the determiner of faith and manners First Because the chief and greatest Controversie is about scripture it â—â—lf viz What 〈…〉 scripture what not Now if it be the determiner of faith as you speak in 〈…〉 is the Catalogue of Canonical bookes 〈◊〉 How may it be proved against Luthâ—â— that St. Iames his Epistle is Canonical 〈…〉 against others that Nicodemus and S. Thomas Gospells are not Or if you reject Tobias Judith the bookes of Wisdom Ecclesiasticus and the Maccabees because the Synagogue of the Jewes did so why â—o â—ou not also deny Christ to be the Messias with them Answer This return is rather an evasion then solid reply and is satisfied in the resolution Protest Duply of the sixt Question to which in reason it ought to be referred yet seing tumultuously diverse things are here heaped together I shall sort and discuss them thus First There is no Christian Church which maketh it a Controversie at all whether scripture be the word of God so this is not the chiefest and greatest Controvesie for it is supposed amongst the principles of Christianity and if the Precognita of other science have ex terminis their own notoreiety We should not argument contra negantes principia against them who deny known principles how can this be denyed to Theology seing if we rest not on some principles we must run our selves out of breath and not know where to sist Basil †Basil on Psal 115. telleth 〈…〉 as in every science there be unqueâ—â—â—able principles which are beleeved withoâ—â—â—â—rther demonstration so in the science of 〈◊〉 Theology This is amongst 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scripture is the word of God if any 〈◊〉 this controversall he is an Antiscripturiâ—â— and Paganish Secondly There be no Controversie betwixt us and the Papists in that wherein we are agreed but both are agreed that all the bookes which we receive for Canonicall scripture are the word of God Ergo this is no Controversie If all the bookes of scripture which we mantaine be the word of God our Adversaries being judges then iâ— must determine faith and manners or else our faith is humane for Bellarmine †Bel. de verbo Dei lib. 1. â— 2. sayeth that Scriptura est regula credendi tutissima certissima the written word is a most sure and certaine rule of beleeving So sayeth Aquinas †Aquinas in Tim. 6. This is sufficient for confirming the first Answere and refuting the first Exceptionâ— Yet to follow your impertineut digression from the power of the scripture-bench to the number of the books I Answere Secondly that the doctrine concerning the number of the scripture books or the names of all them who penned these if comparatively considered that is if you compare the present number with that of the Jewish and ancient Church in pâ—â—mitive times of Christianity is not expliâ—â—â— known and beleeved by all Fide divin◠〈◊〉 first but we come to the knowledge of â—â—e number which the primitive Church mantained as we doe to the names and number of other bookes seing the Catalogue of Canonicall bookes is not set down in scripture All this we attaine without the aid of Romish Councills For the Jewes to whom were committed the oracles of God Rom. 3. 1. 2. whom holy Augustin on Ps 40. calleth Capsarios librarios Christianorum these who keeped the bookes of the old Testament for Christians and fulfilled as he saith that word in part The elder shall serve the younger divide the bookes of the old Testament according to the letters of their Alphabet into two and twenty sometimes into foure and twenty as Eusebius sheweth yet never added to nor Lib. 3. cap. 10. altered a book of the Canon only they would suÌ„me up now and then the book of Ruth with the Judges the book of the Lamentations with the Prophecies of Jeremy and at other times againe reckon them by themselves So they sometimes made but one book of Samuel one of the Kings one of the Chronicles in some editions the whole Minor Prophets were reckoned but one book by them As the scription and writting of the bible is and hath been diverse yet the doctrine contained therein is stil the rule under every character so the Canon of the old Testament finished by the Prophet Malachy was ever the same in the Jewish Church what ever way they calculated the number of these bookes Hierom translated the books of the old TestameÌ„t from the Hebrew and he did admit all the books admitted by us So did the Greek and Latine Church neither for ought we can learn from Authors was there any alteration or addâ—tion till the third Council of Carthage then Can. 47. they recoÌ„mended other books as profitable to be read which are Apocryphal The Canon of the New Testament was finished by Iohn the Evangelist who out lived the rest of the Apostles and the number we have not disclaimed In universa ecclesia Christiana sayeth Hierom ad Dardanum And according to the Councill of Laodiâ—â—a Can. 59. these books were numbered is Canonick only and appointed to be read in all the Churches of Syrla this Councill was holden Annno Dom. 364. Although Luther cast at the Epistle of James we receive it Secondly Luther by some Learned is said to have made a retractation of that errour Thirdly In his Preface to his works he desireth that men would read his books with some commiseration and remember that once he was a Monk Fourthly Your own Cajetan said as much against the Epistle of James as Sirtus Senensis telleth us Biblioth lib. 6. will it therefore follow that ye have no Canon Fifthly Stapleton saith Princ. doct lib. 9. cap. 14. in Defens Ecc. Author that it is not as yet peremptorily defined by your Church whither ye may adde moe books to the present number but we of the reformed Church are agreed in this that these books of the Old and New Testament number them who wil were the Canon received read and exponed in the Primitive Church and none can adde to or alter the doctrine therein contained under the pain of Anathema Rev. 22. 19. It is an admirable providence that the Jews such enemies to Christianity keeped these Prophesies of the Scripture uncorrupted So saith holy Augustin lib. de Consensu Evang. cap. 26. yet you deride that as if the Lord could not keep that holy Canon in the Jews hand which is a witness against them and testifies of him to their confusion Jo. 5. 39. so your consequence â—s bad and impertinent Answer Third Although the numbering or penning of the Scripture books comparatively considered be not simply necessary to be known or believed fide Divina But we come to the knowledge of these as to the number or penner of other books yet absolutly considered to any discerner the books of Scripture father themselves Lege in facie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divina read in the face of them divine approbation as in the
Firmament we may see the singer of GOD so here †See Barron against Turnbul tract 9. p. 643. we may behold divine Majestie Heavenly efficacie the consent and harmonie of parts the fulfilling of Prophesies see August lib. 6. Confes cap. 5. Persuasisti mihi non qui crederent libros tuos quos tanta in omnibus fere gentibus authoritate fundasti sed qui non crederent esse culpandos nec audiendos esse si qui forte mihi dicerent unde scis illos libros unius veri Dei spiritu esse humano generi administratos id ipsum maxime credendum erat The Scripture it self then testifieth whose it is holy men of GOD did so speak and writ that ye may know the certainty of these things Luk 1. 4. and believe them Jo. 19. 35. this is taken from the very Scripture and not from any distinct Tradition from iâ— Beside all this we have miracles wonderful providences sealing this word the testimonie of adversaries Jews and Gentiles to the doctrine therein contained the testimonie of old and late writters to our whole Canon And seeing the Lord hath sealed it and it is called his Testament none should adde to it or alter any point contained therein This is expresly forbidden Deut. 4. 2. 12. 32. Pro. 3. 6. how grosly Papists make void the Testament of the Lord by new datives and in that are like the Pharisees Matth. 15. 3. 6. shal appear hereafter Answer fourth Although all books †The Papists reject some of these Apocriphal books from the Canon of Scripture aâ— Esdras the book of Baruch c. are not rejected by us upon this account only because the Iews did so but for many other good reasons for self-murder is commended in Razis there contrar to the 6. Command c. The authours crave pardon for that which is spoken amiss whereby it is acknowledged that they had not the spirit of infallibility in all ages exceptions were made against them as is well proved by our Divines S. Thomas and Nicodemus Gospels have approbation of none so need no refutation Now I referre it to any Reader whither this first reason be sufficiently refuted or if this reflecter understandeth Logick or himself who thus reasoneth The number of Scripture bâ—oks is controverted therefore that which on all hands betwixt PROTESTANTS and Papists is acknowledged to be Scripture is not the determiner of faith Who will not perceive here a mis-stated question and gross non-consequence Yet no greater not that concerning the Messias which deserveth no answer being so absurd and bordering with blasphemie The second Reason Why Scripture cannot Pa. Rea. 2 be the rule of faith is because PROTESTANTS believe many things whereof the Scripture maketh no mention at all as the keeping holy the Sunday for the Sabbath or Saturday the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son the Trinity of Persons in God that there is one person although two natures in Christ for the Scripture maketh no more mention of Persons then of Papish-tran substantiation that Baptism of Hereticks is not to be reiterat against the Donatists that Ordination of lawful Ministers should not be reiterâ—t against Marcion that Baptism and the Lords Supper are Sacraments which are the very fundamentals of your Religion I answer to this that errour is broodie for ere it be confessed by some men they will Pro. An. 1 broach absurd Tenets and shake foundations which appeareth evidently here For this man deâ—yeth the Articles of our Creed to be grounded on Scripture which is most abominable to utter What is not the Trinity the Sacrament of Baptism and the Supper scriptural truths Let not this be heard in Gath. This giveth the Council of †Sess 7 Can. 1. de Sacr. in gen Trent the lie so the author is anathematized by them Let Papists read such as writ positive Divinity these points are aboundantly proved by them from Scripture Catechists will teach them to speak better and it they be not founded there why do your own writters prove them thence Secondly The mysterie of the Trinity is directly in Scripture 1. Io. 5. 