vindicated Deut. 17.8 in his cap. 2. Sect. 12. Mat. 18.17 in his cap. 4. Sect. 15. Mat. 16.19 in his cap. 2. Sect. 7 8 9. Mat. 28.20 in his cap. 4. Sect. 18. 1 Tim. 3.15 in his cap. 4. Sect. 14. Yet fifthly lest I should dismiss the Reader with any dissatisfaction I will give a touch of all the particulars mentioned in the Objection I begin with the 2000 years wherein he says the Church was Judge before the Scriptures were written But what then is the case then and now alike then the Church had no written Scripture Does it therefore follow that now it hath none either Was the Church Judge in questions of Religion Quid hoc ad rhombum Is that the question whether the Church that is the Rulers or Pastors convened in a Synod have a Juridical power is not the question whether these Representatives be absolutely infallible in their decisions of Faith is a Judicial Authority and Infallibility terms reciprocal Would he pull down the Thrones of Princes because they arrogate not Infallibility If he would have concluded any thing he should have said in the Church in those days there was a standing ordinary infallible visible Judge with Jurisdiction over the whole Church If this he go about to prove he will endeavour to derive the Pedigree of their Popes and Councils higher than I thought they pretended I imagined Peter had been the first of the Series but now it 's like they will ascend to Adam I have lookt upon Platina and Onuphrius Catalogues of Popes but there I find not the Catalogue of Antediluvian and Antescriptural Popes from the Creation until Moses time which if the Pamphleter look over his Chronologick Tables again will be found to exceed 2000 years In these times the Church had the same Doctrine for substance which now is written in the Scriptures taught by Patriarchs and Prophets and conveyed by Oral Tradition from Parents to Posterity But because Tradition in it self was not so safe a way for preserving Religion in its purity therefore the Lord was pleased to prorogate the lives of Patriarchs to many Centuries Adam lived till Methuselah was above 200 years old Methuselah lived till Sem was near an 100 and Sem out-lived Abraham So that this Tradition needed not pass through more than two hands betwixt Adam and Abraham for the space of more than 2000 years and withal he raised extraordinary Prophets as Enoch and others Yet notwithstanding all these extraordinary Adminicles how soon was Religion corrupted and the World over-spread with Idolatry and Polytheism But laying aside extraordinary Prophets which the Lord then and in after times raised up it 's more than all the combination of Jesuits can prove that in that interstice of time there was an ordinary standing infallible visible Judge with Jurisdiction over the whole Church which if he prove not he must let me tell him peccat ignoratione elenchi I shut up my Reply to this branch of the Objection with two remarks The first is that Romanists do not agree among themselves concerning their inferences from the state of the Church before the writing of Scripture M. Serjeant and those of the Traditionary way do only conclude from it that Oral Tradition is an infallible mean of conveying truth down to Posterity But the Jesuited party as appears by this Pamphleter would conclude from it the necessity of an infallible visible Judge Their disagreement in this and other matters are a shrewd presumption that they neither have an infallible Judge nor yet infallible Tradition But secondly Learned Tillotson in his Rule of Faith Part. 1. Sect. 4. acutely inverts this whole argument for in that the Lord committed the Doctrine of Religion to writing after that the World had experienced the unsuccessfulness of the former way it seems to be a good evidence that this way by Scripture is the better and more secure It being the way of Divine Dispensations to proceed from that which is less perfect to that which is more and he conceives the Apostles reasoning concerning the two Covenants Heb. 8.7 to be very applicable to these two methods of conveying Religion If the first had been faultless then should no place have been sought for the second But perhaps he is happier in his next Allegation from Deut. 17.8 c. where there is a Judge in the Church of the Jews to be obeyed in matters of Law and Religion under pain of death Who sees not how inconsequential the argument is from the Jewish Church to the Christian The Jewish High-Priests did marry neither were any capable of the Priesthood among them but the children of Priests Will Romanists grant this parallel to hold in the Christian Church Though one man could be competent to govern an National Church such as the Jewish was shut up in one little spot of the earth doth it follow that one man is as capable of an Universal Monarchy over the Catholick Church dispersed through the whole earth Yet neither from this place can be proved the infallibility of the Jewish High Priest or Sanedrim else they should have been infallible not only in matters of Faith but also of Fact For there is expresly mention made of questions of Fact v. 8. between blood and blood plea and plea stroke and stroke all which are to be decided by the testimonies of men and in such Romanists acknowledge both Popes and Councils to be fallible In that Commission Deut. 17.8 9. the Judge or Civil Magistrate is joyned with the Priests and the people are commanded equally to acquiesce in the sentence of both under pain of death I suppose he will not because of this grant infallibility to the Magistrate how then can he infer from it the infallibility of the Church Representative But were the Jewish High-Priests and Sanedrim infallible I shall not stand to enquire how Aaron the High-Priest was stained with Idolatry Exod. 33.4 5. how Vriah the High Priest did make an idolatrous Altar after the Altar of Damascus 2 King 16.11 or what meant these general complaints Isai 56.10 Jer. 6.13 Jer. 14.14 Hos 9.8 Ezek. 22.25 26. c. all which he will find vindicated from the exceptions of Romanists by Learned Whittaker de Concil q. 6. cap. 3. I only enquire whether the High-Priest and Sanedrim did err when they condemned Christ as an Impostor and Blasphemer if they did as none but Infidels can deny then the Jewish Sanedrim was not infallible only it may be asked how did God command obedience to the Sanedrim under pain of death if they were not infallible This Query might be answered by another Do the Penal Statutes of Princes under pain of death prove them to be infallible Was it not said to Joshua Whosoever will not hearken to thee let him be put to death But I answer absolutely that the active obedience to be given to the Jewish Sanedrim was only when they gave sentence according to the Law This is clear from the Text v.
by some Arguments I hope convincing the necessity of this Infallible visible Judge 3. Examine the Cavils and Objections of the Adversary SECT I. The true state of the Question propounded FOr opening the true state of the Controversie it is first to be noted that this Question is not entirely the same with that Whether the Church can erre for there be great Doctors in the Roman Church who hold the Church cannot erre and yet deny the necessity of an infallible visible Judge There are who make the subject of Infallibility to be the defensive multitude of Believers and not the Collective of Pastors far less any Representative cloathed with a Judiciary Authority and least of all the Pope whom some abusively call the Church Virtual as shall appear in Argument 2. Consequently whatever testimonies do only prove that the Collective Body either of Believers or Pastors neither of which do assemble in Councils Judicially to determine Controversies of Religion cannot erre are impertinently alledged It would secondly be observed that Infallibility and Judiciary Authority are things different and separable Princes have Judiciary Authority over their Subjects and Provincial Synods within their respective bounds yet neither do pretend to Infallibility Is it not too gross ignorance in a Jesuit to take a Judge and an Infallible Judge for terms reciprocal Thirdly it is one thing to assert that persons or Judges have an assistance of the Holy Ghost guiding them infallibly bic nunc into the way of truth and a quite other thing to say that there is a Judge to whom a perpetual and infallible assistance is entailed so as the knowledge of his infallible assistance is a necessary prerequisite be 〈◊〉 we an assent of Faith can be given to any Divine Truth The first Protestants grant to Councils whether greater or lesser defining Divine Truths The latter is that which M. Demster asserted often and this his Fidus Achates ought to have proved His Arguments therefore not inferring this conclusion they all trespass ab ignoratione elenchi Fourthly It is granted on all hands that particular Churches and their Representatives may erre Now the Roman Church is but one particular Patriarchate and in her greatest Latitude of which the Pamphleter talks pag. 46. as comprehending all these who live in communion with the Bishop of Rome acknowledging his Headship and Supremacy She is but a part yea and the lesser part of Christendom Whatever Infallibility therefore may be claimed by the Catholick Church yet the Roman Church in whatsoever capacity whether defensive or representative can have no just Title thereunto Was there any Roman Church known in the Apostles days but that to which the Apostle Paul wrote But he writes to Her as one subject to Errour yea and to total Apostacy Rom. 11.20 21. Be not high minded but fear for if God spared not the natural branches take heed lest he also spâ—re not thee Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God on them which fell severity but towards thee goodness if thou continue in his goodness otherwise thou also shalt be cut off Would the Apostle have written at this rate to the Infallible Chair Fifthly Protestants freely grant that the truly Catholick Church hath immunity from Errours opposite to Fundamental Articles or to these Truths the misbelief whereof is absolutely and in all cases inconsistent with Salvation were it otherwise the Catholick Church should totally perish from the earth which cannot be as Protestants firmly believe according to the Scriptures But Romanists not satisfied with this plead for an absolute Infallibility to their pretended Catholick Judgeâ— or an immunity from all Doctrinal Errours in Religion greater and lesser Whatsoever Arguments therefore prove not an absolute immunity of this Judge from the least Doctrinal Errour fall short of the mark Of this distinction of Truths Fundamental and Non Fundamental and consequently of the Errours opposite to these Truths that there is not such absolute necessity in order to Salvation of immunity from the one as from the other there will be occasion to speak at more length Cap. 4. Sixthly Therefore to wrap up all In the Romanists Assertion of the necessity of an Infallible visible Judge these five things are included 1. That this supposed Judge hath an Universal Supremacy or a Juridical Authority over the whole Catholick Church to bind the Consciences of all Christians with his Sentences else he would not serve the necessity of the whole Catholick Church 2. That the priviledge wherewith this Catholick Judge is cloathed is absolute Infallibility or immunity from all Errour greater or lesser in all his Doctrinal decisions 3. That the knowledge of the Infallibility of this Judge is necessarily pre-required to every assent of Divine Faith For this cause do they contend so hard for this priviledge that all Christian Faith may hang at the Girdle of their Infallible Judge 4. That this Judge is visible that is a present Member of the visible Church actually existing upon Earth There is no question but the Lord Christ is Infallible Judge of all Controversies of Religion and that he is visible in his Humane Nature but he is not now visible upon Earth as a present Member of the Church Militant therefore it is another Judge actually existing upon Earth for which they plead 5. That there is a necessity of the existence of this infallible visible Judge upon earth It is beyond doubt that there was an infallible visible Judge in the Church Militant when Christ and his Apostles did converse on earth Now the Jesuited party affirms it must be always so From all these the state of the Question emerges clearly viz. Whether in the Militant visible Church there be always a necessity of a person or persons endued with a Juridical Authority over the whole Catholick Church and with infallible assistance for deciding all Doctrinal Controversies of Religion of whose Catholick Jurisdiction and Infallibility every one must be perswaded before he can give an assent of Faith to any Divine Truth Jesuited Romanists maintain the affirmative we the negative Where it 's to be noted that their affirmative being a copulative consisting of many branches if any one of them fail their whole Cause is gone The proof of this affirmative in all its branches was that which the Adversary should have hammered out had he really intended to satisfie Consciences But any intelligent Reader upon a slender review of his Sect. 3. will see that this he never once endeavours but only with some frothy flourishes to abuse unwary Souls SECT II. Arguments proving that there is no necessity of an Infallible visible Judge in the Church I Might perhaps sufficiently acquit my self-against my Adversary by discovering the emptiness of his Objections yet the supposed necessity of this infallible visible Judge being the Basis of his whole discourse and our Jesuited Romanists laying the whole stress of their Religion on this Hypothesis I judged fit for the satisfaction of those who are not
City of Edinburgh arrogate the Legislative Power over all the Shires and Cities of this Kingdom would it not overturn the Authority of the Kingdom of Scotland when the Roman Church which at her best was but a member of the Catholick does now usurp Jurisdiction over the whole and imperiously would obtrude Heretical Doctrines and Idolatrous Superstitions by a pretended Infallible Authority is not this to overturn the Authority of the Catholick Church And therefore I know none who may fear that threatning of Austin more than the Court of Rome Contra hunc inexpugnabilem murum quisquis arietat Confringetur CAP. III. That the Scriptures are the Principal Compleat and Infallible Rule of Faith the Atheistical Cavils of the Pamphleter notwithstanding THough Protestants do not cheat the World with a pretence of an infallible visible Judge yet with the truly Catholick Church they acknowledge there is an infallible Rule of Faith namely the holy Scriptures of God which are sufficient through the assistance of the Holy Ghost to guide Souls in the way of Salvation But among the manifold impieties of the Papal Religion the indignities put upon the holy Scriptures by Romanists are not the least I shall therefore first give an hint of some of these indignities then briefly open the state of this Question concerning the Rule of Faith and confirm our Assertion that Scripture is the Rule Thirdly examine the Pamphleters four principal Objections And lastly reflect a little on the rest of his Rapsodick Discourse touching this Subject SECT I. Some hints of Indignities put upon the Holy Scripture by Romanists IN the first place They are not afraid to speak most contumeliously of the Scriptures calling them A Nose of Wax a Lesbian Rule inkie unsensed Characters a dead Letter c. It is from Melchior Canus Allertus Pighius Coster the Jesuit and other Romanists that the Quakers have learned these or such like Blasphemies Secondly They make the Authority of the Scriptures as to us to depend upon the testimony of their Church So Gordon of Huntly controv 2. de Eccles cap. 15. and Gretser Append ad lib. 1. Bell. de verb. Dei col 39. Whose ears would not tingle at that saying of Hermannus that the Scriptures should be of no more value than Aesops Fables without the Churches testimony Yet Gretser the Jesuit is displeased with Rullus for charging it with Blasphemy yea Cardinal Hosius in Consutatione Brentii lib. 3. de Author Sacrae Scripturae pag. 148. edit 2. Antwerp 1561. spares not to say Illud pio sensie potuisse dici that it might have been spoken in a pious sense and withal adds this reason Nam revera nisi Ecclesiae nos doceret Authoritas hanc Scripturam esse Canonicam perexiguum apud nos pondus haberet that is for truly if the Authority of the Church he means the Roman did not teach us this to be Canonick Scripture it would have exceeding litle weight with us From that Romish Atheistical Piety good Lord deliver us Learned Rivet in Isagog ad script cap. 3. giveth an account of many such Blasphemies belched out by Jesuit Baylie Coster Petrus Simonis de Toledo and other Romanists Thirdly Romanists have confidence to affirm that the Original Scriptures are corrupted So Gordon of Huntly controv 1. cap. 8 9 11 12. Melchior Canus loc com lib. 2. cap. 13. Leo Castrius Morinus Tirin c. Yea this Pamphleter Sect. 4. makes it a great part of his work to prove that the Scriptures are corrupted both in the Originals and in the Translations Is not this to accuse the Providence of God as suffering the Scriptures which he had given to lead us to Salvation to be corrupted Is it not to charge the Catholick Church of unfaithfulness that she was not more careful of so rich a depositum How desperate must the cause of their infallible Judge be when his Infallibility cannot be maintained unless the holy Scriptures be discredited as corrupt the Catholick Church accused of unfaithfulness and God robbed of the praises due to him for preserving the Scriptures Fourthly Neither is it a small indignity to the Scriptures that they preser the muddy stream of the Vulgar Latine before the Originals of the Old and New Testament Yet that Latine Version was not made by a person acted by a Prophetical and infallible Spirit What confusion and uncertainty they labour under as to the Author of it may be gathered from Ludov. de Tena Isagog Sac. script lib. 1. difficult 5. Sect. 2. yea it hath often been convicted of many errours and therefore that which was extant in the time of the Council of Trent was corrected by Sixtus Quintus that of Sixtus by Clement the 8. and that of Clement the 8. accused by Isidore Clarius of many errours nor can Clement himself absolutly assert its freedom from errour And yet the Council of Trent passing by the Originals pronounces the Vulgar Latin to be the Authentick Scripture Yea Ludov de Tena lib. cit difficult 2. Sect. 4. Says that the Hebrew Text is to be corrected by the Vulgar Latin Such folly is wittily checked by Hicrom Epist 102. ad Marcelldm Si displicet fontis nunda purissimi â—â—nosos bibant rivulos Fifthly Romanists accuse the Scripture of Imperfection as not emtaining all the material Objects of Faith So Eckrius in Enchirid. cap. 4. Coster in Enchirid. lib. 2. cap. 5. Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 3 4. Greg. de Valen. de Analys fidei lib. 8. cap. 6. Gordon of Huntly controv 1. de verb. Dei cap. 28. num 4. says that it is the least part of the Word of God which is contained in Scripture Nay D Beard in Retract Mat. 6. reports that Hosius should have dared to say Melius actum fuisse cum Ecclesia si nullum extaret scriptum Evangelium it had been for the Churches advantage that there had been no written Gospel I tremble to transcribe such Blasphemy doth not the Council of Trent Sess 4. define that unwritten Traditions are to be received paâ—i pietatis affectu with the same reverence and devotion as the Scripture it self Yea they magnifie Tradition above the holy Scripture Hence Spondanus the Epitomator of Baronius spares not to affirm ad annum 53. num 4. Traditiones excellere supra Scripturas that Traditions have an Excellency above the Scriptures and confirms it by this reason Quod Scripturae non subsisterent nisi Traditionibus firmarentur Traditiones vero sine Scripturis suam obtinent firmitatem Sixthly Romanists accuse the Scriptures in their greatest purity with such obscurity ambiguity and multitude of desperate senses that they cannot instruct us in the way of Salvation but as they are sensed by the Romish infallible Judge Hence are many of those ignominious expressions which Coster Melchior Canus Pighius and others belch out against the Scripture as suffering themselves to be wire-drawn by any interpretation Greg. de Valen. lib. 5. de Analys fidei cap. 2. is bold
