as Bell. does confess but also actually seclude from his Communion on the same account Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadoeia and many other Asiatick Bishops as testifies Denys of Alexandria in Euseb lib. 7. cap. 4 or how did he call Cyprian himself Pseudo Christum Pseudo Apostolum dolosum operarium a false Christ false Apostle and deceitful worker as Firmilian records in Epist ad Cyp. which is the 75 among Cyprians Epistles or how did Cyprian Epist 74. ad Pompeiam accuse Stephen as taking the defence of Hereticks against the Church of God had not the matter in controversie betwixt them been looked on as an Article of Faith Ought not Romanists at least give the world sute Characteristicks by which to know when the Bishops of Rome define a point to be an Article of Faith unless they design to hold all in suspence that they may improve their Delphick Oracles as definitions of Faith or otherwise as they find their interest require But as to Cyprian however he did err in the matter of Rebaptization yet he well perceived the point not to be Fundamental but such as good men may differ in salvo pacis câ—ncordiae vinculo as he expresses himself Epist 72. ad Stephanum And therefore adds qua in re nee nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damus And for this his moderation he is commended by S. Augustine Ep. 48. and by S. Hierome in Dial. adversus Lueifer though they were of a contrary perswasion in the thing Excellently said Austin lib. 1. cont Julian cap. 6. Alia sunt in quibus inter se etiam doctissimi atque optimi regulae Catholicae defenseres salvâ fidei compage non consonant alius alio de una re melius aliquid dicit verius bâ—e autem unde nune agimus ad ipsa pertinet fidei fundamenta Perhaps a Romanist may run to that subterfuge of the Valenburgii in examin princip fidei exam 3. Sect. 8. That therefore they who held these errours were of the same Religion with them who now believe the contrary because though they differ in the material objects of their Faith yet the same ratio formalis fidel or Rule of Faith was acknowledged by both namely that whatever God proposes by his Church is to be believed and by the same reason these Authors would be reconciling the Faith of Romanists before and after the Council of Trent They cannot deny but there be things now held as Articles of Faith which were not so held before the Council of Trent yet they would have us to believe that the Religion of both is the same because the ratio formalis credendi or the Rule of Faith is the same in both namely what God proposes clearly by his Church But here many falshoods are sophistically insinuated For first though it be true that whatever God proposes whether by the Church or by a private Pastor ought to be believed yet the Valenburgians sophistically insinuate that whatever the Church proposes God also proposes and that as necessary to Salvation though it were not so before but that this is a notorious falshood shall be cleared Sect. 3. neither can all the Clergy of Rome prove that this was the Faith of the Ancient Church The Pamphleter made some Essays to this purpose by some broken shreds of Antiquity in his Sect. 3. which we have examined cap. 2. and shewed that they make nothing for his purpose Nay the Ancient Fathers as we have evicted cap. 3. hold that the Scriptures were the Rule of Faith and the ratio formalis credendi for in this matter they seem to be taken for one consequently they differing from Romanists in the Rule of Faith were not of the same Religion with them Secondly it is as notorious a falshood that Romanists before and after the Council of Trent are agreed upon the same ratio formalis credendi or the same Rule of Faith Did I not shew the diversities of Opinions among themselves touching this thing in the stating of the question concerning the Rule of Faith If this be the prevalent Doctrine of the Romish Church which this Pamphleter holds out that the definition of an Infallible Judge is the principal Rule of Faith assuredly there were eminent persons in the Romish Church of another perswasion before the Council of Trent namely those who maintained that Pope and Council were fallible such as Occam Panormitan Petrus de Alliaco Antoninus Cardinal Cusan Nicolaus lemanges of whom I gave an account cap. 2. Sect. 2. Yea nor can Romanists to this day agree among themselves concerning the Rule of Faith some holding Oral Tradition some the definition of a Gâ—neral Council and others the definition of a Pope to be it though to hide their differences from simple ones they endeavour to wrap up all in some general terms such as the Proposition of the Church yet in enpounding these terms they go by the 〈◊〉 among themselves Thirdly there is more requisite to the Unity of Religion thâ—n a meer agreement in the formaliâ— ratio credendi or the Rule of Faith there be some material objects of Faith the explicite belief whereof is of absolute necessity to Salvation Can any be saved who do not believe an Heaven and an Hell Doth not Scripture hold forth Jesus Christ to be a Foundation in Religion 1 Cor. 3.11 Hence D. Vane in his lost Sheep cap. 8. pag. 87. though he cavil against the distinction of Fundamentals and Non-Fundamentals yet he is constrained to confess that in regard of the material object or thing to be believed some points are Fundamentals others not that is some points are to be believed explicitely and distinctly others not Consequently it s not a sufficient reason to say such held one ratio formalis credendi therefore were of the same Religion especially when it s confessed there be material objects which are of necessity to salvation to be believed by the one which were not by the other Fourthly the true reason therefore why the Fathers notwithstanding their errours were not heretical but of the same Religion with us because their errours were only against integrals of Religion but not against Fundamentals neither did they pertinaciously maintain them but were willing to have renounced them had they been convinced that they were contrary to the Scripture which to them was the Rule of Faith as well as to us So that to them might have been said as Austin to Vincentius Victor lib. 3. de orig animae cap. 15. Iste animus etiam in dictis per ignorantiam non Catholicus ipsa est correctionis praemeditatione Catholicus a Soul maintaining errours contrary to Catholick Doctrine yet willing to submit upon conviction upon that virtual repentance or premeditation of correction to use S. Austins word is truly Catholick namely when the Errours strike not at the Foundation as the same Father spoke in the forecited testimony lib. 3. contra Julian cap. 6. Against this the Pamphleter objects
to which all solid Christians ever assented is that through the weakness of our understanding we not being able to penetrate all truths divinely revealed we may sometimes suppose that not to be revealed by God which is revealed by him or that to be revealed by him which is not revealed In this case which was Cyprians in the matter of Rebaptization if a man believe firmly not only the Veracity of God and be ready to assent to the particular truth whereof now he doubts if he knew it were revealed by God but also believes the most weighty Articles of the Christian Faith we say in that case our Lord doth graciously pardon the misbelief of smaller material objects of Faith which through infirmity are misbelieved This we have already confirmed by Scripture and Antiquity Sect. 1. Laying aside therefore his false state of the question the true state of the question is whether whatever the Church proposes as an Article of Faith must be believed under pain of damnation and consequently is to be held as a Fundamental so as without the belief thereof no salvation can be had in this indeed we maintain the Negative and my Adversary and Jesuited Romanists the Affirmative That this is the true state of the question may be evicted from the Pamphleter himself For after his deceitful misrepresentations of the question at length he comes above board pag. 92. thus The Church saith he in her publick Decrees of General Councils strikes with the Thunder-bolt of Gods Curse and Excommunication all such as refuse to believe any one point decided to be of Faith which she could not justly do if every Article she declares were not necessarily to be believed when known to be decided by her It 's therefore the decision by her that lays the necessity of believing upon souls Yet it would be further noted that by the Church Romanists understand the Roman Church or Church in Communion with the Pope acknowledging his Headship and Universal Supremacy And because the diffusive Body of thee Roman Church cannot all assemble to define Controversies of Religion ther for it must be understood of her representatives seeing Conciliary representatives are very rare and the sense of their Canons are obnoxious to various debates therefore this power of determining and imposing Fundamentals though the Pamphleter in the words cited seem only to speak of Councils must at length be resolved into the Pope I wrong them not Here Jesuit Gretser speaking in name of the rest in defens Bell. lib. 3. de verb. Dei cap. 10. Colum. 1450. When we affirm saith he the Church to be the Judge of all Controversies of Faith by the Church we understand the Bishop of Rome who for the time being governs the Ship of the Militant Church The question is then whether all that the Bishop of Rome injoyns ex Cathedra and as matters of Faith must be believed because he injoyns it and that under pain of Everlasting Damnation the Jesuited Party affirm we deny It 's not the misbelieving what Scripture says but what the Roman Church or Pope saith that according to these men does condemn Souls I shall not insist upon a large confutation of this absurd Doctrine which cannot but ruine with its own weight not being supported with any solid ground only take these brief hints 1. The Catholick Church in all her Representatives since the Apostolick Age is fallible as I demonstrated by many arguments Cap. 2. Sect. 2. and may injoyn Errours for Articles of Faith Ergo all that the Representatives of the Catholick Church injoyn as Articles of Faith are not to be held as Fundamentals This one argument is sufficient to overturn that Romish Structure But 2. It 's an intollerable Catachresis to affirm the Romish Church much more the Pope to be the Catholick Church or to attribute the peculiar priviledges of the Catholick Church to the Roman or to the Pope by as good reason they might affirm Italy or Rome to be the whole World and predicate that of Rome which is peculiar to the whole World Ergo though it were granted that the Catholick Church or her Representatives had power infallibly to determine Fundamentals of Faith it does not follow that this is the priviledge of the Roman Church or Pope of Rome as our Adversaries affirm 3. Every thing that God himself reveals in Scripture is not a Fundamental of Faith Ergo far less every thing that the Church proposes The sequel is evident for if there be any reason why every thing proposed by the Church should be Fundamental this must needs be it because as Romanists affirm what the Church says God himself says But this reason cannot be cogent for beyond all peradventure what is revealed in Scripture is revealed by God himself and yet both Protestants and Papists acknowledge that all revealed in Scripture is not Fundamental therefore neither can all proposed by the Church be Fundamental This argument concludes that though she were infallible as Scripture truly is yet would it not follow that all her definitions were Fundamentals of Faith It may be here objected that he who knows a truth to be contained in Scripture and yet misbelieves it erres Fundamentally therefore also if the Church be infallible he who misbelieves any point which he knows to be propounded by her erreth likewise Fundamentally Not to mention that this objection proceeds upon the supposition of the Infallibility of the Church the falshood whereof I hope has already been evicted I answer that he indeed erreth Fundamentally who misbelieves the least truth which he knows to be contained in Scripture provided he know the Divine Original of that Scripture yet not so much for misbelieving that particular truth for in other circumstances it may be misbelieved without a Fundamental errour as for his explicite misbelief of the Veracity of God which renders the man an Infidel But I hope Romanists themselves will not say that if Cardinal Cajetan who questioned the Divine Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews had thereupon misbelieved some particular Proposition which he acknowledged to be contained in that Epistle had erred Fundamentally and consequently though the Church were infallible as she is not yet if he who questioned her Insallibility should also misbelieve what he knew to be propounded by her he should not err Fundamentally For in so doing he would not explicitly question the Veracity of God as in the first case 4. If the Proposals of the Church made Articles Fundamental ergo after the Churches definition the Christian Religion should be essentially different from what it was before contrary to Ephes 4. there is but one Faith The sequel is evident because after that definition of the Church there should be Fundamentals or Essentials in Religion which were not before And from this it follows the now Roman Religion is essentially different from the old Christian Religion For by the new definitions of their Church they have made many Essentials which the
Scripture if they say from Oral Tradition then Oral Tradition should rather be the Rule of Faith than the sentence of the infallible Judge which I doubt if the Jesuited party will admit I appeal to all the Romanists in the world to instance one Article of Faith conveyed down by Universal Tradition and not contained in the Scripture Is there any dogmatical Controversie betwixt Romanists and us for which they pretend not Scripture Is not this a practical testimony to the fulness of Scripture as comprehending all material objects of Faith which at other times they dispute against The chief difficulty that here can be moved is that Scripture cannot prove its own Original to be Divine or define the number of Canonical Books Not to insist upon many things which may be replied this alone at this time may suffice that though what is objected were true yet Scripture would not cease to be the Rule of Faith it being sufficient that the Rule of Faith doth determine all questions about the material objects of Faith whereas the Books of holy Scripture are either a part of the formal object of Faith or at least a condition belonging thereto or to speak more plainly they are the Rule of Faith it self Nay this is such a Pedantick Sophism as if to use M. Chillingworth's example in his safe way to salvation cap. 2. Sect. 27. When a Merchant shewing his own ship containing all his stock says all his substance is in such a ship one should infer that either the ship were no part of his substance or that the ship were in her self whereas the Merchants expression imports no more but that all his goods distinct from the ship were contained therein So if Scripture be able to determine all questions of Religion concerning the material objects of Faith though those which relate to its being the Rule receive Evidence another way it loses nothing of this property of the Rule of Faith And to shew that Romanists are no less concerned in this objection than we I ask if they can assign any Rule of Faith that can resolve all questions which may be moved concerning it self as whether Oral Tradition or the definition of the visible Judge be the Rule or which soever of these be pitched upon can it prove its own infallibility can it resolve what Articles of Faith are only to be learned by unwritten Tradition and not at all by Scripture or who is the subject of Infallibility whether the Pope or Council or both conjunctly Is it not like that before they produce a Rule of Faith to resolve these and such like questions they will betake themselves to our Answer that it 's not requisite that the questions which concern the being of the Rule of Faith be resolved by the Rule it self only I must mind them that these things must at least have evidence from some other head which I doubt will hardly be found concerning the questions last mentioned But the questions which they move to us concerning the Divine Original of the Scriptures and the number of Canonick Books receive a clear determination partly from the motives of Credibility as Romanists themselves confess concerning all the Books which we hold as Canonical The like cannot be said of their Apocrypha Books as shall appear Sect. 3. and Append. 1. to cap. 7. and partly by the intrinsick Characters of a Divine Original for those are inherent to all the Books of Scripture and to no other writing consequently those give evidence of their Divine Extract though not by a formal testimony I shall not here insist upon the reflex testimony which Scripture gives to its own Divine Original 2 Tim. 3.16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God or of the ground which is given Rom. 3.2 to disprove the Apocrypha Books as no part of the sacred Canon of the Old Testament in as much as the Scripture of the Old Testament was delivered to the Jewish Church which certainly never owned the Apocrypha Books as part of the Scriptures as is clear from Josephus lib. 1. against Appion Yet because we must first suppose the Divine Original of those testimonies before we argue from them therefore I rest on what I have said What need I more so full are the Scriptures that Basil Serm. de vera fide concludes it a manifest falling from the Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a certain proof of pride 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either to reject any thing thing that is written or to introduce any thing that is not written Fourthly Doth the Authority of the Scriptures depend upon any prior Rule if there were any should it not be either Tradition or the definition of the Church not Tradition The most that the Council of Trent dared to say for Traditions was to equal them with the Scripture to be received pari pietatis affectu but if they were a Prior Rule upon whose Authority the Authority of Scripture did depend they should be preferred to the Scripture I acknowledge Tradition to have a chief place among the motives of Credibility preparing us to believe the Scripture Tradition I say not of the Church only but also of Infidels Yea the testimony of Infidels in this case may perhaps be more convincing than the testimony of the Church for Enemies cannot be supposed to be corrupted by interest to give testimony against their own selves Nor will I hope Romanists be so impudent as to say that the testimony of Infidels is the Rule of Faith If Tradition of the Church were to be the Rule either it must be the Tradition of the Church under this Reduplication as being the Church or as the Tradition and testimony of such prudent men Not the first for the Church cannot be known as a Church but by the proper notes of the Church and these cannot be had but by the Rule of Faith this being a part of our Faith that these are the proper notes of the true Church and consequently I must first know the Rule of Faith before I know the Church under the reduplication of a Church This I suppose will be found to be demonstratively conclusive If therefore the Tradition of the Church only as the testimony of prudent men be said to be the Rule a meerly humane thing should be the principal Rule of the Christian Faith and Religion which I believe no Christian unless he be of a Socinian impression will admit I confess the concurring testimony and Tradition of so many prudent men who cannot be supposed to have colluded together upon any base design to cheat the World may be so far convincing as to shew that there is no rational ground of doubting the Divine Original of the Scriptures and so may remove those prejudices which might have impeded our discovery of those intrinsick Rays of Majesty resplendent in the holy Scriptures which are the chief Evidence of their Divine Original But besides giving and not granting that our â—ssent to the Divine
est via haec sed ruina si via tua est non illius Did not Christ by collating the Scripture cited by the Devil with another Deut. 6.16 demonstrate that the Devil did pervert the Scripture contrary to its sense and thereby did confirm the truth which the Jesuit here impugnes viz. that collation of Scripture with Scripture is one solid mean to find out the true sense of Scripture What though Hereticks for their Heresies do alledge Scriptures as would seem clear Is there not as great odds betwixt a Scripture seemingly clear and really clear as betwixt a Jesuits Sophism and a real demonstration May not all those perverfions of Scripture by Marcion tes Manichees c. be sufficiently cleared without the sentence of an infallible visible Judge Is it not apparent that it was an impious inference from Joh. 10.8 that Moses was a Thief or Robber seeing he was faithful in all the House of God as a servant Heb. 3.6 That place Joh. 10.8 pronounces them only Thieves and Robbers who run without a Mission from God as Austin expounds lib. 16. contra Faustum cap. 12. or that gave themselves out for the Messias such as Judas of Galilee and Theudas c. So Chrysost Cyril Theophil Enthym cited by à Lapide on the place none of which did Moses Is not the fancy of the Manicheans from Joh. 8.12 as impious and ludibrious Is not Christ God over all blessed for ever Rom. 9.5 therefore as Austin said excellently Tract 34. in Joh. Est Lux quae faecit hanc lucem he is not the Sun but the Light which made the Sun As for that Tenet he charges upon the Waldenses they are vindicated from it by Learned Vsher de Christian Eccles success stat cap. 6. Edit 2. pag. 198. and by Perrin Hist of Walden lib. 1. cap. 4. Yea Alphonsus à Castro albeit he following the Drove accuse them of it yet confesses that Aeneas Sylvius in lib. de orig Bohemorum cap. 35. in reckoning out the errours of the Waldenses charges them with no such thing However surely that Position has no Foundation in that Text Exod. 20.13 For the Magistrate Rom. 13. bears not the Sword in vain and Scripture expresly injoyns the punishing of sundry Criminals capitally particularly Murtherers Numb 35.31 So that those impious glosses which Hereticks have put upon Scripture may be clearly confuted by Scripture if it were not so what could the Romish infallible Judge do What ground should he have upon which to pronounce this to be the sense of the place and not that which Hereticks pretend if the Popes definition be the only way to vindicate Scriptures from glosses of Hereticks why has he not given us a clear Commentary upon the whole Scripture As Hereticks wrest sentences of Scripture may they not wrest sentences of Popes or Councils They can bring no Objection against us which recoils not upon their own head He clamours pag. 61. that there may be many seeming contradictions in Scripture What then Ergo all things necessary to salvation are not clearly set down in Scripture or by firm consequence deducible from it Non sequitur There are not only seeming but real contradictions betwixt the definitions of their Popes and Canons of their Councils one Council decreeing that the General Council is above the Pope another decreeing that the Pope is above the Council and both approved by Popes for as the Lateran which did subject the Council to the Pope was approved by Leo the 10. so also was the Council of Constance which subjected the Pope to the Council approved and confirmed by Pope Martyn 5. Sess 45. but the holy Scripture is not Yea and Nay He objects ibid. That many things are believed by Protestants which are not in Scripture at all as Persons in the Trinity Sacraments in the Church the Command of keeping the Sunday Answ I would have apprehended the Pamphleter would have heard of Nazianzen's distinction Orat. 37. that quedam sunt in Scripturis quae non dicuntur quadam sunt dicuntur There are Points of Faith materially contained in Scripture though the words which the Catholick Church uses to explain these Mysteries be not there found Thus the Merits and Satisfaction of Christ are found in Scripture and luculently demonstrated thence against the Socinian though those words be not found in Scripture Did not the ancient Fathers demonstrate from Scripture the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father although the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not in Scripture It 's enough that the thing meant by the word Persons and Sacraments and a sufficient Warrant to keep the Lords day be found there Yea have we not the word Person Heb. 1.3 Who is the express Image of his Person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Albeit I be not ignorant of the Logomachies which were among Ancients concerning the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As for the Command concerning the Lords Day besides other Warrants to observe it from the Scripture such as the practice of the Apostles the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Revel 1.10 the Apostolick Injunction 1 Cor. 16.1 2. Has not Learned M. Caudrey demonstrated a preceptive Authority for it from the fourth Command in his Sabbatum Redivivum Part. 2. cap. 7. Part. 3. cap. 3. Part. 4. cap. 1. As for the Sacraments I hope the Inssitution of Baptism and the Lords Supper is clear in Scripture and other Sacraments we know none As for the definition of a Sacrament given by me in my tenth Paper against M. Demster at which here he snarles when he gets confidence to examine it he shall find it will abide the Test In fine could any Romanist solidly prove that any of the Articles of our Religion are not contained in Scripture I should ingenuously disown them It 's further objected pag. 6◠that many places of Scripture are flatly against Protestants and for Papists as Matth. 26.26 Jam. 2.24 2. Thes 2.13 yea he is bold to say that Protestants can never be able to bring one clear Scripture against any of their Tenets These be big words but splendid untruths Can we bring no clear Scripture against any Tenet of Popery Is not that Scripture clear against their Dry Communions Matth. 26.27 Drink ye all of it Is not that Scripture express against Purgatory Revel 14.13 Blessed are the Dead which die in the Lord from henceforth yea saith the Spirit that they may rest from their labours If they rest from their labours then they labour not in the flames of Purgatory Is not that a clear Scripture against Image-worship Exod. 20.4 5. Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven 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
