Verdict of Pope Gregorie the first concerning the deed of Serenus Bishop of Massils for breaking the Images which he saw abused to Idolatrie Lib. 9. epist 9. Et quideus quia eas adorari vetuisses emnino laudamus Hereupon your Cassander in Consult art 21. De picturis sayeth he Quae fuerit mens sententia Rom iuae Ecclesiae adbuc aetate Gregorii satis ex ejus scriptis manifest um est viz. Ideo hiberi picturas non quidem ut colantur adorentur sed ut imperiti picturis inspiciendis haud aliter as literis legendis rerum gestarum admonerentur Yea the Council of Eliberis câ—x 36. More ancient as is supposed then the Nicen expresly prohibited the drawing of pictures in Churches But to manifest how little regard you Romanists have to Antiquity when it playes not to your Tune your Melchior Canus lib. 5. loc Cont. cap. 4. Speaking of this Ancient Canon sayes Lex illa non imprudenter modo verum etiâ—â—â— impie a concilio Elibertino est lata de tollendis imaginibus Inst. 2. Your present Romish Church pantainet that prodigious and bloody tenet of Iransubstantiation in the Sacranent Not so the Ancient Romish Church As appearet by the withâ—g of Gelasius Bishop of Rome contra Nestor Et Eutych in tom 4. biblioth Patrum where expresly he sayes Non desinit substantia panis vini This testimony is so luculent that your Cardinals Bellarmine and Barronius would question whether that Tractat were writen by Gelasius Bishop of Rome although it passe under his name in Bibliotheca Patrum and would ascrive it to another Gelasius Cyzicenus or Caesariensis But you may see these allegeances learnedly consured by Doctor Iohn Forbes of Corse in his Iustruc historico theol lib. 11. cap. 16. And giving but not granting that there allegeances were true yet that Gelasius Cyzicenus as also Caesariensis are acknowledged to be Catholick authors and more ancient then Gelasins Bishop of Rome And the same which Gelasius asserts of the tem â—oiâ—g of the substance of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament is affirmed by other ancient and Catholick Authors particularly by Tâ—endoret dialog 2. Hence your own Scotus if Bellarmine may be credited Lab. 3. ' De Euâ—har cap. 23. Acknowledged that Transubstantiation was no article of saith before the late Lateran Council under Innocent the thâ—d Anno. 1215. Inst 3. Your present Romish Church mantaines the publickâ—solemne and ordnarie celebration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper under one kinde Not so the Ancient Romish Church As appeares by Pope Leo the first who in his Seâ—m 4. de quadragesim condemnes the partaking of the Bread wiâ—â— out die Cup as a Manichean abomination Hence your Cassanâ—er in consult art 21 De administratione sacro sancti sacraments Eucharistiassatis compertum est Vniversalem Christs Ecclesiam in hanc usque diem Occidentaelem vero seu Romanam mille ampiâ—nâ— Ã Christ annis in solcr ni praesertim ordinaria hujus Sacraments dess ensatione utrainque paris vins speciem omnibus Ecclesiae Christs merâ—br is exhâ—luâ—sse â—d quod ex â—â—umeris veterum Scriptorum tam Graecorum quam latinerum testimonâ—â— manisestum est Bus seeing I mentioned Pope Leo's sermons let â—â—â—â—member you that Ancient Bishops of Rome such as Lce and Gregorie c. were Preaching Bishops not so your Present Popes Yea your Bellarmin to apolog zâ— for these your Idol shepherds hath not spared to say Lib. 3. De Pont. Rom. cap 24. Non tenentur Pontifices per se concionars Satis est st curent per alios ista prastari If they Preach onely by Proxies take heed they goe not to Heaven onely by prexies also Have you not heard how your Espencaus and others of the more moderat sort among you have bitterly lamented this prophane and lazie desuetud of preaching in your Popes Inst 4. Your present Romish Church mantaines the Popes universal suprcamacie and his Title of universal Bishop Not so the Ancient Romish Church As appeares by Pope Gregorte the first his many invectives against that title as a title of Noveltie Error Impiery Blasphemie c. I give you but two testimonies from him I be one is In lib. 6. Aepist 30. Ego fidenter dico quisquis se universalem sacerdotem vocat vel vocari desiderat in elatione sua antichristum praecurrit quia superbiendo se caeteris praeponit The other is In lib. 4. Aepist 36. Nullus decessorum meorum hoc prophano vocabulo universalis Episcopi uti consensit Thus your verie Popedome it self whose vitals seeme to consist in this Vniversal supreamacie is condemned by the Ancient Church of Rome Hence Cyprian with eightie and seven Bishops in an African council sayeth Neque quisquam nostrum Episcopum se esse episcoporum constituit aut tyrannico terrore collegas suos ad obsequends necessitatem adigu Where he cals it a tyrannical terror for one Bishop to impose on others Inst 5. Your present Romish Church mantaines the Apocryphal bookes to be canonical and of equal authority with the undoubted Seriptures of GOD. Not so the Ancient Romish Church As any eares by lerome and Gregorie if your own Occam may be credited In Dialog part 3. lib. 3. can 16. Secundum Hieronymum sayeth he Et Gregorium liber ludith Tobiae Maccabiorum Ecclesiasticus liber sapientiae non sunt recipiendi ad confirmandum aliquid in fids This same you will find copiâ—â—sl deâ—â—onstrated by Doctor Cosin in his Scholastical historie of the canon of Scripture Inst 6. You Jesuits who are the prevalent faction at the present in your Romish Church and your Canonists mantaine the dominion and jurisdiction of your Pape over Princes So did not the Ancient Romish Church As appeares by Pope Gregorie the first who thus writer to the Emperour Maurice lib. 2. epist 61. Sacerdotes meos tuae manus commisi Utrobique ergo quae debui exsolvi qui Imperatori obedientiam praebui pro DEO quod sensi minime tacui Know you not Bernards inference from the Apostles word Rom. 13.1 Let every Soul be subject to the higher Poriers writing to a great man of your Romish Church Siomnis anima tum vestra quis vos excipit ex universitate si quis tentat excipere tentat decipere And have you not heard of Chrysostoms enumeration long before him In epist. ad Rom. cap. 13. hom 23. Sive Apostolus sis sive Propheta sive Evangelista sive Sacerdos subditus sis Inst 7. Your present Romish Church mantaines Papal indulgences for easing soules under the paines of Purgatorie Not so the Ancient Romish Church For there is no mention of such indulgences in al Antiquity Nay so novel is that invention that they are not mentioned either by Gratian or Lombard who were so verie diligent in gathering up al your Romish chaffe and stuble Hence your Durand in 4. sent disp 20. quaest 3. § 4. Sayeth De indulgentiis pauca dici pissunt per
true Ergo c. The Sequel of the Major you dare not but admit unlesse you mine Insidell and deny that the true Christian Religion hath solid grounds to prove its conformity with the Scripture And for the probation of the Assumption you cannot but allow me that measure against you which you allow your self against me and therefore I appeale you to produce any solid ground which the True Christian Religion hath which the Religion of PROTESTANTS wanteth Yea or any solid ground which you Râ—â—anists can pretend to for confirmation of your Religion which we want You have never adventured to name any but the pretended Infallibility of your Propounders But this we have so battered to you that now you have stolen fom it not daring to mention it againe in any of these your Two last Papers Nay Fourthly I must remember you of a Dilemma ad Hominem against you Romanists which you might have gathered from my last If we deviat from the sense of holy Scripture then it must be either in our Affirmatives or in our Negatives Not in our Affirmatives you and we agreeing in most of these Therefore either in these we have the true sense else you have it not Nor in our Negatives else your contradictorie Affirmatives should be true But I proved in my Last that in many of these you doe manifestly erre as contradicting the Ancient Romish Church particularly in your Adoration of Twages Transubstansiation Communion under one kind The Poper suprexmatie the Canonicall authority of Apocry ha bookes The jurisdiction of the Pope over secular Printes your papall Indulginces at extended to Purgarotse And I am readie to prove the falshood of the rest of your Super-induced articles when ever you have the confidence to come to a particular tryall But I am utterly discouraged from multiplying more instances against