that one Article of the Creed I believe the Catholick Church Why then should they not likewise be all contained in that great and uncontroverted Fundamental I believe the truth of all that God reveals and consequently a Mahumetan shall be as good a Catholick as any Jesuit But sixthly let me argue a little from these two Scriptures Hear the Church and hold fast Traditions either these are clear in themselves or not if not how can they clear all the rest if they be why is the like perspicuity denied to other Scriptures containing as necessary truths Seventhly What is that square of Ecclesiastick sense whereto the Pamphleter would level all Scriptural interpretations Is it Tradition Though Protestants with Vincent Lirinensis do grant to Tradition its due place among the means of interpretation of Scripture yet now I must enquire what if a question arise about Tradition it self Has not this Pamphleter told pag. 75. that then all must be referred to the definition of the present Catholick Church that is to their infallible visible Judge and so the result of all these Cob web distinctions is this They can grant that Scripture is clear in Fundamentals provided nothing be taken as the sense of Scripture but what their Pope or Infallible Judge pleases And consequently when Chrysost Austin c. say that Scripture contains clearly all that is necessary the meaning is that Scripture contains not the Articles of Religion clearly but points to one who can unfold them Are not these goodly glosses which Jesuits put upon Fathers Must the World be cheated with such ludicrous non sense as if the end of Scripture were to point out their infallible Judge and yet it cannot be known what is Scripture or the true sense thereof but by the sentences of that pretended infallible Judge Are all things in Scripture clear and yet nothing at all clear but to receive its clearness from the Romish Judge who is alledged to be pointed out in Scripture and yet there is not one word of him in all Scripture I pray in what Text of Scripture is the Pope of Rome his Triple Crown and Infallible Chair together with the enthusiastick square of Ecclesiastick sense treasured up in his breast I ingenuously profess I cannot find the place unless it be 2 Thes 2. 3 4. or Revel 17. 4 5. It 's objected by the Pamphleter pag. 99. that the Fathers who writ Catalogues of Heresies Irenaeus Tertull. Philastrius Epiphanius Austin c. did not distinguish betwixt Fundamentals and integrals among Divine Truths for they condemned many lesser things as Heresies and consequently as damnable errours The Aerians are condemned as Hereticks by Epiphanius Haeres 75. And Austin Haeres 33. he should have said 53. for denying the Fasts commanded by the Church The Eunomians by Austin Haeres 54. for teaching that no sin could hurt a man if so be he had Faith The deniers of Free-will by Epiphanius Haeres 64. Vigilantius by Hierom for affirming that Relicks of Saints ought not to be reverenced Jovinian by Austin Haeres 82. for holding Wedlock equal in dignity to Virginity Pelagians by Austin lib. cont Julian cap. 2. for teaching that the children of faithful Parents need not Baptism as being born holy and the Arrians by Austin lib. 1. cont Maxim cap. 2. for not receiving Tradition All which says the Pamphleter is the Doctrine of Protestants Whatever shew this Objection may have with ignorant persons yet I must advertise them it 's but a crambe recocta These Heresies have been often objected by calumniating Romanists Bellar. Breerly c. and as often confuted by Learned Protestants D. Field D. Morton Gerard Whittaker Rivet c. yea and many more Heresies have been retorted cum faenore out of the same Catalogues upon the Church of Rome Briefly therefore I answer two things and first that neither Papist nor Protestant can admit that all the Errours mentioned in the Catalogues of Epiphanius Philastrius Austin c. are Fundamental Are there not many condemned in them for Opinions in matters disputable undetermined and of small consequence and which respectively are acquitted in both sides Hence Alphonsus à Castro lib. 2. de Haeres tit Adam Eva Haeres 2. denies all the Errours charged upon Origen in these Catalogues to be Heresies And Bellar himself descript Eccles pag. 133. Edit Paris 1630. confesses that many things are numbered by Philastriâ—s as Heresies which are not Heresies D Taylor in his Liberty of Prophecying Sect. 2. § 20. to acquit the Fathers for sâ—gmatizing persons so liberally with Heresie conceives that they used the word Heresie in a more gentle notion than now it is with us and in divers Paragraphs he endeavours to prove that all Errours mentioned in the Fathers Catalogues were not Fundamental yea he questions also whether the Fathers had sufficient Evidence in the matter of Fact to fix every one of these errours upon these persons It will not be amiss here to remember that D. Hackwell in his Apology lib. 3. cap. 8 § 1. records out of Aventinus his Historia Boiorum Anno 745. that Pope Zacharias and Boniface Bishop of Mentz condemned one Virgilius Bishop of Salsburg as an Heretick for holding that there were Antipodes and perhaps were induced hereto by the Authority of Austin lib. 16. de civit Dei cap. 9. and of Lactantius instit lib. 3. cap. 24. If he say that Learned Bishop was guilty of a Fundamental Errour and damned eternally for holding there were Antipodes he will expose himself to the ludibry of any ordinary Mathematician Besides if all be Fundamental Errours which are recorded in the Catalogues of Heresies I am sure Romanists do err Fundamentally Were not the Collyridians condemned as Hereticks by Epiphan Haeres 79. for worshipping the Virgin Mary The Carpocratians by Epiphanius Haeres 27. and by S. Austin Haeres 7. for adoring the Images of Christ and Paul the Angelici by Austin Haeres 39. by Theod. in Epist ad Coloss cap. 2. and by the Council of Laodicea Can. 35. for worshipping of Angels Manichees by Austin Epist 74. for granting Marriage to their Plebeians and persons of less perfection and prohibiting it to those that were more perfect and yet like Romish Monks and Priests they could dally with Concubines Hence Austin lib. 2. de morib Eccles Manich cap. 3. said of them Quod non Concubitum sed nuptias prohiberent Were not the same Manichees condemned by Leo the first Serm. 4. Quadrages for abstracting the Cup in the Sacrament the Basilidians by Eusebius Hist Eccles cap. 7. and the Helcefaitae for teaching the lawfulness of equivocation and dissembling Religion in time of persecution Is not the Doctrine of Implicite Faith noted as a pernicious Heresie by the Author of the Sermon contra diversas Haeres tom 2. operum Athanasii and by Euseâ—ius lib. 5. Hist cap. 13. as one of the errours of Appelles the Heretick What should I reckon out Pelagians Donatists Eustathians Marcits the
resting on the knowledg of Fundamentals should be less solicitous in searching after other divine truths which though not of absolute necessity yet are very precious It will be time to answer his squibs and raillery from the changes of the Moon when he has vindicated not only their own Missionaries who are known for most part to be a company of Apostate Runnagado's but also the body of their religion and missal from multifarious changes which some have not unfitly resembled to a beggars coat patched up at sundry times of clouts of many colours But how shall it be known saith the Pamphleter pag 85. that Protestants do agree in Fundamentals if the precise number thereof cannot be known It might be reply sufficient to appeal the adversary to give one instance of a Fundamental wherein Protestants do not agree Sure there is no Fundamental which is not owned by some Society of Christians else there should be no true Christian Church in the World but let the dogmaticalls of all the Christian Churches in the world be searched there shall not one be found about which Protestants are not agreed but upon accurat triall it may be made appear that its either false or at least not simply Necessary to Salvation Consequently it may be made evident that Protestants do agree in Fundamentals without determining the precise number of them Nay the violent opposition made to the Reformed Churches by Papists and other adversaries are no small confirmation that we hold all the Fundamentals for surely if we did deny any Fundamental our enemies who wait for our halting and love to grate upon our sorâ—s would have laid it forth convincingly before the World which none of them having been able to do it is more then probable that the Reformed Churches hold all the Fundamentals But who said that the number of absolute Fundamentals cannot be pitched upon Surely never I learned Protestants such as Crakanthorp Stillingfleet and D Taylor spare not to say that they are contained in the Apostolick Creed they judge it very probable that the ancient Church supposed the Fundamentals to be contained in their Creeds the Apostolick Nicene Athanasian and that of Constantinople If it be so then surely Protestants agree in Fundamentals for to all these Protestant do subscribe and that in the very sense wherein the ancient Church took them But Romanists have added many Fundamentals not contained in these Creeds and altogether unknown to the ancient Church therefore they disagree from the ancient Church in Fundamentals yea and among themselves also Can they so much as agree what is that Church into whose sentence faith is to resolved I add further if there be solidity in that rule laid down by Edward Fouler in his design of Christianity Sect. 3. Cap. 21. viz. that he believed all Fundamentals who upon accurat search can say that he is sincerely willing to obey his Creator and Redeemer in all things commanded by him that he entertains and harbours no lust in his breast that he heartily endeavours to have a right understanding of the Scriptures to know what doctrins are delivered therein for bettering of his soul and the direction of his life and actions I say if this be a solid rule then certainly we hold all fundamentals of religion there being thorow mercy many thousands of such serious persons in the Reformed Churches who have such a testimony in their consciences Yet I deny not but this rule has need to be well cautioned else I am afraid that Arrians Socinians and other blasphemous Hereticks will be ready to conclude hereupon that they also maintain all Fundamentals and therefore I speak of it only in conjunction with these things which went before To shut up all in a word let all the solid rules Imaginable be taken for trying who have all the Fundamentals of Faith and we decline to be tried by none of them Whereas the Popish Church dare not adventure to be tryed but by that one rule the falsehood whereof has in Sect. 3. been clearly proved and is manifestly partial viz. that all and only these things are to be held for Fundamental which she defines to be such SECT V. Whether is the Popish Religion injurious to the Fundamentals of Christianity ANswer Affirmatively and that many wayes for 1. If a Fundamental be taken for the rule of Faith or the principal and adequate standard according to which all the material objects of Faith are to be measured which is the Holy Scripture as was proved Cap. 3. Then sure Romanists erre Fundamentally for they have set up another Foundation and rule of Faith viz. the sentence of their infallible visible Judge or to speak in the language of most renowned Jesuits the sentence of the Pope hence Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. Cap. 3. Sect. Secundo Probatur Petrus quilibet ejus successor est Petra fundamentum ecclesiae i. e. Peter and any succeeding Pope is the Rock and Foundation of the Church and again a little after ejus praedicatio confessio est radix mundi si ille erraret totus mundus erraret and Grezter defens lib. 1. Cap. 1. de verb. Dei pag 16. pro verbo Dei veneramur suscipimus quod nobis pontifex ex Cathedra Petri tanquam supremus Christianorum magister omniumque controversiarum judex definiendo proponit i. e. we worship as the word of God what the Pope definitively propounds out of the Chair of Peter as the supreme master of all Christians and Judge of all controversies Though they verbally acknowledge the Apostolick Creed which is supposed by many ancient and modern authors to comprize the Fundamentals of religion yet they pervert the sense thereof as particularly of that Article of the Catholick Church as if there were held out the Catholicism Infallibility and supremacy c. of the Roman Church none of which were ever believed by the ancient Church so that to them may be applyed that of Austin Tom. 3. lib. de fid Symb. cap. 1. sub ipsis paucis in Symbolo constitutis plerumque Haeretici venena sua occultare conati sunt 3. Romanists have added many Fundamentals neither contained in Scripture nor in the ancient Creeds by which indirectly and consequentially they overthrow the true Fundamentals of Religion and the belief of these spurious Fundamentals are imposed by them upon all who would have communion with the Roman Church whereby all that would not be involved in that atrocious trespass of theirs are constrained to separate from them Many of these superinduced Fundamentals might be enumerated It s indeed a fundamental that Christ is the head of the Catholik Church but who warranted to add the Pope as another head It s a Fundamental that Christ once offered himself a sacrifice for sin on the cross but who warranted them to add a daily unbloody expiatory sacrifice in the Mass It s a Fundamental that God is Religiously to be adored but who warranted them to add that Images
Caranza relates in Summa Concil for discovery of Wicklevists and Hussits utrum credat quod post consecrationem sacerdotis in Sacramento altaris sub velamento panis vini non sit panis materialis vinum materiale sed idem per omnia Christus qui fuit in carne passus Doth not Aeneas Sylvius or Pope Pius the 2d charge the Hussits as affirming the equality of the Bishop of Rome with other Bishops as disallowing prayers to and invocation of Saints departed as condemning the necessity of atricular confession and excluding confirmation from the number of Sacraments either then the Pamphleter must derogate Faith from his Pope and Council or acknowledge that Hussits in these things do agree with us Do Romanists hold that if a man believe as the Church believes he cannot be Heretick though he err concerning weighty material Objects of Faith have we not much more ground of Charity concerning Mr. John Huss and Hierome of Prague who hold not only all the Articles of the Creed but also acquiesce to the Scriptures as the rule of Faith and were in a readiness to believe any point when the consonancy thereof to the Scripture should be held out as John Huss did often profess before the Council and the rather he living in a time of much darkness What ever were the mistakes of John Huss and Hierome of Prague yet Mr. Fox avouches them to be Faithful Martyrs of Jesus Christ which he could not have done if he had not looked on them as agreeing with us in Fundamentals It s not enough with me or any Protestant as this Pamphleter slanders us pag. 98. that they oppose the Pope as Turks and Tartars do Indeed their Pope and Romish inquisitours have a greater kindness for Jewes and Infidels and brothell whores then for Protestants They can indulge the one at Rome but not the other Are the Waldenses John Huss Hierome of Prague who maintained the Apostolick Creed held the scripture for the rule of Faith and abjured many Papal errors and Superstitions and had eminent testimonies of their Holiness from very enemies to be laid in the ballance with Turkes or Tartars Protestants have need to look to themselves It seems they may expect no more favour from Papists if their Power were answereable to their desires then Turks and Tartars SECT VII Whether do the Greek Churches agree with Protestants as to Fundamentals THe Pamphleter pag. 98. denies But takes no leasure to examine what I said to the contrary Paper 10. pag. 226 227 228 229. Until that be answered I might supersede any further reply yet now I add these two things 1. That the Greek Church is vindicated from the Heresie which this Pamphleter with others charges on them of denying the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son by learned Romanists particularly by Lombard lib. 1. sent dist 11. lit D. Azorius the Jesuit par 1. instit Moral lib. 8. Cap. 20. q. 10. and by Thomas ab Jesu the Carmelit de convers gentium lib. 6. part 1. Cap. 8. As if the Grecians in that matter did differ from the Western Church rather in the manner of expression then on the matter As for the Pamphleters Inference thence that the Grecians deny the distinction of the persons its an inconsequential deduction sayes Bâ—nae Spei tom 1. Theol. Scholast tract 2. disp 4. dub 4. resol 3. And generally the Scotists but whatever the consequence be the consequent is most falsely imputed to the Grecians for they maintain no such thing I add 2dly that the Greek Church do not only hold the ancient Creeds and Articles agreed upon by the first four general Councils but also do agree with Protestants in many of the points wherein we differ from Romanists and therefore though they have their blemishes I dare not say they err Fundamentally and so exclude them from the Catholick Church It we will judge of the Greek Church by the confession of Cyril their famous Patriarch and Marâ—yr which Reverend and worthy Mr. Rait hath reprinted 〈◊〉 his late book what the consonancy betwixt the Greek and Protestant Churches is may be apparent Ephraim Pagit Christianog part 1. Cap. 4. reckons out 19. poynts of agreement betwixt us and the Greek Church wherein we differ from the Papists They deny the Popes supremacy and infallibility they hold the Scriptures as the compleat rule of Faith deny Apocryphal books to be Canonick Scripture celebrate the Sacrament of the Supper under both kinds allow no private mass no Image of God they deny Purgatory fire admit laicks to read the Scriptures c. this that Author proves by considerable testimonies whereas the Pamphleter out of his Manuel of controversies tells us that they say Mass hold Transubstantiation Seven Sacraments prayer to the Saints and for the dead it may be enough to give him the succinct answer of the confutor of that Manual of Controversies John Tombs in his Romanism discussed art 2. Sect. 4 viz. 1. That the Greek Church hold not the Popish transubstantiation whereby the Elements cease to be but whereby they become what they were not the transubstantiation they hold is a change of Communicants into the being of Christ so as to be partaker of his divine nature as the Apostle means when he sayes they are the Body of Christ These things are to be understood cum grano salis and in a mystical sense But the Greek Church do not hold with Romanists that wicked Communicants or Rats do eat the true and proper Body of Christ 2dly that the Greek Church hold no other sacrifice in the Mass then as S Chrysostome expressed on Heb. 10. a commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross Nor 3dly do they pray to Saints as hearers of their prayers far less as if they did help them by their merits only they conceive that God hears prayers sent up to the Saints Nor 4thly do they pray for departed Saints to obtain to them liberation from the pains of Purgatory If we may credit Roffens cont Luth. art 18. or Alphonsus a Castro de haeres lib. 12. tit Purgatorum haeres 1. the Grecians acknowledge no Purgatory fire only in their publick offices they commemorate the dead even the most Holy Martyrs and Confessors whom all confess not to be in torments and pray for their resurrection and solemn acquital at the last Judgment Nor 5thly do they with Romanists hold Seven Sacraments properly so called neither more nor fewer How much of a Logomachy is in that question I shew in my 10th Paper against Mr. Dempster pag. 238. 239. Sure I am Ephraim pagit loc tit recites the denying of Extream Unction as one of the Articles of agreement betwixt the Greek Church and us So that if the state of the questions were well cleared and all circumstances duly pondered the difference betwixt the Greek and Romish Church as to these things would appear Who desiderate a more prolix vindication I remit them to D.