Câ—ntroversies as M. Menzies will have Let all the Papers betwixt M. Denster and me be read and it shall not be found that ever I asserted the Scripture to be Judge of Controversies Indeed I do assert the Scripture to be the Ground and Rule of Faith and I suppose when Protestants affirm the Scripture to be Judge of Controversies they mean no more But because I knew how apt Papists are to cavil upon the term Judge I did ever purposely wave it But this is the Jesuitical Candour he hath used in all his Criminations against me The Genius of this Scribler will yet more appear by his stating of this Question betwixt Romanists and us pag. 75. which he propounds thus Catholick Romans saith he build their belief upon Scripture not taken as they fancy but as explained by Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church and the unanimous consent of the Fathers and if any doubt arise of both these on the general definition and decision of the present Catholick Church But Protestants says he as M. Menzies holds ground their Faith on Scripture which they have corrected or rather corrupted as clear in it self or made cleaâ— by diligent reading and conferring of places with prayers and as they imagine a well-disposed mind that is a prejudicate Opinion It is hard to say whether he discover more perverseness of folly in representing the state of this question Take these few observes upon it And first if Romanists build their Faith upon the Scriptures as expounded by Traditions c. then Scripture contains all Doctrines of Faith and Traditions serve only to expound the Scripture And yet he affirms pag. 62. There be Articles of Faith such as Persons in the Trinity Sacraments in the Church c. which he denies to be found in Scripture Either then in this state of the question he does not declare the adequate ground of the Popish Faith and so sophisticates with his Reader when he would make him believe that they build all their Faith on Scripture or else contradicts both himself and the current of Romish Doctors who maintain unwritten Traditions not only for expounding Scriptures but also for confirming Articles of Faith not contained in the Scripture Secondly He dare not commit the explication of Scripture either to Tradition or the unanimous consent of Fathers and therefore he keep the definition of the present Church as a Reserve in case of doubts concerning these and of doubts which may be mâ—ved concerning the sense of Traditions and of the testimonies of Fathers And therefore all must be ultimately resolved on the definition of the present Church they mean the Popish Church So that when all comes to all their Faith is built upon the word of their Pope or Council for nothing else can he mean by their present Church But thirdly seeing the decisions of Faith are remitted unto the present Church that is Pope or Council when the case is dubious concerning the sense of Scriptures Traditions and Fathers what is now left to be a ground for the Churches definition but either Enthusiasm or a Fancy So that by this very state of the question when it s well pondered the ground of the belief of the present Romish Church is because she fancies so Fourthly In this state of the question he speaks as if Romanists were all agreed concerning the Rule of Faith or Judge of Controversies the contrary whereof is apparent from what we spake both in the former question concerning the infallible visible Judge and also here concerning the Rule of Faith Are M. White M. Serjeant M. Holden Rushworth and other Patrons of the Traditionary way of the same Opinion touching the Rule of Faith and Judge of Controversies with Jesuits Fifthly Doth he not represent us as building our Faith on corrupted Scriptures Is not this an evidence of a most desperate Cause when we must be so perfidiously represented So far are Protestants from building on corrupted Scriptures that we appeal to the pure Originals and decline no mean for finding out the sense of Scripture ever acknowledged by the Catholick Church Yea to cut off their Cavils of this kind Learned Protestants as M. Baxter Key for Catholicks Part. 1. cap. 31. have offered to dispute the Controversies of Religion out of the Vulgar Latin or out of the Rhemists Translation Sixthly He would imply that we had no regard to Tradition or to the consent of Fathers In this he belyes us egregiously We are so far from excluding them from the means of expounding Scripture that we have a Venerable esteem of them when a Tradition is truly found to have been received by the whole Catholick Church in all Ages and when Fathers do unanimously consent in Doctrines of Faith But we must have further Evidence for an universally and perpetually received Tradition or Doctrine unanimously approved by Fathers then the partial testimony of the present particular and Apostate Church of Rome Dare Romanists remit the Controversies betwixt them and us to those Tests of Apostolick Tradition or unanimous consent of Fathers Have they Apostolick Tradition for their Adoration of Images Invocation of departed Saints substraction of the Cup from the people Purgatory Fire their Divine Authority of Apocryphal Book the Supremacy of the Pope above Councils and Princes c. none but either an Ignorant or he whose Conscience is Venal and Mercenary can affirm it But I may give a more particular account of these hereafter I add but a seventh Note When he mentions the means which we affirm ought to be used for finding out the true sense of Scripture such as the conferring of places of Scripture and prayer which I suppose none but an Infidel can disallow he reckons forth a well-disposed mind which he interprets a prejudicate Opinion What Candour I have met with or am to expect from them let any judge by this their Commentary upon my words when I require a well-disposed mind to the right understanding of the Scriptures that is saith my Adversary a prejudicate Opinion Doth he not discover himself to be a person to which his own Apocrypha Text Sap. 1.4 In animam malevolam non introibit Sapientia may most fitly be applyed Pag. 73. He flourishes with an old Argument against the Scriptures being Judge of Controversies The Judge of Controversie saith he ought to give a clear sentence which the learned and unlearned may equally understand but thus doth not the Scripture and to this purpose He alledges some testimonies from S. Ambrose S. Austin that there be wonderful depths in Scripture and from Vincentius Lyrinensis that Hereticks such as Novatus Sabellius Arrius c. have put various interpretations upon Scripture To this I answer first Non infertur Elenchus though all this were granted it only proves that Scripture is not the Judge of Controversies which is not asserted by me neither is it otherwise asserted by Protestants then as the Law is said tâ— be a Judge Hence was that of Aristotle
have these men a face to challenge others of their divisions about the number of Fundamentals Had the Pamphleter considered the distinction betwixt credenda facienda petenda he would have seen these forementioned seeming difficulties among Protestants were not so hard to be reconciled If one said the Creed contains summum credendorum the Decalogue faciendorum and the Lords Prayer petendorum If some have reduced the Sacraments to an Article of the Creed inter credenda others to a Precept of the Decalogue inter facienda the contrariety is not so great as the Pamphleter would insinuate Neither do all Persons take the word Fundamental in the same restristive sense Hence Paraeus in Irenico cap. 29. after he had branched forth the Fundamentals into four heads the Decalogue the Creed Lords Prayer and Sacraments subjoyns in his ipsis tamen Capiâ—ibus ciserimen aliquod esse posse libenter etiam concesserimus nam alia aliis magis vel minus ad salutem sunt necessaria To reduce the Pamphleters disorderly discourse of Fundamentals into some method I shall briefly enquire into these eight things 1. Whether there be ground for the distinction of Fundamentals or Non Fundamentals or of Essentials and Integrals in Religion 2. Whether all Fundamentals be clearly contained in Scripture 3. Whether every thing which the Church imposes to be believed as an Article of Faith become on that very account a Fundamental 4. Whether there was a necessity of determining the precise number of Fundamentals for decision of the controversie betwixt Mr. Dempster and the Author 5. Whether the Popish Religion be injurious to the Fundamentals of Christianity 6. Whether the Waldensez Wicklevists and Hussites were of the same Religion as to Fundamentals with Protestants 7. Whether do the Greek Churches agree with Protestants as to Fundamentals 8. Whether the Religion of Protestants be openly against Gods Word and contrary to the Fundamentals of Christianity as the Pamphleter does alledge SECT I. Whether there be ground for the distinction of Fundamentals and Non-Fundamentals or of Essentials and Integrals in Religion THat there be no logomachy concerning the subject of the present Dispute I shall seek no other description of a Fundamental Verity in Religion than that which the Pamphleter gives page 90. It is saith he either that which makes us believe all the rest or without the express knowledge and beliefe thereof none can be saved Now this being the notion of Fundamental Truth I conceive it cannot be asserted rationally that all Truths of the Christian Religion are Fundamental If by Fundamental be understood that for which other Articles are to be believed then sure we must suppose there be other particulars which are believed for that As there is a formal Object and Rule of Faith so there are distinct material Objects of Faith If therefore a Fundamental and the formal Object or Rule of Faith which is the reason for which the rest are believed be one and the same then as many material Objects as there be in Christianity there be as many Non-Fundamentals If you take a Fundamental for that without the explicite belief whereof none can be saved I am sure likewise there be many Non-Fundamentals in Religion Else the Romish implicite Colliar and all who walk in his Footsteps as do the plurality of their Communion must be damned eternally If all Truths of the Christian Religion were of absolute necessity to Salvation and Fundamentals what meant the Apostle 1 Cor. 3.11 12. to distinguish betwixt the Foundation and Gold Silver and Precious Stones built thereupon There be then precious Truths built upon the Foundation which yet are not the Foundation Or what meant the Author to the Hebrewes cap. 6. v. 1. by that foundation of Repentance from dead Works and of Faith toward God when he is quickening them to pursue after other Truths If all Articles of Faith be Fundamental and the explicite belief thereof absolutely necessary to Salvation than who ever did live or die in any error of Religion were damned eternally What then should become of the believing multitude of whom said S. Austin lib. cont Epist Fundam cap. 4. Turbam non intelligendi vivacitas sed credendi simplicitas tutissimam facit and so may be obnexious to many â—â—ours in Religion But what speak I of the Multitude What did become of all the Fathers who were leavened with the Millenary error of whom an account may be received from Sixtus Senensis lib. 5. Bibl. annot 233. and lib. 6. annot 347. or of the Fathers who denyed that the Souls of Just men are admitted to the beatifique Vission before the day of Judgement of whom a List may be had from Senensis lib. 6. Bibl. Annot. 345. What did become of Tertullian Cyprian Firmilian Deny's of Alsxandria who maintained rebaptization What became of Austine Innocent the 1. and others who as Maldonat witnesses in John 6.53 affirmed the Eucharist was necessary to the salvation of Infants Were all these Fathers damned eternally Surely either the points about which they erred were not Fundamental or these Errors have damned the Fathers of the Church eternally Do we not know but in part 1 Cor. 13.9 Who can understand his Errors Psal 19.12 If every Error did plunge men into Damnation who then could be saved I know the ordinary reply That the Church then had not explicitely declared against these Errors and therefore though the Errors concerning the Millenium the exclusion of Saints from the Beatifique Vision Rebaptization the necessity of the Eucharist be Heresies now in regard of of the declaration of the Church yet were not in the dayes of the Fathers This supposes another absurd Error which I hope Sect. 3. to confute viz. That the declaration of the Church makes points to be Fundamental and consequently the basis falling the Superstructure cannot stand At present I onely argue thus if these points be Fundamental now which were not in the dayes of the Fathers than the Christian Religion is not the same now which it was nor make we up one Catholick Church with them Their Religion and ours differing in Essentials If the Roman Church be that Catholique Church whose declaration makes Articles Fundamental did not she and Stephen the Bishop of Rome declare explicitely against S. Cyprian in the point of Rebaptization It should therefore follow that St. Cyprian and the rest who joyned with him had erred Fundamentally Yet the Catholick Church holds them for Saints for Firmilian is Sainted in the Calendary of the Greek Church and Cyprian in the Diptychs both of the Eastern and Western Church And therefore these errours notwithstanding of the Church of Romes Declaration were not Fundamental It 's a disingenuous evasion of Bell. lib. 4. de Pont. cap. 7. to say that Pope Stephen though he witnessed his dislike with Cyprians Opinion of Rebaptization yet never declared it an errour contrary to Faith How then did Stephen not only threaten them who persisted in it with Excommunication
explicit belief of all imposed under the same severe Sanctions nor put under the same inseparable connexion with the salvation of souls That it is so may easily be evinced against any Romanist that will but hearken to his own reason For it cannot be denied that there be some Articles of Religion without the explicite belief whereof no adult rational person that hath the sense of reason for I abstract from the cases of Infants deaf and mad-men can be saved as that there is a God or immortal Soul at least Directo and Rossello themselves will require the explicit belief of that Popish fundamental of believing what the Church believes which according to them is also a revealed Verity But it is as clear there be other revealed Articles without the explicit belief whereof adult rational hearing persons may in some cases be saved Yea Jesuit Azorius Part. 1. Moral lib. 8. cap. 6. confesses a man may be saved without the explicit belief of the Trinity and that he may have blasphemiously gross conceptions of God without Heresie as that God hath corporeal dimensions like a man that God the Father is greater in power and more Ancient than God the Son And he brings in Panormitan and others of their great Doctors affirming that these gross conceptions of God may not only be without Heresie but also without sin providing their Darling Principle of believing what their Church believes be acquiesced unto Ergo the explicit belief of all revealed Verities is not imposed with the same severe Sanction nor put under the same inseparable connexion with the eternal salvation of Souls consequently all are not equally fundamental I confess whatever disparity be betwixt the material objects of Faith as in themselves considered yet if a man know them to be revealed by God he is bound to believe them all with the most firm adhesion of mind the meanest no less than the highest and if in that case he should misbelieve any of the least of them he would err fundamentally because he would explicitly deny the infinite Divine Verity And this is all which Jesuit Worsleys arguments do prove which is not the thing controverted concerning Fundamentals That which we affirm is that some Truths are so propounded by the infinite Verity that men are bound to believe them yet if either through the weakness of their understandings prejudices of education or other such like impediments they do not discern them to be revealed they may through mercy be saved provided they have a sincere willingness to believe every Article which they know to be revealed by the infinite Verity and do unfeignedly repent not only of their known sins but also de occultis of their secret and unknown errours Excellently said said S. Austin Epist 162. Qui sententiam suam quamvis falsam atque perversam nulla pertinaci animositate defendunt praesertim quam non audacia praesumptionis suae perpererunt sed à seductis atque in errorem lapsis parentibus acceperunt quaerunt autem cauta solicitudine veritatem corrigi parati quum invenerint nequaquam sunt haeretici deputandi I shall shut up all with the Royal testimony of our most Serene Learned and pacifick King James 6. in his Answer to Cardinal Perrons Epistle That the number of things necessary to salvation is not very great and that there was no mors expedite way to peace then diligently to separate necessaries from not necessaries and that it 's the duty of all who are studious of peace for lessening of Controversies which exercise Gods Church most diligently to explicate urge and teach this distinction SECT II. Whether do the Scriptures contain clearly all the Fundamentals of Faith PRotestants maintain the affirmative The Pamphleter pag. 99 and 100. with his Complices deny that Scriptures contain all far tiss that they do it clearly So Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 3 4. Gordon of Huntly controv 1. de verb. Dei cap. 27. c. Valentia lib. 5. de Analys fidei cap. 5. Coster Enchirid. lib. 2. cap. 5. F. Valenburg examin princip 3. Sect. 5. N. 6. c. Yet when we say that Scripture contains all Fundamentals clearly we mean not that they are there in so many words but that if they be not expresly set down in Scripture they are at least by firm consequence deducible from it If Scriptures do not contain all things necessary to salvation and that clearly then some instance of a necessary truth ought to be given which is not clearly contained in Holy Writ and Evidence ought to be brought of the necessity thereof to salvation I appeal therefore all the Romanists in the world to give me one instance of this kind hic Rhodus hic saltus The usual instances alledged by Bell. and other Romanists have been examined and confuted often by Whittaker Chamier D. Strange c. I not Scripture able to make us wise unto Salvation 2 Tim. 3.15 Were they not written for this end Joh. 20.3 that we might believe and believing have everlasting life How could this be if they did not contain all that 's necessary to salvation Is there not an Anathema pronounced on him who teaches an Article of Faith besides what is in the Scriptures Gal. 1.8 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Did not Tertullian adore the plenitude of the Scriptures Did he not thunder out a woe against Herinogenes Si non est scriptum timeat vae illud adjicieutibus aut ditrahentibus destinatum Did not the Apostles teach all necessary truths and as S. Irenaeus witnesses lib. 3. cap. 1. after they had preached it they did commit it to writing where also he calls the Scripture Fundamentum columnam fidei And lib. 4. cap. 66. read says he the Prophets and Apostles and ye shall find Vniversam actionem omnem Doctrinam omnem Passionem Domini How peremptory is S. Athanasius de Incarnatione Christi edit Paris Anno 1627. pag. 621. Quae est ista vestrae immodestiae vecordia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut lequamini quae scripta â—â—n sunt He holds it not only affrontedness but madness to speak of Articles of Religion without Scripture What think you of Theophilus Alexandrinus in 2 Epist Paschali in Bâ—b pat Tom 3. Edit 3. Paris 1610. per Margarinum de la Bigne Daemoniaci spiritus est extra Scripturarum Authoritatem divinum aliquid putare And S. Chrysost in Serm de Pseudo Prophetis en calce Ephraeâ—ni Syri edit 3. Colon 1616. Nihil utilum sacra Scriptura reticuit Hierom. in Micab cap. 1. Ecclesia non est egressa de finibus suis i. e. de Scripturis vos vero Haeretici aedisicastis domum in derisum non in Scripturis sed in viciuia Scripturarum where the Scripture is held forth as the Boundary of the Church beyond which she may not pass and dogmatizing without Scripture is given as a character of Hereticks And on Hag. cap. 1. vers 11.