a tergiversing fellow who is neither moved by credit nor conscience to examine what is replyed to him Fifthly seeing you shun to tell a ground by which the truth of Religion is to be tryed lest the Balfardie of your Religion should be proven I will give you a solid ground from a person of great fame in your Romish Gourcâ—â— though a Grecian by extract This is Goorgius Scholarius who pleaded for the interest of the Latine Church in the matter of the ProcessioÌ„ of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Son at the Councell of Florence Now this Scholarius tom 4. Conciliorum in Orat. 3. ad Concil Florent proposes these rules for determining controversies in Religion Et primo quidem sayeth he non decet velle omnia disertis verbis è scriptura desumere cum multos haereticos scimus pratextu hoc usos Sed si quid verbis it a prolatis sit consequens adaeque erit honorandum similiter quod veris confessis fuerit repugnans contrarium nullo modo est admittendum deinde eorum quae obscurius dicta sunt sumendae sunt è scriptura ipsa veluti magistra explicationes per ea quae uspians clarius illa disserit Where this learned Author holds these foure choise Positions for discerning betwixt truth and error in Religion to all which we PROTESTANTS doe cordially agree The First is That all divine truth are not revealed in so many words in Scripture Secondly that some divine truths are plainly set downe Diserris verbis and what by firme consequence is deduced from these ought to be beleeved and received with the same respect as these which are delivered In terminis Thirdly whatsoever is repugnant to these truths which are plainly Diserris verbis set downe or confessed upon all hands ought to be rejected as erroneous Fourthly that these things which are more obscurely treated of in Scripture are to receive their explications from other cleare Scripture as the Mistres of our faith These grounds so laid downe he afterwards accon modaâ—s to his present Hypothesis for decyding the controversie betwixt the Latine and Greek Church concerning the procession of the holy Ghost and may by the same measure be applyed to the controversies betwixt us PROTESTANTS and You Romanists If therefore you will dire to adventure upon the tryal of particular controversies betwixt you and us according to this standard I trust you shall see if prejudice doe not blind you that all the points of the Religion of PROTESTANTS are either revealed in Scripture plainly and In terminis or the by solid consequence are deduceable from these which are revealed In terminis And on the contrary that your Supe irauce Romish article wherein we differ from you are neither In terminis in Scripture nor yet by solid consequence deduceable from these things which are clearly revealed in Scripture but on the contrarie are repugnant thereunto I hope therefore the intelligen Reader wil observe that if you descend not to a particular tryal it is not because a ground was not assigned to you from discerning truth in Religion from error but from diffidence of your desperat cause Onely that you doe not returne to your usual trifling Cavill that Hereticks and those of a false Religion may pretend the same grounds for justifying their Heresies let me tell you that Hereticks may indeed pretend a patrocinie from these grounds which upon examination will overturne their cause And therefore what I say to you I say the same of all other Hereticks Socinians Pelagians Nestorians Aâ—â—baptists Antinomians c. That if they will come to a particular discusse according to these premised rules what ever their pretences be it shall appeare that their Heresies are neither In terminis contained in Scripture nor yet are deduceable by solid reason from these things which are clearly revealed but are repugnant thereunto Sixthly I answere Directly to this your Cavill by this Distinction If you meane that PROTESTANTS or whatsoever society acclaiming the True Religion before they prove the truth of their Religion or the conformity thereof to the true sense of Scripture must first produce one ground proving all the senses which they give in Scripture In cumulo to be true without a particular examination of the several senses and points of Religion mantained by them that I say is a grosse falshood and mistake For a Society may professe the true Religion and mantaine all the essentialls the cof and yet as I told n my last have some errors mingled in with these 〈◊〉 as our Dâ—vines have demonstrated in the Question Nom Ecclesiâ— possit errare Therefore if this be your mâ—â—ning it concernes you to have proven it for I doe and in my Last I imply did deny it But if you onely meane that PROTESTANTS or others acclaiming the truth of Religion must either have the essentials and all truths in their Religion plainly and In terminis revealed in Scripture or else solidly deduceable upon a particular discusse from these things that are so plainly revealed I grant it freely that it ought and must be so And therefore it you will
divinis literis commendetur If any thing else be recommended in the Scriptures But First he calls our two Sacraments in the former place the two twin Sacraments without any such addition Secondly the addition he makes in the latter place is only Hypotheticall therefore no positive inference can be deduced from it as if Austin had believed that there were more proper Sacraments then two Thirdly I have already shewed that Austine in a Large sense called many things by the name of Sacrament which are not proper Sacraments such as the signe of the Crosse Exorcisms Polygamie Yea sometimes he reckoned improper sacraments with the proper as the signe of the Crosse with Baptisme in his Enâ—rrat on Psal 141. Why then in this additional hypothesis may he not be supposed to point at Sacraments improperly so called Especially seeing Fourthly if here he meaned that here were more properly so called Sacraments he should manifestly contradict himself who had immediatly before said that they were numero paâ—cissima the fewest in number and else where Gemina two twin sacraments And lib. 3. de doctrinâ Christianâ cap. 9. Fewer in number then the Jewish sacraments pauca pro multis cademque factu facillima instancing also particularly in Baptisme and the LORDS-Supper only But it may suffice against you Romanists that Austine doth no where affirme Sacraments to be precisely seven Let all the Romish antiquaries try where they can find ground in Austine or in any one Ancient Father for their precise septenarie Had there been more then two would Justine Martyr in his second Apologie where he gives an account of the Worship Ordinances and Sacraments which Christians went about to apologize for the Christian Religion would he I say only have made mention of Baptisme and the Lords Supper How destitute you are of Antiquitie in this matter may appear by this that Bellarmine lib. 2. de sacram in genere cap. 25. could produce none for the definit number of your seven Sacraments ancienter then Lombard who lived in the twelfth Centurie nor any Council before the Florentine a late Council about the middle of the fifteenth Conturie and neither free nor general As beside others learned Stilling fleet hath demonstrated in his rationall account of the PROTESTANT Religion part 1. cap. 1. § 13. out of Sylvester Sguropulus who was present at the most secret transactions of that Florentine Assembly and your Cassander in consult art 13. hath noted that Lombard was the first Author who introduced the definite number of seven Sacraments and yet neither He nor the Florentine Council declare these your seven Sacraments to be Sacraments properly so called or that there be seven precisely neither more nor lesse Yea Spal de Repab Eccles lib. 5. cap. 4. num 21. spares not to affirme that the Article concerning seven Sacraments was never either â—hsâ—â—ssed or defyâ—ed concâ—liâ—râ—â—er in publick face of Council at Florence So that your present Romish Article of a precise septenarie can iâ— seems 〈◊〉 no higher câ—â—ciliarie Authority then from the desinition of â—o â—â— late Trent Conventicle Is it probable that the Author of the Catechisms commonly attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem or of the six bookes de Sacramentâ—s which goe under the name of Ambrose would have passed your seven Sacraments in silence and satisfied themselves with mentioning our Two Baptism and the LORDS-Supper if the Church in their time had believed that there were seven