Câ—ntroversies as M. Menzies will have Let all the Papers betwixt M. Denster and me be read and it shall not be found that ever I asserted the Scripture to be Judge of Controversies Indeed I do assert the Scripture to be the Ground and Rule of Faith and I suppose when Protestants affirm the Scripture to be Judge of Controversies they mean no more But because I knew how apt Papists are to cavil upon the term Judge I did ever purposely wave it But this is the Jesuitical Candour he hath used in all his Criminations against me The Genius of this Scribler will yet more appear by his stating of this Question betwixt Romanists and us pag. 75. which he propounds thus Catholick Romans saith he build their belief upon Scripture not taken as they fancy but as explained by Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church and the unanimous consent of the Fathers and if any doubt arise of both these on the general definition and decision of the present Catholick Church But Protestants says he as M. Menzies holds ground their Faith on Scripture which they have corrected or rather corrupted as clear in it self or made cleaâ— by diligent reading and conferring of places with prayers and as they imagine a well-disposed mind that is a prejudicate Opinion It is hard to say whether he discover more perverseness of folly in representing the state of this question Take these few observes upon it And first if Romanists build their Faith upon the Scriptures as expounded by Traditions c. then Scripture contains all Doctrines of Faith and Traditions serve only to expound the Scripture And yet he affirms pag. 62. There be Articles of Faith such as Persons in the Trinity Sacraments in the Church c. which he denies to be found in Scripture Either then in this state of the question he does not declare the adequate ground of the Popish Faith and so sophisticates with his Reader when he would make him believe that they build all their Faith on Scripture or else contradicts both himself and the current of Romish Doctors who maintain unwritten Traditions not only for expounding Scriptures but also for confirming Articles of Faith not contained in the Scripture Secondly He dare not commit the explication of Scripture either to Tradition or the unanimous consent of Fathers and therefore he keep the definition of the present Church as a Reserve in case of doubts concerning these and of doubts which may be mâ—ved concerning the sense of Traditions and of the testimonies of Fathers And therefore all must be ultimately resolved on the definition of the present Church they mean the Popish Church So that when all comes to all their Faith is built upon the word of their Pope or Council for nothing else can he mean by their present Church But thirdly seeing the decisions of Faith are remitted unto the present Church that is Pope or Council when the case is dubious concerning the sense of Scriptures Traditions and Fathers what is now left to be a ground for the Churches definition but either Enthusiasm or a Fancy So that by this very state of the question when it s well pondered the ground of the belief of the present Romish Church is because she fancies so Fourthly In this state of the question he speaks as if Romanists were all agreed concerning the Rule of Faith or Judge of Controversies the contrary whereof is apparent from what we spake both in the former question concerning the infallible visible Judge and also here concerning the Rule of Faith Are M. White M. Serjeant M. Holden Rushworth and other Patrons of the Traditionary way of the same Opinion touching the Rule of Faith and Judge of Controversies with Jesuits Fifthly Doth he not represent us as building our Faith on corrupted Scriptures Is not this an evidence of a most desperate Cause when we must be so perfidiously represented So far are Protestants from building on corrupted Scriptures that we appeal to the pure Originals and decline no mean for finding out the sense of Scripture ever acknowledged by the Catholick Church Yea to cut off their Cavils of this kind Learned Protestants as M. Baxter Key for Catholicks Part. 1. cap. 31. have offered to dispute the Controversies of Religion out of the Vulgar Latin or out of the Rhemists Translation Sixthly He would imply that we had no regard to Tradition or to the consent of Fathers In this he belyes us egregiously We are so far from excluding them from the means of expounding Scripture that we have a Venerable esteem of them when a Tradition is truly found to have been received by the whole Catholick Church in all Ages and when Fathers do unanimously consent in Doctrines of Faith But we must have further Evidence for an universally and perpetually received Tradition or Doctrine unanimously approved by Fathers then the partial testimony of the present particular and Apostate Church of Rome Dare Romanists remit the Controversies betwixt them and us to those Tests of Apostolick Tradition or unanimous consent of Fathers Have they Apostolick Tradition for their Adoration of Images Invocation of departed Saints substraction of the Cup from the people Purgatory Fire their Divine Authority of Apocryphal Book the Supremacy of the Pope above Councils and Princes c. none but either an Ignorant or he whose Conscience is Venal and Mercenary can affirm it But I may give a more particular account of these hereafter I add but a seventh Note When he mentions the means which we affirm ought to be used for finding out the true sense of Scripture such as the conferring of places of Scripture and prayer which I suppose none but an Infidel can disallow he reckons forth a well-disposed mind which he interprets a prejudicate Opinion What Candour I have met with or am to expect from them let any judge by this their Commentary