immediatly from à due Ponderation of the motiues of Faith (which is Science) disposeth an vnderstan­ding to belieue this great Truth. God speaks his eternal verities by that Church (be it yet where you will) which Christ Iesus founded. And in this sense we say, à general Notion or knowledge of the Church manifested by supernatural signes, is vsually necessary to the belief of euery particular Doctrin deliuered by it, and conse­quently particular Doctrins can be no first mark, or sign of this Oracle. Thus much is here briefly hinted at to solue the obie­ction. Hereafter, the whole Analysis shall be most particularly discussed in its due place.

4. A. 2. inference. True Religion is first found by its marks The true Church is known before we can know the books of scripture. and cognisances, before the pure and incorrupt books of Scripture can be owned as Diuine. We come therefore to à knowledge of these incorrupt books by the help of that Christian Society where true Religion is taught, and cannot first know where true Religion is by the books of scripture only. I say. First know. For without all doubt when incorrupt Scripture together with the sense is once admitted vpon the authority of Christs Church, we argue and forceably as the Fathers anciently did, against Sectaries by Scriptu­re: But all such arguments presuppose the Books proued Diuine, and sacred. The reason of the inference is. These Books only contain à simple narration of our Christian verities, which both Iewes and Gentils slight, therefore though we cry neuer so loud Scripture is Diuine, and written by the Holy Ghost, we effect nothing with these Aliens from Christ, vnless we first conuince the truth by proofs distinct from Scripture it self. And as little is No disputing by Scripture only, without the Canon and sense be agreed on. done, if Christians of à different belief dispute by Scripture, when neither the Canon, nor the sense is agreed on. For example. Marcion produceth his Bible, The Arian his, and his sense, A third à Scripture without S. Iames Epistle, or that to the Hebrewes, Our Sectaries Crowd in with their book, whilst others as learned reiect [Page 84] their Canon, and much more that sense they force from it in à hundred passages. What is to be done in this Confusion? Must wee admit of Marcions Bible, or submit to our Sectaries Canon, and new sense also? No certainly, it Cannot be expected. Perhaps they will say. we are to dispute the question, and rigidly examin who hath the true Canon and sense of Scripture, They or wee, This ends the difference. Very good. But say on I beseech you? And first giue vs à sure Principle (à doubtful one in so weighty à matter help's little) which may bear vp the controuersy, and at last end it, for vnless this principle be agreed on, the result of our dispute will be nothing but à fruitles wrangling. O the Fathers and Antiquity well pondered cannot but decide the debate. I answer, may we iudge by the effect, the assertion is most vntrue: The ancient Fathers per­uerted by sectaries, end not Contro­uersies. For haue not we and Sectaries now read and pondered the Fathers and Antiquity for one whole age, what can be alleged on both sides, as well for the Canon as the sense, hath been said, and after all, are we not still as much at variance as farr off from ending the controuersy, as when we began it? Say Now, but vpon à solid Principle, who is in fault? The Sectary thinks wee vnderstand not the Fathers, and we are sure, he abuseth them with farr fetch't glosses. He saith their words are clear for his sence, and we pro­fess, the Contrary. Hitherto we come to nothing like à Principle▪ The Controuersy therefore driuen on no further, but to the se­ctaries bare, Yea and our, No, hangs yet in the ayre wholly vnde­cided. The reason is. Though the Fathers words be neuer so plain for our Catholick verities, yet after the Sectary hath laid his glosses vpon them, they are most vnworthily made by him as doubtful, and à matter of as great contest, as the very sense of Scripture is, which both of vs would haue cleared by the Fathers testimony. That is. There is as much adoe (may Sectaries glosses haue place) to vnderstand, what à Father teaches concerning the sense of scripture, as to vnderstand Scripture it self, before we haue recourse to the Fathers. To recurre therefore to their interpreta­tion in Controuerted matters whilst Sectaries as much darken that [Page 85] by their glosses, as they obscure the Scripture we dispute about, is The matter in Dispute, no meet Principle to end it. euidently à most vnfit way to end any Controuersy, vnless that which is the very matter of Dispute between vs, can be supposed à meet and sufficient means to end it, which is impossible. Now if the sectary blames vs because we reiect that sense, he drawes from either Scripture or the Fathers, and he also reiect ours, what haue we but wrangling? Both parties hitherto only word it, and stand chafing at one an other, without Principles. God therefore hath prouided vs à surer and easier way to end debates about Religion, whereof more in the sequele Chapters.

CHAP. XI.

1. NOte first. If God as I said aboue, once established true Religion among Christians, He made it so discernable from all false sects, that it may be found out by prudent reason. Omni literaturâ notius saith Tertull. lib. 1. de Testimonio animae. Its more known then any other learning. For to say on the one side, That an infinite wisdom hath planted true Religion in the [Page 86] world, which shall not perish, and on the other, to assert it cannot be proued or found out, is first to cast à blemish on Prouidence, and next to free all from the obligation of embracing it, because none can be obliged to embrace that which cannot be known by reason, or rational arguments. Note. 2. The Doctrin of Christ which essentially constitutes true Religion, stand's most firm vpon indubi­table Principles appliable to the Belieuers reason. If therefore à Want be found of such proofs, and doubts arise, whether Christ's Doctrin be taught or no; None can by doubtful or ambiguous Proofs of true Reli­gion, easy and Con­uincing. Principles only, absolutly say. This is Christs Doctrin, and Conse­quently the proofs of true Religion answer to the weightines of the matter, that is, they are clear, conuincing, and exclude à possibility of reasonable doubting. Thus much supposed.

2. I say first. who euer endeauour's to shew by arguments what Tenents of Religion now held amongst Christians are pure and Orthodox (when the matter is of Controuersy,) and cannot The sectaries proofs, as dark as his Doctrin. bring his proofs to à Clearer Principle, then the particular assertion is which should be proued, argues improbably. The Protestant in all the discussed matters of Religion doth so, that is, he neuer goes beyond the strength of his own weak assertion, but eludes all by talk wholly as dark and weightles as the very Assertion is, which should be proued; therefore he Argues improbably.

3. To proue the Minor proposition wherein the difficulty lies. Take à veiw of all our Protestant Tenents as they differ from Catholick Doctrin, or Constitute this new reformed Religion and ask, what Protestant dare appear and venture to proue, That Faith only iustifies: The like I say of his other negatiue Articles, Of no real Presence, of no Inuocation of Saints of no Sacrifice of the Mass. &c. I absolutly affirm, He cannot make one of these Articles good by any vndoubted Principle, or establish any of them by à proof which is clearer, than that dark article is, which should be proued. One reason is. These Doctrins opposite to the Latin and Greek Church also, are not euidently known as truths by the light of One reason of our Asser­tion. nature, or by any receiued Principle grounded on Reuelation. No ancient Church reputed Orthodox held them 7. hundred years [Page 87] agone, and Consequently no vniuersal tradition is for them. The only difficulty is, whether Holy Scripture or the Fathers gene­rally patronize such Doctrins? And to fauour Sectaries all that's possible, we will here moue no doubt of the letter of their Bible, but withall assure them, it will be impossible to draw such new learning out of that Book, and the impossibility will be thus mani­fested. As long as these men cannot proue their new Doctrin to be transmitted to them from as good and assured authority as their book of Scripture is transmitted (but vpon less sure grounds, or less assured tradition) so long their doctrin is naught and stands vnprincipled. But this is so, as we shall see presently. And you may by the way note here the difference between the Catholick The differen­ce beween the proofs of Catholiks and Prote­stants. and Protestant. The first, proues euery particular Tenet of his Faith by as sure à Principle as he proues his Bible to be Diuine, (the Church assures him of both) but the Sectary euer fall's short in this and cannot giue you so strong à proof for his particular Do­ctrin, as he doth for the very letter of his book, which he sup­poses teaches that Doctrin.

4. But let vs come to the point which chiefly vrgeth, and take one particular Controuersy (we cannot insist on all) and ask the Protestant. How he proues that the real presence of Christs sacred body (as Catholicks assert) is not expressed in the literal sense of those words. This is my body. His negatiue assertion most euidently is not there in plain terms. We therefore vrge him to make it good by à proof that's clear or more conuincing than his own dark and yet vnproued Negatiue is. And is he not obliged think yee to produce à strong proof indeed, when he hath so many powerful Aduersaries to contrast with? 1. The clear words of Christ now alleged 2. A long Catalogue of most ancient Fathers vsually cited by Authors opposite to him. 3. The Authority of the Greek and Latin Church, for both Churches mantain the real substantial presEnce to this day. 4. The express Doctrin of general Councils, which define our Doctrin positiuely, and The grounds of our Ca­tholick Te­nets. condemn the figuratiue presence of Sectaries 5. Euident Miracles wrought in confirmation of the Mystery, related by authors of [Page 88] most indubitable credit. These are no slight grounds of our Do­ctrin. Let vs see by what strong receiued Principle the Sectary endeauour's to weaken them, or (which is immediatly to my pur­pose) proues his new negatiue Position. Has he the express letter of Scripture for his Negatiue: Christ is not substantially present in the Eu­charist? Not one word in the whole Bible is like it, much contrary. Doth the sense of Scripture after all places are compared together fauour him? No. What euer sense he drawes from thence see­mingly to his purpose, will be as obscure and remote from the nature of à proof or any known Principle, as his own improbable position is, and therefore most vnfit to perswade it. Has he as vniuersal Tra­dition or the vnanimous consent of Fathers for his negatiue, (or for that sense 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 iustly I propose this question, call to mind what Mr: The Sectary answers not to any. Stilling: exact's of his Aduersary Part. 1. c. 7. P. 216. If I should, saith he, once see you proue the infallibility of your Church, the Popes supremacy, Inuocation of Saints &c. by as vnquestionable and vniuersal tradition as that is whereby we receiue the Scriptures, I would extoll you for the only person that euer did any thing considerable on your side. Thus he speakes after this precaution giuen. Think not to fob vs off, with the Tradition of your Church in stead of the Catho­lik, with the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three Fathers, instead of the vniuersal consent of the Church since the Apostles times. Your own words Mr: Stilling: shall here condemn you. The Question is whether your Negatiue, Christ is not really present in the Eucharist, as Catholiks affirm, be Orthodox Doctrin? We exact as rigid à proof from you, as you demand of vs, but fob vs not off with your own talk (Tradition you haue none) nor with the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three Fathers, but giue vs the vniuersal consent of the Church since the Apostles time, as What we iustly require of Sectaries. 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 indu­bitable sentiment of any Church, reputed Orthodox, four or fiue hundred years past for this your sense and assertion, and I will [Page 89] applaud you as à most singular person. But this you shall doe, when you haue turned all faith out of the world; that is neuer. I say therefore you haue no more but the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three Fathers (nay you haue not so much) for this Nega­tiue Doctrin; which vpon that account proue nothing, because they are as dark for your sence, as the Doctrin is, which you would proue by them.

5. For example. You may allege some passages out of S. Au­stin, chiefly that contra Adimant. C. 12. Our Lord doubted not to say, This is my body when he gaue à sign of his body. The obuious sense whereof without torturing the Text, is thus. Our Lord gaue vnto his Disciples the Consecrated species and accidents of bread, which were à sign of his Body there contained, and doubted not to say, that what he gaue them vnder those accidents, was really his body. Let now any one probably inferr, that his S. Austin's words fauour not Sectaries. sacred body was not then present vnder the accidents of bread, because S. Austin saith those accidents were à sign of his body not absent, for à sign or figure implies not the absence of the thing signified by it. Well, but grant contrary to truth all you can wish, The words at most are ambiguous, and therefore no fit Principle to ground an article of faith, as is now noted. You may next allege that known Testimony in Theodorets Dialogues. The Mystical signes after the sanctification recede not from their nature, but remain in their first substance, figure and form; are seen and touched as before. I answer, Theoderet plainly speaks of the Mystical signes More of Theoderet afterward. which are seen and touched, not of the inward substance of bread and wine, which are no immediate obiect of our senses, those sig­nes recede not from their nature, but remain in their form and fi­gure as before; and t'is Catholick Doctrin whereof more presently. But grant the vtmost. The words are only dubious and therefore insufficient to assure vs of an article of Faith, when contrary to the receiued Doctrin of the present Church. I assert yet more. Though any Father should say, That the substance and nature of bread and wine cease not to bee, there is nothing yet concluded against vs, for by these words substance or nature, the outward [Page 90] Massinesse, or Corpulency of bread and wine may be well vnderstood, which as Theoderet saies remain. The reason is. In ordinary Speech we often giue to qualities which flow from the essence or nature of à thing the very name of the thing it self. Thus we say an excessiue heat is fire, à Massy heauiness is lead, or à stone, wheras heat and heauiness in common philosophy, are only natural qualities or properties distinct from each substance, respectiuely. Such locutions, were they found, are at most dubious, but we stand in no need of any far-fetch't glosses.

6. Lastly Tertullians speech lib. 4. contra Marcio: cap. 39. ex Cap. 21. Lucae contain's no difficulty. Christ taking bread into his hands and distributing it to his Disciples made the same his body, Tertullians sense, most plain and easy. saying this is my Body; That is, à figure of my body. Obserue the words. Made the same his body, and all is clear? What did he make so? I answer. That bread which in the old Testament was à figure of his body (according to the words of the Prophet. Mittamus lignum in panem eius. Let vs put wood into his bread, that is à Cross into his body) he makes now in the new law most truely and really his body. Whoeuer read's Tertullian, will find this to bee the genuine sense of his whole Discourse in the place cited, where first he ieer's Marcion. Faciebat ad vanitatem Marcionis vt panis Cru­cifigeretur, Then saies, Marcion vnderstand's not, that bread in the old Testament was à figure of Christ's body, as the Prophet Ierimie speak's. Conijciamus lignum in panem eius, scilicet, (They are Ter­tullian's own words) Crucem in Corpus eius. That is à Cross into his body. See Pamelius his learned notes vpon this passage, chiefly. n. 662. and. 667. and you will easily free Tertullian from all ambiguity in Speech. There are yet other Authorities much wea­ker produced by Sectaries, but these now quoted seem sufficient for my chief aime, whereof more presently. In the interim I ex­pect from these men à clamorous reply.

7. They will certainly tell vs the sense and explication now giuen to these Fathers are no more but meer vnproued guesses, or A reply of sectaries. answered. thoughts of our fancy. I might first answer. This sense imme­diatly flowes from the plain words which we admit, according to [Page 91] the rigid grammatical signification of euery particular sentence. But let vs waue this, and ask, whether the contrary sense of sectaries be any more but meerly their vnproued glosses, or thoughts of fancy? I say they are so, and consequently as dark, and wholly obscure, as that Negatiue Proposition is, which should be proued by them. They storm, and say the sense is clear for them, I stifly deny it, and assert the conttary. They perhaps will vrge me to proue my sense; I vrge them to proue theirs, which cannot be done by the Fathers own words without à surer Principle; For, you see, the words oc­casion the quarrel, but that which is the cause of our dissentions can neuer end them, or bring vs to any acquiescency, without à further Principle. And thus we stand Andabatarum more, winking and fighting. The one saies. Yea, The other. No. without fruit or further progress, and are yet farr from ending diffi­culties.

8. Now here is that which I would haue all to reflect on, for it is of mighty importance, viz. That controuersies between the A reflection necessary for all that wri­te Contro­uersies. Catholick and à sectary, cannot but be an endles work, if both endeauour to decide them by Principles, and vary as much about the sense of those Principles, (which are supposed to end the Dis­pute) as we do about the very matter in question. This is euer so, whilst the sectary reiect's an infallible Church or her vniuer­sal Tradition. Obserue well: The matter now in question is, Whether Christ be really present in the blessed Sacrament? We allege his own Sacred words. The Sectary saies we mistake the sense, and consequently will not haue the difficulty decided that way. To know the Truth, both of vs examin all the other passa­ges in Scripture relating to the Mystery, both read the originals, and the different versions, both compare Text and text together, nothing is yet ended; Still we stand at variance about the sense, which should decide matters between vs. Next we read the Holy Fathers (for our Sectaries like not Tradition) they produce their How Dispu­tes are made endless. Testimonies; we interpret. We produce ours; They also inter­pret. Obserue well I say. Are we not as much at variance about the sense of these Fathers, which are supposed à Principle to end [Page 92] our debates, as about the very meaning of Gods word? And doth not the matter in question still remain vndecided? Most euidently yes. Therefore, vnless some other means be afforded whereby we may come more easily to the knowledge and belief of the reuealed truth in this Mystery, (may Sectaries glosses haue place) all are cast into à labyrinth of seeking, without hope of finding what God will haue vs to belieue. In à word the plain truth is thus.

9. Sectaries will haue vs to dispute of Religion, but on such Terms as shall be sure neuer to end one difficulty. That is, they will haue vs to reason about matters of highest consequence, and with it destroy the best ground of all reasoning. I say therefore. If Religion were to be proued by Scripture only (add to Scripture the authorities of Fathers) when euery one makes that sense of scriptu­re orthodox, which he conceiues to be so; Religion ere this day had been long since destroyed. For the Arian would haue his sense passe for truth, The Pelagian his, The Monothelite his, The Protestant his. All these different senses admitted, destroy the very Essentials of Christian Religion. And for this reason I would fain learn of any knowing man, What that owned Principle is, whereby the Sectary proues the sense he giues of Scripture to be more certainly à reuealed Truth, than that glosse is which either Arian or Pelagian forceth out of the very book which Protestants read? I assert boldly, they are all alike: Guesses and meer fancies guide A iust paral­lel between Arians and Protestants. them, and nothing els. The Arians sense is not clear, no more is the Protestants: The Arian has no vniuersal Tradition for his sense, no more hath the Protestant. The Arian has no vniuersal consent of Fathers, no more has the Protestant. The Arian has no Church euer reputed Orthodox which owned his sense, no more hath the Protestant. Now if the Protestant recurr to the Primiti­ue Church, The Arian will go higher to the very Apostles preaching, and auouch that his sense was taught by those first Masters of the Gospel. I say it once more, they are all alike, there is no difference between them. The Arians gloss is as good as the Protestants, and the Protestants wholly as bad as the Arians▪

[Page 93]10. Hence I say. 2. The Protestant cannot aduance any thing like à proof in behalf of his own new opinions, and he is as farr from Principles, when he opposes Catholick Doctrin. You haue the reason giuen already. No proof, less sure than the true sense of Scripture, taught and deliuered by à Church confessedly ortho­dox. No proof, less firm than that Churche's authority and her receiued Tradition, can indubitably ascertain any of Christ's Sacred Doctrin. But it is euident Protestants want such proofs, when they either plead for their own opinions, or impugn Catholik Protestants Condemned by their own writings. Doctrin, And to make good what I say, I appeal to their own writings and ask euery iudicious Reader, whether he euer yet heard Protestant whilst he asserts no Transubstantiation, (for example) No Sacrifice of the Mass no Inuocation of Saints, say plainly and positiuely vpon à solid ground: Such an ancient Church reputed Orthodox con­fessedly denied Transubstantiation, Inuocation of saints, the Sacrifice of the Altar &c? Such à passage of Scripture sensed and interpre­ted by that Orthodox Church, or general consent of Fathers agreeing with known Scripture and Church Doctrin, decried these In what manner Sectaries handle con­trouersies. Catholick Tenets, as we Sectaries do now? Has euer Protestant I say, gone thus plainly to work? No God knowes. I'le highly extoll the man that shall offer at it. What then is their strain of writing. All à long à meer cheat. They either argue negati­uely. We find not, forsooth, Such Doctrins in antiquity (which is false) and, though true, t'is to no purpose; Or, they cite you two or three ambiguous Testimonies of the Fathers, gloss, and sense them as they please, and then cry victory. Thus Mr: Stil­ [...]ingfleet proceed's as you shall see presently. I say, No such mat­ [...]er. An ambiguous Testimony of à Father glossed or sensed by [...]ou, is wholly insufficient to ground faith vpon, or to assert ab­ [...]lutely: This is Christs Doctrin, without an ancient Orthodox Church, which indubitably maintaine'd the Position and that [...]nse you would draw from à Father. And mark well what I say, [...]or we shall afterwards end all controuersies by it. In the mean [...]me who is there so far from reason, that can perswade himselfe, [...]t I or any ought to reiect what my Church teaches, because à [Page 94] Sectary offer's to draw some few Fathers to à new sense which no Orthodox Church euer heard of? When all know, or should know, that no priuate mans opinion, no doubtful Text, much lesse Sectaries glosses added to an ambiguous sentence, can assure me what Christ's Doctrin is, which, as I said, euer stand's firm vpon vndubitable Principles, or à Belieuer ought not to own it as Doctrin truely reuealed.

11. But before I press this point further, and shew vpon what certain Principle the Catholick relies, when the Scriptures sense (the like is of the Fathers) is debated, I must needs entertain you à little (because it much auail's to my present purpose) with à few known Authorities of Fathers which either conuince our Catho­lick Doctrin of Christs real Presence in the Eucharist, or (we may boldly say) no truth was euer established by those great lights of the Church. I say only à few: for it is not my intent to collect half of what is vsually quoted by Catholick Authors, my chief What is chiefly inten­ded in Citing the Fathers. ayme being thus much at present, to make this truth manifest. That as long as Sectaries iarr with vs about the sense of Fathers and only deliuer opinatiuely their contrary Sentiments, so long they do no more, but without fruit beat the aire and dispatch no work. Recourse therefore must be had to à clearer Principle, whereof we shall af­terward treat at large. Now as I promised one Authority is to be examined.

CHAP. XII.

1. BEfore we produce these Testimonies and lay open Mr: Stillingfleet's Mistakes, turn I beseech you to his Account of Protestancy. Part. 3. c. 3. page. 567. Where he treat's of Transubstantiation and calls it an vnreasonable Doctrin because re­pugnant to sense and reason also. It seem's contrary to sense, [Page 103] for sense tells vs, what we see and tast is bread after consecration; and reason vpon that sensible suggestion, ought to conclude, it still remains substantially bread. Obserue I beseech you, how the Gentleman to maintain his proofs drawn from sense, is not only forced to reiect the plain sense of Christ's words according to the letter. ( This is my body which is giuen for you: This is the Chalice of the new Testament, wich is, or shall be shed for you) But more Mr Stilling: quarrel's with all Christians, except à ferr Protestants. ouer, how he is thrown into à desperate quarrel wherein he will neuer come off hansomly; For, he is engaged to make not only the Professors of the Roman and Greek Church, who indubita­bly belieue the Real presence, more than stupid (because opposit to that he call's sense and reason) but besides, He contrast's with à far greater moral body of Christians; I may rightly stile it the Representatiue of all named Christians in the world, excepting à few Protestants. I'le shew you how. At this day there are in that famous Temple of Hierusalem dedicated to the Holy Cross (cal­led the Church of the Sepulcre) Catholicks, Graecians, Abyssins (those most ancient Christians) Syrians, Maronits, Georgians, and others. All haue their Altars in one and the same Church, and all (though different in some Doctrinal points, and Ceremonies) vnanimously belieue à true vnbloody Sacrifice, and with it the real presence of Christ, after Consecration. No moderne se­ctaries haue place here witnesse Prince Radziuill in his Ierosoly Peregrin. Antwerpe Print 1614. Pag. 109. Nay, they are so mean­ly thought of, that when the Prince named Lutherans, Zwin­glians &c. The party he conuersed with, demanded whether they were Christians. What Christians said he? and haue no Priest, no Altar no sacrifice offerred vp to god in this sacred place, where Christ wrought our redemption? you may see more hereof in the following page of this Author. In the mean while shall any say that à Representatiue, of so many Christians are to be deemed fooles vpon this account that they contradict sense and reason? It is so vast à Paradox, that though Mr: Stillings: should write volumes on this subiect, He would neuer speak à probable word against such à cloud of witnesses. You may add [Page 104] herevnto if you please, those many Christians conuerted to our The Chine­ses difficulty. Catholick Faith in that vast Kingdome of China (à People, the whole world knowes most ingenious) All of them, as I haue heard from two worthy men, à long time Missioners there (the one is yet liuing) who reclaimed many from their errours, raise most difficulties before their conuersion against that one Mystery of our Faith, the Incarnation of the Diuine word, but after satisfaction receiued in this particular, they submit easily to the belief of other Catholick verities, and neuer Scruple in the least at the Mystery of the Eucharist, as à Doctrin Contrary to sense and reason. And they proceed most rationally, for in real truth, there are incomparably Most Con­cern's the Incornation. greater difficulties in this one Mystery of the Incarnation, to say nothing of the Trinity, (might weak reason decide the case) than in the other. What? That God who is essentially immutable be­comes man by à vnion betwixt the Diuine word and humane na­ture, which vnion toucheth so intrinsecally on that Diuine Per­son, that we must truly say, This word is now intrinsecally affe­cted otherwise then he was before; and to conceiue all this done without à real change (may the Common notion of mutation stand. Mutari est rem aliter se habere) is à difficulty so great, (say good Diuins) that it hath rack't many à strong wit, and yet can scarse be well solued. Vtramque enim Substantiam in vnam conuenisse personam. &c. (They are words of S. Leo Sermo. 9. de Natiu. Dmi) nisi fides credat, sermo non explicat. That is the Mystery is very abstruse. I verily belieue Mr Stilling: Metaphysick will not reach so high as to giue fall satisfaction herein, though he is pleased to plead euidence drawn from sense and reason against the B. Sa­crament, as if forsooth, the full portion of both, were like à legacy Mr stilling­fleet argues Improbably. bequeathed him and à few Sectaries, whilst so many Fathers, so many Schoolmen, soo many profound Doctors of our renowned Church, must haue no small share allowed in either, but are as you see censured like men sensless, and vnreasonable

2. Say, I beseech you. Who can perswade himself that those three worthy eminent Cardinals, Bellarmin, Perron, and Richelieu (all haue writ on this subiect, and are famous the whole world ouer [Page 105] for their great wisdom and learning) who dare, I say, without à measureless audacity, cast these (could we vrge no more) into the Catalogue of dull, sensles, and vnreasonable men? None would haue ventured on such à vast improbability but one who either knowes not, or cares not what he saies. Now add to these the consent and acknowledgment of the whole Orthodox world, you may iustly say, it is much harder; or there is more violence offered to mans vnderstanding in conceiuing, that God who is essential Verity (and therefore inclined to preserue the Church he founded in truth) should permit all those millions of Christians who haue belieued the Real presence, to be so long deceiued in their Faith; than to submit vpon so great authority, to the very mystery we belieue. Reason more rack'd, by denying, then belie­uing the Mistery. For by submitting to the mystery, we proceed rationally, and pru­dently iudge, that an infinite power can do more than our weak capacities reach vnto; but if we say, his Goodnes hath permitted the Church to be seduced by à gross errour age after age, or that so many Christians haue been cheated into à false belief of so high à Mystery; we force our vnderstandings more, we clash with an eui­dent Principle, and must assert, that God has no care of his Church, or of mans saluation. The blame therefore if we be in errour, would at last redound to God, as I shall amply proue in the next Discourse.

3. Thus much noted, Let vs look à little into the strength of Mr Stillingf: weak argument, which must run thus. What I see seem's, or is bread to the Eye and tast, yet t'is not bread but Christs sacred body, therefore the Mystery is contrary to sense. One distinction ouerthrowes this lame discourse. I answer in à word. What I see seems, or is the inward substance of bread, I deny it, What I see seems, yea really is, the outward accidents or species of bread, I grant that. Therefore the Mystery is contrary to sense, I deny the consequence. The Argument purely fallacious suppo­seth Our Aduer­saries fallacy, solued. the immediate obiect of our sense to be the inward substan­ce of bread, which yet as euery Puny knowes is not so in com­mon Philosophy, for the immediate obiect of the Eye is colour or light, and so much remain's after consecration, as well as other [Page 106] accidents doe, but these sensible obiects are in known Philosophy distinct from the inward substance of bread, which is not immediatly visible, tangible, or tastable. Mr Stilling: therefore gain's little by this dreaming way of arguing. Now à word to his plea of Reason.

4. He may say. Reason tell's me there is bread still after con­secration. Why so? surely the answer must be, because sense vpon the discouery of its immediate obiects, colour, quantity &c. in­duceth reason to conclude there is bread vnder these accidents. I answer. Reason thus far would well conclude, were it not that à stronger Principle enters here, which ouerawes (as it were) weak reason and bids it yeild. Pray you tell me. Did not sense and reason also, assure Christs Disciples Matth: 14. before S. Peter was seen walking on the water, that, that liquid substance could not bear vp à weighty body without sinking? yes most assuredly: yet they saw him walk, and reason following the guidance of their eyes checked that other natural discourse, and acknowledged à Miracle. And thus weak reason must yeild in the present Mystery when à Stronge Prin­ciples where vpon our Faith relies. stronger Principle interuen's, and forceth it to submit. Thanks be to God. Habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem. 1. Petr. 2. we ha­ue yet à stronger Principle to vp hold our cause than weak discour­se is, The spirit of eternal truth. The express words of Christ which the wit of man shall neuer draw to any other sense, but what we Catholicks own. 2. The constant professed Doctrin of the two Churches, Greek and Latin, yea, and I say more, of all other called Christians, as is now declared. 3. Might we here introduce the known Testimonies of most ancient Fathers, They are so nu­merous, and so fully significant, that would à Catholick study to set down the truth of this Doctrin, he cannot do it in clearer lan­guage.

5. Good God saith S. Chrysostome. lib. 3. de Sacerd: Cap. 4. What à wonderful miracle is this? how great is Gods loue towards mankind? Behold who sitreth aboue with his Father, in one and the same moment of time is touched by the hands of vs all, and giueth himself to such as are desirous to receiue and imbrace him. Theophilact c. 4. in [Page 107] 26. Matth. Bread is transelemented or transformed by an ineffable opera­tion, The ancient Fathers speak in our behalfe. although to vs it seem's bread. Because we are weak and haue horrour to eate raw flesh, especially the flesh of man, for this reason bread appears, but in the essence and substance it is not bread. Again, Christ said not, this is à figure, but this is my body, for by an ineffable opera­tion, bread is changed &c. Indeed it appears Bread, but it is really flesh. Yet more. How often do the Fathers, S. Cyril of Hierusalem, S. Chrisostome and others exhort vs not to come vnto the Eucha­rist as vnto simple bread and wine, for say they, it is the body and blood of Christ according to our Lords affirmation. Although sense suggest the Contrary, yet let faith confirm thee. Iudge not of the thing by thy tast &c. Again. know this and with full certitude belieue, that the bread seen is not bread, though it seems so to the tast, but the body of Christ, and that wine seen is not wine, though tast iudge it to be wine, but the blood of Christ. Though, saith S. Chrisostome, what we see, seem's to our sense and thinking to be bread, Let Gods saying (This is my body) Master our sense and reason. Let vs doe this in all things especially in the Mysteries, not regarding alone the things, which lie before vs, but holding fast to his words, For by his words we cannot be-cousened, our senses may be deceiued, his words cannot be vntrue, our sense is often time beguiled &c. Thus these Fathers known to euery one (to omit in nu­merable others) speak and belieue, thus the Church of Christ speaks and belieues also, and both as you see, stand opposite to Mr Stilling: weak plea drawn from Sense and Reason.

6. I might yet cite S. Chrisostome. In. 1. Cor: hom: 24. Other Au­thorities. Chrisostom. Pachasius Damascan. who saith. The kingly body in heauen, is set before vs on earth. We touch it, and do not only touch it, but eate it. This body, the barba­rous Magi after à long iourney adored with fear and trembling. Thou (add's the Saint) See'st him not now in the manger, but on the Altar, not held in à womans arms, but by à Priest present &c. Therefore in his Oration of S. Perhilg: he explain's himself further. Truly, this table supplies the place of the manger, for here also is our Lords body laid. Paschasius à latin author, who liued about the year 800. is so express for the real Presence ànd Transubstantiation in his book De Corp. & Sanguine Dm'i. that the Centurist's Cent. 9. C. 4. [Page 108] Col. 215. Praetorius de Sacramen: Pag: 288. and other Sectaries, charge him with the Doctrin of Transubstantiation and oral eating of Christs body. No less plain and express is S. Iohn Damascen. lib. 4. Ortho. Fid.: whose discours on this subiect though long, is most significant. As bread, saith he, naturally meat, and wine, and water by drink▪ are changed into the body and blood of him that eates and drink's. So this bread proposed, the wine and water also by the inuoca­tion and comming of the Holy Ghost, are in à miraculous manner conuer­ted into Christs body and blood, neither are they two, but one, and the same. Our Lord himself hath said. This is not à sign of my body, but my body. This is not à sign of my blood, but my blood. Hence Praetorius now cited P. 288. reiects the Doctrin, and call's this miraculous Transubstantiation held by S. Iohn Damascen slight and fabu­lous, sodo other Sectaries with him also.

7. There are yet more ancient authorities most pressing to our purpose, were it not Actum agere to say again what has been so often The Testi­mony of S. Ignatius Martyr, clear. noted. First the Testimony of S. Ignatius Martyr who liued with our Sauiour and was Scholler to S. Iohn, seem's to me vnanswerable. Epist. ad Smirnen: not far from the beginning. They, saith he (that is certain Sacramentarians) admit not Eucharists, and oblations, because they do not Confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour Iesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins, and his Father graciously raised from the dead. So Theoderet, 12. ages since. Tom. 4. Dialogo. 3. reads. And Iaac Vossius who followes the Florentine Copy, differs little, or rather nothing at all. None can reasonably call the Epistle into doubt which Vossius places before the other Epistles and the sense as you see is most clear.

8. The second authority as pregnant, is taken out of S. Iu­stin Martyr in his Apology for Christians, vsually called the 2. S. Iustin's also most significant. Apology, Paris print 1615. Towards the end at those words. [...]. &c. For we take not this Eucharist as common bread and common drink, but as Iesus Christ our Sa­uiour by the word of God was made flesh, and haed for our saluation flesh and blood; so also after the same manner, we are taught, that the food which by the prayer of the word is by him consecrated with [Page 109] thanksgiuing, of which food our flesh and blood are by transmutation nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Iesus Christ which was Incar­nate. And for proof hereof, he allegeth Christs own words. This is my body. This is my blood. Thus S. Iustin speak's who liued not long after the Apostles about the year 150. and nothing can be more express in behalf of Catholick Doctrin. I know some Sectaries Cauil at the expression. [...]. by transmuta­tion, The sectaries Cauil, an­swered. and think Iustin held the Eucharist to be food for the body, but his sense is clear, for he saith only, That the same food which nourishes our bodies by real transmutation, is made after consecration the very body of Christ, and therefore Gaspar Laurentius à learned Caluinist in his Orthodoxus Consensus. Pag: 368. translates Iustins S. Iustin's true sense. words out of the Greek thus. Sumimus autem hunc panem & hunc potum non vt Communem, sed eo modo quo edocti sumus, Iesum Christum seruatorem nostrum, habuisse pro salute nostra, carnem & sanguinem: sic etiam cibum illum ex quo nostra Caro & sanguis aluntur, post benedi­ctionem ipsius, esse carnem & sanguinem Domini. That is in plain English. The bread or food which naturally nourishes our bodies is by vertue of Consecration made the sacred body of our Incar­nate Sauiour. Conformable hereunto, Gelenius also quoted in the Annotations vpon S. Irenaeus aduersus Haereses lib. 4. C. 24. n. 26. renders S. Iustins words. Sic per verbum precationis & gra­tiarum actionis, sacratam ab ipso alimoniam, quae mutata, nutrit no­stras carnes & sanguinem, Illius Incarnati Iesu carnem & sanguinem esse didicimus. The Interpreter also I follow, significantly renders the same sense. Alimoniam, vnde &c. The food from whence, from which, or where with, we are nourished, this very aliment is by Consecration made the body of our Incarnate Iesus. Well, but admit that Iustine call's the Eucharist nourishment to our bodies, How some Fathers call the Eucha­rist Nourish­ment to the body. he makes it not therefore Corporal food, but Spiritual, which nourishes them to à ioyful resurrection or to immortality, and thus the other Fathers, chiefly S. Irenaeus now cited c. 24. versus fi­nem speakes. Quomodo, saith he, rursus dicunt &c? How do these Hereticks plead again, that our flesh shall come to corrup­tion, and not take life from the body and blood of our Lord, [Page 110] where with it is nourished? Again. Sic & corpora nostra &c. and thus our bodies receiuing the Eucharist, are not corruptible, hauing hope of à ioyful resurrection. But enough of these authorities. Whoeuer desires more may peruse Cardinal Perron in his. 2. book of the Holy Eucharist. Out of what is said already, I argue.

9. Either the now quoted Fathers and the Church also, haue most impiously betrayed Christs cause in deliuering false Doctrin contrary to sense and reason, or worthily defended à Christian verity; Grant this second, we haue our intent. But if Sectaries say these Fathers cheated the world into à false belief, and impious­ly erred in their expressions: Ponder first, what à frontles impuden­ce accompanies the reply. Next make this true inference. It is impossible, that such à supposed vniuersal errour should euer be rased out of A Conuin­cing Argu­ment. the minds of men, by the force of any thing which has the likelyhood of à receiued Principle. For, what proofs or vndoubted Principles can possibly outweigh the express words of Scripture, our Tradition, the sentiment of the Church, and the iudgement of the Fathers which Sectaries Cannot answer. 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 significant (that is, Scripture as clear, Fathers as clear, Tradition as clear, the Iudgement of some owned Orthodox Church as clear and vndoubted) for the opinion he hold's, as we now alle­ge in the defense of our Catholick verity, Belieue it, if he sup­pose, as he certainly doth, the Church to haue erred so grosly for à thousand years, The Fathers to haue beguiled the world with their mistaken and most improper expressions on this subiect, when they meant no such thing; He ought to fasten vpon sound Principles indeed before we yeild; and must not think to ouer­throw What secta­ries are obliged to. our Doctrin or foile vs, with à few gleanings pick't here and there out of antiquity, set forth with à hundred false and fancied glosses. Volumes may be filled with such slight stuff, which comes no neerer to Principles, than improbability to Euidence. Will you hear in passing one of his improbabilities? If à man, saith he. P. 567. may be bound to belieue that to be false which sense iudges [Page 111] to be true (he means which weak reason vpon the discouery of sense iudges true, for our outward senses make no iudgement) What assu­rance can be had of any Miracles wrought to confirm the Christian Doctrin? A word to our Aduer­saries stran­ge demand. Or what assurance had the Apostles of Christs resurrection, if their sight might be deceiued about its proper obiect &c? I am astonished to read this, and answer briefly. Christ's Resurrection, (the like I say of Miracles) was most vndoubted vpon the discouery which sense and reason made in the presence of such obiects, because no contrary Principle, so much as weakly, stood against that euidence, and therefore reason could no more doubt of what was obiected to sen­se, then I now doubt of writing these lines. But all is contrary in the present Mystery. For here the vnanswerable words of Scriptu­re, the Authority of my Church, the Clear Testimonies of Fathers, the voice and vote of Christianity force submissions on me to belie­ue the Diuine Reuelation, which is either certainly known vpon these grounds, or we boldly say, no Christian verity was euer yet known vpon any sure Principle. What, if sectaries deny Church authority and explicate the Fathers?

10. Perhaps Mr Stilling: may roundly grant, that the Greek and Latin Church erred in this Doctrin of the real presence for many ages, and consequently that innumerable learned Doctors haue not only been besotted them selues, but moreouer haue ba­sely drawn millions of Christians into à damnable heresy of belie­uing that to be Christs body, which really is not: Howeuer, he will honour the Fathers so far, as to afford them the fauour of his glosses. Contra 1. If the Church and all Christians erred so vast à time in professing this Doctrin, Mr Stilling: is obliged to name some Churh reputed Orthodox. 3. or 4. hundred years past (for then there was à true Church in the world) which held his opinion, or as expresly denyed the real Presence, as our Church, both then, and now mantains it, and this will cost him more pains than to writ an other Account of Protestancy, for I am sure there was neuer any such Church on earth. Contra. 2. If He interpret's the The Church and Fathers speak alike of this Mystery. Fathers, He may as well interpret our Church Doctrin, and make all belieue, that we Catholicks hold not yet the real pre­sence. Obserue the same language in all. That wich in seen is not [Page 112] bread, though it seem's so to the tast, But the body of Christ. Our sense may be deceiued, Gods word cannot deceiue vs. The bread indeed [...] made the flesh of Christ, and the wine his blood &c. Thus the Fa­thers deliuer their sense. and it is the Churches language also. If therefore Mr Stilling: can so gloss these words of the Fathers, as to make them speak Protestancy, or not to deliuer our Catho­lick Doctrin, I should not wonder, if in the next book set forth he aduentures to draw the very Definitions of the Council of Trent to his Protestant opinion of no real presence. If he did so, I am sure his attempt would proue as vnsuccesful in the one case, [...] in the other.

11. Well. But permit him to interpret the Fathers, and to fall foule as he is wont to do, vpon our supposed Church errours; what is the vtmost that followes? Thus much only. Meer talk without Principles. For I ask vpon what Principle may I or any know, that his glosses (which striue to dead the very, obuious sense of the Fathers plain words) implie not altogether as little satisfac­tion, as little assurance, as the very Doctrin doth which he would defend by it? If so (and so it is most euidently) as his Doctrin before his glosses was improbable to the rest of Christians, so his interpretations goe no higher, but are euery whit as impro­bable.

12. I must therefore tell Mr Stilling: that vnless his expla­nation Sectaries glosses vn­principled, worth No­thing. of Scripture and Fathers rely on à certain Principle disti [...]ct from, and extrinsick to his glosses, they are worth nothing. For what auail's it me to read his glosses, when no receiued Principle vp▪ hold's them but fancy? Reflect à little. I read in Scripture▪ This is my body. My Church tell's me the literal sense is true. The Fathers as you haue heard, and the Tradition of two Churche [...] confirm this sense: Now comes Mr Stillingfleet and first reiect's my Churches authority, then begins to strain the Fathers Testi­monies with his glosses. Stay, Sr, say I. I except against your glos­ses, and iustly ask whether they are true or Counterfeit Coyn [...] If true, they stand vpon Principles now briefly hinted at. Proue this and I'le reuerence your glosses, but if you fail (and fail you [Page 113] must) your Doctrin and glosses are both alike Counterfeit, and thoughts of fancy only.

13. Hee may reply. When Protestants cite, the Fathers against the Real presence, For example, That of S. Austin, or Theode­ret mentioned aboue, we Catholicks explicate them, and now (which seem's foul play) we except against his Glosses, For, If we in­terpret, An Obiec­tion. why may not Hee doe so also? A word only in passing con­formable to what is noted aboue. If to decide this one Contro­uersy of Christ's Real Presence, recourse be had to the Fathers, and the two aduerse Parties do no more but load such Testimonies as are alleged with their priuate interpretations, the Dispute will neuer be ended, Because priuate glosses leaue the two Dissenters as much at iarrs as they were before: God therefore, as I haue often said, affords an easier means to know his reuealed Truths. Now my Answer to the obiection is. The Catholick then only blames the Protestant's wilful interpretation, when it sham fully out-faces, the clear words of à Father, and when the Glosser has no vndu­bitable Principle distinct from his gloss wheron to settle his Doctrin, as he has not in our present Controuersy. Obserue well. The Fathers say, What wee see is not bread, but Christs very body. The Sectary interpret's. That wee see is not common bread in­deed, but Christs body Figuratiuely or Sacramentally. The Fathers say, it is not figuratiuely only, but really his body. So Theophi­lact Answered, and the reason giuen. and S. Iohn Damascen cited aboue. Had the Sectary who interpret's thus, an vndoubted Reuelation for his Gloss, deliuered by any Oracle of Truth, Scripture, Traditions or Orthodox Church, there would be good reason to giue him hearing, But when we euidently see, that the best and only proof of his Doctrin is no more, but the very gloss he makes, without Further Princi­ples, we iustly except against him, and hold such glosses impro­bable.

14. Now all is contrary with the Catholick who neuer in­terpret's any Authority but when t'is dubious, and if it be so, it neither help's the Sectary, nor hurts the Catholick, and therefore ought In reason to be cast aside as either impertinent, or as weak and [Page 114] forcelesse in all disputes of Controuersies. The fundamental Christ's Doctrin not proued by glosses, or any ambi­guous Testi­mony. Reason already hinted at, is. The true Doctrin of Christ, is not proued by Glosses or any doubtful Testimony, but stand's most firm vpon known and indubitable Principles (or, if in order to Christians it want's such supports, it cannot pass for Christ's Doc­trin). An ambiguous Testimony therefore which seemingly oppo­ses this true Doctrin Certainly Principled, is most impertinently alle­ged against any Tenet of our known and owned Catholick Faith.

15. Vpon this one sole ground now clearly laid forth, I confidently Affirm, all Controuersies in Religion might be easily ended, would Sectaries please to lay Preiudice aside, and follow manifest reason. I'le shew you how. Write down first the two contrary Tenents of Catholicks and Protestants. Christ is really and substantially present in the Eucharist. Christ is not really and substan­tially present. Next examin well the Principles wheron these Con­trary Doctrins rely or are supposed to rely. The Catholick vrgeth first, Christ's plain words. 2. The Authority of his Church and saith, his Churches Doctrin is the very same that Christ words literally taken, express. 3. He ponder's the clear Testimonies of The Catho­lick Princi­ples: Fathers, and discourses thus. When I find the most significant expressions of Fathers consonant to our Sauiour's plain words, and to the owned Doctrin of my Church, I must assuredly rest on these, as indubitable grounds, or Confess, that There neither is or was euer any Principle for the soundest Article of Christian Faith. Examin next the Sectaries Principles. Has He any words in Scripture as clear as mine, or to this sense? This is not my body, b [...] à Sign only of it? Euidently No. Has he any Church esteemed Orthodox by the Christian world, which without Controuersy taught this Doctrin of à sign only three or 4. ages since? Name Sectaries haue none such. such à Church, He will speak's to the purpose. Has he Fathers so numerous, so express and clear, for his Signe and figure only, as the few Testimonies now alleged are in behalf of Catholick Doctrin? If he haue let him please to produce them. I'le doe no more but lay my Testimonies by them, and if after the perusal, or à iust [Page 115] Parallel made of both, All the world iudges not those I quote, to be most conuincing (may the literal sense stand) and his both dark and ambiguous, I will vndergoe any Censure. You haue heard how loud and express the Testimonies briefly hinted at, and innu­merable more are for our Catholick Verity. I challenge Mr Stilling: to Confront them with others as openly significant for his opinion. I verily think he will neuer goe about to doe what is desired, but fob vs off with killing flies, and no man knowes what.

16. In the interim I Argue. I am either obliged to renounce An Argu­ment drawn from our Catholick Principles. the obuious sence of these Authorities which I see euidently Con­sonant to the words of Scripture, and to the Doctrin of my Church; or, by force of these Proofs am still to belieue as I doe. Grant this second, I stand on secure ground: But, if I am obliged to renounce the obuious sense of Christs words, my Church Doc­trin, and the expressions of these Fathers &c. Our Aduersaries are bound, if à spark of Charity liues in their Hearts, to plead by stronger Principles which may settle me in an absolute Renun­tiation of my Doctrin, and withdraw me from the supposed er­rour I liue in. Is not this iustice and Charity think ye? And is not the Compliance most easy? For, if their Doctrin be Christ's Doctrin, and mine not, Theirs stand's, as I now told you, vpon clear and indubitable Principles, And Principles of that nature are easily laid forth to euery ordinary vnderstanding. Now I subsume: But it is euident, the Sectary hath no such conuincing Principles, which can oblige me to renounce the plain literal sense of Christs words and the Fathers already cited. And this I proue. What euer Principle obliges me to renounce, or to deny the plain literal sense of such words, must giue assurance, that those expressions literally Why none can remoue me from our Catholick Tenet. vnderstood are dangerous, and apt to induce Christans into gross errour, for if literally taken, they do no mischief, or be not apt to induce into dangerous errour, why should I Deny their obuious sense, because Ptotestants will haue me do so? But there is no Principle so much as meanly probable, whereby these expressions are proued false or inductiue into dangerous Errour; for were this [Page 116] really so, some Church or Author of Credit, would long sincé haue noted their ouer much vehemency, in sayng more then was true concerning this Mystery, which none euer yet did. There­fore I may still and without Reproof hold where I am, and adhere to their literal Doctrin, which my Church teaches.

17. Some may teply. Sectaries vrge vs not so crudely to reiect the Fathers Testimonies, as only to moderate or rectify their sense by the help of our Modern mens glosses, which is à blamles pro­ceeding, for we do so with Gelafius and other Authors when they seemingly make against our Doctrin, and Protestants do no more. Answ. Protestants do more, for their interpretations euer imply à peremptory and absolute denial of that very literal sense which the Father words express. For example S. Cyril saith. Catech. Mystag. 4. He that changed water into wine by his sole will, hath also A reply of sectaries answered. changed wine into blood. The expression inuolues à parity, and implies thus much. That as water was really changed into wine at Cana in Galilee, so wine was really and substantially changed into Christs blood. Sectaries as peremptorily deny this real and substantial change of wine into blood, as if one should now deny the Real and substantial change of that water into wine. Conse­quently they renounce both the parity, and open sense of the words, And, (which is euer to be noted), wilfully do so, when they haue nothing like à sure Principle distinct from their gloss to ground their denial on. Contrariwise, the Catholick in this debate denies no express sense of any Fathers Testimony, but only makes Inqui­ry into the Signification of words, which are confessedly dubious. Take here one instance Gelasius saith. The substance or nature of bread and wine cease not to be. First I make no account of this Gelasius, Author of the book De duobus naturis Christi. Contra Eutich: He was not that holy Pope so called, but rather Gelasins Cizicenus as Bellarmine notes de Scriptoribus Eccl: Howeuer these two particles substance and nature may, ex placito, indifferently signify either the inward substance or outward Massinesse of bread and wine, for natural qualities which flow from an Essence, haue, or often sustain, as was noted aboue, the name of that Essence they [Page 117] come from. Now the Catholick renounceth no obuious sense, but only contends that Nature and substance may signify, as is most Of Gelasius. How much his authority is worth. vsual, the outward corpulent forms of bread and wine which cease not to be, And he giues this signification to these two words, because Scripture Church and the Fathers, wheron his Doctrin irrefragably depends, forceth him to it, And he doth well when it cannot be proued by any probable Principle that Gelasius relates to the inward substance of bread and wine. Thus much may be said, if that authority were worth any thing. Read, I beseech, you Bre­reley, In his Lyturgy of the Masse cited aboue pag: 259. you shall find there this Authority most exactly examined, and that in very truth, this Gelasius who euer he was, speaking against the Euti­chians as Theoderet did, vndeniably defends our Catholick Doctrin of the Real presence and Transubstantiation also. Open the book and read, you will be satisfyed. I cannot dwell longer on these long since defeated Obiections.

18. There is yet an other Reply. Sectaries may say, we sup­pose all this while Scripture and Fathers clear for our Catholick Doctrin. The Supposition is denied, because they quote (t'is true not many) but some Fathers and Scripture also, to countenance their new opinion. By the way here is occasion again, to reflect on what is often noted. viz. We quote Scripture and Fathers, and they explicate all; They cite also; and we do the like; and if nothing but à Return of explications thus pass from one to the other, we are as much iarring as we were before, without hope of ending Controuersies this way. Now my Answer to the first part of the Obiection is. We Catholicks suppose nothing, but only The answer to an other reply. take the very words of Scripture and Fathers in à literal sense, and say their expressions are exactly conformable to the Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church, which was neuer censured by any Orthodox society of Christians. Vpon these Principles therefore, Scripture, Church, and Fathers we stand immoueable. To that which followes I Answer. Sectaries haue not one syllable of Scrip­ture in fauour of their Nouelty (and to omit à rehearsal of those triuial Arguments drawn from certain passages, where they conceiue [Page 118] the Sacrament is called bread the fruit of the vine &c.) I conuince my Assertion by the positiue ground abready established, which none shall ouerthrow. If this be the true sense of Scripture, when An Argument which Sectaries Cannot solue. it speaks of the Blessed Sacrament. Christ who is aboue in heauen is not really present on the Altar, but in his sign only, Or, that the bread after Consecration is really what it was before natural bread, only deputed to à holy vse; If this, I say, be the true sense of Gods word, Christs Orthodox Church expresly deliuered it to Christians as the true meaning of the Holy Ghost some few ages before Luthers Reuolt, for then their was an Orthodox Church on earth: But no Orthodox Church then taught so, or sensed Scripture as Sectaries do now, Therefore vnless that Church was ignorant and knew not the meaning of Scripture, or Malicious, and concealed it from Christians, our Sectaries sense is not Scripture. To confirm this Reason. All know, that the Roman Catholick Church then, as well as now, absolutly renounced the sense which Sectaries force out of Scripture, and for that cause was not (say they) Orthodox in this particular Doctrin, but no other Church confessedly Ortho­dox, taught it at that time, Therefore, it was not thought the Scriptures true meaning. All I would say is briefly laid forth thus.

19. The true Church of Christs euer deliuers the true sense of Scripture at least in weighty and fundamental Matters, so much Pro­testants grant, But, No true Church deliuered this their sense three or four ages before Luthers reuolt, Ergo it was not the true meaning of the Holy Ghost, but à whimsy lately inuented. This Argument I hold demonstratiue. You will perhaps ask, What is that these men can pretend to, hauing neither Scripture nor Or­thodox Church to rely on? I'le tell you in à word. They allege How Secta­ries endea­uour te solue it. first two or three weak and ambiguous Sentences of Fathers, which the Catholick admit's, not in the sense of Nouellists, yet according to the clear plain and obuious signification of words, as is now declared, and He prudently giues this signification to am­biguous words, because the Doctrin he owns stand's firm vpon other indubitable Principles, Scripture, Church, and Fathers. The [Page 119] Sectary euidently wants such Principles, and therefore vapors as well as he can with à few most weak and vnconcluding Authorities. The next thing relyed on, is much worse and purely nothing but fancy. He reads Scripture and those euident Testimonies of Fa­thers (as manifest for our Church Doctrin as it is clear that the Church teaches it) and these, forsooth, he endeauours to obscure by à number of his own improbable glosses, without the least shadow of any distinct Principle, which giues so much as à Co­lour to his fancied interpretations. You shall see this truth most manifestly proued in the ensuing Chapter.

CHAP. XIII.

1. THough I am very loath to spend time on trifles and as vnwilling to catch flies, as Mr Stilling: is to kill them, (T'is his own phrase) yet I must do so in some measure, or permit à number of foule improbabilities to pass vnexamined, which are laid forth in à pretended Rational account of Protestancy. I shall only entertain you with à few of the Grosser sort, wauing many of lesser moment, and I doe thus much to defend à Christian Verity which my very Soul Adores, For I am well assured, If our belief of Christ's real Presence in the Eucharist be an errour, Christ and his Church and innumerable Fathers also, haue deceiued vs.

2. One Authority alleged against Mr. Stillingfleet, you haue in his own page 568. And t'is à known passage of S. Cyprian de Caena Dmi, or of some other Author not much inferiour to him, if we belieue Mr Fulk against the Rhem's Testament. In 1. Cor. 11. [Page 120] and Erasmus his Annotations vpon S. Cyprian, Basil print anno S. Cyprians Authority, examined. 1558. fol. 287. Mr Stilling: contend's it is of à later Date, yet is pleased by an Addition of his glosses to vnsense the words as well as he can, and at last make them to speak Protestancy.

3. The Authors words are These. This common bread changed into flesh and blood giues life. The bread which our lord gaue to his Disci­ples being Changed. Non effigie sed naturâ, not in outward form or semblance, but in its inward nature or substance, by the Omnipotency of the word, is made flesh.

4. Mr Stilling: Asserts all this proues not Transubstantiation, first, because the Author Saith Christs words. Vnless ye eate the flesh Mr stilling­fleets reaso­ning, not solid. and drink the blood of the son of God, you shall haue no life in you, are not to be vnderstood after à Carnal sense. Answ: That's true, yet your Inference, Sir, is most improbable. The Principle you must rely on, is. None are to think as the Capharnits did, witness S. Austin, that they were to cut into pieces Christs Sacred flesh, and eate that as we do Common meats, And your inference ill deduced run's thus. Therefore the inward substance of bread is not changed into his body. This inference, I say, is null, for both these are eternal truths and well consist together. Bread is changed into Christs body, yet we neither cut that body à pieces or eate it, as the Capharnits grossly imagined.

5. He argues again and more improbably. This Author (saith he) by the effects attributed to the Sacrament, calling it His second Argument, more slight. food which nourished to immortallity, cannot possibly be concei­ued to speak if Christ's Corporal presence, because we Catholicks confess Christs body remain's no longer in our body, then the Accidents of bread and wine are there. I verily think the man was busied with other thoughts when he wrot these lines. For what sense haue we here? Christ's Sacred body really present giues grace and is no longer present then the Accidents of bread and wine remain, Ergo, bread and wine are not Really changed into his body. This I say is à most improbable inference. For the effects of the Sa­crament which imply the production of Grace, may and must stand with Christ's real Presence, though that production of grace [Page 121] Sacramentally giuen, last's no longer then his Blessed body is vnder the forms of bread and wine.

6. But an other doughty Argument is drawn out of S. Cyprian's words, which Mr. Stilling: cites in his Margent. Sed immortalitatis alimonia datur à Communibus cibis differens, corporalis substantiae retinens speciem, sed virtutis diuinae inuisibili efficientiâ probans ad [...]sse presentiam. His third Argument proues nothing. And He vnworthyly renders them thus in English. That immor­tal Nourishment is giuen vs which differs from common food, that it retain's the Nature of à Corporeal substance, but prouing the presence of à Diuine power by its inuisible efficiency. So that, saith he, what presence of Diuine power is there, is shewed in regard of the effects of it, not in regard of any substantial change of the bread into the body of Christ. Sr, I vtterly deny your prooflesse, So That, and say your deduction is more then improba­ble. This Author saith expresly 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, first in the substantial change of bread in­to Christs body, next in the effect, or production of grace in à worthy Receiuer, and you improbably conclude, it shewes it self in regard of the effects only.

7. Like one half guilty of iugling you goe on. I know you will quarrel with me for rendring Corporalis substantiae retinens speciem: By retaining the Nature of à Corporeal substance. Answ: I do so indeed, and will proue you à cheat for your pains. First, because you make this Author speak nonsense, for if Corporalis substantiae The fallacy discouered. retinens Speciem, may be Englished. By retaining the nature of à Cor­poreal substance, you may as well render it by retaining the substance, of à corporeal substance because nature and substance are here syno­mima's, And if this be sense, we haue à pretty Tautology or rather non-sense with it thus. It differ's from Common food, yet retains the substance of Corporeal substance, or common food, and in real truth is still natural bread or Common food. Wheras if we read. It differ's from common food, yet retain's the outward forms or external Ac­cidents of à Corporeal substance or common food the sense is good, [Page 122] clear, and open to euery Reader. But we must go on. You contend that the word Species in this place Signifies Nature or à solid body, and not the external Accidents because Species an [...] ­nariae, Species largitionales, Curator Specierum, whereof we read in the Ciuil law express the substance of things not the Accidents; and so S. Ambrose must be vnderstood, when speaking of our Sauiours changing water into wine, he faith. Vt rogatus ad nuptias aquae sub­stan [...]am in vini speciem commutaret. Now no man will say, that he changed the substance of water into the external Accidents of wine, but into the nature of wine, Therefore Species may sometimes signi­fy substance. Answ: All this is true, yet nothing to the purpose, What the word Species signifies. for can you or any man proue, because Species signisies someti­mes kind, or substance that it alwaies doth so? We read in Scrip­ture. Daniel 13. Species decepit te. Isa. 53. non est ei Species ne (que) decor. Daniel 10. Species mea immutata 1. Tim. 3. Habentes Speciem pietatis &c. Will you translate Nature or substance hath de­ceiued thee? There was no nature or substance in Christ of whom the Prophet speaks. My nature or substance is changed. Hauing piety in nature or substance? All is ridiculous, and therefore though Species may sometimes signify substance or kind, vnless that signi­fication hold vniuersally, these instances of Species annonariae and Species vini proue nothing. You will ask perhaps, because the word is ambiguous, how we may know whether in our present Controuersy, Species, signifies shape, form, Accidents, or substance▪ Answ: This rule is certain, when the word Species stand's in oppo­sition, or is distinguished from an inuisible Nature or essence, it must of necessity signify the external shape or form of à thing and not the substance: So when the Apostle exhorts vs. 1. Thess. 5. The true signification in this place, giuen. 22. Ab omni specie mala abstinete vos. The sense is. Abstain not only from inward malice. but (and here mark the opposition) from all Shew or semblance of euil. And when S. Cyril saith Orat 4. Mystag: vnder the Type or species of bread is giuen the body of our Lord, he euidently distinguisheth the Form or shape of bread from its substance. And so S. Cyprian doth in the words alleged. Corporalis Substantiae retinens Speciem, retaining the exte­riour [Page 123] shape or form of à Corporeal substance, and mote plainly thus. The bread being changed not in its outward Form and semblance, but in it's inward nature and substance by the Omnipotency of the word, is made flesh.

8. Mr Stilling: again page 570. in his Answer to S. Cyprian. This common bread is changed into flesh and blood▪ saith, we Protestants do not deny à Sacramental change of the bread into the flesh and blood of Christ, but only that substantial change which ye Papists assert. Pray you, Sr, tell me what is the Terminus à quo, and the Terminus, ad quem, of this your mysterious change? You acknowledg some thing Protestants cannot say, what is changed into Christ's body. changed into the flesh and blood of Christ? Is the substance of bread the terminus à quo, or that which is changed into the flesh? No, t'is too plain Popery. Is bread made à Sacrament, or à Sign of Christ's body changed into the flesh of Christs? Euidently no, for neither the Sacrament, nor that which you call à Sign of Christ's body is changed into flesh. Note well the Emphasis of your own words, of something changed into the flesh of Christ and say on Gods name what it is? You may reply, you speak only of à Mystical and Sacramen­tal change. That's not to the purpose now, the Emphasis of your words point at something created or increated, changed into the flesh and blood of Christ, tell vs plainly what that is, or in good earnest your expression fal's too short of any intelligible sense?

9. In case you run on trifling with your Mystical and Sacra­mental change only, made vpon the accidents or substance of bread, the Author now cited positiuely asserts more. viz. Panis non effigie sed naturâ mutatus. The bread which our Lord gaue to his Disciples being changed, not in Outward form, and appearance, but in its inward nature and substance by the Omnipotency of the word is made flesh, where 'tis plain your extrinsecal sacramental change passing only vpon the accidents of bread, or on the substan­ce S Cyprian reiects the Protestants extrinsec [...]l. Change. (which you say remains) is excluded, and à Real Conuersion of the inward substance of bread is positiuely asserted by S. Cyprian. You Answer. Some great Criticks haue assured you that the place is corrupted, and that the ancient Manuscripts read otherwise. Non effigie nec naturâ mutatus, neither changed [Page 124] in outward form nor substance. You see to what desperate shifts these men are driuen. Tis wonderful they cite not some great Criticks for à Contrary lection of Christs words. Hoc non est corp [...] meum This is not my body. Well. I say first, if those nameless and vnknown Criticks err, and the Author speak sense as we now read without the Critiscism. ( Non effigie sed naturâ mutatus, not changed in outward form but in its nature) Transubstantiation is asserted, and your contrary Doctrin is condemned. I say. 2. This Criticism is improbable, and not only turn's the words out of sense into pure Nonsense, but moreouer implies an impossibility. I'le shew you how. The Criticism will haue vs read thus: Pan [...] iste quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat non effigie nec naturâ mutat [...] Omnipotentiâ verbi factus est Caro. This bread which our Lord gaue to his Disciples being changed neither in its outward form nor inward substance, is by the Omnipotency of the word made flesh. Obserue well. This bread remaining bread in outward shew and inward A Criticism exploded. substance, is made the flesh of the Son of God. An vtter impos­sibility. For no more can bread remaining bread in shape and substance, be made flesh ( factus est caro) than Lots wife remaining what She was flesh and blood in outward form, and inward substance, be made à pillar of salt. The Omnipotent power of God cannot change one substance remaining what it is, into an other. T'is true Luther said Christs body was really present with bread, but neuer thought of making bread remaining bread, to be that other substance of Christs body.

10. Mr Stillingfleet tell's vs more. P. 572. that Substance and nature with the Fathers (and we confess it) are not alwayes taken properly but sometimes more largely for Accidents. Why therefo­re may not these words. Sed natura mutatus in S. Cyprians Con­text bear that improper sense? I Answer and ask first. Why may they not also be taken properly? When they clearly de­liuer à Doctrin conformable to à whole learned Church, and your contrary forced gloss hath no Principle to stand on but fancy? Had you any ancient Orthodox Church, vniuersal Tra­dition, or the plain consent of Fathers for what you assert, you [Page 125] might speak more boldly, and I would then say S. Cyprians words are false, but without such helps, to torture à Text as you do, to turn good sense into nonsense and this without proof or Principle is more then intolerable. Now here reflect à little on what hath been often noted. You say, the words are improper and render your sense. I say they are proper and significantly speak what the Church teaches. Pray Answer. By what Principle shall you and I come to à decision of this one difficulty? Hitherto, if nothing be added, we haue no more but our two contrary, iarring opinions. And are not Controuersies, (may this strain hold) made an endles work? To add more I Answer. 2. If this Author speak sense. Not changed in its outward form but in nature. Your gloss is Nonsense. Obserue well. He speakes of The reason why we reiect it. bread held in à Priests hand, and saith first. This bread is not changed in its outward form or Accidents. Then he put's his Ad­uersatiue. Sed. but it is changed in nature and substance If therefore Nature here, signifies as you would haue it, the outward form or accidents of bread, you must read the words thus. Bread is not changed in its nature and Substance yet it is changed in nature and substance, which is non-sense. I proue it. Nature and sub­stance with you import the exteriour form or Accidents of bread, bread is not changed in this exteriour nature and substance, saith the Author, yet you say it is changed in this very nature and sub­stance. Yet more. S. Cyprian asserts à change in one thing, not in an other. I ask what is changed, and what is not changed? If the exteriour Accidents of bread, as contra distinguished from the Sectaries cannot say what is here changed wat not. interiour substance be changed, this interiour substance of bread, as distinguished from accidents, is not changed, and if, (which is true), this interiour substance be changed, the form and accidents of bread are not changed. Take which you please, and talk no more of your Acci­dental Sacramental change made after consecration, For I ask again what is thus Sacramentally changed? Are the outward Accidents only changed or made à Sacrament? Grant this; and it followes you haue but à very lean Lords supper consisting only of à few Accidents after your wordy Consecration, which reaches not to the [Page 126] inward substance of bread, Consequently this inward substance is not so much as Sacramentally changed. For the Author saith, one thing is here changed, and not an other. Imagin therefore, He speak's of your extrinsick Sacramental change, you will neuer force sense out of his words, whilst he laies à change on one thing and excludes it from an other. For, if he saies the inward substan­ce of bread is Sacramentally changed, he denies that to the outward accidents, and if he say these Accidents are Sacramentally changed, he denies that Sacramental change to the inward substance of bread. Let then nature and Substance signify either the accidents or substance of bread as you please, let vs also falsly suppose, the Author speaks of your Sacramental change only, you can neuer make sense of his words. One thing is changed, but not a [...] other. By all now said you see, Sir, how slight your obiection A briefe An­swer to à weak obiec­tion. is, when you Argue. Either nature and substance in the Fathers, are alwaies taken properly, or some times not so, but improperly for accidents; if alwaies properly, we haue three Fathers (say you) against Transubstantiation. If sometimes improperly, Nature in this place though we read, Non effigie sed natura mutatus, may well signify not substance, but the outward form or accidents of bread. I haue now Answered, though Nature or Substance may sometimes haue that signification yet here it cannot, because of the euident oppo­sition betwixt that, and Accidents, and the ineuitable nonsense which followes if nature in this place signifies Accidents. But what à loss of time is it to follow these vast improbabilities? I must make shorter work with the ensuing Authorities.

11. The. 2. Testimony cited P. 572. is that of S. Gre­gory Nyss Tom. 3. Orati. Catech C. 37. and stand's thus in Mr Stilling: With good reason do we belieue that the bread being sanctified by Gods word is changed into the body of the word S. Gregory Nyssene abused. of God. Again. The nature of the things we see being changed, Or Transelemented into him &c. And Mr Stilling: Assert's those expres­sions are vtterly insignificant for Transubstantiation, for saith he. We Protestants deny not à change in the elements after Consecra­tion, but say it is Sacramental, and you (Papists) say it is à Substan­tial [Page 127] change. Answ. And we follow the Energy of the plain gram­matical sense. Bread is changed into the body of the word of God. Bread is Transelemented, You insist only on an extrinsecal and Sacra­mental change, which you admit in the water of Baptism cast vpon an Infant, yet you dare not say that water is Transelemented, or chan­ged into an other Substance. This to your Confusion S. Gregory assert's in our present Mystery, and you say it still remain's to be proued that the substance of bread is changed. What trifles are these? I proue it by the very words, thus. Bread is à substance, the Saint tell's you into what it is changed, into the very body of the word of God, Ergo he saith one substance is changed into an other. Here is the proof. You yet goe on. The word [...], is fre­quently vsed by the Fathers and S. Gregory himself for an Acciden­tal change, when T'is not capable of any other sense. So S. Gre­gory speaking of the shining of Moses face, saith it was [...] Instances impertinent­ly applyed. à Change into that which was more glorious: Again, affir­ming, the soules of men [...], to be changed into that which is more Diuine by the Doctrin of Christ, he can surely intend no other but an Accidental change. Answer. Had I no more against Mr Stilling: but the manifest trifling I here See in à serious matter, that alone might most iustly displease. Pray, Sir, reflect. Doth S. Gregory by these Instances of Moses face chan­ged into Glory, or by the Souls of men changed into that which is Diuine, so much as seemingly fauour the meer extrinsecal change which you ascribe to the Sacrament? Euidently No. For these changes were Real and intrinsecal in their respectiue Subiects, And proued impertinent. Glory was really in Moses face, as light is now in the sun. This fained Sacramental change in the Sacrament is only Moral, and extrinsecal, Therefore such instances are to no purpose. For can you make this probable inference? Moses face was intrinsecally changed as the ayr is when it receiues light, ergo we haue the like intrinsecal Physical change in the Sacrament, when by your Con­secration bread is made an outward Sign only of Christ's body. Doth that bread really shine like the face of Moses? Or will any say when à Counter is set for à Crown, as bread with you [Page 128] stand's for Christ's body, that it is intrinsecally changed as Moses face was?

12. In à word the whole cheat is plain. You lay hold of the word Accidental which is ambiguous, and may either signify à Real intrinsecal change made in Subiects as is now declared, (and this with you has no place in the Sacrament) or meerly an extrinsecal acci­dental Denomination, whereby bread is made à Sign or Sacrament, And this you own, which God knowes, has no similitude with the Real changes where of S. Gregory speaks. Could you make à right Parity you should say; That, as Moses face was really changed by à glorious light, and à Soule by Regeneration, so bread after consecration (made in trinsecally more glorious) is really changed either in its accidents, or substance, or both; But this you cannot pretend to. O, but it is made à Sacrament and now is what it was not before. And you Sr, are made à Bachelour of Diuinity and are not as you were before, is your face, your substance, or Acci­dents so really changed in you, that they appear intrinsecally more glorious to men and Angels? Well, but perhaps the word [...] may be accommodated to à meer extrinsecal Acciden­tal A reply answered. change, as when one of à common Citizen is made à Magistra­te. Answ. Whether so or no it imports little, for in the in­stances now alleged, and in this Testimony of S. Gregory, such à signification has no place, where the Terminus à quo, and, ad que [...] (Bread is changed into Christs body) are Real, not only Moral; intrinsecal, not extrinsecal. Yet one word more. I wonder extremly with what face you can cite Snares, as if he fauored your late in­uented Accidental mutation, for you say he affirms, these expres­sions of Fathers are more accommodated to that. Sr. I haue read this learned Author in the place you quote. 3. part: Disp. 50. sect 3. and perused also his 4 ^.th Section, where he Snares abu­sed. treat's largely of the Conuersion of bread into Christs body, and expresly mantain's à Real action necessary in this Conuer­sion, and calls the change Real and Substantial, and it must be called so, when the Terminus à quo, and ad quem are, as they are in this Mystery, Real and Substantial: T'is true he cites Diuines [Page 129] who say, the Adduction of Christs body vnder the formes of bread is sufficient to verify à Real change (Bread ceasing to be, because of Christs body present) without à new action or production termina­ted vpon that body, and it is à probable opinion in Schools, but as remote from your Accidental extrinsecal mutation as Heauen is from earth, and to as Little purpose as an other wise question is, when you Ask whether those who are changed by Regeneration A quaestion answered. may▪ be said to be Transubstantiated by it? Friuolous. Sr. when the Ter­minus ad quem in conuersions is substance, it beares properly the denomination of Transubstantiation, or Transelementation; when its meerly an Accident or quality, as in Regeneration, the denomina­tion followes the nature of the quality produced, and is rightly called an intrinsecal accidental change, but not Transubstantiation. Had you reflected on what is here said your pretty Criticism where you torture à poor Greek word and learnedly examin whether [...] in S. Gregory comes from the Noune [...] or from the verbe [...] might well haue been spared. I giue you your Choise take whether you will, your cause lies where it was, nothing at all aduanced. But really I am weary of this sport, which is more irksome to me, then to kill the flies you so often talk of. Howeuer I must haue patience, and briefly say à word to one or two authorities more, pitifully abused by you.

13. That known passage of S. Cyril of Hierusalem. Catech: The Testi­mony of S. Cyril of Hierusalem. Mystag. 4. occurr's next in your 573. page. The words are. He (Christ our Lord) changed water into wine at cana in Galilee by his sole will, and is he not worthy to be belieued that he changed wine into blood? For if inuited to à marriage, he wrought then that stupen­dious Miracle (viz of changing water into wine) shall we not Confess that much more he has giuen his body and blood to the Sons of the Spouse? wherefore [...] let vs take with all certain­ty the body and blood of Christ And he giues this reason. [...] &c. For vnder the Type or Species of bread his body is giuen thee, and vnder the type or species of wine his blood is giuen thee, that by taking this body and blood of Christ thou mayst be made partaker of his body and blood ( [...]) [Page 130] and so we shall be Christophori, Carrying Christ when we receiue his body and blood into our members. Soon after he saith. Do not therefore consider this as meer bread and meer wine, for it is the body and blood All along most clear and signifi­cant. of C [...]rist according to his own words; for, although sense suggest that it is bread and wine) yet let faith Confirm thee, and do not iudge of the thing by thy tast, but hold this most certain by thy Faith, that the body and blood of our Lord are giuen thee, so that there arise no doubt at all in thee. Again, towards the end of this 4. Catechesis, he repeat's and most energetically the verity he would haue vs learn. [...] &c. Knowing and holding it most certain that the bread which is seen by vs is not bread, but the body of Christ; and the wine which is seen by vs, although it seem to the sense of our tast to be wine, The Church Speak's not in clearer terms. yet is it not wine, but the blood of Christ. Thus this ancient Father and worthy Bishop speaks so significantly, that the witt of man shall neuer force on him any other sense but that which the Roman Catholick Church taught in the Council of Trent, and teaches to this day.

14. Now listen à little to Mr Stilling: glosses and say in Conscience, whether they haue so much as à seeming proba­bility? Mr stilling: glosses im­probable. First he tells vs it is euident (and it was for his purpose to cry Euidence at the begining) that Cyrills design here is to per­swade the Catechumens (from whom the Mysterious presence of Christs body in the Sacrament was wont to be concealed) that the bread and wine were not meer common Elements, but designed for à higher vse, to [...]xhibit the body and blood of Christ to Belieuers. Is this, Sr, your Euidence? Is it euident that Cyril here intended to instruct the Catechumens only? We read that the Saint was à laborious Preacher and complyed with that Charitable duty euery Sunday, and day in Lent. Surely all who heard him were not Catechumens, and why may not these instructions contain part of that Doctrin he publickly deliuered to his Auditors? All you can proue is that his first Catechesis was to the lately Baptized, but that this of the B. Sacrament concerned them only, is not probable. Turn to the Edition of S. Cyril Paris print 1609. [Page 131] You will find after the Dedicatory Epistle vnder this Title. De scriptis Cyrill. That in his last fiue Mystagogical institutions he gaue solid food and explicated the Diuine Mysteries of our Faith, of Baptism, Chrism, the Eucharist, and that great Sacri­fice of the Mass, which Certainly belong to Christians of riper knowledge than Catechumens were. Again. I'ft be euident that S Cyrill is made to m [...]sse of his ayme. the Saint in this Catechesis concealed the Mysterious presence of Christ in the Sacrament, He missed extreamly of his intent, for no Catholick can speak now with greater clearity of the Mystery, or more fully express the Churches sense then S. Cyril did aboue thirteen ages since. Yet one word. Say I beseech you what need was there then of concealing this Mysterious presence, i'ft be no more but as you say, à piece of bread deputed to à holy vse, or à meer sign of Christs body present? Such à Mystery requires no secrecy at all, Catechumens might as well haue heard of it without torturing their vnderstandings, as now they hear of the Sacrament of Baptism. Lastly is it euident, that S. Cyril aimed at nothing but to show that bread and wine were not meer common Elements but things designed for à higher vse, or as you say, to Exhibi [...] the body of Christ to Belieuers? Tis improbable, First because you add that to the Text which neither the words, nor the sense bear. S. Cyril saith. Do not consider them as meer bread and wine, Then he tell's you positiuely what they are. For they are the body and blood of Christ. Now your Gloss, designed for à higher vse to exhibit the body and blood of Christ to Belieuers, first Deads the very life of Cy­rills words, and then run's into nonsense. I therefore Ask whether What is bread and wine to ex­hibit the body and blood of Christ? this gloss: Bread and wine exhibit the body and blood of Christ to Be­lieuers, saies. Bread and wine really changed out of their nature, as water was at Cana in Galilee, are after that change as really Christs body and blood, as that water was really wine after Christs Miracle? If your gloss say thus much, you are à plain Papist; if lesse, its none of S. Cyrills Doctrin, for the Saint deliuers this as significantly, yea and more fully, then I now express it. I well vnderstand S. Cyrills sense by his words, but for my life I know not what you mean by your particle. Exhibit. Tell us I beseech you? How do bread and wine [Page 132] Exhibit the body and blood of Christ to Belieuers? Do they only mind vs of his body and blood? A Crucifix representing our Lord bleeding on à Crosse can well serue for so much. Do they shew or point vs out à Real presence of the same body and blood vpon the Altar which are now in heauen? If so; Belieuers haue an obiect of Faith and that truth to fasten on which the Church teaches, but if your word Exhibit saies, or signifies less then this, or, only expresses your euer yet concealed Sacramental presence, you cheat the world with ambiguous dark Term's, and in good earnest know not what you say.

15. Answer therefore? What is Christs body and blood to be Sacra­mentally present, when really they are not vpon the Altar, but absent in Heauen only? The question deserues an Answer, For you, Sr, di­stinguish between à Sacramental and à Corporeal Presence, you grant the first, and deny the second. That which you grant is à Presence of Christs body and biood distinguished from the Catho­lick Real (or as you call it) Corporeal Presence: Vouchsafe to enlighten vs à little concerning it, which you page 574. seem to Our Aduer­sary is vrged to declare his sense. make real? There is, say you, à Real presence of Christ in and with them (that is, in and with bread, and wine) to the souls of Belieuers. Very good. Giue vs I beseech you the total Obiect which these Souls haue before them when they belieue à Real presence of Christ in and with bread and wine vpon the Altar? Is this obiect Christ himself whom they pull, as it were, by Faith out of Heauen at the time they receiue your piece of Bread? No. Christ still in Hea­uen, is yet Locally distant and therefore not really present in and with bread and wine, Vnless he be in two places at once, And Con­sequently the Faith of these Belieuers has no real Obiect present to fasten vpon. Is it that Christ is present in the Signes of bread and wine, as Caesar is in his Image? Pitiful. He is thus present in euery Crucifix, though really distant millions of Miles, This, no way makes him actually there in and with bread and wine, as you Assert. Doth finally this your Obiectiue presence imply only thus much, that Christ by his power (though really absent) work's the same effects in à worthy Receiuer, as if he were actually [Page 133] there? No. For he works the same effects, and (though ab­sent) produceth grace by the Sacrament of Baptism as if he were present, dare you Therefore say he is in as peculiar à manner Really present, in and with the water of Baptism, as he is in this Sa­crament in and with bread and wine? Yet more. Such à Moral The Sectaries Sacramental Presence contradict's all Autho­rity. Presence directly contradict's Christ's words. This is my body. It directly contradict's S. Cyrills words. Though it seem to the tast to be bread it is not bread, but the Body of Christs. It directly contradict's that vnanswerable Truth: As water was changed into wine, so wine is changed into blood &c.

16. And thus, Sr, you see how impossible it is to giue your poor Belieuers any thing like à Real obiect, which may be called à true Real Presence; though I hold you obliged to help both them and me to à clear Notion of it: Because Christ's Sacred body and blood are Real things, you attribute to these two Real things à true real Presence in and with bread and wine (which cannot but denominate them really present with these two Substances vpon the Altar) There­fore you are obliged to tell me, what that is A parte rei, which I once more say, is impossible; For, as your Sacramental presence, in your sense, is à word no man vnderstand's, so your Doctrin is as wholy vnintelligible. Yet I haue not said all. In this your discourse of à Sacramental and Real presence, you would fain take some aduantage against vs by other words of S. Cyril. Do not consi­der them as meer bread and wine, for they are the body and blood of No aduan­tage giuen Sectaries by any other words of S. Cyril. Christ, according to his own word. Hence you infer, it is plain, He speaks of à Sacramental presence, for he doth not oppose the body and blood of Christ to the substance of bread and wine, but to meer bread, id est, That they should not look on the bread and wine as naked signes, but as Signa efficacia or efficacious signes. Answ. First The Saint has not à Syllable of either Signes or Signae efficacia. Next, your Speculation about meer bread, is à meer nothing. For meer bread, is bread without Consecration, S. Cyril opposeth the body and blood of Christ present, to meer bread, Ergo He opposeth them to bread wit­hout Consecration, but bread without Consecration, or meer bread, is the very Substance of bread, Therefore he opposeth the body and [Page 134] blood of Christ present, to the substance of bread, vnless you can find the Meerness (might one speak so) or nakednes of bread distinct from its substance, which is not only improbable, but impos­sible.

17. Vpon this solid and vndeniable Ground, it imports your A meer quibble about à word. cause nothing, whether [...] in S. Cyril signifies, Species, as it is commonly rendred by Interpreters, or as you say, that which doth figure or represent, for, as long as this verity stand's vndoubted, that vnder the Type or Species of bread Christ gaue his own body, and That, that body is opposed to the very Substance of bread, the ex­pression is so clear and the same with our Catholick Doctrin, that were à hundred Glosses more laid vpon the word [...], All would not do, nor rack it to any contrary meaning. You Reply S. Cyril speak's of such à presence 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 Christ vnder the Type of bread and wine (which are changed out of their nature as water was at Cana in Galilee) These substances of his body and blood, as really present, work their effect in à worthy Receiuer, where you euidently see, that the Real Presence of Christ's Sacred body and blood is pre­supposed to the effect or to grace wrought in à Soul: Therefore to talk of à presence which hath relation to à Receiuer only, wit­hout the true supposed real verity of Christ body and blood present, is no more then à peruerse and an improbable Gloss, if S. Cyril speak sense.

18. Your next Gloss vpon these words. ( It is not bread though it seem to the tast to be bread but the Body of Christ) is worse if worse can be, For you only frigidly say. Hereby is meant no alteration i [...] the Substance of it, but only that it is not That common Bread, it was before. Sir, the contrary is now demonstratiuely proued against The change made in Chrism wholly diffe­rent from that in the Eucharist. you. But you hope to help your self by an Instance which S. Cyril hath of Chrism in his 3. Mystag. Pag. 525. where he Seem's to Parallel the change made in Chrism, or holy oyntment, with the Change of bread in the Eucharist. By the way. If Chrism be so sacred à thing, it is à shame you haue no more vse of it in your [Page 135] Church, but let that pass, and mark the Parallel and your own mi­stake with it. A change there is in both, bread and common ointment, but as different in Themselues as they are differently ex­pressed by this Father. The one change is Real and intrinsecal made in the Substance of bread and wine, The change of common oint­ment is not so, but Moral, into à grace, or Gift or Christ. S Cyrills words take away all ambiguity. See, saith he, That thou think not this ointment to be common or meer ointment, For as the bread of the Eucha­rist after the Inuocation of the Holy Spirit is no longer common bread, but the body of Christ (here is the real change) So this holy ointment, is no longer naked or common ointment after it is consecrated [...]. S. Cyrill's words denote the differen­ce. but à grace or Gift of Christ, and the Holy spirit, which operates through the presence of the Diuinity. Here is the other and à quite different change. Bread is made the body of Christ, Chrism his holy and sacred Gift. The Parallel or parity therefore, as I now said, lies in this, That both bread and Common ointment are changed from what they were (and this is enough for Cyrills intent who only proues Chrism to be à holy thing) but it fail's when he positiuely and expresly diuersifies the nature of these chan­ges, of bread into Christs body, of Common ointment only into à grace or à gift of Christ. And Hence, Sr, your Question, whether we may not as well proue à Transubstantiation in the Chrism as we do in the Eucharist, is both fond and friuolous. We Answer No, because the real change of bread into Christ's body fully expresseth Transubstantiation, the Terminus à quo, and ad quem, being Real, and Substantial. The other Change of ointment into à Gift of Christ, denotes à moral change quite different and no­thing like the other, which is most real. S. Ambrose next cited, no less abused then others.

19. Your next and last Gloss. abuses S. Amb. De ijs qui ini­tiantur. C. 9. who saith. Bread is no longer that which Nature has framed it, but that which the Benediction of Consecration has made it. You Answer. It is the body of Christ, but not in our gross sense. Pray Sr, Inform vs à little of your more quaint meaning? Say, how bread is Christs body if it still remains as substantially bread after the Benediction, as water in Baptism remain's substantially [Page 136] water? Doth the water wherewith an infant is washed, cease to be water because it is à Sacrament? No certainly, yet bread if S. Ambrose speak truth, ceaseth to be that which nature framed it. You endeauour to make These words forceles, because S. Chrisost. in Act: Hom. 23. saith of Baptism, I'ts virtue is so great that it suffer's not men to be men, and then you wisely ask whether we will grant it Transubstantiat's them? Friuolous. The Saint only speaks of the virtue of Baptism, which, as he obserues makes vs sons of Adop­tion, That is, it Changes à soul from the miserable state of Sin into à happy state of grace, and so permit's not men once infected with that leprosy, to be men as they were before, vnregenerate. And the­refore, he adds in the ensaing words. The great power of the Holy Ghost is that it Transform's our Manners and makes them composed. What is here of any thing like Transubstantiation, or of à ceasing of that which nature hath framed? But enough and fully enough of Mr Stillingfleets most improbable glosses, so I must and will term them, vntil some surer Principle than fancy giues them more strength which shall neuer be.

20. To end. I'le say à great Truth. Had this Gentleman twenty Cyprians, twenty Cyrills, twenty Austins as clear and express for his Opinion of the Sacrament, as the Testimo­nies Had this Aduersary so much Authority for hy opi­nion, as wee Produce in behalfe of Catholick Doctrin No man Could belieue any thing. now cited are significant for Catholick Doctrin: Had he à Church reputed Orthodox which as indubitably mantain'd his Opinion fiue or six ages since, as the Catholick Church then held, and yet hold's our Catholick Doctrin; Finally, had he Scrip­ture as plain for his Sign or Figure of Christs body, as it is euident­ly clear for the Real Presence, I verily think no prudent man could or would belieue any thing of this great Mystery, And con­sequently all might rationally doubt of euery article in Christian Religion: Because Fathers vpon the Supposition, are directly con­trary to Fathers, Church, stand's against Curch, and Scripture against Scripture. But now when he hath not one Clear Testimony of à Father, much less the Sentiment of any Orthodox Church, nor so much as à word of Scripture contrary to our Catholick Position; I must Conclude that his Glosses already laid on these Fathers are not only improbable, but more than highly improbable.

[Page 137]21. Perhaps Mr Stillingfleet▪ may reply. His glosses, T'is true, because they are the Sentiments of à fallible man, are indeed lyable to errour; but He bidds me look well to my Refutations, and bewa­re of setting to high à value on them whilst I oppose him, For my Opposition, (because I may mistake) amount's to no more, but to à weake degree of Fallibility, so that, Hitherto He and I stand vpon equal Terms. Answ. If the contest be thus much only, whether his Glosses are not clearly refuted, the Iudicious Reader after à due Ponderation of my Replies, is so far to iudge between vs. But here is not all, I must Say more. Though I am as fallible in excepting against His glosses, as he is in making them, yet my Faith depend's not vpon my Exceptions but vpon the Doctrin of my Church, The express words of Scripture, and Fathers, These obli­ge me vnder pain of damnation to belieue as I doe, But all that Mr Stilling: hath for his Faith, is only the vncertainty of his own No man builds faith vpon his own Glosses. coniectures (ancient Church he has none, nor express Scripture, nor one Clear sentence of any Ancient Father) And will hee Dare to oblige me vnder pain of damnation to belieue his Glosses (or the opinion he would mantain by them) vpon no other Ground but his weak Coniectures? I appeal to his own Conscience for an Answer. Well. Be it how you will, thus much is euident (and T'is the only thing I aime at in this whole Discourse) if Scripture and Fathers be interpreted in high matters of Faith by two Ad­uersaries of different Religions, when no surer Principle is at hand to rely on, but the fallible Glosses of the One, and à contrary fal­lible▪ combating with those Glosses in the Other, they may both (as the world goes now) sit long at the sport, before one Contro­uersy Other mean [...] to end Con­trouersies then meer Glosses. be ended. Therefore God, as I said aboue, has Prouided vs of an easier way to end these weighty difficulties, or, we may All turn Scepticks. Some may say; The old mode of the World was to dispute by Scripture and Fathers, dare we reiect this way of arguing as insufficient? Answ. No truely: It is an excellent way amongst Christians (though insignificant to Heathens) when the Aduerse Parties can Clear the sense of Scripture and Fathers vpon certain Principles, But if the very sense of Scripture and Fa­thers [Page 138] be called into Question As now à daies it is by Sectaries, We must of necessity haue Recourse to an other more Clear, easy, and indubitable means of ending all Debates euer in vse among the Holy Fathers, Whereof more afterward. In the Interim the ensuing Chapter may giue you entertainment.

CHAP. XIV.

1. THis Assertion not slightly proued in the other Treatise. Disc. 2. C. 4. I hold so certain, That the wit of man shall not rationally contradict it. And to giue yet more light to what is there said, Be pleased to exclude, or mentally only to cast aside All thought of an vnerring Church, of her infallible Tradition al so, of the Definitions of General Councils, For all these (which Sectaries hold fallible) are Essential to an vnerring Church, If any such thing be in the world, whereof we shall Treat afterward. Next look about you, And consider well what remain's to end Controuersies withall, or to regulate Diuine Faith. You haue VVhat Prin­ciples Sectaries Can Pretend to, distinct from an Infallible Church. first Scripture which à Pagan wholly and à Iew partly reiects, Yet with such Aliens from Christ, à Christian can argue rationally yea and clearly conuince them, as I shall proue in the second Discourse. After Scripture, you haue the sublime Mysteries of Faith, the Fa­thers Doctrin laid forth in their Volumes, and the History of the Church. Here are all the Principles imaginable left Sectaries, be­sides their priuate Spirit, which can be no more à sound Principle to them, than the contrary Spirit is to Their Aduersaries.

[Page 139]2. Let vs now See how weakly the Sectary endeauours to end any Controuersy by these Principles without an infallible Church, And be pleased euer to attend to the Aduersary he Treat's with. If he attempt's to do good on à Heathen by Scripture, or bring's in the Reasonableness of Christian Religion, The Heathen, and Iew also laugh at his Folly, And wish him to proue his Book to be Diuine. If he proues that by the Vniuersal Tradition of all Called Christians, the Heathen perhaps will not yet quarrel with him (as I may hereafter) about the Fallibility or Infallibility of Tradition, but desires him to goe among the Chineses and lay his Bible down by That book which their supposed Prophet Confusius wrote, full of excellent Moral Precepts. Thus much done the Contest Begin's. The Sectary saith his Bible is Authorized by à great Prophet, called Christ. A learned Bonzius Answer's, and his is also. Authorized by à great Prophet called Confusius. The Sectary saith all Christians own his book (vpon à neuer interrupted The Prote­stants Con­test with [...] Heathen Concerning the Bible. Tradition) to be indited by the Spirit of Truth, The Bonzius replies, All China of à mighty vast Extent age after age, hath the like perpetuated Tradition for his Bible. What followes but that These two Aduersaries, peruse their Bibles? The Bonzius read's ours, and Reasonably ask's, whether the Sectary can infallibly pro­ue such strange Mysteries as are registred there, (for example, à Tri­nity, the Incarnation of the Diuine word) to be Truths Reuealed by Almighty God? The Sectary answers. All the infallible certainty he hath of these particular Verities lastly Relies only vpon Scripture it selfe. For what euer Principle can be imagined distinct from that written word whether Church or Tradition, is Fallible and may decei­ue. If so, saith the Heathen your Bible gain's no Credit with me, Because you proue the Mysteries contained there by that which causes my doubt, or is the matter in Question, for you say all I read, is of Diuine inspiration because your Bible relates them, and the­refore make that à proof of your Doctrin, which is the Matter in question, or causes my doubt. O saith the Sectary read on with Hu­mility and you will find, that the very Maiesty of the style, the Energy of the words will quit you of doubting; And to ease you of too [Page 140] much pains, know we Protestants hold That the Belief of à very few chief Articles, or simple Truths ( as that Iesus is the Christ: The Diuine Word is incarnated &c) is faith enough to gain Heauen. Con­tra. The Hea­then except's against the Protestants plea. Replies the Heathen. I see no other Maiesty in the Style of your Bible than in mine, and other pious books. The exteriour Syntax or ioyning of words together is common to all such Wri­tings. But aboue all I wonder why you talk to me of no man kno­wes what splendor shining in the bare Letter, when you say that shines not to Pagans, but only to those who haue the Spirit of God, and are the Elect amongst you. Now to what you Add of à few chief Articles necessary to be belieued and no more, I answer first. Your Scripture saith no such Thing, nor tell's me or you which Articles are necessary, which not, and if it did so, you are only where you were before in darkness, Since you proue not so much as one of these few Articles to be of Diuine Reuelation, but by the book which records them; And this you do whilst I iustly question not only the book, but the Truth of this very article, which you ma­ke Diuine, because it is in your Bible. But enough of this subiect at present, whereof see more C. 9. n. 7. All that is said there and further enlarged here, makes this Truth not only probable but de­monstratiuely euident, That Scripture alone is no vniuersal Means to end Controuersies debated between Christians and no Christians (which is the only Thing we now insist on) yet Iesus Christ hath left sufficient means whereby such Aliens may be reclaimed from their Errours, and attain saluation. Scripture doth it not for all, There­fore à more satisfactory way must be thought of.