proper Sacraments Were it not a great absurditie if a man should undertake to write a Tractat of the Planets or of the Pleiades both which are in number seven and yet never mention but two of them To what straites is your Bellarmine reduced Lib. 2. de sacram cap. 27. when he hath no better Evasion then to say as I hinted before That the designe of Ambrose and Cyrill in these bookes was only to instruct Catechumens and therefore it was not needfull that they should make mention of all the Sacraments Is not this both False on the matter so farre as it concernes these six bookes of Ambrose for they were not only designed for the instruction of Catechumens as Chamier Featly and other our Divines have largely demonstrated and also Frivolous For suppose it were granted that these Bookes had been writen only for Catechumens yet what is more usual in Catechisms then to set down all the Sacraments Looke to Catechisms both Popish and PROTESTANT if it be not so Hath not your Roman Catechism set forth by the command of Pope Pius the fifth all your seven pretended SACRAMENTS Though Catechumens be not presently admitted to all Sacraments yet ought they not to learne what they all are that they may be the better prepared to receive them in due time Or why should the other five be rather kept up from the notice of Catechumens then Baptisme and the LORDS-SUPPER Are there not more Mysteries in the Eucharist especially according to your fancies of Transubstantiation then in any other Sacrament If any then of the Sacraments should have been concealed from the Catechumens should it not have been that of the Eucharist I deny not that Cyrill Ambrose and other Auâ—sents doe make mention of Chrisme and indeed Chrisme was anciently used Yet suppose that by Chrisme they had meaned a peculiar and Distinct Sacrament this would come farre short of the Popish five spurious Sacraments Bot learned PROTESTANTS have shewed that the Chrisme mentioned by Cyrill Ambrose and others was no pecuculiar and distinct Sacrament but an Appendix of Baptisme and a Mutable Ceremonie at the Churches pleasure lyke a. Kneeling betwixt Easter and Whitsuntide the Love feasts c. Hence the same Ambrose lib. 1. de sacramentis cap. 2. Venimus sayeth he ad fontem Ingressus es unctus es quasi Althleta That is We came to the water thou went in thou was anointed as a Wrestler And Tertullian de Baptismo cap. 7. Exinde egressi de lavacro perungimur benedictâ unctione That is being come out of the laver we are anointed with the blessed unction Yea the Author of the Tractat De Spiritu Sancto ad Amphilochium which goes under the name of Basil cap. 27. acknowledges that there was no Scriptural warrant for that Unction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is What writen word hath taught this anointing with oyle Surely then this Anointing was but a Ceremony which the Church brought in by her own power and therefore might be laid aside by the same power And consequently was no Proper Sacrament which by the confession of Romanists and according to the Tridentine definition most all be instituted by IESUS CHRIST Himself In a word our Divines have frequently produced Fathers asserting our Two Sacraments directly yea and calling them Gemina which seems clearly Exclusive of others But Romanists to this day could never produce one Father that makes mention of their seven Sacraments either in so many words or yet that said so much on the matter from which a precise
then apologize for me One Objection must needs be removed It may be asked how I doe charge the Iesuit as declyning to have the truth of Religion either examined by Scripture or Antiquity seeing he profers at lest to have one Controversie examined by Scripture Viz. concerning the number of Sacraments But let any rational person though a Romanist if he can but dispossesse his own mind of prejudice cognosce whether my Charge be just How disingenuous the Iesuit was in that seeming profer concerning the number of Sacraments is sufficiently discovered in my Reply to his tenth paper from page 236. to page 241. Now only let these few particulars be considered And 1. When did the Iesuit make this profer Only in his tenth or last paper imeÌ„diatly before his getting out of the nation Why did he it not sooner especially seeing we had been exchanging papers above a year before and he had been frequently appealed to a discusse of particular Controversies Did he not in former papers positively decline to have the truth of Religion examined either by Scripture or Antiquity By Scripture because as he affirmes paper 4. pag. 37. The letter of Scripture is capable of divers yea contrary senses and there is no Religion so false but pretends that the tenets of it are conforme to the letter of Scripture By Antiquity also because sayeth the Iesuit paper 5. page 61 This with as great reason may be assumed by any Christian false Religion Yea doth he not charge me as hatching a new Religion of my own because I appealed to the Fathers of the three first Centuries in his 9. paper page 178. Now what ingenuity or courage is manifested by such a seeming profer at such a time after so many declinaturs ingenuous Romanists may judge But secondly Had there not been weighty Controversies tabled before viz. Concerning the Infallibility of Popes and Councils the Perspicuity and Perfection of the Scriptures Transubstantiation Adoration of Images Communion under one kinde Papal indulgences Apocrypha bookes the Popes Supremacie over the whole Catholick Church and his Jurisdiction over Princes Yea had it not been shewed as the breviry of missives would permit that the Church of Rome doth grosly erre in all these Yet never did he offer to Reply to any of these Let Romanists therefore againe judge whether he who passes over in silence all Arguments both from Scripture and Antiquity to prove the present Romish Religion erronious in all the foresaid particulars and only starts a new Question about the number of Sacraments doeth shew a through willingnesse to have the Truth of Religion tryed either by Scripture or Antiquity Thirdly If there he any Controversie tossed betwixt Rom mists and us where a cavilling Sophister may wrap himself up under Logomachies is not this it which the Iesuit hath pitched upon coÌ„cerning the number of Sacraments Must it not be acknowledged on all hands that as the word Sacrament is taken in a larger or stricter sense a man may affirme that ther be more or fewer Sacraments But of this you may see more at length in the Aâ—swere to the Jesuits tenth paper page 238. and 239. Let it be then considered how willing the Jesuit was of a Scriptural tryal who dates not adventure on the examination of other Controversies and only betaks himself to this wherein the Adversarie may shut himself up in a thicker of Logomachies But fourthly Doth the Jesuit really profer to have that on Controversie concerning the number of Sacraments betwixt Papists and us decyded by Scripture Or doth he bring Arguments from Scripture to prove a precise Septenary of proper Sacraments neither more nor fewer which is the Doctrine of the Present Romish Church Nor at all What then Only that he might seeme to say something he desires me to prove from Scripture that there be only two Sacraments or that there be no more then two which is in very deed to require me to prove the Negative while he himself declynes to prove the Affirmative viz. That there is not only more then two but compleatly seven Though the Iesuits demand be irrational I hope I have satisfied it in its own proper place But what though I had succumbed in proving that there were no more but two proper Sacraments Yet the question betwixt Romanists and us concerning the number of Sacraments were not decyded except it be proven that there be precisely seven neither more nor fewer If there be not a precise septenary one Article of the Romish faith falls to the ground Consequently the Iesuit never submits the Question concerning the number of Sacraments to a Scriptural tryal untill he offer to prove by Scripture a precise sepetenary of proper Sacraments which as yet he hath not done nor I believe will adventure to doe He will find need of the supplement of his unwriten traditions here But neither I suppose will these serve his turne But Fifthly what are all these ensuing papers but a demonstration of the Iesuits tergiversing humor In his first paper he proposed foure postulata like so many Oracles I discovered an egregious fallacy in one of