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 crgo 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 Principles are not a sufficient ground of Faith to such a mysterious point as he contends for I answer secondly that some or these are grosly mis 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 Printer 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 Odifastum 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 Chrysost 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 deceased 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 bundle of testimonies
also are religiously to be adored It s a Fundamental that God is to be invocated but who warranted them to invocate Angels or departed Saints It s a Fundamental that there is an Hell and Heaven but who warranted them to add a Purgatory for expiation of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to mortals sins It s a Fundamental that God is pleased to reward good works with eternal life but who warranted them to add that good works are meritorious of eternal life Many more of this kind may be added by which consequently they destroy the true Fundamentals As for Instance if 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 sins 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 damnaâ—as 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 Sylvins 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 immediately 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 Masses 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 substantials 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 opinions 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 § 19. to the end Voet. disp causa papâ—ius lib. 3. Sect. 2. cap. 9. as also Hottinger and Birbeck in the places forcited did I not in my tenth paper against Mr. Dempster pag. 130. bring in Paradius in his 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 seeing a testimony which I cited from Frier Reyner in confutation of that same objection is so grosly represented by the Pamphleter I must resume it again and a little more largely then before Reyner therefore professes there was never a more dangerous Sect then that of the Waldenses and that for three Causes 1. quia diuturnior because it s of longer continuance some saying that it hath continued from the time of Sylvester others from the time of the Apostles 2. quia generalior it s more universal for there is hardly any countrey into which this Sect doth not spread 3. because other Sects are joyned with atrocious blasphemies but this of Leonists or Waldenses hath a great shew of piety they live justly before men they believe all things well concerning God and all the articles of the Creed Onely the Roman Church they hate and blaspheme and the multitude are easily induced to believe them This testimony to the Antiquity universality and sanctifie of the religion of the Waldenses is given by a Romish inquisitour Hereupon saith the Pamphleter pag. 94. Mr. Menzies with his ordinary ingenuity will have Fryer Reyner to say absolutely the Waldenses were from the Apostles days Reader behold the ingenuity of a Jesuit When I read this bold accusation I thought perhaps my pen had given me the slip for I do abhor it as diabolical and Jesuitical to prevaricate purposely but when I turned over to my ninth paper pag. 194. where the testimony is cited I found the Jesuit to be as voyd of shame as of honesty for thus I cite that part of Reyners words yea some say saith Reyner from the Apostles dayes Is this to cite Reyner as affirming absolutely that the Waldenses continued from the dayes of the Apostles if this person dare so prevaricate in a matter of fact where there be so many standing witnesses against him as there be printed copies of my papers Against Mr. Dempster what Faith is to be given to his other criminations let those who have not forfeited their own honesty judge But what advantage have Romanists by that some say of Reyners O sayes the Pamphleter those who said were Leonists or Waldenses themselves as witnesses Pilichdorphius this same evasion was used long ago by Jesuit Gretser and solidly answered by the learned Vsher de success cap. 8. s 1. for Frier Reyner affirmes himself that the Sect of the Waldenses was of longer continuance then any other sect which could not be unless it had continued from the days of the Apostles Surely he could not think that it had its rise from Peter Waldus anno 1160. For Reyner himself lived as is testified by Jesuit Possevin in appar Sac. anno 1254. so that there should only have interveened 94. years betwixt the rise of this Sect and Reyner But many sects were of greater antiquity and duration then that therefore that cannot be the Friers meaning Mr. Morland in his forcited hist lib. 1. cap. 3. proves that the inhabitants of the vallies of Piemont professed the same doctrine sundry ages before Peter Waldus among the rest he pitches upon Claudius Archbishop of Turin who about the year 820. ceased not to teach his people in this place as his adversary Jonas Aurelianensis confesses that they ought not to run to Rome for the pardon of their sins nor have recourse to Saints or their relicks that the Church is not founded on Saint Peter much less upon the Pope but upon the doctrine of the Apostles and that they ought not to worship Images Pag. 95. The pamphleter is so civil as to say that I have a more justclaim to John Huss name then to his religion I am not of such anserin stupidity but that I could make as ignominious at reorsion upon my adversary But I choose to walk in the footsteps of holy Jesus who when he was reviled reviled not again Did not John Huss before the Council of Constance maintain that there is one one-head of the Catholick Church the Lord Jesus Christ Did he notly oppugne the supremacy of the Pope of Rome over the Catholick Church Did he not maintain that the Sacrament of the Supper ought to be celebrated under both kinds Do not Protestants agree with Hussits in many articles charged upon them by Aeneas Sylvius in hist Bohem. cap. 35. how then sayes the pamphleter I may lay more claim to his name then to his Religion May not Romanists be ashamed to make mention of this Martyr John Huss whom their fathers at the council of Constance murdered perfidiously contrary to the letters of safe conduct am I not honoured with a peece of further conformity with John Huss then in name onely viz. to be an object of Romanists malice and that it has not proceeded further I owe to the mercy of God not to their good will But sayes he John Huss was for invocation of saints prayer for the dead seven Sacraments transubstantiation yea and the Popes supremacy and this he would confirm as from others so from holy Mr. John Fox who according to his usual modesty pag. 69. He terms a fiery protestant because in his Acts and monuments he records the fiery and bloody persecution of that scarlet coloured whore of Rome The like he affirms of Hierome of Prague But besides that all these are fetched from Breerlies Apology tract 2. cap. 2. Sect. 5. and that when I mentioned John Huss it was not so much his particular sentments that I meant as the doctrine of those people who were termed Hussits I ask the Pampheleter whether he gives most credit to the Counsell of Constance and Pope pius the 2. or to Mr. Fox John Huss and Hierome of Prague now surely the Council of Constance chargeth John Huss as maintaining that after the consecration the bread remains And whatever Apologies he made for himself in this matter this is sustained by the Council as an article of his enditement so also Mr. John Fox in his Acts and Monuments pag. 1799. Edit Lond. anno 1632 testifies Is he not accused as maintaining the errors of Wickleff And is not this the first error condemned by the Council in Wickleff sess 8. substantia panis materialis vini materialis manet in Sacramento Is not this one of the Interrogatures prescribed by the Council at Constance sess 45. as
is wanting else the first Apostolick Church which succeeded to none had been no true Church yea there should hardly be a Church to day upon the Face of the Earth there hardly being a Church founded by the Apostles in which alas for pity the Lyn of Succession hath not some time or other been perturbed with the intervention of Heresie the Roman not excepted Greg. de Valentia Tom. 3. Disp 1. q. 1. punct 6. acknowledges some Doctrines of Faith either thorough negligence errour or wickedness of men may for a time be as buried which afterward thorough the Churches diligence may be revived But as for the Roman Church she hath neither Doctrinal nor Personal Succession not Doctrinal as I have proved cap. 7. yea it will be hard to prove that the Complex of their present Religion is elder than the Council of Trent Nor Personal Is it not evident from History that some have taken the Papal Chair by Force some by Fraud some by Simony some by Magical Arts yea and some of them have been openly Heretical as Romanists themselves reckon Heresie if Arrians Nestorians Montanists Eutychians Monothelites be Hereticks Hereof we gave a touch Cap. 2. Sect. 2. Arg. 3. Sure I am the rest of the Patriarchs of Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem can instruct a personal Succession no less than Rome Excellently did one compare the Pope of Rome pretending to succeed Peter because he sits in the Roman Chair unto Vibius Ruffus of whom Xiphilinus in the Life of Dion reports that because he sat in Julius Caesar's Chair therefore he gloried as if he had been Caesar The chief Cavils moved by Romanists against our Succession relate to the Call and Mission of our Reformers and succeeding Pastors which though this Pamphleter hath not touched yet seeing others lay so much stress upon them and they may appear somewhat specious to less discerning persons I judged it might not be unfit briefly to resolve the more important of them First then they object this The Call and Mission of our first Reformers was neither extraordinary and immediate nor ordinary and mediate and consequently null not extraordinary and immediate else it had been confirmed by Miracles and extraordinary Credentials nor mediate and ordinary there being none by whom they could have a mediate Mission but by the Ministers of the Church of Rome whom the most of Protestants hold to be Antichristian But the Ministers of the true Church of Christ cannot receive their Mission from the Ministers of Antichrist supposing by thi◠Argument the nullity of the Call of our Reformers to be evicted the nullity of succeeding Pastors is also concluded as deriving their Mission from the first Reformers and so a non habentibus potestatem Yea lastly hence the nullity of all Protetestant Churches is inferred because as Jerom contra Lucifer pronounces Ecclesia non est quae non habet Sacerdotem It can be no Church that hath no Ministry I know no Sophism wherein Romanists do more triumph or the not penetrating the fallacy whereof hath driven weak and less considerate Protestants upon more Precipices This one Cavil is more specious than all our Pamphleter said But I shall not decline to grapple with them where their chief strength doth lye In discovery therefore of the fallacy of this Sophism I shall begin at the last and chief inference of the nullity of the Church from the nullity of the Ministry concerning which I propose these two distinctions First where there is no Ministry there is no Organical Church compleatly furnished with her Officers it 's granted no Entitative Church or no Society professing the Catholick Faith it 's denied else when the Ministers and Officers of a Church are removed by death the Church should perish but Act. 14. 23. it 's said the Apostles ordained Elders in every Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where it seems to be supposed they were Churches for a time without Pastors that is they were Societies of visible Professors of the Faith of Jesus Christ But take this other distinction there is no Catholick Church without a Ministry it 's granted no particular Church is denied It 's true Ephes 4. 11 12 13. there is a promise of perpetuity of a Ministry in the Catholick Church for the edifying of the body but it 's no where promised that particular Churches should never be deprived of their Pastors for a time And so though these Churches Act. 14. for a time wanted Pastors to take particular inspection of them yet even then there were Pastors in the Catholick Church as the Apostles and others and this is all which either Jerom in the place cited or Cyprian Epist 69. in a like testimony intended From which I infer though it were granted which yet is splendidly false that there were no lawful Pastors in the Reformed Churches yet the nullity of these Churches could not be concluded but only a defect of needful Organs and Office-bearers yea though there were neither Pastors in Reformed Churches nor in the Roman yet would it not follow that the Catholick Church had no Pastors for the Catholick Church extends it self far beyond them both But in the next place I examine their first medium and so overthrow all it 's a splendid falshood that the call of our Reformers was null for it had the Essentials requisite to the call of Pastors consequently succeeding Pastors are ordained ab habentibus potestatem as to that Dilemma which hath been so often canvased and confuted I answer the Call of Reformers was mediate and ordinary and so needed not extraordinary Credentials They were not called to any new Function or to preach any new truths whereas some have said their Call was extraordinary It is to be understood only quoad modum non quoad substantiam or in regard of Heroick and in some sort extraordinary endowments wherewith they were fitted for reviving collapsed truths as is largely expounded by Voetius lib. 2. desper caus Pap. Sect. 2. cap. 24. and D. Prideaux de vocat Minist § 7. But it 's urged that then they have had their Mission from Ministers of the Church of Rome whom many Protestants hold as Antichristian It 's readily granted and that without the least advantage to the Romish Interest or detriment to the Reformed Religion For satisfying those that are judicious herein let these few things be considered And first Though all Protestants be not agreed that the latter Popes of Rome are the grand Antichrist yet they who speak most mildly in the thing cannot but acknowledge that Romanists hold many Antichristian Doctrines and that the spirit of Antichrist hath long wrought in the chief Rulers of the Church of Rome both in regard of their Heretical Doctrines especially that of Papal Infallibility then which not one can better serve the turn of Antichrist and of the exorbitant power usurped by Popes not only over all Bishops but also over Kings and whatsoever is called God See of this D. Fern in
perhaps both of us did bewray somewhat of humane infirmity but if therefore either of us should be concluded contentious hardly could Hierom Austin Ruffin Chrysostom Epiphanius yea Paul and Barnabas escape the like character I ever had an high respect for that Reverend and Worthy Person and do honour his memory as for other eminent Gifts and Graces so in special for his faithfulness and zeal against Romish Idolaty and I hope e're long to live in Eternal Concord and Bliss with him I judge it indeed duty to contend cum vitiis against errour and ungodliness against Popery Quakerism Prophaness and Atheism Yet I have such affection to persons smitten with these diseases that even for this Railing Jesuit I can pray that his spite against the Truth and against me for the Truths sake may not be laid to his charge I would trespass too much on the Readers patience should I insist to resume the rest of his ludibrious Raillery Perhaps to compense the softness of his Arguments he hath designed to stone me with reproaches but he would remember that Gratian Gaus 5. q. 1. from the Council of Eliberis Can. 52. thunders out an Anathema upon Pasquillers And a greater than these the Royal Prophet Psal 31. 18. Let lying lips be put to silence which speak grievous things proudly and presumptuously against the righteous To conclude the Reader may know that the reason why this Reply was so slow in coming abroad was not that it was not soo er ready as could be attested by divers credible persons who did peruse it shortly after the publishing of the Popish Pamphlet but because the Author was little concerned whether it should be committed to the Press at all in regard his Adversaries Book contained nothing which had not been confuted with an Antidate save only the Personal Invectives the chief significancy whereof was to demonstrate the spleenish humour of Jesuits But since Providence is bringing these Papers to publick view the God of Truth make them subservient for the good of his Church Amen FINIS A TABLE Of the chief heads contained in this Treatise THe Preface pag. 1 Cap. 1. A brief survey of the Pamphleters empty and unfaithful Apologies for Jesuit Dempster pag. 6 Cap. 2. There is no necessity of an infallible visible Judge of controversies in the Church and consequently the basis of the Pamphleters whole discourse is overthrown pag. 22 Sect. 1. The true state of the question propounded pag. 23 Sect. 2. Arguments proving there is no necessity of an infallible visible Judge in the Church pag. 26 Sect. 3. The Pamphleters objections for the necessity of an infallible visible Judge discussed pag. 53 Chap. 3. That the Scriptures are the compleat infallible and principal rule of Faith pag 71 Sect. 1 Some hints of indignities put upon the holy Scriptures by Romanists pag 71 Sect 2. the state of the question concerning the rule of Faith opened and the Scriptures briefly proved to be the rule of Faith pag. 75 Sect. 3. The Pamphleters four principal objections against the Scriptures being the compleat rule of Faith discussed pag. 89 Sect. 4. Some reflections on the rest of the Pamphleters rapsodik discourse concerning the rule of Faith pag. 117 Cap. 4. A discourse of fundamentals with some reflections on the contradictions impertinences and falsehoods of the Romish Pamphleter in his Sect. 5. pag. 141 Sect. 1. Whether there be ground for the distinction of Fundamentals and non-Fundamentals or of essentials and integrals in religion pag. 143 Sect. 2. Whether do the Scriptures contain clearly all the Fundamentals of Faith pag. 151 Sect. 3. Whether all be Fundamentals which the Church imposes as Fundamentals pag. 168 Sect. 4. Whether was it necessary for the dicision of the question betwixt Mr. Dempster and the author to determine the precise number of Fundamentals pag. 174 Sect. 5. Whether is the Popish religion injurious to the fundamentals of Christianity pag. 178 Sect. 6. Whether the Waldenses Wicklevists and Hussites be of the same religion as to fundamentals and essentials with Protestants pag. 180 Sect. 7. Whether do the Greek Churches agree with Protestants as to fundamentals pag. 186 Sect. 8. Whether the doctrine of Protestants in all points of Controversie be openly against God and his written word as the Pamphleter affirms and so contrary to the fundamentals of religion pag. 189 Cap. 5. Concerning Transubstantiation and the number of Sacraments pag. 433 Sect. 1 The Popish sigment of Transubstantiation briefly confuted and the Authors argument against it vindicated from the exceptions of the Pamphleter pag. 433 Sect. 3. The Pamphleters superficial reflections on the number and nature of Sacraments examined pag. 440 Cap. 6. VVhether Protestant Churches do grant that the visible Church was not alwayes preserved and that for 1400 years before Luther Popery was the only prevailing religion p. 452 Cap. 7. The truth of the Protestant Religion evicted by the comformity thereof with the faith of the primitive Church in the first three ages and the falshood of the Present Romish Religion from the disagreement thereof with the faith of these ages pag. 467 Sect. 1. the Pamphleters first instance of novelty touching the Popes supremacy briefly canvased and retorted upon Romanists pag. 469 Sect. 2. The second instance of novelty concerning unwritten traditions examined retorted upon Romanists pag. 476 Sect. 3. The third instance of novelty concerning the sacrifice of the mass considered and retorted upon Romanists pag. 479 Sect 4. A fourth instance of novelty concerning Transubstantiation discussed and retorted upon Romanists pag. 267 Sect. 5. A fifth instance of novelty concerning purgatory examined and retorted upon Romanists pag. 270 Sect. 6. A sixt instance of novelty concerning invocation of Saints examined and retorted upon Romanists pag. 276 Sect. 7. A seventh instance of novelty concerning Crosses and images examined and retorted upon Romanists pag. 281 Sect. 8. An eight instance of novelty concerning free-will examined and repelled pag. 286 Sect. 9. A ninth instance of novelty concerning merits examined and retorted pag. 290 Sect. 10. A tenth instance of novelty concerning a perfect keeping of the commands examined and retorted pag. 292 Appendix 1. Containing another Decad of Romish novelties in Religion pag. 294 Appendix 2. The Pamphleters impertinent citations from Justin Martyr together with a new Catalogue of heresies falsly charged on Protestants briefly discussed pag 314 Cap. 8. A confutation of the Pamphleters last section wherein beside other things his three notes of the Catholick Church viz. Miracles Conversion of Infidels and Sanctity of life are examined and by them also the truth of the reformed and falshood of the Popish religion demonstrated pag. 321 Sect. 1. A bundel of the Pamphleters most impudent slanders against Protestants rejected pag. 321. Sect. 2. The Pamphleters equivocation in propounding the grounds of the Romish Religion pag. 322. Sect. 3. Three propositions of the Pamphleter on which all the interest of the Papacy doth hang Canvased pag. 323 Subject 1.
