and approbation from the Sea of Rome I grant And this confirmes the Infallibility of the Church To satisfie us our adversary is pleased to say the Romanists demand how shall we resolve our doubts in matters of Faith if the decision of General Councils be fallible He Answers by setting Reason to Reason and trying the matter by the Authority of the Holy Scripture Here I ask if that Collation or comparing of Reason with Reason and tryal by the Holy Scripture be fallible or infallible If fallible it serves for nothing in a matter of Faith of which we are speaking for since I must give an assent Infallible super omnia above all my doubt must be taken infallibly away If it be Infallible I ask Again is it in clearing doubts in fundamentals or integrals of Religion Not infundamentals for there is no doubt in them they being according to Protestants clearly set down to Men in Scripture If in Integrals then say I since a private man useing that means may be infallibly clear'd in his doubts concerning Integrals then a General Council using the same means may be infallibly cleared in them and consequently infallibly propose them to the People to be believ'd since they are infallibly found to be reveal'd by God in Scripture and consequently he who will refuse to believe them will be justly look'd upon as an Heretick SECT V. We are sure that the Major Part of an approv'd general Council is Baptis'd ANother Scare-Crow from our Doctrine of Infallibility is that a lawful Council ought to be composed of men who have been really Baptiz'd but R. Cath. can never be sure of such an Assembly sayes our Adversary since the Validity of Baptism depends according to them of the uncertain intention of the Minister And upon the same account they are never certain that their Popes are Priests because perhaps the Bishop who ordain'd them had no such intention Answer First that the Synods and general Assemblies of Protestants be lawful the members of them must be of the Elect for if they are not of the Elect Christ did not dye for them according to the Kirk of Scotland and if Christ did not dye for them they are not Christians and if they are not Christians what Spirit influenced them in making your Catechisms and Profession of Faith in which you believe are found all the foundamentals of Christianity They composed them they put them into your hands by their Authority as a motive of credibility you rely upon them How are you more assured that they are of the Elect then that our members of a General Council are Baptiz'd Is it written in their faces O but they have a gift of prayer had not Major Wyer in appearance one and a very great one Answer Secundo We are sure of the Baptism of the Major part of the General Council when we see it approv'd by the Pope because it belongs to the providence of GOD not to permit a General Council unlawful for some hidden defect to have all the outward form of a lawful Council for so he would give an occasion of Error to the whole Church believing it to be a lawful Council if as it might fall out such a Council should propose a false Doctrine to be believed Since the Faithful acknowledge they are bound to hear the teaching Church Matth. 18.23.17 A Subsect The Infallibility of the Church deny'd underminds Christianity OUr Adversary having prov'd as he imagin'd the Fallibility of the teaching Church draws these conclusions The Church is fallible then she imposes no obligation to believe her Decisions as Articles of Faith then who rejects Transubstantiation Purgatory c. are not Hereticks Answer From that antecedent the Church is Fallible he might as well have drawn these conclusions then There is no Faith nor true Religion For if the Church be fallible in her Decisions then she is fallible in teaching us that Christianity is the true Religion then it s only probable that Christianity is the true Religion Again if it be only probable that Christianity is the true Religion theâ— its only probable that CHRIST is God Go further if it be only probable that CHRIST is God then it may be he is not God Is this a pretty Discourse Is not this Discourse rationally deduc'd from that antecedent The Church is Fallible thâ— Church nevertheless which God will have us hear under pain of disobeying him Where is then Faith Where is true Religion If you say the former Discourse is not Rational because you have another Principle to wit the Holy Scripture by which you prove the Infallibility of Christianity I ask by what Principle prove you that the sense in which you understand the Holy Scripture and in which only it is to you a Principle of Demonstrating the Infallibility of Christianity is the Word of God By no other but by your private Light or Spirit but this is Fallible as I shall show anon then if the other Principle of the whole Churches Decision be also Fallible the former Discourse was Rational it following from any Principle you please to take for your religion if your principle carry with it fallibility and consequently onely probability of that which is inferred from it Now I prove that your private Light or private Spirit is fallible You are not sure 't is the Spirit of God that enlightens you afore you have try'd it by the Scripture try the Spirit sayes St. Iohn 1 Iohn cap. 4. v. 1. You won't try it by the Church then you must try it by Scripture Again you cannot read the Scripture in Order to try this Spirit afore you are sure you are enlighten'd and guided by the Spirit of God for if perchance it be the ill Spirit transfiguring himself into an Angel of Light who guids you he 'l make that seem to you true which is false If you can't be sure it is the Spirit of God that inlightens you you can't be sure that the spirit which inlightens you is Infallible then it s fallible and consequently your private Light or private Spirit is fallible And if your private Spirit with all the help of the Scripture is fallible and in your Opinion the Spirit of the Church in a General Council is also fallible I pray what Infallible Principle have we from which we may deduce or Demonstrate the Infallibility of the Christian Religion if we have none we are shaken out of our Faith and have no true Religion Be pleas'd to take notice then that you must assert with us the Infallibility of the teaching Church According to that Ephes 4. v. 11. He made some Pastors and Doctors c. that we be not Children wavering and carried away with every wind of Doctrine Or you have no ground to stand on for Christianity Reflect again how can we but waver in our thoughts and be ready to be carried away with every Wind of Doctrine if we believe that the Church which is Teaching us is fallible
