vitals and kills the person And so much of this Argument 3. Argument 4. If there be an infallible visible Judge he must proceed in giving definitions of Faith either discursively or by Prophetical inspiration but by neither of these ways can he proceed ergo c. If any challenge the enumeration in the major it concerns him to assign another way of his procedure till which I proceed to confirm the minor And 1. Doth this Judge proceed by Prophetical Inspiration Are all the Popes of Rome Prophets Had Pope Pius the 4. Martin the 5. Eugenius the 4 Leo the 10. or the constituent Members of the Council of Constance Basil Florence Lateran or Trent Prophetical Inspirations Where are their extraordinary Credentials correspondent to such extraordinary Inspirations The Apostles spake with Tongues and wrought Miracles Had Pope Paul the 3. Julius the 3. Pius the 4. or the Trent Bishops such Seals of their Apostleship Is there not as good cause to believe the Divine Inspirations of deluded Quakers as of Popes or Papalings Must all be believed to be divinely inspired who say they are Hath not God left us a Rule by which to judge of Impostors And what else is that Rule but the holy Scripture Isai 8.20 Is not this a goodly issue of Papal infallibility Papists and Quakers are not such Enemies as they would make the World believe Some may think perhaps I play upon Romanists when I charge them with Enthusiasms but I do them no wrong it 's the Doctrine of their own greatest Authors Stapleton controv 4. q. 2. in explicat Art Notab 4. saith That the Doctrine of the Church undoubtedly he means this infallible visible Judge is discursiva in mediis but Prophetica Divina in conclusionibus Divine and Prophetical in the conclusions though only discursive in the premises I doubt if more iudibrious non-sense concerning Enthusiasms ever dropt from a Quaker Justly doth Judicious Rivet in Isagog ad Scripturam cap. 20. Sect. 8. censure this Doctrine of Stapletons as repugnant to it self For to use discourse to infer a conclusion and yet to expect that the conclusion shall not be inferred by argumentation but only be suggested by Enthusiasm or Divine Inspiration est velle nolle argumentari Surely the definitions of this infallible Judge not depending upon the premises nor being inferred by them but being divinely inspired according to Stapleton they cannot properly be conclusions but must be Divine Oracles is not this to establish perfect Enthusiasm were this a truth ought not the definitions of this infallible Judge be joyned to the holy Scripture Neither want there Authors among Romanists who assert this as Testefort the Dominican cited by Rivet cap. cit Sect. 9. who affirmed Sacram Scripturam contineri partim in bibliis partim in decretalibus Pontificum Romanorum And Melchior Canus lib. 5. cap. 5. testifies that one of their Learned Doctors affirmed in his presence definitiones Conciliorum ad Sacram Scripturam pertinere May I not here use the word of the Prophet Jer. 23.28 What is the Chaff to the Wheat saith the Lord it may be enough to prove the falshood of that way that many eminent Doctors of the Romish perswasion are ashamed of it particularly Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 9. lib. 2. de Conciliis cap. 12. Melchior Canus lib. 2. cap. 7. Alphonsus à Castro lib. 1. cap. 8. Bec. tract de fide cap. 2. q. 8. Sect. 4. who all are ashamed to assert that Popes and Councils pass out their definitions by immediate Revelations And the University of Paris Anno 1626. emitted a Decree condemning the foresaid impious assertion of Testefort as witnesses Rivet Isagog cap. 20. Sect. 9. who would have a more full account of the Fanaticism and Enthusiasms of the Church of Rome I remit them to D. Stillingfleet's late discourse of Romish Idolatry cap. 4. If therefore they say that this Judge proceeds discursively which was the other branch of the Assumption I argue against them thus 1. Then this infallible Judge must have a clear and infallible yea and a publick ground for now he proceeds not by secret Enthusiasm from which he deduces his definitions and if the Judge antecedently to his definitions have a clear ground to believe that which he is to define why may not others also believe upon the same clear grounds without the sentence of an infallible visible Judge Certainly either the Judge defines an Article of Faith which himself does not believe but consequently to his own definition and because he says it himself or if he believe it before he define it then an infallible visible Judge is not necessary For that without which Faith may be had is not simply necessary to Faith but Faith may be had without the sentence of an infallible visible Judge as appears in that antecedent Act of Faith which the Judge hath before his own sentence therefore the sentence of an infallible visible Judge is not simply necessary to Faith or if Romanists will needs still maintain it to be necessary it will be necessary and not necessary necessary ex Hypothesi not necessary because the Judge hath Faith antecedently to his sentence Is it not a Noble Position which drives the Asserters thereof either upon the Rock of Enthusiasm or else involves them in a contradiction But secondly this Judge proceeding discursively in his definition of Faith is fallible in the premises ergo he is fallible also in the conclusion The sequel is clear it being impossible to deduce a true conclusion from false premises Whatever may seem to follow ratione formae yet nothing can ratione materiae seeing as Philosophers demonstrate assensus conclusionis attingit objectum praemissarum if therefore the premises be false the conclusion must be likewise false The antecedent is acknowledged by Romanists themselves Hence Stapleton controv 4. q. 2. in explic art Notab 2. Ecclesia in singulis mediis non habet infallibilitatem peculiarem S. Sancti directionem sed potest in illis adhibendis probabili interdum non semper necessaria collectione uti Ratio est quia Ecclesiastici non habent scientiae divinae plenitudinem sic de scipso dixit August Epist 119. cap. 11. in Scripturis Sanctis multo interdum plura nesciunt quam sciunt nihilominus Ecclesia in conclusione fidei semper est certissima Let me now appeal all knowing persons if either Scripture or Fathers do testifie that God gifts any with infallibility in the conclusion and not also in the premises Were not the Apostles infallible in both Seeing therefore Popes succeed not to Peter in his infallibility in the premises neither do they succeed him in his infallibility in the conclusion Arg. 5. It 's impossible for Romanists especially the Jesuited party according to their Principle to know infallibly who is truly Pope or which is truly a lawful Council ergo it 's impossible that they can infallibly resolve their Faith upon the sentence of
vindicated Deut. 17.8 in his cap. 2. Sect. 12. Mat. 18.17 in his cap. 4. Sect. 15. Mat. 16.19 in his cap. 2. Sect. 7 8 9. Mat. 28.20 in his cap. 4. Sect. 18. 1 Tim. 3.15 in his cap. 4. Sect. 14. Yet fifthly lest I should dismiss the Reader with any dissatisfaction I will give a touch of all the particulars mentioned in the Objection I begin with the 2000 years wherein he says the Church was Judge before the Scriptures were written But what then is the case then and now alike then the Church had no written Scripture Does it therefore follow that now it hath none either Was the Church Judge in questions of Religion Quid hoc ad rhombum Is that the question whether the Church that is the Rulers or Pastors convened in a Synod have a Juridical power is not the question whether these Representatives be absolutely infallible in their decisions of Faith is a Judicial Authority and Infallibility terms reciprocal Would he pull down the Thrones of Princes because they arrogate not Infallibility If he would have concluded any thing he should have said in the Church in those days there was a standing ordinary infallible visible Judge with Jurisdiction over the whole Church If this he go about to prove he will endeavour to derive the Pedigree of their Popes and Councils higher than I thought they pretended I imagined Peter had been the first of the Series but now it 's like they will ascend to Adam I have lookt upon Platina and Onuphrius Catalogues of Popes but there I find not the Catalogue of Antediluvian and Antescriptural Popes from the Creation until Moses time which if the Pamphleter look over his Chronologick Tables again will be found to exceed 2000 years In these times the Church had the same Doctrine for substance which now is written in the Scriptures taught by Patriarchs and Prophets and conveyed by Oral Tradition from Parents to Posterity But because Tradition in it self was not so safe a way for preserving Religion in its purity therefore the Lord was pleased to prorogate the lives of Patriarchs to many Centuries Adam lived till Methuselah was above 200 years old Methuselah lived till Sem was near an 100 and Sem out-lived Abraham So that this Tradition needed not pass through more than two hands betwixt Adam and Abraham for the space of more than 2000 years and withal he raised extraordinary Prophets as Enoch and others Yet notwithstanding all these extraordinary Adminicles how soon was Religion corrupted and the World over-spread with Idolatry and Polytheism But laying aside extraordinary Prophets which the Lord then and in after times raised up it 's more than all the combination of Jesuits can prove that in that interstice of time there was an ordinary standing infallible visible Judge with Jurisdiction over the whole Church which if he prove not he must let me tell him peccat ignoratione elenchi I shut up my Reply to this branch of the Objection with two remarks The first is that Romanists do not agree among themselves concerning their inferences from the state of the Church before the writing of Scripture M. Serjeant and those of the Traditionary way do only conclude from it that Oral Tradition is an infallible mean of conveying truth down to Posterity But the Jesuited party as appears by this Pamphleter would conclude from it the necessity of an infallible visible Judge Their disagreement in this and other matters are a shrewd presumption that they neither have an infallible Judge nor yet infallible Tradition But secondly Learned Tillotson in his Rule of Faith Part. 1. Sect. 4. acutely inverts this whole argument for in that the Lord committed the Doctrine of Religion to writing after that the World had experienced the unsuccessfulness of the former way it seems to be a good evidence that this way by Scripture is the better and more secure It being the way of Divine Dispensations to proceed from that which is less perfect to that which is more and he conceives the Apostles reasoning concerning the two Covenants Heb. 8.7 to be very applicable to these two methods of conveying Religion If the first had been faultless then should no place have been sought for the second But perhaps he is happier in his next Allegation from Deut. 17.8 c. where there is a Judge in the Church of the Jews to be obeyed in matters of Law and Religion under pain of death Who sees not how inconsequential the argument is from the Jewish Church to the Christian The Jewish High-Priests did marry neither were any capable of the Priesthood among them but the children of Priests Will Romanists grant this parallel to hold in the Christian Church Though one man could be competent to govern an National Church such as the Jewish was shut up in one little spot of the earth doth it follow that one man is as capable of an Universal Monarchy over the Catholick Church dispersed through the whole earth Yet neither from this place can be proved the infallibility of the Jewish High Priest or Sanedrim else they should have been infallible not only in matters of Faith but also of Fact For there is expresly mention made of questions of Fact v. 8. between blood and blood plea and plea stroke and stroke all which are to be decided by the testimonies of men and in such Romanists acknowledge both Popes and Councils to be fallible In that Commission Deut. 17.8 9. the Judge or Civil Magistrate is joyned with the Priests and the people are commanded equally to acquiesce in the sentence of both under pain of death I suppose he will not because of this grant infallibility to the Magistrate how then can he infer from it the infallibility of the Church Representative But were the Jewish High-Priests and Sanedrim infallible I shall not stand to enquire how Aaron the High-Priest was stained with Idolatry Exod. 33.4 5. how Vriah the High Priest did make an idolatrous Altar after the Altar of Damascus 2 King 16.11 or what meant these general complaints Isai 56.10 Jer. 6.13 Jer. 14.14 Hos 9.8 Ezek. 22.25 26. c. all which he will find vindicated from the exceptions of Romanists by Learned Whittaker de Concil q. 6. cap. 3. I only enquire whether the High-Priest and Sanedrim did err when they condemned Christ as an Impostor and Blasphemer if they did as none but Infidels can deny then the Jewish Sanedrim was not infallible only it may be asked how did God command obedience to the Sanedrim under pain of death if they were not infallible This Query might be answered by another Do the Penal Statutes of Princes under pain of death prove them to be infallible Was it not said to Joshua Whosoever will not hearken to thee let him be put to death But I answer absolutely that the active obedience to be given to the Jewish Sanedrim was only when they gave sentence according to the Law This is clear from the Text v.