est Authoritas Infallibilis quae Pontifici Romano quae Ecclesiae sive Conciliis tribuitur nam illa ipsa Authoritas quae in uno Pontifice residet Authoritas dicitur Ecclesiae Conciliorum that is it is the same Infallible Authority which is ascribed to the Pope and to the Church or Councils for the same Authority which resides in the Pope alone is said to be the Authority of the Church and of Councils So that hither the state of the Controversie betwixt us and Romanists is reduced whether the Popish Religion is to be believed to be the only true Religion because their Infallible Judge that is the Pope says so Is not this a goodly case to which Jesuits would reduce Christianity to make all Religion hang at the sleeve of an Usurping Pope Is not the Popish Cause desperate when they have no way to prove themselves to be in the right or us in the wrong but because their Pope a Party and Head of their Faction says so The Hinge then of all Controversies betwixt Romanists and us at least as managed by the Jesuited Party returns hither whether by the Verdict of the Pope as infallible visible Judge or by the holy Scriptures and conformity with the Faith of the Ancient Church we are to judge of the truth of Religion Protestants hold the latter our Romish Missionaries the former let Christians through the world consider whether what they or we say be more rational I am challenged pag. 24. as not having candour for saying that Quakerism is but Popery disguized But there is less candour in the Accuser for I only said if it were otherwise Learned and Judicious men were mistaken His frivolous Apologies are like to confirm these men in their Opinion for many of the Quakers Notions are undoubtedly Popish Doctrines such as that the Scriptures are not the principal and compleat Rule of Faith that a sinless perfection is attainable in time that men are justified by a righteousness wrought within them that good works are meritorious that Apocryphal Books are of equal dignity with other Scriptures that the efficacy of Grace depends on mans free will that real Saints may totally Apostatize that in dwelling concupiscence is not our sin until we consent to the lusts thereof c. If Quakerism were Puritanism in puris naturalibus as this Scribler doth rant how comes it that Quakers have so much indignation at these who go under the name of Puritans and so much correspondence with Romanists with whom before they could not converse Do not Non-Conformists abhor these fore-mentioned Quaker Tenets The differences at which he hints betwixt professed Papists and Quakers do at most prove that Quakerism is disguized Popery if there were no seeming difference there would be no disguize in the business Cannot Romanists chiefly Jesuits transform themselves into all shapes for their own ends Have not persons gone under the character of Quakers in Britain who have been known to be professed Priests Monks or Jesuits in France and Italy My self did hear a chief Quaker confess before famous Witnesses that one giving himself out for a Quaker in Kinnebers Family near Montross was discovered to be a Popish Priest and some Romanists in this place have confessed the same to me Yet the differences assigned by the Pamphleter betwixt Papists and Quakers signifie not very much when they are narrowly examined And first as to Women Preachers do not Papists hold Hildegardys Katherine of Sens and Brigit c. for Prophetesses Not to mention their Papess Joan or how they allow Women to Baptize as is defined in Concil Florent Instruct Armen As for their private Spirit I pray what other grounds hath the Romish infallible Judge to walk upon but Enthusiasms and pretended inspirations For Fathers and Scriptures according to them have not Authority antecedently to his Sentence As for Reformation by private persons the whole work of Quakers is to break the Reformed Churches which is a real deformation and a promoting of the Popish Interest and if there be secret Warrants from the Pope for that end for which there want not presumptions they have as great Authority as trafficking Popish Missionaries Quakers do not say as he alledges that they build on the naked Word if by the Word he mean the Scripture nay in this as in many other things they Romanize by denying the Scripture to be the compleat and principal Rule of Faith I am jealous both Papists and Quakers could wish there were not Scripture in the World Though Quakers seem to make light of Fathers and Councils yet they maintain these Tenets which Papists say are Authorized by Fathers and Councils At least a knack of Jesuitical equivocation will salve all By this time it may appear all he hath said doth not prove that Quakers are not carrying on a Popish design But of these things enough I now proceed to the more important Controversies CHAP. II. There is no necessity of an Infallible visible Judge of Controversies in the Church and consequently the Basis of the Pamphleters whole Discourse is overthrown IT is hard to say whether in handling this Question the Pamphleter in his Sect. 3. bewray more disingenuiâ—y or ignorance For pag. 33 34 35 36 37. more like a Histrionical declaimer than a Disputant He breaths out a most calumorous iâ—vectâ—ve against the Reformed Churches as if they robbed the Cathalick Church of all Judiciary Authority and set up a Law without a Judge Because forsooth they cannot subscribe to this erroneous Assertion of the necessity of an Infallible visible Judge whereby the Jesuited Party endeavour to justifie the Tyrannical Usurpation of the Pope of Rome Neither is this Assertion for which he pleads as the Doctrine of the whole Romish Church approved by all Romanists Nor do they who seem to approve of it agree among themselves who is that pretended Infallible Judge Moreover instead of bringing Arguments to confirm his Assertion from pag. 37. to 43. he rifles out of late Pamphlets a Farrago of Testimonies to prove that the Church cannot erre which as may anone also appear is a different conclusion from that now under debate And though none of these Testimonies when rightly understood do militate against the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches as Protestants have often demonstrated yet he does not examine what Protestants have replied concerning them Lastly Whereas he should have answered the Arguments propounded in the debate with M. Demster against the necessiâ—y of this Infallible visible Judge he frames to himself pag. 43 44 45 46 47. some other Objections which he endeavours to canvase So that I may say he combats throughout that Sect. 3. with a man of Straw of his own making and this is that imaginary Triumph in which our Romish Missionaries and their implicit Proselites have so vainly gloried For satisfaction therefore of the ingenuous lovers of Truth I shall first premise some things for unfolding the true state of the Question 2. Disprove
not this prodigious impiety The Testimony of Gâ—d speaking in the Scriptures shall not be believed for it self albeit it have so strong a confirmation from extrinsick motives of credibility which the infallibility of Pope or Council never had but the testimony of a Pope shall be believed infallible on his bare word Is not this to verifie that saying of our Saviour Joh. 5.43 I am come in my Fatherâ— Name and me ye receive not if another come in his own name him ye will receive Must not these men have either Vaenal Consciences or else be great Masters of their Reason that can lay the stress of their Salvation upon so crazy a Foundation Now 7. I know nothing that remains except with the Quaker they run to Enthusiastical Revelations for this their pretended infallibility And he may remember how in a like case I minded M. Demster of a discourse of Cloppenburg the Title whereof is Papistarum Enthusiastarum discordia concors Only both Romanist and Quaker must give us Protestants leave to desire a sight of their Credentials else we cannot take them for divinely inspired Prophets This one negative Argument is sufficient to prove our negative Hypothesis and to discover the fallacy of this ground of the Romish Religion Perhaps my Adversary will say as another scribling Jesuit E. W. in his vain discourse entituled Protestancy without Principles against two eminently Learned Persons D. Stillingfleet and M. Poole That we must positively prove that there is no infallible visible Judge but I must advertise him to distinguish betwixt our Faith and the rejection of their Errours as no part of our Faith It suffices a Protestant not to believe the necessity of any infallible visible Judge and to declare that to be no part of our Faith and this is abundantly warranted by this one negative Argument Let the Pamphleter try how he can disprove it without Sophistry Argument 2. The Seat of this Infallibility or this infallible visible Judge is not assignable therefore this infallible visible Judge is but a Chymera The sequel I prove Had God appointed an infallible visible Judge upon whose testimony the Faith of all the Christian world should be resolved he would surely have determined who this infallible Judge was else as M. Peole says well in his Appendix against Everard pag. 16. God should deal with the World as Alexander the Great who when he was asked to which of his Captains he left his Empire answered the best but not defining who was best this became a Seminary of contention or as another makes the comparison like the dying Father who having two Sons Leon and Pantaleon and being enquired to whom he would leave his Estate answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereupon the two Brethren fell by the ears the one alledging that he left 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Leon the other that all was left 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Pantaleon Were it not Blasphemy to say that God hath dealt so with his Church assuring us that there is an infallible visible Judge but not revealing who he is if it be not known who he is people can no more resolve their Faith upon his Authority than if he were not if therefore God had intended such a way surely he would have determined who he is It remains therefore only that I prove the Antecedent for which I need no more but give an account of the divisions of Romanists concerning this thing if such an infallible visible Judge were assignable could not Romanists at least who talk so much of him agree upon him But who is such a stranger in the world as not to know their irreconcileable debates about this point The Jesuited party make the Pope alone the subject of this infallibility So Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 3. Valent. Tom. 3. Disp 1. q. 1. punct 7. Sect. 45. Gretser Tom. 1. Defens cap. 10. lib. 3. Bell. de verb. Dei Col. 1450. with whom joyns Stapleton Cont. 6. q. 3. art 5. who affirms that infallibility is potestas â—ratia personalis a personal power and grace given by Christ personae Petri successorum ejus to the person of Peter and his Successors and that it is so peculiar to the person of the Pope that it cannot be so much as representatively in the Council and that it is not only false but Heretical to say that the Pope can err in judicio Fidei in defining an Article of Faith Yea the Jesuits of the Colledge of Clermont as witnesses Hen. Foulis in his Preface to the History of Romish Treasons emitted Theses Anno 1661. affirming that the Pope is infallible Judge of Controversies not only extra Concilium without a Council but also that he is infallible in matters of Fact as well as of Faith which is more than Bell. durst aver as shall appear Argument 6. But there be on the other hand no less considerable Doctors Qui non in Pontifice sed in Concilio Generali constituunt infallibilitatem judicii de rebus Fidei says Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 2. who place this infallibility not at all in the Pope but in the General Council only and for this he cites the Parisian Doctors Gerson Almaynus Alphonsus à Castro yea and Pope Adrian the Sixth Loe here contradictory Opinions touching this thing among Romanists and yet Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 2. hath the confidence to say that all Romanists agree in this that the Pope and the Council cannot err But this is both false on the matter and a perfect Cheat. First I say false on the matter for there be yet a third sort of great Authors among Romanists who do affirm that both Pope and General Council may err in matters of Faith and that the subject of infallibility is multitudo fidelium the diffusive Body of Believers Of this Opinion were Oceam Panormitan Petrus de Alliaco Waldensis Antoninus Cardinal Cusan Nicolaus de Clemanges The places ye will find cited by Learned D. Barron in Apodixi Catholica Tract 5. cap. 19.21 and by H. H. in his Review of the Apology for the Church of Romes infallibility Cap. 1. Sect. 7. I will only cite one short sentence of famous Oceam Part. 1. Dialog lib. 5. cap. 29. 31. where he lays down this conclusion and maintains it Tota multitudo clericorum potest contra fidem Catholicam errare per consequens totus clerus non est illa Ecclesia quâ— contra fidem errare non potest That is the whole multitude of the Clergy may err against the Catholick Faith and consequently the whole Clergy is not that Church which cannot err in matters of Faith But secondly those Romanists who say they do agree in this that the Pope and the Council cannot err do put a Cheat upon the world as is solidly demonstrated by the Learned D. Barron Apodixi Catholica tract 5. cap. 20. for they do not mean that this insallibility is
Council the same judgment is to be passed on them Arg. 9. If Popish Arguments be valid why the Scriptures cannot be the ground of Faith and terminate controversies of Religion then neither can the Sentences of Pope or Council whether taken separately or conjunctly For they may be retorted with equal force upon the definitions of Popes and Councils as shall God willing appear in the next Chapter It were easie to accumulate more arguments from Scripture Reason and Antiquity against this absurd position of Romanists concerning the necessity of an infallible visible Judge but I hope these may suffice who desiderate more I remit them to Whittaker controv 3. de concil q. 6. oâ—ntrov 4. de Pontif. q. 6. to Rivet Isagog cap. 20. to D. Barron Apodex cap. tract 5. cap. 5 6. c. to Chillingworth cap. 2 3. to the L. Falkland his Discourse together with H. H. Review of the Apology to D. Shirman again F. Johnson to D. Stillingfleet's Rational Account of the grounds of the Protestant Religion Part. 1. cap. 8. to M. Pool's nullity of the Romish Faith cap. 4. to Tomb's Romanism discussed in Answer to H. T. his Manual of Controversies Art 9. c. As for the arguments which the Pamphleter attributes to us from pag. 44. to 48. albeit he gives piteous Answers to divers of them yet because they are of his own framing and he adheres not to the Arguments propounded by me against M. Demster I thought not fit to blot Paper at the time in canvasing his Answers thereunto Infallibility is a specious notion but under pretence of an infallible Judge to draw Souls off from building their Faith upon the infallible Rule of holy Scripture to rest on the dictates of fallible and fallacious men is to overturn the very Basis of Christian Religion insomuch that Reverend Joseph Hall in his No Peace with Rome Sect. 5. on this very account asserts Reconciliation with Rome to be impossible I shut up this part of the Debate with the confession of M. Cressy a late Apostate to Popery Exomel cap. 46. Sect. 3. where he acknowledges the unfortunateness of the word Infallibility and professes he could find no such word in any Council that no necessity appeared to him that he or any Protestant should ever have heard that word named much less pressed with so much earnestness as of late it hath been generally in Disputations and in Books of Controversie and that M. Chillingworth combates this word with too much success and therefore he wishes that Protestants may never be invited to combate the Authority of the Church under that notion I know M. Cressy finding that the Jesuited Party were offended at this freedom made a kind of Retractation for this but how disingenuously and unfortunately is shewed by D. Tillotson in the Rule of Faith Part. 2. Sect. 4. pag. 131. SECT III. The Pamphleters Objections for the necessity of an Infallible visible Judge discussed IT now remains that I consider what seems to be of any moment in the Pamphleters Objections They may be reduced to two Heads 1. Scripture mistaken 2. Abused Authority of Fathers I shall take a little notice of both First then from Scripture in his Sect. 3. pag. 38. he scrapes together these testimonies Deut. 17.8 Mat. 18.17 Mat. 16.19 he should have said Mat. 18.28 20. 