to say that the Protestant Church is fallible Because if she befallible she may deny a reveal'd Truth and who told you she does not and so in sensu composito of Protestancy i. e. at the same time that she is Protestant she may become Heretick or be both at once Protestant and Heretick If you say she is Infallible and cannot become Heretick I ask how came the Romau Church which was once as true a Church as the Protestant Church is now since St. Paul saies Romans 1. v. 8. their Faith was anounc'd or Preach'd through the whole World to be fallible and Heretick If you say this proposition a Protestant is not an Heretick is an Act of Science then it must rely upon an evidence No other but that of Scripture and so it returns to an Act of Faith If you say 't is an Act of Opinion only for one of these three either an Act of Faith of Science or Opinion it must be then the contrary is also probable then its probable that a Protestant is an Heretick and consequently it may be said without Ignorance Calumny or Injustice a Protestant is an Heretick or denyes a reveal'd Truth CHAP. IV. The Infallibility of General Councils defended SECT I. St. Augustin 's saying of the mending of a former Council by a posterior fully answered OUr Adversary conscious to himself that we put the Definitions of approv'd General Councils in the number of reveal'd Truths Grants indeed that Protestants deny General Councils to be Infallible in their Decisions but their Infallibility saies he is no Article of Faith Else Augustin was an Heretick avouching de Bap lib. 2. contra Donatis c. 3. That General Councils gathered out of all the Christian World are often corrected the former by the latter the correction of a Council undoubtedly supposes a precedent Error and a Council to be Errable as every one understands that knows any thing Answer St. Augustin does not say often corrected but mended there is a great difference between these two Words the one supposes an Error the other only whatsomever defect it being deriv'd from menda which as Scaliger in his notes upon varro remarks comes from the Latin adverb minus and properly signifies any defect whatsomever A Master Painter draws a Lady his piece is prais'd as well done having all its just proportions and perfectly all her Features Another Master draws her again with a little more Life he is also said to have drawn her well nay to have mended the other So well suffers a Latitude without the Compass of Error The first did well but as we say in Latine minus Benè Altho' two Scholers compose a Theam both without Error yet one may have made minus Benè then the other i. e. with less Elegance If you ask me in what this amendment of a General Council was or may be made I Answer if you will have this amendment to be the correction of an Error of a General approv'd Council it is to be understood in some matters of Fact or some precepts of maners which depending of the circumstance of Time Place and Persons may have been right and good at one time and in convenient at another and therefore chang'd by reason of the change of circumstances And that this was the meaning of St. Augâ—stin I prove by his following Words pleanary Countils may be amended the former by the latter when saies he by some experiment of things that is Opened which was shut up and that known which lay hid I ask can we know by any experiment of things how many persons are in the Divine Nature How many in CHRIST how many Sacraments No but the Truth of a Fact which lay hid with time may come to Light and so alter the mind of the Judge You 'l say the matter in Question here with St. Augustin and the Donatists was a matter of Faith Ans The matter which gave the occasion to Augustin to speak of General Councils I grant the matter at which he hinted in these last Words plenaria Saepe priora posterioribus emendari I deny and with ground Because when he speaks of the Letters of Bishops and of Provincial or National Councils he uses these Words Licere reprehendi Siquid in eis forte a veritate deviatum est which import a capacity of down right Error as I said afore And speaking of General Councils he cautiously uses the Word Emendari which imports only some defect whatsomever All this is strongly confirm'd by his saying in the same Chap that St. Cyprian would certainly have corrected his Opinion had the point in his time been defin'd by a General Council And again by what he sayes Lib. primo de Bap. contra donat Tom. 7. that no doubt ought to be made of what is by full Decree established in a General Council how can this be true if in his Opinion a General Council may Err I ask again had there been more then the first four General Councils the fourth being that of Chalcedon held under Leo the first the year of our Lord four hundred and fifty which four General Councils St. Gregory respected as the four Evangils when St. Augustin said this and yet he sayes Saepe Emendari had he seen any mended in matter of Faith Lastly I give to take from you all Scruple that a General Council may be mended as to the want of a more clear Explication by a posterior when experience shows us that some new arising Errors demand a more ample Declaration of some point of Doctrine already defin'd But that New Declaration gives you no more a new point of Doctrine then I give you a new Rose when I blow out a bud which is in your hand you have no more of a Rose than you had before but only a fuller sight of it No more have you of the truth in such an Explanation then you had before but onely a clearer sight of it In fine if a