formally or only objectively negative and a Solution of the retorsion of that same Syllogism against the Popish Religion but neither of thâ—se could ever M. Demster be induced to undertake Had this Pamphleter supplied M. Demster's defects in these he had done M. Demster a better office and given more satisfaction to his Reader Yet seeing they will be making a business about the form of that Syllogism the Pamphleter would consider how he reconcile himself with M. Demster who in Paper 6. pag. 7. says all the three Propositions of his Syllogism are affirmatives but this Pamphleter only says that the second is affirmative which of these shall I believe May not a Bajon put such infinitant Glosses upon the rest of the Propositions as the Pamphleter hath put on the second Consequently not the Minor only but the Conclusion also should be affirmative viz. Ergo the Protestant Religion cannot be the true Religion which whether it be an affirmative or negative I remit to the decision of the disinterested It seems the Pamphleter must take a Journey down to the Infernal Regions if the Author of Ignatius Conclave be not mistaken concerning the receptacle of Jesuits to consult with M. Demster whether only the second Proposition or all were affirmatives yet I have the kindness to premonish him that Fecilis dâ—scensus averni Sed revocare gradum superasque evadere ad auraes Hoc opus hic labor est Pag. 29 30 31. The Pamphleter endeavours to cast a blind before the eyes of his Reader by a gross representation of the state of the debaâ—e betwixt M. Demster and me To clear the truth herein it would be remembred that M. Demster Paper 1. pag. 2. asserted the Protestant Religion had no grounds to prove it self a true Religion To which it was answered in my Pap. 1 pag. 7. that it were as easie by way of retorsion to assert that the Popish Religion had no grounds to prove it self to be the true Religion and therefore if he intended to satisfie Consciences he ought to pitch upon the reciprocal grounds of the true Religion and to demonstrate that these did agree to the Popish Religion and not to ours This Jesuit Demster altogether declined only at length Pap. 4. pag. 38. he undertook if I would produce the grounds of our Religion that he should impugn them Hereupon in my Paper 4. I did produce two grounds sufficiently distinctive of the true and false Religion viz. the perspicuity of the Scripture in all things necessary to Salvation and conformity in all Fundamentals with the Ancient Christian Church and from these in that Pap. 4. I did demonstrate both the truth of our Religion and the falshood of the Romish Religion But the scope of all M. Demster's Papers thereafter was to shun the Tryal of Religion by Scripture or Antiquity yet could bring no reason why these assigned grounds should not be admitted as distinctive Tests of the true and false Religion Nor did he once attempt to answer the Arguments by which from these grounds I proved the truth of the Reformed and falshood of the Popish Religion I appeal to the Papers themselves whereof the ipsa corpora are exhibited in Papismus Lucifugus if this be not the true state of the debate By this the unfaithful dealing of this Pamphleter may appear who pag. 31. is bâ—ld to say that still I declined to bring any popâ—sitive proof that these grounds were peculiar to Protestants and that M. Demster was not bound to prove the contrary Did I not Paper 4. pag. 46 47 53 54 55. prove from these grounds both the truth of the Protestant Religion and falshood of the Romish Did I not more particularly give a Specimen of the peculiar interest of Protestants in these grounds Pap. 7. pag. 126 127. by demonstrating the conformity of our Doctrine with that Scripture Hoc est corpus meum and of the dissonancy of the Romish Transubstantiation and Pap. 8. pag. 169. c. gave seven instances of the conformity of our Religion with Antiquity and the disagreement of theirs Did I not offer to do the like in other points of difference betwixt us would Jesuit Demster examine these But their old Fabius durst never come to an open Field for M. Demster's Obligation to impugne these grounds assigned by me I need say no more but that Paper 4. pag. 38. he undertook to do it and acknowledged it was incumbent to him as the Opponent unless it be said that Jesuits are so nimble that promises do not bind them Is it not a Noble simile whereby the Pamphleter would put a face upon so foul a business pag. 15. Tautologizing M. Demster as the Creditor frequently demands payment of his debt and I as Debtor am said to answer his demands only with stories of late Wars and Forreign Leagues I pray by what Law do reiterated demands of payment by a pretended Creditor make another to be his Debtor Whom would not affronted Jesuits make their Debtors if by the importunity of their demands they could impose Obligations upon others Are Romanists no more concerned when their Transubstantiation half Communions Adoration of â—mages the Popes Infallibility Supremacy over the Catholick Church and Secular Princes Purgatory Apocryphal Scriptures are confuted for these and such like were the points my Replies did run upon then in Exotick stories May not this Simile with more reason be inverted thus When Jesuit Demster alledged I was his Debtor I not only told the Allegation was false and therefore required him as he would not be held a Caviller to prove the Debt by Bond or otherwise which he could never do but also I charged him as being my Debtor for which I produced such Evidence as he could not control only as if Jesuits had an Art of paying their Debt by bold Assertions he had the confidence oft to say I was owing him and this procedure is justified by the Pamphleter Now whether M. Demster as Debtor or the Pamphleter as Procutor have discovered least sincerity others may judge It is further to be noted that the Pamphleter in that pag. 34. maintains that without an Infallible Judge of Controversies we cannot be assured either of the incorrupt writings or sincere Doctrine of Fathers or of the incorrupt Letter or genuine sense of Scripture by which with one dash he hath destroyed the whole Plagiary heap of Testimonies from Scripture and Antiquity which are raked together in his Pamphlet to which there can be no Faith given without the sentence of his Infallible visible Judge that is of the Pope for I know none else they have at present pretending to Infallibility there being no General Council at the time And Greg. de Valentia lib. 8. de Annal. fid cap. 7. puts the matter out of doubt Eadem saith he est Authoritas Infallibilis quae Pontifici Romano quae Ecclesiae sive Conciliis tribuitur nam illa ipsa Authoritas quae in uno Pontifice residet Authoritas dicitur
Ecclesiae Conciliorum that is it is the same Infallible Authority which is ascribed to the Pope and to the Church or Councils for the same Authority which resides in the Pope alone is said to be the Authority of the Church and of Councils So that hither the state of the Controversie betwixt us and Romanists is reduced whether the Popish Religion is to be believed to be the only true Religion because their Infallible Judge that is the Pope says so Is not this a goodly case to which Jesuits would reduce Christianity to make all Religion hang at the sleeve of an Usurping Pope Is not the Popish Cause desperate when they have no way to prove themselves to be in the right or us in the wrong but because their Pope a Party and Head of their Faction says so The Hinge then of all Controversies betwixt Romanists and us at least as managed by the Jesuited Party returns hither whether by the Verdict of the Pope as infallible visible Judge or by the holy Scriptures and conformity with the Faith of the Ancient Church we are to judge of the truth of Religion Protestants hold the latter our Romish Missionaries the former let Christians through the world consider whether what they or we say be more rational I am challenged pag. 24. as not having candour for saying that Quakerism is but Popery disguized But there is less candour in the Accuser for I only said if it were otherwise Learned and Judicious men were mistaken His frivolous Apologies are like to confirm these men in their Opinion for many of the Quakers Notions are undoubtedly Popish Doctrines such as that the Scriptures are not the principal and compleat Rule of Faith that a sinless perfection is attainable in time that men are justified by a righteousness wrought within them that good works are meritorious that Apocryphal Books are of equal dignity with other Scriptures that the efficacy of Grace depends on mans free will that real Saints may totally Apostatize that in dwelling concupiscence is not our sin until we consent to the lusts thereof c. If Quakerism were Puritanism in puris naturalibus as this Scribler doth rant how comes it that Quakers have so much indignation at these who go under the name of Puritans and so much correspondence with Romanists with whom before they could not converse Do not Non-Conformists abhor these fore-mentioned Quaker Tenets The differences at which he hints betwixt professed Papists and Quakers do at most prove that Quakerism is disguized Popery if there were no seeming difference there would be no disguize in the business Cannot Romanists chiefly Jesuits transform themselves into all shapes for their own ends Have not persons gone under the character of Quakers in Britain who have been known to be professed Priests Monks or Jesuits in France and Italy My self did hear a chief Quaker confess before famous Witnesses that one giving himself out for a Quaker in Kinnebers Family near Montross was discovered to be a Popish Priest and some Romanists in this place have confessed the same to me Yet the differences assigned by the Pamphleter betwixt Papists and Quakers signifie not very much when they are narrowly examined And first as to Women Preachers do not Papists hold Hildegardys Katherine of Sens and Brigit c. for Prophetesses Not to mention their Papess Joan or how they allow Women to Baptize as is defined in Concil Florent Instruct Armen As for their private Spirit I pray what other grounds hath the Romish infallible Judge to walk upon but Enthusiasms and pretended inspirations For Fathers and Scriptures according to them have not Authority antecedently to his Sentenee As for Reformation by private persons the whole work of Quakers is to break the Reformed Churches which is a real deformation and a promoting of the Popish Interest and if there be secret Warrants from the Pope for that end for which there want not presumptions they have as great Authority as trafficking Popish Missionaries Quakers do not say as he alledges that they build on the naked Word if by the Word he mean the Scripture nay in this as in many other things they Romanize by denying the Scripture to be the compleat and principal Rule of Faith I am jealous both Papists and Quakers could wish there were not Scripture in the World Though Quakers seem to make light of Fathers and Councils yet they maintain these Tenets which Papists say are Authorized by Fathers and Councils At least a knack of Jesuitical equivocation will salve all By this time it may appear all he hath said doth not prove that Quakers are not carrying on a Popish design But of these things enough I now proceed to the more important Controversies CHAP. II. There is no necessity of an Infallible visible Judge of Controversies in the Church and consequently the Basis of the Pamphleters whole Discourse is overthrown IT is hard to say whether in handling this Question the Pamphleter in his Sect. 3. bewray more disingenuity or ignorance For pag 33 34 35 36 3â— more likâ— a Histrionical declaimer than a Disputant He breaths out a most calumnious invective against the Reformed Churches as if they robbed the Catholick Church of all Judiciary Authority and set up a Law without a Judge Because forsooth they cannot subscribe to this erroneous Assertion of the necessity of an Infallible visible Judge whereby the Jesuited Party endeavour to justifie the Tyrannical Usurpation of the Pope of Rome Neither is this Assertion for which he pleads as the Doctrine of the whole Romish Church approved by all Romanists Nor do they who seem to approve of it agree among themselves who is that pretended Infallible Judge Moreover instead of bringing Arguments to confirm his Assertion from pag. 37. to 43. he rifles out of late Pamphlets a Farrago of Testimonies to prove that the Church cannot erre which as may anone also appear is a different conclusion from that now under debate And though none of these Testimonies when rightly understood do militate against the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches as Protestants have often demonstrated yet he does not examine what Protestants have replied concerning them Lastly Whereas he should have answered the Arguments propounded in the debate with M. Denister against the necessity of this Infallible visible Judge he frames to himself pag. 43 44 45 46 47. some other Objections which he endeavours to canvase So that I may say he combats throughout that Sect. 3. with a man of Straw of his own making and this is that imaginary Triumph in which our Romish Missionaries and their implicit Proselites have so vainly gloried For satisfaction therefore of the ingenuous lovers of Truth I shall first premise some things for unfolding the true state of the Question 2. Disprove by some Arguments I hope convincing the necessity of this Infallible visible Judge 3. Examine the Cavils and Objections of the Adversary SECT I. The true state of the Question
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 peceat 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. Hâ—s 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. 9 10. Thou shal observe to do according to all that they
many things directly contrary to the Command of Jesus Christ such as the Communion under one kind worshipping Images invocating Saints c. Lastly remains that place 1 Tim. 3. 15. Where the Church is called the Pillar and Ground of Truth to which on all occasions they flee as the chief support of their infallibility but in vain For first were I disposed to Criticise I might remember him that their own Esthius on the place observes that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not only a Pillar but also a writing Pensil so as the Church may be termed Stylus veritatis or the Pensil of Truth because by her the Lord writes in the hearts of men the Doctrines of Truth which may be done by the Ministry of the Word though she have no infallible visible Judge I might likewise advertise him that Heinsius as is noted by M. Leigh in his Critica Sacra affirms that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also signifies a Station or place wherein a person doâ—h stand or sit and that the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Seat may be much of the same importance and then the sense will be the Church is the Seat of Divine Truth So as all truths necessary to Salvation are always to be found in her and in no other Society Yet hence it no more follows that in her is a visible Judge exempted from all Doctrinal Errour than because she is the Seat of true Holiness it can be concluded that there is in her a Judge exempted from all sin Perhaps secondly the Adversary will have difficulty to disprove them among whom is the Learned Camero in Myroth who joyn these words The Pillar and Ground of Truth not with the Church but with that which follows and so the meaning will be that the great Mystery of Godliness mentioned vers 16. is the Pillar and ground of Truth that is a chief Article of Faith and Religion as the Jews term the points of their Religion Fundamenta Radices Hence that famed Rabbin Maimonides as Camero observes begins his Book Fundamentum Fundamentorum columna sapientiae est cogn scere esse primum ens c Does it not appear a little harsh to use the arguings of Mares controv 5. cont Tirin num 3 that the Church be called the House of God and also a Pillar in one sentence A House may have Pillars but the House and the Pillar are not the same Seems it not probable that the Apostle having described the Church as the House of God should then point at these Foundation-Truths which he enumerates in v. 16. as the Pillar which supports the House Some I confess of our own Divines seem not so well pleased with that construction of Camero among whom are Gul. Rivet Son to the Famous Andreas Rivetus and Ravanel But with Reverence to these Learned men I must crave leave to say their Arguments against it seem at best but topical Thirdly May not Chillingworth's notion Part. 1. cap. 3. Sect. 76. have it's probability who by the Pillar and ground of Truth understands not the Church but Timothy and so there is an elepsis of the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is frequent in Scripture as if it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the meaning will be that thou mightest behave thy self in the Church which is the House of God as a Pillar And thus not only Apostles as Peter James and John Gal. 2.9 but also faithful zealous Ministers may be termed Pillars Nazianzen gives the like Titles Orat. 19 to Basil and Orat. 21. to Athanasius So Basil Epist 62. honours the Bishop of Neo Caesarea with this very Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore either Nazianzen and Basil judged all these persons infallible which I suppose none will affirm or if they did not then they did not think these words to import infallibility But fourthly Granting it be said of the Church yet it makes nothing for the Romish Interest many probably supposing that to be spoken of the particular Ephesine Church Now particular Churches by the acknowledgment of all may err If it should be extended to the Catholick Church what is that to the Roman she being at the best but a particular Church But whether universal or particular Church be here meant yet if it be not the Church Representative it makes nothing to the purpose in hand concerning the visible Judge But the very Series of the context seem to favour them who understand the place rather of the Church governed than governing that thou says he to Timothy mightest know how thou ought to behave thy self in the House of God which is the Church that is how Timothy as a Pastor should carry among those under his charge Was not the Church in the first 300 years the Pillar and ground of Truth as well as now yet all that time after the first Council at Jerusalem she never assembled in a General Council ergo her being Pillar and ground of Truth is not by Conciliary infallibility But fifthly Giving and not granting that it were spoken of the Representative of the Catholick Church yet infallibility will never be infallibly deduced from it Why may not she be called the Pillar and ground of Truth in a politick sense because Ministerially she holds forth the Truth as a Programme affixed to a Pillar is exposed to publick view of others but not in an Architectonick sense as if the Church did Authoritatively and infallibly support the Truth especially seeing as Irenaeus saith lib. 3. cap. 11. columna firmamentum Ecclesiae est Evangelicum The written Gospel for of that he there speaks is the ground and Pillar of the Church yea and Hierom as cited by a Lapide on the place writeth thus Ecclesia est columna firmamentum veritatis quia in ea sola stat veritas firmatae quae sola sustinet aedificium Ecclesiae If the truth alone as Hierom says doth sustain the Church then doth not the Church in an Architectonick sense sustain the Truth yet do we not deny but the Church is a Keeper Witness Propounder and Defender of the Truth Why may not this phrase the Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth hold forth the Churches duty what de jure she ought to do and not what always de facto is her practise infallibly Though Rom. 13. 3. it be said that Rulers are not a terrour to good works but to evil yet the Romanists will not grant that Magistrates do always and infallibly countenance Godliness and Truth because there he speaks what 's their duty not what always is their practise Why may not the Church be called a Pillar in regard of solidity though not in regard of infallibility to signifie the difficulty of her removal from truth though not the impossibility But sixthly as Chillingworth loc cit Sect. 78. does further acutely observe concerning this