7. there are An. 2. three which bear record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit these three are one The Word Person is in Scripture Heb. 1. 3. we indeed make use of words in the doctrine of the Trinity which are not Scripture words but all the things are there otherwise our foundations would soon dissolve This is Augustins answer against the Arrians Contra Max. lib. 3. cap. 5. and Naz. Orat. 5. de Theol. yea your own Bellarmin lib. 2. de Christo cap 2. saith Quadam verba sunt utilia ad explicanda mysteria Scripturae quae licet in Scripturis non habeantur eorum tamen aequivalentia semina ibi habentur i. e. Some words are necessar for explaining the mysteries of Scripture which though they be not contained in the Scriptures yet their parallels and seeds are contained there This he proveth by instances cha 3. 4. 5 which I need not to translate So that the Tenets which we mantaine concerning the Trinity and the two Sacraments being Scripture truths it is gross to say we have no Scripture warrand for these seeing we may make use of words for explaining divine truths any may behold the weakness of this Reply The name Trinity and Sacrament is not in Scripture therefore the thing is not there As for the Sabbath we once prove from Scripture that Saturday is no Sabbath to us Col. 2. 16. 17. then from Scripture that one day of seven behoved to be observed by reason of the fourth Command which is Moral Secondly That the seventh in number â—â— Moral the seventh day in order only ceremonial Thirdly That the Lords-day by right succeedeth †See Palmer Candrey about the Sabbath as is here made out And what day can be more sit then that on which Christ Jesus arose and put an end to the work of Redemption Then our Lord came in amongst the midst of his Disciples Io. 20. 26. which Mâ—ldoâ—at on the place confesseth to be some proof to shew that the Lords-day hath its origen from the will of Christ Acts 20 7. The Disciples conveened to the worship and the breaking of bread that day and 1. Cor. 16 they had their collections that day Hierom contra Vigilantium sayeth that per unaâ— Sabbati is understood the Lords-day And Rev. 1. 10. There is express mention of the Lords day on which place Ribera the Iesuit remarketh that in the Apostles times the solemnity of the Sabbath was changed to the Lords-day and consecrated by the Lords Resurrection Esthius on Gal. 4. v. 10. refuteth you fully by saying Diei Dominicae observationem Apostolicam esse constat ex Scriptura i. e. It is clear from Scripture that the Apostles observed the Lords day How then can you say that we have no Scripture for it Thirdly That the holy
not to be thought that privat mâ—n should be barred from searching the scripture seeing it is contrar to that text John 5. 39. where if by searching the Scripture you mean the reading and interpretation of it that cannot be the sense of it For the Apostle Paul saith 1. Cor. 12. GOD hath set in the Church Prophets Apostles Doctors c. Then he addeth are all Apostles are all Prophets are all Doctors do all interpret Then this doth not belong to every man to read and interpret Scripture but to search the deep meaning and sense thereof from the Doctors of the Church For the Jews did search the scripture reading and hearing it read in their Synagogues and yet did deny Christ to be the Messiah which scripture doth clearly testifie Even as Protestants do read Scripture and in it the real presence the power to forgive sins granted to men justification by faith and good works anointing the sick virginity preferred to marriage and yet deny all this Wherefore as Christ exhorteth the Jews to do it with greater reflection and attention not superficially turning and shuffling it over as Protestants do so do I exhort them The word is the sword of the spirit upon which you inferre should any privat man be disarmed amongst his soes So let me tell you that the Apostle calling it a sword sheweth that it should not be put into a mad mans hand or in the hand of a fool i. e. Poor ignorants who as Peter saith wrest it to their own destruction and yet this is your consequence if it should be granted to all privat men Children and fools get not arms amongst their foes wherewith they might rather wrong themselves then their enemies but are under the protection of their Paedagogues and attendants And so the ignorant should not easily handle the sword of the word being ignorant and only capable of the letter but should receive the sense thereof from the Church and her Pastors that it may be to them an arme of defence Pro. Duply 1 Answer first All this is answered fully in the return of the first question to which place I referre the Reader lest I make idle repetition If the rule of right reasoning had been observed nothing of this ought to have come in formerly but here in its own proper place I distinguished betwixt privat men and privat interpretations then betwixt the extraordinar gift of interpreting and the ordinar Thirdly Betwixt the priviledge and the exercise Privat men have the priviledge to search the Scriptures you say it should be by no other then doctors if that be true then the Lord Jesus did not direct the people who heard him to use prayer and meditation for knowing the Scriptures but to go to their rulers Scribes and Pharisees who did what they could to make the Scriptures testifie against him and all his I appeal to the conscience or reason of any if this exposition on the place can hold water Or if an indvidual act such as this being performed by another is an obedience to a command If this exposition be good then when the Lord pronounceth the man blessed who meditats in the Law day and night the sense of it must be if his Pastors do it for him it is enough Who will admit this But the one is as true as the other Secondly You contradict your self for once you say that privat men should not interpret Pro. An. 2 Scripture but take it from the mouth of the church then immediatly you exhort them to do it not superficially but with attention and we exhort to no more Thirdly You make all the people who are Pro. An. 3 privat men mad fools and Children by your coÌ„parison in whose hand the word of GOD should not be put then it must be taken from them and how agreeth this with the former exhortation What if this were told to the Kings and Queens who are Popâ—sh By the testimony of your doctors ye are all de clared unfit to rule others for mad men fools children caÌ„not govern In effect ye guide theÌ„ as such in divine matters for ye muzle and blindfold the people all this passeth under the notion of Paedagogy But sad is the case of such pupils â—f they knew what belonged to their peace Let ignorants be catechised and trained in the ways of GOD this may make them more discerning of the sense and meaning of the word of God Seneca telleth Coenant nobiscum quidam quia sunt docti alii ut sint doâ—li Some men suppe with us because they are learned others that they may be learned The testimonies of the Lord make wise the simple should they then be deprived of them Question sixth Ye agree not about the Pa. Qu. 6 rule for some cast at the Epistle of James others receive it Answer None of the pure reformed do Pro. Qu. so it was only rejected by some Lutherians in which we do not owne them Secondly The number of Scripture books is not the question but whither these mantained by all be the rule of saith Seeing all men are murable creatures and at their best state vanity Popes clash with Popes Councils with Councils Pulpits with Pulpits let any judge whither it be safest that the revealed will of God be our rule or the dictats of self contradicting men Reply You say none of these pure reformed Pa. Reply reject the Epistle of James and you disclaime the Lutherians who do so and they you for I am confident they will acknowledge none for pure reformers who take an Epistle for scripture which they hold to be none Then you say the number of Scripture books is not the question Sir you move questions as you please but hear Mr. Hooker one of your most learned Protestants lib. 1. Eccl. pol. Sect. 14. pag. 36. of these things necessar saith he the very chief is to know what books we esteem holy which is impossible for it self to teach Apply this to your only determiner of faith in your first answer And truely I think this should be the first question of all to the pure reformed according to the pure word of God as you cal them which are the books of the pure word of GOD Now if you answer these are mantained by all which you make the rule of faith how few books of Scripture shal be this rule if any at all For there be few or none whereof some have not doubted or flatly denyed Saint Augustin contra Faustum Manichaeum and lib. de mor. Eccl. cap. 1. Saith the Manichees did deny Moses and the Prophets the Jews did deny the New Testament What books of Scripture are mantained by all For by that you make the consent of all judge of canonical Scripture how then can you disclaim tradition and say immediatly after men are mutable creatures and at their best state vanity Seeing upon the consent of men ye take up your rule of faith and number of Scripture books I know other Protestants