1 Tim. 3.13 he should have said 15. the Pillar and ground of Truth And to make his Progress seem compleat Was not saith he the Church Judge in Religion for the first two thousand years before any Scriptures were written To which I reply 1. That the Pamphleter seems to have forgot his Thesis Is he not to prove that there is an infallible visible Judge Ought he not then to make use of a medium the Faith whereof doth not depend upon the testimony of this infallible Judge Is not the Faith of the Scriptures their Divine Original the sincerity of the Translation and sense of the words grounded according to this Romanist upon the testimony of the infallible Judge What a jugling circulation then is this to prove the infallibility of the Judge by Scripture which according to them I cannot believe till first I subscribe to the infallibility of the Judge How have Becan Gretser Turnbul c. toiled to sweating to extricate themselves yet still they remain shut up in a circle believing the Scripture for the testimony of their infallible Judge and the infallibility of the Judge for the Scriptures as may appear by the arguing of this Circulator But secondly Doth not this miserable Pamphleter cut the throat of his own cause For pag. 39. he asserts That the Supreme Judicatory whose Infallibility is proved by these Scriptures is a General Council composed of all the Bishops and Pastors of the Church Now sure it is that there is no such General Council in the Church at present nor do Romanists alledge there hath been any these hundred years How impertinently then were these Scriptures brought to prove the actual existence of the infallible visible Judge or if the General Council be that Judge then it evidently follows that the Church may be without that Judge else General Councils should sit without intermission Thirdly The utmost that can be collected from these Scriptures is that Councils have Judiciary Authority that proper General Councils have Supreme Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction for decision of controversies of Religion and have peculiar promises of Divine Assistance for hitting on the right sense of Scripture especially in things that are necessary to Salvation providing they sincerely use the means appointed by God which Protestants do not deny If this were all intended by these Scriptures non infertur elenchus For hence it does not follow that Councils shall always be or that the major part in General Councils shall sincerely use the means appointed by God for finding out truth or that in their decisions they never shall deviate from truth far less that an Assembly of the Popes sworn Vassals such as were those that assembled at Trent are a lawful General Council or have either Jurisdiction over the whole Catholick Church or infallibility in their decisions Let all the Jesuits in Europe try if they can hammer out this conclusion out of any or all those Scriptures Fourthly Have not Learned Protestants a thousand times vindicated those Scriptures from the corrupt glosses of Romanists Ought not this Pamphleter had he intended to satisfie any judicious Reader have confuted the exceptions of Protestants against their Popish glosses But it seems our Missionaries do so brutifie the reason of their Profelites that they swallow down all their Dictates how irrational soever as infallible and unanswerable Oracles I will not trouble this Pamphleter to read large Volums rifling of Pamphlets appears to have been his greatest study I shall only remit him to M. Pool's short but judicious Tractate of the nullity of the Romish Faith where he will find all those Scriptures and many more to this purpose solidly
or then to have confuted what they have said for cutting off Romish inferences from it I shall say but these few things thereof And 1. It might be enough as to the present controversie to tell that Austin does not say except the Authority of a present infallible visible Judge did move me 2. It savours of deceit that the Pamphleter has left out the word Catholicae it 's the Catholick Church Austin speaks of not the Roman But I must in part excuse the Pamphleter for he found it also so mutilated in H. T 's Manual loc cit 3. Have not Popish Authors put considerable glosses on Austin's words which enervate sufficiently all inferences concerning the necessity of an infallible visible Judge Whether they be expounded with Gerson of the Apostolick Church Eorum qui Christum viderunt audiverunt or with Occam of the Universal diffusive Church Sure they make nothing for an infallible visible Judge But fourthly Melchior Canus lib. 2. loc com cap. 8. seems to have hit on the right meaning of Austin viz. that he speaks not of the formal object into which his belief was resolved or of the Primary Rule of Faith but only of a motive which when he was a Manichaean first induced him to credit the Scriptures and so according to the African Dialect he uses the imperfect tense for the praeterit commoveret for commovisset which Rivet in Isagog cap. 3. confirms by many parrallel phrases out of Austin And thus the testimony of the Church has but a place among the motives of credibility which Protestants do not deny This is the more probable because Austin tract 15. in Joh. compares the testimony of the Church to the testimony of the Woman of Samaria But sure it is her testimony was but an introductive mean to the Faith of her Fellow-Citizens not the formal object or principal ground thereof Hence said they Joh. 4.42 Now we believe not for thy Saying but because we have heard him our selves 5. Not to add more Learned Calovius de Author Script Sect. 36. hath observed a various Lection in that place of Austin that an old Copy printed at Basil by the care of John Amberbachius reads it thus Nisi Ecclesiae Catholicae Authoritas me commoneret It was very easie for inadvertent Scribes to turn n to v And this reading does yet further confirm that Exposition of Rivet Melchior Canus and others as if the testimony of the Church were Commonitorium quoddam non principium fidei a certain Commonitory not the principle or ultimate ground of Faith What is said of this place may also sufficiently vindicate that other parallel testimony of Austins in that same Book cap. 4. where there be three things which confirm the Exposition given one is that Austin uses the proeter perfect time Quia per eos illi credideram another is Si forte in Evangelio aliquid apertissimum de Manichaei Apostolatu invenire potueris where he supposes that the Gospel speaks clearly without the interposition of the sentence of an infallible Judge And thirdly He clearly holds forth that the Church of whose Authority he there speaks is not to be restricted to any visible Judge but to be extended to the Body of sound Christians and therefore calls it Catholicorum Authoritatem This is yet further evident from cap. 3. that he dreamed not of any infallible Authority in the present Church for there he gives an account of his being in the Catholick Church from the consent of People and Nations from that Authority which was begun by Miracles nourished by Hope encreased by Charity and confirmed by continuance Sure then he resolved not his Faith into the infallible testimony of the present Church By this time I hope it appears that all the Pamphleter hath brought for the necessity of his infallible visible Judge are either false citations or meer Paralogisms To shut therefore up this discourse I cannot but notice that ordinary Cheat of Romanists when ever they find any high Elogies of the Catholick Church these they appropriate to their Roman that is to their infallible visible Judge who in the sense of the Jesuited party is the Pope However to decline the odium they seem to talk of a Council An instance of this we have in a testimony which the Pamphleter cites pag. 37. for his infallible visible Judge from Austin Serm. 14. de verbis Ap. where indeed Austin makes honourable mention of the Catholick Church but hath not one word through all that Sermon of the Roman or of an infallible visible Judge yea in it he disputes against the Pelagians acutely from Scripture and therefore concludes cap. 16. proinde nemo nos fallat Scriptura evidens est Authoritas fundatissima est fides Catholicissima est in cap. 13. In prosecution of a Scriptural Argument he draws a confirmation a consuetudine Ecclesiae from the custom and practise of the Universal Church in her Rituals of Baptism holding Infants for Believers and not from any definition of a visible Judge and thereupon gives these Elogies to the Church cap. 14.18.21 which surely must be understood of that Church from which he took the confirmation of his argument against the Pelagians but that was not from the Roman Church nor from the sentence of an infallible visible Judge but from the practise of the Catholick and that founded in Scripture Hence those two go together in him Hoc habet Authoritas matris Ecclesiae hoc fundatus veritatis obtinet Canon What I pray is that established Canon of Truth but the Holy Scripture I acknowledge Austin justly condemns them cap. 16. who endeavour quatere fundamentum Ecclesiae to shake the Foundation of the Church Let them be held for Hereticks that shake the Foundation of the Church whether Papists or Protestants Two Foundations I find in holy Writ one is Christ Jesus according to that of the Prophet Isai 28.16 Behold I lay in Zion a Foundation a Stone a tryed Stone a precious Corner stone a sure Foundation which is luculently expounded of Christ 1 Pet. 2.4 5 6 7. Doth not Bell. shake this Foundation when he is bold Praesat ad lib. de Pontif. to expound that Divine Oracle of the Pope of Rome as if he were the Foundation of the Catholick Church O execrable Blasphemy Again the holy Scriptures are mentioned as a Foundation of the Church Hence is that Ephes 2.20 Built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone that is on the holy Scriptures written by them Did not Jesuit Baylie snake this Foundation when he was not afraid to say that there is no more Faith to be given to Scripture than to Titus Livius were it not for the testimony of their Romish Church Let never my Soul come into the secrets of these Blasphemers Romanists are still prating of the Authority of the Catholick Church but who do so much infringe the Authority of the Catholick Church as they Should the
and examined by this principal Rule of the holy Scriptures It 's true D. Sanderson de oblig Conse praelect 4. Sect. 14 15. denies the Rule of Faith and of Life to be adequately the same supposing that natural reason in some things may be the Rule of Life and the rather seeing Heathens had a Rule to which in some measure they might conform their actions which could be none else but Reason and the innate principles of Morality But the Rule of Divine Faith must be Divine Revelation which the said Learned Doctor with other Protestants maintains against Romanists to be Scriptural Yea further he acknowledges Sect. 15.19 the Scripture to be the adequate Rule of Life also in so far as our actions are spiritual and directed to a supernatural end As for Romanists so well are they served by their infallible Judge and so far are they from that Unity whereof they boast that they are broken into a multitude of Opinions touching the Rule of their Faith and Religion For first many old School-men as Aquinas 2.2 q. 1. art 10. and Part. 3. q. 1. art 3. in carp Scotus Prolog in sent q. 2. Durand Praefat in lib. sent seem to affirm with us that Scripture is the compleat Rule of Faith wherein all supernatural Truths necessary to be believed are revealed But secondly Bell. lib. 4. de verb Dei cap. 10. Be an Theol. Schol. Part. 3. Tract 1. cap. 7. Sect. 5. and others say that the Scripture is only a partial Rule the compleat Rule consisting of the whole Word of God written and unwritten There be others thirdly as Alphonsus à Castro lib. 1. cont haeres cap. 5. Greg. de Val. de Analys fidei lib. 5. cap. 2. Suarez de tripl virt tract 1. disp 5. Sect. 2. Sect. 5. Petrus à S. Joseph in Idea Theol. Moral lib. 3. cap. 2. Resol 5 6 7. who say that the compleat Rule comprizes not only the Scripture and unwritten Traditions but also the definitions of the Church i. e. of Pope and Council But fourthly there appears another party among them who would degrade the Scriptures from being any part of the principal Rule of Faith at all ascribing that entirely to Tradition For this Learned Rivet in Isagog cap. 3. cites among others Albertus Pighius saying Legem Christianam differre à vetere quod Traditionis tantum sit non Scripturae that the Christian Law in this differs from the old Law that it consists only in Tradition Jesuit Coster also lib. 2. Enchirid. cap. 1. makes only the perpetual Tradition of the Church to be the principal Rule of Faith Christus enim nec Ecclesiam à chartactis Scriptis pendere nec membranis mysteria sua committere voluit For Christ saith he would not have his Church to depend upon Paper-writings neither would he commit his Mysteries to Membrans Chamier lib. 1. de can cap. 2. Sect. 9. shews the same to be the Doctrine of Caranza which being objected in a Dispute to Gautier the Jesuit Gautier seemed so much ashamed of it that he undertook to get it Censured with a deleatur by Papal Authority But though they have expunged many things that made for the honour of Scripture whereof Chamier ibid. Sect. 10. gives instances from Quivoga's Index expurgatorius yet that impious Doctrine of Caranza so derogatory to Scripture stands for what I know without Censure to this day Yea Bell. himself though with one breath he acknowledgeth the Scriptures to be a part of the Rule of Faith and lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 1. adorns them with that high Elogy as being certa stabilis regula Fidei yet with another as it were revoking this lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 12. Sect. Respondeo ad majorem peremptorily denies this to be finem proprium praecipuum Scripturae ut esset regula fidei sed ut esset cemmonitorium quoddam the proper and principal end of the Scripture to be the Rule of Faith but only that it might be a certain Commonitory Fifthly M. Whâ—t Rushworth and Serjeant have made no little noise of late with the notion of Oral Tradition as being the Rule of Faith The difference betwixt these two last Opinions may perhaps be taken thus according to the Opinion of Coster Faith must be resolved into the Tradition of the Church thorough all successive Ages from the time of the Apostles to this day but according to M. Whyt and his Complices into the Oral testimony of the present Church Sixthly and lastly Gordon of Huntly in Epitome controv Tom. 1. controv 2. cap. 15. makes the Rule of Faith to be the definition of the present Church which says he gives not only testimony but Authority to the Scriptures and this appeareth to be the mind of this Pamphleter For pag. 75. he says When Questions arise concerning Scriptures the Doctrine of Fathers yea and Traditions themselves then all is to be resolved into the definition of the present Church that is surely into the sentence of their infallible visible Judge By all which it may appear Romanists have no certain Rule of Faith they being so divided about it But though like Sampson's Foxes they look contrary ways yet they agree generally against us unless you except those Ancient School-men to assert that Scripture is not the principal and compleat Rule of Faith In this Negative Quakers who make their Enthusiasms and Light within to be the Rule of Faith do joyn with Romanists in opposition to us It is observable that though some diversity may be found in the writings of Reformed Divines in expounding the formal object of Faith yet so far as I have hitherto learned they are all agreed in the great Point now under debate viz. That the Scripture is the principal and compleat Rule of Faith For they who hold as do the most the formal object of Faith to be a compound of the Veracity of God and of Divine Revelation do accordingly affirm Scriptural Revelation to be the principal and adequate measure or Rule according to which we are to judge of all material objects or Articles of Faith They likewise who conceive the formal object of Faith solely and entirely to consist in the Veracity of God alone as doth Learned and Judicious M. Baxter in the Preface to Part. 2. of his Saints Rest do yet acknowledge that Scriptural Revelation is the principal mean by which the Veracity of God is applied to all the material objects or particular Articles of Faith and consequently by them also the Scripture is held to be the chief and compleat Standard Measure or Rule by which all Articles of Faith are to be judged In this surely M. Chillingworth Richard Hooker Richard Baxter c. agree with other Protestant Authors The difference betwixt these Divines as to this appears reducible to that School-question whether Divine Revelation be a part of the formal object of Faith or only a condition requisite that we may upon the Veracity of God