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 therefore I know none who may fear that threatning of Austin more than the Court of Rome Contra hunc inexpugnabilem murum quisquis arietat Confringetur CAP. III. That the Scriptures are the Principal Compleat and Infallible Rule of Faith the Atheistical Cavils of the Pamphleter notwithstanding THough Protestants do not cheat the World with a pretence of an infallible visible Judge yet with the truly Catholick Church they acknowledge there is an infallible Rule of Faith namely the holy Scriptures of God which are sufficient through the assistance of the Holy Ghost to guide Souls in the way of Salvation But among the manifold impieties of the Papal Religion the indignities put upon the holy Scriptures by Romanists are not the least I shall therefore first give an hint of some of these indignities then briefly open the state of this Question concerning the Rule of Faith and confirm our Assertion that Scripture is the Rule Thirdly examine the Pamphleters four principal Objections And lastly reflect a little on the rest of his Rapsodick Discourse touching this Subject SECT I. Some hints of Indignities put upon the Holy Scripture by Romanists IN the first place They are not afraid to speak most contumeliously of the Scriptures calling them A Nose of Wax a Lesbian Rule inkie unsensed Characters a dead Letter c. It is from Melchior Canus Albertus Pighius Coster the Jesuit and other Romanists that the Quakers have learned these or such like Blasphemies Secondly They make the Authority of the Scriptures as to us to depend upon the testimony of their Church So Gordon of Huntly controv 2. de Eccles cap. 15. and Gretser Append. ad lib. 1. Bell. de verb. Dei col 396. Whose ears would not tingle at that saying of Hermannus that the Scriptures should be of no more value than Aesops Fables without the Churches testimony Yet Gretser the Jesuit is displeased with Rullus for charging it with Blasphemy yea Cardinal Hosius in Confutatione Brentii lib. 3. de Author Sacrae Scripturae pag. 148. edit 2. Antwerp 1561. spares not to say Illud pio sensu potuisse dici that it might have been spoken in a pious sense and withal adds this reason Nam revera nisi Ecclesiae nos doceret Authoritas hanc Scripturam esse Canonicam perexiguum apud nos pondus haberet that is for truly if the Authority of the Church he means the Roman did not teach us this to be Canonick Scripture it would have exceeding litle weight with us From that Romish Atheistical Piety good Lord deliver us Learned Rivet in Isagog ad script cap. 3. giveth an account of many such Blasphemies belched out by Jesuit Baylie Coster Petrus Simonis de Toledo and other Romanists Thirdly Romanists have confidence to affirm that the Original Scriptures are corrupted So Gordon of Huntly controv 1. cap. 8 9 11 12. Melchior Canus loc com lib. 2. cap. 13. Leo Castrius Morinus Tirin c. Yea this Pamphleter Sect. 4. makes it a great part of his work to prove that the Scriptures are corrupted both in the Originals and in the Translations Is not this to accuse the Providence of God as suffering the Scriptures which he had given to lead us to Salvation to be corrupted Is it not to charge the Catholick Church of unfaithfulness that she was not more careful of so rich a depositum How desperate must the cause of their infallible Judge be when his Infallibility cannot be maintained unless the holy Scriptures be discredited as corrupt the Catholick Church accused of unfaithfulness and God robbed of the praises due to him for preserving the Scriptures Fourthly Neither is it a small indignity to the Scriptures that they prefer the muddy stream of the Vulgar Latine before the Originals of the Old and New Testament Yet that Latine Version was not made by a person acted by a Prophetical and infallible Spirit What confusion and uncertainty they labour under as to the Author of it may be gathered from Ludov. de Tena Isagog Sac. script lib. 1. difficult 5. Sect. 2. yea it hath often been convicted of many errours and therefore that which was extant in the time of the Council of Trent was corrected by Sixtus Quintus that of Sixtus by Clement the 8. and that of Clement the 8. accused by Isidore Clarius of many errours nor can Clement himself absolutly assert its freedom from errour And yet the Council of Trent passing by the Originals pronounces the Vulgar Latin to be the Authentick Scripture Yea Ludov de Tena lib. cit difficult 2. Sect. 4. Says that the Hebrew Text is to be corrected by the Vulgar Latin Such folly is wiâ—tily checked by Hierom Epist 102. ad Marcellam Si displicet fontis nunda purissimi â—aenosos bibant rivulos Fifthly Romanists accuse the Scripture of Imperfection as not containing all the material Objects of Faith So Eckrius in Enchirid. cap. 4. Coster in Enchirid. lib. 2. cap. 5. Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 3 4. Greg. de Valen. de Analys fidei lib. 8. cap. 6. Gordon of Huntly controv 1. de verb. Dei cap. 28. num 4. says that it is the least part of the Word of God which is contained in Scripture Nay D Beard in Retract Mot. 6. reports that Hosius should have dared to say Melius actum fuisse cum Ecclesiâ— si nullum extaret scriptum Evangelium it had been for the Churches advantage that there had been no written Gospel I tremble to transcribe such Blasphemy Doth not the Council of Trent Sess 4. define that unwritten Traditions are to be received paâ—i pietatis affectu with the same reverence and devotion as the Scripture it self Yea they magnifie Tradition above the holy Scripture Hence Spondanus the Epitomator of Baronius spares not to affirm ad annum 53. num 4. Traditiones excellere supra Scripturas that Traditions have an Excellency above the Scriptures and confirms it by this reason Quod Scripturae non subsisterent nisi Traditionibus firmarentur Traditiones vero sine Scripturis suam obtinent firmitatem Sixthly Romanists accuse the Scriptures in their greatest purity with such obscurity ambiguity and multitude of desperate senses that they cannot instruct us in the way of Salvation but as they are sensed by the Romish infallible Judge Hence are many of those ignominious expressions which Coster Melchior Canus Pighius and others belch out against the Scripture as suffering themselves to be wire-drawn by any interpretation Greg. de Valen. lib. 5. de Analys fidei cap. 2. is
to be reduced to and examined by this principal Rule of the holy Scriptures It 's true D. Sanderson de oblig Consc 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 corp 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 Theâ—l 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 virl 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 Cbristianam 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 commonitorium 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. Whyt 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
which are the chief Evidence of their Divine Original But besides giving and not granting that our assent to the Divine 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 must remit them to the Debates of our Divines against Socinians and to those betwixt the Paradoxal Author of Philosophia Scripturae Interpres and Vogelsangius 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 Applicaâ—ion 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 inrespect 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. Hom. 13. calls the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the exact Ballance Rule and Canon of all things Greg. Nyssen lib. 1. cont Eunom in Append. operum Basilii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Jesuit Gretser being Interpreter In omni d gmate optima judicandi ratio est divinitus inspirata scriptura the divinely inspired Scripture iâ— 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 Athanasius in Synopsi anchoras sustentacula fidei the Anchors and Pillars of Faith Austin lib. 2. de bapt cont Donat. cap. 6. Stater as 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 Cassiod lib. 1. Instit cap. 12. and 15. by a like allusion the Pandects Bede is very express as cited by Gratian caus 8. quest 1. cap. 28. that the Scripture is unica credendi vivendi 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 as 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. Featly 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
Image nor the likeness of any thing Thou shalt not bow down to them c. I know the Pamphleter says that this is a corrupt Version and that it should be rendred Idol not Image it being Pesel in the Hebrew But that is a corrupt evasion say I doth not the 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 coltemuna 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 similachrum quod 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 Rock 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 not withstanding 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 Estbius 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 sense which Romanists impose upon the words of James that they have devised many Cob web distinctions to elude 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 Justâ—fication 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 esse convincitur si districté 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
as also of the intrinsick evidence of the Scriptures is given by the Learned Amyrald in Thes Salmur loc de testimonio Spiritus Sancti See also loc de Author Script From pag. 72. he falls upon the Question of the Judge of Controversies wherein whether he doth not discover both foul and foolish work as he is pleased to object to me pag. 14. the Reader may judge First then he says Scripture cannot be the Judge of Controversies as M. Menzies will have Let all the Papers betwixt M. Demster and me be read and it shall not be found that ever I asserted the Scripture to be Judge of Controversies Indeed I do assert the Scripture to be the Ground and Rule of Faith and I suppose when Protestants affirm the Scripture to be Judge of Controversies they mean no more But because I knew how apt Papists are to cavil upon the term Judge I did ever purposely wave it But this is the Jesuitical Candour he hath used in all his Criminations against me The Genius of this Scribler will yet more appear by his stating of this Question betwixt Romanists and us pag. 75. which he propounds thus Catholick Romans saith he build their belief upon Scripture not taken as they fancy but as explained by Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church and the unanimous consent of the Fathers and if any doubt arise of both these on the general definition and decision of the present Catholick Church But Protestants says he as M Menzies holds ground their Faith on Scripture which they have corrected or rather corrupted as clear in it self or made clear by diligent reading and conferring of places with prayers and as they imagine a well-disposed mind that is a prejudicate Opinion It is hard to say whether he discover more perverseness of folly in representing the state of this question Take these few observes upon it And first if Romanists build their Faith upon the Scriptures as expounded by Traditions c. then Scripture contains all Doctrines of Faith and Traditions serve only to expound the Scripture And yet he affirms pag. 62. There be Articles of Faith such as Persons in the Trinity Sacraments in the Church c. which he denies to be found in Scripture Either then in this state of the question he does not declare the adequate ground of the Popish Faith and so sophisticates with his Reader when he would make him believe that they build all their Faith on Scripture or else contradicts both himself and the current of Romish Doctors who maintain unwritten Traditions not only for expounding Scriptures but also for confirming Articles of Faith not contained in the Scripture Secondly He dare not commit the explication of Scripture either to Tradition or the unanimous consent of Fathers and therefore he keeps the definition of the present Church as a Reserve in case of doubts concerning these and of doubts which may be moved concerning the sense of Traditions and of the testimonies of Fathers And therefore all must be ultimately resolved on the definition of the present Church they mean the Popish Church So that when all comes to all their Faith is built upon the word of their Pope or Council for nothing else can he mean by their Present Church But thirdly seeing the decisions of Faith are remitted unto the present Church that is Pope or Council when the case is dubious concerning the sense of Scriptures Traditions and Fathers what is now left to be a ground for the Churches definition but either Enthusiasm or a Fancy So that by this very state of the question when it s well pondered the ground of the belief of the present Romish Church is because she fancies so Fourthly In this state of the question he speaks as if Romanists were all agreed concerning the Rule of Faith or Judge of Controversies the contrary whereof is apparent from what we spake both in the former question concerning the infallible visible Judge and also here concerning the Rule of Faith Are M. White M. Serjeant M. Holden Rushworth and other Patrons of the Traditionary way of the same Opinion touching the Rule of Faith and Judge of Controversies with Jesuits Fifthly Doth he not represent us as building our Faith on corrupted Scriptures Is not this an evidence of a most desperate Cause when we must be so perfidiously represented So far are Protestants from building on corrupted Scriptures that we appeal to the pure Originals and decline no mean for finding out the sense of Scripture ever acknowledged by the Catholick Church Yea to cut off their Cavils of this kind Learned Protestants as M. Baxter Key for Catholicks Part. 1. cap. 31. have offered to dispute the Controversies of Religion out of the Vulgar Latin or out of the Rhemists Translation Sixthly He would imply that we had no regard to Tradition or to the consent of Fathers In this he belyes us egregiously We are so far from excluding them from the means of expounding Scripture that we have a Venerable esteem of them when a Tradition is truly found to have been received by the whole Catholick Church in all Ages and when Fathers do unanimously consent in Doctrines of Faith But we must have further Evidence for an universally and perpetually received Tradition or Doctrine unanimously approved by Fathers then the partial testimony of the present particular and Apostate Church of Rome Dare Romanists remit the Controversies betwixt them and us to those Tests of Apostolick Tradition or unanimous consent of Fathers Have they Apostolick Tradition for their Adoration of Images Invocation of departed Saints substraction of the Cup from the people Purgatory Fire their Divine Authority of Apocryphal Book the Supremacy of the Pope above Councils and Princes c. none but either an Ignorant or he whose Conscience is Venal and Mercenary can affirm it But I may give a more particular account of these hereafter I add but a seventh Note When he mentions the means which we affirm ought to be used for finding out the true sense of Scripture such as the conferring of places of Scripture and prayer which I suppose none but an Infidel can disallow he reckons forth a well-disposed mind which he interprets a prejudicate Opinion What Candour I have met with or am to expect from them let any judge by this their Commentary upon my words when I require a well-disposed mind to the right understanding of the Scriptures that is saith my Adversary a prejudicate Opinion Doth he not discover himself to be a person to which his own Apocrypha Text Sap. 1. 4. In animam malevolam non introibit Sapientia may most fitly be applyed Pag. 73. He flourishes with an old Argument against the Scriptures being Judge of Controversies The Judge of Controversie saith he ought to give a clear sentence which the learned and unlearned may equally understand but thus doth not the Scripture and to this purpose He alledges some testimonies from S. Ambrose S. Austin that there be
highly unthankful to God who will deny that in this last Age the true sense of sundry Texts of Scripture is found out It 's too gross a Cheat which the Pamphleter would put upon his Reader where with the passages cited concerning the Rule of Faith the conferring of Scripture and consulting the Originals he adds these words that never did any Protestant teach otherwise whereas D. Field subjoyns them in another Sect. to a sentence of Illiricus But let 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 yâ—t 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 detractionibus ad dispositionem 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 Retractatus 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 ear nis cap. 3. Aufer Haereticis quae cum Ethnicis sapiunt ut de Scripturis solis quaestiones suas 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 Heathens were greater and their Learning not
3. de orig animae cap. 15. Iste animus etiam in dictis per ignorantiam non Catholicus ipsa est correctionis praemeditatione Catholicus a Soul maintaining errours contrary to Catholick Doctrine yet willing to submit upon conviction upon that virtual repentance or premeditation of correction to use S. Austins word is truly Catholick namely when the Errours strike not at the Foundation as the same Father spoke in the forecited testimony lib. 1. contra Julian cap. 6. Against this the Pamphleter objects pag. 92 93. many Fathers S. Athanasius in his Creed S. Hierome lib. 3. cont Russin Nazianzen tract de fide S. Basil in Theod. lib. 4. Hist cap. 6. and Tertull. lib. de praescript as if they all had held that an errour in Faith would damn a Soul and consequently every point of Faith to be Fundamental He would do well to look better to his citations hereafter for Theod. lib. 4. hist cap. 6. makes no mention at all of S. Basil but only relates the Ordination of S. Ambrose But to pass this escape I answer that Fathers indeed held an errour in Fundamentals of Faith to damn a Soul but not one in integrals especially when it 's maintained without pertinacy That Fathers admitted such a distinction in points of Faith may be apparent because they did accuse one another sometimes of errours in Religion as S. Cyprian was accused by the Bishops of Rome for maintaining Rebaptization as an errour in Religion and yet him the Catholick Church ever held for a Saint and Martyr S. Austin lib. 3. de orig animae cap. 15. charges Victor with eleven errours contrary to the Catholick Faith yet had so much charity to him that he said Absit ut arbitreris te haec opinando à Catholica fide recessisse quamvis ea fidei adversa sunt Catholicae therefore they held not every point of Faith Fundamental The severe sentence pronounced in the Athanasian Creed which yet I must advertise the Pamphleter to be doubted whether it were drawn by the Great Athanasius is only against those who deny any Article of that Creed Now Creeds of the Ancient Church are supposed by Judicious Divines to contain Fundamentals as contra-distinguished from integrals That of Nazianzen tract de fide Orat 49. relates to Arrians against whom he there disputes who certainly erred fundamentally at whom also S. Hierom Apol. 3. contra Ruffinum seems to hint for their denying the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Pamphleter himself grants that Tertull. is speaking against Valentinus whom all know to have erred fundamentally so that from none of these testimonies can any thing be inferred against this distinction yet I freely grant that sometime opposition to an integral of Faith may also damn a soul namely when it is joyned with pertinacy but then it is not the simple not believing of the truth which condemns the man but his pertinacy But says the Pamphleter the English Church Excommunicates them who hold any thing contrary to the 39 Articles ergo they hold all the 39 Articles to be Fundamentals Answ Is it not more safe to judge of the thoughts of the English Church concerning the 39 Articles by the writings of eminent Divines in that Church approved by the Church of England then by the topical discourses of a nameless Romanist Now Learned Stillingfleet in his Vindication of the Bishop of Canterbury against T. C. Part. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 6. says that the Church of England never pressed the subscription of the 39 Articles as being all Fundamentals of Faith and for this also cites luculent testimonies of Bishop Bramhall Primate of Ireland She excommunicates them for their pertinacy and for their breaking of the Peace of the Church not that she supposes them all Essentials of Religion To the like purpose speaks D. Fern in his Preface against D. Champny We acknowledge saith he that he who shall pertinaciously and turbulently speak and teach against the Doctrine of the Church in points of less moment may deserve to be Anathematized or put out of the Church for such a one though he deny not the Faith yet makes a breach of Charity whereby he goes out of the Church against which he so sets himself What the Pamphleter cites of the Athenian Laws savours of Draco's severity who wrote all his Sanctions in blood and made every trespass Capital a fit President for the sanguinary proceedings of the Romish Inquisition Josephus lib. 2. cont Appion doth only say that the punishment allotted to the Violaters of the Jewish Law for most part was death If this Romanist be so bloody that he would have the Gospel Church in this to Judaize his preposterous Zeal deserves such a rebuke as those who would have commanded fire to come down from Heaven on the Samaritans Luke 9.54.55 As for the angry expressions of Luther against them he callâ—d Sacramentarians it 's true of him what was said of Elias Jam. 5. 17. that he was a man subject to the like passions with others Yet that Luther before his death was convinced of the truth of our Doctrine concerning the Sacrament Boxhornius lib. 3. de harm Eucharist proves by many testimonies from Melancthon Cruciger Alesius yea and out of Luthers own writings As for that heavy sentence Revel 22. 19. it holds forth what de Jure is due to all who derogate any thing from the sacred Canon of Scripture And the like sentence is pronounced upon them who add ought thereto v. 18. which speaks sad things against Romanists who have added all the Apocryphal Books But it doth not say that all who are not convinced of the Canonical Authority of every Book of Scripture shall de facto be damned if otherwise pious and penitent and ready to acknowledge the Divine Authority thereof were they satisfied in their Consciences thereannent Do Romanists conclude their famous Cardinal Cajetan a damned Heretick who questioned the Canonical Authority of sundry parts of Scripture To conclude this Section E. W. the Author of Protestancy without Principles that is Edward Worsley an English Jesuit at Antwerp discourse 3. cap. 4. c. hath much spongious talk to confute the Protestants distinction of Fundamentals and Non Fundamentals as unreasonable and false I should but beat the Air to examine all Himself comprizes the substance of what he has said in this one argument Every revealed Article is asserted by an Infinite Verity but an Infinite Verity delivers all it speaks with one and the same infinite certainty Ergo all Articles of Faith have one and the same like infinite assurance consequently one is as ponderous as another and equally Fundamental To this I briefly answer forbearing to reflect again upon the formality of a Jesuits Syllogism granting as uncontroverted the whole Syllogism viz. that there is an equal objective certainty in all divinely revealed Articles in a compounded sense with divine Revelation it being absolutely impossible that divine Revelation should be false but withal peremptorily denying the Corallary