Original of the Scriptures were only founded upon the Churches Tradition yet it doth not follow that the Churches Tradition should be the principal Rule of Faith Which I illustrate by two examples It 's granted by all that the Veracity of God is the formal object of Faith if not in whole yet in part but the first assent that is given to the Veracity of God is surely founded upon Natural Reason Yet School-men themselves will not admit that those Natural Reasons which prove the Veracity of God are the formal object of Faith as may be seen in Lugo de fide disp 1. Sect. 6. and Carleton Tom. 2. Theol Schol. disp 3. Sect. 2. 3. Who would be further satisfied how Natural Reason is not the Rule of Faith and Religion albeit Religion and Faith do presuppose Reason I most remit them to the Debates of our Divines against Socinians and to those betwixt the Paradoxal Author of Philâ—sphia Scripture Interpres and Vagelsangius c. Only now I conclude à pari though Tradition alone should prove the Divine Original of the Scriptures yet would it not necessarily follow that Tradition were the principal Rule of Faith I add another example suppose the King sent a Letter to his Subjects containing his pleasure as to sundry particulars of moment although the testimony of a Trusty Bearer might give Evidence that the Letter were truly the Kings yet would it be the Kings Letter and not the Bearers testimony that would be the rule of the Subjects obedience The Application is obvious The same reasons demonstrate that neither can the definitions of the Church be the first Rule of Faith for we must know the Rule of Faith before we know the Church as a Church it being by the Rule of Faith that we have the knowledge of the notes of the Church Nay further the Church is built upon the Foundation of Prophets and Apostles Ephes 2.20 that is upon the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament for as Esthius well observes Prophets and Apostles are said to be the Foundation of the Church ratione Doctrinae in respect of their Doctrine but the Doctrine of the old Prophets was only preserved entirely and incorruptly in the Scriptures for that the Traditions of those times were vitiated Christ witnesses oftner than once Shall the Law of the most High God receive Authority from his Creatures Did Moses when he received the Law from the mouth of the Lord wait for the suffrages of the Church or their Representatives to make it Authentick Whence have we the knowledge of the infallible and reciprocal notes of the Church but from the Scripture Then surely the belief of the Scripture must be presupposed to the distinct knowledge of the true Church consequently our Faith cannot ultimately be resolved into the definitions of the Church Fifthly and lastly Is not the Scripture a publick Standard of Divine Truth whereby the Church may convince Gain-sayers Doth not the Apostle 2 Tim. 3.16 say that the Scripture is profitable for reproof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for evident conviction Did not Apollos Act. 18.28 mightily convince the Jews by the Scriptures Hence Athanasius Orat. cont gentes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the sacred and divinely inspired Scriptures are abundantly sufficient for the Declaration of the truth Nor do I doubt but the arguings of Protestants from the Scripture leave Convictions upon Jesuited Romanists albeit through interest and prejudice they stifle them and study Cavils against the clear light of Scripture Can either the secret Enthusiasms of a Quaker be such a publick Standard and mean to convince others or yet the Enthusiastick decisions of the Romish pretended infallible Judge seeing he neither can give Evidence of his Infallibility nor infallible grounds upon which he pronounces his sentences else upon those grounds without his sentence people might be convinced of the truth By these hints I hope it may appear that the properties of the Rule of Faith do exactly agree to the Scriptures but no more to the decisions of the Romish infallible visible Judge then to the Enthusiastick fancies of Quakers I may not now digress to confute Quaker whimsies concerning the light within which they make the Rule of Faith which I hope e're long shall be accurately done by the Pen of a Learned and Judicious person in this place If the judgment of Antiquity as to this matter be required it were easie to fill a Volum Take only a few touches Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 1. calls the Scripture the Pillar and Ground of Truth Chrysost in 2 Epist ad Cor. Hâ—m 13. calls the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the exact Ballance Rule and Canon or all things Greg Nyssen lib. 〈◊〉 câ—nt Eunom in Append. operum Basilii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Jesuiâ— Gretser being Interpreter In omni dâ—gmate optima judicandi ratio est divinitus inspirata scriptura the divinely inspired Scripture is the best Rule by which we can judge of every Article of Faith Basil Epist 80. ad Eustath calls the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Law and Rule of that which is right Athanalius in Synopsi anchoras sustentacula fidei the Anchors and Pillars of Faith Austin lib. 2. de bapt cont Donat. cap. 6. Stateras divinas Divine Ballances Tertull. lib. 4. cont Marcion cap. 3. the Christian digests alluding to the Civil Law which is a Rule in Law cases and Cassied lib. 1. Instit cap. 12. and 15. by a like allusion the Pandects Bede is very express as cited by Gratian caus 8. quesi 1. cap. 28. that the Scripture is unica credendi vitendi regula the only Rule of Faith and Life These things being so clear I will now examine the Objections of the Pamphleter which if they conclude any thing make as strongly against themselves or any Rule of Faith they can pretend to yea serve as well to prove that the Scriptures are no ground of Faith at all as that they are not a ground of the Religion of Protestants In truth they are Cavils more beseeming an Atheist that would overturn all Religion than a Christian yet least he should say his Arguments were not answered I shall take them to consideration SECT III. The Pamphleters four principal Objections against the Scriptures being the compleat Rule of Faith discussed OBjection first He enquires pag. 50. whether I make the Scriptures as translated or at in the Original Tongues the Rule of Faith and ground of our Religion Not as translated because Chamier lib. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 15. D. Fearly whom he calls D. Daniel in his Treatise the Dippers dipped pag. 1. and D. Barron tract 1. cap. 2. pag. 46. say that Translations only are Authentick in so far as they agree with Originals Now those Original Tongues of Hebrew Greek and Syriack not one of a thousand understand And further saith he our Translations are censured by Protestants Zuinglius accuses Luthers Version of Errours Luther himself confesses
Câ—ntroversies as M. Menzies will have Let all the Papers betwixt M. Denster and me be read and it shall not be found that ever I asserted the Scripture to be Judge of Controversies Indeed I do assert the Scripture to be the Ground and Rule of Faith and I suppose when Protestants affirm the Scripture to be Judge of Controversies they mean no more But because I knew how apt Papists are to cavil upon the term Judge I did ever purposely wave it But this is the Jesuitical Candour he hath used in all his Criminations against me The Genius of this Scribler will yet more appear by his stating of this Question betwixt Romanists and us pag. 75. which he propounds thus Catholick Romans saith he build their belief upon Scripture not taken as they fancy but as explained by Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church and the unanimous consent of the Fathers and if any doubt arise of both these on the general definition and decision of the present Catholick Church But Protestants says he as M. Menzies holds ground their Faith on Scripture which they have corrected or rather corrupted as clear in it self or made cleaâ— by diligent reading and conferring of places with prayers and as they imagine a well-disposed mind that is a prejudicate Opinion It is hard to say whether he discover more perverseness of folly in representing the state of this question Take these few observes upon it And first if Romanists build their Faith upon the Scriptures as expounded by Traditions c. then Scripture contains all Doctrines of Faith and Traditions serve only to expound the Scripture And yet he affirms pag. 62. There be Articles of Faith such as Persons in the Trinity Sacraments in the Church c. which he denies to be found in Scripture Either then in this state of the question he does not declare the adequate ground of the Popish Faith and so sophisticates with his Reader when he would make him believe that they build all their Faith on Scripture or else contradicts both himself and the current of Romish Doctors who maintain unwritten Traditions not only for expounding Scriptures but also for confirming Articles of Faith not contained in the Scripture Secondly He dare not commit the explication of Scripture either to Tradition or the unanimous consent of Fathers and therefore he keep the definition of the present Church as a Reserve in case of doubts concerning these and of doubts which may be mâ—ved concerning the sense of Traditions and of the testimonies of Fathers And therefore all must be ultimately resolved on the definition of the present Church they mean the Popish Church So that when all comes to all their Faith is built upon the word of their Pope or Council for nothing else can he mean by their present Church But thirdly seeing the decisions of Faith are remitted unto the present Church that is Pope or Council when the case is dubious concerning the sense of Scriptures Traditions and Fathers what is now left to be a ground for the Churches definition but either Enthusiasm or a Fancy So that by this very state of the question when it s well pondered the ground of the belief of the present Romish Church is because she fancies so Fourthly In this state of the question he speaks as if Romanists were all agreed concerning the Rule of Faith or Judge of Controversies the contrary whereof is apparent from what we spake both in the former question concerning the infallible visible Judge and also here concerning the Rule of Faith Are M. White M. Serjeant M. Holden Rushworth and other Patrons of the Traditionary way of the same Opinion touching the Rule of Faith and Judge of Controversies with Jesuits Fifthly Doth he not represent us as building our Faith on corrupted Scriptures Is not this an evidence of a most desperate Cause when we must be so perfidiously represented So far are Protestants from building on corrupted Scriptures that we appeal to the pure Originals and decline no mean for finding out the sense of Scripture ever acknowledged by the Catholick Church Yea to cut off their Cavils of this kind Learned Protestants as M. Baxter Key for Catholicks