Scripture if they say from Oral Tradition then Oral Tradition should rather be the Rule of Faith than the sentence of the infallible Judge which I doubt if the Jesuited party will admit I appeal to all the Romanists in the world to instance one Article of Faith conveyed down by Universal Tradition and not contained in the Scripture Is there any dogmatical Controversie betwixt Romanists and us for which they pretend not Scripture Is not this a practical testimony to the fulness of Scripture as comprehending all material objects of Faith which at other times they dispute against The chief difficulty that here can be moved is that Scripture cannot prove its own Original to be Divine or define the number of Canonical Books Not to insist upon many things which may be replied this alone at this time may suffice that though what is objected were true yet Scripture would not cease to be the Rule of Faith it being sufficient that the Rule of Faith doth determine all questions about the material objects of Faith whereas the Books of holy Scripture are either a part of the formal object of Faith or at least a condition belonging thereto or to speak more plainly they are the Rule of Faith it self Nay this is such a Pedantick Sophism as if to use M. Chillingworth's example in his safe way to salvation cap. 2. Sect. 27. When a Merchant shewing his own ship containing all his stock says all his substance is in such a ship one should infer that either the ship were no part of his substance or that the ship were in her self whereas the Merchants expression imports no more but that all his goods distinct from the ship were contained therein So if Scripture be able to determine all questions of Religion concerning the material objects of Faith though those which relate to its being the Rule receive Evidence another way it loses nothing of this property of the Rule of Faith And to shew that Romanists are no less concerned in this objection than we I ask if they can assign any Rule of Faith that can resolve all questions which may be moved concerning it self as whether Oral Tradition or the definition of the visible Judge be the Rule or which soever of these be pitched upon can it prove its own infallibility can it resolve what Articles of Faith are only to be learned by unwritten Tradition and not at all by Scripture or who is the subject of Infallibility whether the Pope or Council or both conjunctly Is it not like that before they produce a Rule of Faith to resolve these and such like questions they will betake themselves to our Answer that it 's not requisite that the questions which concern the being of the Rule of Faith be resolved by the Rule it self only I must mind them that these things must at least have evidence from some other head which I doubt will hardly be found concerning the questions last mentioned But the questions which they move to us concerning the Divine Original of the Scriptures and the number of Canonick Books receive a clear determination partly from the motives of Credibility as Romanists themselves confess concerning all the Books which we hold as Canonical The like cannot be said of their Apocrypha Books as shall appear Sect. 3. and Append. 1. to cap. 7. and partly by the intrinsick Characters of a Divine Original for those are inherent to all the Books of Scripture and to no other writing consequently those give evidence of their Divine Extract though not by a formal testimony I shall not here insist upon the reflex testimony which Scripture gives to its own Divine Original 2 Tim. 3.16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God or of the ground which is given Rom. 3.2 to disprove the Apocrypha Books as no part of the sacred Canon of the Old Testament in as much as the Scripture of the Old Testament was delivered to the Jewish Church which certainly never owned the Apocrypha Books as part of the Scriptures as is clear from Josephus lib. 1. against Appion Yet because we must first suppose the Divine Original of those testimonies before we argue from them therefore I rest on what I have said What need I more so full are the Scriptures that Basil Serm. de vera fide concludes it a manifest falling from the Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a certain proof of pride 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either to reject any thing thing that is written or to introduce any thing that is not written Fourthly Doth the Authority of the Scriptures depend upon any prior Rule if there were any should it not be either Tradition or the definition of the Church not Tradition The most that the Council of Trent dared to say for Traditions was to equal them with the Scripture to be received pari pietatis affectu but if they were a Prior Rule upon whose Authority the Authority of Scripture did depend they should be preferred to the Scripture I acknowledge Tradition to have a chief place among the motives of Credibility preparing us to believe the Scripture Tradition I say not of the Church only but also of Infidels Yea the testimony of Infidels in this case may perhaps be more convincing than the testimony of the Church for Enemies cannot be supposed to be corrupted by interest to give testimony against their own selves Nor will I hope Romanists be so impudent as to say that the testimony of Infidels is the Rule of Faith If Tradition of the Church were to be the Rule either it must be the Tradition of the Church under this Reduplication as being the Church or as the Tradition and testimony of such prudent men Not the first for the Church cannot be known as a Church but by the proper notes of the Church and these cannot be had but by the Rule of Faith this being a part of our Faith that these are the proper notes of the true Church and consequently I must first know the Rule of Faith before I know the Church under the reduplication of a Church This I suppose will be found to be demonstratively conclusive If therefore the Tradition of the Church only as the testimony of prudent men be said to be the Rule a meerly humane thing should be the principal Rule of the Christian Faith and Religion which I believe no Christian unless he be of a Socinian impression will admit I confess the concurring testimony and Tradition of so many prudent men who cannot be supposed to have colluded together upon any base design to cheat the World may be so far convincing as to shew that there is no rational ground of doubting the Divine Original of the Scriptures and so may remove those prejudices which might have impeded our discovery of those intrinsick Rays of Majesty resplendent in the holy Scriptures which are the chief Evidence of their Divine Original But besides giving and not granting that our â—ssent to the Divine
Original of the Scriptures were only founded upon the Churches Tradition yet it doth not follow that the Churches Tradition should be the principal Rule of Faith Which I illustrate by two examples It 's granted by all that the Veracity of God is the formal object of Faith if not in whole yet in part but the first assent that is given to the Veracity of God is surely founded upon Natural Reason Yet School-men themselves will not admit that those Natural Reasons which prove the Veracity of God are the formal object of Faith as may be seen in Lugo de fide disp 1. Sect. 6. and Carleton Tom. 2. Theol Schol. disp 3. Sect. 2. 3. Who would be further satisfied how Natural Reason is not the Rule of Faith and Religion albeit Religion and Faith do presuppose Reason I most remit them to the Debates of our Divines against Socinians and to those betwixt the Paradoxal Author of Philâ—sphia Scripture Interpres and Vagelsangius c. Only now I conclude à pari though Tradition alone should prove the Divine Original of the Scriptures yet would it not necessarily follow that Tradition were the principal Rule of Faith I add another example suppose the King sent a Letter to his Subjects containing his pleasure as to sundry particulars of moment although the testimony of a Trusty Bearer might give Evidence that the Letter were truly the Kings yet would it be the Kings Letter and not the Bearers testimony that would be the rule of the Subjects obedience The Application is obvious The same reasons demonstrate that neither can the definitions of the Church be the first Rule of Faith for we must know the Rule of Faith before we know the Church as a Church it being by the Rule of Faith that we have the knowledge of the notes of the Church Nay further the Church is built upon the Foundation of Prophets and Apostles Ephes 2.20 that is upon the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament for as Esthius well observes Prophets and Apostles are said to be the Foundation of the Church ratione Doctrinae in respect of their Doctrine but the Doctrine of the old Prophets was only preserved entirely and incorruptly in the Scriptures for that the Traditions of those times were vitiated Christ witnesses oftner than once Shall the Law of the most High God receive Authority from his Creatures Did Moses when he received the Law from the mouth of the Lord wait for the suffrages of the Church or their Representatives to make it Authentick Whence have we the knowledge of the infallible and reciprocal notes of the Church but from the Scripture Then surely the belief of the Scripture must be presupposed to the distinct knowledge of the true Church consequently our Faith cannot ultimately be resolved into the definitions of the Church Fifthly and lastly Is not the Scripture a publick Standard of Divine Truth whereby the Church may convince Gain-sayers Doth not the Apostle 2 Tim. 3.16 say that the Scripture is profitable for reproof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for evident conviction Did not Apollos Act. 18.28 mightily convince the Jews by the Scriptures Hence Athanasius Orat. cont gentes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the sacred and divinely inspired Scriptures are abundantly sufficient for the Declaration of the truth Nor do I doubt but the arguings of Protestants from the Scripture leave Convictions upon Jesuited Romanists albeit through interest and prejudice they stifle them and study Cavils against the clear light of Scripture Can either the secret Enthusiasms of a Quaker be such a publick Standard and mean to convince others or yet the Enthusiastick decisions of the Romish pretended infallible Judge seeing he neither can give Evidence of his Infallibility nor infallible grounds upon which he pronounces his sentences else upon those grounds without his sentence people might be convinced of the truth By these hints I hope it may appear that the properties of the Rule of Faith do exactly agree to the Scriptures but no more to the decisions of the Romish infallible visible Judge then to the Enthusiastick fancies of Quakers I may not now digress to confute Quaker whimsies concerning the light within which they make the Rule of Faith which I hope e're long shall be accurately done by the Pen of a Learned and Judicious person in this place If the judgment of Antiquity as to this matter be required it were easie to fill a Volum Take only a few touches Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 1. calls the Scripture the Pillar and Ground of Truth Chrysost in 2 Epist ad Cor. Hâ—m 13. calls the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the exact Ballance Rule and Canon or all things Greg Nyssen lib. 〈◊〉 câ—nt Eunom in Append. operum Basilii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Jesuiâ— Gretser being Interpreter In omni dâ—gmate optima judicandi ratio est divinitus inspirata scriptura the divinely inspired Scripture is the best Rule by which we can judge of every Article of Faith Basil Epist 80. ad Eustath calls the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Law and Rule of that which is right Athanalius in Synopsi anchoras sustentacula fidei the Anchors and Pillars of Faith Austin lib. 2. de bapt cont Donat. cap. 6. Stateras divinas Divine Ballances Tertull. lib. 4. cont Marcion cap. 3. the Christian digests alluding to the Civil Law which is a Rule in Law cases and Cassied lib. 1. Instit cap. 12. and 15. by a like allusion the Pandects Bede is very express as cited by Gratian caus 8. quesi 1. cap. 28. that the Scripture is unica credendi vitendi regula the only Rule of Faith and Life These things being so clear I will now examine the Objections of the Pamphleter which if they conclude any thing make as strongly against themselves or any Rule of Faith they can pretend to yea serve as well to prove that the Scriptures are no ground of Faith at all as that they are not a ground of the Religion of Protestants In truth they are Cavils more beseeming an Atheist that would overturn all Religion than a Christian yet least he should say his Arguments were not answered I shall take them to consideration SECT III. The Pamphleters four principal Objections against the Scriptures being the compleat Rule of Faith discussed OBjection first He enquires pag. 50. whether I make the Scriptures as translated or at in the Original Tongues the Rule of Faith and ground of our Religion Not as translated because Chamier lib. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 15. D. Fearly whom he calls D. Daniel in his Treatise the Dippers dipped pag. 1. and D. Barron tract 1. cap. 2. pag. 46. say that Translations only are Authentick in so far as they agree with Originals Now those Original Tongues of Hebrew Greek and Syriack not one of a thousand understand And further saith he our Translations are censured by Protestants Zuinglius accuses Luthers Version of Errours Luther himself confesses
in the custody of Christian Churches How could Jews corrupt all these Is not this Cavil of the general corruption of the Original Scriptures so impious that many Learned Romanists have appeared against it such as Joannes Isaacus Professor of the Hebrew Language at Colen in his Book entituled Defensio veritatis Hebraicae Sacrarum Scripturarum adversus Lindanum Ludovicus Vives in lib. 15. August de civ Dei Arrias Montanus in Praesat ad Bibl. interlin Sixtus Senensis lib. 8. Biblioth Sanct. Haeres 2. where he expresly says Dici non potest divinas scripturas veteris Testamenti aut Judaeorum aut Christianorum malignitate falsificatas yea he reckons the contrary Opinion as a pestilent Errour and Heresie Not to mention Pagnin Vatablus Marcus Marinus besides many others cited and followed by Lud. de Tena Isagog Sac. Script lib. 1. diff 3. Sect. 2 3. Bellarmine himself lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 2. charged Jacobus Chrysopolitanus and Melchior Canus for maintaining as this Pamphleter does that the Jews had corrupted many things in the Original Bible as men not having knowledge proportioned to their zeal However Bell. affirm that some few places in the Hebrew be corrupted wherein also Learned Protestants have laboured to shew his mistake yet he concludes Caeâ—erum non tanti momenti sunt ejusmodi errores ut in iis quae ad fidem bonos more 's pertinent Scripturae Sacrae integritas desideretur They who would see the purity of Original Scriptures asserted at length against Romanists I remit them to Chamier Panstrat Tom. 1. lib. 12. Rivet in Isagog ad sac script cap. 8. Gerard in uberiori explicatione loc de scriptura cap. 14. Calov Crit. sac de puritate fontium Sect. 93. where the last Author musters up seventeen Arguments for the purity of them to which only I add D. Owens Judicious Tractate of the integrity and purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of Scripture But against this it is first alledged by the Pamphleter that it 's doubted in what Language same parts of Scripture were written Answer Some question indeed hath been made concerning the Language wherein the Gospels of Mat. and Mark and the Epistle to the Heb. were written but of none else I confess Ancients generally have supposed that Matth. Gospel was first written in Hebrew not only Jerom Praefat. Evang. ad Damas Epist 123. but also Irenaeus Origen Eusebius Athanasius Epiphan Chrys August c. yet this their Opinion seems to have been founded upon the Tradition of Papias a man of more Antiquity than Judgment says Euseb lib. 3. Hist Eccles cap. ult And there are Eminently Learned men of Opinion that it was first written in Greek with whom Cardinal Cajetan does joyn neither are the Arguments contemptible by which they are thereunto induced But however even those who maintain that Matthews Gospel was written in Hebrew do yet acknowledge that it was translated into Greek by a person infallibly inspired by the Holy Ghost some by John the Apostle some by James and generally others by an Apostle or Apostolick person and that the Gospel of Matthew in the Greek was always used in the Christian Primitive Church as Authentick Barradius the Jesuit as is testified by Lud. de Tena in Isagog lib. 3. diff 2. Sect. 1. thinks that Matthew himself wrote this Gospel both in Hebrew and Greek I know Baronius prefers the Authority of Matthew in Hebrew to the Greek Dico saith he quod Graecus textus cujus fidei sit nisi collatus cum Hebraeo originali affirmare minime possumus but learnedly is that impious errour of the Cardinal continued by Casaubon in apparat exercit 16. cap. 115. pag. 678. The like I say as to the Epistle to the Hebrews that many have judged that it also was written in the Hebrew Tongue yet there be not only Learned Protestants but also Romanists in the contrary Opinion The Apostles Argument cap. 9. from the nature of a Testament is a strong presumption that it was written in the Greek the Argument concluding forcibly from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not so from the Hebrew Berith yet it 's also agreed that at least it was transcribed into the Greek Tongue by an Apostolick person whether Luke or Clement I am not to dispute As for Mark it 's true Baronius and Bellarmine affirm it was first written in Latin if so how then was the Latin Church so unfaithful as to lose that Original Latin written by Mark that being the only Book in Scripture that can be alledged to have been written in Latin For the present Latin Version of the Gospel of Mark is surely translated from the Greek as Cornel. à Lapide in his Preface to his Comment on that Gospel does not only confess but demonstrate by several passages of Mark 's Gospel That fancy of Baronius as if Mark 's Gospel had been first written in Latin is expresly contradicted by Jerom Praefat. Evang. Austin lib. 1. Concordiae Evangelist and Isidore Hispal Praefat. lib. Test Novi who affirm that all the Evangels except that of Matthew were first written in Greek yea the Cardinal is solidly confuted by a Popish Bishop Lud. de Tena Isagog lib. 3. diff 6. Sect. 2. who says its certum apud omnes that Marks Gospel was written in Greek What need I more as to this seeing Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 7. confesses Quod Graeca editio Novi Testamenti universa Apostolos Evangelistas Authores habeat since therefore we have the Greek Edition of all the Books of the New Testament we have the Scriptures in those Languages wherein holy men infallibly inspired by the Holy Ghost did write them The second allegation of the Pamphleter is that Calvin and Luther do sometimes call in question the purity of the Originals What then Are Calvin or Luther with us infallible Judges of Articles of Faith as Jesuits make the Pope May not this allegation be compensed in regard Eminent Popish Authors asserted the purity of the Originals I have looked that place of Calvin lib. 1. Instit cap. 13. cited by this Pamphleter and can assert that Calvin has nothing to that purpose throughout all that Cap. for in it he only disputes concerning the Trinity Nay I find the very contrary in that Book cap. 8. Sect. 10. yea and Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 2. censures Calvin as preferring too great purity to the Hebrew Text and calling it Purissimum Fontem Luther likewise and his Followers as Chemnitius Gerard Caloviâ—s c. are most zealous Assertors of the purity of the Originals If any thing any where have dropt from those men derogating from the purity of Originals it would but argue a piece of humane frailty in them and of as gross inconsistencies I can convict both Cardinals and Popes It is alledged thirdly that there be to the member of 800 various Lections in the Hebrow Text if he speak of the Keri and Kethib according