upon my words when I require a well-disposed mind to the right understanding of the Scriptures that is saith my Adversary a prejudicate Opinion Doth he not discover himself to be a person to which his own Apocrypha Text Sap. 1.4 In animam malevolam non introibit Sapientia may most fitly be applyed Pag. 73. He flourishes with an old Argument against the Scriptures being Judge of Controversies The Judge of Controversie saith he ought to give a clear sentence which the learned and unlearned may equally understand but thus doth not the Scripture and to this purpose He alledges some testimonies from S. Ambrose S. Austin that there be wonderful depths in Scripture and from Vincentius Lyrinensis that Hereticks such as Novatus Sabellius Arrius c. have put various interpretations upon Scripture To this I answer first Non infertur Elenchus though all this were granted it only proves that Scripture is not the Judge of Controversies which is not asserted by me neither is it otherwise asserted by Protestants then as the Law is said tâ— be a Judge Hence was that of Aristotle
him make what he will of D. Field's testimony dare Romanists own all the Assertions of Gerson Cajetan Cassander Clemanges Picherell Espencaeus c. who were famous men in the Latin Church if they dare they must condemn the present System of the Romish Faith if they dare not why then press they me with singular Assertions of D. Field or D. Taylor ought they not to deal as they would be dealt with Pag. 79. He cites a Relation of Rescius de Atheismo that in the space of 60 years there were 60 Synods all agreeing on the Scripture as the. Rule yet parted without concordance Answ If this be that Stanislaus Rescius mentioned by Possevin in apparat he appears by his Book entituled Ministro-Machia to be a malevolous person and consequently not worthy of credit But though the truth of the relation were admitted yet it derogates nothing from the Scriptures being the Rule of Faith it only speaks forth either the weakness of mens judgments or the strength of their passions Does not Nazianzen complain that in his time he had never seen the good issue of any Synod yet then the Controversie was not of the Rule of Faith but of material objects of Faith Though Romanists pretend to have advantages for terminating Controversies by their infallible visible Judge yet have they not been able to terminate the debates of Jesuits and Dominicans de gratia or of Franciscans and Dominicans concerning the Conception of the Virgin Mary or betwixt Molinists and Jansenists How many debates have been at the Court of Rome about these things and yet the dissentions are as wide as ever Themselves therefore must confess that the continuance of debates doth not always reflect upon the Rule of Faith but often flow from mens interests or prejudicate Opinions Towards the close of that page he cites a passage from Tertullian lib. de praescript which sounds very harshly That in disputing out of Texts of Scripture there is no good got but either to make a man sick or mad What if I should do as Bell. lib. 1. de Christo cap. 9. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 8. and lib. 1. de Beat. Sanct. cap. 5. who rejects Tertullians testimony when it makes against him as of an Heretick and Montanist yet I will not be so brisk That Golden Book of Prescriptions was written by him before he turned Montanist And as Davenant says de Jud. controvers cap. 8. totus noster est is wholly for us for in it he overturns the Foundation of Popish unwritten Traditions namely that though the Apostles preached unto all things that are necessary to be believed yet there were some secret mysteries which they delivered only to some that were more perfect This Tenet now owned by Papists Tertullian charges upon Hereticks cap. 25 Confitentur Apostolos nihil ignorasse nec diversa inter se praedicasse sed non omnia volunt illis omnibus revelasse quaedam palam universis quaedam secreto paucis demandasse And in confutation of them cap. 27. he subjoyns Incredibile est vel ignorasse Apostolos plenitudinem praedicationis vel non omnem ordinem Regulae omnibus edidisse If you then ask what meant Tertullian by the words cited in the Objection Answ He is speaking of Hereticks who either did reject the Scriptures or did mutilate and corrupt them or did recur to unwritten Traditions and therefore immediately after the words cited by the Pamphleter Tertullian adds cap. 17. Ista Haeresis non recipit quasdam Scripturas si quas recipit adjectionibus detractimibus ad dispasitionem instituti sui invertit I confess there is little profit in arguing against such from Scripture We do not argue from Scripture against Infidels who deny Scripture Tertullian therefore is speaking of such Hereticks who are not to be admitted to Disputation which lib. 1. cont Marcion cap. 1. he calls Retractatur but with whom prescription is to be used Now Prescription signifies a Legal Exception whereby an Adversary is kept off from Litis-contestation Had Tertullian universally condemned arguing against Hereticks from Scripture as folly and madness he had convicted himself of this evil who argues so frequently from Scripture Yea lib. de carne Christi cap. 7. he is so peremptory as to say Non recipio quod extra Scripturam de tuo infers and lib. de Resur car nis cap. 3. Aufer Haereticis quae cum Etbnicis sapiunt ut de Scripturis solis quaestiones snas statuant stare non possunt Well might Tertullian who lived a little after the Apostles Appeal to the Doctrine of Apostolick Churches the Doctrine having been till that time preserved pure in them But now the case is greatly altered after the succession of so many Ages all these Apostolick Churches have been stained with Errours by the acknowledgment of the Roman except her self and