their Religion as it is set forth by Pius quartus confession of Faith and in the Council of Trent and let all the Jesuits upon the face of the earth find it out in the first three ages of Christianity if they can How far the broken fragments which this Pamphleter filches from his Fellows are from performing this work shall I hope be seen in Cap. 7. The second reflexion is If I appeal to the Faith of the Church of the first three ages then I must acknowledge one infallible visible Judge Answer I deny the sequel was it to any representative of the first three ages which I did appeal Is it not acknowledged that in the first three ages from that Council at Jerusalem Act. 15. there was no general Council which together with a Pope is made by this Pamphleter the infallible Judge Was it not to the Faith of the diffusive Catholike Church to which I did appeal to which neither Papist nor Protestant ascribes a juridical power But the diffusive Church has a promise of perpetuity and Consequently that the essentialls of Faith shall be preserved in her If therefore the Faith of the ancient Catholike Church may be known by it the Faith of the present Church may be tryed Yet I ever made it but a secundary rule the holy Scriptures being the chief test but of this I treated more at large Paper 7. Pag. 231 232. 233. 234. Page 136. he says that I affirm that papists agree with us in all our positive tenets it seems Romish missionaries are so habituated in lying that they can hardly speak truth I never either spoke or thought so Papists are injurious to the truth not only by addition but also by substraction Do they not substract the cup in the Sacrament Do they not substract the substance both of Bread and Wine leaving only a specter of accidents to remain in the Sacramental Symbols Do they not deny the perspicuity of Scriptures and that all sins of their own nature merit eternal damnation c. in all which they hold the negative and we the affirmative The observe which he subjoyns that all cheif Heresies for most part consisted in negatives Is ludibrious all for the most part is all and not all But have not gross Hereticks maintained positive errors as Manichees duo principia Tritheits three Gods the Nestorians two persons in Christ John of Constantinople that himself was universal Bishop c. Is he not so ridiculous in reckoning the negatives of Hereticks that as would seem he could not distinguish betwixt an affirmative and a negative Among negative Hereticks he reckons the Nestorians whose Heresy consisted in a positive ascribing two persons to Christ and the Marcionits for maintaining that Baptism should be reiterated Is not rebaptization a positive Papists maintain seven Sacraments should others maintain twice seven were they not Heretical Papists add Apocrypha Books to the Old Testament If others added the evangells of Thomas and Nicodemus to the New Testament were they not Hereticks Papists say dulia should be given to Saints should others assert the lawfullness of Latria to them were they not Hereticks There may therefore be Heresy in positives But what though all Hereticks maintained negatives which yet is false doth it therefore follow that all who maintain negatives are Hereticks Is a Syllogism in 2da figura ex omnibus affirmantibus good Though it were so the Papists could not clear themselves from Heresy for they also differ from us in negatives This only in passing to shew the ludibrious quibling of Sophisticating Jesuits CHAP. VII The Truth of the Religion of Protestants evicted by the Conformity thereof with the faith of the Primitive Church in the first three Ages and the falshood of the present Romish Religion from the disagreement thereof with the Faith of these Ages THere being but one Faith Ephes 4. 5. or one true Christian Religion which undoubtedly was conserved in as great purity by the Church in the first three Ages as in any other time consequently among the many pretenders to Religion in these days their Religion must only be true which agreeth in essentials with the Faith of the Catholick Church in those Ages and that surely must be a false Religion which is discrepant in Essentials from that primitive Faith Whereupon I subsume but so it is that the Religion of Protestants doth agree in Essentials with the Faith of the Catholick Church in those times and the present Romish Religion doth certainly disagree Therefore the Religion of Protestants is the true Christian Religion and the Popish Religion is false and impious The evidence of the first proposition is so clear that the Pamphleter in a peculiar Section from pag. 139. labours to justifie the present Romish Faith by some abusive Pretexts of Antiquity as if the Fathers of those Ages did clearly speak for them and against Protestants in all the chief controverted points It remains therefore that I prove the Assumption In order to which I only premise that a Religion may differ from that ancient Faith in Essentials or in points necessary to Salvation two ways viz. Either by denying some Articles of faith which she held as necessary or by coyning others as necessary which she held not This premised For evicting the conformity of our Religion as to all Essentials with the Faith of the Catholick Church in the first ages it may be sufficient to renew to all Romanists my appeal mâ—de to Mr. Dempster pag. 4. pag. 54. to instance one Essential of Faith wherein we differ from the Christian Church in those Ages that is to pitch upon one Article held as absolutely necessary by the Catholick Church of those times and denied by the Reformed Churches or one Article which the Reformed Churches hold as absolutely necessary and those ancient Churches held not If we may judge of what other Romanists can say as to this matter by the ten Instances which the Pamphleter from pag. 139. has scraped together from their common Place Books I hope the ensuing examination of them shall discover more the consonancy of our Religion with the ancient Christian Religion and the dissonancy of the Romish Religion Or if we measure the Essentials of the ancient Christian Faith by the ancient Creeds and Confession of Faith these being drawn up as tests to distinguish them of the Church from others which as is supposed by learned Divines would not answer their end if they did not contain the Articles which the Church in those days held as necessary Then surely the Protestant Churches do agree with the ancient Church in all Essentials of Faith For all the Reformed Churches do cordially own all the ancient Creeds and Confessions of the Primitive Churches not only in the first three ages but also much lower such as the Apostolick the Antiochian Nicen Constantinopolitan Athanasian as also these of Ephesus and Chalcedon neither have the Protestant Churches made a super-addition of new essential Articles unknown to
the Primitive Church in those times Nay so clear are Reformed Churches in this matter that we appeal all the Enemies of the Reformed Religion to try our conformity to the ancient Christian Church in all Essentials with the most rigid discuss that is imaginable But on the other hand the disconformity of the present Romish Faith with that ancient Catholick Faith may be obvious to any by comparing those ancient Creeds with the present Popish Creed of Pope Pius the Fourth in which a multitude of Articles are super-added such as the Septenary number of Sacraments the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass Transubstantiation Purgatory Innovation of Saints Adoration of Images and Reliques the power of Indulgences the Magisterial Supremacy of the Church and Pope of Rome over the whole Catholick Church yea and all the Articles of the Council of Trent are concluded as necessary to Salvation Which certainly are not to be found in any of the ancient Creeds Nay the Roman Creed subjoyns these to the Constantinopolitan Creed as superadded thereto as is to be seen in vitâ Pij 4ti set forth by Onupbrius and in the Confession annexed to H. T. his Manual as a test of the Romish Religion therefore the present Romish Religion is not the true ancient Christian Religion but a bundle of innovations tyrannically imposed upon Consciences of People Yet because this impostor pitches upon ten Articles controverted betwixt us and Romanists wherein he affirms that the Fathers of the first three ages speake clearly against Protestants it may contribute both for the further clearing of the truth and discovering of Roman perfidy to trace him throw these particulars SECT 1. The Pamphleters first Instance of Novelty touching the Popes Supremacy briefly canvased and retorted upon Romanists HIs first instance Pag. 139. is concerning the Popes Supremacy as being says he the most principal thing It s indeed the most principal thing with the Popes Parasits hence Bell. lib. 2. de concil cap. 17. Greg. de Val. lib. 8. de anal fid cap. 7. and other Jesuits give the Pope a supremacy over the whole Catholick Church yea and over general Councils as Pope Boniface the 8. extrav commun unam Sanctam had defined that subjection to the Pope is of necessity to Salvation to every Creature But this is as opposit to the faith of the ancient Church as East to West Had this been the faith of the Church in those times then it had been defined according to the Pamphleters Principle by the infallible visible judge of those times Why then does he not produce such a definition among his citations Doth not the world know that in those three ages there was not one Oecumenick Council except that at Jerusalem Act. 15. unless with Binius and the Ordinary gloss those other three Conventions of the Apostles Act. cap. 1. 6. 21. be also held for Oecumenick Councils But sure it is that none of all these made any definition for the Popes supremacy Consequently there was no infallible visible judge in those times to make such a definition I did always apprehend that the seat of the pretended Romish infallibility had been the seat of their supremacy How then is it that though Pope and Council were insinuated by this Pamphleter Sect. 3. to be the seat of infallibility joyntly Yet now the Pope alone is made the seat of supremacy Is he alone supream but not infallible Is their Church bound to obey and believe a fallible Pope teaching lyes and blasphemies as having supremacy over them though not infallibility Had the Churches in those three ages believed the Popes supremacy as necessary to Salvation would Polycrates and the holy Asiatick Fathers in the second Century have withstood the Pope so resolutly in the matter of Easter as is witnessed by Euseb lib. 5. cap. 22 Would Cyprian so holy a Father and Martyr with the Affrican Fathers in the third Century so vehemently have opposed Pope Stepbanus in the matter of rebaptization as is acknowledged by Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 7 Would he have so zealously opposed appeals to Rome as he does Epist. 55. or censured Popes so sharply for admitting them which is to strike at the root of this pretended supremacy Would the fourth Oecumenick Council at Chalcedon Act. 15. can 28. and Act. 16. in which were 630. Fathers have defined in foro contradictorio after debate with the legats of Rome that the Bishop of Constantinople should have equal priviledges with the Bishop of Rome Would the second Council of Milevis can 22. have ordained them to be excommunicated who should make transmarin appeals Would the same African Fathers among whom Austin was one in the sixth Council of Carthage have so stoutly opposed appeals to Rome as Barron ad annum 419. cannot deny though both he and Bell. lib. 2. de Pontif. cap. 25. endeavour by some slight evasions to palliat the matter the falshood whereof is luculently evicted by Chamier Panstrat tom 2. lib. 14. cap. 3. 4. yea the case is so clear that Stapleton relect princip controv 3. quest 7. Is not ashamed to condemn the proceedings of that ancient African Council against the Popes of Rome Such is the respect of Romanists to Antiquity when it crosses their interest Had the Popes supremacy been an essential of the Christian Faith Would Greg. 600. Yeares after Christ lib. 4. Epist 32. 34. 38. 39. have condemned the Title of universal Bishop as a Title of Novelty error blasphemy the universal poyson of the Church contrary to the Ancient Canons contrary to Peter and to God himself a Title which none of his predecessors assumed and who ever did presume to challenge it was a for runner of the Antichrist It s a manifest forgery contrary to all truth which Bellarmin lib. 2. de Pontif. cap. 31. and other Romanists use to elude those luculent testimonies of Greg. as if he had only condemned the title of universal Bishop in that sense wherein John of Constantinople did claim it Namely so as he alone should be Bishop and other Bishops should not at all be Bishops but his Vicars Whereas John of Constantinople never claimed that Title in any other sense then it is this day used by the Bishops of Rome for 1. the oriental Bishops consented with John of Constantinople that he should be termed universal Bishop but it s hardly credible that they would all have consented that themselves should be degraded But secondly Romish Authors particularlarly Platina in the Life of Boniface the third doth testify that the same dignity which John did effect Boniface obtained from that bloody Murtherer Phocas not without much ado magna tamen contentione says Platina Doth not the opposition which the Ancient Brittish and Scottish Churches made to Austin the Monk to Laurentius and Mellitus sent over to England by Greg. the first in the matter of Easter and celebration of Baptism of which see Bede Hist lib. 2. cap. 2. and 4. and Barronius ad annum
some real Saints as Chrysostom Ambrose Austin and 36 ancient Bishops of Rome that were Martyrs I grant these were Saints but none of them Papists more than the Prophets were Pharisees though the Pharisees built their Tombs Yea nor was Bernard though he lived in late and corrupt times a Romanist of the late Edition he did not approve the whole Systeme of the now Tridentine Faith though he escaped not altogether the Contagion of the times he lived in â—he was indeed a Monk and in many things superstitious yet not a through-paced Papist as is shewed by D. Francis White in defence of his Brother D. John White against T. W. P. Pap. 313 314. and in particular that he held the sufficiency of the Scriptures without Traditions Justification by Faith alone that our works do not merit of condignity that no man is able to keep the Law perfectly that a just man may through mercy be assured of Grace that there is no such Free-will in fallen man as Jesuits assert and that he stood against the pride of the Pope and the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary To these which D. John White had confirmed from Bernards writings D. Francis adds divers other points as that he held the Eucharist is to be a Commemorative Sacrifice that he taught not Adoration of Images that he believed Habitual Concupiscence to be a sin and that he maintained the Authority and Preheminence of the Civil Magistrate and the subjection of the Apostles and of all Ecclesiasticks to his Jurisdiction This third and last Note of the Church taken from Sanctity might be inverted as the former hath been not only from the Identity of our Religion with the Apostolick Religion which is the only truly holy Religion but also by appealing our Adversaries to pitch upon one Article agreed on in the Harmony of Confessions which hath not a tendency to Holiness And lastly by putting all to it who have but so much indifferency as to be ingenuous if the Reformed Churches have not always afforded multitude of serious unblameable and devout persons By this time I hope it may appear that the Pamphleters three Notes of the Church Miracles Conversion of Infidels and Sanctity of Life make nothing for the Catholicism of the Romish Church but prove convincingly the truth of the Reformed Church Had he brought the rest of Bellarmin's Notes he should have found them to be as little for his advantage SECT IV. A touch of the Pamphleters hints at two other Notes of their Church viz. the Title of Catholick and Succession HE snarles passingly pag. 201 202. at the Name of Catholick as if the Argument held from names to things Do not false Prophets false Apostles and false gods assume the names of true Prophets Apostles and of the true God Was not Simon Magus Act. 8. 10. called the Power of God Did not Mahomet call himself the Great Prophet and his Disciples Musselmans that is sound believers and Abdullam or the servants of God Hath not the Title of Catholick been assumed by Novatians as witnesseth Cyprian Epist 73. by Donatists as testifies Austin in Brevic. collat col 3. diei cap. 2. yea by all Hereticks if we believe Lactant. Instit lib. 4. cap. 30. and Austin contra Epist. Fundamenti cap. 4. The Orthodox also are ready sometimes to indulge Hereticks with the splendid names which they vainly assume to themselves as some were called Apostolici some Angelici others Gnostici c. besides it 's questioned whether the Christian Church was always adorned with the Title of Catholick the contrary seems to be yielded by Pacianus Epist 1. ad Sempron and D. Pearson on the Creed Art 9. brings great Authorities to prove that in ancient Editions of the Apostolick Creed especially in the Roman and Western Church this Epithete Catholick was not added to the Church However sure I am the Title of Catholick without the true Catholick Faith is but magni nominis umbra Certainly the Roman Church is not the Catholick if either the Catholick Church be taken for the Orthodox Church in which sense the Fathers termed particular Churches Catholick as that of Smyâ—na in Euseb Hist lib. 4. cap. 15. that of Nazianzum and many others in Greg. Nazianzens latter will But the Roman being grosly Heterodox as hath been proved is not Catholick in this sense nor is she Catholick if the Catholick and Universal be the same the Roman being but a part and lesser part of Christendom the greater and sounder part at this day renouncing Communion with her yea Papists call themselves Catholicks with a term diminuent Catholick Romans i. e. Catholicks not Catholicks or Schismatical Catholicks who being but a part of the Catholick Church would Monopolize Catholicism to themselves alone When therefore Protestants call Romanists Catholicks they do as when they call the Turks Musselmans because they assume these Titles though undeservedly to themselves That of Pacianus in the forecited Epistle is very remarkable Novatianos audio de Novato aut Novatiano vocari Sectam tamen in his non nomen incuso Nec Montano aliquis aut Phrygibus nomen objecit As insignificant is his other hint pag. 202. at the pretended perpetual Succession of Pastors in the Roman Church from the Apostles For Succession meerly personal and local if it be not also Doctrinal cannot prove a true Church Hence Iren. lib. 4. cap. 43. joyns Cum Episcopatus Successione charisma veritatis i. e. the gift of Truth with succession and Epiphan Haeres 55. teaches that now we are chiefly to enquire after successiones Doctrinae i. e. the succession of Doctrine and Tertull. de Praescript contra Haeret cap. 32. saith Though Hereticks should pretend a Succession of Bishops yet the diversity of their Doctrine from the Doctrine of Apostles will prove them not to be of Apostolical descent And again albeit some Churches could instance no Apostles or Apostolick persons from whom they are descended tamen in eadem fide conspirantes yet being sound to have the same Faith Apostolicae deputantur pro consanguinitate Doctrinae they are accounted Apostolick because of the consanguinity of Doctrine Excellently said Nazlanzen Orat. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. He who professed the same Doctrine of Faith hath an interest in the same Throne or See but he that defends contrary Doctrine is Adversary to the See for this latter hath but the name of Succession but the other the truth and reality thereof What need I more seeing their own Learned Stapleton Controv. 1. q. 4. art 2. Notab 5. confesseth that bare personal and local Succession is not a sure Note of the true and Orthodox Church And surely we cannot conclude from it the being of the Church either affirmatively or negatively not affirmatively by Bell. his confession lib. 4. de Eccles cap. 8. for when Arrianism overspread the Oriental Churches they had a personal and local succession of Bishops nor yet negatively as if they were no Churches where personal succession