Part. 1. cap. 31. have offered to dispute the Controversies of Religion out of the Vulgar Latin or out of the Rhemists Translation Sixthly He would imply that we had no regard to Tradition or to the consent of Fathers In this he belyes us egregiously We are so far from excluding them from the means of expounding Scripture that we have a Venerable esteem of them when a Tradition is truly found to have been received by the whole Catholick Church in all Ages and when Fathers do unanimously consent in Doctrines of Faith But we must have further Evidence for an universally and perpetually received Tradition or Doctrine unanimously approved by Fathers then the partial testimony of the present particular and Apostate Church of Rome Dare Romanists remit the Controversies betwixt them and us to those Tests of Apostolick Tradition or unanimous consent of Fathers Have they Apostolick Tradition for their Adoration of Images Invocation of departed Saints substraction of the Cup from the people Purgatory Fire their Divine Authority of Apocryphal Book the Supremacy of the Pope above Councils and Princes c. none but either an Ignorant or he whose Conscience is Venal and Mercenary can affirm it But I may give a more particular account of these hereafter I add but a seventh Note When he mentions the means which we affirm ought to be used for finding out the true sense of Scripture such as the conferring of places of Scripture and prayer which I suppose none but an Infidel can disallow he reckons forth a well-disposed mind which he interprets a prejudicate Opinion What Candour I have met with or am to expect from them let any judge by this their Commentary upon my words when I require a well-disposed mind to the right understanding of the Scriptures that is saith my Adversary a prejudicate Opinion Doth he not discover himself to be a person to which his own Apocrypha Text Sap. 1.4 In animam malevolam non introibit Sapientia may most fitly be applyed Pag. 73. He flourishes with an old Argument against the Scriptures being Judge of Controversies The Judge of Controversie saith he ought to give a clear sentence which the learned and unlearned may equally understand but thus doth not the Scripture and to this purpose He alledges some testimonies from S. Ambrose S. Austin that there be wonderful depths in Scripture and from Vincentius Lyrinensis that Hereticks such as Novatus Sabellius Arrius c. have put various interpretations upon Scripture To this I answer first Non infertur Elenchus though all this were granted it only proves that Scripture is not the Judge of Controversies which is not asserted by me neither is it otherwise asserted by Protestants then as the Law is said tâ— be a Judge Hence was that of Aristotle
one of these with exclusion of the rest When the promise is made sometime to one grace sometime to another it only imports the inseparable connexion of all sanctifying graces that who ever has one hath undoubtedly all Thirdly I grant that in that word Mat. 19. If thou wilt enter into life keep the Commandments is contained a Fundamental of the Covenant of Works but not of the Gospel Covenant This is evident from that description of the two Covenants Rom. 10. from vers 5. to 9. Moses describeth the righteousness of the Law that the man who doth these things shall live by them but the righteousness of Faith speaketh on this wise If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved Where the persect keeping of the Commandments is set forth to be the righteousness of the Law as the righteousness of the Law is contradistinguished from the righteousness of Faith Yet Christ does not mock the young man by that word as the scoffing Jesuit Maldonat on the place would infer from this Exposition given by Calvin for this righteousness of the Law would really bring a man to eternal life if a man truly had it Neither is any mean so apt to convince a Justiciary pretending to a legal righteousness such an one was that young man as appears by his words vers 20. All these things have I kept from my youth as to charge him with the righteousness of the Law Christ therefore used a very proper mean for preparing that person to submit to the righteousness of God by Faith Phil 3.9 had not his covetousness choaked the work In what sense the perfect keeping of the Law is possible or impossible is elsewhere declared now only I add that neither under the Gospel Covenant can Eternal Life be obtained without a sincere and serious endeavour to keep the Commands perfectly But surely if the perfect keeping of the Commandments were a Fundamental of the Gospel Covenant our ranting Missionaries and their dissolute Proselytes might despair of salvation Pag. 87. and 88. it 's enquired Whether every Fundamental can be so clearly proved by Scripture that the words cannot be obviously and literally taken in another sense Answ Every Fundamental may be so convincingly proved from Scripture that no rational person can upon solid ground contradict the evidence thereof else the Scripture should not be able to make us wise unto salvation 2 Tim. 3.15 I deny not but a wrangler may impose perverse glosses upon the clearest words in Scripture or out of Scripture as that petulant Romanist Râ—ynandus gave a specimen of his mischievous Acumen by imposing blasphemous glosses upon all the Articles of the Creed but this only proceeds from ill disposed minds and neither impeaches the clearness of Scripture as to Fundamentals nor the certainty of our belief of them But says he pag. 88. those words This is my body signifie and that most obviously and litterally that Christs Body is really in the Sacrament Like as when I say this is a piece of Gold this is a piece of Silver these words litterally signifie real Gold and Silver Answer Those words This is my body cannot signifie the Popish transubstantiated Presence of the Body of Christ without a manifest contradiction as shall appear cap. 5. These other Propositions this is a piece of Gold this is a piece of Silver not being productive of the Silver and the Gold as Romanists affirm these words this is my body to be productive of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament are not parallel to the Proposition under debate But I will not here anticipate that which is to be handled at more length cap. 5. Pag. 103. he asks If it be a Fundamental to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God which says he Austin believed upon Tradition Answ I grant it is a Fundamental as a Fundamental is taken for the Rule of Faith which makes us believe all the rest And so indeed it is a principle having an intrinsick evidence of its Divine Original as I endeavoured to shew in its proper place yet I confess that our minds are prepared by the motives of credibility whereof Tradition is one to give a supernatural assent to the Scriptures as the Word of God and this is all which Austin affirmed as to this thing as hath been already cleared Here it is to be noted that though I call the Scripture a Fundamental as being the Rule of Faith yet I mean not that the belief of this written Instrument is absolutely necessary in all cases to salvation for who doth not know that of Iren. lib. 3. cap. 4. Multae gentes Barbarorum credunt in Christum sine charactere vel atramento i. e. many Nations of the Barbarians believe on Christ without this writing of holy Scripture Scripture is indeed the principal and ordinary Rule of Faith yet it is not the only mean by which the Doctrines contained in Scripture receive Evidence yea the complex of the Fundamentals of Christianity carry with themselves an intrinsick Evidence of their own Divine Originals as hath been also held forth in cap. 3. So that if they who are invincibly ignorant of the Scriptures should upon the Veracity of God believe the Doctrines of Christianity contained in Scripture and walk accordingly they should be saved even as we But whaâ— saith the Pamphleter if one should receive the New Testament aâ— containing sufficiently all Fundamentals and reject the Old with Manichees admit of some Evangels but not others with Ebionits Answ He should deny a Principle of Divinity and therefore we should dispute against him partly ex concessis from these Scriptures which he admits and partly as with an Infidel from the common motives of credibility which may contribute to the conviction of an Infidel though they alone be not a sufficient ground of divine Faith Pag. 104. he asks What if one should deny the Word the Name and definition of a Sacrament the keeping of Sunday maintain Rebaptization affirm one Person in the God head with Sabellius or two in Christ with Nestorius which are not in express words in Scripture Answ 1. We must distinguish betwixt names and things we say not that names or words are Fundamentals of Religion else the diversity of Languages should make diversity of Religions It 's but a pievish humour to quarrel at words when the things signified thereby are found in Scripture it were enough to say to such as 1 Cor. 11.16 If any will be contentious we have no such custom nor the Churches of God Answ 2. Fundamentals may be contained clearly in Scripture though not in express words and so the Pamphleter either ignorantly or wilfully mistakes the very state of the question I hope these truly Fundamental Articles of the Merits and Satisfaction of Jesus Christ will not be denied to be contained clearly in Scripture though those words be not at all
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 lays 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 confutation 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 Insallibility 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
85. that Protestants do a gree 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 sores 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 also are religiously to be adored It s a Fundamental that God is to be invocated but who warranted them to invocate Angels or departed Saints It s a Fundamental that there is an Hell and Heaven but who warranted them to add a Purgatory for expiation of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to mortals sins It s a Fundamental that God is pleased to reward good works with eternal life but who warranted them to add that good works are meritorious of eternal life Many more of this kind may be added by which consequently they destroy the true Fundamentals As for Instance if
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 ita 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 Had it been so Is it credible that neither Ignatius nor Irenaeus nor Justin Martyr nor Tertul. nor Origen nor Cyprian would once have made mention of the word Mass but for this impudent falshood the Cardinal is sufficiently chastised by Causabon Exercit. 16. an 34. Num. 39. The first notice that the same learned Causabon and after him D. Will. Forbes lib. 3. de Sacrif Missae cap. 1. do observe of it was about 250 years after Christ in an Epistle of Cornelius Bishop of Rome to Lupicinus and yet both of them doubt if this Epistle be genuine and therefore I said that hardly will the name Mass be found in the undoubted writings of Ancients of these Ages But it s not names we stand upon and therfore I affirm that though Fathers did offen use the word Sacrifice concerning the Sacrament of the Lords Supper yet they meant only an eucharistick and commemorable Sacrifice not proper and expiatory This has been largly demonstrated by many I will hint at a few considerations which I hope may Satisfie those that are not obstinately wilfull to adhere to a preconceived opinion And 1. the Fathers said that they did