them But to this day he never once endeavoured to vindicat himself He proposed in that paper an informal Syllogisme but could never thereafter adventure on a second which was retorted in better forme against the Popish Religion more wayes then one but these Retortions to this houre remaine unexamined I denyed the Assumption of that long studied Syllogisme but he could never be induced to undertake the probation thereof In that Assumption the Iesuit had said that the PROTESTANT Religion had no grounds to prove its conformity with the letter of Scripture To repell that bold allegeance I appealed him to produce any solid ground of conformity with Scripture which either the True Christian Religion hath or that the Popish Religion can pretend to which the Religion of PROTESTANTS wants But he could never be moved to produce any Sometimes he hinted at the Infallibility of the Propounders of the Articles of Faith but he durst neither adventure to tell whom he meant by these Infallible Propounders or to prove the Infallibility of Romish Propounders or to answere Arguments against their Infallibility At length being outwearied with his tergiversing I produced positive Grounds for proving the conformity of our Religion to the Scriptures and the disconformity of theirs viz. The Perspicuity of the Scriptures in all things necessarie and Conformitie with the faith of the Ancient Church in the first three Centuries Hereupon he positively declyned both Scriptures and Fathers in these first three Centuries as a test to find out the Truth of Religion Therefore finding that still he shunned to come to particulars I pirched upon that much controverted Scripture which Romanists pretend to be as favourable to them as any viz Hoc est Corpus meum This is my Body and proved the sense which PROTESTANTS give thereof to be True and Genuine and the sense which Romanists impose to
SalvatioÌ„ from the faith of the most ancient primitive Church Seeing your Formula fidei contrived by Pope Pius the fourth hath made all the canons of the councill of Trent necessarie which I am sure neither you nor any man shall be able to show to have been the faith of the most Ancient and primitive Church Though this hath been put to you once and againe yet have you not dared to touch upon this string Yea Fifthly from this your imposing new necessary articles of faith whereas Regula fidei as Tertullian well sayed Lib. de velandis Virgin Una omnino est immobilis irrefomabilis many of our Divines have demonstrated your Church to be the most Schismaticall society that bears the name of a Church under Heaven For by this you have cut your selves off both from the ancient Church and from the greatest part of Christendome at this day Among many others who have convicted you of this greivous crime you may try how you can expede your self from that which hath been said to this purpose by Decter Morton in his booke intituled The Grand Imposture of the Church of Rome cap. 15. by Stilling fleet in his Vindicatione of the Bishop of Canterbury part 2. cap. 2. And Voetius in his Desperata causa Papatus lib. 3. From this it were easy to demonstrat that notwithstanding your great pretences to Catholicisme we not ye are the true Catholiks For we acknowledge coÌ„munion with the whole Church both ancient modern which keep the essentials fundameÌ„tals of Christianity But your Chuch by imposing new necessary articles of faith which neither the ancient Church nor yet the greatest part of the present Church did ever acknowledge have cut your selves off from the body I shall close this Section with this Dilemma Either the Scriptures doe containe all that is necessarie to Salvation or not if they doe then you are a perverse wrangling sophister in cavilling against this truth If not then instance one necessary truth not contained in Scriptures And this should have been your worke if you would have done any thing to purpose against this precious truth of the Scriptures being a compleet Canon to have showed some Necessary article of faith not contained therein And if you set to this worke remember that according to your own principles you must prove it by some infallible authority which you will find as hard a worke as to roll Sysiphi Saxum In place of your third objection you enquire What are the means for interpreting Scripture what is the due use of these means Whether a false Religion may not use the meane And whether people without preaching can duely use the means of interpretation and come to the knowledge of all things necessary And from the use of meane of interpretation you would conclude the Scriptures not to be perspicuous Behold now of a disputant you are become a Querist You have need I confesse in your old dayes to turne a Catechumen and if you would become a docile Disciple you might receive convincing instructions and find that you had no just cause to have turned a Runnagade from the Religion of PROTESTANTS unto which you were baptized But so long as your Queries proceed from a cavilling humor you deserve no other answere then the retortion of some puzling Queries as our Lord Christ sometimes confuted the insidious interrogaturs of his adversaries A remarkeable instance whereof you may find Luke 20. from verse 2. to verse 8 And therefore to pull down these Spider webs in which you seeme not a little to confide know First that the use of means of interpretation doth nothing derogat from the asserted Perspicuity of the Scriptures especially seeing the principall means of interpretation are to be fetched from the Scripture it self Suppose a man be in a darke Roome with his eyes shut because he must first open both eyes and windowes before he can see the Sun will you therefore accuse the Sun of obscurity Is not the Perspicuity of Scriptures luculently attested Psal 119. vers 105.2 Pet. 1.19 2. Cor. 4.3.4 Rom. 10.7.8 c. If Scriptures be not perspicuous in things necessary it must be either because GOD would not speake clearlie in them or because he could not It were too hard blasphemie to say he could not Who made mans mouth Exod. 4.11 Hence Laâ—tantius lib. 6. Institut cap. 21. Num Deus linguae mentit artifex lâ—â—uinâ—n potest Nor can you say because he would not seeing this is the verie end of Scripture to reveal unto us the way of Salvation Iohn 20.31 Rom. 15.4.2 Tim. 3.15 Dare you say that our holy and gracious Lord did purposlle deliver the whole Scripture obscurely as Aristâ—tle did his Acromaticks and therefore said of them Edidi non edidi You might have learned a better lesson from Ierom on Psal 96. Where he makes this difference betwixt the writings of Plato and the Apostles Plato said he purposlie affected obscurity that few might understand but the Apostles wrote clearly that they might accommodat themselves to the capacities of all the people of GOD. But Secondly Are not you Romanists as much concerned as we in finding out the means for interpreting Scripture yea and besides to find out also means for interpreting the Decretalls Bulls and Breves of your Popes Are you not acquaint with the perplexed debates of your Authors and particularlie how Stapletons eleventh booke de Principiis fidei Doctrinalibus is wholly spent De mediis interpretandi Scripturam And when all is done you Jesuits can never think your Roman cause sufficiently secured except your Pope be made the onely Infallible Interpreter of Scriptures and therefore Gregorius de Valentia lib. 7. De analysi fidei cap. 1. Proposes this assertion as that which he would prove throughout the whole booke Pontifex ipse Romanus est in quo authoritas illa residet quae in Ecclesia extat ad judicandum de omnibus omnino fidei controversiis And though in his Lib. 8. he mentions diverse rules in determining controversies of faith yet at last he concludes in Cap. 10. That the Pope may use these according to his discretion and that he is not tyed to take advice of Cardinals or other Doctors but according to his pleasure and that he may desyne as Infallibly without them as with them So that till the Scripture have no libertie to speake any thing but what sense your Popes are pleased to put upon it you can never secure either your Pope or Papal Religion from Scriptural Anathema's Were it not easie for me here to give you and the World a Specimen of goodlie expositions of these your infallible interpreters I meane your Popes such as Syricius Innocent the third Boniface the eight c. They who can expound Statuimus by Abrogamus and Pasee â—ues meas of deposing and killing of Princes what Glosses can they not put on scriptures By this it may appeare that this your Querie like all