propounded FOr opening the true state of the Controversie it is first to be noted that this Question is not entirely the same with that Whether the Church can erre for there be great Doctors in the Roman Church who hold the Church cannot erre and yet deny the necessity of an infallible visible Judge There are who make the subject of Infallibility to be the defensive multitude of Believers and not the Collective of Pastors far less any Representative cloathed with a Judiciary Authority and least of all the Pope whom some abusively call the Church Virtual as shall appear in Argument 2. Consequently whatever testimonies do only prove that the Collective Body either of Believers or Pastors neither of which do assemble in Councils Judicially to determine Controversies of Religion cannot erre are impertinently alledged It would secondly be observed that Infallibility and Judiciary Authority are things different and separable Princes have Judiciary Authority over their Subjects and Provincial Synods within their respective bounds yet neither do pretend to Infallibility Is it not too gross ignorance in a Jesuit to take a Judge and an Infallible Judge for terms reciprocal Thirdly It is one thing to assert that persons or Judges have an assistance of the Holy Ghost guiding them infallibly hic nunc into the way of truth and a quite other thing to say that there is a Judge to whom a perpetual and infallible assistance is entailed so as the knowledge of his infallible assistance is a necessary prerequisite before an assent of Faith-can be given to any Divine Truth The first Protestants grant to Councils whether greater or lesser defining Divine Truths The latter is that which M. Demster asserted often and this his Fidus Achates ought to have proved He Arguments therefore not inferring this conclusion they all trespass ab ignoratione elenchi Fourthly It is granted on all hands that particular Churches and their Representatives may erre Now the Roman Church is but one particular Patriarchate and in her greatest Latitude of which the Pamphleter talks pag. 46. as comprehending all these who live in communion with the Bishâ—p of Rome acknowledging his Headship and Supremacy She is but a part yea and the esser part of Christendom Whatever Infallibility therefore may be claimed by the Catholick Church yet the Roman Church in whatsoever capacity whether defensive or representative can have no just Title thereunto Was there any Roman Church known in the Apostles days but that to which the Apostle Paul wrote But he writes to Her as one subject to Errour yea and to total Apostacy Rom. 11. 20 21. Be not high minded but fear for if God spared not the natural branches take heed lest he also spare not thee Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God on them which fell severity but towards thee goodness if thou continue in his goodness otherwise thou also shalt be cut off Would the Apostle have written at this rate to the Infallible Chair Fifthly Protestants freely grant that the truly Catholick Church hath immunity from Errours opposite to Fundamental Articles or to these Truths the misbelief whereof is absolutely and in all cases inconsistent with Salvation were it otherwise the Catholick Church should totally perish from the earth which cannot be as Protestants firmly believe according to the Scriptures But Romanists not satisfied with this plead for an absolute Infallibility to their pretended Catholick Judge or an immunity from all Doctrinal Errours in Religion greater and lesser Whatsoever Arguments therefore prove not an absolute immunity of this Judge from the least Doctrinal Errour fall short of the mark Of this distinction of Truths Fundamental and Non Fundamental and consequently of the Errours opposite to these Truths that there is not such absolute necessity in order to Salvation of immunity from the one as from the other there will be occasion to speak at more length Cap. 4. Sixthly Therefore to wrap up all In the Romanists Assertion of the necessity of an Infallible visible Judge these five things are included 1. That this supposed Judge hath an Universal Supremacy or a Juridical Authority over the whole Catholick Church to bind the Consciences of all Christians with his Sentences else he would not serve the necessity of the whole Catholick Church 2. That the priviledge wherewith this Catholick Judge is cloathed is absolute Infallibility or immunity from all Errour greater or lesser in all his Doctrinal decisions 3. That the knowledge of the Infallibility of this Judge is necessarily pre-required to every assent of Divine Faith For this cause do they contend so hard for this priviledge that all Christian Faith may hang at the Girdle of their Infallible Judge 4. That this Judge is visible that is a present Member of the visible Church actually existing upon Earth There is no question but the Lord Christ is Infallible Judge of all Controversies of Religion and that he is visible in his Humane Nature but he is not now visible upon Earth as a present Member of the Church Militant therefore it is another Judge actually existing upon Earth for which they plead 5. That there is a necessity of the existence of this infallible visible Judge upon earth It is beyond doubt that there was an infallible visible Judge in the Church Militant when Christ and his Apostles did converse on earth Now the Jesuited party affirms it must be always so From all these the state of the Question emerges clearly viz. Whether in the Militant visible Church there be always a necessity of a person or persons endued with a Juridical Authority over the whole Catholick Church and with infallible assistance for deciding all Doctrinal Controversies of Religion of whose Catholick Jurisdiction and Infallibility every one must be perswaded before he can give an assent of Faith to any Divine Truth Jesuited Romanists maintain the affirmative we the negative Where it 's to be noted that their affirmative being a copulative consisting of many branches if any one of them fail their whole Cause is gone The proof of this affirmative in all its branches was that which the Adversary should have hammered out had he really intended to satisfie Consciences But any intelligent Reader upon a slender review of his Sect. 3. will see that this he never once endeavours but only with some frothy flourishes to abuse unwary Souls SECT II. Arguments proving that there is no necessity of an Infallible visible Judge in the Church I Might perhaps sufficiently acquit my self against my Adversary by discovering the emptiness of his Objections yet the supposed necessity of this infallible visible Judge being the Basis of his whole discourse and our Jesuited Romanists laying the whole stress of their Religion on this Hypothesis I judged fit for the satisfaction of those who are not in love with Errour by a few convineing Arguments to overthrow this Pillar of the Romish Faith viz. the pretended necessity of an infallible visible Judge Nam collapsa raunt sub
be necessary to believe any thing explicitely Does not Azor Tom. 1. Instit Moral lib. 8. cap. 6. qu. 1. bring in Directo and Rossel maintaining that its enough to believe what the Church believes though explicitely nothing in particular be believed Yet herein also they are contradicted by Sylvius Navarr and Azorius himself Can the Pamphleter give an inventory of all that their Church hath so imposed under pain of Anathema's as to make Fundamentals to her Disciples How then have these men a face to challenge others of their divisions about the number of Fundamentals Had the Pamphleter considered the distinction betwixt credenda facienda petenda he would have seen these forementioned seeming difficulties among Protestants were not so hard to be reconciled If one said the Creed contains summum credendorum the Decalogue faciendorum and the Lords Prayer petendorum If some have reduced the Sacraments to an Article of the Creed inter credenda others to a Precept of the Decalogue inter facienda the contrariety is not so great as the Pamphleter would insinuate Neither do all Persons take the word Fundamental in the same restristive sense Hence Paraeus in Irenico cap. 29. after he had branched forth the Fundamentals into four heads the Decalogue the Creed Lords Prayer and Sacraments subjoyns in his ipsis tamen Capiâ—ibus discrimen aliquod esse posse libenter etiam concesserimus nam alia aliis magis vcl minus ad salutem sunt necessaria To reduce the Pamphleters disorderly discourse of Fundamentals into some method I shall briefly enquire into these eight things 1. Whether there be ground for the distinction of Fundamentals or Non Fundamentals or of Essentials and Integrals in Religion 2. Whether all Fundamentals be clearly contained in Scripture 3. Whether every thing which the Church imposes to be believed as an Article of Faith become on that very account a Fundamental 4. Whether there was a necessity of determining the precise number of Fundamentals for decision of the controversie betwixt Mr. Dempster and the Author 5. Whether the Popish Religion be injurious to the Fundamentals of Christianity 6. Whether the Waldensez Wicklevists and Hussites were of the same Religion as to Fundamentals with Protestants 7. Whether do the Greek Churches agree with Protestants as to Fundamentals 8. Whether the Religion of Protestants be openly against Gods Word and contrary to the Fundamentals of Christianity as the Pamphleter does alledge SECT I. Whether there be ground for the distinction of Fundamentals and Non-Fundamentals or of Essentials and Integrals in Religion THat there be no logomachy concerning the subject of the present Dispute I shall seek no other description of a Fundamental Verity in Religion than that which the Pamphleter gives page 90. It is saith he either that which makes us believe all the rest or without the express knowledge and beliefe thereof none can be saved Now this being the notion of Fundamental Truth I conceive it cannot be asserted rationally that all Truths of the Christian Religion are Fundamental If by Fundamental be understood that for which other Articles are to be believed then sure we must suppose there be other particulars which are believed for that As there is a formal Object and Rule of Faith so there are distinct material Objects of Faith If therefore a Fundamental and the formal Object or Rule of Faith which is the reason for which the rest are believed be one and the same then as many material Objects as there be in Christianity there be as many Non-Fundamentals If you take a Fundamental for that without the explicite belief whereof none can be saved I am sure likewise there be many Non-Fundamentals in Religion Else the Romish implicite Colliar and all who walk in his Footsteps as do the plurality of their Communion must be damned eternally If all Truths of the Christian Religion were of absolute necessity to Salvation and Fundamentals what meant the Apostle 1 Cor. 3. 11 12. to distinguish betwixt the Foundation and Gold Silver and Precious Stones built thereupon There be then precious Truths built upon the Foundation which yet are not the Foundation Or what meant the Author to the Hebrewes cap. 6. v. 1. by that foundation of Repentance from dead Works and of Faith toward God when he is quickening them to pursue after other Truths If all Articles of Faith be Fundamental and the explicite belief thereof absolutely necessary to Salvation than who ever did live or die in any error of Religion were damned eternally What then should become of the believing multitude of whom said S. Austin lib. cont Epist Fundam cap. 4. Turbam non intelligendi vivacitas sed credendi simplicitas tutissimam facit and so may be obnoxious to many errours in Religion But what speak I of the Multitude What did become of all the Fathers who were leavened with the Millenary error of whom an account may be received from Sixtus Senensis lib. 5. Bibl. annot 233. and lib. 6. annot 347. or of the Fathers who denyed that the Souls of Just men are admitted to the beatifique Vision before the day of Judgement of whom a List may be had from Senensis lib. 6. Bibl. Annot. 345. What did become of Tertullian Cyprian Firmilian Deny's of Alexandria who maintained rebaptization What became of Austine Innocent the 1. and others who as Maldonat witnesses in John 6. 53. affirmed the Eucharist was necessary to the salvation of Infants Were all these Fathers damned eternally Surely either the points about which they erred were not Fundamental or these Errors have damned the Fathers of the Church eternally Do we not know but in part 1 Cor. 13. 9. Who can understand his Errors Psal 19. 12. If every Error did plunge men into Damnation who then could be saved I know the ordinary reply That the Church then had not explicitely declared against these Errors and therefore though the Errors concerning the Millenium the exclusion of Saints from the Beatisique Vision Rebaptization the necessity of the Eucharist be Heresies now in regard of of the declaration of the Church yet were not in the dayes of the Fathers This supposes another absurd Error which I hope Sect. 3. to consute viz. That the declaration of the Church makes points to be Fundamental and consequently the basis falling the Superstructure cannot stand At present I onely argue thus if these points be Fundamental now which were not in the dayes of the Fathers than the Christian Religion is not the same now which it was nor make we up one Catholick Church with them Their Religion and ours differâ—ng in Essentials If the Roman Church be that Catholique Church whose declaration makes Articles Fundamental did not she and Stephen the Bishop of Rome declare explicitely against S. Cyprian in the point of Rebaptization It should therefore follow that St. Cyprian and the rest who joyned with him had erred Fundamentally Yet the Catholick Church holds them for Saints for Firmilian is Sainted in
For all Protestants do acknowledge that we are bound to believe whatever God is pleased to reveal unto us yea not to assent to the least material object of Faith when it is known that God has revealed it were an impeaching of the Veracity of God and so hainous a trespass that if continued in should assuredly damn eternally Nay further as acute M. Chillingworth observes Part. 1. cap. 3. Sect. 15. He that believes though erroniously any thing to be revealed by God and yet will contradict it is hainously guilty of derogation from the Veracity of God The most that Protestants affirm to which all solid Christians ever assented is that through the weakness of our understanding we not being able to penetrate all truths divinely revealed we may sometimes suppose that not to be revealed by God which is revealed by him or that to be revealed by him which is not revealed In this case which was Cyprians in the matter of Rebaptization if a man believe firmly not only the Veracity of God and be ready to assent to the particular truth whereof now he doubts if he knew it were revealed by God but also believes the most weighty Articles of the Christian Faith we say in that case our Lord doth graciously pardon the misbelief of smaller material objects of Faith which through infirmity are misbelieved This we have already confirmed by Scripture and Antiquity Sect. 1. Laying aside therefore his false state of the question the true state of the question is whether whatever the Church proposes as an Article of Faith must be believed under pain of damnation and consequently is to be held as a Fundamental so as without the belief thereof no salvation can be had in this indeed we maintain the Negative and my Adversary and Jesuited Romanists the Affirmative That this is the true state of the question may be evicted from the Pamphleter himself For after his deceitful misrepresentations of the question at length he comes above board pag. 92. thus The Church saith he in her publick Decrees of General Councils strikes with the Thunder-bolt of Gods Curse and Excommunication all such as refuse to believe any one point decided to be of Faith which she could not justly do if every Article she declares were not necessarily to be believed when known to be decided by her It 's therefore the decision by her that says the necessity of believing upon souls Yet it would be further noted that by the Church Romanists understand the Roman Church or Church in Communion with the Pope acknowledging his Headship and Universal Supremacy And because the diffusive Body of thee Roman Church cannot all assemble to define Controversies of Religion ther for it must be understood of her representatives seeing Conciliary representatives are very rare and the sense of their Canons are obnoxious to various debates therefore this power of determining and imposing Fundamentals though the Pamphleter in the words cited seem only to speak of Councils must at length be resolved into the Pope I wrong them not Here Jesuit Gretser speaking in name of the rest in defens Bell. lib. 3. de verb. Dei cap. 10. Colum. 1450. When we affirm saith he the Church to be the Judge of all Controversies of Faith by the Church we understand the Bishop of Rome who for the time being governs the Ship of the Militant Church The question is then whether all that the Bishop of Rome injoyns ex Cathedra and as matters of Faith must be believed because he injoyns it and that under pain of Everlasting Damnation the Jesuited Party affirm we deny It 's not the misbelieving what Scripture says but what the Roman Church or Pope saith that according to these men does condemn Souls I shall not insist upon a large consutation of this absurd Doctrine which cannot but ruine with its own weight not being supported with any solid ground only take these brief hints 1. The Catholick Church in all her Representatives since the Apostolick Age is fallible as I demonstrated by many arguments Cap. 2. Sect. 2. and may injoyn Errours for Articles of Faith Ergo all that the Representatives of the Catholick Church injoyn as Articles of Faith are not to be held as Fundamentals This one argument is sufficient to overturn that Romish Structure But 2. It 's an intollerable Catachresis to affirm the Romish Church much more the Pope to be the Catholick Church or to attribute the peculiar priviledges of the Catholick Church to the Roman or to the Pope by as good reason they might affirm Italy or Rome to be the whole World and predicate that of Rome which is peculiar to the whole World Ergo though it were granted that the Catholick Church or her Representatives had power infallibly to determine Fundamentals of Faith it does not follow that this is the priviledge of the Roman Church or Pope of Rome as our Adversaries affirm 3. Every thing that God himself reveals in Scripture is not a Fundamental of Faith Ergo far less every thing that the Church proposes The sequel is evident for if there be any reason why every thing proposed by the Church should be Fundamental this must needs be it because as Romanists affirm what the Church says God himself says But this reason cannot be cogent for beyond all peradventure what is revealed in Scripture is revealed by God himself and yet both Protestants and Papists acknowledge that all revealed in Scripture is not Fundamental therefore neither can all proposed by the Church be Fundamental This argument concludes that though she were infallible as Scripture truly is yet would it not follow that all her definitions were Fundamentals of Faith It may be here objected that he who knows a truth to be contained in Scripture and yet misbelieves it erres Fundamentally therefore also if the Church be infallible he who misbelieves any point which he knows to be propounded by her erreth likewise Fundamentally Not to mention that this objection proceeds upon the supposition of the Infallibility of the Church the falshood whereof I hope has already been evicted I answer that he indeed erreth Fundamentally who misbelieves the least truth which he knows to be contained in Scripture provided he know the Divine Original of that Scripture yet not so much for misbelieving that particular truth for in other circumstances it may be misbelieved without a Fundamental errour as for his explicite misbelief of the Veracity of God which renders the man an Infidel But I hope Romanists themselves will not say that if Cardinal Cajetan who questioned the Divine Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews had thereupon misbelieved some particular Proposition which he acknowledged to be contained in that Epistle had erred Fundamentally and consequently though the Church were infallible as she is not yet if he who questioned her Infallibility should also misbelieve what he knew to be propounded by her he should not err Fundamentally For in so doing he would not explicitly
question the Veracity of God as in the first case 4. If the Proposals of the Church made Articles Fundamental ergo after the Churches definition the Christian Religion should be essentially different from what it was before contrary to Ephes 4 there is but one Faith The sequel is evident because after that definition of the Church there should be Fundamentals or Essentials in Religion which were not before And from this it follows the now Roman Religion is essentially different from the old Christian Religion For by the new definitions of their Church they have made many Essentials which the Ancient Church never knew as I demonstrated against M. Demster Paper 4. 5. I argue with Learned M. Stillingfleet thus The Church is a Church before she past out her definition ergo by her definition she makes no Fundamentals The sequel is proved because the Church cannot be a Church without the belief of all Fundamentals ergo whatever definition she passes posteriour to her being a Church is none of the Fundamentals E. W. the Author of Protestancy without Principles Discourse 3. cap. 6. Sect. 19. superciliously undervalues this argument of D. Stillingfleet supposing he hath evicted the nullity thereof by this simile As in a Kingdom or Commonwealth after the settlement of some great matters I suppose he means the Fundamental Laws they may thereafter proceed to make new Laws so he conceive it to be in the Church But the faculty of that Jesuâ—t lies in throwing a Feather to the ground with high confidence Two things if I mistake nor may discover the lameness and impertinency of the Jesuits simâ—lâ— And first it's beyond doubt that after the settlement of the Fundamental Laws of a Kingdom the King and Parliament have a Legislative Power to create new Laws not only to declare what Laws formerly were in being but to give a being to Laws which formerly had none But the more Judicious Romanists deny that the Representatives of the Catholick Church far less of the Roman or a Pope have power to make Articles of Faith which were not but that their power is only declarative of Articles of Faith which formerly were So Alphonsus à Castro de haeres lib. 1. cap. 8. Valentia in Part. 3. disp 1. quest 1. punct 6. and Azor. Part. 2. Moral lib. 5. cap. 3. quest 2. yea so much is acknowledged by E. W. himself Sect. 22. Hence when lately D. Taylor in his Disswasive cap. 1. Sect. 2. concluded the impiety of the Romish Religion because it did attribute to the Romish Church i. e. the Pope power to make Articles of Faith contrary both to Scripture Gal. 1. 8 and to the third Oecumenick Council at Ephesus It was replyed to him by a Romanist that they only give to the Church a declarative power to declare what be Articles of Faith If the Church have only a declarative power then she has not such power to make Articles of Faith as the King and Parliament have to make Laws to the Kingdom or if she have power to make Articles of Faith then D Taylor 's Charge of impiety stands in force against Romanists They may chuse which of the two absurdities they will run upon But secondly if the King and Parliament should add to the Fundamental Laws of a Kingdom when addition were made to them thereafter the Constitution of the Kingdom should in so far be altered and different from what it was consequently if the Church should add to the Fundamentals of Faith the Christian Religion should essentially vary from what it was before Nay if the Church may add to Fundamentals and make that Fundamental which was not Fundamental why might she not pair from them also and make those things cease to be Fundamentals which were Fundamentals and so overturn all Christianity and make it a quite different thing from what it was But the Unity of the Christian Religion and of the Catholick Church prove convincingly that the Fundamentals of the Christian Religion are always the same and unalterable Sixthly and lastly The absurdities of this Romish Doctrine may appear by the impâ—ous consequences which flow from it As 1. The imperious Usuâ—â—ation of one part of the Catholick Church namely of the Church of Rome her Popes or Councils over the whole Catholick by this she assumes a mighty Soveraignty over the Consciences of all the World to impose on them Fundamental Articles of Faith which Christ never authorized her to do 2. It establishes a most grievous Schism thus she cuts off from the Catholick Church as Hereticks oâ— persons erring fundamentally all who cannot submit to her heretical Decrees 3. It makes Romanists unchristianly uncharitable and to conclude that all shall be damned which do not with Issachar couch down under the burdens which she imposeth 4. Hence also it is that they abuse the World with an implicite Faith if they be in a readiness to believe what is imposed by their Church it 's enough though they know little in particular what she has imposed yea some say though explicitly they believe nothing Nay Tolet lib. 4. de instruct Sacerd. cap. 3. If a Country man saith he believe his Bishop propounding some Heretical Doctrine about the Articles of Faith he meriteth by believing though it be an errour because he is bound to believe until it manifestly appear that it is against the Church O dreadful impiety Shall it be not only not sinful but meritorious to believe Lyes when it but seems to be the Doctrine of the Romish Church The absurdity of the Romish Assertion being now sufficiently evicted our Doctrine upon the other hand may be clear viz. that those Articles are only to be held for Fundamentals on which Scripture hath put a character of necessity for the appointment of Fundamental Articles or the prescribing of the necessary conditions for obtaining Eternal Life dependeth wholly upon the good pleasure of God and therefore are to be gathered from the Scripture which are the compleat Rule of Faith and deliver to us the whole Counsel of God concerning our Salvation But this Jesuit must needs be stâ—ll prevaricating and therefore pag. 86. he brings in this as a character given by me of a Fundamental if it be commanded to be believed by all But never did I assert any such thing nor did I ever think that a meer necessity of Precept does infer a point to be Fundamental we are commanded to believe Articles of Faith whether integral or Fundamental But in this is the difference that Fundamentals are also necessary necessitate medii finis by necessity of the means and of the end so as Salvation cannot be attained without the belief thereof neither is any thing to be held a such unless the Scripture which is the adequate Rule of Faith put a character of necessity thereupon From what has been said I deduce this Corollary that the unity of the Catholick Church stands in the unity of Fundamentals and consequently though there be diversity