Galeat ad lib. Regum in Prol. ad lib. Solom in Praefat. ad Danielem in Epist ad Paulinum that Bell. lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 10. is constrained to grant him to us It 's true indeed the Apocrypha Books which the Council of Trent has Canonized were not acknowledged by the Church in those times as Canonical And this was one of the seven instances of the contradiction betwixt the present Romish Church and the Ancient Christian yea the Ancient Romish Church in my Answer to M. Demsters eighth Paper pag. 171. which this Pamphleter has not adventured to examine One thing I must confess that the Epistle to the Hebrews which both Papists and Protestants acknowledge to be truly Canonical was not received as such for a long time by the Church of Rome if we may believe Eusebius lib. 3. Hist Eccles cap. 3. or Jerom Epist 129. ad Dardanum who expresly says that Latinorum consuetudo Epistolam ad Hebraeâ—s non recipit inter Canonicas Scripturas Yet notwithstanding this failure of the Roman Church Athanasius Nazianzen Hierom c. held it for Canonical which is a pregnant Evidence that the Authority of the Books of Scripture in those days depended not on the testimony of the Church of Rome But here the Pamphleter seems to hint at the Council of Carthage as holding the Apocryphal Books as Canonical I suppose he means Concil Carthag 3. Can. 47. but this Council is below Primitive Antiquity being celebrated either in the close of the fourth or beginning of the fifth Century And if Romanists stand to the Canons of that Council the Supremacy of the Pope is gone For Can. 26. it's expresly prohibited that the Bishop of Rome be called Summus Sacerdos princeps Sacerdotum aut aliquid ejusmodi Neither are all the Apocryphal Books included in that 47 Can. for neither in the Greek Code nor in the Collection of Canons made by Cresconius is there mention of the Books of Maccabees neither are the rest of the Apocryphal Books which are there mentioned spoken of as strictly Canonical for proving Articles of Faith Is it probable that the Fathers in that Council would contradict the Council of Laedicea and Jerom who expresly denied those Books to be Canonical Yea did not Greg. after this Council of Carthage lib. 9. in Job cap. 13. exclude the Books of Maccabees from the Cauon of Scripture therefore these Books are only termed Canonical as Books which may be read in the Church For in no other sense did the Council of Carthage own them as is insinuated in the close of that same Canon 47. where also it 's added that the passions of the Martyrs may be read in the Churches with these Books But sure it is the passions of the Martyrs are no Canonical Scripture The Council of Constantinople in Trullo Can. 2. approves both the Synod of Laodicea which excludes the Apocryphal Books from the Canon and that of Carthage which reckons them among the Canonical therefore surely this of Carthage took the word Canonical in a larger sense than that of Laodicca else the Council of Constantinople had approved contradictory Canons This same also may be confirmed from Austin who was a prime Member of that Council for lib. 2. de doct Christi cap. 8. where he had reckoned out all these Books he says they were not all of equal Authority but all Books of Scripture are of equal Authority What need I more Hear their own Cardinal Cajetan as to this thing in fin Comment ad Hist lib. v. T. Ne turberis novitic si alicubi repâ—reris libros istos inter Canonicos supputatos vel in sacris Concilii vel in sacris doctoribus libri isti non sunt Canonici ad confirmanda ea quae sunt fidei Possunt tamen dici Canonici ad aedificationem fidelium utpote in Canone Bibliae ad hoc recepti autonisati Cum haec distinctione discernere potenis scripta Augustini scripta in Provincialibus Conciliis Carthaginensi Laodiceno and this distinction Cajetan took from Hierom Praesat in Proverb and Ruffin in expâ—s Symb. What he adds concerning Luther does not concern the Cause Were it true that Luther doubted of the Authority of the Epistle of James it would only conclude that he knew but in part and what then Non emnia vidit Bernardus Though the Scriptures be a Principle in Divinity yet some holy men may question the Divine Original of some Books of holy Scripture For there is need of spiritual illumination to discern the Scriptures of God and as the Spirit breaths where he lists so also in a more eminent measure upon one than another Do not Romanists hold Cardinal Cajetan for a Catholick who yet really did question both the Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of James Yea have not some principles of Reason been questioned by learned Philosophers which are admitted by others Is it not a principle of Mathematicks that a quovis puncto ad quodvis punctum licet ducere rectam lineam Yet is it not questioned by Learned Basso if there be a right line in the world But concerning Luther in this matter I remit the Reader to Gerard the Lutheran in uberiori exiges loc de script cap. 10. Sect. 279 280. where Gerard Apologizes for Luther and evicts that Luther did not persevere in that mistake and withal acknowledges and proves the Divine Authority of that Epistle The Pamphleter in his fourth Objection pag. 68. affirms that this is common to Protestants with all Hereticks to la yelaim to Scriptures To this common â—avil of Romanists as may be seen in Greg. de Val. lib. 6. de Analys fidei cap. 8. and Breerly Apol. tract 1. Sect. 10 subd 2. and tract 2. cap. 1. Sect. 1. I answer 1. That it is a manifest falsehood that all hereticks do appeal to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the adequate Rule of Faith as do the Protestant Churches What meant Tertull. lib. de Resurrectione carnis when he termed Hereticks Lucifugas Scripturarum what meant that of Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 2. cum ex Scripturis arguuntur in accusationem convertuntur Scripturarum Doth not Euseb lib. 5. Hist cap. ult testifie that Artemon the Heretick did appeal to Tradition pretending that his Heresie viz. that Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a meer man had a Traditive conveyance from the Apostles and that in the Church of Rome also until Pope Victors time inclusivè Doth not Learned D Morton in his Appeal against Bâ—eerly lib. 2. cap. 25. Sect. 12. Sect. 39. shew that Learned Romanists Aquinas Bell. Sixtus Senensis Justus Barronius Delrio Rhenanus and M. Weston do confess that the most notorious aad pestilent Hereticks such as the Valentinians Gnosticks Marcionites Basilidians Encratits Severians manichees Arrians Carpocratians Montanists Donatists Anabaptists c. refused to be tryed only by Canonical Scripture and did shelter themselves under the pretext either of Philosophical principles
Câ—ntroversies as M. Menzies will have Let all the Papers betwixt M. Denster and me be read and it shall not be found that ever I asserted the Scripture to be Judge of Controversies Indeed I do assert the Scripture to be the Ground and Rule of Faith and I suppose when Protestants affirm the Scripture to be Judge of Controversies they mean no more But because I knew how apt Papists are to cavil upon the term Judge I did ever purposely wave it But this is the Jesuitical Candour he hath used in all his Criminations against me The Genius of this Scribler will yet more appear by his stating of this Question betwixt Romanists and us pag. 75. which he propounds thus Catholick Romans saith he build their belief upon Scripture not taken as they fancy but as explained by Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church and the unanimous consent of the Fathers and if any doubt arise of both these on the general definition and decision of the present Catholick Church But Protestants says he as M. Menzies holds ground their Faith on Scripture which they have corrected or rather corrupted as clear in it self or made cleaâ— by diligent reading and conferring of places with prayers and as they imagine a well-disposed mind that is a prejudicate Opinion It is hard to say whether he discover more perverseness of folly in representing the state of this question Take these few observes upon it And first if Romanists build their Faith upon the Scriptures as expounded by Traditions c. then Scripture contains all Doctrines of Faith and Traditions serve only to expound the Scripture And yet he affirms pag. 62. There be Articles of Faith such as Persons in the Trinity Sacraments in the Church c. which he denies to be found in Scripture Either then in this state of the question he does not declare the adequate ground of the Popish Faith and so sophisticates with his Reader when he would make him believe that they build all their Faith on Scripture or else contradicts both himself and the current of Romish Doctors who maintain unwritten Traditions not only for expounding Scriptures but also for confirming Articles of Faith not contained in the Scripture Secondly He dare not commit the explication of Scripture either to Tradition or the unanimous consent of Fathers and therefore he keep the definition of the present Church as a Reserve in case of doubts concerning these and of doubts which may be mâ—ved concerning the sense of Traditions and of the testimonies of Fathers And therefore all must be ultimately resolved on the definition of the present Church they mean the Popish Church So that when all comes to all their Faith is built upon the word of their Pope or Council for nothing else can he mean by their present Church But thirdly seeing the decisions of Faith are remitted unto the present Church that is Pope or Council when the case is dubious concerning the sense of Scriptures Traditions and Fathers what is now left to be a ground for the Churches definition but either Enthusiasm or a Fancy So that by this very state of the question when it s well pondered the ground of the belief of the present Romish Church is because she fancies so Fourthly In this state of the question he speaks as if Romanists were all agreed concerning the Rule of Faith or Judge of Controversies the contrary whereof is apparent from what we spake both in the former question concerning the infallible visible Judge and also here concerning the Rule of Faith Are M. White M. Serjeant M. Holden Rushworth and other Patrons of the Traditionary way of the same Opinion touching the Rule of Faith and Judge of Controversies with Jesuits Fifthly Doth he not represent us as building our Faith on corrupted Scriptures Is not this an evidence of a most desperate Cause when we must be so perfidiously represented So far are Protestants from building on corrupted Scriptures that we appeal to the pure Originals and decline no mean for finding out the sense of Scripture ever acknowledged by the Catholick Church Yea to cut off their Cavils of this kind Learned Protestants as M. Baxter Key for Catholicks Part. 1. cap. 31. have offered to dispute the Controversies of Religion out of the Vulgar Latin or out of the Rhemists Translation Sixthly He would imply that we had no regard to Tradition or to the consent of Fathers In this he belyes us egregiously We are so far from excluding them from the means of expounding Scripture that we have a Venerable esteem of them when a Tradition is truly found to have been received by the whole Catholick Church in all Ages and when Fathers do unanimously consent in Doctrines of Faith But we must have further Evidence for an universally and perpetually received Tradition or Doctrine unanimously approved by Fathers then the partial testimony of the present particular and Apostate Church of Rome Dare Romanists remit the Controversies betwixt them and us to those Tests of Apostolick Tradition or unanimous consent of Fathers Have they Apostolick Tradition for their Adoration of Images Invocation of departed Saints substraction of the Cup from the people Purgatory Fire their Divine Authority of Apocryphal Book the Supremacy of the Pope above Councils and Princes c. none but either an Ignorant or he whose Conscience is Venal and Mercenary can affirm it But I may give a more particular account of these hereafter I add but a seventh Note When he mentions the means which we affirm ought to be used for finding out the true sense of Scripture such as the conferring of places of Scripture and prayer which I suppose none but an Infidel can disallow he reckons forth a well-disposed mind which he interprets a prejudicate Opinion What Candour I have met with or am to expect from them let any judge by this their Commentary upon my words when I require a well-disposed mind to the right understanding of the Scriptures that is saith my Adversary a prejudicate Opinion Doth he not discover himself to be a person to which his own Apocrypha Text Sap. 1.4 In animam malevolam non introibit Sapientia may most fitly be applyed Pag. 73. He flourishes with an old Argument against the Scriptures being Judge of Controversies The Judge of Controversie saith he ought to give a clear sentence which the learned and unlearned may equally understand but thus doth not the Scripture and to this purpose He alledges some testimonies from S. Ambrose S. Austin that there be wonderful depths in Scripture and from Vincentius Lyrinensis that Hereticks such as Novatus Sabellius Arrius c. have put various interpretations upon Scripture To this I answer first Non infertur Elenchus though all this were granted it only proves that Scripture is not the Judge of Controversies which is not asserted by me neither is it otherwise asserted by Protestants then as the Law is said tâ— be a Judge Hence was that of Aristotle
him make what he will of D. Field's testimony dare Romanists own all the Assertions of Gerson Cajetan Cassander Clemanges Picherell Espencaeus c. who were famous men in the Latin Church if they dare they must condemn the present System of the Romish Faith if they dare not why then press they me with singular Assertions of D. Field or D. Taylor ought they not to deal as they would be dealt with Pag. 79. He cites a Relation of Rescius de Atheismo that in the space of 60 years there were 60 Synods all agreeing on the Scripture as the. Rule yet parted without concordance Answ If this be that Stanislaus Rescius mentioned by Possevin in apparat he appears by his Book entituled Ministro-Machia to be a malevolous person and consequently not worthy of credit But though the truth of the relation were admitted yet it derogates nothing from the Scriptures being the Rule of Faith it only speaks forth either the weakness of mens judgments or the strength of their passions Does not Nazianzen complain that in his time he had never seen the good issue of any Synod yet then the Controversie was not of the Rule of Faith but of material objects of Faith Though Romanists pretend to have advantages for terminating Controversies by their infallible visible Judge yet have they not been able to terminate the debates of Jesuits and Dominicans de gratia or of Franciscans and Dominicans concerning the Conception of the Virgin Mary or betwixt Molinists and Jansenists How many debates have been at the Court of Rome about these things and yet the dissentions are as wide as ever Themselves therefore must confess that the continuance of debates doth not always reflect upon the Rule of Faith but often flow from mens interests or prejudicate Opinions Towards the close of that page he cites a passage from Tertullian lib. de praescript which sounds very harshly That in disputing out of Texts of Scripture there is no good got but either to make a man sick or mad What if I should do as Bell. lib. 1. de Christo cap. 9. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 8. and lib. 1. de Beat. Sanct. cap. 5. who rejects Tertullians testimony when it makes against him as of an Heretick and Montanist yet I will not be so brisk That Golden Book of Prescriptions was written by him before he turned Montanist And as Davenant says de Jud. controvers cap. 8. totus noster est is wholly for us for in it he overturns the Foundation of Popish unwritten Traditions namely that though the Apostles preached unto all things that are necessary to be believed yet there were some secret mysteries which they delivered only to some that were more perfect This Tenet now owned by Papists Tertullian charges upon Hereticks cap. 25 Confitentur Apostolos nihil ignorasse nec diversa inter se praedicasse sed non omnia volunt illis omnibus revelasse quaedam palam universis quaedam secreto paucis demandasse And in confutation of them cap. 27. he subjoyns Incredibile est vel ignorasse Apostolos plenitudinem praedicationis vel non omnem ordinem Regulae omnibus edidisse If you then ask what meant Tertullian by the words cited in the Objection Answ He is speaking of Hereticks who either did reject the Scriptures or did mutilate and corrupt them or did recur to unwritten Traditions and therefore immediately after the words cited by the Pamphleter Tertullian adds cap. 17. Ista Haeresis non recipit quasdam Scripturas si quas recipit adjectionibus detractimibus ad dispasitionem instituti sui invertit I confess there is little profit in arguing against such from Scripture We do not argue from Scripture against Infidels who deny Scripture Tertullian therefore is speaking of such Hereticks who are not to be admitted to Disputation which lib. 1. cont Marcion cap. 1. he calls Retractatur but with whom prescription is to be used Now Prescription signifies a Legal Exception whereby an Adversary is kept off from Litis-contestation Had Tertullian universally condemned arguing against Hereticks from Scripture as folly and madness he had convicted himself of this evil who argues so frequently from Scripture Yea lib. de carne Christi cap. 7. he is so peremptory as to say Non recipio quod extra Scripturam de tuo infers and lib. de Resur car nis cap. 3. Aufer Haereticis quae cum Etbnicis sapiunt ut de Scripturis solis quaestiones snas statuant stare non possunt Well might Tertullian who lived a little after the Apostles Appeal to the Doctrine of Apostolick Churches the Doctrine having been till that time preserved pure in them But now the case is greatly altered after the succession of so many Ages all these Apostolick Churches have been stained with Errours by the acknowledgment of the Roman except her self and others are ready to affirm no less of her and perhaps upon as solid ground Yet when Tertullian appeals to Apostolick Churches he enumerates cap. 36. the Churches of Corinth Philippi Thessalonica and Ephesus no less than the Roman so that he attributes no more Authority to her than to others Lastly pag. 80. after he had repeated what had been examined in the former Section that Religion was before Scripture He asks if Protestants be assured by Scriptures of what they believe why may not Romanists also seeing they likewise read Scripture pray and confer places are more numerous acute learned want Wives work Miracles and convert Nations Here be very big words Sesqui-pedalia verba But may not I first use retorsion thus Are Romanists perswaded from Fathers Councils or Traditions of what they believe Why then may not Protestants who read Fathers and Councils as well as they and search after those things which are conveyed by Universal Tradition and I hope Protestants are not contemptible either for number or learning though we do not restrict the Catholick Church to those who go under the denomination of Protestants and besides our Doctrinal principles have an eminent tendency to Holiness May not Jansenists and Dominicans say they submit their Doctrine to an infallible Judge as well as Jesuits that they read and consider the Bulls and Definitions of Popes as well as Jesuits why then should not they be as capable to find the true sense of these Bulls and Definitions as Jesuits Yea might not Heathens have used this Argument against the Ancient Apostolick Churches for the number of Henthens were greater and their Learning not inferiour nor wanted they pretended Miracles Doth not this retorsion discover the frothiness of these Topical Rhetorications But secondly these vain Clamours may be sufficiently confuted with that word of our Saviour Maith 11.25 and that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 1.20 Where is the Wise Where is the Scribe Where is the Disputer of this World Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this World And ver 26 27. Ye see your Calling Brethren how that not many wise men
