propounded FOr opening the true state of the Controversie it is first to be noted that this Question is not entirely the same with that Whether the Church can erre for there be great Doctors in the Roman Church who hold the Church cannot erre and yet deny the necessity of an infallible visible Judge There are who make the subject of Infallibility to be the defensive multitude of Believers and not the Collective of Pastors far less any Representative cloathed with a Judiciary Authority and least of all the Pope whom some abusively call the Church Virtual as shall appear in Argument 2. Consequently whatever testimonies do only prove that the Collective Body either of Believers or Pastors neither of which do assemble in Councils Judicially to determine Controversies of Religion cannot erre are impertinently alledged It would secondly be observed that Infallibility and Judiciary Authority are things different and separable Princes have Judiciary Authority over their Subjects and Provincial Synods within their respective bounds yet neither do pretend to Infallibility Is it not too gross ignorance in a Jesuit to take a Judge and an Infallible Judge for terms reciprocal Thirdly It is one thing to assert that persons or Judges have an assistance of the Holy Ghost guiding them infallibly hic nunc into the way of truth and a quite other thing to say that there is a Judge to whom a perpetual and infallible assistance is entailed so as the knowledge of his infallible assistance is a necessary prerequisite before an assent of Faith-can be given to any Divine Truth The first Protestants grant to Councils whether greater or lesser defining Divine Truths The latter is that which M. Demster asserted often and this his Fidus Achates ought to have proved He Arguments therefore not inferring this conclusion they all trespass ab ignoratione elenchi Fourthly It is granted on all hands that particular Churches and their Representatives may erre Now the Roman Church is but one particular Patriarchate and in her greatest Latitude of which the Pamphleter talks pag. 46. as comprehending all these who live in communion with the Bishâ—p of Rome acknowledging his Headship and Supremacy She is but a part yea and the esser part of Christendom Whatever Infallibility therefore may be claimed by the Catholick Church yet the Roman Church in whatsoever capacity whether defensive or representative can have no just Title thereunto Was there any Roman Church known in the Apostles days but that to which the Apostle Paul wrote But he writes to Her as one subject to Errour yea and to total Apostacy Rom. 11. 20 21. Be not high minded but fear for if God spared not the natural branches take heed lest he also spare not thee Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God on them which fell severity but towards thee goodness if thou continue in his goodness otherwise thou also shalt be cut off Would the Apostle have written at this rate to the Infallible Chair Fifthly Protestants freely grant that the truly Catholick Church hath immunity from Errours opposite to Fundamental Articles or to these Truths the misbelief whereof is absolutely and in all cases inconsistent with Salvation were it otherwise the Catholick Church should totally perish from the earth which cannot be as Protestants firmly believe according to the Scriptures But Romanists not satisfied with this plead for an absolute Infallibility to their pretended Catholick Judge or an immunity from all Doctrinal Errours in Religion greater and lesser Whatsoever Arguments therefore prove not an absolute immunity of this Judge from the least Doctrinal Errour fall short of the mark Of this distinction of Truths Fundamental and Non Fundamental and consequently of the Errours opposite to these Truths that there is not such absolute necessity in order to Salvation of immunity from the one as from the other there will be occasion to speak at more length Cap. 4. Sixthly Therefore to wrap up all In the Romanists Assertion of the necessity of an Infallible visible Judge these five things are included 1. That this supposed Judge hath an Universal Supremacy or a Juridical Authority over the whole Catholick Church to bind the Consciences of all Christians with his Sentences else he would not serve the necessity of the whole Catholick Church 2. That the priviledge wherewith this Catholick Judge is cloathed is absolute Infallibility or immunity from all Errour greater or lesser in all his Doctrinal decisions 3. That the knowledge of the Infallibility of this Judge is necessarily pre-required to every assent of Divine Faith For this cause do they contend so hard for this priviledge that all Christian Faith may hang at the Girdle of their Infallible Judge 4. That this Judge is visible that is a present Member of the visible Church actually existing upon Earth There is no question but the Lord Christ is Infallible Judge of all Controversies of Religion and that he is visible in his Humane Nature but he is not now visible upon Earth as a present Member of the Church Militant therefore it is another Judge actually existing upon Earth for which they plead 5. That there is a necessity of the existence of this infallible visible Judge upon earth It is beyond doubt that there was an infallible visible Judge in the Church Militant when Christ and his Apostles did converse on earth Now the Jesuited party affirms it must be always so From all these the state of the Question emerges clearly viz. Whether in the Militant visible Church there be always a necessity of a person or persons endued with a Juridical Authority over the whole Catholick Church and with infallible assistance for deciding all Doctrinal Controversies of Religion of whose Catholick Jurisdiction and Infallibility every one must be perswaded before he can give an assent of Faith to any Divine Truth Jesuited Romanists maintain the affirmative we the negative Where it 's to be noted that their affirmative being a copulative consisting of many branches if any one of them fail their whole Cause is gone The proof of this affirmative in all its branches was that which the Adversary should have hammered out had he really intended to satisfie Consciences But any intelligent Reader upon a slender review of his Sect. 3. will see that this he never once endeavours but only with some frothy flourishes to abuse unwary Souls SECT II. Arguments proving that there is no necessity of an Infallible visible Judge in the Church I Might perhaps sufficiently acquit my self against my Adversary by discovering the emptiness of his Objections yet the supposed necessity of this infallible visible Judge being the Basis of his whole discourse and our Jesuited Romanists laying the whole stress of their Religion on this Hypothesis I judged fit for the satisfaction of those who are not in love with Errour by a few convineing Arguments to overthrow this Pillar of the Romish Faith viz. the pretended necessity of an infallible visible Judge Nam collapsa raunt sub
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 Fathers 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. Poole 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 lett 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 gratia 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 infâ—llible 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 Occam 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 Occam 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 quae 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 infallibility is partly seated in the Pope and partly in the Councils nor are they at all agreed concerning the seat of this infallibility for the one half of them namely the Jesuited
his Scholastical History of the Canon of Scriptures The other instance I give is from the Canonization of Saints wherein he proceeds meerly upon humane testimonies of the Sanctity and Miracles of such a person in which undoubtedly there may be deceit and falshood as Cajetan and other Romish Authors confess which cannot but infer Errour in point of Faith among Romanists Is it not a question of Faith whether such a one as Ignatius Xavier c. may be invocated as Saints consequently fallibility in matter of Fact cannot but infer fallibility in matter of Faith Arg. 7. Who ever pretend to be the infallible visible Judge of controversies of Faith either have not Jurisdiction over the whole Catholick Church or the Church may be without them ergo there is not a necessity of such an infallible visible Judge as is described in the state of the controversie The sequel is evident because the asserting of the necessity of an infallible Judge among other things imports these two as was shewed in stating of the controversie 1. A Juridical Authority over the whole Catholick Church 2. That the Church can in no case want that Judge If therefore that Judge have not Jurisdiction over the whole Church or the Church may be without him there is no necessity of such an infallible Judge as Romanists do contend for The antecedent is easily proved that a truly Oecumenick Council hath Jurisdiction over the whole Church is not denied but it is clear that the Church may be without General Councils The first 300 years from that Council of Jerusalem Act. 15. until the Nicene there was none when the Church was so much tossed with Persecution and Heresie There have been long intervals betwixt General Councils these divers hundred years really there have been none How much the Councils of Constance Basil Florence Pisa and the Lateran under Leo the tenth are questioned by Romanists themselves is sufficiently known Many Learned men as Gentilletus Joachimus Vrsinus have demonstrated that the Council of Trent was neither free nor general nor Orthodox Since the Trent Conventicle Papists themselves pretend not to a General Council nor is there probability in hast of any ergo if a Council or Pope and Council conjunctly be Judge yet there is no necessity thereof seeing the Church may be and often hath been without that Judge If it be said that the Church never wants Oecumenick Councils when her necessity requires them it is easily repelled there were many controversies of Faith to be decided in the first three Centuries concerning Rebaptization the Millennium c. yet all that time there was no Oecumenick Council Are there not many controversies at present in the Roman Church betwixt Jesuits and Jansenists Dominicans and Jesuits Franciscans and Dominicans How many debates are among them concerning the sense of many of the Tridentine Canons Is there not need of one Oecumenick Council if that could terminate the debates of Christendom If therefore the definition of a living infallible Judge as opposed to a written inanimate rule be necessary for the resolution of Faith then either God is wanting in providing for the necessities of his Church which were Blasphemy to assert or an Oecumenick Council which very rarely sits yea some doubts if ever at least since that of Jerusalem Act. 15. and therefore spare not to call it a Black Swan cannot be that living Judge As for the Pope alone neither is he absolutely necessary nor hath he Jurisdiction over the whole Church I say first he is not necessary the Church may be without him not only in the intervals betwixt the death of Popes and the Election of their Successors sometimes for two sometimes for seven years but especially in case of illegitimate intruders of whom History gives a large account neither when they are have they Jurisdiction over the whole Catholick Church Let the Bishops of Rome produce their Patent for such an Universal Jurisdiction and it shall be disproved Certainly the Ancient Church believed no such thing Had Cyprian and Firmilian believed this Supremacy and infallibility of the Pope would those holy Fathers so stedfastly withstood the determination of the Pope in matter of Rebaptization Had the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon believed it would they have given equal priviledges to the Patriarch of Constantinople Had Austin and the African Church believed it would they have pronounced such severe Decrees against them that appealed to Rome Seeing then the Pope hath no Universal Jurisdiction and both he and General Councils may be wanting there is no necessity of them as the infallible visible Judge with power to pass obligative sentences on the whole Catholick Church and beside them there is none who lay claim to such a Prerogative Arg. 8. The Ancient Church acknowledged no infallible visible Judge since the Apostolick Age ergo this Notion must be a novel invention of Romanists The sequel being clear an Army of testimonies from Fathers might be brought to confirm the antecedent For brevity sake let Hierom and Austin speak for the rest Hierom in Epist 62. ad Theoph. Alex. Scito me aliter habere Apostoloâ— aliter reliquos tractatores illos semper vera dicere istos in quibusdam ut homines errare I make a difference betwixt the Apostles and other Writers those always spake truth but these in some things did err Austin Epist 112. ad Paulinum that which is confirmed by the Authority of holy Scripture is without doubt to be believed aliis vero testibus vel testimoniis but for other witnesses or testimonies ye may receive or reject them as ye find they have more or less weight of reason Many more such testimonies are brought by D Barron Apod Cathol tract 5. cap. 18 and vindicated from the forged glosses of Tanner Gretser and other Jesuits It 's a piteous evasion that those Fathers do not only compare the Scripture with the writings of private Fathers but not with the definitions of Popes and Councils for they expresly oppose the Scriptures to all writings beside the Canon of Scripture Austin Epist 19. Solis Scripturarum libris didici hunc honorem deferre ut nullum eorum scribendo errasse firmissime credam Yea expresly he compares Scriptures with Councils lib. ad Donat. post collat cap. 15. and lib. de unit Eccles cap. 18. and cap. 19. and lib. 2. de bapt contra Donat. cap. 3. But not to insist on that which is so copiously done by others Austin's opinion in this is so clear that I only desire you to hear the confession of Occam Part 3. Dial. tract 1. lib. 3. cap 24. It is to be noted saith he that Austin speaking of other Writers beside the Pen-men of the Scripture makes no difference of these Non-Canonical Writers whether they be Popes or others whether they write in Council or out of Council the same judgment is to be passed on them Arg. 9. If Popish Arguments be valid why the Scriptures cannot be the ground of Faith
cap. 2. Sect. 7 8 9. Mat. 28. 20 in his cap. 4. Sect. 18. 1 Tim. 3. 15. in his cap. 4. Sect. 14. Yet fifthly lest I should dismiss the Reader with any dissatisfaction I will give a touch of all the particulars mentioned in the Objection I begin with the 2000 years wherein he says the Church was Judge before the Scriptures were written But what then is the case then and now alike then the Church had no written Scripture Does it therefore follow that now it hath none either Was the Church Judge in questions of Religion Quid hoc ad rhombum Is that the question whether the Church that is the Rulers or Pastors convened in a Synod have a Juridical power is not the question whether these Representatives be absolutely infallible in their decisions of Faith is a Judicial Authority and Infallibility terms reciprocal Would he pull down the Thrones of Princes because they arrogate not Infallibility If he would have concluded any thing he should have said in the Church in those days there was a standing ordinary infallible visible Judge with Jurisdiction over the whole Church If this he go about to prove he will endeavour to derive the Pedigree of their Popes and Councils higher than I thought they pretended I imagined Peter had been the first of the Series but now it 's like they will ascend to Adam I have lookt upon Platina and Onuphrius Catalogues of Popes but there I find not the Catalogue of Antediluvian and Antescriptural Popes from the Creation until Moses time which if the Pamphleter look over his Chronologick Tables again will be found to exceed 2000 years In these times the Church had the same Doctrine for substance which now is written in the Scriptures taught by Patriarchs and Prophets and conveyed by Oral Tradition from Parents to Posterity But because Tradition in it self was not so safe a way for preserving Religion in its purity therefore the Lord was pleased to prorogate the lives of Patriarchs to many Centuries Adam lived till Methuselah was above 200 years old Methuselah lived till Sem was near an 100 and Sem out-lived Abraham So that this Tradition needed not pass through more than two hands betwixt Adam and Abraham for the space of more than 2000 years and withal he raised extraordinary Prophets as Enoch and others Yet notwithstanding all these extraordinary Adminicles how soon was Religion corrupted and the World over spread with Idolatry and Polytheism But laying aside extraordinary Prophets which the Lord then and in after-times raised up it 's more than all the combination of Jesuits can prove that in that interstice of time there was an ordinary standing infallible visible Judge with Jurisdiction over the whole Church which if he prove not he must let me tell him peceat ignoratione elenchi I shut up my Reply to this branch of the Objection with two remarks The first is that Romanists do not agree among themselves concerning their inferences from the state of the Church before the writing of Scripture M. Serjeant and those of the Traditionary way do only conclude from it that Oral Tradition is an infallible mean of conveying truth down to Posterity But the Jesuited party as appears by this Pamphleter would conclude from it the necessity of an infallible visible Judge Their disagreement in this and other matters are a shrewd presumption that they neither have an infallible Judge nor yet infallible Tradition But secondly Learned Tillotson in his Rule of Faith Part. 1. Sect. 4. acutely inverts this whole argument for in that the Lord committed the Doctrine of Religion to writing after that the World had experienced the unsuccessfulness of the former way it seems to be a good evidence that this way by Scripture is the better and more secure It being the way of Divine Dispensations to proceed from that which is less perfect to that which is more and he conceives the Apostles reasoning concerning the two Covenants Heb. 8. 7. to be very applicable to these two methods of conveying Religion If the first had been faultless then should no place have been sought for the second But perhaps he is happier in his next Allegation from Deut. 17. 8. c. where there is a Judge in the Church of the Jews to be obeyed in matters of Law and Religion under pain of death Who sees not how inconsequential the argument is from the Jewish Church to the Christian The Jewish High-Priests did marry neither were any capable of the Priesthood among them but the children of Priests Will Romanists grant this parallel to hold in the Christian Church Though one man could be competent to govern an National Church such as the Jewish was shut up in one little spot of the earth doth it follow that one man is as capable of an Universal Monarchy over the Catholick Church dispersed through the whole earth Yet neither from this place can be proved the infallibility of the Jewish High-Priest or Sanedrim else they should have been infallible not only in matters of Faith but also of Fact For there is expresly mention made of questions of Fact v. 8. between blood and blood plea and plea stroke and stroke all which are to be decided by the testimonies of men and in such Romanists acknowledge both Popes and Councils to be fallible In that Commission Deut. 17. 8 9. the Judge or Civil Magistrate is joyned with the Priests and the people are commanded equally to acquiesce in the sentence of both under pain of death I suppose he will not because of this grant infallibility to the Magistrate how then can he infer from it the infallibility of the Church Representative But were the Jewish High-Priests and Sanedrim infallible I shall not stand to enquire how Aaron the High-Priest was stained with Idolatry Exod. 33. 4 5. how Vriah the High Priest did make an idolatrous Altar after the Altar of Damascus 2 King 16. 11. or what meant these general complaints Isai 56. 10. Jer. 6. 13. Jer. 14. 14. Hâ—s 9. 8. Ezek. 22. 25 26. c. all which he will find vindicated from the exceptions of Romanists by Learned Whittaker de Concil q. 6. cap. 3. I only enquire whether the High-Priest and Sanedrim did err when they condemned Christ as an Impostor and Blasphemer if they did as none but Infidels can deny then the Jewish Sanedrim was not infallible only it may be asked how did God command obedience to the Sanedrim under pain of death if they were not infallible This Query might be answered by another Do the Penal Statutes of Princes under pain of death prove them to be infallible Was it not said to Joshua Whosoever will not hearken to thee let him be put to death But I answer absolutely that the active obedience to be given to the Jewish Sanedrim was only when they gave sentence according to the Law This is clear from the Text v. 9 10. Thou shal observe to do according to all that they
confuted what they have said for cutting off Romish inferences from it I shall say but these few things thereof And 1. It might be enough as to the present controversie to tell that Austin does not say except the Authority of a present infallible visible Judge did move me 2. It savours of deceit that the Pamphleter has left out the word Catholicae it 's the Catholick Church Austin speaks of not the Roman But I must in part excuse the Pamphleter for he found it also so mutilated in H. T 's Manual loc cit 3. Have not Popish Authors put considerable glosses on Austin's words which enervate sufficiently all inferences concerning the necessity of an infallible visible Judge Whether they be expounded with Gerson of the Apostolick Church Eorum qui Christum viderunt audiverunt or with Occam of the Universal diffusive Church Sure they make nothing for an infallible visible Judge But fourthly Melchior Canus lib. 2. loc com cap. 8. seems to have hit on the right meaning of Austin viz. that he speaks not of the formal object into which his belief was resolved or of the Primary Rule of Faith but only of a motive which when he was a Manichaean first induced him to credit the Scriptures and so according to the African Dialect he uses the imperfect tense for the praeterit commoveret for commovisset which Rivet in Isagog cap. 3. confirms by many parrallel phrases out of Austin And thus the testimony of the Church has but a place among the motives of credibility which Protestants do not deny This is the more probable because Austin tract 15. in Joh. compares the testimony of the Church to the testimony of the Woman of Samaria But sure it is her testimony was but an introductive mean to the Faith of her Fellow-Citizens not the formal object or principal ground thereof Hence said they Joh. 4. 42. Now we believe not for thy Saying but because we have heard him our selves 5. Not to add more Learned Calovius de Author Script Sect. 36. hath observed a various Lection in that place of Austin that an old Copy printed at Basil by the care of John Amberbachius reads it thus Nisi Ecclesiae Catholicae Authoritas me commoncret It was very easie for inadvertent Scribes to turn n to v And this reading does yet further confirm that Exposition of Rivet Melchior Canus and others as if the testimony of the Church were Commonitorium quoddam non principium fidei a certain Commonitory not the principle or ultimate ground of Faith What is said of this place may also sufficiently vindicate that other parallel testimony of Austins in that same Book cap. 4. where there be three things which confirm the Exposition given one is that Austin uses the praeter perfect time Quia per eos illi credideram another is Si forte in Evangelio aliquid apertissimum de Manichaei Apostolatu invenire potueris where he supposes that the Gospel speaks clearly without the interposition of the sentence of an infallible Judge And thirdly He clearly holds forth that the Church of whose Authority he there speaks is not to be restricted to any visible Judge but to be extended to the Body of sound Christians and therefore calls it Catholicorum Authoritatem This is yet further evident from cap. 3. that he dreamed not of any infallible Authority in the present Church for there he gives an account of his being in the Catholick Church from the consent of People and Nations from that Authority which was begun by Miracles nourished by Hope encreased by Charity and confirmed by continuance Sure then he resolved not his Faith into the infallible testimony of the present Church By this time I hope it appears that all the Pamphleter hath brought for the necessity of his infallible visible Judge are either false citations or meer Paralogisms To shut therefore up this discourse I cannot but notice that ordinary Cheat of Romanists when ever they find any high Elogies of the Catholick Church these they appropriate to their Roman that is to their infallible visible Judge who in the sense of the Jesuited party is the Pope However to decline the odium they seem to talk of a Council An instance of this we have in a testimony which the Pamphleter cites pag. 37. for his infallible visible Judge from Austin Scrm. 14. de verbis Ap. where indeed Austin makes honourable mention of the Catholick Church but hath not one word through all that Sermon of the Roman or of an infallible visible Judge yea in it he disputes against the Pelagians acutely from Scripture and therefore concludes cap. 16. proinde nemo nos fallat Scriptura evidens est Authoritas fundatissima est fides Catholicissima est in cap. 13. In prosecution of a Scriptural Argument he draws a confirmation a consuetudine Ecclesiae from the custom and practise of the Universal Church in her Rituals of Baptism holding Infants for Believers and not from any definition of a visible Judge and thereupon gives these Elogies to the Church cap. 14. 18. 21. which surely must be understood of that Church from which he took the confirmation of his argument against the Pelagians but that was not from the Roman Church nor from the sentence of an infallible visible Judge but from the practise of the Catholick and that founded in Scripture Hence these two go together in him Hoc habet Authoritas matris Ecclesiae hoc fundatus veritatis obtinet Canon What I pray is that established Canon of Truth but the Holy Scripture I acknowledge Austin justly condemns them cap. 16. who endeavour quatere fundamentum Ecclesiae to shake the Foundation of the Church Let them be held for Hereticks that shake the Foundation of the Church whether Papists or Protestants Two Foundations I find in holy Writ one is Christ Jesus according to that of the Prophet Isai 28. 16. Behold I lay in Zion a Foundation a Stone a tryed Stone a precious Corner stone a sure Foundation which is luculently expounded of Christ 1 Pet. 2. 4 5 6 7. Doth not Bell. shake this Foundation when he is bold Praefat. ad lib. de Pontif. to expound that Divine Oracle of the Pope of Rome as if he were the Foundation of the Catholick Church O execrable Blasphemy Again the holy Scriptures are mentioned as a Foundation of the Church Hence is that Ephes 2. 20. Built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone that is on the holy Scriptures written by them Did not Jesuit Baylie shake this Foundation when he was not afraid to say that there is no more Faith to be given to Scripture than to Titus Livius were it not for the testimony of their Romish Church Let never my Soul come into the secrets of these Blasphemers Romanists are still prating of the Authority of the Catholick Church but who do so much infringe the Authority of the Catholick Church as they Should
the City of Edinburgh arrogate the Legislative Power over all the Shires and Cities of this Kingdom would it not overturn the Authority of the Kingdom of Scotland when the Roman Church which at her best was but a member of the Catholick does now usurp Jurisdiction over the whole and imperiously would obtrude Heretical Doctrines and Idolatrous Superstitions by a pretended Infallible Authority is not this to overturn the Authority of the Catholick Church And therefore I know none who may fear that threatning of Austin more than the Court of Rome Contra hunc inexpugnabilem murum quisquis arietat Confringetur CAP. III. That the Scriptures are the Principal Compleat and Infallible Rule of Faith the Atheistical Cavils of the Pamphleter notwithstanding THough Protestants do not cheat the World with a pretence of an infallible visible Judge yet with the truly Catholick Church they acknowledge there is an infallible Rule of Faith namely the holy Scriptures of God which are sufficient through the assistance of the Holy Ghost to guide Souls in the way of Salvation But among the manifold impieties of the Papal Religion the indignities put upon the holy Scriptures by Romanists are not the least I shall therefore first give an hint of some of these indignities then briefly open the state of this Question concerning the Rule of Faith and confirm our Assertion that Scripture is the Rule Thirdly examine the Pamphleters four principal Objections And lastly reflect a little on the rest of his Rapsodick Discourse touching this Subject SECT I. Some hints of Indignities put upon the Holy Scripture by Romanists IN the first place They are not afraid to speak most contumeliously of the Scriptures calling them A Nose of Wax a Lesbian Rule inkie unsensed Characters a dead Letter c. It is from Melchior Canus Albertus Pighius Coster the Jesuit and other Romanists that the Quakers have learned these or such like Blasphemies Secondly They make the Authority of the Scriptures as to us to depend upon the testimony of their Church So Gordon of Huntly controv 2. de Eccles cap. 15. and Gretser Append. ad lib. 1. Bell. de verb. Dei col 396. Whose ears would not tingle at that saying of Hermannus that the Scriptures should be of no more value than Aesops Fables without the Churches testimony Yet Gretser the Jesuit is displeased with Rullus for charging it with Blasphemy yea Cardinal Hosius in Confutatione Brentii lib. 3. de Author Sacrae Scripturae pag. 148. edit 2. Antwerp 1561. spares not to say Illud pio sensu potuisse dici that it might have been spoken in a pious sense and withal adds this reason Nam revera nisi Ecclesiae nos doceret Authoritas hanc Scripturam esse Canonicam perexiguum apud nos pondus haberet that is for truly if the Authority of the Church he means the Roman did not teach us this to be Canonick Scripture it would have exceeding litle weight with us From that Romish Atheistical Piety good Lord deliver us Learned Rivet in Isagog ad script cap. 3. giveth an account of many such Blasphemies belched out by Jesuit Baylie Coster Petrus Simonis de Toledo and other Romanists Thirdly Romanists have confidence to affirm that the Original Scriptures are corrupted So Gordon of Huntly controv 1. cap. 8 9 11 12. Melchior Canus loc com lib. 2. cap. 13. Leo Castrius Morinus Tirin c. Yea this Pamphleter Sect. 4. makes it a great part of his work to prove that the Scriptures are corrupted both in the Originals and in the Translations Is not this to accuse the Providence of God as suffering the Scriptures which he had given to lead us to Salvation to be corrupted Is it not to charge the Catholick Church of unfaithfulness that she was not more careful of so rich a depositum How desperate must the cause of their infallible Judge be when his Infallibility cannot be maintained unless the holy Scriptures be discredited as corrupt the Catholick Church accused of unfaithfulness and God robbed of the praises due to him for preserving the Scriptures Fourthly Neither is it a small indignity to the Scriptures that they prefer the muddy stream of the Vulgar Latine before the Originals of the Old and New Testament Yet that Latine Version was not made by a person acted by a Prophetical and infallible Spirit What confusion and uncertainty they labour under as to the Author of it may be gathered from Ludov. de Tena Isagog Sac. script lib. 1. difficult 5. Sect. 2. yea it hath often been convicted of many errours and therefore that which was extant in the time of the Council of Trent was corrected by Sixtus Quintus that of Sixtus by Clement the 8. and that of Clement the 8. accused by Isidore Clarius of many errours nor can Clement himself absolutly assert its freedom from errour And yet the Council of Trent passing by the Originals pronounces the Vulgar Latin to be the Authentick Scripture Yea Ludov de Tena lib. cit difficult 2. Sect. 4. Says that the Hebrew Text is to be corrected by the Vulgar Latin Such folly is wiâ—tily checked by Hierom Epist 102. ad Marcellam Si displicet fontis nunda purissimi â—aenosos bibant rivulos Fifthly Romanists accuse the Scripture of Imperfection as not containing all the material Objects of Faith So Eckrius in Enchirid. cap. 4. Coster in Enchirid. lib. 2. cap. 5. Bell. lib. 4. de verb. Dei cap. 3 4. Greg. de Valen. de Analys fidei lib. 8. cap. 6. Gordon of Huntly controv 1. de verb. Dei cap. 28. num 4. says that it is the least part of the Word of God which is contained in Scripture Nay D Beard in Retract Mot. 6. reports that Hosius should have dared to say Melius actum fuisse cum Ecclesiâ— si nullum extaret scriptum Evangelium it had been for the Churches advantage that there had been no written Gospel I tremble to transcribe such Blasphemy Doth not the Council of Trent Sess 4. define that unwritten Traditions are to be received paâ—i pietatis affectu with the same reverence and devotion as the Scripture it self Yea they magnifie Tradition above the holy Scripture Hence Spondanus the Epitomator of Baronius spares not to affirm ad annum 53. num 4. Traditiones excellere supra Scripturas that Traditions have an Excellency above the Scriptures and confirms it by this reason Quod Scripturae non subsisterent nisi Traditionibus firmarentur Traditiones vero sine Scripturis suam obtinent firmitatem Sixthly Romanists accuse the Scriptures in their greatest purity with such obscurity ambiguity and multitude of desperate senses that they cannot instruct us in the way of Salvation but as they are sensed by the Romish infallible Judge Hence are many of those ignominious expressions which Coster Melchior Canus Pighius and others belch out against the Scripture as suffering themselves to be wire-drawn by any interpretation Greg. de Valen. lib. 5. de Analys fidei cap. 2. is