For all Protestants do acknowledge that we are bound to believe whatever God is pleased to reveal unto us yea not to assent to the least material object of Faith when it is known that God has revealed it were an impeaching of the Veracity of God and so hainous a trespass that if continued in should assuredly damn eternally Nay further as acute M. Chillingworth observes Part. 1. cap. 3. Sect. 15. He that believes though erroniously any thing to be revealed by God and yet will contradict it is hainously guilty of derogation from the Veracity of God The most that Protestants affirm to which all solid Christians ever assented is that through the weakness of our understanding we not being able to penetrate all truths divinely revealed we may sometimes suppose that not to be revealed by God which is revealed by him or that to be revealed by him which is not revealed In this case which was Cyprians in the matter of Rebaptization if a man believe firmly not only the Veracity of God and be ready to assent to the particular truth whereof now he doubts if he knew it were revealed by God but also believes the most weighty Articles of the Christian Faith we say in that case our Lord doth graciously pardon the misbelief of smaller material objects of Faith which through infirmity are misbelieved This we have already confirmed by Scripture and Antiquity Sect. 1. Laying aside therefore his false state of the question the true state of the question is whether whatever the Church proposes as an Article of Faith must be believed under pain of damnation and consequently is to be held as a Fundamental so as without the belief thereof no salvation can be had in this indeed we maintain the Negative and my Adversary and Jesuited Romanists the Affirmative That this is the true state of the question may be evicted from the Pamphleter himself For after his deceitful misrepresentations of the question at length he comes above board pag. 92. thus The Church saith he in her publick Decrees of General Councils strikes with the Thunder-bolt of Gods Curse and Excommunication all such as refuse to believe any one point decided to be of Faith which she could not justly do if every Article she declares were not necessarily to be believed when known to be decided by her It 's therefore the decision by her that says the necessity of believing upon souls Yet it would be further noted that by the Church Romanists understand the Roman Church or Church in Communion with the Pope acknowledging his Headship and Universal Supremacy And because the diffusive Body of thee Roman Church cannot all assemble to define Controversies of Religion ther for it must be understood of her representatives seeing Conciliary representatives are very rare and the sense of their Canons are obnoxious to various debates therefore this power of determining and imposing Fundamentals though the Pamphleter in the words cited seem only to speak of Councils must at length be resolved into the Pope I wrong them not Here Jesuit Gretser speaking in name of the rest in defens Bell. lib. 3. de verb. Dei cap. 10. Colum. 1450. When we affirm saith he the Church to be the Judge of all Controversies of Faith by the Church we understand the Bishop of Rome who for the time being governs the Ship of the Militant Church The question is then whether all that the Bishop of Rome injoyns ex Cathedra and as matters of Faith must be believed because he injoyns it and that under pain of Everlasting Damnation the Jesuited Party affirm we deny It 's not the misbelieving what Scripture says but what the Roman Church or Pope saith that according to these men does condemn Souls I shall not insist upon a large consutation of this absurd Doctrine which cannot but ruine with its own weight not being supported with any solid ground only take these brief hints 1. The Catholick Church in all her Representatives since the Apostolick Age is fallible as I demonstrated by many arguments Cap. 2. Sect. 2. and may injoyn Errours for Articles of Faith Ergo all that the Representatives of the Catholick Church injoyn as Articles of Faith are not to be held as Fundamentals This one argument is sufficient to overturn that Romish Structure But 2. It 's an intollerable Catachresis to affirm the Romish Church much more the Pope to be the Catholick Church or to attribute the peculiar priviledges of the Catholick Church to the Roman or to the Pope by as good reason they might affirm Italy or Rome to be the whole World and predicate that of Rome which is peculiar to the whole World Ergo though it were granted that the Catholick Church or her Representatives had power infallibly to determine Fundamentals of Faith it does not follow that this is the priviledge of the Roman Church or Pope of Rome as our Adversaries affirm 3. Every thing that God himself reveals in Scripture is not a Fundamental of Faith Ergo far less every thing that the Church proposes The sequel is evident for if there be any reason why every thing proposed by the Church should be Fundamental this must needs be it because as Romanists affirm what the Church says God himself says But this reason cannot be cogent for beyond all peradventure what is revealed in Scripture is revealed by God himself and yet both Protestants and Papists acknowledge that all revealed in Scripture is not Fundamental therefore neither can all proposed by the Church be Fundamental This argument concludes that though she were infallible as Scripture truly is yet would it not follow that all her definitions were Fundamentals of Faith It may be here objected that he who knows a truth to be contained in Scripture and yet misbelieves it erres Fundamentally therefore also if the Church be infallible he who misbelieves any point which he knows to be propounded by her erreth likewise Fundamentally Not to mention that this objection proceeds upon the supposition of the Infallibility of the Church the falshood whereof I hope has already been evicted I answer that he indeed erreth Fundamentally who misbelieves the least truth which he knows to be contained in Scripture provided he know the Divine Original of that Scripture yet not so much for misbelieving that particular truth for in other circumstances it may be misbelieved without a Fundamental errour as for his explicite misbelief of the Veracity of God which renders the man an Infidel But I hope Romanists themselves will not say that if Cardinal Cajetan who questioned the Divine Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews had thereupon misbelieved some particular Proposition which he acknowledged to be contained in that Epistle had erred Fundamentally and consequently though the Church were infallible as she is not yet if he who questioned her Infallibility should also misbelieve what he knew to be propounded by her he should not err Fundamentally For in so doing he would not explicitly
question the Veracity of God as in the first case 4. If the Proposals of the Church made Articles Fundamental ergo after the Churches definition the Christian Religion should be essentially different from what it was before contrary to Ephes 4 there is but one Faith The sequel is evident because after that definition of the Church there should be Fundamentals or Essentials in Religion which were not before And from this it follows the now Roman Religion is essentially different from the old Christian Religion For by the new definitions of their Church they have made many Essentials which the Ancient Church never knew as I demonstrated against M. Demster Paper 4. 5. I argue with Learned M. Stillingfleet thus The Church is a Church before she past out her definition ergo by her definition she makes no Fundamentals The sequel is proved because the Church cannot be a Church without the belief of all Fundamentals ergo whatever definition she passes posteriour to her being a Church is none of the Fundamentals E. W. the Author of Protestancy without Principles Discourse 3. cap. 6. Sect. 19. superciliously undervalues this argument of D. Stillingfleet supposing he hath evicted the nullity thereof by this simile As in a Kingdom or Commonwealth after the settlement of some great matters I suppose he means the Fundamental Laws they may thereafter proceed to make new Laws so he conceive it to be in the Church But the faculty of that Jesuâ—t lies in throwing a Feather to the ground with high confidence Two things if I mistake nor may discover the lameness and impertinency of the Jesuits simâ—lâ— And first it's beyond doubt that after the settlement of the Fundamental Laws of a Kingdom the King and Parliament have a Legislative Power to create new Laws not only to declare what Laws formerly were in being but to give a being to Laws which formerly had none But the more Judicious Romanists deny that the Representatives of the Catholick Church far less of the Roman or a Pope have power to make Articles of Faith which were not but that their power is only declarative of Articles of Faith which formerly were So Alphonsus à Castro de haeres lib. 1. cap. 8. Valentia in Part. 3. disp 1. quest 1. punct 6. and Azor. Part. 2. Moral lib. 5. cap. 3. quest 2. yea so much is acknowledged by E. W. himself Sect. 22. Hence when lately D. Taylor in his Disswasive cap. 1. Sect. 2. concluded the impiety of the Romish Religion because it did attribute to the Romish Church i. e. the Pope power to make Articles of Faith contrary both to Scripture Gal. 1. 8 and to the third Oecumenick Council at Ephesus It was replyed to him by a Romanist that they only give to the Church a declarative power to declare what be Articles of Faith If the Church have only a declarative power then she has not such power to make Articles of Faith as the King and Parliament have to make Laws to the Kingdom or if she have power to make Articles of Faith then D Taylor 's Charge of impiety stands in force against Romanists They may chuse which of the two absurdities they will run upon But secondly if the King and Parliament should add to the Fundamental Laws of a Kingdom when addition were made to them thereafter the Constitution of the Kingdom should in so far be altered and different from what it was consequently if the Church should add to the Fundamentals of Faith the Christian Religion should essentially vary from what it was before Nay if the Church may add to Fundamentals and make that Fundamental which was not Fundamental why might she not pair from them also and make those things cease to be Fundamentals which were Fundamentals and so overturn all Christianity and make it a quite different thing from what it was But the Unity of the Christian Religion and of the Catholick Church prove convincingly that the Fundamentals of the Christian Religion are always the same and unalterable Sixthly and lastly The absurdities of this Romish Doctrine may appear by the impâ—ous consequences which flow from it As 1. The imperious Usuâ—â—ation of one part of the Catholick Church namely of the Church of Rome her Popes or Councils over the whole Catholick by this she assumes a mighty Soveraignty over the Consciences of all the World to impose on them Fundamental Articles of Faith which Christ never authorized her to do 2. It establishes a most grievous Schism thus she cuts off from the Catholick Church as Hereticks oâ— persons erring fundamentally all who cannot submit to her heretical Decrees 3. It makes Romanists unchristianly uncharitable and to conclude that all shall be damned which do not with Issachar couch down under the burdens which she imposeth 4. Hence also it is that they abuse the World with an implicite Faith if they be in a readiness to believe what is imposed by their Church it 's enough though they know little in particular what she has imposed yea some say though explicitly they believe nothing Nay Tolet lib. 4. de instruct Sacerd. cap. 3. If a Country man saith he believe his Bishop propounding some Heretical Doctrine about the Articles of Faith he meriteth by believing though it be an errour because he is bound to believe until it manifestly appear that it is against the Church O dreadful impiety Shall it be not only not sinful but meritorious to believe Lyes when it but seems to be the Doctrine of the Romish Church The absurdity of the Romish Assertion being now sufficiently evicted our Doctrine upon the other hand may be clear viz. that those Articles are only to be held for Fundamentals on which Scripture hath put a character of necessity for the appointment of Fundamental Articles or the prescribing of the necessary conditions for obtaining Eternal Life dependeth wholly upon the good pleasure of God and therefore are to be gathered from the Scripture which are the compleat Rule of Faith and deliver to us the whole Counsel of God concerning our Salvation But this Jesuit must needs be stâ—ll prevaricating and therefore pag. 86. he brings in this as a character given by me of a Fundamental if it be commanded to be believed by all But never did I assert any such thing nor did I ever think that a meer necessity of Precept does infer a point to be Fundamental we are commanded to believe Articles of Faith whether integral or Fundamental But in this is the difference that Fundamentals are also necessary necessitate medii finis by necessity of the means and of the end so as Salvation cannot be attained without the belief thereof neither is any thing to be held a such unless the Scripture which is the adequate Rule of Faith put a character of necessity thereupon From what has been said I deduce this Corollary that the unity of the Catholick Church stands in the unity of Fundamentals and consequently though there be diversity
Field his way to the Church lib. 3. Cap. 1. and for clearing them at least from fundamental errors to D. Stillingfleet his vindication of the Arch-bishop against T. C. Part. 1. Cap. 1. who will seriously consider the servitude of the Greek Church under the Ottoman empire and their want of means of Instruction which other Christians enjoy together with the sedulity and subtilty of Romish Emissaries still traficking among them may desist their admiration concerning the corruptions crept into that Church and rather wonder that they have preserved so much of the doctrine of Faith entire Learned Voetius in desper Causa Pap. lib. 3. Sect. 2. Cap. 8. observes that the more knowledge the Oriental Churches and those in the Western part of Europe have of the estate of one another the more the alienation of the Greek Church from the Roman and their affection to Protestants doth appear and particularly in that they do yearly excommunicate the Roman Church but not the Protestant Churches D. Hornbeck in summa contrev lib. 11. de Graecis pag. 977. regates passionately that there is no more correspondence betwixt Protestant Churches and the Greek Church by which these afflicted Christians might be strengthened under their tentations and we better understand the state of the Oriental Churches But this I hope at the time shall suffice for the agreement of our Church with the Grecian in substantials of Religion SECT VIII Whether the doctrine of Protestants in all points of Controversie be openly against God and his written word as the Pamphleter affirms and so contrary to the Fundamentals of Religion THis the Pamphleter boldly asserts and undertakes to prove pag. 106. but his bold undertaking is seconded with weak and Childish performances If Scripture be so clear to determine all points of controversie betwixt us to what purpose were all his Cavills Concerning an infallible visible Judge the corruption of originals the unfaithfulness of translations the obscurity and ambignity of the sense of Scripture the insufficiency of means of interpretation c. Is a Jesuit so nimble that he can transform himself into all shapes that he can fight against Scripture at his pleasure Is not this an usual fate that attends error to be inconsistent with it own self Sorex suo Judicio In the general I say as to all the Scriptures he perverts there is not one of them but Protestants have a thousand times vindicated from the detorsion of Romanists Many of them are most foolishly applyed and questions betwixt Papists and us are either perversly or ignorantly misrepresented I Nauseat to examine such childish stuff yet lest I should only confute him with contempt I overly touch particulars 1. Then he sayes pag 106. we protest against the goodness of God in saying God created some for Hell independently from their works contrary to 1 Tim. 2. 2 Pet. 3. If he mean that Protestants do say that God appointed to Damn any to Hell though they should never be guilty of sin he calumniates us egregiously Never Protestant taught that any should be damned to Hell but for sin Did not the Council of Dort art 1. can 7. make the object of predestination hominem lapsum i. e. Man in his fallen estate How then could he say that Protestants affirm that God creats men for Hell independently from sin Did ever Protestants say more then that Scripture Prov. 16. 4. God has Created the Wicked for the day of evil As for that text 1 Tim. 2. knew he not that Austin in Enchirid Cap. 103. expounded it de generibus singulorum of men of all ranks not of all individuals of mankind And the other place 2 Pet. 3. 9. not willing that any should perish is restricted in the very Text to the Elect the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having a reference to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus he is long suffering towards us not willing that any namely of us the Elect should perish But do not Jesuits Pelagianize while they make the decree of Election to be founded on the prescience of our good works which Scripture makes a fruit of Electing love Ephes 1. 4. Do they not overthrow the omnipotency of God by attributing to him inefficacious wills How is it that all are not saved if he willed all to be saved Does he not in Heaven and Earth whatever pleases him Psal 135. 3. 2. He sayes ibid we protest against the mercy of God saying Christ dyed not for all contrary to 1 Cor. 13. He should have said 15. The Pamphleter might have known that Protestants do not exclude from the Reformed Churches the learned Camero Amyrald Capellus Dallaeus who with many others especially in the French Church affert universal redemption But if it were fair to load an adversary with all the confequents which follow from his principles though he do not see the connexion betwixt them It might perhaps with more reason be said that Jesuited Romanists do impeach both the Justice and mercy of God affirming the most of them to be damned Eternally for whom Christ dyed contrary to luculent Scripture Rom 8.34 who is he that condemneth It is Christ that dyed Is it not the work of Jansenius lib. 3. de gr Chr. serv cap. 20. to evict the opinion of universal Redemption to be repugnant to the doctrine of the Ancient Church particularly of St. Augustin will it not be hard to reconcile the opinion of Universalists with that saying of S. Austin epist 102 ad Evod. Non perit unus ex illis pro quibus Christus est mortuus i. e. Not one doth perish for whom Christ dyed The Scripture cited by the Pamphleter is most impertinently alledged 1 Cor. 15.22 As in Adam all dyed so in Christ shall all be made alive If the all there were universally to be understood for every one of mankind it would follow that all mankind should have eternal Life and be saved eternally which none but an Origenist can affirm Therefore that all is to be understood only of all them whom Christ the second Adam did represent viz. the elect not of all mankind 3. pag. 107. he sayes we protest against the Justice of God saying that God punishes us for what we cannot do contrary to Heb. 6. 10. God is not unrighteous to forget their work A pertinent disputant indeed That Scripture speaks of Gods rewarding good works which Protestants deny not but of Gods punishing the want of good works which we could not do it speakes not at all A Sophister ought at least to have a shew of pertinency As to the thing it self never Protestant affirmed that God damned any for meer inability but such is the pravity of our Nature that with our inability to do good oftentimes we joyn a voluntary neglect of good works Joh. 5. 40. ye will not come to me that ye may have Life and for this it is that the sinner is damned ought he not to know what his adversary maintaines who undertakes so confidently to