there and therefore I say all those errors mentioned in the Objection may be upon the matter confuted by Scripture as I have shewed concerning some of them cap. 3. And the like might be done as to the rest if I were not loth to blot Paper with impertinent Controversies Before I leave this question I must yet take notice of three testimonies objected by the Pamphleter pag. 103. from Chrysost Epiphan and Austin For though they were long ago objected by Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 7. and have been fully vindicated by Chamier Whittaker Davenant Strange c. yet they are here propounded as if nothing had been replyed to them I begin with the last from Austin lib. 5. de bapt contra Donat. cap. 23. because in it the Pamphleter says that Austin affirms a Fundamental namely Infant baptism not to be contained in Scripture This citation demonstrates that the Pamphleter has never read Austin for in that cap. he has nothing of the Baptism of Infants but only says that the custom of not rebaptizing those who had been baptized by Hereticks was received by Tradition Neither is this a Fundamental else S. Cyprian had erred Fundamentally who still adhered to his Opinion of Rebaptization though as Austin in that same cap. says he were pressed both with the custom of the Church and Pope Stephens Authority to the contrary Nor could Austin mean that the custom of the Church in this thing was not warranted by Scriptural Authority for frequently he disputes that same point of Rebaptization against the Donatists from Scripture as lib. 1. cap. 7. lib. 2. cap. 14. lib. 4. cap. 7.24 lib. 5. cap. 4. lib. 6. cap. 1. c. consequently Austin only meant that there was no express prohibition of Rebaptization in terminis or that there could no example from Scripture be produced of receiving one into the Church who had been baptized by a Heretick without Rebaptization Both which we grant and yet affirm with Austin and the Catholick Church that Scripture affords sufficient ground against Rebaptization His other testimony is from Epiphan Haeces 61. we must use Traditions for the Scriptures have not all To this it 's answered that Epiph doth not there speak of Fundamentals The point which he is asserting is that it 's a sin after Vowed Virginity to Marry which is a truth for either there is sin in vowing rashly not considering what strength there is to perform or by breaking the Vow unnecessarily if there be strength to abstain Yet Epiphanius in the same place affirms that in the case of Vowed Virginity it 's better to Marry than secretly to Fornicate or as he expresses it occultis jaculis sauciari the contrary whereof is asserted by Bell. Coster and other Romanists However I hope Romanists are not so large in their Fundamentals as to make that one But secondly it 's answered by D. Strang lib. 2. de script cap. 21. pag. 546. that Epiphanius doth not there speak of simply unwritten Traditions for that unwritten assertion of the sinfulness of Marriage after a Vow of Virginity he there confirms from that Scripture 1 Tim. 5.11 and therefore he must call it unwritten only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it 's not set down expresly and in terminis in Scripture albeit it may consequentially be deduced from it I add thirdly and lastly though Scripture contain all Fundamentals yet there may be much use of Traditions as a motive of credibility to introduce Faith or to clear the meaning of Scriptures or about historical things c. In this third place I take notice of that testimony of Chrysâ—st in 2 Thes 2. where he says that the Apostles did not deliver all things by writing Is this the present question whether the Apostles did deliver all things in writing No surely but whether all Fundamentals or all things necessary to salvation be committed to writing Now Chrysost in the place cited has nothing to the contrary of that nay Hom. 3. on that 2 Epist to Thess cap. 2. he expresly affirms that all things necessary are clearly revealed in Scripture consequently he cannot mean that there be some Fundamentals not contained in Scripture unless he did contradict himself This is enough to discover that the testimony of Chrysost does not militate against our present Assertion whether Chrysost mean by those things which he says the Apostles wrote not only Rituals as Chamier conceives Panstrat Tom. 1. lib. 9. cap 19. Sect. 31. or the particular examples of the pious lives of Apostolick persons which might be conveyed down to these times by Tradition as Rivet supposes in Cathol Orthodox tract 1. quest 9. or Traditive Expositions of difficult Scriptures Orally delivered by the Apostles as Chillingworth insinuates in his defence of D. Potter cap. 3. Sect. 46. is not our concern at present to enquire As Christ did many things which are not written so is it probable that the Apostles taught the Churches many things Orally and particularly did expound to them difficult places in their own writings But as the memory of the unwritten works of our Saviour is quite lost so also have the Traditive Expositions of difficult Scriptures perished many Ages ago insomuch that the Ancient Fathers are broken into many different Opinions concerning obscure Scriptures By which it appears that Records are a more faithful keeper than Reports Had the knowledge of the unwritten works of our Saviour or of the Traditive Expositions of Scriptures given by the Apostles been preserved they ought to have been firmly believed but seeing God has permitted the memory of them to be lost he hath also freed us from the obligation of believing them And so much of the second question I now proceed to SECT III. Whether all be Fundamentals which the Church imposes as Fundamental ANswer negatively But the Pamphleter pag. 91 and 92. and and other Jesuited Romanists affirm Where it must be observed how grosly the Pamphleter does misrepresent the state of the question pag. 90 91. as if the question betwixt us were Whether a man may either suspend his assent or positively dissent from lesser things when they are revealed by God and propounded to him by the same Authority with the most necessary Articles of Faith And he charges Protestants as maintaining the affirmative part of the question as thus stated But this is a notorious prevarication For all Protestants do acknowledge that we are bound to believe whatever God is pleased to reveal unto us yea not to assent to the least material object of Faith when it is known that God has revealed it were an impeaching of the Veracity of God and so hainous a trespass that if continued in should assuredly damn eternally Nay further as acute M. Chillingworth observes Part. 1. cap. 3. Sect. 15. He that believes though erroniously any thing to be revealed by God and yet will contradict it is hainously guilty of derogation from the Veracity of God The most that Protestants affirm
dayly Sacrifice omne aliud publicum officium cultus divini So Tirin the Jesuit and before him Bell lib. 3. de Pont. cap. 7. If then Scripture Fathers Papists use as broad expressions concerning the prevailing of error why are the expressions of Protestants so Rated Consider sixthly that though it be granted that there were errors in the Church yet it doth not follow that the whole body of Popery as now it is was acknowledged to be always there as this impudent Pamphleter would infer Pag. 136. that all the Articles in Pope Pius confession of Faith were owned by Councils and Fathers of the first three ages Yea and he is bold to say that heerupon I am bound to turn Papist Let any man squeez his whole Book and if he have evicted that noe Father or ancient Council maintained the whole Systeme of the present Romish Faith I will be a Romanist I cannot but have their Religion in greater abhorrency when I see that they have no other way to support it but by manifest calumnies and such inconsequential discourses some Fathers erred in some things as is acknowledged both by Romanists and Protestants therefore the whole present Romish Religion was owned by Councils and Fathers in the first three ages a most ludibrious inconsequence The mistery of iniquity wrought but by degrees the Papacy came never to its full subsistency till the Council of Trent there be particulars there enacted as Articles of Faith which never were so before Verily Popery is nothing but a complex of innovations brought in by peece meal What is the scope of Flaccus Illiricus his Catalogus testium veritatis but to give an account of the witnesses of truth in all ages since Christ as any Popish error did creep in and appear in the Church What is the scope of Vsser his tractat de success Eâ—lefiarum in occidente but to shew the continuance of the Religion which Protestants profess in all ages though Popish errors in progress of time were still abroaching What should I speak of Morney's Mysterium iniquitatis of Voetius his desperata causa papatus of Mortons appeal Prideaux de visibilitate Ecclesiae Moulin de novitate Papismi c. All which and many more have made it their work to demonstrate the perpetuity of that Religion which Protestants profess notwithstanding what ever corruptions in the Church and have convicted the Romish Church of manifold innovations And therefore in my tenth Paper against Mr. Demster I desired him to shew me where the present Romish Religion was before the Council of Trent But this the Phamphleter never touches as if he were deaf upon that Eare. He only brings some broken testimonies from this or that ancient to give some plausible colour sometime to one and sometime to another of their Popish tenets and therein he often prevaricats also but he never shews that the whole complex of their Religion as now it stands was before the Council of Trent far less always From these six considerations I suppose it may evidently appear how sophistically this Pamphleter and others of his Fellows do misrepresent Protestants as to this matter I shall shut up this discourse with two testimonies one from learned Mr. Hooker another from Bellarmin The judgment of Protestants as to this case is excellently delivered by Mr. Hooker lib. 3. of Eccles pol. pag. 86. Papists saith he aske us where our Religion did lurk before Mr. Luther as if saith he we were of opinion that Luther did erect a new Church Now the Church of Christ which was from the beginning continueth to the end of which Church all parts have not been equally sincere and sound The other shall be of their own Bellarmin lib. 3. de Eccles milit cap. 13. It s to be noted saith he that many of ours do but loss time when they labour to prove that the Church cannot absolutely fail for Calvin and the rest of the Hereticks so he is pleased to design us do grant it Page 130. He has two reflexions upon my appeal to the Fathers of the first three Centuries wherein he imagins he has discovered some acutness But they are but spongious bulrushes and already confuted yet I shall mention them 1. he enquires why I appeal to the Faith of the Church in the first three ages more then in after times Was her Doctrin then purer her condition more Flourishing or her Authority then greater He may find the same objection answered in my Paper 7. against Mr. Dempster from pag. 130. to 135. and paper 10th pag. 215.216 It seems this man is not acquainted with the writings of the more Learned Jesuits for Greg. de Val. in 3. part disp 1. q. 1. punct 6. disputes this question at length Whither they who lived next to the Apostles did not eo plenius divina mysteria nosse understand more fully Divine Mysteries then others of after-times and concludes the affimative tracing the foot steps of Aquinas their Angelike Doctor Now therefore only in a word I say that though the Churches Authority was not then greater nor her condition as to outward prosperity so flourishing yet then her Doctrin was more pure and she flourished more in Holiness then had she aureos Sacerdotes though ligneos calices Is it any wonder that a stream run purer the nearer to the Fountain When hath the truth of Doctrin the beauty of holiness shined more then when the Church has been labouring in the Furnance of fiery presecution Told I not expresly paper 10. pag. 216. that I never intended to restrict this enquiry to those ages alone only pleading to begin at them but this Romanists would willingly decline All their seeming advantages are from the more corrupt times of the Church They aske where our Church was before Luther which has been often sufficiently cleared But we aske at them where their Religion was in the first three ages and much lower also which never was yea never will be sufficiently cleared Take their Religion as it is set forth by Pius quartus confession of Faith and in the Council of Trent and let all the Jesuits upon the face of the earth find it out in the first three ages of Christianity if they can How far the broken fragments which this Pamphleter filches from his Fellows are from performing this work shall I hope be seen in Gap 7. The second reflexion is If I appeal to the Faith of the Church of the first three ages then I must acknowledge one infallible visible Judge Answer I deny the sequel was it to any representative of the first three ages which I did appeal Is it not acknowledged that in the first three ages from that Council at Jerusalem Act. 15. there was no general Council which together with a Pope is made by this Pamphleter the infallible Judge Was it not to the Faith of the diffusive Catholike Church to which I did appeal to which neither Papist nor Protestant ascribes a juridical
Justin Martyr Irenaeus Origen Macarius Athanasius c. yea is bold to conclude Thes 1. nec secus qui senserit quisquam adduci potest To spare time in transcribing testimonies that one of Vineent Lyrin in commonit cap. 34. may suffice for all quis unquam said he ante profanum Pelagium tantam virtutem liberi praesumpsit arbitrii adhuc in bonis rebus per actus singulos adjuvandum necessariam Dei gratiam non putaret Yet Jesuit Molina in concerd cap. 14. art 13. disp 19. memb 6. Says a man may love God above all and may overcome a grievous temptation without grace yea Arriag in 1.2 tom 2. tract de div gr disp 41. Sect. 2. n. 1. Says that a man in his fallen estate has a Physical natural power without grace to keep the whole law So much indeed we cannot grant to Pelagius both Scripture and Antiquity clearly contradicting Scripture Joh. 15.5 2 Cor. 3.5 And Antiquity hence is that Concil Araus 2. can 22. Nemo habet de suo nisi mendacium peccatum I confess Jesuits grant for I would not wrong them the necessity of grace to acts which merit eternal Life and thereby they endeavour to elude the Testimonies of Scripture Fathers and Councils asserting the necessity of special grace unto good Works But as neither Scripture nor Fathers nor Ancient Councils do acknowledge that any Works of ours do properly merit eternal Life So neither do they hold that a man without the special grace of God can love God above all and keep the whole Law Secondly we likewise assert the powerful efficacy of grace in the conversion of sinners so that however it may be resisted and opposed by corruption yet never conquered August haeref 88. blamed Pelagius quod gratiam non libero arbitrio praeponeret sed infideâ—â—â—lliditate supponeret that he did not subject free-will to graâ—ce but contrary wise by Heretical craftiness grace to free-will Naâ—â—o not Jesuits who deny the efficacious and inexpugnable power of grace subject grace to free-will Is it not free-will with them which determins grace and not grace which determins free-will and put they it not in the option of free-will to make grace efficacious or inefficacious Doth not Augustin frequently make this difference betwixt the grace of the state of innocency and the medicinal grace after the fall that the grace of the state of innocency was only adjutorium sine quo non or possibilitatis grace which gave man power to do good but medicinal grace is adjutorium quo voluntatis grace which gives both to will and to do as the Apostle phrases it Phil. 2.13 here himself lib. de corrept gra cap. 11. prima gratia est qua fit ut habeat homo justitiam si velit secunda plus potest quia fit ut velit and cap. 12. by that auxilium quo subventum est infirmitati voluntatis humanae ut Divinae gratia indeclinabiliter insuperabiliter ageretur What could a Protestant have said more See c. 14. and l. 1. ad Simplic q. 2. and lib. 1. contra duas Epist Pelag. cap. 19 and that this surely was a main point of difference betwixt the Orthodox and the Semipelagians may appear by Faustus Regiensis a prime man of the Semipelagian party Anathema said he ei qui dixerit illum qui periit non accepisse ut salvus esse posset Hence Hilary of Arles in Epist ad August de reliquiis Pelagii reports that they ascribed to free-will ut velit vel nolit admittere medicinam Hereupon Concil Aransic 2. can 6. decrees per gratiam in nobis fieri ut credamus velimus and therefore surely prevailes over corruption I know Austin Hilary Prosper and Fulgentius were posterior to the first three Centuries yet was it in their time that the Pelagian and Semipelagian tontroversies concerning free-will were tossed And therefore a more accurate definition of the truth is to be exspected from them then from these who went before securius loquuti sunt ante exortum Pelagium and the rather having to do with Manichees and other Hereticks which denyed free-will altogether and the question being so difficult that as Austin observed lib. 3. de gratia Christi cont Pelag. cap. 47. and lib. 4. cont Jul. câ—p 8. when free-will is defended grace seems to be denyed and when grace is asserted free-will seems to be taken away Dr. Morton in his appeal lib. 2. cap. 10. Sect. 4. has noted that not only Sâ—xtus Senensis but also three of the Jesuits society Tolet Maldonat and Perer us have censured sundry of the Fathers especially in the Greek Church as too much favouring the Pelagâ—an interest in the matter of free-will and therefore the less stress is to be laid upon their Authority in this thing Yet neither from the Fathers before Pelagius have Romanists the advantage which they boast of All the testimonies which this Phamphleter filches from Bell. and many more are vindicated by Chamâ—er Tom. 3. Pâ—uirat lib. 3. de lib. arb cap. 16. and by Paraeus in Bell. Canig l.b. 5 de gra lib. arb â—c 25. 