as also of the intrinsick evidence of the Scriptures is given by the Learned Amyrald in Thes Salmur loc de testimonio Spiritus Sancti See also loc de Author Script From pag. 72. he falls upon the Question of the Judge of Controversies wherein whether he doth not discover both foul and foolish work as he is pleased to object to me pag. 14. the Reader may judge First then he says Scripture cannot be the Judge of Controversies as M. Menzies will have Let all the Papers betwixt M. Demster and me be read and it shall not be found that ever I asserted the Scripture to be Judge of Controversies Indeed I do assert the Scripture to be the Ground and Rule of Faith and I suppose when Protestants affirm the Scripture to be Judge of Controversies they mean no more But because I knew how apt Papists are to cavil upon the term Judge I did ever purposely wave it But this is the Jesuitical Candour he hath used in all his Criminations against me The Genius of this Scribler will yet more appear by his stating of this Question betwixt Romanists and us pag. 75. which he propounds thus Catholick Romans saith he build their belief upon Scripture not taken as they fancy but as explained by Apostolical Tradition conserved in the Church and the unanimous consent of the Fathers and if any doubt arise of both these on the general definition and decision of the present Catholick Church But Protestants says he as M Menzies holds ground their Faith on Scripture which they have corrected or rather corrupted as clear in it self or made clear by diligent reading and conferring of places with prayers and as they imagine a well-disposed mind that is a prejudicate Opinion It is hard to say whether he discover more perverseness of folly in representing the state of this question Take these few observes upon it And first if Romanists build their Faith upon the Scriptures as expounded by Traditions c. then Scripture contains all Doctrines of Faith and Traditions serve only to expound the Scripture And yet he affirms pag. 62. There be Articles of Faith such as Persons in the Trinity Sacraments in the Church c. which he denies to be found in Scripture Either then in this state of the question he does not declare the adequate ground of the Popish Faith and so sophisticates with his Reader when he would make him believe that they build all their Faith on Scripture or else contradicts both himself and the current of Romish Doctors who maintain unwritten Traditions not only for expounding Scriptures but also for confirming Articles of Faith not contained in the Scripture Secondly He dare not commit the explication of Scripture either to Tradition or the unanimous consent of Fathers and therefore he keeps the definition of the present Church as a Reserve in case of doubts concerning these and of doubts which may be moved concerning the sense of Traditions and of the testimonies of Fathers And therefore all must be ultimately resolved on the definition of the present Church they mean the Popish Church So that when all comes to all their Faith is built upon the word of their Pope or Council for nothing else can he mean by their Present Church But thirdly seeing the decisions of Faith are remitted unto the present Church that is Pope or Council when the case is dubious concerning the sense of Scriptures Traditions and Fathers what is now left to be a ground for the Churches definition but either Enthusiasm or a Fancy So that by this very state of the question when it s well pondered the ground of the belief of the present Romish Church is because she fancies so Fourthly In this state of the question he speaks as if Romanists were all agreed concerning the Rule of Faith or Judge of Controversies the contrary whereof is apparent from what we spake both in the former question concerning the infallible visible Judge and also here concerning the Rule of Faith Are M. White M. Serjeant M. Holden Rushworth and other Patrons of the Traditionary way of the same Opinion touching the Rule of Faith and Judge of Controversies with Jesuits Fifthly Doth he not represent us as building our Faith on corrupted Scriptures Is not this an evidence of a most desperate Cause when we must be so perfidiously represented So far are Protestants from building on corrupted Scriptures that we appeal to the pure Originals and decline no mean for finding out the sense of Scripture ever acknowledged by the Catholick Church Yea to cut off their Cavils of this kind Learned Protestants as M. Baxter Key for Catholicks Part. 1. cap. 31. have offered to dispute the Controversies of Religion out of the Vulgar Latin or out of the Rhemists Translation Sixthly He would imply that we had no regard to Tradition or to the consent of Fathers In this he belyes us egregiously We are so far from excluding them from the means of expounding Scripture that we have a Venerable esteem of them when a Tradition is truly found to have been received by the whole Catholick Church in all Ages and when Fathers do unanimously consent in Doctrines of Faith But we must have further Evidence for an universally and perpetually received Tradition or Doctrine unanimously approved by Fathers then the partial testimony of the present particular and Apostate Church of Rome Dare Romanists remit the Controversies betwixt them and us to those Tests of Apostolick Tradition or unanimous consent of Fathers Have they Apostolick Tradition for their Adoration of Images Invocation of departed Saints substraction of the Cup from the people Purgatory Fire their Divine Authority of Apocryphal Book the Supremacy of the Pope above Councils and Princes c. none but either an Ignorant or he whose Conscience is Venal and Mercenary can affirm it But I may give a more particular account of these hereafter I add but a seventh Note When he mentions the means which we affirm ought to be used for finding out the true sense of Scripture such as the conferring of places of Scripture and prayer which I suppose none but an Infidel can disallow he reckons forth a well-disposed mind which he interprets a prejudicate Opinion What Candour I have met with or am to expect from them let any judge by this their Commentary upon my words when I require a well-disposed mind to the right understanding of the Scriptures that is saith my Adversary a prejudicate Opinion Doth he not discover himself to be a person to which his own Apocrypha Text Sap. 1. 4. In animam malevolam non introibit Sapientia may most fitly be applyed Pag. 73. He flourishes with an old Argument against the Scriptures being Judge of Controversies The Judge of Controversie saith he ought to give a clear sentence which the learned and unlearned may equally understand but thus doth not the Scripture and to this purpose He alledges some testimonies from S. Ambrose S. Austin that there be
their Religion as it is set forth by Pius quartus confession of Faith and in the Council of Trent and let all the Jesuits upon the face of the earth find it out in the first three ages of Christianity if they can How far the broken fragments which this Pamphleter filches from his Fellows are from performing this work shall I hope be seen in Cap. 7. The second reflexion is If I appeal to the Faith of the Church of the first three ages then I must acknowledge one infallible visible Judge Answer I deny the sequel was it to any representative of the first three ages which I did appeal Is it not acknowledged that in the first three ages from that Council at Jerusalem Act. 15. there was no general Council which together with a Pope is made by this Pamphleter the infallible Judge Was it not to the Faith of the diffusive Catholike Church to which I did appeal to which neither Papist nor Protestant ascribes a juridical power But the diffusive Church has a promise of perpetuity and Consequently that the essentialls of Faith shall be preserved in her If therefore the Faith of the ancient Catholike Church may be known by it the Faith of the present Church may be tryed Yet I ever made it but a secundary rule the holy Scriptures being the chief test but of this I treated more at large Paper 7. Pag. 231 232. 233. 234. Page 136. he says that I affirm that papists agree with us in all our positive tenets it seems Romish missionaries are so habituated in lying that they can hardly speak truth I never either spoke or thought so Papists are injurious to the truth not only by addition but also by substraction Do they not substract the cup in the Sacrament Do they not substract the substance both of Bread and Wine leaving only a specter of accidents to remain in the Sacramental Symbols Do they not deny the perspicuity of Scriptures and that all sins of their own nature merit eternal damnation c. in all which they hold the negative and we the affirmative The observe which he subjoyns that all cheif Heresies for most part consisted in negatives Is ludibrious all for the most part is all and not all But have not gross Hereticks maintained positive errors as Manichees duo principia Tritheits three Gods the Nestorians two persons in Christ John of Constantinople that himself was universal Bishop c. Is he not so ridiculous in reckoning the negatives of Hereticks that as would seem he could not distinguish betwixt an affirmative and a negative Among negative Hereticks he reckons the Nestorians whose Heresy consisted in a positive ascribing two persons to Christ and the Marcionits for maintaining that Baptism should be reiterated Is not rebaptization a positive Papists maintain seven Sacraments should others maintain twice seven were they not Heretical Papists add Apocrypha Books to the Old Testament If others added the evangells of Thomas and Nicodemus to the New Testament were they not Hereticks Papists say dulia should be given to Saints should others assert the lawfullness of Latria to them were they not Hereticks There may therefore be Heresy in positives But what though all Hereticks maintained negatives which yet is false doth it therefore follow that all who maintain negatives are Hereticks Is a Syllogism in 2da figura ex omnibus affirmantibus good Though it were so the Papists could not clear themselves from Heresy for they also differ from us in negatives This only in passing to shew the ludibrious quibling of Sophisticating Jesuits CHAP. VII The Truth of the Religion of Protestants evicted by the Conformity thereof with the faith of the Primitive Church in the first three Ages and the falshood of the present Romish Religion from the disagreement thereof with the Faith of these Ages THere being but one Faith Ephes 4. 5. or one true Christian Religion which undoubtedly was conserved in as great purity by the Church in the first three Ages as in any other time consequently among the many pretenders to Religion in these days their Religion must only be true which agreeth in essentials with the Faith of the Catholick Church in those Ages and that surely must be a false Religion which is discrepant in Essentials from that primitive Faith Whereupon I subsume but so it is that the Religion of Protestants doth agree in Essentials with the Faith of the Catholick Church in those times and the present Romish Religion doth certainly disagree Therefore the Religion of Protestants is the true Christian Religion and the Popish Religion is false and impious The evidence of the first proposition is so clear that the Pamphleter in a peculiar Section from pag. 139. labours to justifie the present Romish Faith by some abusive Pretexts of Antiquity as if the Fathers of those Ages did clearly speak for them and against Protestants in all the chief controverted points It remains therefore that I prove the Assumption In order to which I only premise that a Religion may differ from that ancient Faith in Essentials or in points necessary to Salvation two ways viz. Either by denying some Articles of faith which she held as necessary or by coyning others as necessary which she held not This premised For evicting the conformity of our Religion as to all Essentials with the Faith of the Catholick Church in the first ages it may be sufficient to renew to all Romanists my appeal mâ—de to Mr. Dempster pag. 4. pag. 54. to instance one Essential of Faith wherein we differ from the Christian Church in those Ages that is to pitch upon one Article held as absolutely necessary by the Catholick Church of those times and denied by the Reformed Churches or one Article which the Reformed Churches hold as absolutely necessary and those ancient Churches held not If we may judge of what other Romanists can say as to this matter by the ten Instances which the Pamphleter from pag. 139. has scraped together from their common Place Books I hope the ensuing examination of them shall discover more the consonancy of our Religion with the ancient Christian Religion and the dissonancy of the Romish Religion Or if we measure the Essentials of the ancient Christian Faith by the ancient Creeds and Confession of Faith these being drawn up as tests to distinguish them of the Church from others which as is supposed by learned Divines would not answer their end if they did not contain the Articles which the Church in those days held as necessary Then surely the Protestant Churches do agree with the ancient Church in all Essentials of Faith For all the Reformed Churches do cordially own all the ancient Creeds and Confessions of the Primitive Churches not only in the first three ages but also much lower such as the Apostolick the Antiochian Nicen Constantinopolitan Athanasian as also these of Ephesus and Chalcedon neither have the Protestant Churches made a super-addition of new essential Articles unknown to
the Primitive Church in those times Nay so clear are Reformed Churches in this matter that we appeal all the Enemies of the Reformed Religion to try our conformity to the ancient Christian Church in all Essentials with the most rigid discuss that is imaginable But on the other hand the disconformity of the present Romish Faith with that ancient Catholick Faith may be obvious to any by comparing those ancient Creeds with the present Popish Creed of Pope Pius the Fourth in which a multitude of Articles are super-added such as the Septenary number of Sacraments the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass Transubstantiation Purgatory Innovation of Saints Adoration of Images and Reliques the power of Indulgences the Magisterial Supremacy of the Church and Pope of Rome over the whole Catholick Church yea and all the Articles of the Council of Trent are concluded as necessary to Salvation Which certainly are not to be found in any of the ancient Creeds Nay the Roman Creed subjoyns these to the Constantinopolitan Creed as superadded thereto as is to be seen in vitâ Pij 4ti set forth by Onupbrius and in the Confession annexed to H. T. his Manual as a test of the Romish Religion therefore the present Romish Religion is not the true ancient Christian Religion but a bundle of innovations tyrannically imposed upon Consciences of People Yet because this impostor pitches upon ten Articles controverted betwixt us and Romanists wherein he affirms that the Fathers of the first three ages speake clearly against Protestants it may contribute both for the further clearing of the truth and discovering of Roman perfidy to trace him throw these particulars SECT 1. The Pamphleters first Instance of Novelty touching the Popes Supremacy briefly canvased and retorted upon Romanists HIs first instance Pag. 139. is concerning the Popes Supremacy as being says he the most principal thing It s indeed the most principal thing with the Popes Parasits hence Bell. lib. 2. de concil cap. 17. Greg. de Val. lib. 8. de anal fid cap. 7. and other Jesuits give the Pope a supremacy over the whole Catholick Church yea and over general Councils as Pope Boniface the 8. extrav commun unam Sanctam had defined that subjection to the Pope is of necessity to Salvation to every Creature But this is as opposit to the faith of the ancient Church as East to West Had this been the faith of the Church in those times then it had been defined according to the Pamphleters Principle by the infallible visible judge of those times Why then does he not produce such a definition among his citations Doth not the world know that in those three ages there was not one Oecumenick Council except that at Jerusalem Act. 15. unless with Binius and the Ordinary gloss those other three Conventions of the Apostles Act. cap. 1. 6. 21. be also held for Oecumenick Councils But sure it is that none of all these made any definition for the Popes supremacy Consequently there was no infallible visible judge in those times to make such a definition I did always apprehend that the seat of the pretended Romish infallibility had been the seat of their supremacy How then is it that though Pope and Council were insinuated by this Pamphleter Sect. 3. to be the seat of infallibility joyntly Yet now the Pope alone is made the seat of supremacy Is he alone supream but not infallible Is their Church bound to obey and believe a fallible Pope teaching lyes and blasphemies as having supremacy over them though not infallibility Had the Churches in those three ages believed the Popes supremacy as necessary to Salvation would Polycrates and the holy Asiatick Fathers in the second Century have withstood the Pope so resolutly in the matter of Easter as is witnessed by Euseb lib. 5. cap. 22 Would Cyprian so holy a Father and Martyr with the Affrican Fathers in the third Century so vehemently have opposed Pope Stepbanus in the matter of rebaptization as is acknowledged by Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 7 Would he have so zealously opposed appeals to Rome as he does Epist. 55. or censured Popes so sharply for admitting them which is to strike at the root of this pretended supremacy Would the fourth Oecumenick Council at Chalcedon Act. 15. can 28. and Act. 16. in which were 630. Fathers have defined in foro contradictorio after debate with the legats of Rome that the Bishop of Constantinople should have equal priviledges with the Bishop of Rome Would the second Council of Milevis can 22. have ordained them to be excommunicated who should make transmarin appeals Would the same African Fathers among whom Austin was one in the sixth Council of Carthage have so stoutly opposed appeals to Rome as Barron ad annum 419. cannot deny though both he and Bell. lib. 2. de Pontif. cap. 25. endeavour by some slight evasions to palliat the matter the falshood whereof is luculently evicted by Chamier Panstrat tom 2. lib. 14. cap. 3. 4. yea the case is so clear that Stapleton relect princip controv 3. quest 7. Is not ashamed to condemn the proceedings of that ancient African Council against the Popes of Rome Such is the respect of Romanists to Antiquity when it crosses their interest Had the Popes supremacy been an essential of the Christian Faith Would Greg. 600. Yeares after Christ lib. 4. Epist 32. 34. 38. 39. have condemned the Title of universal Bishop as a Title of Novelty error blasphemy the universal poyson of the Church contrary to the Ancient Canons contrary to Peter and to God himself a Title which none of his predecessors assumed and who ever did presume to challenge it was a for runner of the Antichrist It s a manifest forgery contrary to all truth which Bellarmin lib. 2. de Pontif. cap. 31. and other Romanists use to elude those luculent testimonies of Greg. as if he had only condemned the title of universal Bishop in that sense wherein John of Constantinople did claim it Namely so as he alone should be Bishop and other Bishops should not at all be Bishops but his Vicars Whereas John of Constantinople never claimed that Title in any other sense then it is this day used by the Bishops of Rome for 1. the oriental Bishops consented with John of Constantinople that he should be termed universal Bishop but it s hardly credible that they would all have consented that themselves should be degraded But secondly Romish Authors particularlarly Platina in the Life of Boniface the third doth testify that the same dignity which John did effect Boniface obtained from that bloody Murtherer Phocas not without much ado magna tamen contentione says Platina Doth not the opposition which the Ancient Brittish and Scottish Churches made to Austin the Monk to Laurentius and Mellitus sent over to England by Greg. the first in the matter of Easter and celebration of Baptism of which see Bede Hist lib. 2. cap. 2. and 4. and Barronius ad annum
is wanting else the first Apostolick Church which succeeded to none had been no true Church yea there should hardly be a Church to day upon the Face of the Earth there hardly being a Church founded by the Apostles in which alas for pity the Lyn of Succession hath not some time or other been perturbed with the intervention of Heresie the Roman not excepted Greg. de Valentia Tom. 3. Disp 1. q. 1. punct 6. acknowledges some Doctrines of Faith either thorough negligence errour or wickedness of men may for a time be as buried which afterward thorough the Churches diligence may be revived But as for the Roman Church she hath neither Doctrinal nor Personal Succession not Doctrinal as I have proved cap. 7. yea it will be hard to prove that the Complex of their present Religion is elder than the Council of Trent Nor Personal Is it not evident from History that some have taken the Papal Chair by Force some by Fraud some by Simony some by Magical Arts yea and some of them have been openly Heretical as Romanists themselves reckon Heresie if Arrians Nestorians Montanists Eutychians Monothelites be Hereticks Hereof we gave a touch Cap. 2. Sect. 2. Arg. 3. Sure I am the rest of the Patriarchs of Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem can instruct a personal Succession no less than Rome Excellently did one compare the Pope of Rome pretending to succeed Peter because he sits in the Roman Chair unto Vibius Ruffus of whom Xiphilinus in the Life of Dion reports that because he sat in Julius Caesar's Chair therefore he gloried as if he had been Caesar The chief Cavils moved by Romanists against our Succession relate to the Call and Mission of our Reformers and succeeding Pastors which though this Pamphleter hath not touched yet seeing others lay so much stress upon them and they may appear somewhat specious to less discerning persons I judged it might not be unfit briefly to resolve the more important of them First then they object this The Call and Mission of our first Reformers was neither extraordinary and immediate nor ordinary and mediate and consequently null not extraordinary and immediate else it had been confirmed by Miracles and extraordinary Credentials nor mediate and ordinary there being none by whom they could have a mediate Mission but by the Ministers of the Church of Rome whom the most of Protestants hold to be Antichristian But the Ministers of the true Church of Christ cannot receive their Mission from the Ministers of Antichrist supposing by thi◠Argument the nullity of the Call of our Reformers to be evicted the nullity of succeeding Pastors is also concluded as deriving their Mission from the first Reformers and so a non habentibus potestatem Yea lastly hence the nullity of all Protetestant Churches is inferred because as Jerom contra Lucifer pronounces Ecclesia non est quae non habet Sacerdotem It can be no Church that hath no Ministry I know no Sophism wherein Romanists do more triumph or the not penetrating the fallacy whereof hath driven weak and less considerate Protestants upon more Precipices This one Cavil is more specious than all our Pamphleter said But I shall not decline to grapple with them where their chief strength doth lye In discovery therefore of the fallacy of this Sophism I shall begin at the last and chief inference of the nullity of the Church from the nullity of the Ministry concerning which I propose these two distinctions First where there is no Ministry there is no Organical Church compleatly furnished with her Officers it 's granted no Entitative Church or no Society professing the Catholick Faith it 's denied else when the Ministers and Officers of a Church are removed by death the Church should perish but Act. 14. 23. it 's said the Apostles ordained Elders in every Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where it seems to be supposed they were Churches for a time without Pastors that is they were Societies of visible Professors of the Faith of Jesus Christ But take this other distinction there is no Catholick Church without a Ministry it 's granted no particular Church is denied It 's true Ephes 4. 11 12 13. there is a promise of perpetuity of a Ministry in the Catholick Church for the edifying of the body but it 's no where promised that particular Churches should never be deprived of their Pastors for a time And so though these Churches Act. 14. for a time wanted Pastors to take particular inspection of them yet even then there were Pastors in the Catholick Church as the Apostles and others and this is all which either Jerom in the place cited or Cyprian Epist 69. in a like testimony intended From which I infer though it were granted which yet is splendidly false that there were no lawful Pastors in the Reformed Churches yet the nullity of these Churches could not be concluded but only a defect of needful Organs and Office-bearers yea though there were neither Pastors in Reformed Churches nor in the Roman yet would it not follow that the Catholick Church had no Pastors for the Catholick Church extends it self far beyond them both But in the next place I examine their first medium and so overthrow all it 's a splendid falshood that the call of our Reformers was null for it had the Essentials requisite to the call of Pastors consequently succeeding Pastors are ordained ab habentibus potestatem as to that Dilemma which hath been so often canvased and confuted I answer the Call of Reformers was mediate and ordinary and so needed not extraordinary Credentials They were not called to any new Function or to preach any new truths whereas some have said their Call was extraordinary It is to be understood only quoad modum non quoad substantiam or in regard of Heroick and in some sort extraordinary endowments wherewith they were fitted for reviving collapsed truths as is largely expounded by Voetius lib. 2. desper caus Pap. Sect. 2. cap. 24. and D. Prideaux de vocat Minist § 7. But it 's urged that then they have had their Mission from Ministers of the Church of Rome whom many Protestants hold as Antichristian It 's readily granted and that without the least advantage to the Romish Interest or detriment to the Reformed Religion For satisfying those that are judicious herein let these few things be considered And first Though all Protestants be not agreed that the latter Popes of Rome are the grand Antichrist yet they who speak most mildly in the thing cannot but acknowledge that Romanists hold many Antichristian Doctrines and that the spirit of Antichrist hath long wrought in the chief Rulers of the Church of Rome both in regard of their Heretical Doctrines especially that of Papal Infallibility then which not one can better serve the turn of Antichrist and of the exorbitant power usurped by Popes not only over all Bishops but also over Kings and whatsoever is called God See of this D. Fern in
may be supplied by the intention desires and love of the receiver But 1. I know not what to make of this if it be not a yielding of the Cause and a manifest contradiction to the Doctrine of their Church For if the intention of the receiver can supply that want then it 's falsly defined by the Council of Trent and Florence that the Efficacy of Sacraments depend upon the intention of the Minister it should rather depend upon the intention of the receiver 2. A man cannot be sure of his own Graces according to Romanists consequently the Efficacy of Sacraments and so of all their Religion must yet depend upon an uncertain condition Yea Beil lib. 3. de Justificatione cap. 8. concludes that a man cannot be sure that his sins are forgiven him because he cannot be sure of the intention of the Priest in giving Absolution were the matter sufficiently supplied by the receivers intention desires and love to God how inconsequent were Bellarmine's argument Whither I pray did Bell. or this Pamphleter understand Popish principles best But 3. Suppose one adult person receiving Baptism or Orders had assurance of his own Graces and of his own intentions and desires yet others could not Consequently others could not certainly know that he were either Baptized or Ordained But 4. Though the defect of the Priests intention could be thus supplyed in adult persons yet there were no remedy for Infants who are not capable of such intentions and therefore the Pamphleter himself restricts this evasion to those that are come to Age and so there could be no certainty whether Pope Pius the Fourth who confirmed the Council of Trent or the present Clement the Tenth whom I suppose to have been baptized in their Infancy were really baptized and consequently whether ever they were in a capacity to be Popes Fourthly saith the Pamphleter The conferring of a Sacrament is not only actio hominis but humana that is a deliberate action Quid hoe ad Rhombum The Question betwixt us and Papists is not whether it be necessary that the Minister have a deliberate intention to go about the outward Sacramental action that we freely grant and that is sufficiently known by the grave outward performance of the work because Ambrosius Catharinus required no more as simply necessary to the being of the Sacrament Bell. lib. 1. de Sâ—c in Genere cap. 27. professed he did not see wherein Catharinus Opinion differed from the Doctrine of Hereticks so he designed Protestants condemned by the Counâ—il of Trent therefore generally the Popish Doctors as Bell. Snarez Conink Lugo c. require further as necessary to the being of a Sacrament that the Minister have an intention by these outward actions to constitute a Sacrament Now sure it is that without a special Revelation none can have infallible certainty that another has such an intention and this is a further intention than is requisite ut actio sit humana But fifthly saith the Pamphleter for I see Con must have many holes to retire to What if a Mad man be in a frolick or a Comedian in a jeer should pour out Water on any one and pronounce the words were it a Sacrament Answ No verily This brings to my mind how Cardinal de Lugo Tract de Sacram. Disp 8. Sect. 2. Num. 14. grosly misrepresents Protestants in this matter for this he gives as the difference betwixt Catharinus though him also he disallows and us as if Catharinus did require that the Minister did behave himself as if he dealt seriously but that Protestants maintained it to be enough if the outward Sacramental actions were performed though the Minister openly declared that all were done in derision O the affronted impudency of Jesuits We abominate such impious thoughts never was any such thing taught by the Reformed Churches See Vâ—ssius de Bapt. Disp â—0 Thes 11. 12 13. yea Bell. lib. 1. de Sac. in Gen. cap. 27. acknowledges the contrary to be taught by Chemnitius in Exam. Concil Trid Can. 11. Sess 7. Yet Jesuits who have made lyes their refuge dare so fouly misrepresent us Nay on the contrary we â—ay a Minister sins hainously if he carry not both seriously and devoutly in going about these holy things See Chamier lib. 1. de Sacram. in Gen. Cap. 19. Sect. 21. only we affirm if a Minister should behave himself seriously as to all outward appearance whatever impious intention he may harbour secretly in his own breast that cannot prejudge the devout receiver of the Sacrament and so the Catholick Church did ever teach Hence Austin lib. 3. de Bapt. Cont. Don at cap. 15. Si Evangelicis verbis in nomine Patris filii S. Sancti Marcion Baptismum consecravit integrum erat Sacramentum quamvis ejus fides sub eisdem verbis aliud opinantis quam Catholica veritas docet non esset integra sed fabulosis vanitatibus inquinata Thus Romanists suspending the Efficacy of Sacraments upon the secret intention of the Priest differ not from us only but also from the Ancient Catholick Church they overturn all certainty of Faith and throw themselves upon perpetual hazard of Idolatry They cannot know even according to their own principle whether what they adore in the Mass be Christ or only a morsel of bread neither are these meer Niceties Doth not famous Authors record how both Jews and Heathens in Spain and Italy have counterfeited Christianity for base ends and have assumed Orders and gone about the external Sacramental Rites but with sacrilegious intentions Whose heart would not bleed to see the Mazes and Labyrinths in which Romanists do involve themselves and the irreconcileable debates they have among themselves as to this thing insomuch that Jesuit Carleton Tom. 2. Theol. Scholast Disp 63. Sect. 3. Num. 1. saith Mirum quot quamque varii sunt in hac parte inter Scholasticos dicendi mâ—di I will not blot paper with them I hope by this time it appears the Pamphleters quiblings have not loosed the Knot more than M. Demster's silence After many abortive attempts of M. Demster to reduce his Syllogism to some tolerable shape this Pamphleter pag. 28 29. makes an Essay more Though all the Propositions thereof be as negatively expressed as Negatives use to be in the English Language yet to vindicate his Fellow-Jesuit from such informality of arguing he alledges the secâ—nd Proposition to be an Affirmative and to add some colour thereto he puts this Latin Gloss upon it for it seems he could not salve the business in English Sed Religio Protestantium est habens nullum peculiare fundamentum Had Jesuits so much ingenuity as to acknowledge an over reaching I had shewed them from the beginning how to have rectified the form of their Syllogism without running to violent or infinitant Glosses But that Logical trespass in the structure of Jesuit Dempster's Syllogism was my least Exception against it The main thing I ever demanded was a probation of that minor whether it be