604. demonstrat that the Popes supremacy was not an essential Article of their Faith Yea so far was it from being an Article of the Faith of the Ancient Catholick Church that in late Councils such as that of Constance sess 4. 5. and of Basil sess 2. It s statuted that Popes be subject to the decrees of general Councils and sess 39. who ever contradict this is stigmatized as an Heretick Behold then the stupendious impudency of those men Though many such luculent demonstrations of the contrariety betwixt the now Romish Faith and the Ancient Catholick Faith in this their principal point of the Popes supremacy have been often proposed yet they have confidence still to alleadge that the Church in the three first yea in all ages was of the same Faith with them They might as well say that within those first three ages Ignatius Loyola founded the order of Jesuits which all know to be but of Yesterdays erection But hath he not some pretences for his assertion Yes but those which times without number have been confuted The chief of his citations are manifestly spurious such as that from Denys de divinis nominibus cap. 3. Clement epist 1. and the decretals of Pope Zepherinus The decretals of Clement Zepherinus and of many more Bishops of Rome are not only demonstrated to be Spurious by Whittaker Cocus and Blondel but also are acknowledged to be such by learned Romanists Turrecremata Possevin Barronius as is observed by Rivet Crit. Sac. l. 1. c. 8. particular reasons may be seen in Cocus against each of them Bellarmin himself de Script Eccles Pag. 51. edit paris 1630. questions the epistles which now pass under the name of Clement As for the Books attributed to Deny's learned and modest Causabon exercit in Barron 16. Sect. 43. affirms none can look on them as the writings of the Areopagit but he that is grosly ignorant and a stranger to antiquity Rivet lib. cit cap. 9. brings 13. arguments to prove them Spurious and that they wer not so much as writen within the first three ages It 's noted by Cocus in Censur Vet. Script Pag. 50. 51. not only that Valla Erasmus Grocinus and Photius hold these writings to be Supposititions but that also they are questioned by Cajetan yea and as seems likewise by Bell. lib. 2. de confirm cap. 7. and the like is noted by Strang. lib. 2. de Script cap. 21. concerning Ribera the Iesuit But grant they wer genuin yet in lib. de devinis nom cap. 3. there is nothing for the Pope of Romes Supremacy yea not so much as mention of Rome or of the Pope thereof only of the Apostle Peter it 's said that he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which only imports the primacy of order which Peter had among the Apostles but no jurisdiction over them and though he had it what is that to the Pope of Rome unless it could be proved that the Pope succeeded to Peter in the latitude of his Apostolicall function which will be found an hard taske Concerning Ignatius whose Epistle to the Romans the Pamphleter cites I will not remit him to Rob. Parker de Polit. Eccles lib. 2. cap. 13. who also musters up a Multitude of arguments to prove these epistles attributed to Ignatius to be Spurious Nor will I altogether condemm as Supposititious the Seven Epistles mentioned as his by Euseb and Hierom yet Revet in crit Sac. lib. 2. cap 1. et 2. following learned Vsher makes it very probable that they are interpolated and vitiated yea Bell. himself lib. 4. de Eucharist cap. 26. confesses that there be many errors crept into them How can a firm argument be taken from vitiated Epistles But grant them to be entire and the rather seeing I find reformed Criticks devided especially concerning the Latin Edition of Ignatius set forth by Bishop Vsher and the Greek published by Isaac Vossius yet all this Pamphleter can alleadge from Ignatius is only a transient word in the inscription of the Epistle to the Romans which also he misrepresents though I blame not him so much as them from whom he borrowed the citation The words in the Greek concerning the Church of Rome are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which if rendred passively quae praesidetur which is prended over or which is governed by her own pastours give no shadow of a Countenance to Romish supremacy but take them actively which presides yet the presidency of that Church is restricted to the Region of the Romans so that no universal jurisdiction is there ascribed to her The Testimonies of Ireneus Cyprian and Origen are sufficiently vindicated by Learned Chamier Whittaker Dr. Morton Dr. Stillingfleet c. to whom it were enough for me to remit him He had done well to have left out Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. for he is there disputing against unwritten Traditions maintained by the Valentinian Hereticks and confutes them by this argument because if there were such Traditions left the Churches founded by the Apostles could not be ignorant of them And because it had been long to have recited all he mentions the Church of Rome to which the faithful resorted from all places she being seated in the imperial City which is that he meant by the more powerful principality that resort to her from all quarters was not from the jurisdiction of the Church of Rome but from peoples necessary affaires in the imperial City as is largely cleared by Chamier tom 2. lib. 13. cap. 22. and Stillingfleet Part. 2. cap. 6. Sect. 12. 13 Yea Irenaeus is so far from acknowledging the Popes supremacy that he reprehended Victor for his carriage to Pâ—lycrates and the Asiaticks and as seems retained communion with them notwithstanding the Popes Excommunication as may be gathered from Euseb lib. 5. Hist cap. 23. Caeteri among whom was Irenaeus dicebant se nihilominus cum iis pacem velle colere I proceed to Cyprian whom the Pamphleter cites Epist ad Jul. calling Peter the head and root of the Church and Epist. 55. the Church of Rome Peters Chair But there is none who withstood Popes of Rome more resolutely then Cyprian Notice but that one Character which in Epist. 74. ad Pompeium he gives to Stephanus Bishop of Rome viz. that he defended the cause of Hereticks against Christians and the Church of Christ Sure therefore Cyprian neither acknowledged the supremacy nor the infallibility of the Pope It may be time enough to answer the first of those citations when he finds out Cyprians Epist ad Jul. for I cannot find such an Epistle among all Cyprians Works But poor Soul he could say no better then his Manual of controversies for H. T. Act. 7. cites it thus Epist ad Julian I find indeed Cyprian Epist 45. ad Cornel. exhorting them who sayled from Africk to Rome in the time that Novatianus was schismatically chosen Bishop of Rome to adhere to the root and Matrix of the Catholick Church not that he so called the Roman
Eunom Neither is there a vestige in the place objected to signify that it is a Doctrin not contained in Scripture To that from Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 4. He speaks I confess of barbarous nations who believed in Christ sine charactere atramento But he does not say that they believed Articles of Faith not contained in the Scripture nay all the Articles which there he reckons out are Scripture Truths Nor do we deny if a Preacher not having a Bible with him should come to some American Countrys and Preach the Gospel that they were bound to believe yet it would not follow that the truths which they believed were not contained in Scripture To Origen Hom. 5. in Num. and in cap. 6. ad Rom. It s answered some of the Traditions mentioned by Origen are written Traditions such as that in Rom. cap. 6. of the baptism of infants which Bell. himself proves by Scripture others of them as concerning peoples posture in prayer are only ritual and so do not touch the present question which is of Articles of Faith To Tertullian its answered that after he turned Montanist he did speak too much for Traditions yea and for Traditions which Romanists themselves reject such as a threefold immersion giving honey and milk to persons babtized c. Either therefore Romanists must Montanize and condemn themselves for rejecting many Traditions approve by Tertullian or lay aside his Testimonies His Book de coron militis is supposed by some Learned men to be written in his Montanism yea and by Pamelius himself in vitâ Tertull. yet most of the Traditions mentioned there are about rituals and disciplinary matters But in his writtings against Hereticks such as that against Hermogenes and his prescriptions he is full for us It had been therefore the Pamphleters prudence not to have touched his Book de praescriptionibus for there expresly he condemns Hereticks for maintaining Traditions which were alleadged to be communicated in a clanculary way by the Apostles only to some few And whereas he said Hereticks were to be convicted by Tradition he speaks not of Traditions altogether unwritten but of Scriptural Doctrins which had been transmitted done in the Apostolick Churches to that time And it is in opposition to Hereticks who either did deny the Scriptures or mutilate them or acknowledged not their perfection Though against such Traditions be improven It follows not that all Articles of Faith are not contained in Scripture And besides it was easier then to dispute from Tradition being so near to the Apostolick age then now after so many reelings and vicissitudes To Cyprian who lib. 1. Epist. 12. says that the Babtized ought to be anoynted and lib. 2. Epist 3. that water should be mixed with wine in the Eucharist It s answered that these are only rituals no Articles of Faith yea the Trent Catechism de Baptismo Act. 7. defins that water is the only matter of Baptism and consequently Baptism may be without unction So certainly it was in the Baptism of the Eunuch Act. 8. 38 39. of Cornelius Act. 10. 47 48. and of the Jaylour Act. 16. 33. The same Roman Catechism de Euch. Act. 10. defins bread and wine to be the only matter of the Eucharist and expresly Act. 17. si aqua desit sacramentum Eucharistiae constare posset But all our question is of Articles of Faith There remains nothing as to the matter of Tradition but that he charges the Fathers as receiving the Scripture only upon Tradition Yet for this he alleadges no proof and therefore it may be rejected as a Jesuitism Did not the Fathers see as clear evidence for the Divine Authority of Scriptures as Jesuits Yet both Valentia lib. 1. de anal fidei per totum and Bell. de verb. Dei lib. 1. cap. 2. do produce many arguments beside Tradition for the Divine Original of Scripture And which is more not only Fathers did acknowledge the self evidencing Light of Holy Scripture as Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 4. cap. 1. but also Romanists themselves in their lucid intervalls as Val. lib. cit cap. 20. and Melchior Canus lib. 2. cap. 8. and Dr. Strang descript lib. 1. cap. 17. Pag. 128. brings in Mantuan speaking most expresly to this purpose We are perswaded saith he that Scripture flowed from the first truth sed unde sumus it a persuasi nisi a seipsa But besides this Romanists must be remembred that the Traditions attesting the Scriptures to be the word of God is not to be reckoned among unwritten Traditions the same being written 2 Tim. 3. 15. There be also many Learned Divines who defer very much to that Tradition in the resolution of the belief of the Scripturs who yet hold the Scriptures to be the compleat rule of Faith and that all the Articles or material objects of our Faith are contained in Scripture What need I more against the necessity of unwritten Traditions in the present Romish sense Seeing Austin lib. 3. contra Lit. Petilian cap. 6. Pronounces an Anathema upon all them who shall teach any thing either of Christ or his Church or any matter of Faith beside that which is received from legal and evangelical Scriptures hence another demonstration of the falshood and Novelty of the Romish Religion That unwritten Traditions of Articles of Faith are to be received with equal devotion as the Scriptures of God was no essential of the Faith of the Catholick Church in the first three ages But this is an essential of the present Romish Faith Ergo c. SECT III. The third instance of Novelty concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass considered and retorted upon Romanists THe Pamphleter in his third Instance saith that Protestants deny the unbloody Sacrifice of Christs body and blood offered up to God in the Mass Here it will be needful to hint at the true state of the question betwixt Romanists and us which the adversary deceitfully shuns to unfold We then confess that in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is a lively representation and a thankfull commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ offered upon the Cross so that this Sacrament may be termed an improper Eucharistick and commemorative Sacrifice or as others speak latreutical and objective Nor did the Fathers of the ancient Church ever intend any more as not only your divines have demonstrated but also among Romanists the learned Picherell dissert de Missa cap. 2. but we deny that the ancient Church in those three first ages held the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to be a proper propitiatory Sacrifice for the sins of the living and dead as is now defined by the Council of Trent Sess 22. Can. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Yea hardly will the name Mass be found in the undoubted writings of the Fathers of the first three Ages albeit Baronius in his Annals is bold to say that it is the most ancient name of this Sacrament and was delivered to the Church at Jerusalem by the Apostle James
are adjoyned by Bonaespei tom 2. theol scholast tract 2. de fide disp 2. dub 2. If this opinion hold Miracles cannot be a demonstrative evidence of the truth either of Church or Religion I am not to own Maldonats opinion lest I should seem to derogate from the glorious Miracles of our Saviour or to charge the God of truth as setting his Seal to a lye But I confidently affirm that Popish Cavils against the self evidencing Light of Holy Scripture militate as strongly against the self evidence of Miracles As Jesuits ask how we know Scriptures to be the word of God So we may justly enquire how they know these things which are attributed to Francis Dominick Xavier c. To be proper Miracles As there are Apocryphal Gospels under the names of St. Thomas and Nicodemus so there have been false Miracles wrought by Satan and his Ministers Doth not the Apostle say 2 Thes 2. 9. that Antichrist shall come with lying signs and wonders Josephus a Costa lib. 2. de Christo revelato cap. 8. as I find him cited by Rivet on Exod. 7. Pag. 178. for I have not that peece of a costa by me confesses that it shall be in the time of the Antichrist magnae sapientiae rarique Divini muneris a rare gift of God to distinguish betwixt a true Miracle and a wonder wrought by an Imposter Yea Bell. affirms lib. de notis Ecclesiae cap. 14. that there can be no infallible certainty whether such a thing be a true Miracle or an illusion of the Devil ante approbationem Ecclesiae before the approbation of the Church Behold then how these Romish impostors run in a circle proving the truth of their Church by Miracles and the truth of Miracles by the testimony of their Church One of the two they must acknowledge either that Scripture hath a self evidencing Light which will ruin their whole interest or that Miracles cary not with them a self evidence and consequently are impertinently brought as the first and most evident note of the true Church I leave it to the deliberation of our adversaries which of the two they will chuse In the second place it would be considered that there were indeed glorious miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles nor do we deny that there were Miracles there after in the primitive Church also yet all these are Impertinently alleadged by Romish Authors as to this present Debate For certainly none of the real Miracles done by Christ or his Apostles or afterwards in the days of Irenaeus Justin Martyr Cyprian Gregory Thaumaturg were wrought to prove that the Roman Church in these last days is the only Catholick Church or that the present System of Romish Faith as defined in the Council of Trent or expressed in Pope Pius the Fourth his Creed is the only true Christian Faith Have I not shewed Popery as now it stands was not known in these days These Miracles prove the Truth of the Christian Religion in those days which I have shewed to differ in Essentials from the Trent Religion but to agree with the reformed Religion How miserably the Pamphleter comes off as to Miracles in ancient times may be apparent to any that takes notice of his citations pag. 187. 188. His first citation from Justin Martyr q. 28. is out of a Book acknowledged to be spurious by their own Authors Bell. Possevin Sixtus Senensis and Azorius yea nor was it written within the first three Centuries as is evicted by learned Criticks And besides the Author of these questions mentions not a Miracle wrought for any Popish Tenet far less for the complex of all Only that at the Sepulchres of Martyres Miracles were done to confirm the truth of the Christian Faith not the worship of Reliques That of Irenaeus lib. 2. cap. 58. speaks only of Miracles wrought by living Saints for conversion of Infidels What is that to the Romish interest As for the Miracles of Greg. of Neocaesarea commonly called Thaumaturgus there is no mention of them for a hundred years after his time until Greg. Nyssen If they were all real is it not strange that Eusebius who uses to be very punctual in these things has not a touch of them That Orat. of Nyssen de vita Greg. is called by Scultetus Somnium Somniorum surely there be very fabulous things therein as that the Virgin Mary and John came down from Heaven to teach him his Creed which Dr. Beard retract cap. 12. compares to the Poetical Fiction of Apollo teaching Esculapius the Rules of Physick and to the Rabinick Fable of the Angel Sanballets being Adams School-master and Nyssen himself is charged by his Brother Basil as a simple and credulous man But what Did Greg. Thaumaturg work any Miracle to prove the whole System of the present Romish Religion to be true No such thing can be alleadged only in some of his Miracles he is said to have used the Sign of the Cross What then Do not Protestants particularly Hospinian lib. 2. de templis cap. 20. acknowledge the sign of the Cross as used by Ancients to testifie that they were not ashamed of a Crucified Saviour to have been lawful though now it be superstitiously abused Romanists now give Religious adoration yea that of Latria to Crosses But no ancient Author testifies that ever Greg. Thaumaturg did so What is cited from S. Cyprian Serm. de lapsis as relating Miracles to prove the Corporal presence of Christ under the Accidents of Bread and Wine is a Jesuitical falshood these Miracles did prove the Divine Institution of the Sacrament of the Supper the mystery of the Incarnation and the reality of Christs human Nature represented by the Sacramental Symbols but no more of the figment of Transubstantiation then of Mahomets Alcoran These are all the citations he has for the first three Ages of Christianity if there be one Miracle here to prove the present Trent Religion to the only true Christian Faith let any who are not willing to be deceived judge The like impertinency may be discovered in the next three succeeding Ages for the whole Story of the Invention of the Cross by Helena the Empress and Mother of Constantine and the Miracle reported by Ruffin and Nicephorus to be wrought at that time appears to be fabulous Is it probable that Eusebius who wrote four Books of the life of Constantine would have omitted it Dellaeus is large in confuting it lib. 5. de object Cultus Relig. c. 1. But suppose it were true was that Miracle wrought to confirm any point of Popery far less all No verily the only design of it if real was to show that Jesus who was Crucified on that Tree was the Saviour of the World Helena and the Christians of those days had not learnt to adore the Cross Hence S. Ambrose de Obitum Theodosii says Regem adoravit non lignum she adored Christ but not the Tree That of Epiphanius Heres 30. looks also to be fabulous and