26. where they shew that these Fathers did only assert free-will as it stands in opposition to a fatal or stoical or simply natural necessity which we likewise assert but not in opposition to the necessity and efficacy of the grace of God else they should have Pelagianized Only here I must remember him that his bastard Religion must be supported by bastard testimonies of Fathers Might he not have Learned that Clements recognitions are spurious from their own Sixtus Senensis lib. 2. Clemens from Bell. lib. 2. de pontif cap. 2. and from Barron Tom. 2. ad ann 102. Num. 22. Doth not the world know how their Jesuitical Doctrin of free-will is oppugned by a famous party of their own Church not only by the Jansenists but also by Dominicans and Thâ—miâ—s And dare the Jesuited party call Dominicans and Thomists Heâ—eticks do we ascribe less liberty to the will of man then they Had their pretended Infallible judge dared to pass a sentence in this matter How then dare he charge any with Heresie in this matter till the definition of an infallible Judge be interposed Or was it any wonder that Innocent the Tenth who by the instigation of Jesuites condemned the five Jansenian Propositions should Anathematize Truth for Heresie seeing he professed of himself Jo non son Theologo I shut up this discourse of Free-will with Austin lib. de dono persever cap. 6. Tutiores vivimus si totum Deo damus non autem not illi ex parte nobis ex parte committimus quod ipse sensit venerabilis Martyr Cyprianus It s more safe to us to attribute no part to our selves but to ascribe all unto grace which was the Doctrine of the blessed Martyr Cyprian From this also a Retortion might be deduced against Jesuited Popery seeing it manifestly Pelagianizes in the matter of Free-will which was not
rising Is not Ciceros phrase known facere non potui ut nihil tibi literarum darem yea and St. Cyprian himself in Concil Carthag sent 1. nullus Episcopus potest alium judicare yet the present usurpation of the Romish Bishop shews their is no impossibility in the thing As to the last testimony which is from the Council of Chalced. act 16. Where all primacy and chief Honour is said to be kept to the Bishop of Rome he should have remembred that presently it is subjoyned That the same Honours are due to the Bishop of Constantinople The Council of Chalcedon was so far from acknowledging the absolute supremacy of the Bishop of Rome that upon that account it s disallowed by the Popes of Rome as testifies Bell. lib. 2. de pont cap. 18 Is it not superlative effrontedness to Triumph on the testimony of those Fathers which themselves are constrained do disallow for opposing the primacy of their Pope Must not these men be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self condemned CHAP. VIII A Confutation of the Pamphleters Last Section wherein beside other things his three Notes of the Catholick Church viz. Miracles Conversion of Infidels and Sanctity of Life are examined and by them also the Truth of the reformed Religion and falshood of the Popish Religion is Demonstrated THe Pamphleter in his last Section shuts up all with an empty Triumph as if in the former Sections he had demolished the reformed Religion and in this did establish the Romish Church as the truly Catholick Church and the present Romish Religion as the only true Christian Religion But I hope it shall shortly appear he feeds himself with a fancy for to say the Truth Popery is but a Leprosie superinduced upon the Christian Religion SECT I. A bundle of the Pamphleters most impudent Slanders against Protestants Rejected FOr raising this his Babylonish Pyramid from Pag. 161. to 164. he charges Protestants with impious tenents most falsly as that they change faiths certainty into probability mock at the motives of credibility affirm errors in integrals to be indifferent to our beleefe that in penning Scripture the Apostles themselves were not infallible of this last blasphemy he accuses Raynolds and Whittaker but like one who had Learned the art of Slandering he tells not where that Protestants set forth a new Gospel of their own finding no true Scripture before that they abandon the Ancient Church as the Synagogue that they allow no fasting but for temporal ends that best actions are sins and hold beleeving an easie task that we acknowledge no Authority of Councils and Fathers yeeld to no evidence of reason submit to no judge c. All and every one of which Protestant Churches execrate as abominable positions Are not such arrant lyes a noble basis for his Babylonish super structure SECT II. The Pamphleters equivocation in propounding the grounds of the Romish Religion AS he belies us so he equivocates Jesuitically in propounding the grounds of the Romish Religion Pag. 165. which he thus expresses Scripture and Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church as delivered and expounded by her as infallible propounder and judge Though this Sophister seem to magnify Scripture and Tradition yet least the simple Reader be imposed upon it would be adverted 1. That Romanists dare not adventure their cause upon Scripture alone therefore Tradition must be joyned with it yea nor secondly on both joyntly their innovations would find no patrociny in Traditions truly Apostolical more then in Scripture therefore neither Scripture nor Tradition is further to be beleeved by them then as expounded by the Church that is surely by the Romish Church Thirdly least the Church should be called to an account for her proposals she must be held for an infallible propounder and Judge yet Fourthly that none of the divided parties of the Romish Communion be offended this priviledge must be ascribed to the Church in General terms not defining whither Pope or Council be that infallible Judge In a word though Scripture and Tradition be complemented as if they were held as grounds of Religion yet neither of them are really their grounds but the decision of the present Church that is according to Jesuits what the Pope and his Jesuited conclave please and therefore Pag. 168. he undertakes to prove as his grand Thesis That the Churches Authority as an infallible propounder is necessary to make the Divine truths contained in Scripture or delivered by Apostolical Tradition both solid and infallible grounds to us If you abstract then from the Vatican Oracle you can have no solidity or infallibility either in Scripture or Apostolical Tradition A noble basis of Faith forsooth SECT III. Three Propositions of the Pamphleter on which all the interest of the Papacy doth hang Canvased TO support this tottering Pillar on which all their fortunes doe hang Pag. 170. Three things he undertakes to prove 1. That there is an infallible propounder 2. That the true Church is this infallible propounder 3. That the Roman Church is the only true Church If he fail in proving any of these the Romish interest perishes infallibly much more if he succumb in them all let us therefore trace him a little SUBSECT I. The Pamphleters Sophisms for his first Proposition viz. That their is an infallible Propounder briefly Discussed FOr the infallibility of a Propounder which I hope was sufficiently confuted cap. 2. he argues first thus Pag. 170. if their be no infallible propounder then holy Scripture is propounded by fallible means and so there can be no infallible certainty of Faith Answ 1. This argument might more forcibly be retorted ad hominem The Scriptures according to this Pamphleter are corrupted both in originals and Translations Ergo there has been no infallible propounder else the Scriptures had been better looked to But secondly I answer by denying his last consequence for to the certainty of Faith it s enough that we have a certain and infallible rule of Faith though it be conveyed to us by fallible Hands Even as though Euolids elements be conveyed to me by a fallible Hand yet the evidences of his demonstrations may breed in me an infallible assent to his propositions So the infallible certainty of the Scriptures as the rule of Faith may beget an infallible assent to Divine truths though the Hands by which it is conveyed were not infallible It s true it might have miscarried in the conveyance had not the watchful providence of a gracious God preserved his holy word from perishing or being corrupted Yea the fallibility of the means and Hands by which it is transmitted to us demonstrates the special care that God has of his Church that notwithstanding the means were so fallible in themselves yet God preserved the Scriptures infallibly Nor can it rationally be denyed that the means of conveyance are of themselves fallible seeing he made use of infidel Jews to preserve the Scriptures of the Old Testament as well as of the Christian Church
Scripture be the compleat rule of Faith we asserting and they denying But ex superabundanti we shew the consonancy of our Religion with Fathers and Ancient Councils These his seven Sophisms for the necessity of an infallible propounder we have the more briefly discussed this Question being at length before debated cap. 2. Thus his first proposition falling which is the basis of the other two the whole structure of Roman Faith must come no nought SUBSECT II. The Pamphleters second Proposition viz that the true Church is the Infallible Propounder Considered IF there be no necessity of such an infallible propounder as Romanists contend for as hath been proved cap. 2. then his second proposition falls with its own weight Yet what he says for this also shall briefly be taken to Consideration And first he remarks Pag. 174. that there be three Foundations or grounds of Faith viz Christ 1 Cor. 3.11 Secondly the Apostles and Prophets Ephes 2.20 Thirdly the Church 1 Timoth. 3.15 I wonder that with Bell. he doth not mention a fourth The Pope blasphemously applying to him that Scripture Isa 28.16 If any of those places make for his purpose it must be the third 1 Timoth. 3.15 but he should have remembred that it s questioned by interpreters whether it be the Church that is there called the Foundation or if it be not rather that which follows God manifested in the Flesh and if it be the Church whether it be the Catholick Church or only the particular Church of Ephesus where Timothy did officiate and if this latter then surely the Foundation cannot be taken in an architectonick sense for a supporter of Faith but in a Politique sense as a propounder of Faith which makes nothing to his advantage But of this Text we spoke at large cap. 2. Sect. 3. Now only I desire to know how he makes the Apostles and Prophets a distinct Foundation from the Church For if he take them personally then they were principal members of the Church If he call them Foundations in regard of their writings then the place holds forth that which Protestants affirm viz. The Scripture to be the Foundation or rule of Faith He endeavours to confirm this remarke Pag. 176. by alleadging some promises of an infallible judge Isai 2.2.3 Math. 16.19 Math. 18.19 Ephes 4.11 But none of these promise absolute infallibility to the Church Not that Isai 2.2.3 Cannot Christ Teach by the Scriptures by his Spirit yea by Pastors also though Pastors be not in all things infallible yet while Pastors adhere to the rule of the word they are de facto infallible albeit they have not entailed to them a perpetual assistance in all things whereof the Hearers must antecedently be assured before they beleeve any thing propounded by them Nor that Math. 16.19 Indeed the rock Christ on which the Church is built is infallible but not the Church The not prevailing of the gates of Hell against her prove no more her infallibility then her impeccability It only holds out Satan shall not be able utterly to extinguish a Church Nor yet Math. 18.19 I suppose all the Logick of Italy will not prove that Christ enjoyned us to hear the Pope if he defined vertue to be vice as Bell. would have us lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 5. only the Church is to be heard when she adheres to the rule of the word of these two places see more cap. 2. Sect. 3. Nor lastly that Ephes 4.11 which only holds forth Pastors and Teachers to be standing office bearers for the edification of the Church but not their infallibility His second Argument Pag. 177. is from the unanimous consent of the Fathers which he supposes he held forth in his Sect. 3. but I hope when he considers what I have replyed cap. 2. and cap. 7. he will be sensible of his mistake He is as unhappy in his Citation of some Protestant Authors whom he pretends to have acknowledged the Ghurch to be an infallible propounder of Divine truths such as Whittaker Chillingworth Hooker Covell c. He might have understood the falshood and impertinency of such alleadgances from them who confuted Mr. Knot Mr. Breerly c. from whom he filched these shreds Does any of these Authors acknowledge the infallibility of any representative Church in all points of Faith far less of the present Roman Church Verily none The impudency of Romish writers in such Citations may be seen by the first Author on whom he pitches viz. Learned Whittaker not to wast time needlesly on the rest Who hath been at more pains then Whittaker to prove that the Church may erre Controv. 2. q. 4. that Councils may erre Controv. 3. q. 6. that the Pope may erre Cont. 4. q. 6. And how copiously has he asserted against Stapleton the Authority of the Scriptures as independent from the Churches testimony In what sense such sayings of Protestants as here are gathered up from Breerly are to be understood Chillingworth Part. 1. cap. 2. from Sect. 3. to Sect. 35. expounds viz that the Churches testimony is a motive to induce us to believe the Scriptures and that by the Church they understand not so much the present Church far less the present Roman Church as the testimony of the Ancient and primitive Church Let quibling Missionaries know that broken shreads from private Authors have little weight with those that are judicious Such is that expression of Dr. Feild with which so much noise is made in his Epist Dedic concerning the Church which as Chillingworth Part. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 86. shews did unadvisedly drop from the Doctor as its usual with Authors to Hyperbolize in their prefaces for magnifying the Subject whereof they Write Yet if the Doctors expression be understood of the Church truly Catholick as well in regard of time as of place his words may suffer a good sense and nothing to the advantage of the Romish interest He argues thirdly Pag. 179. The true Church is the School of Infallible and Divine truths Ergo she must have infallible Masters and propounders Answ 1. If by the antecedent he mean that nothing is at any time taught in the true Church but infallible and Divine truths it s manifestly false The Churches of Corinth and Galatia were true Churches in which gross errours were Taught at least if that were true the Church of Rome can be no true Church wherein so many absurd errours are Taught Answ 2. the sequel is also false infallible truths may be Taught hic nunc by Masters that are fallible None of our Romish Missionaries pretend to infallibility either then they teach no infallible Truth or this sequel must be false But saith he a Learned writter saith a fallible Church is an holy Cheat. Answ that Author had shewed more solid Learing had he applyed this Character to the Popes infallible Chair and to the Romish infallible visible judge If it be asked whether a fallible Church can be ground of infallible Faith Answer No