pretended right so in the matter of doctrine an invisible Church and no Church is the same For if I cannot see nor know the Elect as being invisible to the eye of man so I cannot know that the Church composed of them speaketh to me or that this Doctrine I hear of any man is infallible more then that he is one of the Elect. Answer I am weary transseribing a number Protest Duply of wordâ— without weight that is a compleet rapsodie and no return to the former question If such digressions were heard in the School the Writter behoved to be sore censured The question was how the Scripture could be the square Seeing all agree not about the number of the books some cast at the Epistle of James as the Lutherans And the answer I gave was that although some Lutherans differre from us about the authority of that epistle yet we both agree here that uncontroverted scripture is the determiner And for the numerick question it was sufficiently answered in the second answer to the first querie so we needed not this tauâ—oligie to make the Reader nauseat If I had to do with a Lutheran then I could prove the divine authority of that Epistle but you do not deny it therefore to what purpose should I insist on that subject against you Mr. Hooker whom you cite maketh nothing against us as is alledged for that which he sayes is first that the light of reason rightly managed is a requâ—sit mean for the knowledge of scripture books and what sayeth that against us seeing we suppose the Readers of Scripture to be â—ational men that reason in its own line may be helpful to them for understanding scripture Secondly Mr. Hooker directly disclaimeth your traditions page 86. and affirmeth that they who betake themselves to that testimonie as divine have not the truth but are in an errour Thus he condemneth you as erronious so it had been your advantage to have spared this tradition neither was it needful to tell us that the Manichees denyed Moses and the Jews the New Testament We have to do with Papists who hold all the books of the Old and New Testament which we hold for Canonick At lest what some others make disputable as Melchior Canus telleth us you put it out of dispute so you are not in bona fide to reason about their number with us seeing ye question none which we mantaine albeit we justly call in question Apocryphal writtings which ye put into the Canon Is it not safer to regulate our faith by these uncontroverted Scriptures then by the dictats of mutable self-contradicting Popes When Church Rulers have been fully corrupted Believers have continued orthodoxe as in the time of the Arrian persecution The Fathers who lived the first 300. year believed without either Pope or General Council as propounders of their faith For then there was no such pretending to infallible supremacy They had no infallible testimony from the Church they acknowledged not her testimony to be such And for ought I can learn theâ—e be no testimony of your Church nor statute enacting her testimony to be infallible If so it is nor according to you de fide however ye make a great noise amongst people with it And if all the faith you have depend upon the testimony of the present Church which is your doctrine your faith is not one with Abrahams faith for the word of God did beget his faith but it is the testimony statute of the Trent Council that begettâ—th yours and I would gladly hear from you whither there was universal consent there or not Such clashing and pocket orders as the author of that history telleth to the world will not permit you to say without a blush that the Council was unanimous and Gospel-like in their way Therefore unless it be against us all their otheracts are made up of ambiguous stuffe like the Delphian responses this is purposely coÌ„trived to cover debates with general termes And if their testimony make the word of GOD Scripture to me living under Popery what rule had they for their faith who made these conclusions Their own testimony could not be the cause of their own belief if you say that the testimonie of the ancient Church was their rule then ye go contrar to your own Doctors who declare that the present Church of Rome is above all former councils and their authority dependeth on her testimony See Bell. lib. de Eccl. cap. 10. Valentia Tom. 3. disp 1. quest 1. Further that the supream power of judging is not in the Council but in the Pope that he is above a general Council that he cannot be subject to it See Bell. lib. 2. de Concil cap. 17. Valentia tom 3. disp 1. Suarez disp 5. de fide and your own Vives in his comment on Augustins 20. book de civit Dei cap. 26. telleth us how little ye make of Councils or of the ancient Church when they militat against you Illa demum videntur iis Concilia quo in rem suam faeiunt reliqua non pluris estimantur quam commenta mulierum in textrina aut thermis i. e. These appear to be Councils to them which make for them the rest are no more esteemed by them then the sables of old women in the weavers shop or sloves Brisâ—â—erius writting against Collag a Jansenist as he is cited by learned Dalleus †See Dâ—lleus de usu Patrum saith Councils are literae mortuae nisi animentur à praesenti Ecclesia i. e. They are dead letters if they be not animated by the present Church This appeareth to be true from experience for ye agree not with the primitive either in doctrine worship or government The ancients thought that Images should not be in the Church See Epiph. epist ad Iohannem Hierosolymitanum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum vidissem Imaginem penderâ— in Ecclesia contra authoritatem Scripturae i. e. When I saw an Image hang in the Church contrar to the authority of Scripture how grieved was I. But the Council of Trent appointed them to be had in houses and Churches and that debitus honor reverentia Sess 25. eis impertiatur i. e. Due honor and worship be given to them The Fathers thought that the Virgin Marie was conceived in sin so saith Ambrose Augustin Chrysostom as Melchior Canus de loc Theol. lib. 7. telleth The Council of Trent Sess 5. will not conclude heâ— under Original sin The Fathers excluded Tobias Judith Wisdom Ecclesiasticus and both the books of the Maccabees out of the canon of Scripture So did Hierom in his prologue ad libros Solomonis Epiph. lib. de Pond mens cap. 2. pag. 162. Gregorie Nazianzen câ—rm 3. Athanasius epist fest But the Council of Trent anathematizeth them who exclude these books out of the Canon Sess 4 Baptism was delayed till Pasch and Pentecost in the primitive Church it is not so with you The 4. Council of Carthage did forbide women
pâ—â—loineth honour from the Lord and giveth it to others beside him as adultery giveth conjugal benevolence to others beside the husband or wife Idolum saith Isiodorus in suis Origin lib. 8. cap. 11. Est simulachrum quod humana effigie factum consecratum est That is an Idol which is made like a man and consecrated for worship So the exhibition of Religious worship to that is Idolatrie according to him Aug. epist. 119. ad Jan. saith in primo praecepto prohibetur coli aliqua in sigmentis hominum DEI similitudo quia nulla imago ejus coli debet nisi illa quae hoc est quod ipse nec pro illo aut cum illo In the first Command where he taketh in the second to us every similitude of GOD is forbidden to be worshiped because nothing should be woâ—shiped with him or for him but He himself alone Then according to him worship given to any Image made with hands not being God is Idolatrie Then it will follow first that the Gentiles did not alwayes worship a false GOD as ye shal afterwards hear And next that the Images representing â—he true God worshiped by them were Idols So that worship must be Idolatrie wâ—erever it is The Adulterie of a Pagan and a Christian are one So the Idolatrie of the one and the other cannot be diverse whatever difference may be otherwise amongst them Gerson sayeth Varietas imaginum plurimâ—s ad idololatriam pervertit Thereby implying that statue worship as practised by Romanists was Idolatrie Josephus a Jew con Appio saith it is abominable to place any Image in the temple of God and declaimeth against Pilat for intending the like It is known how averse the Jewes after the captivitie were from this way whatever pollutions formerly they committed Religious worship rendered to Images was detested by them and reckoned Idolatrous Varro a heathen as he is cited by Aug. lib. 4. de civit Dei sayeth that at Rome in the beginning fuit purior Dei cultus sine simulachris centum septuaginta annis Then by the twilight of Pagans the worship is polluted which is by Images And in Pagan Rome it was free of that 170. years Afterwards they took in Images and multiplyed their Gods so were they given up as the Apostle telleth Rom. 1. 23. By all these it is evident that Idolatrie is religious worship given to that which is not GOD. Idolatry Superstition and Will-worship may be thus distinguished Superstition is according to the Etymolygie of the word supra statutum and may be in many cases where there be no worship at all As when men are afraid of the signs in Heaven Jer. 10. 1. 2. If they meet such a foot in the morning if people be affrighted with dreams vain divinations as the falling of salt c. And be charmed from dependance by faith on the word of GOD. That is superstition which ordinarily prophecieth according to their sentiments all the fears they imagine The Papists would willingly take with superstition if we make Scripture the sole rule of faith and manners In this they are not unlike some Witches who will acknowledge when pannelled gross crims such as adultery drunkenness swearing Sabbath breaking that they may be thought the more ingenuous in denying Witch-chraft Bell. lib. 2. de Imag. cap. 8. saith no less Non est tam certum an imagines DEI sanctae Trinitatis sint faciendae in Ecclesia It is not so certain whither the Images of GOD and the holy Trinity should be made in the Church And he thinketh that worship given to these to be founded only upon opinion Therefore he must acknowledge it at least to be superstition Will worship is where there is no statute terminating it As the worshipping of Angels Col. 2. and they go away from it with this return who hath required it at your hands Thus all Idolatrie is superstition and Will-worship For the Apostle Acts 17. calleth the Athenian worship such and maketh use of a general smooth word to dispose them the more for hearing or because it may be there was no Image there but an Altar to the unknown God Yet all superstition and will-worship is not Idolatrie although all of them are damnable Ezek. 43. 