3. Now if we begin to speak of the Fathers with à learned Heathen, t'is labour lost, for He who belieues not the Diuinity of The Fathers of no Autho­rity with à Heathen. Scripture will little regard the Fathers Authority. To tell à Heathen of the high Mysteries of our Faith augment's his Diffi­culties, puzzles Reason, and rack's his vnderstanding. To weary him with à long narration of Ecclesiastical history is most imperti­nent, when as yet, He neither belieues Scripture, nor Fathers: Yet this man may be conuerted to Christian Religion if he follo­wes Reason, Vnless we say which is intolerable to hear, That our [Page 141] Lord Iesus will haue this poor man lost, or left without means to attain Saluation by.

4. The next Aduersary the Protestant may attaque shall be, if you please, à Roman Catholick (we will here to gain time omit his Contest with Arians and other Hereticks) And his whole The sectaries attempt vpon Catho­licks, vain, and why. endeauour, if he goe Closely to work, must either be to Establish his own Protestant Tenets by Scripture, Fathers, and Anti­quity, or forceably to disswade all by virtue of these Principles from the Belief of our Catholik Doctrin. I say it is impossible to do ei­ther, Because the Sectary has not in the whole Bible one clear and express Text for any one Tenet of Protestancy as t'is reformed; Nor so much as one clear and express Text against any one Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Religion. Therefore, as Scripture cannot Pass an obligation on him to belieue one Article of his new Faith, so it cannot oblige him or me to disbelieue one Article of our Roman Catholick Doctrin, For vpon this supposition, it neuer meddless with the one, and often omit's to speak of the other, in plain, open and significant Terms. For example. Scripture neither ex­presly denies Transubstantiation with the Protestant, nor in that plain open Term affirm's it with the Catholick: it neither clearly Saies there are Two Sacraments only, nor in express Words allowes of Seuen: It neither clearly denies Purgatory, nor vnder that express word asserts it. How then can the Protestant when he hath not one clear syllable in Scripture for what he hold's in these particu­lars, nor à word against our contrary Doctrins, euer probably ven­ture Not one Text in Scripture clear for Protestancy nor one against Ca­tholick Doctrin. to decide these and the like controuerted Matters by the plain and express letter of the Bible? It is impossible. The Reason is, it cannot determine that whereof it speaks not clearly, nor become an intellectual Rule, or Measure whereby we are to iudge what's true, or what's false concerning these controuersies, if it Meddles not with them in express Terms. I say in express Terms: For what euer is less then that, or not express, must either bee the Sectaries Gloss or his fallible Deduction, I reiect both, and appeal to him who wrote the original Book with all it's candor and simplicity. If I find Protestancy there, well and good; If otherwise, no Gloss no De­duction [Page 142] shall preuail with me to belieue the Nouelty vnder pain of damnation, vnless he who tampers with à Text, first, bid's me be­lieue vnder pain of damnation that he is an vnerring man, or that his Glosses or deductions are infallible, which I am sure is not God's command. Again, If I find nothing plain and express in Scripture against my Catholick Doctrin (but much for it) I should be worse then foolish to change my ancient Faith vpon the slight ground of farfetch't Glosses and fallible inferences.

5. Shall I say yet more clearly what I here aime at? Some Christians there are now in being who Belieue the true Doctrin of Christ so firmly, that though an Angel preach't Contrary (Galat: 1. 8.) They ought not to be remoued from it; if therefore Protestants belieue their own Doctrin so stedfastly, and say that Papists (for The Asss [...]r­ti [...]n, proued. example) err in the Belief of Christ's true Doctrin, they are to Euidence it by à more indubitable Principle, than that is which the Apostle vnderstand's by the preaching of an Angel, But such à Prin­ciple can be no other nor less certain than plain and open Scriptu­re, How Therefore can the Protestant so much as weakly hope to disswade from Popery and perswade to his opinions by meer guesses, weak inferences, weightles coniectures &c. without plain Scripture? Now to shew you he hath no more but, guesses, Let him please to Discuss rigidly with me but one point in Con­trouersy by Scripture only. That of Transubstantiation wherein he think's to haue most Aduantage, may perhaps occurr, and like him best. I say after All he can allege for his opinion, or against our Catholick Doctrin shall be no more but meer Coniectures, improba­ble Glosses, vncertain Topicks, false Suppositions and the like; And are these think you weighty enough to establish his Opinion which he meer Con­iectures are Prote­stants only proofs. hold's to be reuealed Doctrin? No certainly. The Doctrin of Christ stand's so sure vpon certain known Grounds that an Angel though he preach otherwise, is not to be belieued, and if it be not thus stedfastly founded, it is not as I obserued aboue, Christ's Doc­trin. How easy were it for the Sectary to end much of these de­bates by à due examination of this one Controuersy. I vrge him to it, yet you'l see, he will refuse this Modest Challenge.

[Page 143]6. Wherefore I shall neuer comprehend why these men trouble the world as they do with writing Controuersies. What is their aime? Is it to draw any one Soul to Protestancy, or only to giue à proof of wit, and show that they can speak against God's truths which an Angel cannot Disswade from? If this later be intended, the Arians of old did so before them, And the Diuel can do it much better than either Arian or Sectary: If it be to conuert men to Pro­testancy, The Attempt is desperate, vnless they come strongly ar­med with plain, express, and Significant Scripture, Whereof there is no fear at all; For had they clear Scripture against one sort of their supposed erring Christians (Papists for example) they would not spare vs one whit, but most willingly Silence vs with Gods own plain language. This we look for, but in lieu of it, what haue we? Fancies, Coniectures, Glosses, friuolous Discourses. And thus forsooth Popery must down (I marry) and Protestancy be thought the pure and most refined Religion.

7. By what is said already you see how vnluckily these men run Sectaries argue im­probably. out of the way of all probable Arguing, whilst Scripture is made so clear, that by the light thereof, All Controuersies now raised amongst dissenting Christians, can be determined. Is it so conuin­cing and clear? Proue you no Purgatory, no Inuocation of Saints by plain and express Scripture. Is it so conuincing and clear? Proue you plainly that to deny Purgatory or Transubstantiation, is as ne­cessary to Saluation as to deny à Quaternity of Diuine Persons. Now if it be not clear in such matters. Why keep you à coile about these Negatiues? Why do you threaten vs with God's iud­gements for mantaining the Contrary Doctrins? Why haue you not only made an vproar in the world about Doctrins meerly vn­necessary, but more (which may lay sorrow at your hearts) why ha­ue Negatiue Opinions, the cause of Sectaries Separation▪ you shamefully separated your selues from an Ancient Church, whereof your Ancestors were members? And this is desperately done for à Company of Negatiue Opinions, Though it import's not one straw whether they be belieued or no. Contrariwise, if you make the Belief of these Non-Articles necessary to Saluation they must be proued by the plain and express word of God, which is [Page 144] vtterly impossible, and therefore I said right, that Scripture cannot end Controuersies between dissenting Christians, Catholicks for example and Protestants.

8. And thus much in effect our Newer men grant who talk much of à few simple Truths sufficient to saluation called fundamen­tals. Is is not enough saith Dr Taylor in his. 2. Disswasiue. P. 168. That we are Christians, that we put all our hope in God who freely gi [...]es vs all things by his Son Iesus Christ? That we are redeemed by his Death, that we are members of his body in Baptism▪ that he giues vs his spirit that we do no Euil, that we do what good we can &c. Is not this Faith ru [...]e Righteousness, and the Confession of this faith sufficient vnto saluation? Obserue well. If such à faith of à few Nouellists, and the like simple Truths which no Arian denies vnder such general Terms Of Sectaries simple Truths. (and cannot be proued sufficient by plain Scripture) be enough to Saluation, what need had Sectaries to Calumniate our ancient Church, and expose Christianity to the scorn of Iewes and Atheists for lesser Matters (as they think) than these fundamentals, or few simple truths are? Do we disown any of them? No. We are Christians as well as they, we put our hope in God, we say all things are giuen vs by his son Iesus Christ, we are redeemed by his Death &c. Wherein then lies our Offence? O, we hold strange Nouelties, Inuocation of Saints. Purgatory, Transubstantiation. I d [...]y they are Nouelties, but be it as you will, They are out of the [...] [...]f your simple Truths, and in your Principles no more but Opinions, and can you haue such cruel hearts as to persecute vs, banish vs, and shed our blood for meer Opinions? Where is your Ch [...]rity▪ Again I argue Ad hominem. If to hold à Purgatory be only [...] Opinion, your denying it is no more but an opinion also, There­fore you cannot proue your Negatiue by plain and express Scrip­ture, for if you do so, it well be no longer an Opinion, but à [...] led Truth, and certain Doctrin. Conuince this if you can and th [...] tell vs that Scripture decides all Controuersies between vs, or his an obligation on vs to belieue more then These few simple Truths [...] No Purgatory for example, No Transubstantiation; or say plainly, that Scripture doth not put an end to these Controuersies; which Truth is euident by manifest Experience.

[Page 145]9. It is strange to see how endlesse Sectaries are, and to no pur­pose at all, in quoting Fathers for the Clarity and sufficiency of Scripture in all things necessary, but afterward spoil all with à new Scripture sayes not how many are necessa­ry. Whimsey, For they make iust so much as they please (à few Simple Truths serue the turn) to be Necessary and sufficient. Here are three insuperable difficulties. First. They speak without book, For God neuer told them in Scripture how many or how few of these Truths, are necessary and Sufficient; Therefore if I admit this Principle, the Protestants sole Word must secure me, though I know well, that their word is neither à necessary, nor à sufficient warrant for my saluation. Hence. 1. I vrge them to show by plain Scripture the number of these fundamentals precisely necessa­ry. 2. I must tell them. If Scripture be clear in à few Funda­mentals and so much only be necessary and sufficient, this reasona­ble Quaestion may well follow. What's the rest of the Bible good for with them? Most certainly the far greater part of it, where it speak's not of these few Necessaries, may be cast away as vseless and impertinent. 3. These Nouellists Pronounce, and Proue against themselues, in all such Controuersies as are now in debate between them and Catholicks, For, if Scripture which tell's vs of all Necessary and Sufficient things to saluation (comprised in à few sim­ple Truths whereof there is no strif now) omit's, whilst it mentions Sectaries proue against themselues. these, to speak plainly in behalf of our Protestant Opinions. N [...] Sacrifice. No Transubstantiation. &c. With what Conscience can they tell vs (and They haue often said it) that this Book alone can decide these controuersies, and recall vs from Popery to their new mode of Protestancy? I would willingly haue Satisfaction to this one difficulty.

10. Well: To answer all they can pretend to out of the ancient Fathers for the Clarity and sufficiency of scripture in order to things necessary; be pleased to obserue, that the learned Tertullian against Marcion (but chiefly in his book de Praescript: cap. 16. at those words. We are not to recurr to Scripture, wherein there is no victory, or à very vncertain one &c.) And S. Austin. S. Chrisostome with others, may perhaps seem, to à less diligent Reader, to be of con­trary [Page 146] iudgements. Tertullian now cited, saies Scripture is insuf­ficient to decide Controuersies concerning Religion amongst Chri­stians. S. Austin. De Bapt. Contra Donat: lib. 2. C. 6. plead's much for it's sufficiency. I say here is no Contrariety: both speak well, both deliuer Catholick Doctrin. Know therefore, that Scripture is deuided into two Parts or Sections, as you may read in Sixtus Senen­sis. Two parts of Scripture, distingui­shed. Lib. 6. Bibl. Annot: 152. Who cites S. Chrisostom for it. The one vsually called Pars Directa, or direct part treat's of the abstruse My­steries of Christian Faith, and this (which is Matter of Contest be­tween vs and Sectaries) Tertullian reiect's, and hold's insufficient to end disputes, And so doth S. Austin also. Epistola. 49. Ad Deo gratias. The other named, Pars reflexa and the clearer which speak's of the Foundation of Christian Religion, of the Extent of the Church diffused the whole world ouer, of its marks and Signes, of its Perpetuity, and infallible Assistance, of Nations flocking to it, &c. This part, I say (the book being once admitted as of Gods Diuine word) is so perspicuous, and clear that it silences all Sectaries and euidently sub­uert's their Errours. But to tell me, it is clear and sufficient enough to decide differences, when we dispute with contentious men about the particular Mysteries of Faith (the Trinity, for example, Transub­stantiation, the number of Sacraments &c.) And the very sense of Scrip­ture, which should end all, is not agreed on by the two dissenting Parties; To assert this I say, is not only à Paradox but à manifest improbability contrary to all experience, And therefore I will extort this confession from our Aduersaries (may they please to answer) that as they shall neuer proue one of their Protestant Opinions, so, they shall neuer oppugn one Catholick Doctrin, by clear and express Scripture.

11. Some obiect S. Austin disputing against Maeximinus an Arian, S. Austin's Discourse. with an Arian. who faith. Lib. 3. C. 4. 14. Sed nunc nec ego Nicenum &c. B [...]rnob, neither I ought to allege the Nicene Council, nor thou that of Ariminum, for neither am I bound to the Authority of the one, nor thou to the Authority of the other. Let vs contend by the Authorities of scripture which are com­mon witnesses to vs both. Here two things seem clear. First. That S. Austin reiected the Authority of the Nicene Council, as Sectaries [Page 147] do now the Church. 2. That He held Scripture à sufficient Rule to conuince an Arian. A word only in passing. Dare the Sectary offer thus much, or dispute with the Catholick for the supposed Obserue the question here proposed. Truths of pure Protestancy, or his Negatiue Articles by Scripture only, as he here supposeth S Austin did Argue in other Matters with Maximinus? I would willingly see some attempt made this way, but am sure, He will not dare to do it. Because he saith His Pro­testancy, or these Negatiues are not reuealed, but only à number of inferiour truths which cannot be proued by Scripture. To what purpose then is it to allege any Testimony which makes Scripture sufficient to decide Controuersies, when the Protestant ingenuou­sly grant's he can proue nothing of his pure Protestancy by plain Scripture? Hence I Say all the Quotations of Fathers haled in to proue the sufficiency of Scripture, help not the Sectary at all. Ire­naeus, for example, call's it the Rule of Faith. S. Austin. A Diuine Sectaries quote Fa­thers to no purpose. Balance. Theophilus Alex: A firm foundation. Gerson, A Sufficient and infallible Rule. Most true if we speak of the scriptures Clearer part, yea and of the obscurer also, when it is interpreted by an infallible Oracle. But what makes all this for pure Protestancy, or for its Negatiue Opinions? Doth Scripture regulate this new Faith, whereof it is vtterly silent? Doth it weigh such Negatiues, or tell vs what they are worth? Is it à firm Foundation to establish these Fancies? A sufficient and infallible Rule which measures vs out, No Sacrifice on the Altar, No purgatory. No Transubstantiation? Toyes, trifles. There is not à word spoken in the whole Bible contrary to the opposit Verities of Catholick Religion, or in behalf of Pro­testancy. Therefore though S. Austin appeald to Scripture against an Arian, and had his reasons for it, yet our new mens Plea is more then impertinent, when after their Appeal they find not one sen­tence for Protestancy, or against Catholick Doctrin. Now to S. Austin.

12. I say first, The Saint reiected not the Authority of the Why S. Au­stin waued the Nicene Council. Nicene Council which he euer honourd, but only waued that as an vnmeet Principle in his contest with Maximinus, who no more regar­ded the Nicene Definitions, than Sectaries now do the Council of [Page 148] Trent, Therefore as we Argue not from that Council against them, so S. Austin then argued not from the Nicene Definitions. Thus our Catholick Witers haue answered à hundred times, yet we must haue this Crambe recocta serued vp again, as à new vnsauory Obiec­tion. I say. 2. S. Austin by his Appeal to Scripture recurr's not to the bare letter, which, he Saith, is à body without à Soul, but to the true genuine Sense Thereof, which he supposeth known in that Scripture which we call the Reflex part, and yet is more clearly known by the Vniuersal consent of Christ's vnerring Church: For it is one and the same thing with S. Austin, to belieue the Churches sense of Scripture, and to belieue Scripture it self, which most manifestly commend's vnto vs Church Authority. Had then the Saint argued thus against his Aduersary, He had conuinced him by the Clearer Part of Scripture. Though thou exceptest against the Nicene A clear Conuiction. Council, yet thou cans't not deny, but that Scripture commend's à Church founded by Christ, diffused the whole world ouer; what euer Therefore this Church deliuers concerning the sense of Scripture, That is the sense of the Holy Ghost, And can be no other, for à Church which swerues from the true sense of Gods word, is no Church founded by Christ. But the Vniuer­sael Sentiment of this Church opposeth thy errour, Therefore the true sense of Scripture which this Church plainly deliuers, stand's opposit to thee also, And thus thou art conuinced by Scripture it self.

13. Perhaps you wil ask whether if S. Austin had argued from the Obscurer Part only which treats of à Mysterious Trinity, one What if S. Austin had argued from the Direct part of Scripture? God in Essence, and three distinct Persons, not so plainly expressed there, He could then haue conuinced his Arian Aduersary of errour? None can better satisfy the doubt than S. Austin himself. Lib. con­tra Cresconium C. 33. where he speaks of an other Matter of Faith. viz. of Baptism conferred by Hereticks, which though not clearly expressed in Scripture, is yet held à true and valid Sacra­ment. His words are. Proinde quamuis huius rei certè de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum &c. Although no example of this thing (the validity of Baptism by Hereticks) can certainly be Shown by Scripture yet the Verity of these Scriptures is held by vs in this particular. Cum hoc facimus quod vniuersae iam placuit Ecclesia, [Page 149] when we now do that which pleases, or is agreable to the Vniuersal Church, which Church, the Authority of Scripture it self commend's. Vt quoniam, As that because the Holy Scripture cannot deceiue (whilst it commend's the Church) and euery one fear's to be decei­ued in the obscurity of this Question: Eamdem Ecclesiam de illâ consu­lat. Let him consult the Vniuersal Church of this particular, Which holy Scripture without all ambiguity Doth demonstrate. Thus S. Austin himselfe Answers. most profoundly S. Austin. And he giues an Answer to the present difficulty. viz. That if the Obscurer Part of Scripture speak not plainly in the debate betwixt him and an Heretick, the Heretick is to address himself to the Church and learn by Her what the sense of Scripture is. Without light borrowed from the Church, we haue only words about these high Mysteries, but not fully sen­sed words, chiefly when we argue with contentious Sectaries, whose glosses depraue the plainest Passages in Holy writ, as the Protestant doth Christ's clear Proposition. This is my body. If there­fore we go on in such à contest with words not fully sensed, we may well end our liues, as S. Austin notes, before we end one Controuersy.

14. And thus you see, as the One Part of Scripture is à body without à soul before it be receiued by the Church; so the Other Part is also, before it be both receiued and sensed by this Oracle of Truth. Vpon this ground all those other Testimonies vsually alleged by Sectaries out of S. Austin against the Donatists, Of Optatus Meleuitanus, and S. Chrysostom for the clarity of Scripture are clearly solued, for here is S. Austins Principle. The sense of Scripture intended The sense of Scripture and the Church al­waies the same. by the Holy Ghost, and the sense of Christs true Church concerning Scripture, can neuer clash, but is one and the same. If therefore I know the sen­se of the Church, I haue with it the sense of Scripture also, but with this difference, That what Scripture often expresses less clearly, Christ's Church deliuers more fully, and Explicitly. Whence it followes that if the Churches sense conclude against these Sectaries, the Scriptures sense, where it is obscure, is in like manner con­cluding.

15. You may obiect Scripture is in the noblest manner in­fallible, [Page 150] For it hath its infallibility from God immediatly, and may well be à distinct Rule, or Principle, from that sense which the Church giues of it. Why therefore should not Sectaries haue recourse to that first and noblest Principle without relying on the Churches interpretation? I haue answered, because they know not (guess they may and miss) what Scripture saies in à hundred dif­ficult Passages. Therefore they are to recurr to the Church, or must make vse of their own fancies to sense it. The Argument, purely fallacious, is much to this sense. Christ our Lord when he taught his Disciples was in the noblest manner infallible, being Truth it self, the Apostles were only infallible in their teaching and An Obiec­tion answered. further Explanation of those Verities they learn'd, by à Singular Grace or participation of Infallibility. Why then should not Sectaries rely only on the first sure Principle, Christ's own words flowing from the Fountain of infallibility, without depending on the Apostles Doctrin, not so eminently infallible? Now be plea­sed to hear S. Austin pondering those words. Psal: 57. Alienati sunt peccatores &c. Where he makes this Parallel betwixt Christ and the Church, and solues the Difficulty. Ex veritatis ore ag [...] Christum ipsam veritatem. Taught by the mouth of Truth, I ack­nowledge Christ Truth it self, ex veritatis ore agnosco Ecclesiam par­ticipem veritatis. And by the same mouth of Truth, I acknowledge the Church partaking also of Verity. That is, I own the Church to be, not Truth it self, not Scripture it self, but à Copartner of Truth, with Christ, and Scripture. I own it to be, not Infallibility it self, yet so eminently infallible by à singular grace or participa­ted Infallibility, That to dispute against it is most insolent madness: Witness the same S. Austin. Epist. 118. C. 5. ad Ian: If he dare to do so, Saith the Saint, Serm: 14. de verbis Apost. C. 18. or rus [...] violently against this impregnable wall of the Church, let him know his doom. ipse confringitur He is shattered in pieces. Hence you see first, that no mans priuate Iudgement can be contrary to the Churches sense giuen of Scripture, without thwarting Scrip­ture it self. You see. 2. That Scripture and the Church are not two Principles, looking as it were different waies, but one and [Page 151] the same, in order to our direction and regulating Faith. whereof Scripture and the Church in order to all, is one Prin­ciple. more Hereafter.

16. In the mean while you may ask, why our Sectaries keep such à Coile about the Clarity of Scripture concerning things neces­sary? It is hard to say what they driue at, For if all this pretended clarity diffused it self through euery passage of Holy writ, worse it is for them, and to their vtter confusion. Obserue My reason. The more clear Scripture is made by Nouellists, the greater is their shame, whilst they cannot proue by it's supposed clarity so much as one Protestant Doctrin, nor probably oppugn one Article of our Catholick Faith. Therefore nothing is gained this way: Nay all is los▪t by Their casting off Church Authority, when after that wicked Fact, clear Scripture leaues them as Scripturelesse, as Their own malice has made them Churchlesse. It is true. I see some Colour for their Pre­tence to Scripture, and thus it is. Like men lawlesse, they haue shaken of all other receiued Principles of Christian Religion. Speak of à Church, She is fallible, and has actually erred. Cite Fathers, some pitifully gloss them, others roundly reiect them as men meer­ly Fallible. Mention Tradition, the very word is odious. Now for stark shame, whilst they bear the name of Christians, it is hard to throw away all Christian Principles. What's done therefore? Why Secta­ries take recourse to the bare letter of Scripture. I'le tell you. They lay hold of à body without à Soul, I mean, the bare letter of Scrrpture without the Sense, and this is all that's left them. I say without the sense, whereof you haue seen enough already, for when the sense of God's word is controuerted between them and vs, and their sense run's contrary to the receiued Church Doctrin, no probable Principle can make it defensible, and vpon this Ground I said right, They are as Scripturelesse as Churchlesse All this is most true, and I well vnderstand it. But why these men la­bour so earnestly to make the Bible plain, when not so much as one plain passage is found there for Protestancy, or against our Catholick Doctrin, is à Riddle aboue my reach, I vnderstand it not. Let then as much as you will of the book be clear, whilst the Clarity fauour's not one of our Sectaries forged Nouelties, nor Contradict's one of our Catholick Tenets, it neither help's the [Page 152] Protestant nor hurt's the Catholick. In the next Discourse we shall treat of the Church, and more oportunely solue there à few obiections of Sectaries.

CHAP. XV.

1. THe next Principle after Scripture, we named the Mysteries of Christian Religion, which certainly cannot regulate Faith, or determine Controuersies concerning Religion. For à Rule is the measure whereby we iudge what is true and what is fal [...], but no man iudges this by the Mysteries themselues Belieued, because these proposed without further light, are not only obscure but highly Transcend all natural discourse, And therefore Reason would reiect them, were it not curb'd and rectified by an other Superiour most certain and infallible Rule, distinct from the Mysteries. I further ground and more à Priori is. That man who Iudges of Religion by the Mysteries belieued, makes, in real truth his own fancy or weak reason to regulate Faith, and is sure to erre. [...]le shew you how. Giue me one, as yet not setled in any Faith, that cast's his thoughts vpon all the different Religions now Pro­fessed in the world, Iudaism, Mahometism, and Christianity. He call's them all to the Tribunal of his Reason which is guided by the Mysteries of each Profession, And is resolued to pitch on so What weak Reason would em­brace [...] If left to it selfe. much, as seem's suitable to his Iudgement. Reason certainly, if it proceed Reasonably. will only pick out of euery one, such Mysteries as are Facile, and no way torture an Vnderstanding. Much may displease this Seeker after Truth in Iudaism, yet per­haps not all. The filth and Fooleries in Turcism like him not, [Page 153] yet something he may approue. Finally he fall's vpon Christianity and there find's those insuperable difficulties of à Trinity, the Incar­nation, Original sin &c. These suite not with his Reason, and con­sequently are reiected, Therefore (if Christianity be true) à false Religion cannot but haue more sway with him, than the vndoubted reuealed Verities of Iesus Christ. Thus much seem's clear. Per­haps you will ask why I instance in an Vnbelieuer, who is yet to chuse his Religion? When I should show that Christians, euen those we call Sectaries, ought not to end Controuersies or to regulate their Faith by the apparent easines, or difficulty of Mysteries within the bounds of Christianity, whereof many are in dispute between them and Catholicks. Answ. I haue instanced thus on set purpose to lay open the great Errour of all Sectaries, who leauing the These who yet belieue nothing and Sectaries, are alike in their Choise Of Religion. Conduct of Christ's Church run along with this supposed Vnbelieuer. For as he, after à consideration had of seueral Mysteries found in the Religions now named, takes out of each what is easiest, and best likes his Fancy, or weak reason; So Sectaries ptoceed, Though they walk in à lesser compass, and for the most part limit Themsel­ues to something taught by men called Christians, whether true or false, imports not. Within such bounds they take and leaue as freely what pleaseth, as any Vnbelieuer doth, and vsually throw off Mysteries most difficult to sense and Reason. Thus the Arian reiect's à Trinity because it is à hard Mystery, and not plainly expressed in Scripture. The Pelagian denies Original sin vpon the same ground, and Protestants thunder against Transubstantia­tion, because the word is not in Holy Writ, and the Mystery seem's repugnant to their Reason. All therefore are alike as ill Self-chusers with in such à compass as any Vnbelieuer, who ma­kes à new▪ Religion on his own head, guided by no other Rule, but fancy, or what seem's to him reasonable. The sole cause of this Self-chusing, is the Sectaries falling off from the conduct of Christs vnerring Oracle, The Church, which tell's them what God speak's. This vnfortunately slighted, They make him speak iust so much as they think fit, or seem's good to their weak and fallible Rea­son.

[Page 154]2. The next Principle, Sectaries may lay hold on for à suf­ficient, or at least à Subordinate and concurrent means to decide Controuersies, and regulate Faith, is the Authority of the an­cient Fathers. Though Catholiks highly honour these great Lights of the Church, And no way decline the tryal, yet they Protestants doe and must except against the Authority of Fathers. think an easier Rule can be assigned for all, and know well that Protestants doe and must except against this very Rule. One ex­ception is. The labour is immense to peruse exactly the large volumes of Fathers (the like is of Councils) which can only be done by the more learned of different Religions. Howeuer, suppose the work performed by à learned Catholick and à learned Protestant, and that both diligently read the Fathers, The satis­faction giuen to the Generality of other Christians is very little or nothing, who first must Hear, what These two men report, and next credit their dissenting Iudgements. And can such iudgement think ye thus at variance (as they haue been for à hundred years) certainly regulate Diuine Faith in à Seeker after truth, or end debates wheron Saluation depend's? It is impossible. Again These Fathers with Sectaries, euen all of them put together, are fallible and may teach False Doctrin: Nay more, They haue actually taught it, say Protestants, and grosly erred, whilst they openly mantained à true Sacrifice vpon the Altar, prayers for the dead; Inuocation of▪ Saints, Translation of Saints Reliq [...]es and their worship, Pil­grimages because the Fathers are fallible, and teach Popery. to Holy places, Auricular Confession to à Priest, vn written Tra­dition, vowed Chastity, the Hallowing of Altars, of Churches, of water, bread, oyle, candles, And the great virtue of the sign of the Holy Cross. &c. These say Protestants, and innumerable others haue been the foule mistakes of Fathers, and Therefore Mr whitaker plainly affirm's Popish Religion to be à Patched couerlet of the Fathers Errours sowed together▪ And D. Humfrey highly blames Mr▪ Iewell for his so bold Appeal to the Fathers, saying herein he gaue the Papists too▪ large à Scope, was iniurious to himself (And) after à manner spoiled himself, and the Church &c. The words of these two Sectaries are cited, as I relate them, in the Protestants Apology. Tract 1. Sect. 3. subd▪ 14. Page (with me) 128. And neuer Aduersary could yet Tax that [Page 155] Author of à false Quotation, who also through the Seueral pas­sages of his book showes, how Sectaries ascribe the now named and supposed errours to the Fathers. It would be tedious, to expose all his laborious Collections on this subiect to common view again. Who euer desiers further Satisfaction, need's on­ly to bring eyes, to open the book, and read his Marginal notes. Thus much premised.

3. I say. The Fathers that are not only fallible, but also supposed by Sectaries to haue actually wronged Truth, can be no Appendant or subordinate, much less any sufficient Rule of faith for them, when these conceited Errours are so numerous Recourse to Fathers in Fundamen­tals most in­significant. That all along they stick most Close to our Catholick Doctrin, as is largely proued in the Protestants Apology. Some perhaps will say we must haue recourse to such passages of Fathers as only treat of Fundamentals, and so farr are vnexceptionably plain: Answ. what need of this, when Protestants say there is no great difference between vs in Fundamentals? But suppose this done, which yet cannot be done, whilst Sectaries remain in their wonted Labyrinth concerning Fundamentals, what light haue we from these Fathers to try controuersies now in Agitation, when they grant that Popery is made vp of the Fathers Errours? The final sen­tence is past, the iust Censure already giuen. The Fathers we­re, as we are now, plain Papists. I easily grant all.

4. Shall I yet say more concerning the trial of Protestants Opinions, or the supposed errours of Catholicks by Fathers, and tell you? Sectaries haue no Gusto to it at all. And because it mainly import's first, to discouer their want of Euidence and next their fallacious proceeding in this particular, I will briefly do both and remit all here noted to the prudent Censure of euery Iudi­cious Reader. Thus it is. There is not one controuersy now Protestants neuer offer to plead by à General Consent of Fathers. disputed, in which our Protestants do so much as offer to plead by à General Consent of Fathers, (and Mr Stillingf: likes not to be fob'd off with Two or three Testimonies) Read their writings of the Real presence of Prayers for the Dead, Inuocation of Saints, of à Sacrifice vpon the Altar, of the infallibility of the Church, and tell me [Page 156] after you haue perused all, How many Fathers you find clear and express for Protestancy? A sight of four or fiue would help much, But hereof there is no danger, for you haue not one clear and expres (I say more▪ not one so much as probable) against the In­fallibility of the Roman Catholick Church, Against praying for the Dead &c. And therefore wonder not that Mr Stilling: Part. 3. C. 6. P. 641. where he treat's of Purgatory, talk's much of the Fathers Fancies and Imaginations▪ And of an itching Curiosity some haue to know more concerning the future state of souls, than God has reuealed, But after all produceth not one Testi­mony either clear or probable against our Catholick Doctrin.

5. Do you desire to see more of this want in behalf of Pro­testancy, And how little there is to countenance the Nouelty? Turn again, to Mr Stillinf: Part. 2. C. 1. P. 293. Where you find à Title threatning ruin to vs all. The Roman Church, not the Catholick Church. Say, I beseech you, who would not haue expected after such à clap of Thunder, à whole Torrent of Fa­thers to haue followed for his purpose? But in lieu of these Imptij words giuen in lieue of [...]athers. what haue we? Marry, He tell's vs First. His Bishop makes à great deal of difference between The Church, And A Church, and some difference also between à True Church and à right Church, next he fall's foul on his Aduersary, for his not well considering what the Primate had said: Lastly (to pass by à few ieers) he speak's much of the Vniuersal spreading of the Churches Doc­trin and Vnity thereof, which is due to the Roman Catholick Church only, But after his long Discourse and the rapping Title with it, you haue neither sentence nor syllable of any Father, which so much as meanly insinuates, That, that ancient Moral body (as it comprehend's all Christians vnited in one Belief) is not the only True and Orthodox Church in the world: Yet her [...] had been à most fit place to haue pleaded by plain express Au­thorities (I mean such as directly proue the Roman not to be the Catholick Church) Belieue it, were there any such in the Fa­thers Volumes, Mr Stilling: to make his margents glorious, would haue brought them to light with à witness, But of this main [Page 157] point he is vtterly silent, because he had nothing to say, And therefore wisely Slip's aside to other By-Matters, and leaues his Title to shift for it self.

6. Hence you may well conclude that our Sectaries are dri­uen into strange Straits; when we vrge them to proue their Pro­testancy. Of the strai­tes sectaries are Cast into. We first call them to plain Scripture for à Final deci­sion in this particular, but wanting where with all, they fit vs right with à return of Antiscriptural glosses. We press them again to name any orthodox Church, which fiue or Six ages since professed their Nouelties: Not à word is Answered. We ma­ke Inquiry after Councils held by Protestants before Luther, for the Protestant Religion. Silence, deep Silence, not one is found. Mention only Oral Tradition; they storm at you, because they know Protestancy has none We appeal to the authority of the most ancient Fathers, you see how we are serued, with words and empty Titles Nothing is or can be alleged clear, Nothing expres, Nothing probable. Finally, to leaue them without all excuse. We call them again to an account, and Ask whether they will haue their cause tryed and iudged by their own Doctors, Luther, Caluin, Zuinglius and the like? No satisfaction is found here. Luther condemn's Caluin more violently, than the Prelatick Party in England doth the Quakers, and Send's the Associa­tes Protestants irreconciably Contradict Protestants. of Caluin to Hell, for denying the Real presence of Christs body in the Sacrament, And Caluin is as fierce against Luther in this particular. And thus all Sectaries haue opposed one another from the very beginning of this woful Reformation. Some plead for our Catholick Doctrin, Others are contrary as you may read at large, almost in euery Page of the Prote­stants Apology. We therefore know not what these Nouellists would or can belieue, whilst these endles differences about Belief thus turn their heads, and make them to belieue iust no­thing, but what euery fancy pleaseth. What à Religion haue we here? View well it's exteriour, you haue only Horrour and confusion to look on. Altars pulled down, Cloisters demolished, Bious places prophaned, Stately Churches turned into sluttish barns, [Page 158] by à barbarous Reformation. Enter into the Interiour, or cast à serious thought on that which should essentially constitute Reli­gion, you find this Protestancy à meer new Nothing, as Scripture Neither In­teriour nor exteriour valuable in protestancy. lesse as Churchles, without Tradition, without the consent of Fathers, or any Christian Principle to vphold it, yea (and this vtterly ruin's all) without any Agreement in Doctrin amongst themselues. May we not Therefore iustly deplore the sad con­dition of Thousands now within our once most Catholick En­gland, to see à Thing which stand's on no Principles but fancy, most earnestly stood for, by men of excellent natural parts, and these English too, whose Progenitors (the world knowes it, fully as wise as They) were all Roman Catholicks? But what will ye? Good Reuenues, A merry life, à hansom wife, and Self Interest will haue it so. And thus much of the want of clear Authori­ties in behalf of Protestants.

7. We are now to speak à word of their fallacious, or ra­ther open iniurious Proceeding with the Fathers. And to ma­ke good what I am about to Say, you may please to reflect vpon the Notes in the other Treatise, Chiefly. Disc. 4. C. 2. n. 23. 24. Where you are told That the great work of Prote­stants, is not so much to proue Their own Religion, as to spend time in cauilling at ours, And by superficial Glosses to driue sense out of the Fathers most significant Doctrin, and then to tell the world, they are not for Popery. And (thus (may their glosses haue place) no Religion (neither theirs not ours) can be proued by the Fathers. This most vnworthy Sectaries proceed vnworthily with the Fathers. Procedure with these, great Lights of the Church lenghthens Protestants books, And makes Mr Stillingfleets Account to swell into the bulk you see. Might I here (by the way) speak my thoughts concerning it; I verily belieue there was neuer Book set forth, which lesse deserued it's Title, than this. He call's it: A Rational Account of the grounds of Prote­stant Religion, yet if any one, after à diligent perusal of the who­le Work, can show me but one Article of Protestancy proued by plain Scripture, by à General consent of Fathers, by any [Page 159] ancient Church Doctrin, or vniuersal Tradition, I do at this present engage, to euince by my Answer, That he is grosly mistaken. The fairest Occasion Mr Stillingfleet had to speak home for Protestancy, was. Part. 1. C. 7. Where he treat's of their way of resoluing Faith, yet euen here he fall's so vtterly from the Cause, that he saies no more for Protestancy, than Arianism. See the other Treatise. Disc. 1. C. 9. You will ask perhaps wherein then lies the Substance of his book? I Answer in two things chiefly. First in à tedious wordy quar­rel Two imper­tinences Constitute the subsla­net of Mr Stilling: Account. with Catholick Religion; (His flurting at it is endlesse) 2. In à gross Abuse of the Fathers by his intolerable Glosses. Of neither shall he giue à rational Account to God at the day of Iudgement. To proue what is here hinted at, Read I be­seech you the following Chapter, which I place here on set purpose to lead in à further discourse concerning the Glosses of Sectaries, Withall to lay forth their emptiness and fraud; And finally to show whither these Vnprincipled, life-less. Whim­seys, tend at last. Thus much performed, you shall see Prote­stancy appear like it self, à meer Nothing.

CHAP. XVI.

1. THough much is said of this subiect already, yet be­cause here is Occasion again, I shall briefly point at two or three of Mr Stillingfleet's notorious Abuses. To prose­cute all or the half he has, would make this Treatise as big as his volume. We begin with that known Passage of S. Hierome. Epist. 57. Ad Damasum, where the Saint saith. The Church is built vpon S. Peters See, and whosoeuer is out of the Communion of that Church (whereof Pope Damasus was then head) is Prophane, an [Page 160] Alien, and belongs to Antichrist &c. This in brief is the Substance of S. Hieroms Doctrin. Mr Stilling: Part 2. C. 1. P. 311. Im­putes not plainly these Expressions to heat or flattery, although, S. Hierome abused. Saith he, it look's the more suspicious, because at that time S. Hierome had à great picque against the Eastern Bishops, And then tell's vs to no purpose, what occasioned the Quarrel. Reflect good Reader. Is this hansom, to make à Saint and most profound Doc­tor to Speak in so weighty à Matter against Truth, and his own conscience, moued therunto by flattery and no man knowes what Imagined Picques? Suppose he earnestly stood for Truth against those Bishops, must He Therefore be thought either to flatter or to deny truth now, when he writ's to à Pope, his lawful Superiour? Vpon what Principle doth this vngrounded calumny Stand? Pray you Answer.

2. After some Parergons, not worth the mentioning. Mr Stilling: Saies. When S. Hierome Pronounces those Aliens and Prophane, who are out of the Communion of the Church, it either belongs not to the particular Church of Rome, or if it doth, it makes not to our purpose. What mean these words, The particular Church of Rome? The sole Diocess of that Citty? No. S. Hierome speak's of the Church built vpon S. Peter, or of all Churches vnited in Faith with that See, where Damasus then sate, which only (excluding Aliens, That is all heretical Societies) make vp the true Vniuersal Orthodox Church, as shall be demonstrated hereafter. Well saith Mr Stilling: Suppose I grant that S. Hierome spake of the particular Church of Rome (he means, or t'is Nonsense, of all Churches of the same Faith with the Roman) yet this co­mes not home to the purpose, vnless we Catholicks proue our Church to be as Orthodox now, as She was in those Primitiue times. We proue, Good Sr. Proue you on God's name, to Mr Stilling: demand impertinent. whom prouing belong's, That this Church is less Orthodox now, than formerly. Who euer stand's in à known old path as we Doe, ought not to proue he stand's there, ( Olim possideo prior possider, is his proof) but one that start's aside, and takes to à new way (as you haue done) should tell vs, why he left the other high [Page 161] Road wherein his Ancestors walked? No prince proues his Right and Title to à Rebel, but if any be so vngracious as to rebel, that man must show why he did so, or suffer for it. But of this su­biect so much is said in the other Treatise that I hold it vnans­werable, More shall be added in its due place. In the mean while you see à pretty way of arguing, which run's vpon an idle Supposition. viz. That the Roman Church is altered from it self, since S. Hieroms time. The improbable Supposition is first to be proued, before the Argument haue any force, till then we may lawfully iudge, that S. Hierom's Testimony concludes against this Aduersary. Pray tell me, If I, vpon à bare Supposition, should as­sert that Mr Stilling: is no good Diuine, and thence infer, he is His false supposition not proued. vnfit to write Controuersies, might he not most iustly be angry, and well deny my Assertion, because the Supposition whereon the Assertion stand's is not proued? No more, say is t'is proued in the present Matter. viz. That our Church Doctrin is altered from it self since the primitiue times. Proue that vpon sound Principles, and you will doe more then Euer Protestant did hitherto.

3. Hence all Mr Stilling: following talk of Paralogisms fall's to nothing. It is he saith, our perpetual Paralogism, when the Fa­thers are cited in praise of the Church of Rome although someti­mes their Rhetorick swell'd too high in their Encomiasticks, (They are his words) That we will needs haue these praises to be vnderstood as well of that Church in our present age, as in the Fathers time when it better deserued them; And he add's. As though, it were not possible for à Church to be eminent for purity of Doctrin in one age, and to decline from it in another. Answer. All this is worse than à Paralogism or any captious way of reasoning, for it tend's to non­sense vnless the main Supposition be proued, to wit, That the Roman Apostolical Catholick Church, once certainly pure in Doctrin has or Can decline from her Purity in afrer ages. Mr Stilling: knowes well that Catholicks, who hold their Church in­fallible, make the receding from its Purity à thing impossible. How sensles then is it in this place, where that Question of In­fallibility is not handled, first to suppose our Church fallen off from [Page 162] its old Doctrin, and then to tell vs the Fathers Encomiums haue Still that's Supposed which should be Proued. nothing to do with it in this present state? I argue thus, and Mr Stilling: P. 314. seem's to approue it. Vpon the Supposi­tion that the Roman Catholick Church has not swerued nor can swerue from it's first pure Doctrin, The Fathers Elogiums are in this age as due to it, as in any other. But the Supposition must stand firmly built, as you shall see hereafter, vpon sure grounds and Principles. But contrariwise this way of arguing is Non-sen­se? I'le suppose vpon no grounds, the Roman Catholick Church to haue erred, and then I'le do an open iniustice and deny it the due Commendations giuen by the Fathers. It is iust as if one should say. I'le suppose à man hitherto reputed honest, to be à thief and then I'le deny him iustice, and hang him vp.

4. I say vpon no Grounds. And to proue my Assertion, ask? With what Church then visible in the world were Christians obliged to Communicate, when all see S. Hierome will haue them to Communicate with some Church? Mr Stilling: Answers with the Catholick Church. Very Good. I Ask again, whether the Roman Church, and all other Churches vnited in Faith with it, were rightly called the true Catholick Church? Grant this you yeild the cause, And Confess that Christians were then obliged to be in vnion with the Roman Catholick Church. Contrariwise, if you deny that to haue been then the true Church, you are cast vpon No other Church Catholick but the Roman. endless difficulties, and here is one which cannot be solued. Vpon the denial you, Sr, are obliged to denote, or name an other Catholick Church distinct from the Roman, more pure in Doc­trin at that time, than She was, And that not only the Romans, but all others were Aliens and Prophane who eate not the lambe or communicated not in faith, with your new found fancied Church in the aire. I say fancied, for to point at such à Church on earth is as impossible, as to proue known condemned Hereticks to be good Catholicks, whereof see more in the other Treatise. Disc. 3. c. 1.

5. Mr Stilling. to shift off the difficuIty will perhaps say, When S. Hierome wrote This, The Roman Church was truly [Page 163] Orthodox, and that He accounted all Aliens and Prophane who communicated not with it. Most true Doctrin: But see what followes. Be pleased to fall lower to the third or fourth Age after S. Hierome, There was then, I hope, à Catholick Church in the world, wherwith Christians Communicated in Faith; but most euidently there was not any T [...]en reputed Orthodox, if we exclude the Roman from being so, For all other Societies name­able, In the ages after S. Hie­rome, no Church Orthodox but the Roman. though called Christians were professed Hereticks; With these no man was obliged to communicate, Therefore all were either bound to Communicate with the Roman Catholick Church, or with no Church at all. Hence I infer that the Fathers Elogium's giuen to the Roman Catholick Church were euer most iustly due, not once only, during the Primitiue times, but now also and in all Ages: Withall I assert, That Mr Stilling: denying this Truth, speak's his own fancy without proof, or the least appearance of any probable Principle. And he will be as wholly vnprincipled, if I first suppose (as I may if my Creed be true) That there is now at this very houre à true Catholick Church on earth, and should next demand, where that Church is, in whose vnion I must liue and dye? Will He pitch, think ye, vpon an vnion with the Arians, Graecians, Abyssins Anabaptists Protestants or Quakers? Light where he pleaseth, he can only vent his fancy without Proof or Principle. Now cast as it were this fancy into à ballance with those most weighty significant Testimonies of ancient Fathers, who positiuely press for com­munion with the Roman Catholick Church, and you will see à strange vneauen Parallel (conceited whimsyes, And strong rea­sonable Arguments, laid together). Yet wonder nothing, for weak fancy is the strongest Aduersary Catholick Religion hath S. Cyprians Testimony proposed.

6. You haue yet an other Authority grosly misvsed by Mr Stilling: Page 315. And t'is à known Passage of S. Cyprian in his 55. Epistle to Cornelius, where he complain's of certain factious Schismaticks, who dared to sail to the chair of S. Peter, and the Prin­cipal Church from whence Priestly vnity had its Origen, and carry letters [Page 164] from Prophane and Schismatical persons. Nec cogitare eos esse Remons &c. not thinking them to be the Romans ( whose Faith the Apostle commended) ad quos perfidiae haebere non possit accessum, to whom fal­shood, vntruth, vnfaithfulnes, cannot haue Access. Thus S. Cyprian And I put much force in those words. Eos esse Romanos. Those who then liued to be the Romans, prophetically commended by the Apostle, which words taken in an obuious sense argue, that true Faith should neuer part from the See of Rome. But Mr Stilling: conceal's this force, and translates. Not considering that the Romans &c. No less energy lies in the other following words. To whom vnfaithfulnes can haue no Access, which seem to exclude à possibility of falshood from the Roman Church.

7. Now listen à little to four strange Glosses laid vpon this one Text. Three of them are the Bishops, and one Mr Stilling: Vain Glosses Laid vpon The Testi­mony. laies claim to, The Bishops saies first. Perfidia can hardly stand here for errour in Faith. And why not my Lord? He An­swers. It properly signifies malicious falshood in matter of Trust, or in fact against the Discipline And gouerment of the Church. And I say, it as properly signifies Vnfaithfulnes, or Vntruth, And therefore excludes errour in Faith from the Romans; yea it must haue this sense here, because its opposed to the Faith of the Ro­mans so much commended by the Apostle, which was true Christian Faith. Perfidia therefore fignifies the quite contrary, that is errour in Faith. But grant the sense to be as the Bishop glosseth, it excludes at least from the Romans to whom S. Cyprian wrote, à Possibility of doing any thing against the Dis­cipline and Gouerment of the Church, or of being maliciously false in Matter of Trust. If this be so, much more are they se­cured by virtue of these words. ( Ad quos persidia non possit habere accessum) from à possibility of erring in Faith, for what auail's it to haue à Church garded from vniust dealing in Matters of Trust, if you make it lyable to Errour in the main Essential, which is true Faith, the very ground of Saluation, And Princi­ple cause also of iust proceeding amongst Christians? Perhaps the­se men will say. S. Cyprian in his Elogium respected only the first [Page 165] Romans commended by the Apostle, not Those who liued in his An other Gloss refu­ted. time. Contra 1. That is not only said without Proof, but improbably falsifies the Saints express words. Eos esse Romanos, as is now noted. Contra. 2. If S. Cyprian only relate to the Ro­mans whom the Apostle taught, what need is there to keep à coile about the signification of Perfidia, when those first Chri­stians had for their Instructor an Infallible Apostle. If therefore S. Paul could not err in faith, Perfidia, may well exclude all misbelief or errour in Matters of Faith from that Apostolical Church. And here we make way to discouer the Bishops leuity in his second Gloss.

8. Suppose saith he, it be granted that, Perfidia, Signifies errour in faith, or Doctrin, yet it belongs not to the Romans absolu­tely, but with à respect to those first Romans, whose Faith was commended by the Apostle. Contra 1. Vpon what certain Principle doth this confident Assertion stand? It belongs not ab­solutely to the Roman Church? Proue thus much by à sure Prin­ciple, and something is said to the purpose. But without à solid Probation we look on it as à whimsey only, or à thought of fancy. Yet more. What mean's his Lordship by those dark words. With à respect to those first Romans? Will he say that the first Romans were infallible in Faith and make those others to whom S. Cyprian wrote fallible? This must be his meaning or nothing, A second and third Gloss re­iected. For if both were equally infallible, or both alike fallible, he gains nothing by the word, Respect, to the first Romans. Therefore he must hold that ancient Church of Rome to be more infallibly founded in Faith, than the later Romans were to whom S. Cy­prian wrote; Admit this, He makes the Saint not only to flatter à whole Church, but to speak Nonsense also. For in effect he saith thus much. Your Ancestors the Romans, were so secured from errour in Faith, that they could not decline from Christ's Doctrin, but you now are in à very tottering Condi­tion, for you may swerue from the Faith of your Ancestors, you may perhaps belieue as they did, and perhaps not, Howe­uer I will sooth you vp and praise you, as à Church impossi­ble [Page 166] to erre with, an Ad quos Perfidia habere non possit accessum. You are men so faithfull that no Misbelief can touch you. The last Gloss of the Bishop is thus. S. Cyprians Elogium seem's ra­ther à Rhetorical insinuation, than à Dogmatical Assertion. Mark the proofles word, Seem's, t'is only à thought of my Lords fancy, which I am sure seem's far from à dogmatical Assertion. What? That à Saint and worthy Bishop should Rhetorick it in so weighty à Matter? But enough of this nothing.

9. To make something doe at last, Mr Stilling: Page. 317. laies his Gloss by my Lord's, and has à good opinion of it. To Mr Stilling: misinterpre­tation. giue every man his due, it is better than any of the Bishops. He sayes in à word, (after à relation of the present state of Rome at that time, when those Schismaticks, Felicissimus and Fortunatus came thither) that, Perfidia, may well denote the Fals­ness and treacherous dealing of those two Persons, who seemed good Catholicks, but were not so, and sought to ioyn in Communion with Cornelius and the Catholick Party, but meant it not. Now such Iuglers should haue no Access to the Prin­cipal Church, or to those Romans, whose Faith the Apostle so highly extolled, so that Perfidia Respects not the Romans, nor excludes Errour from that Church, but laies falshood (as was well deserued) on those Schismaticks. This I take to be Mr Stilling: meaning. Contra. 1. The Gloss, euery one sees, vio­lently strained, makes the allusion between Fides and Persidia, Both Strai­ned and inconsistent with S. Cy­prians sense. insignificant. 2. It is inconsistent with the Authors whole sense, who speak's (not of perfidious men but) of Falshood and Vntruth, which could not haue Access to that principal Church. For it is euident, that perfidious persons, as Mr Stilling: tell's the Story, actually had Access, And therefore could certainly haue it, when Fortunatus and Felicissimus came to Rome. 3. Make the most you can of this Gloss it reaches no further but to à meer far-fetcht Guess, and what is gained by That? Can Mr Stilling: establish his Opinion of the Chur­ches fallibility on no surer grounds? Can he hope to driue me by guesses and Glosses, not only from the Obuious sense [Page 167] of these words, but also from the clear Expressions of innu­merable other Fathers who stand openly for an infallible Church? It is à disperate Improbability. Yet so it is: These selfcon­ceited Glosses and nothing els, Vphold Protestancy in euery controuerted Matter. The infinite number of them, and the Stories Mr Stilling: tell's to no purpose at all, so enlarge his Rational account, That if you fling these away, you may easily put the remainder of that Book, into à smal Decimo sexto.

10. Be pleased to obserue à little. We say, and Christ said it before vs, Hell gates should not preuail against the Church founded Glosses oppo­sed to mani­fest Proofs. by Diuine Prouidence, But fancied Glosses disputes it at last into à Possibility of being peruerted by Hell, and Heresy also. We say, it is the Pillar and ground of Truth, but Glosses laid vpon these words must be thought so strong as to shake it all in pie­ces. We say, Christ will be with his Spouse to the end of the world. Hold there, say Sectaries, our Glosses tell you, No, For this pro­mise was only Conditionally True, in all that succeeded the Apost­les. A fitting Assistance we allow it, such as pleases our fancies, But no more. We say with S. Cyprian S. Hierome, S. Irenaeus and other Fathers, that the Church neuer depart's from what She once held; that in Her is the Rule and square of Faith; that in Her, is the Spirit of God, That She is the welspring of truth, The dwelling place of Faith &c. But à companie of Glosses spoil all this Doctrin, And so rack the sense of these clear Expressions, that one may boldly swear, the Gloss and Text are sworn enemies.

CHAP. XVII.

1. MVch is said in the Other Treatise. Disc. 4. C. 4. n. 8. of our Protestants Glosses, Here you haue à fur­ther discouery of their weakness, And t'is the only thing aym'd at in this, And the precedent Chapters. In à word thus I conclude. That man who in Matters of Controuersies defend's à Doctrin vpon no surer grounds then meer doubtful And vn­certain Glosses are, added to Scripture and the Fathers, (which An assertion clearly laid forth. seem contrary to his Doctrin) most euidently stand's vnprinci­pl'd, proceed's weakly, and proues nothing. But the Prote­stant makes his weak, and doubtful Glosses, charged on such Authorities as are produced for our Catholick Tenets, the sole Support, the only Proof of his contrary Doctrin, Therefore He proceeds vnreasonably, and proues nothing. You shall see this euidenced in the present Matter now briefly hinted at, of the Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church. Mr Stilling: Asserts, She is fallible. I ask how He proues the Assertion? What? By express Scripture, vniuersal Tradition, the vnanimous Con­sent of Fathers, the Definitions of any ancient Church or Council? These are excellent Principles: Could He settle How Secta­ries proceed to weaken it. his opinion vpon all, or vpon any one of them we haue done and must yeild. But he proceed's strangely, and I must needs tell you How. The man hopes to weaken our proofs drawn from the Fathers in behalfe of the Churches infallibility, And thereby to establish his Position. She is fallible. I demand, how [Page 169] can our Proofs be weakned? His Answer must be (for he has no other) I will so tamper with these your alleged Texts that at last I'le make them proue nothing for your Churches Infalli­bility, And consequently I may hold my Contrary Position (of her Fallibility) very well established. The inference is worth nothing, but let it pass. I Ask. 3. What is it he will tamper withall, or how can he make null those manifest Texts which clearly lye open to euery eye east on the Fathers, And euince, (as we shall see hereafter) that the Church is infallible? Mr Stillinfleets strain through his whole book (For, Facta loquuntur,) return's the best Answer. My Guesses (saith he) And Glosses laid on the Fathers, when seemingly contrary to Protestant Doctrin Shall make them speak another language, no way fa­uouring the Churches infallibility.

2. Here we come to the point, And demand in the last pla­ce. Whether these Glosses are so clearly their Own Selfe-Eui­dence, that by their very light they lay à Truth before an vnder­standing Their Glo [...] ­ses no selfe Euidence. not to be contradicted. For example. Whether S. Cyprian in the Passage now cited, gaue only, as Mr Stilling: saith, à tast of his old office of à Rhetorician, And spake not dog­matically? Is this I say an vndeniable Truth? Most euidently no. For stretch it to the furthest it can be no more but à most doubtful and vncertain Gloss, I say t'is highly improbable. Now be pleased to reflect. The Assertion concerning the Churches fallibility is no Self-euidenced Truth nor clear Ex terminis (no more is our contrary Doctrin of the Churches infallibility) To giue it Therefore proof and weight, these Glosses are cast vpon the Fathers, who seemingly at least fauour infallibility; But these very Glosses which should do that seruice are as vneuident, as vncertain, And doubtful as the very Doctrin is, They should enlighten and lend proof too, Ergo they aduance not at all the Doctrin concerning the Churches fal­libility. For, proofs which are as vncertain as the very Doctrin is which should be proued, can neuer raise that to à greater measure of certainty than it had before such proofs were thought of. Please to mark what I say. The Doctrin of the Churches [Page 170] fallibility here supposed by Sectaries is vncertain, and for that rea­son lies in it's. Vneuidence, vntil solid Proofs clear it, or expel both the vneuidence and vncertainty, But these Glosses when they ap­pear, are as vneuident and vncertain as the Doctrin is, There­fore they cannot raise the Doctrin to any higher degree of certainty, than to meer vneuidence and vncertainty: I would haue this noted, For it is à ground whereby I shal show hereafter Pro­testancy to be à most improbable Religion, And Therefore will deliuer it once more in these plainer Terms. If the Sectary has no surer Principle whereon to found his yet vneuidenced opinion, of the Churches fallibility then Doubtful Glosses laid on Scrip­ture The force of our Argu­ment more significantly expressed. and Fathers; (as euidently he has not) And These Glosses, which should proue that Doctrin be as deuoid of strength as remote from Principles, as vncertain, or doubtful, as that very, yet vneuidenced Doctrin is; It followes clearly, That both the Doctrin and the Glosses fall to nothing but only subsist by fan­cy, which is à real Truth. From all now said I inferr, that whoeuer interpret's, must haue his Doctrin firmly grounded vpon certain Principles distinct from his own interpretations (as the Catholick euer hath) or nothing is proued.

3. Mr Stilling: may reply, His intention whilst he interpret's these Fathers is not to proue immediatly his own Opinion of the Churches fallibility, but only to show our alleged Testimonies come not home, or want force to proue Her infallible. Now to shew our proofs forceles in order to what we hold, is not to make good his contrary Assertion: For these two things are very diffe­rent; Our Aduer­saries reply refuted. To make null our proofs, And to establish his own Doctrin. Answ. I grant they are different. But neither is, nor can be done. Not the first. Because these Glosses are no S [...]lf-euident prouing, That the Fathers sense is rightly hit on: And Principles distinct from these Glosses, whereby it may be shown what Doc­trin the Fathers deliuered in this particular, Mr Stilling: hath not any so much as meanly probable. To the second I Answer. If He offer's not to proue his Tenet of the Churches fallibility by the little strength these glosses haue, I auouch it boldly, All fur­ther [Page 171] Probations fail him, and for that reason he is either forced to make vse of such, poor stuff to proue withall or must sit down silent, And grant his Tenet cannot be proued. He may perhaps tell vs our Church has erred de facto, Ergo it is fallible: And here is his Principle. I Answer its no Principle to me, but an Heresy; And as Asserted by him 'tis as much, yea more, doubtful than all his glosses are laid together. He may reply. 3. His Glosses may at least be thought probable. I vtterly deny that, And here is my ground. Solely considered they euidence not their own probability, But need further proof and probable Prin­ciples to rely on; But such proofs are wanting to found Probabi­lity vpon, Therefore these glosses are supposed only, not proued proba­ble. Had Mr Stilling: plain Scripture, any Orthodox Church, or Fathers clear for the Doctrin maintained by him, He might well talk of the strength Of his Glosses, but to make Glosses probable, The Secta­ries Glosses not so much as Probable. when no probable ground supports the Doctrin, for Whose sake he Glosses, is not only lost labour, but share's much of Non-sense. Again. Were these Glosses probable, (which I shall neuer grant) our Answers to them are at least as probable; And what gain's either Party to their cause by skirmishing in the dark with weak Probabilities only? Matters of Religion, which must stand vpon sure Principles (or there is no such thing as Religion in the world) would be iust like weak Opinions in schools Tenable or not tenable as different iudgements please to Opine, might. To­picks, And probabilities only, sway in so weighty à Cause.

4. Vpon this ground you haue Euidence enough, against these pretended Probabilities of Sectaries (whereof more pre­sently) Be pleased to obserue it. The Catholick saith. The Roman Catholick Church is infallible. No, saith the Protestant. She is fallible. Here lies the contradiction. If both these Aduer­saries Assert so boldly, each of them (supposing that God hath reuealed the one or other part of the Contradiction) must soli­dly proue what he Assert's in so weighty à Matter. And can any man perswade himself, that an Infinite wisdom hath laid That Truth whereon so much depend's and is now reuealed to Chri­stians [Page 172] (whether it be the Churches fallibility or the contrary) in The obuious truths of Christianity not proued by Guesses. such Obseurity, or remoued it so far from prudent Reason, That no man can find it out or proue it, but by the dark glimpses of weak Guesses, of vncertain Topicks and Probabilities, which of their own nature easily throw men into errour? Grant thus much, We first do iniury to Gods Reuelation. Next we are left in suspence, And know not what to belieue. And here I ask whether Mr Stillingfleet will oblige me vnder pain of dam­nation stedfastly to belieue the absolute fallibility of the Roman Catholick Church? If he doth, no weaker Principle then plain Scripture can be my Security, And this I require of him. If he recoyle and produce not plain Scripture, He is more than imprudent, to force on me à new Faith contrary to the iud­gement of à whole Church, vpon no stronger proofs than weak guesses are. Lastly, may Topicks auail here, we lay an impossi­ble obligation on our selues whilst all must say, 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 Proofs of Christianity no weak To­picks. and vncertain fancies. Hence I conclude, if the Protestant affirm's, as he doth, that our Church is fallible, He must proue the Assertion by indubitable Principles, And the like obligation lies on the Catholick, who saith. She is infallible; And this by the grace of God shall be proued in the next Discourse.

5. In the interim if you desire to see more of much iniury done to the ancient Fathers, turn only to Mr Stilling: 3. Part. C. 3. P. 58. Where he oppugn's our Catholick Doctrin of praying to Saints, And you may well stand astonished at his Vnprinci­pled Glosses. He saith first. The Expressions of Fathers which seem most to countenance this Innocation, are only Rhetorical flourishes. Has the Assertion any probability think you? Read only the Testimonies alleged by Cardinal Bellarmin de Sanct: Beatitudine. Cap. 19. Br Cardinal P [...]rron (large vpon this subiect) And Cardinal Richel e [...]. Traitte pour conuertir cenx qui se sont separez de L'Eglise. Lib. 3. Chiefly Page 420. (It is not now my intent to [Page 173] transcribe those many vnanswerable Authorities alleged in behalf of our Doctrin) And if after the perusal you see not plainly that both Mr Stillingfleet and his Lord doe grosly abuse the Fathers, deny me credit hereafter.

6. To conuince the first: of vniust proceeding, I'le only in­stance Mr Stilling: again abu­seth th [...] Fathers, in one particular. P. 589. Where he saith that S. Gregory Nyssen in his commendation of S. Theodorus the martyr, made vse of Rhetorick in his Apostrophe to the Saint, without any solemn In­uocation. It is vtterly vntrue. The words of S. Gregory are These. Paris Print. 1615. Page 1011. And 1017. when the Scythians threatned ruin to the Countery: Pray for vs, make inter­cession to him who is our Common Lord and King, As you are à souldier fight for vs and defend vs, And as you are à martyr, speak freely for your fellow seruants, A few lines after. And if more Prayers be needful assemble together the whole Quire of your Brethren Martyrs, and ioyntly intercede for vs. Put S. Peter in mind, moue S. Paul and the beloued Disciple of our Lord, that They be solicitous for the Churches, where they once were chains, passed dangers, And finally dyed. Iudge, good Rea­der, whether this recourse made to à Saint in time of danger be only à Rhetorical flourish, when the very words imply à most so­lemn and serious Inuocation. Pray for vs, Make intercession. Let all the Martyrs ioyntly become Petitioners in our behalf in these our ne­cessities, are no flourishes but holy and hearty Inuocations. Yet more. When all the Fathers in the Council of Calcedon. Act. 11. Tom. 2. Concil Part. 1. P. 340. No less publickly, in the Express for Inuocation. presence of the whole Council, than piously inuoked the Holy martyr Flauianus thus. Flauianus post mortem viuit. Martyr pro nobis oret. Flauianus liues after Death, let that Martyr Pray for vs. Can any one in Conscience think that this was only à Rhetorical flourish? Or that the learned Theoderet acted only à Rhetoricians part, when in his History of Saints He conclu­des euery life, as Bellarmin obserues, with an earnest Petition that by the holy intercession of these happy souls, now in Bliss, he might haue aide and diuine Assistance? S. Austin was à good Rhetorician, yet no man will say, he made vse of flourishes in [Page 174] that plain and deuout prayer to our Blessed Lady. Tom: 9. lib. Doctrin at least Collec­ted out of S. Austin Meditat: C. 40. Holy and immaculate Virgin Mother of God, Mother of our Lord Iesus Christ vouchsafe to pray for me to him, Cuius meruisti effici templum, for whom you haue deserued to be made à worthy Temple: He mean's the Temple of her sacred body, wherein her only Son our Sauiour, pleased to inhabit nine months toge­ther. A whole volume would be necessary to allege other Fathers in confirmation of our Catholick Doctrin. But these few mani­festly proue that Mr Stilling: grosly erred, when he said, that the Expressions of Fathers which seem to Countenance the inuoca­tion of Saints, look only like Blossoms, and pretty flourishe [...] in Rhetorick, Withall, that his second Assertion (viz. The Church did not then admit of the Inuocation of Saints, but only of the Commemoration of Martyrs) is no more but à dream, or à most improbable saying.

7. It is not now my intent, when I only touch à few, to tax Mr Stilling: of many other gross mistakes in this one controuersy, whereof I verily think his own Conscience accuseth him (but [...] leaue that to God). Howeuer, because contrary to his vsu [...]l manner he enters vpon à preculation, which I am consident he vnderstand's not, I will doe so much seruice as to vnbeguile both him and his Reader.

8. Page 595. he saith. I cannot possibly see but that kind of Mr Stilling: Speculation, Examined. worship which was giuen by the Heathens to their Damons, was defen­sible vpon the same grounds that the Inuocation of Saints is now. Her [...] is all. Mr Stilling: see's not the difference: Ergo, There is none. Let that pass. Next Augustus Caesar is brought in for an Instance. The Senate, saith he, decrees that Diuine honours shall be giuen to Au­gustus, And we cannot think that by virtue of this decree August [...] assumed à Diuine nature or, became absolutly God. No indeed. For no decree of à Senate can make à Sinner either God, or Sa [...]. But the Question is, what honour the Senate intended to giue that Roman Emperour? You say it was Diuine. What th [...] Diuine honour was, decreed as due to him, neither you nor I, Sr, know too well, nor doth it much import vs to know at pre­sent. [Page 175] Let that therefore pass also. We now come to the point. Suppose, say you, that some Roman Catholick should belieue Augustus to haue been à Saint: Next suppose the Heathen and Catholick to be at their prayers together to Augustus, you, demand wherein lies so much difference, That the one is Idolatry and the other not. Here, Sr, its clear you vnderstand not your selfe, For it's no more Idolatry to worship one as à saint that's none, then to reuerence one for à Father (or prince) who is not so. Idolatry is then committed when we either adore à creature as God, or appropriate some per­fection to it which belongs to God. Should you therefore hold all Iohn Foxes (miscalled) Martyrs, Saints, And then invoke them, you would be vpon that account à false and foolish worshiper, yet no Idolatrer, whilst you Reuerence them as saintly creatures only, And attribute no perfection to them which properly belongs to God: No more say I, would the Heathen and Catholick Commit Idolatry, though they reuerenced Augustus and prayed to him as à Saint.

9. This mistake discouered, I must tell you, Had you pro­posed the question more ingenuously, And told vs, whether the erring Catholick when he belieues Augustus à Saint and prayes to him is to be supposed mistaken by à Iudgement vincible or inuincible Full of mistakes. erroneous (The like is of the Heathen) you had solued your own difficulty, And might well haue Spared that after talk, which comes in Thus. Neither of them supposes Augustus to be the Supreme God, both the Catholick and Heathen look on him as hauing à middle kind of excellence between God and man, the external actions are the same in both and their apprehensions of his excellency being equal, the incl [...] ­nations of their wills to testify their douotion must be equal too. Here is à two fold fallacy on foot again. One lies in those vnexpli­cated Terms. A middle kind of excellence. An other (and that's worse) in concealing the tendency of these supposed apprehen­sions, or Iudgements rather, which may be either vincibly or inuin­cibly erroneous: And marke well the distinction for it discouers your whole mistake. Concerning the first. I ask, what that middle Excellency is, which must be equally applied to the ap­prehension [Page 176] of the Heathen and the Catholick? Must both of them be supposed to err so grosly, as to own Augustus à Saint in Heauen as the Patriarchs and Apostles now are Or must the Ca­tholick only iudge so? This later cannot be vnless you make the Catholick most inuincibly ignorant. Howeuer, such an errour is possible, For as à man by inuincible ignorance may iudge one to be à Prince who is not, in like manner He may be so inuincibly beguiled as to think Augustus à Saint who is not, And so may the Heathen (though t'is very difficult) be deceiued also. Vpon this Supposition of inuincible ignorance which you, Sr, neuer reflected on, I Answer. Neither the Heathen nor the Catholick doe, or Inuincible ignorance excuses all Crime. can commit (we must Still vse your improper Phrase) Formal Idola­try, but material only, The reason is euident. For though Augu­stus be really no Saint, yet that middle kind of excellency now mentioned, is vpon the Supposition inuincibly apprehended by both as if He were one, And consequently the apprehensions had of Caesars Sanctity, the inclinations of their Wills to Testify their deuotion to him, And external actions may be equal, yea one and the same in both, but without fear of any formal false Ho­mage, because inuincible ignorance takes off that formal Crime, And thus far, if we speak of sinful Veneration, there is no diffe­rence between them. The instance now hinted at clear's all.

10. One comes among vs from à strange Countrey nobly atten­ded, demean's himself like à Prince, or some great Person, and though in real truth he is no more but à Counterfeit, yet He imploies his wit so well, dissembles so dexterously, That all inuin­cibly iudge him to be what he is not, à Person of honour: They apprehend à middle kind of excellence in him between à great Monarch and an ordinary man, Reuerence him accordingly by their external actions, and inclinations of their wills, and therefo­re commit (might one speak so) some kind of Ciuil material Ido­latry, But are excused from the formal offence, because of their ig­norance, which is both inculpable and inuincible. Thus the case is in our present Matter, whilst the Ratio formalis of the Heathen and the Catholicks Adoration is one and the same, that [Page 177] is whilst Sanctity, or what els you will, is inuincibly apprehended in dead Caesar, which is not.

11. Exclude then this case of inuincible ignorance, which though dissembled by you, laies open the whole cheat, The rest of your discourse comes to nothing. Obserue it. You talk of à middle kind of Excellence apprehended in Caesar between Diuine and Humane. You should haue said plainly First. What this excellence is as it stand's in the Apprehensions of à Heathen and Catholick? You will hàue it. 2. To be some thing which nei­ther belongs to the Supreme God nor to à meer mortal man, Therefore what euer you imagin, is no real Obiect in Caesar, nor any Excellence due to him. Whence it followes that all these Ap­prehensions, or iudgements rather, (for apprehensions solely con­sidered are neither true nor false) which attribute that middle Ex­cellence to Augustus are false in themselues, because not conforma­ble to their Obiect. Now further: If false in themselues, they are either vincibly and culpably false, and Therefore ought to be laid aside; Or inuincibly false, because the iudgement is inuincibly de­luded. Suppose the first case of vincible errour, what euer prayer or Adoration followes vpon that iudgement is both à formal and How the worship may be sinful. material Crime, because some kind of excellence is vnworthily giuen to Augustus which belong's not to him. If so; The Ca­tholick and the Heathen continue in their Idolatry. Contrari­wise, if you suppose these iudgements inuincibly erroneous, which can scarce haue place in the Catholick vnless he be strangely ignorant, what euer Adoration followes vpon them is only à ma­terial Offence without the Formal sin, as is now declared. Whe­refore I verily think you, Sr, vnderstand not your selfe too well, when you first suppose the Ratio formalis of prayer or Adoration the same in the Catholick and Heathen, And then tell vs, we are not to enquire whether the Apprehension be true or false, but what the na­ture of that act of Religion is, which is consequent vpon such an apprehen­sion.

12. Sr, in case of inuincible ignorance, it little import's to in­quire after the Truth or Falshood of the Apprehension, for neither [Page 178] the one nor other (because out of the reach of one erring inuincibly) has influence into any act of Religion, Aand therefore there can be no irreligious worship or formal sin grounded vpon such à iudge­ment, if that Supposition stand. All then which ought to be searched into though omitted by you is. How, or in what manner these misled iudgements tend vnto their Obiect? If blameably, because vincible they are sinful, if inuincible and not in mans power to mend, They cannot hurt any. In all other cases except this one of inuincible ignorance you must enquire whether the Appre­hension or iudgement be true or false. Suppose then it be vincibly and culpably false, it is apt to beget false worship, And should be laid aside. Suppose it true: It only saies thus much. Dead Au­gustus was à wise and gallant Commander (Here is all that can be truely apprehended of him) But this iudgement, as it find's no What is to be inquired. excellence in that dead Prince deseruing prayer or religious Vene­ration, so it cannot incline the will to exhibit any religious duty to him.

13. And here we come to enlighten you à little, because you say. You see not, but that kind of worship which was giuen by the Heathens to their Daemons, was as defensible vpon the same grounds, as the Inuocation of Saints is now. Can you, Sr, Speak in earnest? What Now? in this present state, when mens iudgements are cleared of errour and inuincible ignorance, can you find no difference? The difference is most palpable: For that Deity is not in being, The Saint really is in Heauen. The Heathen adores his Daemon misled by à false improbable Opinion and Therefore commit's Idolatry, The Catholick worship's à Saint, assured of the Truth by à iudgement most certain, And therefore what He adores is worthy Adoration, vnless you can Vnsaint those who are in Heauen, or proue they deserue no Re­uerence The diff­rence be­tween [...]e and f [...]se worship. in hat happy State. Finally, the Heathens iudgement, because vn [...]easonable, and against the light of nature, if it own's à Deity in Caesar, is culpably sinful, and ought to be laid down: The Catholicks Iudgement point blank contrary, ought not to be put away. Now, Sir, if you say. All the Heathens worship [Page 179] of their Daemons or inferiour Gods, arose from inuincible ignorance of their Excellence (which is more then you can proue or probably maintain) Here is yet the difference between them and Catholicks, that These are neither formal nor material false worshipers, The Heathens were at least materially so.

14. What followes in Mr Stilling: is not like his speculation any choise Matter but vulgar only, refuted again and again. As. 1. That the Rites of Canonizing Saints Answer to the Rites of the ancient Emperours Apoth [...]osis. 2. The Formal reason of Idolatry lay in offring vp those deuotions to that which was not God, which only belong's to an Infinite Being. Let the Expression passe. Catholicks, I am sure, offer vp no such deuotions to Saints as they Adoration very diffe­rent. doe to God, knowing well to distinguish by the internal Acts of their Will between the Supreme Excellence and all other power infe­riour to That. 3. Saith Mr Stilling: it is not possible to conceiue any Act which doth more express our sence of an Infinite Excellence, And the Profession of our subiection to it, than Inuocation doth. Pitiful. He should haue said, then such à particular In­uocation doth, tending to an Infinit Ma [...]esty: For we inuoke and call vpon men now liuing to Assist vs with their Prayers, And likewise Address our selues to the Saints in Heauen. Yet no man can gather from such deuotions any thing like an acknowled­gement of an Infinite Excellence in men now liuing, or the Saints in Heauen. But enough of these weightles Arguments, to touch them is to refute them. And thus much of this, And the other former Digressions. Now we are to à prosecute further Two necessary points.

CHAP. XVIII.

1. YOu haue been ofen told aboue, that Sectaries would fain make controuersies à long work, I must now giue you the vltimate reason Thereof, And withal proue it impossible to know in these mens Principles, what is à Christian Truth, and what not, Their Glosses and impropable way of Arguing laies all which can be said in darknes and obscurity.

2. To proceed clearly. I suppose first, that Christian Truths as reuealed, or Contained in Christs Doctrin are infallible, and Principles supposed. stand firm vpon infallible Reuelation. I may here also suppose. 2. That either we Catholicks, or our Protestant Aduersaries, euen in such Tenets as we differ, Belieue and profess Christian Truths. For example. Transubstantiation or no Transubstantiation, is à Christian truth. The Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church, or Her fallibility is à Christian Truth, for they are Con­tradictories held by Christians, Therefore the one or other must be owned true, if maintained as Christian Doctrin. I suppo­se. 3. That neither part of these Contradictions; Transubstan­tiation, or no Transubstantiation (in like manner we discourse of all other opposite Doctrins) are held their own Self-euidence or manifestly true Ex terminis like the first Principles in nature, If Therefore assented to as Christian Truths by the one contrary Party, or the other; They must be proued by sure Principles extrinsecal to the Doctrin which each Party embraceth.

3. Now you shall see What work Sectaries make in these Disputable Matters, And how nothing can be certainly known [Page 181] by Them, or owned as à Christian verity. I would say, It An Asser­tion Proued. Can neither be proued in their Principles, That to deny Transub­stantiation (let this one instance serue for all) is à Truth, or, that to hold Transubstantiation, is an Errour. Here is my rea­son. When Principles whereon solid proofs should subsist are not, Proofs must of necessity fail, But in those Controuerted Matters Sectaries haue no Principles at all to Argue by, Therefore proofs must fail. The Minor is euidenced thus. All imaginable Principles whereon Proofs can stand in this contest, must either be infallible, or at least morally certain (Meer Pro­bability want's strength to vphold à Christian Truth) But the Sectary cannot proue by any either infallible or Moral certain Prin­ciple, that his Tenet is à Christian Truth, And ours Contrary to him is an Errour, Ergo. The first part of my Assertion seem's euident. For you know what hauock the Sectary makes of all infallible Principles, Scripture only excepted, (which I am sure speak's not à word in his behalf, nor against vs). All Churches with him, All Tradition, All Councils, All Fathers also are fallible and may deceiue. Therefore thus much is indisputably clear, He cannot proue infallibly (I say no more yet) that his Tenets are Christian Truths; or infallibly, That ours contrary, are Er­rours, For no man can more deriue an infallible proof from à meer fallible Principle, than fetch gold out of dross or light out of Darknes. Whateuer Therefore he plead's by next, is vn­der the degree of infallible certainty. And what is it think ye? O, He has Moral Assurance (and here is the Principle) that his Tenets are Christian Truths, and Ours false or erroneous. Very Fallible Principles ground not infallible Doctrin. good. I ask (Though moral certainty auail's nothings, as we Shall see hereafter) How he proues no Transubstantiation to be à Doctrin morally certain, When the Contrary is expresly defined in three General Councils, And held by à learned Church? Has he any Council so renowned, as either the Latheran or Tridentine, which euer owned his Negatiue, as à Christian Truth? Has he any Church as Vniuersally spread the whole whorld ouer as the Roman Catho­lick is, which maintained his Doctrin three or four Ages since? [Page 182] Euidently No. Vpon what then, ground's He his Moral certa­inty? I'le tell you in à word. All he can pretend to, or plead in This Controuersy comes to no more, if it reach so far, But to two or three dubious Authorities, taken from those Fathers who were Professed members of the Roman Catholick Church; And this little slender part He makes not only to striue against the whole Church, but moreouer giues it so much strength as to Impeach That great Moral body of errour, And vtterly to ruin the Doctrin which hath been taught age after age; That is to A part Compared with the whole. say. The lesser Part, (or rather à meer supposed part) must be thought so powerful as to make à happy war Offensiue and De­fensiue against that whole Moral body whereof it was à member. Is not this à strange Simplicity?

4. Be pleased to take here one Instance from Ciuil affaires only. Suppose you haue à Parlament consisting of three hun­dred and three iust, vpright, graue and most intelligent Persons, who first treat of some weighty Matter relating to the good of à Kingdom or Common wealth, And after long deliberation Enact what in prudence is thought best in order to its Setle­ment. Suppose withall, that two or three of à different iudge­ment withstand the Act, and hold what is concluded not well done. Will any one think ye, not only ascribe à greater moral Certain­ty to those three dissenting votes, Than to the other three hundred But more ouer decry the far more numerous votes (though of Persons equally wise) as vniust, impertinent, and remote from the meanest degree of moral Certainty? And this is done, (reflect An Instance seriously) vpon no other ground, for no other reason, but be­cause Three are wilfully supposed, by à third Party looking o [...], strong enough to oppose the greater Part. If this instance like you better, make vse of it. Imagin that à Synode Consisting of 303. Protestant Ministers define as they think, What's b [...] to hold within the Compass of Protestant Religion: Imagin also that three oppose Them, Can any of that Religion allow more Moral certainty to the three votes, than to the other three hundred, if we respect Authority meerly? Certainly [...]

[Page 183]5. Our very case is here sufficiently expressed, and the in­stances Applyed to our present purpose easily applyed to our present purpose. The Roman Ca­tholick Church is, you know, à great Moral body comprehending not hundreds, but thousands and thousands, whereof innumera­ble are now and in past Ages haue been most iust, vpright, pru­dent, and without Controuersy most eminently-learned. These vnanimously Enact as it were (whether in the Representatiue of Councils, or by the vniuersal voice and vote of the whole Church,) That Praying to Saints, prayers for the Dead, or which we now insist on, the Doctrin of Transubstantiation, are not only Tenets morally Authorities not clear imperti­nently alle­ged. certain, But more ouer Articles of Diuine Faith. Our Aduersa­ries to oppose this vnquestionable certainty, produce three or four Authorities not clear (as is supposed done in Parlament) but weak and strained, and hope hereby to reuerse, to vnuote, what these thousands haue decreed contrary. Three or four witnesses, And these at most dubious, are here brought in against Transub­stantiation, to make our new mens opinion Morally certain, and yet These thousands, most wise and learned, though they clear­ly vote and profess against it, cannot, forsooth, gain so much credit with à few Sectaries as to aduance the Doctrin to moral Certainty, For here we waue the question of infallible Assuran­ce. What Doings are these? What daies do we liue in? The whole Catholick Church teaches as She euer taught, that the very Substance of bread is really changed into Christs Sacred body, And now (o strange times) one Theoderet though no way opposit is haled in, to reuerse the Doctrin. One, must striue against, and conquer Thousands. It is, we say, à pretty feat to kill two Birds with one bolt, But here we haue à greater ex­ploit, Theodoret is supposed to leuel so right with à darker ex­pressions (if yet dark) That he destroies the Faith of two Churches at Once, the Greeck and Latin. Councils and emi­nent A parallel of Authorities. learned councils, haue defined in our behalf, and one Tertullian, Though herein he speak's most Catholickly, is pick't out to plead against them. What's one against innumerable? Tradition both Ancient and modern deliuers the Truth we Pro­pugn, [Page 184] And an vnknown Gelasius, set vp by Sectaries, must be thought powerful enough to repeal and contradict our fore Fathers Tradition. What Doings are these? Can the Sectary hope to beate down that stronge Fortress which Hell gates could neuer yet shake by such slight and forceless Armour? Alas, goe to single vo­tes, we oppose our Iustins, our Cyrills, our Cyprians our Chrisostoms, clear and express against one Theoderet were he doubtful. Now with an Addition. adde to these The weight and graue Authority of our Church and Councils, There is no Parallel no Comparison betwixt vs. Yet more. Suppose these few Authorities were clearly contrary to vs, the Protestant only has at most three votes, as it were in Parlament against Millions, and what gain's he by this? His pretended Mo­ral certainty stand's not firm like an vncontradicted Truth, against such à Cloud of opposit witnesses. And.

6. Here you haue à further reason of my Assertion. As long as this Principle stand's sure in nature. A whole body is greater than à Part, and à Part thereof lesse extended than the whole, So long it will be indisputably euident, That the vote or voice of à whole moral body (I mean of à Vniuersal Church far and neer extended) A further proof of our Assertion. carries with it greater Moral certainty (For all this while we touch not vpon Infallibility) than à small and slender Part can haue, were such à part found so inuincibly ignorant as to contradict the whole. All I would say is. No more can à few particular members (Though Angels for knowledge) contest with the contrary iud­gement of our ample Church, Than three votes in Parlament, with the Contrary iudgement of à whole Kingdom. No more can the Authority of particular men equalize, much less surmount in weight and worth, the Sentiment of à whole Moral body, than à hand, For example, surpass in bigness the whole man. As the one exceed's in quantity and Extension, so the other doth in weight and Intenfion.

7. Hence you see first. How poorly Sectaries play at small Game, when hauing no ancient Church of their own to recurr to, They are fain to run for refuge to à Few Fathers professed members of our Church, And here like people picking Salads, gather vp some small fragments which now they clip, now mangle, now peruert, [Page 185] now Gloss, now dress after their new fashion, And at last serue all The new mode of Sectaries arguing. fairly vp in the larger Margents of their little English Books. With these they flourish and vapour as if, forsooth, à small parcel were able to contrast with the far greater Moral body, or à few stolen gleaning (were all true they say) sufficient to Vnuote what euer this Oracle of Truth hath defined contrary. Leaue of, I besecch you Gentlemen this Trifling, giue vs weight for weight, measure for measure, Please to plead by sound Princi­ples or you lose the cause, Doge not with vs, we deal nobly with you.

8. Wee giue you plain and express Scripture. The Church is à Pillar and ground of Truth. She is founded vpon à Rock &c. And you Scriptureless men, return vs your fancied Glosses. We quote innumerable Fathers most significant for our Catholick Positions, And you fob vs off with obscurities, with Criticisms and such simple stuff. We appeal to Tradition, you haue none. We, (And this mainly import's) show you à Church, à Visible and à most glorious Church, which time out of mind, Belieued as we belieue, And would gladly know where your Orthodox Church was, The Secta­ries Plea­ding imper­tinent. which four Centuries since approued or published your Nouel­ties; And you like men losing your way, go wandring about till at last you fall vpon Theoderet's Dialogues, And with one single Passage ill espied and worse applyed, hope to vndoe the whole Catholick cause. It is not one nor ten Theoderets, though they speak far more clearly than is done, That can preiudice our Doctrin, whilst you haue neither Church nor Councils for yours. These Principles we demand of you, but you haue them not. Therefore you are cast into an impossibility of writing Contro­uersies hereafter, For the few Shreds of Fathers vnluckily cut out by you are too slight, to obscure the greater Lights of our Christianity, of our Church, of our Councils, of our Tradition and innumerable Fathers. Belieue it, had the Fathers you Quote so much Strength, as you imagin, others would haue read them before your eyes were open, better Iudgements would haue weighed what force they had, before your Luthers and Caluins we­re [Page 186] in Being. But That wiser world now gone to Eternity waued such Cauils, And knew well, That what à Titius or à Ca [...]us saies may be right, And may be wrong, But what the Church of Christ Defines and teaches, cannot but be sound and Orthodox, if God speak's Truth. Here is the Principle whereon Christians securely relied in past Ages, before our later Sectaries troubled the world.

9. You see. 2. in what à pitifull case Sectaries are, when no more is alleged against our Catholick Doctrin (And rest assured They haue no more) but à few scattered Authorities now taken Doubtful. Authorities, of no weight at all. from one, now from another ancient Father.▪ Therefore I dis­course thus. The Authority is either expresly plain against vs (which I neuer yet saw in any Doctrinal Contest between the Catholick and Protestant) or Contrariwise, doubtful, and ambiguous. If doubtful; it decides nothing, nor can the Protestant though He Vow's it Clear, make it soe, whilst the learned Catholick auouches the Contrary; Hitherto both of them stand vpon Opinions and end nothing. Neither can the one or other yet absolutly Say by virtue of such à Passage only. Your Doctrin is False, And mine is True, For à Principle rationally apprehended dubious, deter­min's none to an absolute true iudgement, one way or other. Let vs therefore suppose contrary to Truth, That the Sectary produceth à Father indubitably clear against Catholick Doctrin. Thanks be to God These great lights of the Church are not so scarce with vs, But that we are able to confront that one Autho­rity with the plain Testimonies of other Fathers far more nume­rous. And thus much I here engage to do, may it please Secta­ries to come to à iust Tryal, and fully examin with me this one point of Transubstantiation, now hinted at: And if after the Con­test we do not only match our Aduersary, but quite outvie him with many more Testimonies fully as clear and clearer, We may then rationally ask what's one clear Authority worth? I say yet more. Though we falsly suppose these particular contrary Au­thorities to lie euen, or equal on both Sides, I mean, as pregnant for the Sectary, as for the Catholick, yet I neither lose my cause, [Page 187] nor he gain's his, Because neither of vs can absolutly say vpon what if authorities were equal on both si­des? Moral certainty, which Doctrin is à Christian Truth, And which not. For in this conflict of Authorities Supposed equal, both iudgements are left in suspence, The one saith I quote clear Authorities for my Tenet: The other answers Hee doth so too, And Therefore hitherto stand so equally poised That nei­ther may cry Victory: Neither can yet pretend to so much Moral certainty as excludes All reasonable doubting, because both Parties must doubt, whilst the Authorities of the one abate the force of the other. What then followes from the Fathers Testimonies were they thus equally diuided; That is, if as many clearly stood for the Negatiue of no Transubstantiation, And iust as many clearly for the Contrary Positiue? I An­swer, This followes. That we and Sectaries must of necessity, ( will we know Truth) either appeal to à third certain concluding Principle, or stand doubtfully opining (as is often done in what follo­wes vpon arguing out of doubtful Principles. schools) without à final Decision. For, to Belieue any thing certainly as Catholicks belieue, if that Principle be excluded, or, to know any thing yet morally certain, as Sectaries pretend to know, is vtterly impossible, Because à Principle purely probable, is euidently too weak, either to Support any firm Belief, or to ground so much Moral certainty of à Christian Truth, as excludes à possibility of doubting.

10. You will Ask what then is there which may raise these two Aduersaries from that low degree of meer Opining to à higher degree of certainty? I shall fully Answer the Question in the next Discourse, Here I say in à word. No Principle can do this, But one only which the Sectary want's, And the Catholick has to rely on, which is the Tradition, the Voice and open declared Iudgement of Christs Catholick Church here on earth. This faithful Oracle raises vs from the supposed State of our guessing Probably, to the highest degree of not only Moral, but also of Infallible certainty, Though now we press not that against our Aduersaries. The Sectary Therefore who disdain's to learn of this Oracle what Christian Truths are, shall [Page 188] neuer come to his Moral certainty, though the Supposition alrea­dy made of Authorities equal stood in vigour. Iudge then, I be­seech you, How desperate his Cause is now, How remote from all such certainty De facto, (whether he impugn's our Doctrin, or plead's for his own opinions) when he hath nothing to rely on, but only à few dark and dubious Passages of some ancient Fathers?

11. I say dubious Passages, for in Truth (if so much) they are no more, And Therefore though we haue hitherto suppo­sed Authorities euenly laid on both sides (To Show that no­thing What the Sectary can Plead. help's the Sectary▪ out of his labyrinth) yet now I must tell the Story as t'is. All he has in this world to plead, co­mes only to à few misinterpreted Authorities, And with such poor Gleanings, Churchless man as He is, he thinks to Out-braue à whole Church, To decry Tradition, to vnsense the Fathers, to rob vs of our right, And finally to throw vs out of the Posses­sion of those ancient Christian Truths, which both we and our Ancestors haue professed age after age without Alteration. What think ye? Haue à few rack't and tortured Sentences (Add to them as many Cauils, as many Criticisms as you please) force enough to do such wonders? Can these gleanings, misinterpreted as you haue seen, better inform vs of the ancient Primitiue Truths, than the General voice or vniuersal consent of à whole Church now in being? It is improbable. Grant therefore (which I do On what Principle the Catho­lick Stand's not) That we know not too well the sense of one Theoderet, or of à Tertullian &c. The Catholick cleares his Doctrin, And drawes it from surer Principles. viz. From the voice and open declared Iudgement of his Church, And most deseruedly look's on the Sectaries attempt as highly improbable, who will needs know what Doctrin we are to hold now, or, was anciently held amongst Christians, by à Fathers Testimony, when the very sense is sup­posed doubtful, And lies in obscurity. That is. He will know more than can be known▪ He will force light out of darkness, And deri [...] the moral certainty of his Doctrin from meer doubtful Principles, which is impossible. And thus these men proceed in all other Contro­uersies, [Page 189] though Conscious, that à whole ample Church decries their Doctrin as false And the open abuse of Fathers also. O, saith the Sectary, I little regard what the Church decries. Ans [...]: And much less do I regard what you cry against it, When the whole strength of your Clamours vltimatly resolued, comes to no more but to fancied Glosses, laid vpon ambiguous Authorities. What in God's name would you be at? What can you pretend The Church opposed to Sectaries Clamours. or intend? Shall clamours, Think ye, and your few clouded Testimonies force me to leaue my ancient Faith, when I euident­ly know, That the Church I liue in, call's louder on me and more rationally command's me to Belieue as I doe? This audi­ble known voice of Christ's Church dull's your clamours, infi­nitly Outweigh's your Glosses, your guesses, And the doubtful Sentiment of any priuate Father.