have no interest in the Church who submit not to the Government of that Church and thus I let the major pass But then the minor is notoriously false viz. that in the present Romish Church true Miracles are wrought to confirm the soundness of her Faith and her Catholicism or Universal Jurisdiction over all Churches I appeal all the Jesuits in Europe to make good this Assumption which till they do all their discourse about Miracles is but a flourish I confess in the Ancient Roman Church there were miracles wrought to confirm the truth of her Faith but not her Catholicism as if she only had been the Christian Church for she was but a particular Church at best the present Romish Church hath foully Apostatized from the Faith of the Ancient Church search your Records and Legends to find one true Miracle to confirm the Faith and Catholicism of the present Romish Church this you will find impossible for her Faith is unsound and Catholicism in the sense spoken of she never had But from this Head of Miracles I demonstrate the truth of the Protestant Religion thus That Religion which is confirmed by the most real indubitate and glorious Miracles which ever the world had is surely the true Christian-Religion But the Religion of Protestants is confirmed by the most real indubitate and glorious Miracles which ever the world had Ergo The Religion of Protestants is the true Christian Religion The Assumption concerning which only the doubt can be is proved thus The Apostolick Religion is confirmed by the most glorious Miracles that ever the world saw but the Religion of Protestants is the Apostolick Religion Ergo the Religion of Protestants is confirmed by the most real indubitate Miracles that ever the world saw The major none can deny but an Infidel for evidencing the minor let the Religion of Protestants be examined by the Scriptures which contain the Apostolick Religion and if one Article be found in our Religion dissonant there-from we shall instantly disown it The Reader here may observe the difference betwixt the Romish procedure and ours we confirm our Religion by the indubitate Miracles which prove Christianity it self they by some fabulous at best uncertain Legendary stories the truth whereof is questioned by their own Authors and the falshood of many detected to the world If it be said that any Heretick may argue as we do to confirm their Heresie I shall not now stand to retort how Hereticks have argued for their Heresie from pretended Miracles as do Romanists to day Only to shew the disparity betwixt us and Hereticks I undertake against all the Enemies of Truth in the world to prove the real conformity of the Reformed Religion with the Apostolick revealed in Scripture and the disconformity of all Heresies whatsoever It 's a real conformity with Apostolick Doctrine not pretended only which proves it to be confirmed by Apostolick Miracles ARTICLE II. Of the Conversion of Infidels THe second Note whereby this Pamphleter would prove the Catholicism of their Romish Church is that by her all Christian Nations have been converted to the Faith of Jesus Christ And to confirm this he following Bell. Breerly and the Drove hints at a multitude of stories which upon examination will be found of no-significancy to the point in hand For first it 's a most notorious falshood that all Christian people have been converted by the Romish Church was the Church of Jerusalem converted by her or the Church of Caesarea or of Antioch or the Greek Churches in general As Eve was the Mother of all Living so not the Roman but the Church of Hierusalem may be termed the Mother of all Churches And so she is designed by the second General Council at Constantinople as witnesses Theod. Hist lib. 5. cap. 9. The Bishop of Bitontum in the Council of Trent acknowledged Greece to be the Mother of all that the Latin Church had Doth not Theod. lib. 1. Hist cap. 22. report that the Indians were converted by Lay-men Edesius and Frumentius and that for carrying on the work Frumentius received Ordination from Athanasius then Patriarch of Alexandria and not from the Bishop of Rome The Pamphleter but plays the Cheat when he alledges that our Church of Scotland owes her first Conversion to Pope Victor his Legats and Envoys The Reader may see the falshood of this proved by Bishop Spotswood Hist pag. 21. edit 3. These Preachers sent hither by Victor were sent upon the entreaty of King Donald the First which the King would not have sought had he not been Christian before If our Conversion had been wrought by Pope Victor how came it that our Church was not fashioned to the Roman in outward rites especially in the observance of Easter whereof Victor was but preposterously zealous Much more probable looks the conjecture of Bishop Spotswood that some of John's Disciples under the persecution of Domitian have had their refuge hither and were instruments of planting Christianity among us and the rather because this Church was very tenacious of the Oriental Customs alledging for it the Authority of John However Scotland was very anciently enlightned with the Gospel hence is that of Tertul. adversus Judaeos cap. 7. Britannorum Romanis inaccessa loca Christo vero subdita and their conformity in rites with the Greek Church and not with the Latin shew their Original was not from Rome It is a manifest falshood then that the Roman Church is the Mother of all or of our Church of Scotland But secondly this Pamphleter deceitfully confounds and joyns together the endeavours of the Ancient Romish Church for converting of Nations with the practises of the present Romish Church for Proseliting Countries to the Popish perswasion We acknowledge the Roman Church was instrumental in converting many Nations to Jesus Christ but it was not to the present Romish Faith that not being then hatched but to the Christian Faith The like also was done by other Churches particularly by the Greek Church Hence Ephraim Pagit in his Christianography Edit 3. pag. 21. renders this as one reason of the large Jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople the conversion of many Nations to the Christian Faith by his Suffragans Therefore though it were true that Scotland did owe her conversion to Victor and England to Eleutherius both which are false yea the Gospel was planted in Britain some years before it came to Rome it self if Baronius story concerning Joseph of Arimathea ad annum 35. or Gildas testimony that Britain received the Gospel in the end of Tiberius Caesar's Reign deserve credit this makes nothing for the truth of the present Romish Faith or Catholicism of the present Romish Church for the Ancient Romish Church declined from the Faith of the present Popish Church as well as we Thirdly Particular Churches though not altogether sound in the Faith but stained with some errours in the integrals of Religion may be instrumental in converting Nations As a Leprous man may
Preheminence of the Civil Magistrate and the subjection of the Apostles and of all Ecclesiasticks to his Jurisdiction This third and last Note of the Church taken from Sanctity might be inverted as the former hath been not only from the Identity of our Religion with the Apostolick Religion which is the only truly holy Religion but also by appealing our Adversaries to pitch upon one Article agreed on in the Harmony of Confessions which hath not a tendency to Holiness And lastly by putting all to it who have but so much indifferency as to be ingenuous if the Reformed Churches have not always afforded multitude of serious unblameable and devour persons By this time I hope it may appear that the Pamphleters three Notes of the Church Miracles Conversion of Infidels and Sanctity of Life make nothing for the Catholicism of the Romish Church but prove convincingly the truth of the Reformed Church Had he brought the rest of Bellarmin's Notes he should have found them to be as little for his advantage SECT IV. A touch of the Pamphleters hints at two other Notes of their Church viz. the Title of Catholick and Succession HE snarles passingly pag. 201 202. at the Name of Catholick as if the Argument held from names to things Do not false Prophets false Apostles and false gods assume the names of true Prophets Apostles and of the true God Was not Simon Magus Act. 8.10 called the Power of God Did not Mahomet call himself the Great Prophet and his Disciples Musselmans that is sound believers and Abdullam or the servants of God Hath not the Title of Catholick been assumed by Novatians as witnesseth Cyprian Epist 73. by Donatists as testifies Austin in Brovic collat col 3. diei cap. 2. yea by all Hereticks if we believe Lactant. Instit lib. 4. cap. 30. and Austin contra Epist. Fundamenti cap. 4. The Orthodox also are ready sometimes to indulge Hereticks with the splendid names which they vainly assume to themselves as some were called Apostolici some Angelici others Gnostici c. besides it 's questioned whether the Christian Church was always adorned with the Title of Catholick the contrary seems to be yielded by Pacianus Epist 1. ad Sempron and D. Pearson on the Creed Art 9. brings great Authorities to prove that in ancient Editions of the Apostolick Creed especially in the Roman and Western Church this Epithete Catholick was not added to the Church However sure I am the Title of Catholick without the true Catholick Faith is but magni nominis umbra Certainly the Roman Church is not the Catholick if either the Catholick Church be taken for the Orthodox Church in which sense the Fathers termed particular Churches Catholick as that of Smyâ—na in Euseb Hist lib. 4. cap. 15. that of Nazianzum and many others in Greg. Nazianzens latter will But the Roman being grosly Heterodox as hath been proved is not Catholick in this sense nor is she Catholick if the Catholick and Universal be the same the Roman being but a part and lesser part of Christendom the greater and sounder part at this day renouncing Communion with her yea Papists call themselves Catholicks with a term diminuent Catholick Romans i. e. Catholicks not Catholicks or Schismatical Catholicks who being but a part of the Catholick Church would Monopolize Catholicism to themselves alone When therefore Protestants call Romanists Catholicks they do as when they call the Turks Musselmans because they assume these Titles though undeservedly to themselves That of Pacianus in the forecited Epistle is very remarkable Novatianos audio de Novato aut Novatiano vocari Sectam tamen in his non nomen incuso Nec Montano aliquis aut Phrygibus nomen objecit As insignificant is his other hint pag. 202. at the pretended perpetual Succession of Pastors in the Roman Church from the Apostles For Succession meerly personal and local if it be not also Doctrinal cannot prove a true Church Hence Iren. lib. 4. cap. 43. joyns Cum Episcopatus Successione charisma veritatis i. e. the gift of Truth with succession and Epiphan Haeres 55. teaches that now we are chiefly to enquire after successiones Doctrinae i.e. the succession of Doctrine and Tertull. de Praescript contra Haeret cap. 32. saith Though Hereticks should pretend a Succession of Bishops yet the diversity of their Doctrine from the Doctrine of Apostles will prove them not to be of Apostolical descent And again albeit some Churches could instance no Apostles or Apostolick persons from whom they are descended tamen in eadem fide conspirantes yet being sound to have the same Faith Apostolicae deputantur pro consanguinitate Doctrinae they are accounted Apostolick because of the consanguinity of Doctrine Excellently said Nazlanzen Orat. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. He who professed the same Doctrine of Faith hath an interest in the same Throne or See but he that defends contrary Doctrine is Adversary to the See for this latter hath but the name of Succession but the other the truth and reality thereof What need I more seeing their own Learned Stapleton Controv. 1. q. 4. art 2. Netab 5. confesseth that bare personal and local Succession is not a sure Note of the true and Orthodox Church And surely we cannot conclude from it the being of the Church either affirmatively or negatively not affirmatively by Bell. his confession lib. 4. de Eccles cap. 8. for when Arrianism overspread the Oriental Churches they had a personal and local succession of Bishops nor yet negatively as if they were no Churches where personal succession is wanting else the first Apostolick Church which succeeded to none had been no true Church yea there should hardly be a Church to day upon the Face of the Earth there hardly being a Church founded by the Apostles in which alas for pity the Lyn of Succession hath not some time or other been perturbed with the intervention of Heresie the Roman not excepted Greg. de Valentia Tom. 3. Disp 1. q. 1. punct 6. acknowledges some Doctrines of Faith either thorough negligence errour or wickedness of men may for a time be as buried which afterward thorough the Churches diligence may be revived But as for the Roman Church she hath neither Doctrinal nor Personal Succession not Doctrinal as I have proved cap. 7. yea it will be hard to prove that the Complex of their present Religion is elder than the Council of Trent Nor Personal Is it not evident from History that some have taken the Papal Chair by Force some by Fraud some by Simony some by Magical Arts yea and some of them have been openly Heretical as Romanists themselves reckon Heresie if Arrians Nestorians Montanists Eutychians Monothelites be Hereticks Hereof we gave a touch Cap. 2. Sect. 2. Arg. 3. Sure I am the rest of the Patriarchs of Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem can instruct a personal Succession no less than Rome Excellently did one compare the Pope of Rome pretending to succeed Peter because he
Primitive Christian Church did ever own In a word they set up a Religion built upon no Divine Authority but upon Humane Traditions and definitions of their Church repugnant to Scripture to Antiouity to Reason and to the senses of all the world teaching impious Idolatry against God and perfidiousness to men receiving addition or alteration as the Grandees of the Romish Faction find most to conduce for the Grandeur of the Pope and Interest of the Court of Rome But lest I should seem to say nothing to his Knacks I answer first we have both Faith and Vnity Faith grounded on holy Scripture and not only Unity in Fundamentals which is necessary to the being of the Church Militant but also in most of the Integrals of Religion as may appear by the harmony of Confessions whereas they have neither true Faith nor Unity for hardly do they disagree from us in any thing wherein they are not subdivided among themselves Secondly we have both a Law and a Judge a Law better nor the Canon Law the Divine Law of holy Scriptures a Judge both Celestial the Lord Jesus Christ and Terrestrial the Synods of the Church But Romanists to shoulder up their pretended infallible Judge whom yet they cannot agree upon throw intollerable indignities upon the Law of God as hath been demonstrated cap. 3. Thirdly we have an Altar and Sacrifices an Altar not like their Altars of Damascus but an Altar which sanctifies our Oblations the Lord Jesus Christ And thus Aquinas himself expounds that of the Apostle Heb. 13.10 we have an Altar We have also a Sacrifice â—ot only Eucharistick of prayers and praises but also certainly Propitiatory viz. of Christ on the Cross Fourthly our Sacraments are not bare signs as Romanists slander us but exhibitive of Grace which cannot be truly said of all theirs Fifthly Though the Worship of God with us be not clogged as in the Romish Church with a heap of Ceremonies partly Heathenish partly Judaical yet we have Religious Ceremonies viz. Sacramental Rites and these also of Divine Institution Sixthly the Mission of our Preachers hath been sustained against the cavils of Romanists but a Divine Warrant cannot be shewed for their Popes Universal Vicarship or the Princely Dignity of their Cardinals Seventhly Our Doctrine is infallible and the ground of our Faith sure unless Romanists like Infidels will question the Infallibility of the Scripture Eighthly Though we pretend not to a Pharisaical perfection with Romanists yet we acknowledge the Commandments of God so far as is absolutely necessary to Salvation through Grace may be kept Ninthly Eternal Life being a reward of Grace not of Debt does not presuppose any proper Merit of ours but Romanists by their Doctrine of Merit make Heaven Venial and derogate from the sufficiency of the sole Merits of Christ Tenthly Reprobation being an eternal and immanent Act of God and consequently God himself cannot properly be demerited but there is no damnation without the previous demerit of sin yea also the Eternal Decree of Reprobation in the judgment of the Council of Dort presupposes the Prescience of Mans Fall Eleventhly though lapsed man without Regenerating Grace cannot do that which is spiritually good yet be may freely sin none of us do question but the Jesuits Garnet Oldcorn c. acted freely in their accession to the Powder-Plot Twelfthly we pretend not to any new Apostles nor is there necessity of new Miracles our Doctrine having been fully confirmed by the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles Thirteenthly It 's more than Romanists can prove that particular Churches have not Authority to reform themselves when General Councils cannot be had to undertake the work Fourteenthly we leave private Spirits and new Lights against old revealed Verities to Quakers and Papists Fifteenthly Single mens Opinious against the common consent of Fathers have more affinity with Jesuits Probables than Protestants To justifie their boldness in broaching new Opinions Poza the Jesuit as cited in the Jesuits Morals Part. 1. Cap. 1. Art 1. pag. 167. brings a Testimony from a Council of Constantinople Beatus qui profert verbum inanditum as if the Council had said blessed is he that produces a word unheard of or some new thing whereas like a Jesuit he mutilates and perverts the words of the Council which are Beatus qui profert verbum in auditum obedientium blessed is he who utters a word to obedient â—ars Sixteenthly We are not ashamed to maintain that the Apocryphal Books are no part of the Old Testament because the Jewish Church did never receive them being told Rom. 3.2 that to them were committed the Oracles of God Seventeenthly there have been stedfast Pastors and Martyrs in the Protestant Churches who have sealed the Truth we profess with their blood Our Doctrine and the Substantials of Government being founded on Scriptural Authority must consequently be unalterable whereas Rome's changes as to dogmaticals Worship and Government from Ancient Rome are so many that we may take up that regrate of her Hei mihi qualis eras quantum mutaris ab illâ Româ The Author designed a peculiar Cap. in the close of this Treatise for his own vindication from the Criminations of the Pamphleter together with a plain Reparty to the Jesuit Tribe But finding that these Papers had swelled beyond his expectation he hath at this time superseded much of that labour and the rather seeing these things touch not the Cause and Jesuits are known to be persons of such malignity that their Invectives find little credit with those that are ingenuous yea there be who reckon it an honour to be maligned by them Argumentum recti est displicere pessimis Let therefore these few hints of the chief of his Accusations at this time suffice And first Who would not smile that I should be accused by this Pamphleter as a man of uncertain Religion especially seeing himself acknowledges pag. 24. that the Thesis maintained by me is that the Religion of Protestants is the true Christian Religion If therefore the Religion of Protestants be known mine cannot be uncertain In that Faith was I Educated from my Infancy and hitherto thorough mercy have continued and therein I trust to die But who can be sure of a Jesuits Religion whose Principle it is to equivocate and by the help of his Mental Reservations to affirm and swear one thing and to think another What Sceptick and Infidel Glosses which would make Christian ears to tingle Jesuits have put upon the Apostolick Creed Alphonsus de Vargas relates de Stratagem Jesuit cap. 18 19. yea so customary is it with them to change themselves into all shapes and as was roundly told them by a Gentleman of the Long Robe in the Parliament of Paris to have one Coâ—science in one place and another in another that the world passes this Character on them Jesuita omnis homo Must not secondly Jesuits be men of â—are confidence who can accuse me of Disloyalty for Preaching a Sermon