an interpreter as you yet to him it seemed not so clear yea he held it for one of these places in Paul which are hard to be understood lib. de fid oper cap. 15. and quest 1. ad Dulcit It seems Jesuit Cotton saw not such clearness in it for Purgatory when as Thuan records lib. 132. he would enquire at the devil what were the clearest Scripture for Purgatory The Difficulty of this Scripture appears by the perplexed disputes both of ancient and modern interpreters concerning it in so much that Bellarmine lib. 1. de purg cap. 5. confesses it to be unum ex difficillimis totius Scripturae one of the hardest places in all the Bible Before he can make use of it for his Purgatory he must fight not only with Protestants but also with Fathers yea and with others Popish authors But it seems this Noble disputant who snatches up any thing that came next to hand hath never examined what is brought by learned Protestants to enervate all inferences from it for the Popish Purgatory as first that the Apostle doesnot say he shall be saved by fire but as it were by fire now though the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as be not alwayes a Note of similitude yet surely its most frequently so taken and that is its most proper signification who then can infer that a real fire is here meant 2. the gold hay and stuble of which the Apostle speakes in that context are metaphorical must not then likewise the fire be metaphorical 3dly of the word fire be taken in that same sense vers 15. in which it s used vers 13. when it is said that the fire shall try every mans work as it ought saith Esthius in 1 Cor. 3. 13. Yea Chamier Panstrat tom 3. lib. 26. Cap. 14. Sect. 6. sayes that this was never questioned before Bellarmines time then sure this fire cannot be the Popish Purgatory fire for that fire vers 13. Is not Purgatory fire as Bellarmine himself proves by many arguments cap. 5. Sect. alii intelligunt the fire vers 13. tryes every mans work but Papists do not say that every mans work is tryed by Purgatory fire And therefore Bell. to inforce this Scripture to speak for Purgatory kindles in it three fires two in vers 13. and a third distinct from both in vers 15. First a fire of conflagration of the world 2dly the fire of Gods severe judgment and 3dly their imaginary fire of Purgatory in vers 15. But this groundless fancy of Bellarmines triple fire is confated to our hand by Esthi us loc cit though he suppress the Cardinals name I appeal all Bellarmines favorites to produce me one testimony of a Father or one solid reason for this triple fire in that Scripture Leaving therefore for Brevity other arguments and the different opinions of Fathers and latter interpreters concerning that difficult place albeit their exposition who by the day vers 13. understand a time in this Life and by the fire the word and spirit of the Lord which are compared to fire Jer. 23. 29. Matth. 3. 11. by which all doctrines yea and works also shall be examined albeit I say this exposition might be maintained against all the cavils of Romanists and is maintained by Chamier lib. 26. cap. 11 12 13 14. yet I shall choose with learned Dallaeus lib. 1. de paenis satisfact cap 16. to come a little nearer to the Cardinal I grant therefore Not only that by the builders the Apostle understands the teachers of the Church and by the Hay and Stuble superfluous and unâ—difying doctrine But also that by the day may be understood the day of the great and general Judgement which Bellarmine confirms by sundry probable arguments and sayes that it was the sense of all the Fathers of many I confess but I will not say all and therefore Esthius shews more ingenuity with his Fere almost then the Cardinal with his omnes all Nay I further grant to him that by the fire trying every mans work may well be undeestood the severe Judgement of God at the Great day Hitherte Bellarmine and I have gone along in expounding this Scripture but now when it comes to the push we divide at the last For Bellarmine that he may say something for the Papal interest would have these words vers 15. he shall be saved as by fire understood thus he shall be saved having passed thorow the fire of Purgatory But this is repugnant to Bellarmines former concessions for this saving as by fire falls out the day when the fire shall try every mans work as is clear from the context but that is by Bellarmines confession at the day of Judgement consequently this cannot be by the fire of Purgatory for then the fire of Purgatory according to Romanists will be extinct I suppose therefore the learned Dallaeus has hit upon the right sense of the words thus he shall be saved yet with loss he shall loose the comfort of his work and the additional reward of grace which he might have expected had he been more faithful Nay it will be a miracle of mercy that himself is saved he shall be saved with difficulty So strict and sever will the Judgement be that he must undergoe that he shall be according to the phrase Amos. 4. 11. as a fire brand pluckt out of the burning By this time I hope it will appear that Romanists travel in vain when they would beat some sparks out of this Scripture to kindle their Imaginary fire of Purgatory 15. Ibid. He sayes We protest against the eternal Priest-hood of Jesus Christ according to the order of Melchisedeck by rejecting the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass contrary to Mal. 1. 16. We most firmly believe Christs eternal Priest-hood according to the order of Melchisedeck But the abomination of an unbloody and propitiatory sacrifice in the mass as derogatory and repugnant to the perfect sacrifice offered on the cross we justly reject Can there be a propitiatory sacrifice without shedding of Blood Heb. 9. 22 Can there be a proper sacrifice without the destruction of the thing sacrificed if the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross was perfect why then must it be repeated if it was especially in regard of the Mass-sacrifice that Melchisedeck did prefigure Christ why did not the author to the Hebrews who is so punctuall in enumerating the resemblances betwixt Melchisedeck and Christ once mention that yea doth he not purposely as seems exclude it when he affirms if he be often offered then must he often suffer Will the oblation of the Mass be eternal Do not Popish authors acknowledge that it will be interrupted when their supposed Antichrist shall come And will Christ then cease to be a Priest after the order of Metchisedeck Can their authors agree upon a proper sacrificing act in the mass what one sayes does not another confute ye may try if ye can condescend to me on that sacrificing act and the thing
yet it s questioned also if in that Lateran Council it were defined Are we the first who held the sence of these words figurative Did not Austin positively say as much contra Adimant cap. 12. Is not Theod. very express Dial. 1. Dominus imposuit signo nomen corporis And a little after our Saviour saith he exchanged names corpori suo imposuit nomen signi signo imposuit nomen corporis sui ita qui se vitem ipse vocabit vocabit signum sanguinem suum and again he honoured saith he visible Symbols with the Names of his body and blood Non naturam mutando sed gratiam nature adjiciendo not by changing their Nature or substance but by adding grace thereto What need I more may not their own Canon Law stop their mouths aist 2. de consecrat Can. hoc est and the gloss thereupon where it is expresly declared that the Sacrament is called the Body of Christ non proprie in rei veritate not properly sed significante mysterio but by a mystical signification because the Sacramental bread doth truly represent the body of Christ Yea have not Spalat lib. 5. cap. 6. Forbes Instruct Hist Theolog. lib. 11. cap. 9 10 11. c. And Moulin de Novitate Papismi demonstrated that the current of Antiquity is for us in this matter what a world of interminable debates hath this figment of Transubstantiation raised among their own men So that hither may the lines be applyed Corpore de Christi lis est de sanguine lis est Deque modo lis est non habitura modum But leaving these and such like grounds of Arguments against this bloody Doctrine of Transubstantiation for which Papists have shed the blood of many thousands of Protestants I come to examine the Argument which this Pamphleter so much undervalues And first I must remember him of one branch of the Argument which he hath not touched which he will find in pag. 129. what Christ took in his hands what he did break and bless that he gave to his Disciples and affirm'd to be his body but it was bread which he took into his hands which he did break and bless Ergo It was bread which he gave and affirmed to be his body Now all know and Bell. doth acknowledge it that the body of Christ cannot be predicated of bread Consequently the proposition must be figurative both the premises are clear in the Series of the context ought not this Jesuit either to have been more sparing in boasting or else more through in examining the Argument Next I come to try how solidly he hath behaved himself in what he hath touched I asserted indeed pap 7. p. 127. that these words of Christ This is my body according to the Romish gloss would be inexplicable false and imply a contradiction and consequently their gloss could not be genuine I am so far from being removed from my judgment by reading this Pamphlet that the shallowness of his Answers do the more confirm me And first I said it was inexplicable and therefore desired Mr. Demster to let me know what Christ meant by hoc this for if he meant either the bread or the accidents of bread the sence must be figurative for these are not in a proper sence the body of Christ And by hoc this Christ could not mean his own body it not being yet present when hoc this was pronounced Nor could he mean Ens in confuso individuum vagum or contentum sub speciebus that is something under the accidents of bread Christ himself knew not what which are the desperate shifts of Schoolmen This I say cannot be the meaning unless they come to that height of Blasphemy to affirm that Christ's understanding was clouded with confusions so that he knew not himself what he meant by hoc this To all this he answers pag. 112 113. That hoc this signifyed nothing determinately until the last word or predicate my Body was pronounced A noble Solution forsooth and worthy of the acumen of a Jesuit Doth he not by saying that when Christ pronounced this it signifyed nothing at all determinately confirm what I say that their gloss renders the proposition of Christ inexplicable for I can put no other gloss upon the words of this Pamphleter but that neither the Apostles nor yet Christ himself understood what hoc signified when it was first uttered it signifyed nothing determinately then it would appear it signifyed something but indeterminately what can this be but the individuum vagum that others talk of that is in plain Scots something but Christ himself knew not what Was the mind of our Saviour in whom are all treasures of wisdom and knowledge so clouded Though it were granted that the hearer could not understand so distinctly what were meant by hoc this until the predicate whole proposition were uttered yet sure at the 1 st utering of the subject hoc the speaker himself knows as perfectly what he means by it as when the whole proposition is uttered Now the question betwixt Romanists and us is what Christ who was the speaker understood by this when he uttered it Sure it could be nothing but that which he had in his hand at the present but at the present he had nothing in his hand but real bread for the body of Christ was not substituted in the place of bread according to the principles of Transubstantiators ergo hoc this could signifie nothing but bread and that determinately and consequently the proposition must be figurative Suppose a man holding out a piece of Gold to another should say this is a Jacobus who could deny but by this at the first pronunciation thereof he did understand the piece of Gold whether he or I do quibble concerning this matter others may judge I added Secondly pag. 128. that according to the Popish gloss this proposition of Christ's were both false and should imply a manifest contradiction This I confirmed two wayes First because a true affirmative proposition de praesenti cannot produce its own object else in that instant of Nature wherein the proposition is conceived before its object as the cause before its effect the proposition should be true as is supposed and not true because the object in that instant is not Secondly because at least in that instant of time wherein the copula of an affirmative proposition de praesenti is enunciated the object ought to exist But according to Transubstantiators in that instant of time wherein Christ pronounced the copula of this proposition This is my body Christ's body was not in the Sacrament and therefore the proposition in the sense of Transubstantiators must be false This Argument he first retorts pag. 113. Alleadging that this other affirmative proposition of Christ de praesenti Joh. 15. This is my command that ye love one another doth produce its own object and pag. 115. he adds many more viz. let the light be made let the firmament be
proves is that ordination is a standing Ordinance in the Church which the protestant Churches do not deny but no way conclude it a proper Sacrament I hope nothing needs to be added against this pretended Sacrament till he answer what is objected against Mr. Dempster only I must remember him that Estius on the place confesses that the gists here spoken of are Timothies Ministerial endowments consequently the grace here spoken of not being Sanctifying nor jmposition of hands being a Sufficient Sacramentall sign as I shew against Mr. Dempster nothing can be hence concluded as to a proper Sacrament albeit Calvin as I advertised them grants that in a large Sense it may be termed a Sacrament For Matrimony he only cites Ephes 5. 32. which thus he renders this Sacrament is great but according to the originall it is this is a great mystery Is every thing which the Scripture calls a mystery a Sacrament with them then the mystery of iniquity 2 Thes 2. 7. and the mystery of the whore Babylon Revel 17. 5. 7. must also be Sacraments but doth not the Apostle Signify what it is he means by that mystery Ephes 5. 32. when he Subjoyns I Speake of Christ and the Church what need I more Seing I brought in my last against Mr. Dempster there own great Cardinall Cajetan confessing that from this place it doth not follow that Matrimony is a Sacrament But if he had not been smitten with Mr. Dempsters tergiversing Disease he had never wholly overleaped what I objected against this and the rest of their five spurious Sacraments if he have any Candor it s expected in his next he will reply not only to these hints but also to what was objected in my last By all this I hope it appears that the Doctrine of the Protestant Churches concerning the presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist and concerning the number of Sacraments remains unshaken what unity Romanists can pretend to in this question of the number of Sacraments I leave to be gathered from these two Testimonies The first shall be of Greg. de Val. the Jesuite lib. de num Sacr. cap. 3. 7. Sâ—me Catholicks saith he denies Matrimony others Confirmation and others extream Vnstion to be univocally a Sacrament Thâ— other of Cassander Consult art 13. apud authores saith he Paulo vetustiores inter Sacramenta proprie dista nunc duo ponuntur nunc tria Baptismus Eucharistia Confirmatio non temere quenquam reperies ante Lâ—mâ—ardum qui certum aliquem definitum numerum statuerit de hi septem non omnes quidem Scholastici aeque proprie Sacramentum vocabant CHAP. VI. Whether Protestant Churches do grant that the Visible Church was not always preserved and that for 1400. years before Luther Popery was the only prevailing Religion IT may seem strange that I should be put to Debate this question having so often appealed Mr. Dempster to try the Truth of Religion not only by its conformity with the holy Scriptures but also with the Faith of the ancient Church But so evil natur'd is this Ghost of Mr. Dempster that as if I were too narrow a Mark for his reviling genius he spends one entire Section from pag. 125. to 129. in a calumnious representation of the Protestant Churches as if the more ancient Protestants had affirmed that the Visible Church had perished from the days of the Apostles and that the only prevailing Religion for 1400. years before Luther had been Popery For this end he has scraped together out of his common Place-Books a multitude of broken shreds from Protestant Authors from which he deduces sundry absurd inferences of which the Authors never once dreamed how desperate must the Romish Cause be when they cannot impugne us but by misrepresenting us and charging upon us Tenets which they know we condemn Yea though we disown them yet they will still impose them upon us When they thus sport with their own Shadows do they not gallantly confute the Protestant Religion To assoyle therefore the Protestant Churches in this matter and to demonstrate that our Adversaries play but the Sycophants these ensuing observations may be noticed And first the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches is not to be measured by the sentiments of private Doctors of what fame soever but by their solemn Confessions of Faith long ago published to the world purposely to prevent such misrepresentations The harmony whereof in the substantials of Faith penned by men of so many different Nations under no common jurisdiction and of so different complexions as to other things is next to a miracle and may be Sufficient to confute the pretended necessity of an infallible visible judge But in this present debate the Adversary brings not one Sentence out of these confessions but only from the writings of private Doctors yea some of them not only of small account but also disowned by the more judicious as being no Protestants at all Would Romanists be content that we hold the Sentiments of their most famous Doctors Such as Cajetan Durandus Gerson Ferus c. much more of these who have apostatized from them for the Doctrine of their Church Why then deal they with us by other measures then they would be dealt with themselves Secondly much less are Broken shreds from Protestant authours violently detorted contray to their known judgment in other their writings to be taken for the standard of the Reformed Religion Yet such are most of the Testimonies which Breerly Knot H. T. c. and this filching Pamphleter who licks up their excrements doe make use of in this question Did Dr. John Whyte Whitaker Chillingworth Calvin Iewel Chemnitus the Centurists c. maintain that there were none that professed the Religion of Protestants from the dayes of the Apostles intill Luther or that Popery was the only Prevailing Religion for 1400. years before Luther Nay on the contrary doth not Dr. John Whyte in is way to the Church sect 17. Peremptorily affirm that this faith which we professe hath successively continued in all ages since Christ and was never interrupted not so much as one year moneth or day Doth not Chillingworth c. 5. sect 9. when he is pondering such Testimonies of Jewel Naper Brocard c. as are cited by the Pamphleter declar they never meant that the visible Church had totally failed but only from its purity Doth not Whitaker Controv. 2. c. 5. q. 7. expresly affirm That we can prove out of the Fathers our Doctrine to have been in the Church in all these ancient ages Doth he not a little after charge Bellarmine as belying Calvin and the Centurists as if when they charged the Fathers with these errors mentioned by this Pamphleter viz. Limbo freewill and merit of good works as if I say they had charged these on all the Fathers and on all the Church none of which they ever meant saith Whitaker Sure I am Chemnitius pag. 200 at least in that Edit I have Genev. 1641.