others are ready to affirm no less of her and perhaps upon as solid ground Yet when Tertullian appeals to Apostolick Churches he enumerates cap. 36. the Churches of Corinth Philippi Thessalonica and Ephesus no less than the Roman so that he attributes no more Authority to her than to others Lastly pag. 80. after he had repeated what had been examined in the former Section that Religion was before Scripture He asks if Protestants be assured by Scriptures of what they believe why may not Romanists also seeing they likewise read Scripture pray and confer places are more numerous acute learned want Wives work Miracles and convert Nations Here be very big words Sesqui-pedalia verba But may not I first use retorsion thus Are Romanists perswaded from Fathers Councils or Traditions of what they believe Why then may not Protestants who read Fathers and Councils as well as they and search after those things which are conveyed by Universal Tradition and I hope Protestants are not contemptible either for number or learning though we do not restrict the Catholick Church to those who go under the denomination of Protestants and besides our Doctrinal principles have an eminent tendency to Holiness May not Jansenists and Dominicans say they submit their Doctrine to an infallible Judge as well as Jesuits that they read and consider the Bulls and Definitions of Popes as well as Jesuits why then should not they be as capable to find the true sense of these Bulls and Definitions as Jesuits Yea might not Heathens have used this Argument against the Ancient Apostolick Churches for the number of Henthens were greater and their Learning not inferiour nor wanted they pretended Miracles Doth not this retorsion discover the frothiness of these Topical Rhetorications But secondly these vain Clamours may be sufficiently confuted with that word of our Saviour Maith 11.25 and that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 1.20 Where is the Wise Where is the Scribe Where is the Disputer of this World Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this World And ver 26 27. Ye see your Calling Brethren how that not many wise men
concerning this Scripture though it were granted that the Church were called the Pillar and ground of Truth not only because she ought but also because she always shall hold forth the Truth yet Romanists lose their design unless they could prove that she shall hold forth all truth without any failure That in the Catholick Church all Truths necessary to Salvation shall be preserved is acknowledged by Protestants but Romanists have to prove that the Representatives of the Catholick Church cannot err concerning any Doctrinal point which they will hardly evict from this place in which the Note of Universality is wanting however the Church be said to be the Pillar and ground of Truth yet not of all Truth Seventhly and lastly Granting that infallibility were truly predicated of the Apostolick Church in that time when the Apostle wrote does it therefore follow ergo she is now infallible It 's confessed that then there was an infallible visible Judge in the Church endowed with the gift of Tongues and Miracles the case of the Church so requiring for founding the Gospel Church and compleating the Canon of holy Scripture but it doth not follow that it shall be so in every Age neither do the necessities of the Church require it Thus I have gone through all the Scriptures alledged by this Pamphleter for his infallibility whether they prove his Thesis let them who are not willing to be deceived judge The Pamphleters second Objection contains a Farrago of abused Testimonies of Antiquity Pag. 39 40 41. To amuse the ignorant Reader he hath gathered up from their Manuals Pamphlets and Controversie Books a heap of impertinent testimonies of Irenaeus Origen Cyprian Chrysostom both the Cyrils Ambrose Eusebius and Austin asserting that the Church shall not fail or be adulterated with Heresie To all which I answer First that none of these contain the sentence of an infallible visible or living Judge they are but broken shreds out of the writings of Doctors long ago dead and so according to his own Priuciples are not a sufficient ground of Faith to such a mysterious point as he contends for I answer secondly that some of these are grosly misâ—cited particularly the first from Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 49. whereas in all that lib. 1. of Irenaeus there be but 35 cap. Neither seems this to be a meer escape of the Priuter for it 's again cited the same way pag. 102. But I must excuse him for H. T. in his Manual of Controversies Art 5. from whom he seems implicitly to have taken this and many more of his testimonies mis-cites the same testimony of Irenaeus after the same manner for which he is justly chastised by M. Tombs in his Romanism discussed Art 5. Sect. 6. They are surely to be pitied who see with other mens eyes But by the words of the testimony I perceive he should have cited lib. 4. cap. 43. He is no whit happier in his next citation from Irenaeus cap. 62. where he mentions the cap. but not the Book following there also his Guide H. T. loc cit but by the words I likewise suspect it should have been lib. 4. cap. 62. But thirdly I answer that in none of all these testimonies cited by him is there any mention of the Roman Church of the Pope of Rome or of Councils swearing subjection to him but of the Catholick Church in general so that whatever be of these testimonies they make nothing for the Papal interest yet as if all that is said of the Catholick Church should be expounded of the Romish Church here he takes occasion to snarl with a Cynical spite at me because in my Paper 3. against Jesuit Demster I had made mention of an eminent person who considering the