Ancient Church never knew as I demonstrated against M. Demster Paper 4.5 I argue with Learned M. Stillingfleet thus The Church is a Church before she past out her definition ergo by her definition she makes no Fundamentals The sequel is proved because the Church cannot be a Church without the belief of all Fundamentals ergo whatever definition she passes posteriour to her being a Church is none of the Fundamentals E.W. the Author of Protestancy without Principles Discourse 3. cap. 6. Sect. 19. superciliously undervalues this argument of D. Stillingfleet supposing he hath evicted the nullity thereof by this simile As in a Kingdom or Commonwealth after the settlement of some great matters I suppose he means the Fundamental Laws they may thereafter proceed to make new Laws so he conceives it to be in the Church But the faculty of that Jesuit lies in throwing a Feather to the ground with high confidence Two things if I mistake not may discover the lameness and impertinency of the Jesuits simile And first it's beyond doubt that after the settlement of the Fundamental Laws of a Kingdom the King and Parliament have a Legislative Power to create new Laws not only to declare what Laws formerly were in being but to give a being to Laws which formerly had none But the more Judicious Romanists deny that the Representatives of the Catholick Church far less of the Roman or a Pope have power to make Articles of Faith which were not but that their power is only declarative of Articles of Faith which formerly were So Alphonsut à Castro de haeres lib. 1. cap. 8. Valentia in Part. 3. disp 1. quest 1. punct 6. and Azor. Part. 2. Moral lib. 5. cap. 3. quest 2. yea so much is acknowledged by E. W. himself Sect. 22. Hence when lately D. Taylor in his Disswasive cap. 1. Sect. 2. concluded the impiety of the Romish Religion because it did attribute to the Romish Church i. e. the Pope power to make Articles of Faith contrary both to Scripture Gal. 1.8 and to the third Oecumenick Council at Ephesus It was replyed to him by a Romanist that they only give to the Church a declarative power to declare what be Articles of Faith If the Church have only a declarative power then she has not such power to make Articles of Faith as the King and Parliament have to make Laws to the Kingdom or if she have power to make Articles of Faith then D. Taylor 's Charge of impiety stands in force against Romanists They may chuse which of the two absurdities they will run upon But secondly if the King and Parliament should add to the Fundamental Laws of a Kingdom when addition were made to them thereafter the Constitution of the Kingdom should in so far be altered and different from what it was consequently if the Church should add to the Fundamentals of Faith the Christian Religion should essentially vary from what it was before Nay if the Church may add to Fundamentals and make that Fundamental which was not Fundamental why might she not pair from them also and make those things cease to be Fundamentals which were Fundamentals and so overturn all Christianity and make it a quite different thing from what it was But the Unity of the Christian Religion and of the Catholick Church prove convincingly that the Fundamentals of the Christian Religion are always the same and unalterable Sixthly and lastly The absurdities of this Romish Doctrine may appear by the impious consequences which flow from it As 1. The imperious Usurpation of one part of the Catholick Church namely of the Church of Rome her Popes or Councils over the whole Catholick by this she assumes a mighty Soveraignty over the Consciences of all the World to impose on them Fundamental Articles of Faith which Christ never authorized her to do 2. It establishes a most grievous Schism thus she cuts off from the Catholick Church as Hereticks or persens erring fundamentally all who cannot submit to her heretical Decrees 3. It makes Romanists unchristianly uncharitable and to conclude that all shall be damned which do not with Issachar couch down under the burdens which she imposeth 4. Hence also it is that they abuse the World with an implicite Faith if they be in a readiness to believe what is imposed by their Church it 's enough though they know little in particular what she has imposed yea some say though explicitly they believe nothing Nay Tolet lib. 4. de instruct Sacerd. cap. 3. If a Country man saith he believe his Bishop propounding some Heretical Doctrine about the Articles of Faith he meriteth by believing though it be an errour because he is bound to believe until it manifestly appear that it is against the Church O dreadful impiety Shall it be not only not sinful but meritorious to believe Lyes when it but seems to be the Doctrine of the Romish Church The absurdity of the Romish Assertion being now sufficiently evicted our Doctrine upon the other hand may be clear viz. that those Articles are only to be held for Fundamentals on which Scripture hath put a character of necessity for the appointment of Fundamental Articles or the prescribing of the necessary conditions for obtaining Eternal Life dependeth wholly upon the good pleasure of God and therefore are to be gathered from the Scripture which are the compleat Rule of Faith and deliver to us the whole Counsel of God concerning our Salvation But this Jesuit must needs be still prevaricating and therefore pag. 86. he brings in this as a character given by me of a Fundamental if it be commanded to be believed by all But never did I assert any such thing nor did I ever think that a meer necessity of Precept does infer a point to be Fundamental we are commanded to believe Articles of Faith whether integral or Fundamental But in this is the difference that Fundamentals are also necessary necessitate medii finis by necessity of the means and of the end so as Salvation cannot be attained without the belief thereof neither is any thing to be held as such unless the Scripture which is the adequate Rule of Faith put a character of necessity thereupon From what has been said I deduce this Corollary that the unity of the Catholick Church stands in the unity of Fundamentals and consequently though there be diversity of integrals betwixt Churches yet if the Fundamentals be preserved they all make up one Catholick Church the Greek Church Waldenses Wicklevists and Hussites may differ from us in integrals yet if the Fundamentals be held by all we make up one Catholick Church Hence also it may be judged whether Romanists or we be the true Catholick Church We own all for Members of the Catholick Church who own the Fundamentals and superadd nothing destructive thereunto But they exclude all who are not of the present Roman Faith expressed in the formula fidei of Pius the Fourth or in that English confession of
Faith from his Pope and Council or acknowledge that Hussits in these things do agree with us Do Romanists hold that if a man believe as the Church believes he cannot be Heretick though he err concerning weighty material Objects of Faith have we not much more ground of Charity concerning Mr. John Huss and Hierome of Prague who hold not only all the Articles of the Creed but also acquiesce to the Scriptures as the rule of Faith and were in a readiness to believe any point when the consonancy thereof to the Scripture should be held out as John Huss did often profess before the Council and the rather he living in a time of much darkness What ever were the mistakes of John Huss and Hierome of Prague yet Mr. Fox avouches them to be Faithful Martyrs of Jesus Christ which he could not have done if he had not looked on them as agreeing with us in Fundamentals It s not enough with me â—r any Protestant as this Pamphleter slanders us pag. 98. that they oppose the Pope as Turks and Tartars do Indeed their Pope and Romish inquisitours have a greater kindness for Jewes and Infidels and brothell whores then for Protestants They can indulge the one at Rome but not the other Are the Waldenses John Huss Hierome of Prague who miantained the Apostolick Creed held the scripture for the rule of Faith and abjured many Papal errors and Superstitions and had eminent testimonies of their Holiness from very enemies to be laid in the ballance with Turkes or Tartars Protestants have need to look to themselves It seems they may expect no more favour from Papists If their Power were answereable to their desires then Turks and Tartars SECT VII Whether do the Greek Churches agree with Protestants as to Fundamentals THe Pamphleter pag. 98. denias But takes no leafure to examine what I said to the contrary Paper 10. pag. 226 227 228 229. Until that be answered I might supersede any further reply yet now I add these two things 1. That the Greek Church is vindicated from the Heresie which this Pamphleter with others charges on them of denying the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son by learned Romanists particularly by Lom bard lib. 1. sent dist 11. lit D. Azorius the Jesuit par 1. instit Moral lib. 8. Cap. 20. q. 10. and by Thomas ab Jesu the Carmelit de convers gentium lib. 6. part 1. Cap. 8. As if the Grecians in that matter did differ from the Western Church rather in the manner of expression then on the matter As for the Pamphleters Inference thence that the Grecians deny the distinction of the persons its an inconsequential deduction sayes Bâ—nae Spei tom 1. Theol. Scholast tract 2. disp 4. dub 4. resol 3. And generally the Scotists but whatever the consequence be the consequent is most falsely imputed to the Grecians for they maintain no such thing I add 2dly that the Greek Church do not only hold the ancient Creeds and Articles agreed upon by the first four general Councils but also do agree with Protestants in many of the points wherein we differ from Romanists and therefore though they have their blemishes I dare not say they err Fundamentally and so exclude them from the Catholick Church If we will judge of the Greek Church by the confession of Cyril their famous Patriarch and Martyr which Revâ—rend and worthy Mr. Pâ—ait hath reprinted before his late book what the consonancy bâ—t wixt the Greek and Protestant Churches is may be apparent Ephraim Pagit Christiâ—nog part 1. Cap. 4. reckons out 19. poynts of agreement betwixt us and the Greek Church wherein we differ from the Papists They deny the Popes supremacy and infallibility they hold the Scriptures as the compleat rule of Faith deny Apocryphal books to be Canonick Scripture celebrate the Sacrament of the Supper under both kinds allow no private mass no Image of God they deny Purgatory fire admit laicks to read the Scriptures c. this that Author proves by considerable testimonies whereas the Pamphleter out of his Manuel of controversies tells us that they say Mass hold Transubstantiation Seven Sacraments prayer to the Saints and for the dead it may be enough to give him the succinct answer of the conâ—utor of that Manual of Controversies John Tombs in his Romanism discussed art 2. Sect. 4. viz. 1. That the Greek Church hold not the Popish transubstantiation whereby the Elements cease to be but whereby they become what they were not the transubstantiation they hold is a change of Communicants into the being of Christ so 〈◊〉 to be partaker of his divine nature as the Apostle means when he sayes they are the Body of Christ These things are to be understood cum grano salis and in a mystical sâ—â—se But the Greek Church do not hold with Romanists that wicked Communicants or Rats do eat the true and proper Body of Christ 2dly that the Greek Church hold no other sacuisice in the Mass then as S. Chrysostome expressed on Heb. 10. a commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross Nor 3dly do they pray to Saints as hearers of their prayem for less as if they did help them by their merits only they conceive that God hears prayers sent up to the Saints Non 4thly do they pray for departed Saints to obtain to them libeâ—tion from the pains of Purgatory If we may credit Roffens cent Luth. art 18. or Alphonsus a Castro de haeres lib. 12. tit Purgatorum haeres 1. the Grecians acknowledge no Purgatory fire only in their publick offices they commemorate the dead even the most Holy Martyrs and Confessors whom all confess not to be in torments and pray for their resurrection and solemn acquital at the last Judgment Nor 5thly do they with Romanists hold Seven Sacraments properly so called neither more nor fewer How much of a Logomachy is in that question I shew in my 10th Paper against Mr. Dempster pag. 238.239 Sure I am Ephraim pagit loc tit recites the denying of Extream Uncâ—ion as one of the Articles of agreement betwixt the Greek Church and us So that if the state of the questions were well cleared and all circumstances duly pondered the difference betwixt the Greek and Romish Church as to these things would appear Who desiderate a more prolix vindication I remit them to D. 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.