party hold the Pope only to be the subject of this infallibiâ—ity and not the Council at all Hence Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 3. saith expresly Totam firmitatem Conciliorum legitimorum esse à Pontifice non partim à Pontifice partim à Concilio The other half are as peremptory by Bellarmine his own confession that the infallibility is seated in the Council only and not at all in the Pope So that the Jesuited party might as well say that the Pope and M. Con are infallible as that the Pope and the Council are infallible and the other party might as well say that the Council and M. Con were infallible as the Council and the Pope Yea Jesuits might say with as much candour as D. Barron observes cap. 20. Sect. 4. that they were agreed with Mahumetans that the Pope and the Alcoran were infallible By this also I hope it will appear how vainly they boast as if by their infallible Judge they had an easie way to terminate Controversies and a sure ground of Union amongst themselves whereas the infallible Judge cannot agree them concerning this Fundamental of their Religion nor terminate this controversie among them whether there be an infallible visible Judge or who he is Neither can the Pamphleter make his escape by the tergiversing evasion he uses pag. 44. That the question is not who this infallible Judge is but whether there be one I say thus he cannot escape for I argue from the one to the other It cannot be shewed who is this infallible Judge therefore there is none both antecedent and sequel I have proved Ought not the Pamphleter in this case for resolving the an sit whether there be such a Judge define thee quis sit who he is it's the desperateness of the Cause that makes him sometimes tergiverse and shun to declare who is the infallible Judge But I doubt other times he be guilty of a greater trespass he seems to be of the Jesuited party and so of that Opinion that the Pope alone is the seat of this infallibility Yet often in this Pamphlet he gives out as if he held Pope and Council conjunctly to be the infallible Judge Must a Jesuit have liberty to equivocate because it is his Principle However I shut up this argument with a Dilemma Either there is certainty of Faith who is this infallible Judge or not if there be I ask who he is is it the Pope alone then the Parisian Doctors together with a very considerable Body of Romanists must be Hereticks who oppose that Article of Faith if the Council alone then the Jesuits and Jesuited party are damnable Hereticks for oppugning that Article of Faith if both Pope and Council conjunctly then beside the difficulty of terminating Controversies when Pope and Council are divided and that this destroys the Tenet of the necessity of an infallible visible Judge for Councils seldom are both the Parisian Doctors and their party and the Jesuits with their party are Heretical for they both place this infallibility either in the one or the other but not in both conjunctly if then they confess that there is no certainty of Faith who is this infallible visible seeing they cannot pitch upon him without charging the half of their own Church with Heresie Then surely God hath not appointed an infallible visible Judge in whose testimony our Faith is ultimately to be resolved Had our gracious Lord appointed such a Judge surely he would have told who he were but not having defined who he is certainly there is none 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Argument 3. Both Popes and Councils have erred grosly in matters of Faith Ergo both are infallibly fallible and consequently there is no infallible visible Judge in the Church none else pretending thereto In confirmation of the antecedent a whole Volumn might be written of the errours of Popes and Councils I will only glean up a few that it may appear what kind of infallible Judges these are upon whose testimony Romanists would have all Christianity to hang. And first for Popes doth not Gratian in the Canon Law Dist 40. cap. Si Papa say the Pope may be judged when he is devius à fide that is Heretical Did not Tertull. lib. contra Praxe am cap. 1. characterize Pope Zepherin or as other will have it Pope Eleutherius as a Montamist Where also Beatus Rhenanus writes on the Margin of Tertullian Episcopus Romanus Montanizat Is it not acknowledged by Platina in Vita Marcellini and recorded in the Ancient Martyrologies yea in the Roman also as is confessed by Jesuit Azorius Part. 2. Moral lib. 5. cap. 5. that Pope Marcelline facrificed to Jupiter Doth not Athanasius in Epist ad solit vit agentes and Hierom in Catal. virorum illustrium in Fortunationo say that Pope Liberius subscribed to the Arrian Heresie and to the damnation of Athanasius Is not Felix who possessed the Papal Chair Liberius being expulsed charged with the same Heresie by Hierom in Catal. in Acatio Was not Pope Anastasius the Second a Nestorian if we may credit Alphonsus à Castro lib. 1. contra Haeres cap. 4. Is it not evident that Pope Vigilius was Anathematized by the fifth General Council Are not the Cavils of Baronius Binnius and others to vindicate Vigilius from Heresie solidly disproved by Crahanthorp in a large Volumn concerning this fifth General Council yea that Learned Author Cap. 4. Sect. 20. spares not to infer that not only Pope Vigilius out also Baronius Bell. Gretser Pighius Valentia and all Asserters of the Papal infallibility are involved under the Anathema's pronounced in the fifth General Council Was not Pope Honorius a Monothelite Did he not teach his Heresie ex Cathedrâ being consulted as to that matter by Sergius Patriarch of Constantinople and therefore was Anathematized by the sixth General Council and his Heretical Epistles ordained to be burned Act. 13. This blot of Honorius so nettles the Jesuited party that they have forged a world of Subterfuges but none of these Fig-tree leafs will cover the sore as beside others our Learned Country-man Doctor John Forbes of Corse hath demonstrated lib. 5. instruct Hist Theol. à cap. 10. ad 31. What should I mention the shameful work that was betwixt Pope Formosus Romanus Theodorus Secundus John 9. upon the one hand and Stephanus the sixth and Sergius the third on the other of whom saith Platina in vita Romani nihil aliud bi cogitabant quam nomen dignitatem majorum suorum extinguere Neither were they only Controversies of Fact which were agitated betwixt them as Bell. alledges for Stephanus and Sergius pronounced Formosus no Pope and his Acts and his Ordinations null and all that were ordained by him to be reordained Is the question of Reordination whether Ordinations made by Formosus were valid whether all the time of Formosus there was any Pope and consequently whether there were any infallible Judge meer questions of fact Are they not at
Scripture though it were granted that the Church were called the Pillar and ground of Truth not only because she ought but also because she always shall hold forth the Truth yet Romanists lose their design unless they could prove that she shall hold forth all truth without any failure That in the Catholick Church all Truths necessary to Salvation shall be preserved is acknowledged by Protestants but Romanists have to prove that the Representatives of the Catholick Church cannot err concerning any Doctrinal point which they will hardly evict from this place in which the Note of Universality is wanting however the Church be said to be the Pillar and ground of Truth yet not of all Truth Seventhly and lastly Granting that infallibility were truly predicated of the Apostolick Church in that time when the Apostle wrote does it therefore follow crgo she is now infallible It 's confessed that then there was an infallible visible Judge in the Church endowed with the gift of Tongues and Miracles the case of the Church so requiring for founding the Gospel Church and compleating the Canon of holy Scripture but it doth not follow that it shall be so in every Age neither do the necessities of the Church require it Thus I have gone through all the Scriptures alledged by this Pamphleter for his infallibility whether they prove his Thesis let them who are not willing to be deceived judge The Pamphleters second Objection contains a Farrago of abused Testimonies of Antiquity Pag. 39 40 41. To amuse the ignorant Reader he hath gathered up from their Manuals Pamphlets and Controversie Books a heap of impertinent testimonies of Irenaeus Origen Cyprian Chrysostom both the Cyrils Ambrose Eusebius and Austin asserting that the Church shall not fail or be adulterated with Heresie To all which I answer First that none of these contain the sentence of an infallible visible or living Judge they are but broken shreds out of the writings of Doctors long ago dead and so according to his own Principles are not a sufficient ground of Faith to such a mysterious point as he contends for I answer secondly that some or these are grosly mis cited particularly the first from Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 49. whereas in all that lib. 1. of Irenaeus there be but 35 cap. Neither seems this to be a meer escape of the Printer for it 's again cited the same way pag. 102. But I must excuse him for H. T. in his Manual of Controversies Art 5. from whom he seems implicitly to have taken this and many more of his testimonies mis-cites the same testimony of Irenaeus after the same manner for which he is justly chastised by M. Tombs in his Romanism discussed Art 5. Sect. 6. They are surely to be pitied who see with other mens eyes But by the words of the testimony I perceive he should have cited lib. 4. cap. 43. He is no whit happier in his next citation from Irenaeus cap. 62. where he mentions the cap. but not the Book following there also his Guide H. T. loc cit but by the words I likewise suspect it should have been lib. 4. cap. 62. But thirdly I answer that in none of all these testimonies cited by him is there any mention of the Roman Church of the Pope of Rome or of Councils swearing subjection to him but of the Catholick Church in general so that whatever be of these testimonies they make nothing for the Papal interest yet as if all that is said of the Catholick Church should be expounded of the Romish Church here he takes occasion to snarl with a Cynical spite at me because in my Paper 3. against Jesuit Demster I had made mention of an eminent person who considering the superciliousness of the Bishop of Rome did break forth into these words Odifastum istius Ecclesiae Now I only ask whether he will deal at this rate with Basil the Great who Epist 10. hath a sharp reflection upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the pride of the Western or Romish Church But fourthly not to trifle time in a particular examination of these testimonies which have been so often canvased by our Controversie-Writers and divers of them lately by M. Tombs loc cit as Irenaeus Origen Cyprian to which the rest seem on the matter homogeneous except it be that of Austin Epist 118. which speaks of the power of the Church in reference to things indifferent and so concerns not the matter in hand I answer to them all in cumulo that they are wholly impertinent to the present Debate for none of them speak of an infallible visible Judge far less assert the necessity thereof some of them speak of the perpetuity and indefectibility of the Church that she cannot be overthrown and cease to be as Ambrose Chrysost Eusebius the rest hold forth that there is a depositum of truth intrusted to the Church So that their utmost significancy is to testifie that God will preserve in his Church Divine Truths which are necessary to Salvation and that the whole Catholick Church shall never be adulterated with Heresie or perish which Protestants do freely grant And so none of these testimonies do touch the question in hand for the question is not whether the whole Catholick Church may forsake truths necessary to Salvation but whether there shall always be a visible Judge with Jurisdiction over the whole Catholick Church who cannot err in the least Doctrinal decision of which there is nothing in any of these testimonies This is so evidently the meaning of them that the Pamphleter did foresee pag. 41. it would be replied to him that they were to be understood of the Church in its diffusive capacity and thereupon without once attempting to prove that they were otherwise to be taken he proceeds pag. 42. and 43. to another heap of Testimonies which he emendicates for most part from Bell. lib. 2. de concil cap. 3. and they seem indeed to speak of the Representatives of the Church and so appear to come nearer to the case in hand But before I come to examine them I must in the fifth place retort the Pamphleters Argument from this first heap of testimonies against the Romish Church thus the true Catholick Church is never adulterated with Heresie nor does depart from the great Truths once delivered to the Saints say these testimonies of Fathers but the Romish Church hath departed manifestly from the Ancient Faith delivered to the Saints as appears by her gross Innovations such as her Doctrine of Transubstantiation Half Communion Invocation and Worshipping of Saints deceased and Angels Relicks Images Crosses performing the worship of God in an unknown Tongue and the rest of her Errours and abuses manifestly repugnant to Scriptures and the Faith of the Primitive Church as hereafter may be particularly cleared ergo the Roman is not the true Catholick Church consequently these testimonies are so far from advantaging him that they cut the throat of his own Cause His next bundle of testimonies
upon the Veracity of God believe the material objects or particular Articles of Faith There be great School-men for both these Opinions without censure of Heresie on either hand as may be seen in Carleton Theol. Schol. Tom. 2. disp 4. Sect. 2. 3. Would Romanists therefore grant that Scriptural Revelation is the principal mean by which the Veracity of God is applied to all the material objects of Faith so as this were the Standard by which we are to judge of all Articles of Faith I should not much contend with them whether they looked on Scriptural Revelation as a part of the formal object of Faith or only as a requisite condition to our believing upon the Veracity of God but how far they are from this may appear by the account I have given of their Opinions in the foregoing Paragraph it not being my concern at the time to debate that Question of the formal object of Faith I shall abstract from it and keep close to this of the Rule of Faith in which all Reformed Divines are agreed against Papists and Quakers that Scripture is the principal compleat and infallible Rule of Faith I shall not dilate upon Arguments to confirm the Orthodox Assertion this hath been done copiously by Whittaker against Stapleton lib. 3. de Author Script Chamler Tom. 1. Panstrat lib. 1. and very lately by Tillotson against J. S. much less can it be expected that I should enter upon a particular resutation 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 lih 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 though 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
in this Debate upon a narrow inspection of the place have observed that the words will not admit such a Parenthesis without manifest non-sense Yet least I should seem to injure him I here exhibit the formalia verba of the Pamphleter pag. 55. Protestants saith he take in also with those the corruptions of the Greek Text remarked in part by S. Irenaeus Tertullian Origen and others says Eusebius when the Ancient Hereticks the Arrians Macedonians Nestorians c. had corrupted and adulterated the Word of God to support their Errours Let the ingenuous Reader judge if I have not exhibited the genuine sense of those words I know not whether to ascribe it to his ignorance or disingenuity that he charges Protestants as taking in or owning the Arrian Macedonian and Nestorian corruptions of the Bible A Calumny so far from truth that to mention it is enough to refute it it may suffice to discover the occasion of so gross a mistake The Pamphleter steals this Objection in a Plagiary way from Jesuit Gordon of Huntly controv de verb. Dei cap 12. but had no wit to do it handsomely What Jesuit Gordon had branched forth in divers Arguments against the purity of the Greek Text of the New Testament this Pamphleter confuses together Jesuit Gordon in his first Argument said that Irenaeus Tertull. Origen and others in Eusebius did complain that Hereticks did corrupt the Scriptures and in another argument affirms that Arrians Macedonians Nestorians did pervert Scriptures Now the Pamphleter seems to have taken those Hereticks last named to be them of whom Irenaeus Tertull. and Origen did complain not considering that the Ages in which those Fathers wrote and wherein those Hereticks did arise would discover his Errour But against Jesuit Gordon and him I argue thus if the Scriptures were corrupted by Hereticks in the days of those Fathers then continued they not pure unto Hieroms time as Gordon the Jesuit alledges and consequently their own Vulgar Latin must be corrupted also as taken from a corrupted Original But because it 's not enough to retort an Argument let them take an absolute Answer from Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 7. Et si multa saith he depravare conati sunt Haeretici tamen nunquam defuerunt Catholici qui eorum corruptelas detexerunt non permiserunt libros Sacros corrumpi That Hereticks attempted the depravation of the Scripture is granted but that either the Providence of God or vigilancy of the Catholick Church suffered them universally to corrupt the Scriptures so that the Text of Scripture is not fit ad gignendam fidem as Gordon the Jesuit blasphemously writes is simply denied That Irenaeus Tertull Origen and other Fathers discovered the practises of Hereticks against the Scriptures is a sufficient Evidence that those Hereticks were not able to accomplish their designs His sixth allegation is that Protestants never saw the Original Scriptures penned by Prophets Apostles and Copies are subject to faults Did never this Scribler reflect that it would be retorted upon him that they can no more produce the Translators Autograph of the Vulgar Latin than we of the Originals Neither have they the Autographs of the old Decretals or of the Ancient Councils and the Copies of these Books are doubtless subject also to faults I confess we pretend not to have the Autographs nor judge we it necessary yea it was naturally impossible that Paper or Parchment could have continued so long without corruption What Baronius relates of Marks Autographs at Venice may have place among their other Legends yet Cornel. Ã Lapide who says it is in Greek confesses that through Antiquity it is become illegible and consequently useless But does it follow that because we have not the Autographs therefore our Originals are corrupt if it be said that Transcribers are fallible are not the Transcribers of the Canons of the Council of Trent fallible also if notwithstanding they bear Faith shall not the Copy of Original Scriptures much more make Faith Cannot the Providence of God preserve the Original Scriptures Will not the fear of God make men more tender and circumspect in transcribing the holy Scriptures than in transcribing other Books Is not the Catholick Church engaged to be watchful lest the Scriptures of God should be corrupted If Universal Tradition make Faith in any matter doth it not concerning the depositum of the Scriptures His seventh and last allegation is of the various Lections of the New Testament attested by the Prefacer to the Biblia Polyglotta Should he not first have remembred how many various Lections are in the Vulgar Latin let him compare the Bibles of Sixtus Quintus and Clement the 8. and read D. James Bellum Papale and men tell if there be not both various Lections and contradictions betwixt them The different readings betwixt the Clementine Bible and Hentenius Edition of the Vulgar Latin which the Divines of Lovain so highly esteemed would fill a Volum alone Secondly therefore it 's absolutely answered that many things are reckoned up as various Lâ—ctions in the Originals which are but Errata scribae aut Typographi i. e. escapes of the Press and all I believe are sensible that it is morally impossible that there should be various Editions of any Book without various readings of that nature yet may not Judicious persons comparing those Copies together discern their Errata's Are there not special helps in these cases for finding out the true reading in the New Testament such as the consideration of the Context the Analogy of Faith the more ancient and approved Copies Citations and Expositions of Fathers ancient Translations particularly the Syriack Neither do Protestants deny but use may be made of Latin Versions especially of more ancient Editions as was done by Erasmus in his Annotations yet not as a Rule but as a mean to be made use of in conjunction with the rest Who would be more fully satisfied as to these various Lections in the New Testament I remit them to Cal vius de puritate font um in Novo Testamento Sect. 134. c. and to D Owens Tractate of the integrity and purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of the Scripture with his considerations on the Appendix and Prolegomena to the Biblia Polyglotta Now only I add a luculent testimony from Sixius Senensis lib. 7. Bib. S. haeres 1. where pondering the like Objection from the various Lections of the New Testament he positively assâ—rts Graecum codicem qui nunc in Ecclesia legitur eundem illum esse que Ecclesia Graeca temporibus Hieronomi longe antea usque ad tempora Apostolorum usa est verum si cerum fidelem nullo falsitatis vitio contaminatum sicut continuata omnium Graec rum Patrum lectio lucidissime ostendit uno semper atque eodem Scripturae ten re legentibus Dâ—onysio Justino Irenaeo Melitone Origene Africeno Apollinario Athanasio Eusebio Bâ—siâ—io Chrysostomo Theophilacto atque allis nte post tempora
inferiour nor wanted they pretended Miracles Doth not this retorsion discover the frothiness of these Topical Rhetorications But secondly these vain Clamours may be sufficiently confuted with that word of our Saviour Matth. 11. 25. and that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 1. 20. Where is the Wise Where is the Scribe Where is the Disputer of this World Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this World And ver 26 27. Ye see your Calling Brethren how that not many wise men c. Is there any Society in the World among whom there be more politick carnal interests to byass the judgments of men than in the Romish Church Are there not many secular advantages to entice men of acute parts to improve their faculties to support the Papacy Are not Romanists also armed with Power to terrifie and affright those that would whisper against them What severities have been exercised by their Inquisition to keep up their interest Hath not Popish Rome exceeded Heathenish Rome in her Cruelty Quid tale immanes unquam gessisse feruntur Vel Schinis isthmiaca pinus vel rupe profunda Sciron vel Phalaris tauro vel carcere Sylla O Mites Diomedis equi Busiridis arae Clementes tu Cinna Pius tu Spartace lenis Romanis Collatus eris Are they not addebted to Protestants for much of their Learning What gross ignorance did cover the World till the Reformation Though Romish Priests have not Wives yet want they Concubines Nephews or Nieces What differ their pretended Miracles from the lying Signs and Wonders spoken of 2 Thes 2. 9. Are they at pains to Proselyte others Did not the Pharisies so Yet I should be loath to blame their Zeal in that if they were not more zealous for the Romish Interest than for the common concerns of Christianity But is it not evident that they have abused the World by Romantick Fictions as Histories of real Conversions At this time that one instance may suffice of the marvellous History of the Capucin Lesly which I had in French from an excellent and learned person D. Ludovick Gordon M D. a Son of the Renowned Family of Stralough who also in regard of my unskilfulness in the French Tongue was at the pains to draw up an Epitome of the said History in English out of the French This History passes so current in Italy and France that it is translated from the Italian Tongue to the French by the Prince de Ferme and is approved by Doctors of the Faculty of Paris F. Ives Pinford and F. Charles Theâ—ault And the wonderful Conversions by the Capucin have been objected to Protestant Gentlemen travelling in Italy as some of themselves have related not only to me but also to others I shall not trouble the Reader with all the ludibrious Fictions concerning that Capucin as that he was the Son of Count Lesly Baron of Torrie and Monimusk or concerning the description of Monimusk as a great City c. I only notice that there it s related that this Capucin should have converted 4000 to the Romish Faith betwixt Monimusk and Aberdene If their 100000 converted in China and the Indies be like the 4000 converted at Aberdene and Monimusk they may be Inhabitants for Sir Thomas More 's Vtopia Let the Inhabitants of Aberdene judge by this notorious untruth what Faith is to be given to Romish Legends This brings to my mind a passage of the Author of the History of Cardinals Part 1. lib. 2. pag. 61. Vpon the day saith he that is dedicated to S. Francis Xaverius in the presence of four or five Cardinals and in Rome it self I heard a Jesuit preach in the praise of that Saint among the rest of his Elogies this was one that he had baptized a million and a hundred and eight thousand Souls in the Indies But saith the Author I am of opinion h searce baptized any and my reason is because at this time there is not one hundred thousand Christians in all the Indies So that had it been true that Xaverius had baptized so many the number would have been encreased especially the way having been open since that time to the Spaniard Portugal English Hollander and all Christians whatsoever By which it may be evident that the more prudent among themselves are sensible how they cheat the World with Romances But to shut up this Chapter if Romanists have more knowledge of the Scriptures than we why are they so afraid to have Controversies decided by Scripture Why suffer they not their people to use the Scripture Were it but for the indignities which they put upon the holy Scripture and for setting up a Pope as Head of the Catholick Church and his Definitions as the Rule of Faith is it not just with God to give them up to strong delusions to believe lyes CAP. IV. A Discourse of Fundamentals with some Reflections on the Contradictions Impertinencies and Falshoods of the Romish Pamphleter in his Sect. 5. THe Pamphleter in the inscription of his Sect. 5. pag. 83. insinuates that the Fundamentals of Religion are clearly revealed in Scripture yet pag. 99 and 100. he disputes with all the force he can that there be Fundamentals not at all contained in Scripture So skilled is he in contradicting himself There is nothing which startles Modern Romanists more than the distinction of Fundamentals and non-Fundamentals or Essentials and Integrals in Religion Nor can I see any other reason but because the distinction when it s clearly penetrated and well improved doth discover the Schismatical and imperious usurpation of the Church of Rome and contributes exceedingly to the clearing of the Unity of the Catholick Church notwithstanding of the differences that may be among particular Churches whereas the Church of Rome like that Gyant Procrustes would be excluding all from the Catholick Church who do not in all things come up to her measure I hope therefore it may be of some use to unfold a little of the nature of this distinction But first I must take some notice of an invidious representation of the divisions of Protestants concerning the number of Fundamentals made by the Pamphleter pag. 84. Some says he suppose them to be contained in the Creed some in the Decalogue some in the Lords Prayer some in all joyntly some to these add the Sacraments Had he looked homeward he might have found that which would have made him lay his hand on his mouth Can they agree among themselves how many Articles are necessary necessitate medii to be explicitly believed Do they not altercate among themselves whether now in the dayes of the Gospel it be necessary to believe the Trinity and the Mystery of the Incarnation Is not the negative maintained by Medina Vega Zumel Suarez Turrian Hurtado Lorca all whom Lugo both cites and follows Tract de fide disp 12. Sect. 4. N. 91. although they be contradicted by Melchior Canus Ledesma Castro Bannez c as the same Lugo acknowledgeth N. 88. Do they not dispute among themselves if it
3. de orig animae cap. 15. Iste animus etiam in dictis per ignorantiam non Catholicus ipsa est correctionis praemeditatione Catholicus a Soul maintaining errours contrary to Catholick Doctrine yet willing to submit upon conviction upon that virtual repentance or premeditation of correction to use S. Austins word is truly Catholick namely when the Errours strike not at the Foundation as the same Father spoke in the forecited testimony lib. 1. contra Julian cap. 6. Against this the Pamphleter objects pag. 92 93. many Fathers S. Athanasius in his Creed S. Hierome lib. 3. cont Russin Nazianzen tract de fide S. Basil in Theod. lib. 4. Hist cap. 6. and Tertull. lib. de praescript as if they all had held that an errour in Faith would damn a Soul and consequently every point of Faith to be Fundamental He would do well to look better to his citations hereafter for Theod. lib. 4. hist cap. 6. makes no mention at all of S. Basil but only relates the Ordination of S. Ambrose But to pass this escape I answer that Fathers indeed held an errour in Fundamentals of Faith to damn a Soul but not one in integrals especially when it 's maintained without pertinacy That Fathers admitted such a distinction in points of Faith may be apparent because they did accuse one another sometimes of errours in Religion as S. Cyprian was accused by the Bishops of Rome for maintaining Rebaptization as an errour in Religion and yet him the Catholick Church ever held for a Saint and Martyr S. Austin lib. 3. de orig animae cap. 15. charges Victor with eleven errours contrary to the Catholick Faith yet had so much charity to him that he said Absit ut arbitreris te haec opinando à Catholica fide recessisse quamvis ea fidei adversa sunt Catholicae therefore they held not every point of Faith Fundamental The severe sentence pronounced in the Athanasian Creed which yet I must advertise the Pamphleter to be doubted whether it were drawn by the Great Athanasius is only against those who deny any Article of that Creed Now Creeds of the Ancient Church are supposed by Judicious Divines to contain Fundamentals as contra-distinguished from integrals That of Nazianzen tract de fide Orat 49. relates to Arrians against whom he there disputes who certainly erred fundamentally at whom also S. Hierom Apol. 3. contra Ruffinum seems to hint for their denying the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Pamphleter himself grants that Tertull. is speaking against Valentinus whom all know to have erred fundamentally so that from none of these testimonies can any thing be inferred against this distinction yet I freely grant that sometime opposition to an integral of Faith may also damn a soul namely when it is joyned with pertinacy but then it is not the simple not believing of the truth which condemns the man but his pertinacy But says the Pamphleter the English Church Excommunicates them who hold any thing contrary to the 39 Articles ergo they hold all the 39 Articles to be Fundamentals Answ Is it not more safe to judge of the thoughts of the English Church concerning the 39 Articles by the writings of eminent Divines in that Church approved by the Church of England then by the topical discourses of a nameless Romanist Now Learned Stillingfleet in his Vindication of the Bishop of Canterbury against T. C. Part. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 6. says that the Church of England never pressed the subscription of the 39 Articles as being all Fundamentals of Faith and for this also cites luculent testimonies of Bishop Bramhall Primate of Ireland She excommunicates them for their pertinacy and for their breaking of the Peace of the Church not that she supposes them all Essentials of Religion To the like purpose speaks D. Fern in his Preface against D. Champny We acknowledge saith he that he who shall pertinaciously and turbulently speak and teach against the Doctrine of the Church in points of less moment may deserve to be Anathematized or put out of the Church for such a one though he deny not the Faith yet makes a breach of Charity whereby he goes out of the Church against which he so sets himself What the Pamphleter cites of the Athenian Laws savours of Draco's severity who wrote all his Sanctions in blood and made every trespass Capital a fit President for the sanguinary proceedings of the Romish Inquisition Josephus lib. 2. cont Appion doth only say that the punishment allotted to the Violaters of the Jewish Law for most part was death If this Romanist be so bloody that he would have the Gospel Church in this to Judaize his preposterous Zeal deserves such a rebuke as those who would have commanded fire to come down from Heaven on the Samaritans Luke 9.54.55 As for the angry expressions of Luther against them he callâ—d Sacramentarians it 's true of him what was said of Elias Jam. 5. 17. that he was a man subject to the like passions with others Yet that Luther before his death was convinced of the truth of our Doctrine concerning the Sacrament Boxhornius lib. 3. de harm Eucharist proves by many testimonies from Melancthon Cruciger Alesius yea and out of Luthers own writings As for that heavy sentence Revel 22. 19. it holds forth what de Jure is due to all who derogate any thing from the sacred Canon of Scripture And the like sentence is pronounced upon them who add ought thereto v. 18. which speaks sad things against Romanists who have added all the Apocryphal Books But it doth not say that all who are not convinced of the Canonical Authority of every Book of Scripture shall de facto be damned if otherwise pious and penitent and ready to acknowledge the Divine Authority thereof were they satisfied in their Consciences thereannent Do Romanists conclude their famous Cardinal Cajetan a damned Heretick who questioned the Canonical Authority of sundry parts of Scripture To conclude this Section E. W. the Author of Protestancy without Principles that is Edward Worsley an English Jesuit at Antwerp discourse 3. cap. 4. c. hath much spongious talk to confute the Protestants distinction of Fundamentals and Non Fundamentals as unreasonable and false I should but beat the Air to examine all Himself comprizes the substance of what he has said in this one argument Every revealed Article is asserted by an Infinite Verity but an Infinite Verity delivers all it speaks with one and the same infinite certainty Ergo all Articles of Faith have one and the same like infinite assurance consequently one is as ponderous as another and equally Fundamental To this I briefly answer forbearing to reflect again upon the formality of a Jesuits Syllogism granting as uncontroverted the whole Syllogism viz. that there is an equal objective certainty in all divinely revealed Articles in a compounded sense with divine Revelation it being absolutely impossible that divine Revelation should be false but withal peremptorily denying the Corallary