12. The Sectary may reply. I haue now supposed, without Proof, the Fathers abused by him, whereas, if the Supposition hold's, its only doubtful whether it be so or no. Answ: Thus much is only supposed doubtful, That neither of vs can learn by words precisely obscure, what Doctrin to embrace, or what to reiect, Before à surer Oracle speak's and decide, the Controuersy. Catholicks say this Oracle is the Church, The Protestant who has no Church to recurr to, stand's trifling with his obscure Pas­sages, hoping at last to make something of nothing, to hammer out of dark sentences the Clear Moral certainty of his new Doctrin Though contrary to the whole Church, And thus He abuseth both Fathers and reason also, Because as I said iust now, A doubtful Principle yeilds not so much certainty. If He say. 3. His quoted Authorities are sufficiently clear to ground the Mo­ral certainty of his Doctrin against the Church, it is à desperate, improbable Speech, For Moral certainty (which should pass as an vncontradicted truth) most euidently loseth that force, when à whole Church manifestly contradict's it. But hereof enough is Said in the other Treatise. Disc. 1. C. 6. n. 3.

13. You will ask perhaps, What is to be done if we meet with à Father so clear and express against Church-Doctrin that he [Page 190] cannot possibly be brought to à Catholick sense. I Answer. A doubt pro­posed and solued. Suppose thus much, which I think was neuer yet heard of in any Contest betwixt the Protestant and Catholick, I'le absolutly deny the Authority and adhere to Church-Doctrin; For, as the whole body is greater than à part, so the iudgement of à whole Church is the stronger Principle here, and ought in reason to regu­late and bear sway, before the sentiment of any priuate man, who by weaknes or inaduertancy may slip aside into Errour. I say through weaknes or incogitancy, for if he obstinately oppose the Church, He is no Father in that, But an Heretick.

14. Whoeuer reflects well on what is noted already will see, I hope, How neer we are to an End of disputes with Prote­stants if the Contest arise from the Authority of Fathers. Here is the Ground of what I am to Say. All the Authorities which can What Au­thorities can be quoted? be quoted in Points now Controuerted are either plain, or esteemed plain for Catholick Doctrin both by the learned of our Church, and Sectaries also, As is amply proued aboue: Or Contrariwise, are at most supposed doubtful. I Assert it boldly, the Sectary has not one plain Testimony for him in this debated Matter of Transubstantiation, And if one or two were granted plain that's nothing to contrast with à whole Church and innumerable other Fathers.

15. Hence I Discourse. In case Authorities be Clear for Catholick Doctrin, the Sectary opposes vs improbably, if he seek to establish his Nouelties vpon à Principle which plainly teaches what we teach, And quite ruin's his contrary Opinions. If the Authority be doubtful, I haue said enough already. viz▪ That, that giues no Moral certainty, but leaues you where you were before in à state of doubting. Obserue now. All you get from the Protestant when the Fathers plainly teach Catholick Doctrin, is either to deny the Authority, as the Elder, And perhaps wi­ser Protestants haue done, or, after Mr Stillingfleets new Mode, How Secta­ries Shift off Authorities. to Gloss them. All you get when à passage seem's dubious, is to squise more out of it than it has. Whence it is, That you euer find the Sectaries Doctrin (when He tampers with à Te [...] [Page 191] seemingly doubtful) to ouerreach, or to goe beyond the strength of his Quotation That is, He speak's plainly what he would haue you belieue, And the more plainly he speak's, the further he run's from his Authority, which Therefore check's his Boldness, And Tell's him. I say no such thing as you Teach. Take for example those words of Theoderet. The Mystical Symbols remain after Con­secration &c. O, saith the Sectary the meaning is, the inward Sub­stance of bread remain's. Hold, Sir, there; That's more then the words allow of. Mystical Symbols may as well, yea far better, signify the exteriour Accidents, than the inward Substance of bread, Therefore you ouerreach the Text, And abuse your Au­thor.

12. Thus much premised. We shall come to our last inten­ded Demonstration And by the grace of God Euidence, How Controuersies may be ended, Though indeed, the Sectaries intri­cate way of handling Matters, makes them seem to à vulgar Rea­der à work without end, For say I beseech you? What can be more slight or more remote from Reason, than after à long Profession and quiet Possession had of our Catholick Verities, To see à few Sectaries (late Strangers to Christianity) step in amongst vs, And after so many Ages, strutt vp and down in à corner of the world, As if They, forsooth By their bringing to light again The proce­dure of Sec­taries, Slight. nothing but à list of old absolete worn-out Heresies, could now Ascertain Papists, How much of their Doctrin is Orthodox, And How much not? And this (ò strange Boldnes!) is done vpon no other Principle, than vpon à few misconstrued words of some few ancient Fathers, without alleging plain Scripture or the Au­thority of any Church, for this most vncouth and strange Pro­ceeding. What can be more slight than to follow the lesser Light (or rather no Light at all) And to preferr That before the, Luminare maius, which hitherto has illuminated the whole world? What can be more slight than to stand guessing at the sense of Fathers, To Gloss their plainest Testimonies, when these guesses and Glosses are vnprincipled and haue no more Support, than the fancy of him who makes them? You shall now see [Page 192] whither these Glosses tend, And an End put to Controuer­sies.

CHAP. XIX.

1. NOte. When Sectaries Gloss Scripture or Fathers clear for Catholick Religion, and after much tugging violently for­ce some piece of their new Doctrin from Passages lesse clear, Their aym is to keep vs off from the last sound Principles of ending What Secta­ries aym at [...] by their Glosses. Controuersies. Mr Stillingfleet, like one haunted with two con­trary Spirits, has à rare Talent this way. Now He charm's à darker Passage out of all obscurity, And makes it speak Prote­stancy; So he giues light to Theoderets Mystical Symbols: Now He does the contrary feat, And cast's as clear words as euer Father vttered into so much darknes, That it is hard to know what is said. Take here one instance, You haue it in his Page. 217. Where he Interpret's that plain passage of S. Austin. Tom. 6. co [...] Epist. Fund: C. 5. I would not belieue the Gospel vnless the Authority of the Church moued me therunto, And to obscure this most ma­nifest and profoundly well expressed Truth, The Gentleman spend's three whole pages in Guesses and coniectures, And all is to Vnsay what the Saint had most euidently Asserted. First, forsooth, he tell's vs, What the Controuersy was which S. Austin then discussed. 2. What Church that was which moued hi [...] to belieue the Gospel, Here He Guesses and Misses. 3. In what way and manner, the Churches Authority did moue him, And [Page 193] in this particular Mr Stillingfleet err's grosly, who will needs per­swade S. Austin very clear, made obscu­re. vs, That S. Austin belieued not the Diuinity of Scripture vpon the Churches Authority, But only the Authenticalness of the wri­tings of the Apostles and Euangelists: As if to belieue the Authen­ticalness of the Gospel, could be separated from belieuing that very Gospel to be Diuine. Its à whimsy As shall appear afterward. In the mean while you see How all these Coniectures laid toge­ther (I medle not with them at present) are incomparably lesse clear than S. Austin's plain words, Yet I must so far put out my eyes, as to esteem them the only light to regulate my iudge­ment by, and Consequently make Non-sense of S. Austins clear Expression. Is it not reasonable think you, Before I do so, To ask first by what Principle I may know That these Coniectu­res hit right?

2. Now here you haue what I wish the iudicious Reader se­riously To reflect vpon. Suppose one should follow Mr Stil­lingfleet through all those windings and Turnings wherewith he encumber's this one short Sentence of S. Austin, And Answer step What the Reader is desired to reflect on. by step to euery Paragraph in order. Suppose Hee that vnder­takes such à Task should in like manner proceed through all The Gentlemans Rational Account (as 'Tis Called) And attend to his discourses, reply to euery particular of his endles Glosses, laid on Scripture and other Fathers. Suppose Thirdly, He should rigidly Examin euery circumstance related in the Stories of that volumi­nous Book (Doe only thus much and you draw the book dry For besides cauils you haue no more) How many volumes think ye would This way of Answering bring forth to the world, be­fore the whole Account were Answered? And when all is done, Much, God knowes, is not done to end Controuersies with Sa­tisfaction. Thus the contest goes on.

3. Mr Stillingfleet like one affraid to meddle with sound Principles begins to Glosse, His supposed Aduersary, because no better stuff is giuen to work vpon, goes not yet deeper into difficulties, But turn's to the Scripture and Fathers, Read's and Iudges by His own Reading That much is interpreted amiss in [Page 194] this Rational Account, Therefore Vnglosses as fast as Mr Stillingfleet Glossed, And hopes He doth very well. Mr Stillingfleet discour­ses; This Aduersary doth so also, But finds, or pretends to find (I say no more yet) His discourses vnsound at the bottom, Much Con­fusion sollo­wes this way. And too weak to bring in à good Conclusion. Mr Stillingfleet relates his Stories, set forth with à number of circumstances; Our supposed Aduersary discouer's (As he thinks) many à Flaw, many à Mistake, much iumbling, much disorder in the Narra­tion of his Circumstances. Reflect well good Reader. Doe you not see here à strange Confusion? When after the vtmost done by these two Aduersaries, You haue two quite different Doctrins raised from the same Authorities of Scripture and Fathers? And that after the recourse of both to History, You haue two as diffe­rent Stories told you, as Yea, and No. In like manner after Their long discourses, You haue two contradictory Conclusions drawn out, And laid before your eyes to read. Vpon what Principle (if no more be Said) can the yet perplexed Reader come to so much certainty of our Christian Truths, as is necessary to Sal­uation? By what means shall He know, whether of these Two, relates the truer Story, Glosses, or discourses better? O, He must peruse Ecclesiastical History, Scripture also, And the Volu­mes of Fathers And then iudge. Pitiful. More than half the world want's means to doe this, And He who is able to comply with that laborious Task, must at last trust to his own Iudge­ment. Howeuer, giue me one who will conform Himselfe to what he Reads, and not draw all to à preiudicated Iudgement, That man will find out Catholick Religion.

4. Be it how you will, The Catholick has à better And far more easy Principle to rely on in so weighty à Matter, whereof The Catho­licks Prin­ciple far more easy and plain. we shall Treat largely in the next Discourse. The Sectary has no other Ground to set footing on, But his own priuate Fancy. And here is the true Reason why he loues à life to stand dal­lying with you vpon Authority and History. Goe no further, He is sure to haue some Reply at hand, For it is easy to trifle à long time, whilst you only giue him this Authority And that [Page 195] Parcel of History to quarrel with. The one, as we haue seen, He wrest's to what Sense he pleases; On the other He can put so fair à Varnish by concealing some Circumstances, and ium­bling others together, That the eyes of à vulgar Reader are ea­sily dazled. In the mean time He warily waues (And is well con­tent to doe so) The last sound Principles which only can end Controuersies. Wherefore, Methinks one cannot fit the Secta­ries. Humour better, than to attaque him with Authorities, And next leaue the Glossing 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 say nothing of others) who handle Matters most pro­foundly, And in real truth haue already brought these debates to à Period, giue no such Aduantage to Sectaries, But relying What Secta­ries would be at? on sound Principles, as learnedly reiect these Glosses, as our new men wilfully make them without Principles. Yet this is Truth. As nouellists can do no more But Gloss without Principles, So as I said now, They are well enough content if the Catholick will doe something like them, And only interpret or discourse vpon Authorities; And this I call the less, or not the last plain way of Ending debates. Goe no further, they think Themsel­ues safe. For example. Read S. Austin in the place now cited. I would not belieue the Gospel &c. Ponder His whole Context, at­tend to his learned Discourse, Mark well how He both disputes and proues: That he would not belieue the Gospel as Gods Diuine Word but vpon This solid ground, That the Authority of the Church, then when he wrote, moued him to belieue so. Descend yet to other particulars taken from his most Connexed way of Arguing, Allege all plainly against the Sectary which hath been done and most landably again and again by Catholick Authors, Yet after all, you see Mr Stillingfleet begins new Quarrels as fiercely, as if nothing had been said, And if one should vnrauel what he hath wouen in his three pages, would not [...]e, think ye, to prolong these vnfortunate Strifes possibly find something to except against you? And must not you to vnbeguile the Reader once more [Page 196] reply, And except against all his new Exceptions? How long may controuersies not yet brought to the last plain Principles, run on without ending? A shorter way Therefore must be thought of. And thus it is.

5. Take only that Positiue Doctrin which the Protestant plainly makes his own dogmatical Assertion, when he either Adds his The clearest way of en­ding contro­uersies. new Gloss to an obscure Authority, or cast's one clear for Catho­lick Religion, into darknes. If you will haue Scripture, Quote that Passage of the Apostle. The Church is the Pillar and ground of Faith. This is my body, or what els you like best. If Fathers; Cite S. Cyril of Hierusalem. S. Iustin Martyr, or any other quoted aboue in defense of the Real Conuersion of bread into Christs Sa­cred Body. This done. First consider well, what Church speak's most Conformably to the obuious Sense of these Authorities. 2. Distinguish exactly between the Sectaries Gloss, which con­tain's his Doctrin, And the plain words of that Authority which he Interpret's; Withall, Ponder how little these two look like one another, How little their Gloss. This is à Sign of my Body, hath to doe with our Sauiours clear Expression. This is my body. 3. Stay not too long vpon the Energy of à Testimony Though plain in your behalf, nor weigh ouer much the Circumstances wherein it was spoken, For though both be well done, yet This fitt's the Sectaries Humour, Who waits for such By-Matters, And in his Answers (as I haue often obserued) To shift off what mainly vrgeth, will giue you work enough, with his Suppositions, his May-b [...]s, And endles Winding [...]. What is then to be done when he supposes his coniectures or Glosses to be true Doctrin? This way I am sure is very solid.

6. Propose with all moderation These following Questions. Haue you, Sir, any Orthodox Church euer since Christianity be­gan The Sectary is vrged. (I am sure you haue no express Scripture) which without dis­pute as plainly deliuered the Doctrin contained in your Gloss, as you now plainly Teach it? Haue you any Orthodox Council which without Exception as Clearly defined it, as you now As­sert it? Haue you any Tradition, which by à continued Succes­sion [Page 197] Age after age conueyed vnto you the Tenets you pretend to find in some few Fathers, And now publish to the world as Chri­stian Truths? If you ground your Glosses or Doctrin on such excellent Principles, we Catholicks are certainly in Errour, And ought to conform to your reformed Gospel, But if you fail (and fail you must) to doe thus much, if you only giue vs empty Glosses without further Proofs, we look on them as slight things cast off by the Orthodox world, as both vnprincipled and vnpa­tronized. Therefore Scriptureless as they are, Churchless as they are, they fall of Themselues to nothing, And bring vtter ruin to your new Machin of Protestancy.

7. I doe you no wrong when I draw you off your Glosses To point at his Church and Councils which taught Pro­testancy. to an Orthodox Church. (The world was neuer without one). Say therefore, in Gods name, where, or when was such an Ortho­dox Christian Society in Being that positiuely taught no Transub­stantiation, No sacrifice of the Mass, No inuocation of Saints &c? Where or when were your Councils which positiuely defined these Doc­trins &c? You may Answer, and truely. You haue indeed neither Church, nor Councils, Nor Tradition Express for these your Negatiues. Very right. Therefore I wrong you not in saying, your whole Cause subsist's vpon Coniectures, cauils, And Glosses, Because now you cast your selues into an Impossibility of pleading by any better Principles than meer guesses are. Thus much sup­posed, Say, I beseech you, What auail's it, if, when an Authority is plain for Popery, that you can by à nimble gloss darken it? Or if obscure; You haue A Fiat lux, at hand, and can charm it into so much Clarity as may suffice to dazle the eyes of à vulgar Rea­der? What Satisfaction haue I here, or what gain you by this Proceeding, when you know we haue more witnesses ready to attest, yea to dye for our Catholick Verities, than you haue hairs on your head, or Glosses in your book? What gain you to your cause could you missinterpret all the Fathers that euer wrote, when you without the warrant of any Orthodox Society haue yet à whole learned Church, Her Councils and Tradition against you? And all the store of Ammunition left you to attaque this [Page 198] great Oracle of Truth, is very small; no more, God knowes, but à without them no sa­tisfaction is giuen. flash of lightning borrowed from the Ignis fatuus of your far-fetcht Glosses. Gloss on, Cauil on, coniecture on to the worlds end, As long as no known or Owned Principle distinct from Glosses and coniectures Support's them, You only beat the aire, or, (to vse à pretty late phrase amongst you,) lapwing-like Pew most when furthest from the nest. I mean, you are most fierce to end Controuersies, when you are furthest off from Principles, which only can end them.

8. Thus then you should proceed had not God and Truth silenced you. I, E. S. B. D. declare to you honest Papists, That in the Sixth or seauenth age after Christ, His true Orthodox Church, positiuely taught no Transubstantiation. Such à Council, either in former or later Ages expresly defined so. Then, and before also, Church Tradition was vniuersally for my Doctrin, And thus much I can make good to the learnedest Romanist among you. Wonder not Therefore when you quote your Iustins, your Cyprians, your Chrisostoms, seemingly contrary to my Church Doctrin, That I interpret all; I am forced to doe so, or against conscience must desert my old Mother Church, Her Councils How Secta­ries ought to plead. and Tradition likewise, From which You haue too licentiously swerued, to side with your Iustins and I know not who els. Could the Sectary plead after this manner, His Glosses would haue force, But he neuer meddles with the First main Business, That is, neuer ground's his Doctrin vpon any thing like à satisfactory Principle, But, as if He minded to tire Ones patience, run's on headlong with Glosses, When he has no Principled Doctrin to Gloss for. Iust as if One should tell his neighbour, Sir you lye, And, this I auerr to your face, Though I want where withall to proue my Saying true. In all these Controuersies Sectaries are so pertly vnciuil, as to giue the Lie to à whole Church, And what supports the Boldnes? Haue they any other Church more Orthodox, Councils more learned, Tradition more vniuersal to proue we lye, than our Church, our Tradition, And Councils are which say we speak truth? Nothing at all like them. We here challenge [Page 199] them to speak to the cause and controuersies are ended. What then remain's to plead with? Plain Scripture? Not à word. Fa­thers plain? Not one. O yes, Tertullian is drawn in to help at à dead lift, so is Theoderet, And one or two more. Very true. But he is à glossed Tertullian, à glossed Theoderet &c. Separate then these Glosses from the Fathers genuin Doctrin, giue them the Sectary to manage, you see him in open field compleatly ar­med ready to encounter Church, Councils, Tradition, And all the other Principles of the Catholick world. Are not Glosses think Glosses strangely powerful with Secta­ries. ye strong and prodigiously powerful, which haue not only force to plead against à whole Church, But more ouer to implead her of palpable errour? This Church is supposed to haue changed Her ancient Doctrin, And Sectaries will reform it not by recurring to any other more Orthodox Society of Christians, But by meer guesses and Glosses. That is. The Fallible Glosses and gueses of men confessedly fallible, must reform à Church which hold's Her selfe in­fallible, And proues it also.

9. Thus it is, Christian Reader. I speak plainly, And can defend my Assertion. Besides meer begging the Question in all Disputes, besides Cauils, And weak coniectures, The Sectary hath no more left him to oppose our Catholick Tenets, but meer vnprincipled Glosses. I neither word it nor wrong Prote­stants in saying thus much. Peruse if you please their writings, chiefly Mr Stillingfleets Account, you will find (when the Churches Infallibility, or Transubstantiation &c. Happen to be handled, That Glosses laid on the Authorities vsually quoted for Catholick Doc­trin, euer take vp the most room. And which is worse, yea pitiful in à Rational Defender of Protestancy: You shall neuer find through this whole Book (waue Cauils coniectures and Glosses) one sound Principle laid plainly forth, nor so much as hinted at, in behalf of any Protestant Article. What think ye? Shall Yet Most weak and feeble. Christians, who would fain haue à Church to liue in, see the old House of God pulled down by vnhandy Glossers, before They haue à better built vp, And well setled on good Founda­tions? Pulled down. What say I? Alas our Glossers haue not [Page 200] strengh to vntile it, much less force to demolish that long slanding Fortress. Yet Glosses chiefly, And t'is à sad thought for the Sec­tary, support his vndefensible Schism made in the desperate quar­rel against that Church which gaue his Ancestors Baptism. These only (there is no more) must plead in behalf of his inhuman and barbarous Reformation; These finally must answer before an Impartial Iudge at that great day of Doom for all his merciless cruelty practised vpon the deceased, and some yet liuing Catho­licks. Sad thoughts, I say, they are to goe to bed with, to rise with, to banquet with, which like Ghosts will haunt him to his dying day, And lay Torment at his restles hart in his greatest iollities, And more in the houre of death.

10. After all you see the Conclusion and an end put to Con­trouersies. The Conclu­sion against Sectaries. If no Orthodox Church vphold's this Protestancy, or any ar­ticle of it. (which is euident). No Councils nor Tradition can support it. If no Councils nor Tradition support it. It has no Principled Doc­trin. If no Principled Doctrin, No Moral certainty. If no Moral certainty, (for meer groundles Glosses cannot giue Any against all the Powerful Motiues of our Church) there is no Probability in it. If no Probability; The whole Reformation must be reduced to fancy only. There we found it, And there leaue it.

11. Now, if any except against our casting off Protestancy from the meanest degree of Probability induced to Iudge otherwise vpon this ground, That many learned men defend it. I haue Answered aboue. Meer Probability is insufficient to support Christian Truths. Here I both answer and Ask. 2. where were the many learned Defenders of this new Faith, when one Luther stood vp alone against the whole Christian world, And first broached his Protestancy? If at that time there was no Authority nor reason for the Nouelty, Process of time hath gained it neither. Look then into its Rise or First beginning, you'l find it vn­sound at the bottom, yea vtterly improbable vpon this certain Principle, That the Singular Doctrin of one disgusted Rebel aga­inst à whole Church and Thousands more pious and learned then Himselfe, can merit no Belief, but deserues (what it has), to be Anathematized.

[Page 201]12. We must yet insist à little vpon this Point, And lay forth the Vanity of our Aduersaries pretence to Probability, which done, you shall see controuersies are ended. Sectaries May say. Protestancy improbable. If their own Authority makes not Protestancy Morally certain, it cannot but raise it to à high degree of Probability. We deny this, And shall presently Ask, why their Authority more aduan­ceth this Religion to Probability than the meer Authority of Arians bring's Arianism to Probability? At present we do not only oppose the voice and vote of the Roman Catholick Church against this Plea, But the Authority also of Graecians, Abyssins and all other called Christians, who with one vnanimous Consent decry Protestancy as improbable. Compare therefore votes with votes, Authority with Authority, There is no Parallel; For, for one that de­fend's it, you haue hundreds, yea Thousands that Contradict the Nouelty. Thus much is indisputably Euident, if we precisely Consider Authority as it were in Abstracto, or oppose the Votes of dissenting Parties against it. But here is not all. We must goe further, And distinguish well between à bare Authority, and a rational grounded Authority. For this is an vndeniable Truth. Reasonable Principles euer precede, or are presupposed, when Reli­gion is pleaded for To the consequent Authority of those (whether many or few) that Teach, or Profess it. Hence all say. If the first conuerted Iewes to Christianity, Had not had most weighty Inducements proposed to reason before they deserted Iudaism and belieued in Christ The change had been most imprudent; Nay, all had been obliged, as is proued in the 4. Chapter, To hold on in that Profession still without Alteration. So necessary it is to haue rational grounds laid firm in the Foundation of Re­ligion, before the Professors allow it either Moral certainty, or so much as Probability. Thus much premised.

13. We draw Sectaries from all Self-Voting, or further plea­ding by their own Authority, And force them in this Contest, if Sectaries drawn off their own Selfe voting. Protestancy be defensible, not to say, but to proue by Principles, distinct from their own bare votes, These two Propositions. 1. That God who is Truth it self, And once laid his Truths the foun­dation [Page 202] of the Roman Catholick Church, permitted that faithful Oracle to become Traiterous, to teach Idolatry, to tell the world loud Lies for à thousand yeares together. And that all this hap­pened, when there was no other Orthodox Church on earth to vnbeguile Those poor deluded Christians. The second Proposi­tion to be proued, is. That these Millions of souls learned and vnlearned who firmly belieued this Church And dyed happily in it, were All mad, All Idolaters, All besotted and seduced What the Sectary is to Prou [...]. by Fooleries: And (which is à Paradox aboue Expression) That à knot of late vnknown Nouellists pretending to Reformation, dare now attempt to teach men more learned than Themselues; To make these supposed mad, wise, The Idolatrous, Orthodox; the besotted, Reasonable; The Seduced, right in Faith again; And that this was, and is yet done vpon à meer proofles Supposition, ( that we are mad and besotted) which stand's on no Principles, And for that reason is contradicted by the vast number of most knowing Catholicks, And the whole Multitude of Christians Be­sides.

14. When these two Propositions are made probable vpon good Principles, Wee shall listen to our Sectaries Authority, But if they fumble herein, Only talk and proue nothing, Wee reiect their vngrounded Authority And say, The more votes they mul­tiply without Proofs, the less weight they haue. You shall yet see how weightles Their Authority is, might we here insist longer vpon one Matter of fact which ends all Controuersies. In à word. All know the great Controuersy between Protestants and Catholicks comes to this. Whether they or we teach The difficul­ty proposed between Ca­tholicks and Protestants. Apostolical Doctrin? Whether they or we lay forth the gen­uine sense of holy Scripture? Neither Party saw or heard the Apostles Preach. Neither pretend's now to Enthusiasms, or pri­uate Reuelations concerning that Doctrin: The whole cause the­refore is to be tried, and decided by Witnesses of foregoing Ages, such Testimonies and Tradition must clear this Matter of fact. A pretence to Scripture only without precedent lawful Pastors, without Doctors, without Witnesses teaching that sense and [Page 203] Doctrin which the one, or other Party stand's for, is here both vseles and impertinent. If then The Protestant makes his Doc­trin Apostolical, His sense of Scripture, Orthodox; The Catho­lick replies. Be pleased to giue in your last Euidence, produce your Witnesses; your Pastors, And Doctors Four Ages since, That taught as you teach, And sensed Scripture as you sense it. My Church (add's the Catholick) euidently demonstrates à con­tinued succession of Her Pastors that taught as I belieue, (as shall be proued hereafter) And shewes as clearly à Succesion of the same Doctrin and Faith with these Pastors. Her Antiquity is vndoubted, and her pleading Possession in preseruing the true Sense of Scripture and Apostolical Doctrin, is as great as any King on earth can shew for the Possession of the Crown he weares. Now, saith the Catholick, Wee examin your pede­gree of Pastors and Doctors, And after some few Ascents by à The first plead by Principles the others not. Retrogradation come at last to the year 1517. There we find, and most euidently, à Luther, or Caluin To be the first men in the world that professed Protestanism, that interpreted Scripture as you interpret, or owned your Religion. With these late Runagates you must stop, No man on earth can aduance or bring your Genealogy further, Therefore to speak in the words of the Ancient Optatus Meliuitan. Lib. 2. Contra Parmen: At that time, you were sons without Progenitors, successors without à Pedegree New Teachers without comm [...]ssion, Protestants indeed, but without Principles.

15. Hence I argue and it is à demonstration against Secta­ries. If neither Church, nor Councils, nor Pastors, nor Doc­tors, nor any Orthodox Christians in forgoing Ages euer owned, or so much as heard of Protestancy before one vnfortunate Fa­therles Luther broached it; If no Antiquity, so much as once mentioned one Professor of that Religion; if no Tradition han­ded to Luther the new Faith he taught (all which is without dispute manifest) Protestancy most enidently is vpon this very account both an Vnwitnessed and an Vnprincipled Religion, And not only improbable, but in the highest degree improbable. But [Page 204] no Authority can release an vnprincipled Nouelty from its own intrinsick, miserable and [...]ss [...]ntial state of improbability, Therefore our Sectaries votes (of no weight at all) cannot make it probable. And thus Controuersies are ended, because an improbable Re­ligion (And for this reason improbable, because vnprincipled) is not defensible.

16. To add more to this Discourse I Ask, whether one Arius opposing the whole Church represented in the Nicene Council, Protestancy as improba­ble as Arianism. defended probable Doctrin or no? You will answer No. Very good. Yet he quoted Scripture (and might one insist vpon the exteriour letter or sound of words) more plain and express in the behalf of his Heresy, than all the Protestants on earth can pro­duce Fathers plain and Expresss for their Nouelty of Protestanism. I would say. Neither Theoderet nor any other Father, speak's half so clearly to the Doctrin of No Transubstantiation. No Sacrifice of the Mass &c. As these words (to omit others). My Father is greater then I, (may the exteriour letter regulate here) seemingly express an inequality between the Father and the Son. Now if the seeming clear sound of Scripture made not Arius his Doctrin probable against the Church Then, much less can the more obscu­re Testimonies of some Fathers, make the Doctrin of Protestants probable against the Church Now. And if we speak of follo­wers that Arius gained in his time, There is no comparison, He had more than euer England had Protestants in it.

17. One may yet reply. The Nicene Fathers cited plain Scripture against Arius. Very true, And so do Catholicks against Protestants, For, Christs Sacred words. This is my body, are as significantly plain against Protestanism, as any Text those Fathers then vrged, or yet can be vrged against Arianism. The Arians not Conuin­ced by Scrip­ture only. But this you see did not the deed, nor was then the last con­uiction, And why? Here is the reason. Because as Protestants now wilfully Gloss this plain Passage of Scripture and many o­thers, So the Arians then wilfully Glossed all those Scriptures al­leged by the Nicene Fathers, And yet hold on in that strain to our very dayes, as you may read in Crellius and Volk [...]lius Yet [Page 205] more. As the Arian Party then only Glossed but without the help of any antecedent Church Doctrin known to the world▪ or vniuersal Tradition to settle their Glosses on; So our Prote­stants now do the very same, There is no disparity betwixt them, They Gloss, 'tis true, but giue vs Churchles Glosses. Finally, as those Fathers at that time did not only reiect the Arians Glosses, but established also their own Definitions vpon Scrip­ture How Con­uicted interpreted by the known deliuered Doctrin of the then present, and the more Ancient Church (for they represented both) And thus ended that Controuersy, So we Catholicks proceed against Protestants, And bring all debates to the like last period. The Church, or nothing, must end them. Without recourse had to the known and owned Doctrin both of this present and precedent faithful Oracle, They and we may inter­pret Scripture long enough, They may Cauil, And we may hold on in our Answers to the end of an other Age, without hope of ending so much as one Controuersy. But of This enough is said already.

CHAP. XX.

1. SEctaries may obiect first. We Suppose all this while But proue not, The Orthodox world to haue hitherto maintained the Doctrin now taught by the Roman Catholick Church concerning Transubstantiation, Inuocation of Saints &c. Therefore our Discourse seem's vngrounded. I answer. 1. The Reply is not to the Purpose in this place, whilst we only press [Page 206] Sectaries to giue in Proofs for their Contrary Positions. This wee say They Cannot doe: Now if wee bee as farr of From Proofes, or Cannot ground our Tenets vpon vndubitable Prin­ciples; Controuersies are ended without more Adoe; Because The first Obiection answered. both of vs, (if the Supposition hold's,) haue no Articles of Re­ligion to Propugn, But weak opinions, which (whether true or false) import not Saluation: Nay, the Truth of them, could it be known, is scarse worth any mans Knowledge. I Answer. 2. Our Proofs (to say no more now) Stand firm vpon Church Authority, once at least owned Orthodox, on our Councils, and ancient Tradition neuer yet repealed, nor excepted against, But by Hereticks only. May it please our Aduersaries to come Closely to the Point and plead in behalf of their Tenets, by the Authority of any like or better Church than ours is, We haue done, and must yeild; But this they know is impossible, And therefore neither will nor can Answer our Discourse. If they say our Church, (where its contrary to Protestancy) has erred, Vrge them to proue the Assertion by any Principle, either equal to (or stronger than) our Church Authority is, And you will haue them driuen again to their Glosses, or to some few gleanings of Fathers; In à word to no Principles.

2. They may obiect. 2. We haue took much pains to proue Nothing against Protestancy, For we know, some late Professors namely Doctor Bramhal and Mr Stillingfleet, stifly main­tain A second Obiection Proposed. these Negatiues of No Transubstantiation, No Sacrifice of the Mass, No Inuocation of Saints &c. To be only pious Opinions or in­feriour Truths, Neither reuealed by God, nor Essential to Protestant Religion, Therefore whilst we vrge them to ground such Ne­gatiues vpon plain Scripture, vpon the Authority of an Ortho­dox, Church, Councils, Tradition &c. They tell vs we meddle not at all with the Essentials of Protestancy, But only dispute against Opinions, And, Contrary to iustice, force them to pro­ue meer opinions by Scripture, Church &c. wich is more then we can press vpon them, or doe our selues, For haue not wee Catholicks many Opinions in Schools, which none pretend to [Page 207] ground vpon so strong Principles as we settle our Articles of Faith on? Yes most assuredly: Opinions then and Articles of Faith cannot but be very differently Principled. And thus Point's at à distin [...] ­tion between Faith and Opinion. the Protestant discourses in the present Matters, Here saith He, is the only difference, That Catholicks lay Claim to more Ar­ticles of Faith, And the Protestants to Fewer. Our more nu­merous Articles, ouer and aboue His fundamentals, He calls opinions, Holds vnprincipled, And hopes to settle his fewer articles, or the Essence of his Religion vpon Excellent solid Grounds.

3. Hence it followes, that all Controuersies hitherto agitated between vs come to no more, but to à slight skirmishing about different opinions only; For we and they agree in the Essence of Religion. Vnlucky opinions surely, Cries the Sectary (and He would seem to sigh as deeply as we, But has not felt so much Smart) which haue caused endles Broiles, strange confusion, and à Shameful Schism in the Christian world. Thus much I con­ceiue some later men, who expresly teach the Doctrin would haue vs learn, And because it is à new inuented way of defen­ding this falling Protestancy, I hold my self obliged, First to discouer the whole fallacy of the discourse, Next to shew how Protestants themselues put an end to all Controuersies. This done the Obiection is soon answered.

4. The fallacy lies here, That Protestancy is supposed to haue an Essence when really it has none, but is wholy made vp of worse then false opinions. The false Supposition stands glo­riously in Mr Stillingfleets empty Title. A rational Account of the The fallacy, discouered. grounds of Protestant Religion. The man surely imagins Protestan­cy to be à Religion (which implies an Essence,) yea and groun­ded too. I say the contrary, it has no Essence, and consequently No grounds. To proue my Assertion, Doe no more but cast out of Protestancy all the Negatiues it has, which confessedly are no Essentials. And next fix your thoughts on the little which remain's, And is called Protestancy. You will see the Essence after these Negatiues are gone, dwindle to nothing. Most [Page 208] surely this is not its Essence To belieue these Negatiues, pious opinions, or inferiour Truths, For if God neuer reuealed the Negatiues▪ He neuer reuealed to any, That the Belief of their supposed piety con­stitutes the Essence of Protestancy. An other Essence Therefore must be found out, if it haue any, And may be it is this. Belieue the Creeds or à Doctrin common to all Christians (our Aduersaries hint at both) and you haue the whole Essence of this Religion, Yea, and Faith enough to attain Saluation: And thus they reduce their Faith to fewer Articles than we doe. I might Say à word in passing, And reduce all true Christian Faith to à shorter com­pendium. viz. To one only Article of The Apostles Creed. I belieue the holy Catholick Church. That is, who euer own's the true Church of Christ, and firmly adheres to all She teaches An other Sectarian pretence of belieuing the Creeds. after à due Proposal made of her Articles, And dies in that Faith; such à man iointly belieues both the Church and Creeds also. But if he run away with one half only, or Talk of Creeds, as Sectaries doe, without à Church, And exclude from His Belief that Church which approues the Creeds, He separates that which cannot be separated, And is à Self-chuser, In à word he neither belieues Church nor Creeds, And consequently has no Christian Faith.

5. Hence I say. This very Assertion. I belieue the Creeds i [...] the sense of Sectaries now explicated, is so far from being à Prin­cipled Truth, That it is no more but an Errour, or à proofles Protestant Opinion, As bad or worse as any of the Negatiues are. If therefore they make it an Essential Article of Protestancy, Wee press them according to their promise, to giue à rational Account of it before God and man. And here our Queries aboue come in again. Haue you, Gentlemen, any Diuine Reuelation, That this half Faith of belieuing Creeds, after your bold rece­ding from the Church is so sufficient for your Saluation and mine, That more is not required? Did euer Orthodox Church expresly teach this to be sufficient? Did euer ancient Council define so, or vniuersal Tradition deliuer the Doctrin? Speak plainly plead by all, or any one of these Principles, And I haue [Page 209] done. But 'tis impossible. Perhaps you will say All Antiquity and the Fathers likewise highly commend the Apostles Creed as à short Abridgment of our Christan Faith. Answ: So doe we as highly, But know there are different Lections of it, whereof you may read in your own Doctor Vshers Diatri [...]a. De Symbolis, London Print. 1647. Sent to his friend Ioannes Vossius. We know again, (may Credit begiuen to S. Hierome. Epist▪ 61. Ad Pammach.) That this Creed was not writ in Charta & atramento, but in tabulis Cordis, And Therefore we must trust to Tradition for the best Lection. All other Creeds euen that ascribed to S. Athanasius (A Graecis interpolatum dressed vp à new by the Greeks, Saith Dr Vsher) The Church either made or has approued. If then I must build my faith on these Creeds, I cannot diuorce it from the Church. For, Propter quod vnumquod (que) tale, est illud & magis tale. If I belieue my Creeds, much more must I belieue the Church which either made or Authorised them.

6. In à word here is all we demand, And If Sectaries can Answer they speak to the purpose. Let them but name any The Belief [...] of Creeds and the Church, inseparable. Orthodox Council, Nay, one ancient Father that saies, Faith is then fully and sufficiently Catholick, if one belieues the Creeds, Though at that very time He pertinaciously reiect's the present Church we liue in, Or will not hear that Doctrin which She teaches aboue The express Doctrin deliuered in the Creeds, Let him, I say, do thus much And he speaks to the purpose, But it can­not be done, Because both the Ancient and modern Church condemn's all who slight Her Doctrin, though not expresly con­tained in the Creed. In this opposition therefore, That which the Sectary would make the Essence of his Religion is only his false opinion, and in real truth hath neither Moral certainty, nor so much as Probability, As is already proued. He may reply. All he pretend's, is, That the Creeds compleatly contain Matter enough of Christian belief, (To Add more is vnnecessary), And Saies withall, Hee slights not that Ancient Church, which either com­posed or approued the Ancient Creeds, but blames the Later Church which hath turned meer Opinions into Articles of faith, [Page 210] And imposed them on Christians to belieue. Answ. These men it seems will hold on to be vnlucky in All They say. We are now inquiring after that Doctrin which essentially Consti­tutes Protestancy, And here they obtrude vpon vs their Prote­stant Opinions for Answer.

7. To assert Therefore First, that the Ancient Creeds expli­citly contain Matter enough of Christian Belief is à Protestant False Opi­nions suppo­sed the Es­sence of Protestancy. opinion only, largely refuted by our learned Writers. See the other Treatise Discourse. 3. C. 5. To assert that the Church in after ages added Vnnecessaries aboue the explicite Doctrin con­tained in the Apostles Creed, Impugn's the most Ancient Councils of the Christian world, And is no more but à Protestant opinion. To assert. 3. That the Ancient Church was right in faith, And the present Church not, or, That She hath imposed meer. Opinions to be belieued by Christians in place of Articles of Faith, is à flat Calumny an improbable opinion, which neuer yet was, nor can be grounded vpon any rational Principle. And can these opinions think ye which all Catholicks reiect, pass for the grounded Essence of Protestancy? They must, or it has no Essence at all. And mark well, As they proceed with vs here, so they doe in all other Controuersies. They tell vs not only the Creeds, but Scriptures much more contain all things necessary to Saluation, That's only their Opinion. They tell Particular Proofe Thereof. vs, Their Belief now, and that of the Primitiue Christians for the first Three, or Four Centuries, is one and the same; It is their Opinion meerly, And demonstratiuely vntrue. They tell vs, They own à Church before Luther, but to say where, or when it was distinct from the Roman Catholick, or as They Imagin much larger than the Roman, is only an Opinion, and most improbable. In à word They are euery where so narrowly con­fined, That whether they build or destroy, Impugn our Religion or offer to establish their own, They neuer get out of the reach of Their own tottering improbable Opinions.

8. And because I find this strain runs through Mr Stilling­fleets whole Book, He cannot surely be iustly offended, if for [Page 211] my better Satisfaction concerning his Rational Account, I require his rational Answer to one Question which I hold very reasona­ble. Thus I propose it. You, Sir, defend à Religion called Protestancy, You allow it some essential Doctrin distinct from Po­pery, and all condemned Hereticks. Your Title supposeth this Doctrin well grounded ( The grounds of Protestant Religion) An­swer I befeech you, giue me first without fumbling that Doc­trin peculiar to Protestancy, which essentially makes it à Reli­gion. Giue vs the Specifical difference of it, if't haue any? And A question proposed to Sectaries. Next, Ground this Doctrin (be it what you will) vpon the vndubitable Authority of some known Orthodox Church, Or­thodox Councils, or vniuersal Tradition, but Fob vs not off with your vnproued Opinions, Tell vs no more of belieuing Creeds only, The Scripture only, the Four first general Councils only without more (these Onelies we except against) Yet doe you only thus much as I now require, (T'is easily done, if your cause be good,) And I will recall what euer I haue written against you, And craue pardon for my rashnesse. But the Catholick knowes well because Heresy can haue no grounded Doctrin, This task is impossible. I am now to shew the Protestant the impossibility of it also.

9. Imagin one who belieues the Creeds, as the Sectary pre­tend's to doe, yet so, That interiourly And from his very heart He abiures and slights all those Negatiue Articles called the opinions of Protestants. (I speak not here of his exteriour de­meanour nor Countenance his dissembling i'ft be so) My Que­stion is this. Whether such à man haue internal, essential, sufficient faith to make him à true belieuing Protestant? He hold's himself one vpon this conuincing Reason, That he firmly belieues what euer the Professors of that Religion main­tain Sectaries must make meer Opi­nions their Articles of Faith. as both essential and sufficient to Saluation. Besides He knowes well, No obligation lies on him to belieue by Faith, the Negatiue Articles of Protestants, neither can he, because God has not reuealed them. Such à man therefore hath compleatly essential Faith enough, and is à true belieuing Protestant, or if [Page 212] he be not yet got so high, or haue not the Protestant Faith com­pleatly, necessary and sufficient to saue him, He must help it out by belieuing some one or other Protestant Opinion, And Con­sequently the Belief of Opinions must either constitute him es­sentially à Protestant, Or He will neuer be one, yet this is most vn­true, for God obliges none to belieue vnreuealed Opinions as Articles of Faith.

10. We must goe yet further. Suppose this man belieues the Creeds, The Roman Catholick Church and euery particular Doctrin She teaches, iust so as the best Catholick Belieues, And whereas before He only slighted the opinions of Prote­stants, now in place of them he firmly adheres to the Contrary Catholick Positions. viz. To The Popes Supremacy. Transub­stantiation.▪ An vnbloody Sacrifice. Praying to Saints worhiping of Ima­ges, And in à word to all that the Church obliges me to belieue. The difficul­ty farther vrged. This man in heart is certainly Catholick. I Ask whether he is yet à true belieuing Protestant? In our Sectaries Principles, Hee is. For first he belieues his Creeds or Doctrin Common to all Chri­stians, And there is the Essence of their sauing Faith. O but all is spoiled by belieuing the Church, And what euer Doctrin She teaches. Why so I beseech you? why should this spoile all, if in Conscience the man Iudges Her Articles to be reuealed Truths? A Catholick you say may be saued, Though he belieues thus much, Therefore there is no reason to damn this man vpon any Account of his want of Faith, For the Faith of His Creeds saues him, And the beliefe of our Catholick Articles ruin's not that Faith. Ergo. Again. You must say, His abiuring your Nega­tiue Opinions doth not Vnprotestant Him, if he belieues the Creeds, why then should the firm adhering to our contrary Positiue Ca­tholick Articles (which you call opinions) make him less Pro­testant? You may reply. If He hold's them only as opi­nions, He is still Protestant, But we now suppose He belieues all as Articles of Faith. Very good. This then followes ine­uitably. Not to belieue them as Articles of Faith, besides Owning the Creeds, essentially makes him Protestant, Ergo, This also followes [Page 213] To belieue some one Negatiue, or more then the Creeds For­mally express (Add to them the common Doctrin of all Chri­stians, The four General Councils &c.) is essentially necessary to Constitute him Protestant. Now This very More which is nothing but à Sectarian Opinion essentially enters in to make him Protestant, or Hee shall neuer bee one. Thus much I intended to proue, and I hold it proued demonstratiuely.

11. You haue what I would say, plainly laid forth in this vnanswerable Dilemma. He who iudges all the Negatiue Articles of A dilemma. Protestants false, And belieues the Contrary Positiues taught by our Ca­tholick Church As reuealed Truths, is yet Protestant, or not. If not; the belief of some thing els (Truth or vntruth) is essentially requisite to make him Protestant, But the belief of That (be it what you will) now superadded to Constitute him à Belieuing Protestant, is no Truth reuealed by God, But only à Protestant Opinion, without which he wants the Essence of that Religion, Ergo most euidently the Belief of Opinions essentially constitutes him à belieuing Protestant, Consequently some Doctrin which God has not reuealed makes him Prote­stant, And the belief of his Creeds is not Faith enough to make him one. These Inferences seem euident, if not, I petition Mr Stillingfleet to discouer where the fallacy lies.

12. Now on the other side, if such à man as belieues his Prouing what is intended against Sectaries. Creeds, the Roman Catholick Church, And all the Articles She tea­ches iust as I belieue them, be notwithstanding essentially Pro­testant still, He is both Protestant and Catholick together. Catholick He is, whilst He Assents to all without Reserue which the Roman Church teaches; And he is also Protestant, for He be­lieues his Creeds, And what euer our new men require as essen­tial to their Religion. Wherefore vnless The not-belieuing their Negatiues, or his submiss yeilding to our Positiue Contrary Doctrins, destroy that essential Faith of his Creeds (which is impossible) He is in these Principles, both at once Catholique and Pro­testant.

13. And thus you see How Our new men end Controuer­sies, For now in their Principles, There is no more quarrel [Page 214] about Religion, The whole contest being purely brought to this, whether Party Opines more securely, iust as the Thomists and Scotists (worthy learned Catholicks) dispute whether Schoole teaches the better Opinions, Though if the Supposition stand, it will be difficult to find out disputable Opinions between vs. what our Aduersary i [...] obliged to.

14. Be it how you will, Mr Stillingfleet must of necessity change his Tittle [ The grounds of Protestant Religion] For now Protestancy with him consists with Popery, or rather is Popery, And Popery, If we speak of Religion, is consistent with Protestancy: The Essence and grounds of the one and the other cannot but be the same, if (which is euer to be noted) Protestancy as Pro­testancy hath not one true essential Article of Orthodox Faith peculiar to it selfe, For hauing none, The Abettors of it must either bee Catholicks, or Profess no Religion.

15. And here by the way you may note the difference be­tween vs. As the Catholick own's all which the Church defi­nes to be de Fide And necessary to Saluation, So contrariwise, the Protestant own's nothing within the compass of His Articles to be de Fide, or in like manner necessary, For both He and I may boldly renounce what euer he hold's as Protestant without danger of loseing our Souls. And hence it is that Opinions only, and false ones too, essentially constitute this whole Reli­gion. I speak here of Articles proper to Protestancy, For to be­lieue the Creeds, the four General Councils, to Assert that the Sa­craments giue grace to the worthy Receiuer, that Faith and re­pentance are necessary, or what els can be thought of, as Matter of Diuine Faith, All, I say, and euery one Constitute the essence of Catholick Religion, and are known Doctrins of the Ro­man Orthodox Church, in so much that the Protestant has no proper, Special, or peculiar Tenet of Religion left him at all (which is true) to propugn. And for this reason He is obliged hereafter, Iure humano, & Diuino to write no more Controuer­sies of Religion, wanting Matter to write of, And no less obli­gation lies on him to leaue off all further quarrelling in behalf of his improbable Opinions. I would willingly see this plain discourse answered.

[Page 215]16. Some perhaps not penetrating the force of it, may A weak reply, an­swered. Reply. The old strife is now on foot again: For as we call the particular Tenets of Protestants, Opinions, and improbable also, So they in like manner say, All that the Catholick Church maintains aboue the Common Doctrin of Christians or the Ar­ticles of the Creeds &c, are only Church-Opinions, as improba­ble as Theirs. The Doctrin of Transubstantiation seem's as impro­bable to them, as No-Transubstantiation to vs. Inuocation of Saints more improbable, than not to trouble Those blessed Spirits with our Prayers &c. Answ. The reply setled vpon no Foundation is more than simple, For either these men Cauil because we call their Negatiue Articles, Opinions, or Term them improbable Opinions. Sectaries themselues call them Opinions, that's vnexcep­tionably plain, Though they know well that the Church neuer speak's so meanly of her contrary Positiue Doctrins. The only difficulty remaining is, whether they are improbable or no? And this stands most clearly euidenced already vpon an vndeniable Principle. viz. That when Luther first broached them, They were opposite to the whole Orthodox world, And for that cau­se were then as improbable and Heteroclite as one Rebels vote is against à whole Kingdome, or as Arianism was against the Vniuersal Church. Now since that time they haue gained no more Probability than Arianism, And so the old Improbability still clings to them. And for this reason the Sectary is to find out à Catholick Church which defended his Negatiues, or any one specifical Tenet of Protestancy, as Ancient, or, reputed as Ortho­dox, as our Church then was, or is now: Thus much done we will allow more to his Opinions than Probability. But to doe it is Impossible.

17. Thus the first part of the Obiection aboue is solued. who are to proue the Protestants. Negatiues. To That is added of our pressing Sectaries to proue their Nega­tiues by plain Scripture. I answer, we iustly exact so much proof of Mr Rogers and his Complices (the greater part of Pro­testants I think) who hold them Articles of Faith: These are to produce their Scriptures, And only vrge Doctor Bramhal [Page 216] and Mr Stillingfleet that call them inferiour truths or pious Opinions, to settle these Negatiues or any Tenet of pure Protestancy vpon so much as any thing like à Probable Principle, And here we ex­pect their last Propositio qu [...]escens for Probability, But this cannot be giuen, whilst we know, The true Church of Christ decries them as improbable, and Heretical errours.

18. It is very true (and that's next obiected) Catholicks haue opinions in schools differently Principled from Articles of Faith, but t'is nothing to the purpose, when the diffecence betwixt these and our Sectaries Tenents, is, that Catholick opinions, if How Catholick Opi­nions differ Protestancy. probable, are euer reduced to probable grounds, our Sectaries opinions contrary to the voice and iudgement of à whole Church, can haue no such foundation And for this cause we iustly im­pugn them not as False Opinions only, but as Heresies. Now to the last Plea of Sectaries making fewer Articles of Faith than the Church doth, The Answer is easy. It belongs not to them▪ God knowes, wholly vnknown to the world one Age past, To giue vs now à right measure of Faith, The attempt is no less vain, than prodigiously bold. But Say on, How will they Abbreuiate? By what Rule? By what law? By their impro­bable opinions. Here is all. Well therefore may they La­ment these vnlucky Opinions, which haue ruined many à poor Soul and giuen infinit Scandal to the Christian world. Vae homi­ni illi per quem Scandalum venit.

CHAP. XXI.

1. SOme may think the particular Matter now hinted at too largely handled being scarce worth halfe the labour here spent vpon it, And They iudge right, Should I once so much as offer to proue, as Mr Stillingfleet fondly Imagin's, the Ro­man Catholick Church à safe way to saluation because Prote­stants Say so. Far bee it from mee to entertain such à Thought, For whether They side with vs, or not, Wee haue absolute Absolute Certainty of Faith without de­pendence of Sectaries. Certainty of our Faith independently of Their suffrages, or Voting vs in à Secure way to Heauen. Wherefore Should Sectaries recoile, And say wee are all damned (as some haue done) wee regard it not, That would no more Lessen the Cer­tainty wee now haue of sound Faith, than Their Casual Gran­ting 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 saued in their Religion, The agreeing of Sectaries with vs might serue for something, But now, when the Certainty of our Doctrin Stand's, as wee here Suppose most secure 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 subiecto [Page 218] non supponente, That is, Not to bee supposed, if (which is euer to bee noted) wee should goe about to strengthen our Catholick Doctrin, because Heretiques Agree with vs.

3. Howeuer, though the Agreement, Considered in it selfe, be [...] no more but à fallible Protestant Opinion, yet laid by the other indubitable Doctrin of the Catholick Church 'Tis à Truth as asserted by them, And ties their tongues so fast, that They shall Neuer hereafter speak à probable word against our Catholick Faith. Again, the Concession presses Sectaries Ad hominem, who admit Scripture vpon the General Agreement of all Called Christians. If therefore They argue well: Both you Catholicks and wee Protestants hold these books Diuine, Ergo, They are so. Wee Argue as strongly: Both Parties also grant saluation to Catho­licks, An Argu­ment against them vpon their Con­cession. ergo They are so secure, that it is impossible to plead against the Truth, Though as I said now, The Sectaries Concession heightens not one whit our Certainty, whereof you may see more n. 20. In the Interim please to know, The only reason why I discuss this Controuersy more at Large, is, first to discouer Mr Stillingfleets gross fallacies, Next to Show that Protestants, are forced at last to Put an End to Controuersies, Seeing the most Learned that euer wrote, ingenuously acknowledge the Roman Catholick Faith, to bee à safe, secure, and abundantly sufficient Means to attain Saluation, which is to say, A true be­lieuing Catholick Cannot bee Damned vpon the Account of Wanting Faith, if other Christian▪ Duties bee Complyed with.

4. Now if you Ask what forced Sectaries to grant thus much to Catholicks? I answer it was no kindness God knowes, But stark shame (to touch here on no other Motiue) which ex­torted the Concession from them, For would not both Heauen and earth haue Clamour'd had They damned all their own Ancestors, all the learned and ignorant of the Roman Catho­lick Church far and neer extended, for want of Diuine Faith? Yet this followes, Because without Faith it is impossible to please God. And thus they stand perplexed. Allow sauing faith to the Roman Catholick, Their Plea is ended; Deny it; They send [Page 219] millions and millions of Souls to Hell. Thus much premised. I Argue.

5. That Faith which the Roman Catholick Church and Pro­testants The Ground of our Doc­trin. also iointly own as sufficient to bring à man to Heauen, is intirely perfect, And cannot be rationally opposed by either Party. But the Faith of à true belieuing Catholick is such à Faith, Therefore it is entirely perfect, And cannot be more ratio­nally Opposed. Now further. If it stand's thus firm vpon Church Authority (That's the certain Principle) And the Conc [...]ssion of Aduersaries As an ouer-measure (though weightles) it cannot be rationally excepted against by either, both Parties owning it suf­ficient to Saluation. Therefore All controuersies concerning Faith are clearly ended in behalf of Catholicks, Vnless meer Ca­uils may pass for rational Arguments.

6. It is truly Pitiful to see how vainly Mr Stillingfleet. Part. 3. C. 4. Page. 611. striues to Euert the force of this short Discourse. Sometimes The difficulty is not so much as touched by him. Sometimes Hee mistakes the Question, And euer beggs it. Now He run's away with half à Principle, which lead's in à lame Conclusion. Now false Suppositions pass for Proofs. Now Protestant Opinions enter in, as sound Doctrin. Here he wrong's our Catholick Authors, There He contradict's himselfe. In à word you haue nothing through His whole fourth Chapter But I know not what strange Confusion. Thus He Begins.

7. Protestants confess there is à Pissibility for some to escape (Dam­nation) The Aduer­saries dis­course. in the Communion of the Roman Church, But it is as men may escape with their liues in Shipwrack, But they (Protestants) vndertake to make it euident, There can be no danger, if they obserue the Prin­ciples of Protestant Religion. Mark first How strait hearted The man is, in granting as little as may be. viz. A meer Possibility, And of some only to be saued in the Roman Faith, hoping Thereby to remoue his own Ancestors and Millions of Pious Christians as far from Heauen as à Possibility conceiued by Him, is from an Actual Being. I know other Protestants speak more roundly And say absolutely, Saluation may be had in the Roman Catholick [Page 220] Church, because it is à true Church in Fundamentals, And that the differences betweem them And vs are about lesser Matters, or meer Opinions &c. See Mr. Thorndicke in his Book of Forbearan­ce. page 19. Therefore Mr. Stillingfleets, lean, bare, and remote Possibility of Saluation, is only his own particular Opinion. Proved weak and vnconclu­ding. Howeuer though he see's not the Consequence, Wee haue enough to conclude against him. I'le s'hew you how.

8. There is, Saith he, A posibility of being Saved in the Romam Catholick Faith, That is, Catholick Religion has in it à Possibility of bringing men to Heauen, if there be nothing wanting on Their parts. Very Good. This Possibility intrin­secal To the Religion is now as actually in Being, as the Reli­gion it Selfe, But the Religion is actually in being, Therefore this Possibility inseparable from it, is also Actual, And lies not in the Series of things yet producible, as Creatures doe which God, if he please may Create to morrow. And thus you see, Possibi­lity stand's here not opposite to non-Existency, but to an Actual impossibility, Therefore when I say, Catholick Religion now exi­sting can possibly saue All, I say with the same breath, it cannot pos­sibly damn Any. Unless you'l Grant it can saue All and damn so­me, which is impossibile.

9. Hence Mr. Stillingfleets pretty Put off, of Sauing Some, and The Reli­gion which saues Some can saue all. not All, is most inconsequent Doctrin; For clear the Religion from all actual essential Errour, it can as well Saue all, as some, And if it be tainted with any essential Errour, The whole Religion is naught, And can save none. But of this more in the next Dis­course. Chap. 5. 6. where I shall proue that Catholick Reli­gion is eithér intierly Good, totally Orthodox, or worth not­hing, And consequently if vpon à supposed impossibility There were but one essential errour in it which I through invincible ig­norance know not, yet Assent to, That invincible ignorance would (Tis true) excuse me from Sin, But it cannot free the Religion from being false and forged in it self?

10. What followes in the Objection of our narrow escaping dam­nation in Catholick Religion, as men doe with infinet danger in [Page 221] Shipwrack, is no more but Mr. Stillingfleets own improbable As­sertion, not worth refuting, And His reason is far worse. Pro­testants, Our Adver­saries im­probable As­sertion. forsooth, vndertake to make it euident, There can be no dan­ger, if they obserue the Principles of Protestants. To make it evident. What à vast ouerlashing is this. Sir, make your Assertion only Morally certain, Nay, but so much as meanly probable, And May I haue the honour to Answer, yo will soon disclaim Eui­dence. In the mean while, I look vpon it as à meer Vanity worth nothing, And so is all the rest in your next page. 612. Where you bid vs iudge, whether it be wisdom, in such à point as saluation is, to forsake à Church in which the ground of Saluation is firm, to fol­low à Church in which it is but possible one may be saued, but very proba­bly he may doe worse. All this is worse than your own improba­ble Hic glorious bragging. Opinion, You here Suppose without Proof, that the ground of Saluation is firm in your Protestancy, And therefore shamfully begg the question in euery word you speak. Yet thus you go on.

11. His Lordship still asserts the Protestants way to be only the Safe way to Saluation, and that in the Church of Rome, there is only à limited possibility of it. Answ. Enough is said already of the Possibility. Here you begg the question again, you run away with half à Principle, And only tell vs, what his Lordship Asserts. What security haue I from his Assertion? There is yet more of this stuff. Protestants confesse, there is Salua­tion possible to be attained in the Romam Church; but they say with all, that the errours of that Church are so many and some so great, as weaken the foundation, that it is very hard to goe that way to Heauen, especial­ly His begging the question. to them that haue had the truth manifested. Here is nothing but words. We only hear what Protestants prooflesly Thinke and Say. What am I wiser for that? These false Suppositions, This His false suppositions. manifest begging the Question fall of Themselues without further refutation.

12. Were it worth the while, I might Ask whether these supposed errours so far weaken the foundation of Catholick Religion, that Saluation cannot be had in it? His Lordship Answers. I grant [Page 222] saluation to Romanists, But not as they are Romanists, but as They are [...]hristians And belieue their Creed &c. Pitiful. Speak, plainly. Will The Belief of Roman Catholick Religion damn them or no? If it Damn's them, The Belief of their Creed's cannot saue them. (Vnless you both damn, and saue them at once) Contra­rywise, if the Belief of the Creeds saues them, Roman Religion cannot Damn them, for now vpon the Supposition it destroies not that sauing Faith of the Creeds, But stands well with it here, And therefore cannot damn any hereafter. What followes is yet worse, if worse can be. You, Sr, Say. Page. 613. His Lordship dares not deny à possibility of Saluation for the Roman Cathe­lick, but he is far from Asserting it of those, who either know the corruptions of that Church, and yet continue in them, or of such who wilfully neglect the means▪ whereby they may be conuinced.

13. Here is first à false Supposition for à Proof. Of known Corruptions, And à pure begging the question besides. Here is. 2. The half Principle of his Lordships bare saying laid hold on without more, which inferr's no Conclusion, But only thus much, That my Lord spake (and perhaps not) what he thought, Or if Hee did so wee Catholicks are not of so easy Faith, as to belieue him. Here is 3. A pretty piece of Non-sense in those words. Nothing but Confusion in the Replies of Sectaries. But he is far from Asserting it of those who know the Corruptions of that Church &c. As, if forsooth, one truely Catholick could know and own any Corruptions in his Church And yet remain Catholick. These two things are inconsistent, To remain Catho­lick, And to iudge this Church corrupted in any point of Doctrin. Such men My Lord may list among his Protestant Belieuers. In à word His Proposition is de Subiecto non supponente, And so is also what crowd's in next. Of Those who neglect the means afforded by Protestants sufficiently Proposed &c. Here is again the false Sup­position, not proued, wee neuer yet heard of any such means, nor shall here after, I am sure your Rational Account afford's no­ne.

14. You add presently à desperate word And t'is, That his Lordship Speakes of such Catholicks whose meer ignorance excuseth, when [Page 223] the Fundamentals are held &c. Ergo you and your Lord damn all Sectaries send to Hall innumerable Learned men. the learned of our Church That intierly belieued the Catholick Faith for à Thousand years and vpward. You Damn our B [...]des, our Bernards, our Dominicks, our Brunoes, not to be listed amongst the Ignorant. You Damn more ouer all the learned Catholicks who haue liued (since your Heresy began) in Italy, Germany, Spain, France, and in other parts of the world. Bethink your self well, whether this can pass for either Catholick or Charitable Doctrin? And neuer more raile at vs vpon the account, That we Condem [...] you, For, for one we comdemn, you damn Thousands. Compar [...] the ignorant, amongst you (late beginners) with the ignorant o [...] our Church Past and present; The learned amongst you with th [...] learned of our Church confessedly Popish for à Thousand year and vpward, There is no parallel in the number. If then yo [...] damn many, why may not we condemn the late risen fewer Multi­tudes among'st you, wilfully diuorced from the Mother Church. Again we damn not your Persons. No. One Supreme Iudge Catholicks damn none, but Con­demn Here­sy. only, is to Pronounce the final Sentence vpon vs all, But we condemn your Heresy, And say as You ought to speak of the Arians, Pelagians, Macedonian's &c. (and all such known Renegados) That you haue no better Faith than these. Look you to the Conse­quence.

15. Your next Demand is. When we grant à possibility of Saluation to those of the Protestant Chvrch in case of inuinci­ble ignorance, How we dare deny it where there is à preparation of mind, to find out and embrace the most certain Way to Heauen? What's this? Are you yet only in Preparatiues to find out, and embrace? Is one whole Age gone, And Truth not yet found out among Sectaries are yet preparing to belieue. you? The Catholick firmly belieues, A better Religion cannot be found than that is He now embraces, And you are Still in à state of seeking, and preparing for it. Sr, à meer Preparation to take Physick in à mortal infirmity cures none, no more can à Prepara­tion to belieue, if one meet not with the right Faith, saue any. Good Physick actually applyed, cures the body, And Faith actual­ly informing the soul saues vs.

[Page 224]16. It is not now my intention to dispute that case of inuincible Ignorance, great Diuines fauour not the Opinion. See our learned Countriman Thomas Southwell. Analyfis fidei Disp. 3. Cap. 9. 1. 150. And Michael de Elizalde de formâ verae Religion is inuenienda. Quest: 37. n. 596. The rest which followes of men being saued by The Terms of Gospel (A language I vnderstand not) And of our Stalking to the interest of the Church of Rome, is vain Talk, (euery Arian will say as much) But no close Arguing.

17. Page. 614. You offer at à Saluation to our Argument already proposed. It is most safe for Saluation to take that way which All parties agree in. To this you neuer directly Answer, But whol­ly Our Aduer­sary waues the main difficulty. waue the difficulty. First you tell vs again without Proof of the Errours and corruptions in our Church, And say it is hard to conceiue there should be that Faith and Repentance, which you make necessary to Saluation with such à multitude of errours. Sir, These fancied errours either destroy Diuine Faith of the Creeds and Fundamentals, Or do not. If destructiue of Faith, You contradict your Self, And falsify your own Proposition which saies. Catholicks may be saued in their Religion, For without Diuine faith no man can be saued. If these Supposed errours destroy; not, Faith ( The ground of Saluation) is apt of it's own nature to produce in à Soul Contrition, Repentance, pious Conuersation, The fear and loue of God &c. Vnless we wilfully hinder such holy effects of Grace. And here you haue an vnanswerable Dilemma.

18. Suppose these miscalled errours destroy Faith, There is no Possibility of Saluation at all; Suppose they destroy it not But consist with it, much less can they vnroote Repentance, Piety, A dilemma. the loue of God, ànd the other virtues which bring men to Hea­uen. The reason is euident. Essential Errours, were There any, stand directly opposite to Christian Faith, which is true, there­fore in the first place they must shake, or rather destroy that ground of Saluation, before they reuerse Repentance and other Christian Virtues. Now if you say we haue indeed à kind of Faith, but so defectiue that it beget's no Repentance no piety &c. You speak only your fancy, destroy the very Essence of Faith, [Page 225] And Consequently the Catholick must at last be damned for want of Faith, or, if you make the Errours so minute as not to rase out Sauing Faith, that stands in being still, so do other Chri­stian virtues likewise, and Saluation with them. The Argument is conuincing.

19. Page. 615. You are wholly besides the Question, And fall vpon particular cases impertinent to our present purpose. You first inueigh bitterly against Death-bed Repentance, where Our Aduer­saries imper­tinencies. you deliuer intolerable Doctrin. 2. You vniustly Calumniate, As if Catholicks taught Repentance not necessary before death, whereas the world knowes, both Doctors in Schools, and Prea­chers in their pulpits most Zealously inculcate the great danger of continuing in Sin, and delaying Repentance. Sr, these difficul­ties worth examination, And throughly Canuased by others, are in this place impertinencies, Therefore though you would lead me astray, yet I'le not follow you, But press you to Answer directly to the point in hand. Giue me à man, For example, An humble S. Francis, who liued euer à Penitential life, and delayed not Repentance vntil death (there haue been innumerable in the Church profoundly humble and penitential) the Question is, whether you dare damn such vpon the Account of wanting true Faith, true Repentance, the fear or loue of God &c? Damn such And you deny the possibility of Saluation to all Catholicks, Saue them, And you grant that true Repentance, piety and other Christian virtues are consistent with Catholick Faith. And thus I remoue you from your particular case of Death-bed repentance, For although all such were Damned (which is hideously impious to Assert) Yet you see our Question has à large extent in or­der to millions of other Belieuers, who liued piously all their life long. Now if you Say that Doctrin which holds Saluation possible to one who euer liued à lewed life, and only repent's at death is perniciously impious, you only vent your Opinion, And here is an other impertinency.

20. Page. 617. You come to that which is the proper business, And t'is to examin the strength of our Inferences. [Page 226] Protestants grant we may be saued, And the Church asserts it also. To An Instance brought in. this you say his Lordship return's à triple Answer, Who first be­gins with the confession of Protestants. This was the way of the Dona­tists of old, which would hold as well for Them, as the Church of Rome. To proue the Assertion you instance in one particular of Baptism. Both Catholicks and Donatists granted Baptism was true among the Donatists, but the Donatists denied it to be true Baptism among the Catholick Christians, Therefore on this Principle the Dona­tists side is the surer side, if the Principle be true. It is the safest ta­king that way, which the d [...]ffering Parties agree on. Answ. 1. Here is no Agreement concerning the main point of Saluation, For the Catholicks and Donatists iointly and vnanimously neuer openly Confessed that Catholicks could be saued, as now we and Pro­testants by one consent say it. But let that pass. 2. The Ca­tholicks To no purpo­se. and Donatists agreed that Baptism administred by Here­ticks was valid and good. That's true Doctrin. But both par­ties neuer agreed, that it was lawful for à Catecumen to take Baptism from the Donatists, vnless in Case of necessity. See S Austin Lib. 1. de Bapt. c. 2. 3. O, but thus much followes. The Donatists Baptism is more safe than that of Catholicks vpon this Principle, That both Parties agree'd so far, and it is safest to take that way wherein differing Parties agree, consequently the Catho­licks Baptism is less safe, because the Donatists denied it to be true.

21. Answ: This whole Discourse is à meer Paralogism; the Fallacy lies here, That the Opinion of dissenting men is suppo­sed A Paralo­gism answered. to Add more security, more certainty to Church-Doctrin, than the Doctrin it self deriues from that Oracle of Truth. I say Contrary. As such Opinions, when true, Add no more weight or certainty to that Doctrin than it had antecedently from the The Fundamental ground of our Answer. Church, So if false; They make not the Doctrin less certain. Take one instance, God reueals this Truth. The Diuine word assumed Humane nature. One preaches the Truth but Adds no degree of certainty to the Doctrin in it self, which in the highest degree was most certain, before his Preaching. An other falsly [Page 227] (as Arius did) opposes the verity, it is not Therefore less cer­tain in it self because He contradicts it. And thus we discourse of our Church Tenets, indubitably most certain vpon Church Authority, whether Hereticks deny or grant, (That Matters not) the Doctrin stand's firm still as before, And as we see by daily experience neither riseth higher in certainty, nor fall's lower in the iudgement of Catholicks, because Sectaries side with it, or bend against it.

22. Thus much proued The Paralogism is at an end. The Catholicks held The Donatists Baptism valid; so they would haue done had these Hereticks duely Ministred it, and with all (which is possible) afterward denied it valid, So independent Church Doctrin is of dissenting mens opinions. The Donatists again slighted our Catholick Baptism, the Church regards it not, For as the Opinions of the Goodnes of their own Baptism heightned not the Churches certainty concerning it, So their Contrary Opi­nion of its insufficiency made not the Truth less certain to the Catholick. Apply what is here noted to our present case, and you will see the like Conclusion. Protestants Say, we may be Sectaries Si­ding with vs neither Lessens nor increases our Certain­ty. saued in Catholick Religion. The Opinion is true, But as asserted by them is no more but an Opinion, which therefore Add's not one grain of more Certainty to Catholick Doctrin, For had they denied vs à possibility of Saluation, as now by meer Chance they grant it, Catholicks would haue giuen as little eare to That, as They now doe to their many other false Opinions. So it is? Church Doctrin as I now said, neither fall's nor riseth in certain­ty, vpon the account of our Sectaries Opinions.

23. You will Ask what then gain we by the Concession of Protestants when it giues vs no more Assurance in this particu­lar, than we had before from the Church? I haue answered abo­ue. We gain thus much, That they cannot rationally impugn any Catholick Doctrin without contradicting Them selues, For if confessedly, This bring's men to Heauen, the Religion is sound, And implies no essential Errour, The concession then, as I said, serues well as an Argument ad Hominem to stop the mouths of [Page 228] Sectaries, And showes withall, That they end controuersies For its What their Excession Serues for? horridly vniust to dispute against à Faith which all grant saues souls. We pretend no more, nor can pretend it, And here is the Reason.

23. No Catholick (nor indeed any other) doth or can belieue à Christian Verity vpon this ground or Motiue, that Sectaries say its true, for their saying so, is neither Gods Reuelation nor the Churches Doctrin, But à meer Opinion as taught by them, But an opinion (chiefly theirs) is to weak to ground any faith vpon, There­fore if I belieue, as I do, Saluation most safe in the Roman Catho­lick Church, I belieue it vpon à Motiue totally distinct from the Protestants Assertion. It is true, their Assertion or siding with vs may induce one to reflect on the great power Truth has in working vpon men most refractory, Though it Adds no new degree of certainty to Catholick Doctrin. I haue insisted lon­ger vpon this point because it vtterly destroies what euer Mr. Stil­lingfleet can say against vs, vnless he will quarrel vpon this score, that I here suppose my Church Doctrin most certain, which is not the Question now, But may well be supposed in all good law of disputation, And shall, God willing, be proued in the next Discourse.

24. Page. 619. you proceed to à second Answer of his Lordship, And Argue thus. If that be the safest which both Parties agree in, the Principle makes much for the Aduantage of Protestants, And why? We Catholicks are bound, Say you, to belieue with you in the Point of the Eucharist, For all sides agree The Secta­ries Argu­ment taken from the Eucharist. in the faith of the Church of England, That in the most blessed Sa­crament the worthy Receiuer is by his Faith made Spiritually partaker of the true and Real body and blood of Christ, truly and really &c. Answ. 1 ^o. If we belieued As you do, The motiue of our Faith would be, As is now said, quite different from the Motiue of your Opinion, And so it is de facto in the belief of euery Catho­lick Mystery. But I waue this, And say Your Principle is ill applyed, For you and we agree in iust nothing concerning the Eucharist, but thus far only, That what we see look's like bread. [Page 229] We say that very Christ who was born of the Virgin; and suffe­red on the Cross is really and substantially present vnder the form's of bread after true Consecration, You by à strange fancy lay hold of Christs Presence existing in Heauen, And think thereby to make your selues partaker of his real body. We say Christ is rruly Worth no­thing, and why? and really in two, and more places at once, you make this vtterly impossible. We put the real Presence or local being of Christ in the very Obiect before our eyes vpon the Altar, you put it in your faith, or Fancy rather. Hence your question afterward viz. Whether we do not allow any real and Spiritual presence of Christ besides the Corporal (you mean the Real) manducation, is soon answe­red, For we distinguish what you confound together, And say, if by these Terms Spiritual Presence you would exclude the real obiectiue Presence of Christs sacred body, we dissent from you, And abso­lutly hold that Real obiectiue Presence, which may be rightly cal­led Spiritual because by it Christ is placed Totus in toto, totally in the whole host and totally in euery part of it. Contrariwise, if you make it only à fancied Presence of Christ, or say, Hee is not really vn­der the Forms or Accidents of bread, wee leaue that lean Sacra­mentarie Doctrin to you, vtterly disanow it, and still dissent from you.

25. The whole cheat lies hudled vp in those vnexplicated words. The worthy Receiuer is by his Faith made spiritually partaker of the true and real body, &c. As if, forsooth, your two terms. The fallacy discouered. Faith, and Spiritual, could make vs agree in one Tenet, whereas we most vary about this very Faith and the obiect of it, And also disclaime your fancied Spiritual Presence. Hence we say, you ha­ue neither true Sacrament, nor true Faith, nor receiue worthi­ly, nor really partake of Christs true body, nor of any benefit of his Passion. We say you feed not spiritually, but only tast natural bread. This is our Doctrin concerning your miscalled Eucharist, we allow you no more, and Therefore vtterly dissent from you.

26. You add presently à great vntruth, And I wonder you could speak it without blushing. The greatest men of our Perswa­sion [Page 230] as Suarez and Bellarmin (say you) assert the belief of Transubstan­tiation not to be simply necessary to Saluation. Ignorance or, Malice or both had certainly à hand here, For they say no such thing. I Ascribe much to the first, moued thereunto by your following words. And that the Manner of it is secret and ineffable. Dear Sr, were Christ really present without Transubstantiation as Luther held, The manner of his existing with bread might yet be secret and ineffable, But would this inferr à denial of his ineffable Presence? All that Catholick Authors say, is, That the modus exist [...]ndi or Our Aduer­saries Mi­stake. Manner of his existing in the Sacrament, is secret and ineffable euen with Transubstantiation; do they Therefore hold the verity not simply necessary to Saluation, or boggle at the Doctrin of Transubstantiation? You belieue à Trinity of Persons in one Di­uine Essence, it's hard for you to express the Manner how God is one, and three distinct Persons, yet you belieue the Mystery And hold that belief necessary to Saluation. Diuines eudeauour to explicate the Manner of Christs ineffable Presence in the Eucha­rist, but when all is done you haue no more from Then but Opi­nions, And so it fall's out in the other Mystery of the Trinity, where Schoolmen vary in their explicating Quomodo, How God can be one in Essence And three distinct Persons, Yet they hold the belief of the Mystery after à due Proposal absolutly necessa­ry to Saluation, And thus they discourse of Christs ineffable Pre­sence in the Eucharist. The Quomodo, or Manner of his being there is difficult And cannot be clearly laid forth to weak Rea­son; yet that perplexeth not our Faith whereby wee submis­sively yeild to what God speakes without further curiosity.

27. Your other instances. Page. 620. are quite besides the business. Christ you say, instituted the Sacrament in both kinds, The Primitiue Christians receiued in both. What then? Ergo Other in­stances refu­ted. Christ commanded both to laicks, is no Consequence, nor agreed on by Catholicks. 2. Both Churches, say you, Agree that the Eucha­rist is à Sacrifice of duty, of Praise, of Commemoration &c. You know, we absolutly deny your Supposition, and say you haue no true Sacrifice, consequently neither praise God, nor Com­memorate [Page 231] Christs Passion, but grievously offend him in your taking à bare piece of bread, Here is no Agreement. And thus we speak of your Mass or Liturgy, For there was neuer Mass in the without à true Sacrifice, you haue no Sacrifice, Ergo no Mass Church. The grossest errour therefore is that you haue rased out the Sacrifice, most essential to à Liturgy.

28. Page, 621. You say. His Lordship Answers truly, that the Agreement of differing parties is no Metaphysical Principle, The Contin­gent proposi­tion. but à bare contingent Proposition which may be true or false, as the matter is, to which it is applyed. Answ. A contingent Proposition; What's this Sr? If you mean that the Protestant party vented it by chance, I'le not quarrel with you, But out it is in print, And applied to the Possibility of Saluation, which you allow Catho­licks. Let this concession stand, it cannot but be true vnless you say, Both parties err in the Assertion, And then we are not only out of the Question, but highly blame you vpon this account, That all your pains in discussing sc largely the matter hitherto, has been to no purpose, For one line might haue ended All, had you plainly Said. We Protestants fouly erred when we granted Saluation to Catholicks in their own Religion. Be it how you will. I say this Proposition. Saluation may be had in Catholick Religion, is So true, that it cannot be false, because the greatest Authority on earth, the vniuersal Church of Christ own's it as an vndoubted verity, and could this possibly be à falshood, neither we nor Protestants can belieue any thing which the Church teaches, as is amply proued in the second Discourse. &c. For to what purpose should I be­lieue the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Creed or any thing els, when Is so true that is can­not be false. that Church which proclaims these as Truths, may after all damn me? The very uglines of such à thought carries horrour with it, And stark shame decries it, as Abominable. Your Lord and you say next. The consent of disagreeing parties is neither Rule nor proof of truth, No man can resolue his Faith into it, but Truth rather is, or should be the Rule to frame, if not to force Agreement. Answ. All this is very right, Therefore we neuer make your consent either Rule or proof of any Catholick Verity, much less do wee resolue our [Page 232] 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 consent with vs. Now à word to your other two or three instances. And.

29. In real truth, Sr, I much wonder you saw not their Lame­ness, before you thrust them into your Page 621. And that you would fain allow them Strength to weaken this Truth. W [...]e Other Instances pro­ved weight less. and Protestants Agree thus far that Catholick Religion can saue vs, &c. I say Contrary, The instances are so remote from your design, That they proue just nothing. One is. The Orthodox Christians agreed with the Arians, that Christ was of like nature with his Fa­ther, But added, Hee was of the same nature, Ergo, Say you, it is safest to hold with the Arians. To hold what I beseech you? You Answer, that Christ was of the like nature. Very good. That Likeness either excluded the same nature or included it; Grant the first, you make the Fathers Hereticks, which is impossible, For they held the same nature common and Consubstantial to the Fa­ther and Son. If their concession (which is true) included the same nature, The Orthodox party and Arians agreed not in the same hypothesis, consequently your instance is to no purpose at all. In à word this euer and vnexceptionably holds good. The Doctrin which Hereticks Iewes and Turks agree in with Catho­licks is most true (so you and we agree about saluation now dis­cussed) but it doth not follow, that so much only, or that no more is true. Your want of reflecting vpon this Only or, no More makes That's truth wherein Catholicks and Here­ticks agree. all your instances impertinent And your inferences Ergo, It is sa­fest holding with the Arians most vnconcluding; For though the Doctrin be true when the Arian side with the Church, yet it de­riues no absolute safety from that consent of Hereticks.

30. Vpon these grounds all the rest which followes fall's to nothing. Some dissenting parties (Say you) agree that there ought to be à Resurrection from Sin, and that this Resurrection is meant in di­vers passages of Scripture, But they deny the Resurrection of the body after Death. Ergo it will be the Safest to deny the article of the Resurrection. Again: Dissenting parties, as Iewes, Turcks, and Sectaries agree with [Page 233] Catholicks, that there is but one God, Ergo by virtue of this Principle, men will be bound to deny the Trinity. Lastly. Dissenting parties Agree fully with vs That Christ is man; but Hereticks deny His Godhead. Therefore it will be safest belieuing that Christ is meer man, And not God. Answer. With much wearisomness do I read these more than pitiful improbable inferences. Not one of them arises from Pre­mises which lead in any thing like your Conclusion. Reduce but Premises put which infer no Conclu­sion. one to right Form (one serues for all) and you will see your folly. Thus it is. That Doctrin in which Catholicks and Hereticks agree is safe and true Doctrin; Catholicks and Hereticks agree in this Doctrin that Christ is man (but not man only) ergo that is safe and true Doctrin. Here is the utmost your Premises can infer, And I grant all. Christ is truly man. So I grant the Doctrin of à Resurrection from sin, of one God only to be most sound and Catholick, But here is your grand mistake and open fallacy with it. You seem to perswade the Reader, that because Hereticks agree so far with the Church, Therefore it is safe to deny what euer other Do­ctrin She maintains. Sr, She maintains the Truths now mentio­ned, yet not only Those But many more And herein there is no Agreement, consequently no good conclusion for you vpon any agreed Principle. For thus much only followes from thence, That so far as we Agree, so far true Doctrin is taught. Apply this to our present matter and all is plain. You and we agree thus far, that Saluation may be had in the Roman Catholick Religion. Most true. We dissent from you concerning the Charge of Supersti­tions An ather fallacy dis­couered. and gross Errours imposed on vs, from this you can infer no Conclusion against vs vpon the Principle of Agreement, now Supposed in the other Doctrin of Saluation, which goes on roundly without all contradiction. I would say. We agree about Salua­tion and that's à Truth; we differ in other points, here we must dispute vpon other Grounds, And lay that agreed on Principle aside, for immediatly it lead's in no conclusion in such matters.

31. Shall I now tell you where your whole Fallacy lies? It lurk's in that pretty Term, Safest, For you thought to infuse into it this Sense. So much Doctrin as we and Hereticks agree in, [Page 234] is only the Safest, But no more, As if we Catholicks held, what euer other Tenet is out of the compass of that agreed-on Doctrin im­plies both Vnsafety and Vncertainty. You grosly mistake. We hold euery other Point of Catholick Religion wherin you and we dissent wholly as Safe and certain, as That is we both agree in; For I tell you once more, our Safety and certainty depend not vpon any Hereticks consent. If then you would rack That Prin­ciple ( we and Arians agree) to this unto ward sense, So much Do­ctrin The Princi­ple of Agree­ment abused precisely is the safest we agree in, And no more, Or, That our maintaining that agreed-on Doctrin to be safe, excludes other Catholick verities from being So, Wee neither agree with the A­rian nor any other Heterodox, But utterly disclaim The Prin­ciple and consequently say, you can draw no Conclusion at all from it against vs. Sense the Principle and all is clear. Here­ticks and we agree, That Christ is man, That sense contains certain Doctrin. O, but the meaning may be; He is so purely man that he is not God. Giue it this sense, we agree not, but reject the Principle as Heretical, which therefore inferr's nothing like à conclusion against vs. All is contrary in the other agreed on Principle Concerning the Saluation of Catholicks, For that as I said now, Though it serue not immediatly to end other de­bates, touching Purgatory, Pra [...]ing to Saints &c. yet it drawes with it à long train of notable consequences. For if we may be saued, we haue true Faith in our Church, true Hope, true Chatity, true Repentance, And what euer is necessary to attain salua­tion.

CHAP. I.

1. THE first Principle. God whose eternal designe is to bring man to true Faith in this short pilgrimage, and after to endles Happines, af­ford's means to acquire both, And hath as Principles presupposed. well laid open the means whereby true Faith may be attained, As made our final End known.

2. The second Principle. Those want the means leading to the last happy End, who are Aliens from the true Church of Christ, or Separated from that Catholick Society. The Asser­tion is so plainly deliuered not only by most Ancient Fathers, But by the more learned Sectaries also, That it is needless to produce many Testimonies. S. Cyprian. Lib. de unitate Ecclesiae? Saith. Quisquis ab Ecclesia separatus est &c. Who euer is separated from the Church is ioyned to an Adulteress, And diuorced from all the Promisses of the Church. He comes not to the reward which Christ has promised who leaues the Church of Christ. He is an Alien, Prophane an Enemy, and cannot haue God for his Father, who hath not the Church for his Mother. S. Austin. lib. 4. de Symb. C. 13. Speaks fully this sense Citing those last words of Cyprian. And Lib. 4. de Baptis. C. 17. Saith. Out of the Church there is no Sal­uation. Yet more: Epist. 152. Whoeuer is or shall be separated from The Fathers Testimonies preduced. this Catholick Church, although he thinks himself to liue most lauda­bly, For this one wickednes alone, that he is disioyned from the vni­ty of Christ, shall haue no life, Sed ira Dei manet super eum, But the wrath of God remains vpon him. S. Fulgentius Lib. de [Page 242] fide ad Petrum. C. 39. Hold this most certain and no way doubt of it, That an Heretick or Schismatick baptized in the name of the Father of the Son and Holy Ghost, if he be not in Vnion with the Catholick Church, Although he giues neuer so great Alms, And shed his blood for Christ, yet he cannot be saued. I waue other excellent Authorities known to euery one versed in the Fathers, And need not to take more pains when Protestants themselues own the Doctrin. The Ark was à type of the Church, saith Perkins, in Symb. Colum: with me. 785. extra quam omnes interibant, out of which Ark All dyed, and all are damned who are out of the Church. Again In Caput. 9. ad Sectaries Consent. Galat. Those who are not members of the visible Church, are not members of the Catholick Church. Humfred. Ad Ration. 3. Campiani. We condemn all who are not aggregated to the visible. Church of God. Finally Caluin, the Master of Sectaries. Lib. 4. Institu. C. 1. 4. makes it absolutly necessary to be in vnion with Christs visible Church.

3. The ground of this Truth is so solidly laid down in Scrip­ture, that none can contradict it, For here the Church is called the Kingdom, the Body, the Inheritance of Christ, purchased at à dear The Ground of our Ca­tholick Truth rare, the effusion of his sacred blood, A Citty built vpon à Moun­tain. The House, the Temple of God, the Hierusalem, the Pillar and firmament of Faith, &c. Whereby it appears, That whoeuer is out of this Kingdom, out of this Citty, out of this house and Tem­ple of God; whoeuer is not à member of this Mystical body or shares not in this purchased Inheritance, or in à word out of the true Church (be it where you will, I yet define nothing) is in à damnable condition. A sad thought for all Sectaries, because it is certain, that Christ has not composed his Church of such Members as rightly belieue the reuealed Doctrin taught by the true Church, and of such as oppose it. Vnity and Diuision in Vnity and Diuision in Faith haue no place in the true Church. points of Faith ase inconsistent in the same Orthodox Church, and destroy the essential forme of it, which is one Faith. Now if our Aduersaries talk of à vnity in Fundamentals, they are not only euidently conuinced of Errour in the other Treatise, But vpon this very Account become Separaters from the Church, [Page 243] and without Principles Assert that which neither Church nor Scrip­ture teaches. Who euer hold's not the Catholick faith entire shall Perish eternally, saith S. Athanasius in his Creed, but an entire Belief excludes all distinction between fundamentals and others, as is ma­nifest. I little value some Protestants Glosses made vpon this Text, for Glosses with me are weightles, when they stand vnprinci­pled.

4. The 3. Principle. What the true Church of Christ teaches concerning the sense of Scripture, That's the sense intended by the Holy Ghost, and Consequently most true. The reason is. Truth cannot be contrary to truth, The Church and Scripture neuer Clash, But alwaies speak one and the same verity. This Sectaries must grant, who define the Church to be an Assembly of men professing the pure Word of God, Therefore it cannot deceiue or teach an Errour contrary to that pure word, Or if it doth so, it ceaseth, eo ipso, to be God's Oracle, And the true Church of Christ.

5. If these men still go on trifling with their wonted distin­ction, of Fundamentals, and not Fundamentals, And allow à Perfect vnity of Doctrin between the Church and Scripture in The Distin­ction be­tween Fun­damentals and others, friuolous. things absolutly necessary to Saluation, but not in others. This is to define, and not to define, to build and destroy, to teach and cheat in one breath, For à definition, which makes known the nature of à Thing, must stand in its open sense without restraint, and exactly agree to the thing defined. Mark now. Christs true Church is the Thing defined; and the Definition charged with endless restrictiue Terms, is drawn to Non-sense, fot it tells vs, the Church is an Assembly of men professing the pure Word of God, But how far? In à few simple Truths, called fundamentals, in others it may err, and profess as much falshood as you please against the Verities of Scripture, So that the true Church, not defined at all, is made by these, à fair and foul Spouse at once; fair in à few vnalterable necessary Truths, but foul, vgly, and deformed (because erroneous) in à hundred other matters. Mark the Paradox, and call it à flat Heresy, which separat's him who assert's it from the Catholick body. Thus it is. Christs Church is true, [Page 244] and falfe, pure and vnpure, right and wrong, louely and hateful together. The Inhabitants of this Citty of God, of this Tem­ple and safe dwelling place, are in it by belieuing à few simple Truths, And at the same time out of it, by belieuing more Falsities. This is Mr Stillingfleets strange Doctrin, who think's there is no Church now in the world of one Denomination free from Errour. To what desperate improbabilities doth Heresy driue men?

6. The 4. Principle. The receiued Doctrin of Christs Church, chiefly in all points of Controuersy is euer as clear, and often more clear, by what She teaches, than it is in any ex­press words of Scripture. The Assertion is vndubitable. For Church Doctrin clear in the Churches Definitions. who see's not, but that the whole Catholick Doctrin, of the sacred Trinity, of one God and three distinct Persons, of the Fa­ther improduced, the eternal Son begotten, and of the Holy Ghost proceeding from both, is more plainly deliuered in Church Doctrin, than in any sentence, or sentences of Holy Writ. The like I say of the high Godhead in Christ, which the Arians deny; Of Original sin, reiected by the Pelagians, and other Articles of our Christian faith. And thus much is euident against Sec­ctaries, for do not they make their own Doctrin, of their Caen [...] Not alwaies so inscriptu­re, as Secta­ries grant. or Sacrament, when they call it à Sign, à Figure &c. more plain than any words are for it, in Holy writ? And will they not also grant (T'is an Argument ad hominem) that our Catholick Tenet of this sacred Mystery, laid forth in the Council of Trent. Sess. 13. Can. 1. is more express and plain Popery than lies couched in Christs own words This is my body, Though the Popery is there clear enough to euery Reader? Yes most assuredly, For if our Doctrin stand as plain in Christs words, as in the Chur­ches Definition drawn from thence, Sectaries cannot (as they do) admit of the one and scornfully reiect the other. There­fore they must suppose Scripture more dark and obscure, than either their own, or our Churches Doctrin is. And hence it followes that the very Arians were not so much Hereticks vpon the account, that they opposed any most clear and express [Page 245] sentence in Holy writ (for really it's hard to find one manifestly express against them), as for contradicting plain Church Doctrin, or the true sense of Scripture deliuered by this Oracle of truth. Their Heresy then proceeded first from some words in Scripture seemingly clear in their behalf, as, My Father is greater than 1. 2. From no Text so manifest, but that still place was left them to Why the Arians were accounted Heretiques. Glosse as they haue done, and in their Iudgements with some appearrance of truth, yet Hereticks they were and so deserue­dly accounted of, for contradicting the Church's clear Doctrin. Be it how you will, thus much I am sure of, They neuer man­gled or misused any passage in holy Writ, when contrary to their Heresy more shamfully, than our Protestants now mangle and abuse our Sauiours Proposition. This is my body.

7. By all you see this Principle well grounded. Whateuer Clarity Scripture hath chiefly in Matters of controuersy (and clarity helps much in the Rule of Faith) Gods true Church, which cannot but speak the Scriptures sense, in euery particular, deliuers it most clearly, Wherefore S. Austin told Manicheus, Tom: 6. contra Epist: Fundam. C. 14. That if hee was to belieue the obscure Mysteries of Christianity, Hee would assent to them vpon the weighty Au­thority of People and Nations celebrated and spread abroad, By the consent of all learned, and vnlearned, which consent implies the vniuersal Agreement of the Catholick Church, And to esta­blish this Doctrin more firmly, He assures vs. Tract. 18. in Ioan: That all Heresy which intangles souls and cast's them into Hell, S. Austins Iudgement concerning. Scripture. proceed's from this one misery, that Good Scripture is not rightly vnderstood by them. Hence also Hee told vs aboue, Lib. 1. contra Crescon. C. 32. That if any doubt arise concerning the ob­scurity of Scripture we are to haue recourse to Christs holy Church, and receiue from Her satisfaction. To which purpose, S. Cyprian speaks most piously. Lib. de Vnit: Ecclesiae. illius lacté nutrimur Spiritu eius animamur, adulterari non potest sponsa Christi. We are nourished by the milk, we are animated by the Spirit of this faithful Spouse of Christ, which cannot play the Harlot, or be­come an Adulteress.