Constantinopolitan Creed as superadded thereto as is to be seen in vitâ Pij 4ti set forth by Onuphrius and in the Confession annexed to H. T. his Manual as a test of the Romish Religion therefore the present Romish Religion is not the true ancient Christian Religion but a bundle of innovations tyrannically imposed upon Consciences of People Yet because this impostor pitches upon ten Articles controverted betwixt us and Romanists wherein he affirms that the Fathers of the first three ages speake clearly against Protestants it may contribute both for the further clearing of the truth and discovering of Roman perfidy to trace him throw these particulars SECT I. The Pamphleters first Instance of Novelty touching the Popes Supremacy briefly canvased and retorted upon Romanists HIs first instance Pag. 139. is concerning the Popes Supremacy as being says he the most principal thing It s indeed the most principal thing with the Popes Parasits hence Bell. lib. 2. de concil cap. 17. Greg. de Val. lib. 8. de anal fid cap. 7. and other Jesuits give the Pope a supremacy over the whole Catholick Church yea and over general Councils as Pope Boniface the 8. extrav commun unam Sanctam had defined that subjection to the Pope is of necessity to Salvation to every Creature But this is as opposit to the faith of the ancient Church as East to West Had this been the faith of the Church in those times then it had been defined according to the Pamphleters Principle by the infallible visible judge of those times Why then does he not produce such a definition among his citations Doth not the world know that in those three ages there was not one Oecumenick Council except that at Jerusalem Act. 15. unless with Binius and the Ordinary gloss those other three Conventions of the Apostles Act. cap. 1.6.21 be also held for Oecumenick Councils But sure it is that none of all these made any definition for the Popes supremacy Consequently there was no infallible visible judge in those times to make such a definition I did always apprehend that the seat of the pretended Romish infallibility had been the seat of their supremacy How then is it that though Pope and Council were insinuated by this Pamphleter Sect. 3. to be the seat of infallibility joyntly Yet now the Pope alone is made the seat of supremacy Is he alone supream but not infallible Is their Church bound to obey and believe a fallible Pope teaching lyes and blasphemies as having supremacy over them though not infallibility Had the Churches in those three ages believed the Popes supremacy as necessary to Salvation would Polycrates and the holy Asiatick Fathers in the second Century have withstood the Pope so resolutly in the matter of Easter as is witnessed by Euseb lib. 5. cap. 22 Would Cyprian so holy a Father and Martyr with the Affrican Fathers in the third Century so vehemently have opposed Pope Stephanus in the matter of rebaptization as is acknowledged by Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 7 Would he have so zealously opposed appeals to Rome as he does Epist. 55. or censured Popes so sharply for admitting them which is to strike at the root of this pretended supremacy Would the fourth Oecumenick Council at Chalcedon Act. 15. can 28. and Act. 16. in which were 630. Fathers have defined in foro contradictorio after debate with the legats of Rome that the Bishop of Constantinople should have equal priviledges with the Bishop of Rome Would the second Council of Milevis can 22. have ordained them to be excommunicated who should make transmarin appeals Would the same African Fathers among whom Austin was one in the sixth Council of Carthage have so stoutly opposed appeals to Rome as Barron ad annum 419. cannot deny though both he and Bell. lib. 2. de Pontif. cap. 25. endeavour by some slight evasions to palliat the matter the falshood whereof is luculently evicted by Chamier Panstrat tom 2. lib. 14. cap. 3.4 yea the case is so clear that Stapleton relect princip controv 3. quest 7. Is not ashamed to condemn the proceedings of that ancient African Council against the Popes of Rome Such is the respect of Romanists to Antiquity when it crosses their interest Had the Popes supremacy been an essential of the Christian Faith Would Greg. 600. Yeares after Christ lib. 4. Epist 32.34.38.39 have condemned the Title of universal Bishop as a Title of Novelty error blasphemy the universal poyson of the Church contrary to the Ancient Canons contrary to Peter and to God himself a Title which none of his predecessors assumed and who ever did presume to challenge it was a forrunner of the Antichrist It s a manifest forgery contrary to all truth which Bellarmin lib. 2. de Pontif. cap. 31. and other Romanists use to elude those luculent testimonies of Greg. as if he had only condemned the title of universal Bishop in that sense wherein John of Constantinople did claim it Namely so as he alone should be Bishop and other Bishops should not at all be Bishops but his Vicars Whereas John of Constantinople never claimed that Title in any other sense then it is this day used by the Bishops of Rome for 1. the oriental Bishops consented with John of Constantinople that he should be termed universal Bishop but it s hardly credible that they would all have consented that themselves should be degraded But secondly Romish Authors particularlarly Platina in the Life of Boniface the third doth testify that the same dignity which John did effect Boniface obtained from that bloody Murtherer Phocas not without much ado magna tamen contentione says Platina Doth not the opposition which the Ancient Brittish and Scottish Churches made to Austin the Monk to Laurentius and Mellitus sent over to England by Greg. the first in the matter of Easter and celebration of Baptism of which see Bede Hist lib. 2. cap. 2. and 4. and Barronius ad annum 604. demonstrat that the Popes supremacy was not an essential Article of their Faith Yea so far was it from being an Article of the Faith of the Ancient Catholick Church that in late Councils such as that of Constance sess 4. 5. and of Basil sess 2. It s statuted that Popes be subject to the decrees of general Councils and sess 39. who ever contradict this is stigmatized as an Heretick Behold then the stupendious impudency of those men Though many such luculent demonstrations of the contrariety betwixt the now Romish Faith and the Ancient Catholick Faith in this their principal point of the Popes supremacy have been often proposed yet they have confidence still to alleadge that the Church in the three first yea in all ages was of the same Faith with them They might as well say that within those first three ages Ignatius Loyola founded the order of Jesuits which all know to be but of Yesterdays erection But hath he not some pretences for his assertion Yes but those which times
Peter Hence Cyprian de unit eccles says hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod erat Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis That which he cites out of Origen on the cap. 6. ad Rom. besides that Jerome in his time took notice that those Books of Origen on the Romans were interpolated imports nothing but Peters Apostolical function which was common to him with the rest of the Apostles and so makes nothing for the pretended Supremacy of the Pope of Rome Lastly the Pamphleter saith that Polanus and Whittaker confess that Victor did cary himself like a Pope Answer It s long since to this allegiance of Breerly from whom the Pamphleter filches it Dr. Morton replyed in his appeal lib. 2. cap. 22. Sect. 2. that indeed they censured Victor for his arrogancy and as a troubler of Christendom For which also he was reprehended by Ancient Fathers of that age and these are but too ordinary endowments of Popes But no Protestant did charge Victor for assuming an absolute power over Oecumenick Councils or infallibility of Judgment to himself as Popes do at this day So that however he resembled them in some sinful practises yet differed from them in Faith Neither did his Excommunicating of some eastern Bishops imply his assuming a jurisdiction over them as is judiciously demonstrated both by Dr. Morton ibid. and since by Dr. Stilling fleet Part. 2. cap. 6. Sect. 11. for some Bishops in the east did Excommunicate Pope Julius as testifies Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 11. and Monas the patriarch of Constantinople did excommunicate Pope Vigilius as witnesses Niceph. Hist lib. 17. cap. 26. and Photius Anno 863. did Excommunicate Pope Nicolas the first by the confession of Barronius therefore their Excommunication did only import they were not to admit such to their communion I shall shut up this discourse of supremacy with that testimony of Cyprian and of 87. Bishops in Concil Carthag de baptizandis haeret Non of us say they is called Bishop of Bishops and furthermore they call it a Tyrannical terrour for any one Bishop to impose upon his fellow Bishops a necessity of obedience May not I therefore conclude this first instance of Novelty with a retorsion The Popes supremacy was no essential of the Christian Faith in the first three Centuries But the Popes supremacy is an essential of the present Romish Religion Ergo there is an essential in the present Romish Religion which was not in the Christian Religion of the first three Centuries quod erat demonstrandum SECT II. Tâ—â— second instance of Novelty concerning unwritten Traditions examined and retorted upon Romanists THe Pamphleters second Instance is concerning unwritten Traditions Protestants saith he deny that we should believe any thing not contained in Scripture upon Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church where fallaciously he insinuats 1. that Protestants deny credit to Traditions really Apostolical 2. that in the Roman Church are conserved Traditions truly Apostolical of Articles of Faith not contained in Scripture Both which are Splendidly false we do indeed maintain against Romanists a compleat sufficiency of the holy Scriptures as containing all Articles of Faith and herein we have the unanimous consent of the Ancient Church Doth not Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 2. call the Gospel the pillar and ground of Faith Does he not ibid. reprove Hereticks for accusing Scriptures as if the truth could not be found by them who are ignorant of Tradition Is not Tertullian luculent for us lib. contra Hermog cap. 22. adoro scripturarum plenitudinem and thereupon pronounced a woe upon them that teach any point of Faith not justifiable by the Scriptures Saith not Origen hom 1. in Jerem Necesse est Scripturas sanctas in testimonium vocare sensus quippe nostri fine his testibus non habent fidem Is not Cyprian as express Epist 74. ad Pompeium unde ista traditio an ex dominica Authoritate veniens an de Apostolorum mandatis atque Epistolis veniens ea enim facienda quae scripta sunt testatur Deus Hence that Religious Emperour Constantine in Theod. lib. 1. cap. 7. advised the Nicen Fathers that they should consult with the divinely inspired Scriptures because they do fully instruct us what to believe in divine things Did not Bell. bewray his desperate cause when lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 11. he answered that Constantin was indeed a great Emperour but no great Doctor Is not this to condemn the judgment of the Nicen Fathers who did approve the Emperors advice It were easie to confirm the same truth from Athanasius Chrysost Basil Epiph. Hierom Austin let it be judged in the fear of God whither our Religion be the safer which acknowledges the Holy Scripture as a compleat Canon adequately commensurated to the end for which it was appointed or Popery which as Dr. Morton fitly useth the resemblance in his appeal lib. 2. cap. 25. makes Gods word like a sick mans broken and imperfect will half nuncupative and half written As for the Pamphleters citations he might have known what is answered to them by our controversists in their replies to Bell. they all being taken from him And 1. to Denys de Eccles Hierarch cap. 1. It s answered that not only is the Book spurious but also he only affirms that the Apostles did deliver the Doctrin of Salvation two ways viz. by word and by writ which none denies But the present question is whither all that 's necessary be not contained in the written word To that of Ignatius apud Euseb lib. 3. cap. 4. I answer he indeed exhorts all to stick to the Traditions of Apostles but they are strangers in Antiquity who know not that by Traditions Ancients do also understand the Doctrin of Faith recorded in the holy Scriptures see Cyprian Epist 74. ad Pomp. and Basil lib. 3. conta Eunom Neither is there a vestige in the place objected to signify that it is a Doctrin not contained in Scripture To that from Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 4. He speaks I confess of barbarous nations who believed in Christ sine charactere atramento But he does not say that they believed Articles of Faith not contained in the Scripture nay all the Articles which there he reckons out are Scripture Truths Nor do we deny if a Preacher not having a Bible with him should come to some American Countrys and Preach the Gospel that they were bound to believe yet it would not follow that the truths which they believed were not contained in Scripture To Origen Hom. 5. in Num. and in cap. 6. ad Rom. It s answered some of the Traditions mentioned by Origen are written Traditions such as that in Rom. cap. 6. of the baptism of infants which Bell. himself proves by Scripture others of them as concerning peoples posture in prayer are only ritual and so do not touch the present question which is of Articles of Faith To Tertullian its answered that after he turned Montanist he did
that no solid testimony for Purgatory could be brought from the Church in the first three Centuries therefore he adds to it prayer for the dead as if the Ancient Church had no other end in Praying for the dead but to deliver them from the torments of Purgatory which shall appear to be a manifest falshood Purgatory is indeed an Article of the Romish Faith as appears by the Council of Trent sess 6. can 30. and sess 25. decret de Purg. and Bell. lib. 1. de Purg. cap. 5. yea so essential an Article that T. C. adversary to the Arch. Bishop of Cant. is bold to say that we are under as much necessity to believe it as the Trinity or incarnation nor is it wonder that they contend so earnestly for it For as Spalat lib. 5. de repub Eccles cap. 8. Sect. 73. hath observed it is the Doctrine which hath most enriched the Church of Rome But it is as far from the Faith of the Ancient Christian Church in the first three ages as Hell is from Heaven Is it not acknowledged by eminent Authors in the Romish Church Roffensis art 18. cont Luth. Polid. Virg. lib. 8. de invent rerum cap. 1. Alphonsus a Castro de haeres lib. 8. verb. indulg and lib. 12. tit Purgatorium that it was but lately known to the Catholick Church little or no mention of it made by Greek Fathers and by the Latins themselves received but by little and little Yea that to this day it is not believed by the Greek Church Doth not Sixtus Senensis lib. 6. annot 259. confess that an apology written by Marcus Metrop of Ephesus was given into the Council of Basil in name of the Greek Church disapproving the Doctrine of Purgatory And among themselves there are Authors of great Note who have denyed Purgatory such as Learned Picherel de missa cap. 2. Pag. 250. Barnes Cathol Roman Pacif. Sect. 9. L. D. ad finem paral and doth not Thomas ab Albijs in his tractate de medio animarum statu strike at the Foundation of it But to leave these testimonies out of their own bowels how far the Ancient Church was from believing Purgatory to be an Article of Faith is copiously and Learnedly demonstrated by Dallaeus lib. 6. de paenis satisfac per totum At the time let Cyprian suffice for all lib. ad Demet. cum isthinc excessum fuerit when once we pass from this Life there is no place for repentance nor any effect of satisfaction sure then no Purgatory and a little before to the same Demet. he says that when this Life is finished ad aeternae vel mortis vel immortalitatis bospitia dividimuâ— we are divided to the eternal dwellings of death or of immortality where he acknowledges two states after this Life and both these eternal and in Serm. de lapsis he exhorts him that has sinned to confess his sin dum in saeculo est while he is in this World dum admitti confessio ejus potest dum satisfactio remissio facta per sacerdotem apud dominum gratia est where clearly he holds out that after this Life neither confession nor satisfaction can be accepted of God and in his excellent treatise de immortalitate this is one of his chief arguments whereby he encourages Christians against the fear of death because presently after death they are invested with eternal Life ejus est mortem timere qui ad Christum nolit ire ejus est ad Christum nolle ire qui se non credat cum Christo jncipere regnare if departed Saints begin to reign with Christ then sure they are not thrust down to torments equivalent to the torments of Hell But did not the Ancient Church pray for the dead Answ It s granted she did but not for a liberation from torments under which she supposed them to be presently smarting as do Romanists and therefore from these Prayers nothing can be concluded for Purgatory The Ancient Church in their Prayers for the dead did pray for Martyrs Apostles Patriarchs Prophets the Virgin Mary and for all the faithful as appears from Epiphanius haeres 75. and from the Liturgies that go under the names of James and of Chrysostom in bib pat tom 2. graeco latin and from the Liturgy of the Churches of Egypt attributed to Basil Greg Nazianzen and Cyril in bib pat tom 6. edit 4. Cyprian likewise lib. 4. Epist 5. affirms they offered for the Martyrs who had received Palmes and Crowns Many more testimonies may be brought but I sum up all in that testimony of Austin lib. de cura pro mortuis cap. 4. who affirms that Prayers were made for all that dyed in the Catholick Faith Seeing therefore the Ancient Church prayed for those who by the confession of all were not in torment but in a blessed state the scope of their Prayers was not for deliverance from the torments of Purgatory If any aske for what then did they pray for the dead Bell. is constrained to afford us an answer for when he had objected to himself lib. 2. de Purg. cap. 5. how in the Mass for the dead they pray that the Sculs of the faithful may be delivered from the pains of Hâ—ll from the deep lake from the mouth of the Lyon he answers that although the Souls of the faithful at their particular judgment have received a sentence whereby they are delivered from Hell yet there remains a general judgment where they are to receive a solemn sentence both as to Soul and Body and that the Prayers of the Missal do relate to that last sentence of the great day the same may be said to have been the scope of the Prayers of the ancient Church But yet further to clear that the Prayers of the ancient Church had no reference to Purgatory It would be remembred that among ancient Christians there were divers Errors concerning the state of the departed now justly disowned both by Protestants and Papists which might have given occasion to these Prayers as first many of them were of opinion that though all the Souls of the Faithful were in requie in a blessed rest yet they were not admitted to the Beatifick Vision before the day of Judgment Hence Sixtus Senensis lib. 6. Bibl. Annot. 345. to prove that many in the ancient Church were smitten with this Error he not only adduces testimonies from several particular Authors such as Irenaeus Justin Tertul. Origen Lactantius Prudentius Ambrose c. but also the form of Prayer for the dead in James Liturgy 2. Many were of opinion that all were to pass through a fire of Purgatory at the great day Yea 3dly some were of opinion that by the Prayers of the living the pains of the Damned were eased among whom were Chrysostom and Prudentius c. of which see Sixtus Senensts lib. 6. Annot. 47. I should not willingly mention these mistakes and errors of Fathers did not the importunity of Romanists constrain me to discover the