For all Protestants do acknowledge that we are bound to believe whatever God is pleased to reveal unto us yea not to assent to the least material object of Faith when it is known that God has revealed it were an impeaching of the Veracity of God and so hainous a trespass that if continued in should assuredly damn eternally Nay further as acute M. Chillingworth observes Part. 1. cap. 3. Sect. 15. He that believes though erroniously any thing to be revealed by God and yet will contradict it is hainously guilty of derogation from the Veracity of God The most that Protestants affirm to which all solid Christians ever assented is that through the weakness of our understanding we not being able to penetrate all truths divinely revealed we may sometimes suppose that not to be revealed by God which is revealed by him or that to be revealed by him which is not revealed In this case which was Cyprians in the matter of Rebaptization if a man believe firmly not only the Veracity of God and be ready to assent to the particular truth whereof now he doubts if he knew it were revealed by God but also believes the most weighty Articles of the Christian Faith we say in that case our Lord doth graciously pardon the misbelief of smaller material objects of Faith which through infirmity are misbelieved This we have already confirmed by Scripture and Antiquity Sect. 1. Laying aside therefore his false state of the question the true state of the question is whether whatever the Church proposes as an Article of Faith must be believed under pain of damnation and consequently is to be held as a Fundamental so as without the belief thereof no salvation can be had in this indeed we maintain the Negative and my Adversary and Jesuited Romanists the Affirmative That this is the true state of the question may be evicted from the Pamphleter himself For after his deceitful misrepresentations of the question at length he comes above board pag. 92. thus The Church saith he in her publick Decrees of General Councils strikes with the Thunder-bolt of Gods Curse and Excommunication all such as refuse to believe any one point decided to be of Faith which she could not justly do if every Article she declares were not necessarily to be believed when known to be decided by her It 's therefore the decision by her that says the necessity of believing upon souls Yet it would be further noted that by the Church Romanists understand the Roman Church or Church in Communion with the Pope acknowledging his Headship and Universal Supremacy And because the diffusive Body of thee Roman Church cannot all assemble to define Controversies of Religion ther for it must be understood of her representatives seeing Conciliary representatives are very rare and the sense of their Canons are obnoxious to various debates therefore this power of determining and imposing Fundamentals though the Pamphleter in the words cited seem only to speak of Councils must at length be resolved into the Pope I wrong them not Here Jesuit Gretser speaking in name of the rest in defens Bell. lib. 3. de verb. Dei cap. 10. Colum. 1450. When we affirm saith he the Church to be the Judge of all Controversies of Faith by the Church we understand the Bishop of Rome who for the time being governs the Ship of the Militant Church The question is then whether all that the Bishop of Rome injoyns ex Cathedra and as matters of Faith must be believed because he injoyns it and that under pain of Everlasting Damnation the Jesuited Party affirm we deny It 's not the misbelieving what Scripture says but what the Roman Church or Pope saith that according to these men does condemn Souls I shall not insist upon a large consutation of this absurd Doctrine which cannot but ruine with its own weight not being supported with any solid ground only take these brief hints 1. The Catholick Church in all her Representatives since the Apostolick Age is fallible as I demonstrated by many arguments Cap. 2. Sect. 2. and may injoyn Errours for Articles of Faith Ergo all that the Representatives of the Catholick Church injoyn as Articles of Faith are not to be held as Fundamentals This one argument is sufficient to overturn that Romish Structure But 2. It 's an intollerable Catachresis to affirm the Romish Church much more the Pope to be the Catholick Church or to attribute the peculiar priviledges of the Catholick Church to the Roman or to the Pope by as good reason they might affirm Italy or Rome to be the whole World and predicate that of Rome which is peculiar to the whole World Ergo though it were granted that the Catholick Church or her Representatives had power infallibly to determine Fundamentals of Faith it does not follow that this is the priviledge of the Roman Church or Pope of Rome as our Adversaries affirm 3. Every thing that God himself reveals in Scripture is not a Fundamental of Faith Ergo far less every thing that the Church proposes The sequel is evident for if there be any reason why every thing proposed by the Church should be Fundamental this must needs be it because as Romanists affirm what the Church says God himself says But this reason cannot be cogent for beyond all peradventure what is revealed in Scripture is revealed by God himself and yet both Protestants and Papists acknowledge that all revealed in Scripture is not Fundamental therefore neither can all proposed by the Church be Fundamental This argument concludes that though she were infallible as Scripture truly is yet would it not follow that all her definitions were Fundamentals of Faith It may be here objected that he who knows a truth to be contained in Scripture and yet misbelieves it erres Fundamentally therefore also if the Church be infallible he who misbelieves any point which he knows to be propounded by her erreth likewise Fundamentally Not to mention that this objection proceeds upon the supposition of the Infallibility of the Church the falshood whereof I hope has already been evicted I answer that he indeed erreth Fundamentally who misbelieves the least truth which he knows to be contained in Scripture provided he know the Divine Original of that Scripture yet not so much for misbelieving that particular truth for in other circumstances it may be misbelieved without a Fundamental errour as for his explicite misbelief of the Veracity of God which renders the man an Infidel But I hope Romanists themselves will not say that if Cardinal Cajetan who questioned the Divine Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews had thereupon misbelieved some particular Proposition which he acknowledged to be contained in that Epistle had erred Fundamentally and consequently though the Church were infallible as she is not yet if he who questioned her Infallibility should also misbelieve what he knew to be propounded by her he should not err Fundamentally For in so doing he would not explicitly
question the Veracity of God as in the first case 4. If the Proposals of the Church made Articles Fundamental ergo after the Churches definition the Christian Religion should be essentially different from what it was before contrary to Ephes 4 there is but one Faith The sequel is evident because after that definition of the Church there should be Fundamentals or Essentials in Religion which were not before And from this it follows the now Roman Religion is essentially different from the old Christian Religion For by the new definitions of their Church they have made many Essentials which the Ancient Church never knew as I demonstrated against M. Demster Paper 4. 5. I argue with Learned M. Stillingfleet thus The Church is a Church before she past out her definition ergo by her definition she makes no Fundamentals The sequel is proved because the Church cannot be a Church without the belief of all Fundamentals ergo whatever definition she passes posteriour to her being a Church is none of the Fundamentals E. W. the Author of Protestancy without Principles Discourse 3. cap. 6. Sect. 19. superciliously undervalues this argument of D. Stillingfleet supposing he hath evicted the nullity thereof by this simile As in a Kingdom or Commonwealth after the settlement of some great matters I suppose he means the Fundamental Laws they may thereafter proceed to make new Laws so he conceive it to be in the Church But the faculty of that Jesuâ—t lies in throwing a Feather to the ground with high confidence Two things if I mistake nor may discover the lameness and impertinency of the Jesuits simâ—lâ— And first it's beyond doubt that after the settlement of the Fundamental Laws of a Kingdom the King and Parliament have a Legislative Power to create new Laws not only to declare what Laws formerly were in being but to give a being to Laws which formerly had none But the more Judicious Romanists deny that the Representatives of the Catholick Church far less of the Roman or a Pope have power to make Articles of Faith which were not but that their power is only declarative of Articles of Faith which formerly were So Alphonsus à Castro de haeres lib. 1. cap. 8. Valentia in Part. 3. disp 1. quest 1. punct 6. and Azor. Part. 2. Moral lib. 5. cap. 3. quest 2. yea so much is acknowledged by E. W. himself Sect. 22. Hence when lately D. Taylor in his Disswasive cap. 1. Sect. 2. concluded the impiety of the Romish Religion because it did attribute to the Romish Church i. e. the Pope power to make Articles of Faith contrary both to Scripture Gal. 1. 8 and to the third Oecumenick Council at Ephesus It was replyed to him by a Romanist that they only give to the Church a declarative power to declare what be Articles of Faith If the Church have only a declarative power then she has not such power to make Articles of Faith as the King and Parliament have to make Laws to the Kingdom or if she have power to make Articles of Faith then D Taylor 's Charge of impiety stands in force against Romanists They may chuse which of the two absurdities they will run upon But secondly if the King and Parliament should add to the Fundamental Laws of a Kingdom when addition were made to them thereafter the Constitution of the Kingdom should in so far be altered and different from what it was consequently if the Church should add to the Fundamentals of Faith the Christian Religion should essentially vary from what it was before Nay if the Church may add to Fundamentals and make that Fundamental which was not Fundamental why might she not pair from them also and make those things cease to be Fundamentals which were Fundamentals and so overturn all Christianity and make it a quite different thing from what it was But the Unity of the Christian Religion and of the Catholick Church prove convincingly that the Fundamentals of the Christian Religion are always the same and unalterable Sixthly and lastly The absurdities of this Romish Doctrine may appear by the impâ—ous consequences which flow from it As 1. The imperious Usuâ—â—ation of one part of the Catholick Church namely of the Church of Rome her Popes or Councils over the whole Catholick by this she assumes a mighty Soveraignty over the Consciences of all the World to impose on them Fundamental Articles of Faith which Christ never authorized her to do 2. It establishes a most grievous Schism thus she cuts off from the Catholick Church as Hereticks oâ— persons erring fundamentally all who cannot submit to her heretical Decrees 3. It makes Romanists unchristianly uncharitable and to conclude that all shall be damned which do not with Issachar couch down under the burdens which she imposeth 4. Hence also it is that they abuse the World with an implicite Faith if they be in a readiness to believe what is imposed by their Church it 's enough though they know little in particular what she has imposed yea some say though explicitly they believe nothing Nay Tolet lib. 4. de instruct Sacerd. cap. 3. If a Country man saith he believe his Bishop propounding some Heretical Doctrine about the Articles of Faith he meriteth by believing though it be an errour because he is bound to believe until it manifestly appear that it is against the Church O dreadful impiety Shall it be not only not sinful but meritorious to believe Lyes when it but seems to be the Doctrine of the Romish Church The absurdity of the Romish Assertion being now sufficiently evicted our Doctrine upon the other hand may be clear viz. that those Articles are only to be held for Fundamentals on which Scripture hath put a character of necessity for the appointment of Fundamental Articles or the prescribing of the necessary conditions for obtaining Eternal Life dependeth wholly upon the good pleasure of God and therefore are to be gathered from the Scripture which are the compleat Rule of Faith and deliver to us the whole Counsel of God concerning our Salvation But this Jesuit must needs be stâ—ll prevaricating and therefore pag. 86. he brings in this as a character given by me of a Fundamental if it be commanded to be believed by all But never did I assert any such thing nor did I ever think that a meer necessity of Precept does infer a point to be Fundamental we are commanded to believe Articles of Faith whether integral or Fundamental But in this is the difference that Fundamentals are also necessary necessitate medii finis by necessity of the means and of the end so as Salvation cannot be attained without the belief thereof neither is any thing to be held a such unless the Scripture which is the adequate Rule of Faith put a character of necessity thereupon From what has been said I deduce this Corollary that the unity of the Catholick Church stands in the unity of Fundamentals and consequently though there be diversity
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 annexed to H.T. his Manual of Controversies reprinted at Doway 1671 many copies whereof were lately apprehended at Leith and consequently they rend themselves from the greater part of the Christian Church SECT IV. Whether was it necessary for the decision of the question betwixt Mr. Dempster and the Author to determine the precise number of Fundamentals ANswer negatively for 1. the particular question betwixt him and me when he turned to that usual to pick and subtertuge of Romanists concerning the precise number of Fundamentals was whether the Scriptures do clearly contain all things necessary to Salvation But this general as I told in my sixth paper pag. 92. may be proved without an induction and precise enumeration of all Fundamentals and this I made out by clear Scriptures which he never once examined But 2. take the controversie betwixt Mr. Dempster and me in the greatest latitude It was concerning the religion of Protestants and not of the particular sentiments of this or that Protestant Author seeing therefore as I told in my tenth Paper pag. 219. that the Reformed Churches in their harmony of Confessions had not determined that precise Catalogue should I have pitched upon it I had left my work to follow a tergiversing Vagrant 3. As it was not necessary so neither was it expedient that I being a private person should take on me to define the precise Catalogue of Fundamentals and the rather seeing the Romish Church extending the number of Fundamentals too farr hath Schismatically separated her self from the body of the Catholick Church Nor do I know any thing more destructive to the publick peace of the Church then the rash and unadvised determination of Fundamentals for by that means who ever acknowledge not all these are in the judgement of such persons excluded from the Catholick Church and Salvation excellently said Luther as cited by Mr. Baxter Saints rest part 1. pag. 138. Edit 4. nihil pestilentius in ecclesia doceri potest quam si ea que necessaria non sunt necessaria fiant hac enim tirannide conscientiae illaqueantur libertas fidei extinguitur 4. If a man believe all Fundamentals though he cannot precisely distinguish them from integrals he may be saved Can Romanists for all the noise they make about Fundamentals define the precise number of them why then being so often required particularly by learned Chillingworth and Tillotson as I instanced paper 7. pag. 122. have they never done it yea Dr. Holden in Anal fid lib 1. cap. 4. affirms it to be unreasonable to demand it and impossible to perform it But 5. It s an impudent fals hood which this Pamphleter often repeats in his 5. Section that I had affirmed that the number of Fundamentals cannot be determined let him instance the place without varying my words when I did affirm this Nay I was so far from it that I challenged Mr. Dempster of the same untruch paper 7. pag. 122. But Jesuits will not blush though deprehended in such Peccadillo's All his pretext for this is from a testimony of Mr. Chillingworth part 1. cap. Sect. 13. cited by me wherein that Author affirms that more may be necessary to the Salvation of some then of others and therefore to call for a precise Catalogue of points necessary to the Salvation of every one were as if one should call for a diall to serve all meridians or for a coat to serve the Moon in all her changes Concerning which testimony I desire these things to be noted 1. This Pamphleter as if he had been left to divine concerning the Author of that testimony speakes as one that gave a specimen of his great reading saying Mr Chillingworth is the Man as I conceive and yet I had in my tenth paper pag. 219. not only named Chillingworth but pointed at Cap and Sect where this testimony was to be found 2. This was Mr. Chillingworths assertion not mine The most I said of it was paper 6. pag. 92. What if it should be added that more is requisite to the Salvation of one then another whereupon a great Divine whom I by name expressed paper 10. pag 219. spared not to say c. But I did not positivly own his assertion Yet 3. it may safely be said that more may be required to the Salvation of one then of another and that it s as impossible to determine a Catalogue of truths necessary to the Salvation of every one as to find out a dial to serve all Meridians or a coat to serve the Moon in all her changes and yet not be impossible to determine Fundamentals properly and strictly so called For clearing of this it would be considered that there be two kinds of truths necessary to Salvation some primarly simply and absolutely without the explicite belief whereof no adult person can be saved and these are strictly taken Fundamentals others are onely necessary secundum quid and Secundarily as when a point of truth is discovered to be revealed by God though in it self it be not absolutely necessary yet in these circumstances a man cannot disbelieve it or impugn it and continue therein without throwing himself upon damnation For to oppugn known truth is a sin which without repentance necessarily infers damnation On this account Mr. Chillingworth said that the precise number of necessary truths could not be determined because one may see more of the material objects of Faith to be revealed than another and so more may be necessary to the Salvation of one than of another and consequently its impossible that a certain number for all should be determined and so much also is acknowledged by Dr. Vane Lost Sheep cap. 8. pag. 88. Yet this concludes no impossibility of determining the number of the first kind of necessary truths without the explicite belief whereof no adult person may be saved though I neither judge it necessary nor expedient to be done by me a the present perhaps also an Article of religion may be more clearly revealed then the Fundamentaly of it for though it be absolutly necessary to Salvation that Fundamentals be believed yet it s not absolutely necessary that every Fundamental be believed under this reduplication as a Fundamental Among other reasons why it hath pleased the Lord not to reveal the Fundamentality of all Fundamentals as clearly as the Articles themselves this may be one lest people
604. demonstrat that the Popes supremacy was not an essential Article of their Faith Yea so far was it from being an Article of the Faith of the Ancient Catholick Church that in late Councils such as that of Constance sess 4. 5. and of Basil sess 2. It s statuted that Popes be subject to the decrees of general Councils and sess 39. who ever contradict this is stigmatized as an Heretick Behold then the stupendious impudency of those men Though many such luculent demonstrations of the contrariety betwixt the now Romish Faith and the Ancient Catholick Faith in this their principal point of the Popes supremacy have been often proposed yet they have confidence still to alleadge that the Church in the three first yea in all ages was of the same Faith with them They might as well say that within those first three ages Ignatius Loyola founded the order of Jesuits which all know to be but of Yesterdays erection But hath he not some pretences for his assertion Yes but those which times without number have been confuted The chief of his citations are manifestly spurious such as that from Denys de divinis nominibus cap. 3. Clement epist 1. and the decretals of Pope Zepherinus The decretals of Clement Zepherinus and of many more Bishops of Rome are not only demonstrated to be Spurious by Whittaker Cocus and Blondel but also are acknowledged to be such by learned Romanists Turrecremata Possevin Barronius as is observed by Rivet Crit. Sac. l. 1. c. 8. particular reasons may be seen in Cocus against each of them Bellarmin himself de Script Eccles Pag. 51. edit paris 1630. questions the epistles which now pass under the name of Clement As for the Books attributed to Deny's learned and modest Causabon exercit in Barron 16. Sect. 43. affirms none can look on them as the writings of the Areopagit but he that is grosly ignorant and a stranger to antiquity Rivet lib. cit cap. 9. brings 13. arguments to prove them Spurious and that they wer not so much as writen within the first three ages It 's noted by Cocus in Censur Vet. Script Pag. 50. 51. not only that Valla Erasmus Grocinus and Photius hold these writings to be Supposititions but that also they are questioned by Cajetan yea and as seems likewise by Bell. lib. 2. de confirm cap. 7. and the like is noted by Strang. lib. 2. de Script cap. 21. concerning Ribera the Iesuit But grant they wer genuin yet in lib. de devinis nom cap. 3. there is nothing for the Pope of Romes Supremacy yea not so much as mention of Rome or of the Pope thereof only of the Apostle Peter it 's said that he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which only imports the primacy of order which Peter had among the Apostles but no jurisdiction over them and though he had it what is that to the Pope of Rome unless it could be proved that the Pope succeeded to Peter in the latitude of his Apostolicall function which will be found an hard taske Concerning Ignatius whose Epistle to the Romans the Pamphleter cites I will not remit him to Rob. Parker de Polit. Eccles lib. 2. cap. 13. who also musters up a Multitude of arguments to prove these epistles attributed to Ignatius to be Spurious Nor will I altogether condemm as Supposititious the Seven Epistles mentioned as his by Euseb and Hierom yet Revet in crit Sac. lib. 2. cap 1. et 2. following learned Vsher makes it very probable that they are interpolated and vitiated yea Bell. himself lib. 4. de Eucharist cap. 26. confesses that there be many errors crept into them How can a firm argument be taken from vitiated Epistles But grant them to be entire and the rather seeing I find reformed Criticks devided especially concerning the Latin Edition of Ignatius set forth by Bishop Vsher and the Greek published by Isaac Vossius yet all this Pamphleter can alleadge from Ignatius is only a transient word in the inscription of the Epistle to the Romans which also he misrepresents though I blame not him so much as them from whom he borrowed the citation The words in the Greek concerning the Church of Rome are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which if rendred passively quae praesidetur which is prended over or which is governed by her own pastours give no shadow of a Countenance to Romish supremacy but take them actively which presides yet the presidency of that Church is restricted to the Region of the Romans so that no universal jurisdiction is there ascribed to her The Testimonies of Ireneus Cyprian and Origen are sufficiently vindicated by Learned Chamier Whittaker Dr. Morton Dr. Stillingfleet c. to whom it were enough for me to remit him He had done well to have left out Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. for he is there disputing against unwritten Traditions maintained by the Valentinian Hereticks and confutes them by this argument because if there were such Traditions left the Churches founded by the Apostles could not be ignorant of them And because it had been long to have recited all he mentions the Church of Rome to which the faithful resorted from all places she being seated in the imperial City which is that he meant by the more powerful principality that resort to her from all quarters was not from the jurisdiction of the Church of Rome but from peoples necessary affaires in the imperial City as is largely cleared by Chamier tom 2. lib. 13. cap. 22. and Stillingfleet Part. 2. cap. 6. Sect. 12. 13 Yea Irenaeus is so far from acknowledging the Popes supremacy that he reprehended Victor for his carriage to Pâ—lycrates and the Asiaticks and as seems retained communion with them notwithstanding the Popes Excommunication as may be gathered from Euseb lib. 5. Hist cap. 23. Caeteri among whom was Irenaeus dicebant se nihilominus cum iis pacem velle colere I proceed to Cyprian whom the Pamphleter cites Epist ad Jul. calling Peter the head and root of the Church and Epist. 55. the Church of Rome Peters Chair But there is none who withstood Popes of Rome more resolutely then Cyprian Notice but that one Character which in Epist. 74. ad Pompeium he gives to Stephanus Bishop of Rome viz. that he defended the cause of Hereticks against Christians and the Church of Christ Sure therefore Cyprian neither acknowledged the supremacy nor the infallibility of the Pope It may be time enough to answer the first of those citations when he finds out Cyprians Epist ad Jul. for I cannot find such an Epistle among all Cyprians Works But poor Soul he could say no better then his Manual of controversies for H. T. Act. 7. cites it thus Epist ad Julian I find indeed Cyprian Epist 45. ad Cornel. exhorting them who sayled from Africk to Rome in the time that Novatianus was schismatically chosen Bishop of Rome to adhere to the root and Matrix of the Catholick Church not that he so called the Roman
Eunom Neither is there a vestige in the place objected to signify that it is a Doctrin not contained in Scripture To that from Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 4. He speaks I confess of barbarous nations who believed in Christ sine charactere atramento But he does not say that they believed Articles of Faith not contained in the Scripture nay all the Articles which there he reckons out are Scripture Truths Nor do we deny if a Preacher not having a Bible with him should come to some American Countrys and Preach the Gospel that they were bound to believe yet it would not follow that the truths which they believed were not contained in Scripture To Origen Hom. 5. in Num. and in cap. 6. ad Rom. It s answered some of the Traditions mentioned by Origen are written Traditions such as that in Rom. cap. 6. of the baptism of infants which Bell. himself proves by Scripture others of them as concerning peoples posture in prayer are only ritual and so do not touch the present question which is of Articles of Faith To Tertullian its answered that after he turned Montanist he did speak too much for Traditions yea and for Traditions which Romanists themselves reject such as a threefold immersion giving honey and milk to persons babtized c. Either therefore Romanists must Montanize and condemn themselves for rejecting many Traditions approve by Tertullian or lay aside his Testimonies His Book de coron militis is supposed by some Learned men to be written in his Montanism yea and by Pamelius himself in vitâ Tertull. yet most of the Traditions mentioned there are about rituals and disciplinary matters But in his writtings against Hereticks such as that against Hermogenes and his prescriptions he is full for us It had been therefore the Pamphleters prudence not to have touched his Book de praescriptionibus for there expresly he condemns Hereticks for maintaining Traditions which were alleadged to be communicated in a clanculary way by the Apostles only to some few And whereas he said Hereticks were to be convicted by Tradition he speaks not of Traditions altogether unwritten but of Scriptural Doctrins which had been transmitted done in the Apostolick Churches to that time And it is in opposition to Hereticks who either did deny the Scriptures or mutilate them or acknowledged not their perfection Though against such Traditions be improven It follows not that all Articles of Faith are not contained in Scripture And besides it was easier then to dispute from Tradition being so near to the Apostolick age then now after so many reelings and vicissitudes To Cyprian who lib. 1. Epist. 12. says that the Babtized ought to be anoynted and lib. 2. Epist 3. that water should be mixed with wine in the Eucharist It s answered that these are only rituals no Articles of Faith yea the Trent Catechism de Baptismo Act. 7. defins that water is the only matter of Baptism and consequently Baptism may be without unction So certainly it was in the Baptism of the Eunuch Act. 8. 38 39. of Cornelius Act. 10. 47 48. and of the Jaylour Act. 16. 33. The same Roman Catechism de Euch. Act. 10. defins bread and wine to be the only matter of the Eucharist and expresly Act. 17. si aqua desit sacramentum Eucharistiae constare posset But all our question is of Articles of Faith There remains nothing as to the matter of Tradition but that he charges the Fathers as receiving the Scripture only upon Tradition Yet for this he alleadges no proof and therefore it may be rejected as a Jesuitism Did not the Fathers see as clear evidence for the Divine Authority of Scriptures as Jesuits Yet both Valentia lib. 1. de anal fidei per totum and Bell. de verb. Dei lib. 1. cap. 2. do produce many arguments beside Tradition for the Divine Original of Scripture And which is more not only Fathers did acknowledge the self evidencing Light of Holy Scripture as Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 4. cap. 1. but also Romanists themselves in their lucid intervalls as Val. lib. cit cap. 20. and Melchior Canus lib. 2. cap. 8. and Dr. Strang descript lib. 1. cap. 17. Pag. 128. brings in Mantuan speaking most expresly to this purpose We are perswaded saith he that Scripture flowed from the first truth sed unde sumus it a persuasi nisi a seipsa But besides this Romanists must be remembred that the Traditions attesting the Scriptures to be the word of God is not to be reckoned among unwritten Traditions the same being written 2 Tim. 3. 15. There be also many Learned Divines who defer very much to that Tradition in the resolution of the belief of the Scripturs who yet hold the Scriptures to be the compleat rule of Faith and that all the Articles or material objects of our Faith are contained in Scripture What need I more against the necessity of unwritten Traditions in the present Romish sense Seeing Austin lib. 3. contra Lit. Petilian cap. 6. Pronounces an Anathema upon all them who shall teach any thing either of Christ or his Church or any matter of Faith beside that which is received from legal and evangelical Scriptures hence another demonstration of the falshood and Novelty of the Romish Religion That unwritten Traditions of Articles of Faith are to be received with equal devotion as the Scriptures of God was no essential of the Faith of the Catholick Church in the first three ages But this is an essential of the present Romish Faith Ergo c. SECT III. The third instance of Novelty concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass considered and retorted upon Romanists THe Pamphleter in his third Instance saith that Protestants deny the unbloody Sacrifice of Christs body and blood offered up to God in the Mass Here it will be needful to hint at the true state of the question betwixt Romanists and us which the adversary deceitfully shuns to unfold We then confess that in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is a lively representation and a thankfull commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ offered upon the Cross so that this Sacrament may be termed an improper Eucharistick and commemorative Sacrifice or as others speak latreutical and objective Nor did the Fathers of the ancient Church ever intend any more as not only your divines have demonstrated but also among Romanists the learned Picherell dissert de Missa cap. 2. but we deny that the ancient Church in those three first ages held the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to be a proper propitiatory Sacrifice for the sins of the living and dead as is now defined by the Council of Trent Sess 22. Can. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Yea hardly will the name Mass be found in the undoubted writings of the Fathers of the first three Ages albeit Baronius in his Annals is bold to say that it is the most ancient name of this Sacrament and was delivered to the Church at Jerusalem by the Apostle James