[Page 246]8. The last Principle. The Rule of Faith is plain, or its own Self-euidence, apt of its own nature to conuince the most obstinate Aduersary, whether Iew, Gentil or Heretick, And for this reason must be immediatly credible by it Self, and for it self, otherwise it must suppose an other distinct Rule yet more plain, more euident, more conuincing and more immediatly cre­dible, And that Rule à third, à fourth, And so in infinitum, which is impossible. Again, the Obiectiue Rule we Shall now speak of, Answer's to the thing regulated by it, which is true, certain, and Diuine Faith. This Rule then must not only be true, and certain in it self, but also certainly applyed to Belieuers, For à cer­tain What the Rule of Faith im­plies? Rule in it self dubiously applyed to an vnderstanding, auail's only to leaue all in Suspence and lead's none to any further Acqui­escency, but to à wauering and vncertain Opinion, And this is neither suitable to firm Belief, nor to the Rule it self, which ought to establish vs in Gods reuealed truths, without doubt and hesitancy. Grant this Notion of à Rule to be exact (and none shall iustly except against it) All we haue said aboue of the Scrip­tures Insufficiency, to regulate Faith, or to decide controuersies, is no less than à Demonstration against Sectaries, Whereof see more in the other Treatise? Disc. 2. per totum. Scripture Certainly is not plain in all things necessary to be belieued, for were the true sense of it (which indeed is only Scripture) as plain and indisputably clear for the Arians, or Protestants in euery particular controuersy, as their Doctrin is plainly deliuered by them; Or contrariwise; were the sense of it as plain and indis­putably clear for the Catholick Doctrin in Matters of debate, as the very Doctrin is taught by the Church, All Contention would soon cease, because either They, vpon the Supposition, must become Papists, or wee turn Arians and Protestants, Or finally be forced to deny plain Scripture. A most conuincing Argument.

9. The difficulty therefore is not (and Sectaries seldom touch­it) whether Scripture be true, were the sense known or out of Controuersy, but what that true sense is, which lies in obscurity, and cannot be known, without à certain Interpreter. Here is [Page 247] the only Question debated between vs and Sectaries. One may The only difficulty concerning Scripture. Reply. It is no good obiection to say learned men differ about the sense of Scripture, Ergo it is not sufficiently plain, because à great wit may wrest the plainest words God euer spake to à sini­ster sense. Contra. 1. But who knowes, when two learned Par­ties contest in this Matter, which of them is the sinister Wrester? Contra 2. When à whole Society of men as the Arians were, and Protestants are now, Tamper with à Text, which touches an essential point of Faith, And dissent from others as learned as Themselues about the meaning, The sense cannot be supposed more clear for the one than the other, without an other Rule certain and Definitiue. Pray you say. Is the sense of those words. My Father is greater than I, indisputably clear for the Arian? Or the sense of Christs words. This is my Body without controuersy clear for the Protestants Doctrin concerning the Sacrament, when à whole learned Church opposeth both? Euidently No. There­fore Sectaries must ack­nowledge an Obscurity in Scripture. our Nouellists must grant, that Scripture is not only obscure, in these two places, But more; That à Iudge is necessary to ascertain all of its true meaning, as well in these, as in à hun­dred other Passages. Again, if Scripture want this clarity, it cannot be its own Self-euidence, much less conuince an obdurate Aduersary. Nay I say, though it were clear and the sense thereof agreed on by all called Christians, yet both Iewes and Gentils scorn the Diuinity of the book, And say if't be of Diuine inspi­ration, That must be proued by à certain Rule extrinsecal to Scrip­ture, Therefore it is not immediatly credible by it self, or for it self. Lastly were Scripture plain in it self, yet (And this vtterly ruin's Sectaries) The certain Doctrin of it, can neuer be applyed indu­bitably to any vnderstanding, For our Nouellists say, because all Teachers of Christian Doctrin are fallible, none can make an in­fallible Application of it to any, or teaeh that Doctrin infallibly, which is in it self infallible. See more hereof in the other Treatise. Disc: 1. C. 2. and C. 4. N. S.

CHAP. II.

1. THe true Church of Christ in this present State mani­festly demonstrable by signal Marks and Motiues, is the only plain, certain, Self-euident Rule of Faith, apt to conuince the most obdurate: Vnbelieuer. It is immediatly credible, and the Doctrin of it certainly applyed to à Seeker after truth. These Assertions stand firm vpon 3. Principles.

2. 1. Christ Iesus has prouided Christians of à clear and easy Rule, otherwise All are left in darknes, and know not what, or how to belieue.

3. 2. Nothing assigned by Sectaries, Bee it Scripture solely, or what els Imaginable, Carries so much as à weak probability of being à Rule so plain, easy, and satisfactory as the true Church is.

4. 3. All the properties of à Rule exactly agree to the Church of Christ and to Her only. 1. The Rule of Faith is plain, Christs Church is the Rule of Faith. so is Church Doctrin and much more plain than Scripture; I mean, we easily vnderstand what the Church teaches though the Doctrin in it self be difficult. 2. A Rule is its own Self-euiden­ce, so the Church is, taken with the Marks, and Motiues whereby She is demonstrated. 3. A Rule is apt to conuince, the most obstinate Aduersaries; Christs Church has euidently don so, wit­ness the innumerable Conuersions wrought by Her vpon Iewes, [Page 249] Gentils, and most obdurate Hereticks. 4. A Rule must be cer­tain, and certainly applyed to Belieuers; what Christs true Church teaches is so, for She is Gods own Oracle, as shall be proued here­after, and teaches her Children infallibly. The Truth of these particulars will be more fully laid forth in the sequele of this Discourse. In the mean while, two things are to be cleared. The first, what we vnderstand by the Church of Christ. 2. How and by what means She may be known? Thus much done, we shall easily find out those Christians, who are Members of this happy Society, or essentially constitute that visible moral Body, called the Holy Catholick Church. What is meant by the Church.

5. Concerning the first. We speak plainly, and vnderstand by the Church à visible Society of true Belieuers, vnited in one profession of Christian Faith and the communication of Sacra­ments, vnder the Conduct and Gouerment of Christ's lawful Commissioned Pastors. I say no more yet, hoping no Sectary can iustly quarrel with the Notion of à Church, expressed in such general Terms, And therefore waue at present that other worn-out controuersy agitated by Protestants. viz. Whether the Predestinate only make vp the true Church, or great Sinners also may be included, That is not at all to our purpose now, when we only seek after à Society of Christians vnited in the true Faith of Jesus Christ, who owne à due submission to lawful Commissioned Pastors, whether those who teach, or are taught, be Saints, or sin­ners, concerns them, t'is true, but not our present Question. Of such Belieuers there cannot be two or more Churches, but one only; And to auoid all confusion, or the mingling of different Questions together, we here moue no doubt concerning the Head, The mea­ning of the question proposed. or chief Authority of this Church, but immediattly Ask, whether there is now, and has euer been, since Christs time, à visible diffu­sed Society of Christians, who haue faithfully belieued the Ortho­dox Doctrin of Christ, and vpon that Account well merit to be called the Professors of the true Catholick Church? Of this Vniuersal spread Society our Sauiour spake most clearly, or of none. Hell gates Can not preuail against it. The Spirit of Truth abides with [Page 250] it to the end of the world &c. I think no Sectary will deny such à Church.

6. The only difficulty now is to find out this Orthodox and large diffused Body of Christians, vnited in one true Faith, and the sincere Worship of God. And nothing is more consonant to reason, more express in Holy Writ, or more clearly asserted by the ancient Fathers than that the true Church laies forth Her own euidence or clear Discernibility whereby She is distinguished from all Heretical Sects, That is, She lies manifestly open to all eyes, and Cannot but bee most easily known. She is à Ci [...]y built vpon à mountain: The light of the world: A Tabernacle placed i [...] the sun. Ipsa est Ecclesia saith S. Austin Epist: 166. In sole posita. The Church is placed in the sun, Hoc est in manifestatione omnibus no [...]a vsque ad terminos terrae, That is, She is known by Her own apparent and manifest Euidence all the whole world ouer. And because no one Father touches this point with greater Energy than S. Austin, Hear yet more. Tract: 1. m. 1. Ioan: Possumus digito &c. S. Austins Iudgement concerning The Chur­ches Eui­dence. we can point at the Church and demonstrate it with à finger, and They are blind who see it not. Lib. 2. contra Crescon: Cap. 36. Extat Ecclesia. The Church is in Being apparently clear and con­spicuous to all. Again, Lib: 2. Contra Petil: C. 32. Neminem la­tet verae Ecclesia. The Church of Christ lies hid to none. And Lib: Contra crescon: C. 63. The Church so clearly presents it self to all sort of men euen to Infidels, that it stopp's the mouths of Pagans &c. See also this great Doctor, pondering those words of the. 30. Psalm. Qui videbant me foras fugerunt &c. Obscurius, faith Hee, dixerunt Prophetae de Christo, quam de Ecclesiâ &c. The Prophets haue spoken more darkly of Christ, than of the Church, And I think this was done, because they saw in spirit, that men would make Par­ties against the Church, and not contend so much concerning Christ ready to contend about the Church. Christ almost euery where was preached, by the Prophets in some hidden or couered Mystery, Ecclesia apertè, but the Church was pointed at so clearly that all might see it, and those also who were to bee against it. I waue other Authorities, for t'is tedious to proue à Manifest Truth, or here [Page 251] to transcribe plainer Testimonies relating to this subiect. Thus much premised.

7. I say first. Though Church Doctrin be more clearly ex­pressed by the Church chiefly in all Matters of Controuersy, than in Scripture; For example: you know the Church deliuers the An Asser­tion concer­ning Church Doctrin. Consubstantiallity of the eternal Son, with greater clarity than Scrip­ture expresseth that Truth, Yet no man can proue to reason this clearer Doctrin to be immediatly true, vpon this sole ground, (Mark my precise words) that the Church teaches it. My meaning is. The Church yet not manifested to bee God's Oracle by marks extrinsecal to its Doctrin, leaues Reason so in suspence that it Cannot say. This is the Oracle which teaches Truth, or, that the Doctrin of this not yet euidenced Society is Diuine, and Ortho­dox. The Assertion is so amply proued aboue that it is needles to press the Arguments further in this place. All I say now, is, that we discourse in like manner of Scripture and Church Doctrin precisely considered as Essential Doctrin, not yet made Credible by The Doctrin of Scripture, or The Church, not Proued true by Saying its true. signes and Motiues. As therefore the Verities of Scripture, are not known to be Diuine Ex terminis, because I read them in that Ho­ly book, But must haue them proued Diuine vpon à certain Prin­ciple distinct from Scripture, So the Verities of the Church are not known Ex terminis to be certain, before I proue the Church by Clear Motiues to be the Oracle of Truth whereby God speaks to Christians. what I Assert is euident in Christ our Lord and his Apostles, when they first began to preach, For neither Iew, nor Gentil belieued that Sacred Doctrin vpon their bare prea­ching, Nay, It scandalized the one, and seemed à foolery to the other, But when they saw it confirmed by Euident Signes and Wonders, by eminent Sanctity of life, by vndeniable Miracles, and other Signal marks which the Author of Religion laid open to Reason, Both Iewes and Gentils, were gained, moued to be­lieue by Such Inducements no less prudent than forceably perswa­siue.

8. The reason of all à Priori giuen aboue, euinces thus much: None can indubitably and immediatly own the Doctrin of either [Page 252] Church, or Scripture as true and Orthodox but by one of these two means. Either the light of natural Reason discouers that Truth, Or it must be known by Faith. Reason alone, too weak to comprehend the Sublime Mysteries reuealed in Holy writ or taught by the Church, boggles at all, And, left to it self, reiects The reason of our Asser­tion. at least the harder Mysteries, as is manifest in both Iewes, and Gentils. Now to know them by obscure Faith is wholly im­possible, vnless one haue sufficient Assurance before hand, groun­ded on other prudent extrinsecal Principles, That both Scripture, and the Church teach Diuine, and certain Doctrin. To know thus much, the Rational man must discourse And in this present state of things, first find out the Church, by her Marks, and Signes visible to all. If reason complies not with this duty, the Faith we draw from thence is no Faith, but, à precipitous foolish Credulity. For who can prudently assent to the high Mysteries of Christianity, vnlesse Reason first see it is prudent to do so? This is what the Apostle deliuer's in few but most pithy words. Scio cui credidi, & certus sum. That is, I first know why I am to belieue by Reason, and then stedfastly belieue without fur­ther reasoning. But enough of this in the Chapter cited aboue.

9. The. 2. Proposition. If the Doctrin of Christ's Church precisely considered according to its Essence, bee not ex exterminis manifestly true, or proues not immediatly that the Church is Orthodox vpon Her own meer saying that She teaches Truth; It is euident, She must be proued Gods Oracle by Motiues, ex­trinsecal to Her Doctrin. Now these Motiues purely conside­red as Inducements to belieue, are not Articles of Faith, but sensible, reasonable, and of such weight, that they powerfully incline euery The Church▪ first proued Orthodox by rational Motiues. well disposed vnderstanding to this rational assent. As God ancient­ly spake by Moses, by Christ, and his Apostles, So he now also speak's by his own true Church, And lead's men vnder her safe Conduct to Saluation.

10. The ground of my Assertion, is no less euident, than the very Position it selfe. First, Christ himself neuer proued his Doc­trin [Page 253] true by meerly saying it was so, but confirmed it by signes and wonders which made it immediatly credible as is sayd already, So also did his Apostles, And so doth the true Church to this day. 2. Vnless Christians haue those prudent Inducements pre­uiously applied to reason before they belieue the Holy Catho­lick Church, The wise prouidence of God must be supposed so neglectiue, as not to let men know after à prudent and diligent search, which or where his true Church is, Though Scripture Compares it to à glorious Sun, most visible to all And the Fa­thers say, they are blind that see it not. 3. All those Millions of Christians who belieued the true Church, who liued and dyed happily in it, (innumerable shed their blood for the verities of it) were not à People mad nor besotted vpon this Account, becau­se As the Pri­mitiue Christians more indu­ced to belie­ue, so are wee. They proceeded iust as the Primitiue Christians did, that al­waies belieued vpon Rational Motiues. These Motiues then first enlightned the reason of the most ancient Christians, And reason afterward preuented by grace, submitted to all the Church teaches. But much more of this hereafter, because of greatest Consequence, though it seem's Sectaries haue little regard to the Euidence of Christianity Drawn from rational Motiues.

11. The. 3. Proposition. The Marks of Christs Church manifest to all, are more sensible and clear than the essential Doc­trin is, marked by them; They are peculiar to the true Church only, and distinguish Her from all Heretical Communities; Fi­nally taken all together, and not by Piece-meal, conuince this truth. That God speaks to Christians by this Church. Euery part of the Proposition proues it self. First à Mark is more clear and sensible than the thing marked by it, For, who euer had seen our Blessed Sauiour walking here on earth, and obserued his holy life, whoeuer had heard his sacred words, and seen his Mi­racles would haue said, his Sanctity, words, and Miracles, were more clear and euident to all, than his Doctrin was of being God and man. Therefore the first Christians belieued that great My­stery induced by euident works, and wonders. 2. These Marks are peculiar and proper to the true Church only. You haue [Page 254] the reason hereof in the other Treatise. Disc. 1. C. 8. 1 [...]3. The force of prudent Motiues. Because it is not possible, if à true Church be now on earth that God can permit à false Society to equalize it, much less to surpass it in the lustre of such Motiues as forcibly perswade to discern between That, and all heretical Communities, For were this done, Falshood would be made as credible to reason, as truth, And God would be guilty of Arguing less efficaciously in behalf of his own Church, against Iewes, Gentils, and obstinate Here­ticks.

12. Obserue well the Strength of this Argument. I say in à word. If an Arian could truly Assert: I haue as many forceable Motiues, And marks of truth belonging to my followers and Doc­trin, As the now supposed true Church of Christ can shew for it self, could he say with truth I will euidence the like Anti­quity, the like Perpetuity, the like lawful Mission of my Pastors, the like vnity in Faith, the like conuersions of Heathens, wrought in and by my Church, The like succession of Bishops prea­ching my Doctrin from Christs time to this day, The like san­ctity, the like miracles, as any Church on earth can demonstrate: They distin­guish the true Church from false Communi­ties. Could an Arian, I say, (or Iew either) speak all this with truth, no Orthodox Christian could argue the one or other of Falshood in Doctrin: For grant thus much, These very men might much better handle and interpret Scripture than Protestants do, vtterly destitute of all such Marks. The Iew, if the false supposition stand would draw the old Testament to his sense, and so would the Arian the new; And who could reproue them could they shew you à Church bearing these signes of diuine Authority? Hence, Sectaries that only Gloss Scripture, and neuer had any thing like an euidenced Church which taught the Doctrin they now maintain, and so earnestly Gloss for, are most reproueable, And vainly attempt to draw any prudent man to à belief of their No­uelties.

13. By all you see how important it is to haue à Christian So­ciety clearly marked, and distinguished from false Communities, with euident Signes, and rational Motiues before we recurr to [Page 255] Scripture. All faith depends on this greater Euidence laid forth to reason, as Shall be demonstrated towards the end of this Dis­course.

14. I would haue euery one seriously to reflect on what is now said, and once more to know, That Christs Church like à glorious Sun euidenceth Her selfe by the Lustre of signal Marks, though her essential Doctrin belieued by obscure Faith, appear's not Euident. Find me then out à Church euer in being since Christs time, vnited in one Faith, glorious in Miracles and conuersions of Heathens, wherein Bishops and Pastors lawfully sent, haue preached Christs Doctrin age after age; Giue me à Church which was neuer censured or taxed of Errour by any Society of known Orthodox Christians, She, and She only, is Christ's true Spouse, All other late risen Assemblies, are Conuenticles of Satan; And these Marks do not only distinguish Her from all One only Church Shewes these Marks. such Conuenticles, as is now noted, but Collectiuely taken conuince this Truth, That God speak's to Christians by this Oracle, whe­reof you haue more in the following Chapters.

15. In the Interim we must enter vpon à further difficulty and next enquire, which among so many Congregations as now are and haue been in the world, is the only manifested true Spouse of Christ? For all, as I said aboue, make not one Church vnless Christ hath composed this mystical Body of such members as rightly belieue, and of others that iniuriously oppose his sacred Doctrin. Now because the chief controuersy is between the Pro­testant and Catholick, The first pretend's to à Church which teaches Christs Doctrin; The Catholick vtterly denies the Pre­tence and pleads for his Own Oracle euidenced by prudent Moti­ues. This I say being the Contest, we are in the first place, to vnchurch the Protestant, and then proue by vndeniable Argu­ments, where and with whom the true Church of Christ is.

CHAP. III.

1. THe Marks of the Church, as is now said, are so clear to reason, that they make the Oracle manifest to all sort of people, to the learned and vnlearned, to Iewes, to Infidels, and much more to Hereticks who pretend to belieue in Christ. All of them are alike concerned, and obliged to make à search after the true Church, and when t'is found to belieue it.

2. Now to find it out, I Ask, whether our English Pro­testants (with these we chiefly dispute) like well of the marks Questions Proposed to Sectaries. already hinted at, or will reiect them? I propose my doubt with all candor. Will they dare to say That their Church, as it deliuers Protestants Doctrin, or, as it is now reformed in England, was euer since Christ time In Being, and visible to the world? Can they produce à Succession of Bishops, or Pastors, that taught Protestancy Age after Age, without intermission? Can they show what Conuersions these Protestant Pastors wrought vpon Heathens to their faith, fiue or six Centuries since? Can they produce, in­dubitable Miracles, done by such Pastors? Most euidently No. Therefore our later Protestants reiect these, and the other like Motiues, as slight and impertinent, to euidence their Church (which yet say they, teaches Christs Doctrin) and Wilily do so, because they haue none of them. Well. To leaue them without excuse, to silence them for euer; Here is an vn answerable Dilemma. Either the marks now kinted at are admitted or, reiected. Sup­pose them owned as clear cognisances of the true Church, or of Her Orthodox Doctrin, we most justly urge Protestants to proue, [Page 257] what I know will neuer be made probable. Viz. To shew That they had à Church three or four Ages since inuested in the signes, and marks, now mentioned. On the other side, if which is usual, such marks be slighted as unmeet to manifest the true Church, it must bee granted, They haue no euidenced Church, and Consequently no true Doctrin with it. Hence I Argue, Who euer belieues, in an uneuidenced Church, desti­tue of all Signes and marks of truth, belieues in no true Church; The Protestant belieues in such an vneuidenced Church, There­fore he belieues in no Church: But he who belieues in no Church belieues à Doctrin more than improbable, or absolutely false, And this is fancy or worse than fancy.

3. What answer think ye do Sectaries return to this Argu­ment? They return no probable Answer. A strange one indeed. They tell vs the only Mark of the Church lies not in any external Notes, but appear's in the written word of God, and the Purity of Scripture. So Alstedius. Lib. de notis Ecclesia C. 29. Whitaker Contro. 2. 9. 5. C, 17. and Mr Stillingfleet here and there, seem's well pleased with the fancy. Contra. 1. The Church had her Marks besore Scrip­ture was written, what euer sensible Signes Then distinguished 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 obscured, the exteriour lustre of those Signes, or prudent Motiues. Contra. 2. A Mark which makes an obscure thing known is euer more clear and sensible, than that is which is marked by it. The Church▪ Say Sectaries, The Church more clearly manifested than Scrip­ture. is obscure and must be first known by Diuine Scripture, But this very Diuinity of Scripture, is more obscure than the Church (For it is not its own Self-euidence, nor known ex terminis to be Diuine) Therefore vnless this Diuinity be made manifest by an other light, it cannot giue to all the first notice of the Church, which appeares More clearly to sense and reason, by its own Signes, than Scripture doth.

4. Hence it followes. 1. That, Scripture, which should first mark out the Church, cannot do it; being more obfcure [Page 258] than the thing marked by it. It followes. 2. That the Church thus marked, is its own Self-euidence, not Farther demonstrable to Reason. Who euer therefore depriues the Church of her ex­ternal Motiues, or takes from her the glory of Miracles, of Antiquity, Conuersions, &c. Shall long grope in the dark, before Hee find's either Church, or Scripture, You will say. Scripture known by the vniuersal Tradition of Christians, may well mark out and first discouer the true Church, Tradition being à thing most known, and Sensible to all. Contra. This very Tradition either supposes à Church signalized with other Of what weight pleading Tradition is rational Motiues, or excludes them; And imports no more but the bare Consent of Christians, that accept of Scripture as Gods Diuine word. Grant the first; we haue all that's wished. Plead only by the Second, or tell à Heathen (who may be gained to be­lieue the Church) That all Christians vniuersally own Scripture as Diuine, and mention nothing of Miracles or other Motiues manifest in the Church, He will soon reply. The Chineses haue also vniuersal Tradition or à general consent of à People largely diffused for their Bible; The Turks haue it for their Alco­ran, yet such à Tradition alone is no Mark of God's word or the true Church. Why then should it be à mark to Christians, if no more be said?

5. And the Heathen easily makes his Plea good by this con­uincing Reason à Priori. Before this vniuersal Tradition was, before you so many Christians agreed in the Belief of your Bi­ble, the Doctrin Thereof was made credible vpon other Motiues, These Motiues are not now extinguished, or of lesser account because you haue agreed on the Scriptures Diuinity; Nay they The Heathēs exceptions against Tra­dition only. must be presupposed to haue been before you agreed, For this Agreement is not the cause of the Bibles credibility, but an effect of the same. That is. Therefore so many. Christians haue agreed by à vni­uersal Consent, that Scripture is Gods word, because it was made credi­ble to Reason Antecedently, to an Agreement so vniuersal, But the ground of this Agreement was no other but the Authority of the Orthodox Church gloriously euidenced, by the Lustre of [Page 259] her Signes and Motiues &c. This Principle alone, vtterly ruins Mr: Stillingfleets Resolution of Faith, as shall be made clear in an other place.

6. Again saith the Heathen, you Protestants discours not probably, you iust proceed as one doth who laies Colours be­fore à blind man and bid's him iudge of them. You say, that both I and Iewes are blind, and cannot discouer the light which lies in the Scriptures Diuinity. If this be so, how can you ima­gin that I may find out the true Church by the light of Scrip­ture (though admitted vpon Tradition) which I can no more look on than an owle on the Sun, at Noon-day? Neither will it help you at all, if you Say. Scripture interpreted both Mark's, and manifest's the true Church, For I must first know that Scripture is Diuine, before I giue credit to any Interpreter, And though I were ascertained of that Diuinity, yet I am still to seek whether your Interpretation, or the Arians be better, and this I cannot know without à sure Rule extrinsick to Scripture, And all fallible Interpretation. Yet the Heathen hath not done, but pinches the Protestant shrewdly. Admit, saith he, that Scripture Mark's out the Church, and giues vs the first Euidence of it, when it tells vs. The Church is à Citty built vpon à Mountain, and founded on à Rock, That all Nations shall flock to it. That Christ will be with it to the end of the world; That it euer had, and will haue Pastors, Visi­ble, He clearly conuinces Sectaries. and audible, till we all meet in one Vnity of Faith. That it is the Pillar, and ground of Truth &c. Can you, my good Protestants, show me such à Church belonging to you three or four Ages since when, you had not one single man in the world professing your Protestant Religion? Where was then your Protestant Citty visible on à Mountain? What Rock stood it on in those daies, when it was not in being? What Nations, what Iewes what Gentils did it then conuert to your Nouelties? How was Christ then with it, and taught it all Truth, when there was no such Church to learn his Doctrin? Giue me à Catologue, of your Visible Pastors at that time, or tell me how your Church was then à Pillar, an Oracle of truth, whilst all it teaches now is falli­ble, and may be false?

[Page 260] 7. Hence I argue. What Scripture saith is true; Scripture here speaks of à Church founded by Christ, of an Ancient, Visi­ble An Argu­ment drawn from what is now said. Society, of Her perpetual Pastors without interruption, of à Church conuerting Nations &c. Therefore it speak's Truth, and points at à sure Oracle marked with the notes we plead for, who euer then admit's Scripture, must ioyntly own these Marks and Signatures of the true Church, But yee Sectaries admit Scripture and haue no such Marked Church, with Antiquity, continuance of Pastors &c. Ergo you are not members of the true Church, which must necessarily be found in some other Society of Chri­stians.

8. Here by the way, we must preuent à triuial Obiection; For some less knowing Aduersary may reply. Wee destroy our own Ground, and now proue the Marks of the Church by Scriptu­re, whereas we suppose the Scripture first proued to be of Diuine Inspiration, because the Church manifested by her Marks and Motiues saith so.

9. I Answer we proue the Marks of the Church, and the Form of her essential Doctrin also by Scripture, But how? Vpon à Supposition, that the Book be first proued Diuine by Church Authority, Thus much done, it is an excellent Principle, But not Primum indemonstrabile, its own Self-Euidence, Or first inde­monstrable Principle. This Truth is clear, For no man goes about to conuert à Iew by alleging Passages out of the new Testa­ment, or to draw à Heathen to Christianity by any thing written either in the old, or new Scripture. As therefore that Scripture not the first in demonstrable Principle. man would not be well in his wits, who hopes to conuert à Pro­testant, by meerly alleging the Definitions of the Council of Trent which he slights, so he would be as sensles, did he hope to conuert à Heathen by Scripture only, as much vnderualued by him, as the present Definitions of the Church are by Prote­stants. Hence you see how Scripture is à Principle against Sec­taries, who admit it, and reiect an infallible Church. By Scrip­ture we Argue and conuince them of errour, might the words Thereof bear their proper sense without fancied Glosses, Yet if [Page 261] we make à right Analysis it is not the first indemonstrable Princi­ple, but, Per Modum suppositionis only, that is, it must be either sup­posed or proued Diuine.

10. I say yet more. Though both the Iew, and Heathen, owned Scripture as it truly is, à Book indited by the Holy Ghost, Though it were so there yet remains à difficulty not to bee solued. yet they haue but made one step, as it were, towards Christia­nity, For when such men look well about them, and find Scrip­ture differently sensed by so many iarring Heads as haue it in their hands, by Arians, Socinians, Quakers, Protestants, &c. (Catholicks dissent from them all) where can, I beseech you, these half Chri­stians, whether Iewes, or Heathens securely rest? With whom can they rationally vnite Themselues? whose sense must they belieue and own as the vndoubted meaning of the Holy Ghost? To doe any thing prudently in so weighty à Matter is impossi­ble, Vnless they first come to the knowledge of Christs true Church, which as well Ascertain's them of the Scriptures sense in all Controuerted points of Faith, as it doth, of the Book's Diuinity. Now further. It is not possible to know the true sense of Scripture but by the Church; it is not possible to know the Church, but by her Marks, (the essential Doctrin Thereof no more mark's it self as true, than Scripture Doctrin denotes its own Diuinity) The Sectary therefore that rob's the Church of her Marks and the external Glory of Miracles, Conuersions, Perpetuity &c. is guilty of three hainous crimes at once.

11. First he makes the Conuersion of à Iew to Christianity Sectaries make the Conuersion of Iewes▪ impossible. most impossible. I'le show you how. The Iew Admit's of the old Testament and drawes from euery passage which speak's of Christ and the Church, à Sense quite different from that which Christians own. The Protestant admit's both the Old and New Scripture, And as we may Suppose, is at à hot dispute with à Iew concerning Christian Religion. First saith the Iew, Lay, Sir, your New Testament aside, which is no Principle▪ with me, Be­cause it neither euidences it Self immediatly to be Gods word, nor can you proue it Diuine vpon any sure ground extrinsecal to the Book. Therefore we must Argue by à Principle common [Page 262] to vs both, The old Testament only. You read There, I read also, You know the Original language, so do I, You compare Text with Text, I doe the like, You Gloss, and I Gloss against you, Yet after all is done, you draw one sense out of this very Scripture, and would proue Christ to be the true Messias, I draw from thence an other quite Contrary, And say He is not. My demand is, whether Christ, The Asser­tion, proued. whom you Adore, hath prouided men of better means (Than your Glosses and mine are) whereby we may certainly know what the sense of this Scripture is? If he haue done so, it can be nothing but à Church manifested by Supernatural Signes and miracles, (for God now teaches none by Angels or Enthusiasms) if the guidance of à Church be wanting we are all left in darkness, And know not what Sense to make of Scripture; and this ill be­seems the Goodnes of à Sauiour, who, as you say, came to enligh­ten the world and teach all truth, which is not done, For he leaues Reason in Darkness and Teaches not where his true Church is. It may well be the Protestant will except against his Aduersa­ries Glosses, but He is soon silenced, for Saith the Iew, you, good man, when you treat with Papists interpret Scripture as you please, and why may not I proceed so with you, And vse the like liberty?

12. The second crime committed by the Protestant, who de­priues the Church of Her external Signes, is, that he Eclipses that great light of the world (which as Origen saith shines to all) And make it as Obscure, as some Protestants make their Church inuisible before Luther. What I say is certain, For no man can find the Church by reason, when all rational Motiues are What Secta­ries are guil­ty of. taken from it, And held impertinent to illustrate that great moral Body. Hence you see the third sin of Sectaries relating to Scrip­ture. This Book also loseth all credit with Christians, because it Euidenceth not its own Diuinity, nor can any Signalised Church tell vs, it is Diuine, or certainly declare the true sense thereof, to either learned or vnlearned.

13. My last argument against the Protestant is no Topick, nor bare Probability, but à plain Demonstration. The Title saith; [Page 263] This reformed man has no Christian Doctrin made credible to The last conuincing Argument. Reason, whilst he belieues as Protestant. To proue the Assertion, Three Principles are here Supposed. First, that the Markes of the Protestant Church or of its Doctrin lie (as these men will haue it) in the Purity of Scripture only. 2. That their Church Doctrin is either contained in the 39. Articles, or implies so much as all called Christians Belieue, and no more, Though plain He­reticks in many particular Tenets. 3. That this Protestant Com­munity as it Teaches, is either the whole Church of Christ exclu­ding other Societies, or only à Part of the vniuersal Church. These Principles Supposed, you haue my Demonstration.

14. Scripture Marks the true Doctrin of Christs Church, but it neither mentioneth nor marks out the Doctrin contained in the 39 Articles, for our newer men call these inferiour Truths only, And hold them not Registred in God's word. Neither doth it Assert so much as darkly, that à Mixture of Truth, and Fal­shood, (such as all Hereticks haue owned and do own) is the Doctrin of the true Catholick Church; Least of all, That à Doctrin common to Arians, Protestants, and Catholicks, is suf­ficient Scripture disowns. Protestancy. to Saluation. Lastly, it saith no where, that the Protestant Church containing that reformed Doctrin, is by it Self the whole true Church of Christ excluding all other Societies, nor so much as à Part of it, And this I proue.

15 If as reformed, it be à Part of the true Catholick Church, the Professors of it haue now, and had before Luther some Partners who ioyn'd with them in the belief of their reformed Doctrin, But before Luther, they had not one sole man in the world that belieued as they belieue, and so wanted fellowship, because, neither they, nor their Partners were at all in Being: Now at this instant, they haue no Society of men, called à Church, (run ouer all the world) which side's with them, or hold's either the. 39. Articles, or à Doctrin common to all Christians, to be the true Doctrin of Christ, or of his vniuersal Church. All this I say is euident. And.

16. Hence you see, in what plight these men are, who pre­tend [Page 264] to à Church marked and made euident by Scripture, and A clear inference against Sectaries. when they haue that sacred Book in their hands, it is impossible to find so much as one Sentence or syllable in behalfe of Pro­testancy. Those other exteriour Signes of Conuersions, Mira­cles, Antiquity &c. are of no Account with them, And were they otherwise, most euidently they belong not to the reformed Doctrin of the English Church. Here is à piece of sad ne­wes for Sectaries, who haue à Church neither Spoken of in Scrip­ture, nor manifested to Reason by one Supernatural wonder. So vneuidenced à Thing it is, And Consequently vpon à double Account, no Church at all.

17. The Sectary may reply. When he Asserts Scripture Marks the true Church or Her Doctrin, the meaning is not that it speak's expresly the Tenets of Protestants, but only Saies, it is à sufficient Repository of all things necessary to Saluation, and deliuers so much plainly. What euer therefore is not plain­ly taught in scripture ceaseth to be necessary. Contra. 1. Pro­testants A Reply Answered. granting thus much, may seek long before they find Their particular Tenets, because Scripture deliuers none of them either expresly, or by any clear Deduction. Contra. 2. The Iew and Heathen regard not the plainest Truths in Holy Writ before the book be proued Diuine, The most plain Verities auaile nothing with them, Yet God hath afforded means to draw them to Christianity. But it seem's our Sectaries in all their talk of the Scriptures clarity, neuer reflect on these Strangers from Christ, nor point at the means whereby their Conuersion may bee wrought. Contra. 3. The Arian and the Orthodox as highly differ about the sense of plain Scripture, as the Pro­testant and Catholick, about the sense of Christs own words. This is my body, And these differences, either touch on fundamental Matters, or there are none such in the whole Bible. Contra. 4. The Protestant only tells vs what he saith of all things necessary contained in Scripture, and speak's his own Sentiment boldly, without either proof or Princi­ple.

[Page 265]18. Some obiect first. God can endite à Book in as plain An Obie­ction solued. words as any man can speak, and t'is not supposed, that he affec­ted obscurity in his own Scripture, already written. Contra. 1. If Scripture be not obscure. How is it That Christ told the Sa­duces they mistook the true meaning of it? How is it, that these Protestant Pillars Luther and Caluin, so grosly contradict one an other in their Commentaries made vpon holy Scripture, And this in points most material? How is it that innumerable others called Christians Professe to reuerence, to Read, to spend the greatest labour vpon Scripture, and when all is done draw out of it plain Contradictions in points, as is n [...]w said, most Fundamental? Contra. 2. We question not what God can do, but say he hath not endited Scripture plain, de facto. S. Peter. Epist: 2. 3. 16. Speaking of S. Pauls Epistles, is my warrant. In which, saith he, Certain things are hard to be vnderstood, which the vnlearned, and vnstable depraue, as also the rest of Scripture, to their own perdition. And the words relate not only to the Mysterious Matters whereof the Apost­le wrote, but to his Phrase and forme of writing also, Therefo­re the Greeck Copies haue both in which things, and in which Epistles, And all Expositors hitherto, euen S. Austin, haue acknowledged an obscure way of speaking in S. Pauls Epistles, chiefly in that to the Romans. Yet we are not to say that Truth ex­pressed without harshness. God affects Obscurity (the word is vnmeet) but speak thus: His prouidence purposely would haue Scripture deliuered in such à dark manner, that all might haue recourse to à liuing Oracle, (His true Church) which speaks more plainly, and cannot swerue from any verity in Scripture, No offence is gi­uen to pious ears, In à word you haue à Verity expressed with out harshness. See S. Austin lib. 2. de Doct. Christ: c. 6. And S. Ambrose Epist. 44. Again vote Scripture most plain, what gain Sectaries by the Clarity, when they neither haue plain, nor obscure Text through the whole Bible for their Protestancy?

19. Hence we Answer to an other petty obiection. Scrip­ture [Page 266] (say some) relates many Things not necessary to Salua­tion, Therefore it cannot be supposed to omit things neces­sary. Contra: 1. Ergo it speak's some things of pure Protes­stancy, or nothing in that Religion, as reformed, is neces­sary to Saluation. I would willingly haue an express Text for this reformed Nouelty, and these few difficulties solued. Contra. 2. Though the whole Bible were without dispute most plain, or told vs all things necessary, yet this neither moues Iew nor Gentil, nor drawes any to Christianity without fur­ther light, as is already proued. We haue shown aboue how Scripture contain's all things necessary in the Reflex Part the­reof. It is now our Task and intent to Mark out the true Church of Christ (the only Rule of Faith) which decides all Controuersies Concerning Religion.

CHAP. IV.

1. IT is hard to illustrate à manifest Truth, because what euer reasons are brought to light for it, surpass not much the Euidence of the thing you would make clear. Who euer goes about to proue by Arguments that the Sun is the most luminous Body in the Heauens will haue much to do, because that's eui­dents to our senses, and so is the true Church of Christ, saith [Page 267] S. Austin, digito demonstrari potest, She can be pointed at with your▪ finger. Origen adds Hom. 33. in Matth. She is like à sun, casting her beams from one part of the world, to the other. Howeuer, because we now treat with men, who either see not, or pretend not to see, I will giue them all the Euidence gathered from demonstratiue Signes which à heart can wish for.

2. I say first, before we come to more conuincing Arguments. Antiquity is à certain Note of Christ Church. The reason is. As God was before the Diuel, and Truth before falshood, So the Orthodox Church, whether you take it from Adam, or Antiquity denotes the true Church from the first preaching of Christian Doctrin, was before all Sects and Heresies. The Roman Catholick Church only which Christ founded, and is so much extolled by the Apostle, has this Precedency. It was, when the Arians were not, we know their first Rise, it was when the Pelagians were not, we know their Beginning, it was when rhe Donatists were not, their Origen is as well known, as that of Protestants, which first pee­ped out with one unfortunate Luther, something aboue an age since. Might not then the Roman Catholick Church, more ancient than all these Sectaries, haue most justly questioned, each of them at their first appearance, as the learned Tertullian. Lib: de Prescrip. did those of His time? Qui estis vos? who are you new men? Vnde & quando venistis? From whence came you? Vbi tam diu latuistis? Where haue ye been hid so long? No body yet saw you, or heard of you. I waue the Testimonies of other Fathers, (chiefly of S. Austin and S. Hierome) though none presses this Argument drawn from Antiquity with greater efficacy, than Optatus Meliuitan. Lib: 2. contra Parme­ [...]an. They are known to euery one. But this Mark must not goe alone.

3. I say. 2. Antiquity, and à neuer interrupted Continu­ance The Church once true neuer Chan­ged her Doctrin. of the same Visible Society Age after Age, and the same Doctrin vpheld without change or Alteration, clearly euidences Christs Church. This Scripture strongly Asserts. Osee. 2. whe­re the Church is said to be espoused to Christ in Sempiternum [Page 268] for euer. Math: 16. Hell gates shall neuer preuail against it. Math. 28. Christ will be with it to the end of the world. vpon which Pas­sage, S. Hierome speaks most clearly. Qui vs (que) ad consummatione [...] sae [...] &c. He who promised to be with his own Disciples to the end [...]f Authority [...]nd. the world, both showes that these blessed men shall euer liue (in their successors) And that he will not depart from the true Belieuers. Videtur sicut luna &c. They are words of S. Ambrose lib: 4. Hexam. The Church may be seen like the moon eclipsed, but neuer perishe [...], She may be clouded and ouer cast with darknes, but cannot fail. The reason is. If Christs Church could fail, not only all me­mory Reason proue the Assertion of his sacred Passion with the other Mysteries of our Faith, but the whole Scripture also would for that time of her supposed Deficiency haue been no obiects of Belief. None could then haue said with truth; I belieue the Holy Catholick Church, or haue had Access to it, because it was not then in Being. Now further. As the Church cannot fail, so She cannot Alter from her self or change Christs Doctrin. For if She did so, She were no more Orthodox, Christ could not own Her for his Spouse. Ponder▪ S. Austins Discourse on this subiect▪ in Psal: 101. Exist [...]t qui dicunt &c. There are some who say. This is not the Church of all nations which once was. No. That's gone, and thus they Speak, saith the Saint, because they are not of the true Church. O impudentem S. Austins Iudgement. vocem, illa non est, quia tu in illa non es. O impudent speech, it is not the same Church it was, because thou art not in it. Vide ne tu ideo non Sis. look to thy self, least thou be not, for the Church will be, although thou were not in the world. Then he de­cries this Doctrin of the Churches failure as most abominable, detestable, and pernicious; And in Psalm. 60. positiuely Asserts the permanency of it to the end of the world.

4. Hence I argue. But the Roman Catholick Church only, hath euer continued in being without interruption and neuer The proba­tion vrged. changed, or Altered the Doctrin which She first learned of Christ; Protestancy which began one only Age since, most euidently wants this continuance, and euery year put's on à new counte­nance. Therefore the Roman Catholick Church, and not that [Page 269] of Protestants, is the Spouse of Christ. That the Roman Ca­tholick Church stood permanently in being euer since Christ, is as demonstrable, as that Protestants were not before Luther. The Visible perpetual Succession of our Popes, of our Bishops, of our Pastors and of our Catholick People in all ages, is an irrefragable Proof. Neither do Sectaries much cauil at this Perso­nal Succession, or the exteriour Permanency of our Church (for What Secta­ries obiect. that's euident) But here is their Plea. This Church (say they) once Orthodox changed from her selfe, forged new Articles of faith, Contrary to the primitiue Doctrin, Herein lies the great Charge. Now if I demonstrate, that the Roman Catholick Church once confessedly Orthodox, hath euer since been Visible in the world, and neuer swerued from the pure Primitiue Doctrin in after Ages, She is certainly the Church of Christ still without Alteration. You will Ask how can this be euinced?

5. Some may think 'tis best done by Paralleling our pre­sent known Church Doctrin with that of the Primitiue Times. Very good. But by what means shall we come to à right Pa­rallel? One may Say. Make A diligent Inspection into the Records, and Writings of those worthy Fathers, who liued in the first Ages, And all is done. I Answer. This Rule precisely considered help's nothing. For what if those Fathers neuer medled with most of the Controuersies, now agitated between vs and Sectaries? And t'is no wonder at all if they did not, For may not à new Sort of Hereticks rise vp to morrow, whose Er­rours neuer entred into the thoughts either of the Fathers, or of any man now liuing? Again, What if most of those ancient Writings be lost, (many certainly are) we are at à Stand. But finally, what if doubts arise concerning the sense of those few preserued copies yet extant? can Sectaries Glosses or ours either determin what's right Orthodox Doctrin by them? No. The­refore By what means one may come to the primi­tiue Doctrin? as I said aboue, no man can come to à full, exact, and satis­factory knowledge, of the Primitiue Truths, but by the voice and Tradition of the present Church. Reiect this voice of the pre­sent Church, we are cast into darkness, we may dispute long but [Page 270] end nothing. Now because it lies not in my way to Treat of that excellent Rule of Tradition, learnedly handled by others, I'le giue you three Conuincing reasons, And proue my Assertion. viz. That the Roman vniuersal Church, once Orthodox▪ neuer changed the Pri­mitiue Doctrin. To show this, Two certain Principles are to be reflected on.

6. First. God had alwaies an Orthodox Church on earth founded by Christ, which was, and is pure without mixture (at least) of notorious damnable Errours, and which neuer taught An Argu­ment pro­uing the Roman Catholick Church stil pure in Doctrin. Christians any shameful, false Doctrin; for had it done so in any Age, it had then ceased Eo ipso to be Christ's pure Church. The 2. Principle. Protestants confess, (and t'is à certain truth) that the Roman Catholick Church continued Orthodox without No­table errour, for the first three or four Centuries.

7. Hence I argue. If this Church once pure, abandoned Christ's Doctrin in after Ages, or forged new Articles of faith contrary to the Primitiue verities, that Change was Notorious, shame­ful, and damnable, as we shall see presently. But it is not pos­sible, that She euer made such à shameful, Notorious change, And here is my Reason: Had She done so, Christ in that Age when this supposed Alteration began, would haue had no Orthodox Church on earth free from gross and culpable Errour, and Con­sequently his own pure Church would wholly haue been abo­lished.

8. You will Ask how I proue this? I Answer most euidently. Begin if you please from the third Age, when the Roman Church was pure, And descend to Luthers dayes, you will find all the known Societies of men called Christians, to haue been either Orthodox Belieuers, Or grosly erring in Faith, yea plain condemned Hereticks, And so reckoned of by Protestants. Such were the Arians, Nestorians, Pelagians, Monothelits, Donatists &c. And all others nameable, excepting Roman Catholicks. But those gross erring men, euidently taught not Christs pure One reason vrged. Doctrin without notable Errour, much less constituted either à Part, or the whole Orthodox Church, which Christ establi­shed [Page 271] in truth, Therefore if the Roman Catholick Church went to wrack also, if She erred notoriously with these known erring Societies, the Orthodoxism and Purity of the whole Church ceased to be in the world. And this is impossible.

9. Here in à word is all I would say. Christ had euer à Church Entierly pure on earth, for he founded one pure, which should alwaies continue in that integrity laid in Her very foun­dation; But no errour was laid in the foundations of the Roman Catholick Church once Confessedly pure, therefore no noto­rious Errour stained it in after Ages; Or, if any such errour fouled that once fair Spouse of Christ, this Sequele is euident: There was at that time no pure Church in Being, vnless our Nouel­lists please (and perhaps they may do so in time) to make Arians, Donatists, and such à rabble of men, more Orthodox Christians than their own Progenitors were, and all the Roman Catholicks are now, the whole world ouer.

10. You see I insist vpon notorious Errours, And do so on set Why wee insist vpon Notorious errours. purpose to preuent à Reply of some newer Sectaries, who say the Church of Rome hath indeed Her Errours, But not fundamen­tal, or destructiue of Saluation. And will you know the reason of this trifling? Here it is. If they say She was not Orthodox in fundamentals, there was no true Church in being for à thou­sand years before Luther, and this no Christian dare Assert, And if they make her Orthodox in euery Article She taught, both Heresy and Schism fall's shamefully vpon Protestants, Who dare not grant they abandonned à Church Entierly pure and blamless, when they left it. Hence à middle way was wisely (or rather most simply) thought of: Our Church, forsooth, must be what Prote­stants please, partly true. viz. in à few Fundamentals, and partly false in other Matters of less concern, which these men, elected by God, were to reform, and tell exactly what was amiss, or how far it hath erred, &c. And therefore name themselues the Reformed Church. Well. Let this whimsy pass, largely refuted in the other Treatise, and in passing take notice of à pitifull Church indeed which Christ had by these mens own Confession [Page 272] ten whole ages before Luther. It was à meer deformed Mon­ster made vp of Linzy wolzy stuff, of tawny Colours, of some­thing, and nothing, in à word of Truth and Falshood. But here is not all.

11. I am to proue much more, if Protestants Principles stand firm. viz. That neither we nor they, had any Orthodox Church, in fundamentals before Luther, and Consequently no true Church was in being for ten whole Ages. Now most euidently, Secta­ries had nothing like à Church, for they were not in the world, And it is as euident, if their Charge hold good against our Church, it had bin much better neuer to haue appeared than to see it turned into so many vgly shapes, into such an vnfashio­ned Monster as these new men make it. In à word this ancient Catholick Society, if Sectaries say right (and Mark euer the Sup­position) erred notoriouslly in the very fundamentals of Faith, and Faith totally ruined in Sectaries, Principles. neither belieued in Christ, nor Creed, and therefore there was no Or­thodox Church before Luther, nor yet is, to this day. If I euidence not this vpon the supposition now made, neuer Credit me here after. To doe it, please to obserue that by à fundamental Er­rour in Faith, I vnderstand à Doctrin, which if falsly taught, contrary to Christs verities, is as damnable to those 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 Doctrin, or tell's the world à loud lye, that God reuealed such things as he neuer reuealed, but vt­terly The Asser­tion mani­festly proued. disowns and yet execrat's, And more ouer obliges all Chri­stians, after à sufficient proposal, to belieue such falsities vpon Di­uine Reuelation, and this vnder pain of damnation, doth open iniury to Gods Infinite verity, Assert's that which Eternal Truth neuer taught And therefore sins damnably, or err's in the funda­mentals of Faith. But Protestants, say, the Roman Catholick Church long before Luther did so, ergo She sinned damnably and erred in the very fundamentals of Faith. That She did so is euident vpon their own charge, For this Church taught [...] [Page 273] vnbloody Sacrifice neither Christ nor the Primitiue Church taught so: It defines Transubstantiation to be an Article of Faith, Christ and his Primitiue Church neuer did so. It maintain's Purgatory, Praying to Saints &c. Christ neuer deliuered such Doctrins, nor the Primitiue Church belieued so. Now further. These are all loud Lies if Sectaries speak Truth, and our Church obliges all Christians to belieue them as truths reuealed by an infinite Verity vnder pain of damnation, which yet, as they suppose were not reuealed. Therefore She first openly iniures Gods Veracity, which can be no light Offence, but mortal and damnable, And consequently err's in the very fundamentals of Faith, Therefore [...]pon that account is now no Orthodox Church, nor was so be­fore Wherein the Sin of all Hereticks Consists. Luther. And here briefly is the vltimate reason of all that's Said. The enormous Sin of all Hereticks past and present con­sists in this only, that they pertinaciously charge, or fasten vpon God à Doctrin Hee neuer taught, this alone makes them Hereticks, but the Church of Rome, say Sectaries, hath don so, ergo She was, and is yet Heretical.

13. If this Argument which I hold demonstratiue conuince not, I will propose an other and then briefly solue one or too Obiections. The Arians who deny à Trinity of Diuine Persons, are guilty of à fundamental Errour. All grant it. Ergo the Ro­man Catholick Church was, and is as guilty, or rather more guilty if Protestants doe not Calumniate. I proue it. The Arians errour related to à sublime and speculatiue Mystery which trans­cend's all humane Capacity, But one supposed Errour of the Ro­man Church (as Sectaries tell the Story) is worse and more gross, to wit, à plain, palpable and practical Idolatry. Why? She Adores à piece of bread for God, wherefore if Idolatry was euer in the world, She commit's that grieuous Sin And errs damnably, An other Argument Vrged. But no Sin can be greater, no Errour is more destructiue of Chri­stian faith, than Idolatry; If then our Church be guilty of that crime, She is far enough from being fundamentally Orthodox. Here is the Argument.

14▪ One may Answer, it is only the Sectaries Opinion (which [Page 274] is fallible and may be false) that we are Idolaters. What then? You Nouellists hold the opinion, you print it, you publish it, and perswade Thousands, and Thousands poor beguiled souls, we are Idolaters, and they Iudge so of vs, And as long as that Iudgement stand's immoueable, they cannot own vs Orthodox Christians in Fundamentals. But let vs come more closely to the point, and speak of rhe thing in it self.

15. Here is à Dilemma. We are Idolaters, or not; Grant the first; We err in the fundamentals of Faith, and were no Or­thodox Church either before or after Luther. Contrarywise, if we be not Idolaters but only Adore the Sauiour of the world, really and substantially present, vnder the Forms of bread and wine, Ye Gentleman, do not only hideoufly calumniate à whole An­cient Church, And sin damnably; But more ouer Err in à funda­mental point of Faith, For, if the Second part of the Dilemma subsist's. viz. That we Adore not à piece of bread, but that very Christ substantially present (vnder the Species of bread) who dyed on à Cross, The whole errour, the whole Sin, you charge on vs, fall's heauily on your Selues. You first tell the world à plain lie and say God neuer reuealed Christ's real Presence, in à consecrated Host as the Catholick Church belieues, whereas vpon the Supposition now made, He has reuealed it; Therefore you contradict God, you iniure an infinite Verity, which is à Errour and sin, fall hea­uily on Sectaries. hideous fundamental errour. Of such consequence it is to Tax▪ à whole Ancient Church of false Doctrin, That to say so, is à flat Heresy, and the Calumny without repentance is damnable.

16. 2. You oblige all you teach, and this vnder pain of Dam­nation, not to fall down or Adore Christ, substantially present in the Sacrament, yet vpon the supposition (which is euer to be minded) he is really there and claims the highest honour the su­premest worship, as most due to his sacred Person. This you scornfully deny, and both err and sin damnably. One may Answer you adore Christ in Heauen, and that's enough. Contra. He merits Adoration whereuer he is present, for if he should visibly appear to any of you all, you would (if Christians) fall down [Page 275] and Adore him: Here he is in the Sacrament vpon the Supposition, and you disdainfully deny him homage and veneration. This in à word is all I would say, and it is an vnanswerable Dilemma also. AnVnswe­rable Dilemma.

17. If you Accuse vs iustly, we are Idolaters, and were no Orthodox Church before Luther, if your Accusation be, as it is, most vniust, you Sin damnably, you vnchurch à pure Church and err fundamentally. I proue it. Who euer should Say this very houre: The pure Primitiue Church of the first Age was guilty of Idolatry, besides à damnable sin, err's fundamentally, For he makes à Church tainted with falshood, which God said was euery way pure, And for that Reason contradict's Gods Veracity. You Sectaries lay the same foul Aspersion on à Church, which the Supposition now makes pure and Orthodox, Therefore you sin damnably, err fundamentally, and vnchurch your Selues by it.

18. I would willingly see this Dilemma Answered, and with all haue euery Reader to take notice of à iust Iudgement of God fallen on Sectaries, whose whole labour hitherto hath been to charge errour and Idolatry on vs, and the higher they went in such Accusations, the more they thought to destroy vs; neuer reflecting A iust Iud­gement fal­l [...]n on Sectaries. that in doing so, They haue done their vtmost to destroy all the Churches in the world by Calumnies, and Consequently to ruin Them selues; For most euidently if their was no true Church in the world before Luther, they are no members of it at this day, but misera­bly Churchles. Grant the first, the second is an ineuitable Conse­quence.

CHAP. V.

1. SOme as was said aboue may obiect. The Roman Ca­tholick Church before Luther was right in à few funda­mentals for She belieued in God, in Christ, owned à Trinity &c. So far, and à little further perchance She may be reputed Ortho­dox, yet erred in other Matters which Sectaries desire to amend, and so to settle Christian Doctrin again on it's old foundations. Obserue how I must labour to make that an Heretical Society vpon our Sectaries Supposition, which was and is the only true Church in the world; And therefore say. If our Church hath erred but in one only Matter of Christian belief, She is Traite­rous, disloyal to Christ, and can be belieued in nothing. To proue The Church is traiterous if false in one Article. the Assertion, Suppose an Embassadour sent to à forraign state with this deep Charge, that he vtter nothing in his Princes name but so much only as he is commissioned to speak. Suppose again, the man declares some few truths to the state as his Lord com­manded, But withall forges twenty other vntruths on his own head, and stifly affirm's his order is to deliuer all he saith in his Masters name. Would not such à man think ye be à Traitour vpon à double account? First because he exceed's the bounds of his Commission and deliuers that he had no order for, But chiefly because he speaks vast falsities, wholly Contrary to his iud­gement who sent him.

[Page 277]2. The Application in easy. The first Teachers of the Gos­pel were legates sent from God to à great State; the whole world, For in omnem terram ex [...]uit sonus eorum. They taught euery where and well for some short time our Christian Verities, as the Prince who sent them Commanded, But their Successors, the Pastors and Doctors of the Roman Catholick Church in after Ages, had, Say Sectaries, the ill luck to miscarry, to turn Traitours, for, besides à few fundamental Truths vpheld no man knowes how, They did not only exceed their commission in deliuering Doctrin to all Nations which Christ their Master neuer allowed of, but more ouer; forged of their own heads twenty vntruths. Purgatory, Praying to Saints, Transubslantiation &c. And spake all in their Princes name, Said also they had Commission from Christ to teach so. This fact, if the Charge be true, is Treasonable, they iniured Christ And conse­quently not Orthodox. and his Verities and betrayed their trust; But à Church so per­fidious cannot be Orthodox. Therefore if Sectaries do not Ca­lumniate, Christ had no Orthodox Church in the world before Luther which I intended to proue, and Consequently Protestants are yet no true Church at all.

3. I say moreouer. If the Roman Catholick Church hath taught false Doctrin but in one onely Matter of Christian belief, She can be belieued in nothing, yea I may rationally suspect her false in all She teaches. Iust so it is. If the book of Scripture deliuer's one Doctrin false which Christians now belieue, I can­not credit it in any thing. The reason is: One and the same Motiue of my belief duely and equally applied, euer moues to an equal Assent, or to None at all. For example. I belieue Christ dyed for vs, because Gods word saies so, Here is the Motiue of my Assent: I belieue also that he ascended into Heauen, becau­se the same word of God speaks it, here is the same Motiue. Imagin now by à supposed impossibility, that this latter Article A Church false in one Article merits no beliefe. is Gods word, but false; I cannot belieue our Sauiours Death vpon the Motiue of God's word, For if this word be false and once deceiue, it may as easily be false and deceiue me twice, And there is no possible means to quit me of my errour, Because whoeuer [Page 278] endeauours to do that, is of less Authority than God's word, which is now supposed to deceiue me. If therefore the First Verity can reueal an vntruth, none can belieue either man or Angel speaking of the high Mysteries of our Faith, and Conse­quently All must still remain in Errour.

4. Apply this Discourse to the Roman Catholick Church which pretend's at least (I say no more yet) to be Gods Oracle, and to speak in His name. She speaking in his name assures me, that Infants are to be Baptized, I belieue Her vpon her word: She also tells me, there is à Purgatory, but we must now suppose with Sectaries, it is à great vntruth, if so; I cannot possibly belieue Her in the other Doctrin of Infant Baptism. For if she deceiues me once She may well do it again, and which is to be noted, There is no means left vnder Heauen to vnbeguile me or to draw me out of my supposed Errour; for who euer attempts to do that, is of less Authority than my Church, which is supposed to teach, to err in Her teaching, and stifly to maintain the Errour. Scripture cannot help here, vnless it be clear vpon an indubita­ble Principle, that the sense of it, and Doctrin of my Church can differ in points of Faith, which must be proued, and not Sup­posed. If Fathers be alleaged Seemingly contrary to this known Doctrin, my duty is to explicate them, and rather to draw the Fathers to what the Church teaches than to renounce Her Au­thority, and adhere to the dubious and yet vnknown Sense of any Father.

5. Now here is à short consideration For Sectaries. I said, whoeuer supposeth the Roman Catholick Church to haue erred, A Reflection for Sectaries. must ioyntly own it so remediless an Euil, that all the men on earth cannot help or remoue the supposed errour from this Church. The reason is. All the Proofs and Principles (setting plain Scripture aside whereof there is no danger) which may be thought pertinent to impeach Her of errour, will fall infinitly short and proue less ponderous, less substantial to perswade that She has erred, than her sole Vote, and own Authority (whilst she anathe­matizes the falshood) is to perswade the contrary. Viz. That [Page 279] She neuer erred. Hence Sectaries, confessedly fallible men, who Sectaries Attempt desperate and why? may easily spoil all they goe about to mend, aduenture desperatly to reform the Church, when the very Principles they should reform by (were there any such in being) are incomparably of less weight, strength and force than the Authority of this Church is, which saith She cannot erre. Howeuer She must be reformed (and here is the wonder) before they know whether She has erred, or haue the least assurance of their own half accomplish't reformation. Who then see's not, euery attempt made against our Church this way to bee, as really it is, à folly, an vnaduiced Enterprise no less impossible, than in the highest manner improbable? Mark what à task lies on them.

6. First they are to proue She has erred, which was neuer yet done 2. To giue in Principles whereby they will reform. 3. To VVhat they are to proue Shew themselues well setled in à perfect Reformation. 4. To euince that all those innumerable learned men of our Church from the Fourth to the present Age haue been stupidly blind, bereaued of iudgement and besotted with Errour. 5. Wheras other Christians both more aged and most learned espyed none of these Errours, They are to proue that God made choise of such vncommissioned men to perform à work so long neglected by the Orthodox world. But of these particulars enough is said in the other Treatise.

7. Hence two things follow. First, that Sectaries only lose time, when by alleging à few dark Testimonies of the Fathers they offer to ouerthrow any Doctrin of our Church. Alas, what this Oracle positiuely defin's is à stronger Principle than twenty du­bious Authorities of Fathers (if any such were) in appearance contrary. It followes. 2. That the Roman Catholick Church must of necessity be either owned Orthodox in all She teaches, or cannot be belieued in any thing.

8. Wherefore I say à great word. If this Church hath de­ceiued the world in teaching à Purgatory, for example; neither we nor Sectaries can certainly belieue, that Christ was here on earth or Redeemed vs. For Ask, why belieue wee this great Mystery? If you [Page 280] Answer Scripture reueal's it, you are Questioned again. How One Errour in the Church Destroyes all Faith. know you that Scripture is Gods word which Ex terminis euiden­ces not it self? You must Answer Vniuersal Tradition and all the Churches in the world haue owned the Book for Gods word. Very good. But The Church hitherto supposed most Orthodox, among so many Heretical Societies, and Her Tradition likewise haue actually deceiued all; For She is now Imagined to haue taught the false Doctrins of Purgatory, Transubstantiation &c. Therefore you cannot belieue Her, or any Tradition, for erring in one point of Faith, She is not belieuable in any (This prin­ciple stand's firm) Much less can you trust to the Doctrin or Tradition of known Heretical Churches, whether Arians, Pelagians or others, For all these haue erred and most grosly, Therefore you haue no certainty of the verities contained in Scripture, nor can you belieue this one Prime Article. Christ dyed for vs, by Diuine Faith.

9. Let therefore the Sectary labour all that's possible to con­tract the fundamentals of Faith into the shortest room Imagi­nable, let him mince them almost to nothing, let this one Arti­cle. Iesus is the Christ be Faith enough for all: I say if the Ro­man Catholick Church speaking in the name of God, as She pretends to speak, hath taught but one false Article, and obliged Christians to belieue it vnder pain of damnation, (Purgatory for example) none can now vpon any Motiue known to the world firmly belieue That Iesus is the Christ. So pernicious, is one known errour of the Church, that it ruins's all belief of other Articles, nor can such à Church be more trusted in any thing She speaks, than Scripture relied on, were it false in that Article. Iesus is the Christ.

10. The reason à Priori is. All Faith is at last reduced, or finally resolued into Gods Diuine Reuelation, whether he speaks by this or that Instrument, by this or that Oracle, imports nothing. The Vltima­te reason of the Assertion. The difference of the Oracle he speaks by, diuersifies not faith, which alwaies tend's to one Center, and rests on one sure Ground, Gods Veracity. If he speaks by à Prophet that's his Oracle, If by an Apostle he is made an Oracle, If by the exteriour words [Page 281] of Scripture, they are Oracles, if by the Church, She is his Oracle. Now further. Suppose any of these assumed Oracles speaking in the name of God declare à false Doctrin to Christians, the Falsity Vltimatly redound's to God, who own's them as Oracles, yet by them teaches the world Falsities. It fall's out here; As if à Prince should send à Legate to à State who speak's in his name, and cheat the whole State by his Embassy: would not all deseruedly vpon the Supposition, more impute the Cheat to the Prince than to the Legate that speaks in his name? The parity is exact and proues, if either Scripture, Prophet, Apostle, or Church speaking in the name of God deliuers false Doctrin, God himself deceiues vs, and therefore Rich. de S. Vict. Said well in this sense also. Si error est quem credimus &c. If we belieue an errour, T'is you, Great God who haue deceiued vs, But if God can once deceiue, either immediatly By Himselfe, or mediatly by his Oracle, The whole Syste­me of Christian Faith, is desstroyed. What I say would bee true, Although He should make à solemn protestation of Speaking Truth, For euen then he cannot oblige me to belieue, because he may deceiue in that very Protestation, and deliuer à falsity, if the supposition hold.

11. Here then is the final Conclusion. As subiectiue Faith in à Belieuer is Indiuisible, That is, it is either wholly good or wolly naught None can haue à piece of Faith without the whole vertue, (an Could the Church pro­pose one false Article She can bee be­lieued in nothing. Arian cannot belieue Christ to be à Redeemer, if He denies the Trinity) So if one Matter of Faith proposed by the Church be really Contrary to what She defines, None can belieue any thing She teaches, For, the meer Possibility of deceiuing Christians in one Article, impossibilitates the Belief of all She proposeth. And this proues the Church absolutly infallible not in some points only, but in all and euery Doctrin, whereof you haue more in the, 15 16 and 17 Chapters following.

12. Some may reply. I suppose all this while the Church made so stedfastly God's Oracle as not to err in any Doc­trin She proposes, which is Petitio Principy or à begging of the Question. Contra. And Ye Gentlemen whilst you impeach [Page 282] Her of Errour Suppose Her Instrumentum diuulsum, an Oracle tom, as it were, from Gods Sspecial Assistance, iust as if I sho [...]ld Suppo­se the words of Scripture separated from the Spirit of truth. You suppose Her à fair spouse, yet make Her à harlot, when and as Often as you please. You acknowledge some Church or other (find that out where you can) to teach Truth, yet you like petulant Schollers will forsooth be so wise, as to tell her where she misseth in Her Lesson and correct Her for it; And you haue done it to the purpose, For you haue destroied Her Monaste­ries, rob'd Her Altars, prophaned Her Temples, abused Her Chil­dren, banished some, and hang'd vp other. Are not these fine God deceiues if the Church c [...]n Err. Doings? Contra. 2. I suppose nothing but what is manifest, that Christ euer had à Church on earth (once more find it where you can) and that God speaks to Christians by this Oracle, which he will be with to the end of the world, And against which Hell gates shall neuer preuail. Now I say, if this Church which God (not I) makes his own Oracle, and promises to teach Truth by it, can deceiue but in one Matter of Faith, God himself deceiues vs, And this Church ceaseth Eo ip [...]o to be Catholick, yea, and God to be the Eternal Truth. For it Matters nothing, if he can deceiue, whether he do it by Scripture, or the Church. Solue this Argument if you can.

13. You may say. 2. The whole ground of this Discourse à Fallacy and comes only to thus much. If à man once tell à lie he must be thought à lyar in all he speaks. So it is. The Church speaks an vntruth in some things, Ergo it doth so, or may do so in all, seemes no good consequence. Contra. If an Embassadour once be found in an Vntruth when he speaks in his Princes name, I think few Monarchs or States will no more belieue him in like occasions, Than giue credit to one conuicted The disparity betwe [...]n à priuate man erring, and the Church. of periuery when He swear's, vnless what he swear's bee proued true independently of his Oath. But let this pass. The disparity between à priuate man and the Church is most notorious. The First considered as one single and priuate, hath no Commission to speak in Gods name, or to teach the whole Christian world [Page 283] what is, or what is not Christ's Doctrin; The Orthodox Church is impowred to do this, or to teach nothing, if then She err's but once, the Errour makes Her infamous, redound's to the Dammage of all Christians seduced by Her, yea and to God himselfe, as is now declared. Hence I say the Church cannot teach truth by halfes, as Sectaries would haue Her, or now Hit right, now miss. She cannot be Orthodox in à few main Matters called Fundamental, and erroneous in others. No. She is either Gods Vice-gerent in all She deliuer's as points of Faith, or in nothing. She must when she pretend's to speak in Gods name truly do so, or She cannot speak, nor pretend to speak, but must be silent. This Verity is further laid forth in the Chapters now cited, where we treat of the Churches Infallibility.

14. In the mean while, if any Should Obiect The Church vainly pretend's to be so far an Oracle of Truth, as not to impose on us false Doctrin And then demand, from whence She had this Whether our whole Discourse tend's. Priuiledge of Infallibility? I Answer. Whoeuer trifles with such obiections in this place, (to be solued hereafter) little vnder­stand's the force of our Arguments. Mark I beseech you. It is now à supposed Principle (Sectaries will haue it so) that the Roman Catholick Church hath forged new Articles, and impo­sed the beliefe of them on Christians which God neuer Reuealed. Grant thus much, She iniures God, sin's damnably, And there­fore is no Orthodox Church, But if She neither now be Orthodox, nor was so ten Ages before Luther, There was not then, nor is yet any true Christian Church in the world, And consequently Prote­stants [...]aue no Church. The more erring Therefore they make the Roman Catholick Church, the more are they Churc [...]lesse. This is what I Press and express at present, and would willingly haue my Argu­ment solued.

15. There is yet an other Obiection scarse worth the paper, you shall haue it, such an one as it is. Protestants talk much of A weightless Obiection. Papists Blindnes, And to free the Roman Church from damnable sin or formal Fundamental Errours, may perhaps say She hath indeed erred before Luther, and still is Idolatrous, But may be [Page 284] excused vpon the Account of inuincible Ignorance. Answ. What's this? Do we hear talk of inuincible ignorance in à whole learned Church? Pray, where shall we find knowledge if ignorance haue place here? Such ignorance may perhaps be in some particular men, But to Tax à whole Church with it, is not only to make so many Councils, so many profound Doctors as haue taught the world worse than Idiots for à thousand years, but it is to iniure Christ, to tell Him he has indeed established à Church, yet mark'd it so obscurely, remoued it so far out of the Sight of Christians, that the most learned of all could not discouer the Truths it taught for ten long Ages, though all Antiquity Assures vs that Christ's Church is one of the most manifest things in the world. Again, Suppose our Church were blind and inculpably ignorant, who for Gods, sake must open Her eyes now, and vnbeguile Her? Touching vpon the Ignorance of Catho­licks Solued. Must à few late scattered Sectaries Doe the wonder, that are to look to their own vincible ignorance, And therefore (if learned) Sin vpon that account damnably. 3. If our Church may be excused vpon the score of ignorance, excuse also the Arians less learned, the Pelagians, the Donatists &c. And say there were neuer any formal sinful Hereticks in the world, yea Iewes, and Turks may thus be acquitted of formal Sin, and Errour likewise. But aboue all free, I beseech you, our Sectaries from further pains­taking, as also from the least hope of amending Matters, were there any thing amiss, for you may well rest assured, if ignorance hath cast this learned Church into such an Abysse of Errour, it is not to be expected that the far weaker knowledge of Prote­stants, can draw Her out of it. I wonder men of Modesty dare offer to impute ignorance to the Roman Catholick Church, And presume to teach more learned then Themselues.

CHAP. VI.

1. I Argue. 2. God had euer à true Church preserued free from Errour for so many Thousand years as passed between A second Argument Adam and Christ. It stood all that vast time inuincible against Heresy, and was neuer stained with false Doctrin. The Truth is indubitably owned by Christ our Lord, who came not to change so much as one iota of Doctrin taught by the Prophets, but only to perfect it by reuealing other Verities, not explicitly known before. Now Mark à strange Paradox auouched by Sectaries. They say boldly, That our Christian Catholick Roman Church which certainly God Himselfe established, And enriched with his own Verities, only continued Orthodox for Three or Four Ages, and then (O dismal time) left off to be what it was; lost Christs reuealed Truths, became the whore of Babylon, Apostated from it Selfe, and cheated the world into false Doctrin. What saies the prudent Reader? Is it Possible that the Ancient Church of Drawn from à most im­probable Assertion of Sectaries. the Patriarchs and Prophets stood without change or blemish for 4. or 5. Thousand years, and Christ's own Spouse became smut­ched and vgly within the compass of three or 4. Ages? Is it Probable that the lesser light of the Synagogue lasted so long, And the Glorious sun of Christ's own Church, appeared dark and Eclipsed soon after The world had Cast an Eye vpon Her? And this, to encrease the wonder happened then (Sectaries must [Page 286] say) when euidently There was no other true Church on earth, vn­less you will take in Arians, Pelagians &c and such open Hereticks to make vp à Catholick Society, most vnfit (all know) to teach Christs Orthodox Doctrin. I wish Protestants would well pon­der the force of this one reason, And return an Answer.

2. My last Argument is à Demonstration against Sectaries, who say. There was alwayes an Orthodox visible Church since Christs time: For this Article of our Creed was euer professedly true in all Ages. I belieue the Holy Catholick Church. They say again, There was à time when our Roman Catholick Church once Orthodox, began to innouate, to bring in new Doctrins of an vnbloody Sa­crifice, of Transubstantiation, of praying for the Dead, of Purgatory &c. Now be pleased to obserue the Demonstration. When An Argu­ment against Sectaries. the Roman Church began these new supposed Doctrins and actual­ly erred, There was at that very time an other Orthodox Church in the world, or was not; If not; Christ had then no Orthodox Church on earth, and Consequently that Article of our Creed was false. I belieue the Holy Catholick Church, For no man can truly belieue in à Church which really is not. If contrarywise they own à pure Orthodox Church to haue been on earth when the Roman began to erre, That (because Orthodox and pure) was cer­tainly à Society of Christians distinct from the then supposed fal­len and false Church of Rome.

3. Hence I argue. Eirher that Orthodox distinct Church, sensible of Gods cause and the Honour of Christian Faith, vigo­rouly opposed, censured and condemned those imagined errours of the Roman Church now fallen, or Carelesly let all alone, and omitted that Duty. If it omitted that duty, it was no true Church, For if true, Her Charge was and is, (She hath à command from Christ to do it) to crush, and suppress false Doctrins, when they first rise vp, or begin to infect the body of Christianity. This duty that Church neglected, and for that cause was not Orthodox. Moreouer, the Roman is also Supposed actually drawn from Truth, Clear and Conuincing. Condemned Hereticks made vp no Church. We had then in those daies à strange world indeed, when Christ the Supreme [Page 287] Head looked down from Heauen, and saw his Mystical body the Church pitifully Corrupted, when he cast an eye vpon poor Christians, and found them all Churchless.

4. If Sectaries own such an Orthodox Society, which oppo­sed and censured the Roman Errours, that must be à Truth as Notoriously known to the world as it is now supposed, that the Church of Rome had Errours Notoriously known. And Here I desire the Iudicious Reader to reflect on what I Shall propose, And wish our Aduersaries to Answer. Can they Imagine the Errours of the Roman Church openly discouered so many Centuries since, and judge that no Orthodox Christians then liuing (who beheld Truth run to ruin) made Opposition against them? The Errours, say Protestants, were palpable (for our new men espy them now) yet no Orthodox Christans are heard of to this day, who then stood vp for Gods cause, and defended the Ancient truths of Christ against this supposed erring Church, This yet lies in darkness The Fault must be noised as both criminal and publick, And yet there is no newes at all of such as lent à helping hand to redress it.

5. Again, Can it be imagined that the Roman Catholick Church which Age after Age condemned innumerable Hereticks, And giues in an exact Catologue in order as They rose vp, (The­se Sectaries Paradoxes and. particulars are exactly known) And yet that no Author, Friend or Enemy Can bee found, who giues so much as the least hint of any sound Christians that condemned the now decryed Errours of this one Church? Finally (and here is the wonder) must we suppose our Church to haue grosly erred à thousand years since, when yet all good Christians were silent and reprehended it not, And that now after ten whole Ages are past, And Millions of Souls damned for want of Faith, A company of iarring Pro­testants Can probably begin to talk of them, to Reproue, to Argue, Vast impro­babilities and offer to settle Christianity right vpon its old Fundations? No thought of man can fall vpon more desperate improbabilities, yet they pass as current among Sctaries. But of this point more hereafter in the 13 Chapter.

[Page 288]6. Now here is the Conclusion, and the true Trial of this cause. It is possible that our new men, who pretend knowledge in Antiquity, name an Orthodox Church which openly Protested What Secta­ries are obliged to doe, but Cannot. against these supposed Errours before Protestants were in Being. It is possible to tell vs when this Church strongly Acted against the Roman Errours. It is Possible to say what became of that Orthodox Church at last, whether after it had done that great work and Censured the Roman Doctrin, It quickly disappeared, Or still remain's in the world. It is I say, Possible, that Secta­ries Euidence these particulars of most high Concern, or impos­sible, If the first can be done, we Catholicks ought to Reform. But I must vnbeguile the Reader, and absolutly Assert. All the Protestants who now are, or shall bee hereafter, Shall as soon de­stroy all Christian Faith as name any Orthodox Society, any thing like à true Church which censured these supposed Roman Errours, Therefore (And it is an euident Demonstration) Our Ca­tholick Church once true, continued so in all Ages, Or there was none in the world Orthodox, The Articles She maintained then, and yet defend's are no Errours, but Primitiue Verities. And thus the whole Plea of our new men Concerning Errours entring the Church de facto, ends as it deserues in à flat Calumny. What do they think to bring Errours to light now, whereof the most learned Churches in the world neuer took notice before? Will they speak of false Doctrins when all Orthodox Societies said nothing of them? Dare they accuse and condemn à Church which Millions of Souls so highly reuerenced that the best of Christians liued and dyed happily in it? Nothing can be more exotical. Wherefore I say, when our Nouellists can work this Perswasion into mens minds, That Crowes once white, turned black in time (though no body must say when) Then, and not Their At­tempt impos­sible. before, they may perhaps hope to make vs mad, and induce All to belieue, that our Church Anciently pure became tainted in time with gross Errours, though when or in what Age this deformity appeared they know not, nor Can euer know, because the Change is de subiecto non supponente, not supposable.

[Page 289]7. One may reply. Though the Sectary cannot point at an Orthodox Church which condemned these now Supposed Roman Errours, yet he has plenty of witnesses to ground his Assertion vpon, For in past Ages, many, though reputed Hereticks, vehe­mently decryed the Doctrins of our Church as Nouelties Swer­uing from the primitiue Truths. Answ: Very true indeed. For thus Arius of old decryed Consubsta [...]t [...]ality and the Supreme Godhead in Christ, Pelagius, Original sin, The Monathelits two wills in our Sauiour, Humane and Diuine, Luther an vnbloody Sacrifice, And the Diuel after all, if you'l belieue him, will oppo­se euery Truth which Christ taught. But what is all this to the purpose? which yet to my great wonder I find vrged by some? Is the Authority of these condemned and confessedly known Hereticks, precisely considered, to be parallell'd with à Church The Votes of Aduersaries without Proofs, weightless. which was neuer condemned by Orthodox Christians? Must the condemned Party be heard when it Accuses, And the Innocent or neuer censured Church be Supposed guilty, after the whole world held her blamless and has iudged well of Her condemna­tions pas't vpon Hereticks? Compare I say, the Authority of the Church time out of mind proued Innocent, with the Au­thority of Hereticks known most guilty, There can be no Pa­rallel, may we precisely respect Authority. Wherefore if the Opposition of Hereticks hath any force, Their charge against the Church must stand vpon Strong proofs and sound Princi­ples distinct from Their own voting Her Delinquent. These Prin­ciples we seek for in all our Disputes with Protestants, yet hi­therto 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 fasten Errours vpon our Church, because, forsooth, in such an Age the 9 ^.th For example after Christ, or The­re about, some Popes were less good and People much debauched. An other simple Plea. Then, most likely, was the Nick of time, Say these, to bring in Transubstantiation, the Popes Supremacy and what other Errour [Page 290] you will. Answ. A most pitiful Plea, not worth the paper it blot's. I shall not so much refute it, for it merit's not the labour, As Shew how it destroyes the Belief of all Christian Religion.

9. Pray you consider Christianity in the greatest Latitude Imaginable. Call Arians, Donatists, Protestants And Catholicks also Christians. Grant, which is true, that there haue been very wicked men amongst these different Professors. I say if this Argu­ment haue weight. Some few Popes, and many People were not good for one Age chiefly, Ergo debauchery in manners more then probably brought in false Doctrins vnder the Notion of Christian Truths, A Iew or Gentil may Argue as well, and infer that Viciousness of life hath destroyed all Truth among Christians, if euer They had any. For why should lewdness haue less force to Subuert all Truth taught by the Church of Rome than some only? It hath, say Sectaries, brought in much Errour, Therefore, saith the Iew, it may as well haue corrupted all Christ Doctrin.

10. To reinforce this Argument, I told you aboue, if the Church of Rome, had but once proposed one Article to be belieued by Diuine Faith, which is false, She is not to be reiected and proued unreasonable credited in any thing. If you Reply, it is euident That though false in many Tenets, She yet taught some Articles true, As that Christ is our Redeemer. The Iew Answers, and so do I too, She Taught and teaches so still; but that This is Truth, if debauchery of life bee ineuitably connexed with false Doctrin, shall neuer be made Probable, For this Church is either entierly sound in Doctrin, or Entirely deluded. One may Say. Scripture is eui­dently plain for some Primary Articles of Christian belief. Answ. The Iew scorn's the Reply, and maintain's this Truth, as I also do. If it be once proued that the Church of Rome imposed on the Christian world Falshood in place of Truth, Transubstantia­tion, The Sacrifice on the Altar &c. She may as easily haue cor­rupted the whole Bible and made that Book false in à hundred important Passages, whereof enough is said in the other Treatise. No true Church Therefore, no Probability of true Scripture.

11. Let vs now proceed to others called Christians the most [Page 291] known Arch-hereticks, you will haue the same Conclusion. Arius for example, à stubborn proud Fellow had many Associates like Himself, yea and certainly taught some Doctrins false, There­fore, Saith the Iew, All He deliuered was false also. The Di­uel learned Luther to broach His new Gospel, and the mans enormous Viciousness is known to the world by as credible Au­thors as Platina or Nico: de Clemangijs, who make Popes and People so impious, Therefore all that Luther taught cannot but bee vpon the Argument proposed, most iustly excepted against An other Simple Ar­gument, reiected. as pernicious Doctrin; For gross Errours like à Torrent follow Deprauation in manners. Caluins Pride, Deceipt, and Cousenage, to say nothing of that hidious Sin for which he was branded, are vpon Record, And all know what Rebellion, what tragical Doings ensued vpon the wicked mans Apostasy. Who then can harbour so much as à good thought of any Doctrin He taught euen that Christ dyed for vs? Hence, saith the Iew, if Wickednes of life and Errours in Doctrin be such inseparable Companions And all Sects or Religions nameable haue had Professors wicked, Farewel Christianity, yea and Christ Himself also. For, if the Impiety of some, lead's Erroneous Doctrins into à whole Moral Body, that one crying Sin of Iudas might more easily haue corrupted the First Apostolical Colledge smal in Number, Than the incomparable lesse defects of Popes depraue the great Moral Body of the Church. O, but Christ secured the other Apostles from Errour. Answ. So he doth his Church, And the Iew will as soon belieue the one as the other, who Argues thus.

12. Christianity was neuer without Sin, Ergo neuer without Errour, if the Argum [...]nt haue force. When Therefore these new men Say Wickedness of life Com­pared with the losse of Faith. Gods Prouidence seem's equally concerned to preserue the Church from things equally Pernicious ( But viciousnes of life is as perni­cious to Christianity, and as destruct [...]ue to the End of it as Errours in Doctrin) They know not what they Say. The Argument is euery way defectiue?

13. First its vtterly False, that Wickednes is so pernicious as Errours against Christian Doctrin, For Errours destroies Faith [Page 292] the ground of Saluation, and immedeatly opposeth Gods Infinite Veracity, Wickednes in Manners destroies Grace and other Super­natural virtues, yet leaues the Foundation vnshaken. Again. By what law do these men Suppose that God preserued not his Church Holy in those dayes? Doth it follow because some were wicked that She lost all Sanctity? Will they Say if the English Church had euer Sanctity in it, All vanished into Smoak in the late dissentions and deplorable Tumults? There were neuer such Doings at Rome in the worst of daies as England then Shewed to the world. O but there were then many Holy and Godly men that suffered. Be it so at present, I loue not to recriminate. For one of yours Holy, we had Thousands in that Particular Abuse can not unhal­low the Church Age you except against the whole world ouer, in England Germany, Spain, France, Denmark &c. most humble, pious, virtuous and profoundly learned.▪ What do you think, that à few Abuses in Italy not half so bad as you make them, can Vnhallow an ample Church? Yet here lies the Strength of your weak Argument. The iniquity of some, chiefly of Popes and Prelates ruins not sanctity only, But moreouer induceth Errour into the whole Moral Body of Christ. You iust proceed, as if One should at­attempt to proue that à goodly Building, which yet visibly stands fair to the Eye, and firm on Sure foundations, is all shat­tered and pulled down, because you can lead à man to the By­places of it and show him in it some Nastiness. The Instance is most Pertinent. You find filth Here and there in the fair House of God, and though there be more of it before your own doores, yet your Church must be supposed Holy and Ortho­dox, And ours contrarywise false and impious.

14. But I wonder nothing at this lame way of Arguing. Lewdness of life in some (not in all sorts of men as is vainly Sup­posed) Vnsanctifies the Church, and bring's in Errour &c. For iust so Hereticks of old Argued against Catholicks. Read S. Austin. Sectaries argue like Heretickes of old. Tom. 7 ^.ad liter Petiliani lib. 2. Through his seueral Chapters chiefly. Chap. 39. Petilianus obiected as these men do, And I will Answer as S. Austin did. There is no bitternes in hony, nor [Page 293] dross with pure gold, Saith Petilianus. We Donatists are the purified gold, you Catholicks full of bitternes and dross. &c. S. Austin Answer's. This is to Vapour like à mad man, And to proue nothing. Atten­dis zizama. Thou attends't to the Cockle only, and not to the wheat (As who should say though some be, yet all are not wicked) Thou considers't the Seed of the Enemy sowen in the world, and regards't not the seed of Abraham, in whom all Nations shall be blessed. Quasi vero vos iam s [...]is massa purgata. Thou talks't as if ye, forsooth, were only the pur­ged Mass of men, the sweet hony, the pure gold, the refined oyle, and none but you. It is not so. There is much naughtines among you, And the saint showes wherein it was.

15. In like manner one might easily lay forth the lewdnes, the Hypocrisy of no few Sectaries were it not that S. Austin tea­ches vs to vse better Arguments, and therefore C. 32. Saith. How S. Au­stin argues against the Donatists. Paciscamur ergo &c. Let vs agree on this. That thou neither Obiect to me our wicked men, nor I thine, to Thee. This bargain once made, thou will haue nothing to Say against that seed of Abraham, now diffused ouer all Nations. But Petilianus, I shall press thee with an insoluable Argument, and Ask, Why yee Donatists haue impiously Separated your Selues from the seed of Abraham, or that Catholick Church wherein all Nations are blessed? And thus we vrge Pro­testants.

16. Again. Chap. 51. Petilianus obiected. Ye Catholicks lay Claim to S. Peters Chaire the See of Rome, I call that, saith he, in the words of the Prophet, Cathedram Pestilentiae. The See of pestilence. And do not Protestants speak thus irreuerently of the Roman Chaire and Church also? Both Argue alike. S Austin Answers. Haec non vides? Dos't not thou see that all thou alleges't here is à meer lying Calumny? For though thou may reproach some, yet all are not guilty of the Crimes imputed to them. I will auouch more, Adds the Saint. Si omnes per totum orbem tales essent quales vanissimè Criminaris &c. If all the Bishops the whole world ouer were as bad as thou fanciest, what wrong hath the Chair of S. Peter, or the Church either, done thee? If thou perswade thy Self, that those who deliuer the law, do not exactly comply with it, [Page 294] know, that our Lord Iesus speaking of the Pharisies, lon [...] since silenced thee. Dicunt & non faiunt. They say but do not. If then thou woulds't diffame either Church or See, because men in works are not answerable to their words, thou knowes't not what to say but only to reproach without Reason. Thus and much more Blessed S. Austin, and He ouerthrowes our Aduersaries whole Plea by it. Though I verily hold them no such stran­gers to common reason, but that they saw well the Argument The Sectary Cannot but see his Argu­ment void of force. already proposed enormously impertinent, to proue either the See of Rome or that Church impious or erroneous in Doc­trin.

17. The true Reason of foysting in such simple stuff, is an itching to Cauil, because they can not closely dispute against Catho­lick Doctrin vpon rational Principles, hauing none to vrge against vs. What remains but to scratch (it is à late strain got in among them) and to rub vpon old soares, the personal defects of others abroad, whilst God knowes, they haue more festered wounds to look on and launce in their own Brethren at home? Thus I say, they must nip and taunt or write no more Contro­uersies, Though it is done to their own Confusion, For suppose all were true which is said of lewd and wicked men in the Church (as in real Truth the half is not) yet the impiety of these men Why secta­ries bring to light such simple Stuffe. neuer came to that height as to make vpon such Cauils, the pure Spouse of Christ à Harlot; on Frontlesly to impeach Her of Errour, or quite to desert Her as our Nouellists haue done most shamefully. No: Though wicked, they know well, that Cockle growes vp in the same field with good Corn, and that the Sin of some may stand with the Sanctity of many in the Mystical body of Christ. The Haruest, as the Gospel, and S. Austin teach, is to Winnow all, and to Make the Separation. But enough and more then enough of this slight and forceless Obiection.

18. I haue yet one word to say of errours wrongfully Charged on vs. Were this Supposition true that the Roman Catholick Church had Apostated so shamefully in any Age, as Sectaries Ima­gin, Had She been made of à beautiful Spouse à harlot, Had [Page 295] She fallen from the primitiue Truths into false Doctrin, And consequen [...]ly Cheated Christians into Falsities for à thousand years together; Christ Iesus our Lord had been obliged by virtue of A Reflection for Sectaries. his promise already made in Scripture to haue appeared Again, To haue sent an Angel from Heauen, Or to haue vsed some other extraordinary means to establish his Church à new, to raise vp the walles of his now Supposed ruined Hierusalem, which he built so slightly, that it all fell down in the short Compass of three or four Ages. I say All, For, if the Church be false in one Article, I can trust it in nothing. The Promises in Scripture of Hell gates not preuailing against the Church, of Christ's being with Her to the end of the world, are manifest; Yet now vpon the Supposition, Hell and Heresy haue destroied the whole Building, and He Blessed Lord, look'd on, saw his own work defaced, yet after all his Engagements of preseruing it in Being, repaired nothing. These are harsh Heretical Paradoxes vn­fit for Christians to hear, yet the Sectary (will he nill he) must own them to his Confusion.

19. To establish more this great Truth, That the Doctrin of our Church is at this day the same with the Primitiue; I might well Argue from the Confession of our Aduersaries, Luther Chiefly and Caluin, who grant so much in many particulars, As that of Merit, of Free will, Limbus Patrum &c. But withall say Anti­quity erred no less than we do now, And therefore Caluin pro­fesseth he followes none of the Fathers but S. Austin, Though when He pleases, he is too bold with the Saint and scornfully reiect's his Authority also. See Bellar: de notis ecclesiae lib: 4. What Secta­ries Nouel­ties are. Cap. 9. I might also show that our Sectaries Nouelties, for the greatest part, are nothing els but à List of old long since dis­persed and condemned Heresies now brought to light again, and knit together in one bundle to poison the world withall. They haue renewed the Heresy o [...] the Donatists, who taught that the Church of God had perished throughout the world except in some few obscure Corners. They renew the Heresy of the Arians teaching it vnlawful to offer Sacrifice for the dead. They [Page 296] renew the Heresy of the Eunomians, saying that by Faith only man may obtain life Euerlasting. You haue with These men the Heresy of the Iconomachians in breaking down the Images of Christ our Lord and His Saints, reuiued again. Of the Berenga­rians denying the true Body and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ really present in the Eucharist, as likewise of the Vigilantians that slighted the Inuocation of Saints, denying Honour due to the Relicks of holy Martyrs. But I need not to insist vpon these and many more reuiued Heresies, they are things Vulgarly known to all, largely laid forth in the writings of our Catholick Authors. Se Bellar: now Cited.

CHAP. VII.

1. BY this word Miracle, or Miracles, I vnderstand à super­natural work done by Almighty God aboue the power and force of Nature. For there is no doubt, but that God, who What is meant by Miracles. created Nature, has within his boundles Omnipotency Superemi­nent effects of Grace, which far surpass the little Might of all Creatures made by him. These are finite; The Author of them infinite, And can do more.

2. 2. This Principle is certain. God hath wrought innume­rable Miracles, not only to Testify He can do more then Na­ture, Why Mira­cles are wrought. but with this express Designe also, that by the Manifesta­tion of such wonders, All may come to the knowledge of those [Page 297] Oracles whereby He speaks, and Reueals most sublime Mysteries far aboue the reach of our weak Reason. Now whether these Oracles be Prophets, Church, or Apostles, seems one and the same thing, If they be equally Manifested by miraculous Effects, and speak in his name who Assumes them to teach the world.

3. I say manif [...]sted Oracles by Signes, And say it for this End, That all may reflect vpon the depth of Diuine wisdom, which may on the one side Seem too rigorous in obliging vs to belieue most Difficult Mysteries, neither seen by Eye nor heard by eare, They facili­tate Faith. Were it not, That on the other side, the burden is lessened and our Faith much facilitated by the Euidence of most prudent and conuincing Motiues, For t'is à great Truth. Non sine testimoni [...] reliquit Semetipsum benefaciens de Caelo. His Goodnes so fauorably condescend's to our weaknes, that though he remoues not Vne­uidence and Obscurity from the Mysteries belieued, Yet he makes them all so euidently Credible to prudent Reason ( Benefaciens de Caelo) by the Lustre of Signes and Wonders, That the man who belieues not after à Sight had of such glorious Marks, stand's guilty before Gods Tribunal of damnable Sin.