But I answer Thirdly the most that this objection can conclude is that the Tradition of the Church whereby she attests the Truth of the Scriptures is certain which Protestants freely admit and make use of it as one of the motives of Credibility to prove the truth of the Scriptures Neither is that to be looked upon as a Tradition simply unwritten the same truth being written that all Scriptures are of Divine inspiration 2 Tim. 3. Neither in any measure doth it infringe the sufficiency of the written word As when a faithful tabellarius brings a Letter fully containing his Masters mind he may attest the truth of the Letter although he remit all the particulars of his Masters will to be gathered from the Letter it self And indeed it is much more easie to attest the truth of a Letter then faithfully to remember and give an account of many intricate particulars In this last a very honest Messenger thorow weakness might fail This simile is Excellently improven by Dr. Taylour Part. 2. Of his disswasive in the Introduction The Pamphleter argues secondly ibid. Faith comes by hearing and therefore as there are infallible hearers and beleevers so also infallible Teachers Answ What do Romanists and Jesuits prate of infallible beleevers Do they not teach that beleevers may totally apostatize and become Infidels A goodly infallibility forsooth If implicit Romanists be infallible beleevers why may not the Turkish Muselmans also pretend to infallibility in beleeving the Alcoran But though this Pamphleter do rant here of infallible beleevers yet were he at Rome its probable he would change his tone for as Dr. Tiltonson on a like occasion did advertise his adversary J. S. we Protestants are told that at Rome lives an Old Gentleman who takes it ill if any be termed infallible hesides himself In a word therefore I answer if by infallible beleevers he mean that every beleever hath such an assistance of the spirit as doth exempt him from all Doctrinal errors in Religion it s denyed that beleevers are thus priviledged the contrary being evident from the case of the beleeving Galatians and Corinthians who yet were smitten with absurd errors Must St. Cyp. St. Aug. c. Be discarded from the number of beleevers because of the errors where with these blessed Souls were tainted At last he would bethink himself in what category to place erroneous Popes of whom some acconnt was given cap. 2. Sect. 2. If therefore by infallible beleevers he only mean those who beleeve infallible truths upon the Authority of God speaking in the Scriptures I grant there are infallible beleevers in this sense and proportionably infallible Teachers who teach infallible truths from the Scriptures But hence it doth not follow that there are infallible Teachers in the Romish sense having an immunity from all Doctrinal errors in Religion whereof the people must be assured before they give an assent of Faith to any Article of Religion And the rather seeing the Faith of beleevers is not resolved on the Authority of their Teachers but the Faith both of Teachers and Hearers on the Authority of God speaking in the Scriptures So that this objection at most proves that there are infallible truths and an infallible rule and ground of Faith which is freely granted He urges thirdly Pag. 171. No other infallible means of beleeving can be assigned for these who understand not originals Answ What if I should remit the Pamphleter to graple with Dr. Tillotson who maintaines that if a man beleeve the Christian Doctrine though upon weak and competent grounds yet if he live up in his practice to the Doctrine of Christianity he may be saved and he brings some reasons to confirm this assertion in the Preface before his Sermons which I have not as yet heard that his adversary J. S. hath discussed If that notion of the Doctor should prevaile the objection of the Pamphleter falls to the ground But when all that is confuted I have this more to say viz that though propounders be fallible and Hearers ignorant of Originals yet the Doctrine it self being attested by the miracles of Christ and his Apostles and Sealed by the death of so many Martyrs and having a self evidencing Light in it self of which we speake cap. 3. and a Divine efficacy upon the heart there is a sufficient and infallible ground of beleeving Scripture Truths He argues fourthly ibid. there is no less necessity that the Church be infallible in propounding then the evangelists in penning O impudent blasphemy Are Romish propounders Popes and Bishops acted by a prophetical Spirit no less then the Pen-men of Holy Scripture Why then are not the definitions of their Church added to the Canon of Scripture Popes must speak with tongues and work miracles before we beleeve them to have prophetical inspiration Is not now the Canon of Scripture consigned Is there need now the rule of Faith being compleated of the same assistance which was at the compiling of that rule He argues fifthly ibid. That our Saviour owns the necessity of an infallible propounder granting that the Jews had not sinned by refusing to beleeve in him if by his works and wonders he had not evidenced himself to be the Son of God A Childish argument Christ indeed affirmed himself to be infallible but it does not follow Ergo he owned the necessity of an infallible propounder in all times I considered before that word of Christ to the Jews Joh. 15. and shew that the most which can be concluded from it is that there must be an objective evidence of the rule of Faith which may be without the propounders infallibility Sixthly be says ibid. The gift of miracles was given to the Apostles and left in the Church to shew there infallible asstistance Answ there is more here said then proven that the Apostles had the gift of miracles is not denyed but that this gift was to be left in the Church so as no Divine truth should be beleeved no Scripture or sense thereof assented to until the infalliblility of the propounder were proven by new miracles is more then can be made good And if it were so none of the Romish Missionaries should be beleeved for they work no miracles He says if this assertion of his be not admitted then all should be answered that he Objected Sect. 4. that being I hope sufficiently done in its proper place this Objection Evanishes His seventh and last objection Pag. 173. If all Councils and all the Fathers be fallible then let Protestants bring nothing but Scripture and then all their Volumes of Controversy will not come to one Line Behold the impudency of this Caviller Is there not a Line of Scripture in all our controversy writters Would Papists stand to this appeal that nothing be received as an Article of Faith but what is warranted by Holy Scripture I hope our debates with them should soon be near an end Is not this the chief controversy betwixt them and us whether the
in love with Errour by a few convincing Arguments to overthrow this Pillar of the Romish Faith viz. the pretended necessity of an infallible visible Judge Nam collapsa ruunt sub ductis tecta columnis Arg. 1. There can be no ground brought to prove this pretended Infallibility as in the state of the Question it hath been described Ergo it ought not to be believed The sequel is evident especially seeing I hope it will not be pretended that the Assertion of the Adversary is propositio per se nota or carries with it an intrinsick Evidence Nay Faith being an assent founded upon Divine Authority where no Divine Authority is interposed there can be no assent of Faith The antecedent shall be proved solutione objectionum Is not the testimony of an infallible visible Judge the ground of all Divine Faith according to this Pamphleter If therefore he would have us give an assent of Faith to this Article of the necessity of an infallible visible Judge ought he not to have confirmed it by the testimony of an infallible visible Judge But no such testimony doth he alledge in all his Sect. 3. where he undertakes to dispute this Controversie but only some misapplied shreds of Scripture and Fathers none of which does he hold as testimonies of an infallible visible Judge The infallible visible Judge being a living member of the present visible and Militant Church would it not then appear that either this is no Article of Faith for which he contends or that Articles of Faith are not necessarily to be proved by the testimony of an infallible visible Judge Though this Argument need no further confirmation till I come to canvase his objections yet for his conviction I will use this Induction If the necessity of an infallible visible Judge can be proved then either by Scripture or by Reason or by Fathers or by Tradition or by Miracle or by Enthusiasin or we must believe this Infallibility of their visible Judge upon his own word but by none of these can it be proved ergo not at all If my enumeration be defective let him or any for him supply it for confirming the Assumption I shortly run through the particulars 1. Not by Scripture for according to him I can neither know the Divine Original nor sense of Scripture but by the testimony of this infallible visible Judge Doth he not then discover that he knows not what he does when he alledges Scripture to prove that there is an infallible visible Judge is not this to prove ignotum per ignotius Nor 2. By Reason this pretended Infallibility being only from supernatural assistance of the Holy Ghost and seeing the necessity of the Church may be provided for by an infallible Rule as shall appear Cap. â— Natural Reason can neither be expected nor is it alledged by him to prove it Nor 3. By Fathers ought not the infallibility of the Fathers to be first proved before the necessity of this infallible visible Judg be believed for their testimony And how shall this be done seeing Fathers confess themselves to be fallible as shall appear Argument 8. Are there not many spurious writings passing under the names of Fathers Are not the writings of Fathers often ambiguous dark and obnoxious to various constructions Are there not in them not only seeming but real contradictions Is it not beyond controversie that in many places the writings of Fathers are vitiated and adulterated If then there be need of the testimony of an infallible Judge to know true uncorrupted Scripture and the genuine sense thereof how much more to know the true and uncorrupt writings of Fathers and their genuine sense consequently the proof of the being of that Judge cannot depend on the testimony of the Fathers Should the necessity of this infallible Judge never be believed until it be attested by the unanimous suffrage of Fathers then none of the multitude should ever believe it Are they able in such a thorny question to find out the unanimous suffrage of Fathers Surely either the necessity of this infallible Judge cannot be proved by Fathers or this Pamphleter is most unhappy for in all his Fartago of testimonies from Fathers there is not one asserting this thing as shall appear when I come to consider the objections Nor 4. By Tradition for besides that I shall be addebted to any who will prove to me the Thesis here debated by Universal Tradition are there not as great debates concerning genuine Traditions and the sense of them as concerning Scriptures Is there not need of an infallible visible Judge to discriminate genuine Traditions from spurious How was the Church imposed upon by pretended Tradition concerning the Millennium and concerning the Quarto-decimam Controversie c. If Tradition it self must be Authorized by the infallible testimony of this Judge then the infallibility of the Judge cannot be proved by Tradition or if this Position can receive sâ—fficient evidence from Traditions why may not other Articles of Faith also and so there should be no need of an infallible visible Judge Hence the great Sticklers for the Traditionary way are known to be but small friends to the infallibility of a visible Judge Perhaps then 5. He run to Miracles If there be a gift of Miracles among Romanists are they not very uncharitable who will send no Thaumaturgick Missionaries to Scotland Do they judge us so credulous as to be shaken with the fabulous Legends of Miracles pretended to be wrought in the Indies or in Vtopia I sincerely profess one real Miracle should have more weight with me than a million of their Pamphlets Of Miracles I hope to speak more Cap. 8. Now only I have two Queries 1. When ever was there a true Miracle wrought to confirm this point of Controversie that there is a necessity of an infallible visible Judge or that the Pope or his Council is this Judge instance who can 2. How is a true Miracle to be discerned from a false I the rather enquire this because Bell. lib. de not Eccles cap. 14. positively affirms that genuine Miracles must be known by the testimony of the Church undoubtedly he means this infallible visible Judge Then sure the infallibility of this Judge is not to be proved by Miracles But Circles and Labyrinths are fittest Engines to support this mystery of iniquity Must we then 6. Believe this Judge to be infallible because himself says so Behold to what a pinch these men reduce Christianity Ye can have no ground according to them to believe Scripture or Christ or any Article of Religion but upon the testimony of their infallible visible Judge that is saith the Jesuited party the Pope of Rome But how shall ye be assured that he is infallible Ye must forsooth take this upon his own word Is not this to make Christianity ridiculous Why shall I not as well believe a Quaker on his own word who will affirm his Dreams with as great confidence as any Pope of Rome is
not this prodigious impiety The Testimony of Gâ—d speaking in the Scriptures shall not be believed for it self albeit it have so strong a confirmation from extrinsick motives of credibility which the infallibility of Pope or Council never had but the testimony of a Pope shall be believed infallible on his bare word Is not this to verifie that saying of our Saviour Joh. 5.43 I am come in my Fatherâ— Name and me ye receive not if another come in his own name him ye will receive Must not these men have either Vaenal Consciences or else be great Masters of their Reason that can lay the stress of their Salvation upon so crazy a Foundation Now 7. I know nothing that remains except with the Quaker they run to Enthusiastical Revelations for this their pretended infallibility And he may remember how in a like case I minded M. Demster of a discourse of Cloppenburg the Title whereof is Papistarum Enthusiastarum discordia concors Only both Romanist and Quaker must give us Protestants leave to desire a sight of their Credentials else we cannot take them for divinely inspired Prophets This one negative Argument is sufficient to prove our negative Hypothesis and to discover the fallacy of this ground of the Romish Religion Perhaps my Adversary will say as another scribling Jesuit E. W. in his vain discourse entituled Protestancy without Principles against two eminently Learned Persons D. Stillingfleet and M. Poole That we must positively prove that there is no infallible visible Judge but I must advertise him to distinguish betwixt our Faith and the rejection of their Errours as no part of our Faith It suffices a Protestant not to believe the necessity of any infallible visible Judge and to declare that to be no part of our Faith and this is abundantly warranted by this one negative Argument Let the Pamphleter try how he can disprove it without Sophistry Argument 2. The Seat of this Infallibility or this infallible visible Judge is not assignable therefore this infallible visible Judge is but a Chymera The sequel I prove Had God appointed an infallible visible Judge upon whose testimony the Faith of all the Christian world should be resolved he would surely have determined who this infallible Judge was else as M. Peole says well in his Appendix against Everard pag. 16. God should deal with the World as Alexander the Great who when he was asked to which of his Captains he left his Empire answered the best but not defining who was best this became a Seminary of contention or as another makes the comparison like the dying Father who having two Sons Leon and Pantaleon and being enquired to whom he would leave his Estate answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereupon the two Brethren fell by the ears the one alledging that he left 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Leon the other that all was left 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Pantaleon Were it not Blasphemy to say that God hath dealt so with his Church assuring us that there is an infallible visible Judge but not revealing who he is if it be not known who he is people can no more resolve their Faith upon his Authority than if he were not if therefore God had intended such a way surely he would have determined who he is It remains therefore only that I prove the Antecedent for which I need no more but give an account of the divisions of Romanists concerning this thing if such an infallible visible Judge were assignable could not Romanists at least who talk so much of him agree upon him But who is such a stranger in the world as not to know their irreconcileable debates about this point The Jesuited party make the Pope alone the subject of this infallibility So Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 3. Valent. Tom. 3. Disp 1. q. 1. punct 7. Sect. 45. Gretser Tom. 1. Defens cap. 10. lib. 3. Bell. de verb. Dei Col. 1450. with whom joyns Stapleton Cont. 6. q. 3. art 5. who affirms that infallibility is potestas â—ratia personalis a personal power and grace given by Christ personae Petri successorum ejus to the person of Peter and his Successors and that it is so peculiar to the person of the Pope that it cannot be so much as representatively in the Council and that it is not only false but Heretical to say that the Pope can err in judicio Fidei in defining an Article of Faith Yea the Jesuits of the Colledge of Clermont as witnesses Hen. Foulis in his Preface to the History of Romish Treasons emitted Theses Anno 1661. affirming that the Pope is infallible Judge of Controversies not only extra Concilium without a Council but also that he is infallible in matters of Fact as well as of Faith which is more than Bell. durst aver as shall appear Argument 6. But there be on the other hand no less considerable Doctors Qui non in Pontifice sed in Concilio Generali constituunt infallibilitatem judicii de rebus Fidei says Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 2. who place this infallibility not at all in the Pope but in the General Council only and for this he cites the Parisian Doctors Gerson Almaynus Alphonsus à Castro yea and Pope Adrian the Sixth Loe here contradictory Opinions touching this thing among Romanists and yet Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 2. hath the confidence to say that all Romanists agree in this that the Pope and the Council cannot err But this is both false on the matter and a perfect Cheat. First I say false on the matter for there be yet a third sort of great Authors among Romanists who do affirm that both Pope and General Council may err in matters of Faith and that the subject of infallibility is multitudo fidelium the diffusive Body of Believers Of this Opinion were Oceam Panormitan Petrus de Alliaco Waldensis Antoninus Cardinal Cusan Nicolaus de Clemanges The places ye will find cited by Learned D. Barron in Apodixi Catholica Tract 5. cap. 19.21 and by H. H. in his Review of the Apology for the Church of Romes infallibility Cap. 1. Sect. 7. I will only cite one short sentence of famous Oceam Part. 1. Dialog lib. 5. cap. 29. 31. where he lays down this conclusion and maintains it Tota multitudo clericorum potest contra fidem Catholicam errare per consequens totus clerus non est illa Ecclesia quâ— contra fidem errare non potest That is the whole multitude of the Clergy may err against the Catholick Faith and consequently the whole Clergy is not that Church which cannot err in matters of Faith But secondly those Romanists who say they do agree in this that the Pope and the Council cannot err do put a Cheat upon the world as is solidly demonstrated by the Learned D. Barron Apodixi Catholica tract 5. cap. 20. for they do not mean that this insallibility is
vitals and kills the person And so much of this Argument 3. Argument 4. If there be an infallible visible Judge he must proceed in giving definitions of Faith either discursively or by Prophetical inspiration but by neither of these ways can he proceed ergo c. If any challenge the enumeration in the major it concerns him to assign another way of his procedure till which I proceed to confirm the minor And 1. Doth this Judge proceed by Prophetical Inspiration Are all the Popes of Rome Prophets Had Pope Pius the 4. Martin the 5. Eugenius the 4 Leo the 10. or the constituent Members of the Council of Constance Basil Florence Lateran or Trent Prophetical Inspirations Where are their extraordinary Credentials correspondent to such extraordinary Inspirations The Apostles spake with Tongues and wrought Miracles Had Pope Paul the 3. Julius the 3. Pius the 4. or the Trent Bishops such Seals of their Apostleship Is there not as good cause to believe the Divine Inspirations of deluded Quakers as of Popes or Papalings Must all be believed to be divinely inspired who say they are Hath not God left us a Rule by which to judge of Impostors And what else is that Rule but the holy Scripture Isai 8.20 Is not this a goodly issue of Papal infallibility Papists and Quakers are not such Enemies as they would make the World believe Some may think perhaps I play upon Romanists when I charge them with Enthusiasms but I do them no wrong it 's the Doctrine of their own greatest Authors Stapleton controv 4. q. 2. in explicat Art Notab 4. saith That the Doctrine of the Church undoubtedly he means this infallible visible Judge is discursiva in mediis but Prophetica Divina in conclusionibus Divine and Prophetical in the conclusions though only discursive in the premises I doubt if more iudibrious non-sense concerning Enthusiasms ever dropt from a Quaker Justly doth Judicious Rivet in Isagog ad Scripturam cap. 20. Sect. 8. censure this Doctrine of Stapletons as repugnant to it self For to use discourse to infer a conclusion and yet to expect that the conclusion shall not be inferred by argumentation but only be suggested by Enthusiasm or Divine Inspiration est velle nolle argumentari Surely the definitions of this infallible Judge not depending upon the premises nor being inferred by them but being divinely inspired according to Stapleton they cannot properly be conclusions but must be Divine Oracles is not this to establish perfect Enthusiasm were this a truth ought not the definitions of this infallible Judge be joyned to the holy Scripture Neither want there Authors among Romanists who assert this as Testefort the Dominican cited by Rivet cap. cit Sect. 9. who affirmed Sacram Scripturam contineri partim in bibliis partim in decretalibus Pontificum Romanorum And Melchior Canus lib. 5. cap. 5. testifies that one of their Learned Doctors affirmed in his presence definitiones Conciliorum ad Sacram Scripturam pertinere May I not here use the word of the Prophet Jer. 23.28 What is the Chaff to the Wheat saith the Lord it may be enough to prove the falshood of that way that many eminent Doctors of the Romish perswasion are ashamed of it particularly Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 9. lib. 2. de Conciliis cap. 12. Melchior Canus lib. 2. cap. 7. Alphonsus à Castro lib. 1. cap. 8. Bec. tract de fide cap. 2. q. 8. Sect. 4. who all are ashamed to assert that Popes and Councils pass out their definitions by immediate Revelations And the University of Paris Anno 1626. emitted a Decree condemning the foresaid impious assertion of Testefort as witnesses Rivet Isagog cap. 20. Sect. 9. who would have a more full account of the Fanaticism and Enthusiasms of the Church of Rome I remit them to D. Stillingfleet's late discourse of Romish Idolatry cap. 4. If therefore they say that this Judge proceeds discursively which was the other branch of the Assumption I argue against them thus 1. Then this infallible Judge must have a clear and infallible yea and a publick ground for now he proceeds not by secret Enthusiasm from which he deduces his definitions and if the Judge antecedently to his definitions have a clear ground to believe that which he is to define why may not others also believe upon the same clear grounds without the sentence of an infallible visible Judge Certainly either the Judge defines an Article of Faith which himself does not believe but consequently to his own definition and because he says it himself or if he believe it before he define it then an infallible visible Judge is not necessary For that without which Faith may be had is not simply necessary to Faith but Faith may be had without the sentence of an infallible visible Judge as appears in that antecedent Act of Faith which the Judge hath before his own sentence therefore the sentence of an infallible visible Judge is not simply necessary to Faith or if Romanists will needs still maintain it to be necessary it will be necessary and not necessary necessary ex Hypothesi not necessary because the Judge hath Faith antecedently to his sentence Is it not a Noble Position which drives the Asserters thereof either upon the Rock of Enthusiasm or else involves them in a contradiction But secondly this Judge proceeding discursively in his definition of Faith is fallible in the premises ergo he is fallible also in the conclusion The sequel is clear it being impossible to deduce a true conclusion from false premises Whatever may seem to follow ratione formae yet nothing can ratione materiae seeing as Philosophers demonstrate assensus conclusionis attingit objectum praemissarum if therefore the premises be false the conclusion must be likewise false The antecedent is acknowledged by Romanists themselves Hence Stapleton controv 4. q. 2. in explic art Notab 2. Ecclesia in singulis mediis non habet infallibilitatem peculiarem S. Sancti directionem sed potest in illis adhibendis probabili interdum non semper necessaria collectione uti Ratio est quia Ecclesiastici non habent scientiae divinae plenitudinem sic de scipso dixit August Epist 119. cap. 11. in Scripturis Sanctis multo interdum plura nesciunt quam sciunt nihilominus Ecclesia in conclusione fidei semper est certissima Let me now appeal all knowing persons if either Scripture or Fathers do testifie that God gifts any with infallibility in the conclusion and not also in the premises Were not the Apostles infallible in both Seeing therefore Popes succeed not to Peter in his infallibility in the premises neither do they succeed him in his infallibility in the conclusion Arg. 5. It 's impossible for Romanists especially the Jesuited party according to their Principle to know infallibly who is truly Pope or which is truly a lawful Council ergo it 's impossible that they can infallibly resolve their Faith upon the sentence of