to the Apostles and left in the Church to shew there infallible assiistance 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 untill 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 Scripture be the compleat rule of Faith we asserting and they denying But ex super abundanti we shew the consonancy of our Religion with Fathers and Ancient Councils These his seven Sophisms for the necessity of an infallible propounder we have the more briefly discussed this Question being at length before debated cap. 2. Thus his first proposition falling which is the basis of the other two the whole structure of Roman Faith must come no nought SUBSECT II. The Pamphleters second Proposition viz that the true Church is the Infallible Propounder Considered IF there be no necessity of such an infallible propounder as Romanists contend for as hath been proved cap. 2. then his second proposition falls with its own weight Yet what he says for this also shall briefly be taken to Consideration And first he remarks Pag. 174. that there be three Foundations or grounds of Faith viz Christ 1 Cor. 3. 11. Secondly the Apostles and Prophets Ephes 2. 20. Thirdly the Church 1 Timoth. 3. 15. I wonder that with Bell. he doth not mention a fourth The Pope blasphemously applying to him that Scripture Isa 28.16 If any of those places make for his purpose it must be the third 1 Timoth. 3. 15. but he should have remembred that it s questioned by interpreters whether it be the Church that is there called the Foundation or if it be not rather that which follows God manifested in the Flesh and if it be the Church whether it be the Catholick Church or only the particular Church of Ephesus where Timothy did officiate and if this latter then surely the Foundation cannot be taken in an architectonick sense for a supporter of Faith but in a Politique sense as a propounder of Faith which makes nothing to his advantage But of this Text we spoke at large cap. 2. Sect. 3. Now only I desire to know how he makes the Apostles and Prophets a distinct Foundation from the Church For if he take them personally then they were principal members of the Church If he call them Foundations in regard of their writings then the place holds forth that which Protestants affirm viz. The Scripture to be the Foundation or rule of Faith He endeavours to confirm this remarke Pag. 176 by alleadging some promises of an infallible judge Isai 2. 2. 3. Math. 16. 19. Math. 18. 19. Ephes 4. 11. But none of these promise absolute infallibility to the Church Not that Isai 2. 2. 3. Cannot Christ Teach by the Scriptures by his Spirit yea by Pastors also though Pastors be not in all things infallible yet while Pastors adhere to the rule of the word they are de facto infallible albeit they have not entailed to them a perpetual assistance in all things whereof the Hearers must antecedently be assured before they beleeve any thing propounded by them Nor that Math. 16. 19. Indeed the rock Christ on which the Church is built is infallible but not the Church The not prevailing of the gates of Hell against her prove no more her infallibility then her impeccability It only holds out Satan shall not be able utterly to extinguish a Church Nor yet Math. 18. 19. I suppose all the Logick of Italy will not prove that Christ enjoyned us to hear the Pope if he defined vertue to be vice as Bell. would have us lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 5. only the Church is to be heard when she adheres to the rule of the word of these two places see more cap. 2. Sect. 3. Nor lastly that Ephes 4. 11. which only holds forth Pastors and Teachers to be standing office bearers for the edification of the Church but not their infallibility His second Argument Pag. 177. is from the unanimous consent of the Fathers which he supposes he held forth in his Sect. 3. but I hope when he considers what I have replyed cap. 2. and cap. 7. he will be sensible of his mistake He is as unhappy in his Citation of some Protestant Authors whom he pretends to have acknowledged the Church to be an infallible propounder of Divine truths such as Whittaker Chillingworth Hooker Covell c. He might have understood the falshood and impertinency of such alleadgances from them who confuted Mr. Knot Mr. Breerly c. from whom he filched these shreds Does any of these Authors acknowledge the infallibility of any representative Church in all points of Faith far less of the present Roman Church Verily none The impudency of Romish writers in such Citations may be seen by the first Author on whom he pitches viz. Learned Whittaker not to wast time needlesly on the rest Who hath been at more pains then Whittaker to prove that the Church may erre Controv. 2. q. 4. that Councils may erre Controv. 3. q. 6. that the Pope may erre Cont. 4. q. 6. And how copiously has he asserted against Stapleton the Authority of the Scriptures as independent from the Churches testimony In what sense such sayings of Protestants as here are gathered up from Breerly are to be understood Chillingworth Part. 1. cap. 2. from Sect. 3. to Sect. 35. expounds viz that the Churches testimony is a motive to induce us to believe the Scriptures and that by the Church they understand not so much the present Church far less the present Roman Church as the testimony of the Ancient and primitive Church Let quibling Missionaries know that broken shreads from private Authors have little weight with those that are judicious Such is that expression of Dr. Feild with which so much noise is made in his Epist Dedic concerning the Church which as Chillingworth Part. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 86. shews did unadvisedly drop from the Doctor as its usual with
are adjoyned by Bonaespei tom 2. theol scholast tract 2. de fide disp 2. dub 2. If this opinion hold Miracles cannot be a demonstrative evidence of the truth either of Church or Religion I am not to own Maldonats opinion lest I should seem to derogate from the glorious Miracles of our Saviour or to charge the God of truth as setting his Seal to a lye But I confidently affirm that Popish Cavils against the self evidencing Light of Holy Scripture militate as strongly against the self evidence of Miracles As Jesuits ask how we know Scriptures to be the word of God So we may justly enquire how they know these things which are attributed to Francis Dominick Xavier c. To be proper Miracles As there are Apocryphal Gospels under the names of St. Thomas and Nicodemus so there have been false Miracles wrought by Satan and his Ministers Doth not the Apostle say 2 Thes 2. 9. that Antichrist shall come with lying signs and wonders Josephus a Costa lib. 2. de Christo revelato cap. 8. as I find him cited by Rivet on Exod. 7. Pag. 178. for I have not that peece of a costa by me confesses that it shall be in the time of the Antichrist magnae sapientiae rarique Divini muneris a rare gift of God to distinguish betwixt a true Miracle and a wonder wrought by an Imposter Yea Bell. affirms lib. de notis Ecclesiae cap. 14. that there can be no infallible certainty whether such a thing be a true Miracle or an illusion of the Devil ante approbationem Ecclesiae before the approbation of the Church Behold then how these Romish impostors run in a circle proving the truth of their Church by Miracles and the truth of Miracles by the testimony of their Church One of the two they must acknowledge either that Scripture hath a self evidencing Light which will ruin their whole interest or that Miracles cary not with them a self evidence and consequently are impertinently brought as the first and most evident note of the true Church I leave it to the deliberation of our adversaries which of the two they will chuse In the second place it would be considered that there were indeed glorious miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles nor do we deny that there were Miracles there after in the primitive Church also yet all these are Impertinently alleadged by Romish Authors as to this present Debate For certainly none of the real Miracles done by Christ or his Apostles or afterwards in the days of Irenaeus Justin Martyr Cyprian Gregory Thaumaturg were wrought to prove that the Roman Church in these last days is the only Catholick Church or that the present System of Romish Faith as defined in the Council of Trent or expressed in Pope Pius the Fourth his Creed is the only true Christian Faith Have I not shewed Popery as now it stands was not known in these days These Miracles prove the Truth of the Christian Religion in those days which I have shewed to differ in Essentials from the Trent Religion but to agree with the reformed Religion How miserably the Pamphleter comes off as to Miracles in ancient times may be apparent to any that takes notice of his citations pag. 187. 188. His first citation from Justin Martyr q. 28. is out of a Book acknowledged to be spurious by their own Authors Bell. Possevin Sixtus Senensis and Azorius yea nor was it written within the first three Centuries as is evicted by learned Criticks And besides the Author of these questions mentions not a Miracle wrought for any Popish Tenet far less for the complex of all Only that at the Sepulchres of Martyres Miracles were done to confirm the truth of the Christian Faith not the worship of Reliques That of Irenaeus lib. 2. cap. 58. speaks only of Miracles wrought by living Saints for conversion of Infidels What is that to the Romish interest As for the Miracles of Greg. of Neocaesarea commonly called Thaumaturgus there is no mention of them for a hundred years after his time until Greg. Nyssen If they were all real is it not strange that Eusebius who uses to be very punctual in these things has not a touch of them That Orat. of Nyssen de vita Greg. is called by Scultetus Somnium Somniorum surely there be very fabulous things therein as that the Virgin Mary and John came down from Heaven to teach him his Creed which Dr. Beard retract cap. 12. compares to the Poetical Fiction of Apollo teaching Esculapius the Rules of Physick and to the Rabinick Fable of the Angel Sanballets being Adams School-master and Nyssen himself is charged by his Brother Basil as a simple and credulous man But what Did Greg. Thaumaturg work any Miracle to prove the whole System of the present Romish Religion to be true No such thing can be alleadged only in some of his Miracles he is said to have used the Sign of the Cross What then Do not Protestants particularly Hospinian lib. 2. de templis cap. 20. acknowledge the sign of the Cross as used by Ancients to testifie that they were not ashamed of a Crucified Saviour to have been lawful though now it be superstitiously abused Romanists now give Religious adoration yea that of Latria to Crosses But no ancient Author testifies that ever Greg. Thaumaturg did so What is cited from S. Cyprian Serm. de lapsis as relating Miracles to prove the Corporal presence of Christ under the Accidents of Bread and Wine is a Jesuitical falshood these Miracles did prove the Divine Institution of the Sacrament of the Supper the mystery of the Incarnation and the reality of Christs human Nature represented by the Sacramental Symbols but no more of the figment of Transubstantiation then of Mahomets Alcoran These are all the citations he has for the first three Ages of Christianity if there be one Miracle here to prove the present Trent Religion to the only true Christian Faith let any who are not willing to be deceived judge The like impertinency may be discovered in the next three succeeding Ages for the whole Story of the Invention of the Cross by Helena the Empress and Mother of Constantine and the Miracle reported by Ruffin and Nicephorus to be wrought at that time appears to be fabulous Is it probable that Eusebius who wrote four Books of the life of Constantine would have omitted it Dellaeus is large in confuting it lib. 5. de object Cultus Relig. c. 1. But suppose it were true was that Miracle wrought to confirm any point of Popery far less all No verily the only design of it if real was to show that Jesus who was Crucified on that Tree was the Saviour of the World Helena and the Christians of those days had not learnt to adore the Cross Hence S. Ambrose de Obitum Theodosii says Regem adoravit non lignum she adored Christ but not the Tree That of Epiphanius Heres 30. looks also to be fabulous and
that you think not strange of this Epiphanius credulity is censured by Melchior Canus lib. 2. cap. 5. pag. 477. and in many places by Barronius as Rivet hath observed in Crit. Sac. lib. 3. cap. 28. But make all real that Epiphanius there reports yet the design of that Miracle was not to confirm any point of Popery far less all but only the Christian Religion It s true Epiphanius reports that Josephus who formerly had been a Jew made use of water in working that Miracle but not any of the four kinds of Popish Holy-Water mentioned by Durand in rationali lib. 4. cap. 4. and though he used the sign of the Cross yet he was far from the adoration of the Cross That from Nazianzen Orat. 11. of a Virgins Invocating the Virgin Mary to defeat Cyprians Enchantments is acknowledged by Barronius himself to be a Fable ad annum 250. Pontius a Deacon under Cyprian who wrote his life knew no such thing Austin indeed relates many Miracles lib. 22. de Civ cap. 8. But not to prove that this present Church of Rome is the Catholick Church or the present System of Romish Faith the true Christian Faith the most is that at the Sepulchre of S. Stephen and other Saints Miracles were wrought but not in Veneration of his or other Reliques The Dialogues attributed to Greg. are concluded upon important Reasons spurious by Cocus yea by Melchior Canus lib. 11. cap. 5. faith is derogated both from the relations in these Dialogues and Beeds Hist Eccles Anglic. and how little faith is to be given to Greg. Turonensis may be learned from Barronius Tom. 2. ad An. 109. where he calls him a simple man relating many things otherwise then they were so that in these other three Centuries I can see nothing save only that Miracles were wrought at the Memories of Martyrs and perhaps divers of these relations also were fabulous but what is this to the Body of Popish Errors and Superstitions No better are the Pamphleters insinuations pag. 192. of the Miracles wrought by our Scottish Saints Saint Mungo and Saint Fiaker adding That a Miracle makes the Arms of one of our Cities I suppose he means Glasgow which hath in her Coat of Armes a Fish with a Ring in its Mouth but of St. Mungoes Miracles hear Bishop Spotswood Hist pag. 11. of which ye may judge of the rest Many lying Miracles saith he have been ascribed to him but certainly he was a man of rare Piety and worthy to have been made a Subject of Truth to Posterity not of Fables and Fictions as the Legends of Monks have made him As for that supposed Miracle to which the Arms of Glasgow seem to allude it was not wrought to confirm any point of Religion far less of Popery but to vindicate the Chastity of a Lady who was unjustly jealoused by her Husband as Bishop Spotswood gives an account pag. 112. But if Popish Missionaries muster up Legends to a credulous people they stand not whether they be to purpose or not The real ancient Miracles then are altogether impertinently alledged by the Pamphleter I add thirdly that the Legendary Paltry of Romish Miracles of latter times is generally spurious They might be reduced to these Heads viz. Either 1. Meer Forgeries or 2. Cunning Stratagems of subtil persons or 3. Magical Impostures or 4. They are manifestly ludibrious who please may find this largely proved by Gerard loc de Eccles cap. 10. Sect. 11. Sect. 284. How oft have the Cheats of Romanists as to these things been discovered What should I speak of the Dominicans at Bern who taught an Image to weep smile and walk Anno 1509. See Lavat de spectris Part. 1. cap. 7. and Hospin de Monach. lib. 6. cap. 14. fol. 222. or of the Franciscans at Orleans who counterfeited the apparition of a Spirit revealing such a Matron to be condemned to Hell because the Husband had not been more beneficial to their Order at her Funerals See Sleidan lib. 9. Anno 1534. and Lavat ibid. cap. 8. or of Mary of Lisbon much renowned for Miracles who predicted a Triumphant Victory to to the Spanish Armado Anno 1588. yet that year she was detected to be a Cheat or of that egregious Impostor Joannes à Vincentia a Franciscan likewise who cured all manner of diseases expelled Devils and pretended to raise eighteen from the Dead yet was found also to be an Impostor as Crakanthrop relates out of Vigner but not till he had drawn to the Monastery a vast Revenue Who hath not heard of Magdelena de Cruce a Nun of Corduba to be a Sorceress and one who had conversed familiarly with the Devil Lavat lib. cit cap. 9. reports that a Jesuit at Augusta in Germany Anno 1564. counterfeited himself to be a Devil to affright some that had not a kindness for the Order and that a daring Fellow stobbed that Hobgoblin Jesuit to death Doth not Erasmus tell how a Priest filled a Church-yard in the night time with living Crabs and burning Tapers to make the people apprehend it was departed Souls calling for the suffrages of the Living for their liberation out of Purgatory Who knows not how Pope Boniface 8. got the Papacy by a counterfeit Miracle as if by the voice of an Angel Pope Caelestine his Predecessor had been advised to lay down the Papacy Caelestine cede si salvus esse cupis Such are these instances of latter times cited by the Pamphleter pag. 188 189. as may appear by this ensuing touch of them That bleeding of the Crucifix stabbed by the Jews at Bezitum is proved to be fabulous by Hospin lib. 2. de Templis cap. 10. and Cocus in censur vet pag. 93 94 95. Such another Fable is that of the second Council of Nice of the ejection of Devils and healing of diseases by the Image of Anastasius That second Council of Nice was most impudent in alledging impostorous Legends as Crakanthorp has largely demonstrated Defens Eccles Anglic. cap. 5. Yea he brings in Espencaeus confessing they did shamelesly abuse daemonum spectris muliebribus somniis diabolick specters and dreams of the weaker Sex to support their Image-worship That of Pope Leo the Third as if his tongue and eyes had been pulled out and both miraculously restored appears to be a Forgery For Platina in vita Leon. 3. says only ut oculis lingua captus putaretur Nanclerus as cited by Hottinger Saec. 8. Sect. 5. pag. 560. lays the whole stress of the Report of that Miracle on the affirmation of Anastasius the Popes Bibliothecary a man not worthy of much credit being convicted of many contradictions by Barronius as is observed by Maresius de Joanna Papissa pag. 31 32. and especially ready to prevaricate for Popes Sethus Calvisius Anno 799. saith he only lost one of his eyes Osiander seems to set down the real truth Cent. 8. pag. 129. Vt parum abfuerit quin oculos amitteret he had almost lost his eyes It seems
blasphemously chant c. whereby they charge the errour of their Idolatrous Religion and false Miracles on an holy God I far better shut up with Austin lib. de unit Eccles cap. 16. Non dicat ideo verum esse quia illa mirabilia fecit Donatur amoâ—eantur ista vel figmenta fallacium hominum vel portenta fallacium Spirituum Were the Pamphleters popular flourishes concerning Miracles reduced to a Syllogistick frame they behoved to run thus That Society in which Miracles are wrought is the true and Catholick Church but in the Romish Church Miracles are wrought Ergo the Romish Church is the true and Catholick Church Whatever be of the minor the major is manifestly false for Miracles may be wrought among Hereticks yea and Infidels If therefore the Syllogism be rectified thus The Society in which Miracles are wrought to confirm the soundness of their Faith is the true Catholick Church but Miracles are wrought in the Romish Church to confirm the soundness of her Faith Ergo c. Then first the major yet remains false for Miracles may be wrought to confirm the Orthodoxy of the Faith of a particular Church The major cannot hold unless the Miracles be first true secondly wrought to confirm the Faith of the Society and thirdly the Catholicism of it that is that they have no interest in the Church who submit not to the Government of that Church and thus I let the major pass But then the minor is notoriously false viz. that in the present Romish Church true Miracles are wrought to confirm the soundness of her Faith and her Catholicism or Universal Jurisdiction over all Churches I appeal all the Jesuits in Europe to make good this Assumption which till they do all their discourse about Miracles is but a flourish I confess in the Ancient Roman Church there were miracles wrought to confirm the truth of her Faith but not her Catholicism as if she only had been the Christian Church for she was but a particular Church at best the present Romish Church hath foully Apostatized from the Faith of the Ancient Church search your Records and Legends to find one true Miracle to confirm the Faith and Catholicism of the present Romish Church this you will find impossible for her Faith is unsound and Catholicism in the sense spoken of she never had But from this Head of Miracles I demonstrate the truth of the Protestant Religion thus That Religion which is confirmed by the most real indubitate and glorious Miracles which ever the world had is surely the true Christian Religion But the Religion of Protestants is confirmed by the most real indubitate and glorious Miracles which ever the world had Ergo The Religion of Protestants is the true Christian Religion The Assumption concerning which only the doubt can be is proved thus The Apostolick Religion is confirmed by the most glorious Miracles that ever the world saw but the Religion of Protestants is the Apostolick Religion Ergo the Religion of Protestants is confirmed by the most real indubitate Miracles that ever the world saw The major none can deny but an Infidel for evidencing the minor let the Religion of Protestants be examined by the Scriptures which contain the Apostolick Religion and if one Article be found in our Religion dissonant there-from we shall instantly disown it The Reader here may observe the difference betwixt the Romish procedure and ours we confirm our Religion by the indubitate Miracles which prove Christianity it self they by some fabulous at best uncertain Legendary stories the truth whereof is questioned by their own Authors and the falshood of many detected to the world If it be said that any Heretick may argue as we do to confirm their Heresie I shall not now stand to retort how Hereticks have argued for their Heresie from pretended Miracles as do Romanists to day Only to shew the disparity betwixt us and Hereticks I undertake against all the Enemies of Truth in the world to prove the real conformity of the Reformed Religion with the Apostolick revealed in Scripture and the disconformity of all Heresies whatsoever It 's a real conformity with Apostolick Doctrine not pretended only which proves it to be confirmed by Apostolick Miracles ARTICLE II. Of the Conversion of Infidels THe second Note whereby this Pamphleter would prove the Catholicism of their Romish Church is that by her all Christian Nations have been converted to the Faith of Jesus Christ And to confirm this he following Bell. Breerly and the Drove hints at a multitude of stories which upon examination will be found of no significancy to the point in hand For first it 's a most notorious falshood that all Christian people have been converted by the Romish Church was the Church of Jerusalem converted by her or the Church of Caesarea or of Antioch or the Greek Churches in general As Eve was the Mother of all Living so not the Roman but the Church of Hierusalem may be termed the Mother of all Churches And so she is designed by the second General Council at Constantinople as witnesses Theod. Hist lib. 5. cap. 9. The Bishop of Bitontum in the Council of Trent acknowledged Greece to be the Mother of all that the Latin Church had Doth not Theod. lib. 1. Hist cap. 22. report that the Indians were converted by Lay-men Edesius and Frumentius and that for carrying on the work Frumentius received Ordination from Athanasius then Patriarch of Alexandria and not from the Bishop of Rome The Pamphleter but plays the Cheat when he alledges that our Church of Scotland owes her first Conversion to Pope Victor his Legats and Envoys The Reader may see the falshood of this proved by Bishop Spotswood Hist pag. 21. edit 3. These Preachers sent hither by Victor were sent upon the entreaty of King Donald the First which the King would not have sought had he not been Christian before If our Conversion had been wrought by Pope Victor how came it that our Church was not fashioned to the Roman in outward rites especially in the observance of Easter whereof Victor was but preposterously zealous Much more probable looks the conjecture of Bishop Spotswood that some of John's Disciples under the persecution of Domitian have had their refuge hither and were instruments of planting Christianity among us and the rather because this Church was very tenacious of the Oriental Customs alledging for it the Authority of John However Scotland was very anciently enlightned with the Gospel hence is that of Tertul. adversus Judaeos cap. 7. Britannorum Romanis inaccessa loca Christo vero subdita and their conformity in rites with the Greek Church and not with the Latin shew their Original was not from Rome It is a manifest falshood then that the Roman Church is the Mother of all or of our Church of Scotland But secondly this Pamphleter deceitfully confounds and joyns together the endeavours of the Ancient Romish Church for converting of Nations with the practises of the
of Hereticks than of Infidels But besides Gerard de Eccles cap. 10. Sect. 9. § 258. testifies that by Protestants many thousands have been converted from Heathenism in Island Greenland Lapland Livonia c. Not to mention the many Indians converted in New-England and other parts of America But though it were granted that Heathen Nations had not been converted by them this would only charge Protestants of a sinful negligence but not prove their Religion to be false Methinks this clamour of Romanists against our Churches for not bestirring themselves more zealously for the Conversion of Infidel Nations should awake Protestant Princes and Churches seriously to consider what may be done for the Conversion of Infidels both for the advantage of the Gospel and to stop the mouths of our cavilling Adversaries Sixthly Any Conversions made by Romanists have been very unlike the Primitive Conversions made by the Apostles these have generally been by force even these made in the intermedial Ages wanted not force that of Boniface among the Thuringians was done terrore armorum as Gerard observes ex Chronico Isenacensi Cent. 8. Eccles Hist cap. 10. Charles the Great brought the Saxons to imbrace the Christian Faith by bloody Wars But as for the late Romish Conversions which only can be attributed to the present Romish Church how bloody have many of them been Who can read what their own Bartholomaeus de la Casa hath written of the proceeding of the Spaniards in the West-Indies without horrour Did not a Great Person when a dying hearing that Catholick Spaniards went to Heaven profess he would never go there if Spaniards went thither judging it could be no good place where such bloody men went Yea Granado as cited by Gerard loc de Eccles cap. 10. Sect. 4. § 188. confesses Ea crudelitatis immanitate Hispanos erga illos usos ut Sanctissimum Christiani nomen non Pietatis Religionis sed crudelitatis immanitatis nomen habitum sit that is through their Barbarity the holy name of Christians became an Epithete of cruelty As for the East-Indies it's supposed there were some remainders of the Christian Faith among them left by the conversions of these people in ancient times and the truth of Popish relations concerning conversions there are justly to be questioned finding how unfaithful they are in Relations nearer home whereof I gave a hint cap. 3. Sect. 4. And besides their design is to convert them rather to the Pope and Papal Superstition than to Jesus Christ But if any Real Conversion be wrought by them it 's wholly to be attributed to the common Principles of Christianity yet retained among Papists but not to any of their Popish errours Let the Pamphleter notice these particulars and then frame an Argument if he can without Rhetorical declamations to prove their Church to be the true Catholick and Infallible Church But I invert also this his second Note and from it prove the truth of the Protestant Religion thus That Religion by which alone Nations have been converted to the true Christian Faith is the only true Religion but by the Religion which Protestants hold Nations have only been converted Ergo. I prove the Assumption by the Apostolick Religion Nations have only been converted to the true Faith but the Religion of Protestants is the Apostolick Religion and we own none else Let theirs and ours be compared if they be not the same Ergo by the Religion of Protestants Nations have only been converted If any again say that a Quaker or other Heretick may make the same Argument it hath been answered already Let matters be brought to tryal by Scriptures which contain the Apostolick Religion and it shall be found our Religion and not theirs is the true Apostolick Religion And we have this strong presumption for us against both Papists and Quakers neither of them dare refer the Controversie to the decision of Scripture the one running to an infallible visible Judge the other to an infallible Light within But we remit all to the decision of Scriptures which Christians of all perswasions acknowledge to be of Divine Inspiration yet it 's not by presumptions we would deal but by a particular examination of Controversies let their Cause only prevail who have real conformity with Scriptures ARTICLE III. Of Sanctity of Life THe third Note of the Church brought by this Jesuit is taken from the pretended Sanctity of Romanists Lives But besides that Sanctity of Life is no solid Note of the true visible Church there is nothing to which Romanists have less ground to pretend I say first it 's no solid Note of the visible Church For either they speak of real internal Sanctity and Heart-Renovation or of external and apparent Sanctity If of the first though undoubtedly the Church has always a Remnant of truly Holy Ones yet internal holiness cannot be infallibly discerned by others and so much Bell. himself acknowledges lib. 3. de Eccles cap. 10. yea Romanists deny that a man can be infallibly certain of his own Sanctity If therefore he speak only of external and apparent Sanctity it 's not peculiar to the Church Hypocrites and pernicious Hereticks may have it are we not told that false Teachers may come in Sheeps cloathing Matth. 7. 15. that they speak lyes in hypocrisie 1 Tim. 4. 2. that they have a form of godliness 2 Tim. 3. 5. that the Ministers of Satan transform themselves into Ministers of Righteousness 2 Cor. 11. 12. Did not Pharisees make long prayers Mat. 23. 24. Are they not on this account resembled to painted Sepulchres vers 22. Did not Bell. lib. 5. de lib. arb cap. 10. confess that by the works of Teachers we cannot pass a sure judgment on their Doctrine because their inward works are not seen and the external works are common both to sound and unsound Teachers Did not the Novatians pretend to so much Sanctity that they would appropriate to themselves the Name of Cathari as testifies Austin de Haeres cap. 38. Who pretended more external Sanctity than the Pelagians See Hierâ—m lib. 3. advers Pelag. Were not Donatists such pretenders to Sanctity that they denied a Church to be where there were any wicked See Alphonsus à Castro advers Haeres tit Eccles Doth not Austin testifie lib. 1. de moribus Eccles cap. 1. that the very Manichees deceived many by the seeming Sanctity of their lives Do not Socinians who hardly deserve the Name of Christians pretend to much Sanctity as also our deluded Quakers Will Antichrist himself want his pretensions to Sanctity Hath not the Beast two Horns like the Lamb Revel 12. 11. Hath not the Whore a Golden Cup in her hand that is she guilds over her Abominations with the specious pretences of Piety It were indeed to be wished that all the Lords People were holy yet alas how oft hath the Real Church of God been overgrown with scandals Are not the complaints of the Prophets on this account known Micah 7. 1.