The Pamphleters sophisms for his first proposition viz. that there is an infallible propounder briefly discussed pag. 323 Subject 2. The Pamphleters second proposition viz. that the true Church is the Infallible propounder considered pag. 327 Subject 3. The pamphleters third proposition viz. that the Roman Church is the only true Catholick Church considered pag. 332 Article 1. Of Miracles pag. 332 Article 2. Of the Conversion of Infidels pag. 349 Article 3. Of sanctity of life pag. 355 Sect. 4. A touch of the Pamphleters hints at other notes of the Church viz the title of Catholick and Succession pag. 374 Sect. 5. A brief reparty to his conclusory knacks pag. 382 A postscript vindicating the Author from the Criminations of the Pamphleter pag. 385 An Advertisment concerning the Errata THe Author living in another Kingdom and not being able to revise the Press and the Copy which came hither having been written by a young Scholar not so correctly as might have been wished many errors have crept into the work◠some of which do greatly wrest the sense yea sometimes do destroy it May it therefore please the serious Reader when any thing occurrs which seems incongruous to turn over to the Errata where readily he may find that cleared which in the work appeared intricate or perhaps absurd As for instance p. 318. l. 2. It may justly seem strange that the epithet Saint is prefixed to Ambrose Catharinus a moderne Romanist as if he had been the ancient S. Ambrose B. of Millan whereas by looking on the Errata where S. is appointed to be expunged the Reader may understand that the Epithet Saint was not in the Authors Copy By the same means diverse other mistaks of the impression may be cleared especially seeing it is hoped that these which are not set down may easily be observed by the judicious Reader It is likewise granted that many trespasses are committed in the punctation but there was necessity to leave these to the Correction of the intelligent Reader Where the Printer found in the Coppy this figure § he ordinarily hath printed Sect. and so hath sometimes put twice Sect. in one place Some of those escapes are noted amongst the Errata that by them the Reader might easily pass judgment on the rest And if he would be at pains to correct the errours with his pen he would oblige the Author and ease those of trouble who afterwards should make use of his book If either Jesuit or other Reader impute any of these or such like escapes unto the Author he will discover more prejudice against the cause or person of the Author than either judgment or discretion However the Errata is subjoyned for the use of ingenuous lovers of truth It is to be noted that whereas cap. 3. Sect. 3. page 94. Lyranus Paulus Burgensis Valla Cajetan are joyned with Erasmus Pagnin Arias Montanus c. the meaning is not that the first four Authors had translated entire books of Scripture as the latter had done but that those also in their Expositions of Scripture did frequently recede from the Vulgar Latin and corrected it Likwise where as it is said cap. 3. Sect. 3. pag 95. that Romanists can only object against our translations of Scripture some rash expressions of private men who can pretend to no authority that is to be understood of Castalio Broughton Carolus Molinaeus and others of that quality cited by the Pamphleter But there a touch should have been given how the Pampheter had abused an expression of King James in the conference at Hampton Court viz. that the Geneva translation is the worst of all English translations This expression of the King the Pamphleter abuses to impugne the Scriptures being the rule of Faith which his Majesty never intended nor was his meaning that the Geneva translation composed Anno. 1560. By the English Exiles who fled thither in the Reign of Queen Mary or that the other English translations the faillours whereof were likewise briefly hinted at by the King did not contain all things necessary to Salvation Yea the particular trespases noted by his Majesty in the Geneva bible were in the Marginal annotations not in the translation it self Thereal design of the King was to hold forth that no English translation then extant had arrived at the perfection which were not only to be wished but also by more industry might be attained whereupon his Majesty gave special order to compose the English translation which we now by the mercy of God do enjoy It were good that Romanists had as much ingenuity to acknowledge the errors of their vulgar latin as lastly corrected by Clement the eight a specimen whereof hath been exhihited by Francisus Lucas Brugensis If any be not satisfied with the touch given of the Keri and Chetib pag. 102. 103. they are remitted to Sixtinus Amama his dissertation de Keri Chetib in coronide ad Grammaticam Martinio Buxtorfianam where though that learned Author seem to make large concessions concerning the Keri and Chetib and the various lections yet neither do they overthrow the doctrine of the reformed Church concerning Scriptures being the rule of faith as Amama himself in the Answer of some objections endeavours to clear It is also to be noted that whereas in page 472. Clements Epist 1. is pronounced spurious The Authors designe was not to censure Clements first Epistle to the Corinthians lately published by Mr. Patrick Young which Rivet Crit. sac lib. 1. cap. 8. Commends as savouring of primitive simplicity and Hottinger in Elencho librorum supposititiorum saith de ea Nostri nihil durius pronunciarunt for that is not the Epistle cited by the Pamphleter but another passing under the name of Clements first Epistle to S. James which is justly concluded spurious And albeit the Epistle were genuine yet the testimony adduced from it is impertinent seeing it speaks not of the Popes supremacy but partly of that which was common to S. Peter with the rest of the Apostles namely that he was called Fundamentum Ecclesiae which is also attributed to the rest Eph 2. 20. Rev. 21. 14. and partly of his personal prerogatives and indowments in regard whereof he is said to be potentior omnium which might well consist with equality of jurisdiction DEdic pag. 3. li. 11. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 11. l. 35. r. lib. 13. p. i2 l-39 r. Rom. 8.3.8 p 14. l. 19. r. twelve years p 23. l. 21 r. diffusive p 24. l. 14. r. diffusive l 28. r. Donatists might have p. 51. l 31 r. those Fathers do only compar p. 52. l. 20. ◠against F. Johnson p. 53. l. 22. r. 18 Mat 28.20 p. 57. l. 7. r. Exod. 32. p 62. l. 10. r. Evangelium p. 65. l. 30. r. lib. 2. de Concilits ◠67. l. 35. r. contra Epist Fundamenti p. 72. l. 34. in place of Isidor Clarius r. Lucas Brugenesis l. 38 ◠diffic 4 Sect 2. p. 73 l. 21. r. a spara◠senses
our Translation was something concerning the question of the descent of the Soul of Christ to Hell I cannot examine whether Zuinglius be faithfully cited not having his Works But though Gerard the Lutheran in uberiori exeges loc de script cap. 29. Sect. 122. gives an account of other of our Authors not so well satiâ—fied with Luthers German Translation yet he has no word of Zuinglius However they who know the animosities which the Sacramentarian Controversie did breed will not think strange though Zuinglius and Luther used more asperity in Censuring the Works of one another than was fitting The Censure of Carolus Molinoeus is not much to be regarded he being no Divine but an unsetled though Learned Lawyer first a Papist then a Protestant and afterwards with the Dog returning to his Vomit and re imbracing Popery he breathed forth invectives against worthy men as is usual with Apostates to be haters of their own Sect. This is testified of him by Lucas Osiander Epitom Hist Eccles cent 16. Anno 1566. pag. 802. As for the acknowledgment of Luther that he added the word Sola you may take the Answer of Gerard the Lutheran loc cit Sect. 525. Non verba numeravit sensum exprimere voluit And indeed though I would have Translators to be punctual in their Version of Scripture yet it 's a sure truth that we are justified by Faith alone or as the Apostle saith by Faith without the works of the Law But leaving further to canvase those unadvised expressions of some Protestants Authors which are nothing ad summa in rei I can press Romanists with contrary Verdicts of Popes concerning the Vulgar Latin Sixtus Quintus and Clement the 8. All they can object to us are but some rash expressions of private men who can pretend to no Authority Secondly Therefore I answer that we ought carefully to distinguish betwixt smaller Grammatical Escapes and substantial Errours overturning Articles of Faith It 's not denied but the first may be incident to any Version made by humane industry but I appeal all the Romish Party to try if they can charge the English Translation which is made use of in this Church with any substantial Errour and Article of Faith that had been the most solid way of arguing against us As for the diversities betwixt the English Translation under Q. Elizabeth and K. James 6. I suppose it will be found that both the reading laid aside and that which is substituted are conform to the Analogy of Faith though the one may be more agreeable to the Original and Series of the Context and so is preferrable to the other by which the ingenuity of Protestant Churches may appear they being willing to correct the least failure It were easie to demonstrate that the Papists vulgar Version is often guilty of ill Latin and worse Divinity Who desire an account of the varieties contradictions errours and barbarisms of the Vulgar Latin I refer them to D. James bellum Papale Calov Crit. Sac de Vers Vulg. Chamier Panstrat Tom. 1. lib. 14. cap. 11 12 13. and to Sixtinus Amama in Anti barbaro Biblic lib. 1. cap. 9 10 11. who also shews cap. 12 13. that Jesuit Serrarius Bellarmine Baptista Baudinus the Reviser of the Vatican Press Lucas Brugensis yea and the Prefacer to the Clementine Version do acknowledge that the Latin Version as lastly corrected by Clement 8. hath yet its own trespasses and deserves further emendation But this is the mischief of Rome's pretended Infallibility that she will rather justly know faults than by amending them humbly confess her self fallible In a word except Romanists can prove that in our Translations there be such Errours as destroy the substantials of Christianity which though the Conclaves of Rome and Hell do joyn forces cannot be done it cannot be concluded that our Bibles are not a sufficient Ground and Rule of Faith To shut up the Answer to this Objection Richard Cappell in his Remains pag. 30 31. presents this Notion to the consideration of the Godly Learned that seeing the Lord hath commanded his people to hear read and search the Scriptures which the multitude cannot do but in some Translation or other and God being in his Providence very careful that his Church shall not want sufficient provision for their Souls therefore he the said M. Cappell supposes that God ever hath doth and will so assist Translators that for the main they shall not err And indeed though the Vulgar Latin be but too faulty as I have already shewed yet we deny not but it is a Bible and contains the substantials of Religion Neither have I any doubt but many have been converted by it such as Peter Martyr Zanchius Luther Oecâ—lampadius c. I am not to adopt M. Cappell's Notion yet should it hold far less could there be ground to Cavil against our Translations as not being a sufficient ground of Faith they being much more pure and agreeable to the Originals than the Vulgar Latin as cannot but be clear to those who have any measure of skill to compare them Objection 2. The Pamphleter pag. 54 55 56. accuses the Original Texts of Scripture as corrupted in confirmation whereof be alledges that it 's doubted in what Language some parts of Scripture were written that Calvin and Luther questioned the purity of the Originals that there be various Lections in the Hebrew that the Jews Christs professed Enemies five hundred years after Christ invented the Hebrew Points or Vowels and corrupted the Text but that before this corruption their Vulgar Latin was made that Hereticks also particularly Arrians Macedonians Nestorians c. had their hand in adulterating Scripture for which he alledges Irenaeus Tertull. and Eusebius but cites no place in any of them that we have not the Autographies written by Prophets or Apostles and all Copies are subject to faults In the end he concludes that there is no remedy for these evils without an infallible visible Judge In all this he doth still behave himself like an Atheist Doth he not by concluding the Original Scriptures to be all corrupted raze with one stroak the Foundation of the Christian Religion Is not this a pregnant evidence of the impiety of the Romish Interest and truth of the Protestant Religion that Romanists cannot fight against us but with the Weapons of Infidels for supporting their Babel they will venture the ruine of all Religion ridente Turca nec dolente Judaeo For answer therefore to this Blasphemous Cavil let first the Pamphleters inconsistency with himself be noticed In his former Section he brought Scriptures to prove the necessity of an infallible visible Judge yet here he affirms we cannot know a line of pure Scripture that is not vitiated but by the sentence of this infallible Judge Is not this to intangle himself into a manifest Circle or contradiction Secondly Was this man compos mentis when he brings in Irenaeus Tertullian Origen and Eusebius testifying that the Scriptures were
question which S. James agitates is whether there be a necessity of good works which he resolves affirmatively and withal attests that though they be not the causes of our Justification before God yet they are the inseparable effects of a Justifying Faith and the Evidences of a Justified Estate For this end he brings in not only the example of Abraham but also of Rahab who of an Infidel had been proselyted to the Faith yet she also demonstrated the soundness of her Faith by her works of mercy to the Servants of God Thus the harmony of these two Apostles may luculently appear the Apostle Paul shews good works have no causal influence upon Justification the Apostle James teaches that though they be not the causes yet they demonstrate the truth of a Justifying Faith For as S. Austin says lib. de fide operibus cap. 14. good works sequuntur Justificatum non praecedunt Justificandum that which follows Justification can neither causally nor formally justifie but well may evidence a Justified Estate and this was all which S. James intended But what need I more their own Aquiuas in cap. 3. Epist ad Galat. Lect. 4. expresly confesses quod hona opera non sunt causa quod aliquis sit justus apud Deum sed potius executiones manifestationes Justitiae that good works are not causes why any is just before God but the executive demonstrations of righteousness or of a Justified Estate I know there be many Cavils raised against this by Bell. and other Advocates of the Romish Cause but they are copiously discussed by our Controversists and lately Turretinus exercit de concord Pauli Jacobi in articulo Justificationis Proceed we now to the third and last place 2 Thes 2. 13. which the Pamphleter supposes to be clear for their unwritten Traditions It 's indeed ordinary with Romanists where ever they find mention of Traditions in Scripture to draw it to their unwritten Traditions But this very place discovers their mistake for the Apostle speaks of Traditions by Epistle as well as by word then sure there are written Traditions I know nothing that here can be objected but that he mentions Traditions not only by Epistle but also by word To which I answer from this indeed it follows that Doctrines of Faith were delivered to the Church of Thessalonica both by word and writ It holds out these two different ways by which Divine Truths were conveyed to them from the Apostles but it cannot be concluded from this Scripture that any Articles of Faith were delivered by word to this Church of Thessalonica which were not contained in the Epistles written to them yet granting that some Articels of Faith had been Orally delivered to them which were not contained in these two Epistles to the Church of Thessalonica yet nothing can be inferred against us except he could prove that these Articles were not to be found in any other Scripture Let this Pamphleter if he can give us an account of the Articles of Faith Orally delivered to the Thessalonians which are not to be found either in these Epistles or in any other Scripture if he cannot which no Romanists as yet have been able to do let them once learn to acknowledge that this Scripture makes nothing for them I must remember him that Bell. confesses lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 11. that the Apostles committed to writing whatever was necessary either then it must be acknowledged these Traditions are not necessary or else according to Bell. they must be delivered in the written word Cardinal Perron as I find him cited by M. Chillingworth in his Protestants safe way cap. 3. Sect. 46. conjectures that the Tradition of which the Apostle here speaks was of the hinderance of the coming of Antichrist Grant that the Cardinal hath hit right yet seeing neither he nor the Romish Church can give an account what that hinderance was which the Apostle meant it still appears how unsure a Traditive conveyance is and that the knowledge of that hinderance cannot be necessary now or a point of Faith seeing God hath permitted it to be lost Pag. 63. and 64. the Pamphleter urges that Hereticks such as Arrians Eutychians Manichees Nestorians Valentinians and Apollinarists by collating Scripture with Scripture did confirm their blasphemous Heresies But what is that to the purpose Doth it therefore follow that collating Scripture is not a mean for finding out the true sense of Scripture Might he not as well argue that because some by eating do poyson themselves therefore eating is not a mean to preserve the life of man or because some Hereticks have brought the Testimonies of Fathers Councils yea and also of Popes to confirm their Heresies therefore none of those do contribute to find out the true sense of Scripture It is Blasphemy to say that reading or collating of Scripture is the proper cause of Heresie S. Austin assigns far different causes when lib. de util cred cap. 1. he defines an Heretick to be one qui alicujus temporalis commodi maxime gloriae principatusque sui gratiâ falsas ac novas opiniones vel gignit vel sequitur Where he holds out that it 's from Pride Avarice or some such vicious Principle and not from reading or collating Scripture that men adopt Heretical Opinions and having once espoused them they pervert Scriptures to make them appear plausible Certainly all misinterpretations of Scripture proceed from some prave disposition either in the Understanding or Will And our Saviour made use of collating Scripture Matth. 4. as the choicest mean to confute sophistical arguings from Scripture Is there any of the gross inferences of Arrians Nestorians Manichees c. which Fathers and latter Divines have not confuted by Scripture Doth not Popery drive this Pamphleter to a great height of Blasphemy when he dares affirm that an Arrian Cobler impugning the Transubstantiality of the Son of God with the Father cannot be confuted by the Scripture Does he mean that a Jesuit transfiguring himself into the shape of a Cobler as some are said to have done for indeed they can turn themselves to all shapes hath learned such dexterity from Lucifer as to maintain the blasphemous Heresie of Arrians Let him try his Acumen in answering the Scriptural Arguments which Bell. hath brought to prove the Consubstantiality of the Son of God lib. 1. de Christo from cap. 4. to 9. inclusive Did not the Ancient Christian Church confute Arrians Nestorians Eutychians c. from the holy Scripture How weak is that inference of the Arrian mentioned by the Pamphleter that because Christ prayed that his Disciples might be one Joh. 17. therefore to conclude that he and the Father are one only in will and affection Do not all the Scriptures which prove the Deity of Christ and that the incommunicable Attributes of the Deity are applyable to him demonstrate him to be Consubstantial with the Father His other instance is no less ridiculous from the Eutychians
as also of the intrinsick evidence of the Scriptures is given by the Learned Amyrald in Thes Salmur loc de testimonio Spiritus Sancti See also loc de Author Script From pag. 72. he falls upon the Question of the Judge of Controversies wherein whether he doth not discover both foul and foolish work as he is pleased to object to me pag. 14. the Reader may judge First then he says Scripture cannot be the Judge of Controversies as M. Menzies will have Let all the Papers betwixt M. Demster and me be read and it shall not be found that ever I asserted the Scripture to be Judge of Controversies Indeed I do assert the Scripture to be the Ground and Rule of Faith and I suppose when Protestants affirm the Scripture to be Judge of Controversies they mean no more But because I knew how apt Papists are to cavil upon the term Judge I did ever purposely wave it But this is the Jesuitical Candour he hath used in all his Criminations against me The Genius of this Scribler will yet more appear by his stating of this Question betwixt Romanists and us pag. 75. which he propounds thus Catholick Romans saith he build their belief upon Scripture not taken as they fancy but as explained by Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church and the unanimous consent of the Fathers and if any doubt arise of both these on the general definition and decision of the present Catholick Church But Protestants says he as M Menzies holds ground their Faith on Scripture which they have corrected or rather corrupted as clear in it self or made clear by diligent reading and conferring of places with prayers and as they imagine a well-disposed mind that is a prejudicate Opinion It is hard to say whether he discover more perverseness of folly in representing the state of this question Take these few observes upon it And first if Romanists build their Faith upon the Scriptures as expounded by Traditions c. then Scripture contains all Doctrines of Faith and Traditions serve only to expound the Scripture And yet he affirms pag. 62. There be Articles of Faith such as Persons in the Trinity Sacraments in the Church c. which he denies to be found in Scripture Either then in this state of the question he does not declare the adequate ground of the Popish Faith and so sophisticates with his Reader when he would make him believe that they build all their Faith on Scripture or else contradicts both himself and the current of Romish Doctors who maintain unwritten Traditions not only for expounding Scriptures but also for confirming Articles of Faith not contained in the Scripture Secondly He dare not commit the explication of Scripture either to Tradition or the unanimous consent of Fathers and therefore he keeps the definition of the present Church as a Reserve in case of doubts concerning these and of doubts which may be moved concerning the sense of Traditions and of the testimonies of Fathers And therefore all must be ultimately resolved on the definition of the present Church they mean the Popish Church So that when all comes to all their Faith is built upon the word of their Pope or Council for nothing else can he mean by their Present Church But thirdly seeing the decisions of Faith are remitted unto the present Church that is Pope or Council when the case is dubious concerning the sense of Scriptures Traditions and Fathers what is now left to be a ground for the Churches definition but either Enthusiasm or a Fancy So that by this very state of the question when it s well pondered the ground of the belief of the present Romish Church is because she fancies so Fourthly In this state of the question he speaks as if Romanists were all agreed concerning the Rule of Faith or Judge of Controversies the contrary whereof is apparent from what we spake both in the former question concerning the infallible visible Judge and also here concerning the Rule of Faith Are M. White M. Serjeant M. Holden Rushworth and other Patrons of the Traditionary way of the same Opinion touching the Rule of Faith and Judge of Controversies with Jesuits Fifthly Doth he not represent us as building our Faith on corrupted Scriptures Is not this an evidence of a most desperate Cause when we must be so perfidiously represented So far are Protestants from building on corrupted Scriptures that we appeal to the pure Originals and decline no mean for finding out the sense of Scripture ever acknowledged by the Catholick Church Yea to cut off their Cavils of this kind Learned Protestants as M. Baxter Key for Catholicks Part. 1. cap. 31. have offered to dispute the Controversies of Religion out of the Vulgar Latin or out of the Rhemists Translation Sixthly He would imply that we had no regard to Tradition or to the consent of Fathers In this he belyes us egregiously We are so far from excluding them from the means of expounding Scripture that we have a Venerable esteem of them when a Tradition is truly found to have been received by the whole Catholick Church in all Ages and when Fathers do unanimously consent in Doctrines of Faith But we must have further Evidence for an universally and perpetually received Tradition or Doctrine unanimously approved by Fathers then the partial testimony of the present particular and Apostate Church of Rome Dare Romanists remit the Controversies betwixt them and us to those Tests of Apostolick Tradition or unanimous consent of Fathers Have they Apostolick Tradition for their Adoration of Images Invocation of departed Saints substraction of the Cup from the people Purgatory Fire their Divine Authority of Apocryphal Book the Supremacy of the Pope above Councils and Princes c. none but either an Ignorant or he whose Conscience is Venal and Mercenary can affirm it But I may give a more particular account of these hereafter I add but a seventh Note When he mentions the means which we affirm ought to be used for finding out the true sense of Scripture such as the conferring of places of Scripture and prayer which I suppose none but an Infidel can disallow he reckons forth a well-disposed mind which he interprets a prejudicate Opinion What Candour I have met with or am to expect from them let any judge by this their Commentary upon my words when I require a well-disposed mind to the right understanding of the Scriptures that is saith my Adversary a prejudicate Opinion Doth he not discover himself to be a person to which his own Apocrypha Text Sap. 1. 4. In animam malevolam non introibit Sapientia may most fitly be applyed Pag. 73. He flourishes with an old Argument against the Scriptures being Judge of Controversies The Judge of Controversie saith he ought to give a clear sentence which the learned and unlearned may equally understand but thus doth not the Scripture and to this purpose He alledges some testimonies from S. Ambrose S. Austin that there be