4. The third Principle. Miracles eminently great in num­ber and quality (for example the raising of the dead to life) Chiefly, when wrought by Persons of Singular virtue to Confirm our Christian Faith, are from God, and euident Signes leading to the knowledge of true Religion. None can doubt of the Assertion, seing Christ our Mord. Matt. 11. When Questio­ned whether He was the true Messias, proued the Affirmatiue by his Signal Miracles. The blind see, the lame walk, Lepers are Clean­sed, And lead to the know­ledge of true Religion. the deaf hear, the dead rise again &c. Which is to say in other Terms. These wonders speak in my behalfe, and plainly Testify that I am the Messias; For only to say, I am à Prophet sent from God without prouing the Truth to Reason by Signes and wonders Conuinces nothing, Induces none to Belieue. Therefore Iohn. 10. Christ remitted the vnbelieuing Iewes not to the Eui­dence of his Doctrin, (for really no Doctrin of Mysteries aboue Reason, though most true, is or can be its own Self-eui­dence) [Page 298] But to his manifest Miracles. The Works which I do in the Our Sauiour pleaded by His Miracles. name of my Father, These giue Testimony of me. Again. If you w [...]st not belieue me belieue my works. Blessed S. Paul might haue Long preached the Sublime Doctrin of Christ, and without Fruit, vnless. Miracles had confirmed it, which he call's the Signes of his They were Signes of Pauls apost­leship. Apostleship. 2. Cor. 12. And How long think ye would Nabu­chodonozer haue remained in his Idolatry vnless He had beheld that prodigious Wonder wrought by God vpon the three Israe­lites in the fiery Fournace. Daniel 3. But when he saw them walk in the flames nothing hurt, He cryed out. Blessed be the God of Sydrack Misack and Abdenago, who hath sent his Angel &c. Miracles therefore are powerful Inducements to Beliefe, which Truth might be yet more largely demonstrated by the Wonders of Moses, of Elias of the Prophets and Apostles, But these I waue and briefly take notice of our Sauiours sacred words Iohn 15. If I had not come and spoken to them, they should not haue finned, but now they haue no excuse of their sin &c. And to show, that Speaking only was no sufficient Conuiction, The Text add's. If I had not done among them works which no other man hath don, they should not haue sinned but now they haue seen, and hate me, and my Father &c.

5. Three things follow from hence. First That eminent Miracles of their own Nature are Marks of Christ's Doctrin and true Religion. 2. That Our Sauiour most iustly condemned Why the Iewes were taxed of Incredulity? the Iewes of infidelity, not so much for reiecting his word or Preaching, as for not belieuing after they had seen it confirmed by Wonder's from Heauen, For t'is Said plainly. Had they not seen they had not sinned. A Doctrin Therefore attested by Miraculous signes, and wonders renders the Vnbelieuer guilty of Infidelity: Consider it alone, deuested of such Marks, what haue we? High Mysteries preached, But without Proofs antece­dently laid forth to Reason; Truths taught, but yet vnknown whether so or otherwise. In à word we haue the Decrees of à great Monarch obliging all to submission, but without his Seal, or Signature.

[Page 299]6. And Hence it is that our blessed Lord impowred those first great Masters of the Gospel Matt. 10. not only to teach his Sacred Verities, but to teach Perswasiuely, by the vertue of Miracles. Goe and preach, saying the Kingdome of God is at hand Cure the sick, raise vp the dead, cleanse the Lepers, Cast out Diuels &c. And they did so. Mark 16. 20. They Went abroad, preached euery where, God Cooperating with them, and confirming their Doctrin by Signes wich followed, Or to speak in the words of S. Paul. Heb. 2. God withall Testifying by Signes and wonders and diuers Miracles &c. A third sequele. If the Iewes had not sinned by reiecting Christ Why secta­ries are blameable? and his Doctrin (which then was new) in case he had not wrought greater Miracles amongst them than euer Any did before him, How highly imprudent think ye. How notoriously culpable are our Sectaries who belieue the new opinions of one wretched Luther or Caluin, without so much as one Miracle wrought, to make them probable?

7. A fourth Principle. True Real Miracles are Still neces­sary in the Church and fortold to be so, by Truth it self. Ioan 12. Amen, Amen, I say vnto you, he that belieues in me, the works which I doe he shall doe, and greater works than these shall he doe. I say purposely, True real Miracles, mindful of S. Chrisostoms profound Dis­course vpon these very words in his Book against the Gentils. There haue been, saith the Saint certain Masters (you may call them Impostors) who had their Disciples and talk't much of Wonders whilst they liued; but none of them euer came to the impudency S. Chri­sosloms ex­cellent Re­flection. as truely to Prophesy of Miracles to be done by them after death. No: A Iugler may do something strange, whilst he is on the Stage, But take him off the Theater, Throwe him out of this life, The cheat appeares, He is worth nothing.

8. All is contrary in our Sauiour, who here foretold of grea­ter 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 Conuersions (which all most iustly account Miraculous) the Truth is Euident, For our Blessed Lord conuerted but few, in Comparison of those who followed in the Church after his Death. [Page 300] (A parallel of other Miracles we shall see presently). Yet more. The Apost­les wrought the greatest Miracles after Christ's Ascension. And t'is worth Reflection, whilst Christs Disciples conuersed with Him, the Gospel record's little of their Miracles, But after his leauing this world Signes followed them, They cast out Diuels, raised the dead, spake with new tongues, conuerted Nations, laid hand on the Sick, &c. And the like Supernatural effects haue been visible in the Church through all Ages after the Apostles. So true are the words of Christ. Greater Things shall be done. And the meaning is not, that euery true Belieuer should work Mi­racles, (For so Christs promise would not bee truly fulfilled, because All do them not) But that some choise elected of his Church, as it happened in the Primitiue times, Members of this Mystical Body, should haue the Priuiledge.

9. One Reason of my Assertion is. If Miracles, Gods own Seals and Characters, were Necessary at the first preaching of the Gospel to induce all to belieue Christs Doctrin, or to distin­guish his Truths from the Errours of Iewes and Pagans, The like Necessity is for their Continuance in after Ages, not only in respect of Infidels, but erring Christians also. For, no sooner had Christ founded his Church, But the Diuel raised vp his Chappel by it, Pestiferous Hereticks from Simon Magus, haue Why Mira­cles are now Necessary? been in euery Age his Chaplins. All of them Pretended to Truth, with an Ecce hic est Christus, Loe we preach Christ. In this Confusion of Sects, it was absolutly needful, to Mark out that happy Christian Society which taught sauing Faith and Shewed where God was adored in Spirit and Truth. Now no Mark can be more Palpable or more attractiue, than the Glory of indubitable Miracles, Christs own Cognisances, and the Clearest Euidences of Apostolical Doctrin.

10. 2. Miracles are necessary in the Church to stirr vp Chri­stian Faith, and Deuotion with it, which would soon grow cold, Two other Reasons alleged. were it not that Diuine Prouidence frequently quickens both, by these exteriour Signes and wonders. Wherefore, as His Goodnes works inwardly and plyes our hearts with Grace, so outwardly also (to Testify that nothing is wanting) He moues vs to Belieue [Page 301] by no less visible Inducements than Those were, which first made the world Christian.

11. 3. The Continuation of Miracles Clearly appeared in the first fiue Centuries after Christ, And as Authority makes them indubitable, So reason also proues them necessary vpon this very Account, that the Conuersion of Infidels strangers to Christ, was not wrought on à suddain, or all at once, But successiuely Age after Age, If then Miracles were necessary to conuince our Christian Verities when Christ and his Apostles first preached to vnbelieuing Iewes and Gentils, no man can probably iudge them Vseless in after Ages, when the like Barbarous, the like Ignorant and vnciuilized Nations who neuer heard of Christ or Scripture became Christians, Induced, to so happy à change, not because they heard truths Taught, But because they saw all confirmed by Euident Signes and Wonders.

12. Reflect I beseech you à little. Were not the Natiues of those vast and remote Regions we call the Indies (whether Orient or Occident) à People as ignorant of our Christian verities and as much auerted from Christs Doctrin, when S. Francis Xauerius, and other laborious Missioners first preached There, as any Na­tions One Reason further illu­strated were to whom the Apostles preached Christ? Yes most certainly. In both cases the disdain and ignorance may well be paralled. Imagin now that S. Xauerius had only opened his Bible; And told the ruder People of the high Mysteries of Christian Faith, would this think ye, though neuer so speciously laid forth, haue gained credit? No. But when their eyes beheld Miracles, and glorious Miracles accompaning His laborious Preaching; The By an In­stance of Missioners sent to preach deaf, dumb, blind, and sick instantly cured. When they saw the Sanctity, the Austerity and Innocency of His virtuous Life. When they heard him indued with the Gists of tongues. When they knew that after à noble contempt of the world, The blessed man sought nothing but God, And fearing neither death nor dangers Couragiously trauelled from one end of the world to the other &c. Then it was they began to look about them, to open their eyes more, to Renounce Idolatry and sub­mit [Page 302] to Gods truths, most manifestly euidenced by glorious Mira­cles. Then it was that the Saint (Gods grace concurring) con­uerted Thousands and Thousands, All which is vpon certain Record, and witnessed by those who haue written the wonders. Howeuer grant that S. Xauerius wrought but one or two Miracles (when many more cannot without impudency be denyed him) our Assertion subsists, that Miracles are necessary, for the reclai­ming of Infidels, And if he did none at all, This as S Austin an­ciently obserued vpon à like occasion, is the greatest Wonder of all, That he conuerted innumerable Heathens to our Chri­stian Faith, without Miracles.

CHAP. VIII.

1. I I say first. Clear and Vnquestionable Miracles, of the like Quality with those which Christ and his Apostles wrought, haue been euer since, most gloriously manifest in the Roman Catholick Church, And in no other Society of Christians, I hope none for Proof of my Assertion can expect that I write Volumes, or bring to light again in this short Treatise so much as the hundred Part of those prodigious wonders which are vpon Record in the liues of Saints, in the death of Martyrs, and Ecclesiastical History. Baronius large Tomes giue you innu­merable [Page 303] in euery Century, And Bellar: Lib 4. de not is Eccle: C. 14. Hint's at à few from the first Age to the 15. I must waue this longer work, and briefly Argue thus.

2. Christ Spake Truth in the Text now cited. Iohn 14. 12. Prophesying of future glorious Miracles to be wrought by those vvho be­lieued Indubitable Miracles euince Christs Pro­phesy fulfil­led. in him. But the indubitable Miracles wrought in the Ro­man Catholick Church only, through euery age proue that Pro­phesy exactly fulfilled, or effectually Euidence the Verity of it; Therefore none can doubt of Miracles done in the Roman Ca­tholick Church, if Christs Prediction be true, and this Proposi­tion be also proued. viz. That, This Church only, hath effec­tually manifested the truth of that Prophesy, or shewn such Wonders as haue proportion with Christs own glorious works, and the Apostles.

3. Now to clear the Truth, Here is my Principle. When I read à Prophesy in Scripture, I submit to it by Faith, but when I See it actually Accomplished or made manifest by real visible Effects And both Sense and vndoubted History discouer so much euidently, Reason, grounded on Sense and History, Can not but prudently assent to the Verity. What I would say is clear in all the Ancient Prophesies of Christ, and his Church. Take this one instance. The Prophets, Daniel chiefly and Esay, Foretold of the large Extent of Christs glorious Kingdom here on earth, of The Princi­ple whereon, our Asser [...]ion is grounded. whole Nations flocking to his Church, of Her teaching those Truths which were belieued from the Beginning; But when all saw with their eyes innumerable Heathens gained to our Christian Faith, and heard of other Conuersions conueyed to them vpon certain Relation (for few or none of vs saw the latter Conuer­sions wrought in China, Iapan, and the like remote places) when I say Authority neuer Questioned giues vs certainty hereof, Then all bless God, And conclude. That what the Prophets fortold of great Conuersions, hath been visibly fulfilled; And that Christs Church is dayly more and more enlarged, Answerable to those Predictions.

4. Hence I discourse further, and Assert, that the glorious [Page 304] Miracles which stand vpon indubitable Record, and haue been done in the Roman Church only, most notoriously Euidence without Dispute the actual Accomplisment of our Sauiours own words. The works which I do, he shall do also and greater than these shall he do. If you Ask how I proue the Assertion? I appeal to Sense and certain History. Sense first saw these Miracles done, and certain History which Supplies the want of Sense, conueyes them to vs, though innumerable are liuing at this Hour, who haue been eye Witnesses of Miracles. Now here we might enter vpon à long work and Recount what the Fathers and Historians both ancient and latter, haue of this Subiect. Read if you please these few.

5. Irenaeus Bishop and Martyr who liued about the year 180. lib: 2. Cap. 57. And saies. The number of these Diuine works which God hath manifested in his Church the whole Fathers, produced witnesses of Miracles. world ouer, are numberles. A little before, He mentions these particulars. Some cast out Diuels, other Prophesy, others lay their hands on the sick and cure them; yea and raise vp the dead, who lined with vs for many years. Tertullian of the second Age Lib. ad Scapul: And Euseb. lib. 5. giue you à large Catologue of most glorious Mi­racles. The like doth S. Bafil. Lib. de Spir: S. Speaking of that worthy Bishop of Neocaesarea. S. Gregory, deseruedly called Tha [...] ­maturgus, for the wonders he wrought. S. Athanasius and S. Hierom relate the Miracles of S. Hilarion, S. Martin. And the sames Hierome. Lib. aduersus Vigelantium c. 4. Saith that the Signes and wonders manifested in the Temples of Martyrs proue mightily beneficial, both to Belieuers and the Incredulous. Responde (they S. Hieromes words. are his words) Quomodo in Vilissimo pulucre &c. Answer, Vigi­lantius, how it is that we see such Signes and virtue present in à little vnualuable dust, and dead mens ashes? S. Ambrose, an Eye­witness of Miracles wrought by the Reliques of S. Geruasius and S. Ambrose an lye wit­ness. Protafius Ep [...]st. 85. for proof of them, Appeal's to sense and the Iudgement of others. You haue known, saith He, Nay you haue seen, many dispossesed of Diuels, many when they touched the garments of Saints, free'd from their Infirmities &c. S. Austin Lib. 22. de Ciuit: [Page 305] C. 8. & 9. Is large in relating the Miracles wrought by the glo­rious S. Austins Euidence. Martyr S. Stephen; And Lib. Contra. Epist. Fundam. C. 4 5. Saith, That the true Church of Christ is proued and demonstra­ted by Miracles. Our Venerable Bede à great Scholler, à worthy vertuous man, And highly esteemed the whole Christian world ouer, certainly deserues credit, when. Lib. 4. Histor. He re­count's the Miracles of the glorious S. Cuthbert Bishop of Lindes­fern and of others within our England. Are any such seen now à dayes wrought by Protestant Bishops? No God knowes, Their new Faith is à great stranger to all old Miracles.

6. Fall if you please lower and read S. Bernard in the life of S. Malachy à worthy Bishop of Ireland, what wonders haue we there? The ancient Miracles of the Church, Saith S. Bernard, were apparently, manifest in S. Malachy. He had the gift of Pro­phesy, S. Bernard in the Life of S. Ma­lachy. Cured the Sick, changed the minds of men to the better, and raised vp the dead. Now if you will hear of S. Bernards own Miracles, Read Godfridus who liued with him. Lib. 4. C. 4. and wrote His life, you haue innumerable. T'is hard, saith Bellarmin, to Recount all, And as numberles are the known Miracles of those two admirable, Saints Blessed S. Dominick and the Seraphical S. Francis, Founders of two most glorious Religious Orders. S. Fran­cis, To omit his other certain wonders, was Himself à Miracle of Austerity and Pennance. The like was S. Dominick, who as we read in his life raised three dead men to life. And for three you haue more reuiued by an other of His holy Order, I mean that admirable Saint Vincentius Ferrerius. So the pious and learned S. Antoninus Arch-Bishop of Florence Recounts in his Histpry. 3. Part lib. 23. And who dares say that so great à Doctor And most modest Prelate, was so Frontless as to write that we read, not long after the death of S. Vincentius, without Assurance and Cer­tainty. The whole world would haue decryed the Folly, Had it been à Fourb, an Imposture; or à fabulous Story.

7. By what is now said of These and other infinit Operations of grace which I am forced to omit, you may inferr first. That the Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholick Church are not [Page 306] inferiour to those done by the Apostles, And consequently if our Our Sa­uiours Pro­phesy falfil­led in the Churches Miracles. Sauiours Prophesy was seen manifestly fulfilled in those first Apo­stolical Wonders, it hath been also as effectually accomplished in these latter of the Church. I say, in the Roman Catholick Church, For all those now named, whom God priuiledged with the Grace of working Miracles, were of the same vnion in Faith with this Church, and no other. It followes. 2. That Humane Faith, when no iust Exception comes against it, But the fool-hardy Spirit of vnbelieuing Heathens and Hereticks, giues Mortal Assurance of Miracles. The Miracles of our Sauiour euidence this Truth. He raised Lazarus from death. Iohn 11. A Touch of his garment cured the infirm woman. Matt. 9. He restored sight to à blind man. Iohn. 9. Obserue I beseech you. All Iewry beheld not these Wonders, But some only, Yet they were wrought for the good of All, and without doubt proued conuincing Arguments of Christ's great power to innumerable, who actually saw them not, But only heard of them, and Assented to what they heard, vpon Miracles made Credi­ble vpon hu­mane Au­thority. humane Authority prudently credible. Therefore our Sauiour Supposed That humane Faith (and this before the writing of Scripture) was à Sufficient Means to conuey to others à Moral certainty of his Miracles. I say yet more. If God euer efficaciously intended to worck à true Miracle since the Creation of the world by any of his creatures, Humane Faith was, and yet is the First and most Connatural way of Conueying it to the knowledge of others. Who therefore excepts against this vsual course of Pro­uidence destroies à Principle of Nature, and can belieue nothing of Supernatural Effects, but what he either sees with his own eyes, or find's registred in Holy Writ.

8. Ask now. How many Austins, How many Chrysostoms, how many Cyrills, how many Bedes and Bernards, haue vpon their Credit, and Reputation assured vs of Miracles wrought in the Roman Church only, like to those in the Primitiue Age? They are numberless. Did Christ our Lord restore life to the dead, sight to the blind, health to the sick? The Professors of our Catholick Church, by his virtue, haue done the very same, and [Page 307] the Miracles are more numerous. But now, and here is the chief demand. Were our Sauiours glorious Works made Credible to Authority alleged. thousands no Eye-witnesses vpon Humane faith and Authority, before Scripture registred them? So it is. Behold we haue our Austins, our Iustins, our Basils, our Bernards vnexceptionably plain for the Churches Miracles, and none can without Impudency, and the violation of all humane Credit, probably Cauil at what the­se haue written. None can without making very Saints Impostors and guilty of that enormous sin of grosly deceiuing Posterity, pare away so much as any substantial parcel of what is Recorded. Therefore vnless all humane Faith perish, its desperate rashness to deny most glorious Miracles to haue been in the Roman Ca­tholick Church, which was my Assertion.

9. And to confirm it more. I Ask why do Sectaries to dis­grace our Miracles, introduce, I know not what Stories of the Heathens wonders? Are these credible or no? If not; reiect them boldly as Impertinences; If Credible, it seems humane Faith is of some weight with Sectaries when they read of the Heathens fopperies, though of no Account for true Miracles wrought by the Church of Christ. Again, this Faith is much worth with these men, when to lay à foul Aspersion on à Pope Sectaries in Consequen­ces. or Prelate, they fill their Books with à hundred petty Stories, whether true or false imports little. Herein their easy Be­liefe swallowes all, But if à Father or Choise Historian mention à Miracle, its à Fourb, à dream, à fiction, and what not.

10. One word more and I end. A meer pretended Humane Authority, which really is not, And therefore nothing worth, is shamefully made vse of to patronize that crying Sin of Secta­ries Schism. Our Church, Say they, Changed Her ancient Faith, the Charge at most relies on History or Humane Faith, God neuer told them so. For example. The Lateran Council first brought in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation, some Pope or other first inuented Purgatory &c. Suppose all this were as true, as t'is hideously false, History or nothing must make it good, and yet in our present case it is no warrant for known Miracles. Thus [Page 308] Faith riseth and fall's in value as our New mens fancy pleases. Belieue it, had blessed S. Ambrose (cited aboue), in lieu of that Miraculous Cure wrought on à blind man at Millan, when Him­self was present (and innumerable of that Citty saw the wonder) related à stroy preiudicial to either Pope or Clergy, How often think you would that haue been told and reiterated in the Writings os Sectaries? But now when Hee speaks of à supernatural Work of grace, done at the Reliques of the holy Martyrs Gerua­sius Humane Faith now Valuable now not with Secta­ries. and Protasius, not à word is said. No, all passes in Silence, as if Christs own Marks and the Churches glory (vndoubted Miracles) deserued no Memory, but Contrarywise Scorn and con­tempt.

11. I said in the Assertion, that the grace of true Miracles, (meaning such as exactly Answer to our Sauiours glorious works) is proper and peculiar to the Roman Church only. The proof hereof is easy. First, Sectaries pretend not to work Miracles, For they say, that power ceased long since, though I might here mind them of Caluins great wonder, and really it was à strange one, For whereas God's Saints restored life to the dead, this great Sinner, hauing perswaded one Bruleus of Ostun to fain him­self dead, depriued the poor wretch of his life Or, rather God Caluins Miracle. to lay open the fraud and Hypocrisy of both the one and other, turned the Fiction into à Verity, for really Bruleus who Counter­feited himself dead, to get Caluin the renown of working Mi­racles, was after all the Ministers long prayer, found dead indeed. The story is known and writ not only by Hierome Bolsec in Vita Calvini. C. 13. But by others also. And here I wish Sectaries to giue some credit to humane Authority.

12. Now as Protestants disclaim Miracles, so do the Iewes also, for they neuer had any after our Sauiours Comming. T'is Sectaries Iewes and Turks dis­claim Mira­cles. true, that Pond vpon Probatica. Ioan. 5. Or as many will haue it, the Pond it self, so called because the Sheep ordained to Sacri­fice were washed there, continued Miraculous, whilst Christ our Lord preached, But soon after ceased, And so do all other wonders amongst that abandoned People. The Turks who say. [Page 309] God gaue Mahomet the sword and Christ the Power of working Miracles, pretend to no such supernatural effects at all. No more in Iustice can Heathens or the Donatists lay Claim to any, whose wonders were but trifles, compared with the Glorious works of Christ and His Church. None of them all conuerted whole Nations to Christian Religion, none of them raised vp the dead. None of them after death wrought any Miracles. See Tertullian writing of the Heathens. In Apolog: C. 22. 23. And S. Austin against the Donatists. Homil. 13. in Ioan. De Vtilit. Credent. C. 16. As also Lib. 10. de Ciuit. C. 16.

13. I say. 2. If the Miracles of Christ and the Apostles ra­tionally proued against Iewes and Gentils, the Credibility of Apo­stolical The ancient and modern Miracles compared together. Doctrin, The very like Signes and supernatural effects most euident in the Roman Catholick Church, as rationally proue against Sectaries the Credibility of our now professed Ca­tholick Doctrin. I would say. Church Miracles constantly wrought in all Ages since Christianity began, are no less effica­cious to draw Sectaries to the Belief of our Church Doctrin, than those the Apostles wrought were to induce Iewes and Gen­tils to the belief of Apostolical Doctrin. Here is one Proof. The same Signes and Marks of Truth when equal in Maiesty, Worth, Quality, and Number euer discouer to Reason the same Truth, For, God can no more deceiue by such works of Grace than by his own Diuine word. Interrogemus ipsa Miracula saith S. Austin. Tract: 24. in Ioan: Quid nobis loquantur de Christo. Let vs ask of Miracles what they say of Christ? Habent enim si intel­liga [...]tur, linguam suam. They want no tongue to speak with, their Language is plain for Christ. Iust so Say I and proue it, Church Miracles Speak as planly for the Church. Wherefore if the Roman Catholick Church most clearly giues in euidence of Her Miracles equal in worth, quality, and number with those wrought by Christ and his Apostles, it followes, that as those first Apostolical wonders were sufficient to conuince Iewes and Gentils of the Truth of Christianity, So these latter also wrought in the Church are of like force, and no less efficacious to [Page 310] conuince Sectaries of what euer Doctrin She teaches. Now pon­der What the Apostles did, the Church doth. well what the Apostles did. They cured the sick, dispossed Di­uels, raised the Dead, conuerted Nations, &c. But these very Mira­cles haue been done in the Roman Catholick Church, yea and greater too, Ergo we haue the like Euidence of Truth in both the primitiue Age and this, Consequently with it the same Truth. The Euidence hath been partly laid forth already, and shall be further proued presently. The Sequel is vndenia­ble.

14. I say. 3. No otherwise, nor vpon any better ground can the Sectary Oppose the Miracles of our Church, than Iewes and Gentils haue opposed and yet doe oppose those of Christ and his Apostles. Obserue well. Will the Sectary Say our Miracles are wrought by the Diuels power? So the Iewes Ca­lumniated Christ own Glorious works. Will he Say, they are only fained by poor deluded or bold-lying Catholicks? So the Iewes speak of Christ's own Miracles to this day. Will he Say that some Miracles auouched true, haue been afterward euidently The like op­position ma­de against Christ's Miracles and the Churches. Counterfeit, and why may not those the Church glories in, be rancked with such? Contra. And why may not Christs own wonders be also listed with them? The Argument, if of any force equally concludes against both; For if the Forgery of some proue all forged, Christ's own Miracles no more escape the Censure; than if one should say, (t'is S. Austins instance) all women are naught, because some haue been so. Let then the Sectary show vpon good Principles That Church Miracles haue been forged, and he speak's to the purpose. In the interim, he may well think, his bold incredulous Humour makes none for­ged.

15. One may reply. There is à vast disparity between our Sauiours Miracles registred in Scripture, and those we plead for, only attested vpon humane Faith. I Answer in order to Chri­stians there is à Disparity in the Testimony, But that fall's from the purpose now. First because Christs Miracles were known and admitted vpon humane Authority, before Scripture was writ­ten. [Page 311] 2. And chiefly, because both Iewes and Gentils as much slight our Scripture testifying those wonders, as the Miracles them­selues, And make little account of either.

16. But when they read these things in Scripture, and more­ouer both Iewes and Here­ticks con­uinced. hear what Miracles God hath Constantly wrought in euery age (yea almost euery year) in his Church, and yet continues that fauour to our present dayes; When they hear and read of the Miracles which that one sacred house of Loreto Euidences, the publick Monuments and Testimonies whereof are vndeniably Authentick, and able to conuince the most obdurate Gentile. When they read or hear of the continual Miracles done at the Reliques of S. Iames at Compostella in Spain the infinite number of Pelgrims resorting thither from all parts of Christendom (besides Records) bear witness of those great Benefits. When they read or hear of that perpetual Miracle seen in France, ex­hibited to all mens eyes in the Sacred Viall of S. Mary Magdalen, wherein the precious Blood gathered by that penitent Saint at our Sauiours Passion is yet perserued, and Visibly boyl's vp on the very day he suffered after the reading of the Passion. A whole Nation testifies this, thousands and thousands haue seen it, and Spondanus. ad An: 1147. Saith, he beheld the viole in the Church of S. Maximin.

17. When again, they hear or read of the vndoubted Miracu­lous Cures wrought vpon the blind, the lame, and all sort of di­seased Persons by the Intercession of our Blessed Lady at Mon­taigu, By what particular Miracles, they are Conuinced. (English vsually call the place Sichem) The euidence whe­reof is so vndeniable without dispute, that Iustus Lipsius in su [...] Aspricolli to the Reader, most iustly saith. They are not men (but rather beasts) or purposely shut their eyes, that See not those Miracles as clear as the Sun; For, Saith He, many of them haue been manifest to our eyes and senses. And Erycius Puteanus speak's as fully the sense of his Predecessor. See his Praeface ad Aspricol. H [...]c ista &c. These very Miracles which the Mother of God began to work at Montaigu this very Age we liue in, are so mani­fest, so many and most stupendious, that if any doubt of them, Poterit [Page 312] & de vniuersâ Numinis potentiâ dubitare, He may as well doubt of all the power God hath, They are plain truths, rigorously and most seuerely examined, testified by Eye-witnesses, and now vpon Two certain Mirac [...]es related. Record &c. I am forced to omit innumerable latter Miracles, (The work would be Immense to recount but halfe) yet one most certain, and no less famous then certain, you haue here set down. Another truly wonderful, followes in the next Chapter. Sense, Experience Reason and all humane Faith goe to wrack, if either be boggl'd at. Those iudgements are peruerse, Those hearts harder then stones, that dare deny them Credit.

CHAP. IX.

1. THe obiections are as few as fallacious, and cannot be otherwise, when, as t'is said, All of them proue as much (that's iust nothing) against our Sauiours own Miracles as against those of the Roman Catholick Church. To see this truth mani­fested and difficulties vanish into nothing, be pleased to afford à little Attention.

2. The Sectary may Obiect first. None of vs all know One obiec­tion. what strange effects nature can produce in certain circumstances, nor what Povver the Diuel has to work Miracles, when there­fore Scripture forwarn's vs. 2. Thess. 2. Of Antichrists great Prodigies, as also of False-Christs and false-Prophets appearing with Signes and wonders. Matt. 24. We may iustly suspect, if na­ture alone cannot doe such works, that the Diuel had à hand in most of our Church Miracles. Contra. 1. And You see Found weak and friuo­lous. first, the Argument Equally oppugn's Christs own Miracles, li­cenceth both Iewes and Gentils to slight him as à false-Prophet, and his glorious vvonders also. Contra. 2. Not one of these False-Prophets once raised▪ the dead to life, nor after their own death did any thing like à Miracle, as the departed Saints of Gods Church haue done most frequently by à touch of their Reliques only, which Truth of ( mighty vveight) deserues Refle­xion, and refutes what euer Donatist, or Coniurer can say in behalf of counterfeit Miracles. Contra. 3. And obserue well [Page 322] the Obiection. None knowes what nature or the Diuel can doe &c. What then I beseech you? May one inferr from our not kno­wing the Diuels power that this euil Spirit hath actually wrought all the Miracles recorded in Scripture, and Ecclesiastical History? To Assert this we must not only know how farr his power reaches, but more haue Assurance also Of his actually doing such Won­ders. And thus much (manifestly improbable) neither is nor can be ascertained vpon the weakest Principle within the compass of nature or grace. We vsually say, the Diuel appear's with à Clouen foot, That is, you may easily discern his Villainy, And we know he neuer cast's out euil Spirits like Himself from possessed Persons, which yet hath been done and frequently in God's Church Miracles aboue the power of Diuels. Church. He can, it is true, if we belieue History take vp the Deuided Parts of à dead man and act with them for à while, But there is no such Motion, no such Operations in the dead assumed Corps, as haue been seen in many Miraculously restored to life. Be it how you will, We are sure God can doe, yea and hath done great Miracles, when therefore all imaginable Circum­stances forceably induce vs to belieue that they are his own glo­rious works, it is I hope more wisdom to Ascribe them to an Omnipotent Power, than to Father them vpon Diuels.

3. Some who plainly see, its à degree of madness to doubt of so much humane faith as Testifies of Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholick Church grant many haue been done, But then Obiect. 2. God did them to manifest that Christ is the true Messias, or to work à Belief in vs of so much Doctrin only as is Common to all Christians, but not to confirm our Popish Errours, of Praying to Saints, Purgatory &c. Contra. This Argument also impugn's our Sauiours great Miracles, which were not wrought (one may say) to confirm all the Doctrin he taught, but à Part or parcel of it only. Contra. 2. If Mira­cles Mark out à Doctrin common to all, or confirm so much truth And no more; It seem's strange, that Arians, Pelagians and Protestants work not Miracles as frequently as the Church doth, For these men own à Doctrin common to all Christians, [Page 323] yet show none of these wonders. Contra. 3. There is not one Miracles truly alleged for euery Doctrin the Church teaches. Doctrin taught by our Church, (and held erroneous by Sectaries) which is not Sealed, Signed, and Attested by euident Miracles. We haue innumerable for Christs Real and substantial Presence in the Eucharist; As many for the Inuocation of Saints, as also for the Honour due to holy Reliques. Innumerable proue that third place of Purgatory &c. All these (may good Authors deserue Credit) are vpon vndoubted Record. And what iust Exception haue Sectaries against so great Authority? I'le tell you. Their own incredulous Humour. Here is all. Whereas, could they speak to the cause, they should giue vs weight for weight, and Oppose what we Allege (in behalf of Miracles) vpon grounded Principles. That is, they Should euince positiuely that our Au­thors are meer Cheats, and fain Stories, when we read of Mira­cles wrought in confirmation of praying to Saints, the Real Pre­sence. And this in all law of Disputation they are obliged to do vpon solid Proofs indeed, distinct from their own Incre­dulity, or à meer Saying, Such Records are false. But do what ye will Sectaries can neuer be driuen to dispute vpon Princi­ples.

4. A third Obiection. S. Austin. Lib. de Vnit: Ecclesiae. Saith. We therefore say not, we belieue because so many wonders are done all the world ouer in holy places, for what euer we find in this kind. Ideo sunt approbanda quia in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ fiunt, are to be approued S. Austin alleged against Mi­racles Speak's no­thing for Sectaries. because they are wrought in the Catholick Church. Hitherto, the obiection is of no force, For the Saint only Saies, No new Miracles ought to gain certain credit, But such only as are wrought in the Church, or such as confirm Her Doctrin, or finally haue the Churches Approbation. Now because he dispu­tes against the Donatists, and supposeth the Church known vpon other grounds expressed in Scripture, Her Vnity Chiefly and vni­uersal extent ouer the world, before these latter Miracles were heard of. Let us, Saith S. Austin, waue this Plea of Miracles (you Donatists allege yours, and I mine) and Argue by Scripture only, and see what Church Scripture commend's antecedently known, [Page 324] before these latter Miracles came to our knowledge. Which is to say, though the after Particular Miracles added to others formerly done, may much strengthen our Faith, yet absolutly How the Saint plea­ded against the Dona­tists. Speaking, Faith depend's not of them, Because the Church we belieue in is sufficiently manifested by Her Vnity, Perp [...]tuity, and Vniuer­sallity expressed in Scripture. Haec sunt causae nostrae documenta, hac firmamenta. Here in sies all we haue to Say, Whilst we contest with you Donatists that own Scripture with vs, yet Cauil at our Miracles. Who euer read's this one Chapter exactly And dra­wes any other sense from the whole Context than what is now briefly hinted at, will much oblige me may he please to disco­uer it.

5. One yet may Obiect. S. Austin Saith more, and it seem's much against vs. Non ideo ipsa manifestatur Catholica quia haec in ea fiunt. The Catholick Church is not vpon that Account manifested to you Donatists, because these Miracles are wrought in it. I Answer. 1. The words vnderstood as Sectaries interpret Euert as wholly the Miracles of our Sauiour, who said. If you will not belieue me, belieue my Works. 2. The Sectaries sense impugn's also the express Doctrin of S. Austin. de Vtilit. Credendi. C. [...]7. Where He Asserts that Hereticks are condemned by the Maiesty of Miracles. Besi­des, Their sense is nothing to the purpose, because in this very Passage He speak's of latter Miracles known to S. Ambrose at Millan, And Saith, Hee will no more insist on These, than permit the Donatists to talk of their False-visions; For the Church is sufficiently manifested without them vpon à Surer Principle (the Holy Scripture) which the Donatists admitted, and therefore Why He [...] waued the proof of Mi­racles with the Dona­tists. whilst They pretended to Miracles as well as S. Austin did, Hee prudently waued that Discours, and Argued by Scripture only, lea­uing Miracles to their own worth and weight. I Say to their ovvn vveight, which is gathered from this great Doctors Dis­course.

6. Our Lord Iesus, saith he, arose from the dead, and manifested Himself to his Disciples and offered his sacred body to be touched by their hands, yet, least that might be thought à fallacy, he iudged it meet to confirm [Page 325] his Resurrection more Principally by the Testimony of the law, the Prophets and Psalms, showing All things were now accomplished [...]n him. Whence I inferr, as the touching his Sacred body was Proof enough, though not the chiefest of his Resurrection, when Scrip­ture was at hand to make that most manifest; So Miracles also The true Reason, giuen. wrought in the Church manifest that Oracle but not Principally to the Donatists, who ought to haue belieued more firmly the Churches Doctrin vpon that one potent Proof of the Apostle. 1. Tim: 3. 15. The Pillar and ground of Truth, than for all the latter wonders done in the Church. Yet these haue à mighty force and are stronge Inducements, so far as Motiues can reach, but not the chief and Principal cause of any mans Belief, or Assent. Read then S. Austin's words thus. The Church is not made manifest by her latter Miracles to à Donatist who Cauils at such wonders, but Principally by Scripture which he admit's, and will like Prote­stants be tryed by, You haue the Saints full Sense and à great Truth with it, whereof there can be no doubt at all, when. Lib. Contra Epist: Fundament [...]. C. 4. 5. He Demonstrat's the Church by Her Miracles.

7. To end this point between S. Austin and the Donatist, as also between Catholicks and Protestants, I say all Controuersies are fully tried and happily ended by Scripture only. But how? Not because any can pretend to find euery Tenet of Faith clearly set down in so many express Terms of holy Writ, For the Pro­testant How Scrip­ture decides all Contro­uersies. pretend's not to so much in behalf of his Doctrin, But thus the Orthodox discourses with S. Austin. Scripture euidently points at the Church of IESVS Christ known by Her Marks and ma­nifest Signes, by Her Antiquity, Her large Spread ouer the whole world, by the Succession of Her Pastors and Doctors▪ Miracles, and the like Sig­nal Motiues. Thus much once clearly laid forth in the written Word, that Holy Book remit's him to the Church Clearly marked, commend's Her, faith S. Austin, and command's him to hear and learn what euer She teaches.

8. Whence it is, that our profound Doctor Disputing the Case, whether the Baptized by Hereticks were to be rebapti­zed, [Page 326] laboured not to decide the Question by any express words in holy Scripture (wholly silent in this particular) But contrarywise teaches, that the Church which is diffused all ouer (and no Party of Donatists shut vp in à corner of Afrique) was to giue Sentence herein, For She is that great Oracle, which Scripture commend's. Read Lib. 2. de Bapt. C. 4. And de Vnit: Eccles. C. 22. Thus briefly you see the true difference between the Protestant and Catholick, The first has not à word of Scripture for his Tenets, much less any Orthodox euidenced Church. The Catho­lick relies on à Church spread the whole world ouer, known by The Catho­licks stronge hold. Miracles, Conuersions &c. And Scripture command's him firmly to belieue what euer She Proposes as Faith. Qui vos audit me audit. Whoeuer hears the Church hears Christ, And in this Sense Scrip­ture manifesting Gods own Oracle, which cannot but propose truth, end's all Controuersies.

9. A 4 ^.th Obiection. Iulian the Apostata as S. Gregory Na­zian. Orat. 1. in Iulian: And Theoder: Lib: 3. Histo. C. 3. attest, droue away Diuels with the Sign of the Cross, Therefore wic­ked men can doe Miracles. And why may not Almighty God A fourth Obiection solued. for Reasons best known to his infinite wisdom do strange won­ders, and permit an Arian to Say, All are wrought to Confirm his false Doctrin. Contra. Both Parts of the Obiection equally impugn the Primitiue Miracles of Christ and the Apostles. To the first I answer. An Heretick may work à Miracle to proue Catholick Doctrin, but neuer to make his own False Opinion probable. The Reason is. God who is Truth and Goodnes it self, can no more deceiue by his ovvn VVorks, than by his ovvn VVords. Sicut humana consuetudo saith S. Austin. Epist: 49. verbis Diuina potentia, etiam factis loquitur. As man speak's by words, so God speak's by his works. But the Works or Wonders now Spoken of because supernatural proceed from God, And as is God can no more deceiue by his ovvn Works then by by Words. supposed deceiue, Therefore it ill beseem's an Infinit Truth and Goodnes to do them. Vpon this Ground I say likewise, Di­uine Prouidence will neuer permit his own glorious Works ( Seals and Signes of Truth) to be abused by wicked men. But [Page 327] of this particular I intend to speak more largely hereafter.

10. Wee now Come to Mr. Stillingfleets Cauils you haue some of them. Part. 1. C. 5. p. 134. And 135. Where he doth not Mr Stilling­fleets Cauils answered. so much, impugne Miracles as would haue them done by such Persons as he likes well of; Popes for example, that pretend to infallibility. And if (which is easy) we produce many wrought by Holy Popes, His next Querie perhaps may be. Why all all of them are not Miraculous men alike? In à word I like not to search into the depth of Gods secret Counsel, And there­fore briefly discourse of persons fauoured with such Graces, as S. Austin doth of different Places. Tom. 2. Epist. 137 to his Clergy and people at Hippo, where he proposeth this Question. Quare in alijs locus haec miracula fiant & non in alijs: Why are Miracles done in some places and not in others? VVe haue known some wrought at Millan: [...]n Africa though full of Saints Bodies, not so? He return's this wise Answer grounded on the Apostles wotds. 1. Cor. 12. Non om­nes Sancti &c. All saints haue not the Gift of curing diseases, all discern not spirits, ita nec in omnibus memorijs Sanctorum. &c. So God And first why God works Mira­cles by some, and not by others. who divides his Graces according to his own best will, doth not these wonders at the Memory of euery Saint. And who dare en­ter into his secret Counsel, or ask why he doth so? Why raised he three dead men by S. Dominick, and not one we know of by S. Austin? Dividit propria unicuique prout vult, He is Lord and di­stributes his own fauours as he pleaseth. And thus we Answer Mr. Stillingfleet who next Saith some thing of Miracles done in Corners. What can the man mean? Are all the wonders wrought at Loreto Compostella, Sichem and other places seen to innumerable, and All vpon certain record to be callid Corner Miracles? Be pleased to hear worse yet.

11. Page 135. Think not saith Mr. Stillingfleet VVe are of such easy faith, that the pretended growing out of à leg in Spain, or any of your famous Miracles wrought by your Priests in Italie will persvvade vs Mr Stilling­fleets vnjust exceptions against the Miracle wrought at Zaragosa. to believe your Church infallible. Again, after his Talk of Diuels doing no feats when Opposers are by, He utters this scornful lan­guage. It is an eas [...] thing for à Stump to grow à leg in its passage from [Page 328] Spain hither, For fama crescit eundo. And in despite of Truth, cast's out too much bitter venom to obscure à Glorious work of God, wrought by the Intercession of our Blessed Lady vpon à young man at Caesar Augusta or Zaragosa in Spain (where you haue her miraculous Statua Set on à Marble Pillar And for that reason is called, Neustra Sennora del Pilari) It is one of the most euident and clearest Miracles vvhich I belieue hath been done in the memory of any man now liuing. I haue the whole Printed Relation by me both Latin and Dutch, vvritten by Peter Neurat Doctor of Phisick, and dedicated to his Excellence Don Fran­cisco Marquis of Caretto and Grana. Embassador Extraordinary from the Emperour to His Catholick Maiesty. The Substance whereof is thus.

12. Ego ab Caesaraugusta Venio &c. I come from Zaragosa and bring tydings of à Miracle not heard of in any age. A young man had his leg cut of and buried, which was Miraculously restored again, by the Intercession of the most Sacred virgin. My Lord, I here present you with à Gift it is not mine, but our Blessed Ladies, to whom immor­tal thanks are due for the fauour. Giuen at Madrid Ibid. Mart. Anno 1642. I haue besides the Licence of the Vicar General, Don Gabriel de Aldama appointing the whole Narration to be Printed, which begins. Nos el Licenciado Consultor del Sanct [...] of­ficio &c. Subscribed.

13. Yet more. I haue the Attestation of Hieronimus Bri­zids, Testimonies of that Stu­pendious Miracle. who had order from the Vicar General to pervse and censure the vvhole Relation presented to the said Vicar, D [...] Gabriel de Aldama. Legi (saith he) libellum de stupendo Mirac [...]l [...] [...] ­stro saeculo inaudito Diuae Virginis de Pilari, quod verum esse scio &c. I haue read the little book concerning that stupendious and strange Mi­racle [Page 329] in this our Age of our Blessed Lady of Pilari, which I know to [...]e true, I knew the youth at Caesaraugusta, or Zaragosa, when he had but one leg, and there begged Almes at the Church door, I saw him after­wards at Madrid, whither he came at the command of his Catho­lick Maiesty, and saw him going on both leggs. I saw the Mark, which the Blessed Virgin had left, where the leg was cut of, And not only I, but all the Fathers of the Imperial Colledge beheld this (I might add vpon certain Relation innumerable other Eye-witnesses and of noble Men too, then in the court of Spain) I knevv the young mans Parents, I knevv the Chirurgion that cut of the leg. Giuen at Madrid. 12. Mart. 1642. Vnderwritten.

14. We may add herevnto the Approbation of F. Ioseph Crespo, The licence of His Ca­tholick Maiesty. Prior of S. Martins Monastery in Madrid, who knew, as he saith, this Miracle to be most true, and witnessed it vnder his own hand. 4. Martij. 1642. Lastly. Facultas Regia, or his Catho­lick Maiesties Licence, is thus annexed. Signata à D. Augustino de Arteaga & Cannizares, Scriba Camerae Regiae. You shall see pre­sently how rigidly the Miracle was examined, and afterward approued by the Lord Arch-Bishop of Zaragosa. The parti­culars whereof are briefly as follow.

15. This young man called Michael Ioannes Pellicer about nine­teen Who this young man vvas? years of age, was born at Calanda à Village in Aragon, Son to Michael Pellicer à Husbandman, and Mary Blasco, Inhabitants of that Village. Whilst he serued his Vncle Iames Blasco, His right leg broken. being in à Cart loaden with wheat, by chance fell down, and one of the wheels ran ouer his right leg, and broke it. His Vncle and Friends being poor Conueyed him first to the Hos­pital He was Carried to the great Hospital at Saragosa. at Valentia, where remedies were applyed, but without success. Thence brought to the great Hospital at Zaragosa, Hee was Committed to the care of Iohn de Estanga à most ex­pert Surgeon and publick Professor of Phisick, who finding the His leg cut offingn [...]. legw holly rotten cut if of four fingers below the knee, and bu­ried [Page 330] it. When the wound was some what healed; the lame ma [...] went on Crutches to our Ladies Church, and there both beg­ged Almes, and earnestly implored the Blessed Virgins fauorable Assistance. He was well known to all there for the space of two whole years. In the year of our Lord 1640. He went back to his Parents at Calenda, and going vp and down as well as he could begged sustenance for Himself, and poor Parents.

16. On the 19. day of March. Anno 1640. well wearied with gathering vp Hay sitting with his Father, Mother, and two others, he laid aside his crutch and went to bed. About à 11. of the Clock that night, his Mother entring the chamber where he was, found one in the bed with two feet, and suspecting him to be some souldier (for then à whole troop lodged in the Village) presently ran to her Husband who came in, knew his son well, wakened him out of sleep.

17. On à sudden the yet not too well awaked youth, brake Was Miraculously re­stored. forth into these words. I dreamed I was in our Ladies Chappel of Pilari, and annointell my leg with the oyle of the Lamp burning there. The poor Father ouerioyed replyed Render, my Child, immor­tal thanks to God, our Blessed Lady hath restored thee thy leg. Hitherto, the youth before his Father spake reflected not on the Miracle. All this noysed abroad, drew in many Eye-witnesses that night, and the next day more, who accompanied the young man to the Church, where, to the end all might behold the The Mira­cle diuulged. Miracle, His foot, which yet stood much wrested to one side, came before à Multitude of people to its ovvn natural Posture, and those who saw him the day before wanting one leg, obserued him now walking strongly on two, sound and whole.

18. Thus much noted by à publick Scribe and spread abroad, soon after called the youth to Caesaraugusta, Where he had his Iudges assembled, witnesses examined, Lawyers pleading and the Was rigidly examined. whole cause most rigidly discussed. All which performed, The most Illustrious Lord Arch-Bishop of Zaragosa, D. Petro Apao­laza, publickly gaue Sentence the 27. day of April. Anno 1642. The sentence finally giuen that the restoring of that leg was à Work aboue the force of na­ture, [Page 331] and therefore might without doubt be deseruedly estee­med, A prodigious Miracle. Those who attested the same, after due examination, and subscribed their names were as follow.

19. Don Antonio Xauirre Prior of S. Christina. D. Ioannes Perat official of the Metropolitan Church at Zaragoca. Don Subscribed by many. Virto de Vera Archdeacon there. Don Ioan Plano à Frago also Official. D. Philip Bardaxi Interpreter of the sacred Ca­nons. D. Didacus Chueca Canon of Caesar augusta. D. Mar­tinus Irribarne Canon and Reader there. F. Bartholomeus Foyas Prouincial of S. Francis order. F. Antonius Ortin Pro­uincial of the Minims of S. Francis de Paula. D. Dominicus Cebrian, the first Reader of Diuinity at Zaragosa. The sen­tence Published. giuen, was published and declared by great Doctors of the Canon and Ciuil law, D. Aegidius Fuster; and Michael Cypres à publick Notory also. It was signed by D. Antonius Albert Zaporta the Apostolical Notary, and chief scribe of the Ecclesiastical And now extant in the Spanish Annals. Court at Caesar Augusta. D. Thomas Tamayo de Vargas the Kings Historiographer of Spain and the Indies has published it in his Annals extant in the Spanish language, Printed at Al­cala.

20. The Relation end's thus. Videant haeretici an hoc tam fa­cile &c. Let Hereticks look well to it, whether they can as easily The end of the Relation slight this, and other strange Miracles done in our time among the In­dians, as they scorn the restoring of S. Iohn Damascens hand at the Intercession of our Blessed Lady. This we novv speak of, is Testifyed by Eye-witnesses. Both Spaniards and French vvere Spectators. The vvhole cause lasted long vnder à most s [...]uere Examination, and finally to make the Glorious vvorks of God knovvn, Sentence vvas Iuridically pronounced by à vvorthy Arch-Bishop as is novv said. Quod si rei tam notae con­tradicere ausint. And if Sectaries yet dare contradict so manifest à Verity. Quis illos &c. who is there that vvill not look on them. As impudent, and list them among incredulous Iewes?

21. Yet our Mr Stillingfleet, forsooth, Shifts all off with à Ieer. It is an easy thing for à Stump to grovv à leg, in its passage from Spain hither. What will not this man write to his petty [Page 332] purpose if't come in his way? What will he not pare away Mr Stilling­fleets cheat, and open fraud. and add to à Story remote from the knowledge of the vulgar (His book is full of such fraud) Will he not think ye, say any thing before the illiterate and ignorant, in the high Mysteries of Faith, whilst he blushes not to cheat and deceiue his Reader in à matter of Fact Notorioussly known to the world? If he thinks I haue forged this Relation, Hee shall haue the very indiuidual Copy I made vse of sent him, the Bulk is not big. If he doubt's of the Authority of these witnesses already produced, and say yet all is à Fourb, I'll say as easily, I am fooled in belieuing there is such à man in the world as Mr Stillingfleet whom I ne­uer saw, And next will force him to exchange Principles with me à little. You Sir say its à fourb, à pretended, no real Cure▪ What's re­quired of Him? I say Contrary, The Cure was real and à great Miracle. Proue now you Your Assertion vpon as good Humane Authority as I haue proued mine And we come to Principles, fit to decide in the present Matter. Fail to do this, your Assertion hath not so much as one leg to stand on, besides fancy, or something worse.

CHAP. X.

1. VEry little may suffice, concerning the first part of the Title, our Catholick Authors hauing done the work to my hands whilst they treat most largely and learnedly, of the Amplitude, and Vniuersallity, of the Roman Catholick Church, of the continued and Succession of Her Bishops, Pastors, and peop­le, of Her Vnity in one and the same Faith, of Her Sanctity, of the efficacy of Her Doctrin in conuerting whole Nations to Christ, which S. Austin justly hold's miraculous. The Largeness of this great moral Body (rightly called by Sectaries à growing Religion which no persecution of Tyrants could hitherto suppres) For time, extends it self without dispute to all pass'd Ages since Christ, And The Large­ness of the Catholicks Church. if we speak of place, the growth successiuely, was so great, That, In omnem terram exivit sonus eorum, it hath been preach'd with im­mense fruit to all Nations, Answerable to that of the Royal Pro­phet. Psalm. 2. where the eternal Father speaking to Christ our Lord, as man, giues him an ample Kingdome, spread all ouer for his Possession. Ask of me and I will giue the Gentils for thy Inheritance, and thy poss [...]ssion, the last ends of the earth,

2. Hence we first distinguish the Church of Christ from the lewish Synagouge, limitated to one time, (till the comming of our true [Page 334] Messias) And to one place also, For the Sacrifice essential to that Religion, could not be offered but in the Temple of Hierusalem only. We distinguish both Church, and Doctrin likewise from Mahumatism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, and other Heresies in Distingui­shes Her from all false Sects. the East, which neuer got any considerable footing in these We­stern parts of Europe Finally we distinguish it from Lutheranism, Cal­vtanism, and Protestanism, à confused Mixture of both: and other late Doctrins. These and their dissenting Heads stay in our Nort­hin Climats, without fruit or Progress made into Asia, Affrica, Gree­ce, or the like remote Countries, wherefore some doubt not to auerr, and most truely, That the Holy Orders of S. Dominick, of S. Francis, and of the Society of Jesus are further spread, more diffused through the world at this day [...] than all the Sects or Subdi­uisions of Protestants euer yet were, or I think will be. But the Kingdome of Christ's Church, as Tertullian Cited aboue. Chap. 1. n. 6. well obserues, Vbique regnat, reignes euery where, and is The Ampti­tude of Christ's Keingdome▪ euery where belieued, Nor can these latter Sectaries now in an aged world, hope to Propagate further; For if S. Austin. De Vnit. Eccle. C. 14. Thought it enormously improbable, that Donatism then so early, could diffuse it selfe the whole world ouer, much less can our confined Protestants very late Teachers after so many Centuries, when Heresy euery where lyes à gasping, Hope to draw forreign Nations to à Belief of their Nouelties.

3. The reason à Priori is. A greater extent, à further increase seem's inconsistent with the very Nature of those who professe this Religion, For once liuing in the Vine, and drawing Nutriment from thence, they wilfully cut them selves off, and separated from the Church, Therefore as S. Austin saith they lie where they are, Withe­ring, and dying, without Lustre, or any Enlargement. Again; as they began this new learning without Gommission to teach, So they can send none hereafter Authoritatiuely, to spread it further. Hence I Argue, That Church only is Christ's true Spouse which euer Protestancy increases not. And why. was from the first Rise of Christianity, and successiuely got Posses­in the four Parts of the world, But thus the Roman Catholick Church was, and is Still diffused (here is Christ's promised Inheri­tance) [Page 335] Therefore She is the only true Church. Contrarywise, the narrow, confined, and iarring multitudes of Sectaries scatte­red vp and down in à few corners in Europe, All late Beginners, and shameful Desertors of this Ancient Society, neuer had so ample an inheritance, and Consequently Their pretence of being the true Church of Christ is more than improbable.

4. VVe may yet subioyn to the Amplitude of our Religion the euer visible and neuer interrupted Succession of Bishops, and Pastors, in the Roman Catholick Church from Christs time. A Mark no less euident to sense, than openly destructiue of He­resy. This succession long since Prophesied by Daniel. Cap. 2. Christ Kingdom shall neuer be dissipated, and foretold by the Apostle Ephes. 4. 11, He gaue some Apostles &c. Sett's forth the Glory of it. VVe need not in this place, to weary the Reader with the known Authority of S. Austin positiuely Asserting. Contra Epist. fundam. The succes­sion of Law­ful Pastors, vrged. C. 4. That the Succession of Pastors from▪ S. Peters time held him in the Catholick Church and the Argument is more fully urged again. Lib. de utilit. Credendi C. 17. VVee need not tell any with S. Cyprian. Epist. 76. That, that man is not in the Church, nor can be thought à Bishop who succeeds to none, but hath his Authority and Origen from himself. These and other for­ceable Testimonies we waue, and urge Sectaries, as the ancient Tertullian did the Hereticks of his time; Lib. de praesc. Evolvant ordi­nem Episcoporum suorum &c. Let them vnfold the Catalogue of their Bishopr from this day to Luther, and from Luther vpward, and here we call not for Hussits, VValdenses or such like men, but for à continued descent of Bishops, and Pastors, Lawfully ordai­ned, and commissioned by Authority to preach Protestancy; VVe Protestants haue none. call indeed but hear of none, before the daies of that vnfortu­nate Luther. Therefore as I said aboue, they are sons without Fathers, they would be thought spiritual Children, but are so vnbegotten that no body own's them.

5. Reflect à little, Gentle Reader, and cease not to wonder at the greatest Paradox, I think, that euer entred into the thought of man. Holy Scripture Ascertains vs, that Prouiden­ce [Page 336] hath appointed Bishops to gouern his Church, Pastors and Doctors to teach till the Consummation of Saints, for the edifying A Paradox maintened by Sectaries. of Christs Mystical body. The Roman Catholick Church gives in Her Catalogue of Bishops, and Pastors, euer since Christ. The first Apostolical Pastors receiued their learning from an In­fallible Master, God and man, These conueyed it to their Suc­cessors, They to others, till this very age, And to proue that They both kept and faithfully conueyed the same Doctrin wit­hout Change or Alteration, you haue not only Church Autho­rity, the greatest on earth, but more Gods own seal set to this Doctrin, Christ's owne signes and Marks, Miracles, vndeniable Miracles, Conuersions of nations &c. Now start vp à knot of late vnknown strangers called Protestants, without Bishops, without Pastors, for 1 [...]. Ages, These pretend to haue receiued new letters, new learning from Jesus Christ, That is an other sense of Scrip­ture, than was formerly deliuered, This Letter is read, This learning is published to the world. VVe Ask what lawful Pastors taught it four Centuries since? VVhat ancient Church owned it? They Answer none. VVe demand again, To haue at least à Demands proposed to Sectaries. sight of God's Seal set to this Letter, some visible Marks of Christ, Miracles for example, to make the doctrin accepted. They haue not any. Ergo say wee The letter is forged, the Doctrin is false, uneuidenced, improbable.

6. All that's pleadable against this Discourse is, That our Do­ctrin once confessedly Orthodox, was changed by the Church in after Ages. Answ. VVe are both willing and ready to discuss, and that most rigidly this particular with Protestants, but before hand giue them one Caueat. Viz. That no Topicks, but sound Principles enter here, or bethe last Probation. If then wee pro­duce and most euidently, à list of our Bishops and Pastors euer No Answer giuen. since Christ, as Witnesses of our Faith. They are to do as much, and produce as many for Protestancy. If we, as we do, euer force Sectaries to name some known Orthodox Society of Chri­stians, that condemned our Doctrin in any Age, they are obli­ged to vnbeguile vs, and show vs where, or when, or by whom, [Page 337] we were condemned. If finally we vnexceptionably euidence most glorious Miracles to haue illustrated our Church, euen after Her fancied Falling from the Primitiue truth, after she became What secta­ries are forced to grant. the whore of Babylon, our new men must either deny her such Miracles (if so, we vrge them to ground the denial on Principles equal to our contrary Probations) or will certainly be forced to confess, That God wrought Miracles in à Church, which had brought in shameful Errours and quite forsaken the Primitiue Doctrin. Obserue well the force of our Argument. Its improbable to say, That God fauoured this Church with the Glory of Miracles, Had She falsifyed His reuealed truths. And it is as wholly impro­bable to deny Her the Glory of Supernatural wonders. Sectaries worn-out Obiections are not worth taking notice of. Some oppose the Greeks, though now not of the Church, pretending to à Succession. We answer if the Pretext be true, Their cause vpon that Account is better than Protestants, But withall say, though Succession bee euer necessary to demonstrate the Church, yet it followes not, where we haue it, There is the Church, For Other Errours may vndoe all, And de facto Vnchurch the Greeks, guilty and condemned in three General Councils. See Bellarmine de Notis Ecclesia. Lib. 4. Cap. 8. 6. secundo.

7. Enough is said aboue, and in the other Treatise also. Disc. 1. C. 10. n. 4. 12. of the Vnion and Sanctity of our Church. Vnity à Mark of the Church. Vnion in Faith the greatest Blessing hearts can desire, asserted by S. Hierome Epist. 57. ad Damasum (Those are prophane who [...]ate not the lambe in the Roman Catholick Church) And innumerable other Fathers, knit's together this whole Moral Body amongst so many different Nations, different judgements, different man­ners, different Education, different times, different places, from one end of the world to the other. All belieue as the Pope himself belieues, or is no Member of this Church, And here is our Glory. Wheras, if on the other side, we cast à sorrowful Vtterly destroyed by Sectaries. thought vpon all the Hereticks who from the beginning rent themselues from the Roman Church, we shall find Diuisions, and subdiuisions (Foreruners of Ruin) endlesly following, which [Page 338] at last destroyed them. From one Luther, as Bellarmin now cited obserues. Cap. 10. à hundred Heresies sprouted vp, And since his time there are more added to that number in our Mr. Thorn­dicke true Obseruation once most Catholick England. He that can take measure saith Mr. Thorndicke, in his late little Book of Forbearance. P. 33. how much of common Christianity is lost by these Divisions in thirty years time since our troubles began, euen among them that call them selues Godly and Saints, will easily belieue that it (he means Christianity) hath not long to liue in that Is [...]and, vnless Diuision be put to death.

8. A iust iudgement of God vpon them, pointed at by the Prophet Isay. Cap. 19. 2. I will make the Aegyptians to run against Aegyptians, and à man shall fight against his Brother: euery man against his friend, Citty against Citty and Kingdom against Kingdom. Such confusion such an Abomination of desolation we Englands Diuision remediless vvithout returning to the Roman Catholick Church. see now standing in that once holy Nation ( Hee that reads let him vnderstand) which might iustly draw teares of blood from Compassionate Eyes, Were it not that as S. Hilary notes, Bellum haereticorum pax est Ecclesiae. The Dissensions of Hereticks brings peace to the Church: This some what asswages our Grief, and stint's our teares. But the Euil is desperate and incurable, do what Sectaries can, without returning to the Church of Rome which causelesly they haue forsaken. And thus much M ^r. Thorndicke seem's to Assert, though I know not very well what he mean's by the Rom [...] Catholick Church. He Adds more. P. 127. We (They in England) are in the State of Schism in spite of our teeth, Though we are [...] clear our selues of the crime of schism vpon the Terms setled. S ^•. no Terms excogitable shall clear you from that crime, or euer bring you to Settlement, But à perfect Revnion with the ancient and present church of Rome, Whereof enough is said both in this, And the other Treatise.

9. To speak in this place of the Churches Sanctity, whether we consider the Purity of Doctrin, or the Eminent Holynes of innumerable professing her Faith, would require volumes. I say [Page 339] in à word, neither Heathen nor Sectary, though cauils are raised Sanctity Eminent in the Roman Catholick Church. against the Orthodoxism of our Doctrin, could yet iustly tax it of too much liberty giuen to Christians. We, contrary to the inclination of nature, fast when Sectaries feast; we humbly confess our Sins to à Priest, they shake of that obligation. Our Church forbid's Marriage to the clergy allowed to Ministers. We in spiritual Affaires submit to one Supreme Head of the Church, They acknowledge no submission to any in points of Belief, but to their own Fancy. We are vnited together in one Ancient Catholick Faith and execrate all Divisions, They are endlesly deuided in their Nouelties. We set à high value vpon the pious laudable works of iust men, They esteem all as sordid and sinful. We say God inforceth no man to Sin, they as Caluin confesses, make him both Author and cause of it. I might yet instance in à hundred other particulars, But t'is needles. The whole world see's that Catholicks, strengthned by the Grace of God, contrary to their interest, and natural Propensions, euen for conscience sake, Profess and practise more Austerity, Pray more diligently, fast Not so with Sectaries. oftner, obserue the lawes of the Church more exactly, And finally doe greater works of Charity than Sectaries either think necessary, or hold Themselues obliged to by virtue of their Reli­gion. I say by vertue of their Religion which binds to nothing but only to Believe (though no man knowes what) and consequently giues so much liberty in other matters that it makes the Professors thereof Libertins. Most vniustly therefore doe our new men call Protestancy the reformed Religion, (vnless by an Antiphrasis or contrary way of speaking) when God knowes, it reforms nothing, but contrariwise allowes more then enough relaxation to Corrupted nature. Whence I infer A thing so Indulgent as Protestancy miscalled, à Reformed Religion. Protestancy is cannot be from God, who will haue us to curb Sensuallity, and vpon that account the Professors of it seem very vnfit to reforme the Doctrin of the Church, were any thing amiss, whilst they leaue manners so notoriously Vnreformed, releasing all from the burthen of such Duties, as Christians haue practised from the Beginning.

[Page 340]10. Be pleased to reflect à little. We haue, thanks be to God, in the Roman Catholick Church many Holy Religious Orders, as Benedictans, Dominicans, Franciscans &c. All had their The truth declared by two Instances seueral Founders most eminent in Sanctity and neuer medled with mending Church Doctrin, knowing well that was sound and orthodox, But contrariwise endeauored to better the world by their Prayers, Preaching, incessant labours, and virtuous Example. Suppose now any of these had called their Order à reformed Religion and brought Christians by that Reformation to greater Liberty to more Sensuality, than was practised before Their Prayers and Preaching; Would not all most deseruedly haue accounted their Labours mispent and worth nothing? Suppose again that any one would begin to Institute à Religious Family, with these or the like Iniunctions. All of them may Marry, prouided they keep Coniugal Chastity, All may fast but when the humour takes them, All may profess Pouerty, but experience no­thing of the hardship. All may obey but in greater matters only, not in others, freely left to their choise. Would not such à Founder vainly pretend to Reformation, that laies no more Christian Duties on any? Would not euery man look on him as One that peruerts Religion, and laugh at his folly? This is the case in our Protestants mending matters. Therefore I say once more the Reformation is not from God, but à humane and very sensual Inuention. Enough is noted already both here and in the other Treatise of the Efficacy of our Catholick Doctrin Conuersion of Nations à great Mira­cle. Demonstrable to our Eyes and Senses, in the Conuersions of Nations to Christ. Maximum Miraculum Saith S▪ Thomas 1. Con. Gent. C. 6. It is the greatest of Miracles, and à manifest Testimony that God Assisteth this Church to doe such wonders. We pass now to consider some Truths, grounded on the Doctrin already deliuered.

11. One is (and it giues comfort to euery Soul) that our Lord IESUS Christ though Absent from vs, liues yet as it were Visibly, shewes himself Manifestly, Acts still Miraculously in the Mystical Body of our Catholick Church, and the [Page 341] seueral Members Thereof. His Power appeares in Her Miracles, Christ our Lord works yet in and with the Church. His Wisdom in the learned, the certainty of His Doctrin in the Churches Infallibility), The Antiquity of his Truths in Her long continuance. His Mercy appeares in the Charitable, His Obedience in the Perfect Religious, His Pouerty in thousands who haue left all for his loue, His Submission in the humble, his wearisom labours in the painful Missioners, His Retirement in Her the Ermits, His Patience in the mortified, His Purity in Vir­gins, the Efficacy of his Diuine word (last mentioned) in the Efficacy of the Churches preaching, His Holy life appeares in Her Sanctity, and finally his Sacred death in innumerable glorious Martyrs. Frame then à right Idea of our Blessed Lord, we be­hold The Church expresses our Sauiours perfections. his admirable Perfections Shining in the Church, And con­templating the Church, we see to our vnspeakable Solace Christ Iesus, as it were, yet liuing working in it and by it.

12. A second truth. As Things in Nature are not first known by that we call Their interiour Essence, but by outward Marks, Qualities, and Effects, whereby we easily distinguish one from an other, à Lyon for example from an Elephant, (but doe not so easily, saith Aristotle, distinguish their different essen­ces, known to few). Just so we Discours at present and say the true Church is first euidenced by her Marks, Signes, and Mo­tiues, Miracles Antiquity Conuersions &c. which being obiects of sense lie open to euery eye and Collectiuely taken make, as I said aboue, this beautiful Spouse as discernable from Heretical Societies, as one Creature is from another by its outward Form and known Proprieties. I do not Assert that The Church first known by Her Marks. the Motiues lead to à Scientifical knowledge of the Churches Es­sential Doctrin; no: For this we believe by Faith, And know not Scientifically; Yet they plainly Mark out the great Oracle, whereby God speaks to the world, And therefore wonder not, that Sectaries striue so earnestly to Obscure the euidence, Their de­sign is to take from vs the clearest Principle which must end Con­troversies, Why Secta­ries endo­auour to obs [...] [...]he Churches Lustre. For cast onc [...] off à Church manifested by Antiquity, Miracles, Conuersions &c. Nothing remains to regulate Faith, [Page 342] but the dark and yet vnsensed Letter of Scripture, which is most grosly abused by the one or other dissenting Party who force vpon it quite contrary Senses. And by what means can any one come to the knowledge of Him or these that abuse it, if Church Authority be excluded or decide not in this most weighty matter? VVe need not saith Mr Thorndicke (in his Book of Forbearance. P. 2.) The Heresies of the Primitiue times to tell vs, what Irreligious pretenses, may be set forth in Scripture Phrase. Our own Fanatiks would furnish sport enough with the Fool [...]ri [...]s they pretend as from Gods Spirit because they can d [...]liuer their Nonsense in the Phrase of Scripture: Again. This two edged sword of holy Scrip­ture, may proue an edged tool to cut their s [...]ins with, who take vpon them, and haue not skill to handle it. Much better were it say I, were the Abuse or ill handling of the Book only found a­mong à few Fanaticks, But the euil is spread further, you Gentlemen are all alike, whether Fanaticks or Protestants, that handle, gloss, and interpret Scripture by Priuate reason, con­ttary to the Iudgement of an uniuersal euidenced Church.

13. A third Truth. The Church thus manifested by Her Marks which are Obiects of Sense, and induce reason to iudge that She only is Gods Oracle; Catholicks neuer call into doubt Her Essential owned Doctrin, nor seek for further Euidence the­reof, because there is none in this present State, But humbly submit to all she Teaches. This Euidence then once attained, which ariseth from the Churches Marks, And hath drawn Mil­lions to belie [...]e her Doctrin, We next turn to our Bible, and learn there, that the Language of these Motiues (for etiam fact [...] What these Motiues Speak. loquitur Deus, saith S. Austin aboue, God speaks by his works) and the Language of his own written word is one, and the same. That is what these Inducements point at, God expresly deliuers in holy Scripture. Obserue an exact parallel.

14. The Antiquity of our Church, and here is one sensible Mark we plead by, giues Assurance that the first Founder was our Lord Iesus Christ; No Sectary call's this truth into Que­stion, and the Gospel confirms it, Luc. 24. 48. Beginning from [Page 343] Hierusalem &c. Her Constant Perseuerance, visible in all Ages, God reueals in Scripture, proues Her indeficiency And this is manifest in Scripture. A Citty placed on à Mountain Hell gates shall not preuail against Her. Om [...]m etiam infidelium oculis exhibetur saith S. Austin. Lib. Con. Crescon: C. 63. The Church is so well seen by all, that the very Pagans cannot contradict Her. She showes you à continued Succession of her Popes, Bishops, and Pastors from the begin­ning, and Scripture also Ephes. 4. 11. And he gaue some Apostles &c. long since foretold it. She giues in à clear Euidence of Her Miracles through euery age, Our Blessed Sauiour prophe­sied it should be so. Iohn. 14. 12. Maiora horum facient. They shall work greater wonders. None can deny most Miraculous Conuersions of Kingdomes, and Nations to Her Faith, and the Prophesies of Christ's Church fulfilled. Prophets euery where Proclaim the truth. Many Nations shall flock to Her. Zachar. 2. 11. She Shewes how Her Doctrin was propagated through the whole world, And therefore is called the Visible Catholick, or Vniuersal Church, Scripture also Confirm's it. Do [...]ete omnes gentes. Teach all Nations. Dominabitur à mari vs (que) ad mare. She shall raign from sea, to sea. Finally to say much, in few words, which might be further amplifyed. Is it true (which the Church demonstrates) that Hereticks, as Arians, Nestorians, Pelagians, Eutichyans, Lutherans, and Caluinists, once Pro­fessed Catholicks, shamefully abandoned Her Vnion, and for that Cause iustly deserued the reproachful name of Hereticks, and Se­paratists? Scripture Foretell's vs of the Breach and Apostacy. Iohn. 1. 2. 19. Ex nobis prodierunt. They left vs, went out from vs. for had they been of vs they would haue remained. And thus both Church and Heresy are visibly pointed at by clear Marks, and Gods written word also. Videndum (it is the Expression of Optat. Mileuit. Lib. 1. à little after the middle) Quis in radice [...]um toto orbe [...]a [...]serit, quis foras exierit? We are to see who They were that continued in the root, with the whole world, and who parted from it. We are to see who erected another Chair distinct from that which was before. Call these and boldly, Hereticks, straglers from the Church, and the Verities of Christs Gospel. [Page 344] And here by the way, we vrge our Nouellists, to point at à visible Sectaries Vrged to Answer. Orthodox Society, which the Supposed erring Church of Ro­me abandoned, as clearly as we lay forth to them the time, the place, the circumstances, not only of their own impious Reuolt, But of all other more ancient Hereticks from this Catholick Society. Could the Sectary do thus much, Hee might speak more confidently.

15. To end the matter now in hand You see by what is said already, If Christs words haue weight. Math. 18. 16. In ore duorum vel trium Stet omne verbum; That Truth stand's firm vpon the Testimony of two or three vnexceptionable Witnessess, Wee here introduce two Testimonies in behalf of our Church which none can except against. Gods own voice speaking to reason by Miracles and the Motiues now mentioned, is the One, And his own sacred reuealed word, which most significantly teaches what these Motiues speak, is the Other. Hence I say Sectaries cannot dispute against this Church, without proofs drawn from Motiues as strong, and Scriptures as clear as are now alleged in our behalf. We press them again and again to giue in their Euidence, and seriously demand whether Protestancy was confessedly founded by Christ, Or, but once owned Orthodox by any sound Christians, Sectaries Grauelled at Euery Question. As all acknowledge the foundation of the Roman Catholick and the Orthodoxism of it, to haue been established by Christ our Lord. We further enquire after à visible Succession of their Pastors, after their visible Miracles, their visible Conuersions, made in foregoing Ages. Nothing is answered, nothing is or can be pleaded, nothing in à word is returned probable. Therefore Protestancy is an vneuidenced Religion, no Motiues counte­nance the Nouelty, no Scripture speaks for it, and Consequently cannot but be in the highest degree improbable.

16. A fourth Truth. A Church which weares as it were Gods own Liuery and beares the Signatures of Divine Autho­rity in Her Miracles, Prodigious Conuersions &c. so far Eclipses the false lustre of Heathens, Iewes, and Hereticks, that reason concludes. In this one manifested Oracle it is, that Eternal Wisdom [Page 345] deliuers his Diuine Truths, Or, there is no such thing as à reuea­led Truth, taught in the world. This iudgement most ratio­nal, once well setled in an vnderstanding without further debate, ends all controuersies of Religion. So forceable and perswasiue is the language of God's own glorious works.

17. Imagin I beseech you that God should now lay the Heauens open, and euidently declare to the whole world in most significant and clear words, That the Roman Catholick Church is Gods works speak no less plainly to reason, then His vvords. his own faithful Oracle, and exactly teaches those truths he reuea­led. All, whether Heathens, Iewes or Hereticks, would submit, and, if reasonable yeild Assent to so great an Euidence mani­fested by words. And what shall his own glorious works of Mi­racles, the known language of Heauen, euer spoken since Chri­stianity began proue less perswasiue than words, but once only deliuered? Interrogemus Miracula saith S. Austin cited aboue, Quid nobis loquantur &c. Ask of Miracles what they speak of Christ, demand also what they say of his Church. Habent enim [...]guam suam. They are neither dumbe nor silent Orators. Works therefore speak, and can Answer both for Christ and his Church. S. Paul. Rom. 1. 20. drawes euidence of Gods in­ [...]isible Perfections, of his Power and Diuinity, from the Crea­tion of the visible effects in Nature, And shall not Christians think ye find euidence enough in the works of grace, (I mean in Miracles and other most Signal Marks) manifest in the Ca­tholick Church, which make it highly Credible That he speak's his eternal verities by this one Oracle? The Euidence in both cases well penetrated seem's much à like, call it moral, physical or what you please, whereof more presently.

18. From this Discourse it followes, That à Church demon­strating Gods own Seal and manifest Caracters of Truth, so exact­ly All walk in Darkness without an Euidenced Church. teaches Truth, that none can rationally contradict Her Doc­trin, though often difficult to weak Reason. The ground of my Assertion is. Renounce once such an Oracle, we are cast into confusion, and haue no other Master to teach Christians, but the obscure Mysteries of Faith, (far enough, God knowes, from [Page 346] any Self-euidence,) and the yet not sensed words of holy Scriptu­re, because the Church which only can, and must interpret, is vpon the Supposition reiected. In this two fold Darkness of obscure Mysteries, and vnsensed Words, weak Reason toyls as our Sectaries haue done à whole Age, But with what success think ye? S. Peters night labour return's the true Answer, Totá nocte laborantes nihil cepimus, All night long vve haue took much pains, yet got nothing. Such is the Fate and Folly of our modern Sectaries, that will vvalk in the dark without the Guidance of à Church, And Her infallible Tradition. Here also we haue The true Cause of our Sectaries endles Diuisions. the true cause of their endles Dissentions, and multiplicity of Religions, which almost euery year are coyned nevv. All Pul­pits saith Mr Thorndicke. P. 5. so ring of this multiplicity, That novv no Religion stand's to be the Religion of that King­dom.

19. A fifth Truth. The Sectary that Professeth himself à Christian, and seriously ponder's the Marks, the Signes of Diuine Authority openly seen in the Roman Catholick Church, stand's so conuicted of wilful Errour, that practically he is either to re­nounce Christianity, or obliged to belieue this euidenced Church, I proue him First conuinced of wilful Errour vpon these grounds. The Sectary confesseth, or he is no Christian, That this Argu­ment is efficacious against the Iewes. Christ our Lord did grea­ter wonders, shewed more manifest Miracles, than all other Prophets wrought in the time of Iudaism, and from hence He inferrs, or (shall neuer proue it) that Christ is the true Messias. Therefore this Argument is equally pressing against Protestants. What euer Argument Proues Christ to bee the true Mos [...]ias proues also the Catho­lick Church true. The Roman Catholick Church only has euidently done greater Wonders, chiefly in the Conuersion of Nations; She has shewn more manifest vndoubted Miracles than all Protestant Professors in the world, Ergo She is the only true Church, because She beares the Marks, doth the works, and wonders of that great Lord that laid Her foundations firm. Whereas Contrarywise this naked Protestancy, has no resemblance of à Church, But lies in Obscurity, vneuidenced, only known by its own Monstru [...] [Page 347] firy vpon this Account, That two hideous Rebells begot it in Pride, and brought it forth in Diuision to no other purpose, but to fright all that look on it. Again the Sectary, if he be Christian, must hold this Argument Valid against the Iewes. All the Prophesies in Scripture speaking of the true Messias, exactly agree to, and were amply fulfilled, in the Person of Christ our Sauiour, and in no other. But the like Argument hold's as strongly in our case. For all the Ancient Prophesies of the true Christian Church whereof we read in the old Testament, As of Her Continuance, Visibility, and Nations flocking to Her only agree, and are exactly fulfilled in the Roman Catholick Church, And not so much as one appeares in this naked Nouelty of Protestancy, Ergo the Roman Catholick Church and not that Fatherles Progeny of Protestants, is the only true Catholick Oracle of Iesus Christ.

20. Lastly this Argument is stronge against the Iewes and Proues them deserted by Almighty God. Since Christ came to Redeeme vs, This abandoned people lie vnder contempt, and are A visible Mark of Gods wrath. Set vpon Ievves and Secta­ries. best known vpon the Account of their open iniustice, Where­fore God to set à visible Mark of his wrath vpon them, has not only scattered them vp and down some few corners of the world, but also permitted them to Deuide and Subdiuide into seueral Sects, and Factions. But the same Argument is as forceable against Protestants, For first, the whole Christian world abroad slights the men as Innouators, and their Doctrin also as Nouelties. Arians, Semiarians, Graecians, Abyssins detest Protestancy, and as highly contemn the Authors of it, as the far extended Church of Rome condemn's both the one, and other.

21. 2. No Iniustice euer done by Iew, except that one wicked fact of crucifying Christ our Lord, is comparable to the open The open in­iustice of Protestants. clamorous wronge of Protestants, who without law or right yea contrary to all conscience, violently vsurpe the Ecclesiastical goods in England, and worse than Robbers on the high way appro­priate all to Them selues, which neither God nor man intended for them. These Reueneues were giuen by Catholicks for the Orthodox Pastors and Teachers of our Ancient Religion, that [Page 348] lawfully and quietly possessed them for à thousand years, And now behold à Robbery done but one age since, turn's the true Owners out à doores, And serues, forsooth, to intail Church Li­uings vpon Luthers Progeny, open Rebels against the Church. The world neuer heard of greater Iniustlce.

22. Now lastly if we speak of different Sects, and endles Diuisions in points of Doctrin, Most vndoubtedly the Dissen­tions are greater, the Sects more numerous amongst Protestants professing Christianity, than among the very Iewes that profess. Iudaism. A iust iudgement of God, A clear Mark of his Indig­nation, set vpon both. The Sin of the one for deserting Christ, Diuisions more amongst sectaries then Ie­wes. hath scattered that People vp and down the world, And the Sin of Sectaries, for their deserting an Ancient Church, hath more scattered and diuided them into endles erroneous, and most iar­ring opinions. Vpon these grounds therefore, That Protestants belieue not an Oracle signed with the Marks of our Lord Iesus Christ; That they reiect à Church clearly Prophesied of in ho­ly VVrit, That they lie hid in vneuidenced Conuenticles, And broach Doctrins slighted the whole world ouer; That their open iniustice and robbery cryes to heauen for reuenge, Practically I say, They renounce Christ, Church and all Christianity with it. Thus much of the Churches Euidence against Sectaries, we now proceed to à further consideration.

CHAP. XI.

CHrist and his Church are so easily laid forth to à Heathen, That grant once the Existence of à Power Omnipotent and Infinitly wise in the Gouerment of this world, the main work is done, Reason if it contradict's not Euidence, soon finds out the A Deity supposed what the Heathen would Le­arn is easily learned. One and Other. Now if as S. Cyprian Discourses, it be à most hainous Offence. Eum nescire velle quem ignorare non poterant, not to know God, whom all cannot But know, In like manner say I, it must needs imply à Supine negligence in our present State, when Christianity is diffused all Nations ouer, not to come to the true knowledge of Christ and his Church, whilst neither can be concea­led. The Heathen then that Own's à God, and desires to serue him, is supposed to demand of Christians, How or in what way, due Honour may be rendred to that infinit Being. For Answer please to bear in mind these Principles, rightly called three stronge Euidences.

2. First. True Religion whereby we yeild Honour and due Submission to God, euer beares the Ensigns of it's Author, And Three prin­ciples. showes by certain Marks, it proceeds from God. No Iew nor Gentile, no Heretick can deny the Principle, deliuered in the­se [Page 350] general Terms, though Disputes may arises concerning some particular Motiues. 2. A greater Euidence of Credibility in Religion, is à certain Matk of its Truth, For whoeuer, whether Heathen, Iew, or Christian, own's that matter of Fact of Moses preuailing against the Aegyptian Magicians, Or, of S. Peters Mira­cle, set against that of Simon Magus, See's well by the force of grea­ter Euidence, That the Prophet and Apostle maintained Truth against these Sorcerers. A third Principle. If there be not à Of the Greater ra­tional Eui­dence for Gods Truth. greater excess of rational Euidence, or à stronger Conuiction in behalf of true Religion, than fdr Sects vnorthodox or false, God is frustrated of his End, And can oblige none to embrace true Re­ligion; For this Obligation necessarily ceaseth if à Spurious Faith could match the Orthodox Religion Or Outuie it in those glo­rious Wonders which God euidences, And hath manifestly ap­propriated to His own reuealed Truths only. See more Here­of in the other Treatise. Disc. 1. C. 8. Thus much premised.

3. VVe here Represent in the first place, our Glorious Lord Jesus Christ, the great Master and Author of Catholick Reli­gion, and Ask what credit the Heathen giues to that holy book we call Scripture, or to one Part thereof, which recount's the prodi­gious wonders wrought by our Sauiour. Wil he own them? vpon Humane faith (for we urge him not yet to belieue infallibly) as Authentick, or as well deseruing Credit as Caesars Commenta­ries, or any other receiued History? If he grants; we Infer. These Miracles, far aboue the Power of nature, were Gods own works, and manifestly testifyed that none since the world began, whether Heathen, Iew, or Heretick, euer paralleld Christ our Lord in the like VVonders. Now, if he wholly flights the Authority of that Book, we proceed further vpon Euidence The Heathen conuinced by the manifest Signes of Gods power. ēnough and lay before him those manifest Effects, which in â short time followed▪ our Sauiours Preaching, most apparent in the first Propagation of the Gospel, and continual encrease of it. Herein, the Marks, the Ensigns of à Diuine Power clear to sense, speak openly, without contradiction. viz. That no an­cient Prophet, no Heathen, no Iew, no Heretick euer oppo­sed [Page 351] sensuallity so strongly as Christ our Lotd did, yet he gained Millions to submit to his law. No Prophet, no Heathen, no Heretick, preached more difficult Mysteries, Yet as the World sees, He hath drawn whole Kingdoms and Nations to belieue his Doctrin. And if you go on, or Ask by what Instrum [...]nts this admirable work was happily accomplished? The Answer is ready. Twelue poor Fishermen, friendles, vnlearned, despi­cable in the eyes of worldlings, were the chief Oracles. These made the incredulous, Belieue [...]s, Strangers to Christ, his own Domesticks, Lofty Spirits, Submiss to his law. No Heathen can doubt of such known Effects, signal Euidences, of Gods po­wer, cooperating with Christ, and the sirst Euangelical Preachers. But because this Argument is most fully handled, in the 4. and 5. Chapters of the first Discourse, I petition the Reader to return thither, And once more to peruse that Discourse, which I hold vnanswerable, and most conuincing for our present intent!

4. To add yet more in behalf of our Glorious Redeemer, and the verity of Catholick Religion (for proue the one, you proue the other) I Propose à second Question to the Heathen, and Ask, Whether our Blessed Lord, who called himself the long expected Messias, and the true Son of God, Spake Truth, or contrarywise, most impudently Assumed to himself that so An vnans­werable Dilemma. high Prerogatiue? Grant the first. He was indeed the true Son of God, and the wonders he wrought, were Gods own works, Therefore Christian Faith stands firm, vpon Eternal Truth ma­nifested by most glorious Signes. Say. 2. That Impostor like, Hee falsly made himself the Son of God, when he was no mo­re but à Cheat. It followes first. That either God positiuely intended to draw the world into gross Errour by his Perfidious Preaching (which is horrid to think) or we must grant, that his Gracious Prouidence long before this day, should by one euident Sign or other, by some Notorious Mark of dishonour, haue made ma­nifest Reflect Gētle Reader vpon these Consequen­ces. the Legardemaine, the Imposture of this supposed Deceiuer. It followes. 2. That the Iewes who crucified our Blessed Lord iustly de­serued vpon that Account Renown and Honour, yea, the highest Re­compence, [Page 352] For it was à laudable fact to comdemn à Counterfeit, s [...] openly wicked as dared to call Himself the Son of God, when H [...]e was not. Perkin Warbecks disguise, was but à Peccadilio compared to this shameful cousenage. The sin of Mahomet who neuer made Himselfe God but à Prophet only, came not neer the Malice of this one supposed abhominable loud Vntruth. It fol­lowes. 3. That our supposed Impostor (I haue à horror to pro­nounce the word) deseruedly merited, And yet merit's for His vn­excusable Hypocrisy, eternal Reproach, contempt and ignominy, in the just judgement of God, men, and Angels. Hence I Argue.

5. God is just, and hath Prouidence ouer the world, But our just and wise God neuer since Christianity began, Se [...] Mark or Sign of Ignominy, vpon our Blessed Sauiour, as he hath done vpon other Impostors. Our just and wise God euer since that wicked People nailed him to à Cross, hath been so far from honouring them or rewarding Their impious Fact That, most visible, and seuere Punishments haue proued the only Recompence and best Reward. The Temple ruined, their Dispersion followed Christ ho­noured the Iewes con­temned. vp and down the world, where they liue contemptible, chiefly infamous for Hypocrisy, and Auarice. (Se also this Argument more enlarged aboue Chap. 2. n. 4.) Our most just God, hath not only taken of all Marks of Ignominy, but euidently to our Senses declared by real Effects His innocent Lamb our louely Sauiour worthy of Honour Benediction, and Glory. So true it is, We read. Apocal. 5. 13. Dignus est Agnus, qui occisus est &c. The iust Tribute of Prayse and Glory is visibly paid him (so Prouiden­ce hath ordained) not only by Kings, Princes, Learned and vnlearned, by all Nations far and neer, But by the very Turks also.

6. And is it possible (reflect I beseech you) that God who is no Exceptor of Persons, could haue punished so dreadfully, these abandoned Iewes, had they done well, in crucifying our Lord Jesus? Is it possible, that his iust, and wise Prouidence, could euer haue crowned à Counterfeit with so much Honour God's iust Iudgement. and renown, as our Sauiour hath gained, or permitted A che [...] [Page 353] not only to be Reuerenced as the true Son of God so long (though he was not) but moreouer to draw so many Millions and Millions of Souls into errour as belieued in him, for sixteen Ages and more. The Paradox is so desperate so highly improbable, That one would as soon deny both God and Prouidence, As once seriously harbour it in his thoughts. Obserue my Reason.

7. The Light of nature dictates, abstracting from Authority Rom. 2. 9. That as on the one side, Shame, Ignominy, and Confusion pursue horrid Workers of iniquity, So on the other, Proue ou [...] Sauiour Innocent. Glory, Honour and renown inseparably follow the manifestly declared just, and innocent. But Shame, Confusion, and Ignominy, Gods Iust Signes of indignation, yet visibly follow that wicked race of People, the Authors of our dear Sauiours death, contrarywise, Glory and renown, euer since he dyed, haue been his due reward, and own inheritance. Therefore if God speak's, And the Iewes Criminal. as He doth, by these Signal Effects of Iustice, The Iewes so long seuerely punished, stand like guilty Criminals in that high Tribunal of Heauen, There sentenced answerable to their Desert as Workers of iniquity; And our Holy Lord Iesus, so long honoured the whole world ouer, receiues the contrary Sentence, And is by visible effects there proclaimed just and Innocent. A Domino factum est istud &c. It was not chance but à Signal work of Prouidence, that the Stone these Builders reiected, became so glorious as to support the noblest Fabrik God euer made.

8. Apply what is is now said to the Roman Catholick A true Application of this whole Doctrin. Church, We shall se an exact Parallel of proofs, deliuered in the same Terms.▪ Christ our Lord called Himself Eternal Truth in all he taught. Our Church stil's Herself, Gods own Oracle, in all She teaches, Now whilst so high à Prerogatiue is claimed, She either speakes Truth or lies most impudently. Grant the first. Viz. That this Church speaks Truth, she is to be belieued in all she teaches, Say secondly, she falsly makes Herself Gods own Oracle, when she is not, Diuine Prouidence which cannot dissemble, nor Design to ruin Souls by the false Doctrin [Page 374] of an infatuated Oracle, would long before this day, haue either destroyed Her, or marked Her out as à Cheat by some euident Sign of Justice, as he hath marked other false Oracles ( Iewes, To the Roman Catholick Church. Turks, Infidels, and Hereticks) with Contempt, ignominy, and Disgrace. The sin is so hideous, that it well deserued à greater Punishment, and would haue been inflicted vpon this Church also if the Supposition stand: Vnless as is now said, we Assert (which is abominable) that Gods express Will was, that She should poyson whole Nations for so many Ages with corrupted Doctrin. But All is contrary. To our vnspeakable comfort the Roman Catholick Church fail's not, She keep's her Posture still. She flourishes euery where, euen amongst thousands and thou­sands She flou­rishes. that dare not (interest will haue it so) Profess Her Doctrin, And without any least Note of infamy proceding from God, ( what Diuels or Malice inuent or vent against Her, we heed not) Teaches not only, the most pious and learned in this neerer world, But the wisest also of the whole Vniuerse. Thus we discoursed of Christ our Lord, and the Argument hold's as strongly in behalf of our Church.

9. Again. Hath God whose Counsels are just, Crowned our Sauiour with Glory and Renown? Has he also who knowes well where to inflict Punishment, manifested his Wrath vpon an vngracious People that condemned Him? Ponder I beseech you first, How visibly Prouidence has made his own Spouse the Roman Catholick Church, Renowned, And wonder not, the Made renowned▪ Son of God paid dear for the Renown, and gave his life for it. Vt exhiberet ipse sibi gloriosam Ecclesiam. Ephes. 5. 27. That he might exhibit and present to Himself and the whole world à most glorious Church. All this, I say, visibly Appears, to o [...] eyes and senses.

10. Ponder. 2. Where and vpon whom, God hath Set Marks of ignominy, and inflicted most rigorous Punishments. Wh [...] vpon Iewes only, that opposed and condemned Christ? Are Iewes and Heretiques. these only Marked and Chastised? No. Those rebellious Spirits also, Those first Renegados, I mean the chief Arch-hereticks [Page 355] that opposed and condemned his Church, Vile, and abiect in life, dying, felt Gods heauy hand of Iustice. Manichaeus was stead à liue. Montanus hanged Himself. Arius voided out his bowels and filthy soul together, in à Priuie. God strook Iulian the Apostate dead, and the ground opening swallowed vp his carkasse. Nestorius wicked worm-eaten tongue brought the wretch to à miserable end, And Iohn Caluin consumed with vermine, Seuerly Punished. dispairing dyed like an other Herode or Antiochus. I need not Here relate any thing of Luthers sudden death after his merry supper. Read Bellarmin. Lib. 4. de notis Ecclesiae C. 17. where you haue these, and other more fearful Examples of Gods Seuerity.