some real Saints as Chrysostom Ambrose Austin and 36 ancient Bishops of Rome that were Martyrs I grant these were Saints but none of them Papists more than the Prophets were Pharisees though the Pharisees built their Tombs Yea nor was Bernard though he lived in late and corrupt times a Romanist of the late Edition he did not approve the whole Systeme of the now Tridentine Faith though he escaped not altogether the Contagion of the times he lived in â—he was indeed a Monk and in many things superstitious yet not a through-paced Papist as is shewed by D. Francis White in defence of his Brother D. John White against T. W. P. Pap. 313 314. and in particular that he held the sufficiency of the Scriptures without Traditions Justification by Faith alone that our works do not merit of condignity that no man is able to keep the Law perfectly that a just man may through mercy be assured of Grace that there is no such Free-will in fallen man as Jesuits assert and that he stood against the pride of the Pope and the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary To these which D. John White had confirmed from Bernards writings D. Francis adds divers other points as that he held the Eucharist is to be a Commemorative Sacrifice that he taught not Adoration of Images that he believed Habitual Concupiscence to be a sin and that he maintained the Authority and Preheminence of the Civil Magistrate and the subjection of the Apostles and of all Ecclesiasticks to his Jurisdiction This third and last Note of the Church taken from Sanctity might be inverted as the former hath been not only from the Identity of our Religion with the Apostolick Religion which is the only truly holy Religion but also by appealing our Adversaries to pitch upon one Article agreed on in the Harmony of Confessions which hath not a tendency to Holiness And lastly by putting all to it who have but so much indifferency as to be ingenuous if the Reformed Churches have not always afforded multitude of serious unblameable and devout persons By this time I hope it may appear that the Pamphleters three Notes of the Church Miracles Conversion of Infidels and Sanctity of Life make nothing for the Catholicism of the Romish Church but prove convincingly the truth of the Reformed Church Had he brought the rest of Bellarmin's Notes he should have found them to be as little for his advantage SECT IV. A touch of the Pamphleters hints at two other Notes of their Church viz. the Title of Catholick and Succession HE snarles passingly pag. 201 202. at the Name of Catholick as if the Argument held from names to things Do not false Prophets false Apostles and false gods assume the names of true Prophets Apostles and of the true God Was not Simon Magus Act. 8. 10. called the Power of God Did not Mahomet call himself the Great Prophet and his Disciples Musselmans that is sound believers and Abdullam or the servants of God Hath not the Title of Catholick been assumed by Novatians as witnesseth Cyprian Epist 73. by Donatists as testifies Austin in Brevic. collat col 3. diei cap. 2. yea by all Hereticks if we believe Lactant. Instit lib. 4. cap. 30. and Austin contra Epist. Fundamenti cap. 4. The Orthodox also are ready sometimes to indulge Hereticks with the splendid names which they vainly assume to themselves as some were called Apostolici some Angelici others Gnostici c. besides it 's questioned whether the Christian Church was always adorned with the Title of Catholick the contrary seems to be yielded by Pacianus Epist 1. ad Sempron and D. Pearson on the Creed Art 9. brings great Authorities to prove that in ancient Editions of the Apostolick Creed especially in the Roman and Western Church this Epithete Catholick was not added to the Church However sure I am the Title of Catholick without the true Catholick Faith is but magni nominis umbra Certainly the Roman Church is not the Catholick if either the Catholick Church be taken for the Orthodox Church in which sense the Fathers termed particular Churches Catholick as that of Smyâ—na in Euseb Hist lib. 4. cap. 15. that of Nazianzum and many others in Greg. Nazianzens latter will But the Roman being grosly Heterodox as hath been proved is not Catholick in this sense nor is she Catholick if the Catholick and Universal be the same the Roman being but a part and lesser part of Christendom the greater and sounder part at this day renouncing Communion with her yea Papists call themselves Catholicks with a term diminuent Catholick Romans i. e. Catholicks not Catholicks or Schismatical Catholicks who being but a part of the Catholick Church would Monopolize Catholicism to themselves alone When therefore Protestants call Romanists Catholicks they do as when they call the Turks Musselmans because they assume these Titles though undeservedly to themselves That of Pacianus in the forecited Epistle is very remarkable Novatianos audio de Novato aut Novatiano vocari Sectam tamen in his non nomen incuso Nec Montano aliquis aut Phrygibus nomen objecit As insignificant is his other hint pag. 202. at the pretended perpetual Succession of Pastors in the Roman Church from the Apostles For Succession meerly personal and local if it be not also Doctrinal cannot prove a true Church Hence Iren. lib. 4. cap. 43. joyns Cum Episcopatus Successione charisma veritatis i. e. the gift of Truth with succession and Epiphan Haeres 55. teaches that now we are chiefly to enquire after successiones Doctrinae i. e. the succession of Doctrine and Tertull. de Praescript contra Haeret cap. 32. saith Though Hereticks should pretend a Succession of Bishops yet the diversity of their Doctrine from the Doctrine of Apostles will prove them not to be of Apostolical descent And again albeit some Churches could instance no Apostles or Apostolick persons from whom they are descended tamen in eadem fide conspirantes yet being sound to have the same Faith Apostolicae deputantur pro consanguinitate Doctrinae they are accounted Apostolick because of the consanguinity of Doctrine Excellently said Nazlanzen Orat. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. He who professed the same Doctrine of Faith hath an interest in the same Throne or See but he that defends contrary Doctrine is Adversary to the See for this latter hath but the name of Succession but the other the truth and reality thereof What need I more seeing their own Learned Stapleton Controv. 1. q. 4. art 2. Notab 5. confesseth that bare personal and local Succession is not a sure Note of the true and Orthodox Church And surely we cannot conclude from it the being of the Church either affirmatively or negatively not affirmatively by Bell. his confession lib. 4. de Eccles cap. 8. for when Arrianism overspread the Oriental Churches they had a personal and local succession of Bishops nor yet negatively as if they were no Churches where personal succession
his considerations of the Church of England Reformed cap. 4. Secondly according to the principles of both these not only of them who hold the Pope to be a Petit Antichrist and a Fore-runner of the Great One but also of them who affirm him to be the Grand Antichrist our Lord under the Papal Tyranny preserved a Church in these Western parts and consequently many great truths such as the Trinity and Incarnation and the substantials of many Ordinances particularly of Baptism and of Ordination albeit both of them were clogged with additional corruptions yet in evidence that the Reformed Churches held their Baptism and Ordination valid they did not rebaptize or reordain those who had been baptized or ordained by the Church of Rome Neither need any think strange at this who remember that it 's predicted of the Great Antichrist 2 Thes 2. 4. that he shall sit in the Temple of God From which it follows that though Popes be the Great Antichrist yet Orders being one of these remains which God had preserved under Antichrists Usurpation Ordination conferred by Antichristian Ministers not in so far as Antichristian but as retaining some of Christs goods might be valid Thirdly I add that in this the Wisdom and Goodness of God doth greatly appear that under the prevalency of the Tyranny of the Papal Faction he would preserve a Church and thereby transmit to Posterity the Holy Scriptures which did luculently discover the corruptions of that Apostatized Church and convey down orders to Ministers who by vertue of their Ordination were authorized and obliged to endeavour the Reformation of the Church Fourthly that our Reformers did not set up a new Church but did reform the old Apostatized Church so that there needed no new Ordination or immediate Call but only faithfully to improve the power given them in their Ordination to shake off and witness against the corruptions of that lapsed Church And fifthly and lastly this must be added though Ordination was clogged with corruptions at the time when our Reformers received Ordination in the Church of Rome yet was not Ordination in the Romish Church by far so corrupt as now it is for then Pope Pius the Fourth his impious Oath which he imposed upon all persons to be Ordained was not contrived By all this I hope it may appear that our Reformers Ordination was valid though received by Romish Ministers and yet the Romish Party not vindicated from Antichristianism It 's further objected that Protestants look upon Romanists as Hereticks and consequently ought to look upon Ordination from them as null Answ That sequel is null Do not Romanists maintain that Orders imprint an indeleble character on the Soul which neither Schism nor Heresie can extinguish and that Sacraments conferred by Hereticks are valid and particularly of this Sacrament of Orders Jesuit Connick Tom. 2. de Sacram. disp 20. dub 9. Num. 84. concludes Certum omnino est Episcopum Excommunicatum Haereticum degradatum validè conferre ordines i. e. It is altogether certain that Orders conferred by a Bishop Excommunicated Heretical and degraded are valid And though Protestants acknowledge no such Sacramental character impressed on the Soul yet they affirm that by Ordination a power is conferred which is not utterly made void by every Schism or Heresie so that though Schismaticks or Hereticks act irregularly in ordaining yet Orders conferred by them are not null and void Neither are they whom Schismaticks or Hereticks ordain bound in conscience to propagate the Schism or Heresies of those who ordained them yea by relinquishing the Schism and Heresies of their Ordainers what irregularity was in their Ordination is supplied and they come into a capacity of conferring Orders regularly which their Ordainers abiding in Schism or Heresie could not do Hence it apparently follows that though Romanists be both Schismatical and Heretical and act irregularly in conferring Orders yet the Orders conferred by them to our Reformers were not only valid but also the Reformers by relinquishing the Heretical Doctrines and Schismatical principles and practices of the Church of Rome and by owning the Catholick Truths oppugned by Romanists had the defects and irregularity of their Ordination supplied Thus Romanists themselves answer concerning the Bishops whom they own who had been ordained by Cranmer in the time of Schism as they call it saying they attained the regular use of their Orders by returning from Schism and Heresie in Queen Mary's time when they were reconciled to the Church of Rome they ought not then offend at us for making use of the same Reply to them I shut up this Answer to this Objection with that saying of S. Austin Epist 165. Et si quisquam traditor subrepsisset albeit some Traytor had crept into the Church he means the Roman in which too too many Judasses have been seen since that time nihil praejudicaret Ecclesiae aut Innocentibus Christianis it should nothing prejudice the Church or Innocent Christians From pag. 203. to 207. he breaks forth into a Flood of Thrasonick Clamours as void of truth as of sobriety as if Protestants acknowledged the Popish Church to be the most Ancient Church and ever to have possessed the greatest part of the Christian World converting Nations working Miracles and that the Church before Luther should have been destitute of the true Letter and sense of Scripture and thereupon vainly misapplys to the Romish Church that word of Tertull. Olim possideo prior possideo The falshood of all these hath been already as copiously demonstrated as the nature of this Tractate would permit And particularly it hath been shewed that one of our great Exceptions against the Popish Church is her Novelty under a Mask of falsly pretended Antiquity That the Complex of their Trent Religion is latter than Luther and that the truly Catholick Church continued in all Ages having both the Letter and sense of holy Scripture and Substantials of Faith maintaining the same Religion which the Reformed Churches do to this day consequently the Reformed Churches are truly a part of that Catholick Church from which Romanists do Schismatically separate themselves Though Romanists had more Antiquity than they have yet that of Tertull. lib. de Veland Virg. Cap. 1. might stop their mouths Nec veritati praescribere potest Spatium temporum vel patrocinia personarum vel privilegia Regionum Neither length of time nor Patrociny of persons nor priviledges of Countries can prescribe against Truth SECT V. A Brief Reparty to his Conclusory Knacks THe vain Knacks where with he shuts up his Treatise pag. 207 208. are solidly confuted to my hand by Learned and Judicious Mr. Rait in his Vindication of the Protestant Religion pag. 268. for with the same froathy talk his Adversary also had concluded his Scriblings It shall be enough therefore to me to make this Retorsion on Romanists They have Faith without Verity Unity of Interest without Unity of Judgment a Catholick Church without Catholicism excluding the greatest part of
then the indifferent neutrality as to this or the other Religion which seemes to be possessing the minds of many This I conceive to be a woeful effect partly of mens irreligious practices and partly of the Sceptical Queries of Romanists concerning the divine Original of the Scriptures as if they would rather shake men out of all Religion then that they should not give up themselves to their implicite superstition These and such like accounts induced me to draw these lines yet with a real indifferency whether they should be published or not as not doubting but the same things had been and would be treated of by others of greater abilities and to more advantage Only It may seem strange how I of another Nation and living at so remote a distance should adventure upon this address to your Lordship I must therefore humbly crave leave to give an account of this my presumption These Papers having been carried by the hand of a friend into England and without either my knowledge or design having the good fortune to arrive at your Lord-ships hands I was told that your Lordship was pleased not only to cast a glance of your Noble eye upon them but also out of your affection to the Truths therein asserted to entertain some thoúghts of causing print them Vpon notice hereof I reflected on the saying of that learn'd and excellent Gentleman Sir Charles Wolsely in his dedication to your Lordship of his judicious tract ate of the Reasonableness of Scripture belief That the hazard whereto his Papers were exposed by your first view would sufficiently inure them to all future dangers Lest therefore My Lord I should incur the hateful stain of ingratitude I cannot but deeply resent that this small Treatise hath been honoured with so Noble judicious and impartial a Censor The deference also I have to your Lordships profound judgment hath animated me not a little to consent with more freedome to the exposing of it to the verdicts of a Critical World The Reader cannot expect from me new dogm's for though the Virtuosi deserve honour who enrich the World with new Phylosophical inventions yet new opinions in divinity sound harshly and as Tertullian noted long ago Quod primum verissimum Yea hardly can either new argument or new notion be now expected on the Popish controversies seeing they have been agitated upwards of 150 years by the most learned heads in Europe My whole design was to shew that the old grounds of our Divines did abundantly confute the new gaudy flourishes of Romish emissaries Wherein if in any tolerable measure I have answered my undertaking I hope your Lordship will not be offended to have your name superscribed thereto So confiding that your Generosity will excuse this boldness of a stranger I shall not cease to pray that grace mercy and peace may be multiplyed on your noble family and that all the Nobility in his Majesties dominions may account it their honour to be zealous for the reformed Religion which however it be mis-represented by Romanists is the truely Catholick faith and Exemplary in the practise of Godliness I say no more but subscribe my self Aberdene Jun. 17. 1674. My Lord Your Lordships Humbly devoted Servant J. M. ROMES Most Specious CHEATS Laid Open The PREFACE HAD the Romish Missionaries who undertook the defence of Jesuit Demster been Masters of their own passions they would not have covered so many pages in the entry of their Pamphlet with a flood of scurrilous revilings besides the rivulets of the same strain which run a long through the whole Discourse Who can expect much solidity in the arguings which are ushered in by such a destempered Prologue All the influence this hath on me is to exercise my patience a little and to move my compassion the more towards the souls who suffer themselves to be deluded by and mancipated to these fiery zealots the genuine brood of Ignatius Loyola whose name is observed by those of his own tribe to be correspondent to his genius quasi ab igne natus I have not been Solicitous to enquire after the Author of that anonimous Treatise I am little concerned whether as some say it were Jesuit Con who would Honour himself with the name of Sinclar as the Pope called Os Porci would be named Sergius 2. as Platina writes in his life and Pol. Virg. de invent rerum lib. 4. cap. 10. or whether as others suppose it be the whole Cabal of our traficking Missionaries calling in like wise forraign supplies for their assistance I say I am little concerned in this For all the Roman Legions cannot conquer one divine truth Onely some may think strange why they vail their names seeing they vapour openly in our streets as if they did contend with the vainest Gallants of the time Is it to secure themselves from blushing when the fallacies of their sophisms is discovered Or to protect them from recriminations when they load a known adversary with reproaches Or as Bell. in append ad controv de Pontif. in Resp ad lib. anon Cap. 2. objected to the anonimous Author of an invective against the Pope because he that does evil hates the light I will use no exorcisms to conjure this Ghost to declare his name his reviling language discovers he is not descended from the heavenly mansions If he be come from Purgatory what affinity there is betwixt the dialect of that Country and of those who inhabit the lowest regions of hell they who peruse his book may judge Upon sundry accounts I have been the less moved with the canina eloquentia the barking Rhetorick of this Romish Pamphlet As first because it droped from the Pen of Jesuites who are sufficiently known to be skilled Architects of lyes and Calumnies Ask Alphonsus de Vargas Watson the secular Priest and Montalt all Romanists if it be not so Do not Gaspar Hurtado Dieastillus and many more Jesuites maintain this as one of their famous Casuistick Doctrines that he sins not mortally who calumniates another to defend his own honour Did not Albius the Jesuit affirm that he judged it lawful licitum existimavi to calumniate Putean the Capucian because he apprehended that a writing of Puteans did reflect upon the order of Jesuits Hereupon Montalt in epist 15. peremptorily charges the Fathers of that society nullus jam tergiversandi locus Patres prorsus recusare non potestis quin manifesti calumniatores audiatis nullum vobis superest perfugium nisi ut calumniam criminum numero subducatis that is The Fathers of the society were so manifest calumniators that there remained no way of Apologizing for them but to stretch their wits to defend that to calumniate is no sin To whom I pray does the Character which Hierome gave to Ruffin Apol. 3. contra Ruffinum maledicere omnibus bonae conscientiae signum arbitraris better agree then to Jesuites Yet if any should dare to defame them his life must pay for it if their power can reach him and
formally or only objectively negative and a Solution of the retorsion of that same Syllogism against the Popish Religion but neither of thâ—se could ever M. Demster be induced to undertake Had this Pamphleter supplied M. Demster's defects in these he had done M. Demster a better office and given more satisfaction to his Reader Yet seeing they will be making a business about the form of that Syllogism the Pamphleter would consider how he reconcile himself with M. Demster who in Paper 6. pag. 7. says all the three Propositions of his Syllogism are affirmatives but this Pamphleter only says that the second is affirmative which of these shall I believe May not a Bajon put such infinitant Glosses upon the rest of the Propositions as the Pamphleter hath put on the second Consequently not the Minor only but the Conclusion also should be affirmative viz. Ergo the Protestant Religion cannot be the true Religion which whether it be an affirmative or negative I remit to the decision of the disinterested It seems the Pamphleter must take a Journey down to the Infernal Regions if the Author of Ignatius Conclave be not mistaken concerning the receptacle of Jesuits to consult with M. Demster whether only the second Proposition or all were affirmatives yet I have the kindness to premonish him that Fecilis dâ—scensus averni Sed revocare gradum superasque evadere ad auraes Hoc opus hic labor est Pag. 29 30 31. The Pamphleter endeavours to cast a blind before the eyes of his Reader by a gross representation of the state of the debaâ—e betwixt M. Demster and me To clear the truth herein it would be remembred that M. Demster Paper 1. pag. 2. asserted the Protestant Religion had no grounds to prove it self a true Religion To which it was answered in my Pap. 1 pag. 7. that it were as easie by way of retorsion to assert that the Popish Religion had no grounds to prove it self to be the true Religion and therefore if he intended to satisfie Consciences he ought to pitch upon the reciprocal grounds of the true Religion and to demonstrate that these did agree to the Popish Religion and not to ours This Jesuit Demster altogether declined only at length Pap. 4. pag. 38. he undertook if I would produce the grounds of our Religion that he should impugn them Hereupon in my Paper 4. I did produce two grounds sufficiently distinctive of the true and false Religion viz. the perspicuity of the Scripture in all things necessary to Salvation and conformity in all Fundamentals with the Ancient Christian Church and from these in that Pap. 4. I did demonstrate both the truth of our Religion and the falshood of the Romish Religion But the scope of all M. Demster's Papers thereafter was to shun the Tryal of Religion by Scripture or Antiquity yet could bring no reason why these assigned grounds should not be admitted as distinctive Tests of the true and false Religion Nor did he once attempt to answer the Arguments by which from these grounds I proved the truth of the Reformed and falshood of the Popish Religion I appeal to the Papers themselves whereof the ipsa corpora are exhibited in Papismus Lucifugus if this be not the true state of the debate By this the unfaithful dealing of this Pamphleter may appear who pag. 31. is bâ—ld to say that still I declined to bring any popâ—sitive proof that these grounds were peculiar to Protestants and that M. Demster was not bound to prove the contrary Did I not Paper 4. pag. 46 47 53 54 55. prove from these grounds both the truth of the Protestant Religion and falshood of the Romish Did I not more particularly give a Specimen of the peculiar interest of Protestants in these grounds Pap. 7. pag. 126 127. by demonstrating the conformity of our Doctrine with that Scripture Hoc est corpus meum and of the dissonancy of the Romish Transubstantiation and Pap. 8. pag. 169. c. gave seven instances of the conformity of our Religion with Antiquity and the disagreement of theirs Did I not offer to do the like in other points of difference betwixt us would Jesuit Demster examine these But their old Fabius durst never come to an open Field for M. Demster's Obligation to impugne these grounds assigned by me I need say no more but that Paper 4. pag. 38. he undertook to do it and acknowledged it was incumbent to him as the Opponent unless it be said that Jesuits are so nimble that promises do not bind them Is it not a Noble simile whereby the Pamphleter would put a face upon so foul a business pag. 15. Tautologizing M. Demster as the Creditor frequently demands payment of his debt and I as Debtor am said to answer his demands only with stories of late Wars and Forreign Leagues I pray by what Law do reiterated demands of payment by a pretended Creditor make another to be his Debtor Whom would not affronted Jesuits make their Debtors if by the importunity of their demands they could impose Obligations upon others Are Romanists no more concerned when their Transubstantiation half Communions Adoration of â—mages the Popes Infallibility Supremacy over the Catholick Church and Secular Princes Purgatory Apocryphal Scriptures are confuted for these and such like were the points my Replies did run upon then in Exotick stories May not this Simile with more reason be inverted thus When Jesuit Demster alledged I was his Debtor I not only told the Allegation was false and therefore required him as he would not be held a Caviller to prove the Debt by Bond or otherwise which he could never do but also I charged him as being my Debtor for which I produced such Evidence as he could not control only as if Jesuits had an Art of paying their Debt by bold Assertions he had the confidence oft to say I was owing him and this procedure is justified by the Pamphleter Now whether M. Demster as Debtor or the Pamphleter as Procutor have discovered least sincerity others may judge It is further to be noted that the Pamphleter in that pag. 34. maintains that without an Infallible Judge of Controversies we cannot be assured either of the incorrupt writings or sincere Doctrine of Fathers or of the incorrupt Letter or genuine sense of Scripture by which with one dash he hath destroyed the whole Plagiary heap of Testimonies from Scripture and Antiquity which are raked together in his Pamphlet to which there can be no Faith given without the sentence of his Infallible visible Judge that is of the Pope for I know none else they have at present pretending to Infallibility there being no General Council at the time And Greg. de Valentia lib. 8. de Annal. fid cap. 7. puts the matter out of doubt Eadem saith he est Authoritas Infallibilis quae Pontifici Romano quae Ecclesiae sive Conciliis tribuitur nam illa ipsa Authoritas quae in uno Pontifice residet Authoritas dicitur
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 Enthusiasm 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. 3. 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 Farrago 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 sufficient 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 God speaking in the Scriptures shall not be believed for it self albeit it have so strong a confirmation from extrinsick motives of credibility which
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 ludibrious 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. Bectract 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 emper necessaria collectione uti Ratio est quia Ecclesiastici non habent scientiae divinae plenitudinem sic de seipso 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 an infallible visible Judge The sequel is good because that they may resolve their Faith upon the testimony of an infallible Judge it is necessary that