is now guiltie of the impertinent Digression you or I the Reader may judge All the colour you could put upon this shameless and cowardly tergiversing is That it seemes say you These large discourses of mine are copied out of controversie Writers But why would not you copie an Answere thereto out of your controversie Writers Why at least doe you not name The Authors with whom I had made so bold Especially I having in my last given a particular instance of the Plagiary trade of Jesuits and appealed you if you could to convict me of the like cryme If you put me to it I will rip up yet more of their sores of this nature Could the confutation of all your Papers in Two Words be copied from any Author But I had so brow-beaten this cavil before that like a self condemned Malefactor who to use Tertullians phrase is Acorde suo fugitivus you dare not now positively affirme it only say you It seems But I wil deale more squarely with you You not onely seeme but really are an effronted calumniator If you take ill with this freedome learne henceforth to affirme no more then you are able to prove Had it not been to cleare a little of the matter of Fact against these your lying representations of the first occasion of this debate I had not denzied a returne to this your impertinet Paper wherein you have not answered one word that was replyed to you But I am the rather moved to examine these your calumnies because it is long since I heard that Scurvie Lybels to this purpose were disseminated by persons of your professioÌ„ and now I find that by this your Paper you doe homologate the same reproaches Yet no to notice these diffamatorie Pasquils which no man durst owne I shall at the time only discover the falshood of some few of your allegeances in this your Eight Paper And First you say That this debate was occasioned by our continual railing against your pretended Catholick Religion As if it were our custome to charge your Religion falsly with these things which you doe not mantaine A great crime I acknowedge if it were a truth But why did you not for the satisfaction of the Reader and our conviction instance some of these falshoods Doe you not hereby manisest the calumniating genius by which you have been acted all along Know therefore that we PROTESTANTS hold it not lawful to lie for GOD. Job 13.7 The truth of GOD needs not mens lies to support it Did I see that the PROTESTANT cause could not be mantained without calumnies and falshoods I should instantly disowne it as not being of GOD. I reckone it my mercie that I have been helped in some measure to give a faithful testimony against the Abominations of Poperie and wil account it my duety so to doe while I live I have inded said it from Pulpit and I hope I have also made it good that your Romish Doctors have corrupted much both of the Dogmaticals and Practicals of Christianity And what I have said herein I shall be readie through the grace of GOD to mantaine not onely against such an Ignoramus as you but the whole unhallowed crew of Jesuits This hath been often charged upon you and demonstrated against you by our Divines But because I see you are not for large Volumes I shall remit you at present onely to a little but learned tractare to this purpose writen by Doctor Jeremy Taylor Entituled A Dissuasive from Poperie But what Doeth a Jesuit accuse us of Railing Doth not the World know that persidious lying and equivocation are the Piae fraudes the holy I should have said Hellish Chears whereby their cause is mantained Have they ever been able to wipe off those staines which Watson their own Romish secular Priest fixed upon their societie in so much that he is not afraid to say that Lucian Machiavel yea and Don Lucifer might goe to school and learne Satanical practises from your Jesuits And as for you is it not too too apparent by all these your Papers that you serve for nothing unlesse it be to rail and lie like a Shimet At arguing have you not proven according to the Proverb Quaesi asinus ad lyram Remember therefore that smart admonition Matth 7.5 Thou Hypocrite first cast the beame out of there own eye then shall thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brothers eye You are pleased Secondly to say That in stead of impugning your Catholick dogmes as you terme them We propound to the people and that in a radiculous manner so gravely forsoth doe you occuse us Problematick points out of your Casuists and Schoolmen If you Iesuits were not Persons Effrontis imprâ—bitatis linguae effrauis habituated in confident asserting of lies would you not have examined the truth of this report before you had given it under your hand Whether we behave our selves ridiculously in Pulpit grave Auditors can witnesse Indeed if the Supremacie of your Pope and the infallibility of your Church if your Transubstantiation and Sacrifice of the Masse it your Adoring of Images and invocating of Saincts and Angels if your Purgatorie and Praying for the Dead c. If these I say and such as these be the Problematick points you speake of Them I confesse we doe publickly propound and solidly confute If these be onely Problemes which a man may innoceÌ„tly affirme or deny why for opposing these doe you Romanists anathematize PROTESTANTS Why have you brunt so many of them alive and cruelly imbrewed your hands in the blood of so many thousands of them Sometimes I deny not occasions may occurre of speaking concerning the particular tenets of some of your Doctors But then judcious Hearers can beare us witnesse for we teach nothing in a corner that we no otherwayes represent these then as the judgement of such Doctors This appeared when I was confuting from Pulpit that impious tenet which I suppose is the Probleme you hint at of many of your Doctors That a sinner is not bound by the law of GOD immediatly after he hath sinued to repent For in Pulpit I did onely charge it upon many of your Doctors But though we be so ingenuous in representing the tenets of your Doctors I shall desire you to confider what a staine and reflexion these impious tenets of particular Doctors among you leave upon your Romish Church Are they not published with the approbation of your Authorised Licencers of books as containing nothing Contrary to the Catholick Faith Are either Authors or Licencers of the books censured by your Church Have not your Expurgatoris indices deleted much better stuffe in the writings boon of Ancient and Moderne Authors whereof you may find many examples in Doctor Iames his excellent booke of The corruption of Scriptures Councils and Fathers by the Prelats Pastors and Pillars of the Church of Rome part 4 But the impious tenets or your Casuists and Schoolmen stend uncensured with the
that your Romish Church like an old Whoore doth still wax worse and worse How often have our Divines demonstrated that your Romish Church is much more corrupt and grosse in her Tenets since the Council of Trent then before Doe not we know how often you set at nought Old Doctors when they agree not with the principles of your Present Papal faction Hence your Jesuit Escobar Tom. 1. theol moral in praeloq cap. 2. num 8. frequenter accidit sayeth he ut quae opinio paucis ab hinc annis in â—su non erat mode communi consensu recipiatur è contra Yea though you doe vainly brage of your Unity how few points of controversie are there betwixt you and us wherein you are not sub-divyded amongst your selves You may find this learnedly made out by Doctor Morton in his Appeale for PROTESTANTS out of the confession of Roman Doctors I will give you but one Instance at the present Your Papal indulgences are one of your now received Romish articles and yet some of your Ancient Doctors mantained them to be but Pias fraudes meere impostures So our of your Aquinas testifyeth Gregorie de Valentia lib. de indulg cap. 2. It may be Objected secondly That your Jesuit Escobar hath disputed may safely goe away he is not bound to doe it but may without sinne kill the man who intends to strick him though but lightly or if the Priest be consulted by another that over-reaches in his passion he may flatter him declaring with the same Tolet. Lib. 4. cap. â—3 num 4. That if a man be in a great passion so transported that he considers not what he sayes if in that case he doth blaspheme his blasphemie is not mortal sinne So may the Priest sooth them who commit horrid crimes