superciliousness of the Bishop of Rome did break forth into these words Odi fastum istius Ecclesiae Now I only ask whether he will deal at this rate with Basil the Great who Epist 10 hath a sharp reflection upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the pride of the Western or Romish Church But fourthly not to trifle time in a particular examination of these testimonies which have been so often canvased by our Controversie-Writers and divers of them lately by M. Tombs loc cit as Irenaeus Origen Cyprian to which the rest seem on the matter homogeneous except it be that of Austin Epist 118. which speaks of the power of the Church in reference to things indifferent and so concerns not the matter in hand I answer to them all in cumulo that they are wholly impertinent to the present Debate for none of them speak of an infallible visible Judge far less assert the necessity thereof some of them speak of the perpetuity and indefectibility of the Church that she cannot be overthrown and cease to be as Ambrose Chrysâ—st Eusebius the rest hold forth that there is a depositum of truth intrusted to the Church So that their utmost significancy is to testifie that God will preserve in his Church Divine Truths which are necessary to Salvation and that the whole Catholick Church shall never be adulterated with Heresie or perish which Protestants do freely grant And so none of these testimonies do touch the question in hand for the question is not whether the whole Catholick Church may forsake truths necessary to Salvation but whether there shall always be a visible Judge with Jurisdiction over the whole Catholick Church who cannot err in the least Doctrinal decision of which there is nothing in any of these testimonies This is so evidently the meaning of them that the Pamphleter did foresee pag. 41. it would be replied to him that they were to be understood of the Church in its diffusive capacity and thereupon without once attempting to prove that they were otherwise to be taken he proceeds pag. 42. and 43. to another heap of Testimonies which he emendicates for most part from Bell. lib. 2. de concil cap. 3. and they seem indeed to speak of the Representatives of the Church and so appear to come nearer to the case in hand But before I come to examine them I must in the fifth place retort the Pamphleters Argument from this first heap of testimonies against the Romish Church thus the true Catholick Church is never adulterated with Heresie nor does depart from the great Truths once delivered to the Saints say these testimonies of Fathers but the Romish Church hath departed manifestly from the Ancient Faith delivered to the Saints as appears by her gross Innovations such as her Doctrine of Transubstantiation Half Communion Invocation and Worshipping of Saints deâ—eased and Angels Relicks Images Crosses performing the worship of God in an unknown Tongue and the rest of her Errours and abuses manifestly repugnant to Scriptures and the Faith of the Primitive Church as hereafter may be particularly cleared ergo the Roman is not the true Catholick Church consequently these testimonies are so far from advantaging him that they cut the throat of his own Cause His next
or then to have confuted what they have said for cutting off Romish inferences from it I shall say but these few things thereof And 1. It might be enough as to the present controversie to tell that Austin does not say except the Authority of a present infallible visible Judge did move me 2. It savours of deceit that the Pamphleter has left out the word Catholicae it 's the Catholick Church Austin speaks of not the Roman But I must in part excuse the Pamphleter for he found it also so mutilated in H. T 's Manual loc cit 3. Have not Popish Authors put considerable glosses on Austin's words which enervate sufficiently all inferences concerning the necessity of an infallible visible Judge Whether they be expounded with Gerson of the Apostolick Church Eorum qui Christum viderunt audiverunt or with Occam of the Universal diffusive Church Sure they make nothing for an infallible visible Judge But fourthly Melchior Canus lib. 2. loc com cap. 8. seems to have hit on the right meaning of Austin viz. that he speaks not of the formal object into which his belief was resolved or of the Primary Rule of Faith but only of a motive which when he was a Manichaean first induced him to credit the Scriptures and so according to the African Dialect he uses the imperfect tense for the praeterit commoveret for commovisset which Rivet in Isagog cap. 3. confirms by many parrallel phrases out of Austin And thus the testimony of the Church has but a place among the motives of credibility which Protestants do not deny This is the more probable because Austin tract 15. in Joh. compares the testimony of the Church to the testimony of the Woman of Samaria But sure it is her testimony was but an introductive mean to the Faith of her Fellow-Citizens not the formal object or principal ground thereof Hence said they Joh. 4.42 Now we believe not for thy Saying but because we have heard him our selves 5. Not to add more Learned Calovius de Author Script Sect. 36. hath observed a various Lection in that place of Austin that an old Copy printed at Basil by the care of John Amberbachius reads it thus Nisi Ecclesiae Catholicae Authoritas me commoneret It was very easie for inadvertent Scribes to turn n to v And this reading does yet further confirm that Exposition of Rivet Melchior Canus and others as if the testimony of the Church were Commonitorium quoddam non principium fidei a certain Commonitory not the principle or ultimate ground of Faith What is said of this place may also sufficiently vindicate that other parallel testimony of Austins in that same Book cap. 4. where