they know him to be such and there is none pretending to be that infallible Judge but either Pope or General Council or both joyntly The antecedent is proved by a threefold medium 1. From the case of Schism 2. Of Simony 3. Of the want of due intentions in the Ministry of Sacraments I say first from the case of Schism there have been many grievous Schismes in the Romish Church notwithstanding their vain pretence of Unity Onuphrius in Chronol Pontific reckons out no less than thirty one of which lasted from Vrban the sixth to the Council of Constance no fewer than fifty years if we believe Onuphrius There have been two or three Popes at once Alter in alterum saeviebat saith Genebrard All this while Bell. confesses lib. 4. de Pontific cap. 14. that it was an hard matter to know which of them was the lawful Pope Was all Christian Faith gone from the Church because of the uncertainty of this infallible Judge 2. The same is more luculently confirmed from the case of Simony It 's acknowledged by Romanists that Simony makes void the Election of a Pope as is held out by Gratian in the Canon Law Causa 1. q. 1. cap. 2. Now that there have been many Simoniacal intrusions into the Papal Chair is as evident as that any in those late times possessed it without Simony Hence Platina in vitae Sylvestri 3. eo tunc Pontificatus devener at ut qui plus largitione valeret is tantummodo dignitatis gradum bonis oppressis rejectis obtineret c. The Papacy in those days was come to that pass that he who by Bribery could do most alone obtained the dignity good men being oppressed and rejected which custom saith Platina would to God our times did not still retain And Spondanus ad Annum 1033. brings in Glaber thus complaining Heu sedes Apostolica Alass thou Apostolical See which in the days of old was the glory of the world art now oh shame become Simonis officina the Shop and Forge of Simon Magus and Hammers continually are beating on the Anvil to make hellish coyn You may have heard of Genebrards complaint that in the space of 150 years from John 8. to Leo the 9. the Papal Chair was possessed with Apostatick Popes who entered in non per ostium sed per posticam not by the Gate but by the Postern Once I thought upon the testimony of Cicarella in vita Sixti 5. that Sixtus 5. had come to the Papal Chair with as much innocency from Simoniacal Pensation as many of the late Popes but now I find that his entry also was both Simoniacal and perfidious whereof the Reader may receive a full account from Henry Foulis Hist of Romish Treasons lib. 3. cap. 2. from which that Author concludes the nullity of the Elections of sundry succeeding Popes not only of Vrban 7. Greg. 14. and Innocent 9. but also of Clement 8. to all whose Elections did concur a multitude of Cardinals who had been created by Sixtus 5. a Simoniacal Pope and consequently a non habente potestatem Is any thing more evident from History than the Simoniacal intrusion of Boniface 8. Alexander 6. c. Nay seeing these Simoniacal transactions may be so secretly conveyed that it is impossible to know who enters the Papacy without them therefore it cannot be infallibly known who truly is Pope The Simoniacal entry of Sixtus Quintus probably had never been discovered had not Sixtus violated his Simoniacal contract made with Aloysius Cardinal de Este which provoked the Cardinal to transmit the original contract subscribed by Sixtus own hand to Philip the Second King of Spain who being lately disobliged by the Pope threatned to accuse him of Simony in a Council at Andalusia but the speedy death of Sixtus prevented the Process 3. The same is yet further confirmed from the Popish Doctrine of suspending the efficacy of Sacraments from the intention of the Ministers thereof according to the Decrees of the Councils of Florence in Instruct Armen and of Trent Sess 14. cap. 6. and from the Bull of Leo the tenth against Luther therefore it 's impossible to know infallibly if these who pass for Popes or Bishops be Popes Bishops Priests yea or baptized consequently they cannot infallibly know whether any who were in the Council of Trent were capable to be constituent members of a Council The cavils of the Adversaries against this last instance were confuted cap. 1. Arg. 6. Both Pope and Council who only are pretended to be this infallible Judge may err in questions of Fact therefore also in questions of Faith the antecedent is confessed by Romanists themselves Hence Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 2. saith Conveniunt omnes Catholici posse Pontificem vel cum concilio generali err are in controversiis facti particularibus quae ex informatione testimoniisque hominum praecipue pendent that is all Romanists agree that not only the Pope as Pope but also with a General Council may err in matters of Fact If any will adopt that new notion of the Jesuits of Clermont that the Pope is infallible as to matters of Fact he must first answer the arguments brought in the contrary by those of their own party before I waste time in confuting so notorious a falshood and the rather seeing my Adversary yields pag. 43. that their infallible Judge may err in matters of fact The sequel is clear seeing the decisions of many questions of Faith with them have such dependance upon questions of Fact that if the Judge err in the question of Fact he cannot but err in the question of Faith To prove this I shall satisfie my self with these two instances ad hominem against Romanists First all Articles of Faith are not contained in Scripture according to them but some are only to be setched from Traditions When therefore this visible Judge is to determine a point not contained in Scripture to be an Article of Faith he can have no evidence thereof but from Tradition nor of the Tradition but by the testimonies of Histories and Records of Antiquity c. Now is it not a meer matter of Fact whether Records of Antiquity be genuine or corrupted whether the relation of Historians be true or false and therefore this visible Judge may be deceived as to these and consequently concerning the Article of Faith whose evidence depends thereupon But lest I should seem only to argue upon a rarely contingent supposition take a late example When the Pope and Council of Trent defined the number of the Books of holy Scripture and determined the Apocriphal Books to be Canonical they had no ground to walk on but Tradition and here undoubtedly their Errour in matter of Fact led them to an errour in matter of Faith for these Apocriphal Books were never received by Universal Tradition sure not by Melito Justin Martyr Athanasius Hierom the Council of Laodicea yea nor by Greg. 1. as D. Cosins hath fully demonstrated in
and terminate controversies of Religion then neither can the Sentences of Pope or Council whether taken separately or conjunctly For they may be retorted with equal force upon the definitions of Popes and Councils as shall God willing appear in the next Chapter It were easie to accumulate more arguments from Scripture Reason and Antiquity against this absurd position of Romanists concerning the necessity of an infallible visible Judge but I hope these may suffice who desiderate more I remit them to Whittaker controv 3. de concil q. 6. controv 4. de Pontif. q. 6. to Rivet Isagog cap. 20. to D. Barron Apodex cap. tract 5. cap. 5 6. c. to Chillingworth cap. 2 3. to the L. Falkland his Discourse together with H. H. Review of the Apology to D Shirman again F. Johnson to D. Stillingfleet's Rational Account of the grounds of the Protestant Religion Part. 1. cap. 8. to M. Pool's nullity of the Romish Faith cap. 4. to Tomb's Romanism discussed in Answer to H. T. his Manual of Controversies Art 9. c. As for the arguments which the Pamphleter attributes to us from pag. 44. to 48. albeit he gives piteous Answers to divers of them yet because they are of his own framing and he adheres not to the Arguments propounded by me against M. Demster I thought not fit to blot Paper at the time in canvasing his Answers thereunto Infallibility is a specious notion but under pretence of an infallible Judge to draw Souls off from building their Faith upon the infallible Rule of holy Scripture to rest on the dictates of fallible and fallacious men is to overturn the very Basis of Christian Religion insomuch that Reverend Joseph Hall in his No Peace with Rome Sect. 5. on this very account asserts Reconciliation with Rome to be impossible I shut up this part of the Debate with the confession of M. Cressy a late Apostate to Popery Exomol cap. 46. Sect. 3. where he acknowledges the unfortunateness of the word Infallibility and professes he could find no such word in any Council that no necessity appeared to him that he or any Protestant should ever have heard that word named much less pressed with so much earnestness as of late it hath been generally in Disputations and in Books of Controversie and that M. Chillingworth combates this word with too much success and therefore he wishes that Protestants may never be invited to combate the Authority of the Church under that notion I know M. Cressy finding that the Jesuited Party were offended at this freedom made a kind of Retractation for this but how disingenuously and unfortunately is shewed by D. Tillotson in the Rule of Faith Part. 2. Sect. 4. pag. 131. SECT III. The Pamphleters Objections for the necessity of an Infallible visible Judge discussed IT now remains that I consider what seems to be of any moment in the Pamphleters Objections They may be reduced to two Heads 1. Scripture mistaken 2. Abused Authority of Fathers I shall take a little notice of both First then from Scripture in his Sect. 3. pag. 38. he scrapes together these testimonies Deut. 17. 8. Mat. 18. 17. Mat. 16. 19. he should have said Mat. 18. 28. 20. 1 Tim. 3. 13. he should have said 15. the Pillar and ground of Truth And to make his Progress seem compleat Was not saith he the Church Judge in Religion for the first two thousand years before any Scriptures were written To which I reply 1. That the Pamphleter seems to have forgot his Thesis Is he not to prove that there is an infallible visible Judge Ought he not then to make use of a medium the Faith whereof doth not depend upon the testimony of this infallible Judge Is not the Faith of the Scriptures their Divine Original the sincerity of the Translation and sense of the words grounded according to this Romanist upon the testimony of the infallible Judge What a jugling circulation then is this to prove the infallibility of the Judge by Scripture which according to them I cannot believe till first I subscribe to the infallibility of the Judge How have Becan Gretser Turnbul c. toiled to sweating to extricate themselves yet still they remain shut up in a circle believing the Scripture for the testimony of their infallible Judge and the infallibility of the Judge for the Scriptures as may appear by the arguing of this Circulator But secondly Doth not this miserable Pamphleter cut the throat of his own cause For pag. 39. he asserts That the Supreme Judicatory whose Infallibility is proved by these Scriptures is a General Council composed of all the Bishops and Pastors of the Church Now sure it is that there is no such General Council in the Church at present nor do Romanists alledge there hath been any these hundred years How impertinently then were these Scriptures brought to prove the actual existence of the infallible visible Judge or if the General Council be that Judge then it evidently follows that the Church may be without that Judge else General Councils should sit without intermission Thirdly The utmost that can be collected from these Scriptures is that Councils have Judiciary Authority that proper General Councils have Supreme Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction for decision of controversies of Religion and have peculiar promises of Divine Assistance for hitting on the right sense of Scripture especially in things that are necessary to Salvation providing they sincerely use the means appointed by God which Protestants do not deny If this were all intended by these Scriptures non infertur elenchus For hence it does not follow that Councils shall always be or that the major part in General Councils shall sincerely use the means appointed by God for finding out truth or that in their decisions they never shall deviate from truth far less that an Assembly of the Popes sworn Vassals such as were those that assembled at Trent are a lawful General Council or have either Jurisdiction over the whole Catholick Church or infallibility in their decisions Let all the Jesuits in Europe try if they can hammer out this conclusion out of any or all those Scriptures Fourthly Have not Learned Protestants a thousand times vindicated those Scriptures from the corrupt glosses of Romanists Ought not this Pamphleter had he intended to satisfie any judicious Reader have confuted the exceptions of Protestants against their Popish glosses But it seems our Missionaries do so brutifie the reason of their Proselites that they swallow down all their Dictates how irrational soever as infallible and unanswerable Oracles I will not trouble this Pamphleter to read large Volums rifling of Pamphlets appears to have been his greatest study I shall only remit him to M. Pool's short but judicious Tractate of the nullity of the Romish Faith where he will find all those Scriptures and many more to this purpose solidly vindicated Deut. 17. 8. in his cap. 2. Sect. 12. Mat. 18. 17. in his cap. 4. Sect. 15. Mat. 16. 19. in his
he up those inferiour Truths But whence hath the Church the knowledge of those Mysteries not contained in 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 assent to the Divine Original of the Scriptures were only founded upon the Churches Tradition yet it doth not follow that the Churches Tradition should be the principal Rule of Faith Which I illustrate by two examples It 's granted by all that the Veracity of God is the formal object of Faith if not in whole yet in part but the first assent that is given to the Veracity of God is surely founded upon Natural Reason Yet School men themselves will not admit that those Natural Reasons which prove the Veracity of God are the formal object of Faith as may be seen in Lugo de fide disp 1. Sect. 6. and Carleton Tom. 2. Theol. Schol. disp 3. Sect. 2. 3. Who would be further satisfied how Natural Reason is not the Rule of Faith and Religion albeit Religion and Faith do presuppose Reason I must remit them to the Debates of our Divines against Socinians and to those betwixt the Paradoxal Author of Philosophia Scripturae Interpres and Vogelsangius c. Only now I conclude à pari though Tradition alone should prove the Divine Original of the Scriptures yet would it not necessarily follow that Tradition were the principal Rule of Faith I add another example suppose the King sent a Letter to his Subjects containing his pleasure as to sundry particulars of moment although the testimony of a Trusty Bearer might give Evidence that the Letter were truly the Kings yet would it be the Kings Letter and not the Bearers testimony that would be the rule of the Subjects obedience The Applicaâ—ion is obvious The same reasons demonstrate that neither can the definitions of the Church be the first Rule of Faith for we must know the Rule of Faith before we know the Church as a Church it being by the Rule of Faith that we have the knowledge of the notes of the Church Nay further the Church is built upon the Foundation of Prophets and Apostles Ephes 2. 20. that is upon the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament for as Esthius well observes Prophets and Apostles are said to be the Foundation of the Church ratione Doctrinae inrespect of their Doctrine but the Doctrine of the old Prophets was only preserved entirely and incorruptly in the Scriptures for that the Traditions of those times were vitiated Christ witnesses oftner than once Shall the Law of the most High God receive Authority from his Creatures Did Moses when he received the Law from the mouth of the Lord wait for the suffrages of the Church or their Representatives to make it Authentick Whence have we the knowledge of the infallible and reciprocal notes of the Church but from the Scripture Then surely the belief of the Scripture must be presupposed to the distinct knowledge of the true Church consequently our Faith cannot ultimately be resolved into the definitions of the Church Fifthly and lastly Is not the Scripture a publick Standard of Divine Truth whereby the Church may convince Gain-sayers Doth not the Apostle 2 Tim. 3. 16. say that the Scripture is profitable for reproof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for evident conviction Did not Apollos Act. 18. 28. mightily convince the Jews by the Scriptures Hence Athanasius Orat. cont gentes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the sacred and divinely inspired Scriptures are abundantly sufficient for the Declaration of the truth Nor do I doubt but the arguings of Protestants from the Scripture leave Convictions upon Jesuited Romanists albeit through interest and prejudice they stifle them and study Cavils against the clear light of Scripture Can either the secret Enthusiasms of a Quaker be such a publick Standard and mean to convince others or yet the Enthusiastick decisions of the Romish pretended infallible Judge seeing he neither can give Evidence of his Infallibility nor infallible grounds upon which he pronounces his sentences else upon those grounds without his sentence people might be convinced of the truth By these hints I hope it may appear that the properties of the Rule of Faith do exactly agree to the Scriptures but no more to the decisions of the Romish infallible visible Judge then to the Enthusiastick fancies of Quakers I may not now digress to confute Quaker whimsies concerning the light within which they make the Rule of Faith which I hope e're long shall be accurately done by the Pen of a Learned and Judicious person in this place If the judgment of Antiquity as to this matter be required it were easie to fill a Volum Take only a few touches Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 1. calls the Scripture the Pillar and Ground of Truth Chrysost in 2 Epist ad Cor. Hom. 13. calls the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the exact Ballance Rule and Canon of all things Greg. Nyssen lib. 1. cont Eunom in Append. operum Basilii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Jesuit Gretser being Interpreter In omni d gmate optima judicandi ratio est divinitus inspirata scriptura the divinely inspired Scripture iâ— the best Rule by which we can judge of every Article of Faith Basil Epist 80. ad Eustath calls the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Law and Rule of that which is right Athanasius in Synopsi anchoras sustentacula fidei the Anchors and Pillars of Faith Austin lib. 2. de bapt cont Donat. cap. 6. Stater as divinas Divine Ballances Tertull. lib. 4. cont Marcion cap. 3. the Christian digests alluding to the Civil Law which is a Rule in Law cases and Cassiod lib. 1. Instit cap. 12. and 15. by a like allusion the Pandects Bede is very express as cited by Gratian caus 8. quest 1. cap. 28. that the Scripture is unica credendi vivendi regula the only Rule of Faith and Life These things being so clear I will now examine the Objections of the Pamphleter which if they conclude any thing make as strongly against themselves or any Rule of Faith they can pretend to yea serve as well to prove that the Scriptures are no ground of Faith at all as that they are not a ground of the Religion of Protestants In truth they are Cavils more beseeming an Atheist that would overturn all Religion than a Christian yet least he should say his Arguments were not answered I shall take them to consideration SECT III. The Pamphleters four principal Objections against the Scriptures being the compleat Rule of Faith discussed OBjection first He enquires pag. 50. whether I make the Scriptures as translated or as in the Original Tongues the Rule of Faith and ground of our Religion Not as translated because Chamier lib. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 15. D. Featly whom he calls D. Daniel in his Treatise the Dippers dipped pag. 1. and D. Barron tract 1. cap. 2. pag. 46. say that Translations only are Authentick in so far as they agree with Originals Now those Original Tongues of Hebrew Greek and Syriack not one of a
concluding that the Humane Nature of Christ is changed into the Divine because as it s said Joh. 1. the Word was made Flesh so it s said Joh. 2. that the Water was turned into Wine If there were any strength in that Argument would it not rather follow that the Divine Nâ—tâ—re was changed into the Humane but the truth is that neither follows For after that the Water was made Wine it retained no more the reciprocal properties of Water but after that the Word was made Flesh the Eternal increated Word of God remained the Word as being immutable and the Flesh or his Humane Nature remained Flesh And therefore he desired the Disciples to touch and feel him that he had flesh and bones Luke 24. 39. Were it proper here for me to digress to a confutation of the rest of those Hereticks mentioned by the Pamphleter it were as easie to shew their inferences to be ludibrious and inconsequential without the assistance of any infallible visible Judge which the Pamphleter and all the Romish Party will not be able to do concerning the Protestant Religion Sure he must be either a man of strong fancy or cauterized Conscience who is bold to say that there cannot be so clear Scripture brought against the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament he means their Popish Transubstantiated Presence as the old condemned Hereticks brought against the Incarnation of Christ Nay he shall find in its proper place that their Dream of Transubstantiation may be confuted not only by other luculent Scriptures but also by these words of Christ This is my Body which they apprehend do most favour their Cause and which the Pamphleter says are spoken by the four Evangelists and by the Apostle S. Paul but it seems he is better acquainted with his Mass-book than with the four Evangelists for one of them namely S. John has not those words where also my argument against M. Demster to this purpose shall be vindicated from all his frothy Cavils I know Fathers of old did prove the reality of Christs Humane Nature against Marcionites from his Symbolical Presence in the Sacrament for if Sacramental Bread and Wine be Types Symbols and Figures of his Body and Blood as they are termed by Fathers then surely he had a real Body and real Blood But does it from this follow that they believed a Transubstantiated Presence Nay on the contrary in as much as the Sacramental Bread and Wine are called by them Types Figures and Symbols of his Body and Blood it appears they held them not to be his very Body and Blood And here by the way I must advise him not to expose his ignorance to such publick view as here he doth by citing S. Chrysost Hom. 6. as if Chrysost had written Homilies but upon one place of Scripture such Lax Citations will make people suspect that Jesuits are not so well versed in the Fathers as they would make the world believe From pag. 65. he takes a deal of pains to transcribe long Citations out of D. Jeremy Taylor his liberty of Prophecying Sect. 4. and he joyns with him Osiander against Melancton It might be enough to tell him that the first Learned Author was sensible his Book deserved an Apology it was as fitly entituled A liberty of Prophecying as the Pamphleters Book Scolding without Scholarship As the one discovered more scolding than either sobriety or Scholarship so the other took more liberty than himself did afterwards allow Quisque suâ—s patimur manes It appears by the Preface to his Polemicks that in the mentioned Treatise he disputed the more sceptically to make his Adversaries less confident of their Opinions and consequently more tender to himself and others of his perswasion Whether the end proposed will legitimate the mean Casuists may determine A further Answer to D. Taylours Testimony I leave to be got from D. Shirman for to him also this testimony of D. Taylor was objâ—cted by F. Johnson cap. 4. num 23. only I add that D. Taylor notwithstanding all his sâ—eptical discourse in that Treatise demonstrates Sect. 1. the Scirpture to be clear in Fundamentals which he supposes to be comprised in the Apostolick Creed and he brings Sect. 6 7. sufficient evidence against the Romish Infallibility both of Pope and Council How solidly doth the same D. Taylor in his Tractate of the Real Presence of Christ in the holy Sacrament by conferring of Scriptures confute their imaginary transubstantiated Presence in the Sacrament What should I mention the wounds he hath given to their whole Cause in his disswasives I am little concerned in the testimony alledged from Osiander against Melancton for it 's but too well known that Andreas Osiander of whom I suppose the Pamphleter speaks did unhappily ingage himself in some Paradoxal Debates with his own Brethren Neither can his own Son Lucas Osiander in Epit. Hist Eccles Cent. 16. pag. 554. deny it And what if his over-eager pursuit of those Paradoxal Notions did drive him upon some unadvised expressions concerning the interpretation of holy Scriptures can the Pamphleter maintain all the expressions which have dropt from those of their own Party I doubt if he can name one Controversie betwixt them and us concerning which they are not subdivided among themselves how then can he rationally demand of me to defend every thing that hath fallen from the Pen of a Paradoxal Lutheran whose Heterodoxies have been noted by those of his own Party Did I not signifie in my tenth Paper against M. Demster pag. 218 219. that it's the Reformed Religion agreed upon by the Protestant Churches in the harmony of their confessions which I defend and hope to make good not only against such a Scribler as this Pamphleter but also against the whole Conclave of Rome His digression concerning a private spirit from pag. 69 to 72. being wholly impertinent I judge unworthy of an Answer How oft have Protestants declared to the world they build not their Faith on private Enthusiasms or secret objective Revelations This they leave to Quakers and to the Romish infallible visible Judge who having no external infallible Rule to walk by must proceed upon these But the Rule of our Faith is the publick external testimony of the Spirit in the Scriptures If under a pretence of excluding a private spirit he excludes a discretive judgment he excludes the use of Reason which Faith always presupposes or if he exclude the necessity of the Spirits assistance by way of an efficient cause for assenting to Divine Truths recorded in Scripture he turns Pelagian and contradicts his own Authors who are constrained to acknowledge it As for any further use of a private spirit I had almost said of a Familiar when he hath cleared his Popes and infallible Judges of it we shall be near a settlement as to that thing An excellent and large account of the testimony of the Spirit what it is and how far it is necessary to the belief of the Scriptures
highly unthankful to God who will deny that in this last Age the true sense of sundry Texts of Scripture is found out It 's too gross a Cheat which the Pamphleter would put upon his Reader where with the passages cited concerning the Rule of Faith the conferring of Scripture and consulting the Originals he adds these words that never did any Protestant teach otherwise whereas D. Field subjoyns them in another Sect. to a sentence of Illiricus But let him make what he will of D. Field's testimony dare Romanists own all the Assertions of Gerson Cajetan Cassander Clemanges Picherell Espencaeus c. who were famous men in the Latin Church if they dare they must condemn the present System of the Romish Faith if they dare not why then press they me with singular Assertions of D. Field or D. Taylor ought they not to deal as they would be dealt with Pag. 79. He cites a Relation of Rescius de Atheismo that in the space of 60 years there were 60 Synods all agreeing on the Scripture as the Rule yet parted without concordance Answ If this be that Stanislaus Rescius mentioned by Possevin in apparat he appears by his Book entituled Ministro-Machia to be a malevolous person and consequently not worthy of credit But though the truth of the relation were admitted yet it derogates nothing from the Scriptures being the Rule of Faith it only speaks forth either the weakness of mens judgments or the strength of their passions Does not Nazianzen complain that in his time he had never seen the good issue of any Synod yet then the Controversie was not of the Rule of Faith but of material objects of Faith Though Romanists pretend to have advantages for terminating Controversies by their infallible visible Judge yet have they not been able to terminate the debates of Jesuits and Dominicans de gratia or of Franciscans and Dominicans concerning the Conception of the Virgin Mary or betwixt Molinists and Jansenists How many debates have been at the Court of Rome about these things and yet the dissentions are as wide as ever Themselves therefore must confess that the continuance of debates doth not always reflect upon the Rule of Faith but often flow from mens interests or prejudicate Opinions Towards the close of that page he cites a passage from Tertullian lib. de praescript which sounds very harshly That in disputing out of Texts of Scripture there is no good got but either to make a man sick or mad What if I should do as Bell. lib. 1. de Christo cap. 9. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 8. and lib. 1. de Beat. Sanct. cap. 5. who rejects Tertullians testimony when it makes against him as of an Heretick and Montanist yet I will not be so brisk That Golden Book of Prescriptions was written by him before he turned Montanist And as Davenant says de Jud. controvers cap. 8. totus noster est is wholly for us for in it he overturns the Foundation of Popish unwritten Traditions namely that though the Apostles preached unto all things that are necessary to be believed yâ—t there were some secret mysteries which they delivered only to some that were more perfect This Tenet now owned by Papists Tertullian charges upon Hereticks cap. 25 Confitentur Apostolos nihil ignorasse nec diversa inter se praedicasse sed non omnia volunt illis omnibus revelasse quaedam palam universis quaedam secreto paucis demandasse And in confutation of them cap. 27. he subjoyns Incredibile est vel ignorasse Apostolos plenitudinem praedicationis vel non omnem ordinem Regulae omnibus edidisse If you then ask what meant Tertullian by the words cited in the Objection Answ He is speaking of Hereticks who either did reject the Scriptures or did mutilate and corrupt them or did recur to unwritten Traditions and therefore immediately after the words cited by the Pamphleter Tertullian adds cap. 17. Ista Haeresis non recipit quasdam Scripturas si quas recipit adjectionibus detractionibus ad dispositionem instituti sui invertit I confess there is little profit in arguing against such from Scripture We do not argue from Scripture against Infidels who deny Scripture Tertullian therefore is speaking of such Hereticks who are not to be admitted to Disputation which lib. 1. cont Marcion cap. 1. he calls Retractatus but with whom prescription is to be used Now Prescription signifies a Legal Exception whereby an Adversary is kept off from Litis-contestation Had Tertullian universally condemned arguing against Hereticks from Scripture as folly and madness he had convicted himself of this evil who argues so frequently from Scripture Yea lib. de carne Christi cap. 7. he is so peremptory as to say Non recipio quod extra Scripturam de tuo infers and lib. de Resur ear nis cap. 3. Aufer Haereticis quae cum Ethnicis sapiunt ut de Scripturis solis quaestiones suas statuant stare non possunt Well might Tertullian who lived a little after the Apostles Appeal to the Doctrine of Apostolick Churches the Doctrine having been till that time preserved pure in them But now the case is greatly altered after the succession of so many Ages all these Apostolick Churches have been stained with Errours by the acknowledgment of the Roman except her self and others are ready to affirm no less of her and perhaps upon as solid ground Yet when Tertullian appeals to Apostolick Churches he enumerates cap. 36. the Churches of Corinth Philippi Thessalonica and Ephesus no less than the Roman so that he attributes no more Authority to her than to others Lastly pag. 80. after he had repeated what had been examined in the former Section that Religion was before Scripture He asks if Protestants be assured by Scriptures of what they believe why may not Romanists also seeing they likewise read Scripture pray and confer places are more numerous acute learned want Wives work Miracles and convert Nations Here be very big words Sesqui pedalia verba But may not I first use retorsion thus Are Romanists perswaded from Fathers Councils or Traditions of what they believe Why then may not Protestants who read Fathers and Councils as well as they and search after those things which are conveyed by Universal Tradition and I hope Protestants are not contemptible either for number or learning though we do not restrict the Catholick Church to those who go under the denomination of Protestants and besides our Doctrinal principles have an eminent tendency to Holiness May not Jansenists and Dominicans say they submit their Doctrine to an infallible Judge as well as Jesuits that they read and consider the Bulls and Definitions of Popes as well as Jesuits why then should not they be as capable to find the true sense of these Bulls and Definitions as Jesuits Yea might not Heathens have used this Argument against the Ancient Apostolick Churches for the number of Heathens were greater and their Learning not