believe the material objects or particular Articles of Faith There be great School-men for both these Opinions without censure of Heresie on either hand as may be seen in Carleton Theol. Schol. Tom. 2. disp 4. Sect. 2. 3. Would Romanists therefore grant that Scriptural Revelation is the principal mean by which the Veracity of God is applied to all the material objects of Faith so as this were the Standard by which we are to judge of all Articles of Faith I should not much contend with them whether they looked on Scriptural Revelation as a part of the formal object of Faith or only as a requisite condition to our believing upon the Veracity of God but how far they are from this may appear by the account I have given of their Opinions in the foregoing Paragraph it not being my concern at the time to debate that Question of the formal object of Faith I shall abstract from it and keep close to this of the Rule of Faith in which all Reformed Divines are agreed against Papists and Quakers that Scripture is the principal compleat and infallible Rule of Faith I shall not dilate upon Arguments to confirm the Orthodox Assertion this hath been done copiously by Whittaker against Stapleton lib. 3. de Author Script Chamler Tom. 1. Panstrat lib. 1. and very lately by Tillotson against J. S. much less can it be expected that I should enter upon a particular refutation of all those errours concerning the Rule of Faith into which Romanists and Quakers are subdivided I hope it shall suffice by some brief hints to evict the Scriptures to be the principal and compleat Rule of Faith whereby the contrary notions of Adversaries in all hands will vanish into smoak Only this I must not omit that though Papists talk bigly of Universal Tradition and consent of Fathers yet if either of these were made the Test Popery would be found not to be the true Christian Religion So fearful are Romanists of these discriminating Tests that sometimes they spare not to say as Melchior Canus lib. 7. cap. 1. that though all the Fathers with one mouth own a Doctrine yet the contrary may be piously defended and of Traditions the Fratres Valenburgii in examin princip examin 3. Num. 64. affirm ut Traditio aliqua sit Apostolica nihil detrimenti eam accipere licet aliquando in Ecclesia de ea dubitatum sit yea this Pamphleter confesses pag. 75. that such doubts may be moved concerning Fathers and Traditions that at length all must be resolved into the definition of the present visible Judge My work therefore shall be to hold out the Scripture to be the principal and compleat Rule of Faith whereby it will appear that other pretended Rules either are not true Rules or but subordinate to the Scriptures Did not our Lord Jesus in all his Debates with Devils or Hereticks appeal to the Scriptures and never to the Decretals of High-Priests or unwritten Tradition But it 's written Ye err not knowing the Scriptures Are we not remitted for decision of all Controversies to the Rule of the Scripture Isai 8 20. Joh. 5.39 Are not Scripture-Saints commended for improving this Rule Act. 17.11 Are we not commanded so to cleave to Scripture as not to decline from it either to the right hand or to the left Deut. 5.32 Deut. 17.18.20 Deut. 28.13.14 Josh 1.7.8 Is there not an Anathema pronounced upon all who broach any Doctrine not only contrary to but beside the Scripture whether Apostle or Angel Gal. 1 8 9. Which Scripture is expounded by Chrysost in locum Basil in Moral Reg. 72. and Augustine lib. 3. cont lit Petil. cap. 6. of the written Word who then shall secure the Pope when he obtrudes his Praeter anti-scriptural Oracles Is not the Scripture given for this end that we may believe and believing have eternal life Joh. 20.31 Is it not called the Canon or Rule Gal. 6.16 Is not the Scripture the Rule by which all within the Church and to whom the Gospel is preached are to be judged at the Great Day Rom. 2.16 Joh. 12.48 Jam. 2.12 Must it not then be the Rule according to which we are to believe and walk Can there be any more Noble or infallible Rule thought of than the Scriptures of the Living God Is it not said to be more sure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than a Voice from Heaven 2 Pet. 1.19 Was it not so evident of old that the Scriptures were the Rule of the Christian Religion that the Adversaries of Christianity made it their great design to destroy the Bible thinking thereby to extirpate Christianity out of the world But this should have been as M. Tillotson observes Sect. 3. pag. 20. malice without wit according to Romish Principles For had all the Bibles in the world been burnt Christian Religion would nevertheless been entirely preserved by Tradition and the definitions of the infallible visible Judge nay the Church had been a gainer thereby for the occasion and Parent of all Heresie the Scripture being out of the way she should have had all in her own hands which Romanists are still grasping after But suppose the Enemies of Christianity mistook their design how came the Christians in those days to be so tenacious of this Book that rather then deliver it they would yield up themselves to torments and death why did they look upon those that delivered up the Scriptures as Renouncers of Christianity whom therefore they called Traditores if they had not looked on this Book as the Rule of their Faith and chief mean of their Salvation Were not those who suffered for not delivering up the Scriptures Confessors and Martyrs for this great Article of the Religion of Protestants that the Scripture is the Rule of Faith Is there any thing in the world to which the properties of the principal Rule of Faith do so quadrate as to the holy Scriptures Must the Rule of Faith be 1. Certain both in it self and as to us 2. Intelligible 3. Comprehensive of all the material objects of Faith 4. Independent as to its Authority from any prior Rule of Faith And 5. A publick Standard by which the Church may convince gain sayers Is there any thing to which all these are so exactly competent as to the Scriptures And 1. For Certainty how uncertain the infallibility of the Romish visible Judge is we have already cleared But the testimonies of the Lord are sure Psal 19.7 yea more sure than a Voice from Heaven 2 Pet. 1.19 If the motives of credibility firmly demonstrate any thing it is this Can any writing in the Earth compare with the Scriptures as to Antiquity Have they not been miraculously preserved thouâ—h Antiochus Epiphanes and the Roman Emperours c. so industriously endeavoured their utter abolition whereas many other Books of excellent use have really perished upon whose ruine men had no such design Hath not the truth of the Scriptures been solemnly attested by the Heroick constancy of
Martyrs of all Sexes and Ages under most exquisite torments whose resoluteness could not proceed either from the greatness of a natural spirit affectation of vain-glory want of sense of their sufferings or Philosophical fortitude but from a firm perswasion of the Divine Original of the Scriptures Hath not the same been confirmed by most stupendious Miracles wrought not in corners or only among Favourites but in the open view of the world in the face of sagacious and desperate Enemies who yet could never find a Cheat in one of them Hath not God signalized the Enemies of holy Scripture with remarkable Judgments from Heaven among whom were Theâ—pâ—mpus and Theodectes one of whom as Eusebius lib. 8. de praepar Evang. cap. 5. reports out of Aristaeus was smitten with Madness and the other with Blindness for attempting to prophane the holy Scriptures Hath not the Scripture a mighty influence on Consciences beyond all natural force both for terrour and comfort yea and for sanctification also And besides are there not invincible Characters of a Divine Original inherent to the Scriptures such as the incomparable sanctity of Scripture Precepts the unfathomable sublimity of Scripture-Mysteries which though Reason could never find out yet being once discovered Reason it self cannot but acknowledge to be admirably suitable for bringing about the salvation of souls the inimitable Majestick simplicity of the stile the wonderful methods for satisfying Divine Justice reconciling sinners to God and pacifying afflicted Consciences And lastly not to mention more the Native tendency of the whole Scriptures to ingage all men to the serious study of holiness and to the hatred of all manner of wickedness by the most powerful and rational motives imaginable insomuch that it 's beyond controversie amongst Christians though otherwise of various perswasions that the Scripture is the Word of God Hence Bell is forced to say lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 2 Scripturis nihil est certius nihil est notius and a little after Sacra Scriptura regula credendi certissima tutissimaque est that is the Scripture is the most certain and most safe Rule of believing Nay more he concludes him an errant Fool who derogates Faith from the Scriptures his words are Vt stultissimum esse necesse sit qui illis fidem esse habendam neget Secondly If Scriptures were not intelligible as to all things necessary to Salvation they should not be sufficient for the end for which God made them which is Joh. 20.31 That we may believe and believing have eternal life If it be answered that they accomplish their end in so far as their want of perspicuity is supplied by the Church or by the definitions of the infallible Judge this is easily repelled because either the Church and the infallible Judge gather the understanding of these Mysteries which they clearly propound from Scripture or not if from Scripture then Scripture did deliver them intelligibly else could they not have been gathered from Scripture if the Church and the supposed infallible Judge have not the knowledge of these Mysteries from the Scripture then the Scriptures does not cannot effectuate the end for which it was made viz. to work Faith in us and to guide us to Eternal Life but that end is brought about by the Church and by other means Romanists to use the phrase of a late Writer represent God speaking in the Scriptures as a Sphinx uttering Riddles that the Pope and his Parasites may be reputed the only Oedipus's in the world But that saying of Hilary of Poytiers lib. 10. de Trinit is no less excellent than famous Non per difficiles nos Deus ad beatam vitam nocat quaestiones In absoluto nobis facili est aeternitas How impious is it to say that the Romish Church in her definitions speaks more clearly than God in the Scriptures Were not the Canons of the Council of Trent of purpose dubiously conceived to satisfie different interests Have not great Doctors that were present in the Council put contrary senses on the Canons thereof Though Papists and other Hereticks do accuse the Scripture as unintelligible yet doth not their own practice at other times confute them Do they not argue from the Scriptures for their Opinions How impertinent were this kind of arguing if Scripture were not intelligible Neither can it be said that they argue thus only ad hominem against us for though we acknowledge the perspicuity of the Scriptures yet not the Romish glosses imposed on the Scriptures and therefore these arguings could have no significancy against us unless they supposed they could bring grounds from Scripture to prove their glosses to be true Yea does not this Pamphleter pag. 106 107 108 109. heap up a multitude of Scriptures which he supposes are express against the Doctrine of Protestants These Scriptures shall be considered in their own place Now only doth not his alledging them suppose them intelligible especially seeing he proposes them so nakedly without the Comment of any infallible Judge upon them 'T is true there be obscure places in Scripture yet as Austin lib. de util credendi cap. 6. excellently observes the Divine Wisdom hath so modified and tempered the Scriptures ut nemo inde haurire non possit quod sibi satis est si modo ad hauriendum devotè piè ut vera Religio pâ—scit accedat i. e. that any man may learn from them what is sufficient to his salvation providing he search them with that pious devotion which becomes a Religious Enquirer And again Serm. 11. de verbis Dom. Pascimur apertis exercemur obscuris ibi fames pellitur hic sastidium i. e. clear Scriptures feed us obscure places exercise us by the one our hunger is satisfied by the other our loathing is prevented And Greg. Praefat. ad Leandrum before his Commentaries on Job the Scripture is a River Planus altus in quo agnus ambulet Elephas natet both shallow and deep wherein a Lamb may walk and an Elephant swim Thirdly Doth not the Scriptures comprehend all material objects of Faith Are they not able to make us wise unto salvation 2 Tim. 3.15 How could they accomplish this end if they did not contain all that is necessary to salvation If Romanists run to their old Evasion that what is wanting in the Scripture is supplied by the Church they are readily contuted for then the Scripture were not able to make us wise to salvation but the Church by other means should do it If the Church have truths not contained in Scripture either they are more sublime than these in Scripture or not Not more sublime Are there more sublime Mysteries of Christianity than the Mysteries of the Trinity Incarnation Resurrection all which are undoubtedly in Scripture If then they be but inferiour Truths seeing God committed the most sublime Mysteries to writing how kept he up those inferiour Truths But whence hath the Church the knowledge of those Mysteries not contained in
of the Apostles pure and without corruption Having discussed all those things which he brought to confirm his second Objection I now only take notice of his ludibrious Conclusion that seeing the Scriptures as he falsly alledges are corrupt therefore we have a necessity of an infallible visible Judge A goodly inference Is there no way to shoulder up a Pope but by treading down the Scriptures But supposing the Scriptures to be corrupted what benefit as to this can we reap by their infallible visible Judge Can he dictate to us new pure Original Scriptures When he could not preserve them in their Purity how shall he restore them to it If he declare which is pure Scriptures will he do it by a Prophetical Revelation Then he would look that his Enthusiasms be instructed by better Credentials than the Quakers or if he do it by other solid and convincing Evidences then it 's not the infallibility of the Judge but the evidence of his grounds that will warrant his definitions consequently his pretended Infallibility as to this thing is wholly insignificant Objection â— Pag. 57. The Pamphleter enquires what infallible motive can prudently perswade Protestants that the Word of God they relye on was ever set down in writing or is extant at this day Is it the testimony of the Scripture calling it self Gods Word or the innate light of the same Scripture shewing it self to be such to a well dispâ—sed â—iâ—d If tâ—e first do not Nicodemus and Thomas Gospels carry the same Tithis of Matthew and Mark If the second then the Fathers of the first three Ageâ—weâ— not well disposed persons who did not acknowledge some Books of Scripture till the Authority of a Council of Câ—rthage had declared them Canonical and much less Luther who rejects James Epistle with some others Answer 1 Doth not this Atheistical Cavil of Jesuits which hath often been confuted by Protestants fall as heavily upon themselves as upon us May not this same Query be made concerning the infallible motive which can prudently perswade Romanists to believe the infallibility of their visible Judge Is it his own testimony calling himself infallible or the innate light of his definitions shewing themselves to be divine If the first do not Quakers assert their own infallibility as well as he Doth not the Turks Alcoran affirm that it is of Divine Original as well as Popes ascribe their definitions to the Holy Ghost If the second how shall an innate light be granted to the definitions of their infallible Judge seeing it 's denied to the holy Scriptures of God It might be sufficient here to leave him only to grapple with his own Cavil But I secondly answer that a well disposed mind may be convinced of the Divine Original of the holy Scriptures both by extrinsick motives of Credibility and by the Intrinseca Criteria or the innate light of the holy Scriptures I say first by extrinsick motives such as the stupendious Miracles whereby it was confirmed which this calumniating Pamphleter would insinuate pag. 59. but with Jesuitical ingenuity that I did undervalue the Universal Tradition of the Catholick Church the signal Judgments of God upon Enemies the invincible constancy of Martyrs c. Doth not Bell. lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 2. by these and such arguments prove the Scriptures certissimas esse verissimas nec humana inventa sed oracula divina continere But besides these extrinsick motives of Credibility the holy Scriptures of God have intrinsick evidences of their Divine Originals as from the sublimity of the Mysteries which yet are wonderfully suited for bringing about the Salvation of Souls the untainted and unparallelled Sanctity of the Doctrine the plenitude of the Scriptures for instruction of the Judgment Reformation of the Life Consolation of the heart in all cases the admirable temperature of Simplicity and Majesty in the stile of holy Scriptures the great variety of Scripture purposes and the wonderful harmony thereof though Scriptures were written in different Ages Places and Tongues So that Bell. says of the Pen men of Scripture they would appear non tam diversi Scriptores quam unius Scriptoris diversi calami This self-evidencing light of the Scriptures Jesuits themselves are constrained toa cknowledge in their lucid intervals Hence Greg. de Valentia lib. 1. de Analys fidei cap. 1. Deus ipse saith he imprimis est qui Christianam Doctrinam atque à Deo Scripturam sacram veram esse voce Revelationis suae interno quodam instructu atque impulsu humanis mentibus câ—ntestatur atque persuadet And cap. 15. Cum multa sint in ipsa Doctrina Christiana quae ipsa per se illi fidem atque authoritatem conciliare possunt tamen mihi maximum illud esse videtur ut est à Clemente Alexandrino observatum quod sua nescio qua admirabili vi divinè prorsus hominum animos afficit atque ad virtutem impellit It 's not simply because the Gospels of Matthew and Mark carry their names prefixed that we believe them to be of a Divine Original but as we are strongly induced thereto by the extrinsick motives of Credibility so our Faith is ultimately resolved on the Authority of God speaking in the Scriptures with an admirable Soul convincing evidence The Pseudevangels of Thomas and Nicodemus and all Books without the Canon of holy Scripture are destitute both of these motives of Credibility and of that self evidencing light of their Divine Original Nor should it seem strange to any that I say Faith is ultimately resolved on the Authority of God speaking in the Scriptures For all Faculties and Sciences must have first principles into which our assent must be terminated else we should run in infinitum I appeal to any that is not willing to be deceived whether it be not more congruou that Faith be resolved into that writing which God himself immediately did dictate by the acknowledgment of the Catholick Church then either into a Papal or into a Quaker Enthusiasm that have no other Credentials but because they say they are infallibly moved by the Spirit of God As for the Pamphleters allegtioan that the Fathers of the first Centuries did not acknowledge some Books of Scripture until the Council of Carthage it is manifest untruth Look to Melito his Catalogue of the Books of holy Scripture recorded by Eusebius lib. 4. Hist Eccles cap. 25. and Origen's recorded by the same Eusebius lib. 6. cap. 24. or of the Author of the Book de Eccles Hierarch cap. 3. whom Papists hold for Denis the Areopagite or of Athanasius in Synopsi S. Script or of the Council of Laodicea Can. 59. if they were not conform to the Canon of Scripture received by the Protestant Churches Any little seeming differences in the way of their and our Enumeration ye may find cleared by D. Cosin in his Scholastical History of the Canon of Scripture cap. 4 5 6. Is not Jerom so explicite for us in this matter in Prol.