there be three things which confirm the Exposition given one is that Austin uses the proeter perfect time Quia per eos illi credideram another is Si forte in Evangelio aliquid apertissimum de Manichaei Apostolatu invenire potueris where he supposes that the Gospel speaks clearly without the interposition of the sentence of an infallible Judge And thirdly He clearly holds forth that the Church of whose Authority he there speaks is not to be restricted to any visible Judge but to be extended to the Body of sound Christians and therefore calls it Catholicorum Authoritatem This is yet further evident from cap. 3. that he dreamed not of any infallible Authority in the present Church for there he gives an account of his being in the Catholick Church from the consent of People and Nations from that Authority which was begun by Miracles nourished by Hope encreased by Charity and confirmed by continuance Sure then he resolved not his Faith into the infallible testimony of the present Church By this time I hope it appears that all the Pamphleter hath brought for the necessity of his infallible visible Judge are either false citations or meer Paralogisms To shut therefore up this discourse I cannot but notice that ordinary Cheat of Romanists when ever they find any high Elogies of the Catholick Church these they appropriate to their Roman that is to their infallible visible Judge who in the sense of the Jesuited party is the Pope However to decline the odium they seem to talk of a Council An instance of this we have in a testimony which the Pamphleter cites pag. 37. for his infallible visible Judge from Austin Serm. 14. de verbis Ap. where indeed Austin makes honourable mention of the Catholick Church but hath not one word through all that Sermon of the Roman or of an infallible visible Judge yea in it he disputes against the Pelagians acutely from Scripture and therefore concludes cap. 16. proinde nemo nos fallat Scriptura evidens est Authoritas fundatissima est fides Catholicissima est in cap. 13. In prosecution of a Scriptural Argument he draws a confirmation a consuetudine Ecclesiae from the custom and practise of the Universal Church in her Rituals of Baptism holding Infants for Believers and not from any definition of a visible Judge and thereupon gives these Elogies to the Church cap. 14.18.21 which surely must be understood of that Church from which he took the confirmation of his argument against the Pelagians but that was not from the Roman Church nor from the sentence of an infallible visible Judge but from the practise of the Catholick and that founded in Scripture Hence those two go together in him Hoc habet Authoritas matris Ecclesiae hoc fundatus veritatis obtinet Canon What I pray is that established Canon of Truth but the Holy Scripture I acknowledge Austin justly condemns them cap. 16. who endeavour quatere fundamentum Ecclesiae to shake the Foundation of the Church Let them be held for Hereticks that shake the Foundation of the Church whether Papists or Protestants Two Foundations I find in holy Writ one is Christ Jesus according to that of the Prophet Isai 28.16 Behold I lay in Zion a Foundation a Stone a tryed Stone a precious Corner stone a sure Foundation which is luculently expounded of Christ 1 Pet. 2.4 5 6 7. Doth not Bell. shake this Foundation when he is bold Praesat ad lib. de Pontif. to expound that Divine Oracle of the Pope of Rome as if he were the Foundation of the Catholick Church O execrable Blasphemy Again the holy Scriptures are mentioned as a Foundation of the Church Hence is that Ephes 2.20 Built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone that is on the holy Scriptures written by them Did not Jesuit Baylie snake this Foundation when he was not afraid to say that there is no more Faith to be given to Scripture than to Titus Livius were it not for the testimony of their Romish Church Let never my Soul come into the secrets of these Blasphemers Romanists are still prating of the Authority of the Catholick Church but who do so much infringe the Authority of the Catholick Church as they Should the City of Edinburgh arrogate the Legislative Power over all the Shires and Cities of this Kingdom would it not overturn the Authority of the Kingdom of Scotland when the Roman Church which at her best was but a member of the Catholick does now usurp Jurisdiction over the whole and imperiously would obtrude Heretical Doctrines and Idolatrous Superstitions by a pretended Infallible Authority is not this to overturn the Authority of the Catholick Church And
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
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 Catholick Church yet
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
woman is said to have crected at Caesarea Philippi It s true Euseb speaks thereof â—â—b 7. cap. 14. But it is true that its long since the faith of that Relation was questioned by the authour of the work which goes under the name of Charles the great lib. 4. cap. 15. and not withprobable reasons Is it not strange that none of the Evangelists nor Irenaeus nor Justin Martyr nor Tertul. nor Origen should make mention of that statue or that miraculous herb How could that woman who spent all her living on Physicians be able to erect these brazen statues is it probable that Heathens would suffer such monuments of Christ to stand 300. years undemollished That there were statues at Caesarea cannot rationally be doubted seeing Euseb does testify he saw them but there is cause to question whether they were built by that woman or that one of them was Christs and the rather seeing Euseb brings no certain author for it but a rumour Finally granting she had erected that statue to Christ yet Euseb says not that it was worshiped nay he