Roma Mendax OR THE FALSHOOD OF ROMES HIGH PRETENCES TO INFALLIBILITY and ANTIQUITY EVICTED In confutation of an Anonymous Popish Pamphlet undertaking the defence of Mr. Dempster Jesuit BY JOHN MENZEIS Professor of Divinity in Aberdene Greg. Nissen lib. 10. cont Eunom in append ad opera Basilii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LONDON Printed for Abel Roper at the sign of the Sun over against St. Dunstanes Church in Fleet-street 1675. IMPRIMATUR Guliel Wigan Reverendissimo in Christo Pat. D. D Humfr. Episc Lond. a Sacr. Dom. May 27 1674. TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE ARTHUR Earl of Anglesey Lord Privy Seal and one of his Majestys most Honourable Privy Council My Lord THough learned â—ens in most countries of Europe have travelled successfully these many years in discovering the impostures of Rome so as it might seem sufficient to let the world enjoy the tractates already extant on that subject Yet the sedulity of the ministers of that Church in proposing Sophisms often and long ago confuted in a new dress as if they were new topicks yea unheard of demonstrations thereby to ensnare unwary Readers doth impose a necessity upon sincere Lovers of Truth for undeceiving the simple to resume old Grounds from Scripture Antiquity and reason formerly improved by our renouned Heroe's This had the stronger influence upon me to write these cursory animadversions upon a Popish Pamphlet otherwise of small significancy because some through a lazy humour will not others being immersed in worldly entanglements hardly can peruse the large volumns of Chamier Whittaker Calvin Zanchius Jewel Usher Junius Chemnitius Gerard and other Champions for the Truth yea some are smitten with such a fancy of Novelty thaâ— nothing doth relish with them unless it come smoaking from the Press I shall not deny but I was likewise moved with a just indignation against the disputing party among Romanists many of whom being byassed with interest seem to violent their own consciences in obtruding impostures on the World Can it be supposed that men of such raised parts and eminent learning who cannot but be sensible from their own failours of the weaknesses attending humane intellects should believe the infallibility of the Papal chair in Dogmatical decisions seeing those who often sit therein are known neither to be men of greatest learning and Piety nor ever did God since the foundation of the World entail infallibility upon an elective succession of persons chiefly when secular interests and intrigues of Policy have the chief stroke in the election Can they believe an universal Monarchy over all Princes and Churches to be setled by a divine donation on the Bishop of Rome seeing Scripture hath no vestige of that fifth Monarchy unless it be in the Apocalyptick predictions and the Fathers of the ancient Church have not spared to contradict the Popes of Rome in their Dogmatical definitions Can they believe the lawfulness of Image-worship whatever Metaphysical distinctions they have coyned to put a fair gloss on the matter it being so expresly prohibited in the decalogue and no practice thereof occurring in the Chatholick Church for three Ages and upwards after Christ whereof those great Antiquaries cannot be ignorant Can these great masters of reason believe the prodigius figment of transubstantiation which may vye with any of the Fables of Apuleius Ovid or Aesop and is so luculently repugnant to the common sense and reason of all mankind that a great man among themselves going to Mass is reported to have been so ingenuous as to say Eamus ad communem errorem Can they justifie the Lawfulness of half Communions without fighting with their own consciences these being confessedly opposite to the primitive institution and to the known practice not onely of the Catholick Church but also of the Roman for many Ages who would not be moved with indignation that men should upon designe abuse their parts and wit to cheat the World I know not how to reconcile these men to themselves unless it be supposed that because they received not the Truth in love they are given up to strong delusion and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I grant Bellarmine Barronius Perron and others of that Cabal have said much for an ill cause They have indeed shewed themselves to be men of great parts but of very evil consciences They who devote their endowments to the patrociny of heresie would remember that errors in religion are such creasy and burdensome superstructures that the strongest shoulders must needs shrink under them My bowels in the mean time do yern toward the sequacious multitude in the Roman Communion who in the Simplicity of their hearts surrender themselves to the conduct of such teachers How grateful is it to these who love easie methods of Religion among whom are not only those of the meaner sort of people but also many of greater quality to be fred from serious inquiries after divine truths by an implicite submission to infallible guides and having once intrusted their faith to those teachers how secure do they judg themselves being taught by no meaner Casuist then Cardinal Tolet that it s not onely safe but also meritorius to believe the doctrines taught by their teachers though false on the matter untill they know that the Roman Church teaches otherwise Thus the leaders of these deluded people cause them to err Nor will the pretended infallibility of their teachers be sufficient apology for them at the great day This rather will be their condemnation that upon such a pellucide and improbable pretence they should have made small account of the truely infallible Canon of holy Scripture which God hath charged those to search who would find eternal Life Joh. 5.34 From this search nothing doth more deterr people then the thorny and litigious debates raised by School-men and Controversists as if men behoved turn Scepticks in religion if they did not implicitly intrust the conduct of their Faith to a Romish infallible guide But blessed be our God it s not a matter of such insuperable difficulty to find out the truth of Religion in the holy Scripture as they who design the inslaving peoples consciences do pretend If prejudices once being laid aside men would apply themselves sincerely to the use of appointed means For the wisdome of God hath with a perspicuity accommodated to the weakest capacities revealed these things which are necessary to Salvation according to that of Hilary In absoluto facili est Aeternitas Non per difficiles questiones nos ad vitam Aeternam vocat Deus and a greater then Hilary the Apostle of the Gentiles 2 Cor. 4.3 If our gospel be hid it is hid to them that are lost and a greater then hoth our Saviour Christ Joh. 7.17 If any do the will of God he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God One thing I am sure it s much more easie to find out the true religion in Scripture then by any means whatsoever to attain a rational evidence of Papal or
and examined by this principal Rule of the holy Scriptures It 's true D. Sanderson de oblig Conse praelect 4. Sect. 14 15. denies the Rule of Faith and of Life to be adequately the same supposing that natural reason in some things may be the Rule of Life and the rather seeing Heathens had a Rule to which in some measure they might conform their actions which could be none else but Reason and the innate principles of Morality But the Rule of Divine Faith must be Divine Revelation which the said Learned Doctor with other Protestants maintains against Romanists to be Scriptural Yea further he acknowledges Sect. 15.19 the Scripture to be the adequate Rule of Life also in so far as our actions are spiritual and directed to a supernatural end As for Romanists so well are they served by their infallible Judge and so far are they from that Unity whereof they boast that they are broken into a multitude of Opinions touching the Rule of their Faith and Religion For first many old School-men as Aquinas 2.2 q. 1. art 10. and Part. 3. q. 1. art 3. in carp Scotus Prolog in sent q. 2. Durand Praefat in lib. sent seem to affirm with us that Scripture is the compleat Rule of Faith wherein all supernatural Truths necessary to be believed are revealed But secondly Bell. lib. 4. de verb Dei cap. 10. Be an Theol. Schol. Part. 3. Tract 1. cap. 7. Sect. 5. and others say that the Scripture is only a partial Rule the compleat Rule consisting of the whole Word of God written and unwritten There be others thirdly as Alphonsus à Castro lib. 1. cont haeres cap. 5. Greg. de Val. de Analys fidei lib. 5. cap. 2. Suarez de tripl virt tract 1. disp 5. Sect. 2. Sect. 5. Petrus à S. Joseph in Idea Theol. Moral lib. 3. cap. 2. Resol 5 6 7. who say that the compleat Rule comprizes not only the Scripture and unwritten Traditions but also the definitions of the Church i. e. of Pope and Council But fourthly there appears another party among them who would degrade the Scriptures from being any part of the principal Rule of Faith at all ascribing that entirely to Tradition For this Learned Rivet in Isagog cap. 3. cites among others Albertus Pighius saying Legem Christianam differre à vetere quod Traditionis tantum sit non Scripturae that the Christian Law in this differs from the old Law that it consists only in Tradition Jesuit Coster also lib. 2. Enchirid. cap. 1. makes only the perpetual Tradition of the Church to be the principal Rule of Faith Christus enim nec Ecclesiam à chartactis Scriptis pendere nec membranis mysteria sua committere voluit For Christ saith he would not have his Church to depend upon Paper-writings neither would he commit his Mysteries to Membrans Chamier lib. 1. de can cap. 2. Sect. 9. shews the same to be the Doctrine of Caranza which being objected in a Dispute to Gautier the Jesuit Gautier seemed so much ashamed of it that he undertook to get it Censured with a deleatur by Papal Authority But though they have expunged many things that made for the honour of Scripture whereof Chamier ibid. Sect. 10. gives instances from Quivoga's Index expurgatorius yet that impious Doctrine of Caranza so derogatory to Scripture stands for what I know without Censure to this day Yea Bell. himself though with one breath he acknowledgeth the Scriptures to be a part of the Rule of Faith and lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 1. adorns them with that high Elogy as being certa stabilis regula Fidei yet