11. Finally must we say, that our Lord Iesus is proued no Impostor vpon these reasons, That no false Prophet since the Creation purchased the like vniuersal Fame, None euer had so vniuersal an Applause, or the like Tribute of praise paid Him? It it true▪ That euer since Christianity began, the powerful hand of Prouidence hath not only rescued our Holy Iesus from all Reproach (iustly merited) but moreouer by signal Effects of indignation, made his Enemies contemptible? The renown of the Roman Catholick Church. Nothing can be more manifest. You may then boldly Conclude in like manner. The Roman Catholick Church is as demon­stratiuely proued no Cheat but an Oracle of truth, vpon the same grounds. Her vniuersal visible Extent, the continued Succession of Her Pastors, the Conuersions, and Miracles wrought by Her inuite all with à loud Venite Adoremus, incite all, not only to behold and Praise this magnificent Building, but also to Adore the Founder of it; For, if it be true as was said aboue, that the visible works in nature point at God the only Author of them. Caeli enarrant glor [...]am ejus, The Heauens declare his Glory. It is also clear, that these visible Effects of grace, Miracles, Conuersions obuious to euery Eye, set forth the glory of the Roman Catholick Church. Now how deseruedly she hath gained this Renown, let the world judge.

12. Wisdom, saith, Salomon, built Herself à house. Prouerb. 9. where [Page 356] Pillars stand firm, à Table is plentifully furnished, Victims are immolated &c. The whole Passage. S. Cyprian. Lib. 2. Epist. 3. Applyes to the great Sacrifice of the Altar offered vp vnder the Forms of bread, and wine. I waue the Application and vrge only an How gained euident truth, And Tis, that Our Church built vpon Christ the Corner-Stone, vpon those stronge Pillars the Apostles, hath stood firm sixteen Ages, and here is Her Glory. For if Glory (witness S. Ambrose) 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 say no more, hath justly purchased Her à large Renown the whole world ouer. Now mark where the contempt lies, which is à base Esteem of à thing vnworthy value. All know the Arians built, Heretiques despicable. the Pelagians built, the Donatists and other Hereticks built▪ but their vnsteedy disordered Houses soon fell down, and came to nothing. What saies Reason when Ruins are compared with this long standing Edifice?

13. Next cast à serious thought, vpon the Inhabitants of this house of God. You will find all vnited in one Faith adoring one Iesus Christ, louing one Mother his spouse, looking on one last End, Their hope and Happines And if through frailty differences doe arise abating charity, our Aduantage is far aboue all other Societies in the world: Wee haue à supreme Pastor (God be euer blessed) that can command, and like à Other ad­uantages in the Church. Father exhort to peace, in Abrams language. Ne sint qu [...]so j [...]rgi [...] &c. Iarrs must not be in the house of God, Fratres enim s [...], For we are all Children of one louing Mother. Here is the Churches Glory. Wheras on the Contrary side, nothing but Discord, and that remediless, the known euil of Lucifers pride, And in the highest points of Faith, inseparably hant's the rambling Fancy of such, as haue wilfully diuorced themselues from this one vnited Society. And Here is matter enough of Contempt, and Compassion also.

14. In the last place consider well the vast multitudes who are, and haue been Domesticks in this house of God. In the [Page 357] very Entrance we meet those Candidati aternitatis (as Tertullian speaks) Nouices of Eternity, the newly admitted by the Sacrament of Baptism, and no Society of Christians can show the like number. Here we haue Cherubins admirable in Knowledge, The Inhabi­tants of the house of God, numbertles. Doctors I mean, profoundly learned, Seraphins inflamed with Diuine loue, that rest in the height of Contemplation. Here we find Penitent Souls bewailing their sins, innumerable Martyrs shedding their blood for Christ, numberless laborious Missioners trauelling far and neer to propagate His sacred Gospel. Here finally we haue (for tis long to recount all) Abrahams glorious multiplyed Starrs. Gen. 15. 5. Kings and Queens, whole kingdoms and Nations professing the Faith of this one Church. The Gentils walk by Her light, and Princes in the brightnes of Her rising. Lift vp thy eyes and see, saith holy Isaias, All these assembled together: And if you Ask what the duty was, and yet is of so many conuened Multitudes? The Royal Prophet, that long since forsaw in Spirit à continual Oblation offered vp, Answers? Psal. 9. 1. In templo ejus omnes dicent gloriam. All in this Temple and sacred House shall incessantly render praise, and glory to God, the Author of So noble à Structure, Therfore Psalm. 86. 2. He rightly Concludes. Gloriosa dicta sunt de te O Civitas Dei. Glorious things are spoken of thee, O Citty of God: Thou begans't In Hierusalem, wa'st afterward extended to all Nations, becams't permanent, and because permanent, Glorious. Thus that whole Psalme, speaking mystically of Christs Holy Church. These are Truth's not only proued, as you se by Scripture, but also euident (and this I vrge) to our eyes, and senses. Now next consider those scat­tered, dissipated, and iarring Multitudes of Heathens, Iewes and Hereticks, And let reason, if à spark of it liue in any, iudge, whether this be not euident without Dispute. Viz. That as no Prophet euer came neer to Christ our Lord in glory and A Parall [...]l of Christ and His Church. renown, So no Society of men since the world stood, was, or is, com­parable to our glorious Roman Catholick Church, All other besides this happy vnited moral Body appear as they are abiect, and contemp­tible.

[Page 358]15. And thus we Euidence Christ our Lord and his Church to à prudent Heathen, not first by making the intrinsick Reasona­bleness of the essential Doctrin the main Proof of its verity, as Mr. Stilling: simply Argues, aboue. Disc. 1. C. 9. (For it is truely ridiculous to draw the Pagan to belieue à Doctrin, as reasonable and Diuine, whilst yet he knowes not, vpon any rational Induce­ment, whether it be from God, or no) But this way takes effectual­ly. When you lead him on by à clear light extrinsecal to the Doc­trin, when you set before his Eyes, such Marks, Signes and won­ders as cannot but proceed from God, Miracles Conuersions &c. When you Shew him How strangely the Doctrin of Christ and his Church, though sublime and difficult, was miraculously Spread the whole world ouer, when you Demonstrate how manifestly Diuine prouidence hath Age after Age Honoured Christ and his Church, and seuerely Chastised the professed Enemies of both. When finally you make it manifest that there is no Vnion, no Form, no fashion of Religion in any Society now on earth, but in How the Heathen is Conuinced. the Roman Catholick Church only. Then the Heathen, if rea­sonable and desirous to learn Truth, must confess that God speaks Truth by this one Catholick Oracle only, Or there is no such thing as à reuealed Verity taught in the world.

16. Out of what is said already I infer first. If that Maxim of Philosophy he vndoubted, Frustra sit per plura &c. It is need­les to multiply many proofs in behalf of à Verity, when one most clearly conuinceth it. This Argument alone, drawn from the glorious Marks of our Catholick Church, which cannot but proceed from God, proues Her his own faithful Oracle, With these Signes we haue the thing signified. These in à General way settle in euery reasonable vnderstanding this fundamental Truth. God speak's to the world by his euidenced Church. I say in à General way. For as the visible works in nature, proue this General Truth. Ipse fecit nos &c. A mighty power made vs, we made The efficacy of Church Motiues. not our Selues, though as yet none comes thereby to an expli­cit knowledge of many Perfections in God; So the Marks and Motiues manifest in the Church, conuince this General Truth [Page 359] also. That the same Power which made Nature giues being to these, the same Power which preserues nature, preserues these glorious Signes for our instruction, And Consequently it follo­wes, That as the visible world is proued Gods own work, so this visible glorious marked Church is proued his own Oracle, Though yet neither the Heathen nor any knowes euery parti­cular Doctrin, which God teaches by the Church. In like man­ner great Diuines assert, that Christs own Disciples owned first our blessed Lord as the true Messias, and à great Prophet. Ioan. 1. 41. Inuenimus Messiam, We haue found the Messias, before they learned the other high Mysteries of his being the natural Son of God, the second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Redeemer of Israel &c. see Suares. 3. Part. Tom. 2. Dispu. 31. Sest. 4.

17. A second Inference. The General Truth now spoken of well established. God teaches the world by à Church Signed with Supernatural wonders, All further disputes cease concerning the particular Doctrins She teaches, though sublime and aboue the reach of our weak Capacities. For none, whether Heathen, Iew, or Heretick, can boggle at à Doctrin which God reueal's, How reason discourses vpon these Euident Motiues. But God, saith prudent Reason, reueal's such and such Truths, The Incarnation of the Diuine word, the Trinity, Original sin &c. by à Church which most pressing Motiues euince to be His own Oracle, Therefore it is my duty to Submit and belieue euery Doctrin She proposes.

18. The Ground hereof seem's clear. For as there can be no endles Progress or going on in Infinitum in the intrinsecal for­mal Obiect of Faith, because Faith at last rest's vpon one sure Principle, An infinite Verity▪ So we can haue no endles Pro­cess in the extrinsick Lights, and Motiues, whereby we are in­duced to fix à firm Belief vpon that one sure Principle. Therefore in what euer Society of men Reason finds these Motiues, it rest's, without further Enquiry after stronger, which cannot be found, But most euidently reason finds them in one only Oracle the Roman Catholick Church (as is now proued) and prudently [Page 360] resteth there as vpon lights which immediatly manifest the Church, Scripture not so immedi­atly Credi­ble as the Church. and make Her Doctrin euidently credible. Scripture, t'is true, is the obiect of Faith, but not so immediatly credible as the Church, for independently of Scripture, I can belieue the Church as the first Christians did before the Book was written, but men generally in this present State cannot belieue Scripture without the Churches Testimony, As is already, and shall hereafter be pro­ued more at large.

19. A third Inference. Who euer pretend's to à Doctrin reuealed in Scripture and hold's it of Faith, has either à Church which teaches it euidenced by the Marks of our Lord Iesus Christ, or He publisheth à falshood. Which is to say in other Terms. If the euidenced Church of Christ positiuely own's not, or reiects such à Doctrin, that Doctrin, Eo ipso, is spurious, forged, and not de Fide. Hence it is, that when our Blessed Lord, Commissoned the Disciples to Preach his sacred Verities. Math. 28. 19. Goe and teach all Nations. Hee sent them abroad with the Characters, Marks, and Ensigns, of his own Preaching. Mark 16. 2. Our Lord working with all, and confirming the word with Signs that followed. And here by the way, I can neuer suffi­ciently admire the open folly of Sectaries, that wholly Churchless, A lawful Mission re­quired to teach our Christian truths. will yet needs perswade vs into new opinions vpon their own bare word, That they teach truth. It is impossible. Nay I say more, Although (which is false) they should speak Truth, they ought not (Churchless as they are) to be listned vnto. For suppose one should present himself as an Embassadour from à Prince to à for­reign State, but without Credentials, or Authentick letters iustifying his Embassage, no State can or will admit him, though he speaks truth. He must not only do so, but show his Authentick Com­mission that he speaks truth, deliuered by the Princes own or­der, or he is sent back vnreceiued in the quality of an Embassa­dour. In like manner I say. No more can any one essentially vncommissioned pretend to teach Christs Doctrin, whilst he is not sent to teach by Christs own euidenced Oracle, than this vn­commissioned An Instance Legate to speak in his Princes name. Many à [Page 361] man knowes the law well, and is fit enough to pronounce à iust Sentence, yet sitt's not on the Bench nor giues it, because he is not Authorised to do so. And thus we discours of all He­reticks, no members of the euidenced Church, though, as I said, they deliuer truth by chance, they yet deserue not the hearing, wanting power and Authority to teach it.

20. S. Cyprian Epist. 2. Speak's very pertinently to our pre­sent purpose. Quod vero ad Nauatiani personam pertinent &c. For as much as concerns Nouatians Person, I would, dear Brother, haue you know in the first place, we are not to be curious con­cerning what he saies, when he teaches out of the Church. S. Cyprian Confirm's the Doctrin. Quisquis ille est, & qualiscunque est, Christianus non est, qui in Christi Ecclesiâ non est. Whoeuer, or of what condition soeuer he be, is no Christian, that is not in the Church of Christ. And hence S. Austin in his frequent Disputes with the Donatists, pres­seth this point most efficaciously, Lib. de vnit. Eccles. Cap. 2. Quae­sti [...] inter nos versatur, vbi sit Ecclesiá vtrum apud nos aut illos? Here lies the main Business, where the Church is, whether with vs or them? Again, Epist. 163. Quaritur vtrum vestra an nostra sit Eccle­sia Dei. We demand whether yours or ours be the Church of God, which must be known, saith Optat. Mileuit. Lib. 2. By Her Marks, and Characters. And therefore we said aboue, though S. Austin made vse of Scripture against the Donatists, it was not done to decide euery particular Controuersy by the bare and obscure words of that holy Book. No. The profound How Scrip­ture mani­fests the Church. Doctor aymed not at such impossibilities, his whole drift being to teach the Donatists à great Verity, which we all subscri­be to. viz. That Scripture once admitted as Gods word, wit­hout Dispute clearly demonstrat's the Church by Her visible sensible Marks, Antiquity, Miracles, Conuersions, Digito demon­strari potest, We can point at Her with our finger Saith S. Austin. The Church therefore thus manifested we haue enough, and rely on Her as à faithful Oracle in euery Doctrin She professeth. Se Cardinal de Richelieu. Traitte pour conuert [...]r ceux &c. Lib. 2. C. 7. §. Cest encore. Where he exactly renders [Page 362] S. Anstins meaning conformable to what we deliuered. Disc. 1. C. 14. n. 10.

21. The last Inference. If all are bound to embrace true Religion, All haue also with the obligation means to know where it is taught, But the means to know this lies not in the essential Verity thereof, for that is no Self-euidence, or mani­festly true ex Terminis. The means to know it is not found, in the high Mysteries of Faith, for these (far aboue the reach of humane vnderstanding) remain yet in darkness without More light. Scripture alone makes not its own Diuinity known, and though it did so, And the Heathen owned it as most Di­uine, yet when he euidently discouer's that dissenting Christians Sense the book quite contrary waies, he has not the means to learn what true Religion is, or where it is taught. Thus then He must Discours, or belieue nothing.

22. God that's Truth, reueal's the Verities of true Religion. If so; some vnited Society of men teaches what euer God re­ueal's, for Angels are not our Doctors. I find, Saith the Ra­tional man, great Signes of truth amongst the Christians, and after The Hea­thens pru­dent Dis­ [...]ourse. many à serious thought Cast vpon à Matter of highest Concern, I sind also that all those Signes, as Antiquity, Vniuersallity, à visible Succession of Pastors, euident Miracles, which cannot but proceed from God, belong to one only Christian Society, the Roman Catholick Church▪ I se moreouer à strange benign Prouidence held forth in preseruing Her from innumerable attempts of Aduersaries. No Iew, no Heathen, no Heretick can show the like Signal Marks and Proofs, of Gods loue, as this one Catholick Oracle demonstrat's. Therefore all other Societies are false Sects misled by erring Prophets, accor­ding to Christs own Prediction. Math. 24. For there shall rise fal­se Christs, though they clamour neuer so loud. Ecce hic est and Con­clus [...]on. Christus. Loe we preach Christ, and his truths. Thus Reason test's satisfied, yet because the Heathen see's whole Armies banding against the Church, and rationally hold's their Arguments [Page 363] like theer cause very weak, He is desirous to haue the Fallacy of some chiefe Aduersaries laid forth to his reason. For your Satisfaction be pleased to read the following chapter.

CHAP. XII.

1. THe enemies of the Roman Catholick Church are chiefly reduced to these four Classes, to Atheists, Heathens, Iewes, and Hereticks. A word briefly of their fallacies in order. Some Atheists there haue been (and perhaps Lucian was one), that to cast off all thought of Religion more expresly denyed Diuine Prouidence, than they did the Existency of à God. And à chief The Atheist [...] Plea. Argument to omit others of less weight, is much to this sense. A Numen Infinitly wise and powerful, shewes his careful Proui­dence in gouerning the world, But an euident Principle opposes this careful Prouidence, and no contrary Principle of equal strength Seem's to establish it, Therefore reason well denies Pro­uidence. Now here is the euident Principle. The Oppression of iust men, manifest to our eyes, the preuailing of the wicked against the iust, of Turks against Christians, to say nothing of other much visible Confusion and Discorder; proue à neglect of Prouidence, and no contrary Principle half so strong or euident conninces it; none counterpoises the weight of this clear proof now hinted at, ergo Reason, reasonably denies Prouidence. Thus the Atheist. The Pagan Argues, That Religion is false [Page 364] which holds Mysteries ridiculous, and impossible, but Christians How the Heathens and Iewes Argue. teach that God is one Essence and three Persons. Both seem im­possible. The Iewes vapour against à crucified Sauiour, and lay its vnworthy God to become man, and to dye ignominiously vpon à Cross. Lastly our modern Sectaries that own Christ, co­me limping after the rest, and except much against the Roman Catholick Church. She, Say they, has changed the ancient Articles of the Primitiue Faith and introduced Nouelties in lieu of them, She maintains errours contrary to sense in Her▪ Doctrin of Transubstantiation; And much more seem's amiss.

2. I say first. All these and the like Arguments are meer vn­sound Paralogisms, and proue iust nothing against Prouidence, against Christ, or the Romam Catholick Church. Before I dis­couer the fallacies be pleased to note. 1. That God whose exi­stence we haue proued. Disc, 1. C. 2. is à Being incomprehen­sible, and far transcend's the reach of our narrow Capacities. The very Gentile Philosophers owned the truth agreeing in this Prin­ciple, That humane reason is as weak to know what God and diuine Mysteries are, as an owle is to behold the Sun at noon-day. Note 2. Reason in man, often too bold enters into Diuine Myste­ries, though conscious it walks in à Labyrinth not so much as Principles pr [...]mised to solue the­se Obie­ctions. half-sighted in the search it makes, and this less than Half-insight into Diuine truths, is the cause of Atheism, of all Heresy and the most gross errours now raigning in the world. The Apostle. 2. Tim. 3. 7. Point's at the misled. Semper discentes. They are al­waies learning, but neuer come to the knowledge of truth. No­te 3. Reason in the inuestigation of Religion and Diuine verities, may tend two different waies, Directly, and Reflexly. Direct rea­son, as is now said, fall's vpon some great Mystery in faith, finds it harsh, yea most difficult to be vnderstood, and What follows? The faint man with his feeble reason either reiect's the Mystery, or remain's so perplexed in the search that he can resolue nothing. His procedure is iust like à man vnskilful in Musick, that hearing one Note alone which seem's harsh, slights all without more Adoe, whereas he should listen to the whole Harmony before he iudges. [Page 365] In like manner we often proceed with God by à Half-pondering Diuine Mysteries. Contrariwife, reflex Reason labours not to Conquer difficulties by it self, or any half consideration but pru­dently waues that way, and has recourse to à surer Principle, wher­of more presently. Thus much premised.

3. A second Proposition. The fallacy, of Atheists in their Arguments against Prouidence, chiefly arises from this; That the direct Iudgement of weak reason runs headlong into Mysteries The fallacy of Atheists Discouer. ed considered only by halfs or in themselues, without attending to the Solution, most easily attained by à Iudgement which is re­flex and Prudent. For example. The Atheist denies Prouiden­ce because iust men suffer, and the impious Preuail against the iust, and hence inferr's negligence in God: Here is one harsh vntuneable Note to his eare, but reflect's not First, That, that which he calls Nature is as negligent, and much worse left alone without God. He reflect's not. 2. That if God were supposed to R [...]le the world, there would yet be fools enow to sind fault, and think some thing amiss in the Gouerment. He re­flects not. 3. That if God be an intellectual Being infinitly wise, his thoughts are as far aboue our thoughts as the Hea­uens aboue earth, And therefore aduentures desperatly to re­iect Prouidence which his shallow head neither doth, nor can Vnderstand. Finally He neuer reflect's, that to deny all diuine Foresight cast's Reason into more Mazes, than to grant it; For deny it, we must say, That this admirable and well orde­red work of nature Gouern's it self. The Sun, Moon, and Starrs, moue themselues. We must say, That the vast and swift cir­culation What they are forced to grant against Reason. of these Celestial Bodies depend on no Superiour cause; vnless we faine many vnknown inuisible Gods, or Genii, Eter­nal of themselues, And say These run about with the Heauens, and regulate that admirable Motion. But to Assert this without Proof offer's more violence to our intellectual Faculties than to own one powerful Being, essentially wise, and therefore Vigi­lant ouer all Hee Gouern's. In à word you see here, this great Fabrick of Nature (some rightly compare it to à Clock or Watch) [Page 366] and find in it nothing like confusion, but contrarywise à louely Order, à Harmony most gracious beseeming God, Yets say the foolish of the world, we ate to diuorce it from his sacred Proui­dence: That is, the Clock can moue, the wheeles can turn about without à Superiour hand that winds all vp and orders all. And why I beseech you? Mark the reason of such as haue no Rea­son. Free Causes, men I mean indued with Liberty, abuse li­berty oppress the iust, raise tumults, breed confusion, and Scramble who can get the greatest heap of dust together; Ergo saith the half ey'd Atheist, ( respiciens ad pauca) there is no care had of vs, which is to say. Men comply not with their Duty but abuse their own Free will, Therefore God is blameable because he either makes them not meer Animals, Brutish, or forces not Virtue vpon them against their wills. Its an Errour.

4. Thus much then concern's God. To indue rational Creatu­res The abuse of liberty redound's not to God. with Liberty to command the right vse of it; but not to be responsable or held neglectiue, if They abuse it. No, this touches them (for T'is their own work) that doe Euil. Let then the Euil remain where it is (Prouidence can forgiue, but not for­get) And seriously consider the louely Harmony, the recreatiue Order visible in the works of Nature (here is Gods own admirable Oëconomy) doe only thus much, and reason so euidently disco­uer's à depth of Wisdom in these works, that it cannot but ex­claim with the wise man, Sap. 14. 3. Tua ô Pater prouidentia gubernat. Your Prouidence, ô Father, gouerns all. This done cast your thoughts again as much as you will vpon the Monsters in natu­re, which man freely beget's, and freely bring's forth. What fol­lowes I beseech you but rhus much only? That God, after so many menacings so much Terrour laid before vs if we transgress, leaues liberty to its own free choise, and will seuerely punish the Offenders; But that Spurious Progeny of euil Works he own's not. Therefore no Argument can haue force against Prouidence Liberty is lest to act without [...]mpulsion. vpon this account, That liberty is permitted to act as liberty re­quires, without Compulsion. Were God forgetful or negligent; would he not, or could he not punish sin now, or hereafter, A­theists [Page 367] might vapour more boldly; But hereof there is no danger, for nature it self leaues this deep impression in all (let who will Gouern it) that one supreme Regent hates Iniquity, and that as he often doth visibly in this life, So he will more rigidly take Reuenge in the future. Mihi vindicta: & Ego retribuam. Rom. 12. 19. And this consideration alone of both present (most clear) and future Punishments, so blunt's and dead's the Atheists Plea, that their best Arguments fall to nothing, and are indeed resol­ued into pure Non-sense. This consideration alone, that God will reward the vniust sufferings of the Virtuous, is comfort enough for them, and euery rational prudent Creature.

5. We are next to dispatch the main business with these Ad­uersaries, who desire to haue as strong Proofs in behalf of Pro­uidence, as they allege against it. I will therefore for the bet­ter Satisfaction of all, produce three most conuincing Arguments. One is; The Deity we all Adore is not inexorable, but, as clear and manifest Experience teaches, and most known History in One clear proof of Pro­uidence. all Ages relates, hear's often the Prayers of iust men in time of Tribulation releasing them from sudden danger, when no huma­ne Power can help in the Exigency, Innumerable after earnest Prayer and hands lifted vp to Heauen, haue found speedy As­sistance, some in the peril of Shipwrak escaped, others thrown to hungry lions haue been lest vntouched, others cast into rhe fire not so much as scorched, volumes might be writ of such particulars. Therefore there is à Supreme Numen, that has care of vs, the Sun, Moon, and Starrs hear not, nor can lend ay­de in such pressing Necessities, And to recurr to no man knowes what invisible Spirits, is, as we now said, less intelligible and far more difficult, than to own one powerful Being of Himself that both can and doth relieue at his good Pleasure.

6. 2. The knowledge of future things Sublime, and aboue the reach of all Creatures, Argues à Power Omniscient, and Omnipotent. The reason is. The Prenotion of what's to co­me, not yet limited to any Being in it selfe, nor as yet deter­minately existing, necessarily arises from an Infinite Knowledge [Page 368] and efficacy of light, which extends it Selfe to what euer can be The know­ledge of fu­ture things proues à Po­wer Omni­scient. known; for that power which comprehend's things future, much more comprehend's all past and present, and therefore has an infinit Extent, which we call Omniscience. Now I subsume. But an Intellectual power is in being, that by virtue of his own light knowes future Truths wherof none can doubt, because he has actually communicated part of his knowledge to others, For example, to the Ancient Prophets, who most exactly fortold things to come relating to Christ our Lord, and the Glory of his Church; Such Secrets highly Diuine, they had not as men nor were they known by any Principle within the bounds of Na­ture, therefore God Omniscient imparted all; And he did so not in vain, but for this great End, That mortals may see how an infinit Goodness condescend's to inform vs of Truths whereby he manifestly tender's our Happiness, And this alone demonstrat'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 visible to our eyes, proues the veri­ties of the Predictions. What haue your Astronomers who more often miss then hit in their Predictions comparable to these Prophesies in Scripture? Nothing at all, if (which deser­ues reflection) we consider the Eminency, the Depth, and high importance of the Mysteries reuealed.

7. My last proof taken from one Manifest Absurdity, is no less than demonstratiue. Suppose Prouidence be denyed, it followes, That those Millions of men who since the worlds Creation adored God, whereof innumerable were wise, vpright, and holy, haue all been besotted and stupidly beguiled in A­doring that which is not. Nay more, This also is consequent, A third and most con­uincing Proof. That à few abiect, ignorant, and despicable Atheists, are only indowed with the light of à Truth, which once established, ma­kes Virtue odious, Honesty, and Goodnes highly contemptible. I pro­ue the consequence. If Prouidence be à chimera, All our acts of Reuerence, of Fear, Obedience, Religion and Gratitude ten­dered to God, essentially blessed with that fore-seing Power [Page 369] are dissonant to reason, and in themselues abominably sinful. Contrarywise, All acts of Contumely, of Blasphemy, and Con­tempt of Prouidence, are consonant to reason, and most lau­dable. The more therefore, we blaspheme, contemn Diuine Prouidence, the more laudably we operate, and as highly merit praise, as one doth that contemn's an Idol set besore him to worship. For Prouidence, Say Atheists, is an Idol, Ergo to adore it is madness, to contemn it, most Praise worthy. These and Harsh se­quels gran­ted by A­th [...]eists. other like Sequels are so harsh, so Abominable, and contrary to the light of nature, that I think the boldest Atheist now liuing, dare not in à serious moode own them as Truths. And thus much briefly of reasonable Arguments in behalf of Prouiden­ce, to oppose that slight Plea of Atheistical Spirits already Pro­posed, and dissolued.

8. The third Proposition. As Atheists plead fallaciously against Prouidence, so Heathens Iewes, and Hereticks follow closely the like Strain in euery Argument proposed against the Mysteries of Faith taught by Christ and his Church. Atheists and Heretiques argue à like. I would say. As the Atheist run's headlong with his weak Iudgement vpon Difficulties, so these now named, erre as he erreth. They make Direct Reason to see more than it can see, to Comprehend Mysteries incomprehensible, and quite cast asside that Prudent reflex Reason, which allayes all, and giues most Satisfaction. For example, The Heathen Com­prehend's not that great Mystery of the Trinity, and there stand's puzzled. Good cause, say I, for if à Cockle shell contain's not the whole Occan; why should thy shallow head comprehend the Trinity? Were this possible, either thou must be God, or God leaue of to be what he is. The Iew vnderstand's not how God became man, and dyed igno­miniously vpon à Cross. Obserue à strange Stupidity saith Di­uinely S. Chrisostom. Lib. Quod Christus sit Deus, towards the end. These Aduersaries of Christ read of contempt and Dis­grace, and credit all. They read in the same Scripture of our Sauiours Admirable Miracles and belieue nothing. Here is want [Page 370] of Reflex Reason. The Heretick boggles at the Doctrin of Transubstantiation, and wonders that à Church made vp of fallible men can be held infallible. And from whence comes The Asser­tion proued. this boggling? What cause is there of wonder? He Answer's. Transubstantiation seems contrary to Sense and Reason. Very good. I Ask again, to what Reason is it opposit? Grant gratis the Vtmost, it only seem's contrary to that not wel-sighted Reason which more often beguils than learns vs Truth, or which loseth it self in the Search of deep Mysteries, where it can find no Exil. But Answer I beseech you? Is the Doctrin op­posite to that Other wise Prudent iudgement, whereby all know or should know, That reason is neuer more reasonable, than when When Reason is reasonable? it leaues off reasoning in high matters aboue reason? No certainly For deny once this one clear Christian Principle, or say that's only belieuable and no more, which weak reason Approues; We destroy the very Essence of Faith and can belieue nothing. The Doctrin of Gods Free-acts, of à Trinity, of the Incarnation, of Transubstantiation, and the other like Mysteries is quite re­nounced, if so much only gain's belief, as weak reason (puzzled in the Mysteries) see's Reason for.

9. I say therefore. This Direct purblind reason cast's vs vpon Difficulties, Reflex reason solues them. The first makes vs meer What effects weak reason produces. Scepticks yea (and followed) Atheists too, The second good Christians: The First remains in darkness, the second finds light. The first would turn all faith into Science, the second saith, No, Si non credideritis non intelligetis. Vnless you belieue you shall not vnderstand. The first, though no more but à handmaid, would rule, bear sway, and command, the second curb's that petulancy, and bids Her Obey. Now the only difficulty is to show what is meant by Prudent- reflex Reason, and of what conse­quence it is in matters of Faith.

10. Briefly this reason stands not long vpon the Mysteries How the reflex and prudent rea­son proceed's. reuealed but, leaues off that lost labour and relies wholly, on the Authority of one Master, that reueals them. Hence Clem. Rom. in Recogn. D. Petri giues this wise counsel. Ante Omnia, &c. [Page 371] Before all things examin well by rational Motiues, whether he be à Prophet that speaks; This done, ponder no more but belieue boldly all he Saith. And wonder nothing at the principle, for it is far more easy to find out the Prophet by his marks, and signes, than to vnderstand the sublime Doctrin he teaches. S. Irenaeus! Lib. 9. C. 9. 1. speakes conformably. Non enim nos aliter discere poteramus quae sunt Dei, nisi Magister noster verbum existens homo factus fuisset. We could not otherwise learn those Secrets God has reuealed, vnless our great Master, the Diuine word, had been made man. Which is to say, the Reason we call reflex and prudent, most easily finds out the Master that teaches truth, and hauing once found him it relies on his word, whilst direct Reason stayes intangled in difficult Mysteries, and learns nothing. Hence also it is, that S. Thomas and others most profoundly. Obserue à notable difference, in our proceeding when we harken to God, and to man. When we treat with man, we rigidly What man speak's is to be exami­ned, what God saith, not. examin the things he speak's, and if found absurd, or impossible, reiect them; We obserue the coherence of his Discourse, and iudge whether it be consonant, or dissonant to reason. But to proceed thus with God, who can neither deceiue, nor be deceiued, is Impudence; Enquire then no more but thus much only, what God saies, and rest Satisfied, his own sole word, is warrant enough.

11. We come now to apply this Doctrin more home. The Primitiue Christians, after à prudent search, found out by euident signes, and wonders, the great Master of the world Christ our Lord, and were commanded to hear him Matth. 17. 5. Ipsum audite. And because he proued Himself by manifest fignes, to be à Doctor and Prophet sent from. God, They belieued the Doctrin he taught, vpon his own word, though very sublime and aboue weak reason. Now here is à Point of consequence worth our serious ponderation.

12. Can any one imagin, that our great Doctor of truth An applica­tion of the Doctrin. left vs all comfortles, or so destitute in his Absence, without Pastors without Prophets, withous liuing Oracles that yet speak [Page 372] in his name, and deliuer with all certainty those Verities he taught, and will haue euer taught? Reflect I beseeck you. This great Master saith No. Iohn. 20. 16. As my Father sent me, so I send you. Matth. 20. 19. Goe and teach all Nations. Luke. 10. 16. He that hear's you hears me. And to these Pastors he promises his presence and continual assistance to the end of Ages. Matt. 28. 20. I will be with you euer to the end of the world. And the There is yet à teaching Oracle. very excellency, the very nature, of Diuine Learning requires this Assistance, and must, if Diuine, depend on an Oracle which cannot but speak in Gods name Truth, and Truth only. For how is it possible to conceiue the vast moral Body of Christians, of so different tempers diffused the whole world ouer, knit firmly together in one sauing Faith; if no certain Oracle laies forth that learning, which God has reuealed, and will haue all to belieue.

13. The Sectary may Answer, Scripture is his Oracle, he needs no more. Contra. 1. Christianity had à liuing Oracle before Scripture was written, did then that Oracle cease to be because Gods truths were committed to paper or parchment? Contra 2. And mark I beseech you, how vnwarily weak reason (already reiected) works mischief to it self, and others. Reason The Plea of Sectaries reiected. reads Scripture, and when that is done, it sett's endles iarrs in­composable debates not only between man and man, but, which is worse, between God and man; Therefore Scripture thus handled can be no Oracle that vnites all in one Faith. Theses Iarrs between man and man are manifest, for the Arians, Pelagians, Protestants, and Catholicks read the book, and you see what fighting there is about the Sense, which only indeed (and not the bare letter) is Scripture. Now that some of these many Contend also with God, is vndeniable. For God approues not all these different senses because contradictory, Therefore some draw à false meaning from Scripture, and these Some (let the fault light yet where you will) oppose the true Sense of the Holy Ghost, yea act stifly to their Eternal shame, against that noble perfection in God, his vndeceiued Verity and this I call contention or quarrelling with [Page 373] God (Truth it self) which as you see, our Sectaries will haue goe on without redress, because they allow of no Doctor no Teacher, no Oracle, that can end the Strife, or reduce the erring Party to due submission.

14. I say therefore, And here is my last Proposition. The The true teaching Oracle name'd. Roman Catholick Church, which prudent reason easrly find's out, and no other Society of Christians, is Gods own Oracle, What she teaches, we learn; what she reiect's, we reiect, Her Definitiue word is our warrant, without further dubious search made into the Mysteries proposed. The proof of my Assertion, depend's on this brief discourse.

15. God obliges all poor and rich, learned, and vnlearned, to embrace true Religion, And consequently afford's means to find it out, being à matter of so much weight as concerns Saluation, But the Necessary means to find true Religion, is to come to the knowledye of that Oracle which Proposes and teaches truth with all certainty, For no man teaches Himself but learns, if wise, of à better Master; Scripture you see Ends not our Controuersies. The Mysteries of Faith are not our Doctors, because these in themselues obscure, are belieued after Reason has found out Gods liuing Oracle, Therefore all Chri­stians must own à Teacher, an Oracle of truth established by Almighty God, commissioned to enlighten and to instruct the world. How shall they hear saith S. Paul Rom. 10. 15. without à Preacher. Obserue well à teaching Oracle is to Propose Euangelical Doctrin. But how shall they preach vnless they they be The Church Commissio­ned to teach, instruct's all. sent? Here you see the Mission and commission of Euangelical Doctors plainly pointed at. Now further. As none can but own such an Oracle, so all must likewise acknowledge it so Visible by Marks and Signes, so obuious to sense and prudent reason, that the most simple may discern it from Heretical Com­munities; For this Oracle teaches the poorest sort of men, therefore Prouidence has made the euidence thereof plain, and suitable to the meanest capacities.

16. Here we See again the difference, between the essential [Page 374] Doctrin of the Church, and the Churches outward lustre manifest in Her Signes. The first is not got by long Pausing vpon the Mysteries of Faith, nor by rigidly examining the things reuealed, as we discuss Doctrins probable or improbable in Schools. No. The Christian saith not, I will either Know how God can be one Essence and three distinct Persons, How the Incarnation is possible, or I will belieue neither; For goe this way to work, he doth like one that takes wholsom Pills and chewes them, but finding much bitternes, soon spits them out. Thus then he should proceed guided by à Reflex prudent discourse. My only search is to find out that Oracle whereby God speaks to Heathens, Iewes, Christians and Hereticks; There is such an one manifested, or none can Belieue any thing. This once found, How pru­dent reason discourses. I examin no more, nor intricate my self in the Mysteries pro­posed, but will humbly Submit to all that's taught. This wisdom I learn from the Primitiue Christians, who most easily knew that Christ our Lord was the true Messias, and one sent from God by the Wonders he wrought, though they little yet vnderstood the depth of those Mysteries he deliuered, and obliged all to belieue. Thus much Premised.

17. I Proue that the Roman Catholick Church is God's only Oracle. And first Her exteriour Marks and signs giue in as clear euidence of Her being the only Diuine Oracle, as the wonders which the Apostles wrought euidenced them to be Diuine Oracles. With this lustre we haue à Church most visible, and discernable, from all vnorthodox Communities. None can Parallel Her in known Miracles, in Antiquity, Perpetuity, Con­uersions &c. 2. This Church hath taught the world euer since The Chur­ches clear Euidence. Christianity began, and no Orthodox Society but She only is nameable, which deliuered the Sincere Doctrin of Christ; For hint at any, they are manifestly proued condemned Hereticks. 3. She was neuer censured in any Age of errour by so much as one confessed sound Christian, Nay I say more (and haue proued it aboue) She is so infallible, that if she erred but in one Article, She then ceased to be Gods Oracle. 4. This Church [Page 375] showes the Mission of Her Pastors, and deriues Her Comission to teach the world, from God, and our Lord Iesus Christ.

18. The first Mission concerning the teaching of the new Testament Originally came from Almighty God, that sent his only Son our Sauiour to preach. Iohn. 14. 24. The word you haue heard is not mine but his that sent me, the Fathers. Luke 4. 14. He sent me to Euangelize to the poor. Now Christ our Lord, sent the other Apostles. Mark 16. 15. Going into the whole world preach the Gospel to all creatures. These first Masters, had their Successors lawfully commissioned, they sent others age after age, in so much that the Mission of Orthodox Pastors legally authorized to ad­minister Sacraments, and to preach Gods word, neuer yet failed in the Roman Catholick Church since Christ's being vpon earth, nor shall fail hereafter to the worlds end.

19. These Truths well weighed, And after many serious thoughts found as they are vndeniable, Prudent reason account's all that can be obiected against our euidenced Church, worse than folly. And here is the ground à Priori of the folly. These Aduersa­ries Sectaries mistake the right way of arguing. that Oppose vs, quite mistake the right way of Arguing, (were there any) For, whereas they should first find out Gods great Oracle which teaches truth, and obiect that against vs, They wholly waue this matter of highest Importance, And, so far as weak Reason can work, draw Arguments from the dark Mysteries of Faith. One finds difficulty in the Trinity and reiect's it, Another in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation and hold's it impossible. That is, weak reason, as much set's vp its own light against God, as if one should offer to extinguish the Sun beams by the dim light of à candle.

20. Obserue I beseech you à strange Procedure. We eui­dence à Church; we proue Her Gods Oracle by the Characters, Signes and Marks manifestly laid open to all mens eyes, we say this manifested Oracle which has drawn Millions of souls to the Catholick belief cannot beguile vs. Our Aduersaries one the other side Say (notwithstanding this reasonable Euiden­ce) God speaks not by Her, Because the Mysteries are hard and abo­ue [Page 376] Reason; whereas indeed the quite Contrary should be inferred, They plead most simply. viz. Because they are mysterious God speaks by so euidenced an Oracle. And here is the Reason of my Inference.

21. Had the abstruse Mysteries taught by the Church been à humane Inuention only, and not from God, the supposed Inuen­tor of them (who euer he was) had been worse then mad to Pro­pose so many, to our shallow Reason. He should rather haue followed the strain of all other Hereticks, and with the Arians denyed à Trinity, with Protestants cast of Transubstantiation, The reason of their weak plea­ding. But this you see is not done, The Church speak's truth plainly, because She knowes there is an other light, à stronger Euidence which lessens, facilitates, and conquer's these seeming Difficulties. If therefore there be euidence enough of Credibility for this one Proposition. God speaks to all by this known Oracle, Reason pleads no more, but yeilds to one that cannot erre.

22. It may perhaps appear Strange, if One consider with what plain Simplicity the Holy Euangelists wrote the Gospel of Iesus Christ, where they seem to furnish the Iewes with Arguments against our Sauiour. They declared how He was contemned, reproached, Scourged, haled from Tribunal to Tribunal, and fi­nally Crucified. Here the Aduersaries of Christ Exclaim, and Ask what's more Difficult? Could God possibly (Say they) The Candor of the Euan­gelists wri­ting our Sa­uiours life. permit his only son to be thus abused, when 'tis writ, Maledic­tus qui pendit in ligno. Cursed is the man that hang's on à Cross? The Euangelists feared not the Obiection, but, related the Story as it was. Nor did they to gain their great Master applause Couer or dissemble his Sufferings as Policy might haue done, had humane Wisdom only made the Book. No. They pro­ceeded candidly; And why all this Sincerity think ye? The An­swer is easy. They knew well, that the Victory which our Sauiour gained after all these sufferings, The Renown he purcha­sed vpon the Cross, the Miracles he then and formerly had wrought, were so forceable Euidences of his being the true Messias, that no contrary Humiliation, euen to death it self, could obscure that greater light and rational euidence of Truth. Therefo­re [Page 377] whole Multitudes beholding the wonders at his sacred Passion after the Centurion had cryed out, This man indeed was iust re­turned, knocking ther brests. Luke. 23. 48. And in his life time, said. Quid facimus? What do we doe? This Christ works so many wonders, That if we dismiss him, All will belieue in him.

CHAP. XIII.

1. THe first Inference. All that's pleadable in Behalf of Protestancy or any particular Tenet thereof, is not only doubtful but highly improbable, vpon These two Principles. First, that à Church euidenced by the very same Marks and Mo­tiues which Christ our Lord Shewed to the world, reiect's the Two Princi­ples. Nouelty, (And no Authority on earth can Contest with an Oracle so clearly Manifest.) The other Principle. No Society of Chri­stians signalized with the like Motiues as the Roman Catholick Church Demonstrat's, euer maintained so much as one Tenet of the Protestants Doctrin. Here the ingenuous Reader is de­sired to reflect à little how we proceed.

2. I proue my Catholick Doctrin by the Publick Authority of an euidenced Church, (That's my Principle) And our Ad­uersaries to Oppose me come armed with two or three maim'd The Secta­ries opposi­tion against the Church is null And why? dark Sentences, of the Holy Fathers and think this enough to cast Popery out of the world. No such Matter my good Coun­trymen, There is yet much more to do, before you speak pro­bably. You explode Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Inuocation of Saints. We Ask whether you euer had à Church as Euidenced, as Ancient, as vniuersal, as Commissioned to teach as ours, which publickly maintained your Tenets and censured The Roman Catholick Doctrin? Show vs such à Church vpon solid Principles the work is done, you giue weight For weight, Euiden­ce for Euidence, and may Speak boldly, Nay I say more, you may [Page 382] well triumph, For vpon the Supposition, we are vanquished; But Fail to do this (and fail you must) you are silenced, yea, impossibilitated to write more Controuersies. Se more of this Subiect aboue. Disc. 1. C. 19.

3. A second inference. The Atheist and Protestant plead alike. That is. As the one Argues against God, iust so the other doth against Christ's Church. All know the more an­cient Atheists offer'd not positiuely to Demonstrate the Non­existence of God, for there is no Principle to ground that Sensless Assertion vpon, But chiefly excepted against the Proofs The Atheists way of ar­guing paral­l'd with that of Se­ctaries. drawn from the visible works in Nature and thought these so weak to Euince à Deity, that there might well be none. Thus our Sectaries proceed. For stark shame they dare not deny à Church of Christ, Yet their whole labour is so to obscure Her Euidence, that no man can possibly find out the Oracle by Sig­nes, Miracles, Conuersions, and Antiquity. Therefore as the A­theist in effect denies God, or at least stand's doubtfull of his Being, So the Sectary, to parallel him, because He denies the Churches glorious Euidence, cannot but remaine doubtful, whether there be any such Oracle or no. Again as the Atheist bewrayes his folly in giuing the Lie to the vniuersal Iudgement of mankind, when he Saies the works of Nature proue not à Deity, So the Sectary run's the same Carreer, betrayes his fol­ly, and giues the Lie to the whole Christian world, when he saies, the Manifest works of Grace, visible in the Catholick Church conuince Her not to be God's Oracle.

4. A third inference. The sole Euidence of the Ro­man Catholick Church visible by Her Marks, so clearly con­uinces and carries on the whole Catholick Cause without excep­tion, A Church clearly eui­denced can­not be ex­cepted against. So utterly vanquishes the Protestants Plea of Errours en­tring into this great moral Body, that it is highly improbable, yea à flat Calumny to impeach Her of any. Here is my reason. Meer doubts, or crasy Topicks can not reuerse Euidence, But the Churches Antiquity, Her vast extent, Her Progress, Her Miracles, Her Conuersions and the other like Signes, are [Page 383] [...]x sensatis, sensibly and vndeniably euident; Therefore all im­pleading Her of Errour is more than improbable, vnless She has erred in shewing such Marks as haue made the world Chri­stian. Now further. If this Euidence stand's firm, Her Do­ctrin is made euidently Credible by it, that is, so worthy of Acceptance by diuine Faith, That Reason, after so much Light seen, is obliged vnder pain of damnation to yeild Assent to the Doctrin. For, as none can prudently belieue, before this Eui­dence be attained. ( Qui cito credit levis est corde, Eccles. 19. 44. One too quick in belieuing is not wise) So none after t'is had, can without damnable sin Disbelieue.

5. Hence I Argue. The Doctrin of the Primitiue Church was made euidently credible to reason (That is) worthy of all Acceptation in the three or four first Centuries, or was not; The Primiti­ue euidence of Credibili­ty. If not; none could then belieue, with diuine Faith; For the Euidence of credibility necessarily preceed's Faith, And as Faith in it self is strong, most certain, and victorious ouer Incredulity ( Iohn 1. 5. 4. This is the victory which ouercom's the world, our Faith), So this preuious Euidence, answerably brings Reason to so firm à State of belieuing certainly, that nothing Proposa­ble can Eclipse that clear and manifest light.

6. Contrarywise, if those Primitiue Christians had the Eui­dence we speak of, and were thereby obliged to belieue, We Ca­tholicks Is yet mani­fest in the Roman Ca­tholick Church. are Most secure, for the very same Euidence still conti­nues to this Age in the Roman Catholick Church. Miracles go on, Conuersions of Nations go on, the Succession of Pastors goes on, The fulfilling of Prophesies goes on, Sanctity of life in Thousands and Thousands, is manifest to our eyes and sen­ses. Euery day the Church growes older, and which is enough to conuince the most obdurate Heretick, the louely vnion, the vnanimous Consent, of so many Nations though ▪different in tongues, in manners in Education, (conspiring, and openly Professing one and the same faith,) hath not only gained our Church à publick Reputation the whole world ouer, but more­ouer [Page 384] proues this great Truth, That she, and none but she, is Gods Sacred Oracle.

7. If then (and here lies the force of my Inference) it had been à flat calumny and more than vastly improbable, to haue taxed the Apostolical Primitiue Church of Ertour after so great The force of the Inferen­ce. Euidence laid forth to Reason in Her Marks and Signs, it is no less sinful in the Protestant now, no less vngodly at this day, to accuse the present Church of corrupted Dectrin, whilst She frees her self from the Calumny, by giuing in the very same Euidence of Credibility. For here is my irrefragable Principle. The like full euidence of motiues lead's reason to draw Thence à most firm and certain Faith. Destroy this Euidence in any, that proues Himself to be Gods Oracle, you must deny it to Christ our Lord when he preached, To the Primitiue Church also, and finally to the Modern Catholick Church. Do so, All Faith perishes; Grant it to both the Ancient Church and this now in being, All plea­ding against our Catholick Doctrin is meer Vanity.

8. The Sectary may reply. Though the Euidence we insist on hath some weight. Yet it followes not, that all the Doctrin An Obie­ction Propo­sed. our Church teaches is made euidently Credible, For he can iust­ly except against the Doctrin, relying vpon other solid Grounds, and most approued Principles. Scripture, for example, the Au­thority of holy Fathers, the Records of Antiquity, the Form of the Primitiue Church, are his Principle, and by these he hopes to proue our Churches Doctrin False, which done the Euidence we build vpon, signifies nothing.

9. I am very willing to solue this Obiection, the Answer I ho­pe, will show vpon what vnsteedy foundations Protestancy stand's. To proceed with all clarity. This is Questionable, whether we, or Protestants, teach the Doctrin of Iesus Christ. And because it is here impossible to descend to all particular controuersies, we will fall vpon one only much debated (one serues for all). Viz whether Transubstantiation, or no Transubstantiation, be Ortho­dox Doctrin. The truth yet lies in darkness, there is no Self-Eui­dence either in the Affirmatiue or Negatiue, T'is yet no more but [Page 385] doubtful, or à meer Perhaps, whether the Protestants or we Speak Truth; Gods reuelation which only can giue certainty is Where the difficulty lies? yet obscure to vs both, and as little euidenceth it Self, as the Ve­rity we enquire after. By what means then can we raise our selues aboue this state of Doubting to so great à degree of certainty, as to Say without fear. Transubstantiation is Orthodox Doctrin. And the contrary, is not so.

10. The Catholick (to waue in this place other proofs) recur's to his Church, And saith this Publick euidenced Oracle, as well raises him to à State of certainty for his Tenet, as the euidenced Primitiue Church rais'd the first belieuing Christians from their doubts to Security. For the like full euidence alwayes lead's to How the Catholick Peoceed's. a like certainty of Belief. The Protestant, hauing reiected our present euidenced Church, hopes well, and will needs find flawes and falsity too in Her Doctrin, not by confronting Her Euidence, or denoting an other Church, As ample, as ancient, as miraculous, as She is, which held his Doctrin, for this, though it should be pleaded, (if we come to à clear Decision,) is vnpleadable, because the Protestant has no such Oracle. What's done therefore? I'll tell you, and you may iustly wonder. He shaks of this clear Principle of an euidenced Church and pretend's, (though there is no such matter) to launch into the vast Ocean of Scripture, Councils, volumes of Fathers, ancient Records ▪and thinks The Sectary takes à Contrary way. to carry on his cause this way. Here He pick's vp one dark Senten­ce of à Father, and triumph's with that, There on another. He­re vpon the least hint giuen he Snarles at one piece of Popery, there at another. Here he guesses, and there he misses. In à word the man is busily idle, doth much, and iust nothing, run's on, but is out of his way, utterly lost, without the guidance of God's euidenced Oracle which only can draw him out of the La­byrinth. And if you Ask, why he is out? I Answer his Errour lies here, that both in this and all other Controuersies, he makes his false Suppositions to pass for proofs against euidence.

11. You shall see what I here Assert Made Good. To proue no Transubstantiation the Se&ary read's Scripture, Fathers, An­tiquity, [Page 386] or what els you will. Be it so. He read's but not alone, For the learned Catholick bear's him companie and read's also. Mark now. The One after his reading glosses, so doth the ot­her. The One compares Passage with Passage, so doth the ot­her. The One discourses, So doth the other. But when all is done (and here lies the mischief) the Protestant imposes one sense vpon the perused Testimonies, and the Catholick another Which lea­ues him in State of doubting. quite contrary. This dayly Experience teaches. viz. That we differ not so much about the words we read as about the sense of Scripture and Fathers. Therefore this also is Euident, That the Protestant aduances not his Doctrin (if yet he get so high) aboue the degree of guessing only, whilst he pleads by his glossed Scripture, and Fathers, For as long as the Catholick, wholly as learned and conscientious as He is, and an ample Church besides, opposes his far-fetch'd Sense out of the Fathers, He cannot without Impudency, and making à false Supposition to pass for his Proof, cry it vp as certain: Now further. As the sense he drawes from Scripture and the Fathers is no more, but at most doubtful, (I say improbable) so his Assertion concerning no Transubstantiation, or what euer els he holds contrary to the Ro­man Catholick faith, is wholly as much wauering, or purely doubt­ful: But that which is only doubtful and no more is too weak, What euer is doubtful grounds not Faith. either to ground any Christian Tenet vpon, or to Contrast with the Roman Catholick Church, whose Doctrin is indisputably ma­de euidently credible. Therefore unless à weake Vncertainty can reuerse Euident Credibility, the Sectaries Plea against the Church, is not only improbable, but highly improbable.

12. To conclude this Point. Here is an vnanswerable Dilem­ma. It is possible to Denote, and point at another Church (which without dispute taught Protestant Doctrin and opposed ours) as Ancient, as large, and euery way as Euidenced to sense and reason, as the Roman Catholick Church is, Or it is not pos­sible. If possible, controuersies are strangely ended, for proue A Dilemma. me once such à Church, I say plainly. There is no such thing as true Faith in the world worthy defense. Why? Because if the Sup­position [Page 387] hold's two different Churches euidenced à like, equally as ancient, as efficacious in Doctrin and glorious in Miracles, clash with one another, Say and Vnsay, approue, and condemn. The one condemn's Protestancy, The other Popery, One will haue Tran­substantiation belieued, The other not, which is as wholly de­structiue of Christian Faith, as if Scripture it self should plainly Speak Contradictions.

13. On the other side, If the Sectary can neither name, nor point at à Chutch (euery way as euidenced as the Roman Catho­lick) No euiden­ced Prote­stant Church, no pleading for Protestancy. which expresly propugned Protestancy and opposed Popery, He shall neuer utter probable word against any one Article of our Catholick Faith; For throw an euidenced Protestant Church out of the world, All that is allegable in behalfe of its Doctrin, or against vs, will either End in à slight discharge, of à few scattered vnweighed Sentences of holy Fathers (no sooner read than Answered) or, as we dayly Experience, in gross Mistakes, and bold Calumnies laid on our Doctrin. And can these think ye extinguish the visible Lu­stre of our Chureh, can these lessen the euident Credibility of Her Doctrin, or bring so known and owned an Oracle into open dis­grace, or publick Disreputation? It is impossible. The most vi­gorous Abbettors of Protestancy may not only blush to Assert it, but will be bafled did we once liue to see the happy day, when our iust cause might be proposed, and heard in à Publick Dispute, befo­re Learned and impartial Iudges.

CHAP. XIV.

1. AS the Answer to the Question aym's at à clear and ea­sy way of ending Controuersies Concerning Religion, So the following Discourse tend's to settle one great truth in the minds of euery one. viz. That both the Ancient, and present Roman Catholick Church is not only infallible, But that the what we intend to proue. Aduersaries of Her infallibility destroy the very Essence of Chri­stian Religion, And deseruedly merit vpon that Account, The name of Schismaticks and Heretiques also.

[Page 397]2. To make good what's now Asserted, à few Postulata or Principles must be premised. One is. That Church which Promises, and proues Herselfe infallible in Doctrin doth not only Vpon these following Principles. facilitate, but giues also absolute Security to Faith, For such à Church Participat's most, and comes neerest to that first Diuine Apostolical Spirit, which confessedly was infallible.

3. A. [...]. Principle. Whereas nothing hath, or ought to haue, à stronger Influence ouer the minds of men than Reli­gion, So nothing can discountenance it more, than à stedfast Perswasion of its Fallibility, and Consequently, of it's easily being False. This Perswasion Cut's of all Christian Assurance, and driues men to so cold an Indifference of embracing this or that Religion, That it much import's not which to take to, any or none.

4. A. 3. Principle. The means or influence whereby Christ preserues his Church infallible, needs not to be explicated by any Supernatural quality, personally inhering in the Teaching Re­presentatiue, or intrinsecally eleuating the conuened Prelates to à State of Infallibility; for t'is enough, that the safe Conduct of Almighty God, who is alwaies vigilant, and Assists by his exteriour Protection, so secures the Church from errour, that She neither What the Churches Infallibility requires. can be misled, when She teaches, nor mislead others. Yet I deny not but that an interiour Motion of Grace may be, yea and of­ten is in the hearts of such as are Assembled together in God's name, and Assisted to define infallibly. Diuine Faith, Tis true actually elicited, euen after the permanent Habit infused, requi­res à Supernatural Motion of Grace, But hereof we speak not at present.

5. A. 4. Principle. When it is enquired Whether the Church Distusiue be infallible, the Querie is not, whether the Motiues inducing to distinguish that Oracle from others, De­monstratiuely and with all Metaphysical certitude, euidence like­wise Gods Reuelation relating to the Mysteries Belieued; For this might lead vs to enquire whether Faith be euident in Atte­stante, That is, so Vnexceptionably manifest, that all may clear­ly [Page 398] Infer from the Reuelation clearly known, That the Mysteries belieued, are euidently true. We now meddle not with that Difficulty, though great Diuines patronize the Affirmatiue, But only Ask, Whether the Doctrin of Christ's Church be so in­fallibly Certain, that it cannot be False or deceiue any. Catho­licks The Que­stion Stated. own à triple infallibility necessary to Faith. The first proper to God's Reuelation, no Protestant denies that. The se­cond belongs to the Church, either Diffusiue, or Representatiue in General Councils, whereby we learn, and that infallibly, those Truths which God reueals. The third infallible Assurance ne­cessary to Faith, all Orthodox Christians haue, that belieue the A threefold Infallibility. Mysteries reuealed vpon the Diuine Testimony, Proposed by Christ's Church.

6. A. 5. Principle. If, (what is most vndoubted) Diuine Faith essentially relies vpon Gods infallible Verity speaking by one or more men sent to Teach, (who proue their Mission and Demonstrate the Credibility of the Doctrin deliuered) it necessa­rily followes, That, that first infallible Verity beget's in euery true Belieuer, no less perfect Faith Than what is most certain and in­fallible. Wherefore as it is the indispensable Duty of euery belieuing Christian to acquiese in, and rest vpon God's infallible Mans Duty grounded on Christ's Promise. Veracity; So it is an indispensable Promise, That we haue Christ present with à Church which teaches all Truth, And therefore cannot but Propose the Obiect of Faith infallibly. The firm Promise irreuokably issued from Power and Goodnes it selfe, Matt. 28. 20. I am with you alwayes to the end of the world. Iohn. 14. 16. I will Ask the Father, and he will giue you an other Com­forter, the Spirit of truth to remain with you for euer. Hell gates cannot preuail against the Church. Thus much premised.

7. The Difficulty now agitated is. Whether the Roman Ca­tholick Church and Her approued General Councils be so se­cured from Errour, That She cannot swerue from that first Sup­port of Truth, (I mean God's infinit Veracity) But must when She teaches, Teach that exactly which God hath reuealed, and will haue after à sufficient Proposal, Vniuersally belieued. Secta­ries [Page 399] say, She may, Yea actually has swerued from God's Reue­lation, and in great Matters too, though not perhaps in the What Pro­testants as­sert. Primary Fundamentals, (as they are Called) or in Fundamentals Simply necessary to Saluation, And they were forced to this wicked Doctrin vpon three naughty Motiues.

8. First to giue Scope, or rather to inuite Libertins to hold or deny so much of Christian Religion as pleaseth their fancy; And do we not see the liberty effectually laid hold on in En­gland amongst Phanaticks, and such giddy People? All this gid­dines And why? came first from the reformed, or rather the deformed Nouelty of Protestancy. They do it. 2. to make Controuersies Endles, For deny the Churches Infallibility, Cauils go on; Grant Her infallible Disputes are ended. 3. This is done, to quit themselues of an Infamy iustly laid vpon them, of being both Schismaticks and Heretiques at once, which shall neuer be claw'd of, do what they can. For these vnsound reasons, or pestilent The Catho­lick Asser­tion. Motiues rather, The Church forsooth must needs be fallible. Catholicks on the other side, maintain the contrary, And say there is à Church so Infallible, that She cannot err in any thing She teaches, as Faith. And thus much God willing shall be euinced in the following Discourse. But to do it exactly, I am briefly to lay open to all that haue eyes, The Abiect, the Despe­rate and Desolate condition of à fallible Church. You haue here my first Proposition.

9. A fallible Church is essentially Constituted, in à State of publick A fallible Church is in à State of rebellion. Rebellion and Hostility with it Self, Wages war against Infidels without hope of conuincing, or conquering any: And therefore cannot be Christ's Orthodox Church. To declare further what I would say know first, That Sectaries own à Catholick Church much larger than the Roman Catholick, And make Themselues Part of it. Con­ceiue now (which though very hard is yet possible), that the Representatiue of this great Moral Body meet's in à General Co­uncil, and discusses the Question now in hand. Viz. Whether there be à Church of one Denomination Preserued infallible by Diuine [Page 400] Assistance? Part of the Representatiue, and these are Protestants, Oppose the total Infallibility of euery Church. Part (Catholicks I mean) Say one Church is infallible, and that is the Roman. The Difficulty proposed can be decided, or not. If not; This great Representatiue meet's to no purpose, but only to make more No means to vnite it. Strife in the world. If it can be decided, God has prouided means whereby the truth of so weighty à Matter may be known, But there is no such means left, vnless some one Church or o­ther (or all together) be owned infallible, Therefore an endles Hostility goes on, in this supposed Representatiue.

10. That all means fail may Sectaries Votes haue place, is indisputably Euident. You shall see it clearly. The Catholick Party Appeales to Scripture, alleges these and other like Passa­ges. Without so­me One Church be Infallible He who hear's you hears me, and from thence infer's, Who euer hear's the Church hear's Christ, an Infallible Teacher. The Church is the Pillar and ground of Faith, and hence concludes, She is infallible. The Spirit of Truth shall remain with the Church for euer. Pastors, and Doctors, are appointed by Prouidence to preserue the faithful from wauering in Faith, and all erroneous Circumuention. Hell gates cannot preuail against the Chutch &c. What can be more The Scriptu­re. Significant, if plain words haue sense for the Infallibility of some One Church? Yet all these and many other Testimonies so shrink to nothing, (may Sectaries Glosses stand in force) That no man can say what God speak's in these Scriptures or know the Truth now debated. Viz. Whether any Church be infallible or not, This means failing of its End which ought to compose our Strife, Hostility is as vigorous, as when the Dispute began, for yet we know nothing certainly.

11. Passe from Scripture to Fathers, We haue there most pregnant Expressions. The Church cannot be adulterated. Cypria [...] And Fa­thers Speak significantly the Chur­ches Infalli­bility▪ de Vnit Eccle: VVhat She once receiued from Christ, She euer hold [...]. Idem. Epist. ad Corne. She is à pure Virgin in Faith, and cannot be deceiued or seduced, nor ouercome with any Violence, being vpheld by Her Virginal integrity. Fulgent. Epist. ad Probum. Cap. 5. Her Fa [...] is inuincible, euen to the Powers of Hell. Euseb Caesar. Praepar. E [...]g. [Page 401] [...]ib. 1. C. 3. If any fear to be deceiued by the obscurity of à Question, let him Consult that Church concerning it, which the Scripture Demon­strat's without any ambiguity. S. Austin. lib. Contra Crescon. C. 33. What think ye? Is not the Churches Immunity from Errour clearly established? No say Sectaries, For though we cannot confront these Passages of Scripture and Fathers, with others as significant for our Plea of Fallibility; Yet we do, and must deny Their plain Sense; We do, and must say, The Roman Church has been adulterated, otherwise we are Schismatic'ks. We must Sectaries de­ny all, or must own themselues Schismatiks. say, that though once pure She lost what she had receiued; And therefore is now no Virgin, but à Harlot. VVe must Say, Her Faith is Vincible, That it is not safe to consult Her in dubious Matters, for She can return no better Answer, than what is fal­lible and may be false. Thus Sectaries.

12. Hence it followes first; That our great supposed Repre­sentatiue, made vp of Protestants, Catholicks, and all other called Christians stand's without redress in an open Rebellion, in à pu­blick Hostility with it Self, And consequently taken in its whole Latitude is not Christ's Church, Because the Church of Christ is es­sentially founded in Vnity, This supposed Representatiue, torn as you see in pieces with intestine Diuisions is not one, And therefore most desolate, For, Omne regnum diuisum in se desolabitur. And here by the way, I take leaue to tell Sectaries, T'is but Folly to talk as They doe, of à Catholick Church wider than the Roman, Or of à lawful Representatiue possibly to be conuened in Vnity, out of the Body of all named Christians, For as such à Church (con­sidered Two Mista­kes of Sesta­ries. in the largest Extent) which stands diuided in Faith is not Orthodox; So such an assembled Council, made vp of so many iarring Belieuers (considered vnder that notion of Hosti­lity and Rebellion.) can be no legitimate Council. The rea­son is. Christ neuer owned à Church professing more Faiths than one, nor lawful Councils consisting of other Members than Orthodox Christians. You will then say Hereticks, are not to What Here­ticks haue to doe in Councils. [...]e admitted into Councils lawfully called. I Answer they are admitted, but how? Freely to dispute, not to Teach; to pro­pose [Page 402] difficulties, but not to Regulate Faith, to acquiese in the Churches Definitions, but not to define, remaining Here­ticks.

13. You see. 2. That à Church fallible in Her Defini­tions concerning Faith, vainly attempt's to reclaim Infidels and Hereticks from their Errours. Wherefore the Nicene Fathers Condemnation of Arius might haue been iustly excepted against and pleaded reuersable vpon this ground, That what they defi­ned (because fallible) might be as far from Truth, as the very Er­rours they Censured, and defined against. Nay I say more: If that Council was then fallible, it lies yet at the mercy, not only of Arians, but of all Christians at this day, to admit, or reiect, the Nicene Censure, or rather, if Prudence haue place, to sus­pend Strange se­quels if the Church be fallible their Iudgements and say, no man knowes what to belieue. Into such darkness, vpon such Hazard, and indifferency, Chri­stians are cast, if God's Church or that Council could err. One instance may giue you some light.

14. Imagin à Heathen at that time, when Arianism seemed prosperous, and carried much vogue in the East, well inclined to embrace Christian Religion, VVithall Suppose the man firm­ly setled in this Iudgement, That Catholick Religion (much resembling Arianism) was so fallible, that both the one and other might be false. Say I beseech you How indifferent would this Iudgement haue made the Heathen, to either Religion? Nay would it not, had interest swayed neuer so little, haue drawn him more to Arianism? Yes most assuredly. For thus he might haue discoursed, and prudently. VVhat, they call Catholick Re­ligion How the Heath [...]n discourses. and Arianism are much alike, both fallible both may be false. My Interest now when Arianism flourishes, carries me thither. T'is true, I meet there with fallible Doctrin which may be false (God knowes how things are) but the mischief is I can find no better amongst Catholicks, nor in any other So­ciety of Christians. Now if all I can learn be no better but fallible, and perhaps false Doctrin too, I may as well learn that from the Arians as from Catholicks, or rather ought to suspect [Page 403] all Christian Religion of Errour, because none of that Pro­fession And Con­cludes against à fallible Religion. can assure me infallibly, what God has Said. But such Doctors saith the Heathen who may as easily teach me to iniure an Infinit Verity, and ascribe that to God he neuer reuealed, as lead me to acquiesce in his reuealed truths, (were any such truths in being) deserue no Credit, Therefore I neither can, nor will belieue any thing.

15. Before we make à further Step to one or two Propo­sitions which decide this Controuersy, à few difficulties are to be cleared against the precedent Discourse. One is. Hostility cea­ses in the ample Council now mentioned, would all, which is easy, Agree in one Truth, That Christs Church is infallible in Fundamentals only, or fundamentals simply necessary to Saluation. Answ: This is to say If that were done (which neuer was, nor can be done) à Reunion followes. Alas, it is not yet agreed on by all nor euer will be (vnless some quit their Errours) One obiec­tion answered. which and where, Christs true Church is. It is not yet nor can be agreed on, How many or few these fundamentals are, For though Catholicks and Protestants Vnite in à belief of the Trinity, and call that à Fundamental Article, The Arians stand out, and Hostility ceases not but encrea­ses by the Sectaries Means. oppose both. The means then here thought of, is so far from establishing Vnion that it increases Diuision, And so it will euer fall out whilst à Church of one Denomination, is not acknow­ledged infallible in euery Doctrin She teaches, and obliges Chri­stians to belieue vnder pain of Damnation. Se more hereof a­boue. Chap. 5. n. 5.

16. A. 2. Obiection. Dissentions in Councils (witness tho­se at Basil and Florence) or the Access of Hereticks cannot les­sen their Power, or Anull their Definitions, Therefore our Plea taken from the Hostility in à most ample Council Euinces no­thing. Answ. I grant the Antecedent and say, Though Here­tiques and dissenting Christians meet together, yea, Though some too busily aduance opinions dissonant to truth and Orthodox Doctrin, Yet God's gracious and watchful Prouidence, which drawes good out of Euil, And often conuert's War into Peace, [Page 404] will with all Assurance effect that such à Council either break vp and Define nothing, Or, if à Definition issues forth that only shall be defined which is certain, and infallible. Thus much is granted. Yet I deny the Consequence and Say, The Argument drawn from Hostility Conuinces. Here is my reason. That Ima­gined R [...]presentatiue consist's, as we now suppose, of Arians, Pro­testants, Catholicks, Socinians and all other called Christians, For these, as some think, Collectiuely taken, make vp the diffused Church of Christ more ample than the Roman, Or, if so many The Argu­ment taken From Hosti­lity Conuin­ces. Constitute it not, Let Sectaries please to tell vs what Christians are to be excluded, or precisely how many are the Members of this diffused Catholick Body? In the mean while vouchsafe to Consider the force of my Argument, grounded vpon an impla­cable Hostility.

17. This whole diffused Moral Body euidently maintain's Contradictions. For example, Christ is the highest God, Christ is not the highest God. Our Lords Sacred Body is substantially present in the Eucharist: That Body is not substantially present. As therefore this large Society of Christians, now supposed but one great Church holds contradictions, So it must be granted, that the Representa­tiue of it also hold's the same Contradictions, Or, ceaseth [...]o ips [...] to Represent the whole Diffused Moral Body.

18. Hence one of these three Sequels ineuitably followes. The first. If this Representatiue still continues to Represent (which is euer to be noted) and proceed's to à Definition, an­swerable to the Sentiment of the large Moral Body in Diuision, it necessarily Defines the contradictions of those Churches to The Reasons and Proofs of my As­sertion. be Orthodox Doctrin, and were this done There is More then Hostility enough, For thus impossible Contradictions, are both Definable and Belieuable. Or, it followes 2. that our imagined Representatiue break's vp, and leaues all points in Controuersy as Wholly vndecided as they were before; And this which implies an endles Hostility, would, I think, be the Result of that Coun­cil, And vpon that Account appear à ridiculons Representa­tiue. Or. 3. This followes. That some one Part or other in [Page 405] the Representatiue must lay down Arms, and acknowledge one Church of One Denomination absolutly infallible, in whose Sentence all are to rest. VVithout this Acquiescency in one Orthodox and Infallible Church, Errours in Faith goe on as S. Austin Speak's what we Assert. we see hitherto in à remedilesse condition. This truth S. Austin. Lib. de symb. ad Catec [...]um. C. 6. Saw well, where He speak's profoundly to my present purpose. Ipsa est Ecclesia sancta, Eccle­sia vna &c. She, and she only is the holy the one Church, the Catho­lick Church, which fights against all Heresies, She may fight, but cannot be foiled. And Might I here Digress à little, I could Demonstrate That neuer Heresy yet of any Fame in the world appeared since Christs time, but it was Crushed censured, and condemned by one only Oracle the Roman Catholick Church, to whose Sentence the very best of Christians dutifully Submitted, relying on our Sauiours secure Promise. Hell gates cannot preuail against that Oracle.

19. A. 3. Obiection. Scripture alone though all Churches were fallible, is sufficient to teach infallible Faith necessary to Saluation. Answ. Of all Obiections proposable, this is least worth. For had Scripture that sufficiency, it may, I hope, be yet Enquired, VVhether the Church also, which cannot clash with Scripture, has the like Prerogatiue of infallibility. Scrip­ture was infallible when the Apostles preached, and yet their Preaching was as infallible as The words they wrote. But here is not my greatest Exception. I say Scripture and all the Ve­rities in it goe to wrack if the Church be fabllible, For grant this, we haue no infallible Certainty of the Scriptures Canon, of it's substantial Purity or Immunity from corruption, of it's true Scripture with out the Churches infallible Testimony, loseth force. Sense in à hundred controuerted passages. VVe cannot belieue that Christ is God, or That his Ascent into Heauen was real, and not à vain Vision. We Cannot belieue what Sacraments are, nor know the number of them without the Church. Therefore vnless this Principle stand vnshaken. It is immediatly more certain that the Church, manifested by Her Marks is Gods own Oracle, Than That Scripture, setting Church Authority aside is Gods word, we can [Page 406] belieue nothing. For who see's not but that very Book would soon haue been out of credit, had not God by special Assistance preserued as well it's Doctrin pure in Mens hearts, as He preser­ued the words in Velume or parchment, And this by the means of à watchful liuing Oracle his infallible Church.

20. Again, and this Reason conuinceth. Were Scripture iudged sufficient to teach Saluifical Faith compleatly, independently of the Church, Or were the Church (when that Iudgement is) held not only errable but actually erroneous, How can any ha­uing The Asser­tion is pro­ued. these two iudgements ( Scripture Infallibly [...]eaches Faith com­pleatly). The Church because erroneous fail's in this Duty) Account himself à Heathen or Publican (as our Lord Saith) though he absolutely refuse to hear the Church? His refusal Certainly is pru­dent and defensible vpon this ground, That Scripture doth all, learns him enough, Therefore none can oblige him to hear the Church, which may mislead and Propound false Doctrins, For no man in his wits will listen to à Fallible Oracle, whilst he has another at hand, that teaches all Truths infallibly.

21. If you reply. Such an one is at least obliged to hear the Church in Fundamentals, but not in others. The Intelli­gent Person Asks, whether Protestants who lay that obligation A Reply an­swered. vpon him of belieuing fundamentals only, own that Assertion s [...] infallible, that to belieue the Distinction is an Article of their Faith? If they say it is à fundamental Article and that he is obliged to be­lieue so, Protestants doe not only maintain one infallible fun­damental Point peculiar to themselues, disowned by the Roman Catholick Church (for She certainly reiect's the Distinction) The Sectary C [...]nuicted of Errour. but moreouer now become infallible Oracles, in à Matter of greatest Importance, which cannot pass, because they are Pro­fessedly fallible in all they teach, Therefore may truth haue pla­ce, the Dictinction giuen between fundamentals, is both Vnfun­damental and fallible Doctrin, And so without More we are freed from all Obligation of belieuing the Church, for that Distinc­tion failing to be à fundamental truth, The Church is absolut­ly fallible in fundamental Doctrin. Well then may we not hear [Page 407] Her at all, without any Note of being looked on as Heathens, and Publicans.

22. Some perhaps, great Patrons of Christian Liberty, and freedom of mind in matters of Faith, may obiect. 4. The Church cannot exercise Her Authority ouer mens Iudgements, or oblige any to an internal Assent, Her power being limited and to thus much only, as to order and regulate the Exteriour A Reflection made vpon Christian Libertins. for this end, that Vnity and peace May be preserued without publick Dissention. Answ. These men certainly neuer say their Creed. I belieue the holy Catholick Church, that is in mind inte­riourly, I giue Assent to all the Catholick Church teaches, Now if this Doctrin stand, They may well not yeild Assent at all to any Doctrin the Church teaches, but like Hypocrits may outwardly be fair Catholicks, and inwardly foul Hereticks, And this is, to Profess one thing, and belieue another. Christ is ashamed of them. Luke. 9. 26. and so is the Apostle also Rom. 1. 16. VVho blushed not to preach as he belieued, And to belieue as he preached. But enough hereof is said in the other Treatise.

CHAP. XV.

1. ONe Principle established aboue. N. 6. Proues the first part of my Assertion. Diuine Faith which is à firm Assent to what euer God speak's So vltimatly rest's vpon his Infallible Veracity, One Princi­ple premised. That if à true Belieuer yeild Assent to him as He speaks, and be­cause He speaks, All the power in Heauen cannot Separate In­fallibility from that Belief. Herein consist's the Perfection of all Diuine Faith, That without sweruing, it tend's vpon a Verity Infallible, and without Hesitancy hold's that infallibly true, which the infallible Verity Reueal's. A lesser Perfection than this is not Faith, And à greater the Apostles had not, if we precisely res­pect The perfec­tion of Faith. the Motiue of their Assent, Hence all must Distinguish à twofold Infallibility, One intrinsick, and infinit, proper to Gods Verity, The Other answerable to à creatures Capacity, (finit, t'is true), yet Infallible, and such the Apostles Faith was.

2. Thus much Supposed, not easily gainsaid by Sectaries, the infallibility of one Church which we say is the Roman Ca­tholick, Stand's firm. And here is the Reason. As Faith re­lies vpon an infallible Verity that reueal's Truth, So it also rest's [Page 409] vpon an infallible Oracle, which (without danger of Errour) Applies and Proposes that very Truth yet obscure, to Belieuers, For it little auail's to haue à Verity infallibly Reuealed, if à fallible Oracle which may both Miss and Mislead, be our best One ground of the Churches Insallibility. and only Guide, or Proponent. The Church therefore which Saith Indubitably, I Propose what God Reueals, must be infallible, answerable to the Infallibility of Diuine Reuelation. Ruin the One or Other Infallibility, Faith can be no more but an vncertain Assent, And consequently no Faith at all.

3. To Reinforce this Reason. Please only to cast à serious The reason reinforced. Thought vpon such as haue been iustly reputed Hereticks, and vpon their Procedure. The▪ Arians after the reading Scripture denyed the high Godhead in Christ, His Eternal Consubstantiality also to the Father, And erred. The Pelagians reiecting Original Sin, swerued likewise from the Verities of Christian Religion; so did the Monothelits that impiously bereaued Christ of his two Sacred Wills, Diuine and Humane. The true Church, All know condemned, and yet condemns these Tenets as Heretical. Right say modern Sectaries, And it was well done. Very Good. If well done, herevpon ensues another troubleson Question, and it is. Whether that true Church, whilst She condemned these Errours and defined the contrary Truths, proceeded Doubtfully, Probably, vpon Moral Certainty only, or Spake as Gods Oracle ought If the Church de­fines doubt­ful. to speak, Infallibly? If She Defined doubtfully, it is yet also doubtful whether Christ be the high God, and Consubstantial to his Father, Vnless Scripture (now supposed God's word) in express Terms clear the doubt, and raise the Doctrin to absolute Certainty, which most euidently is not done.

4. The whole Contest then is, VVhether the Church or Arians Interpret Scripture better, For the Obiect of my Assent when I belieue the eternal VVord, Consubstantial, being not Ex­press Scripture, but an Interpretation only, it followes, if the Interpretation which the Church giues be supposed doubtful, She wrong's the Arians, and all other Christians, whilst She obliges them to belieue the Mystery otherwise than only, Sub dubio or [Page 410] doubfully, which is not to belieue at all. Again If the Churches She wrongs both Arians and All Christians Definition get à Step higher, to à degree of Probability and no more; The Arians Opinion for ought we know yet, may be as tenable as the Contrary Doctrin now supposed Orthodox, And Consequently the real Consubstantiality of the Son to his Father, is no more any Obiect of Faith, but meerly à disputable Matter like this or that Opinion in Schools, earnestly tossed to and fro, But neuer ended. Doubts therefore, And meer probabilities reiected, too weightles for Church Definitions,

5. We are next to look à little into one only Refuge left The Secta­ries Plea of Moral Cer­tainty exa­mined. Sectaries, called Moral Certainty. T'is à dark cloud, they are la­tely got into, our Endeauour shall be to dissipate it. They may say. When the Church condemned Arianism (the like is of any other Heresy) and defined the Eternal Word Consubstantial. The Definition (much aboue Probability) though not absolutely Infallible, was yet so morally Certain that no man can, but most vnreasonably, doubt of its Verity. In passing, I may without Offence take notice of Sectaries Inconsequences, and Ask, if Mo­ral Certainty be at least had from Church Definitions, when She interpret's Scripture, though the Doctrin be not formally expres­sed There, Why are not Her Definitions euery whit as Morally certain against Luther and Caluin, though what She Defin's be not in express Terms Gods word? I would also as willingly learn, why Protestant Doctrin is not esteemed ouer all the world so Morally certain as thefe Ancient Catholick Definitions are? But let these Queries, not easily Answered pass, We come to the main difficulty, and demand.

6. Whether this Positiue Doctrin. Christ is the Highest God, and Consubstantial to his Father be à Fundamental Article of Chri­stian Faith finally resoluable into the Diuine Reuelation, And ad­mitted A question Proposed to Sectaries. as most Fundamental by Protestants? I verily perswade my self they will Say it is: If not; This followes ineuitably, that there is no fundamental Article in our Christian faith. Vpon the supposed Concession I Argue. But If the Church be falli­ble, this Positiue Doctrin. Christ is Consubstantial. is no Article [Page 411] of Faith because it cannot be resolued into an infinite Verity infallibly Reuealing Truth, Therefore it is only à Moral humane Perswasion at most, which may be false.

7. The Proof of the Minor, will best appear if we Ask why Sectaries belieue that positiue Doctrin? They cannot An­swer, Scripture expresly Teaches it; For most euidently that's not so. Will they say the Mystery may by good Discourse be de­duced The true Answer proues Faith Certain. from Scripture? I Could wish to see à clear Deduction, yet fear it. Howeuer Suppose that done, new Doubts arise con­cerning the certainty of the Deduction, which can be no more but morally certain, most insufficient to ground Diuine Faith. The true Answer therefore must be, or none. The Nicene Coun­cil, The both pas't, and Present Church faithfully interpreting Scripture, Definitiuely deliuered the Doctrin, and vpon this ground we belieue the Mystery.

8. Now here we come to the main Business, and Ask again, whether God speaking by this Church as his own Oracle, Pro­poses that Doctrin and obliges all to belieue it, Or, Contrary­wise, whether the Church diuorced as it were from Diuine Assi­stance teaches vpon Her own humane fallible Authority, And The Chur­ches Infalli­bility fur­ther euinced obliges all to belieue the Mystery? Grant the first, The Defi­nitions of the Church are infallible, because an Eternal Verity speaks infallibly by Her. Say secondly, That the Church wholly Vnassisted, teaches and Defines vpon Her own fallible humane Authority, the Doctrin we learn from Her of the Incarnation, of the highest Godhead in Christ, of his being Consubstantial, of the Blessed Trinity, of Original Sin, beget's no Faith, Because if the Supposition hold's, that Assent relies not at all vpon an Infallible Verity speaking by the Church Assisted, but vpon à weak and fallible Human Authority which cannot support any certain Be­liefe, For it is most preposterous to Say, that men meerly falli­ble, as all are left to Themselues, can Assure vs, what that Doc­trin is, which God Reueal's Infallibly. Now we Come to this Moral Certainty.

9. And one Perhaps will say, Such men, though fallible, [Page 412] may at least giue Moral Assurance of the truth of the Doctrin, and that's enough. Contra. 1. Moral assurance which euer implies some weak Degree of fear of the contrary may in rigour be false: But the Church, which obliges all to belieue Her Doctrin vn­der pain of Damnation speak's without fear, and Saith boldly. God reueal's as I teach, Therefore her Doctrin if false, is the Diuels Doctrin. But none can say, That the Nicene Definition against Arius was the Doctrin of Diuels, But Contrarywise à Truth reuealed by God, and Belieuable Fide Diuina, Ergo it was infallible, and more than Morally certain. Contra. 2. God The Chur­ches Defini­tions More then Moral­ly Certain. Speaking by the Church giues greater Certainty than Moral, And if he do not speak at all by Her, the Definition now remoued from Infallible Assistance Vphold's not Faith, as we shall se pre­sently, nor can it be prudently iudged morally certain.

10. Though much be said in the other Treatise. Disc. 1. C. 4. 6. against this Pretence to Moral certainty (Sectaries casually light on it because, forsooth, they brook not the word. Infal­libility) yet here we must wholly weaken that Plea. I say The­refore, could the Church (as She cannot) Define or teach wi­thout Gods special Assistance, Christians would either not attain to so great certainty of Her Doctrin, as is Moral; Or if no grea­ter could be had, That certainty would not be Diuine Faith. Euery one knowes Moral certainty to be à kind of knowledge, where­by men iudge such things are, or are not, without great Hesi­tancy or any reasonable cause of Doubting, It is vsually grounded vpon some vulgar Perswasion, or common half owned Euidence, which the most of men trust to prudently, When no surer can be had. Thus we say. All People in Common Conuersation speak not alwayes contrary to their thoughts. Some mean well in their Pri­ceeding. The Nature of Moral certainly briefly hin­ted at. Rome and Constantinople are now Citties in being. These and the like Assertions may in rigour be false, Yet our Iudicatiue faculty without Violence readily yeild's to all, induced thereunto by à Perswasion vulgarly receiued whereby we say, That as such things are Commonly reported, So they also are vsually belieued, and Commonly true. In à word the greatest part of Moral cer­tainty [Page 413] may be rightly stiled à kind of half Supposed Euidence, current in the world, which may Deceiue, yet easily deceiues not.

11. Now be pleased to reflect. The sublime Mysteries of A reflection Faith, remote from all vulgar Apprehensions and half owned Eui­dences, are neither visible like Constantinople, seen by innume­rable Eye-wittnesses, Nor assured vpon any either Fallible or de­ceiuable Authority, nor finally belieued vpon à meer humane pru­dential Discourse only. No. They lie in à higher Region aboue our natural knowledge in the Abyss of Gods inscrutable Wisdom, and the more remote they are from Sense Or any Half-euidences, the more they stand in need of an infallible Pro­ponent, No Power deceiuable can ground Faith. Whereby All rest Ascertained of their being Eternal Truths. Hence I Argue. None but God aboue who Reueal's, and an infallible Church which Proposes the Mysteries can giue Assurance of their being Diuine Truths, or say absolut'ly They ought to be belieued answerably 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 The insuffi­ciency of Moral Certainty. humane knowledge, Propose them also infallibly as Diuine, Or if She could turn vs off with no more but à Moral Perswa­sion of their seeming Gods truths, yet may not be so, The Strength of Faith vanishes into à dissatisfactory Topick, into à meer Perhaps thus. It may be we Belieue Truth, it may be not. In à word we belieue not as the Apostles did, infallibly.

12. Hence none, I think, shall euer comprehend how this Whimsy of Moral Certainty got into our Protestants thoughts, For had Christians agreed in that Certainty, or had they said: Because the Mysteries of faith are proposed so weakly, We can belieue with no Stronger assurance but Moral, They must haue receiued and learn'd that Doctrin (not from their own fancy) but from some Superiour Power, some known Oracle that taught so, which either reuealed, or proposed the Mysteries as only Morally certain, and no more. But to point at any such Ora­cle [Page 414] is impossible, And here is the reason. All know, that God Faith only Morally certain reiected by all that taught Christianity an infallible Verity, cannot Reueal any Truth only Morally Certain. Christ our Lord taught his own Verities infallibly, so also did the Apostles who were Strangers to this low and half lame Assurance. No ancient Christians nameable professed à less certainty (of Faith) than infallible in the Church which taught them. The Roman Catholick Church you see for con­uincing Reasons, laies claim to diuine Assistance when She Tea­ches; and disclaims this petty kind of Certainty, which may be false: From whence then came the Perswasion of that certainty into mens Heads when neither God, nor Christ, nor Apostles nor Ancient Christians, nor any Orthodox Church euer fauoured it?

13. The true Answer is, Inimcus homo hoc fecit. An old Enemy to decry the Infallibility of Gods own Oracle conueyed the fancy into à few Sectaries, Though when they haue it, it beco­mes The Author of Moral certainly. wholly vseles to end Controuersies. Obserue my reason. If these men Dispute with à Iew, will they say that Christian Religion, taken in what latitude you please, is not absolutely infallible, but only à little More morally certain than Iudaism? Or if they Argue against vs can they be so shameless, as to allow Moral certainty to Protestancy and deny it to Catholick Religion? They must do so, and here is the reason. Moral certainty is neuer appliable to two Parts of à Contradiction, The One must It is vseles to Sectaries in all Dis­putes. of necessity be made morally Improbable, (so if all iudge in this Instant that Constantinople is à Citty in being, the Contrary i [...] Morally improbable) if therefore Sectaries hold Protestancy Mo­rally certain and the Roman Catholick Doctrin not, This beco­mes in their Opinion Morally improbable. Dare they say so much with any Countenance? If they doe, our Dispute begins à fresh, we come to the Trial of their Assertion, and will show when it pleases them to hear, that their high challenge to Mo­ral certainty, is far from being probable. At least this is Evi­dent, That whilst we most rationally except against it, its only an vnproued Supposition and ends no Controuersies.

[Page 415]14. To discouer yet more the Vnweightines of this weak An Instance certitude in Matters of Faith. Imagin if you please First. (it is in this present State an impossible Supposition yet giues light to what I would say) that the Church had not Proposed at all the abst [...]use Mystery of the Sacred Trinity, As it is already signifi­cantly Defined. Suppose again that twenty learned men, (but fallible) after à perusal of Scripture had endeauored to bring Themselues and others to belieue it. viz. The Father of himself Prouing Moral Certainty insufficient. Eternal and vnbegotten, the Son Coequal and Eternal, begotten, The holy [...]h [...]st Eternal also and proceeding from Father and Son. All three Consubstantial, one in Essence, in Power, in Wisdom, in Omnipotency, only distinguished by their Relatiue Oppositions. I say notwithstanding; This their Assent would only haue been à weak Opinion not morally certain, and though hundreds more had Sided with these Twenty vpon the like Ground, none could haue belieued the Trinity with Diuine Faith. The reason is, Because whilst men meerly fallible (and as fallible) Propose an incomprehensible Mystery far aboue the reach of humane vnderstanding, The Proposal (relying vpon à deceiuable, Or an vnassisted Power) can­not bring Faith to it's own Obiect, Gods infallible veracity. The Resolution of this supposed Faith clear's all. For Ask why They belieue the Trinity? It is Answered they verily think and per­swade Themselues that the Mystery lies couched in Holy Writ. But Ask again, whether that Thought or Perswasion be not fal­lible, they Answer, affirmitiuely. Ergo, Say I, their Faith which cannot goe beyond the strength of that weak Proposition, is also fallible and consequently not Diuine.

15. Here you see first, the absolute Necessity of an infallible Proponent in Points of Faith, which Sectaries haue not, And therefore can belieue nothing Diuinely; And truly Catholicks would be in as bad à Condition (yea really no Catholicks) An Infalli­ble propo­nent, necessary could the Church only guess at these high Mysteries, could She propose them vpon à humane errable Authority only, Or in à word, Define Fallibly. You see. 2. Vpon what ground the [...]aith of à Catholick is infallible, For being demanded why He [Page 416] belieues this, or any other Mystery, his Answer is, God reueal's them. Questioned again who giues him so much Assurance? A satisfactory Reply is at hand. He belieues so, because an Assisted Church, which cannot Err, Proposes all Her Myste­ries infallibly. Take away Diuine Assistance, She is errable and may deceiue euery one She teaches.

16. One may here demand whether the Protestants Belief of the Trinity, or of any other high Mystery growes vp to so much Certainty with them, as is Moral? Answ. 1. It import's little whether it do or no, So long as their Faith is meerly fal­lible. I Answer 2. If we Speak rigorously, Their Belief is not Sectaries haue no faith moral­ly certain. morally certain. Here is my reason. Their own Diuining in so abstruse à Matter cannot raise the Assent so high, And if they would borrow, as it were, Certainty from the Catholick Church, and Apply that to Themselues, They know well this Oracle Ow­nes no other Certainty in the Belief of reuealed Truths, but what is infallible, and cannot be False.

17. By what is said already we easily Solue à common Obiec­tion. Moral certainty seems often equiualent, yea wholly as Satisfacto­ry An Obiec­tion. to reason, as that is we call Physical, For one that neuer saw Constantinople can no more Question the Being of such à Citty, than doubt of the sun's shining at Noon day. Answ. All is most true, but nothing to the purpose, For, that certainty The­refore equalizes physical, because (Originally grounded vpon à sensible visible Euidence) it is taken from innumerable Witnesses Moral Cer­tainty. grounded on Sensible Euidence giues not Faith any Assurance. who haue seen the place, This makes the common Report indu­bitable, and conueyes vnto vs à certainty as firm, as if we saw Constantinople with our Eyes. But the Mysteries of Faith lie, as is now noted in à higher Region, and are neither proposed nor conueyed to vs by the help of any visible or sensible Eui­dence; And were they in some low degree morally certain vpon humane Reports, that would neither match, nor be so strong as natural Euidence is. Wherefore God interposes his own Assi­stance and raises the Proposition of these Mysteries and our Be­lief [Page 417] of them, to à yet higher Degree of certitude far aboue either Moral or Physical, For whether we consider them as Truths reuea­led by an infinit Verity, or proposed by the Church Diuinely Assi­s [...]ed, They stand firm vpon infallible Principles. And thus we haue their Truth indubitably conueyed, And the Conueyance you se, admits of nothing but Infallibility. I say the Truth, For without doubt there is à strong visible and sensible Euidence in the Marks and Motiues which Denote Christs Church, and make Her Doctrin in the highest manner indubitably Credible, But hereof you shall hear more partly in the Obiections, But most amply in the third Discourse.

18. To end this point concerning Moral Certainty. I Ask Moral Cer­tainty in Faith à most frigid Plea. And why? (and for Answer appeal to the Iudgement of euery rational man) what cold comfort would it haue been to the Primitiue Chri­stians, had the Nicene Fathers after à resolute Definition issued forth, whereby the Consubstantiallity of the Diuine Word was Asser­red, and à Peremptory Anathema Pronounced against all that belieued it not, Declared themselues and Sense in this frigid man­ner? It is so indeed Defined. But we only mean thus much, That the Doctrin is morally certain and may be false. Would not Arius think ye haue slighted the Definition? And might he not haue Argued to the purpose Thus? If no man can hold himself happy for being actually in Errour, He cannot Certainly think himself out of the danger of an vnhappy Sta­te, if he be exposed to the danger of Errour, But the Moral certainty you defend thrust's you vpon the danger of being in Errour, Therefore your Condition is none of the surest, Nay it is as bad as mine, For the worst that can befall my Doctrin, which I pretend Scripture for, is, That it may one day proue false, and so may yours too (Good Fathers) if in the least degree fallible.