affirms it was erected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by an heathenish custome Protestants doe not deny but there were portraitures of Christ and Apostles in those dayes as Euseb there doth witnes but Euseb is so clear from asserting that they wer used in Churches as objects of Religion adoration that in the Second Nicen Councell Act. 6. he is brought in testifying to Constantia the Empress against the making of the Image of Christ had it not then been the Pamphleters wisdom to have held his peace of Eusebius He is as unadvised in mentioning Austin l. 1. de consensu evangel cap. 10. for there he condemns them who study Christ non in Sanctis codicibus sed in pictis parietibus His story of the Image made by Nicodemus is an evident fiction and the book out of which it is taken de passione imaginis Christi attributed to Athanasius is supposititious as is proved by Cocus Pag. 93.95 and seems to be forged by Image worshippers about the time of that Idolatrous Second Nicen Council yea Bell. de scripâ— Ecel in Athan. confesses it not to be written by Athanasius but in the eight Century when the controversy about Image worship was in agitation That Image of the Virgin Mary said to be drawn by Luke appears likewise to be fabulous there being no authour making mention thereof until Euagrius about the end of the sixt Century the Apostle Paul calls Luke a Phisician but not a Painter Nor is it probable if he were a Jew they not using such artists if we may believe Origen lib. 4. cont Celsum As little faith is to be given to what is alleadged out of Damasus Pontificall of the Images of Christ and of the Baptist erected by Constantin for that Pontificall is not only proven to be Supposititious by Cocus Pag. 139. but also acknowledged by Baronius Binius Possevin yea Bell. lib. de script Eccles ascribes it to Anastasius the bibliothecary who lived in the 9th Century a grosse Image worshipper at least it seems interpolated by him Neither is it likely that this would have been omitted by Eusebius who is so accurate in describing what was done by Constantin By this it appears that most of the stories which Romanists alleadge concerning their Images are meer Fables But grant they were real Histories they speak not at all of adoration which is the only thing in controversy Yet I shall help my adversary to some presidents of great Antiquity for the adoration of Images but it s from Hereticks such as the Gnosticks in Iren. lib. 1. cap. 24. and Carpocratians in Epiphan in Haeres Carpocratianorum and Austin Haeres 7. such presidents we do not envy them But as to the Catholick Church they may hear their own Clemanges in lib. de novis celebritatibus non instituendis who saith sratuit olim universalis Ecclesiae ut nullae in templis imagines ponerentur Hence might be deduced another demonstration of the Novelty of the present Romish Religion seeing it approves the Religious adoration of crosses and Images whereof no vestige can be found in the Catholick Church of the first three ages SECT VIII An eight instance of Novelty concerning Free-will examined and Repelled THe Pamphleter in his eight Instance saith that Protestants deny Free-will since the fall of Adam Behold another Jesuitism that is an arrant Cheat. Do not our Authors as Learned Vsher in his answer to the Jesuits challenge Pag. 464. Chamier Panstrat tom 3. lib. 3. cap. 1. Sect. 10. Paraeus contra praefat Bell. ad lib. de grat de lib. arb positively protest that they do not deny free-will We do abominate the madd Sects of Manichees Valentinians c. Who either by fatal or simply natural necessity do quite overthrow the liberty of human wills which of us ever doubted whether Popes Cardinals and Jesuits do practise their impieties freely We cordially subscribe to that of Austin lib. 1. ad Bonifac. cap. 2. quis nostrum dicat quod primi hominie peccato perierit liberum arbitrium de humano genere Libertas quidem perijt sed illa quae in paradyso fuit Well did the same Austin say lib. de nat gra cap. 66 quod sit quaedam peccandi necessitas that unregenerate persons have brought upon themselves a kind of necessity of sinning yet that necessity is well consistent with liberty Hence Austin lib. 1. ad Bonifac. cap. 2. liberum arbitrium usque adeo in Peccatore non periit ut perillud peccent maxime qui cum dilectatione peceant free-will is so far from being lost in sinners that by it they who sin with greatest delight sin most egregiously Devils cannot but sin and yet sin most freely Protestants grant no less indifferency to the will of the sinner then Austin of old in his debates against the Pelagians yea as much as Dominicans and Thomists do require to the nature of Liberty Will he say that all these do dogmatize concerning free-will contrary to the Faith of the Church in the first three ages Indeed we cannot adorn mans free-will with such elogies as did the Pelagians or Semipelagians of old or as their Jesuited and Arminian of-spring which do exceedingly derogate from the necessity and efficacy of free grace I will not take up time in mentioning all the heads of controversy betwixt the Catholick Church and the Pelagians or Semipelagians Only two things I pitch upon 1. We assert the necessity of supernatural grace to every good work This Learned Vossius lib. 3. Hist Pelag. Part. 2. copiously demonstrates not only to have been the Doctrin of August Prosper Fulgentius to the Councils of Diospolis Arausica Carthage and of the whole Catholick Church after that the Pelagian heresy was broached but also Part. 1. confirms it to be the perpetual Doctrin of the Fathers and Church before the appearing of Pelagius Of the Latin Fathers he brings Tertul. Cyp. Arnobius Lactantius Ambrose Of the Greeks
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.