with another as it were revoking this lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 12. Sect. Respondeo ad majorem peremptorily denies this to be finem proprium praecipuum Scripturae ut esset regula fidei sed ut esset cemmonitorium quoddam the proper and principal end of the Scripture to be the Rule of Faith but only that it might be a certain Commonitory Fifthly M. Whâ—t Rushworth and Serjeant have made no little noise of late with the notion of Oral Tradition as being the Rule of Faith The difference betwixt these two last Opinions may perhaps be taken thus according to the Opinion of Coster Faith must be resolved into the Tradition of the Church thorough all successive Ages from the time of the Apostles to this day but according to M. Whyt and his Complices into the Oral testimony of the present Church Sixthly and lastly Gordon of Huntly in Epitome controv Tom. 1. controv 2. cap. 15. makes the Rule of Faith to be the definition of the present Church which says he gives not only testimony but Authority to the Scriptures and this appeareth to be the mind of this Pamphleter For pag. 75. he says When Questions arise concerning Scriptures the Doctrine of Fathers yea and Traditions themselves then all is to be resolved into the definition of the present Church that is surely into the sentence of their infallible visible Judge By all which it may appear Romanists have no certain Rule of Faith they being so divided about it But though like Sampson's Foxes they look contrary ways yet they agree generally against us unless you except those Ancient School-men to assert that Scripture is not the principal and compleat Rule of Faith In this Negative Quakers who make their Enthusiasms and Light within to be the Rule of Faith do joyn with Romanists in opposition to us It is observable that though some diversity may be found in the writings of Reformed Divines in expounding the formal object of Faith yet so far as I have hitherto learned they are all agreed in the great Point now under debate viz. That the Scripture is the principal and compleat Rule of Faith For they who hold as do the most the formal object of Faith to be a compound of the Veracity of God and of Divine Revelation do accordingly affirm Scriptural Revelation to be the principal and adequate measure or Rule according to which we are to judge of all material objects or Articles of Faith They likewise who conceive the formal object of Faith solely and entirely to consist in the Veracity of God alone as doth Learned and Judicious M. Baxter in the Preface to Part. 2. of his Saints Rest do yet acknowledge that Scriptural Revelation is the principal mean by which the Veracity of God is applied to all the material objects or particular Articles of Faith and consequently by them also the Scripture is held to be the chief and compleat Standard Measure or Rule by which all Articles of Faith are to be judged In this surely M. Chillingworth Richard Hooker Richard Baxter c. agree with other Protestant Authors The difference betwixt these Divines as to this appears reducible to that School-question whether Divine Revelation be a part of the formal object of Faith or only a condition requisite that we may upon the Veracity of God
believe the material objects or particular Articles of Faith There be great School-men for both these Opinions without censure of Heresie on either hand as may be seen in Carleton Theol. Schol. Tom. 2. disp 4. Sect. 2. 3. Would Romanists therefore grant that Scriptural Revelation is the principal mean by which the Veracity of God is applied to all the material objects of Faith so as this were the Standard by which we are to judge of all Articles of Faith I should not much contend with them whether they looked on Scriptural Revelation as a part of the formal object of Faith or only as a requisite condition to our believing upon the Veracity of God but how far they are from this may appear by the account I have given of their Opinions in the foregoing Paragraph it not being my concern at the time to debate that Question of the formal object of Faith I shall abstract from it and keep close to this of the Rule of Faith in which all Reformed Divines are agreed against Papists and Quakers that Scripture is the principal compleat and infallible Rule of Faith I shall not dilate upon Arguments to confirm the Orthodox Assertion this hath been done copiously by Whittaker against Stapleton lib. 3. de Author Script Chamler Tom. 1. Panstrat lib. 1. and very lately by Tillotson against J. S. much less can it be expected that I should enter upon a particular refutation of all those errours concerning the Rule of Faith into which Romanists and Quakers are subdivided I hope it shall suffice by some brief hints to evict the Scriptures to be the principal and compleat Rule of Faith whereby the contrary notions of Adversaries in all hands will vanish into smoak Only this I must not omit that though Papists talk bigly of Universal Tradition and consent of Fathers yet if either of these were made the Test Popery would be found not to be the true Christian Religion So fearful are Romanists of these discriminating Tests that sometimes they spare not to say as Melchior Canus lib. 7. cap. 1. that though all the Fathers with one mouth own a Doctrine yet the contrary may be piously defended and of Traditions the Fratres Valenburgii in examin princip examin 3. Num. 64. affirm ut Traditio aliqua sit Apostolica nihil detrimenti eam accipere licet aliquando in Ecclesia de ea dubitatum sit yea this Pamphleter confesses pag. 75. that such doubts may be moved concerning Fathers and Traditions that at length all must be resolved into the definition of the present visible Judge My work therefore shall be to hold out the Scripture to be the principal and compleat Rule of Faith whereby it will appear that other pretended Rules either are not true Rules or but subordinate to the Scriptures Did not our Lord Jesus in all his Debates with Devils or Hereticks appeal to the Scriptures and never to the Decretals of High-Priests or unwritten Tradition But it 's written Ye err not knowing the Scriptures Are we not remitted for decision of all Controversies to the Rule of the Scripture Isai 8 20. Joh. 5.39 Are not Scripture-Saints commended for improving this Rule Act. 17.11 Are we not commanded so to cleave to Scripture as not to decline from it either to the right hand or to the left Deut. 5.32 Deut. 17.18.20 Deut. 28.13.14 Josh 1.7.8 Is there not an Anathema pronounced upon all who broach any Doctrine not only contrary to but beside the Scripture whether Apostle or Angel Gal. 1 8 9. Which Scripture is expounded by Chrysost in locum Basil in Moral Reg. 72. and Augustine lib. 3. cont lit Petil. cap. 6. of the written Word who then shall secure the Pope when he obtrudes his Praeter anti-scriptural Oracles Is not the Scripture given for this end that we may believe and believing have eternal life Joh. 20.31 Is it not called the Canon or Rule Gal. 6.16 Is not the Scripture the Rule by which all within the Church and to whom the Gospel is preached are to be judged at the Great Day Rom. 2.16 Joh. 12.48 Jam. 2.12 Must it not then be the Rule according to which we are to believe and walk Can there be any more Noble or infallible Rule thought of than the Scriptures of the Living God Is it not said to be more sure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than a Voice from Heaven 2 Pet. 1.19 Was it not so evident of old that the Scriptures were the Rule of the Christian Religion that the Adversaries of Christianity made it their great design to destroy the Bible thinking thereby to extirpate Christianity out of the world But this should have been as M. Tillotson observes Sect. 3. pag. 20. malice without wit according to Romish Principles For had all the Bibles in the world been burnt Christian Religion would nevertheless been entirely preserved by Tradition and the definitions of the infallible visible Judge nay the Church had been a gainer thereby for the occasion and Parent of all Heresie the Scripture being out of the way she should have had all in her own hands which Romanists are still grasping after But suppose the Enemies of Christianity mistook their design how came the Christians in those days to be so tenacious of this Book that rather then deliver it they would yield up themselves to torments and death why did they look upon those that delivered up the Scriptures as Renouncers of Christianity whom therefore they called Traditores if they had not looked on this Book as the Rule of their Faith and chief mean of their Salvation Were not those who suffered for not delivering up the Scriptures Confessors and Martyrs for this great Article of the Religion of Protestants that the Scripture is the Rule of Faith Is there any thing in the world to which the properties of the principal Rule of Faith do so quadrate as to the holy Scriptures Must the Rule of Faith be 1. Certain both in it self and as to us 2. Intelligible 3. Comprehensive of all the material objects of Faith 4. Independent as to its Authority from any prior Rule of Faith And 5. A publick Standard by which the Church may convince gain sayers Is there any thing to which all these are so exactly competent as to the Scriptures And 1. For Certainty how uncertain the infallibility of the Romish visible Judge is we have already cleared But the testimonies of the Lord are sure Psal 19.7 yea more sure than a Voice from Heaven 2 Pet. 1.19 If the motives of credibility firmly demonstrate any thing it is this Can any writing in the Earth compare with the Scriptures as to Antiquity Have they not been miraculously preserved thouâ—h Antiochus Epiphanes and the Roman Emperours c. so industriously endeavoured their utter abolition whereas many other Books of excellent use have really perished upon whose ruine men had no such design Hath not the truth of the Scriptures been solemnly attested by the Heroick constancy of