Emperor and Liberius Bishop of Rome who then zealously owned the truth Quota pars es tu said the Emperor orbis terrarum qui solus facis cum homine scelerato How small a part art thou of the whole World that thou alone should joyn with that wicked man so he designed the good Athanasius To whom Liberius replyed non diminuitur solitudine mea verbum fidei Nam tres solum inventi fuere qui edicto resisterent that is the price of truth is not diminished by my solitude for three only were found to resist Nebuchadnezzars impious edict And Austin Epist 80. ad Hesych expresly says when the sun shall be darkned and the moon not give her light all which he interprets allegorically Ecclesia non apparebit impijs tunc persequutoribus ultra modum saevientibus The Church then shall not appear thorow the extream violence of wicked persecuters Yea and thirdly Popish writers themselves confess that Antichrist shall take away the dayly Sacrifice omne aliud publicum officium cultus divini So Tirin the Jesuit and before him Bell lib. 3. de Pont. cap. 7. If then Scripture Fathers Papists use as broad expressions concerning the prevailing of error why are the expressions of Protestants so Rated Consider sixthly that though it be granted that there were errors in the Church yet it doth not follow that the whole body of Popery as now it is was acknowledged to be always there as this impudent Pamphleter would infer Pag. 136. that all the Articles in Pope Pius confession of Faith were owned by Councils and Fathers of the first three ages Yea and he is bold to say that heerupon I am bound to turn Papist Let any man squeez his whole Book and if he have evicted that noe Father or ancient Council maintained the whole Systeme of the present Romish Faith I will be a Romanist I cannot but have their Religion in greater abhorrency when I see that they have no other way to support it but by manifest calumnies and such inconsequential discourses some Fathers erred in some things as is acknowledged both by Romanists and Protestants therefore the whole present Romish Religion was owned by Councils and Fathers in the first three ages a most ludibrious inconsequence The mistery of iniquity wrought but by degrees the Papacy came never to its full subsistency till the Council of Trent there be particulars there enacted as Articles of Faith which never were so before Verily Popery is nothing but a complex of innovations brought in by peece meal What is the scope of Flaccus Illiricus his Catalogus testium veritatis but to give an account of the witnesses of truth in all ages since Christ as any Popish error did creep in and appear in the Church What is the scope of Vsser his tractat de success Eclesiarum in occidente but to shew the continuance of the Religion which Protestants profess in all ages though Popish errors in progress of time were still abroaching What should I speak of Morney's Mysterium iniquitatis of Voetius his desperata causa papatus of Mortons appeal Prideaux de visibilitate Ecclefiae Moulin de novitate Papismi c. All which and many more have made it their work to demonstrate the perpetuity of that Religion which Protestants profess notwithstanding what ever corruptions in the Church and have convicted the Romish Church of manifold innovations And therefore in my tenth Paper against Mr. Demster I desired him to shew me where the present Romish Religion was before the Council of Trent But this the Phamphleter never touches as if he were deaf upon that Eare. He only brings some broken testimonies from this or that ancient to give some plausible colour sometime to one and sometime to another of their Popish tenets and therein he often prevaricats also but he never shews that the whole complex of their Religion as now it stands was before the Council of Trent far less always From these six considerations I suppose it may evidently appear how sophistically this Pamphleter and others of his Fellows do misrepresent Protestants as to this matter I shall shut up this discourse with two testimonies one from learned Mr. Hooker another from Bellarmin The judgment of Protestants as to this case is excellently delivered by Mr. Hooker lib. 3. of Eccles pol. pag. 86. Papists saith he aske us where our Religion did lurk before Mr. Luther as if saith he we were of opinion that Luther did erect a new Church Now the Church of Christ which was from the beginning continueth to the end of which Church all parts have not been equally sincere and sound The other shall be of their own Bellarmin lib. 3. de Eccles milit cap. 13. It s to be noted saith he that many of ours do but loss time when they labour to prove that the Church cannot absolutely fail for Calvin and the rest of the Hereticks so he is pleased to design us do grant it Page 130. He has two reflexions upon my appeal to the Fathers of the first three Centuries wherein he imagins he has discovered some acutness But they are but spongious bulrushes and already confuted yet I shall mention them 1. he enquires why I appeal to the Faith of the Church in the first three ages more then in after times Was her Doctrin then purer her condition more Flourishing or her Authority then greater He may find the same objection answered in my Paper 7. against Mr. Dempster from pag. 130. to 135. and paper 10th pag. 215. 216. It seems this man is not acquainted with the writings of the more Learned Jesuits for Greg. de Val. in 3. part disp 1. q. 1. punct 6. disputes this question at length Whither they who lived next to the Apostles did not eo plenius divina mysteria nosse understand more fully Divine Mysteries then others of after-times and concludes the affimative tracing the foot steps of Aquinas their Angelike Doctor Now therefore only in a word I say that though the Churches Authority was not then greater nor her condition as to outward prosperity so flourishing yet then her Doctrin was more pure and she flourished more in Holiness then had she aureos Sacerdotes though ligneos calices Is it any wonder that a stream run purer the nearer to the Fountain When hath the truth of Doctrin the beauty of holiness shined more then when the Church has been labouring in the Furnace of fiery presecution Told I not expresly paper 10. pag. 216. that I never intended to restrict this enquiry to those ages alone only pleading to begin at them but this Romanists would willingly decline All their seeming advantages are from the more corrupt times of the Church They aske where our Church was before Luther which has been often sufficiently cleared But we aske at them where their Religion was in the first three ages and much lower also which never was yea never will be sufficiently cleared Take
a banquet I may therefore here shut up with a new demonstration of Popish Novelty That there is a proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Mass was no essential of the Ancient Catholick Religion But that there is a proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Mass is an assential in the present Romish Religion Ergo. There is an other essential in the present Romish Religion which was not in the Ancient Catholick Religion SECT IV. A fourth Instance of Novelty concerning Transubstantiation discussed and retorted upon Romanists THe Pamphleter in his fourth Instance saith that Protestants deny the real presence and Transubstantiation And toward the close of this fourth Instance Pag. 145. he would sneakingly insinuate that their half Communions which are so palpable an innovation that their own Authors cannot deny it had been approven by the Ancient Church To this last I shall have a more fit occasion to speak in the first appendix to this Sect. 7. And therefore at the time shall only examin that of Transubstantiation We deny not the real presence nay we affirm that Christ is really exhibited to believers in the use of the Sacrament That which we deny is a Transubstantiated presence so as the substance of Bread and Wine are destroyed a specter of accidents without a Subject remaining and the body and blood of Christ being substituted under the accidents In this we and not Romanists are consonant to the Faith of the Ancient Church Hence Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 34. the bread after consecration is not now common brâ—ad but an Eucharist consisting of two things the terren and the heavenly Then in the Eucharist two things are exhibited to believers the terren viz Bread and Wine and the Heavenly the body and blood of Christ And therefore the usual Objection which the Pamphleter takes out of the same cap. of Irenaeus where the Father concluds against Hereticks that Jesus is the Son of the maker of the World because that bread upon which thanks is given is the body of the Lord and that cup his blood makes nothing for Transubstantiation Nay it distroys it Bread cannot be the body of Christ nor the cup his blood in a proper sense but in a figurative and the force of Irenaeus argument appears to be this he that instituted the creatures of God as sacred and exhibitive Symbols of his body and blood must be the Son of God Christ did so Ergo c. Tertullian is no less luculent lib. 4. Cont. Marcio cap. 40. expresly calling the Bread a figure of his body and then drawes an argument against Marcion and other Hereticks to prove that Christ had a true and real body because it could not be the figure of his body if he had not a true body But if Romish Doctrine of Transubstantiation were true Tertull could never have used a more unhappy argument against Marcion for if there be no real bread in the Sacrament but a Phantasm of accidents without a subject this had rather given advantage to Marcion who affirmed Christ to have a Phantastical body Here I cannot but notice the prevarication of the Pamphleter he mentions only these words of Tertull the Bread taken and distributed he made his body and then crys out what more cleer for Transubstantiation But had he not mutilated Tertullians words it would have appeared nothing could be more clear to overturn Transubstantiation for presently Tertull thus explains himself hoc est figur a corporis mei that is this is the figure of my Body Yea Beatus Rhenanus in admon de Tertul. dogm reckons this as one of Tertullians sentiments that the body of Christ is only figuratively in the Eucharist By this also may be cleared what the Phamphleter objects out of Ignatius Epist ad Smyrnenses that the Saturnian Hereticks did not admit of Eucharists and oblations because they do not confess the Eucharist to be our Saviours Flesh For as Spalat lib. 5. cap. 6. Num. 151. well observes though the Eucharist be not properly the Flesh of Christ yet being a Symbol of his Flesh it receives the denomination of the thing signified and strongly proves that Christ hath real Flesh and a proper humane nature which those Hereticks denyed They therefore seeing the strength of this Argument rejected the Eucharist I add another testimony of Tertullian lib. de anima cap. 17. the senses saith he are not deceived about their own objects lest thereby something of advantage might be yeelded to Hereticks making but a Phantasm of Christ c. But according to the tenet of Transubstantiators the senses of all the World are ludified with Tertullian accords Cyprian who Epist 76. calls the Bread the body of Christ and the Wine his blood which were a manifest falshood if not figuratively understood So likewise Origen in Math. 15. that which is sanctified by the word of God and Prayer according to the material part of it goes into the belly and is sent into the draught I desire to know by a Romanist what is this material part of the Sacrament which goes into the draught if the substance of bread do not remain when therefore Origen saith we eat and drink the body and blood of the Lord in the place objected by the Pamphleter he can only be understood of a Symbolical and Mystical Eating and Drinking With those Fathers of the first three ages these of following times do agree as appears by Theod dial 1. where he says that by the blessing of consecration the nature of the elements is not changed but grace added unto nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but abide in their proper nature shape and figure so much is affirmed by Gelasius lib. de duabus natu is Christi contra Eutych Nestor in bib pat tom 5. part 3. So also Augustin contra Adimantum cap. 12. and the Author of the Books de sacramentis going under the name of Ambrose lib. 4. cap. 4. ut sint quae er ant in aliud convertantur that they may be what they were and be converted into another thing If they remain what they were then sure their conversion into another thing must be only Symbolical A volume would hardly contain the testimonies of this nature which may be heaped up Scarce doth any testimony remain objected by the adversary which we have not cleared on the by as we were bringing testimonies for the truth His spurious testimonies I value not and such is not only that from Deny's lib. de Eccles Hierarch cap. 3. but also that from Cyprian de caena domini as is demonstrated by Criticks and yet neither of them make for Transubstantiation Not the first or the Pseudo Deny's exclamation O divinissimum sacramentum whither it be taken with Dr. Morton as a Rhetorical apostrophe or with Spalat as an invocation of Christ himself who is the thing signified in the Sacrament Nor the other ascribed to Cyprian wherein the Elements are said to be changed not in shape but in nature for nature is not taken for
substance else this should be repugnant to the true Cyprian but for the condition of these Elements as when we say that things are of different nature some common and prophane others holy and Divine in this sense the Elements after consecration are changed in their nature beginning then to be of holy use and Divine vertue albeit Learned Salmasius in Simplicio Verino Pag. 78. suspects that testimony to be vitiated and that it ought to be read nec specie nec natura neither changed in shape nor in nature Romanists have committed many such parricids on the writings of Fathers so that here also I may conclude with a fourth demonstration of Romish Novelty That the substance of Bread and Wine are destroyed in the Eucharist and the body and blood of Christ are substituted in their place was no essential of Faith in the first three ages But this is an essential of the present Romish Faith Ergo c. SECT V. A fifth instance of Novelty concerning Purgatory examined and Retorted THe Pamphleter in his fifth Instance saith that Protestants deny Purgatory and Prayers for the dead Where Sophistically he throwes two Popish errors together Well he knew that no solid testimony for Purgatory could be brought from the Church in the first three Centuries therefore he adds to it prayer for the dead as if the Ancient Church had no other end in Praying for the dead but to deliver them from the torments of Purgatory which shall appear to be a manifest falshood Purgatory is indeed an Article of the Romish Faith as appears by the Council of Trent sess 6. can 30. and sess 25. decret de Purg. and Bell. lib. 1. de Purg. cap. 5. yea so essential an Article that T. C. adversary to the Arch. Bishop of Cant. is bold to say that we are under as much necessity to believe it as the Trinity or incarnation nor is it wonder that they contend so earnestly for it For as Spalat lib. 5. de repub Eccles cap. 8. Sect. 73. hath observed it is the Doctrine which hath most enriched the Church of Rome But it is as far from the Faith of the Ancient Christian Church in the first three ages as Hell is from Heaven Is it not acknowledged by eminent Authors in the Romish Church Roffensis art 18. cont Luth. Polid. Virg. lib. 8. de invent rerum cap. I. Alphonsus a Castro de haeres lib. 8. verb. indulg and lib. 12. tit Purgatorium that it was but lately known to the Catholick Church little or no mention of it made by Greek Fathers and by the Latins themselves received but by little and little Yea that to this day it is not believed by the Greek Church Doth not Sixtus Senensis lib. 6. annot 259. confess that an apology written by Marcus Metrop of Ephesus was given into the Council of Basil in name of the Greek Church disapproving the Doctrine of Purgatory And among themselves there are Authors of great Note who have denyed Purgatory such as Learned Picherel de missa cap. 2. Pag. 250. Barnes Cathol Roman Pacif. Sect. 9. L. D. ad finem paral and doth not Thomas ab Albijs in his tractate de medio animarum statu strike at the Foundation of it But to leave these testimonies out of their own bowels how far the Ancient Church was from believing Purgatory to be an Article of Faith is copiously and Learnedly demonstrated by Dallaeus lib. 6. de paenis satisfaâ— per totum At the time let Cyprian suffice for all lib. ad Demet. cum isthinc excessum fuerit when once we pass from this Life there is no place for repentance nor any effect of satisfaction sure then no Purgatory and a little before to the same Demet he says that when this Life is finished ad aeternae vel mortis vel immortalitatis hospitia dividimu we are divided to the eternal dwellings of death or of immortality where he acknowledges two states after this Life and both these eternal and in Serm. de lapsis he exhorts him that has sinned to confess his sin dum in saeculo est while he is in this World dum admitti confessio ejus potest dum satisfactio remissio facta per sacerdotem apud dominum gratia est where clearly he holds out that after this Life neither confession nor satisfaction can be accepted of God and in his excellent treatise de immortalitate this is one of his chief arguments whereby he encourages Christians against the fear of death because presently after death they are invested with eternal Life ejus est mortem timere qui ad Christum nolit ire ejus est ad Christum nolle ire qui se non credat cum Christo jncipere regnare if departed Saints begin to reign with Christ then sure they are not thrust down to torments equivalent to the torments of Hell But did not the Ancient Church pray for the dead Answ It s granted she did but not for a liberation from torments under which she supposed them to be presently smarting as do Romanists and therefore from these Prayers nothing can be concluded for Purgatory The Ancient Church in their Prayers for the dead did pray for Martyrs Apostles Patriarchs Prophets the Virgin Mary and for all the faithful as appears from Epiphanius haeres 75. and from the Liturgies that go under the names of James and of Chrysostom in bib pat tom 2. graeco latin and from the Liturgy of the Churches of Egypt attributed to Basil Greg Nazianzen and Cyril in bib pat tom 6. edit 4. Cyprian likewise lib. 4. Epist 5. affirms they offered for the Martyrs who had received Palmes and Crowns Many more testimonies may be brought but I sum up all in that testimony of Austin lib. de cura pro mortuis cap. 4. who affirms that Prayers were made for all that dyed in the Catholick Faith Seeing therefore the Ancient Church prayed for those who by the confession of all were not in torment but in a blessed state the scope of their Prayers was not for deliverance from the torments of Purgatory If any aske for what then did they pray for the dead Bell. is constrained to afford us an answer for when he had objected to himself lib. 2. de Purg. cap. 5. how in the Mass for the dead they pray that the Souls of the faithful may be delivered from the pains of Hell from the deep lake from the mouth of the Lyon he answers that although the Souls of the faithful at their particular judgment have received a sentence whereby they are delivered from Hell yet there remains a general judgment where they are to receive a solemn sentence both as to Soul and Body and that the Prayers of the Missal do relate to that last sentence of the great day the same may be said to have been the scope of the Prayers of the ancient Church But yet further to clear that the Prayers of the ancient Church had no reference to