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
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
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
as Bell. does confess but also actually seclude from his Communion on the same account Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadoeia and many other Asiatick Bishops as testifies Denys of Alexandria in Euseb lib. 7. cap. 4 or how did he call Cyprian himself Pseudo Christum Pseudo Apostolum dolosum operarium a false Christ false Apostle and deceitful worker as Firmilian records in Epist ad Cyp. which is the 75 among Cyprians Epistles or how did Cyprian Epist 74. ad Pompeiam accuse Stephen as taking the defence of Hereticks against the Church of God had not the matter in controversie betwixt them been looked on as an Article of Faith Ought not Romanists at least give the world sute Characteristicks by which to know when the Bishops of Rome define a point to be an Article of Faith unless they design to hold all in suspence that they may improve their Delphick Oracles as definitions of Faith or otherwise as they find their interest require But as to Cyprian however he did err in the matter of Rebaptization yet he well perceived the point not to be Fundamental but such as good men may differ in salvo pacis câ—ncordiae vinculo as he expresses himself Epist 72. ad Stephanum And therefore adds qua in re nee nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damus And for this his moderation he is commended by S. Augustine Ep. 48. and by S. Hierome in Dial. adversus Lueifer though they were of a contrary perswasion in the thing Excellently said Austin lib. 1. cont Julian cap. 6. Alia sunt in quibus inter se etiam doctissimi atque optimi regulae Catholicae defenseres salvâ fidei compage non consonant alius alio de una re melius aliquid dicit verius bâ—e autem unde nune agimus ad ipsa pertinet fidei fundamenta Perhaps a Romanist may run to that subterfuge of the Valenburgii in examin princip fidei exam 3. Sect. 8. That therefore they who held these errours were of the same Religion with them who now believe the contrary because though they differ in the material objects of their Faith yet the same ratio formalis fidel or Rule of Faith was acknowledged by both namely that whatever God proposes by his Church is to be believed and by the same reason these Authors would be reconciling the Faith of Romanists before and after the Council of Trent They cannot deny but there be things now held as Articles of Faith which were not so held before the Council of Trent yet they would have us to believe that the Religion of both is the same because the ratio formalis credendi or the Rule of Faith is the same in both namely what God proposes clearly by his Church But here many falshoods are sophistically insinuated For first though it be true that whatever God proposes whether by the Church or by a private Pastor ought to be believed yet the Valenburgians sophistically insinuate that whatever the Church proposes God also proposes and that as necessary to Salvation though it were not so before but that this is a notorious falshood shall be cleared Sect. 3. neither can all the Clergy of Rome prove that this was the Faith of the Ancient Church The Pamphleter made some Essays to this purpose by some broken shreds of Antiquity in his Sect. 3. which we have examined cap. 2. and shewed that they make nothing for his purpose Nay the Ancient Fathers as we have evicted cap. 3. hold that the Scriptures were the Rule of Faith and the ratio formalis credendi for in this matter they seem to be taken for one consequently they differing from Romanists in the Rule of Faith were not of the same Religion with them Secondly it is as notorious a falshood that Romanists before and after the Council of Trent are agreed upon the same ratio formalis credendi or the same Rule of Faith Did I not shew the diversities of Opinions among themselves touching this thing in the stating of the question concerning the Rule of Faith If this be the prevalent Doctrine of the Romish Church which this Pamphleter holds out that the definition of an Infallible Judge is the principal Rule of Faith assuredly there were eminent persons in the Romish Church of another perswasion before the Council of Trent namely those who maintained that Pope and Council were fallible such as Occam Panormitan Petrus de Alliaco Antoninus Cardinal Cusan Nicolaus lemanges of whom I gave an account cap. 2. Sect. 2. Yea nor can Romanists to this day agree among themselves concerning the Rule of Faith some holding Oral Tradition some the definition of a Gâ—neral Council and others the definition of a Pope to be it though to hide their differences from simple ones they endeavour to wrap up all in some general terms such as the Proposition of the Church yet in enpounding these terms they go by the 〈◊〉 among themselves Thirdly there is more requisite to the Unity of Religion thâ—n a meer agreement in the formaliâ— ratio credendi or the Rule of Faith there be some material objects of Faith the explicite belief whereof is of absolute necessity to Salvation Can any be saved who do not believe an Heaven and an Hell Doth not Scripture hold forth Jesus Christ to be a Foundation in Religion 1 Cor. 3.11 Hence D. Vane in his lost Sheep cap. 8. pag. 87. though he cavil against the distinction of Fundamentals and Non-Fundamentals yet he is constrained to confess that in regard of the material object or thing to be believed some points are Fundamentals others not that is some points are to be believed explicitely and distinctly others not Consequently it s not a sufficient reason to say such held one ratio formalis credendi therefore were of the same Religion especially when it s confessed there be material objects which are of necessity to salvation to be believed by the one which were not by the other Fourthly the true reason therefore why the Fathers notwithstanding their errours were not heretical but of the same Religion with us because their errours were only against integrals of Religion but not against Fundamentals neither did they pertinaciously maintain them but were willing to have renounced them had they been convinced that they were contrary to the Scripture which to them was the Rule of Faith as well as to us So that to them might have been said as Austin to Vincentius Victor lib. 3. de orig animae cap. 15. Iste animus etiam in dictis per ignorantiam non Catholicus ipsa est correctionis praemeditatione Catholicus a Soul maintaining errours contrary to Catholick Doctrine yet willing to submit upon conviction upon that virtual repentance or premeditation of correction to use S. Austins word is truly Catholick namely when the Errours strike not at the Foundation as the same Father spoke in the forecited testimony lib. 3. contra Julian cap. 6. Against this the Pamphleter objects