root Pasal signifie dolare sculpere Hence the Chaldee renders it Tsalma an Image Do not their own Pagnin and Montanus render it sculptile But whatever be of that is it not added in the Hebrew Ve celtemuna or any likeness of any thing Are not here then all Images in so far as they are made objects of Adoration prohibited But grant that it ought to be rendred an Idol yet doth not the Adoration of an Image make it an Idol Did not Adoration make the Brazen Serpent an Idol which before was not one Hence is that of Tertull. lib. de Idololatria cap. 4. Imaginum consecratio est Idololatria and Isidore lib. 8. Orig. cap. 11. Idolum est similaehrum quodâ—humana effigie factum consecratum est according to the known Distich Qui sacros fingit auro vel marmore vultus Non facit ille Deos qui colit ille facit Yea so evident is this that their great School-man Vasq Tom. 1. in 3. Part. q. 25. disp 104. cap. 2. confesses that by this Command all Adoration of Images was prohibited to the Jews whence I conclude therefore also to Christians the Moral Law standing still in force Rom. 3.31 Do we by Faith make void the Law nay rather we establish it I might run through other Points in difference betwixt Romanists and us for I know none of them but may be disproved by luculent Scriptures Whereas he says these three Scriptures Mat. 26.26 Jam. 2.24 2 Thes 2.13 are flatly against Protestants he too flatly discovers either his own ignorance or impudency the harmony betwixt these and the Doctrine of Protestants hath been abundantly cleared by our Authors who handle the Controversies of the Presence of Christ in the Sacrament Justification and Traditions Now shortly I say first that these words This is my Body make no more for the Transubstantiation of Bread into the Body of Christ than these 1 Cor. 10.4 the Book was Christ for a Transubstantiation of the Rock into Christ Yea their Transubstantiating sense cannot be admitted without falsifying the words of Christ as I demonstrated against M. Demster and shall shew in its own place that my Argument stands yet in force notwithstanding the Pamphleters insignificant attempts to the contrary In evidence hereof after Consecration it 's frequently called Bread 1 Cor. 11.26 27. I proceed therefore to the second Scripture Jam. 2.24 Ye see that a man is justified by Works and not by Faith only That this place is not so clear for them may appear by joyning them with some other places from the Apostle Paul Rom. 3.28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by Faith without the works of the Law Rom. 4.5 6. To him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly is Faith counted for righteousness even as David described the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth righteousness without works Gal. 2.16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the Faith of Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nisi per fidem which Esthius upon the place acknowledges to be equivalent to sed tantum per fidem but only by Faith And he affirms that the most Learned both of Greek and Latin Interpreters do agree in that Exposition These and other Texts of the Apostle Paul seem to stand in so full contradiction to the fense which Romanists impose upon the words of James that they have devised many Cob web distinctions to clude those luculent testimonies of the Apostle S. Paul Some affirming that he excludes only from Justification the works of the Ceremonial Law not remembring that he excludes the works of that Law which is established by the Gospel as is clear comparing Rom. 3.28 with verse 31. but that is surely the Moral Law Others finding that they cannot deny but he excludes the works of the Moral Law yet say that only these works as done before Conversion and without Grace are excluded Others say that the Apostle S. Paul speaks only of the first Justification but not of the second But the Apostle S. Paul Rom. 4. to confirm his Assertion of Justification by Faith without the works of the Law brings in the instances of David and Abraham long after their Conversion and therefore he excludes not only works before Conversion neither speaks he only of that which Romanists call the first Justification I shall not digress to examine that distinction of the first and second Justification but surely in the Romish sense it presupposes a Justification by inherent holiness or by works and so is a begging of the question Only to prevent Logomachies and mistakes about words it would be considered that the chief question betwixt Romanists and us in this thing is concerning the meritorious cause of Justification what it is that purchases to us Remission of sin and right to Eternal Life Now I might appeal to all serious and imprejudiced persons what else can do this but the obedience of the Lord Jesus Christ Can our good works either before or after Conversion satisfie Divine Justice or merit to us remission of sins and a right to eternal life Is there any proportion betwixt our works and that Eternal and far more exceeding weight of Glory or the wrath to the uttermost due to us for our sins Are we not bound Luke 17.10 When we have done all that we are commanded to acknowledge our selves unprofitable servants for we have but done that which was our duty to do Are not our best performances stained with gradual defects Eccles 7.20 Esay 64.6 All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags Is not that saying of S. Greg. known lib. 9. Moral in Job cap 11. Omnis humana justitia injustitia esseconvincitur si districtè judicetur prece ergo post justitiam indiget ut quae succumbere discussa poterat ex sola judicis pietate convalescat Does any man love God so well as he ought says not S. Austin Epist 29. Plenissima charitas est in nemine Illud autem quod minus est quam esse debet in vitio est Do we not stand in need of mercy to our best works Neh. 13.22 Are they not made acceptable to God through Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 2.5 Can we then be pronounced by God perfectly just on the account of these or are we not rather pronounced just upon the account of the obedience of Christ for which these are accepted and we our selves also Ephes 1.6 He hath made us accepted in the beloved Is not that Scripture luculent Rom. 5.19 By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous If any might have placed confidence on their works to be justified thereby then surely the Apostle S. Paul might have done it but he durst not adventure on it 1 Cor. 4.4 I know nothing by my self yet am I not hereby justified It remains then to be expounded in what sense a man is said Jam. 2.24 to be justified by works and not by Faith only
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 conceives it to be in the Church But the faculty of that Jesuit lies in throwing a Feather to the ground with high confidence Two things if I mistake not may discover the lameness and impertinency of the Jesuits simile 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 Alphonsut 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 impious consequences which flow from it As 1. The imperious Usurpation 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 or persens 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 still 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 as 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 of integrals betwixt Churches yet if the Fundamentals be preserved they all make up one Catholick Church the Greek Church Waldenses Wicklevists and Hussites may differ from us in integrals yet if the Fundamentals be held by all we make up one Catholick Church Hence also it may be judged whether Romanists or we be the true Catholick Church We own all for Members of the Catholick Church who own the Fundamentals and superadd nothing destructive thereunto But they exclude all who are not of the present Roman Faith expressed in the formula fidei of Pius the Fourth or in that English confession of
there be a daily propriatory sacrifice in the Mass if there be a Purgatory for expiating sins of just men if there be merit of good works then Christ has not fully satisfied for all the fins of the elect nor fully merited eternal life to us Thus as Romanists do in directly overturn the soveraignity of princes by ascribing to the Pope a dominion over them in ordine ad spiritualia so also they overturn indirectly the Fundamentals of Religion by a super-addition of new Fundamentals SECT VI. Were the Waldenses Wicklevists and Hussits of the same religion as to Fundamentals and Essentials with Protestants BEcause I maintained the affirmative the Pamphleter pag. 94.95 c. writs one invective against me But he might have known that this is no singular notion of mine the same being asserted by the learned Vsser de success eccles Cap. 6. Voet. desper caus Pap. lib. 3. Sect 2. Cap. 9. Morney myster iniqui pag. 730. edit 2. Flaccus Illiric catal test Verit. col 1498. c. edit Salmurien anno 1608 Dr. Francis Whyt in his reply to Jesuit Fisher pag. 105.130.139 Prideaux praelect de visib eccles Sect. 11. printed anno 1624. Hottinger hist eccles saeculo 12 Sect. 5. Cade Justif of Church of England lib. 2. Cap. 1. Sect. 3. Birbeck Protestants evidence Cent. 12. Paul Perrin in his History of the Waldenses Samuel Morland in his history of the evangelical Churches in the valleys of Piemont and by many others which were here tedious to relate The harmony as to substantials of Religion betwixt these witnesses of truth and the Protestant Churches the author mentioned have copiously confirmed both by the confessions and by the Apologies of the Waldenses and Bohemians and by the testimonies of learned Romanists particularly of Thuan Guicciardin Surius yea of Cochlaeus Bell. Gretser c. Hath not Voetius loc cit Sect. 4. shewed that the confession of Faith set forth by the Bohemians and Hussits was approved by Luther Melanchton Bucer Musculus and the University of Wittenberg that Wendelstin one of Luthers first adversaries pronounced the Lutherans novos Germanos Waldenses and that Jesuit Gretser called the Waldenses And Albigenses Calvinianorum atavos the Calvinists Progenitors Yea Pope Leo. 10. in his letter to Frederick Duke of Saxony recorded by Sleidan Comment lib. 2. sayes expresly of Luther quod Wickleffi Hussi Bohemorum haereses antea damnatas resuscitet That he revived the old condemned heresies of Whickleff Huss and of the Bohemians Certain it is that the remains of the Waldenses in France are incorporated to the protestant Churches But why should I resume what the forcited Authors have so largely demonstrated viz. that Lutherans derived their doctrin from Hussits and Hussits from Wicklevists and Wicklevists from Waldenses Mr. Perrin and Morland make mention of many of the ancient writings of the Waldenses which hold forth the conformity of their Doctrins with the Doctrins of Protestants particularly one written anno 1120. entituled What thing is Antichrist another about the same time entituled The dream of Purgatory and a third as ancient as the other two entituled The cause of our separation from the Church of Rome I shall only desire thee Reader to ponder the Articles of doctrine which were charged on the Waldenses either as related by the Magdeburgians cent 12. Cap. 8. Col. 1206.1207 or by Reginaldus in Calvino Turcismo lib. 2. Cap. 5. So virulent an adversary that modest Vsher calls him Turco-papista or as they are rehersed out of Aeneas Sylvius afterward Pope Pius 2. by Bishop Vsser and Voetius and than Judge whether in substantialls they agree with Protestants I exhibit only a few of them 1. That the Scripture is the compleat rule of Faith 2. That the reading of the holy Scriptures ought to be granted to all ranks of persons 3. That there is no purgatory but that departed Souls go immâ—diately either to Eternal torments or Eternal joyes 4. That it s in vain to pray for the dead that being but one artifice to satisfie the avarice of Priests 5. That the Pope of Rome hath no supremacy over the Churches of Christ 6. That Messes are impious yea that its a fury to celebrate them for the dead 7. That