8. and religious worship should not be ex arbitrio humano sed imperio divino †Tertull de Jejunio cap. 13. in vain do they worship me Matth. 15. 9. saith our Lord who do so There be no difference in scripture betwixt a consecrated Image and an Idol If an image terminat worship make it the brazen Serpent it is an Idol And that sculptile forbidden in the second Command the Hebrew word signifying it is Pesel which is ordinarily rendered by the 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deut. 4. 16. and in the 4. of the Judges the word is twice rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a name giveÌ„ to paga idols Rom. 1 2 3 the image of the beast Re. 13. 14 is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the worship whereof no Christian can deny to be idolatrie Image in Latine is quasi imitago and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ordinarily tendered simulachrum imago Hippocrates Aph. 18. calleth the body of a man without the soul Idolum The truth of this causeth Lorinus confess that apud profanos authâ—res i. e. Criticks and Humanists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aeque late patent si latinitate utraque daretur eadem est significatio idoli iconis Sed apud Ecclesiasticos i. e. Popish writters it is not So now let any reasonable man judge whither byassed Papists or learned Criticks not involved in the controversie can give the soundest sense of these words And seeing the Hebrew signifying both is one if it be safe to hazard Salvation upon a distinction meerly nominal without a sure ground of Scripture or reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in scripture and amongst Humanists are promiscuously taken for the Hebrew word Gnabad is indifferently taken and signifieth service wâ—ich is rendered by the 70. interpreters sometimes by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For instance Daniel 6. 20. the speach of the King Darius to Daniel is thus tendered by the 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Daniel servant of the living GOD is the Lord whom thou servest constantly able to deliver thee from the Lyons In one verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are taken for one And it is ordinar in the Old Testament to render the word Gnabad by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yea more in it self the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming from dal signifieth the most submisse service so it is absurd to say it belongeth to Saints and not to GOD whom we should most humbly serve And in the New Testament in more then 40. several places as Pasor proveth fully these words are synonyma which I need not here transcribe seeing the book is
without any assentation that ye are a serious lover and diligent practiser of those Gospel verities which have been from the beginning And it will appear by proof as Tertullian speaketh antiquum nihil aliter suit quam sumus This maketh me consident that ye will entertain this Tractat for the truth To speak of your descent and ancient extract it belongeth to Historians and Heraulds not to me Yeâ— if any doubt of that let them read Hector Boetius historie concerning the reign of Alexander the third anno Chr. 1208. fol. 300. And again about the reign of King Robert Bruce anno Chri. 1320. fol 317. in both which famous mention is made of your Relatives Beside the Rudera of that old Castle in Murray called yet by your Name proclaimeth this much fuimus Trees Neither shall I insist upon the constancie and frequencie of your fervent devotion these seventie years and upward And how ye preveen the morning watches in the coldest season this commendeth the grace of GOD in you Your Antelucâ—na is such well backed with the practise of righteousness holiness peaceableness meekness temperance patience zeal and aboundance of spiritual fortitude if any will deny this they either know you not or love you not I intend not by this to fire your corruption that were not friendly breath but to further your faith and that others may learn of you to be religious indeed Go on worthie Sir in your Christian exercise well may ye flourish in old age well may ye finish your course with joy O that all descended of you may learn to follow your steps in holiness and righteousness this will be the mercy of your familie which is daily desired by Your well Wisher and Servant in the Gospel W. R. A Preface to the READER THE Congregation of DVNDEE Christian Reader was by the good hand of GOD for the space almost of an hundred yeares by-gone preserved from the infection of Poperie but of late some have been perverted by seducers to the prejudice of the Gospel and great scandal of the incorporation amongst whom one young woman descended of Religious and Honest Parents being led away with the errour occasioned this debate For after conference she seemed to be much affected and least that which then appeared to take impression on her minde should slippe out of her memory some grounds by way of a Dialogue were shortly written down with several wholsome Christian admonitions this short dialogue was by her put into the hands of a traffiquing Romanist and in stead of her Conversion so much desired eight sheets of paper are stuffed with reflections not only on it but on the Gospel-doctrine which is according to Godliness and all the professours thereof Ere I heard any such thing this pamphlet was spread with artificial insinuations and quickly convoyed from hand to hand for a time at last a well wisher to the truth sent a copie to me with this desire that I would reâ—ievâ— and refute it At first I enclined to passe it with silence because I thought discerning men would easily espy its weakness Thereafter hearing that some Popishly enclined did magnifie it least the reformed Doctrine should suffer prejudice I was advysed to pen a Reply with this resolution that except some new arguments be brought forth which are not answered by reformed Divines or here by me I will not trifle my time so much allotted for better work as to debate more on the subject here contained What is said may to my uptaking satisfie such as love the truths of the Gospel and in reason convince gain-sayers But if men will undervalue the word of GOD right reason and shutting their eyes declare them selves unsatisfiable an evil humour hath caused them to erre And I have other imployment not to wrestle with such Wisdom will be justified of her own children And in this time when prophanness and Popery walk on every side blessed is he who keepeth his garments clean and doth nothing against the truth but for it Seminary Priests are very diligent sowing their cockle amongst us in this land they have their own abettors proxies and procutors Is it not then the dutie of good Christians to arme themselves with the sword of the Spirit which is the word of GOD and keep their ground against adversaries The face of truth is beautiful and the salvation of souls precious This short Tractat is claiefly calculated for the Meridian of Dundee and for any single sincere Christian who seriously labour for Gospel truths and to worke out their own Salvation All such cannot have leasure to read voluminous books written by more able pens nor will they be at the expences to buy them and it may be also that some would not comprehend or relish them mediocriter docta mediocriter doctis placent saith the writter of the life of Pelicanus Books are like meats and somewhat of suitable sympathie contributeth to make them edifying if this convince convert or establish men in the truth it is the blessing of the GOD of truth for which I shal bless his Name If not it is my testimony to that truth wherein I have lived and hope in the strength of Iesus Christ to die So farr I 'le endeavoure to serve my generation this will be my peace whatever the event be and my conscience is witness that I hazard to publish this debate for no selfish end or any other respect whatever The Romanists for upholding their faulty fabrick have forged many unwarrantable devices some of which I shal bâ—iâ—fly touch here that by these as a tesâ—e ye may discern how they build wich wood hay stuble and daub the work all along with untempered morter Their first engyne is Matchiaveelian calumniare audacter If any man appear for truth in the gate they bend their tongues and pens as bowes with reproaches against such like that persecuting Roman who would first have the Virgins whom he minded to condemn deflowred by the hang-man that they might not be heard but die without regrate And as the primitive Christians were some-times put into beasts skins by their persecutours to the end that dogs might devoure them greedily So deal they with reformed Writters that truth be not heard from them How sinful is this way contrar to that Scripture Titus 3. 2. speak evâ—l of no man This is most like to the course which the adversaries of truth have still keeped So dâ—â—y they of old with the Prophets Psalm 69. v. 10. 11. Yea with Iesus Christ himself Matth. 11. 19. Matth. 12. 24 and all his Apostles 1. Cor. 4. 13. that they might overlay the truth and mâ—ke them the more easie prey to the teeth of obloquie and prejudice What is this bauling to the cause before any discerning person Quid ad rhombum Michael the Arch-Angel disputing with the Devil durst no bring against him a railing accusation Iud. v. 9. Let not this hinder men from hearing truth nor terrifie any from giving testimonie to it