in their drunkenness with the foresaid Cardiual Tolet. lib. 5. cap. 10. num 3. That if a man be beastly drunk and then commit fornieation that formeation is not sinne Yea he may with the same Cardinal lib. 5. cap. 13. num 2. Declare that if a man desires carnal pollution that he may evite carnal temptations or for his health it were no sinne Time would fail me in reckoning out such Probable nay Damnable Doctrines of your Casuists according to which your Confessors can determine exceeding many cases sutable to the inclination of the party with whome they have to doe either according to their own opinion or according to the opinion of some other Grave Doctor And what ever is delivered according to a probable opinion may be warrantably practised though there be another more probable Quaelibet opinio probabilis tutam reddit conseâ—entiam in operando sayeth your Escobar Tom. 1. Theol. Moral lib. 2. Sect. 1 cap. 2. num 22. Now shall your Casuists be permitted to introduce such unheard of impieties into the World by the pretended authoritie of Out grave Doctor without check or controll Shall their Problematick decisions warrand such shavelings as you to encourage lewd persons to murther their Neighbour blaspheme GOD violat womens chastity and cut off Princes for to that purpose also they have many Problematick decisions and when we oppose these impieties shall we be rated as ridiculous Railers Doth your Church of Rome thinke to wash her hands in innocency as if she were not guilty of these impious decisions because they are not ratified by the decree of a General Council What I pray you bath she decreed against them Your Religion at least is such with which all these impieties are wel consistent There is nothing in your Religion repugnant to them But besides are not these Casuistick tractats writen by your gravest Doctors in the face of the Sun under the Popes nose Is not this pernicious doctrine of Probables publickly avouched and known among you Yea are not these bookes approven by your authorised Licencers who are intrusted to looke Ne fides Ecclesiae detrimenti aliquid patiatur Your Church therefore will never be able to vindicat her self either before GOD or rational Men from being an abettor of these impieties Nay this leaves an undenyable conviction upon the consciences of your own authors in so much that Dominicus a Soto cited by Doctor Taylor in his Dissuaesive cap. 2. sect 1. I am so fat from stealing as often times doe your Jesuits that I ingenuously tell you when I have not a booke by me sayeth Non ilico ut â—â—mo se reum sentit culpae paenitentiae lege paenitere constringitur Haec profecto conclusie more usu Ecclesiae satis videtur constabilita Where he charges your Church with this Prophans doctrinâ— which hardens men in impenitencie But of this enough for the time After your impertinent and calumnious Digression concerning the first occasion of our Debate and your Problematick points for my worke in all these eight Papers hath been to follow a roving Vagrant from one impertinencie to another you claver to as little purpose concerning the sense of holy Scripture Before say you that our Religion be proven from Scripture it must be first proven that we PROTESTANTS have the true sense of Scripture But First Ought you not remember that in this writen debate you doe sustaine the part of the Opponent might it not therefore be better retorred upon you thus Before you prove that the PROTESTANTS have not the True Religion you ought first to prove that they have not the true sense of Scripture And may it not be a convinceing argument Ad Hominem against you that PROTESTANTS have the true sense of Scripture and consequently the True Religion seeing in all these Eight Papers you who appeared as the Romish Champion to disprove the Religion of PROTESTANTS have not been able to produce one Medium to prove the falshood of their Religion or of their sense of holy Scripture But it seems that you would willingly forget that you are the Opponent I wonder nothing that you who turne the weighty points of the Law to Problems should make a Probleme of this matter of fact how evident so ever it be So miserably have you discharged the Opponents office that you may truely be ashamed to owne it But SecoÌ„dly Could I make fairer proffers to you then I have done Have I not offered to disput whether PROTESTANTS have the True Religion and the true sense of Scripture both by Intrinsick Arguments from the Series of the context of Scripture from parallel places and the analogie of faith as also by a more Extrinsick test namely the conformity of Religion with the faith of the most Ancient Christian Church But as a perfect Coward who distrusted your cause you durst adventure on neither of these Nay all your cavils which once you started against both these grounds such as a catalogue of necessaries rules of interpretation of Scripture c. I have so convinceingly confuted that you have not dated once to mention them againe in this your last Paper Yea Thirdly Flave I not gone a further length and
on him to none of which you have answered one word But though you snake away in the dâ—â—ke when you are Non-plussed and though your scutvie behaviour merit no Answere yet for the satisfaction of others into whose hands these Papers may fall I Answere there was a Church on Earth with which Luther had visible communion For clearing whereof By having visible communion I understand that there was a visible societie who did professe the same Religion which Luther did as to all the essentials thereof If you ask what that Church was I answere the Catholick visible Church And doe not wonder that I speak of a Catholick Church as distinct from your Roman There was a Catholick Church before there was a Church at Rome and the Church of Rome in her greatest integritie was but a part of the Catholick When therefore Luther departed from the present Apostatick Church of Rome because of her imperious usurpation upon the Catholick Church he retained Communion with the rest of the bodie who did never submit to her usurpations For when Luther did brake off from Rome there remained foure gaeat Christian Patriarchships disunited from Rome viz of Constantinople Antioch Alexandria and Ierusalem Whatsoever Christians therefore under any of these Patriarchships or in other remot Nations have not ruinated any Fundamental Article of the Christian Religion and are united to the True Catholck head of the Church the LORD IESUS CHRIST PROTESTANTS doe professe Communion with all these I doe not deny but there may be some differences betwixt us and other Churches as to some Integrals of Religion But diversitie of Integrals makes no different Religions so long as the Essentials remaine the same You may learne if you know not from Hoornbeck beside others in his Summa controversiarum lib. 11 de Graecis pag. 978. c. Edit 2. how Iosephus Patriarch of Constantinople sent Demetrius a Deacon of that Church to Wittemberg in the year 1559. to enquire into the state of the PROTESTANT Churches and how Demetrius after an half years abode at Wittemberg carried with him to the Patriarch a câ—piâ— of the Augustan Confession translated into Greek by Philip Melanchton under the name of Paulus Dâ—lscins You may also learne from the forecited Author how Hieremiaâ— another Patriarch who afterward sat in the same Chaire kept correspondence by letters with the PROTESTANT Divines at Tubing from the year 1574. for a long time thereafter And though they had there own debates about some particular points which your Stanislaus Socolovius labours invidiously to exaggerat ye both the Patriarch himself doth give GOD solemn thanks That the doctrine of the PROTESTANTS was in so many things consonant to the doctrine of the Greek Church And likewise Johannes Zygowalas a person of great account with the Patriarch in his letter which he wrote to Martine Cruzius in the year 1576. declares that it may be evident that the Greek Church and PROTESTANTS doe agree In continuis causam fides praecipue continentibus articulis or in the most important articles of the Christian faith and that in other things they may easily come to agreement and the rather as Stilling fleet in his Rational account of the PROTESTANT Religion part 2. cap. 8. § 15. relates out of the same letter from David Chytraeus de statu Eccles Orient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That is Since neither party doth agree with the Bishop of old Rome or with the church which