Donatists so much glory in their miracles that Austin called them tract 13. in Joh. mirabiliorios If it be answered with Bell. they were but lying wonders that the Devil sat upon the Eye of one and the Leg of another whom Vespasian is said to have cured that when he ceased to annoy he might seem miraculously to cure It would be remembred the same may be replyed concerning the Romish Legendary Miracles An exact parallel may be seen betwixt Popish and Heathenish Miracles in Crakanthorp defens Eccles Anglic. contra Spalat cap. 66. Pagans may as soon prove the truth of their miracles as Romanists of their late Legendary Romances Who can set limits to the Almighty that he shall not work miracles for the good of mankind without his Church Miracles therefore cannot be a reciprocal note of the Church Ought not Romanists at least to remember Bellarmin's Reply concerning the Miracle wrought by a Novatian Bishop lib. de notis Eccles cap. 14. Factum esse non in confirmationem fidei Novatianae sed Catholici Baptismi Why may not Protestants likewise answer if any Real Miracles have been wrought by Romanists such as Xavier in the Indies these were not wrought to confirm Popish Errours but the common Principles of Christianity But sixthly Hath ever God promised that the Church in all Ages should enjoy such a gift of Miracles that no Society should be acknowledged for a true Church which is not confirmed by present Miracles I find no Scripture saying so but on the contrary cautioning us that we be not seduced by the lying signs and wonders of Seducers Matth. 24.24 25. especially of Antichrist 2 Thes 2.9 Revel 13.13 14. Did not Romanists pretend to Miracles The See of Rome should want one of the signs of the Great Antichrist Ancient Fathers believed not a perpetual necessity of Miracles saith not S. Austin expresly lib. 22. de Civ Dei cap. 22. Possem dicere necessaria fuisse prius quam mundus crederet ad hoc ut crederet mundus quisquis adhuc prodigia ut credat requirit magnum est ipse prodigium qui mundo credente non credit Will ye not at least regard Greg. Hom. 29. in Evang. We use saith he to water young Plants when they be new set which watering then ceaseth after that they have taken root so were Miracles necessary for the first Seed-plot of the Church to the sound rooting of multitudes in the Faith To the like purpose speaks Chrysost Hom. 23. in Joh. Is it not acknowledged by many Romish Doctors that now there is no necessity of Miracles except it were for the conversion of Infidels For this Espencaeus Delrio Roffensts and Josephus à Costa are cited by D. Morton Appeal lib. 3. cap. 17. Sect. 4. to whom Gerard Sest 275. adds among the rest Cornel. Mussus saying Haec signa facta sunt ut Religio plantaretur nunc autem eâ plantatâ non sunt necessaria As also their great Preacher Didacus Stella not sparing to affirm that Miracles now damnum potius afferrent quam commodum would rather be hurtful than profitable I cannot but in the seventh place remember Romanists that they take for granted which Learned Protestants will not yield that there have been no Mirnoles wrought in the Protestant Churches If Melancthon saith Whittaker controv 2. q. 5. de notis Eccles cap. 12. may be credited who was a faithful and modest man Luther was honoured of God to work Miracles D. Willet in Synop. Papismi controv 2. q. 3. of the fifth note of the Church records many Miracles wrought by Protestants and that for the conversion of Papists Nor can it but seem strange to hear Romanists talking so much of their Miracles and yet can work none among us Protestants whom they hold for Hereticks and Infidels if they can work Miracles why have they not so much compassion to our Souls as to work them before intelligent Protestants One Miracle wrought before our eyes would have more impression than a thousand Fabulous Legends of Wonders pretended to be wrought in the Indies among the Antipodes or in Vtopia But this is a strange prejudice against their pretended Miracles they can work none of them before rational Protestants I cannot but record a story of a Nun in Spain which was cryed up for Miracles insomuch that when Charles the First King of Great Britain then Prince of Wales was there by the entreaty of the Infanta he was perswaded to go and see her It was reported to the Prince she would be sometimes lifted up into the Air and be as fresh as a Rose although she was surrowed with Age but she could not do any one Feat before the Prince although she could never have shewed her Miracles in a better time but the Prince was of too strong Faith for that Spirit she was acted by and therefore she could shew none but crede quod habes habes This Relation I have from Edward Chisenhale in his Catholick History against D. Vane cap. 7. pag. 180. Therefore to shut up this discourse of Miracles whatsoever prodigies are wrought to confirm Doctrines repugnant to clear Scriptures are lying signs and wonders but Invocation of Saints Religious Adoration of Images Crosses Relicks the transubstantiated Presence of Christ in the Sacrament Purgatory c. are all Doctrines repugnant to clear Scripture as Learned Protestants have proved and I in this Tractate have made good as I had occasion therefore surely Romish prodigies to confirm these are lying signs and wonders Away therefore with that oft repeated Song from Hugo de Sancto Victore which Bell. Breerly Lessius D. Vaue and this Pamphleter with the rest do blasphemously chant c. whereby they charge the errour of their Idolatrous Religion and false Miracles on an holy God I far better shut up with Austin lib. de unit Eccles cap. 16. Non dicat ideo verum esse quia illa mirabilia fecit Donatus amoveantur ista vel figmenta fallacium hominum vel portenta fallacium Spirituum Were the Pamphleters popular flourishes concerning Miracles reduced to a Syllogistick frame they behoved to run thus That Society in which Miracles are wrought is the true and Catholick Church but in the Romish Church Miracles are wrought Ergo the Romish Church is the true and Catholick Church Whatever be of the minor the major is manifestly false for Miracles may be wrought among Hereticks yea and Infidels If therefore the Syllogism be rectified thus The Society in which Miracles are wrought to confirm the soundness of their Faith is the true Catholick Church but Miracles are wrought in the Romish Church to confirm the soundness of her Faith Ergo c. Then first the major yet remains false for Miracles may be wrought to confirm the Orthodoxy of the Faith of a particular Church The major cannot hold unless the Miracles be first true secondly wrought to confirm the Faith of the Society and thirdly the Catholicism of it that is that they