Of 150. Bishops in the first Council of Constantinople anno 381. Where the Bishop of Constantinople is decreed to be the chief next the Bishop of Rome Thirdly Of 200. Bishops in the first council of Ephesus anno 431. where in the third action it is defined that saint Peter was the head and prince of the Apostles and that the power of binding and loosing is granted to him who in his successours liveth and exerciseth judgement unto this very day Fourthly Of 600. Bishops in the Chalcedon council in the year 451. where in the third action also Pope Leo is called universal Bishop Patriarch of old Rome and sentence is pronounced against Dioscorus in the name of Leo and sunt Peter to acknowledge Leo Peters successour The Fathers in particular I do not cite for their citations in this would make a volumn Only I engage that of a 100. there be 90. clear for this And not one against it Is not Popish faith resolved into a lie say you viz. the infallibility of Pope or Council You should have said Pope and Council putting tâ—em together as the head and chief members which represent the whole body of the Church As the Parliament doth the whole Kingdome and then if you doubt of their infallibility you deny the express words of Scripture which calleth the Church the ground and pillar of truth 1. Tim. 3. and which assureth us that the gates of hell shal not prevail against her Math. 16. 18. Yea you take away all possible means to know infalliblie what is true Scripture what is the true sense thereof which is to make us doubt of all and leave us no sufficient ground to believe undoubtedlie any thing You take away Christs promise to be with the Church to the end of the world Matth. 28. 20. Yea you take away an Article out of the Creed I believe in the holy Catholick Church and leaving men either to the dead letter of Scripture which killeth many or the privat spirit which deceiveth more or natural reason which can be a motive of faith to none you cast loose all Religion every one reâ—ecting or receiving Scripture as he pleaseth Expounding Scripture as he pleaseth and following in both no infallible rule or guide but his own opinion fancie imaginatioÌ„ In the fourth part you say that all the positives of the reformed Religion were mantained in the primitive Church the first 300. years But if this were true it would be made good no otherwise but by the Fathers writtings in the first three ages after Christ Now if they had all your positive tenets why do your learnedest writters openly disclaime them as I have shewed formerly Why saith Luther your Apostle lib. deserv arbitrio cap. 2. the authority of the Fathers is not to be reguarded and in his Collâ—q cap. de patribus In the writtings of Hierom there is not aword of true faith of Chrysostom I make no account Basil is of no worth he is wholly a Monk Cyprian is a weak Divine But I must not insist on this because you may in some measure deny the greatest parts of controverted points betwixt you and us to be positive tenets Albeit there be none of them but justly may be called so For you not only deny for example the real presence invocation of Saints use of Images that a man is justified by faith and works c. But ye positively believe that Christs Body and Blood is not reallie present in the Sacrament that to invocat the Saints is to give Gods worship to creatures that to make use of Images is idolatrie that a man is not justified by faith only Therefore I instance only two upon which all your visible reformation is grounded First That the whole visible Church may erre Secondly That we should believe nothing but what is in the written Word Now I have made it appear reflecting on your sixt answer that both these positive tenets are against the express wordes of Scripture and Fathers How then did the Church in the first 300. years hold all the positives and what you affirme As for your negatives and what you deny you grant they cannot be there because the controversies were not then stated But this is a bold and open calumnie for not one point is denyed by you but the Fathers in the first 300. years have clearlâ—e asserted And so the controversie betwixt you and us was sufficientlie stated even then You deny real presence and transubstantiation but in the second age Justin Martyr Apol. 2. ad Antonium saies as Jesus Christ incarnat had flesh and blood for our redemption so are we taught that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of the same Jesus incarnat And in the third age Cyprian serm de coena Domini saith the bread which the Lord gave to his Disciples being changed not in shape but in nature by the omnipotencie of the Word is made flesh Secondlie Ye deny the sacrifice of the Masse asserted in the first age by St. Andrew in the book of his passion written by his Disciples I daily saith he sacrifice the immaculat Lamb to Almightie GOD who when he is truelie sacrificed and his flesh eaten remaineth intire and alive And in the third age by Origen hom 13. on Exod. Ye think your self guiltie and worthilie if any part of the consecrated Hoste be lost by your negligence Thirdlie Ye deny Purgatory asserted in the second age by Tertullian lib. de anima cap. 58 seeing we understand Matthews prison which the Apostle demonstrats to be places below and the least farthing is every smal fault delayed to be paied till the resurrection none will doubt but the soul will recompence something in places below And in the third Age It is one thing being cast into prison not to go out thence till he pay the uttermost farthing another presently to receive the reward of faith One thing to be affected with long pains for sins to be amended and have all sins purged with suffering sayeth Cyprian ep 52. ad Antonium Fourthly ye deny Prayer for the dead allowed in the first Age by S. Clemens ep 1. de sancto Petro where he saith Peter there taught to give almes and pray for the dead And in the same age by Tertul. lib. de cor militis we make yearly oblations for the dead Fifthly ye deny invocation of Saints and Angells recommended in the secong Age by S. Dennis Eccl. hierarch part 3. cap. 3. saying I constantly affirm with the divine scripture that the prayers of the saints are profitable for us in this life after this manner when a man is inflamed with a desire to invocat the saints and distrusting his own weakness betakes himself to any saint beseeching him to be the helper and petitioner to God for him he shall obtaine by that mean very great assistance And in the third Age Origen on the Lambent sayeth I le begin to fall on my knees and pray to all the saints to succour me
and baptize all Nations To ordain Pastours for edifying the body whose power and calling it is to preach the Word purely to administrat the Sacraments of Baptism and the Supper of the Lord as it was first delivered to rule their flocks as they that watch for souls and should stand and feed in the strength of the Lord to administer discipline according to the word of GOD and to do every thing commanded there which may bring men near GOD and help them forward in their journey to Heaven That Magistrats should be obeyed in the Lord. Parents honoured and husband and wife dwel together according to knowledge as heirs of the grace of life That Masters should remember they have a Master in Heaven and Servants be subject to their Masters for the Lords sake That the Lord to whom we owe all should be loved with the whole heart and have the flower of our affection and that we love our neighbour as our self That we should rather suffer then sin and glorify GOD in every station wherein he placeth us This is the summe of the positives which we mantaine he who will deny that all this is contained in Scripture and consented to by the Fathers hath no understanding either of Scripture or antiquity The negatives of our Religion are points of Popery denyed by us and condemned in the Scripture contrar to all antiquity Such as these That the Pope of Rome is supream infallible Monarch of the Christian Church That he and these who follow him cannot erre in matters of faith That he hath preheminence above the scripture and may dispence with the law of GOD concerning incest murder perjury c. That he may depose Kings Their service in an unknown tongue is contrary to all pure antiquitity so much is confessed by Thomas Cajetan and Lyranus writting on 1. Cor. 14. Their praying on beads a late invention Polid Virgil lib. 5. invent cap. 9. Their carrying of the Hoste by a pompous procession is praeter veterem morem saith Cassander consult art 22. not according to antiquity That Christ is bodily present there and should be worshâ—pped and that bread and wine is no longer there after consecration is not older then the Lateran Council That the cup should be holden from the People is of one age with the council of Constance That the Mass iâ— a proper propitiatory sacrifice for the sinnes of dead and living was unknown to Peter Lombard who saith from Augustin lib. 4. disp â—â— that which is offered is called a sacrifice because it is a commemoration and representation of the true sacrifice made on the altar of the Cross Augustin lib. 20. cap. 21. against Faustus the Manichaean the flesh and blood of Christ before his comming into the world was promised by the similitude of the legâ—l sacrifices in the suffering of Christ 〈◊〉 his flesh and blood was in the veritie and antitype it self exhibited after the asâ—â—â—tion of Christ it is celebrated in the Sacrament of commemoration That none should communicaâ— except such as make aâ—ticulat consession to a Priest was not known in the ancient Church saith Maldon sum qu. â—â— art 11. Where there was only publick confession That Images should be set up in Churches and worshipped was abominated till the second