19. Hence You se first, That the Definitions of Christs eui­denced Church must either be owned infallible, And then meer Moral certainty hath no place, Or Hereticks may endlesly ca­uil at Her Doctrin and boldly say, nothing is taught nothing [Page 418] can be belieued infallibly. If you Reply. Many cauil and except To except against the Churches Infallibility destroyes Faith. against the Churches Infallibility. I answer. This is to say, Exception is made against à Truth which either must stand vnshaken, or Faith (made no more but à tottering Opinion) is destroyed. And Mark in what à Distress poor Christians are, who Ask. Domine quo ibimus? Lord whither shall we goe to learn Eternal truth? Protestants will needs draw vs from à Church▪ hitherto held infallible, And to afford à better prouision of Truth, remit vs to Themselues, who confessedly are fallible in all they Teach. A Paradox beyond Expression. The Church is supposed fal­lible, The Secta­ries Para­dox. and Protestants are really fallible. Where then is our Security? From whom shall we learn Truth? From no body. But more of this hereafter.

20. You se. 2. There is not one receiued Christian Princi­ple so much as seemingly fauourable to Moral certainty only which may be fals, or which forces That vpon the Churches Inf [...]rences. Definitions. Whereas, on the contrary, Scripture Councils, and Fathers Positiuely Averr Church Doctrin to be infallible. You se. 3. To pretend to true Faith or to true Religion diuorced from Infallibility, Destroyes Both, For although euery Truth be not infallible, yet Truth and Infallibility inseparably meet in Faith. Wherefore this Inference inuiolably hold's good. My Catho­lick Faith is true Ergo it is infallible. For Faith relies vpon, And is vltimatly Resolued into God's infallible Veracity, which (with the Concurrenee of other Principles requisite) Transfuses into it à Supereminent infallibility aboue all natural Certitude. What euer makes Faith true makes it Infallible. That Therefore which makes Faith true, makes it also Infallible. Now further to our present Purpose. God as we here Suppose re­uealed the Consubstantiallity of his Son Infallibly, But the Mystery lies dark in Scripture, The Church impowred to Propose exactly eternal reuealed Truths, Answerable to▪ Her Trust and the weigh­tines of the matter, speak's not like one faint hearted, Forsooth, Morally speaking Christ is the highest God. The word is Consubstan­tial, But Asserts it without all Peraduentures, And strik's Arianism dead with one only Definition. And thus Faith stand's firm [Page 419] vpon à double infallibility, the One infinite and Essential to God's Verity; The Other, the infallible Proposition of an Assisted Church, For as She Proposes the obscure Mysteries of Faith, so we be­lieue. Whereof more presently.

CHAP. XVI.

1. WE here first Premise three certain Principles▪ One; that the Doctrin of all Churches seuerally Deno­minated One Princi­ple, impor­ting the Disunion in Faiih. from their Authors, as Arianism from the Arians, Pro­testancy, from Protestants, Christian Verities from Christ our Lord, [...]s not in the whole (or totally considered vnder One Notion of Christian Doctrin) either True or Infallible, For in this whole diffu­ [...]ed Body, We euidently find Contradictions. The Arians con­ [...]adict Protestants, These Set against Arians, And the Catho­lick [Page 424] Church Opposes both. Therefore All of them maintain neither One, nor true, nor infallible Catholick Doctrin, And con­sequently infallibility ceases in the VVhole, when the seueral Parts stand in an implacable Opposition with One another.

2. A. 2. Principle. If all Churches which Contradict One another are not infallible, One only, and of one Denomination Another Principle. must be infallible, or none at all can be so. For example. Ca­tholicks, and Protestants, teach Contrary Doctrin (the like is of all other dissenting Societies) both Parties cannot be infallible, The­refore the One is so, or Neither. Now further. Protestant [...] disclaim the Prerogatiue of teaching infallibly; whence it followes First, That the Roman Catholick Church enioyes that Priuiledge, or there is no such thing on earth as an infallible Church. Se­condly this is Consequent, It is the same to Say. The Roman Catholick Church is infallible, as to Say, that God yet Preserues an in­fallible Church in Being. This I Assert, not only because Prote­stants quit all Pretence to infallibility, but vpon this ground chiefly, That no other Society nameable can Parallel this One Oracle in Her Marks and Signs, Illustrious Miracles, admirable Conuersions, Sanctity, the blood shedding of Martyrs. By these The present Church pro­ued by her Signs as In­fallible as the Primi­tiue. Signs the Infallibility of this present Church is no less rational­ly proued, than the Infallibility of the Primitiue Church in the Apostles time. Here I Petition our Aduersaries to giue à pro­bable Disparity.

3. A. 3. Principle. One may teach true Christian Doctrin, and yet not Propose it as infallible. So all do that hold the De­finitions of the Church only morally Certain. One again may teach infallible Christian Doctrin, and yet not teach it infallibly, Different wayes of Teaching infallible Doctrin. And thus Sectaries teach the General Truths of Christianity, of one God, and of one Christ. The Doctrin, obiectiuely attested by Diuine Reuelation is in it self infallible, But these Nouellists for want of Diuine Assistance, teach it not infallibly, And the­refore Confess themselues so fallible that they may swe [...]e from Truth. Finally, One may teach, true and infallible Chri­stian [Page 425] Doctrin with this Addition, That he Teaches it Infallibly. And these three Perfections now named, were most Eminent in the Preaching of Christ and His Apostles. They Taught true Doctrin, They taught infallible Doctrin, and moreouer taught it infallibly, In so much that their very formal Teaching was not liable to Errour. Thus much Premised, here is my Assertion.

4. The Roman Catholick Church is Gods infallible liuing The Roman Catholick Church is Gods Infal­lible Oracle. Oracle, and teaches not only Christs true and infallible Doctrin, But moreouer Deliuers it so infallibly that She cannot err. The Proof of the Assertion wholly depend's vpon à Discourse in the other Treatise. Disc. 1. C. 2. and in the Appendix. P. 2. 3. 4. Whence I Argue. If once you annul this one Principle, that à Church which pretend's to teach Christs Sacred Doctrin, teaches it so fallibly that She may Deceiue, it doth not only follow that one Eminent Perfection in our Sauiours Preaching (who taught infallibly) is vtterly lost, and now remoued from vs, But this is also consequent, That no man can haue assurance of so much as of one Christian Verity at this day Proposed or taught the whole world ouer. The Reason is. Whateuer Church teaches Chri­stian Doctrin fallibly, can say no more but thus much timidly, That ( as taught) it may by virtue of the Proposition be false, but à Doctrin so far remoued from infallible Certainty for want of à due Application of its Infallibility, comes not neer to the Doctrin The Asser­tion proued. of Christ and his Apostles, which was Applyed, Taught, and. Proposed Infallibly. Therefore such à Doctrin if valued by the merit of its Deliuery, Can be esteemed no more but à weak vncer­tain humane perswasion, not at all resoluable into God's infallible Verity. For though God own's à Doctrin obiectiuely True, and Infallible (because he Reueals it) yet he vtterly disowns such à Proposal as discountenances that VVorth, and makes it look like à changling, or dislike it Self, (That is) neither True, nor Infallible, but contrarywise Possibly false and fallible. And it nei­ther is, nor can be more to Christians than fallible, if proposed Fallibly.

5. The Case is thus, As if one had à Gem of mighty Value, [Page 426] and skilful Iewellers were appointed to Prise it, yet none after all Art and Industry vsed can know the true worth Thereof. An Instance The Iewel may indeed be precious, and perhaps not. More the most skilful cannot Say. Put this case, the Owner would be lit­tle enriched by such an vnknown treasure whilst the worth is not known. And no More Say I, are Christians now en­riched with Christs Precious Verities, whilst none can esteeme of Their vltimate Value nor Say infallibly, They are Gods own infallible Truths? Moral certainty has here no place, For the Reasons alleged aboue. Hence it followes, That as God Reueal's his verities of an Immense Valuation ( True and infallible) So Proui­dence has ordained that they be Proposed answerably to their due Estimate, truly, and infallibly, without which Their vnfitnes to ground Faith is more than palpable, as will appear by the Resoluing any one act now held de Fide. Please to obserue. We and Sectaries belieue the Diuine word Consubstantial to his The Asser­tion further declared. Father, the Church Proposes that infallible Truth, but as it is now Supposed, Fallibly, the Assent which followes vpon that Proposition and should be Diuine, reaches not so high, because it Answers not to the Strength of the infallible obiectiue Verity in it Self (yet not asserted by any, as infallible) But to the weak­nes of the formal Proposition, which is supposed so fallible that it may be false. All then that à Belieuer can Say by virtue of that weak Light is thus much only, and no more. Perhaps the Diuine word is Consubstantial, perhaps not, For none doth or can auen the Truth otherwise, but as à thing doubtful or indifferent to truth and falshood.

6. The Reason à Priori of all now said is. We neither know, nor belieue by external Obiectiue Truths considered in Themselues, but by our own Subiectiue internal Acts, as there­fore an Obiectiue Truth appears in our own internal Acts, of so much worth it is to vs, And neither more nor less. Now further. My internal Faith necessarily depend's on two external Obiects when I belieue any Mystery: The first is Gods Reuela­tion, The other the Churches Proposition: Neither the one or [Page 427] other is my true Faith, for that's inherent in me, if I belieue. We belieue not by Obiects but by our int [...] ­riour Acts. When therefore the Church after Her Proposition obliges me to Settle my internal Faith vpon the Diuine Reuelation, I rational­ly demand in what manner, Or how I shall fix it? Knowing well, if God speaks he speak's infallibly, But my Scruple is whether the Church can infallibly Assure me so much? If She Answer's tru­ly She doth so, I am secure vpon this Principle, that an Oracle teaches which cannot Deceiue. But if it be replyed, She is only impowred to Propose reuealed Truths fallibly, and I by my in­ternal Assent close, as it were, with That, or lay hold of the reuealed obiect iust so as it is proposed fallibly, most euidently my Assent and Belief, is no more but Fallible.

7. In this Matter then as in all others, we are exactly to at­tend to the Proposal of Obiects, for as they are laid forth to vs, so much weight they haue. For example. A real Good in it Selfe is by mistake Proposed to me as an Euil, I adhere to that Obiect as it is proposed, and must Adhere to Euil, because it appear's so to me. In like manner, an infallible Truth, is Pro­posed not as it is in it Selfe, infallible, But discoloured, and defa­ced, by à viciated Proposition which is fallible; Therefore by force of that weak Declaration it appear's no other to me but As things are proposed so they are to all that belieue. weak and fallible: And none on earth can vnbeguile me, or Propose it with greater certainty, Because all are now Suppo­sed fallible in their Teaching.

8. One Instance may yet clear my meaning. The Prote­stant reads Christs Sacred words. Matt. 26. This is my Body. And Proposes what he conceiues to be belieuable by Faith, But An Instance doth it fallibly. Imagin that the Roman Catholick Church also could Say no more for Her Doctrin, or the Sense of those Words, But as the Protestant doth so fallibly that all might be False, it is clear That none, whether Catholick or Protestant, can haue Certainty of the Doctrin, which Christ our Lord deliuered in that one short Sentence. Why? Both declare their fallible Sen­timents only and Fallibly concerning the Sacrament, So far their teaching reaches and not farther. Therefore the Faith which [Page 428] should be had of the Mystery dwindles into nothing but into à fallible Opinion, by virtue of that imperfect Teaching.

9. Hence we learn, that à Doctrin though infallible in Gods word without more Help, makes no man (though he be à Pro­digy of wit) an Infallible Teacher. The reason is. Infallibility Scripture alone makes no man in­fallible. And why? Proceed's not from Scripture easily misinterpreted, but immediatly from Gods special Assistance, And this Assistance which fixes an Assumed Oracle vpon Truth vnerrably, no malice can wrest to falshood. Now that the Book of Scripture as dayly Expe­rience teaches, is horridly peruerted to à Sinister sense, needs no proof, For all know, what ruin Hereticks haue (to the vtter­most of their Power) endeuoured to make of the chief Articles of our Christian Faith, though they aknowledged Scripture to be God's Diuine Word. There is scarce One which remain's Vn­peruerted. Some Deny the Necessity of Diuine Grace, Others, that great Mystery of the Incarnation, Others an Equality in the Diuine Persons, Others our Sauiours two Wills, Diuine, and Huma­ne. Thus the Pelagians, the Antitrinitarians the Apollinarians and Monothelits taught and deceiued The world. And when Scripture is Alleged in behalf of euery Orthodox Truth, All you haue from them is à return of ouerthwart Glosses. Grace, must signify what the Pelagians please, The VVord made Flesh, How abused. what the Antitrinitarians fancy, and so of the rest. Whence it is Euident that Scripture Alone without more light, clears not sufficiently its own Truths, For here you Se the most Primary Atticles disowned and Consequently Scripture abused by Priuate Spirits, which therefore makes none infallibly certain of God's reuealed Doctrin.

10. We Catholicks require à further Help, One faithful Oracle to teach, which in this contest about the Sense of Gods What Ca­tholicks re­quire besides the bare—Letter of Scripture. Word end's all Strife, and Saies both plainly and infallibly. Thus and thus an Infinite Verity speaks in Scripture: Yet Sectaries are offended with vs, because we can assert without hesitancy. VVe belieue infallibly what Truth it Selfe Reueal's infallibly: Nay more, They are angry with God for hauing done them the greatest [Page 429] fauour Imaginable. For to put à Period to these endles A signal Mercy of God makes sectaries offended. debates raised among Christians, To teach all Infallibly by his own vnerring Oracle what may and ought to be belieued Infallibly, is à signal Mercy for which due Thanks can neuer be rendred. Disowne the Mercy, we liue and shall liue, in à Spirit of Contention to the worlds end.

11. Now if you Ask why the Church, after She has pro­posed the Sense and verity of Scripture, more easily beget's infallible Faith in Her Children, Than the bare letter of Gods word can doe without Her? I Answer. The facility (Di­uine assistance Supposed) arises from the Clarity of Her tea­ching known to all Vniuersally, whether Orthodox or others. Whence it is, that few of our Aduersaries scarce moue any doubt concerning the Sense of the Churches vniuersal receiued Doctrin (for that's plain) but chiefly Question the Truth of it. Whereas all is contrary in our contest with the forenamed Hereticks, For there is no Dispute whether Scripture be true, What is chiefly debated with Secta­ries. The debate only being what it Saith, or what the Sense of Gods sacred word is? Here we fight in darkness before the Church Speak's and Declares Her Sense, And if She be di­uinely Assisted to teach truth, as is already and shall be more amply proued in the sequele Discourse, that doubt also ceases, and vanishes into nothing.

12. In the mean while, Some may Object. 1. The greatest part of Christian Doctrin is now agreed on, and Supposed by Catholicks and Protestanss both true and infallible, what necessity then haue we of any other Oracle besides Scripture, to teach infallibly? Answ. The Agreement is Null, and the Supposition destroies it self, if all that taught Christian Doctrin since the Apostles time teach it fallibly, For How could any An Obiection Answered. agree in this, That such and such à Doctrin is both true and infallible, when He, or They (yea all) that teach may, because fallible, erre in their very teaching, and call that in­fallible Doctrin, without Assurance giuen of its Infallibility? Do Therefore all own the Verities in Scripture infallible (not [Page 430] infallible ex Terminis) We must ioyntly own with that, an Oracle which Proposes these Verities infallibly, or can belieue nothing. And by this you Se the Supposition destroies it Selfe, For The Sectaries Supposition destroyes it selfe. to Suppose à Doctrin infallible, when none can Propose it answerably to its Merit, as infallible, or infallibly, is as implica­tory, as to Suppose without Proof, the Starrs in Heauen equal in number, and from thence to Inferr they are to be iudged equal. The Parity holds exactly.

13. Obiect. 2. Whoeuer, though fallible, Deliuers by chance Infallible Christian Doctrin, Teaches the very sence that Christ taught. Answ: Very true. But he giues no Assurance Aunother Errour of Sectaries. That he doth so, For à fallible Deliuery of à Truth, as yet only Supposed not Proued infallible, raises it no higher but to such à State of Vncertainty, that one may iustly doubt whether it be Christ's infallible Doctrin or no.

14. Obiect. 3. The fallible teaching of an infallible Verity may well conuey vnto à Hearer that which God has Reuealed. For why may not an infallible Verity, as Reuealed, though fallibly Proposed haue influence vpon Faith, and work in Belieuers à most firm Assent? Answ. It is vtterly vmpossible; For à fal­lible teaching of an infallible Verity not yet Proposed as infal­lible by any, neither Supposes the Truth Certain vpon other prin­ciples (and this is euer to be noted) nor makes it infallible. It Supposes no Truth taught infalliby, for Protestants Say None now can teach so, All Doctors being fallible: And most eui­dently Sectaries clearly con­uinced. it makes not that Verity infallible, For the Verity (as reuealed) was antecedently Infallible before this fallible teaching medled with it, Which therefore can not make it Infallible. By what is said, you se our Sectaries Supposition of some Christian Do­ctrin acknowledged infallible is pure Sophistry, for none can Assure them so much, if All that teach it be fallible. The very Apostolical Doctrin respectiuely to vs now liuing loses i'ts Infallibility, if this Supposition stands, That all Teachers are fallible. Now we Proceed to à Second Argument and Dis­course thus.

[Page 431]15. If the whole Church (the like is of any General ap­proued The Chur­ches Infalli­bility further proued. Council) can err, She may not only traitorously betray Her Trust, But moreouer doe so much Mischief to Christians by vniting all in Errour, That they must remain in it, without redress or remedy, For if the Church may mistake, whilst She Teaches, No man on earth can be rationally Supposed wiser than She is, nor goe about to Vnbeguile the deceiued by Her. The Euil here hinted at is so Notoriously horrid, the Perple­rity it causes so Great, that either Church Doctrin vnauoydably becomes despicable, (whilst euery one may iustly Quarrel with it) Or this Principle must stand vnshaken, that the Church cannot teach à Falshood.

16. Some Sectaries seing the Force of this vnanswerable Ar­gument, hold the Church Diffusiue infallible in fundamentals, Yet neither name nor can name those Christians who constitute an infallible Church larger than the Roman, whereof enough Sectaries Oppose The Infallibility of Councils, without reason. is said both in this, and the other Treatise. In the next place their whole Strife is to Oppose the Infallibility of the Churches Representatiues in her General Councils, But methinks inconse­quently, For what euer Reason proues Immunity from Errour in that diffused Moral Body, Conuinces as forcibly the like Priuiledge in its Representatiues, Which are not Conuened to deceiue, But to teach God's reuealed Verities

17. Mr. Stillingfleet. Part. 3. C. 1. 2. P. 506. After à larger Prologue to very little Substance, Tell's vs. It is not any high challenge of Infall [...]bility, in any Person, or council, which must put an end to Controuersies; For nothing but Truth and Reason, can euer do it, and the more men pretend to vnreasonable wayes of deciding them, instead of ending One, they beget many. I say contrary. If the Church and Her Councils be infallible, Controuersies 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 such thing or things in being as Truth, and Reason, which can put an end to Controuersies. To explicate the Assertion is to proue it.

[Page 432]18. Doe then no more but cast away all thought of an In­fallible The Infalli­bility of Councils asserted. Church, as also of Her infallible Councils. It is clear, that euery Doctrin Taught since the Apostles time has been deliuered Fallibly, Tis clear likewise, All that teach it at this day (highly dissenting among them selues) Teach fallibly, Imagin now that two aduerse Parties, Ten learned Protestants on the one Side, And as many learned Catholicks on the Other, meet together and seriously Discuss this Point, whether Protestancy or Catholick Doctrin (as opposed to Protestancy) be the true Religion? (the like is if any particular Controuersy fall vnder Debate.) I say the Attempt to decide any one controuerted matter is Vain and Impossible, if both Church and Councils be Supposed fallible, And consequently Mr. Stillingfleets Truth and Reason are no more but meer insignificant Words. The Reason is. Whilst fallible men pIead for Religion vpon Principles as fallible as they are that Argue, the Result of that Dispute ne­cessarily carried on by Arguments and reasoning purely fallible, can end in nothing but in dissatisfactory Topicks, if yet it come so far. But this is so, and obserue well. The Protestant plead's The weaknes of two par­ties pleading fallibly. for his Tenents, or oppugn's our Doctrin and doth it fallibly: The Catholick Answers, and fallibly too; The Protestant Re­plies, but hath no infallible Principle to ground his Reply vpon, no more hath the Catholick, if the Supposition hold's, any other Answer but what's Vngrounded, and Fallible. Say I beseech you, do not both Parties, busied in this Contest vpon vncertain­ties, run on in Darkness? Haue we yet the least hope of Satis­faction? Or so much as the Truth we all seek for yet discouered in this weak skirmish, Whilst Fallible men, and Fallible Ar­guments, and Fallible Principles are the only Support of the whole Discourse? Most euidently no. All are left where they were before in à deep Perplexity.

19. I Said iust now, If we we exclude an Infallible Church, and her approued Councils, Truth and Reason vanish to nothing, and that no Principle remain's whereby these Contests of Reli­gion can be ended. To proue the Assertion further. I first vrge [Page 433] the Protestant to name the last certain Principle, or that vltimate Sectaries are vrged to na­me the last Iudge in the­se Debates, Iudge in whose Sentence he dare Acquiese, and Say positiuely vpon this Principle we must both rely, This shall Define whether you my Aduersary, or I yours, defend Truth. The man will not for stark shame name Himself nor any priuate Person on earth for Iudge: He cannot recurr to an Inferiour Council and Oppo­se that, against One Generally receiued the Whole world ouer: He will not adhere to à Schismatical and Heretical Church, and plead by Her in defence of his Doctrin, against an Oracle neuer yet taxed or tainted of Errour, Or if he doth so, he gain's no­thing, For all those are as fallible as the two Parties now in contest. Where then is the Sectaries Sure Principle, or last Iud­ge to stand to in these Debates? Or whither will he goe to find out his yet Vndiscoured Truth and Reason? Will his refuge be to Scripture? It help's nothing in this Case, not only because Scripture omit's to speak either explicitly of the half of such And cannot pitch on any. Controuersies as are now agitated, But vpon this Account Chie­fly, That if the Church and Councils be fallible, the Book it self becomes à most fallible Principle to all, For neither Ca­tholicks nor Protestants, nor Arians, nor any, can Say with Assurance, [...]uch and Such is the vndoubted [...]ense of Gods word in Controuerted Matters, if the Churches Iudgement be set light by, and look't on as fallible. Yet I'll Say thus much. Were the Church fallible, Sectaries may well blush, first to decry Her Sense of Scripture, and then to set vp the far inferiour and falli­ble interpretation of euery single Person against the Church?

20. Some may Reply. The grand Principle of Protestants, The grand Principle of Protestants, reiected, is, that Scripture in things necessary to Saluation, appeares plain to all who vse ordinary Diligence to vnderstand it, wherein cer­tainly their Truth and Reason may be found. Contra. And I Press not in this place the Vncertainty of the Principle, which is as disputable as any other Protestant Tenet, But Say more, it is wholly improbable, Yea and destroies Protestancy. It is And why? improbable, Because it cannot be Supposed that any priuate man or men, haue vsed full Diligence to vnderstand the Scriptures Sen­se, [Page 434] And that à Church of à thousand years standing hath neglec­ted à Duty so necessary. But these priuate men whether Arians, Protestants, or Socinians, and the Church draw contradictory Senses from Scripture, And all these iarring Sectaries with their different Senses defend not truth, Therefore some of them (let the fault yet light where you will) haue not vsed Diligence, nor righly vnderstood God's word. The Question now is (and some Oracle must decide it) where, or in whom, this Misunderstan­ding lies? Most 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 Protestant hitt's on the Scriptures true Sense, than it is certain that the whole Church after à thousand years Diligence, mistakes it. Can this think ye be euer cleared in be­half VVhy Should Sectaries his right on the Scriptures Sense. of Protestants by any Proof, so much as meanly Probable? It is Impossible. Wherefore I Conclude, Their Grand Princi­ple is rotten at the very root, fail's all that Rely on it. I will say it once more. If the Protestant hath no greater Certainty of his Sense of Scripture than it is certain, That he hitts right, and the Church Err's in her Sense, His Belief after all industry And the Church be deluded? vsed stands vnprincipled, rests on his own fancy, and is not recti­fiable, while he iudges so. Say the very vtmost it is no more but à meer hazard, whether he belieues, or no, and this destroies Pro­testancy. Thus much of Scripture.

21. The next thing pleadable in behalf of Mr Stillingfleets Truth and Reason, may perhaps be the Authority of Holy Fathers. It is weightles if the Church be fallible, or has Erred. And first Protestants say all Fathers are liable to Errour. I add more and Assert, if that Church whereof They were Members taught or can teach false Doctrin, it is à meer vanity to seek for certain Truth, or any satisfactory Reason in the Fathers Writings. What can Streams (the Fathers were no other) be Supposed pure, and The Secta­ries pretence to Fathers improbable the Head fountain (Gods own Oracle▪) Poysoned and infected? Did they hit right vpon our Christian Verities, when their only Guide (Christ's sacred Spouse) misled Posterity? Could they Dedicate all their Labours to make an Oracle renowned, that [Page 435] afterward whispered Errours into all mens ears? These are Pa­radoxes. I Say then, it is à stronger and far more reasonable Principle to Assert, That the Church neuer erred nor can erre, Than first to Suppose Her erroneous, And next to find truth in the Fathers, who were no more but Schollers, and suck't the milk of purest Doctrin from the Brests of this their Mother, The Catholick Church; If She therefore poysoned them with fals learning, both She and They yet poyson vs; And consequent­ly neither the Church, nor Fathers deserue credit, nor can be prudently Belieued.

22. And here by the way I cannot but reflect vpon à stran­ge Procedure, vsual with Sectaries in All their Polemicks. First The procedure of Sec­taries, vn­reasonable. they Suppose the Church and Councils errable, yea actually misled in Asserting Purgatory, Transubstantiation &c. And to Rec­tify what is thought Amiss, Some few Gleaning of Fathers (how little to the purpose is seen aboue) are produced, and these, Forsooth, must stand as it were in battail Array, fight against à whole Church, and ouerthrow Her Errours. Is this, think ye Reasonable? Can it be imagined that God preserued his Reuea­led truths in the Hearts thoughts, and words, of à few Fathers, and suffered his Vniuersal Church, with so many learned Coun­cils (conuened after the Four First) to fall presently into so sha­meful à Dotage, as Sectaries charge vpon Her? Were the Fathers Then illuminated, and was the Church afterward darkened and besotted? There is none so blind, But must needs se Himselfe out of Countenance by aduenturing to Defend à Tenet so highly Contrary to all Reason. Wherefore I must earnestly petition the Reader once more to reflect vpon the greatest Folly which, Me­thinks, euer entred the Thoughts of men. Thus it is. The pri­mitiue To say the Fathers taught truth, and that che Church de­serted Truth Fathers, (not many in number) Who wrote in the First three or four Centuries in different Times and Places, (perused by few and vnderstood by Fewer) are Supposed to Deliuer exactly the Catholick Verities, (What They sayd was True) And an Ample Vniuersal Church together with Her Learned Councils known to All; spread the whole world ouer for à Thou­sand [Page 436] yeares and vpward, must be Supposed so Abominably sinful, Is worse then a Pa­radox. so Fearfully misled, as to Desert the Ancient Faith of Those Fa­thers, to Peruert God's Truths, And Finally to Bring into the Vast Moral Body of Christians à Vniuersal Mischiefe, à Deluge of Errour, of Idolatry, And no man knowes what. If this be not pure Phrensy, there was neuer any.

23. The last Principle to ground Truth and Reason vpon, or to bring Controuersies to an end, is Vniuersal Tradition, but this also Fail's to vphold Truth, if the Church be fallible: For who will, or can with certainty trust the Tradition of à Church (or so much as take the Book of Scripture from Her) were she branded with this foul Note of hauing Publickly taught, and wilfully imposed à hundred Doctrins vpon Christians contrary to Gods reuealed Reuealed Truths. But more of this aboue. C. 5. 6.

24. After all you se first, Truth and Reason brought to Ruin, Faith and Religion vnhinged, if the Church and Councils, be Fallible. You se. 2. These Inferences Setled vpon vndeniable Principles. The Church is infallible, Ergo Controuersies are without Perplexity ended. Contrarywise. The Church is Fallible: Ergo Con­tentions Clear Infe­rences against Sectaries. goe on without Redress, endlesly. Scripture as you haue heard because differently Sensed decides nothing, No more do the Fathers (Say Sectaries) confessedly fallible. Church, and Coun­cils are reiected as errable when and as often as Sectaries plea­se, Those that Dispute of Religion (Yet more Fallible) are not to be Iudges in their own Cause, and without à Iudge Their best Arguments will be thought by all Prudent men, no more but Vnconcluding Topicks, And really they neither are, nor can be better for want of Principles, and some Oracle Infal­lible.

25. Whoeuer desires to haue the Principle I Rely on further established by clear Inferences drawn from our Aduersaries, needs only to read M. Stillingfleet from page. 534. to the end of that 2. Chapter. My Principle is. There is no possibility of ending strife touching Religion if the Church and Councils be falli­ble, [Page 437] yet Mr. Stillingfleet and his Lord, Say they must haue some end, or They'l tear the Church à sunder. My Task then is to show that these mens Doctrin Tears all in pieces, and makes Controuersis Endles.

26. The Determination of à Council erring (say our Aduersaries) is to stand in force and to haue external Obedience at least yeilded to The Sectaries Doctrin breed's Con­fusion. it, till euidence of Scripture, or à Demonstation to the Contrary, make the Errour appear, and vntil therevpon, another Council of equal Au­thority, reuerse the Errour. Here is their Position, which breed's nothing but Confusion among Christians, and licenseth euery vnquiet Spirit, interiourly at least, to Censure Church Doctrin as abominable if He iudges it Erroneous, or Contrary to Christ's Verities. I say Interiourly? And T'is hard to Silence and ob­lige men to external Obedience, if this full Perswasion remain's And necessa­rily brings in Diuision. stedfast in their minds. Gods truths are Ouerthrown, by an Erring Church, or à misled Council. There is no law humane or Di­uine wich can bind to Hypocrisy; But to iudge one thing Euidently fals, and to Profess it as true is pain Hypocrisy, To auoide therefore this Sin all are in points of faith not to Speak Contrary to Truth, or hostility will of Necessity follow Be­tween the Profession of priuate men and their interiour Iud­gements, which cannot but foment Rebellion in the Church whilst People generally liue in such à Perswasion that God's Truths are wronged.

27. But here is not my greatest Exception. Please to mark those other words. Till Euidence of Scripture, or à De­monstration makes the Errour appear: Or, another Council reuerses the Errour of the Former, And say I beseech you, to whom must this Euidence of Scripture appear? To whom must the Councils Errour be Demonstrable? What to Priuate men, and these It can not be said to whom the supposed▪ Errours of. Fallible? If so; the Contest will be whether these Priuate Er­ring men or the Supposed Erring Council, has the greater Euidence of Scripture, Or on which Side the Demonstration against the Errour lies? I say if the Church and Councils be fallible, There neither is, nor can be, any thing like Euidence [Page 438] or à Demonstration in either of the Contenders, Therefore an Councils must appear. endles Dispute vpon meer Vncertainties must ensue, vnless Mr. Stillingfleet laies the Errour vpon whom he pleases, and makes Himself Vmpire in the cause. You will say he sup­poses the Councils Errours euidently known. Pitiful. To whom I bescech you must they be known? Its impossible to return an Answer. Again if Suppositions may once pass for Proofs, I'll goe the Contrary way, and either Suppose all Councils infallible (or maintain this Truth: Errours cannot be euidently known) And why should not my Supposition, be as good as his? What then remain's but that we bring these Sup­positions to the Test, and Examin which is better? And here the Dispute begins again in behalf of what is Supposed, which can neuer be ended without an infallible Iudge.

28. It may be replyed. These Aduersaries proue not Coun­cils fallible vpon any bare Supposition, but only Say thus much: If they were Fallible, the Peace of the Church may yet be Preserued. Contra 1. Peace is infinitly better vpheld were Coun­cils (as they truly are) owned Infallible, For so euery one would Acquiese in their Decrees, as the Christian world has done hi­therto. Contra 2. The Churches Peace is torn in pieces, Sedi­tion Sedition reign's if Councils be fallible. necessarily reign's, Debates are endles, if Councils be fal­lible. To proue this.

29. Call once more to mind the Assertion. Viz. The Deter­mination of an erring Council is to stand in force, vntil there vpon, an other Council of equal Authority Reuerse the Errour. Obserue I be­seech you. Both these Councils are Supposed fallible, and of equal Authority. The Second therefore cannot reuerse the One Proof of the Assertion Errour of the First, being as weak, as fallible, and of no more Authority than That first was. Or if thus by Turns one may Annull the Decrees of the other, A third may be conuened which recall's the Decrees of both▪ and à Fourth which Cashieres all the precedent Definitions, And so in Infinitum without Stop or Stint. Hence arise endles Quarrels, not only between Coun­cil, and Council (For euery one will Stand for its own Right) [Page 439] But also among Christians, Who seing the Discord are thrown into à remediles Perplexity, and can neuer know what to Be­lieue, or whom to Obey. You will see clearly what I would expres by one or two Instances. The Nicene Council Defined Further de­clared by an Instance. the Consubstantiality of the Son to his Eternal Father. So much is vndoubted. Imagin now, that an other like Assembly as fallible as the Nicene (for that with Sectaries was fallible) and of equal Authority, had Defined the quite Contrary Doctrin, And let this be also supposed (for in Protestant Principles i [...] is Supposable) that this Second corrected the Errour of the First. What tumults think▪ ye, what an endles Rebellion would haue en­sued there vpon in Christendom, had the One Council thus clashed with the other? No man in Prudence, could haue Belieued or Obeyed either, because both are Supposed fallible, and of equal Authority.

30. There is yet one Instance more Suitable to à Sectarian Humour. Imagin only, another Council Conuened, as Lear­ned, Another In­stance She­wing. as General, and as fallible as Protestants Suppose the Coun­cil of Trent to haue been, And that this reuerses all the Do­ctrin contained in the Tridentine, Offenfiue to our Nouellists. Would not this destroy the Vnity of the present Church? Would Ths horrid Inconue­nience of Iarring Councils. not some Side with the first, some with the second, or rather would not All (vpon the Supposition) scorn and contemn the Authority of both Church and Councils? The like Inconue­nience followes, were the Catholick Church as large as some Sectaries make it, or embraced all called Christians, If in that case Two Councils representing the whole Moral Body should meet, and the later Tear in pieces the Decrees of the former, Would not Dissentions Grow as high, and as odious vpon these Voting and Vnuoting Councils, as they are now in England whilst Prelatiks Preach One kind of Doctrin, and Fanaticks another quite contrary? And is it Possible, Do all Eyes se the Hor­rour of this contrary Preaching in One Island, and are they shut vpon à greater more Terrible, were it true, That two of the highest Tribunals in the Church could stand in open Hostility, [Page 440] and the One band against the other? Thus much of Dissen­tions and Tumults, necessary Appendants to iarring Representa­tiues.

31. But all is not yet Satisfyed. Our Aduersaries Say, There can be no cause of Tumults in the Church, if an Er­rour be euidently Discouered, For euery One ought to thank God (not to grumble) when they se themselues freed from so great Sectaries [...] destroy their own Princi­ples. à Mischief: On the other side, if the Errour be not Euident, All are to submit to the Councils vntil à Publick Declaration makes the con­trary truth manifest, And thus the Peace of Christendom seem's well secured. Answ. And we will first begin with these last words. If the Errour be not Euident or intolerable, all are obliged to submit to the Council vntil some publick declaration &c. Hence I Argue. But there neither is, nor euer was any Euidence of Errour produced against one of our Catholick Councils (the Lateran, Florentine, or Tridentine for example) there neither is, nor euer was, any Le­gal Declaration more against these, than against the First most an­cient and purest Councils in Gods Church, Therefore Sectaries by their own Principle are obliged to Submit to the Lateran, Flo­rentine, and Tridentine, as well as to others. That there has not been any Publick Legal Declaration made against them is manifest, And here is my proof.

32. The clamours and Calumnies of Arians Cast vpon the The Asser­tion proued Nicene Council were no Legal Declaration against That, but most Vncanonical, Ergo the clamours and calumnies of Prote­stants cast vpon the now named Representatiues are fully as Illegal and Vncanonical, yea and more forceles (if more can be) to De­clare Clamours, no Proofs. them Inualid, And besides clamours, we neuer yet had, nor shall haue hereafter any Thing from Sectaries. The true Reason is. Go groundedly to work, There is not one Imaginable Prin­ciple whereby the Nicene can be proued à more lawful Council then the great Council of Lateran was, so much decryed by No­uellists: And if't were Possible (as it is not) to Ouerthrow the One by any solid proof, the Other Eo ipso loses all Credit and Authority.

[Page 441]33. Hence These and the like calumnies vented by Sectaries The Arians and Prote­stants Cla­mour and Calumniate alike. i [...] Corners. The Lateran and Tridentine were vnlawful Councils, [...]ed by the Pope, they had not freedom. Their Votes ought to be [...]ted Surreptitious. The Conuened were not men of vnquestionable Integrity. Some few by fair Pretences brought ouer the greater num­ber wanting Iudgement, to side with their Designs &c. Such corner-Calumnies I say, and I read them in our Aduersaries (As easily [...]attered out by Arians against the Nicene Fathers) can neuer pass for legal Declarations against Catholick Councils, whilst euery Proposition want's proof, and euery word its due Weight: That i [...], what euer can be said to this Sense stand's Vnprincipled. The­refore vnless all must be iust so as Sectaries will haue it; Vnless fals Suppositions become conuincing Arguments, and à pure beg­ging the Question proue it, Or be able to decide our Differen­ces, We haue Right to cry as loud They. Audiatur & altera Pars. A Iudge is to decide all▪ and not Clamours. Let Catholicks be heard also. And when they are heard and return their Answers before à lawful Iudge to euery particular, these Calumnies will vanish, or rather appear like Themselues, Forged and far-fetch't Improbabilities. Exclude à Iudge and à iust Sentence, Sectaries are where they would be in the old Labyrinth of Quarrelling without Principles, or giuing any hope of ending One Question in Controuersy.

34. Now to implead our Councils of Errours? and to pre­tend Sectaries neuer legally assembled. Euidence for it, is more than à desperate Attempt, vnless as I say the Corner-votes of à few iarring dispersed Sectaries (neuer legally Assembled) haue Power to create à new kind of Euiden­ce vnknown to the world. Please to reflect à little. It must, Forsooth, be Euident That the Doctrin of Transubstantiation, or Praying to Saints are Errours, whilst à whole vnited learned Church Opposes these vain Pretences and Defend's the Articles as Ca­tholick Create à new Kind of Euidence. Verities. It was neuer yet heard, that Sectaries Scatte­red here an there had Authority to impose such foule disgraceful Names of Euident Errours, or Errours morally Certain vpon Doc­trins so vniuersally receiued, when as I say The most learned Body of Christians that euer was, Vnuotes all they blow into the [Page 442] eares of others, as meer Impertinences. Euidence, Good Rea­der, and Moral certainty lose force and neuer yet stood in the Sight or presence of so strong an Opposition. I will yet say more. Though we abstract from Church Authority, we Ca­tholicks are able to maintain our Doctrin against Sectaries vpon Tradition, the Authority of Fathers, ancient Records &c. But still we require A last Iudge to giue Sentence, whether they or we abuse the Principles we plead by (For certainly the one or other Party doth so) But this, Nouellists euer Decline and Sectaries decline both Iudge and final Sentence. will haue vs to Dispute without either Iudge or indubitable Prin­ciples, and so make, as is now said, all Controuersies endles, which indeed is the only Thing they ayme at, and I haue vnder­taken to proue against them.

35. Mr Stillingfleet. P. 539. speak's so fully to my purpo­se that more cannot be desired from an Aduersary. He De­mands, how it can be known when Errours in Councils or the Church are manifest or intolerable, and when not? And Answers thus. We appeal to Scripture interpreted by the Concurrent Sense of the primitiue Church, the common reason of mankind, the consent of wise and learned men, Supposing Scripture to be the Rule of Faith. And à little after. Our Aduer­saries Doctrin. If you Ask further. Who shall be Iudge what à necessary Reason or Demonstration is? His Lordship tell's you plainly enough from Hooker. It is such as being Proposed to any man and vnderstood, the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent to it. Here you haue the Gentlemans last Principles: And euery one when applyed to our present Matter is as much Controuerted between Catholicks and Pro­testants, as the very Question now in Dispute. Obserue well.

36. The Question is whether the Lateran, Florentine, and Tri­dentiue Councils haue erred in their Definitions (the like may be moued of all others) Protestants say, they haue erred; Catholicks Lead's still [...]n to dispute, but to make no end of Controuer­sies. Deny it. Both Parties Appeal to Scripture interpreted by the Sense of the Primitiue Church So far as that Oracle learns vs. And if any Passage be found there seemingly fauorable to Sec­taries, Catholicks after the Contest of one whole Age haue been more ready to clear all Doubts, To take of any thing like [Page 443] Imagined Errours, Than Protestants were euer yet able to lay such foul Aspertions vpon either Church, or Councils. What then is to be done? Must we eternally Dispute concerning that Sense and end nothing?▪ Must we Commence new Quarrels Sectaries who began the quarrel. about Matters so often debated? Must the old Actum agere come ouer and ouer again? Sectaries like that Sport well, but no Pro­gress is made this way. As yet we only skirmish in the dark. Wherefore recourse at last is to be had to à lawful Iulge to so­me known Oracle or other, in whose final Sentence all are to acquiese, If any lawful Iudge, or owned Oracle (Primitiue or latter) Condemn our Councils of Errour, and we licence Secta­ries Like well [...] hear them­selues talk without Principles. to name either (Prouided they make not Themselues Iudges, nor their long since defeated Arguments Euidences) We are in­deed the guilty Persons, and They the wise Reformers, But if All of vs Decline this last Iudicature, and do nothing but hear our Selues talk vpon Principles grosly misinterpreted, by the one or other Party, Dissentions will goe on remedilesly to the great Scandal of Iewes and Gentils, and controuersies of Religion cannot but proue endles.

CHAP. XVII.

1. MR Stillingfleet to find out Euident and intolerable Errours in Councils Appeal's (as you Se) in the [Page 444] next place to the Common Reason of mankind, and to the Consent of wise and learned men. None could haue more ruined his own cause, For this Dilemma is vnanswerable. The forementioned Councils haue either erred intolerably in Defining the Doctrins A Dilemma of Transubstantiation, and of Purgatory, Or haue not erred into­lerably. If not; Protestants, as is now said, are obliged by their own Law to yeild at least external Obedience to them, which is not done, For herein they haue made à Publick Reforma­tion, and call such Doctrins Errours. On the other side, if these Errours be intolerable you se by their own words, We must haue the Common Reason of mankind, the Consent also of wise and learned men both ready to Oppose and Condemn them: But this is enormously improbable vpon à clear Ground. Do no more but Deuide the Moral Body of Christians now at Debate into two Classes, Catholicks and Protestants, For one that Or à clear Conuiction of Prote­stants. makes these Councils Illegal or their Doctrins intolerable, you haue hundreds, yea I think thousands, who auouch the Contra­ry, and clear Both from that vnworthy Imputation. Therefore vnless Protestants engross the Gift of common Reason and Wisdom to themselues, 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 Reason so fast intailed vpon à few Sectaries, That no body els can share in it, There is no further Dispute: All we say is. God help Them.

2. But what say we to Mr Hooker who tells vs necessary Reason or à Demonstration is that, which being proposed to any man and vnderstood, The mind cannot chuse but inwardly Assent to it. I answer, the Principle, though good, is most impertinently Ap­plied to the controuersy now in hand, For haue not we (As is already noted) Thousands and Thousands in the Roman Church most learned and pious, who hear the Doctrins of the fore named Councils proposed, and in Iudgement so inwardly Assent to all without scruple, that they would dye for the verities the­re A Princi­ple ill ap­plyed. defined? The Truth is manifest. Therefore Mr Hookers necessary Reason, or Demonstration has no place in these far [Page 445] more numerous than all the Protestants are in England, and consequently euery man Stand's not euidently conuicted of our Councils Errours. Now if you say so many Thousands are fool'd, Know Sr, That no few of these fools, are wise enough to dispute with you, and to Show you Speak at ran­dom without Principles.

3. Thus much is said of our Catholick Councils hitherto conuened in the Chureh, now if we return to the old Sup­position, and First imagin all Councils fallible, and Secondly thin­ke, that the latter, of equal Authority amends the First, or à Third the Errours of the Second, and so in Infinitum, I Say it is Impossible, either clearly to Discouer the pretended Errours, or to redress them, and this I Assert vpon these grounds.

4. One already hinted at, is, that none can by an inward Assent (aud Mr Hooker requires that) own any such Euidence An Assertion proued. whilst 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 Christian Truths. No more can I, were I yet to Learn rest Satisfyed, in what either of these two iarring Councils Define (for the One is as bad as the Other) than I am able to trust to two Ministers Talk, if I heard them Preach quite contrary Doctrin at Pauls Church, That is, no man can belieue either, vpon their fallible Autho­rity. This Principle therefore Stands firm. An errable Council A fallible Council, most vn meet to teach the high My­steries of Faith. i [...] as vnfit to Teach, or Vnteach another likewise Erring, in the high and yet vnknown Mysteries of Faith, as One Wholly ignorant, of an vncouth Path, is to direct à Stranger into it, For as Both these are to learn the way from à third Guide more skilful, So both these Councils must take their Instructions from some third certain Oracle, Or remain, as they are, Ignorant. But Sectaries remit none to any liuing certain Oracle, Therefore they cannot but still Sit in Darkness (T'is Gods iust Iudge­ment vpon them) and blind as They are, lead the blind they know not whither.

5. Again (and here is my second Reason) Before the Dis­couery [Page 446] of these intolerable Errours we ought to haue à List of them, and know How many or few they are, And who can Ascertain vs of this? Are we to diuine at their Intolerableness by our own priuate Iudgements? Or is some wiser body to instruct vs, when there is no Council at hand to do it? Must all Christians dispersed vp and down the world write letters to one another, Or inform themselues whether the Errours be in­tolerable? These Sup­posed Errours in Councils. And if so; whether it be yet high time to cry out against them? Or, is it enough to Ask our next Neighbours what they think of the Business, and rest there? Perhaps some will hold them inconsiderable, Others of à violent temper hainous not longer to be born with. And can such Iumbling and Confusion which teares the Vnity of the Church in pieces Pre­serue Her in peace think ye? Must we first Suppose à learned Cannot be discouered by larring Multitudes. Council to haue erred, and next rely on vnlearned iarring Mul­titudes to Proclaim, Censure, and Reuerse 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. Answ. Were this, as it is not Possible, what is to be done in the mean time, whilst there is no Council in Being? Must the Church which Belieues the Definitions of What if à Council be not in Being. the former erring Councils and all Christians with it, Err on so long till this other Council Appears? Or is euery priuate man to resolue for himself what's best to do in such Exigences? Reflect I beseech you. How far easier were it, to quiet all, might Councils once be owned infallible. Yet here is my least When diffi­culties arise Exception. I say therefore to proue what I sayd aboue. If Church and Councils can err notoriously, There is no means left on earth, either to discouer the Errours, or to amend them.

7. The Assertion will be proued by sifting this one Point to the Bottom. And Much light will be had if we leaue Ge­neralities, One Point Examined. wherin Sectaries alwaies lurk, and descend to parti­culars, Or lay forth the nature of some imaginable Errours. [Page 447] Call then These if any be, horrid and intolerable.

8. To teach there is no God, no Christ, no Redeemer, no Saluation. I Ask whether the Councils in Gods Church can err thus grosly, The Nature of horrid Errours. or are so secured by Diuine Assistance, as not to Define such vast Absurdities? If it be Answered, They are so far at least preserued infallible, I clearly Infer, No man can exclude à total infallibility from Councils. If it be Answered, Possibly they may err in this Damnable manner. I infer Again. Ergo, Pos­sibly, Councils, Church, and all Christians may vtterly desert Christ, become Atheists, Turks, Iewes, Diuels, or what els you will, that naught is. Can this also be granted.

9. One may reply, it is indeed possible, yet will neuer be. C [...]ntra. Who hinders the Mischief, I beseech you, if the Sup­position may stand? The Roman Catholick Church, Say Se­ctaries, is already Idolatrous, and long since was Antichristian, when some English Protestants made the Pope Antichrist. The Church accused of intolerable Errours. Why then may not Atheism, Iudaism, and Turcism infect likewise the Whole Moral Body of Christians, and Destroy both Church and Councils? Grant this Possible, there can be no more talk of after-Councils correcting the former, erroneous, For the Church is now Destroyed, Christ our Lord must please to appear again, or send some great Prophet to establish à new Church more firm than the other was now ruined, or we are lest desolate, vtterly Churchles.

10. I am verily perswaded our Aduersaries will think twice on't, before they once grant these horrid Consequences, and therefore must needs make the Supposed Euident intolerable errours not altogether so abominable, but less, or of à lower rank, yet euident and intolerable. Remember that. And what may these A question proposed to Sectaries. be think ye? I would fain know whether any such foul Doctrins have been euer taught de facto, or, because Councils are Supposed fallible, whether they yet remain in à State of pos­sibility, and only may be Taught? If it be Said they are not actual but only possible, Or may be intolerable hereafter, And Sectaries vpon that Account abandon the Roman Catholick [Page 448] Church: Their Sin is now actual and more horrid than such Concerning these Suppo­sed Errours Actual or Possible. Errours are, Because They desert à Church vpon supposed faults which only may be, yet neuer were hitherto. Now if for à meer Possibility of falsities, (neuer yet actually Discouered nor known) The Roman Church is to be quitted, Protestants ought to for­sake Their own Religion, For they are all liable to Errour, Yea, And may well hang vp the most Innocent man in the world vpon this score, That he may be à thiefe, Though as yet he neuer Stole any thing.

11. The Errours therefore, if we Discourse rationally, hi­therto pretended against vs are not in à meer State of Possibi­lity, None Con­demned for Errours which Possi­bly may be. But Actual, Euident, and intolerable. We inquire after them, And still proceed vpon this wretched Supposition, that both Church and Council are fallible, or haue erred. When Enuy has done its Vtmost, you only can get à List of these or the like Supposed Falshoods. Praying to Saints. The Real Presence. Worshiping of Images. Transubstantiation or some thing of this na­ture, which Catholicks maintain. Now truely, it is more than extrauagant (and I know not with what Conscience Sectaries do it) to Decry these as Euident and intolerable Errours, whilst à whole learned Church defends them as Truths.

12. What Saith Mr Hooker? Is the mind so forced that after à full Proposal, it cannot chuse but inwardly Assent to All as euident Errours? Toyes. Trifles. Millions, as we now Sectaries in consequen­cies. sayd, own them as Apostolical Verities. 2. If Euident and in­tolerable, they strike at such Verities as Sectaries call the fun­damentals of Faith, And consequently the Roman Church which maintains them, has been Vnorthodox in fundamentals for à thousand years and more. Will this be granted? Grant or deny, here is an vnanswerable Dilemma; They are fundamental Errours (in our Sectaries sense) destructive of Diuine Faith, or not. If not; but only smaller matters, Protestants Oblige them­selues to forbear, and to expect the Churches Good pleasure vntil, some other Council meet's, and Reuerses what's Amiss. Their Clamours therefore against the Churches Doctrin now, [Page 449] are vnauthorised and most illegal by their own Principles. Nor haue they Power, as is confessed, to Reform themselues in lesser matters, but only in things of à higher Concern, Euident, and intolerable.

13. Now if they be of this nature and consequently fun­damental A clear Inference against Se­ctaries. Absurdities against Faith, It followes, that there was no Church right in fundamentals the whole world ouer for ten Ages before Luther: Not the Roman; if the Supposition hold's, Nor any other Society of Christians for all those (name whom you will) were more deeply plunged into fundamental Errours. 3. And T'is the chiefest thing I aime at. If Church and Councils be owned fallible, can err, or haue erred, Our Aduersaries Supposition of Errours Euident, and intolerable, is purely chimerical, And therefore I said iust now, None can know them as such, and consequently no Power on earth can amend them. I proue the Assertion.

14. First they cannot be known as euident or manifest, Intolerable Errours can­not be proued against the Church. without Principles, as clear as the Errours are Supposed to be, which therefore must be so indisputable That the mind in­wardly Assent's to them, as Mr Hooker Saith. A weaker light, as Probability, or à miscalled Moral Certainty, beget's Eui­dence in none. Now here we Vrge our Aduersaries to bring to Light but one, or more clear Principles, whereby it may manifestly appear, that Transubstantiation or any other Catholick Doctrin, is so manifest à Falshood, That the mind conquered, By any thing like à Prin­ciple. and conuicted with the Euidence, cannot chuse but decry it as intolerable. Whither will these men run for Principles? To Scripture, it's euidently abused by the one or other Party, but who is in fault? You will say That's yet disputable, therefore f [...]r of from Euidence. Church and Councils, sup­posed errable, and erroneous, cannot tell you nor giue in e­uidence against him or them, that abuse Scripture. Whither next? To the Fathers? All are fallible, and their Sense [...]n controuerted matters is made so intricate when you hear Them glossed by the Protestant, and vnglossed by the Catholick, [Page 450] that you would Swear they speak Contradictions, And can any thing like euidence or certainty, grow from these contrary Glos­ses, which as Experience teaches, breed endles Quarrels?

15, Other Principles we haue not any, except Mr Stilling­fleets Common Reason of Mankind (the worst of all) for doe we not Scripture, Church Fa­thers and all Princi­ple fail Sec­taries. se, that Hereticks euery where make Themselues and their own Sects most reasonable? Where we haue nothing like common Reason, but so many different and diuided Sentiments of iar­ring men dispersed vp and down the world. If therefore Scrip­ture, Fathers, and this Common Reason fail to be Principles, our Sectaries Supposition of manifest or Euident falsities in the Church, goes beyond all Moderation, and implies an Ouerlashing more than intolerable.

16. Their vngrounded Mistake lies here, That Principles are Supposed at hand, or ready at à call to Decide in this case of à Councils Supposed Errour, Whereas if both Church and Councils can, or do Err, There are no such things in being as Principles. Topicks Vncertain Topicks, no Principles. at most, or an endles iarring vpon meer Vncettainties lead none to an Euident Discouery of Errours, Therefore I sayd right, they cannot be known as Euident for want of Principles, and if not known as such, no Power on earth can amend them. Yet good Principles reach thus far at least, as to Demonstrate that Protestants grosly Mistake in their Clamours against our Churches errours De facto, And here you haue my Principles al­ready hinted at.

17. Either these supposed Errours are those vnchristian Te­nents mentioned N. 8. And certainly Councils neuer transgres­sed so enormously as to Define such diuellish Doctrins. Or. A Strong Argument against Sectaries. 2. They are only Possible false Doctrins which may be Defined if Councils can err, but yet are not taught. If So; All must Say, that as it is horrid to condemn à man for à crime he may commit, though he neuer did it, So it is the highest Iniustice to condemn à whole Church for Falshood's She may teach (if fallible) though She neuer taught them. Nothing then remains but to plead against our Church Doctrin de facto, as euidently [Page 451] and intolerably Erroneous, and herein we will not spare Sec­taries one whit, but Vrge them, as we doe, to speak home in the cause. Their Accusation is euident, we Press them Again and again to iustify it by Proofs and Principles as euident. What must these errours be decryed as Euident and intolerable, and can none but Sectaries get so much as à glimpse of the Eui­dence? Away with such fooleries. No man can hear them with Patience.

18. By what is said already you se, that The Doctrin of Protestants Shewes it Selfe as it is, not only false but most In­consequent. Sectaries Doctrin, in consequent. Mark, I beseech you the Inconsequence. These Nouellists Define the Church to be an Assembly of men who Belie­ [...] and Profess the pure VVord of God, But such men (find them where you can) as belieue and profess the pure Word, which is i [...] it Self Infallible, are certainly infallible if they Belieue it as God's infallible VVord, Therefore they must acknowledge an infal­lible Moral Body of Christians that Constitutes an infallible Church.

19. In Lieu of Doing this, They Tear all in Pieces, and First Decry the Roman Catholick Church as Errable, Yea actually erring; Next, and this Marr's their own Cause, they withall Profess themselues fallible: Whereas, had any thing like conse­quent Doctrin entred their Thoughts, They should at least haue made [...]rotestants infallible, being as They Say, new commissio­ned By their own Principles, they should hold some Society of men Infalli­ble. Doctors sent from God, to amend the Churches Errours. And belieue it their own Infallibility, had they casually laid claim to it, would as soon haue been perswaded (That's neuer) as now without Probability or any thing like à Principle, They endeauour to proue the Roman Catholick Church Fallible. But let this pass. Thus much I Assert. To tell vs on the One si­de, There is an Assembly of men who Belieue the infallible Word of God, And on the Other, To make all that Teach and Belieue it, Fallible, liable to False Doctrin, is not only to proceed The contra­ry Doctrin ruins Faith. inconsequently, but moreouer to Expose Christian Religion, to the Scorn of Iewes and Gentils, yea quite to ruin Diuine Faith, [Page 452] And finally to make vs all Scepticks, certain of nothing.

20. If it be replyed. The, Councils, and Sectarles with them, are at least preserued infallible in things Called the Fundamen­tals of Faith plainly reuealed in Scripture, I vrge them first to giue in their Proofs for this half or partial Infallibility, which will be more than ridiculous, if once they Appear in paper. Again, if we are all infallible and secure in à few Fundamen­tals plainly registred in Scripture, to what Purpose do Sectaries keep à coyle about smaller Matters, called Vnfundamentals, Which are neither intolerable or Considerable, because Small, Much less can they be Euident Errours, so long as à whole Their pre­tended Eui­dence of Errours is euidently à Fourb. Church defends them as Truths, For this Euidence cannot but faile Sectaries (or come to nothing) whilst the Church and They stand in Contest about it. Be it how you will. Here without à Iudge, we are got into the old Labyrinth again of an endles Dispute, which can neuer Produce any thing like Euidence in behalf of Sectaries.

CHAP. XVIII.

[...]. THere is à Knot of half-witted People who Say, though Religion Seem's indeed necessary to Preserue huma­ne [Page 453] Society in peace, And to Ouer-awe vnruly Spirits, yet the Two Para­doxes main­tain [...]e by these half mad men. best (were any Good) is no more but à meer Fiction, à forged [...]ale, in fine an Errour. These men make nature Monstruous, and must Consequently maintain two vast Paradoxes. The one; That humane Societies euery were (That is) All Kingdoms, and Common-wealths stand in need of Fiction and Errour to make them happy. The Proposition is euident: For if peace, Tran­quility, Fiction and foolery can make no man happy. and the subduing of vnquiet Spirits, be à true necessa­ry Happines to all, And these cannot subsist without à fained Religion, It is manifest that Fiction, Foolery, and Errour make the [...] happy, which is as much as to Say, à Constant Sicknes keep's the body in health, weaknes giues it strength, Pain and [...] [...]ase and refreshment. Certainly no less is errour disso­ [...]t to à rational Nature, than Sicknes repugnant to health, [...] to fire, or heat to water.

2. The second Paradox wholly as bad and clear, keeps Pa­rallel with this other. It is now supposed that Religion which is nothing els but Fiction, necessarily conduceth to the Peace of Kingdoms and Common-wealths, wherevpon their Happines [...]est's more secure, And is better preserued than if this fiction [...] not. Hence it followes euidently. To know and Profess Truth, to quit our Selues of Errour and fiction, robb's vs of Happines and makes humane nature miserable. The Inference is vndeniable, For if we be happy vpon this score that we liue in à D [...]tage, we are miserable in case we get free of it or become Wise, which is against the light of Reason, For if God has endued Nature is not misera­ble by being freed from dotage. all with à desire of true Wisdom and the knowledge of truth, (whereof none can doubt) Man cannot be miserable if he Pos­sesses that Good which the Author of nature would haue him to enioy. Hence it in also Inserred, that the vniuersal Perswa­sion of true Religion is no Dotage, no Deception but à Truth, and that most notorious.

3. Now if you Obiect, some liue without Religion, and [...] few embrace à false one; you plead by cases meerly Ac­cidental, As if one should Say, Nature has made man Sociable [Page 454] and giuen him à tongue to Conuerse with others, But some Cases meerly Accidental made vse of to no purpose are dumb, others abuse their faculty of speaking, Therefore man is no sociable creature. This is our case. Those who liue without all Religion, (if any such be) are the dumbe and blind: Those that Profess à falss Religion, like lying tongues abuse Gods Gifts, the Abuse is Theirs not God's, who would haue all to be v [...]ius labij of one Tongue and one heart in à matter of so high Concern. And thus much of these first Ad­uersaries Opposite to true Religion.

4. In the next place, I may well name our modern Se­ctaries no less than Arch-aduersaries of Religion, who ma­ke the Church and all that teach Church Doctrin fallible. My reason is. A Fained and Fallible Religion, are neer Cous [...] Sectaries pa­rallel'd with the other Aduersaries. Germans. The one is à Fiction, The other at least may be so, And for ought any man can know, is no better. For there is no Principle whereby it may appear so much as probably, that all the Christians who liued since the Apostles time or yet are aliue, haue not been deluded with fictions concerning [...] Gods truths, but rather are plunged into à deep Deluge of gross Errours, if the Church and Councils can Teach or be­lieue false Doctrin, And here be pleased to reflect à little, Ho [...] neer these two Aduersaries come to one another.

5. The first mentioned account it Happines to remain in Errour, and Sectaries like well not only the Possibility but more, à prefent manifest danger of erring in this matter of highest The Parallel la [...]id forth, and proued. Consequence. Actual errour pleases the one, and à great hazard of it contents the other. Humane nature, say the first, would be miserable were men so wise as to learn this Truth, that Re­ligion is à Foppery, though it be so, And we are all vndone (Say Sectaries) could we acquire so much Wisdom in this pre­sent state, as to be infallibly Ascertained that Religion is no Foppery, which perhaps may be one. Wherefore to weaken all certitude They tell vs, That none can learn infallibly those truths which God has reuealed, because all Churches, all Councile, all Pastors and Doctors, whose Duty is to giue Assurance of trut [...] [Page 455] are so fallible, And that the very best may erre and oblige men [...] belieue Errour. Here is all the comfort we haue from Se­ctaries. Thus much premised.

6. We come to the fundamental Ground which proues our Catholick Religion, and the Church that teaches it to be infal­lible. I Said in the first Disc. C. 1. n. 9. speaking against Atheists. If we receiue the first lights of nature called general The funda­mental gro­und of the Churches Infallibility. [...] from any Power inferiour to God, They are all fallible, and may deceiue vs. This granted, which I think no Christian can deny, It is most consequent to Assert, That if we receiue the Supernatural lights or truths of Grace reuealed in Scripture (vastly aboue all humane Comprehension,) from à less Power than God, the wisest of men may liue in errour, and cannot but be deceiued. And thus both Nature and Grace necessarily depend on God.

7. This great Truth i [...] the Apostles Doctrin. Iacob. C. 1. 17. Omne Donum perfectum de sursum est. Euery perfect Gift Deduced from the Apostles Doctrin. comes from aboue, descending from that Father of lights. God therefore, rightly stiled the Father of light, or, as Diuines Speak, Prima veritas the first vnerring Verity, Pleased to make known some few of his Diuine truths in that Book of Holy Scripture. Few I call them, compared with innumerable others, not at all reuealed, which yet his infinite Wisdom comprehend's, Howeuer these few (often darkly expressed in that mysterious Book, or in Terms less perspicuous) Dazle the eyes of weak sighted Mortals, and wonder nothing, The Apostle giues the Reason [...]. Tim. 6. 16. because all proceed from him, Qui lucem inhabi­tat inaccessibilem, That dwell's in an vnaccessible light, none can attain vnto. Yet truths they are, the first vnerring Verity Treasures Communi­cated. Asserts it, and therefore ought to be estemed treasures. If trea­sures; Prouidence will haue them conueyed vnto vs by secure hands, And if eternal truths concerning Saluation, God cannot but will, and his Will is à law, That all be Proposed and Taught as Diuine and infallible Verities, depending vpon none, How to be Valued▪ if we vltimately bring them to their last Center) but vpon the [Page 456] first Truth only, who neither will, nor can deceiue any.

8. Now here is the Difficulty. Seing it hath pleased Al­mighty God for reasons best known to Himselfe, to leaue most of the high Mysteries registred in Scripture in no little Obscu­rity, The main Difficulgy Proposed. Some express his own Perfections of being one essence, and three distinct Persons, Others relate to the admirable works of Grace effected by his Infinite Power (Of this nature are the Incarnation, and the whole Series of mans Redemption.) The Difficulty I say is to find out à trusty Interpreter, some faithful Oracle, which can when doubts occurr concerning the darker Mysteries clear all, lay open the Book, and absolutely Assert. An infinite verity speaks thus, This sense and no other is what the Holy Ghost intended. And this is necessary, because Almigh­ty God teaches no more immediatly by himself, nor will haue Enthusianisms to be our Doctors.

9. Moreouer the necessity of such à sure Oracle (if Diuine The necessity of an Infal­lible Oracle. truth must be learn'd) is proued vpon this ground chiefly. That these mysteries, as is now said, haue both their Difficulty and Darkness. Natural reason left to it self boggles at them, Iewes, Gentils, and Hereticks reiect the highest. It is, Say they, mighty▪ hard to believe á Trinity, the Diuine word made flesh, God and man to dye vpon à Cross &c. What can Reason yeild so far, or sub­mit to these as eternal Verities, when their last and only Proof is taken from à Book which we se euidently sensed different wayes, and so interpreted, that One in rigour may own the Quineced because the Mysteries are difficult. Scriptures Diuinity as the Arians do, and yet so farr fauour Reason, as not to force vpon it the Belief of such sublime se­crets, which offer violence to our intellectual Faculties. Thus the Arians discourse.

10. Now here I iustly appeal to the common Iudgement of Mankind, and Ask whether our God of truth, who on the one side perfectly comprehend's the depth of his own reuealed Mysteries, and on the other, penetrat's no less our shallow ca­pacities (puzled as we se in the search of the most Obuious things in nature) could make choise of men meerly fallible, and [Page 457] diuorced from Diuine Assistance to interpret Scripture, whilst all of them none excepted, because errable, may grosly mista­ke and change the purest Verities which were euer yet reuea­led, into Errours. What think ye, could God who from Eter­nity foresaw, and yet sees his written Truths depraued, abused, yea Heresies drawn from his most sacred words, Could this Al-seing wisdom I say, put his own Sacred book into such Sacri­legious han [...]s, or like well that à few scattered and diuided Se­ctaries should be the only best Interpreters of it?

11. I say yet more. All the men in the world, considered meerly as nature has fram'd them, fallible, would commit the Presumption in this mat­ter easily Committed. Sin of Presumption, and wrong both God and his verities, did they venture so far as to interpret Scripture by no other Rule or law but by their own weak Reason, and there vpon resolutely define, that God is one pure Essence, and three real distinct Persons: Original Sin is such an euil as the Orthodox Church teaches: Children are to be Baptized &c. To deduce thus much from the bare let­ter of Scripture, and to define euery particular resolutely, is aboue the force of all natural knowledge. Those then who Interpret the Truths of the first Alseing Verity that inhabits light not seen by our natural eyes, must be specially Priuiledged, and either re­ceiue Diuine Assi­stance neces­sary. illumination from the Father of Light, or thankfully take infallible Assistance from the Holy Ghost the Spirit of Truth, which is both promised and readily giuen to the Catholick Church.

12. Hence I deduce the Churches infallibility, and Argue thus. Either there is such à Society of men preserued by Pro­uidence infallible in all they Define and interpret, or not. If you Affirm, The Roman Catholick Church alone has the Pri­uiledge, for all others disclaim Infallibility. If you Deny. The A further Proof. highest Mysteries of Christian Religion are things only sought for, but not found, talked of, but neuer learned. In à word Religion is à meer Scepticism, the best that learn it seem iust like those Schollers the Apostle mentioneth. 2. Tim 3. 6. Sem­per discentes &c. Alwaies learning, but neuer throughly instructed. [Page 458] If I euidence not what is here said so manifestly, That no Sectary shall rationally contradict it, censure me at your pleasure.

13. A few Questions will clear all, And first I must Demand. From whence has that we call Religion its truth? All An­swer from God the first vnerring Verity. Very right. But we Ask again, Where is the Master teaching Oracle which plainly deliuer's these reuealed truths, or clearly Proposes the Myste­ries now named? Sectaries vsually tell vs, Their Oracle is holy Scripture. Herevpon followes à third Querie more difficult than all the rest. Viz. Who Ascertains you Arians, you Donatists, you Pelagians, you Protestants you Quakers (All fallible) that you The Secta­ries pretence to their rea­ding Scrip­ture, exa­mined. rightly vnderstand what you read, and grosly depraue not Gods Word, for without controuersy innumerable called Christians do depraue it? Protestants (à perfect Representatiue of all the other) shall Answer for all. O say they, VVe read Scripture atten­tiuely, we pray for light, we peruse the Originals, we compare Passage with passage, and after much pains taken we both belieue the highest Mysteries, and moreouer perswade our Selues, that the new Model of Protestancy is conformable, or (at least) not Dis­sonant to Gods word. Here you haue their last and very best Principle, For they will not hear of an Infallible Church.

14. Reflect Gentle Reader à little. Do Protestants only read, pray., peruse, and compare? No Certainly. The Arians long since haue done So, yet boldly oppose Protestants, and deny the highest Mysteries of our Christian Faith. If then the Arians Praying, perusing, and comparing proue no conuiction to Protestants, Arians also read, and Oppose Pro­testants. Why should the Protestants praying or perusing Conuince the Arians of Errour? Again. Haue not Catholicks (think ye) of à longer continuance and far more numerous than Sectaries, prayed and perused Scripture? None can doubt it. And yet they hold the whole Model of pure Protestancy à Nouelty, and openly declare it Heretical. Therefore vnless Sectaries ha­ue So do Ca­tholicks. à singular talent in praying and perusing aboue all other Christians, Vnless they can produce better Proofs for the Myste­ries of Faith against the Arians, and stronger Arguments against [Page 459] Catholicks in behalf of Protestancy, than the bare letter of Scrip­ture, Sectaries Pretence to reading Scripture. And their own weak conferring Texts together, or praying vpon them, They do not only make Protestancy ridiculous, but moreouer, euery new whimsy defensible; For was there euer yet Fanatique in the world that could not Say thus much? He certainly both professes and teaches truth, because he has à Bible, read's that, peruses it and prayes earnestly. And will not any Aduersary retort the Argument vpon him and defend whateuer foolery he fancies contrary.

15. Belieue it, if this way of Arguing haue force the mea­nest Quaquer in England, will make his cause good against the makes Pro­testancy ridiculous. stoutest Protestant, and the Protestant if he say. I read, I Ponder I pray, proues his Religion euery whit as strongly against the Quaquer. That is, neither proues any thing. Nay more, the worst of Hereticks, may vpon this ground maintain his Errours against the Orthodox Church (be that yet where you will) and could the Church only say, She reads Scripture, ponders it and prayes, Her case would be the same with the worst of Hereticks, But besides reading and praying There are other Proofs, whereby One Church only is euinced God's Faithful Oracle

16. From what is now said I Argue first. A Principle, which makes false Religion true, yea all Religions though most erroneous as credible as true Religion, is more than intolerable. The Secta­ries Princi­ple makes false Reli­gions true. But this Principle of Protestants, we read Scripture, we ponder and pray, makes false Religions true, and all Sects though most erroneous as credible as true Religion is, Ergo it is more than in­tolerable. The Minor as is now said proues it self, For euery Heretick pretend's to read and ponder Scripture, but if you moue à further Question concerning the Sense of what he reads, he returns you his own fancy as the best light he has, and makes that his Iudge. This and no other is the Protestants Principle, and the chief, if not the only support, of all Heresy in the world.

17. I Argue. 2. And hold it à Demonstration. To make Religion à Scepticism eternally debatable, without hope of [Page 460] attaining truth at last, is wholly as ridiculous, as if two men should goe to law meerly to wrangle, hopeles of euer hauing their cause determined. But this Protestant Principle. VVe read, Pray and ponder makes Religion à meer Scepticism without hope of euer knowing it, or hauing truth finally decided ( Semper discentes they Another Conuincing Argument. are alwaies learning but neuer well taught). Ergo it is more than ridiculous.

18. To proue the Minor let vs first suppose, that either we Catholicks, or Protestants teach and profess true Religion (both certainly do not, for we hold Contradictions). Suppose. 2. This falsity, which our Aduersaries will haue supposed. Viz. That the Roman Catholick Church after all Her reading, and peru­sing Scripture is as fallible in all She teaches, as Protestants con­fessedly are in what they deliuer after their reading. Both teach as they doe contrary Doctrin, Yea and fallible Doctrin, yet both tell you, they teach true Doctrin. Say I beseech you, what man in his wits To teach Contrary Doctrin and true Doctrin. can belieue Either vpon their bare Assertions, chiefly if we Suppose them of equal Authority? when he find's the Result of their reading, and perusing Scripture, to end in nothing but in open Contradictions, and sees plainly that the opposit Doc­trin of the One Church, so much abates the Credit of the other teaching contrary, that in real truth both become Contemptible. And hence I Said, that which we call Christian Religion would iustly deserue Scorn, if no Church teach it infallibly. But is impossible. here is not all. To discouer more the gross errour of Sectaries in this particular,

19. We are yet to Demand vpon whom this iarring Doc­trin of the two dissenting Churches now supposed Fallible is to be laid? Or whence it proceeds? Can it come from Gods spe­cial A Doctrin taught fallibly. Assistance think ye? It is impossible. Because God teaches no contradictions. Nay, if we consider it as contradictory, no Spirit of truth can teach it. Therefore we must part the Doc­trins, and Ascribe to each Church its own particular Opinion, And then (were that possible) Examin which is true.

20. But here lies the Misery. I say boldly. There neither [Page 461] is nor can be any appearance of certain reuealed truth in either Proceed's not from God. Church, not only because all Principles fail whereby to discern à certain Christian truth from Errour, but most vpon this ground, That we must now remoue the fallible taught Doctrins of both these Churches, from Gods Infallible Verity and his Special assi­stance also, and make them lean vpon mans weak and shallow vnderstanding. We haue no other Principle to rest on, if once infallible Assistance be excluded. But it is manifest, mans shal­low But relies vpon mans weak Vn­derstanding. capacity communicat's no Certainty to Any, concerning the high Mysteries of Faith, remoued from their Center (The first infallible Verity). Therefore all we can learn from such Tea­chers, is no more but doubtful Doctrin at most, or, if it reach to an Opinion meanly probable, there is all, Yet you haue of­ten No ground less then infallible Supports true Religion. heard, (and it is à Truth) that no Principle less then one which is infallible, Can vphold our Christian Doctrin. Whe­refore an vtter ruin of true Religion ineuitably followes vpon this Ground. As Duine Doctrin infallibly taught begets infallible Faith, So if taught doubtfully, it begets only à doubtful Assent, which is no Faith at all. Now were these Doctrins respecti­uely to each Church probable (as I think neither would be if the Supposition of their fallibillty stand's) we are only brought to the old Scepticism again, and may dispute of Religion as we doe of Probabilities in Schools, and so if men please, They may as often change Religion as they change Opinions, or appa­rel.

21. Some perhaps will reply. Protestants can certainly Say more for themselues then only to tell you They read Scripture, and compare the Passages of it together by the light of their own weak reasons, Could so much indeed make them accom­plished Sectaries can pretend to no other Principle. Doctors able to lay forth Gods eternal truths, it would seem strange, mighty bare, and dissatisfactory to Reason. Answ. 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, and as much controuerted as their very Religion [Page 462] is, when they either teach, or interpret Scripture, contrary to But to their own Compa­ring Scrip­ture. the Roman Catholick Church. Obserue their Procedure. If à contest arises betwixt them and condemned Hereticks, The Arians for example▪ All ends in à meer throwing Texts at one another, And the sense must be iust so as each Party conceiues. And do they not follow the same strain in euery Controuersy with Catholicks? One Instance will giue you sufficient light, and may well serue for all.

22. They (Protestants I mean) read those words of our Sauiour. This is my Body. So do Catholicks also. They com­pare Text with Text, and Sense all as they please. Catholicks as wise and learned compare also, yet hold contrary Doctrin, and discouer no little fraud in these new mens Deductions, and Criticisms. Say now plainly. Who is He that acts the Sectaries seek to quarrel but to End nothing. Sceptick's part? Who is He that would endlesly quarrel about the Sense of Gods word? Is it the Catholick? No certainly. He is willing to haue the cause vltimately deci­ded, He Petitions to haue these endles strifes remitted to the censure of one Supreme Iudge, to à Church which manife­steth it self by euident glorious Miracles (neuer yet censured, by any Christians but known Hereticks) and which finally has taught the world euer since Christ left it. Dare Sectaries do thus much? Dare they appeal to any Orthodox Church, by whose iust Sentence these debates may haue an End? No. They recoyle, and without listening to any Iudge but Them selues, would stil continue these Debates. Therefore they are the Sceptists. And to proue this, giue me leaue to propose one Question to the Protestant (He is the man we now treat A Conuin­cing Proof of our Asser­tion. with). Has he any Church so free from Censure, of so long Continuance, so glorious in Miracles as the Roman Catholick is. Has He any Council as generally receiued the whole world ouer, as either the Lateran or Florentine which euer interpreted Christs words or Sensed them as he doth? Most euidently no. Therefore I said well, His reading and glosses, and all he can Allege for himself, are nothing but His own [Page 463] weak thoughts, as far remoued from the foundation of truth, ( Gods infallible Verity) as earth is from Heauen and more.

23. But its needles to Prosecute this Point further, when one only reason, which none can contradict giues Euidence enough against Protestants. I Propose it thus. What euer Doctrin they teach peculiar to Protestancy, or maintain against the Roman Catholick Church, either proceed's from Gods infallible Assistance, or wholly borrowes strength from their own Sectaries teach Do­ctrin diuor­ced from Diuine Assi­stance. fallible Conceptions, after their reading and comparing Scriptu­re. Grant the first; They teach infallible Doctrin, by virtue of Gods infallible Assistance, and consequently are the men who constitute an Infallible Church. Say secondly, that all they teach deriues force from their own weak reason (guided only by the external words of Scripture, vnderstood as they conceiue,) They teach as the Arians, and all Hereticks haue taught before them, à learning which is not from God. Their And there­fore not from God. Doctrin in à word, Diuorced from all Diuine Aide and As­sistance, stand's tottering vpon their own errable Sentiments, and therefore neither is (which I intended to proue) Christ's Doctrin, nor at all resoluable into that first Principle of truth, God's vnerring Verity.

24. Shall we to giue some clearer Light to the Contro­uersy hitherto handled compendiously recapitulate à few of these many reflections made already in the foregoing Chap­ters? And then more establish the Churches infallibility vpon vndoubted Principles. To do so, may perhaps benefit the Reader.

25. Say therefore. Is it true that Christian Religion vltimately A briefe re­capitulation of what has been Said. depend's vpon God, the first vnerring Verity? No man doubts it. Is it true, that innumerable called Christians grosly misconceiue those reuealed Truths, after their reading and perusing Scripture? It is no less certain. Is it true, That the bare reading, and pondering Scrip­ture Sectaries like Arians. no more ascertain's Protestants of the Verities there registred, than the Arians or any other Hereticks? The truth is vndoubted, For [Page 464] from whom should they haue greater certainty. Is it true, That Funaticism. Scripture wrested. Doubtful faith. eu [...]ry Fanatique recurr's to Scripture, as Sectaries do? Experience proues it. Is it true, That this sole recourse to Scripture wr [...]sted to a sinister Sense, vpohld's the most false Sects in the world? Is it true, That Christian Doctrin, doubtfully taught, beget's only à doubtful faith? Is it true, That the only support of Protestants in points of Religion Comparing Texts, falli­ble▪ Scepticism. amount's to no more but to their own doubtful and bare pondering Scrip­ture, or to their various and fallible comparing Texts together? Is it true, That these men like Scepticks would stand euerlastingly quarrelling about the sense of Gods word, and cannot be iuduced to hear any Iudge No Iudge. speak in this cause of Religion but themselues? Is it true, That we urge them to make choise of what Iudge they please, prouided they appeal not to their own Sentiments and Glosses, as much controuerted as Pro­testancy is? Is it true, That they can name no Orthodox Church which No Orthodox Church. Nor Councils Want of In­fallible Assi­stance▪ Fallible Pro­fessors, of fallible Do­ctrin Diuine Re­uelation wronged. Doctrin ne­uer owned. taught as they teach, glossed Scripture as they gloss; No Council gene­rally receiued (Comparable either to the Lateran or Florentine) which fauours their Interpretations forced vpon Christs words? Is it true, That the Doctrin they propound confessedly proceed's not from Gods in­fallible Assistance? Is it true, That they assume to themselues the na­me of Christians, and yet are ashamed to be called infallible Professors of the whole syst [...]me of Christian Religion? Is it true, That they haue done their vtmost to take from God's infallible Reuelation its own in­trinsick nature of Infallibility, by making it no more but morally certain in order to our Christian Faith? Is it true, That, that half Infalli­bility some lay claim to, in à few yet vnknown fundamentals, appear's euen to Protestants, not any Doctrin owned by the Christian world, nor can it appear otherwise, whilst à whole vniuersal Church decryes it as improbable? Is it true, That These Nouellists raise not their Do­ctrin Endles Dis­putes. any higher, but only to an endles Contest, whilst no Iudge but themselues must speak in the cause?

26. Are all these things (I say) more amply enlarged and clearly proued already so vndoubted that no Sectary shall euer rationally contradict them? If the Iudicious Reader find I speak truth, as he will, may Preiudice be laid aside, I may boldly Conclude. Who euer see's not the deplorable Condition of [Page 465] misled Sectaries, who euer see's not also an absolute necessity of an infallible Church to set them in the right way of truth Again is wilfully blind, supinely negligent, Yea vtterly Careless of Saluation.

CHAP. XIX.

1. NOw wee come to the last certain Principles wher­vpon the Churches infallibilit [...] stand's most firmly. Here is one. The Doctrin which God reueal's, as it proceed's from that first vnerring Verity, is not only true but infallible. The Second Principle. Scripture which makes none infallible is often abused by He­reticks. Principles premised. The third Principle. Some Christians are yet in Being That both teach and learn this true Diuine, and infallible reuealed Doctrin. The Proof is easy: For vnless some Teach and learn it, All Teach and learn another Doctrin distinct from that which God reuealed, The Princi­ple Proued. and this neither is, nor can be Diuine, but meerly humane at most, and Perhaps à foolery. That therefore, which the Prophet Asserts. Iohn▪ 6. 43. All shall be Docibiles Dei, docible or taught of God, is not so, For now if the Supposirion hold's, [Page 466] the whole Church (take it in what Extent you please) is delude [...] as the Apostle Saith Ephes. 4. 14 With the wind of Doctrin, in the wickednes of men, in Craftines to the circumuention of errour. And this brings ruin to Christian Religion.

2. The. 4. Principle. This Diuine Doctrin is not only A Church must be ack­nowledged absolutely infallible. true and infallible in it self, but moreouer so infallibly Proposed by one vnerring Oracle, That all who will receiue it, are most indubitably certain of those very truths which God has reuea­led, and therefore cannot err. Make good this one Proposi­tion, We haue an infallible Church established, not only in à few nicknam'd vnknown fundamentals, but in euery Doctrin She teaches. Now the Proof is taken from the End of Diuine reuelation which seem's most Conuincing, For say I beseech you, Why did God impart truth and infallible truth to the world? The end was not to improue his own knowledge, being euer Omniscient. It was not that the Angels and blessed in Heauen should belieue, for Faith▪ ceaseth in that happy State, All there se intuitiuely what they once belieued. The end the­refore The Proof is taken from the End of Diuine Re­uelation. why God reuealed true and Infallible Doctrin was, That we, yet Pilgrims on earth walking by Faith should yeild As­sent to it, and belieue all as both true and infallible. But this is impossible, if the Church which immediatly Proposes the Do­ctrin can clash with Scripture or with Gods Reuelation, and peruert his Verities. Therefore She must be acknowledged both true and infallible in euery Doctrin She teaches.

3. If any reply. It seem's sufficient that the Church teaches Truth, though She neither proposes nor teaches it so infallibly, but that some times She may swerue from it, He destroyes again Christian Religion. Be pleased to obserue my reason. If the Diuine re­uelation is to be ass [...]nted [...]o infallibly. infallibility of reuealed Doctrin be lost as it were in the way between God and vs, If the Reuelation appear not as it is in it selfe infallible, when we assent to it by Faith, That is, if it be not infallibly conueyed and applyed to all by an vnerring Pro­ponent, as it subsists in its first cause, infinitly infallible, Faith pe­rishes, we are cast vpon pure Vncertainties, and may iustly [Page 467] doubt, whether such à Doctrin, separated from that other Per­fection of infallibility, be really true or no? To se this clearly laid forth, Please to make one reflection with me.

4. May not either Iew or Gentil, well inclined to Christian Religion rationally propose this Question to the Protestants or to any? Has God reuealed any Doctrin which is only true, God's reuea­led Doctrin is no less in­fallible, then true. and not infallible? You will Answer, No, because the same infinite verity which support's truth, is powerful enough to vp­hold also its infallibility. Say on I beseech you. Can you who pretend to teach truth (the worst of Heretiques haue done so) Ascertain me also, that you teach and propose Gods infallible Truths, infall [...]bl [...]? Proue your Selues such Doctors, and none will euer Question further the Truth of what you teach, For if you once make this clear, that you teach the infallible Doc­trin which God has reuealed, the truth inseparably connexed with infallibility, is no more disputable but manifestly Credible. But if you turn me off, with à fair Story of teaching truth, and Ascertain me not of your teaching it infallibly, euery rational man will most iustly doubt of your teaching Truth. And here is the reason à Priort.

5. Euery Doctrin which is taught as à Verity, founded vpon God (the first Ver [...]ty) is no less Infallible than true, Therefore who euer Ascertains me of the one, must ioyntly ascertain me of the other: Or if he will diuorce truth from that perfection of In­fallibility, There is no parting In­fallibility from truth. he giues me no more but at most the half of that Doctrin which God reueal's. Nay I learn not so much from him, seing God own's no true Doctrin (men can teach natural truths) which is not as eminently infallible, as true. Now further. If I be fob'd off with no man knowes what halfes of Diuine Doctrin, That is, if the Proponent parts truth from its infalli­bility, and no Authority in Heauen or earth licences any to Se­parate what God has ioyned together, I only learn the faint Sen­timents, when We belieue God's reuealed Doctrin. or weak Opinions of fallible Teachers founded vpon fancy, which God disclaim's And (which is euer to be noted) man by nature fallible can do no more, but only propose them [Page 468] as meer humane or doubtfull Vncertainties. But à humane doubtful Proposition, though true, beget's, as is said aboue, no certain faith in any, Therefore who euer will not vtterly ruin the very life and Essence of Christian Religion, must absolutely assent both to the truth and Infallib [...]lity of Religion, and con­sequently acknowledge an Infallible Oracle which teaches and One Church only Infalli­ble. proposes Infallible Verities, Infallibly. But this is only the Ro­man Catholick Church, as is said aboue, for no other Society of men laies claim to teach Gods infallible truths, infallibly.

6. To solue all Obiections against this Discourse, it will much auaile to be well grounded in this sure Principle. Viz. A certain Principle. It is one thing to teach truth, and another to teach Diuine and infal­lible truth. Man by natural reason can teach truth, yet is in­sufficient to teach Diuine, reuealed, and infallible Truth, this must come from à higher Power, either from Diuine Assistance, or Su­pernatural Wherevpon our Answers to Sectaries Illumination. If therefore the Protestant Should demand, Why we cannot belieue his Doctrin euen when he only Propo­ses those general Verities which all Christians admit (He neuer offers to Obtrude vpon you his inferiour Tenents peculiar to Protestants). Answer. They are truths indeed, and infallible truths, but not proued so, because he Vnassisted teaches them. If he Ask again vpon what foundation do we Catholicks lay the truth and infallibility of that Doctrin we belieue and teach? Answer. are groun­ded. Vpon this firm Ground, that Scripture interpreted by an Assisted▪ Oracle (the Chruch) which cannot beguile any, Proposes all we learn, as true and infallible Doctrin.

7. If he reply. 3. Protestants abstract from the Churches Interpretation and hold Scripture plain enough in all fundamen­tal Doctrin necessary to Saluation. Answer. He err's not knowing the depth of Scripture; which is so dark, and vnintel­ligible in the abstruse Mysteries of faith, that vnless certain Tra­dition and the Sense of the vniuersal Church cast light vpon it, or impart greater clarity to the bare letter, The wisest of men Scripture is obscure. will be puzled in what they read, or at most guess doubtfully at its meaning, And therefore may easily swerue from truth. To se what I say, proued.

[Page 469]8. Imagain only, that twenty learned Philosophers or mo­re, who neuer heard of Church Tradition, or of her Generael re­ [...] Doctrin, had our Bible drop't down from Heauen with Assurance that it contain's Gods infallible truths, prouided all they read be rightly vnderstood, but not otherwise. Suppo­se. The most learned Phi­losophers ig­norant of Tradition and Church Doctrin. 2. They peruse that one Sentence in S. Iohns Gospel. I [...] the beginning was the Word, and that W [...]rd was with God. Th [...] same was in the beginning [...]ir [...] God &c. Suppose. 3. They also confer the Sentence with all other Passages in Holy Writ relating to this Mystery. Could these Philosophers think ye by the force of their natural discourse only acquire exactly the infallible truth of the Incarnation, iust so as the Church now teaches and belieues? No. Euery Particle would put Cannot Vn­derstand it. them vpon à further Scrutiny. What is signified Saith one, by this. In principio. In the beginning? What is that Word saith another, which was with God, or how was it with God? Was it One real thing Essential to him, or meerly à breath à Word terminated vpon creatures, without which nothing was made? All know though the Arians had à Church to teach, yet with that sure Rule of faith they mangled and mis­vsed this very passage of the Gospel, Therefore difficulties much more would molest these Philosophers, hauing no Oracle to interpret, And as many would arise concerning other Scriptu­res, relating to the sacred Trinity, Original Sin, and the like My­steries.

9. Now here is my reflection, and I think euery Intelli­gent An applica­tion made to Sectaries. person will speak as I doe. Iust so much as these Phi­losophers haue to gloss with and descant vpon, So much Se­ctaries may challenge, but no more, if we seuer Scripture from the Churches Interpretation. Both haue à Body without life, words without sense, difficulties proposable concerning their reading, but none to Answer them.

10. The only difference between them is; That the Phi­losophers, yet ignorant of Church and Tradition haue no Schoole to go to. Sectaries haue both, yet run as it were [Page 470] from Schoole with half à Lesson, with one part (and t'is The differen­ce between them and the Philo­phers. much the obscurer part) of Diuine Learning only, the bare Texts I mean, of holy Scripture, shutting out the Churches infallible Sense. And what haue you in lieu of this light, which hath hitherto illuminated Millions of Christians? The weak and errable Sentiments of a few disvnited Sectaries. And is this all we can rely on? Do we belieue the Trinity, the Incarnation and other high Mysteries (so obscurely ex­pressed in Gods word, that innumerable haue mistaken the true Sense) because à Luther, à Caluin, or their followers ex­pound Whether Lu­thers follo­wers or an Ancient Church is to teach? it? Or is our Belief grounded vpon that Churches Interpretation which has euer taught the world? The One or Other must haue influence vpon Faith, if we will belieue. But most manifestly the first (men only of yesterday, and fal­lible) are not our Doctors, Therefore the Church is the only Oracle which Ascertains vs of the Scriptures Sense, of its Truth, and infallible Doctrin also.

11. Two things necessarily follow from this Discourse. The one. That Protestants Shew themselues strangely vngrateful, be­cause Sectaries manifestly vngrateful, And why? they slight an Oracle, which has taught them all they know concerning the Primary Articles of Christian Faith, for in real truth the Churches Authority in Her expounding Scrip­ture vpholds that true Assent they yeild to the Mystery of the Sacred Trinity. So much is granted, Or not. Grant it. I Ask. Why disdain they to hear this Church in other mat­ters? If you deny. Their Submission to this and the like Mysteries wholly relies vpon their own fallible dissatisfactory thoughts and glosses. Here Some perhaps will retire to the Primitiue Churches interpretation, and ground their Assent vpon Her Doctrin. Nothing is got this way, For the most Primi­tiue Recourse to the Primitiue Church, friuolous. exposition of Scripture was no more infallible, than what the latter Church or Councils haue Defined. But enough is said aboue, of this Chasing all Controuersies vp to the Primi­tiue Ages.

12. The second Inference is. If God has not made Religion [Page 471] à matter of eternal Debate, If all are obliged to belieue by di­uine Faith the very truths, yea the same infallible truths which God has reuealed, and no other of à lower or slighter Rank; If he has reuealed them for this end, that all may be Ascer­tain'd A second Inference. of their intrinsecal Worth, (That is,) of being both Di­uine and infallible; If the whole Christian world remain's not at this day in Errour, or is not cast vpon vncertainties what to belieue; If both the truth and infallibility of all reuealed Doctrin stand's and subsist's firmly ioyned together in God, the first Verity (impossible to be separated there). And if Finally as T'is there true and infallible, all are obliged to learn it: No­thing can be more manifest then that diuine Prouidence has e­stablished and impowred Some Oracle to teach and propose that very reuealed Doctrin vnder its own Nature and N [...]tion, as it is both true and infallible.

13. Thus much Supposed and proued, All further Questions The Oracle teaching truth cannot be questioned concerning the Oracle ceases, For it neither is, nor can be ano­ther but the Roman Catholick Church which has charge to interpret Scripture faithfully, to rescue Gods truths from the lewd misusage of Hereticks. Clear therefore once that Sacred Book from abuse, Learn what this one certain Oracle teaches, our Faith is sound, Catholick, and Apostolical. But if Scripture by rea­son of its Obscurity deceiues any, or the Church could deuiate from the sincere interpretation of Gods truths there registred, The Very life of true Religion is lost, Faith vanishes into er­rour.