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 Justin Martyr Irenaeus Origen Macarius Athanasius c. yea is bold to conclude Thes 1. nec secus qui senscrit quisquam adduei potest To spare time in transcribing testimonies that one of Vincent Lyrin in commonit cap. 34. may suffice for all quis unquam said he ante profanum Pelagium tantam virtutem liberi praesumpsit arbitrii adhuc in bonis rebus per actus fingulos adjuvandum necessariam Dei gratiam non putaret Yet Jesuit Molina in concord cap. 14. art 13. disp 19 memb 6. Says a man may love God above all and may overcome a grievous temptation without grace yea Arriag in 1. 2. tom 2. tract de div gr disp 41. Sect. 2. n. 1. Says that a man in his fallen estate has a Physical natural power without grace to keep the whole law So much indeed we cannot grant to Pelagius both Scripture and Antiquity clearly contradicting Scripture Joh. 15. 5. 2 Cor. 3. 5. And Antiquity hence is that Concil Araus 2. can 22. Nemo habet de suo nisi mendacium peccatum I confess Jesuits grant for I would not wrong them the necessity of grace to acts which merit eternal Life and thereby they endeavour to elude the Testimonies of Scripture Fathers and Councils asserting the necessity of special grace unto good Works But as neither Scripture nor Fathers nor Ancient Councils do acknowledge that any Works of ours do properly merit eternal Life So neither do they hold that a man without the special grace of God can love God above all and keep the whole Law Secondly we likewise assert the powerful efficacy of grace in the conversion of sinners so that however it may be resisted and opposed by corruption yet never conquered August haeres 88. blamed Pelagius quod gratiam non libero arbitrio praeponeret sed infideli callidiâ—ate supponeret that he did not subject free-will to grace but contrary wise by Heretical craftiness grace to free-will Nay do not Jesuits who deny the efficacious and inexpugnable power of grace subject grace to free-will Is it not free-will with them which determins grace and not grace which determins free-will and put they it not in the option of free-will to make grace efficacious or inefficacious Doth not Augustin frequently make this difference betwixt the grace of the state of innocency and the medicinal grace after the fall that the grace of the state of innocency was only adjutorium sine quo non or possibilitatis grace which gave man power to do good but medicinal grace is adjutoriâ—m quo voluntatis grace which gives both to will and to do as the Apostle phrases it Phil. 2. 13. here himself lib. de corrept gra cap. 11. prima gratia est qua fit ut habeat homo justitiam si velit secunda plus potest quia fit ut velit and cap. 12. by that auxilium quo subventum est infirmitati voluntatis humanae ut Divina gratia indeclinabiliter insuperabiliter ageretur What could a Protestant have said more See c. 14. and l. 1. ad Simplic q. 2. and lib. 1. contra duas Epist Pelag. cap. 19 and that this surely was a main point of difference betwixt the Orthodox and the Semipelagians may appear by Faustus Regiensis a prime man of the Semipelagian party Anathema said he ei qui dixerit illum qui periit non accepisse ut salvus esse posset Hence Hilary of Arles in Epist ad August de reliquiis Pelagii reports that they ascribed to free-will ut velit vel nolit admittere medicinam Hereupon Concil Aransic 2. can 6. decrees per gratiam in nobis fieri ut credamus velimus and therefore surely prevailes over corruption I know Austin Hilary Prosper and Fulgentius were posterior to the first three Centuries yet was it in their time that the Pelagian and Semipelagian controversies concerning free-will were tossed And therefore a more accurate definition of the truth is to be exspected from them then from these who went before securius loquuti sunt ante exortum Pelagium and the rather having to do with Manâ—chees and other Hereticks which denyed free-will altogether and the question being so difficult that as Austin observed lib. 3. de gratia Chriâ—ti cont Pelag. cap. 47. and lib. 4. cont Jul. cap. 8. when free-will is defended grace sâ—ems to be denyed and when grace is asserted free-will seems to be taken away Dr. Morton in his appeal lib. 2. cap. 10. Sect. 4. has noted that not only Sixtus Senensis but also three of the Jesuits society Tolet Maldonat and Pererius have censured sundry of the Fathers especially in the Greek Church as too much favouring the Pelagian interest in the matter of free-will and therefore the less stress is to be laid upon their Authority in this thing Yet neither from the Fathers before Pelagius have Romanists the advantage which they boast of All the testimonies which this Phamphleter filches from Bell. and many more are vindicated by Châ—mâ—er Tom. 3. Pâ—nâ—rat lib. 3. de lib. arb cap. 16. and by Pâ—raeus in Bell. Castig lâ—b 5. de gra lib. arb cc. 25. 26. where they shew that these Fathers did only assert free-will as it stands in opposition to a fatal or stoical or simply natural necessity which we likewise assert but not in opposition to the necessity and efficacy of the gracâ— of God else they should have Pelagianized Only here I must remember him that his bastard Religion must be supported by bastard testimonies of Fathers Might he not have Lâ—arned that Clements recognitions are spurious from their own Sâ—xtuâ— Senensis lib. 2. Clemens fâ—om Bell. lib. 2. de pontif cap. 2. and from Barron Tom. 2. ad ann 102. Num. 22. Doth not the world know how their
Boniface the first Agapetus Sylverius many more as witnesses Platina Either then these Popes must be Bastards which Gratian cannot endure dist 56. cap. Osius papa or the Church in those days imposed not the necessity of a celibat Doth not Austin haeres 40. profess that the Church in his days plurimos habuit Monachos clericos conjugio utentes Many Monks and Clergy men living in a Married estate I will conclude therefore with the saying of those in Mantuan Tutius esse volunt qua lex Divina sinebat Isse via veterumque sequi vestigia patrum Quorum vita fuit melior cum conjuge quam nunc Nostra sit exclusis thalamis conjugis usu That the old primitive Bishops and Ministers lived more Holyly with their Wives then now adays is done without them and therefore it is safer to walk in their footsteps to which we are pointed by the Law of God Thus I have hinted at another decad of Romish innovations to which many more might be added I am not ignorant of the Cavils whereby the advocates of the Romish cause endeavour to hide the Novelty of these things from the eyes of the World Some of them I have touched here others for brevities sake I have passed by but all are fully confuted by our controversists When I consider the deceitful pretexts of Antiquity whereby Romanists do Varnish over their inventions my heart cannot but bleed for the people who are implicitely given up to such notorious Cheats It s pure compassion to misled Souls which drawes this freedom from me and not any choler or prejudice against persons A Second APPENDIX to CHAP. VII The Pamphleters impertinent Citations from Justin Martyr together with a new Catalogue of Heresies falsly charged on Protestants briefly discused THe Pamphleter Pag. 156. pitches on Justin Martyr as if from him he could prove the present Romish Religion yet cannot find a vestige in him of their infallible visible Judge of their Popes supremacy of their adoration of Images or Relicts of the half communion of their Purgatory canonical Authority of Apocryphal Books c. Indeed Justin gives an account of the Christian Religion in his days in opposition both to Heathens and Jews Seeing therefore the Pamphleter hath pitched upon him particularly I appeale not only such an ignorant Plagiary as this person but all the industrious Antiquaries of the Romish Party to try if in Justin Martyr the complex of the present Tridentin Faith can be found If they can demonstrate it I faith fully promise to turn a Herauld of their Religion If not which themselves know to be impossible for them to do let them cease to abuse simple Souls as if their Religion were the Religion of Justin Martyr and of Ancient Fathers But hath the Pamphleter made any new discoveries from Justin Martyr Not at all Only he has filched four trivial objections from Bell. which conclude nothing against Protestants The First is concerning free-will All that Justin Martyr says as to this we do admit for he neither asserts that man does that which is spiritually good without grace nor that the efficacy of grace does depend on mans will Of this I have spoken sufficiently cap. 7. in the examination of the Pamphleters eighth Instance The second is concerning merit but Justin only asserts their is a reward for the Righteous from which an argment to proper merit is wholly inconsequent seeing their is a reward of grace as well as of debt Concerning this also see what hath been said cap. 7. Instance 9. The third is of the efficacy of Baptism concerning which we likewise grant Sacraments to be exhibitive signs and seals but Justin hath nothing of the Popish opus operatum The fourth is of the Eucharist concerning which we likewise admit all that Justin Martyr says viz. that the bread and wine in the Eucharist are not common bread and wine being consecrated by Divine institution and so may be truly called the body and blood of Christ as signs usually receive the denomination of the thing signified But does Justin Martyr say as Romanists that the substance of bread and wine is destroyed and the physical body and blood of Christ substituted under those accidents of bread and wine The fiction of Transubstantiation was not hatched in Justin Martyrs days Thus the Pamphleters boasts concerning Justin Martyr have soon evanished into Froath Yet though Justin had dogmatized in all these particulars as do Romanists it would not follow that he had approven the whole System of the present Romish Faith In which many more errors are engrossed Pag. 158. 159. he patches up again a Catalogue of Heresies which he charges on Protestants wherein he discovers so much ignorance unfaithfullness and indiscretion that I shall pass them with an overly touch And first he charges us with the error of Simon Magus saying that men are not saved by good works apud Iren. lib. 1. cap. 20. Answer Simon Magus denyed the necessity of good works which we constantly affirm only we deny good works to be properly meritorious of eternal Life which was never condemned as Heresy by any but late Romanists Secondly he charges us as saying with Cerinthus that Children may be saved without Baptism apud Epiph. haeres 8. But Epiph. in haeres 8. hath no such thing for there he treats de Epicur Indeed haeres 28. he treats of the Cerinthians but is so far from imputing that error to them that when any of their number dyed they Baptized a living person for the dead Justifying that practise from 1 Cor. 15. 29. There be other Hereticks who deny Baptism to be a standing ordinance of Christ as Manichees Seleucians and Henricians apud Aug. haeres 16. haeres 59. with whom Socinians and Quakers joyn issue who are all condemned by Protestants as may be seen in Voss de Bapt. disp 7. Thes 4. 5. Had the Ancient Church held Baptism absolutely necessary to Salvation would they have delayed it so long would they in many places limited it to Easter and Pentecost could it be but in the intervals many behoved to dye without Baptism See Socrates Hist Eccles lib. 5. 21. Would the Church have exposed them to such necessity of perishing Eternally yea many Popish Authors deny the absolute necessity of it of whom Dr. Morton giveth a large account appeal lib. 2. cap. 13. Sect. 5. Thirdly says he with Plotinians we affirm that God hath commanded somethings impossible apud Epiph. But tells not where I find one Plotinus noted by a Castro de haeres lib. 14. tit virginitas for Heterodoxy concerning the state of virginity but as to a possibility of keeping the commands of God he speaks nothing of him In what sense God commands things impossible I have expounded cap. 7. in the examination of the Pamphleters Instance 10. and shew the conformity of our Doctrine herein with the Ancient Church and the oposite Doctrine of Romanists to be Pelagianism Fourthly he says with
Manichees apud Aug. lib. 2. cont Faustum Manichaeum we pull down Altars Answ the Altars against which Fauâ—tus exclaimes are Communion Tables which we allow But St. Austin takes occasion thereby to clear two truths which Romanists oppose one that they in the Holy Communion celebrate no proper Sacrifice sed memoriam peracti Sacrificii Another that they worship departed Saints only with that worship of Love and Society quo coluntur in hoc vita sancti Homines wherewith Saints in this Life are Honoured Fifthly he says with Donatists we hold the Baptism of Christ and John were the same in Aug. lib. 2. cont lit Petil. cap. 32. and 34. Answ Petilian said John only gave water Christ the Spirit and the Holy Ghost fire he denyed that by Johns Baptism the Holy Ghost was given at all the contrary whereof is maintained by Protestants It was really exhibitive of grace though the grace was not Originally from John What sixthly he objects of our denying with the Aerians the Fasts of the Church and Prayers for the dead he had said before Sect. 5. Pag. 99. and accordingly was confuted cap. 4. Sect. 2. Seventhly he says we with Julian forbid the use of Images and sign of the cross apud Sozom. lib. 5. cap. 20. and Euseb lib. 7. cap. 14. who may not here see this Pamphleter Scratches up his Citations implicitly from others for Euseb neither does nor could relate such a thing of Julian being dead before Julian came to the Empire Yea Julian was so far from being an enemy to Image worship that Spondan ad annum 362. n. 6. shews how Julian endeavoured to engage Christians to worship the Images of his Heathenish Idols And Nazianz. or at 3. calls him Idolianum As for us we do not simply condemn the use of Images and Crosses but adoration of them as hath been cleared up cap. 7. Instance 7. But of adoration of Images theâ—'s not a vestige in these places cited only Sozomen relates that Julian pulled down that statue at Caesarea which was said to be Christs and set up his own in place of it which was stricken from Heaven with Thunder The Apostat having erected his own statue in spite against Christ and cap. 5. when Julian had commanded to reedify the Temple of Jerusalem there came fire out of the Earth and consumed the Builders and it s said the figurs of Crosses and Stars appeared upon their Cloaths But of adoration of Images or of Crosses nothing is said Nay it s insinuated that some in those times doubted the truth of the Relation What eightly is objected to us from Hierome concerning the Heresies of Jovinian and Vigilantius was objected before Sect. 5. pag. 100. and discussed cap. 4. Sect. 2. Ninthly he says that with Pelagians we brag of assurance of Salvation apud Hierom. lib. 3. cont Pelag. We do not brag of it we only say through grace it may be attained yet make it not absolutely necessary to Salvation neither was this ever condemned as a Pelagian error That which St. Hierom. refutes in the place cited as Chamier shews lib. 3. cap. 20. Sect. 4. Is the sinless perfection in time which Papists and Quakers following Pelagians do maintain yea not only Ancient Fathers but also diverse Popish Authors assent to us in the matter of assurance as St. Ambrose Catharinus Marcus Marinarius c. Tenthly he says with Jovinians we maintain that they who have received grace in Baptism cannot finally fall away apud August But the Heresy where with St. August in haeres 82. which I think the Pamphleter would have cited charges Jovinian was that he affirmed that after Baptism men could not sin Which none of us affirm an immunity from final Apostacy and a total immunity from sin are very different things Eleventhly he says that with Vigilantius we hold Church men ought to marry apud Hierom. cont Vigil we say no such thing we only say its lawful for them but not that they are bound to do it is there not a difference betwixt Licere and Oportere Twelfthly He charges us with the madness of the Anthropomorphits saying that the body of Christ remaines not in the Eucharist if it be keept till the morrow apud Cyrill ad Collosyrium To this objection of Breerlys it was long ago replyed by Dr. Marton appeal lib. 5. cap. 8. and lib. 2. cap. 3. that Romanists do more resemble the madness of the Anthropomorphits by picturing and worshiping God the Father in the likeness of an old man and that Protestants do not altogether condemn all reservations of the Eucharist especially these in the Ancient Church in order to eating and participation in case of absence from the congregation thorow sickness and persecution and in such reservations for Sacramental use the consecrated elements remaine to be the body and blood of Christ Symbolically which is all that Cyril intended for then the Sacramental action is continued But the Popish reservations for circumgestation procession and adoration is a manifest innovation without any vestige of Antiquity Ancients were wont to give the remainders of the Eucharist to Children or School Boys to be eaten says Niceph. Hist. lib. 17. cap. 25. and Euag. Hist lib. 4. cap. 35. which was an evidence they looked not on them as a Sacrament when the Sacramental use ceased else they would not have given these elements to Children who could not discern the Lords body I only add that these reservations used by Ancients are now abrogated in the Romish Church as is acknowledged by Durant de ritibus lib. 1. cap. 16. Thirtenthly What he objects of Pelagians concerning Baptism of Eunomians concerning justification by Faith alone and of Arrians concerning Tradition was objected Pag. 100. and was accordingly discussed cap. 4. Sect. 2. Fourtenthly He shuts us all with three testimonies concerning the infallibility of the Church of Rome The two first are from St. Cyprian and St. Iren. which he oft repeats in his Pamphlet That of Iren. I examined cap. 7. Instance 1. I shall now therefore only take notice of that from Cyp. and of the other from the Council of Chalcedon Who would not admire the impudency of this Pamphleter there being no more luculent witnesses against the infallibility and supremacy of the Pope then St. Cyp. and the Council of Chalcedon He represents Cyprians testimony thus Epist 55. to Peters Chaire and the principal Church infidelity or false Doctrine cannot have access To which it s answered 1. That if an argument hold from that testimony of St. Cyp. for papal infallibility it will likewise conclude all the beleeving Romans to be infallible for their Cyprian says ad Romanos quorum fides Apostolo praedicante landata est perfidia non potest habere accessum that perfidy can have no access to beleeving Romans But secondly who warranted the Pamphleter to render perfidia by infidelity or false Doctrine As of St. Cyprian were only speaking of errors in dogmatical points where as certainly Cyprians