joines with him but both doe oppose the evill customes brought in by him Have you not heard how Cyrill Patriarch of Alexandria wrote to George Abbat Archbishop of Canterbury in the year 1616. and did commend to him a Student Metrophanes Chrysopulus to be bred in the Vniversities of England and to be farther instructed in our Religion And accordingly the said Metrophanes did avoid Romish Superstition and alwayes joine with the worship of the Church of England as is testified by Doctor Morton in his Grand imposture of the Church of Rome cap. 14. sect 3. The Letters exchanged betwixt the Patriarch and the Arch-Bishop you may find published in Ephraim Pagitts Christianography edit 3. part 3. You may read also in the forecited booke of Hoornbeck of the respect which Meletius Patriach of Contstantinople had for the PROTESTANT Churches and of his aversation of the Bishop of Rom's usurpation But above all memorable is the Confession of saith put forth by Cyrillus Lucaris Patriarch of Constantinople in the year 1631. in the name of the Greek Church exactly conforme to our Reformed Religion for which your bloody Jesuits did persecute that Holy Matyr to the death I know that this his Confession was afterward distallowed by Cyrill Berrhoeus and Parthenius two factious and bloody men who by ill means got into the same Chair whome Hoornbeck spares not to call Pseudo-Patriarchs But besides that they shortly suffered for their villanies being disgracefully as the same Author testifies ejected from their Patriarchships the Lord also stirred up another Parthenius in the same Chair to vindicat the fame and cause of Cyrillus Lucaris The aversation which the Greek Church have of you Romanists is sufficiently known to the World At the time that one Testimonie of your Prateolus in Elench haeres lib. 7. tit de Graecis pag. 202. might suffice Where he sayes of the Grecians Summum Pontificem Christi Vicarium omnesque Latinos pro excommunicatis habent that is They looke upon the Pope of Rome and all these of the Latine Church who adhere to him as persons excommunicated To wich you may joine that of Alphonsus à Castro lib. 6. de Haeres tit de Eucharistia haeres 2. Where he not only testifieth that the Greeks doe anathematize Latinos omnes all who are of your Latin Church but also that they Will not permit your Priests to consecrat on their Altars or if they doe it at any time with out their knowledge or coÌ„sent they wash their Altars before they coÌ„secrat on them as judging them polluted by your Priests Nay further Ephraim Pagit in his Christianography Part. 1. cap. 4. branches forth the agreement of the Greek Church and many other Oriental Churches with the PROTESTANT Churches in the chief heads wherein we differ from the Papists But because some Heresies destroying the Foundations of Christianity are objected to these Churches such as the Denyall of the procession of the holy Ghost from the Son to the Greek Church and Nestorianism to these under the Patriarch of Mosal and Eutychianism to many others I shall remit you to see what is particularly said for the vindication of the Greek Church by Doctor Field in his way to the Church Lib. 3. cap. 1. Where he undertakes to show both from Greek and Romish Doctors of great fame I hat the difference betwixt the Greek and Latine Church touching the procession of the holy Ghost is meerly verbal Yea and he endeavoures to clear many other Oriental and African Churches from Nestorianism
and Eutychianism The same also is confirmed by Ephraim Pagit in his Christianography part 1. cap. 10. where he likwise undertakes to prove that these Churches are not Heretical but Orthodox in the maine But concerning the vindication of the Greek Church in particular at least from a Fundamental error touching The procession of the holy Ghost I shall referre you to learned Stilling fleet in his Rational account of the PROTESTANT Religion part 1. cap. 1. I know your Cardinal Barronius in the end of the Sixth tom of his Annals labours to perswade the World that an Embassy was sent to Pope Clement the eight from Gabriel Patriarch of Alexandria submitting himself and all the Churches under his jurisdiction both in Egypt and Abassia to the Pope But as learned Breerwood observes in his Inquirie about the diversitie of Languages Religiones Cap. 22. this upon examination was found to be a meer Trick of imposture Yea this cheat is acknowledged not only by your Historian Thuan lib. 114. ad annum 1595. but also by Thomas a Jesu the Carmelit De conversione omnium gentium lib. 7. cap. 6. pag. 364. Have you no way to perswade the World of the Catholicisme of your Church but by such Impostures I might besides remember you of the Waldenses and Albigenses a people nearer hand who professed as to Substantials the same Religion with PROTESTANTS long before Luther Yet we never looked on them or Luther or Calvine as the Authors of our Religion as you doe rantingly talk For it derives its Original from Christ alone and his Apostles Prove it to be of meaner or latter extract and I will disowne it I know the Waldenses were loaded with grievous aspersions by the Zealots of the Romish faction as if they had been Arrians Manichees Necromancers and what not But they are abundantly vindicated from these Calamnies by learned Divines out of the writings of Authors who cannot be suspected to have been too favourable to them I shall only at the time remember you of that known testimonie of the Inquisitor Reyner concerning them Quod coram hominibus juste vivant bene omnia de Deo credant omnes articulos qui in symbolo continentur Solum Romanam Ecclesiam blasphemant oderunt That is They live justly before men they believe all things well concerning GOD and all the Articles of the Creed Onely they hate and blaspeme the Church of Rome You may judge of the rest of the Calumnies thrown upon thâ—m by these two chief ones whereof learned Prideaux lect 9. De visibilitate Ecclesiae § 11. gives this account They were sayeth he charged as mantaining with the Manichees Due Principia Two beginnings of things GOD and the Devil because forsooth they mantained that the Emperour was independent from the Pope They were likewise sayeth he charged with Arriantsme because they denyed Crustam in Christum esse transubstantiatam That a crust of bread was transubstantiated into Christ in the Sacrament You may see a large vindication of them in Vsser De successione Ecclesiarum in Occidente ab Apostolâ—rum temperibus ad nostram aetatem capp 6 8.10 Let it suffice at the time to remember you that he cites cap. 10. pag. 373. edit 2. luculent testimonies out of Paradius Annals of Burgundy and Girardus French Historie that because of their freedome in reproving the dissolute life and debauched manners of the Romish Clergie Plures nefariae eis assingebantur opiniones à quibus fuerunt omnino alâ—eni That is Many impious opinions were atributed to the Waldenses which they altogether abhorred I might also make mention of these in Bohem who were termed the Hussits to whome Hoornbeck in the forcited place testifies that the Church of CoÌ„stantinople wrot a letter in the year 1451. exhorting theÌ„ to CoÌ„munion with the Greek Church in oppositioÌ„ to the Bishop of Rome Yea your own Cochlaeus other Popish writers are quoted by Prideaux Lect. 9. § 11. acknowledging that the Lutherans derived their doctrine from the Hussits the Hussits from the Wicklevists the Wicklevists from the Waldenses When therfore ye are better instructed you will acknowledge that there Religion ours as to Substantials are the same But I may come yet nearer and tell you that Luther had Communion with many thousands who before his appearance were groaning under the corruptions of the Church of Rome and breathed after the shaking off the yoke of the Papal faction As beside others Doctor Field hath demonstrated in Lib. 3. of his way to the Church cap. 12. and more largely in his Appendix to that Third booke Thinke you the World to be strangers to the piteous complaints of Nicolaus Clemanges Alvarez Pelagius Theodoricus à Niem Gulielmus à Saucto Amore c. Concerning the Corruptions of the church of Rome Yea did not Pope Adrian the sixth acknowledge the necessitie of a reformation and that the World was hungrily expecting it I know your late Papal parasites would perswade us That it was only a reformation of manners and not of Doctrine which was groaned after in the church of Rome But the contrarie is luculently demonstrated by our Authors I shall at the