14. Who euer seriously Consider's what is already said in this and the precedent chapter will find Mr Stillingfleets scatte­red Mr Stilling­fleets Ob­iections weightles. Obiections against the Infallibility of Church and Councils vtterly void of strength. Some worthy person of our Nation (who he is I know not) in his Guide of Controuersies. Disc. 3. has so broken and vanquished the little force they haue, that I may well supersede all further labour herein. There is not one Obiection proposed, but T'is either first, euidently retorted vpon Mr Stillingfleet, Or 2. Implies à pure begging of the Que­stion. [Page 472] Or 3. Impugn's all Councils. Or 4. Appears so slight at the very first view, that it deserues no Answer. What can be more slight then to tell vs as he doth. P. 508. That we He Speak's not truth. are absolutely auerse from free Councils, because we condemn all other Bishops but those of our Church without suffering them to plead for themselues in any Indifferent Council. It is hard to say what the Gentleman mean's by free and indifferent Councils, for he fetters all with so many Conditions, that ne­uer any was yet found in the Church so qualified, as he would haue it. Read him through his 1. and 2. Chapter, as also P. 557. You will se what I assert, Manifest. It is true, we con­demn A Calumny for à Proof. all heteredox Bishops (and doth not Mr Stillingsleet re­criminate, and condemn ours?) But to say we suffer none to plead for Themselues in à free Council is à flat Calumny, vn­less that only be free which some bodies fancy makes free, and no other. A word now to one or two Obiections.

15. If you (saith Mr Stillingsleet) require an Assent to the Decrees of Councils as infallible, There must be an ante­cedent Assent to this Proposition. That whatsoeuer Councils de­cree, is infallible. I first retort the Argument. If you require an Assent to your Definitions in the Dort-Meeting, Or hold That the conuened there deliuered true Doctrin. There must be an The first Ar­gument re­torted. antecedent Assent to this Proposition, That what soeuer those Dort-men taught is true Doctrin before you own it as true. As­certain vs of thus much, And you solue your own difficulty. If this Instance please not, make vse of another. Your Ministers in England pretend to teach true Doctrin, though not infallibly. Say only vpon what antecedent Proposition the Truth of their Doctrin is assented to by all, before it be belieued as true, and we shall without labour Answer in behalf of our infallible Do­ctrin.

16. In à word thus Catholicks plead. This generall Proposi­tion is to be assented to, as both true and infallible. Viz. All And clearly solued. are obliged to Hear and Belieue the Pastors of God's Church when Lawsul­ly Commissioned to teach in God's name, and as the Orthodox Church [Page 473] teaches. Here is the Thesis or the vniuersal receiued Proposition. But these Pastors and Doctors when assembled in Council are still Pastors of the Church and lawfully commissioned to teach in God's name, both true and infallible Doctrin, Therefore they are to be heard and belieued in all and euery Definition, pro­ceeding from that Assembly, lawfully conuened. Here you ha­ue the Hypoth [...]sis as indubitably certain, as the Thesis.

17. A second Obiection you meet with in his Page 509. Another Obiection retorted, and Solued. What infallible Testimony haue you (he means Catholicks) for this, that Councils are Infallible? It is not enough for you to say, That the Testimonies of Scripture you produce are an Infallible Testimony for it: For that were to make the Scripture the sole Iudge of this great Contro­uersy, which you deny to be the sole Iudge of any. I first retort the Argument and Ask. What Testimony haue you Sectaries (I do not say Infallible) But so much as seemingly probable taken from Scripture, whereby Councils (the greatest Representatiues in God's Church) are made fallible? Not one can be alleged.

18. Now my Answer briefly is. Scripture once admitted for God's word (which our Aduersaries will not reflect on) mani­festly The Catho­lick Princi­ples for Infallibility. conuinceth the Churches infallibility. To those express and significant Passages of holy Writ known to euery one ( The Church is the pillar and ground of Truth) you haue them already, We add the iudgement of Fathers cited aboue (The guide of Controuersies. C. 3. P. 147. Produces more). Besides, Gods Church which we hold an Infallible Oracle, interpret's Scripture to this sense, and here are our aboundantly full Principles for Her Infallibility. Come you Sr, now closely to the point, con­front vs if you can with as many Passages of Scripture, as many Testimonies of Fathers, Or (and this we alwayes vrge) with the Authority of any Orthodox Church which fauours your con­trary Tenet of Fallibility., The Strife is ended. But hereof the­re is no fear at all. And thus you se how Scripture is the Iudge Sectaries haue none for their Tenet. when once admitted as Diuine, and faithfully interpreted, not otherwise.

19. A. 3. Obiection. Page. 509. The Decree or Definition [Page 474] of à Council receiues Infallibility from the Council before the A third weak obiec­tion retorted Pope confirm's it, or not. If not; The whole infallibility resi­des in the Pope, and this some Say is not de Fide vniuersali. If it arise from the Council before the Pope confirm's it (for that act of confirmation followes the Definition) the Council is infallible antecedently to the Popes Confirmation. I first retort the Argument. An Act of Parlament, or à law made for all, receiues its force from the Conuened Members before his Maiesty Confirm's it, or not. If not; The whole Power of making such à Law resides in His Maiesty, which some will say is not so. If it arise ftom the Parlament, before His Maie­sty Confirm's it (and that Confirmation followes the Act) The Parlament is impowr'd to make such Lawes, before His Royal. Assent Confirm's them. Here is the very same Form of arguing (though in à different matter) and you se the weaknes of it.

20. The true Answer to the Obiection is as followes. Euery Doctrin definable may be considered two wayes, first as it Pro­ceed's from God the most supreme Verity, and vnder that No­tion, it is both true and infallible in it self before the pope and Council Define it, (And note, they can Define no other Doc­trin And solued. on earth, but what God ratifies in Heauen). 2. It may be considered as the Doctrin of the Representatiue Church infallibly Assi­sted to teach Diuine truths; And vnder that Notion it is called Church Doctrin, proceeding from the Head and Members of one mystical Body: The Head therefore Separated or solely taken, Defines not in Councils, The Members diuided from the Head define not, But one and the same Definition proceed's ioyntly from both Head and members vnited together. The Instance already hinted at giues light enough. If any reply, The Defini­tion when the Council proposed it, was both true and infallible Doctrin. I distinguish the Proposition. It might be then Cer­tain Euery Doc­trin true in it selfe, is not there­fore Church Doctrin. and infallible Doctrin in it self (that's true) but as yet it is neither known or owned as such or called Church Doctrin: It was then the whole Councils or Churches true and infallible Doctrin, I deny it. This is founded vpon both Pope and [Page 475] Council infallibly assisted, as is now supposed, and already pro­ued.

21. I find no more in Mr Stillingfleet worth any notice That which followes in his Page 510. ouerthrowes all councils Other Obiec­tions waued as imperti­nent. or proues nothing. What certainty haue you, Saith he, that this or that Council proceeded lawfully? That the Bishops were lawful Bishops? That the Pope who confirm's them was à law­ful Pope? That some By-ends or Interest swayed not many? That all conditions were exactly performed &c. I Answer first, and Ask. What certainty haue you of any illegal Bishops, of vnlawful Popes, of Interest Swaying all. Here because you ac­cuse, we put you to the Proof. I Answer. 2. That Certainty which you or any has of no By ends in the four first general Councils, of their lawful Bishops, of no interest swayng &c. The same we haue of all the approued Councils in Gods Church. To insist further vpon such saint Obiections, is only to lose time or; (might one retaliate in Mr Stillingfleets own language) meerly to kill flies, to run after them, and make sport with them. And thus much of the Churches Infallibility, (I mean the Ro­man Apostolical Catholick Church) to whose Censure and in­fallible Iudgement I do most willingly submit my Selfe, and euery particular in this Treatise.

THE FIRST CHAPTER

1. IN the following Chapters, we first remoue such diffi­culties as may seem to obstruct the Clearest Resolu­tion, What this third Dis­ceurse Contain's. And all along discouer Mr Stillingfleets Errorus. viz. Chiefly those, most apparent. in his 5. Chapter. 2. We examin what Influence the Motiues of Credibility haue ouer Faith? 3. Ne­cessary Principles are premised much auailing to Conceiue the true Analysis. 4. We Shew wherein the Main Difficulty lies in this Resolution (Omitted by Mr Stillingfleet) and solue it. 5. The whole Progress of Faith is Explained in order to its last Resolution. 6. The true Analysis is giuen in two Propositions. Here we also treat of the Euidence of Credibility, and solue the Sectaries Obiections. 7. This question is proposed. VVhe­ther the Churches Testimony may be Called the Formal Obiect of Faith? 8. We Ask what is meant by this word Reason, And enquire how far true Reason Conduces to end Controuersies? 9. Pro­testancy is proued à most vnreasonable Religion.

2. Mr Stillingfleet. Part 1. C. 5. P. 109. offer's at much, it is to discouer strange ill Consequences, yea grand Absurdities, Our Aduer­saries bold aduenture. if Faith be resolued by the Churches Infallibility; and seem's some what ouer-heated in carrying on the cause against his Ad­versary. [Page 478] Let any man (saith he) iudge whether this be not the most compendious way to ouerthrow the belief of Christianity. There is har­dly any thing more really destructiue to Christianity, or that has à greater tendency to Atheism, than the Modern pretence to Infallibility. The vnreasonablenes of it is so great, that I know not whether I may abstain from calling it ridiculous. And much more to this Sense.

3. It seems by what I read in Mr Stillingfleet T. C. (whose Book I had not then seen) said that Catholicks in this present What his Aduersary asserted. State, resolue their Faith after the very same manner, as the Israëlits anciently, and the Primitiue Christians resolued Theirs. If he said that, he Spake à Truth, not only defensible; but so Sound and Irrefragable, that Mr Stillingfleet (to vse his own pret­ty Phrase) like one vnder an Ephialtes Shall tumble, groan, tos­se this way and that, and yet not rid himself of the vexation.

4. The Doctrin I find plainly deliuered, and the Instan­ces of the ancient Israelits and the Primitiue Christians, so well made vse of for the Catholick Resolution by our learned Coun­tryman, Thomas Ba [...]on Southwell. Analysis Fidei. Disp. 4. and 5. That here I must needs insert some Part of it, because it much auailes to Conceiue the easiest way of resoluing Faith, And well penetrated so vtterly defeates what Mr Stillingfleet has, that Is Sound Doctrin. much more is not requisite to make void his forceles Obiec­tions.

5. F. Southwel therefore, Analysis Fidei now cited, c [...] n. 18. Speak's much to this sense. Had one asked à [...] Belieuer in Moses his time after the [...]uch was written, Why belieue you that God is iust, wi [...]e, faithful in his Pro­mises? Or (if you will haue one particular) why Adam sin­ned How the Israelits questioned about faith. in Paradise? He would haue answered Scripture Saith s [...]. But if again demanded, How know you that Scripture is God's Diuine word? Would he think ye haue Answered, I se that by the very light and Sparkling of the Letter? It is impossi­ble as shall be proued afterward. Thus therefore He would haue replyed. Moses our great Prophet Affirm's it, or rather [Page 479] God speaking by the mouth of Moses laies that Verity open to vs, And vpon that ground I belieue it. So we read. Deute [...]. 1. 3. Moses spake to the Children of Israel all which God had com­manded him to say to them. Now if thirdly Questioned. How W [...]uld [...]aue answered? Proue you that Moyses was à true Prophet, or God's Oracle, He could not haue satisfied by alledging Scripture, without à Vicious Circle, but would haue Said: This truth is immediatly, and most euidently Credible by it Selfe, for the Wisdom, Sanctity, and Power of working Miracles, manifest to all eyes, proue to Reason, that Moses is à great Prophet.

5. In like manner Catholicks proceed in their Resolution of Faith. Demanded why we belieue the Mystery of the In­carnation, it is Answered Scripture Assert's it. Ask again, why we belieue the Diuinity of that Book called Scripture? It is replyed. The Church ascertain's of That. But how do we know that the Church herein deliuer's Truth? It is Answe­red, if we Speak of knowledge preuious to Faith, Those admi­rable Signes of Diuinity mentioned aboue, and manifest in this one Oracle. Viz. The Sanctity of life the Contempt of the world, Catholicks in this pre­sent State, return the very same Answer. the c [...]ed Austerity of Pennance, the height of Contemplation apparent in thousands and thousands, And aboue all the glorious Miracles most illustrious in this one Society of Christians proue it an Oracle so euidently credible, That we cannot, if prudent and manifest Reason guides vs, but as firmly belieue what euer this Oracle teaches, as the Israelits belieued Moses and the Prophets. One only Differen [...] aduanta­gious for vs. Here is only the difference (And the Aduantage is ours) that in Lieu of Moses we haue an ample Church: Inumerable multitudes in place of one Seruant of God, The incomparable greater light, I mean, the Pillar and Ground of truth, the Catho­lick Church diffused the whole world ouer.

6. Answerable to this Doctrin the primitiue Christians re­solued their Faith, after the Canon of Scripture was written. Ask therefore why these first conuerted People, whether Iewes or Gentils, belieued Christ to be the true Messias, the Son of God, and Sauiour of the world? They might haue Answe­red. [Page 480] We read this and much more in Holy Scripture. But how know you, that these Scriptures are not suppositious or fained, as some Gospels haue been? We belieue this, Say They, The Primi­tiue Chri­stians way of resoluing Faith. vpon the vndoubted Testimony of those blessed men the Apo­stles, who both taught vs, and wrote that holy Book. Yet more. How know you that those Apostles were not Cheats (for there haue been false Prophets and Apostles) but men Au­thorized by Almighty God to teach and write his holy Veri­ties? Had they replyed, We proue this by Scripture it self, the Circle would haue been ineuitable. For to Say Scripture is Gods word, because the Apostles Assert it, and to Say the Apostles were infallible Oracles of Truth, because Scripture affirm's that, is to Proue Idem per Idem, And implies à most vicious Circulation.

7. Their Answer then must haue been, for there is no other. The manifest Miracles wrought by the Apostles, Their eminent Sanctity and Holines of life (our Lord working with, and con­firming their Doctrin by manifest Signes) proued them Gods Oracles, True and faithful commissioned Teachers. And thus Is Our way also. we discourse of the Church Whose vndeniable Miracles, San­ctity, and Conuersions wrought by Her, conuince reason of this great Truth, that She only is Gods Oracle. All this is said supposing the Canon of Scripture already compleat, For if we goe higher, and consider à Church (whether it be that of the ancient Patriarchs, of the Israelits, or finally of the Chri­stians before Scripture was written) Faith must be resolued into Diuine Reuelation by the means of some liuing Oracle (Whe­ther One or more it imports not) who manifested themselues God's commissioned Teachers by Signes and Miracles. Where­of more afterward.

8. This much premised (And it is Very easily vnderstood) you shall Se Mr Stillingfleets verbose Obiections brought to Three Mi­stakes chief­ly pointed at nothing, but to meer Cauils and Mistakes. Three Mistakes chiefly, run through his whole 5. Chapter. First he strangely confound's the Iudgement of credibility necessarily prerequired to true Belief, with the very Act of Faith it Self, whereas the [Page 481] Resolution of these two, haue indeed à due Subordination to one The first breeds Con­fusion. [...]other, yet depend vpon quite different Principles. The Iud­gement of Credibility whereby the will moues and command's the intellectual Faculty to elicite Faith, relies not vpon that Obiect which finally Terminates Faith it self, But vpon extrin­secal Motiues wihch perswade, and Powerfully induce to belieue, [...]uper omnia.

9. Here is the Reason. The high Mysteries of Faith, the Trinity, for example; Original Sin, and the like Transcend our natural Capacities, or to speak with some great Diuines are na­turally Incredible, Therefore Prouidence hath by the force and efficacy of extrinsecal motiues, raised them from that degree of natural Incredibility, and made all most credible to humane Reason. And this no Sectary can deny, For before that Doc­trin be belieued which he embraces, and before he reiect's the contrary not belieued by him, He will tell you, He hath Motiues and reasons as well for the one as the other. Here is all we require at present.

10. Mr Stillingfleets second errour is, that he distinguishes not between the nature of Science and Faith. Science is worth In the second Science and Faith are not. nothing vnless it proue, and Faith purely considered as Faith, (mark well my words) is worthles, if it proue, For as innumera­ble Fathers affirm, Fides non quaerit quomodo. Faith reason's not, nor Ask's how these Mysteries can be, but simply belieues. Science makes vse of Principles, Per se nota, known by them­selues And then discourses, Assuming nothing but what is pro­ued, wherefore no virtue, no validity, can be in the progress, or Sufficiently distingui­shed. end of à rational Discourse, which was not precontained in the first assumed Principles. Faith, t'is true, has its Preambulatory Motiues, as we haue seen already, yet Scientifically drawes no Con­clusion from them (and herein Mr Stillingfleet all along begui­les himself, and the reader). The Motiues inducing to belieue this Truth. God has reuealed à Mysterious Trinity are morally certain, yet there is à more firm Adhesion to the infallibility of that Diuine Testimony for which we belieue, than the extrinsecal [Page 482] Motiues inducing to belief either do or can draw from vs▪ And in this sense Faith contrary to Science, goes farr beyond the certainty of all extrinsecal Inducements, as shall be present­ly declared.

11. Our Aduersaries third Mistake lies here, That he distin­guishes not, between the humane and Diuine Authority of the The third also wants à Distin­ction. Church. S. Austin Lib. con. Epist Fundam. C. 4. Speaking of the first, Saith. The profound wisdom of so many Doctors, the consent of Nations, the Antiquity, the continued Succession of Pastors &c. held him within the Pale of the Church Catholick, yet this Autho­rity precisely considered as humane, and therefore fallible, is not sufficient to ground Diuine Faith. I say as humane, for though I belieue that the Church has euer been Visible, with à continued Succession of Commissioned Pastors to teach Orthodox Doctrin, yet my Act of Faith no more relies vpon such motiues, consi­dered meerly as Motiues, inducing to belieue, Than the Primitiue Christians Faith relied vpon the visible Miracles, which Christ or his Apostles wrought.

12. As therefore that first Act of Faith, whereby they belie­ued our Sauiour to be the true Messias, was built vpon his in­fallible Diuine Authority, manifested by Miracles, Sanctity of life &c. So that first Act of Faith whereby euery one belieues the Church to be God's own Sacred Oracle, is built vpon Her in­fallible Diuine Authority manifested by Miracles, and other signal Marks of truth, whereof Scripture plainly Speak's. Hell gates shall not preuail against the Church. She is the Pillar and ground of truth, And so much is said aboue. C. 16. 17. that I know well Secta­ries What caused our Aduer­saries Errour cannot Answer. The not reflecting vpon this twofold Au­thority which Mr Stillingfleet knowes Catholicks do distinguish, makes his Circle charged on vs so irregular à Figure, that it look's rather like à Rhomboides than à round Circle, as shall appear presently, with à further Discouery of his other mista­kes. One thing I cannot but admire, and t'is, That though his 5 ^.th Chapter be tediously long, yet the main and most real [Page 483] difficulty concerning the Resoluing of Faith is scarcely so much [...] hinted at. After à few Pages I will propose the Difficulty, and endeauour to solue it.

CHAP. II.

1. I Must and will waue all this Centlemans Parergons, all friuolous excursions with his vnciuil language, and if I touch in à word vpon his pretty conceipted Ieers scattered here and there, it shall only be Pertransennam, as if I little minded them.

2. Thus he begins. Page 112. The Infallible Testimony of your Church is the only Foundation for Diuine Faith, and this Infallibility Our Aduer­saries first Argument. can only be known by the Motiues of Credibility (He means in this present State) Therefore this way of resoluing Faith is vnreasonable, because it requires an infallible Assent vpon probable grounds beyond all Proportion or degree of Euidence, which is as much as requiring infallibility in the Conclusion, where the Premises are only probable. Answ. Our Aduersary Spoil's à good Difficulty by proposing it lamely, He would fain say some thing like that which Ca­tholick The difficul­ty not fully proposed. Diuines learnedly propose whilst they handle the Reso­lution of Faith, But so fumbles and doth it by halfes, that He [...]eaches not home to the main Business.

3. I Say therefore first. The Argument proposed if of any force, destroies all Faith euen the most Primitiue. To pro­ue the Assertion I Ask, whether the first Christians belieued [Page 484] infallibly the Infallible Testimony of the Apostles Preaching, with à Diuine Infallible Assent? Most certainly they Did. Yet the Infallibility of that Testimony was not known (if we speak strictly of Knowledge) but by Motiues of Credibility which were no Obiect of their Faith (vnless you make faith to be Science) The Argu­ment retor­ted. but Inducements only to belieue. Ergo this very Primitiue Faith was vnreasonable, because it was an infallible Assent built vpon probable grounds, beyond all Proportion or degree of that Euidence, whereby those pious men were moued to belieue. Hence You Se, though the Motiues which illustrate the Church were in themselues fallible, and not Metaphysically conexed with the Diuine Testimony, yet Faith grounded on that Testimony cannot but be certain and infallible, and consequently must Trans­cend, or goe beyond all the degrees of Certitude appearing in the prerequired Motiues. Mr Stillingfleet reply's. This is to require Infallibility in the Conclusion, where the Premises are only probable. Answ. He err's not knowing the nature of Faith, which Dis­courses not like to Science. For example. Make this Sillogism. Whateuer God reueal's is True, but God reueal's the Incarnation of the Diuine VVord, Ergo that is true. The difficulty only is in the Minor: But God reueal's, which cannot be proued by another belieued Arti­cle of Faith, wholly as obscure to vs as the Incarnation is. I say proued by Reason, because the same difficulty will be as much moued again Concerning the Proof of that second belieued Article, as concerning the first of the Incarnation, and so in Infinitum. And Shew'd Proofles. Therefore all rational Proofs auailing to beget Faith in any, must of necessity be extrinsecal to belief, and lie as it were in another Region more clear (yet less certain) than the reuealed Mystery is, we assent to by Faith.

4. Now to our Purpose. We hold this an Article of Faith. The Church is God's infallible Oracle, And therefore Say, antecedent­ly Rational Proofs for the Chur­ches infalli­bility. to Faith it cannot be proued by Arguments as obscure, or of the same Infallible certainty with Faith, For then Faith would be superfluous, or rather we should belieue by à firm and infallible Assent, before we do belieue vpon the Motiue of Gods infallible Reuela­tion, [Page 485] which is impossible. Hence it is that when we goe about Haue not the certain­ty of Faith. [...] the Infallibility of the Church independently of Scriptu­re, Yea, and also independently of all belieu [...]d Church Doctrin, We must necessarily Euince this rationall [...], by reflex Arguments and Motiues extrinsecal to what we Belieue, which are not of the same certainty with Supernatural Faith it self. Now these Argu­ments what these Motiues Proue. founded vpon the Motiues of Credibility can goe no further (stretch them to the vtmost) But only to proue this great verity. That what euer we belieue, either of Scripture, or of the Church is most euidently Credible aboue all things proposable to the contrary, And this great light the learned at least haue, before they yeild an infallible Assent vpon Diuine Reuelation to the very Doctrin of the Church, or Scripture either.

5. I Say. 2. Mr Stillingfleet and all Sectaries, whilst They Belieue with an Infallible Assent the most fundamental Articles in Sectaries goe beyond that Euidence whereby they are induced to belieue. Scripture, goe beyond all Proportion of that Euidence whereby they are induced to Belieue, And consequently must Solve their own [...]eak Argument, yet strong Ad hominem against them. If I Euince not this Truth blame me boldly, And obserue my Proof.

6. The Sectary belieues that Verity which. S. Iohn expres­ses in this short Sentence. The word was made Flesh: That is, he belieues the Incarnation of the Son of God with an Assent so infallible, that it cannot only be false, but that he would not disbelieue it vpon any reason Proposable, Though an Angel should preach Contrary, But neither this Act of Faith, nor its Formal Obiect (the Diuine Reuelation) are ex terminis euidently true, Quoad [...]s, yet must be proued [...]uidently Credible to reason, or Faith becomes vnreasonable, and rash, For, Qui cito credit leuis est corde. Now further. None can proue this, by another Act or Article of Faith (no more its own Self-euidence than the belieued In­carnation The Asser­tion, Proued. is) All therefore which can be done, is to make it eui­dently Credible by Motiues extrinsecal to Belief, by vniuersal Tradition, and the Consent of innumerable learned men, who haue both conueyed vnto vs the Words as Diuine Scripture, [Page 486] and the genuine Sense of them also. But this very humane Tradition, this exteriour Consent of all, or what other Moti­ues can be Imagined preuious to Faith, (because fallible,) may deceiue: Yet by the help of such fallible Motiues Mr Stilling­fleets Our Aduer­sary Clearly Conuinced. Faith, if it rest's vpon the Diuine Reuelation is raised higher, and stand's firmer vpon that Ground, than the Euiden­ce of his Motiues can induce to. Therefore he makes the conclusion surer than the Premises, And goes beyond all Pro­portion and degree of fallible Euidence, preambulatory to his certain Belief. What I Assert is manifest. For by Faith he The Conui­ction Mani­fest. Sayes the Incarnation is so infallibly true, that it cannot be fal­se, Yet all the Motiues which induce him to belieue Say, Pos­sibly it may be false, or exclude not à Possibility of falshood. And if this be not to Transcend all Proportion of his acquired Euidence, nothing is to goe beyond it.

7. The Argument will be yet more clear if proposed after this manner. Mr Stillingfleet infallibly belieues the truth of that Scripture now Quoted. I Ask by what means can he know That this very belieued Truth is à Diuine. Verity, or Scripture? The Answer may be, That's known vpon Tra­dition, or the publique Authority of all, not only Christians but others also, who haue conueyed the Book to vs. Very Another most Con­uincing Proof. 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 less and much weaker; If less and weaker, Mr Stillingfleets Faith goes beyond all propotion and degrees of his preuious acquired Euidence, Not to be an­swered. And it be of equal infallible Certaintly (That is) If he be­lieues as infallibly the Conueyance of those Words, For, or Vpon Gods Diuine Testimony, as he belieues the Doctrin there con­tained to be à Diuine Truth, He makes one Article of Faith the Proof of another, and euidently incurrs the Circle obiected to Catholicks, as shall appear afterward, When we examin his 170. Page, and refute his Errour concerning the Mo­ral Certainty of Faith.

[Page 487]8. Now to the Obiection. It is not possible, That the Assent in matters of Faith rise higher, or stand firmer than the Assent to the Testimony is, vpon which those things are belieued. Answer. Very true. But know Sr, we Assent to matters of Faith vpon Gods Diuine Testimony, and not for the Motiues which only induce to belieue. So the Primitiue Christians belieued vpon Christ's A Mistake in the Obie­ction. infallible Testimony, and built not their Faith vpon the ex­teriour Motiues Euident to Sense, which meerly considered as Motiues only made his Testimony highly credible to Reason. Viz. One Instan­ce which none can boggle at. That it was Diuine and infallible. For example. Some saw, Others heard of our sauiours great Miracles, of his admirable Sanctity, And then discoursed. The Man that doth these wonders can­not but be one sent from God. It is true, he preaches both new and difficult Doctrin to our eares, But if he be sent from God, we are obliged to Belieue him vpon his word, And vpon that Word Their Faith relyed.

9. Apply this Instance to the Church, you haue all I would Say. The Church is euidenced by Miracles, Sanctity of life in Millions, by Conuersions and the like signal Motiues. Here are the Inducements which proue Her Gods Oracle, and Clears all. the Doctrin highly credible, aboue what euer all other Societies called Christians haue Taught, Yet our Faith is not built vpon these Motiues considered as Inducements, but vpon Her infallible Testimony. The Instance now giuen Concerning the most Primitiue Belieuers is so clear, That our Aduersaries shall neuer weaken the force of it, or shew the least Disparity.

10. And thus you se all Mr Stillingfleets talk. P. 113 Comes to nothing. I desire Saith he to know, whether an infallible As­sent to the Infallibility of your Church can be grounded on those Mo­tiues of Credibility? Answ. And I desire to know whether an A Question answered, and retorted. Infallible Assent to the Apostles Preaching, was grounded on those Motiues which the Primitiue Christians saw or heard of before they belieued? what you say, I'll say. Briefly. Many learned Diuines hold the Motiues of Credibility Metaphysically connexed with Gods diuine Testimony speaking by the Church, [Page 488] and if that opinion be true, the Motiues ground an Infallible Shewed also impertinent. Assent but that's Euidence, and no Faith, And therefore most im­pertinent to your following Inference. If, say you, we affirm the Motiues ground an Infallible Assent, there can be no imaginable necessi­ty, to make the Testimony of our Church infallible, in order to Diuine faith. For, we Catholicks, you hope will not deny, but that there are at least equal Motiues of Credibility to proue the Diuine Authority of the Scriptures, as the infallibility of our Church, And if so, why may not an Infallible assent, be giuen to the Scriptures vpon those Motiues of Credibility, as well as to our Churches infallibility? Answ. A strange kind of Argument.

11. First, Sir, you know, or should know, Catholicks hold with S. Austin, That no certainty can be had of Scripture without Church Authority (How then do you say, You hope we will not deny &c). No Motiues as is proued aboue and in the other Treatise also, immediatly make Scripture Credible, independently of the Churches Tradition. No Miracles were euer heard of No Motiues make Scrip­ture euident­ly credible. which proued the book of Ruth admitted by you, more Ca­nonical Scripture, than that of Iudith which you reiect. Did any Martyr euer yet dye in defence of Salomons Canticle (that's Scripture say you) and refuse to dye for the Book of Wsdom, cast out of your Canon? Or was euer any soul sooner conuerted by reading the One, than the other? These Miracles Sr, these Martyrdoms, these Conuersions immediatly illustrate the Church, and proue not à Part only but Her whole Doctrin to be Indepen­dently of Church Au­thority. most Euidently Credible, and worthy of belief, whilst you se your Signs of Diuinity and no man knowes what imagined motiues in behalf of Scripture, as little Euidence the Books you admit, as those you reiect, That is, neither indeed haue any Self-Euidence in them, abstracting from Church Authority. Your Euidence therefore is à strong fancy and nothing els.

12. But admit one had Euident Motiues for the whole Canon or bare letter of Scripture, you haue not any so much as probable for the Sense (chiefly in Controuerted matters) which properly is God's Reuelation, without the Churches infallible [Page 489] Interpretation. Speak, Sr, your Conscience plainly, What can it auaile you or me, to know that the Book we read is God's No Motiues for the Scrip­tures Sense. word (Seing innumerable false Religions by peruerse Misinter­pretations are drawn from thence) if that other Principle. Deus [...] dixit; God, or Truth it self speaks This and this particular Sense, lies in darkness concealed from vs. This Principle then. God speak's this Sense, being the very vltimate Resoluent and last foundation of Christian Faith, must, when that Sense is Obscure, borrow light from no dark mistaken fallible or doubtful Ora­de: But the bare letter of Scripture is dark, and grosly mista­ken by Heretiques, mans priuate Iudgement is fallible, our com­paring the Scriptures Passages together, is meerly Coniectural, and dubious. Therefore if the certitude of Faith must rely vpon VVithout the Churches Infallible interpreta­tion. what God has spoken (I mean the infallible Sense of his sacred word) The Oracle which interpret's, can be no other but an Infallible Church. And here I both Petition and vrge Secta­ries to assign any other Surer Ground where vpon Faith can be built, seing all confess we are obliged to belieue that Infal­lible sense, chiefly in matters they call Fundamental. This Ar­gument alone could we say no more, forceth euery rational man to own à Church absolutely infallible in Her exposition of Scripture.

13. From whence also it followes first, that Mr Stillingfleet much mistakes Himself, when he Saith. Both sides I hope agree, Our Aduer­sary mista­ken. that there are sufficient Motiues of Credibility, as to the belief of Scrip­tures. I answer. There is not one firm Motiue for the true reuealed Sense (and this only is Scripture) if we exclude Tra­dition, and the infallible Interpretation of Gods Church. Bring to light but one, and I am satisfyed.

14. It followes. 2. That, that half Tradition owned by Se­ctaries in order to the conueyance and deliuery of the Books of Scripture, leaues them wholly Scriptureles, and as Faithles The halfe Tradition for the barc letter. as if they had no Bible, For it neither grounds faith imme­diatly, because it is not God's Reuelation, but the fallible Consent of men; Nor can it induce as à Motiue to belieue any one par­ticular [Page 490] Article of Christian Religion, without further certitude had from the same Churches infallible Tradition and interpre­tation, Not suffi­cient. concerning that most weighty Point of the Scriptures meaning. Reiect therefore this infallible Interpreter, All of vs iust like Arians, Macedonians, Donatists, desperatly rely vpon the worst Guides Imaginable, our own fallacious and vngouernable fancies, and will needs learn of such giddy Teachers, the pure interpretation of God's Word. These we make our Oracles in lieu of Christs Church, and in doing so, may easily ascri­be to God à Doctrin he disdain's to own, and become He­retiques by it. The very hazard men run in this wilful Course, is an open Iniury to the Supremest Verity, vnauoidable in out Sectaries Principles.

15. And here by the way, you se the Vanity of that per­nicious Doctrin published by them, wherewith the world is Sectaries pernicious Doctrin. cheated. Viz. The Sense of Scripture is plain enough, euen to the vnlearned, in things necessary to Saluation, in other matters not neces­sary, à right Faith an vnerring Guide, an infallible Interpreter, See [...] vseles and superfluous, As if forsooth, the Arians, Pelagians, Ne­storians, had not grosly erred in Points most necessary, though Concerning the Clearness of Scripture. they read the same plain Scripture, which we all read. Did the [...] that supposed Clearness nothing secure them from Heresy in Necessaries? Why should it, I beseech you, rescue Sectaries (wholly as fallible) from gross errours in other matters, when the words of Scripture are more express against them, than against the worst of Arians. But hereof enough is said aboue.

16. It followes. 3. That no Christian has stability in Faith but the Roman Catholick, for the most which others, no mem­bers of this Church, can know (if yet they know so much) is, That the Books of Scripture are Gods word, but with this half piece of imperfect Learning, they neither know nor can belieue one particular Article of Christian Faith, because that other The Roman Catholick only has Sta­bility in Faith. Principle, the last Resoluent of all Belief, God speaks infallibly this very Sense, has no influence ouer their Assent, and therefore is reiected by them as impertinent to ground Faith vpon. One [Page 491] instance will giue you more light.

17. The Arian and Protestant agree thus farr, That those words. Iohn. 1. 5. 9. Three giue Testimony in heauen &c. are Diuine Both Arians and Prote­stestants want à Sta­bility. Scripture, yet so vary about the meaning, and the diffe­rence is in à matter most fundamental, that the One Assent's to the sacred Trinity for these words, which yet the Other im­piously denies. Say now, vpon what infallible Principle doth the Protestants faith stand more firm, than that of the Arian? Will Mr Stillingfleet say the Scripture is Clear? The Arian takes him off that Plea, and endeauours to obscure the passage, by adding to it no small number of his Arian Glosses. Next And why? he Argues thus ad hominem, and thinks no wrong at all done. Can yee Sectaries belieue that your glosses laid vpon those Scriptures which Catholicks produce against you, are strong enough to diuert, and peruert the Sense or Interpretation of their Vniuersal Church, and shall my glosses opposite to your Doctrin, haue no force to diuert or weaken the late, priuate, inuented Sense of à few Lutherans? What law is there for this? I call it late and priuate as it comes from you, for you How the A­rian argues against Se­ctaries. disdain to ground it vpon any Church Authority absolutly in­fallible, in all She teaches. Therefore it is your own Priuate Sense, and not the Churches. O but the Church of Rome in this particular interpret's Scripture faithfully, though She err's in other matters. Pitiful. That is, She hitt's right when You'l giue leaue, and misses when you think otherwise.

18. One may Say again. The whole Orthodox world euer proued the Mysterious Trinity from that alleged Passage of Scripture. Contra, Replies the Arian, I, and my Adherents who deny the Mystery, hold our Selues as precious à Part of the His Argu­ment Con­uinces. Orthodox world as you Protestants doe, And hope we expound Scripture by the help of our priuate Reasoning and comparing Texts together, as well as you. Why not I beseech you? Or giue à Disparity. But say on, And the contest is ended. Ha­ue you any Oracle, which more infallibly Ascertain's you of that Sense of Scripture to be as you gloss, then we haue who giue [Page 492] it à quite contrary Interpretation, For hitherto we are both alike, and expound all by our priuate Iudgements. Grant such an Oracle (Distinct from Scripture) whereby you haue Assurance of God's meaning darkly expressed in those words, you become plane Papists; Own not Any Infallible, you cast your Selues vpon as great Vncertainties as we Arians are thrown, who expound Scripture by our own natural Discourse. No infallible Church therefore, no Stability No Orthodox world, wi­thout an Infallible Church. in faith, no Stability in faith, that specious word of an Orthodox VVorld Signifies no­thing, For this I Defend, and haue Proued it, if all Churches be fallible in their Definitions, there neither is, nor euer was since Christs time any such thing in being, as an Orthodox VVorld.

19. It followes. 4. That as it has euer been the proper Mark or Character of all faithful Belieuers to yeild Submission The distinct Marks of true Belie­uers, and All Here­ticks. to the Churches Doctrin, though weak reason conceiues it dif­ficult, so Contrarywise, stubbornly to resist Church Authority has euer been inseparably the Mark and Badge of all Hereti­ques, whether ancient or modern. With this virulent Spirit they began to Oppose God's Oracle, and held on for à time, But as S. Austin obserues at last ended in shame Conterentur, saith the Saint, the battered Rock of the Catholick hitherto stand's firm, maugre that Violence, And their Scattered forces routed and broken, as experience tells vs, are brought to no­thing.

CHAP. III.

1. WHat followes in Mr Stillingfleets. 3. or. 4 next Pages, seem's so slight that the very most is refuted by the grounds already established, Yet to Comply with the mans humour, we must follow him further. How Saith He can you make the Assent to your Churches Testimony to be Infallible, when The sirst Argument retorted. that infallibility is attempted to be proued only by the motiues of Credibility? I Answer. Iust as you make the Assent of the Primitiue Christians giuen to the Apostles preaching infallible, So I make the Assent to the Churches Testimony infallible. The Motiues are alike in both Cases, if not greater for the Church.

2. He Obiects. 2. If Diuine Faith, cannot be built vpon the Mo­tiues prouing the Doctrin of Christ, what sense is there that it should be built vpon those Motiues, which proue our Churches infallibility Here is the old Mistake again. I Answer therefore. Diuine Faith is not built vpon the Motiues inducing to belieue, but vpon the Infallible Testimony of Christ, and his Church. The Motiues ground the Iudgement of Credibility, The Infallible Testimony Sup­port's The second is à gross Mistake. Diuine Faith. Now if by this word, Built, you mean no more but rationally, To induce, I say none in this present State can be induced to belieue Christ's Doctrin reuealed in Scripture, in case he reiect's the Authority of that euidenced Church [Page 494] which both Ascertains him of the Canon, and the Sense also. Hence, That other Obiection fall's to nothing. How can there be an infallible Assent to the truth of this Proposition: Scriptures are The third retorted, and answered. the word of God, when that Infallibility at the highest is but euidently Credible? I Answer and retort the Argument. How could the Primitiue Christians Assent to the Apostles preaching as infallible, when that infallibility at the highest, was but Euidently Credible, before they belieued?

3. The whole Confusion lies, as is said, in not Distinguishing between Faith, and the Iudgement of Credibility. Infallibility the­refore, whether we Assent to Christ, to his Apostles, or to the Church (all taught one and the same Doctrin) is the Obiect of Diuine Faith, but none euer assented to any Doctrin these Ora­cles taught, infallibly, without sufficient Euidence preuiously had A Discouery of the whole Fallacy. of its Credibility. And thus I belieue by Faith Scripture to be God's word, because the Church Saith so, But if you Ask, why I hold all the Church Teaches to be Euidently Credible, I Euince not this truth by the Infallibility I belleue, But recurr to those Motiues whereby She is proued an Oracle as euidently Cre­dible, as euer any Apostle was, And consequently I belieue Her Infallibility with the same Diuine Faith, as I belieue the Words of Scripture.

4. Page 114. He Obiect's. 3. We Catholicks make by this way of resoluing Faith euery man's reason the only Iudge in the Choise of his Religion. Why doe we more so, I beseech you, than the Primitiue Christians, who certainly had the very like rational Motiues with ours, and no other, before they belieued? But of this Subiect we shall treat largely towards the End of this Dis­course.

5. Page. 115. He Saith. If the Infallibility of the Church of Rome, be à sure foundation of Faith, what will become of the Faith, of all those who receiued Diuine Reuelations, without the Infallibility of any Obiections grounded on Instance. Church at all? And he brings in these Instances. First, of the Apost­les belieuing the Diuine Authority of the old Testament when Christ suffered, which certainly was not Grounded on the infallible Testimony of [Page 495] the Iewish Church, for at that time it consented to the Death of the [...]essias. 2. Of all that belieued the woman of Samaria (no infal­lible Oracle) when She declared the Discourse between Christ our Lord and her self. 3. Of such as belieued our Sauiours Doctrin and Miracles related by men honest and faithful. These, Saith [...]e, had no infallible Testimony, but only à rational Euidence to build Faith non, and consequently an Infallible Testimony of the Conueyers of Diuine Reuelation is Vnnecessary to Diuine Faith, which seem's vndoubted, For very few in the first Ages of the Christian Church recei­ued the Doctrin of the Gospel, from the mouths of persons in­fallible.

6. By the way I much wonder, Why Mr Stillingfleet omitted to touch here vpon an other Instance farr more difficult, which both he and all other must solue concerning rude and illiterate Persons (chiefly if of no great maturity) who are induced to belieue by the Testimony, or Instruction of their Parents, or of Another In­stance more difficult. some other simple Teachers. These certainly may haue Faith, without acquiring that full Euidence of Credibility whereunto the learned reach, yea, and without any Discouery of the Scrip­tures rational Euidence, neuer perhaps heard of, much less vn­derstood by them.

7. Now I Answer to the Obiection. None makes the Roman Catholick Church in all Circumstances the only sure foundation of Diuine Faith, For the first man that belieued in The Church in all Cir­eumstances was not the only Foun­dation of Faith. Christ our Lord before the Compleat Establishment of His Church, had Perfect Faith resting on that great Master of Truth, without dependance on the Christian Church, For Christ alone was not the Church, But the supreme Head of it. Faith therefore in General requires no more, but only to rely vpon God the first Veri [...]y speaking by this or that Oracle, by one or more men lawfully sent to teach, who proue their Mission and make the Doctrin proposed by them Euidently Credible. In like manner, the Apostles preached no Doctrin in the name of the new Christian Church, whilst our Sauiour liued here on earth, But Testified that he was the true Messias by virtue of those Signs [Page 496] and Miracles, which had been already wrought aboue the force of nature. Thus much Supposed.

8. It is hard I think for any to Say, where the force lies in The Mistake of the first Instance. that Instance of the Apostles belieuing the Diuine Authority of the old Testament, which innumerable Iewes then dispersed all Iury ouer, and the other parts of the world (not at all conscious of Christ's Passion) most firmly belieued. Why therefore might not the Apostles belieue the Diuinity of the old Scripture vpon the Authority of that Church, whereof there were at that time many and very many Professors in other places distant from Hierusalem? Hence I say the Belief of that Article neuer fai­led, But was alwayes preserued entire in both Churches of the Iewes and Christians, for we all yet belieue the Authority of the old Testament, And Consequently its hard to Conceiue what this Obiection aymes at.

9. Again, admit à total Subuersion of the Iewish Church, Had not the Apostles our Blessed Lord present who could well Ascertain them that he came not to Cancel any Diuine Supposed true its forceles. Authority of Scripture (for this was impossible vnless God be contrary to God) but to fulfil, to perfect, and change the old Law into à better State. O but the High Priest and the El­ders also erred in consenting to Christs death. Very true, and the Reason is because their Priuiledge of not erring, lasted only to Christ's comming and not longer, But hence it followes not, that then there was no Iewish Church which belieued the Diui­ne Verities of the old Scripture. I verily think, Mr Stillingfleet mistook one Obiection for another. Perhaps he would haue said, that the Apostles lost faith of our Sauiours Resurrection, at the time of his Passion, But this Difficulty is solued ouer The Apostles failed not in Faith. and ouer. First it is Answered, that Article was not sufficiently Proposed to them, Therefore we read. Luke. 18. 34. They vn­derstood none of these things. This Word was hid from them. Again. Had they failed in Faith ar that time, They were then as Bel­larmin obserues. Lib: 3. de Ecclesia. C. 17. neither the whole Church (but only material Parts of it) nor could that impro­bable [Page 497] Supposed Errour, haue preiudiced one whit the Faith of others, who firmly belieued in Christ.

10. That other Instance of the Samaritan woman is soon clea­red, if we distinguish between the Motiue, or the natural Propo­sition The other Instance cleared▪ by one [...] ­tion. of Faith which comes by hearing, and the infallible Ora­cle wherevpon it relies, And T'is strange Mr Stillingfleet saw not the Distinction. The Faith therefore of those other Sa­maritans that belieued in Christ vpon the wonans word, Vl­timately relyed vpon our Sauiours own Authority who had conuersed with her, And hence the Gospel Sayes. Now we Belieue not for thy Saying, for we our Selues haue heard, and know, that this man, in very deed, is the Sauiour of the world. T'is true, had this woman, whom the Fathers Suppose perfectly con­uerted to Christ, been made an Infallible Oracle in all she deli­uered The Sama­ritan woman pro­posed what She had heard, as the Apostles were in their Teaching, or the Church now is. Her Testimony might well haue supported Faith, but because thus much only can be euinced by Scripture, that She [...]ealously Proposed what She had heard of our Sauiour, Her testi­mony alone might serue well as à natural Proposition to raise Be­lief in others, though insufficient to ground in them that Super­natural Assent, And her words had vpon this Account greater weight, because She confirmed them with à Sign aboue the force of Nature. This man has told me all I haue done. I know some Authors are of opinion, that this Samaritan called Photina first reduced to the Faith of Christ her Sisters and Children, which done, She went into Affrica, and there Propagated the Chri­stian Doctrin with great Successe, till at last both She and her Different Opinions Concerning her. Children were crowned with à glorious Martyrdom. The only difficulty is, whether She be the fame with that S. Photina whe­reof à memory is kept in the Roman Martyriloge the. 20. day of March, some Greek Authors stand for the Affirmatiue, Be it so or other wise, it imports little to our present Purpose. Who desires more of this Subiect may read the erudite Godefridus Henshenius. Tom. 3. de Santis Martij die. 20. immediatly after the life of S. Ioachim.

[Page 498]11. Conformable to this Doctrin we Answer to these other forceles Instances, and might say with some good Diuines, That Other In­stances Shew'd for­celes. all Immediate Propounders or Conueyers of Diuine Reuelation in such particular Cases, need not to be Infallible, For Faith (as These Diuines Teach) requires no more; But first that the Obiect be truly reuealed, and Proposed to one vpon prudent Motiues, Suitable to the firm Assent Hee must elicite. 2. That In Doctrin Commonly receiued. by the light of such Motiues Hee be induced to fix Belief vpon the Diuine Reuelation, although that full Euidence of Credi­bility which the Church Manifesteth and the more learned attain to, be not yet acquired by him. These Conditions presup­posed, Diuine Grace is euer ready to make that mans Faith most firm and supernatural, And consequently an Obligation lies on him to belieue. But from this Doctrin which is Com­mon, no such thing followes as Mr Stillingf. would infer. Viz. That the Churches infallibility Seem's vnnecessary to vphold infallible Faith, for may not young Beginners growing more mature (chiefly if solicited to abandon Their first Faith) iustly de­mand to haue more full Satisfaction in all their doubts, and so much Assurance concerning that they once assented to, as not to be remoued from it vpon any false Motiues or fallacious Arguments, though neuer so Specious? Such cases (Say these) fall out euery day.

12. But in this present State, none can clear these doubts, none can Assure any that his Faith is certainly true, none can bring the most learned to à perfect acquiescency in Belief, but an Infallible Church, Therefore vpon this very Account The Chur­ches Infalli­bility absolu­tely necessa­ry. Her infallibility is proued not only conuenient, but absolutely Necessary. And hence it is, That Gods sacred Prouidence neuer failed since Christianity began, to haue in readines Some one or other infallible known Oracle, wherevpon faith might rest most Securely. The Apostles had for their Master the best liuing Oracle, Christ our Lord. The Primitiue Christians learned of the Apostles. After them the Church perfectly founded did succeed, as the only Oracle wherevnto euery one may take [Page 499] recourse for further Satisfaction when difficulties arise, Though in some particular Cases, as is now Said, Her Motiues and glorious Miracles, be not at the first laid forth most fully to euery simple Belieuer. Ceteram turbam, saith S. Austin, con­tra Epist: Fund. C. 4. non intelligendi viuacitas, sed credendi simplicitas sal [...]am facit. That is. Candid Simplicity, makes these more How young Beginners are drawn. safe, than curiously to search into the vltimate grounds of Be­lieuing. The Reason is, because fewer Motiues (if yet prudent and Conuincing) may well serue to induce Beginners, seldom molested with Difficulties against Faith, than will conuince O­thers more learned, who often struggle to Captiuate their Vn­derstanding, when the high Mysteries of Christianity are Pro­posed.

13. Moreouer, many great Doctors maintain, that in the Two Solu­tions more. particular cases now mentioned, God by his special Illumination Supplies the want of the exteriour Proposition when that's de­ficient, or less conuincing. See Suarez. Disp. 4. de Fide sect. 5. and this way also, we easily solue Mr Stillingfleets difficulties. Lastly it is noted in the other Treatise. Disc. 1. C. 2. n. 5. 6. And both re­ceiued Do­ctrin. That whoeuer is lawfully sent to teach the Christian doctrin, and deliuers those Truths in the name of God and his Church, if considered, as à member conioyned with Christs infallible Oracle, He may be Said to teach infallibly. The Reasons you haue there giuen more largely.

14. I am now to retort Mr Stillingfleets Instances vpon him­self and show, That though he walk's neuer so far abroad to view the seueral Plantations of Faith amongst either Brittans or Barbarians, he must solue his own difficulties. Thus I discour­se. We now Suppose, All these Barbarians Conuerted to Christ These in­stances re­torted. to haue had true Faith, and Consequently prudent Motiues to belieue, before they firmly assented to the Diuine Reuelatlon. We make Enquiry after these, and Ask: By what Inducements were such as yet knew not our Sauiour, drawn to belieue in him? Mr Stillingfleet return's the strangest Answer I euer heard, What our Aduersary asserts. For he seem's to make his Motiues inducing to Faith nothing [Page 500] but the rational Euidence of the truth of the Doctrin deliuered, and Therefore grieuously complains. P. 118. That we destroy the Obligation to Faith, which ariseth from the rational Euidence of Chri­stian Religion. If this be not pure Fancy there was neuer any, and my Reason is. That Supposed rational Euidence, is either the very same with the intrinsecal Verity of the Doctrin dele­uered, or à rational intellectual Light distinct from the Doctrin. If it be the very same, These truths simply Proposed. Christ His rational Euidence of Christian Religion is God and man, Adaem infected his posterity with Original Sin. God is one Essence and three Persons, are without more their own Self-euidences, and consequently all the Miracles which Christ and his Apostles wrought to settle these, and the like Veri­ties Reicted, firm in the Primitiue Belieuers, were to as little Purpo­se, as if one should raise the dead to perswade vs that the Sun shines, or (if we speak of Moral certainty) that there haue been such men in the world as Pompey and Iulius Casar, which is enormously vntrue.

15. Contrariwise if he Saith, This rational Euidence ne­cessarily implies à preuious intellectual Discourse grounded on prudent Motiues, distinct from the Verity of Christs Doctrin, He first cashier's his own fancied Euidence. And 2. must Andretorted. Answer to the Instances proposed, And. 3. Assent to this true vniuersal Proposition. Viz. That neuer any belieued, or can belieue (if we abstract from priuate Reuelations) without Motiues distinct from Christs Doctrin, (fit to induce Faith) And an Infallible Testimony to ground Faith vpon. Thus the Samaritan woman, and those who heard her Relation, being first induced by pre­cedent signes to iudge that Christ was à Prophet. I perceiue thou art à Prophet Saies the Text (and perhaps his Goodnes added more interiour light to strengthen those Signes) firmly belieued vpon his infallible word. Iesus said to her I am [...]e Prudent Mo­tiues and an Infallible Oracle. Necessary to all Faith. (the Messias) that speaks with thee. Neither can any Instance be giuen where true Faith is, But you haue with that very Faith, Prudent Motiues Proposed to reason, as Inducements, And be­sides an Infallible Oracle to ground it vpon. O, but euery imme­diate [Page 501] Propounder of the Diuine Testimony is not infallible. Be it so at present, What matters that? If he leads me to one which giues me à clearer Euidence of Credibility, and proues Himselfe by Motiues aboue the force of nature, God's Oracle.

16. Some thing of this nature we haue in the first Con­uersion of Christs Disciples Iohn. 1. 44. Philip, Saith the A Proof ta­ken from the Conuersions of Christ's Disciples. Text, meeting with Nathanaël told him. We haue found Iesus the son of Ioseph of Nazareth, whom Moses in the Law and the Proph [...]s [...] of: Nathanaël wondred. What can there be any good from Nazareth? Philip answered. Veni & vide. Come and se. Drawing neer He vnderstood that our Sauiour knew his Inte­riour, where in there was no Guile, and beheld him vnder the fig­tree before he was called: Thus enlightened by Signs aboue the natural knowledge of man, forthwith that true Profession of his Faith followed. Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel. In like manner it may easily fall out, if one not very learned treat with another wholly illiterate (yet The Appli­cation. morally honest) that has heard little of Christ or his Church, He who would instruct, Sayes no more, But, Veni & vide. Come I will bring you to an Oracle right able to teach you, we call it the Catholick Church, She can show you who laid Her foundations firm, She will conuince your vnderstan­ding by the efficacy of such Motiues, ( Miracles, Conuersions, and Sanctity of life) which far surpass the power of natural causes. Now after you haue seen and heard what I Say to be most true, Belieue not vpon my word (for I only point at the O­racle) but vpon the Churches own Testimony, She is without Guile, and cannot deceiue you.

17. And here by the way you se how differently the Se­ctary How diffe­rently the Catholick Doctors, and Sectaries proceed. and Catholick proceed, in the Conuersions of an Vn­belieuer, whether Heathen or other. The first only open's à Bible, and without further Motiues but what are found the­re, bidd's him read the Book. This yet vnconuerted man Saies the sense is dark, He vnderstand's it not. The Catholick on [Page 502] the other side, Proposes à Church euidenced by the very same Marks and Signes, whereby our Sauiour and his Apostles were In the Con­uersion of Vnbelieuers. manifested to be Oracles sent from God. This Church both proues that the Bible is of Diuine Inspiration, And mereouer declares its Sense in all controuerted Passages. Finally after Her Motiues laid fo [...]th, She remit's euery one to Christs own words, He that hears you hears me, and our Sauiour remit's vs to his Eternal Father, for he Assures all. Iohn. 7. 16. That the Doctrin deliuered by him was not his, but his Fathers that sent him. And here is the last ground of all Diuine Faith, which stand's fast vpon three strong Principles neuer yet at variance with one another. The Church, Christ our Lord, and God the first Veri­ty. Consider I beseech you which of the two Teachers pro­ceed's more rationally.

18. You se moreouer those Instances of the Brittans and The Instan­ces of Barba­nians proued forceles. Barbarians brought to nothing, For suppose first, which some Authors assert, that S. Peter Prince of the Apostles Preached in Brittany or England, Or that S. Paul, Simon Cananaus surnamed the Zealous, Aristobulus à Roman, and S. Ioseph of Arimathia performed that Apostolical function there, (whether so or no I dispute not). Suppose again, And herein all agree, that Eng­land receiued the Christian faith very early, For it is as certain that King Lucius and his Subiects, were conuerted by S. Damianus and his Associates, sent to preach by that holy Pope and Martyr Elutherius about one hundred and eighty years after Christ; As The reason here of. it is indubitable, that the English Saxons were afterward Con­uerted by S. Augustin and his followers sent by S. Gregory the great in the six Century, to do that most worthy and laudable Duty. Vpon these Suppositions you see, that the first Preachers were Apostolical men, and priuiledged by our Sauiour to work Mi­racles, Mark. 16. 20. Those others in the two following Con­uersions receiued their Commission from Popes, held à strict Vnion with the Roman Catholick Church, and finally made their Doctrin euidently Credible by great Sanctity, and other Signal wonders, as known History recounts.

[Page 503]19. Some may reply. All these Conuersions would haue been easily wrought, had those Preachers only made our Sauiours Miracles known, and done none Themselues. I Answer first, Done they were and preiudiced nothing, but rather highly aduan­ced the Glory of our Sauiours wonders, Yea and as experience A Reply Answered. teaches, yet notably facilitate the Conuersion of Infidels euery where, when God is pleased to work them by his Seruants. The­refore the Apostles were impowred not only to Testify that the Messias did Miracles, but moreouer to do the like themselues, And for this reason, Almighty God has euer hitherto preserued, and will hereafter preserue that singular Grace of working Mi­racles in the Church. I Answer 2. None can haue infallible Assurance either of our Sauiours Miracles, or of any other Ve­rity recorded in Scripture, independently of some actual liuing, actual infallible, and most clear euidenced Oracle by Signes aboue the Prudent Motiues in­duce to Faith and An Infalli­ble Oracle support it. force of Nature, which in this present State is the Church, And therefore I said à great Truth, That Diuine Faith had in all Ages that necessary Expedient of rational Motiues to induce it, an Infallible Oracle to teach it, and finally to rely on.

20. Hence we easily Answer Mr Stillingfleets Question. P. 118. What, Saith he, cannot men haue vnquestionable Assurance that there was such à Person as Christ in the world who dyed for vs, if the present Church be not infallible. Answ. You might, Sr, haue proposed à wiser Question. Know I beseech you That in the forenamed Pro­position. There was such à Man as Christ who liued in the world, and An vnlear­ned Obiec­tion answe­red. dyed for vs, Two things may be Considered. First, That the man called Christ dyed on à Cross, And this Verity, as we sayd aboue, Once visible, both Iewes and Gentils yet Assent to vpon Moral Certainty, but therefore do not belieue in Christ. The Reason is Manifest (and it vtterly destroyes your Doctrin) becau­se that Common report, or Moral Certainty is not God's in­fallible Reuelation, which only can support Faith.

21. The second thing to be considered is. That the man called Christ dying for vs, was the only Messias, truly God, the Redeemer of Mankind. Here you haue the hidden Verities of [Page 504] Christian Religion, the Certain Obiects of Faith Conueyed vn­to vs, by no Moral Assurance but solely vpon God's Infalli­ble Reuelation, whereof more presently.

22. Page. 119. He tell's vs first. We cannot say, what or where that Church is which we suppose infallible. Nor. 2. What is that Church is the proper Subiect of infallibility, Nor. 3. What kind of Infallibility this is. Nor. 4. How we can know when the Church Defin's infallibly. Here is very slight Matter to work on. To the first we Answer. The Church, which we do not barely Sup­pose, The true Church denoted. but haue already proued Infallible, is that diffused Society of Christians (vnited in one Faith vnder one Head) which is most discernable from all Societies, by the same euident Marks of truth, that Christ and his Apostles manifested to the world. To the. 2. We haue both Answered and retorted the Argu­ment in the other Treatise, where it is Said. The Church may The subiect of Infalli­bility. be considered, First as it is Docens, or Teaching, And thus Her Repre­sentatiue moral Body, the Pope, I mean and Council assembled together, for the Reasons alleged. Chap. 17. is the proper Su­biect of Infallibility: Again if we consider the Church as it is Discens, learning, or taught, All those diffused multitudes of Chri­stians that are vnited in one belief, and own due Submission to their lawful Pastors, because they belieue as the Church Representatiue teaches, may be rightly styled vpon the Account From whence In­fallibility Proce [...]d's? of their infallible Faith, the proper Subiect of Infallibility. And must not our Aduersaries who hold à Society of men infallible in Fundamentals solue this Difficulty, and Declare in what Su­biect that half Infallibility is lodged? To the. 3. we haue An­swered. Chap. 16. This infallibility which proceed's from the Special Assistance of the Holy Ghost, is of such à Nature, That, that Blessed Spirit will neuer permit the Church instructing, to Define à falshood, nor the instructed, Vniuersally to fail in faith. To the. 4. I Answer. Then we know the Church Defin's in­fallibly, when She obliges all vnder Anathema, to belieue her Doc­trin, and when the Doctrin is so sufficiently proposed to her Subiects, that it cannot be morally doubted of. But enough of [Page 505] these Strengthles difficulties, examined and solued à hundred ti­mes ouer. May better be expected hereafter? We shall se that in the following Chapter.

CHAP. IV.

1. AFter Mr Stillingfleet had said, All may haue vnquestio­nable Assurance of our Sauiours once being in the Mr Stilling­fleets Doctrin. world, though the present Church were fallible, He tells vs again, that the Assurance of the matters of fact which are the founda­tions of Faith, is necessary, in order to the obligation to belieue, And then add's. I mean such an assurance as matters of fact are capable of, for no higher can be required than the nature of the things will bear. He goes on in his Ignorance. Cannot we haue vnquestionable Assuran­ce, that there were such persons as C [...]sar and, Pompey without some infal­lible Testimony? If we may in such things, VVhy not in other Matters of fact, which infinitly more concern vs, though the Church stamp not her Infallibility vpon them? The man you see would say, That these verities. Christ dyed for vs, is our only Redeemer, truly God and man, being Matters of fact, and foundations of Faith, are conueyed to vs vpon no higher certainty than Moral only, For the nature of them, iust like that Assurance we haue of à Caesar, and Pompey, bear's no greater. Hence he also tell's [Page 506] vs. P. 206. that Moral certainty, may be as great as Mathematical Explained by himselfe and Physical, Supposing as little reason to doubt in moral things, as to their Nature, as in Mathematical and Physical, as to theirs. And afterward. There can be no greater than this Moral Certainty, of the main foundations of all Religion. Reflect Christian Reader. But The Doc­trin is dan­gerous the Verities now mentioned. Christ is our Redeemer. The only Messias, truly God and Man, are the main foundations of Christian Religion, And Conueyed to vs by moral certainty, Therefore Mr Stilling­fleet laies the whole weight of Christian Religion, hitherto held infallibly true, vpon à certainty which may be false. By this con­fused and vndigested Discourse, I hope all will perceiue, what it is to write Controuersies, with half an Insight into Difficul­ties.

2. I proue it first both indigested and erroneous by this vn­deniable Principle. No Authority in Heauen or earth deliuered And Proued Most erro­neous. these Verities ( Christ is the true Messias. Christ is God and Man) vpon Moral Certainty only, Ergo, None can belieue them with so weak an Assent, as is only Moral. The Consequence is clear, For if no Authority conueyed or deliuered the Verities as Mo­rally A two fold Probation. certain only, And I Assent to them with à Belieue only Mo­rally Certain, my Assent is giuen to some 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 these Verities both as Infallible Truths, and infallibly, And I Assent to the Doctrin with à Belie­fe not infallible, but only morally Certain, I leaue by my fallible moral Assent, the true Infallible teaching and Conueying Oracles of Christian Doctrin, and belieue vpon à meer fancied Autho­rity, 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 Manifest. All Teachers of Christian Doctrin conueyed it Infallibly. God's Reuelation, was and is infallible. Christ our Lord and the Apostles taught these Doctrins Infallibly. The Orthodox Church, Disclaim's this petty way of conueying and teaching Chri­stian [Page 507] Doctrin fallibly. Therefore No Authority can be concei­ued, which deliuered such Verities (owned euen by Sectaries essen­tial Doctrins) vpon Moral Certainly only, or Conueyed them fallibly to Any.

4. Hence you se first. This Dilemma cannot be Answered. Either we belieue, That our Sauiour is the true Messias (the like is of all other Mysteries) because God reuealed it, And because A Dilemma Christ himselfe, His Apostles, and the Vniuersal Church euer since taught the Doctrin; Or Contrarywise, we belieue it vpon some other Authority Inferiour to, and distinct from the Infal­lible Testimony of these Oracles. Grant the first, our Faith stand's firm vpon à Testimony both Diuine and Infallible, and therefore Cannot but be Infallible. Say. 2. We belieue vpon another Authority distinct from the Testimony of the Oracles now named, that misplaced Assent, because not resoluable into the first Verity, is no Faith at all.

5. You se. 2. Whoeuer attempt's to turn these high reuea­led A 2. Infe­rence. Verities out of their onw nature of being Infallible, Or rashly presumes, to conuey that Doctrin to vs vpon Moral cer­tainty only, which God by Diuine Reuelation, Christ our Lord, The Apostles also deliuered and Conueyed, as most infallible certain Doctrin, Becomes thereby à publick Corrupter of Di­uine Truths vpon this account, that He transfigures what the first Verity has spoken Infallibly, into weak Topicks and vn­certain Moralities. The Offence is Criminal, and the wrong done to God not pardonable, without à serious Repentance.

6. You se. 3. That No Authority Imaginable vphold's this pretended Moral Certainty of Sectaries in Matters of Faith. And here I desire Mr Stillingfleet to Answer. Will he belieue that Christ our Lord is the true Messias, God and man, becau­se No Autho­rity concei­uable vp­helo [...]'s All Orthodox Christians assent to the Verity? I Answer first. All these belieue the truth with infallible Faith, and why dare not he do so also? 2. If he Assent's because they Vniver­sally consent to the Mystery, He build's his Faith not vpon God's Infallible Reuelation, but vpon the Assent of Others [Page 508] which He saith Should only be moral, and fallible. 3. Will This preten­ded moral Certainty. he belieue the Verity because Heteredox Christians Iudge it true? That's neither God's Reuelation, nor Christ's Doctrin, And Con­sequently his Faith has no foundation. 4. Will he belieue for the Motiues of Credibility preuious to Faith? These considered as Motiues, are nor God's Reuelation, Nor so much as Aposto­lical Doctrin. Besides as we Shall se presently, Protestants haue no Motiues at all to rely on. Finally will He tell vs, He belieues that Christ was in the world and dyed on à Cross, with the same Moral assent as He yeilds to the being of Caesar and Pompey? I haue Answered, that's nothing to the Purpose, For Gentils assent to such Matters of Fact (once Visible and Sensible) by Mo­ral where the main diffi­culty lies? Certainty, And yet are Infidels. That therefore which vrgeth at present, Concern's the hidden and obscure Mysteries of Faith, In the­se Moral Certainty hath no place at all. The reason is manifest For if as reuealed they stand firm vpon God's infallible Testi­mony, No Power vnder Heauen can alter their own intrinsick Infallibility, Or Conuey them vnto vs vpon weak Moral Cer­tainty, yet Mr Stillingfleet boldly Assert's. There can be no greater Certainty then Moral, of the Main foundations of all Religion. Iudge good Reader, whether this be not à gross Mistake, And whether I wrong'd the man, when I told you his Discourse is vndigested, and highly erroneous.

7. Yet we haue not said all. Wherefore because Mr Stillingfleet seem's highly to value This late inuented Nouelty of Moral Cer­tainty, we will examin the Doctrin most rigidly, till at las't the Moral cer­tainty more rigidly exa­mined, whole fallacy be discouered. To do this, my first demand is, to what Obiect will He apply his Moral Certainty in this Mat­ter of Fact? Christ is the Messias truly God and man. These four things and no more, can only be thought of. 1. The Matter belieued. 2. The Diuine Testimony, which reueal's that Truth. 3. The Faith of those who belieue vpon Reuelation, And. 4. The Motiues whereby we are induced to belieue the Truth reuea­led, Four things to be Consi­dered. because God speak's it. Now all know first, that in Material Obiects purely considered in themselues, there neither is, nor [Page 509] can be moral Certainty, For euery thing is, or is not, independently of our Iudgements, where only Moral certainty is founded, there­fore God, and all those who se things intuitiuely, are exempted from this imperfect degree of Knowledge. 2. There can be no moral certainty in the Diuine Reuelation, which proceed's from an infinite Verity, for this without Question is most Supereminent­ly Infallible. 3. If that infallible Testimony, or Reuelation be in­fallibly The efficacy of Diuine Reuelation. applyed to Belieuers, and hath influence vpon their Faith, it cannot but transfuse into it infallible Certainty, if God Speak's infallibly, for this end that we belieue him infallibly, And if Faith rest not vpon that Perfection of his infallible Testimony, it is no Faith at all. Thus we Argued in the other Treatise. Disc. 1. C. 5. n. 7.

8. It remain's, that we now Say à word of the Motiues which what In­fluence The Motiues haue vpon Faith? induce to Faith, and examin what Influence they haue ouer it, when we either belieue the Doctrin in Scripture, or the Churches Defini­tions. Mr Stillingfleet. P. 203. Hauing first told vs, that the Reuelation which was communicated to one, was obligatory to all concer­ned in it, though they could haue nothing but moral certainty for it, Con­cludes thus. By this it appears, that when we now Speak of the reso­lution of Faith, though the vtmost reason of our Assent be that Infallibility, which is supposed in the Diuine Testimony, yet the nearest and most pro­per Resolution of it, is into the Grounds inducing vs to belieue, That such Our Aduer­saries Doctrin. à testimony is truely Diuine, and the resolution of this cannot be into any Diuine Testimony, without à process in Infinitum. He would Say, That à true act of Faith relies vpon two foundations, one remote, the supposed Diuine Testimony, The other most proper and nearest, To wit, the Grounds which induce to belieue, that fuch à Testimony is in being, or truely Diuine. And his reason (if he has any) must be, because these grounds, immediatly Apply, or Conuey vnto vs the supposed Diuine Testimony. Now this Conueyance, or Application of the Testimony, being made by grounds only Mo­rally certain, It followes, that the Faith we elicit Answer's not to the strength of the Testimonies Infallibility (considered in it self) But to the weaknes of the Conueyance, and consequently can be no more, [Page 510] but only à Moral certain Faith, not at all Infallible. And thus you remoues Faith from its own Obiect. se, To lay Faith as low as may be, to remoue it from its own Center, and fasten it vpon no man knowes what moral ground's; Finally to introduce à new, weak, and vncouth way of belie­uing, is the best seruice Mr Stillingfleet can do for God and Chri­stians. But, Ad rem.

9. I Say first. Protestants haue no grounds distinct from the Diuine Testimony, whereby to discouer any one particular Truth, which God has reuealed. I proue the Assertion. These suppo­sed Grounds, are either reduced to the rational Euidence of Chri­stian Religion, already refuted (as laid forth by Mr Stillingfleet) Or to the Doctrin contained in Scripture, And this Saith He. Page The Doctrin refuted. 170. VVe belieue by Faith vpon à Diuine Testimony, which therefore is not the antecedent Reason or ground, Why we belieue it, For no verity Assented to by Faith, can (as assented to) be the preuious Rea­son of our Assent, or à rational ground iuducing to belieue. Therefore we said, our Sauiours Miracles belieued by Faith, when Rational Inducements to Faith are euer presup­posed to Beliefe. we read Scripture, are not the Inducements to belieue them, becau­se an Inducement to Faith, is euer presupposed, and not inuolued in the Act of belieuing. But it is needles to Say more of this, For no man in his wits, if Questioned by either Iew or Gentil, why he belieues the Sacred Trinity, can for the last Answer tell him, He belieues so because [...]e belieues it, or because he read's that Mystery in à book called Scripture. Now besides these proofles Inducements, there are no other imaginable, whereby the Diuine Testimony can be Discouered, conueyd, or applyed to Belieuers, but only those known Catholick Motiues (as Miracles, Sanctity, Conuersions Church Motiues Slighted. of Nations &c) which illustrate the Vniuersal Roman Church, And these Mr Stillingfleet scornfully call's, mute things, à grand Salad too often serued vp, found very dry and insipid. There­fore he has no rational Inducement morally Certain for any one Article of Christian Religion, much less for the Tenets of Protestants.

10. I Say. 2. If the Grounds or Motiues inducing to be­lieue (let these be what this Aduersary pleases) haue Infalli­ble [Page 511] connexion with the Diuine Testimony, or conuince vpon Metaphysical Certitude that God speak's the Truths we belieue, The Assent giuen to the Motiues is not moral, but highly infallible. Contrarywise, if all Motiues preuious Faith cannot be built on Fallible Mo­tiues. to beliefe be supposed so fallible, that they may deceiue, Faith neither is, nor can be built vpon them, Therefore Mr Stilling­fleet Err's in Saying. The nearest and most proper Resolution of Faith is into the Grounds, inducing to belieue, that such à Testimo­ny is Diuine.

11. To proue the Assertion, I demand, Whether God ob­liges all to belieue his reuealed verities, vpon his vnerring Testimony, as the only Formal Obiect, or to belieue for Mo­tiues extrinsecal to that Testimony, which though morally certain, may possibly Deceiue? Grant the first, Faith stand's fast The Asser­tion proued. vpon its own foundation, the Diuine Testimony. Say. 2. It is iointly built on Motiues, as the nearest and most proper Obiect which in rigour may deceiue, it hangs, as it were, Vpon two Heterogeneal Principles, The One most firm and Infallible, The Other weak and fallible; Viz. Motiues which being fal­lible, cannot but contribute as much Weakness to Belief, as the infallible Testimony giues it Certainty, And so these two Principles, by their different Influence, Doe and Vndoe, build and destroy, wind on and wind off: The one imparts infalli­ble Certainty, the other staikes it away, and makes Faith no more, but à fluctuating, moral, and fallible Assent.

12. To aduance this Proof yet further, I Ask Again (if all Diuine Reuelation were by à supposed Impossibility not infallible, but only morally certain,) whether then Christians could belieue the reuealed Mysteries, with à Faith as certain, as they now elicite vpon Reuelation? Answer, Tea. That Perfection of infallibility, essential to Gods Reuelation, would then be vseles and impertinent to Support Faith. Answer, The Proof further ex­plained, con­uinceth. No, or Say Faith, if the Hypothesis stand's, would not be Di­uine and certain. I infer. Ergo, it is neither Diuine nor certain De facto. My reason is. So far, and not further, Gods [Page 512] infallible Testimony or the Diuine Reuelation has influence vpon Faith, as fallible motiues Apply it to Belieuers, or giue it leaue (might one speak so) to Support that Assent, But these fallible Motiues, which immediatly apply the Reuelation to Belieuers, permit it not to raise that Act to any greater certitude, than only moral which may be false, Therefore the Reuelation de facto communicates no more Certainty to Be­liefe, than if it were only morally, and not infallibly certain, For here is our Aduersaries Principle. According to the Proofs and grounds, whereby we discouer the Diuine Testimony to be in Being, We belieue, But all these Proofs and grounds Say only Morally and Fallibly, that the Testimony is now in Being, Therefore faith also can be no more but only Moral, Fallible, and liable to Errour.

13. Hence it followes first, That neither the very Apostles, Ill Conse­quences de­duced out of nor any other Belieuers euer fince that time, had any surer faith than only moral, which may be false. It followes. 2. That the Truth of all Christian Religion, inuolues in it à Possibi­lity of salshood, For being applyed or proposed to vs, vpon Sectaries Doctrin. grounds only fallible and moral, we are to iudge of it, accor­ding to the Exigency and Merit of such weak grounds, And the­refore can esteem it no better than fallible. It followes. 3. (And this I would haue noted) That Faith in these mens Principles, tend's not absolutely into the Diuine Reuelation, but only with doubt and fear, or meerly conditionally. For euery man may rationally Say. Lord if you haue reuealed this truth. Christ is the true Messias. I belieue it as vndoubtedly true, but the certainty I haue thereof, is only Setled vpon Motiues which They make Faith à Conditional Assent. may deceiue me, Therefore my faith can be no more but Hy­pothetical or conditional, to this Sense. If you haue reuealed it, I belieue, if not I reiect it. Hence you se, it were much better (could not the difficulty be otherwise solued) to Say the Mo­tiues preuious to Faith conuince with Metaphysical certainty, that God speak's by his Scripture and Church, Than to make the Reuelation so strengthles that it can (because weakned by [Page 513] fallible Motiues) contribute no other certainty to Belief, but what is Moral, and may be false.

14. And thus much Mr Stillingfleet, could he proced con­sequently This Aduer­sary Pro­ceed's not Consequent­ly. (as he doth not) should Assert. For, if (as he saith) considering the Nature of things, moral Certainty be as great, or beget's as firm an Assent as any Mathematical, or physical certainty, what is it that fright's the man from allowing Infal­lible certainty to Faith? Or what gain's he to Substitute in Lieu of that, another certainty which he call's Moral? For if these two certainties be equally as strong, it is Senless to establish the One, and reiect the Other, but the truth is, in matters of beliefe, moral certitude has no place, as is largely proued aboue.

15. Against this Discourse one may first Obiect. God can An Obiection proposed. oblige all either to belieue what is reuealed, as infallible true to vs, So that there can be no possible Deception in our Belief. Or. 2. He may oblige vs to belieue His reuealed Verities meerly according to the efficacy of such Proofs, as intimate to vs that God Speak's; And why may not Mr Stillingf. build his Faith vpon such Grounds or motiues as the nearest foundation, though the vltimate Principle of belieuing be the Diuine Reuelation? I haue partly Answered. Either those Motiues conuince withall Of no force if the Moti­ues be infal­lible. Metaphysical certitude, that the Reuelation doth actually Exist, and than the Difficulty ceaseth, for the Assent yeilded to them, is infallible; Or contrarywise, They are as Mr Stillingfleet supposes, fallible, And may stand with all their Lustre, though the Reuelation really were not in Being. Speak So; It is most clear, such Motiues cannot support Faith, For all which right reason can draw from them (if not absolutely infallible) is thus much only, That our Christian Verities according to Prudence, If fallible, they vphold not Faith. are euidently credible. But by virtue of that Iudgement we reach not as yet to the infallibility of the Diuine Testimony, Therefore if God obliges all de facto to ground Faith vpon his infallible Testimony which cannot deceiue, He iointly Obliges vs not to The reason hereof. ground it vpon fallible Motiues, which may deceiue, and stand as Mr [Page 514] Stillingfleet will haue it, although God had neuer reuealed any Christian Verity. Again. If we are obliged to free Christian Religion from all Possibility of falshood, That is, if God will haue vs to belieue it as absolutely infallible, We cannot without wrong done to his infinite Verity Say, he obliges vs, to settle faith vpon Motiues only morally certain, or absolutly fallible, for thus He would oblige vs to belieue that as his own Truth; which possibly may not be Truth, but contrarywise, à lie, à falshood, an Errour.

16. 2. Obiect: Now De facto, in this present State there is no Difficulty, For all iudge though the Motiues be fallible, yet A second Obiection Solued. God has reuealed our Christian verities. Answ. All do not iud­ge so, But admit some do, They iudge so by their infallible Assent of Faith, terminated vpon the Verities as reuealed, But antecedently to to beliefe, none can iudge they are infallible reuealed truths, whilst Motiues only fallible ground that Iudge­ment.

17. A 3. Obiection. Suppose Eternal truth had neuer re­uealed A third pro­posed by no Sectary▪ mo­re difficult. the sacred Trinity (the like is of any other Mystery) Suppose also that the whole System of Motiues had then stood in the same vigour and force as now they appear to vs: Would not God and prudence haue obliged vs in that case to belieue as firmly the Trinity, as we now belieue it? I answer. If the Supposition implies no Contradiction, as I verily think it doth; (at least many hold so) Prudence would then haue laid vpon vs an Obligation of firmly belieuing; But what followes from hen­ce? Thus much only, That poor Mortals not seing the depth of things would haue been invincibly deceiued; But Deception is remote from God, for his wisdom penetrat's all Truth, and his Goodnes could not vpon the Supposition haue obliged any Solued. The ground of the Solution. to belieue à falshood, or that to be, which really is not, The­refore he could not in the Case now supposed, haue afforded Diuine Assistance to make Faith supernatural, because the Ob­iect by errour apprehended belieuable, really was not. Thus much is true, and God might haue obliged vs to judge, That [Page 515] the Motiues would then haue made the Mysteries evidently cre­dible (though they were not) yea, and perhaps further to belieue Conditionally, As is said aboue.

18. A. 4 ^.th Obiection. This Proposition is true. We belie­ue for the Motiues, Or, we proue that God Speak's because the Mo­tiues apply and conuey the Diuine Testimony to vs. I distingui­sh the Proposition. We belieue for the Motiues as Inducements, to settle Faith vpon another Obiect. Viz. God's Testimony, I grant A fourth Obiestion solued it. We belieue for the Motiues, That is, We ground our faith vpon them, as either the nearest or more remote Obiect, Why we belieue, I Deny it. Thus the will loues good, because the vnder­standing apprehend's or conueyes good to it, yet loues not the by à clear Instance. knowledge which conueyes it. Fire laid neer to fewel burn's, the approximation burn's not, but is only Conditio applicans, à neces­sary condition applying heat which burn's. So we say the Moti­ues auaile to make it most credible that God speak's, But no more ground Faith, than approximation burn's, or the knowledge, when we prosecute Good, is the Obiect of loue.

19. And here by the way you se Mr Stillingfleets constant Mr Stilling: Constant Errour, discouereds Errour, who makes the Motiues inducing to Faith the foundation of it; That is, in other Terms: He Confound's the Iudgement whe­reby we Assert, the reuealed Mysteries are euidently Credible, with the Assent of Faith it self, And will needs haue the formal Obiect wherevpon Faith is built, not only to be the Diuine Reue­lation but the Motiues also, though they can do no more but [...]ace the VVill guided by reason, to settle belief vpon the infalli­bility of the first Reuealer.

CHAP. V.

1. FRom the Page last cited, to P. 123. I find nothing in Mr Stillingfleet worth any larger Answer than is giuen already. Here He tells vs, That many things in Christian Religion are to be belieued before we can Imagin any such thing, as an infallible Testimony of our Church. It is hard to guess at his meaning, for he names not one Article, thus Assented to. Perhaps he would His meaning obscure. Say, That the Verities reuealed in some books of Scripture, cal­led Protocanonical known by their own proper Signatures or Moti­ues, as the Harmony, Sanctity, and Maiesty of the Style, may be belieued without the Testimony of an Infallible Church. If so; I Answer first. All this Harmony or Maiesty, considered only as Obiects of Sense, or as preuioussly known by their Natural Euidence (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 reiected, And therefore we said aboue, this Sanctity and Harmony The Church reiected, no Maiesty in Scripture can gain Beliefe. are assented to by Faith only, after the Church immediatly Eui­denced by Her Motiues, Ascertain's vs that such Books are Di­uine. I Answer. 2. Grant such Motiues may in some weak man­ner, and particular Circumstances conduce to belieue the Scriptu­res Diuinity, yet in this present State, when we haue à Church most clearly manifested, which both Ascertain's vs of Scripture and the Sense also, it would be no less than an vndiscreet rash­ness [Page 517] to cast off her Authority, (being the most facile and plainest Rule) and in Lieu of Her, to rely on another forrain, vnfit way of Belieuing by Motiues, not half fo clear, and far less conuin­cing.

2. Thus some Diuines Teach, though à Heathen after à due Consideration of the works in Nature, may come to belieue that God will reward Good, and punish Euil, yet none do As­sert, That when our Christian Articles are clearly proposed to An Instance him, by the Pastors and Teachers of the Church, For exam­ple, That Christ dyed for vs. The dead shall rise again. God will reward the iust &c. That then if he reiect Church Authority, he can belieue the forenamed Articles with Diuine Faith. This I Deny, And the reason is, because that way of belieuing, when à It is impru­dent to re­iect we easiest was of Belieuing. more ordinary and facile is proposed, Seem's temerarious and im­prudent, And so it would be, should any now when the Church giues vs full Assurance of the Scriptures Diuinity lay aside Her Authority, and Say. I will alsolutely belieue this or that Truth to be God's word, because I Discouer apparent Signs. of Diuini­ty, in what I read.

3. In the next place, Mr Stillingfleet Quarrel's with à word. The Roman Catholick Church, which, in his opinion, is iust as much as to Say. The German vniuersal Emperour, That is particular and vniuersal together, for Roman restrain's or marks out one Church, vniuersal, includes all. Answ. It is à meer Quibble exploded by A meer quibble ex­ploded by Fathers. the Fathers, particularly S. Hierome. Apolog. 1. aduersus Ruffin. not far from the beginning, who call's the Roman Faith the Ca­tholick Faith. VVhat, Saith he, is Ruffinus his Faith? It is that there with the Roman Church preuail's, or another founded in Origens Writings? Si Romanam responderit, Ergo Catholici sumus. If he Answer's it is the Roman Faith, This Inference is good, we both profess the vniuersal Faith. Therefore Roman and Vni­uersal are here synomimal or words of one Signification, which the Apostle clearly Insinuates. Rom. 1. 8. Your Faith is renowned the whole world ouer. Again. Epist. 16. ad Principiam Virg: circa medium. He showes that the most ancient Saints addressed them­selues [Page 518] to to the Roman Church, Quasi ad tutissimum communionis su [...] S. Hierom's express. Testimonies. portum, as to à place of refuge, or of mutual Communion, which was General, Publick, and belonged to all. Yet more. When, Epist: 57. ad Damasum, This great Doctor positiuely teaches, That he was ioyned in Communion, with no other Society of men then such as adhered to Damasus, S. Peters Successor, ( where vpon the Church was built) And that those who eate the lambe out of this House, were prophane. Did he think ye speak of any one particular Roman Diocess, and not of the vniuersal Catholick Church? It is con­trary to his Discourse, and reason also.

4. Se more of this subiect in the Epistle of S. Athanasius to two Popes, Iulius and Marcus, Read also S. Cyprians Epistle. 52. n. 1. Other Fa­thers Speak with S. Hierome. And S. Ambrose, De obitu fratris, about the middle, and know withall, The word Roman added to Catholick is not to limit the vni­uersal Iurisdiction of that See, But to distinguish Orthodox Be­lieuers from Hereticks, who were professed Enemies of the Ro­man Faith. If therefore we may rightly comprise vnder this word Roman all other Christian Societies, past or present vnited in Why the Ro­man Church was called Vniuersal. belief with this one Mother Church, There is neither Bull nor Solaecism in speech, to call the Roman (euer One and the same in Faith) the vniuersal Church of Christ.

5. Page. 127. To catch Carholicks in à Circle Mr Stilling­fleet Ask's, why we belieue Scriptures to be the Word of God. If we Affirm vpon this Ground; That the Church which is in­fallible Mr Stilling: endeauour more then weak, deliuers them so to vs, He demand's again (and bidd's vs Answer if we can) whether t'is possible to belieue the Churches infallibility any other way, than because infallible Scriptures Say, She is infallible, which implies à plain Circle. Answ. It is very possible, For seing Scripture demonstrat's not ex terminis its own Diuinity, nor can be made euidently credible by any light inter­nal to catch Catholicks in à Circle. to the Book, some other infallible Oracle distinct from it, must necessarily ascertain vs, that the Book is Diuine, And the Doctrin there preserued, is yet pure as the Apostles wrote it. But this Oracle can be no other but the Church which proues Her selfe by Signs and Miracles to speak in Gods name, indepen­dently [Page 519] of Scripture, therefore the first act of Faith, whereby we belieue in à General way the Churches infallibility, relies not (as this Gentleman weakly supposes) on Scripture, But vpon the Church it Selfe, as the most known manifested Oracle. And thus the Circle is easily auoyded.

6. You will se more clearly what I aime at, by one Instan­ce taken from the Primitiue Christians. Ask what induced them to belieue the Apostles Infallibility when they Preached? All No Circle in the Primiti­ue Christians Faith. Answer; They belieued so, because those blessed men imme­diatly proued themselues commissioned Oracles sent from God, and made their Doctrin euidently Credible by sensible Signs and Wonders which surpassed the force of Nature. Very true. I [...] like manner we belieue the Churches infallibility, hauing preuious Motiues as Stronge to belieue that Truth vpon her Authority, as euer Christians had to belieue that S. Paul was infallible, when he preached. If then there was no Vicious Therefore none in our Resolution. Circle in those first Christians Faith, there can be none in Ours, vhilst all of vs haue infallible Oracles, manifested by Superna­tural Signs to rely on: And Those first now mentioned had them before Scripture was written. You will say this Discourse seem's to proue, we cannot belieue the Churches Infallibility vpon the Scriptures Testimony. It has been Answered ouer and ouer, supposing Scripture be one admitted as God's sacred Word, [...]e proue the Churches infallibility so strongly by it against all Aduersaries, who own the Book as Diuine, that none of them shall euer return à probable answer to our alleged Testimo­nies.

7. But what Saith Mr Stillingfleet. Is there no difference be­tween the way of prouing à thing to an Aduersary, and resoluing ones own Faith? Answer yes. But we both resolue and pro­ [...]. We Resolue the first Act of Faith concerning Scripture How we both resolue and proue the Churches In­fallibility. into the Churches infallible Authority, and belieue that Book▪ to be of Diuine Inspiration, because this Otacle saith so. Then we Argue vpon à Principle proued by vs, and supposed, (though not proued) by Sectaries. The Principle is. Scrip­ture [Page 520] is God's word. We read the book which all Christians Say is Diuine, And proue also from it the Churches infalli­bility against our Aduersaries Ex probatis & concessis, That the book is Diuine. Here is no danger of à Circle, nor any fault in this way of Arguing.

8. Yet Mr Stillingfleet makes his Exceptions, and will needs haue the Circle goe on against vs. You proue, Saith he, the Churches infallibility from such Passages. Super hanc Petram. Pasce oues &c. But how come you to know infalli­bly, A reply re­tor [...]ed. that the Sense of those places is as you belieue, For your Aduersaries deny any such thing as infallibility proued out of them? I may Answer first, by proposing the like Question. How do these Aduersaries know that their contrary sense is exactly the true Meaning of the Holy Ghost? Will they tell vs they think so (here is all we haue from them) what am I bet­ter for that? When the Donatists, Pelagians, and all Hereti­ques can think as boldly as any Protestant, And by their de­luded thoughts vnsense, as we se by experience, the most choise and sacred Passages in holy writ. To whom then shall we re­curr in case the Sense be doubtful? I Answer to the Church. O, saith Mr Stillingfleet Here we are got into à Circle again, and though his own words (see them in the page cited, fine) giue no force to his Probation, yet I'le help them on to all the Strength his meaning is capable of. He should therefore Another Re­ply, Answe­red. Argue thus. We belieue the Churches infallibility because the true sense of Scripture sayes, she is infallible. Again, We belieue this very Sense of Scripture to be infallibly true, because the in­fallible Church saith so. I haue Answered. The first Act of Faith wherwith we belieue the Churches infallibility, is not at all founded vpon the true Sense of Scripture, as yet not known ( in illo signo) to be so much as Diuine, but vpon the Chur­ches own infallible Testimony made by it self, and for it self, immediatly credible.

9. Now if we Speak of another Distinct, consequent, and more explicite act of Faith, when we belieue the Churches in­fallibility [Page 521] vpon this ground, That She declares the Scriptures ge­ [...]in Sense which proues Her an infallible Oracle, There is no difficulty at all, Because this very Exposition or Interpretation of Scripture brought to its last Principle, is vltimatly resolued into (and therefore again belieued vpon) the same infallible Au­thority The sense of Scripture resolued, and belieued. of the Church, or rather vpon Scripture and the Churches Interpretation together, For thus iointly taken, They ground Faith, and not like two disparate Principles, As if we first belieued the Scriptures sense independently of the Churches Interpretation, And then Vpon Scrip­ture and Church Au­thority ioyntly. again belieued the Churches Interpretation to be infallible, because the Sense of Scripture known aliunde, or without Depending on Church Authority, Saith she is infallible. This cannot be, if Scripture and the Churches Interpretation Indiuisibly concurr to this lotter act of Faith, whereof we now speak.

10. Here then is à Dilemma that clear's all, and free's vs from the least Shadow of à Circle. We either know (or be­lieue) the Scriptures Sense independently of the Churches in­fallible The Asser­tion Clear [...]d. Interpretation, or receiue it vpon her infallible Autho­rity. Grant the first, There is no danger of à Circle, for in case that Truth were know vpon à sure Principle distinct from the Church, it would be another new and as strong à Probation of her Infallibility, as if an Angel sent from Heauen should interpret Scripture to the Catholick Sense, And then we might Assent to the Churches Infallibility vpon two disparate Princi­ples (which proue not one another). The one Ordinary, the Churches own Interpretation, The other independent and ex­traordinary, Should an Angel or Prophet sent from God, in­terpret. Say. 2. We belieue the Sense of Scripture vpon the This way▪ no two Proposi­tions to ma­ke à Circle of. Churches own infallible Authority, There are no two imagina­ble Propositions to make à Circle of, whilst that Sense internal to the letter, can not be infallibly propounded otherwise, then by the Church.

11. Page▪ 128. I find an vnlearned Obiection much to this Sense. We Catholicks destroy all Possibility of auoiding à Circle, if we proue by the Motiues of credibilty no new Reue­lations [Page 522] Distinct from the old; And this we Pretend not to, For A weak Ob­iection in effect solued. we only seek to euince by these Motiues à Diuine Assistance with the Church in euery thing She Defines, but this Assistance cannot be proued from any other ground, but only from the Promises made in Scripture, Therefore we are still in à Circle, For we belieue the Scriptures infallible, because of the Churches Testimo­ny, and we belieue the Church infallible, because of the Promises in Repeated Again. Scripture concerning the Assistance of the Holy Ghost with the Church, so as to secure Her from all Errour. Here in Effect is the same Obiection repeated again, Therefore I Answer. We belieue not in the first place the Churches infallible Assistance moued therevnto by the Promises in Scripture, For this first General Act of Faith wholly relies vpon the Churches own infallible Te­stimony without depending on Scripture; because Her Testimo­ny One Instan­ce clear's all. is made most Credible to reason by conuincing Motiues, before we belieue, that She is insallibly Assisted. All must Say what I now Assert, For before Scripture was written, The Pri­mitiue Christians belieued infallible Assistance granted the Apost­les in euery Doctrin they taught, being induced to belieue so by the Signes and Miracles which those blessed men Euidenced. In like manner we in this present State, answerable to the Pro­cedure of these Christians, hauing the same Motiues manifest in the Church, may well be induced to belieue, That She both now is, and euer was no lesse Assisted by the Holy Ghost to speak Truth, then the Apostles were, for as much as concern's the Substance and Verity of her Doctrin.