3. de orig animae cap. 15. Iste animus etiam in dictis per ignorantiam non Catholicus ipsa est correctionis praemeditatione Catholicus a Soul maintaining errours contrary to Catholick Doctrine yet willing to submit upon conviction upon that virtual repentance or premeditation of correction to use S. Austins word is truly Catholick namely when the Errours strike not at the Foundation as the same Father spoke in the forecited testimony lib. 1. contra Julian cap. 6. Against this the Pamphleter objects pag. 92 93. many Fathers S. Athanasius in his Creed S. Hierome lib. 3. cont Russin Nazianzen tract de fide S. Basil in Theod. lib. 4. Hist cap. 6. and Tertull. lib. de praescript as if they all had held that an errour in Faith would damn a Soul and consequently every point of Faith to be Fundamental He would do well to look better to his citations hereafter for Theod. lib. 4. hist cap. 6. makes no mention at all of S. Basil but only relates the Ordination of S. Ambrose But to pass this escape I answer that Fathers indeed held an errour in Fundamentals of Faith to damn a Soul but not one in integrals especially when it 's maintained without pertinacy That Fathers admitted such a distinction in points of Faith may be apparent because they did accuse one another sometimes of errours in Religion as S. Cyprian was accused by the Bishops of Rome for maintaining Rebaptization as an errour in Religion and yet him the Catholick Church ever held for a Saint and Martyr S. Austin lib. 3. de orig animae cap. 15. charges Victor with eleven errours contrary to the Catholick Faith yet had so much charity to him that he said Absit ut arbitreris te haec opinando à Catholica fide recessisse quamvis ea fidei adversa sunt Catholicae therefore they held not every point of Faith Fundamental The severe sentence pronounced in the Athanasian Creed which yet I must advertise the Pamphleter to be doubted whether it were drawn by the Great Athanasius is only against those who deny any Article of that Creed Now Creeds of the Ancient Church are supposed by Judicious Divines to contain Fundamentals as contra-distinguished from integrals That of Nazianzen tract de fide Orat 49. relates to Arrians against whom he there disputes who certainly erred fundamentally at whom also S. Hierom Apol. 3. contra Ruffinum seems to hint for their denying the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Pamphleter himself grants that Tertull. is speaking against Valentinus whom all know to have erred fundamentally so that from none of these testimonies can any thing be inferred against this distinction yet I freely grant that sometime opposition to an integral of Faith may also damn a soul namely when it is joyned with pertinacy but then it is not the simple not believing of the truth which condemns the man but his pertinacy But says the Pamphleter the English Church Excommunicates them who hold any thing contrary to the 39 Articles ergo they hold all the 39 Articles to be Fundamentals Answ Is it not more safe to judge of the thoughts of the English Church concerning the 39 Articles by the writings of eminent Divines in that Church approved by the Church of England then by the topical discourses of a nameless Romanist Now Learned Stillingfleet in his Vindication of the Bishop of Canterbury against T. C. Part. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 6. says that the Church of England never pressed the subscription of the 39 Articles as being all Fundamentals of Faith and for this also cites luculent testimonies of Bishop Bramhall Primate of Ireland She excommunicates them for their pertinacy and for their breaking of the Peace of the Church not that she supposes them all Essentials of Religion To the like purpose speaks D. Fern in his Preface against D. Champny We acknowledge saith he that he who shall pertinaciously and turbulently speak and teach against the Doctrine of the Church in points of less moment may deserve to be Anathematized or put out of the Church for such a one though he deny not the Faith yet makes a breach of Charity whereby he goes out of the Church against which he so sets himself What the Pamphleter cites of the Athenian Laws savours of Draco's severity who wrote all his Sanctions in blood and made every trespass Capital a fit President for the sanguinary proceedings of the Romish Inquisition Josephus lib. 2. cont Appion doth only say that the punishment allotted to the Violaters of the Jewish Law for most part was death If this Romanist be so bloody that he would have the Gospel Church in this to Judaize his preposterous Zeal deserves such a rebuke as those who would have commanded fire to come down from Heaven on the Samaritans Luke 9.54.55 As for the angry expressions of Luther against them he callâ—d Sacramentarians it 's true of him what was said of Elias Jam. 5. 17. that he was a man subject to the like passions with others Yet that Luther before his death was convinced of the truth of our Doctrine concerning the Sacrament Boxhornius lib. 3. de harm Eucharist proves by many testimonies from Melancthon Cruciger Alesius yea and out of Luthers own writings As for that heavy sentence Revel 22. 19. it holds forth what de Jure is due to all who derogate any thing from the sacred Canon of Scripture And the like sentence is pronounced upon them who add ought thereto v. 18. which speaks sad things against Romanists who have added all the Apocryphal Books But it doth not say that all who are not convinced of the Canonical Authority of every Book of Scripture shall de facto be damned if otherwise pious and penitent and ready to acknowledge the Divine Authority thereof were they satisfied in their Consciences thereannent Do Romanists conclude their famous Cardinal Cajetan a damned Heretick who questioned the Canonical Authority of sundry parts of Scripture To conclude this Section E. W. the Author of Protestancy without Principles that is Edward Worsley an English Jesuit at Antwerp discourse 3. cap. 4. c. hath much spongious talk to confute the Protestants distinction of Fundamentals and Non Fundamentals as unreasonable and false I should but beat the Air to examine all Himself comprizes the substance of what he has said in this one argument Every revealed Article is asserted by an Infinite Verity but an Infinite Verity delivers all it speaks with one and the same infinite certainty Ergo all Articles of Faith have one and the same like infinite assurance consequently one is as ponderous as another and equally Fundamental To this I briefly answer forbearing to reflect again upon the formality of a Jesuits Syllogism granting as uncontroverted the whole Syllogism viz. that there is an equal objective certainty in all divinely revealed Articles in a compounded sense with divine Revelation it being absolutely impossible that divine Revelation should be false but withal peremptorily denying the Corallary
Prophetis en calce Ephraemi Syri edit 3. Colon 1616. Nihil utilum sacra Scriptura reâ—icuit Hierom. in Micah cap. 1. Ecclesia non est egressa de finibus suis i. e. de Scripturis vos vero Haeâ—ctici aedificastis domum in derisum non in Scripturis sed in vicinia Scripturarum where the Scripture is held forth as the Boundary of the Church beyond which she may not pass and dogmatizing without Scripture is given as a character of Hereticks And on Hag. cap. 1. vers 11. he condemns unwritten Traditions though pretended to be Apostolical Alia quae absque Authoritate testimoniis scripturarum quasi traditione Apostolicâ sponte reperiunt atque confingunt percutit gladius Dei How full is S. Austin to this purpose lib. de unit Eccles cap. 3. auserantur de medio quae adversus nos invicem non ex divinis Canonicis libris sed aliunde recitamus Hence lib. 2. de doctrina Christi cap. 9. in iis quae aperte posita sunt in scripturis inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vivendi S. Chrysost Hom. 3. in 2 Epist ad Thes in divinis scripturis quaecunque necessaria sunt manifesta sunt Did I not confirm the same from testimonies of Learned Romanists namely Aquinas Part. 1. Quest 1. Art 10. and Sixtus Senensis lib. 6. Annot. 152. in my fourth Paper against M. Demster pag. 46. The two last testimonies of S. Austin and S. Chrysost together with those of Aquinas and Senensis the Pamphleter pag. 101. endeavours to elude by some ludibrious distinctions It is true saith he most Scriptures are clear to Eminent Doctors not to all indifferently And again they are clear to such as take the places of Scripture commanding us to hear the Church and hold fast Traditions as two main Fundamentals for clearing all the rest and to such as level the line of Prophetical and Apostolical interpretation to the square of Ecclesiastical sense but not to others And here again he would abuse D. Field lib. 4. cap. 14. as if he did favour the Popish Doctrine of unwritten Fundamentals whereas the Doctor has nothing to that purpose But he must not be suffered thus to sneak away For first the Authors cited by me speak not only of the perspicuity of the Scripture but also of the fulness thereof S. Chrysost is express that all things necessary are clear in Scripture So also is S. Austin in lib. 2. de doct Christi cap. 9. Though therefore it were granted that they meant as the Pamphleter falsly suggests that the Scriptures were only clear to Eminent Doctors yet it cannot be denied but they affirmed that Scripture contained all necessary and Fundamental Truths But secondly it 's a manifest falshood that these Fathers did restrict the perspicuity of Scripture to Eminent Doctors yea Chrysost Hom. 3. in 2 Thes cap. 3. expresly speaks to people as distinct from Teachers and chides them as neglecting Reading when they want Teachers So that either the Pamphleter never read that place of Chrysost or bewrays too much disingenuity As for S. Chrysostom's Hom. 14. in Joh. objected by the Pamphleter there he only says diligence must be used in searching of the Scriptures but does not at all restrict that diligence in searching Scriptures to Doctors of the Church yea Hom. 10. in Joh. and Conc. 3. de Lazaro he is much in pressing the people to read the Scriptures And in Epist ad Colos cap. 3. Hom. he urgeth them to do it magno studio diligentia There is as little ground to say that S. Austin lib. 2. de doctrina Christi cap. 9. intended to restrict the perspicuity of Scripture to Eminent Doctors Surely in lib. 1. contra Cresc cap. 33. the Pamphleter being in haste cited the Cap. but not the Book there is nothing against the fulness or perspicuity of Scripture only in an obscure question when nullum de Scripturis Canonicis profertur exemplum then Austin advises the Church to be consulted with which no man denieth But in evidence that he derogateth nothing from the Scriptures cap. 32. he said Sequimur sane nos hac in re Canonicarum certissimam authoritatem Scripturarum And in cap. 33. Sancta Scriptura fallere non potest Ecclesia sine ulla ambiguitate Sancta Scriptura demonstrat I am remitted by the Pamphleter to two testimonies from S. Irenaeus one from lib. 1. cap. 49. whereas I have told him before there are but 35 cap. in all that Book The other is from lib. 2. cap. 47. I have read that Cap. but find nothing to his purpose nor does he alledge any words from him Is not this a notable juggle on simple persons to cite Fathers at such a rate Yet thirdly were that precarious distinction admitted it would at least follow that the Faith of Eminent Doctors were to be resolved on the Scriptures for to them they are granted to be clear in all things necessary Fourthly do we say that the Scripture is indifferently clear to all as the Pamphleter doth here insinuate To a Jesuit fascinated with prejudice to an implicit Colliar or Proselyte whose eyes Jesuits have pulled out or to them whose eyes the God of this World hath blinded 2 Cor. 4. 4. verily not Such perverting of the state of the question does be wray a desperate cause Fifthly the Adversary fearing that his first distinction concerning Eminent Doctors should not hold water betakes himself to another of taking these Commands of hearing the Church and holding fast Traditions as two main Fundamentals But I have shewed cap. 2. that the command of hearing the Church is to be understood so long as she adheres to her Commission which is contained in the Scripture and cap. 3. that it is more than any Romanist can prove that by Traditions in that Exhortation hold fast Traditions are understood Praeter-Scriptural Traditions so that these Scriptures make nothing for unwritten Fundamentals This distinction of the Pamphleter coincides upon the matter with that of Jesuit Baylie in Catech. 8 9. that the Fathers affirmed Scripture to contain all things necessary because they contain all implicitly for when they direct us to believe the Catholick Church they direct us to believe all the Traditions which the Church believes To this ludicrous answer Rivet excellently replys that then the Fathers by giving these Elogies to Scripture had commended it no more than if they had called a man Learned who points out the way to the School or said that such an one had milk to suckle an Infant who only can shew where a Nurse is to be found or that one has a well covered Table who can but declare who hath it which were ludibrious If it were so why was the Holy Ghost at pains to write all these Books of holy Scripture Then there needed no more Bible but hear the Church as indeed Gordon of Huntly controv 1. de verb. Dei cap. 27. says that all Articles of Faith are contained in
justifie Neither does my assertion oblige me to maintain any of their real errors Is it any wonder that they living in so dark a time did not discover so clearly as we all the errors of Popery Have I not often told there may be unity in fundamentals where there are differences as to integrals But sayes the Pamphleter I should prove that those Sects were the Catholick Church spread through the whole World and that their doctrine had succession from the Apostles times It may be answer sufficient to remember my adversary that Protestants never affirmed that they who went under the name of the Waldenses were the whole Catholick Church yet seeing a testimony which I cited from Frier Reyner in confutation of that same objection is so grosly represented by the Pamphleter I must resume it again and a little more largely then before Reyner therefore professes there was never a more dangerous Sect then that of the Waldenses and that for three Causes 1. quia diuturnior because it s of longer continuance some saying that it hath continued from the time of Sylvester others from the time of the Apostles 2. quia generalior it s more universal for there is hardly any countrey into which this Sect doth not spread 3. because other Sects are joyned with atrocious blasphemies but this of Leonists or Waldenses hath a great shew of piety they live justly before men they believe all things well concerning God and all the articles of the Creed Onely the Roman Church they hate and blaspheme and the multitude are easily induced to believe them This testimony to the Antiquity universality and sanctifie of the religion of the Waldenses is given by a Romish inquisitour Hereupon saith the Pamphleter pag. 94. Mr. Menzies with his ordinary ingenuity will have Fryer Reyner to say absolutely the Waldenses were from the Apostles days Reader behold the ingenuity of a Jesuit When I read this bold accusation I thought perhaps my pen had given me the slip for I do abhor it as diabolical and Jesuitical to prevaricate purposely but when I turned over to my ninth paper pag. 194. where the testimony is cited I found the Jesuit to be as voyd of shame as of honesty for thus I cite that part of Reyners words yea some say saith Reyner from the Apostles dayes Is this to cite Reyner as affirming absolutely that the Waldenses continued from the dayes of the Apostles if this person dare so prevaricate in a matter of fact where there be so many standing witnesses against him as there be printed copies of my papers Against Mr. Dempster what Faith is to be given to his other criminations let those who have not forfeited their own honesty judge But what advantage have Romanists by that some say of Reyners O sayes the Pamphleter those who said were Leonists or Waldenses themselves as witnesses Pilichdorphius this same evasion was used long ago by Jesuit Gretser and solidly answered by the learned Vsher de success cap. 8. s 1. for Frier Reyner affirmes himself that the Sect of the Waldenses was of longer continuance then any other sect which could not be unless it had continued from the days of the Apostles Surely he could not think that it had its rise from Peter Waldus anno 1160. For Reyner himself lived as is testified by Jesuit Possevin in appar Sac. anno 1254. so that there should only have interveened 94. years betwixt the rise of this Sect and Reyner But many sects were of greater antiquity and duration then that therefore that cannot be the Friers meaning Mr. Morland in his forcited hist lib. 1. cap. 3. proves that the inhabitants of the vallies of Piemont professed the same doctrine sundry ages before Peter Waldus among the rest he pitches upon Claudius Archbishop of Turin who about the year 820. ceased not to teach his people in this place as his adversary Jonas Aurelianensis confesses that they ought not to run to Rome for the pardon of their sins nor have recourse to Saints or their relicks that the Church is not founded on Saint Peter much less upon the Pope but upon the doctrine of the Apostles and that they ought not to worship Images Pag. 95. The pamphleter is so civil as to say that I have a more justclaim to John Huss name then to his religion I am not of such anserin stupidity but that I could make as ignominious at reorsion upon my adversary But I choose to walk in the footsteps of holy Jesus who when he was reviled reviled not again Did not John Huss before the Council of Constance maintain that there is one one-head of the Catholick Church the Lord Jesus Christ Did he notly oppugne the supremacy of the Pope of Rome over the Catholick Church Did he not maintain that the Sacrament of the Supper ought to be celebrated under both kinds Do not Protestants agree with Hussits in many articles charged upon them by Aeneas Sylvius in hist Bohem. cap. 35. how then sayes the pamphleter I may lay more claim to his name then to his Religion May not Romanists be ashamed to make mention of this Martyr John Huss whom their fathers at the council of Constance murdered perfidiously contrary to the letters of safe conduct am I not honoured with a peece of further conformity with John Huss then in name onely viz. to be an object of Romanists malice and that it has not proceeded further I owe to the mercy of God not to their good will But sayes he John Huss was for invocation of saints prayer for the dead seven Sacraments transubstantiation yea and the Popes supremacy and this he would confirm as from others so from holy Mr. John Fox who according to his usual modesty pag. 69. He terms a fiery protestant because in his Acts and monuments he records the fiery and bloody persecution of that scarlet coloured whore of Rome The like he affirms of Hierome of Prague But besides that all these are fetched from Breerlies Apology tract 2. cap. 2. Sect. 5. and that when I mentioned John Huss it was not so much his particular sentments that I meant as the doctrine of those people who were termed Hussits I ask the Pampheleter whether he gives most credit to the Counsell of Constance and Pope pius the 2. or to Mr. Fox John Huss and Hierome of Prague now surely the Council of Constance chargeth John Huss as maintaining that after the consecration the bread remains And whatever Apologies he made for himself in this matter this is sustained by the Council as an article of his enditement so also Mr. John Fox in his Acts and Monuments pag. 1799. Edit Lond. anno 1632 testifies Is he not accused as maintaining the errors of Wickleff And is not this the first error condemned by the Council in Wickleff sess 8. substantia panis materialis vini materialis manet in Sacramento Is not this one of the Interrogatures prescribed by the Council at Constance sess 45. as