time only remit you to Sir Humphry Lynd's defence of Via tuta against I. R. entiuled a case for the spectacles cap. 4. pag. 165. c. Where he bringes testimonies not onely from the Cardinal de Alâ—aco Gerson Grostead Occam and from the Council of Pisa but also from the Council of Trent it self to prove that before and about the first sitting down of that Council Romanists themselves were sensible that There was a necessity of reformation of doctrine as well as of manners Hence was it that so many thousands in most of the nations of Europe did joine with Luther at his appearance who did not only oppose The corrupt manners but also the Corrupt Doctrines of the Church of Rome Hence is that of your Alphonsus à Castro adversus haeres in Aepist nuneupat ad Pacâ—ec Cardinal Nec solus Lutherus hoc saculo prodâ—it sed multorum Hareticorum agmine ceu quodam satellitio stipatus processit qui illum tanquam ducem primo egredientem spectasse videntur Where he acknowledgeth that Luther came forth accompanied as with an Armâ—â— who but waited for his appearance as their Captaine and Leader But that I may shut up this Section had you considered how this Queriâ— is retorted by our Divines upon you I believe you would have spared it They ask where your Present Romish Religion as now it stands was before the council of Trent which was confirmed by Pope Pius the fourth Anno 1564. long after Luthers death Our Divines know that there were many corruptions in the Church of Rome before the Council of Trent against which the Waldenses the Wicklevists the Hussits Luther and others did witnes But the question now is Whether the then Church of Rome mantained all the points of Religion as necessary to Salvation which
your councill of Trent and your Pope Pius the fourth in his formula fidei have declared to be necessary to Salvation If she did then you may be pleased to produce evidences hereof wherein you may perhaps finde more difficulty then you are awarre of If she did not then is your present Romish Church a new upstart and Schismatical Church of a distinct faith from the Catholick Church in all ages You may notice how Doctor Field in the Appendix to his fifth booke part 2. cap. 2. goes about to prove that the Church of Rome is not now the same that it was before Luthers appearance Things being now defined as Articles of faith necessarie to Salvation which were not so before I sincerely professe the Noveltie of your Romish Faith and the Schismaticall constitution of your Church are not the least grounds of my disatisfaction with your Religion You may desire your Masters to calculate to you the Antiquity of the Romish Canons establshing the points following as Articles of faith viz First The equality of unwriten traditions with the holy scriptures of GOD. 2. That concupiscence in the regenerat is not properly sinne 3. The desinit number of seven properly so called Sacraments neither more nor fewer 4. The Popes supreamacie above general Councils 5. Your Indulgences and Purgatorie 6. The abstraction of the Cup from the people 7. Your Transubstantiation 8. The infallibility of the Church of Rome 9. The adoration of Images 10. The Popes jurisdiction over secular Princes Not to mention more at the time I believe you will find some of these latter then Luthers appearance Others but a little before and all of them not only short of Primitive and Aprstolick antiquity but notone of them within the Verge of the Three first Centuries You may if you will take a briefe hint of the novel dates of most of these Romish Canons from Drelincourt in his PROTESTANTS Triumph Discourse 2. from page 39. to page 52. As also of sundry of your ritualls such as the Procession of the Sacrament the feast of the Sacrament your Jubilees the Canonizing of Saints nay of your present Romish Missal and how lately it was received both in the Gallican and Spanish Churches c. Is it safe to venture the eternall Salvation of Soules upon a Religion so Novel both in its Articles of Faith and Rituals You have one Trifle more which I cannot let slip Because I have required you to prove the Assumptiō of that goodly Syllogism which ye proposed in your first Paper wherein you said That the PROTESTANT Religion had no grounds to prove its conformity with the sense of Scripture and to this day you have been able to bring nothing in Confirmation of it Now therefore when Arguments fail you you would try if you could bring your self off or creat Odium to your Adversary with a popular but reallie impertinent Example You say That I have behaved my self as if one should come as sent from the Council to require the Provest of Aberdene to apprehend a person suspect of Disloyaltie but when the Provest did demand his commission he should answere that he was not bound to show his Commission but his Commission was sufficiently proven by this that there could not be produced reasons to show that he had no Commission Is this the Scholastick method which you call for in stead of Arguments to substitute popular declamatorie Scenick examples which by a person of any Acuteness may be transformed into a thousand various shapes But seeing you will have the matter managed by Examples I must Examplisie time-about Suppose therefore First that a man were reallie Commissionated by the Secret Council to require the Magistrats of such a City to apprehend a disloyal person and for this effect did produce his Commission but the Magistrates did cavil at the sense of the Commission how luculent soever in it self alleaging that they could doe nothing upon that Commission untill the sense of it were cleared and that the sense of it could not be cleared without an infallible Expounder Would not the Secret Council have just cause to be moved with indignation against these Magistrates who had so ludified their Order And is not this the very case betwixt us and you Doe not PROTESTANTS still produce the Tables wherein the Ground of our Faith is contained Viz the Holy Scriptures Doe not we tell you if all our Religion be not found luculently there we shall disclaime it Is not this your verie Cavil that the Sense of Scripture is so obscure that without an Infallible Bropounder it cannot be understood Have you not cause then to feare the indignation of the Almighty who doe thus reproach the Scriptures of GOD and goe about to subvert the faith of his people suspending it till they get Propounders of whose Infallibility they must have an Antecedent and previous assurance whereas there are none such now on Earth The Fallibity of your Popes and Councils we did before demonstrat and you like a mute Advocat had not a word to mutter for them But Secondly in the case which you propose of a man pretending a Commission and having none and requiring the Magistrats to prove that he had none therefore the Rogue is justly blameable because he refuseth to prove the Affirmative which was incumbent to him and requires the Magistrats to prove the Negative But betwixt you and us the case is quite contrary For though you framed the Assumption of your first Syllogisme in Negative Termes yet upon the matter you refused to prove the Affirmative and required us to prove the Negative For what is it for us to prove the Truth of our Religion in points controverted betwixt you and us but to prove that there i◠no Purgatorie no Transubstantiation no Proper sacrifice in the Masse that your Pope hath no supreamacie over the Catholick Church that there Are not seven Sacraments that Saincts are not to be invocated nor Images adored c. All which are meet Negatives and so are the most of the points controverted betwixt us and you Now suppose that there were no Revelation from Heaven for Purgatorie Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Masse the Popes supreamacie c. Will not you confess in that Case that it were not duety to believe any of them and that then it were a sufficient Argument against them there is no Divine revelation produceable for these things therefore they are not to be believed and if any would obtrude the belief of them upon others that he were bound to produce a Divine revelation for them Now we PROTESTANTS mantaine De facto this to be the Case I would therefore demand of any rational man if there be a possibility to confute us but by produceing a Ground or Divine revelation for these things Are not you then guilty of the same Absurditie with the Knave in your own Example who refuse to prove the Affirmative and require us to prove the Negative But yet further