c. Ezek. cap. 16. cap. 22. and cap. 36. Doth not the Apostle complain also of Gospel Churches as 2 Cor. 12. 20 21. Doth not Eusebius lib. 8. Hist cap. 1. hold out the wicked lives of Christians yea and of Ministers to be the cause of the grievous persecution under Dioclesian Hereupon Ancients would not have the truth of Doctrine examined by mens lives Hierom lib. 3. cont Ruffin Quis unquam Catholicorum in disputatione Sectarum turpitudinem ei objecit adversus quem disputat And Austin lib. 1. de mor. Eccles cap. 34. Nunc vos illud admoneo ut aliquando Ecclesiae Catholicae male dicere desinatis vituperando mores hominum quos ipsa condemnat quos quotidie tanquam malos filios corrigere studet What need I more to compesce this Pamphleter seeing Stapleton himself lib. 1. de Princip Doct. cap. 19. confesses Sanctam esse Ecclesiam sed per suam Sanctitatem non innotescere Did not Tertull. de praescript long ago teach that we must measure persons by Doctrines non ex personis fidem It were the wisdom of Romanists to be silent as to this matter were I disposed to write a Satyr I might fill a Volumn with complaints of the impiety of the Romish Church and that out of their own Authors Did not their own Pope Hadrian the Sixth in his instructions to Cheregat his Nuncio to the Diet at Noremberg confess that the Church of Rome was greatly corrupted that the evil flowed from the Priests to the people and from the Top of the Pontifical Dignity to the inferiour Clergy insomuch that no man did aright See Hist of the Council of Trent by Padre Paulo lib. 1. pag. 26. Edit 2. and Sleid. Comment lib. 4. How oft have they been told of the ruthful complaint of their Espencaeus Comment in Tit. 1. Vbi sub sole malorum omnium licentia c. where more licentiousness in all manner of wickedness than at Rome Tanta ut credat nemo nisi qui viderit ut neget nemo nisi qui non viderit and thereupon cites the lines of their own Poet Mantuan Vinere qui cupitis Sanctè discedite Roma Omnia cum liceant non licet esse Pium. Doth not Platina tell in vita Marcellini vitia nostra eò crevere ut vix apud Deum nobis locum veniae reliquerint Who would see a multitude of such like grievous complaints of Romes impiety from Theodoricus à Niem Cornelius Mussus Bernard Marsilius Jansenius of Gaunt c. I remit them to John White his way to the Church Sect. 38. § 31. and to Gerard de notis Eccles Sect. 10. It 's irksome to me to give an account what execrable Monsters many of their Popes have been Is not Sergius the Second stigmatized by Baronius Anno 908. Num. 2. as vir nefandus c. a most vicious man Did he not upon a most notorious Strumpet Marozia beget Pope John the Eleventh whom Baronius Anno 931. deservedly terms a Monster What another Monster was John the Twelfth whom Platina calls John the Thirteenth did he not possess the Papal Chair according to Baronius Anno 955. N. 4. about eighteen years of Age one from his Youth saith Platina defiled with all vice and turpitude Doth not Onuphrius Annot. in Plat. in John 8. enumerate a multitude of Whores which he kept as Joanna Rayneria Stephana c. so that he turned the Palace of the Lateran to a Stew Luitprand reports of him that in Dicing he would call upon the Devil for help and drink Healths to the Devil Platina affirms that he did cut off Noses and Hands of Cardinals and adds from others that while he was lying with another Mans Wife he was stabbed to Death in the Act of Adultery Luitprand says he died of a wound given him by the Devil in his filthiness Yet Baronius loe cit confesses that the whole Catholick Church did venerate this impure Wretch as Pope of Rome Concerning Boniface the Seventh doth not Baronius Anno 985. N. 1 2. write that he was a very Villain a Church-Robber and Murderer of two Popes so that he would have his name blotted out among Popes If all the impious Monsters were razed out there would be a great Hiatus in their succession Had not Innocent the Eigth sixteen Bastards Hence are these lines Octo Nocens pueros genuit totidemque puellas Hunc merito poterit dicere Roma Patrem Was not Sixtus the Fourth a Sodomite and gave License for that Abomination to his Cardinals for three hot Moneths and as Cornelius Agrippa witnesses erected a Brothel-house at Roma O execrable for both kinds of Venery Hence was that Epitaph on him Sixte jaces tandem deflent tua bust a Cinedi Scortaque lenones alea vina Venus Alexander the Sixth comes nothing behind him he came to the Papacy by Simony a man of barbarous cruelty insatiable avarice he sold Cardinals Hats for money yea as Onuphrius writes poysoned Cardinals that he might seize on their Treasures by which means through a mistake of the Poysoned Cup designed for others himself was poysoned Most licentious in his Lust he did not like other Popes make his Bastards go under the name of Nephews but owned them as his Children both himself and his Son did incestuously converse with his own Daughter Lucretia Hence were the lines Hoc jacet in tumulo Lucretia nomine sed re Thais Alexandri filia Sponsa nurus Have you not heard how Pope Paul the Third did prostitute his Sister Julia Farnefia to Alexander the Sixth that he might be made Cardinal and how himself incestuousiy abused his own Niece Laura Farnesia and her Husband deprehending him in the Act wounded him with a Dagger And this is that Holy Pope who first authorized the unhallowed Order of Jesuits What should I speak of John 23. who was commonly called an Incarnate Devil and was accused by the Council of Constance as an Infidel who denied the Immortality of the Soul and the Resurrection or of Leo the Tenth who in a Discourse with Bembus called the Gospel a Fable Doth not Baronius confess ad Annum 908. that notorious Strumpets put out and in Popes at their pleasure Lest I should rake too long in this Puddle let the confession of Marcellus the Second suffice for all who as Onuphrius relates openly professed he could not see how any that possessed that Chair could be saved Had he lived longer it 's like he might have used more freedom but he died within 22 days after his Election and as is supposed not without an Italian Potion But perhaps the Sanctity of the Romish Church is cloystered up within their Monasteries Hath not the World heard of many thousand Infants murdered in their Cloysters their bones buried in Privies and Ponds Doth that speak out their Piety But I rather they take a Character of the Sanctity of their Monasteries from their own Writers than me Who would have an unpartial account hereof I commend
some real Saints as Chrysostom Ambrose Austin and 36 ancient Bishops of Rome that were Martyrs I grant these were Saints but none of them Papists more than the Prophets were Pharisees though the Pharisees built their Tombs Yea nor was Bernard though he lived in late and corrupt times a Romanist of the late Edition he did not approve the whole Systeme of the now Tridentine Faith though he escaped not altogether the Contagion of the times he lived in â—he was indeed a Monk and in many things superstitious yet not a through-paced Papist as is shewed by D. Francis White in defence of his Brother D. John White against T. W. P. Pap. 313 314. and in particular that he held the sufficiency of the Scriptures without Traditions Justification by Faith alone that our works do not merit of condignity that no man is able to keep the Law perfectly that a just man may through mercy be assured of Grace that there is no such Free-will in fallen man as Jesuits assert and that he stood against the pride of the Pope and the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary To these which D. John White had confirmed from Bernards writings D. Francis adds divers other points as that he held the Eucharist is to be a Commemorative Sacrifice that he taught not Adoration of Images that he believed Habitual Concupiscence to be a sin and that he maintained the Authority and Preheminence of the Civil Magistrate and the subjection of the Apostles and of all Ecclesiasticks to his Jurisdiction This third and last Note of the Church taken from Sanctity might be inverted as the former hath been not only from the Identity of our Religion with the Apostolick Religion which is the only truly holy Religion but also by appealing our Adversaries to pitch upon one Article agreed on in the Harmony of Confessions which hath not a tendency to Holiness And lastly by putting all to it who have but so much indifferency as to be ingenuous if the Reformed Churches have not always afforded multitude of serious unblameable and devout persons By this time I hope it may appear that the Pamphleters three Notes of the Church Miracles Conversion of Infidels and Sanctity of Life make nothing for the Catholicism of the Romish Church but prove convincingly the truth of the Reformed Church Had he brought the rest of Bellarmin's Notes he should have found them to be as little for his advantage SECT IV. A touch of the Pamphleters hints at two other Notes of their Church viz. the Title of Catholick and Succession HE snarles passingly pag. 201 202. at the Name of Catholick as if the Argument held from names to things Do not false Prophets false Apostles and false gods assume the names of true Prophets Apostles and of the true God Was not Simon Magus Act. 8. 10. called the Power of God Did not Mahomet call himself the Great Prophet and his Disciples Musselmans that is sound believers and Abdullam or the servants of God Hath not the Title of Catholick been assumed by Novatians as witnesseth Cyprian Epist 73. by Donatists as testifies Austin in Brevic. collat col 3. diei cap. 2. yea by all Hereticks if we believe Lactant. Instit lib. 4. cap. 30. and Austin contra Epist. Fundamenti cap. 4. The Orthodox also are ready sometimes to indulge Hereticks with the splendid names which they vainly assume to themselves as some were called Apostolici some Angelici others Gnostici c. besides it 's questioned whether the Christian Church was always adorned with the Title of Catholick the contrary seems to be yielded by Pacianus Epist 1. ad Sempron and D. Pearson on the Creed Art 9. brings great Authorities to prove that in ancient Editions of the Apostolick Creed especially in the Roman and Western Church this Epithete Catholick was not added to the Church However sure I am the Title of Catholick without the true Catholick Faith is but magni nominis umbra Certainly the Roman Church is not the Catholick if either the Catholick Church be taken for the Orthodox Church in which sense the Fathers termed particular Churches Catholick as that of Smyâ—na in Euseb Hist lib. 4. cap. 15. that of Nazianzum and many others in Greg. Nazianzens latter will But the Roman being grosly Heterodox as hath been proved is not Catholick in this sense nor is she Catholick if the Catholick and Universal be the same the Roman being but a part and lesser part of Christendom the greater and sounder part at this day renouncing Communion with her yea Papists call themselves Catholicks with a term diminuent Catholick Romans i. e. Catholicks not Catholicks or Schismatical Catholicks who being but a part of the Catholick Church would Monopolize Catholicism to themselves alone When therefore Protestants call Romanists Catholicks they do as when they call the Turks Musselmans because they assume these Titles though undeservedly to themselves That of Pacianus in the forecited Epistle is very remarkable Novatianos audio de Novato aut Novatiano vocari Sectam tamen in his non nomen incuso Nec Montano aliquis aut Phrygibus nomen objecit As insignificant is his other hint pag. 202. at the pretended perpetual Succession of Pastors in the Roman Church from the Apostles For Succession meerly personal and local if it be not also Doctrinal cannot prove a true Church Hence Iren. lib. 4. cap. 43. joyns Cum Episcopatus Successione charisma veritatis i. e. the gift of Truth with succession and Epiphan Haeres 55. teaches that now we are chiefly to enquire after successiones Doctrinae i. e. the succession of Doctrine and Tertull. de Praescript contra Haeret cap. 32. saith Though Hereticks should pretend a Succession of Bishops yet the diversity of their Doctrine from the Doctrine of Apostles will prove them not to be of Apostolical descent And again albeit some Churches could instance no Apostles or Apostolick persons from whom they are descended tamen in eadem fide conspirantes yet being sound to have the same Faith Apostolicae deputantur pro consanguinitate Doctrinae they are accounted Apostolick because of the consanguinity of Doctrine Excellently said Nazlanzen Orat. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. He who professed the same Doctrine of Faith hath an interest in the same Throne or See but he that defends contrary Doctrine is Adversary to the See for this latter hath but the name of Succession but the other the truth and reality thereof What need I more seeing their own Learned Stapleton Controv. 1. q. 4. art 2. Notab 5. confesseth that bare personal and local Succession is not a sure Note of the true and Orthodox Church And surely we cannot conclude from it the being of the Church either affirmatively or negatively not affirmatively by Bell. his confession lib. 4. de Eccles cap. 8. for when Arrianism overspread the Oriental Churches they had a personal and local succession of Bishops nor yet negatively as if they were no Churches where personal succession
Christendom an Infallible Judge defining contradictions and make the Divine Law a Nose of Wax a Church with many Heads Altars and Sacrifices without Divine Institution a Propitiatory Sacrifice without shedding of blood yea without a sacrificing act Image-worship Bread-worship Cross-worship Relick-worship Saint-worship if they may be believed without Idolatry Sacraments without visible Elements Sacraments so far from sanctifying that their most Religious persons are obliged to vow abstinence from them Specters of accidents without a subject they eat and devour their God they have devotion without understanding performing holy things in an unknown Language they have Pastors without Preaching Communion without Communicants they maintain a sinless perfection yet teach manifest violations of the Law of God they cannot only merit Heaven by their works but also supererrogate yet in many things they offend all the Satisfaction of Christ according to them needs a supply of penal satisfactions either in this life or in Purgatory the Efficacy of Grace depends on the beck of Free-will and Eternal Election must be founded on the prescience of mens good works Popes have Apostolical Function but no immediate Mission nor speak they with Tongues c. they obtrude lying signs and wonders yea ridiculous Fables for real Miracles the Enthusiasms of their Popes for Divine Oracles and bundles of Novelties under the Vizour of Antiquity many Books they hold for Canonical Scripture which neither the Jewish nor Primitive Christian Church did ever own In a word they set up a Religion built upon no Divine Authority but upon Humane Traditions and definitions of their Church repugnant to Scripture to Antiquity to Reason and to the senses of all the world teaching impious Idolatry against God and perfidiousness to men receiving addition or alteration as the Grandees of the Romish Faction find most to conduce for the Grandeur of the Pope and Interest of the Court of Rome But lest I should seem to say nothing to his Knacks I answer first we have both Faith and Vnity Faith grounded on holy Scripture and not only Unity in Fundamentals which is necessary to the being of the Church Militant but also in most of the Integrals of Religion as may appear by the harmony of Confessions whereas they have neither true Faith nor Unity for hardly do they disagree from us in any thing wherein they are not subdivided among themselves Secondly we have both a Law and a Judge a Law better nor the Canon Law the Divine Law of holy Scriptures a Judge both Celestial the Lord Jesus Christ and Terrestrial the Synods of the Church But Romanists to shoulder up their pretended infallible Judge whom yet they cannot agree upon throw intollerable indignities upon the Law of God as hath been demonstrated cap. 3. Thirdly we have an Altar and Sacrifices an Altar not like their Altars of Damascus but an Altar which sanctifies our Oblations the Lord Jesus Christ And thus Aquinas himself expounds that of the Apostle Heb. 13. 10. we have an Altar We have also a Sacrifice not only Eucharistick of prayers and praises but also certainly Propitiatory viz. of Christ on the Cross Fourthly our Sacraments are not bare signs as Romanists slander us but exhibitive of Grace which cannot be truly said of all theirs Fifthly Though the Worship of God with us be not clogged as in the Romish Church with a heap of Ceremonies partly Heathenish partly Judaical yet we have Religious Ceremonies viz. Sacramental Rites and these also of Divine Institution Sixthly the Mission of our Preachers hath been sustained against the cavils of Romanists but a Divine Warrant cannot be shewed for their Popes Universal Vicarship or the Princely Dignity of their Cardinals Seventhly Our Doctrine is infallible and the ground of our Faith sure unless Romanists like Infidels will question the Infallibility of the Scripture Eighthly Though we pretend not to a Pharisaical perfection with Romanists yet we acknowledge the Commandments of God so far as is absolutely necessary to Salvation through Grace may be kept Ninthly Eternal Life being a reward of Grace not of Debt does not presuppose any proper Merit of ours but Romanists by their Doctrine of Merit make Heaven Venial and derogate from the sufficiency of the sole Merits of Christ Tenthly Reprobation being an eternal and immanent Act of God and consequently God himself cannot properly be demerited but there is no damnation without the previous demerit of sin yea also the Eternal Decree of Reprobation in the judgment of the Council of Dort presupposes the Prescience of Mans Fall Eleventhly though lapsed man without Regenerating Grace cannot do that which is spiritually good yet be may freely sin none of us do question but the Jesuits Garnet Oldcorn c. acted freely in their accession to the Powder-Plot Twelfthly we pretend not to any new Apostles nor is there necessity of new Miracles our Doctrine having been fully confirmed by the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles Thirteenthly It 's more than Romanists can prove that particular Churches have not Authority to reform themselves when General Councils cannot be had to undertake the work Fourteenthly we leave private Spirits and new Lights against old revealed Verities to Quakers and Papists Fifteenthly Single mens Opinions against the common consent of Fathers have more affinity with Jesuits Probables than Protestants To justifie their boldness in broaching new Opinions Poza the Jesuit as cited in the Jesuits Morals Part. 1. Cap. 1. Art 1. pag. 167. brings a Testimony from a Council of Constantinople Beatus qui profert verbum inauditum as if the Council had said blessed is he that produces a word unheard of or some new thing whereas like a Jesuit he mutilates and perverts the words of the Council which are Beatus qui profert verbum in auditum obedientium blessed is he who utters a word to obedient ears Sixteenthly We are not ashamed to maintain that the Apocryphal Books are no part of the Old Testament because the Jewish Church did never receive them being told Rom. 3. 2. that to them were committed the Oracles of God Seventeenthly there have been stedfast Pastors and Martyrs in the Protestant Churches who have sealed the Truth we profess with their blood Our Doctrine and the Substantials of Government being founded on Scriptural Authority must consequently be unalterable whereas Rome's changes as to dogmaticals Worship and Government from Ancient Rome are so many that we may take up that regrate of her Hei mihi qualis eras quantum mutaris ab illâ Româ The Author designed a peculiar Cap. in the close of this Treatise for his own vindication from the Criminations of the Pamphleter together with a plain Reparty to the Jesuit Tribe But finding that these Papers had swelled beyond his expectation he hath at this time superseded much of that labour and the rather seeing these things touch not the Cause and Jesuits are known to be persons of such malignity that their Invectives find little credit with