the Sacrament of the supper ought to be given in both kinds 8. That its Idolatry to invocate and religiously adore departed Saints 9. That the Images of God and Saints ought to be destroyed 10. That confirmation and extream unction are not to be held among the Sacraments of the Church 11. That auricular confession is not necessary 12. That oyle ought not to be mingled with water in the administration of Baptism 13. That the consecration of holy water and palm crosses are ludibrous 14. That its improfitable to implore the necessity and suffrages of departed Saints 15. That saying of Canonick hours is but a trifling of time 16. That the order of begging Friers were invented by the devil 17. That the Romish Synagogue is the whore of Babylon these and diverse other Articles of their doctrin are collected out of the forcited authors by Vsser Cap. 6. Sect. 17.18 Now whether they who believed the ancient Creeds and assented to the decrees of the first 4. general Councils and maintained these particulars did not agree with Protestants in the substaâ—â—tials of Faith Let those judge who know the doctrine of Protestants But sayes the Pamphleter pag. 94. If I look upon them as being of the same religion as to substantials with us then I should justifie the erroneous and unchristian epinions which the Authentick records of those times testifie they did maintain Answer the contradictions of those records to one another in the particulars charged on the Waldenses have given just occasion to learned Protestants to convict those records of falshood and to vindicate the Innocency of the Waldenses see this prolixly done by Vsher-lib cit cap. 6. from â— 19. to the end Voet. disp causa papatus lib. 3. Sect. 2. cap. 9. at also Hottinger and Birbeek in the places forcited did I not in my tenth paper against Mr. Dempster pag. 130. bring in Paradius in hiâ— Annals of Burgundy and Gerrard in his french History testifying that impious opinions were maliciously imposed on them quod vitia corruptelas principum liberius repraehenderent should I then justifie what themselves did not 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
that no solid testimony for Purgatory could be brought from the Church in the first three Centuries therefore he adds to it prayer for the dead as if the Ancient Church had no other end in Praying for the dead but to deliver them from the torments of Purgatory which shall appear to be a manifest falshood Purgatory is indeed an Article of the Romish Faith as appears by the Council of Trent sess 6. can 30. and sess 25. decret de Purg. and Bell. lib. 1. de Purg. cap. 5. yea so essential an Article that T. C. adversary to the Arch. Bishop of Cant. is bold to say that we are under as much necessity to believe it as the Trinity or incarnation nor is it wonder that they contend so earnestly for it For as Spalat lib. 5. de repub Eccles cap. 8. Sect. 73. hath observed it is the Doctrine which hath most enriched the Church of Rome But it is as far from the Faith of the Ancient Christian Church in the first three ages as Hell is from Heaven Is it not acknowledged by eminent Authors in the Romish Church Roffensis art 18. cont Luth. Polid. Virg. lib. 8. de invent rerum cap. 1. Alphonsus a Castro de haeres lib. 8. verb. indulg and lib. 12. tit Purgatorium that it was but lately known to the Catholick Church little or no mention of it made by Greek Fathers and by the Latins themselves received but by little and little Yea that to this day it is not believed by the Greek Church Doth not Sixtus Senensis lib. 6. annot 259. confess that an apology written by Marcus Metrop of Ephesus was given into the Council of Basil in name of the Greek Church disapproving the Doctrine of Purgatory And among themselves there are Authors of great Note who have denyed Purgatory such as Learned Picherel de missa cap. 2. Pag. 250. Barnes Cathol Roman Pacif. Sect. 9. L. D. ad finem paral and doth not Thomas ab Albijs in his tractate de medio animarum statu strike at the Foundation of it But to leave these testimonies out of their own bowels how far the Ancient Church was from believing Purgatory to be an Article of Faith is copiously and Learnedly demonstrated by Dallaeus lib. 6. de paenis satisfac per totum At the time let Cyprian suffice for all lib. ad Demet. cum isthinc excessum fuerit when once we pass from this Life there is no place for repentance nor any effect of satisfaction sure then no Purgatory and a little before to the same Demet. he says that when this Life is finished ad aeternae vel mortis vel immortalitatis bospitia dividimuâ— we are divided to the eternal dwellings of death or of immortality where he acknowledges two states after this Life and both these eternal and in Serm. de lapsis he exhorts him that has sinned to confess his sin dum in saeculo est while he is in this World dum admitti confessio ejus potest dum satisfactio remissio facta per sacerdotem apud dominum gratia est where clearly he holds out that after this Life neither confession nor satisfaction can be accepted of God and in his excellent treatise de immortalitate this is one of his chief arguments whereby he encourages Christians against the fear of death because presently after death they are invested with eternal Life ejus est mortem timere qui ad Christum nolit ire ejus est ad Christum nolle ire qui se non credat cum Christo jncipere regnare if departed Saints begin to reign with Christ then sure they are not thrust down to torments equivalent to the torments of Hell But did not the Ancient Church pray for the dead Answ It s granted she did but not for a liberation from torments under which she supposed them to be presently smarting as do Romanists and therefore from these Prayers nothing can be concluded for Purgatory The Ancient Church in their Prayers for the dead did pray for Martyrs Apostles Patriarchs Prophets the Virgin Mary and for all the faithful as appears from Epiphanius haeres 75. and from the Liturgies that go under the names of James and of Chrysostom in bib pat tom 2. graeco latin and from the Liturgy of the Churches of Egypt attributed to Basil Greg Nazianzen and Cyril in bib pat tom 6. edit 4. Cyprian likewise lib. 4. Epist 5. affirms they offered for the Martyrs who had received Palmes and Crowns Many more testimonies may be brought but I sum up all in that testimony of Austin lib. de cura pro mortuis cap. 4. who affirms that Prayers were made for all that dyed in the Catholick Faith Seeing therefore the Ancient Church prayed for those who by the confession of all were not in torment but in a blessed state the scope of their Prayers was not for deliverance from the torments of Purgatory If any aske for what then did they pray for the dead Bell. is constrained to afford us an answer for when he had objected to himself lib. 2. de Purg. cap. 5. how in the Mass for the dead they pray that the Sculs of the faithful may be delivered from the pains of Hâ—ll from the deep lake from the mouth of the Lyon he answers that although the Souls of the faithful at their particular judgment have received a sentence whereby they are delivered from Hell yet there remains a general judgment where they are to receive a solemn sentence both as to Soul and Body and that the Prayers of the Missal do relate to that last sentence of the great day the same may be said to have been the scope of the Prayers of the ancient Church But yet further to clear that the Prayers of the ancient Church had no reference to Purgatory It would be remembred that among ancient Christians there were divers Errors concerning the state of the departed now justly disowned both by Protestants and Papists which might have given occasion to these Prayers as first many of them were of opinion that though all the Souls of the Faithful were in requie in a blessed rest yet they were not admitted to the Beatifick Vision before the day of Judgment Hence Sixtus Senensis lib. 6. Bibl. Annot. 345. to prove that many in the ancient Church were smitten with this Error he not only adduces testimonies from several particular Authors such as Irenaeus Justin Tertul. Origen Lactantius Prudentius Ambrose c. but also the form of Prayer for the dead in James Liturgy 2. Many were of opinion that all were to pass through a fire of Purgatory at the great day Yea 3dly some were of opinion that by the Prayers of the living the pains of the Damned were eased among whom were Chrysostom and Prudentius c. of which see Sixtus Senensts lib. 6. Annot. 47. I should not willingly mention these mistakes and errors of Fathers did not the importunity of Romanists constrain me to discover the
But I answer Thirdly the most that this objection can conclude is that the Tradition of the Church whereby she attests the Truth of the Scriptures is certain which Protestants freely admit and make use of it as one of the motives of Credibility to prove the truth of the Scriptures Neither is that to be looked upon as a Tradition simply unwritten the same truth being written that all Scriptures are of Divine inspiration 2 Tim. 3. Neither in any measure doth it infringe the sufficiency of the written word As when a faithful tabellarius brings a Letter fully containing his Masters mind he may attest the truth of the Letter although he remit all the particulars of his Masters will to be gathered from the Letter it self And indeed it is much more easie to attest the truth of a Letter then faithfully to remember and give an account of many intricate particulars In this last a very honest Messenger thorow weakness might fail This simile is Excellently improven by Dr. Taylour Part. 2. Of his disswasive in the Introduction The Pamphleter argues secondly ibid. Faith comes by hearing and therefore as there are infallible hearers and beleevers so also infallible Teachers Answ What do Romanists and Jesuits prate of infallible beleevers Do they not teach that beleevers may totally apostatize and become Infidels A goodly infallibility forsooth If implicit Romanists be infallible beleevers why may not the Turkish Muselmans also pretend to infallibility in beleeving the Alcoran But though this Pamphleter do rant here of infallible beleevers yet were he at Rome its probable he would change his tone for as Dr. Tiltonson on a like occasion did advertise his adversary J. S. we Protestants are told that at Rome lives an Old Gentleman who takes it ill if any be termed infallible hesides himself In a word therefore I answer if by infallible beleevers he mean that every beleever hath such an assistance of the spirit as doth exempt him from all Doctrinal errors in Religion it s denyed that beleevers are thus priviledged the contrary being evident from the case of the beleeving Galatians and Corinthians who yet were smitten with absurd errors Must St. Cyp. St. Aug. c. Be discarded from the number of beleevers because of the errors where with these blessed Souls were tainted At last he would bethink himself in what category to place erroneous Popes of whom some acconnt was given cap. 2. Sect. 2. If