council of Nice The like may be said of Purgatorie worshipping Saints and Angels with-holding the Bible from people c. So the Romish Religion is new and ours the good old way quod primum verum saith Tertul. lib. 4. contra Marc. cap. 5. It is true that the enemy did sow tares quickly in the Church and the mysterie of iniquity did encrease by degrees Yet these were not holden to be de side and made articles of the Christian Creed under the paine of Anathema till the council of Trent then indeed in stead of reformation which occasioned that convention the Trent Doctors oâ— at least the plurality of them gathered the crotchets of some Fathers the disputable opinions of some School-men and making a bundle of all together did obtrude them to be believed by all Christians under the pain of excommunication So that the church of Rome as new dogmatized is no older then the council of Trent and ours is as old as Scripture sensed by the purest antiquity For further clearing beside all I have said formerly you may hear this more how Suarez telleth us that the council of Florence did at first insinuat that there were seven Sacraments but it was no article of faith till the council of Trent the like may be said of the rest So Popery is a superstitious superstructure like an ulcer on the body which was long in growing at last did break out and stain the garments of many in a world When our Lord Jesus dyed he left a Testamen behind him which being opened directeth all his subjects how to carry Papists not content with this rule for ordering his legacâ—e upon a pompous design have formed a dative which they make equal to his Testament which we disclaim and honestly adhere to the first Testament here is the rule of our Negatives It is â—â—â—rasonick bragge for you to say That of an 100. Fathers ye have 99. for your tenets and as untrue that the four first general Councils were for the Popes universal supremacie The Fathers though the mystery of iniquitie was then in the cradle being taken up with other controversies did not purposely fall on these tares which scarcely were come to the blade then For instance the Fathers in the first 300. years whose books are extaÌ„t were Iust Mar. who did writ 150. year after Christ an Apology for the vindication of Christians to the Senat of Rome after another of the samekind to Antonius the Emperor a Dialogue concerning the verity of Christian Religion called Tryphon and some other letters exhorting to moral duties holding forth the Roligion of Christians against Jews and Gentiles but that which is Poperie the source of controversies in the Christian Church was unknown to him The next is Ironaeus who lived about the year of Christ 178. He did write five books against the heresies of his time as the Valentinians Gnosticks Ophites the heresie of Simon Magus Menander Basilides So Popery is not to be found in them unless some of these heresies be found in their skirts The â—hird is Clemens Alexandrinus who flourished in the year of Christ 196. who was a Presbyter of Alexandria the subject he handleth is in three parcels an exhortation to the Gentiles to renounce their Idols a Paedagogy to the Christians instructing them about their carriage and his Stromara which is a Miscellany work against the followers of Basilides Gnosticks c. Origen lived about the same time whose writtings are so imperfect and vitiated that we scarce know what to make of them as Erasmus witnesseth in his edition Tertullian did writ about the same time several books as concerning Patience the Resurrection against the Jews against Marcion Hermogenes
Rome is it We allow Ministerial helps for expounding Scripture but do not renounce the judgement of discretion in Christians And concerning interpretation of Scripture infallibility of Pope or Council and the priviledges of the universal Church enough is formerly mentioned And these your so often repeated cavils are aboundantly refuted and what you say you did in your Reply to my sixt Answer is refuted by me in my Duply thereto For this is Crambe recocta Lastly You cite some Fathers of the first 3. ages against our negatives and would hold is in hand that they mantained them as Articles of their Creed But ye cite spurious Authours as Origens Threni or Lament Cyprian de Coena St. Andrew St. Dennis c. some of which your own writters call in question see Bellurmin de Script Eccl. pag. 83. de Euchar. lib. 2. cap. 9. Iustâ—n Martyr †In his Apology to Antonius the Emperour is brought for transubstantiation which is a manifest untruth For the words of Iustin Martyr are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. e. That sanctified Food wherewith our blood and flesh by conversion is nourished iâ— that which we are taught to be the Body and Blood of Christ If it be food wherewith out blood and flesh is nourished then where iâ— your Transubstantiation There it is bread in substance and the Body of Christ in signification and Sacramental relation If you please by this you may be convinced of your errour ignorance and boldness It is as untrue that Cyprian said or meaned so except in a Sacramental sense for in his 63. epist he saith Invenimus Vinum fuisse quod Sanguâ—nem suum dixit i. e. We find that it was the winâ— which he called his blood and in his 76. epist he saith quando domâ—nus appellat panem corpus suum vinum sanguinem populum nostrum quem portabut indioat adunatum i. e. When our Lord calleth the bread his Body and the wine his Blood he signifyeth that we being many are one lump of bread As for the proof of the Mass from St. Andrew I can find no such book and amongst all the Ecclesiastick writters in the first 300. years there was no mention made of him If he making for your behove could be produced as an Author it is strange how Bellarmâ—n hath forgotten to name him So I cannot take this authour off your hand But this is sure Eusebius lib. 8. Dem. Evang. in fine calleth the Bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the memorial of his Body the Image of his Body Then it is no sacrifice nor corporally the Body And seeing it is really relatively and symbolically such we would not have it now abused by negligence Origen saith no more hom 13. on Exod. we say no less For Purgatory you cite Tertullian in the second Age and Cyprian in the third neither of which were for it For Tertull. lib. de Patien saith Christum laedimus cum evocatos quosdam ab eo quasi miserandâ—s non aequanimiter accipimus As if they who are called hence and be with Christ were in a pityful state having obtained their desire Phil. 1. 23. and Cyprian de immortalitate saith Ad refrigerium justi vocantur ad supplicium injusti câ—piuntur velocâ—uâ— tutelâ— sidentibus persidis poena i. e. The just aâ—e called to refreshing resâ— the wicked are taken to punishment safety cometh very swiftly to Believers and punishment to unbelievers And Cyprian saith lib. adversus Demetrianum Aevi temporalis fine completo ad aeternae vel mortis vel immortalitatis hospitia divdimur Et ibidem Quando illinâ— excessum fuerit nullus jam locus poenitentiae est nullus satisfactionis â—effectus ad mortalitatem sub ipsa morte transitur i. e. When men depart out of this world there is no place thereafter for repentance no effect of satiâ—faction at death men pass over to immortality It is true they grant Probatory afflictions and the siery tryal here Some of them also deny full fruition to the Elect till the day of judgement But for Purgatory till the sixth Age it was not known then Gregory the first mantained it Dial. lib. 4. cap. 39. Neither can that prison Matth. 5 be understood of Purgatory as shal be afterwards proved I shal close this point with Iustin Murtyr resp ad Orthod quest pag. 75. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. After the departure of the Soul out of the Body immediatly there is a separation of the just from the unjust for the souls of the righteous are brought to Paradise and the souls of the wicked are taken to hell Then you prove Prayer to the dead from Clemens epist 1. de Sancto Petro and Tertul. de cor mil. I shal not insist on that Apocryphal Epistle but for Tertullian he and others prayed for a joyful Resurrection to them And hence are some Panegyricks concerning them which were rather to profit themselves then the party deceased as Augustin telleth us in Enchir ad Laurentium they were Consolationes vivorum You offer also to make out by St. Dennis that they in primo primitiva Ecclesia prayed to Saints and Angels As for the first citation to you who professe to believe the Scriptures of GOD and do yet stumble weak ones with thornie questions concerning their authority it will not be unexpedient for me who cannot find such a writter in the second Centurie for you cannot mean Dionysius the Areopagit who lived in the 1. Centurie nor Dionysius Alexandrinus who lived in the 3. Centurie To enquire I say of you whither was there such a Saint And if that be made out whither did he writ any book at all And if so if this be the book which you call his I will not take the Popes word for it nor yours seeing both Hierom and Bellarmin leave him out of their history When these questions are answered I shal prepare an answer for his testimony But it is more strange that you cite Origen who writting against the Pagan Celsus in this point of prayer to Saints and Angels lib. 8. pag. 432. 433. saith expresly to whom we give the first fruits to him we send our prayers to the great high Priest Jesus the Son of GOD who is entered into Heaven This is like your testimonie from Dudithius if that be Origen you cite for Origens Threni or Liment to be spurious some judicious do averre as Erasmus so Barronius tom 2. ad annum 253. here is a retractation Your own Salmeron telleth us to more purpose the reason why in the primitive times there was no invocation of Saints and Angels Quia occasio daretur gentibus put andi sibi exhibitos multos Deos pro multitudine divorum disp 8. iâ— 1. Tom. 2. As for the sign of the Cross it is true Tertullian is for it in these places named and it was in use amongst Christians when they had to do with Pagans and some who are not of your communion make use of it