says not as the Pamphleter alleadges viz. that most of the Fathers did avouch Invocation of Saints But on the contrary affirm pag. 634. that for 350. years after Christ there was no Invocation of Saints in publica praxi Ecclesiae and that the first rise of it was about the year 370. in Nazianzen and Basils Panegyricks by Rhetorical Apostrophes and that also with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so far were they from maintaining it to be an article of Faith It were tedious to go through all among all the testimonies cited by the Pamphleter there will not one be found who affirm that Popery was the prevalent Religion for 1400 years before Luther except Sebastian Frank whom Dr. Francis Whyte in the defence of Dr. John Whyte against T. W. pag. 324. declares to be an Anabaptist an unlearned malapert not spur Chemnitius as the same Author testifies calls him hominem petulantem indoctum Did ever Protestants acknowledge that the body of the present Romish Religion was received by the ancient Church such as half Communions picturing and adoring Images of the Trinity the whole present worship of the Virgin Mary the performing the worship of God in an unknown Tongue the necessity of an Infallible visible judge the prohibiting of reading Scriptures in vulgar Tongues Indulgences the necessity of auricular Confession the necessity of the Priests intention to make Sacraments effectual the Popes Supremacy and Soveraignty over Princes c. Who is the Protestant that ever acknowledged these things to have been ever received in the Catholick Church I profess I never read of him nor knew him nor I believe shall he ever be found Whereas Jewel said That Truth was not known untill the Preaching of Luther and Zuinglius that must surely be understood secundum quid as Dr. Francis Whyte observes lib. cit pag. 267. for Jewel gave a most solemn challenge to Papists at Pauls Cross to make out one Article of their Religion out of one Father for 600. years after Christ which challenge he prosecuted against Harding What Dr. John White saith in defence of his way cap. 37. That Popery was a Leprosie breeding in the Church so Vniversally that there was no visible company appearing in the world free from it makes nothing against what is said Nay in these words he distinguishes betwixt the Church and that Leprosie of Popery and by saying that it was a Leprosie in the Church he affirms the existence of both The meaning of the Doctor only was that in these latter times wherein Popish errors and superstition spread so far in this Western part of the World though God with the rest even as those seven thousand in the days of Elias did with the rest of Israel Thirdly when some Fathers are charged with some errors which is all that these testimonies amount to it doth not follow that all the Fathers were smitten therewith Though Cyprian erred in the Rebaptization though Tertullian did Montanize Pope Liberius Arrianize many Asiaticks espouse the Quarto Deciman opinion Origen maintain positions which were justly anathematiz'd by the fifth general Council yet I hope all the Fathers much less the whole Church was not leavened with these errors Made I it not appear in my 9. paper against Mr. Dempster pag. 194. 195. that none are more profuse in censuring Fathers then Romanists Bellarmine spares not to say lib. 1. de Beat. Sanct. cap. 6. that Justin Martyr Irenaeus Epiphanius c. cannot be defended that Tertullian was an Arch-Heretick and of no credit lib. 1. de S S. Beat. cap. 5. and lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 8. That Cypran did not only erre but also mortally offend lib. 4. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 7. that Prudentius speaks like a Poet and not like a Divine lib. 2. de Purg. cap. 18. that Jerom was deceived lib. 1. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 8. that Austin had no skill in the Hebrew lib. 1. de Pontif. cap. 10. that himself little regarded Damasus Pontifical lib. 2. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 5. that Sozomen was a manifest lyar lib. 3. de Paenit cap. 14. Neither is it only single Fathers they thus undervalue but oft-times will prefer three before 7. two before eight one before five of all which Dr. James gives luculent instances part 4. yea sometimes they condemn whoâ—e Armies of Fathers All the Fathers with one voice affirm saith Melchior Canus lib. 7. loc com cap. 1. That the Virgin Mary was conceived in Original Sin Chrysost Euseb Ambrose Austin c. and as Dr. James observes some bring 200. others 300. Fathers to confirm this opinion yet what saith that Bishop of the Canaries of all these Cum nullus Sanctorum contravenerit infirmum tamen ex omnium authoritate argumentum ducitur quin potius contrarium probabiliter pie in Ecclesia defenditur i. e. It s but a weak argument which is drawn from the Authority of all the Fathers yea the contrary notwithstanding their suffrages may be piously defended Are these the men who challenge us for undervaluing Fathers who put such contempt upon them In very deed they regard no Fathers further then they can serve their interest Both Scriptures and Fathers must stoop to the authority of the present Church of Rome that is the Pope How many bastard Fathers have they legitimated How many true Fathers have they castrated Hence is that observe of Dr. Don in his pseudo-Martyr cap. 6. Sect. 30. according to Romanists the Scripture is a Divin Law the writings or interpretations of Fathers a subdivin Law but the decretalls of Popes a superdivin Law whereunto Scripturs Councils and Fathers must bend and bow Yet I must do them right they have one evasion according to which they do wrong to no Father for if the Pope prohibit the writings of such an Author he ceases to be a Father he is but as Gretser the Jesuit phraseth it Vitricus a step Father Nor need Fathers complain of this usage seeing the Pope usurps the like Authority upon the Scripturs of God Neither shall Fathers be Fathers nor Scriptures be Scriptures except it please the Pope Is not this that man of sin that exalts himself above all that is called God I deny not but some Protestants may have been too rash in their censurs of Fathers perhaps not fully penetrating the scope of Fathers or not distinguishing betwixt their genuine and supposititious writings have supposed them to favour errors from which others yea and somtimes the same authors also upon better advisment have vindicated them As I cannot in this wholly justify the Magdeburgion Centurists so I cannot but notice how this Pamphleter hath either through ignorance or malice injured them He brings in the Centurists reprehending Cyprian Origen and Tertul in the third Century and Nazianzen in the fourth for teaching Peters primacy and again reprehending Cyprian for owning the sacrifice of the Mass and generally confessing that the Fathers of the third age did witness the invocation of Saints
And the Apostles having to do with hypocrits who placed Righteousness in outward ceremonies utter diverse speaches in disgrace of legal rites not depressing the same in themselves but shewing they were unprofitable to such as abused them So Luther being opposed by adversaries who preferred the Fathers before the Scriptures correcting that abuse useth some broad speeches such as our adversary nameth against the errors of some Fathers not generally of all but otherwise when Fathers are lawfully used as witnesses and interpreters of truth he esteemeth them according to their worth and yeelds as much to them as themselves require and to verify this he cites two testimonies of Luther which to stop the mouths of rayling adversaries I here thought fit to insert The first is periculosum horrendum est audire vel credere quod adversatur unanimi testimonio fidei Doctrinae Sanctae Catholicae ecclesiae quam indejusque ab initio unanimiter servavit So Luther ad March Brandeburg tom 2. germ pag. 243. again patres evangelium fidem in Christum absque ulla hypocrist pure simpliciter tradiderunt ecelesiam ab junumeris erroribus expur garunt So the same Luther Comment in cap. 5. ad Gal. by this it may appear that Luther had a great honour for ancient Fathers and believed that the ancient Church was a true Church of Christ Consider fourthly the granting of Protestant Authors that the Church was overspread with error doth not conclude that they held the Church to have utterly perished Every error in Religion destroys not the being of the Church a maimed man is a man though not a whole man a leprous or paralitick man is a man though not a sound man so one erring Church if the error be not in the essentials and fundamentals of Religion is truly a Church of Christ though not usque quaque pura throughly pure and sound yea in as much as the Church is said to be erroneous her existence is supposed doth not the inexistence of an accident in a subject suppose the existence of the Subject After that the worship of God was grosly corrupted by Idolatry in Israel and Judah they remained visible Churches and begat Sons and Daughters unto God Ezeck 16. 20. So Learned Protestants acknowledg that after the Roman Church was polluted with Idolatry and other absurd errors yet she remained a visible Church though a very impure one So Calvin epist 103. 104. and lib. 4. instit cap. 2. Sect. 11. 12. Zanch. in Epist ad Comitem Barch and lib. de relig Christ cap. 24. Sect. 19. Iun. lib. sing de eccles cap. 17. Mornaeus de eccles cap. 2. Sect. ecclesia Latina cap. 9. Sect. Secundo quemadmodum Dr. Feild in append ad lib. 5. part 3. cap. 2. where also he shews the same to be the judgment of Luther Bucer Melanctiton and Beza Neither is this for the advantage of the Popish interest for most of these Authors acknowledg the Romish Church in these latter and corrupt times only so to be a visible Church as the Apostle predicts the visible Church to be the seat of the Antichrist When he says 2 Thes 2. 4. that he shall sit in the Temple of God Yea all of them look upon Apostat Rome as a Church so impure that the reformed Churches did but their duty and were not schismatical in making secession from her for she was the Author of the Schism not only by adhering so pertinaciously to her corruptions but also by imposing on others the owning of them as grounds of communion with her and by driving Protestants from her by Bulls and Excommunications because they could not own these corruptions in so much that as King James in â—esp ad Epist. Card Perronij saith Non fugimus sed fugamur How ever by this it may appear that the prevailing of errors over the face of the visible Church doth not totally destroy the being of the visible Church Yea Jesuit Valentia in 3. part disp 1. q. 1. punct 6 confesseth quasdam veritates fidei quandoque ob hominum negligentiam vel proterviam ingenij perversitatem demersas latuisse forsan adhuc latere that some Doctrins of Faith and not only probable opinions once delivered by the Apostles thorow the ignorance or perversness of men were for a time drouned and lay as it were buried until afterwards by the diligence and faithfulness of the Church they were revived And perhaps saith he some truths may be in that case at this very day Hence to the clamorous cavil where was our Religion before Luther may solidly be replyed It was as to essentialls at least where ever God had a visible Church and consequently not only in the Greek Syrian Aegyptian and Aethiopian Churches which remain visible Churches and more pure then the Roman but also our Religion was preserved in the Roman Church she likewise being a visible Church though a most impure one I say our Religion was preserved in her as the true Religion was preserved in the Jewish Church when she was defaced with gross Idolatry Neither should this seem strange especially seeing many thousands in the Roman Church then groaned for reformation as appeared by the conjunction of so many with Luther upon his first appearance I further add that we are not obliged to grant the same of the Roman Church at this time which we grant of her before the reformation For surely since the reformation the Church of Rome is greatly changed to the worse as Dr. Feild in the place last cited and Voetius in desper causa papatus lib. 3. Sect. 3. cap. 3. have evicted by many Instances and particularly many things being now defined by her as Articles of Faith which formerly were only debated as School-opinions And yet perhaps notwithstanding all these alterations to the worse she may be in a large sense allowed the name of a Church vere ecclesia though not vera ecclesia as Learned men distinguish Consider fifthly though the phrases of some Protestants concerning the prevailing of error in the Church in these last times especially may seem broad yet Scripture Fathers yea and Romanists themselves speak as broadly in reference to times of Apostacy And. 1. for Scripture what expression would seem broader concerning the time of Antichrist then that Revel 13. 4. That all the world wondred after the beast and worshipped the beast and the dragon what would seem wider then the World Revel 18. 3. all Nations have drunk of the Wine of the wrath of her fornication and the Kings of the Earth committed fornication with her Did ever Protestants speake broader Language concerning the apostacy under the Romish Antichrist then is there spoken by the Spirit of God 2. as for Fathers how lamentably do they bewaile the general overspreading of the Arrian heresy ingemuit orbis miratus se factum Arrianum said Jerom. dial advers Lucif Remarkable is the discourse in Theod. lib. 2. Hist cap. 16. betwixt Constantius the Arrian
Church but as Chamier judiciously observes tom 2. de Oecum Pontif. lib. 13. cap. 23. the Catholick Church advising them not to joyn with any schismatical party but to adhere to those who did keep the unity of the Catholick Church The same is the importance of that which Cyprian says Epist 73 ad Jubajanum which perhaps this Pamphleter in his Collection from others has taken for Epist ad Jul. Nos unius Ecclesiae caput radicem tenemus We keep the head and the root of the one only Church but there he makes no mention of Peter at all So that the meaning is we keep the unity of the Catholick Church whereof particular Churches are members and branches What though the Church of Rome be termed the Chair of Peter Is it not usual with Fathers to mention the Chairs of other Apostles as may be seen in Tertul. de praescript cap. 36. or had Peter himself jurisdiction over the rest of the Apostles No verily Yea the Apostolick function being supream if the rest had been subordinate to Peter they had been supream as being Apostles and not supream as being subordinate to Peter Hence Cyprian de unit eccles says hoc eraut utique caeteri Apostoli quod erat Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis That which he cites out of Origen on the cap. 6. ad Rom. besides that Jerome in his time took notice that those Books of Origen on the Romans were interpolated imports nothing but Peters Apostolical function which was common to him with the rest of the Apostles and so makes nothing for the pretended Supremacy of the Pope of Rome Lastly the Pamphleter saith that Polanus and Whittaker confess that Victor did cary himself like a Pope Answer It s long since to this allegiance of Breerly from whom the Pamphleter filches it Dr. Morton replyed in his appeal lib. 2. cap. 22. Sect. 2. that indeed they censured Victor for his arrogancy and as a troubler of Christendom For which also he was reprehended by Ancient Fathers of that age and these are but too ordinary endowments of Popes But no Protestant did charge Victor for assuming an absolute power over Oecumenick Councils or infallibility of Judgment to himself as Popes do at this day So that however he resembled them in some sinful practises yet differed from them in Faith Neither did his Excommunicating of some eastern Bishops imply his assuming a jurisdiction over them as is judiciously demonstrated both by Dr. Morton ibid. and since by Dr. Stillingfleet Part. 2. cap. 6. Sect. 11. for some Bishops in the east did Excommunicate Pope Julius as testifies Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 11. and Menas the patriarch of Constantinople did excommunicate Pope Vigilius as witnesses Niceph. Hist lib. 17. cap. 26. and Photius Anno 863. did Excommunicate Pope Nicolas the first by the confession of Barronius therefore their Excommunication did only import they were not to admit such to their communion I shall shut up this discourse of supremacy with that testimony of Cyprian and of 87. Bishops in Concil Carthag de baptizandis haeret Non of us say they is called Bishop of Bishops and furthermore they call it a Tyrannical terrour for any one Bishop to impose upon his fellow Bishops a necessity of obedience May not I therefore conclude this first instance of Novelty with a retorsion The Popes supremacy was no essential of the Christian Faith in the first three Centuries But the Popes supremacy is an essential of the present Romish Religion Ergo there is an essential in the present Romish Religion which was not in the Christian Religion of the first three Centuries quod erat demonstrandum SECT II. The second instance of Novelty concerning unwritten Traditions examined and retorted upon Romanists THe Pamphleters second Instance is concerning unwritten Traditions Protestants saith he deny that we should believe any thing not contained in Scripture upon Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church where fallaciously he insinuats 1. that Protestants deny credit to Traditions really Apostolical 2. that in the Roman Church are conserved Traditions truly Apostolical of Articles of Faith not contained in Scripture Both which are Splendidly false we do indeed maintain against Romanists a compleat sufficiency of the holy Scriptures as containing all Articles of Faith and herein we have the unanimous consent of the Ancient Church Doth not Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 2. call the Gospel the pillar and ground of Faith Does he not ibid. reprove Hereticks for accusing Scriptures as if the truth could not be found by them who are ignorant of Tradition Is not Tertullian luculent for us lib. contra Hermog cap. 22. adoro scripturarum plenitudinâ—m and thereupon pronounced a woe upon them that teach any point of Faith not justifiable by the Scriptures Saith not Origen hom 1. in Jerem Necesse est Scripturas sanctas in testimonium vocare sensus quippe nostri sine his testibus non habent fidem Is not Cyprian as express Epist 74. ad Pompeium unde ista traditio an ex dominica Authoritate veniens an de Apostolorum mandatis atque Epistolis veniens ea enim facienda quae scripta sunt testatur Deus Hence that Religious Emperour Constantine in Theod. lib. 1. cap. 7. advised the Nicen Fathers that they should consult with the divinely inspired Scriptures because they do fully instruct us what to believe in divine things Did not Bell. bewray his desperate cause when lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 11. he answered that Constantin was indeed a great Emperour but no great Doctor Is not this to condemn the judgment of the Nicen Fathers who did approve the Emperors advice It were easie to confirm the same truth from Athanasius Chrysost Basil Epiph. Hierom Austin let it be judged in the fear of God whither our Religion be the safer which acknowledges the Holy Scripture as a compleat Canon adequately commensurated to the end for which it was appointed or Popery which as Dr. Morton fitly useth the resemblance in his appeal lib. 2. cap. 25. makes Gods word like a sick mans broken and imperfect will half nuncupative and half written As for the Pamphleters citations he might have known what is answered to them by our controversists in their replies to Bell. they all being taken from him And 1. to Denys de Eccles Hierarch cap. 1. It s answered that not only is the Book spurious but also he only affirms that the Apostles did deliver the Doctrin of Salvation two ways viz. by word and by writ which none denies But the present question is whither all that 's necessary be not contained in the written word To that of Ignatius apud Euseb lib. 3. cap. 4. I answer he indeed exhorts all to stick to the Traditions of Apostles but they are strangers in Antiquity who know not that by Traditions Ancients do also understand the Doctrin of Faith recorded in the holy Scriptures see Cyprian Epist 74. ad Pomp. and Basil lib. 3. conta
Church for a more ample instruction how to lead a regular course of Life Austin lib. 18. de civ dei cap. 36. expresly distinguishes the Books of Maccabees from these that are strictly canonical Nor is there mention of the Maccabees in that Canon oâ— Câ—rthage either as it is set down in the Greek Code or in the collection made by Cresconius not to speak of the scruples that are raised concerning the reality of that Canon oâ— Council by which it was made of which I leave the Reader to Dr. Cosins Hiâ—â— Sâ—ct 82. But sixthly admitting Innocents decretalls and Gelasius deâ—ree and the Canon of Carthage to be real yet all fall within the fifth Century for Innocent whom Becan sets in the first place is said to have lived Anno 402. And Gelasius was in the end of that Century about the Year 494. and so falls short of the first three ages I add eventhly and lastly that sure it is that neither by Innocent nor Gelasius nor the Council of Carthage yea nor by the Council of Florence could these Books be declared to be strictly and properly Canonical for most eminent Doctors in the Roman Church who could not be ignorant what these Councils and Popes had defined denyed either all or some of them to be Canonical such as Lyranus Antoninus Abulenfis Cajetan c. When Melchior Canus had objected these Authors to himself lib. 2. cap. 10. he Answers cap. 11. ad tertium illos ignorantiâ Labo âsse Where Melchior Canus brings on himself the suspicion of dis-ingenuity and of desperateness on his cause when he hath no other evasion but to say that the most eminent Doctors in the Church of Rome understand not what was defined to be Canonical Scripture by the Church By all which it may appear that â—ustly Learned Protestants have concluded that the present Romish Canon was so far from being acknowledged by the Ancient Church that it was never defined as an Article of Faith until the late Trent Coâ—venticle Here it miâ—ht make a good Problem why they of the Roman Church who so much undervalue the Scripture are so veâ—ement to have the Apocrypha Books eurolled in the Scripture-Canon But judicious Dr. Don Serm. 73. hath disclosed the Mystery viz. the design of Romanists being to undervalue Scripture that they may overvalue their Traditions and sentences of their visible judge therefore they put the name of Scripture upon Books of a lower value that the unworthiness of these additional Books may cast a diminution upon the Books which truely are Canonical when all are made alike A Stratagem forsooth well becoming the man of sin Instance second the Council of Trent sess 4. decret 2. hath Authorized the vulgar Latin version of the Bible to the authentique rule of Faith passing by the Originalls of the Hebrew and Greek the like cannot be pretended to be done by the Church in the first three Centuries Romanists will have much a do to prove that the vulgar Latin as now set forth by Clement the eighth was extant in these three Centuries Sure I am that the Ancient Fathers even they who flourished after the third Century were so far from teaching that the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament and Greek of the New were to be corrected by this Latin version that they held all versions were to be corrected by the Original Take for all Hierom Epist. ad Suniam Fretelam and August lib. 2. de Doctrin Christ cap. 15. Instance third the Council of Trent sess 22. cap. 8. and Can. 9. declares it not to be expedient that the publick worship of God should be performed in a Language known to the multitude and anathematizes them who teach otherwise So taught not the Christian Church of the first three ages as hath oft been demonstrated by our Divines from Orig. lib. 8. Cont. Celsum Justin apol 2. Tertul. Apol. 39. Clemens Alex. Strom. lib. 7. Chrys Basil Austin At present let that of Origen suffice lib. 8. contra Celsum every Nation saith he Prays to God in their own proper Language Yea the more ingenuous among Romanists confess so much Hence Lyranus in 1 Cor. 14. in primitiva Ecclesia benedictiones caetera omnia fiebant in Lingua vulgari So also Cassander in Liturg. cap. 28. Yea Bell. himself lib. 2 de verb dei cap. 16. from Justin Martyr Chrysost Cyp. and Hierom acknowledges that in the primitive Church the whole multitude joyned in the puâ—lick services saying Amen which supposes they understood what was said And a little after he saith that in process of time that custom was changed and a Clerk was substituted to say Amen in name of the People Consequently by Bellarmins confession the Roman Church in this particular hath innovated And of that Clerk also Suarez in 3. part tom 3. q. 83. art 4. disp 83. sect 1. Is not ashamed to say nunc non est necesse ut minister linguam intelligat in qua missa dicitur that now it is not necessary that the Minister understand the Language wherein Mass is said Cajetan is better advised who in 1 Cor. 14. confesses it were for more edification that the worship were performed in a known tongue So doth Aquinas in 1 Cor. 14. and Cassander in defens offic pii viri Pag. 141. wishes that according to the Apostles command and practice of the Ancient Church Gods worship were performed in a known tongue So far is this worshipping of God without understanding now practised and taught by the Romish Church from that reasonable service which God requires Rom. 12. 1. that Austin exposit 2. in Psal 18. compares it to the chattering of Parrots and Crows and lib. 4 de Doct. Christi cap. 10 quid prodest saith he locutionum integritas quam non sequitur intellectus audientis yea in decret Greg. 9. lib. 1. tit 31. de offic jud orb cap. 14. It s ordained that Cities where are people of different Languages men be provided to celebrate Divine service according to the diversity of Languages and Justini an in Novel 123. Statutes that holy things be celebrated with a loud and distinct voice that the hearts of the hearers may be raised up to the greater devotion which could not be if then the worship had not been performed in an intelligible Language In the Roman Pontifical Readers are commanded lectiones sacras distincte aperte ad intelligentiam aedificationem fidelium proferre It is as easie therefore to reconcile Adultery with the Seventh Commandement as the present way of the Romish Church either with Scripture or Antiquity It s true in many places of the West publick worship was performed in Latin but it s as true that the Latin Tongue was then generally understood by reason of the Roman Colonies Yet Romanists want not some presidents for their barbarous worship such as the Hereticks called Osseni in Epiphanius haeres 19. and the Hieraclionitae in Austin haeres 16. who taught to pray with obscure word