therefore by infallible beleevers he only mean those who beleeve infallible truths upon the Authority of God speaking in the Scriptures I grant there are infallible beleevers in this sense and proportionably infallible Teachers who teach infallible truths from the Scriptures But hence it doth not follow that there are infallible Teachers in the Romish sense having an immunity from all Doctrinal errors in Religion whereof the people must be assured before they give an assent of Faith to any Article of Religion And the rather seeing the Faith of beleevers is not resolved on the Authority of their Teachers but the Faith both of Teachers and Hearers on the Authority of God speaking in the Scriptures So that this objection at most proves that there are infallible truths and an infallible rule and ground of Faith which is freely granted He urges thirdly Pag. 171. No other infallible means of beleeving can be assigned for these who understand not originals Answ What if I should remit the Pamphleter to graple with Dr. Tillotson who maintaines that if a man beleeve the Christian Doctrine though upon weak and competent grounds yet if he live up in his practice to the Doctrine of Christianity he may be saved and he brings some reasons to confirm this assertion in the Preface before his Sermons which I have not as yet heard that his adversary J. S. hath discussed If that notion of the Doctor should prevaile the objection of the Pamphleter falls to the ground But when all that is confuted I have this more to say viz that though propounders be fallible and Hearers ignorant of Originals yet the Doctrine it self being attested by the miracles of Christ and his Apostles and Sealed by the death of so many Martyrs and having a self evidencing Light in it self of which we speake cap. 3. and a Divine efficacy upon the heart there is a sufficient and infallible ground of beleeving Scripture Truths He argues fourthly ibid. there is no less necessity that the Church be infallible in propounding then the evangelists in penning O impudent blasphemy Are Romish propounders Popes and Bishops acted by a prophetical Spirit no less then the Pen-men of Holy Scripture Why then are not the definitions of their Church added to the Canon of Scripture Popes must speak with tongues and work miracles before we beleeve them to have prophetical inspiration Is not now the Canon of Scripture consigned Is there need now the rule of Faith being compleated of the same assistance which was at the compiling of that rule He argues fifthly ibid. That our Saviour owns the necessity of an infallible propounder granting that the Jews had not sinned by refusing to beleeve in him if by his works and wonders he had not evidenced himself to be the Son of God A Childish argument Christ indeed affirmed himself to be infallible but it does not follow Ergo he owned the necessity of an infallible propounder in all times I considered before that word of Christ to the Jews Joh. 15. and shew that the most which can be concluded from it is that there must be an objective evidence of the rule of Faith which may be without the propounders infallibility Sixthly be says ibid. The gift of miracles was given to the Apostles and left in the Church to shew there infallible asstistance Answ there is more here said then proven that the Apostles had the gift of miracles is not denyed but that this gift was to be left in the Church so as no Divine truth should be beleeved no Scripture or sense thereof assented to until the infalliblility of the propounder were proven by new miracles is more then can be made good And if it were so none of the Romish Missionaries should be beleeved for they work no miracles He says if this assertion of his be not admitted then all should be answered that he Objected Sect. 4. that being I hope sufficiently done in its proper place this Objection Evanishes His seventh and last objection Pag. 173. If all Councils and all the Fathers be fallible then let Protestants bring nothing but Scripture and then all their Volumes of Controversy will not come to one Line Behold the impudency of this Caviller Is there not a Line of Scripture in all our controversy writters Would Papists stand to this appeal that nothing be received as an Article of Faith but what is warranted by Holy Scripture I hope our debates with them should soon be near an end Is not this the chief controversy betwixt them and us whether the
their filth they might no longer defile the Worship of God Was it not on the like account that Mantuan an Italian Monk made these lines Roma ipsa lupanar Beddita saemineo Petri domâ—s oblita Luxn Aâ—â— stygios olet usque Lares incestat Olympum Nidore hoc sacta est toto execrabilis Orbe Watson the Secular Priest quod libet 3. art 4. pag. 31. charges Jesuits as maintaining that Magistrates may lawfully permit Publick Stews oâ— Brothel-houses yea so much is positively asserted by Bell. lib. 2. de Amiss gra cap. 18. And no wonder they being openly tolerated at Rome and a considerable Revenue accruing thereby to the Pope Gerard Loc. de Lego cap. 4. Sect. 9. memb 6. Sect. 162. relates from Stanistans Orichoviw and Hieronymus Marius that Pope Paul 3. had 45000 Whores in his Rolls from whom he had a Monethly Tribute yea Agrippa de Van. Scient cap. 64. and the Germans Gravâ—m 75. and 9â— affirm that the Priests do annually pay a Conoubinary Tribute May not these men cease to boast of the Holiness of their Church except in such a sense as Petrus Damiani in Baron Anno 1061. N. 5. said that Hildebrand afterward Pope Greg. 7. might be called Holy but a Holy Devil Leaving this charge of Personal Ungodliness that I may strike at the Root of the Cause I argue thus That Religion whose Principles have a manifest tendency to Ungodliness cannot be the true Christian Religion but the Principles of the Popish Religion and more especially as maintained by Jesuits have a manifest tendency to unholiness Ergo the Popish Religion and more especially as maintained by Jesuits cannot be the true Christian Religion The major is evident the true Christian Religion being a Doctrine according to Godliness Tit. 1.1 The Assumption might be confirmed by many instances Gerard the Lutheran Loc. de Eccles Cap. 10. Sect. 8. draws a large Catalogue of impious Popish Tenets contrary to the Articles of the Apostolick Creed and to the Commands of the Decalogue I will only hint at a few which yet I hope shall suffice to prove the thing Instance 1. The Popish Religion teaches manifold gross Idolatry as 1. To give the Supreme worship due to God to that which after Consecration is eaten in the Eucharist as is defined in the Council of Trent Sess 13. cap. 5. But that which after Consecration is eaten is proper real Bread as I proved cap. 5. Sect. 1. and the senses of all men declare nor can they avoid the guilt of Idolatry by saying they adore the Eucharistick Bread as supposing it to be God else the Heathens worshipping the Sun or Devil and supposing them to be God should be absolved from Idolatry also Secondly Popery teaches to give the same Supreme worship of Latry to the Cross This is not only the common Opinion of Romish Doctors as testifies Azorius Part. 1. Instit Moral lib. 9. cap. 6. but if we may believe Aquinas Part. 3. q. 25. art 4. it 's the Doctrine of the Romish Church and that it is so Learned Dallaeus lib. 5. de object cult Religios cap. 3. confirms by many Evidences from the Roman Pontifical Missals and Breviaries If he be not an Idolater who gives the Supreme worship of Latria to a piece of Wood or Stone or Silver in shape of a Cross I pray who is Thirdly Popery teaches that Religious worship is to be given to Images yea if we may credit Azorius loc cit it 's the common Sentiment of Romish Doctors that the same Religious worship is to be given to Images and to the Prototipe and consequently the Images of Christ and of the Trinity are to be adored with Latria If any will say that Images are not properly to be adored but only the Prototipe before the Image Bell. spares not lib. de Imag cap. 21. to assert that they are Anathematized by the second Council of Nice Act. 7. The impiety of this Doctrine is such that Bell. lib. cit cap. 22. advises that it be sparingly spoken of in concionibus ad populum Fourthly Popery teaches that Saints and Angels are to be Religiously adored and invocated as is defined in the Council of Trent Sess 25. Decret de Invocat c. to Saints they kneel they erect Temples and Altars they pray they swear by them offer Incense to them they celebrate Masses to their honour they ascribe to them especially to the Virgin Mary Titles full of Blasphemy whereof Stembergius in Idea Papismi Part. 1. Sect. 3. cap. 1. hath collected an Epitome such as The Ocean of the Deity the Complement of the Trinity the Saviouress of the World the Queen of Heaven the Author of Grace to whom from God it is lawful to appeal c. Though to other Saints such high Titles be not ascribed yet to them also they give Religious Worship proper to God alone Hence Bell. lib. 3. de Cult Sanct. cap. 9. renders this reason why they make Vows to Saints because they are Dii per participationem Gods by participation Is not their Canonization of Saints called Apotheosis a kind of Deification Fifthly Popery also teaches that it 's lawful to give Religious Adoration to the Relicks of Saints to their Bones their Flesh their Blood their Teeth their Hair their Nails their Cloaths their Shoes their Combs their Whips c. So the Council of Trent in the last cited Decree and Vasq in 3. Part. q. 25. disp 112. How grosly superstitious the Romish Church is in the Adoration of Relicks Dallaeus describes Lib. 4. de object Cult Religios cap. 9. I might add as a sixth branch of Romish Idolatry the Adoration of the Popes of whom says the Lateran Council under Leo the Tenth Sess 3. 10. Est universis populis adorandus Deo simillimus and withal applies to him that Scripture Psa 72. Adorabunt eum omnes Reges terrae Among other examples of adoring Popes Stembergius in Idea Papismi pag. 98. makes mention how in the Conclave immediately after the Creation of a new Pope he is adorned with Holy Vestments and a Triple Crown and set upon an Altar then the Cardinals kneeling and kissing his hands and his feet do Religiously adore him and this by the Italians is by way of Eminence says mine Author called L'adoratione To shut up this first instance either Idolatry is no part of ungodliness or the Popish Religion hath a manifest tendency to ungodliness Instance 2. The Popish Religion throws dâ—sgrace upon the holy Scriptures of God whereof I gave an account in many particulars Cap. 3. Sect. 1. consequently it must be an unholy Religion for God hath magnified his Word above all his Name Psa 138.2 Instance 3. Popery opeus a Sluice to and cherishes ungodliness by many of her Doctrines As first by Papal Dispensations Popes have dispensed with Poligamy Incest Sodomy whereof D. Beard giveth instances retract Motiv 1. It shall satisfie me to give you the judgment of the Popes Casuist Navarr Enchirid. cap.