or feigned Gospels Traditions or fancied Revelations The testimonies of Authors for proving this I remit to be gathered from D. Morton Have not some Hereticks denied many of the Books of the holy Scripture whereof a large Catalogue may be had from Bell. lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 5. 6. yea doth not Bell. loc cit charge the Manichees as denying the whole Scriptures both of Old and New Testament did ever Protestant Churches so Doth not the same Bell. lib. 1. cap. 1. charge Gaspar Swenkfeldius and the Libertines as declining the Scriptures and only flying to the inward dictates of the Spirit Were there ingenuity among Romanists would they be so impudent in their accusations of Protestants In appealing to Scripture we imitate the ancient Fathers Hence Austin de Gra. lib. arb cap. 18. Sedeat inter nos judex Apostolus Joannes lib. 2. de nupt concupisc cap 33. ista controversia judicem requirit judicet ergo Christus judicet cum illo Apostolus quia in Apostolo ipse loquitur Christus And to the like purpose Optatus lib. 5. cont Parmen de caelo quaerendus est judex sed quid pulsamus caelum quâ—m habemus in Evangeliâ— testamentum I deny not but Hereticks have perverted Scriptures for the Patrociny of their errours But excellently did one describe the nature of Hereticks in this Si videant petitis è Scriptura demonstrationibus stultitiam suam constringi tum Scripturae recusant scopum usum srquando vero putant sibi favere nudum aliquod effatum à genuina recisum orationis serie ad suum propâ—situm accommodant suis confirmandis And this is all which Vincentius Gennadius and Austin in the places cited by the Pamphleter and other Romanists do insinuate Excellently said the old Jewish Rabbins In quocuaque Scripturae loco invenis objectionem pro Haereticis invenis quoque medicamentum in latere ejus 2. Therefore I deny the sequel Though Hereticks do appeal to Scripture yet it doth not follow that the Scriptures are not the Rule of Faith and Ground of the Religion of Protestants Do not the most Paradoxal Philosophers appeal to the Principles of Reason in confirmation of their absurd Theorems Shall therefore Principles of Reason not be the Rule by which to discern betwixt true and false Conclusions in Philosophy Will not a Litigious Caviller appeal to the Law for justifying his most injurious actions shall therefore the Law cease to be the Rule to distinguish betwixt just and unjust This Pamphleter argues against us as if I should argue thus against him Jansenists whom he holds for Hereticks appeal to the sentence of an infallible visible Judge as well as Jesuits therefore the sentence of the infallible visible Judge cannot be the Rule of Faith Or thus Quakers pretend to an infallible direction of the Spirit as well as the Pope or General Council therefore they are deceivers as well as those To shut up this Answer it 's not the claiming of conformity with Scriptures that proves a true Religion but the having of it and in evidence that we do not barely claim it but have it we are content to undergo the most accurate scrutiny The more Romanifls have contended with us these 150 years the more the truth of the Protestant Religion hath shined forth SECT IV. Some Reflections on the rest of the Pamphleters Rapsodick Discourse concerning the Rule of Faith FRom Pag. 61. to the end of his Sect. 4. he hath a long Rapsodick and incoherent Discourse wherein he endeavours to abuse an unwary Reader by bold Assertions empty Rhetorications and mis-stating of Questions Were these frothy flourishes reduced to an accurate way of arguing they would vanish into smoak and nonsence yet I shall touch what may seem most material therein First then he brings me in asserting that Scriptures are either clearin terminis or are made clear by conferring of places But he cites no place where I affirm this nor I believe will he find such an Assertion in so many words in all my Papers against M Demster However I acknowledge I have said that Articles of Faith are contained either in terminis in Scripture or else that by firm consequences they may be deduced from that which is there expresly revealed Nor do I deny but Protestants hold that conferring of Scripture with Scripture is an useful mean for finding out the true meaning of Scripture I shall therefore examine what this Scribler can bring against it And first he says Though a place of Scripture be clear in it self yet when divers Sects take it diversly a man may justly suspect his own judgment seeing so many of a contrary mind I know not what can be inferred from this irrational Assertion but either Scepticism in Religion or down-right Atheism For when a Scripture is clear in it self it carries with it sufficient evidence that this is the Mind of God therein If then notwithstanding this clearness one may justly suspect that this is not the Mind of God then he may have just ground to question what God says when he speaks clearly And if the sense of clear Scripture may be suspected may not the sense of the definitions of any visible Judge be questioned much more I confess the contradictions of rational persons ought to make us seriously consider what Scripture says but if it speak clearly no contradiction of Hereticks gives just ground to question the true sense thereof Did Athanasius question the Truth when it was contradicted by a World of Arrians though Pope Liberius also did subscribe the sentence against him Doth not the Apostle teach that the Faith of Divine Truths should be so firm that if an Angel would contradict it we should not believe him Gal. 1.8 Next he objects That Hereticks for their Herâ—sie alledge places of Scripture as would seem clear as Marcion justified his despising Moses by these words Joh. 10.8 All that ever came before me are Thieves and Robbers The Manichees they fancy that Christ is the Sun by that Joh. 8.12 I am the Light of the World The Waldenses that the Magistrate ought not to put a Criminal to death because it s said Exod. 20. Thou shalt not kill Yea says he the Devil cited clear Scripture against Christ and the Jews against his Death Did ever Beelzebub blaspheme more grosly than this Jesuit if the Devil cited clear Scripture why did not Christ hearken to him Do not their own Interpreters Jansen in concord Evang. cap. 15. Maldonat and à Lopide in Matth. 4.6 shew that the Devil grosly perverted that Scripture Did not the Devil mutilate the Text which he cited out of Psal 91.11 leaving out In all thy ways as is excellently noted by Bernard Serm. 14. in Psalmum qui habitat Quid mandavit nempe quod in Psalmo sequitur ut custodi aut custodiant te in viis tuis Nunquid in praecipitiis Qualis via haec de pinnaculo Templi mittere te deorsum Non
root Pasal signifie dolare sculpere Hence the Chaldee renders it Tsalma an Image Do not their own Pagnin and Montanus render it sculptile But whatever be of that is it not added in the Hebrew Ve celtemuna or any likeness of any thing Are not here then all Images in so far as they are made objects of Adoration prohibited But grant that it ought to be rendred an Idol yet doth not the Adoration of an Image make it an Idol Did not Adoration make the Brazen Serpent an Idol which before was not one Hence is that of Tertull. lib. de Idololatria cap. 4. Imaginum consecratio est Idololatria and Isidore lib. 8. Orig. cap. 11. Idolum est similaehrum quodâ—humana effigie factum consecratum est according to the known Distich Qui sacros fingit auro vel marmore vultus Non facit ille Deos qui colit ille facit Yea so evident is this that their great School-man Vasq Tom. 1. in 3. Part. q. 25. disp 104. cap. 2. confesses that by this Command all Adoration of Images was prohibited to the Jews whence I conclude therefore also to Christians the Moral Law standing still in force Rom. 3.31 Do we by Faith make void the Law nay rather we establish it I might run through other Points in difference betwixt Romanists and us for I know none of them but may be disproved by luculent Scriptures Whereas he says these three Scriptures Mat. 26.26 Jam. 2.24 2 Thes 2.13 are flatly against Protestants he too flatly discovers either his own ignorance or impudency the harmony betwixt these and the Doctrine of Protestants hath been abundantly cleared by our Authors who handle the Controversies of the Presence of Christ in the Sacrament Justification and Traditions Now shortly I say first that these words This is my Body make no more for the Transubstantiation of Bread into the Body of Christ than these 1 Cor. 10.4 the Book was Christ for a Transubstantiation of the Rock into Christ Yea their Transubstantiating sense cannot be admitted without falsifying the words of Christ as I demonstrated against M. Demster and shall shew in its own place that my Argument stands yet in force notwithstanding the Pamphleters insignificant attempts to the contrary In evidence hereof after Consecration it 's frequently called Bread 1 Cor. 11.26 27. I proceed therefore to the second Scripture Jam. 2.24 Ye see that a man is justified by Works and not by Faith only That this place is not so clear for them may appear by joyning them with some other places from the Apostle Paul Rom. 3.28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by Faith without the works of the Law Rom. 4.5 6. To him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly is Faith counted for righteousness even as David described the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth righteousness without works Gal. 2.16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the Faith of Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nisi per fidem which Esthius upon the place acknowledges to be equivalent to sed tantum per fidem but only by Faith And he affirms that the most Learned both of Greek and Latin Interpreters do agree in that Exposition These and other Texts of the Apostle Paul seem to stand in so full contradiction to the fense which Romanists impose upon the words of James that they have devised many Cob web distinctions to clude those luculent testimonies of the Apostle S. Paul Some affirming that he excludes only from Justification the works of the Ceremonial Law not remembring that he excludes the works of that Law which is established by the Gospel as is clear comparing Rom. 3.28 with verse 31. but that is surely the Moral Law Others finding that they cannot deny but he excludes the works of the Moral Law yet say that only these works as done before Conversion and without Grace are excluded Others say that the Apostle S. Paul speaks only of the first Justification but not of the second But the Apostle S. Paul Rom. 4. to confirm his Assertion of Justification by Faith without the works of the Law brings in the instances of David and Abraham long after their Conversion and therefore he excludes not only works before Conversion neither speaks he only of that which Romanists call the first Justification I shall not digress to examine that distinction of the first and second Justification but surely in the Romish sense it presupposes a Justification by inherent holiness or by works and so is a begging of the question Only to prevent Logomachies and mistakes about words it would be considered that the chief question betwixt Romanists and us in this thing is concerning the meritorious cause of Justification what it is that purchases to us Remission of sin and right to Eternal Life Now I might appeal to all serious and imprejudiced persons what else can do this but the obedience of the Lord Jesus Christ Can our good works either before or after Conversion satisfie Divine Justice or merit to us remission of sins and a right to eternal life Is there any proportion betwixt our works and that Eternal and far more exceeding weight of Glory or the wrath to the uttermost due to us for our sins Are we not bound Luke 17.10 When we have done all that we are commanded to acknowledge our selves unprofitable servants for we have but done that which was our duty to do Are not our best performances stained with gradual defects Eccles 7.20 Esay 64.6 All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags Is not that saying of S. Greg. known lib. 9. Moral in Job cap 11. Omnis humana justitia injustitia esseconvincitur si districtè judicetur prece ergo post justitiam indiget ut quae succumbere discussa poterat ex sola judicis pietate convalescat Does any man love God so well as he ought says not S. Austin Epist 29. Plenissima charitas est in nemine Illud autem quod minus est quam esse debet in vitio est Do we not stand in need of mercy to our best works Neh. 13.22 Are they not made acceptable to God through Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 2.5 Can we then be pronounced by God perfectly just on the account of these or are we not rather pronounced just upon the account of the obedience of Christ for which these are accepted and we our selves also Ephes 1.6 He hath made us accepted in the beloved Is not that Scripture luculent Rom. 5.19 By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous If any might have placed confidence on their works to be justified thereby then surely the Apostle S. Paul might have done it but he durst not adventure on it 1 Cor. 4.4 I know nothing by my self yet am I not hereby justified It remains then to be expounded in what sense a man is said Jam. 2.24 to be justified by works and not by Faith only
one of these with exclusion of the rest When the promise is made sometime to one grace sometime to another it only imports the inseparable connexion of all sanctifying graces that who ever has one hath undoubtedly all Thirdly I grant that in that word Mat. 19. If thou wilt enter into life keep the Commandments is contained a Fundamental of the Covenant of Works but not of the Gospel Covenant This is evident from that description of the two Covenants Rom. 10. from vers 5. to 9. Moses describeth the righteousness of the Law that the man who doth these things shall live by them but the righteousness of Faith speaketh on this wise If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved Where the persect keeping of the Commandments is set forth to be the righteousness of the Law as the righteousness of the Law is contradistinguished from the righteousness of Faith Yet Christ does not mock the young man by that word as the scoffing Jesuit Maldonat on the place would infer from this Exposition given by Calvin for this righteousness of the Law would really bring a man to eternal life if a man truly had it Neither is any mean so apt to convince a Justiciary pretending to a legal righteousness such an one was that young man as appears by his words vers 20. All these things have I kept from my youth as to charge him with the righteousness of the Law Christ therefore used a very proper mean for preparing that person to submit to the righteousness of God by Faith Phil 3.9 had not his covetousness choaked the work In what sense the perfect keeping of the Law is possible or impossible is elsewhere declared now only I add that neither under the Gospel Covenant can Eternal Life be obtained without a sincere and serious endeavour to keep the Commands perfectly But surely if the perfect keeping of the Commandments were a Fundamental of the Gospel Covenant our ranting Missionaries and their dissolute Proselytes might despair of salvation Pag. 87. and 88. it 's enquired Whether every Fundamental can be so clearly proved by Scripture that the words cannot be obviously and literally taken in another sense Answ Every Fundamental may be so convincingly proved from Scripture that no rational person can upon solid ground contradict the evidence thereof else the Scripture should not be able to make us wise unto salvation 2 Tim. 3.15 I deny not but a wrangler may impose perverse glosses upon the clearest words in Scripture or out of Scripture as that petulant Romanist Râ—ynandus gave a specimen of his mischievous Acumen by imposing blasphemous glosses upon all the Articles of the Creed but this only proceeds from ill disposed minds and neither impeaches the clearness of Scripture as to Fundamentals nor the certainty of our belief of them But says he pag. 88. those words This is my body signifie and that most obviously and litterally that Christs Body is really in the Sacrament Like as when I say this is a piece of Gold this is a piece of Silver these words litterally signifie real Gold and Silver Answer Those words This is my body cannot signifie the Popish transubstantiated Presence of the Body of Christ without a manifest contradiction as shall appear cap. 5. These other Propositions this is a piece of Gold this is a piece of Silver not being productive of the Silver and the Gold as Romanists affirm these words this is my body to be productive of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament are not parallel to the Proposition under debate But I will not here anticipate that which is to be handled at more length cap. 5. Pag. 103. he asks If it be a Fundamental to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God which says he Austin believed upon Tradition Answ I grant it is a Fundamental as a Fundamental is taken for the Rule of Faith which makes us believe all the rest And so indeed it is a principle having an intrinsick evidence of its Divine Original as I endeavoured to shew in its proper place yet I confess that our minds are prepared by the motives of credibility whereof Tradition is one to give a supernatural assent to the Scriptures as the Word of God and this is all which Austin affirmed as to this thing as hath been already cleared Here it is to be noted that though I call the Scripture a Fundamental as being the Rule of Faith yet I mean not that the belief of this written Instrument is absolutely necessary in all cases to salvation for who doth not know that of Iren. lib. 3. cap. 4. Multae gentes Barbarorum credunt in Christum sine charactere vel atramento i. e. many Nations of the Barbarians believe on Christ without this writing of holy Scripture Scripture is indeed the principal and ordinary Rule of Faith yet it is not the only mean by which the Doctrines contained in Scripture receive Evidence yea the complex of the Fundamentals of Christianity carry with themselves an intrinsick Evidence of their own Divine Originals as hath been also held forth in cap. 3. So that if they who are invincibly ignorant of the Scriptures should upon the Veracity of God believe the Doctrines of Christianity contained in Scripture and walk accordingly they should be saved even as we But whaâ— saith the Pamphleter if one should receive the New Testament aâ— containing sufficiently all Fundamentals and reject the Old with Manichees admit of some Evangels but not others with Ebionits Answ He should deny a Principle of Divinity and therefore we should dispute against him partly ex concessis from these Scriptures which he admits and partly as with an Infidel from the common motives of credibility which may contribute to the conviction of an Infidel though they alone be not a sufficient ground of divine Faith Pag. 104. he asks What if one should deny the Word the Name and definition of a Sacrament the keeping of Sunday maintain Rebaptization affirm one Person in the God head with Sabellius or two in Christ with Nestorius which are not in express words in Scripture Answ 1. We must distinguish betwixt names and things we say not that names or words are Fundamentals of Religion else the diversity of Languages should make diversity of Religions It 's but a pievish humour to quarrel at words when the things signified thereby are found in Scripture it were enough to say to such as 1 Cor. 11.16 If any will be contentious we have no such custom nor the Churches of God Answ 2. Fundamentals may be contained clearly in Scripture though not in express words and so the Pamphleter either ignorantly or wilfully mistakes the very state of the question I hope these truly Fundamental Articles of the Merits and Satisfaction of Jesus Christ will not be denied to be contained clearly in Scripture though those words be not at all
there and therefore I say all those errors mentioned in the Objection may be upon the matter confuted by Scripture as I have shewed concerning some of them cap. 3. And the like might be done as to the rest if I were not loth to blot Paper with impertinent Controversies Before I leave this question I must yet take notice of three testimonies objected by the Pamphleter pag. 103. from Chrysost Epiphan and Austin For though they were long ago objected by Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 7. and have been fully vindicated by Chamier Whittaker Davenant Strange c. yet they are here propounded as if nothing had been replyed to them I begin with the last from Austin lib. 5. de bapt contra Donat. cap. 23. because in it the Pamphleter says that Austin affirms a Fundamental namely Infant baptism not to be contained in Scripture This citation demonstrates that the Pamphleter has never read Austin for in that cap. he has nothing of the Baptism of Infants but only says that the custom of not rebaptizing those who had been baptized by Hereticks was received by Tradition Neither is this a Fundamental else S. Cyprian had erred Fundamentally who still adhered to his Opinion of Rebaptization though as Austin in that same cap. says he were pressed both with the custom of the Church and Pope Stephens Authority to the contrary Nor could Austin mean that the custom of the Church in this thing was not warranted by Scriptural Authority for frequently he disputes that same point of Rebaptization against the Donatists from Scripture as lib. 1. cap. 7. lib. 2. cap. 14. lib. 4. cap. 7.24 lib. 5. cap. 4. lib. 6. cap. 1. c. consequently Austin only meant that there was no express prohibition of Rebaptization in terminis or that there could no example from Scripture be produced of receiving one into the Church who had been baptized by a Heretick without Rebaptization Both which we grant and yet affirm with Austin and the Catholick Church that Scripture affords sufficient ground against Rebaptization His other testimony is from Epiphan Haeces 61. we must use Traditions for the Scriptures have not all To this it 's answered that Epiph doth not there speak of Fundamentals The point which he is asserting is that it 's a sin after Vowed Virginity to Marry which is a truth for either there is sin in vowing rashly not considering what strength there is to perform or by breaking the Vow unnecessarily if there be strength to abstain Yet Epiphanius in the same place affirms that in the case of Vowed Virginity it 's better to Marry than secretly to Fornicate or as he expresses it occultis jaculis sauciari the contrary whereof is asserted by Bell. Coster and other Romanists However I hope Romanists are not so large in their Fundamentals as to make that one But secondly it 's answered by D. Strang lib. 2. de script cap. 21. pag. 546. that Epiphanius doth not there speak of simply unwritten Traditions for that unwritten assertion of the sinfulness of Marriage after a Vow of Virginity he there confirms from that Scripture 1 Tim. 5.11 and therefore he must call it unwritten only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it 's not set down expresly and in terminis in Scripture albeit it may consequentially be deduced from it I add thirdly and lastly though Scripture contain all Fundamentals yet there may be much use of Traditions as a motive of credibility to introduce Faith or to clear the meaning of Scriptures or about historical things c. In this third place I take notice of that testimony of Chrysâ—st in 2 Thes 2. where he says that the Apostles did not deliver all things by writing Is this the present question whether the Apostles did deliver all things in writing No surely but whether all Fundamentals or all things necessary to salvation be committed to writing Now Chrysost in the place cited has nothing to the contrary of that nay Hom. 3. on that 2 Epist to Thess cap. 2. he expresly affirms that all things necessary are clearly revealed in Scripture consequently he cannot mean that there be some Fundamentals not contained in Scripture unless he did contradict himself This is enough to discover that the testimony of Chrysost does not militate against our present Assertion whether Chrysost mean by those things which he says the Apostles wrote not only Rituals as Chamier conceives Panstrat Tom. 1. lib. 9. cap 19. Sect. 31. or the particular examples of the pious lives of Apostolick persons which might be conveyed down to these times by Tradition as Rivet supposes in Cathol Orthodox tract 1. quest 9. or Traditive Expositions of difficult Scriptures Orally delivered by the Apostles as Chillingworth insinuates in his defence of D. Potter cap. 3. Sect. 46. is not our concern at present to enquire As Christ did many things which are not written so is it probable that the Apostles taught the Churches many things Orally and particularly did expound to them difficult places in their own writings But as the memory of the unwritten works of our Saviour is quite lost so also have the Traditive Expositions of difficult Scriptures perished many Ages ago insomuch that the Ancient Fathers are broken into many different Opinions concerning obscure Scriptures By which it appears that Records are a more faithful keeper than Reports Had the knowledge of the unwritten works of our Saviour or of the Traditive Expositions of Scriptures given by the Apostles been preserved they ought to have been firmly believed but seeing God has permitted the memory of them to be lost he hath also freed us from the obligation of believing them And so much of the second question I now proceed to SECT III. Whether all be Fundamentals which the Church imposes as Fundamental ANswer negatively But the Pamphleter pag. 91 and 92. and and other Jesuited Romanists affirm Where it must be observed how grosly the Pamphleter does misrepresent the state of the question pag. 90 91. as if the question betwixt us were Whether a man may either suspend his assent or positively dissent from lesser things when they are revealed by God and propounded to him by the same Authority with the most necessary Articles of Faith And he charges Protestants as maintaining the affirmative part of the question as thus stated But this is a notorious prevarication 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