hoâ—ny or milk â—o the Sacrament of the Supper Neither is it reason to â—rgue from tâ—e name to the thing Wâ— call it Baptiâ—m with the Scripture And seeing his implyeth washing with water â—â— is grâ—â—â— superstition to do this without a warrand which hath â—o relation to washing 〈◊〉 would have mâ— râ—semblance with that then salt The name Sacrament is acknowledge I not to be a Scripture word But what Logick is thâ—â— The seals of the Covenant are named Sacraments by the Church Ergo we may adde materials to the work without a warrand The practise of the Baptist objected by me seemeth unanswerable for you fail by it as by a rock which is not candid dealing Yet it is your ordinar manner to pass with silence material arguments Seventhly Ye adde to the Bible humane § 7. Inst traditions which ye equalize and in a sort preferre to it This is point blank contrar to the Word Deut. 4. 2. Rev. 22. 18. If any man adde to these things GOD shal adde to him the plagues written in this book so ye have â—o fear a plague in due time Reply These are open calumnies made Papists Reply to deceive the people in Pulpits as I have shewed reflecting on your sixt answer And prove againe summarily by this Syllogism what is expresly contained in Scripture is not contrar to it But this is expresly commanded 2. Thess 2. 1. Hold fast the traditions which ye have received Neither are your citations of Deut. or Rev. to any purpose For when it is said there If any man shal adde to these things GOD shal adde to him the plagues written in the book Of necessity it must be understood of these books only adding any thing as a part of them otherwise it will exclude all other Scripture as well as tradition But it may be you think the Revelation the last written book of Scripture and that St. John there did speak of all the Bible But this is a conceit out of ignorance seeing Chemnitius your great Gun sayes his Gospel was written after the Revelation And some say so of his Epistles in the very last of which and last verse he sayes I have many things to writ unto you but not with pen and ink but I trust to come unto you and speak face to face But ye would not have believed him speaking face to face who will believe nothing but that which is written Answer You again defend traditions by your old argument A genere ad speciem affirmative Prote ∣ stants Duply which is none concludent as I have proved fully already upon the sixth question to which I referre the Reader And your answer to the 4. Deut. and Rev. 22. confuteth your self For you grant that it is not lawful to adde any thing as a part of these books Then say I it is as unlawful to adde traditions as a part of the Bible and make an entire object of faith with both which is your doctrine If the Pirrat was faulty for taking a ship Alexander was more faulty by taking of Nations We will put nothing to the Scripture that way For then we might make a new Bible and nothing into our Creed but what was written by the Penneâ—s of it You make me ignorant of the time when the Revelation was written and goes about to father that on me which came not into my mind How far and wherein we hold traditions Vide supra on Quest sixth I have no delight to make repetitions Eightly Ye mis-regard the Lords-day and § 8. Inst celebrate dayes of your own devysing contrar to and without any warrand from the Word see Gal. 4. 10. You reply that these are calumnies for we Papists Reply are taught to keep the Lords-day most religiously and with it the holy dayes of Christs-Birth Circumsion adoration by the Kings presentation in the Temple the feasts of the Mother of GOD of the twelve Apostles of some Martyrs and other Saints upon the same ground of Apostolick tradition and ordinance of the Church which the Scripture commandeth us to hear hold fast so what we do in this is neither contrar to Scripture nor without warrand from the written Word And your citation may be as well applyed against your observation of dayes of humiliation and thanks-giving For that place forbiddeth only Heathenish or Jewish days or dismal days superstitiously keeped on frivolous remarkes See Hierom on the place Aug. cont Argenant cap. 16. and in his epist 118. cap. 7. and hear the same Aug. speaking of all our holy dayes in express terms which Protestants taking away what St. Aug. saith may creep in both ungrateful forgetting of Christs mysteries and unkind oblivion of his Saints You call this Argument a Calumnie but it in too well known how small regard is had Prote ∣ stants Duply to the Lords day throughout the Popes Dominions And how farre other dayes of humane institution are by you preferred to them And for Aug. whom you cite as the main patron of them he was so far from approving the trash of his time brought in by the devices of men in the worship of God that in his 119. ep he sayeth If they continue they will become Heathnish and Judaize in many things So according to Hieroms exposition on the text Gal. 4. 10. concerneth you for some of your stust is Judaicall some Paganish Polyd. Virgil de invent lib. 4. in proaemio sayeth That a verie world of Jewish and Heathnish ceremonies pestereth the Lords field Agrippa de Vanit cap. 6. sayeth That Christians now are more oppressed with ceremonies then the Jewes were The Jewish holy dayes were but few in respect of the Romish for they had but their Passover Pentecost feast of Tabernacles of Trumpets Reconciliation New-Moons Purim and Dedication the most of which were of divine institution These have holy dayes for every Saint All saints all soules for the Cross Corpus Christi two dayeâ— every week Lent fast c. without any warrand from scripture or pure antiquitie For Aug. sayeth ep 86. against Urbicus we are indeed commanded to fast but I find not the dayes prescribed in the Evangelicall or Apostolicall writtings The same saith Socrates that it was left by the Apostles to every mans free choise lib. 5. cap. 22. and Erasmus on the 11. of Matth. complaineth that in Hieroms time there were few holy dayes beside the Lords day but now they were unreasonable and burdensome because of their multitude Thus you see neither Hierom nor Aug. savour your holy dayes unless it be in yoâ—r Utopian tractate contra Argentinant for there is non-such among his workes You might easily perceive that Gal. 4. 10. doth not militate as much against our dayes of humiliation or thanksgiving as your holy dayes if you woâ—ld consider First We have more regarde to he Lords-day nor any of these this we desiderar mâ—inly in you for as ye preferre humane traditions to the Scripture so do you these your dayes
to baptize Canon 100. ye allow it The Sacrament was administred in the primitive Church to all present and they who did not partake were appointed to remove Ite missa est exite foras qui non vultis accipere Sacramentum i. e. Go it is closed go forth ye that will not receive the Sacrament Now the words are muttered and administred before all They took with their hand and the bread was broken of old Now it is not for ye make whole wasers and put them into their mouth For fourthteen hundred years the Church appointed the Sacrament to be administred by bread and wine to the people all Christians of whatever judgement except Papists do so communicat as yet Petau de poenit pub lib. 2. sheweth that it cannot be denyed nisi ab homine insigniter supra omnem modum vel impudenti vel imperito i. e. Except by a man remarkably and above all measure either impudent or unskilful that this was the primitive practise yet the Council of Constance hoc non obstante and the Council of Trent decree the contrar The primitive Church heard nothing of the Popes universal supremacie or infallibility which now by you iâ— made Summa rei See Cyprian ep 55. â—â— Cornelius Bishop of Rome and how he stileth him fâ—ater c. and he saith that they were formerly chosen to officiat Non sine consensu plebis not without the Popes consent ep 68. Ipsa plebs habet potestatem c. Is not this far from your imperious pompous way of Monarchy how then can you so boldly averre that ye have the unanimous consent of Councills and fathers for you when indeed ye do not regard them so much as we Hear your own Cornelius Mus †See Dâ—lleus ubi supra ep Biâ—ont in ep ad Rom. cap 14. Ego ut ingenue fâ—teâ—r plus uni summo pontisici crederem in his quae fidei misteria tangunt quam mâ—lle Hieronymis Augustinis Gregoriis Credo enim scio quod summus Pontifex in his quae fidei sunt errare non potest quia auctoritas determinandi quae ad fidem spectant in Pontisice residet i. e. That I may ingenuously confesse I would give more credit to one Pope in tâ—e things which belong to the misteries of truth then to a thousand such as Augustin Jerom or Gregory For I know certainly that the Pope cannot erre in these things that belong to faith because the authority of determining matters of saith resideth in the Pope yet ignorant people are made to believe that Papists have the consent and practise of the primitive Church along with them and Melchior Canus lâ—c Theol. lib. 7. cap. 3. num 10. Sequi majores nostros per omnia in illorum vestigiis pedes nostros figere ut pueri faciunt per lusum nihil aliud est quam ingenia nostra dâ—mnare judicio nos privare nostro facultate inquirendae veritatis i. e. to follow our ancestors in all things and to â—race their footsteps and fixe in them as children use to do in play is no other thing but to condemn our own wit and to deprive our selves of our own judgement and faculty of searching the truth Salmeron in cap. 5. epist ad Rom. disp 5. asserteth quo juniores eo perspicaciores sunt doctores and citeth Exod. 23. follow not the multitude viz. of ancients This is sufficient to prove that as the Papists are jealous of Scripture so are they of the Primitive Church her consent But it is alleadged that ye have the word of God for your warrand Matth. 