resting on the knowledg of Fundamentals should be less solicitous in searching after other divine truths which though not of absolute necessity yet are very precious It will be time to answer his squibs and raillery from the changes of the Moon when he has vindicated not only their own Missionaries who are known for most part to be a company of Apostate Runnagado's but also the body of their religion and missal from multifarious changes which some have not unfitly resembled to a beggars coat patched up at sundry times of clouts of many colours But how shall it be known saith the Pamphleter pag 85. that Protestants do agree in Fundamentals if the precise number thereof cannot be known It might be reply sufficient to appeal the adversary to give one instance of a Fundamental wherein Protestants do not agree Sure there is no Fundamental which is not owned by some Society of Christians else there should be no true Christian Church in the World but let the dogmaticalls of all the Christian Churches in the world be searched there shall not one be found about which Protestants are not agreed but upon accurat triall it may be made appear that its either false or at least not simply Necessary to Salvation Consequently it may be made evident that Protestants do agree in Fundamentals without determining the precise number of them Nay the violent opposition made to the Reformed Churches by Papists and other adversaries are no small confirmation that we hold all the Fundamentals for surely if we did deny any Fundamental our enemies who wait for our halting and love to grate upon our sorâ—s would have laid it forth convincingly before the World which none of them having been able to do it is more then probable that the Reformed Churches hold all the Fundamentals But who said that the number of absolute Fundamentals cannot be pitched upon Surely never I learned Protestants such as Crakanthorp Stillingfleet and D Taylor spare not to say that they are contained in the Apostolick Creed they judge it very probable that the ancient Church supposed the Fundamentals to be contained in their Creeds the Apostolick Nicene Athanasian and that of Constantinople If it be so then surely Protestants agree in Fundamentals for to all these Protestant do subscribe and that in the very sense wherein the ancient Church took them But Romanists have added many Fundamentals not contained in these Creeds and altogether unknown to the ancient Church therefore they disagree from the ancient Church in Fundamentals yea and among themselves also Can they so much as agree what is that Church into whose sentence faith is to resolved I add further if there be solidity in that rule laid down by Edward Fouler in his design of Christianity Sect. 3. Cap. 21. viz. that he believed all Fundamentals who upon accurat search can say that he is sincerely willing to obey his Creator and Redeemer in all things commanded by him that he entertains and harbours no lust in his breast that he heartily endeavours to have a right understanding of the Scriptures to know what doctrins are delivered therein for bettering of his soul and the direction of his life and actions I say if this be a solid rule then certainly we hold all fundamentals of religion there being thorow mercy many thousands of such serious persons in the Reformed Churches who have such a testimony in their consciences Yet I deny not but this rule has need to be well cautioned else I am afraid that Arrians Socinians and other blasphemous Hereticks will be ready to conclude hereupon that they also maintain all Fundamentals and therefore I speak of it only in conjunction with these things which went before To shut up all in a word let all the solid rules Imaginable be taken for trying who have all the Fundamentals of Faith and we decline to be tried by none of them Whereas the Popish Church dare not adventure to be tryed but by that one rule the falsehood whereof has in Sect. 3. been clearly proved and is manifestly partial viz. that all and only these things are to be held for Fundamental which she defines to be such SECT V. Whether is the Popish Religion injurious to the Fundamentals of Christianity ANswer Affirmatively and that many wayes for 1. If a Fundamental be taken for the rule of Faith or the principal and adequate standard according to which all the material objects of Faith are to be measured which is the Holy Scripture as was proved Cap. 3. Then sure Romanists erre Fundamentally for they have set up another Foundation and rule of Faith viz. the sentence of their infallible visible Judge or to speak in the language of most renowned Jesuits the sentence of the Pope hence Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. Cap. 3. Sect. Secundo Probatur Petrus quilibet ejus successor est Petra fundamentum ecclesiae i. e. Peter and any succeeding Pope is the Rock and Foundation of the Church and again a little after ejus praedicatio confessio est radix mundi si ille erraret totus mundus erraret and Grezter defens lib. 1. Cap. 1. de verb. Dei pag 16. pro verbo Dei veneramur suscipimus quod nobis pontifex ex Cathedra Petri tanquam supremus Christianorum magister omniumque controversiarum judex definiendo proponit i. e. we worship as the word of God what the Pope definitively propounds out of the Chair of Peter as the supreme master of all Christians and Judge of all controversies Though they verbally acknowledge the Apostolick Creed which is supposed by many ancient and modern authors to comprize the Fundamentals of religion yet they pervert the sense thereof as particularly of that Article of the Catholick Church as if there were held out the Catholicism Infallibility and supremacy c. of the Roman Church none of which were ever believed by the ancient Church so that to them may be applyed that of Austin Tom. 3. lib. de fid Symb. cap. 1. sub ipsis paucis in Symbolo constitutis plerumque Haeretici venena sua occultare conati sunt 3. Romanists have added many Fundamentals neither contained in Scripture nor in the ancient Creeds by which indirectly and consequentially they overthrow the true Fundamentals of Religion and the belief of these spurious Fundamentals are imposed by them upon all who would have communion with the Roman Church whereby all that would not be involved in that atrocious trespass of theirs are constrained to separate from them Many of these superinduced Fundamentals might be enumerated It s indeed a fundamental that Christ is the head of the Catholik Church but who warranted to add the Pope as another head It s a Fundamental that Christ once offered himself a sacrifice for sin on the cross but who warranted them to add a daily unbloody expiatory sacrifice in the Mass It s a Fundamental that God is Religiously to be adored but who warranted them to add that Images
proves is that ordination is a standing Ordinance in the Church which the protestant Churches do not deny but no way conclude it a proper Sacrament I hope nothing needs to be added against this pretended Sacrament till he answer what is objected against Mr. Dempster only I must remember him that Estius on the place confesses that the gists here spoken of are Timothies Ministerial endowments consequently the grace here spoken of not being Sanctifying nor jmposition of hands being a Sufficient Sacramentall sign as I shew against Mr. Dempster nothing can be hence concluded as to a proper Sacrament albeit Calvin as I advertised them grants that in a large Sense it may be termed a Sacrament For Matrimony he only cites Ephes 5. 32. which thus he renders this Sacrament is great but according to the originall it is this is a great mystery Is every thing which the Scripture calls a mystery a Sacrament with them then the mystery of iniquity 2 Thes 2. 7. and the mystery of the whore Babylon Revel 17. 5. 7. must also be Sacraments but doth not the Apostle Signify what it is he means by that mystery Ephes 5. 32. when he Subjoyns I Speake of Christ and the Church what need I more Seing I brought in my last against Mr. Dempster there own great Cardinall Cajetan confessing that from this place it doth not follow that Matrimony is a Sacrament But if he had not been smitten with Mr. Dempsters tergiversing Disease he had never wholly overleaped what I objected against this and the rest of their five spurious Sacraments if he have any Candor it s expected in his next he will reply not only to these hints but also to what was objected in my last By all this I hope it appears that the Doctrine of the Protestant Churches concerning the presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist and concerning the number of Sacraments remains unshaken what unity Romanists can pretend to in this question of the number of Sacraments I leave to be gathered from these two Testimonies The first shall be of Greg. de Val. the Jesuite lib. de num Sacr. cap. 3. 7. Sâ—me Catholicks saith he denies Matrimony others Confirmation and others extream Vnstion to be univocally a Sacrament Thâ— other of Cassander Consult art 13. apud authores saith he Paulo vetustiores inter Sacramenta proprie dista nunc duo ponuntur nunc tria Baptismus Eucharistia Confirmatio non temere quenquam reperies ante Lâ—mâ—ardum qui certum aliquem definitum numerum statuerit de hi septem non omnes quidem Scholastici aeque proprie Sacramentum vocabant CHAP. VI. Whether Protestant Churches do grant that the Visible Church was not always preserved and that for 1400. years before Luther Popery was the only prevailing Religion IT may seem strange that I should be put to Debate this question having so often appealed Mr. Dempster to try the Truth of Religion not only by its conformity with the holy Scriptures but also with the Faith of the ancient Church But so evil natur'd is this Ghost of Mr. Dempster that as if I were too narrow a Mark for his reviling genius he spends one entire Section from pag. 125. to 129. in a calumnious representation of the Protestant Churches as if the more ancient Protestants had affirmed that the Visible Church had perished from the days of the Apostles and that the only prevailing Religion for 1400. years before Luther had been Popery For this end he has scraped together out of his common Place-Books a multitude of broken shreds from Protestant Authors from which he deduces sundry absurd inferences of which the Authors never once dreamed how desperate must the Romish Cause be when they cannot impugne us but by misrepresenting us and charging upon us Tenets which they know we condemn Yea though we disown them yet they will still impose them upon us When they thus sport with their own Shadows do they not gallantly confute the Protestant Religion To assoyle therefore the Protestant Churches in this matter and to demonstrate that our Adversaries play but the Sycophants these ensuing observations may be noticed And first the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches is not to be measured by the sentiments of private Doctors of what fame soever but by their solemn Confessions of Faith long ago published to the world purposely to prevent such misrepresentations The harmony whereof in the substantials of Faith penned by men of so many different Nations under no common jurisdiction and of so different complexions as to other things is next to a miracle and may be Sufficient to confute the pretended necessity of an infallible visible judge But in this present debate the Adversary brings not one Sentence out of these confessions but only from the writings of private Doctors yea some of them not only of small account but also disowned by the more judicious as being no Protestants at all Would Romanists be content that we hold the Sentiments of their most famous Doctors Such as Cajetan Durandus Gerson Ferus c. much more of these who have apostatized from them for the Doctrine of their Church Why then deal they with us by other measures then they would be dealt with themselves Secondly much less are Broken shreds from Protestant authours violently detorted contray to their known judgment in other their writings to be taken for the standard of the Reformed Religion Yet such are most of the Testimonies which Breerly Knot H. T. c. and this filching Pamphleter who licks up their excrements doe make use of in this question Did Dr. John Whyte Whitaker Chillingworth Calvin Iewel Chemnitus the Centurists c. maintain that there were none that professed the Religion of Protestants from the dayes of the Apostles intill Luther or that Popery was the only Prevailing Religion for 1400. years before Luther Nay on the contrary doth not Dr. John Whyte in is way to the Church sect 17. Peremptorily affirm that this faith which we professe hath successively continued in all ages since Christ and was never interrupted not so much as one year moneth or day Doth not Chillingworth c. 5. sect 9. when he is pondering such Testimonies of Jewel Naper Brocard c. as are cited by the Pamphleter declar they never meant that the visible Church had totally failed but only from its purity Doth not Whitaker Controv. 2. c. 5. q. 7. expresly affirm That we can prove out of the Fathers our Doctrine to have been in the Church in all these ancient ages Doth he not a little after charge Bellarmine as belying Calvin and the Centurists as if when they charged the Fathers with these errors mentioned by this Pamphleter viz. Limbo freewill and merit of good works as if I say they had charged these on all the Fathers and on all the Church none of which they ever meant saith Whitaker Sure I am Chemnitius pag. 200 at least in that Edit I have Genev. 1641.
substance else this should be repugnant to the true Cyprian but for the condition of these Elements as when we say that things are of different nature some common and prophane others holy and Divine in this sense the Elements after consecration are changed in their nature beginning then to be of holy use and Divine vertue albeit Learned Salmasius in Simplicio Verino Pag. 78. suspects that testimony to be vitiated and that it ought to be read nec specie nec natura neither changed in shape nor in nature Romanists have committed many such parricids on the writings of Fathers so that here also I may conclude with a fourth demonstration of Romish Novelty That the substance of Bread and Wine are destroyed in the Eucharist and the body and blood of Christ are substituted in their place was no essential of Faith in the first three ages But this is an essential of the present Romish Faith Ergo c. SECT V. A fifth instance of Novelty concerning Purgatory examined and Retorted THe Pamphleter in his fifth Instance saith that Protestants deny Purgatory and Prayers for the dead Where Sophistically he throwes two Popish errors together Well he knew that no solid testimony for Purgatory could be brought from the Church in the first three Centuries therefore he adds to it prayer for the dead as if the Ancient Church had no other end in Praying for the dead but to deliver them from the torments of Purgatory which shall appear to be a manifest falshood Purgatory is indeed an Article of the Romish Faith as appears by the Council of Trent sess 6. can 30. and sess 25. decret de Purg. and Bell. lib. 1. de Purg. cap. 5. yea so essential an Article that T. C. adversary to the Arch. Bishop of Cant. is bold to say that we are under as much necessity to believe it as the Trinity or incarnation nor is it wonder that they contend so earnestly for it For as Spalat lib. 5. de repub Eccles cap. 8. Sect. 73. hath observed it is the Doctrine which hath most enriched the Church of Rome But it is as far from the Faith of the Ancient Christian Church in the first three ages as Hell is from Heaven Is it not acknowledged by eminent Authors in the Romish Church Roffensis art 18. cont Luth. Polid. Virg. lib. 8. de invent rerum cap. I. Alphonsus a Castro de haeres lib. 8. verb. indulg and lib. 12. tit Purgatorium that it was but lately known to the Catholick Church little or no mention of it made by Greek Fathers and by the Latins themselves received but by little and little Yea that to this day it is not believed by the Greek Church Doth not Sixtus Senensis lib. 6. annot 259. confess that an apology written by Marcus Metrop of Ephesus was given into the Council of Basil in name of the Greek Church disapproving the Doctrine of Purgatory And among themselves there are Authors of great Note who have denyed Purgatory such as Learned Picherel de missa cap. 2. Pag. 250. Barnes Cathol Roman Pacif. Sect. 9. L. D. ad finem paral and doth not Thomas ab Albijs in his tractate de medio animarum statu strike at the Foundation of it But to leave these testimonies out of their own bowels how far the Ancient Church was from believing Purgatory to be an Article of Faith is copiously and Learnedly demonstrated by Dallaeus lib. 6. de paenis satisfaâ— per totum At the time let Cyprian suffice for all lib. ad Demet. cum isthinc excessum fuerit when once we pass from this Life there is no place for repentance nor any effect of satisfaction sure then no Purgatory and a little before to the same Demet he says that when this Life is finished ad aeternae vel mortis vel immortalitatis hospitia dividimu we are divided to the eternal dwellings of death or of immortality where he acknowledges two states after this Life and both these eternal and in Serm. de lapsis he exhorts him that has sinned to confess his sin dum in saeculo est while he is in this World dum admitti confessio ejus potest dum satisfactio remissio facta per sacerdotem apud dominum gratia est where clearly he holds out that after this Life neither confession nor satisfaction can be accepted of God and in his excellent treatise de immortalitate this is one of his chief arguments whereby he encourages Christians against the fear of death because presently after death they are invested with eternal Life ejus est mortem timere qui ad Christum nolit ire ejus est ad Christum nolle ire qui se non credat cum Christo jncipere regnare if departed Saints begin to reign with Christ then sure they are not thrust down to torments equivalent to the torments of Hell But did not the Ancient Church pray for the dead Answ It s granted she did but not for a liberation from torments under which she supposed them to be presently smarting as do Romanists and therefore from these Prayers nothing can be concluded for Purgatory The Ancient Church in their Prayers for the dead did pray for Martyrs Apostles Patriarchs Prophets the Virgin Mary and for all the faithful as appears from Epiphanius haeres 75. and from the Liturgies that go under the names of James and of Chrysostom in bib pat tom 2. graeco latin and from the Liturgy of the Churches of Egypt attributed to Basil Greg Nazianzen and Cyril in bib pat tom 6. edit 4. Cyprian likewise lib. 4. Epist 5. affirms they offered for the Martyrs who had received Palmes and Crowns Many more testimonies may be brought but I sum up all in that testimony of Austin lib. de cura pro mortuis cap. 4. who affirms that Prayers were made for all that dyed in the Catholick Faith Seeing therefore the Ancient Church prayed for those who by the confession of all were not in torment but in a blessed state the scope of their Prayers was not for deliverance from the torments of Purgatory If any aske for what then did they pray for the dead Bell. is constrained to afford us an answer for when he had objected to himself lib. 2. de Purg. cap. 5. how in the Mass for the dead they pray that the Souls of the faithful may be delivered from the pains of Hell from the deep lake from the mouth of the Lyon he answers that although the Souls of the faithful at their particular judgment have received a sentence whereby they are delivered from Hell yet there remains a general judgment where they are to receive a solemn sentence both as to Soul and Body and that the Prayers of the Missal do relate to that last sentence of the great day the same may be said to have been the scope of the Prayers of the ancient Church But yet further to clear that the Prayers of the ancient Church had no reference to
those that are ingenuous yea there be who reckon it an honour to be maligned by them Argumentum recti est displicere pessimis Let therefore these few hints of the chief of his Accusations at this time suffice And first Who would not smile that I should be accused by this Pamphleter as a man of uncertain Religion especially seeing himself acknowledges pag. 24. that the Thesis maintained by me is that the Religion of Protestants is the true Christian Religion If therefore the Religion of Protestants be known mine cannot be uncertain In that Faith was I Educated from my Infancy and hitherto thorough mercy have continued and therein I trust to die But who can be sure of a Jesuits Religion whose Principle it is to equivocate and by the help of his Mental Reservations to affirm and swear one thing and to think another What Sceptick and Infidel Glosses which would make Christian ears to tingle Jesuits have put upon the Apostolick Creed Alphonsus de Vargas relates de Stratagem Jesuit cap. 18 19. yea so customary is it with them to change themselves into all shapes and as was roundly told them by a Gentleman of the Long Robe in the Parliament of Paris to have one Conscience in one place and another in another that the world passes this Character on them Jesuita omnis homo Must not secondly Jesuits be men of rare confidence who can accuse me of Disloyalty for Preaching a Seâ—mon on such a Text of Scripture upwards of twenty years ago when I was a very young man wherein I do sincerely profess I had not a disloyal thought Are not the seditious Lectures of Jesuit Hay and Jesuit Cammolet known who openly taught execrable Regicide both in School and Pulpit Were not the Treasonable writings of Mariana Suarez Santarell and of other Jesuits asserting the lawfulness of deposing and murthering of Kings set forth permissu Superiorum Hath the world forgot the barbarous Paracides acted upon Henry the Third and Henry the Fourth two French Kings or the Powder-Plot designed against King James and the two Houses of the English Parliament and of the deep accession of Jesuits to all these What Sticklers Jesuits were in the late Commotions of Britain D Moulin in his Answer to Philanax from pag. 58. to 64. hath given an account How doth an Accusation of Disloyalty savour out of these mens mouths May not here the words of the Satyrist have place Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione querentes Quis Caelum terrae non misceat mare Caelo Si fur displiceat Verri homicida Miloni Clodius accuset maechos Catilina Cethegum As for me the Heart-searching God knows I abominate whatever hath a tincture of Disloyalty and therefore to cut off such Cavils as I have asserted in this Tractate the Ancient Christian Faith against Romish Novelty so do I avouch before the world Primitive Christian Loyalty I do cordially subscribe to that of Optat. lib. 3. contra Parmen Super Imperatorem non est nisi solus Deus qui fecit Imperatorem and to that of Tertull. Apol. cap. 30. Imperatores in solius Dei sunt potestate à quo sunt secundi post quem primi ante omnes super omnes Deos homines Whatever is or hath been repugnant to this I do for ever disown If notwithstanding all this Jesuits will renew the same Accusations they will do but like themselves reacting against me Cockleus Bolsecus their game against Luther Calvin and Beza charging them again and again with Calumnies the falshood whereof hath times without number been evicted but this I hope will satisfie persons of discretion and ingenuity When thirdly the Pamphleter did accuse me of Disciplinary Vacillations he would perhaps have been more sober had he reflected on the atrocious Vacillation of Pope Liberius who professed the Orthodox Faith the one day and subscribed the Arrian Confession and the damnation of Athanasius the other or of Pope Marcellinus who professed Christianity to day and sacrificed to Idols to morrow or of Claudius Aquaviva General of the Jesuits who first did approve Mariana's Treasonable Book and then for fear of the French King condemned it Nor know I what Apology can be made for any of these unless it be said Mutarunt linguam non mentem that they changed their Tongue but not their Mind which leaves no less stain upon their ingenuity than the change of their mind would have done upon their Intellectuals Here I must advertise the Pamphleter that he and his Fellows discover either ignorance or malice when they upbraid Protestants with their Disciplinary differences as if they made different Religions If these of the Episcopal perswasion resolved their Faith on the Bishops Authority as Jesuits do on the Popes or if Presbyterians resolved their Faith on the Authority of the Classis as the French and Venetian Papists do on the General Council they would indeed make different Religions as Papists certainly have different Religions notwithstanding their vain pretences of Infallibility and Unity But the Faith of all Protestants under these various denominations is resolved upon the Authority of God speaking in the Scriptures and besides they do agree in Dogmaticals and so cannot make different Religions I heartily wish there were more Pacificatories written and more pains taken for accommodating our Disciplinary Controversies that all sound Protestants might unanimously concur against Jesuits and the common Adversaries of the truly Catholick Faith I detest Schisms however I be reproached by Jesuits remembring that of Cyprian de Vnit Eccles Qui pacem Christi concordiam rumpit adversus Christum facit quisquis à matrice discesserit seorsum vivere spirare non potest substantiam Salutis omittit And I would humbly obtest all dissident Brethren about these Disciplinary Questions if I could with tears of blood to consider if the Lord be not signally calling us all to study the unity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace Ah shall we by these our Rents open a door to the common Adversary who would swallow us all up Were the Unity of the Catholick Church studied as it ought it would not only allay the heat of our Disciplinary Debates but also pull down the supercilious Crest of the Schismatical Court of Rome I am fourthly charged as being of an unpeaceable nature The knack of this Jest would be lost if my Accusers were not the known Boutefeu's and Incendiaries of the world Since I was 16 years of Age to this day I have lived in a Collegiate life as a Regent of Philosophy Minister and Professor of Divinity and in these capacities have had many Collegues with whom I have lived very comfortably This together with the peaceable Society which my Reverend Collegues at present and I have together may sufficiently confute the Pamphleters accusation I confess there was once a piece of Debate betwixt a Reverend Person now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and me concerning a Disciplinary Question wherein