there be a daily propriatory sacrifice in the Mass if there be a Purgatory for expiating sins of just men if there be merit of good works then Christ has not fully satisfied for all the fins of the elect nor fully merited eternal life to us Thus as Romanists do in directly overturn the soveraignity of princes by ascribing to the Pope a dominion over them in ordine ad spiritualia so also they overturn indirectly the Fundamentals of Religion by a super-addition of new Fundamentals SECT VI. Were the Waldenses Wicklevists and Hussits of the same religion as to Fundamentals and Essentials with Protestants BEcause I maintained the affirmative the Pamphleter pag. 94.95 c. writs one invective against me But he might have known that this is no singular notion of mine the same being asserted by the learned Vsser de success eccles Cap. 6. Voet. desper caus Pap. lib. 3. Sect 2. Cap. 9. Morney myster iniqui pag. 730. edit 2. Flaccus Illiric catal test Verit. col 1498. c. edit Salmurien anno 1608 Dr. Francis Whyt in his reply to Jesuit Fisher pag. 105.130.139 Prideaux praelect de visib eccles Sect. 11. printed anno 1624. Hottinger hist eccles saeculo 12 Sect. 5. Cade Justif of Church of England lib. 2. Cap. 1. Sect. 3. Birbeck Protestants evidence Cent. 12. Paul Perrin in his History of the Waldenses Samuel Morland in his history of the evangelical Churches in the valleys of Piemont and by many others which were here tedious to relate The harmony as to substantials of Religion betwixt these witnesses of truth and the Protestant Churches the author mentioned have copiously confirmed both by the confessions and by the Apologies of the Waldenses and Bohemians and by the testimonies of learned Romanists particularly of Thuan Guicciardin Surius yea of Cochlaeus Bell. Gretser c. Hath not Voetius loc cit Sect. 4. shewed that the confession of Faith set forth by the Bohemians and Hussits was approved by Luther Melanchton Bucer Musculus and the University of Wittenberg that Wendelstin one of Luthers first adversaries pronounced the Lutherans novos Germanos Waldenses and that Jesuit Gretser called the Waldenses And Albigenses Calvinianorum atavos the Calvinists Progenitors Yea Pope Leo. 10. in his letter to Frederick Duke of Saxony recorded by Sleidan Comment lib. 2. sayes expresly of Luther quod Wickleffi Hussi Bohemorum haereses antea damnatas resuscitet That he revived the old condemned heresies of Whickleff Huss and of the Bohemians Certain it is that the remains of the Waldenses in France are incorporated to the protestant Churches But why should I resume what the forcited Authors have so largely demonstrated viz. that Lutherans derived their doctrin from Hussits and Hussits from Wicklevists and Wicklevists from Waldenses Mr. Perrin and Morland make mention of many of the ancient writings of the Waldenses which hold forth the conformity of their Doctrins with the Doctrins of Protestants particularly one written anno 1120. entituled What thing is Antichrist another about the same time entituled The dream of Purgatory and a third as ancient as the other two entituled The cause of our separation from the Church of Rome I shall only desire thee Reader to ponder the Articles of doctrine which were charged on the Waldenses either as related by the Magdeburgians cent 12. Cap. 8. Col. 1206.1207 or by Reginaldus in Calvino Turcismo lib. 2. Cap. 5. So virulent an adversary that modest Vsher calls him Turco-papista or as they are rehersed out of Aeneas Sylvius afterward Pope Pius 2. by Bishop Vsser and Voetius and than Judge whether in substantialls they agree with Protestants I exhibit only a few of them 1. That the Scripture is the compleat rule of Faith 2. That the reading of the holy Scriptures ought to be granted to all ranks of persons 3. That there is no purgatory but that departed Souls go immâ—diately either to Eternal torments or Eternal joyes 4. That it s in vain to pray for the dead that being but one artifice to satisfie the avarice of Priests 5. That the Pope of Rome hath no supremacy over the Churches of Christ 6. That Messes are impious yea that its a fury to celebrate them for the dead 7. That the Sacrament of the supper ought to be given in both kinds 8. That its Idolatry to invocate and religiously adore departed Saints 9. That the Images of God and Saints ought to be destroyed 10. That confirmation and extream unction are not to be held among the Sacraments of the Church 11. That auricular confession is not necessary 12. That oyle ought not to be mingled with water in the administration of Baptism 13. That the consecration of holy water and palm crosses are ludibrous 14. That its improfitable to implore the necessity and suffrages of departed Saints 15. That saying of Canonick hours is but a trifling of time 16. That the order of begging Friers were invented by the devil 17. That the Romish Synagogue is the whore of Babylon these and diverse other Articles of their doctrin are collected out of the forcited authors by Vsser Cap. 6. Sect. 17.18 Now whether they who believed the ancient Creeds and assented to the decrees of the first 4. general Councils and maintained these particulars did not agree with Protestants in the substaâ—â—tials of Faith Let those judge who know the doctrine of Protestants But sayes the Pamphleter pag. 94. If I look upon them as being of the same religion as to substantials with us then I should justifie the erroneous and unchristian epinions which the Authentick records of those times testifie they did maintain Answer the contradictions of those records to one another in the particulars charged on the Waldenses have given just occasion to learned Protestants to convict those records of falshood and to vindicate the Innocency of the Waldenses see this prolixly done by Vsher-lib cit cap. 6. from â— 19. to the end Voet. disp causa papatus lib. 3. Sect. 2. cap. 9. at also Hottinger and Birbeek in the places forcited did I not in my tenth paper against Mr. Dempster pag. 130. bring in Paradius in hiâ— Annals of Burgundy and Gerrard in his french History testifying that impious opinions were maliciously imposed on them quod vitia corruptelas principum liberius repraehenderent should I then justifie what themselves did not justifie Neither does my assertion oblige me to maintain any of their real errors Is it any wonder that they living in so dark a time did not discover so clearly as we all the errors of Popery Have I not often told there may be unity in fundamentals where there are differences as to integrals But sayes the Pamphleter I should prove that those Sects were the Catholick Church spread through the whole World and that their doctrine had succession from the Apostles times It may be answer sufficient to remember my adversary that Protestants never affirmed that they who went under the name of the Waldenses were the whole
a corrupt Tree cannot bring forth good fruit see Eccles â— 20 this is an old Pelagian Heresie against which Austin and Hierom did dispute as if the children of men were able to fulfil the Law of God perfectly by ordinary measures of Grace given to them in time revived by Papists and Quakers contrary to express Scripture 1 Joh. 1.8.10 blowing up wretched sinners with vain fancy of a sinless state as for that 1 Joh. 5.3 his commâ—nds are not grievous It must be understood in reference to the regenerate by the confession of their great Doway professor Esthius on the place for saith he to the unregenerate the commands of God are not only grievous but also quodammodo impossibilia in some kind impossible But the regenerate are strengthened by Grace to yield sincere evangelical obedience to the Commands of God yea and to delight in them Rom. 7.22 I delight in the Law of God after the inward man yet alas Jam. 3.2 in many things we offend all but these offences the Lord graciously pardons to penitent believers through the blood of Christ and so still to them his commandements are not grievous Dum quicquid non sit ignâ—sciture 5. Ibid. He sayes we protest against Gods Veracity saying that the Church can err contrary to Matth. 18. and 1 Timoth. 3. Nay in this they contradict the varacity of God and not we saith not the Apostle Rom. 3.4 let God be true and every man a lyar and is not their Church made up of men who can produce no more exemption from error then other Churches As for these Scriptures alledged for the Churches infalibillity they have been considered before But the truth is it s not the infalibility of the Catholick Church Romanists plead for but of the Synagogue of Rome and the head thereof the Pope as if to question the infallibility of the Pope of Rome and of a Cabal of his Trustees were to question the varacity of the God of Heaven and if they be found lyars the most high God should be concluded a lyar Be astonished O heavens at so atrocious a blasphemy 6. Ibid. He saith we protest against the Providence of God saying that God has not given an infallible Judge Whereas Peter sayes no Scripture is of private interpretation Nay Sir we do but protest against the pride and providence of your Pope God having given the Scripture as an infallible rule there is no necessity of an infallible Judge because Scriptures are not of Private interpretation therefore the glosses imposed either by Quaker or Papal Enthusiasins ought to be exploed as flowing from a private spirit We are so far from allowing of private interpretations of Scripture that we desire all to be examined by the publick standard of truth 7. Ibid. sayes he we protest against the efficacy of Christs death saying that he hath freed us from the pain but not from the guilt of sin contrary to 1 Joh. 1.7 O the impudency of a Jesuits forehead â— let the World judge whether they or we oppose the efficacy of Christs death for 1. They say he died for many who are or shall be damned But himself will acknowledge that we say for whomsoever Christ died they are or shall be saved 2. They say Christ hath not satisfied for all the sins of them that are saved not for these they call venial nor for the temporal punishment due to mortal sins but we say Christ satisfied fully for all sins of the Elect. 3. They say remissa culpa non remiâ—titur paena that the sin may be remitted and not the punishment that a proper punishment to be undergone here or in Purgatory may be kept over the head of a Creature after pardon But we affirm that when sin is forgiven the punishment is discharged what else is remission but the dissolution of the obligation to undergo Punishment May not all see the inconsistency of these Jesuit tenets with that Scripture 1 Joh. 1.7 The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin how then charges he us as saying that Christs blood trees us from the pain but not from the guilt of sin Nay on the contrary we affirm that the blood of Christ frees us both from the pain and the guilt of sin We judge it impossible that the one can be without the other what is guilt but the obligation to punishment Can a man be freed by a holy and Just God from punishment and yet lie under the obligation to punishment But I believe the thing which this ignorant Pamphleter drives at is that original corruption may be pardoned through the blood of Christ and yet sinful concupiscence remain in believers and in this what do we say more then St. Austin lib. 1. de nupt concupis Cap. 25. Non ut non sit sed ut non imputetur Doth not the Apostle who was in a justified estate bewail his indwelling concupiscence Rom. 7.24 Yet from it also the blood of Christ shall make us free though here while we are In agone it be left for exercise Upon the hope of Victory is that doxology Rom. 7.25 thanks be to God through Jesus Christ 8. Pag. 108. He sayes we protest against Gods order tying sanctification to Paith only I believe he would have said Justification contrary to Jam. 2.24 It s not we but Romanists who oppose the order of God in the Justification of a sinner Doth not the Apostle conclude Rom. 3.28 That a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law Indeed that Faith though it be sola in the instrumentality of our justification as some use the phrase yet it is not solitaria being joyned with other graces of the spirit and fruitful in good works For a justified state and the soundness of Justifying Faith is demonstrated by good works which is that which James affirms I must use the Freedom to tell this Pamphleter that Jesuits do not understand the nature of Justification and therefore they still confound it with Sanctification 9. Ibid. He sayes we protest against the appointment of God saying that good works done by grace do not merit contrary to Math. 10. where its said that Christ shall render to every one according to his works It seems this man cites the Scripture by guess as well as the Fathers for in all the tenth of Mathew that testimony is not to be found There is indeed mention of the reward of a righteous man but that reward and merit are reciprocal correlats is more then all the Jesuits in Europe will prove Doth not the Apostle Rom. 4.4 distinguish betwixt a reward of Grace and of debt Is not the reward of the righteous the free gift of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 6.21 and therefore doth not presuppose merit how piteously do our missionaries cheat their proselites in this matter When we charge on them the proud and supercilions doctrine of merit they ordinarly alledge it to be but a calumny of Protestants yet here the
woman is said to have crected at Caesarea Philippi It s true Euseb speaks thereof â—â—b 7. cap. 14. But it is true that its long since the faith of that Relation was questioned by the authour of the work which goes under the name of Charles the great lib. 4. cap. 15. and not withprobable reasons Is it not strange that none of the Evangelists nor Irenaeus nor Justin Martyr nor Tertul. nor Origen should make mention of that statue or that miraculous herb How could that woman who spent all her living on Physicians be able to erect these brazen statues is it probable that Heathens would suffer such monuments of Christ to stand 300. years undemollished That there were statues at Caesarea cannot rationally be doubted seeing Euseb does testify he saw them but there is cause to question whether they were built by that woman or that one of them was Christs and the rather seeing Euseb brings no certain author for it but a rumour Finally granting she had erected that statue to Christ yet Euseb says not that it was worshiped nay he affirms it was erected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by an heathenish custome Protestants doe not deny but there were portraitures of Christ and Apostles in those dayes as Euseb there doth witnes but Euseb is so clear from asserting that they wer used in Churches as objects of Religion adoration that in the Second Nicen Councell Act. 6. he is brought in testifying to Constantia the Empress against the making of the Image of Christ had it not then been the Pamphleters wisdom to have held his peace of Eusebius He is as unadvised in mentioning Austin l. 1. de consensu evangel cap. 10. for there he condemns them who study Christ non in Sanctis codicibus sed in pictis parietibus His story of the Image made by Nicodemus is an evident fiction and the book out of which it is taken de passione imaginis Christi attributed to Athanasius is supposititious as is proved by Cocus Pag. 93.95 and seems to be forged by Image worshippers about the time of that Idolatrous Second Nicen Council yea Bell. de scripâ— Ecel in Athan. confesses it not to be written by Athanasius but in the eight Century when the controversy about Image worship was in agitation That Image of the Virgin Mary said to be drawn by Luke appears likewise to be fabulous there being no authour making mention thereof until Euagrius about the end of the sixt Century the Apostle Paul calls Luke a Phisician but not a Painter Nor is it probable if he were a Jew they not using such artists if we may believe Origen lib. 4. cont Celsum As little faith is to be given to what is alleadged out of Damasus Pontificall of the Images of Christ and of the Baptist erected by Constantin for that Pontificall is not only proven to be Supposititious by Cocus Pag. 139. but also acknowledged by Baronius Binius Possevin yea Bell. lib. de script Eccles ascribes it to Anastasius the bibliothecary who lived in the 9th Century a grosse Image worshipper at least it seems interpolated by him Neither is it likely that this would have been omitted by Eusebius who is so accurate in describing what was done by Constantin By this it appears that most of the stories which Romanists alleadge concerning their Images are meer Fables But grant they were real Histories they speak not at all of adoration which is the only thing in controversy Yet I shall help my adversary to some presidents of great Antiquity for the adoration of Images but it s from Hereticks such as the Gnosticks in Iren. lib. 1. cap. 24. and Carpocratians in Epiphan in Haeres Carpocratianorum and Austin Haeres 7. such presidents we do not envy them But as to the Catholick Church they may hear their own Clemanges in lib. de novis celebritatibus non instituendis who saith sratuit olim universalis Ecclesiae ut nullae in templis imagines ponerentur Hence might be deduced another demonstration of the Novelty of the present Romish Religion seeing it approves the Religious adoration of crosses and Images whereof no vestige can be found in the Catholick Church of the first three ages SECT VIII An eight instance of Novelty concerning Free-will examined and Repelled THe Pamphleter in his eight Instance saith that Protestants deny Free-will since the fall of Adam Behold another Jesuitism that is an arrant Cheat. Do not our Authors as Learned Vsher in his answer to the Jesuits challenge Pag. 464. Chamier Panstrat tom 3. lib. 3. cap. 1. Sect. 10. Paraeus contra praefat Bell. ad lib. de grat de lib. arb positively protest that they do not deny free-will We do abominate the madd Sects of Manichees Valentinians c. Who either by fatal or simply natural necessity do quite overthrow the liberty of human wills which of us ever doubted whether Popes Cardinals and Jesuits do practise their impieties freely We cordially subscribe to that of Austin lib. 1. ad Bonifac. cap. 2. quis nostrum dicat quod primi hominie peccato perierit liberum arbitrium de humano genere Libertas quidem perijt sed illa quae in paradyso fuit Well did the same Austin say lib. de nat gra cap. 66 quod sit quaedam peccandi necessitas that unregenerate persons have brought upon themselves a kind of necessity of sinning yet that necessity is well consistent with liberty Hence Austin lib. 1. ad Bonifac. cap. 2. liberum arbitrium usque adeo in Peccatore non periit ut perillud peccent maxime qui cum dilectatione peceant free-will is so far from being lost in sinners that by it they who sin with greatest delight sin most egregiously Devils cannot but sin and yet sin most freely Protestants grant no less indifferency to the will of the sinner then Austin of old in his debates against the Pelagians yea as much as Dominicans and Thomists do require to the nature of Liberty Will he say that all these do dogmatize concerning free-will contrary to the Faith of the Church in the first three ages Indeed we cannot adorn mans free-will with such elogies as did the Pelagians or Semipelagians of old or as their Jesuited and Arminian of-spring which do exceedingly derogate from the necessity and efficacy of free grace I will not take up time in mentioning all the heads of controversy betwixt the Catholick Church and the Pelagians or Semipelagians Only two things I pitch upon 1. We assert the necessity of supernatural grace to every good work This Learned Vossius lib. 3. Hist Pelag. Part. 2. copiously demonstrates not only to have been the Doctrin of August Prosper Fulgentius to the Councils of Diospolis Arausica Carthage and of the whole Catholick Church after that the Pelagian heresy was broached but also Part. 1. confirms it to be the perpetual Doctrin of the Fathers and Church before the appearing of Pelagius Of the Latin Fathers he brings Tertul. Cyp. Arnobius Lactantius Ambrose Of the Greeks