16. 18. Matth. 18. 18. 1. Tim. 3. 15. To this I answere that the first Text is meaned of the collective body of the Church which fall not away this is clear from the context for it is the Church builded on that confession mentioned by the Apostles and an house so builded cannot fall because it is builded on a rock Matth. 7. 25. Yet it will not follow that there be no drops in it for particular beleevers cannot totally and finally fall away but that they are infallible who can say see Iohn 10. 28. and comyare it with 1. Cor. 13. 9. Iames 3. 2. beside your own writters interpret it so see Melchior Canus lib. 5. de loc Theol. cap. 5. and Panormitan on the place The second Text Mat. 18. is to be understood of a particular Church which you grant is not infallible so Chrysostom interpreteth the place and it is further clear from the Connexion for it is the Church to which appeals should be made in prima instantia this undoubtedly is a particular Church But admitting that it is meaned of the universal church your Pope nor your Church is not it The third Text 1. Tim. 3. 15. holdeth forth no more then what is granted in the answer to the fourth question or if you please to take learned Cameron his exposition who knitteth these words with the 16. verse you may do well But what ever be the priviledges of the true Gospel Church which is the Bride of Jesus Christ Rome hath forefaulted all these and is but a leprous part of the universal Church you grant that the church of Rome is but a particular church Why plead you then for the whole priviledges of the universal Church Is not this absurd arrogance Nor doth Calvin Hospinian Luther or White speak absolutly as ye alleadge but assert that the generality for a time was leavened by Popery which is truth But what then followeth That the mysterie of iniquity did arise by degrees and over-runne all for the most we grant so did the Arrian heresie therefore was not Athauasius and such as adbered to the truth right in their way The whole world in the Apostles time did ly in wickedness 1. Iohn 5. 19. Therefore were they not Sons of truth who endeavoured a Gospel reformation Your last hold is tradition and you say we are commanded to hold them 2. Thes 2. 15. for this you cite Aug. Cyprian St. Dennis Epiphanius To this I answer we are not against Apostolick traditions nor Church history in matters of fact We make use of traditions there mentioned But for your Legends we deny that they are such and disclaim them Have you Sir learned Logick Why do you argument so a genere ad speciem affirmative Is this a good argument Est annual ergo est homo he is a living creature therefore he is a man Can this be better there were traditions delivered to the Church of Thessalonica ergo yours are these Credat Judaeus Appella Secondly If there were unwritten traditions why do you dare to writ these things which the Apostles would not writ Thirdly Will that argue the Scripture of imperfection You may as well argue the Minister writteth a book the summe of which he hath preached to people Ergo his book is imperfect You have then to prove for your end that these traditions mentioned 2. Thess 2. 15. were
about matters of faith Secondly If so they be no where written in Scripture Thirdly That if they be not written they be the same which ye deliver to the people and by what authority ye press and writ them But to take this text wholly from your mis-interpretation hear Theodoret who saith that the Apostle spake not of diverse doctrines but of the same diversely delivered For first he preached to the Thessalonians and then did writ the substance of it But as where ever ye find fire in the Scripture ye make it Purgatory so where ye find tradition ye make it pari ratione yours Will ye listen to Bell. lib. 4. de verbo Dei cap. 10. and he will put all out of doubt for he granteth that all in substance were written by the Apostles which they preached to the people or were necessar to salvation Cyprian in his epist ad Pompeium admitteth not any traditions but such as may be perceived to be in the Evangels in the Epistles or Acts of the holy Apostles Therefore it is a perfect rule to all discerners say I and no more was at first asserted Your Maxime Idem est non esse non apparere holdeth in law but not in divinity For the soul is not visible yet who can deny the being of it What is more in the Reply I judge not worthy the noticeing and I am forced to make digression because of an impertinent return Is it not strange that when I called men mutable creatures and at their best state vanitie subject to clashing contradiction and that the written Word is the only infallible rule for direction that upon this tradition universal consent should be so prolixely commented on without any connexion They who follow this reflecter must resolve to deviat from tho high way Question seventh Your Church which ye Papists Quest. 7 call reformed is but of yesterday where was it before Luther Answer It is as old in its doctrinals as Prote ∣ stants Answer the Scripture therefore not of yesterday See what societie from the beginning professed the doctrine mantained there that was out Church The Romans Corinthians Ephesians Philippians Thessalonians as taught by the Apostle Paul are our Church of old so it is not new Secondly In all ages there have been and are eminent professours of that doctrine which we mantaine as is abundantly proved by Flaccus Illyricus in his Catalogue Testium veritatis and learned Dr. Usher in successione Ecclesiae reform which testimonies no Popish shaveling of what ever ordour yet could answer Thirdly where was the church of Rome as now constituted before the council of Trent Nay more was the Popes supremacy and infallibility heard of the 600 year after Christ Is not all Popish faith as such resolved into a lie viz. the infallibility of the Pope or Council which though errand untruths are the key of the Popish Religion Fourthly All the positives of the reformed Religion were mantained substantially in the Primitive church the first 300. years I speake not of changeable circumstances nor integrals but essentials and the negatives could not be there because the controversies were not then started But ye Papists have amassed a body of humane inventions gross errours contrare to scripture obtruding them under Anathema to be the established doctrine of the Church And because we of the reformed Profession will not own these and call that which is new old ye excommunicat us as Hereticks Reply In your seventh Answere you say Papists Reply your doctrine is as old as scripture and your Church as the Apostles and this is common to you with all sectaries to claime the scripture and the Church in the time of the Apostles And like to that answer of the common people we are all come of Adam and Eve But I shall let you presently see how contrar your doctrine is to that scripture and how unlike your Church is to that of the Apostles the first 300 year In the second part ye pretend that Illyricus and Doctor Usher have sufficiently shewed that there have been eminent men of your Profession in all ages and that without a Reply of any Popish shaveling of whatever ordour But Sir I am sorrie that you who are a Nazarian and not a shaveling shoule be so ill versed in books of controversie as not to have seen so many Catholick writters who demonstrat clearly that of all these eminent men before Calvin you pretend to be yours there is not one hath holden all the same tenets with you and no more For it is enough for you that they dissent from the Church of Rome and sling at the Popes authority what ever tenets they hold in matters of belief to call them yours Which hath made Dr. Vane Chaplain to our late King judiciously compare them to Sampsons foxes which were all bound together by the tails although their heads went diverse wayes So that when you call the Luthereans Valdenses Albigenses Hussites Catharists Wicklessians Graecians Egyptians yours you may as well call the Turks and Tartars yours if we trust all records which speake of their tenets And as for the Fathers hear if they were yours in the opinion of the most learnea Protestants Dudithius apud Bezam ep 1. If that be true which Papists say the Fathers with mutual consent are altogether on their side Pet. Martyr 2. de verbo col 1539. as long as we stand to Councils and fathers we shal alwayes remain in the same errours And fully confesseth that Hierom Ambrose and Augustin held the invocation of Saints Chemnitius in ex concil trid art 3. pag. 100. did not disput but avouch that most of the Fathers said the souls of the Martyrs heard the petition of those that prayed to them they went to monuments and invocated Martyrs by name Whitgift in his defence pag. 473. all the Bishops and writters of the Greek and Latine Church too who no doubt were the Fathers for the most part were spotted with the doctrine of Free-will Merit Invocation of Saints Judge then Sir if they were pure In the third part you ask where was the Church of Rome before the council of Trent I answer you even where she is now except in Jappony India China and some parts of America where by their Christian labours and by the blessing of GOD she hath been established since Neither can you instance that she is not constantly the same in all points Nay more say you was the Popes infallible universal supremacie heard of the first 600. years Where it seems you must be very deaf who hear not the voice of 1200. Fathers speaking only in the four first general Councils He who holdeth the See of Rome is chief and head of all Patriarchs saith right seeing he is the first as Peter to whom all power is given over all Christian Princes and all their people and who ever contradicteth this is excommunicated Can. 29. Concil Nicaeni anno 325. Where 316 Bishops were conveened Secondly