blasphemously chant c. whereby they charge the errour of their Idolatrous Religion and false Miracles on an holy God I far better shut up with Austin lib. de unit Eccles cap. 16. Non dicat ideo verum esse quia illa mirabilia fecit Donatur amoâ—eantur ista vel figmenta fallacium hominum vel portenta fallacium Spirituum Were the Pamphleters popular flourishes concerning Miracles reduced to a Syllogistick frame they behoved to run thus That Society in which Miracles are wrought is the true and Catholick Church but in the Romish Church Miracles are wrought Ergo the Romish Church is the true and Catholick Church Whatever be of the minor the major is manifestly false for Miracles may be wrought among Hereticks yea and Infidels If therefore the Syllogism be rectified thus The Society in which Miracles are wrought to confirm the soundness of their Faith is the true Catholick Church but Miracles are wrought in the Romish Church to confirm the soundness of her Faith Ergo c. Then first the major yet remains false for Miracles may be wrought to confirm the Orthodoxy of the Faith of a particular Church The major cannot hold unless the Miracles be first true secondly wrought to confirm the Faith of the Society and thirdly the Catholicism of it that is that they have no interest in the Church who submit not to the Government of that Church and thus I let the major pass But then the minor is notoriously false viz. that in the present Romish Church true Miracles are wrought to confirm the soundness of her Faith and her Catholicism or Universal Jurisdiction over all Churches I appeal all the Jesuits in Europe to make good this Assumption which till they do all their discourse about Miracles is but a flourish I confess in the Ancient Roman Church there were miracles wrought to confirm the truth of her Faith but not her Catholicism as if she only had been the Christian Church for she was but a particular Church at best the present Romish Church hath foully Apostatized from the Faith of the Ancient Church search your Records and Legends to find one true Miracle to confirm the Faith and Catholicism of the present Romish Church this you will find impossible for her Faith is unsound and Catholicism in the sense spoken of she never had But from this Head of Miracles I demonstrate the truth of the Protestant Religion thus That Religion which is confirmed by the most real indubitate and glorious Miracles which ever the world had is surely the true Christian Religion But the Religion of Protestants is confirmed by the most real indubitate and glorious Miracles which ever the world had Ergo The Religion of Protestants is the true Christian Religion The Assumption concerning which only the doubt can be is proved thus The Apostolick Religion is confirmed by the most glorious Miracles that ever the world saw but the Religion of Protestants is the Apostolick Religion Ergo the Religion of Protestants is confirmed by the most real indubitate Miracles that ever the world saw The major none can deny but an Infidel for evidencing the minor let the Religion of Protestants be examined by the Scriptures which contain the Apostolick Religion and if one Article be found in our Religion dissonant there-from we shall instantly disown it The Reader here may observe the difference betwixt the Romish procedure and ours we confirm our Religion by the indubitate Miracles which prove Christianity it self they by some fabulous at best uncertain Legendary stories the truth whereof is questioned by their own Authors and the falshood of many detected to the world If it be said that any Heretick may argue as we do to confirm their Heresie I shall not now stand to retort how Hereticks have argued for their Heresie from pretended Miracles as do Romanists to day Only to shew the disparity betwixt us and Hereticks I undertake against all the Enemies of Truth in the world to prove the real conformity of the Reformed Religion with the Apostolick revealed in Scripture and the disconformity of all Heresies whatsoever It 's a real conformity with Apostolick Doctrine not pretended only which proves it to be confirmed by Apostolick Miracles ARTICLE II. Of the Conversion of Infidels THe second Note whereby this Pamphleter would prove the Catholicism of their Romish Church is that by her all Christian Nations have been converted to the Faith of Jesus Christ And to confirm this he following Bell. Breerly and the Drove hints at a multitude of stories which upon examination will be found of no significancy to the point in hand For first it 's a most notorious falshood that all Christian people have been converted by the Romish Church was the Church of Jerusalem converted by her or the Church of Caesarea or of Antioch or the Greek Churches in general As Eve was the Mother of all Living so not the Roman but the Church of Hierusalem may be termed the Mother of all Churches And so she is designed by the second General Council at Constantinople as witnesses Theod. Hist lib. 5. cap. 9. The Bishop of Bitontum in the Council of Trent acknowledged Greece to be the Mother of all that the Latin Church had Doth not Theod. lib. 1. Hist cap. 22. report that the Indians were converted by Lay-men Edesius and Frumentius and that for carrying on the work Frumentius received Ordination from Athanasius then Patriarch of Alexandria and not from the Bishop of Rome The Pamphleter but plays the Cheat when he alledges that our Church of Scotland owes her first Conversion to Pope Victor his Legats and Envoys The Reader may see the falshood of this proved by Bishop Spotswood Hist pag. 21. edit 3. These Preachers sent hither by Victor were sent upon the entreaty of King Donald the First which the King would not have sought had he not been Christian before If our Conversion had been wrought by Pope Victor how came it that our Church was not fashioned to the Roman in outward rites especially in the observance of Easter whereof Victor was but preposterously zealous Much more probable looks the conjecture of Bishop Spotswood that some of John's Disciples under the persecution of Domitian have had their refuge hither and were instruments of planting Christianity among us and the rather because this Church was very tenacious of the Oriental Customs alledging for it the Authority of John However Scotland was very anciently enlightned with the Gospel hence is that of Tertul. adversus Judaeos cap. 7. Britannorum Romanis inaccessa loca Christo vero subdita and their conformity in rites with the Greek Church and not with the Latin shew their Original was not from Rome It is a manifest falshood then that the Roman Church is the Mother of all or of our Church of Scotland But secondly this Pamphleter deceitfully confounds and joyns together the endeavours of the Ancient Romish Church for converting of Nations with the practises of the
of Hereticks than of Infidels But besides Gerard de Eccles cap. 10. Sect. 9. § 258. testifies that by Protestants many thousands have been converted from Heathenism in Island Greenland Lapland Livonia c. Not to mention the many Indians converted in New-England and other parts of America But though it were granted that Heathen Nations had not been converted by them this would only charge Protestants of a sinful negligence but not prove their Religion to be false Methinks this clamour of Romanists against our Churches for not bestirring themselves more zealously for the Conversion of Infidel Nations should awake Protestant Princes and Churches seriously to consider what may be done for the Conversion of Infidels both for the advantage of the Gospel and to stop the mouths of our cavilling Adversaries Sixthly Any Conversions made by Romanists have been very unlike the Primitive Conversions made by the Apostles these have generally been by force even these made in the intermedial Ages wanted not force that of Boniface among the Thuringians was done terrore armorum as Gerard observes ex Chronico Isenacensi Cent. 8. Eccles Hist cap. 10. Charles the Great brought the Saxons to imbrace the Christian Faith by bloody Wars But as for the late Romish Conversions which only can be attributed to the present Romish Church how bloody have many of them been Who can read what their own Bartholomaeus de la Casa hath written of the proceeding of the Spaniards in the West-Indies without horrour Did not a Great Person when a dying hearing that Catholick Spaniards went to Heaven profess he would never go there if Spaniards went thither judging it could be no good place where such bloody men went Yea Granado as cited by Gerard loc de Eccles cap. 10. Sect. 4. § 188. confesses Ea crudelitatis immanitate Hispanos erga illos usos ut Sanctissimum Christiani nomen non Pietatis Religionis sed crudelitatis immanitatis nomen habitum sit that is through their Barbarity the holy name of Christians became an Epithete of cruelty As for the East-Indies it's supposed there were some remainders of the Christian Faith among them left by the conversions of these people in ancient times and the truth of Popish relations concerning conversions there are justly to be questioned finding how unfaithful they are in Relations nearer home whereof I gave a hint cap. 3. Sect. 4. And besides their design is to convert them rather to the Pope and Papal Superstition than to Jesus Christ But if any Real Conversion be wrought by them it 's wholly to be attributed to the common Principles of Christianity yet retained among Papists but not to any of their Popish errours Let the Pamphleter notice these particulars and then frame an Argument if he can without Rhetorical declamations to prove their Church to be the true Catholick and Infallible Church But I invert also this his second Note and from it prove the truth of the Protestant Religion thus That Religion by which alone Nations have been converted to the true Christian Faith is the only true Religion but by the Religion which Protestants hold Nations have only been converted Ergo. I prove the Assumption by the Apostolick Religion Nations have only been converted to the true Faith but the Religion of Protestants is the Apostolick Religion and we own none else Let theirs and ours be compared if they be not the same Ergo by the Religion of Protestants Nations have only been converted If any again say that a Quaker or other Heretick may make the same Argument it hath been answered already Let matters be brought to tryal by Scriptures which contain the Apostolick Religion and it shall be found our Religion and not theirs is the true Apostolick Religion And we have this strong presumption for us against both Papists and Quakers neither of them dare refer the Controversie to the decision of Scripture the one running to an infallible visible Judge the other to an infallible Light within But we remit all to the decision of Scriptures which Christians of all perswasions acknowledge to be of Divine Inspiration yet it 's not by presumptions we would deal but by a particular examination of Controversies let their Cause only prevail who have real conformity with Scriptures ARTICLE III. Of Sanctity of Life THe third Note of the Church brought by this Jesuit is taken from the pretended Sanctity of Romanists Lives But besides that Sanctity of Life is no solid Note of the true visible Church there is nothing to which Romanists have less ground to pretend I say first it 's no solid Note of the visible Church For either they speak of real internal Sanctity and Heart-Renovation or of external and apparent Sanctity If of the first though undoubtedly the Church has always a Remnant of truly Holy Ones yet internal holiness cannot be infallibly discerned by others and so much Bell. himself acknowledges lib. 3. de Eccles cap. 10. yea Romanists deny that a man can be infallibly certain of his own Sanctity If therefore he speak only of external and apparent Sanctity it 's not peculiar to the Church Hypocrites and pernicious Hereticks may have it are we not told that false Teachers may come in Sheeps cloathing Matth. 7. 15. that they speak lyes in hypocrisie 1 Tim. 4. 2. that they have a form of godliness 2 Tim. 3. 5. that the Ministers of Satan transform themselves into Ministers of Righteousness 2 Cor. 11. 12. Did not Pharisees make long prayers Mat. 23. 24. Are they not on this account resembled to painted Sepulchres vers 22. Did not Bell. lib. 5. de lib. arb cap. 10. confess that by the works of Teachers we cannot pass a sure judgment on their Doctrine because their inward works are not seen and the external works are common both to sound and unsound Teachers Did not the Novatians pretend to so much Sanctity that they would appropriate to themselves the Name of Cathari as testifies Austin de Haeres cap. 38. Who pretended more external Sanctity than the Pelagians See Hierâ—m lib. 3. advers Pelag. Were not Donatists such pretenders to Sanctity that they denied a Church to be where there were any wicked See Alphonsus à Castro advers Haeres tit Eccles Doth not Austin testifie lib. 1. de moribus Eccles cap. 1. that the very Manichees deceived many by the seeming Sanctity of their lives Do not Socinians who hardly deserve the Name of Christians pretend to much Sanctity as also our deluded Quakers Will Antichrist himself want his pretensions to Sanctity Hath not the Beast two Horns like the Lamb Revel 12. 11. Hath not the Whore a Golden Cup in her hand that is she guilds over her Abominations with the specious pretences of Piety It were indeed to be wished that all the Lords People were holy yet alas how oft hath the Real Church of God been overgrown with scandals Are not the complaints of the Prophets on this account known Micah 7. 1.
this was one of the Errors of the Pelagians that men in this life might keep the Law perfectly without sin as is held out by Hierom in his Dialogue betwixt Atticus and Critobulus Cont. Pelag. lib. 1 and lib. 3. and is expresly condemned by Fathers both before and after Pelagius by Justin Martyr dial cum Tâ—yph edâ—t comm pag. 252. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Cyprian de Orâ—t Dom. we are taught that we sin daily being commanded daily to pray for forgiveness of Sin Should I transcribe aâ—l which might be brought from Hierom. Austin c. after the stating of the â—elagian Controversy I might fill a Volumn Hence Hiâ—rom lib. 1. adver Pelag. haec est hominis vera sapientia se nosâ—e â—mperfecâ—um and in câ—p 4. ad Galat. nâ—mo potest explere legâ—m â—unctâ— facâ—re quae justa sâ—nt And August Epist 200. ad Aseâ—lâ—â—um lex dâ—cend non concupâ—sâ—eâ— hoc posuit non quod hâ—c valeamus sâ—d ad quod proficiâ—ndâ— tendamus As for that old Pâ—â—ag an objection That God commands nothing which is Impâ—ssible Answer nothing which is in it self and simply impossiâ—le it s granted Nothing which we accidentally render impossible to our selves it s denyed Are not they who are judicially obdured who sin against the Holy Ghost bound to Repent are not Devils bound not to Sin will you therefore conclude that all these have strength or grace sufficient to keep the Law of God But let Auâ—tin de Peâ—fect Justit cap. 6 ratioc 13. Answer this obâ—ection as moved of old by Celestius the Pelâ—gian Ideo esse culâ—am hâ—minis quod nâ—n est sine peccato quia sola homâ—nis voluntâ—te eâ—t â—ut ad iâ—â—am necessiâ—atem veniret Thus have I run through the Pamphleters 10. Instances and now let him reflect upon hâ—s Imaginary Triumph pag. 153. 154. wherein the insults over Protestants as if they lay prostrate at the feet of this Conquerour and exposes them to the ludibry of the world as disowning Fathers charging them with Errors and maintaining a Religion flatly opposite to the Doctrin of Fathers but I hope this may be a document to him henceforth to study so much sobriety as not to sound the Triumph before the Victory The First APPENDIX to CHAP. VII Containing another Decad of Romish Novelties in Religion BEfore I desist from this enquiry after Romish Novelties the Adversary must be advertised that though he had acquainted the Church of Rome in the Ten foregoing Instances in which I hope his failour by this time may be manifest yet had he not done his work For she hath Innovated grosly in many other particulars whereof I shall present here another Decad which the Catholick Church of the first Three Ages did never approve Instance First the present Romish Church holds the Books of Maccabees Ecclesiasticus Tobit Judith Baruch Wisdom for Canonical Scriptures and Anathematizes them who do otherwise So the Council of Trent Sess 4. Decret 1. But the Church in the first three Ages held no such thing as is evident from the Catalogues of Melito in Euseb Hist lib. 5. cap. 24. Of Origen in Euseb lib. 6. c. 25. Of Athan in Sinopsi and of the Council of Laodicea Can. 59. Of Hierom in Prol. gal or praefat ad lib. reg and Prol. in lib. Solom ad Paul Eustoch and Prol. in lib. Sol. ad Cyromat Heliod yea Bell. lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 10. Is not only constrained to yield us Hierom but also cap. 20. grants that Melito Epiph. Ruffinus and Hilary do follow the Jewish Church in the Canon of Scripture Now sure it is that the Jewish Church did never acknowledge the forecited Books for Authentick Scriptures I appeal all the Antiquaries of Rome to bring me one evidence from the first three Centuries of their Trent Canon of Scriptures This was objected by me to Mr. Dempster pag. 8. pag. 171. but yet I am waiting a Reply The greatest Pretext for the Ancient Pedigree of the Trent Canon including the forecited Apocriphal Books is that of Becan the Jesuite In Compend Manual Controv. lib. 1. cap. 1. qu. 1. Sect. 2. That the Council of Trent received is from Pope Eugenius 4. in the Council of Florence and Eugenius from Pope Gelasius in a Roman Council of his time Gelasius from Augustine Augustine from the Third Council of Carthage and the Council of Carthage from Innocent the First who saith Becan lived Anno 402. But this is such a Fallacious Story as ambitious men of base Extract are apt to forge to make their descent to be esteemed honourable For first it 's so noturly evident and proven by so many that these late meetings at Trent and Florence were no legitimate General Councils that I should hold it lost time to insist in probation thereof Secondly that Canon of Scripture attributed to the Council of Florence seems to be supposititious seeing there is no mention of it either in the History of that Council written by Silvester Sguropulus who was present thereat or in the Tomes of the Councils set forth by the Authority of Pope Paul 5. Anno 1612. or in the Edition of Binnius Anno 1618. Yea Dr. Cosin in his Scholastical History cap. 16. Num. 159. and 160. observes that it is not to be found in any of the Editions of the large Tomes of the Councils by Pet. Crab c. The first mention we have thereof being in Caranza's Epitome of the Councils It is a strong suspition of Forgery when more is in the Epitome then in the large Volums of the Councils Nay further that whole instruction to the Armenians which is said to be given by Pope Eugenius 4. in the Council of Florence whereof Caranza makes his Catalogue of the Books of Scripture to be one Article is likewise questioned seeing it is dated in the Year 1439. 10. Kal. December five months after the dissolution of the Council for it had been dissolved in the Month of July proceeding Thirdly it s a large leap which Becan makes from Eugenius and the Council of Florence unto Gelasius the first and his Roman Council near about a 1000. years this is a great hiatus and gape in the Pedegree Fourthly that Decree of Gelasius with his Roman Council of Seventy Bishops as also Innocent the first his Decretal to Exuperius looks to be supposititious and the rather seeing there was no mention of them till Isidorus Mercator began to vent his Sophistical wares 300. years after the Death of Gelasius and 400 after the Death of Innocentius Who would see more to prove the Forgery of both may peruse Dr. Cosins Scholast Hist of the Canon of the Scripture Sect. 83. 86. 87. Fifthly I have already shewed cap. 3. Fol. 1. that neither Austin nor the Council of Carthage ever meant that these Books were strictly Canonical that is given by Divine inspiration to be a publick rule to the Church for confirming Articles of Faith though they might be read in the