posterior Council might correct a former in matter of Faith 't would serve for nothing for why am I more sure of this than they of the former This were only to breed confusion and foment division while the adherents of one party clash with the other since neither has Infallibility as you suppose A Subject Another objecton solv'd OUr Adversary brings another passage out of St. Augustin against Maximian an Arian Bishop lib. 3 cap. 4. But first St. Augustin has not wrote any thing against any Arian Bishop called Maximian as you may see in the Index of his Works He has indeed written three Books against Maximinus an Arian Bishop but in the fourth chap of the third Book he quot's there is no such thing as this passage which he sets down thus Neque ego teneor concilio Niceno neque tu Arimenenci Neque standum tibi est Authoritati hujus nec mihi illius Ponenda materia cum materia causa cum causa ratio cum ratione examinanda res Authoritate
of CHARLES the first our Lawful Soveraign I grant the Loyal party now has a Horrour of that deposing Power But it must be confessed the Royal party it self had not that horrour when being of the Church of England they deposed in like manner Queen MARY of Scotland Lawful Heir of that Kingdom Since then the Actions of both the Church of England and Kirk of Scotland or of both the Prelatick and Presbyterian party make our History blush at what they have done in this matter should not either of them be asham'd to cast up so often to the R. Catholick Religion that some of Her Children have Written not with assurance but with a fear that the contrary Opinion was true that there is a deposing Power in the Pope SECT II. Protestants are in a worse condition than those who never heard of CHRIST OUr Antagonist advances an other proof to show that a Protestant can be Sav'd God sayes He illuminates all Men that come into this World Iohn 1. v 8. then he adds are not Protestants Men Answer They are Men and illuminated by God but if they resist this Light which is given them and equivalently tell God as those wicked Men of whom Iob spoke Iob. 21. v. 14. Scientiam viarum tuarum nolumus We will not have the knowledge of thy Wayes They will be found more remote from Heaven then if they had not receiv'd it He urges we R. Catholicks grant that Infidels who have never heard of CHRIST may be Sav'd and inconsequently deny that hope of happiness to Protestants Answer There 's no ill consequence here to deny a capacity of Salvation to him who puts a hinderance to it and to grant it to him who puts none The Infidel who hath never heard of CHRIST doing what lyes in him by living according to the Light of Nature make 's way to Grace But the Protestant who rejects Faith offered to him by God and his Church willingly shuts up the avenue to a further Grace and untill he remove this obstacle by an humble submission of his Judgment to Faith he continues in an impossibility to please GOD. O! but you are uncharitable sayes He to perswade the simple People that a Protestant can't be Sav'd I ask him can a R. Catholick be Sav'd If he saies no where is his Charity for us If he affirms we may then they who according to Protestants are Idolaters may be Sav'd If so whom will you exclude from Heaven But to return to his Objection since he denies Charity to us and we only Faith to him Charity being a greater Vertue then Faith according to St. Paul is not he in this more Uncharitable to us then we to him He goes on do not Protestants believe all Fundamentals contained in the three Creeds and Scripture I Answer First since that there are Fundamentals as condistinguished from Intigrals or not Fundamentals is a Fundamental point with him I ask in what CREED or Book and Chap. of Scripture is this Fundamental contained If he can't find this then that hereafter he speaking with Catholicks may distinguish a Fundamental from an Integral as he calls it Let him take this notion of a Fundamental from us to wit that all things contained in Holy Scripture are Fundamentals in this sense that we are bound to believe them under pain of Damnation when they are sufficiently propos'd to us by the Church as reveal'd by God in the Scripture For to disbelieve God revealing that Christ meâ—t a blind man on the way of Iericho destroyes as much his veracity as to distrust him revealing that his Son became man By this notion of Fundamentals we perfectly distinguish the Faithful foul from a Infidel or Sectarian And therefore it is not given without ground or reason Again when Christ commanded the Gospell to be preached to Men did he command the things only which you call fundamentals to be Preach'd or the whole Gospel if things only you call Fundamentals why were the Apostles so exact to give us the whole Gospel that it 's thought Damnable not only to add but to pair from it If he commanded the whole Gospel to be Preached and consequently to be believ'd how can he be sav'd who refuses to believe the least Integral of it when it 's sufficiently proposd to him as reuealed by God SECT III. It is not Lawfull to follow a probable Opinion in matter of belief NOw I come to his Achiles this dreadful Argument to Romanists this Argument in in his Judgment above the reach of all Rational Solution It runs thus Who Follows a probable Opinion neither sins nor does rashly or Imprudently But who bolds that Protestants may be sav'd followes a probable Opinion Then he neither sins nor does rashly or Imprudently The major saies he is Commonly admitted by Iesuits and others And a probable Opinion is that which Learned Prudent and Pious Men hold But that a Protestant may be sav'd is an Opinion that Learn'd Prudent and Pious Men hold then it is a probable Opinion that Protestants may be sav'd Ans I distinguish the major in matter of Faith on which absolutly depends Salvation he does not Sin who follows a Probable Opinion I deny in other matters I grant If we hold a Priest to Sin and all Judicious Men think we ought to do so in our Principles who makes use in the Baptism of a dying Child of that which is only probably Water having at hand sure Water Because he makes a mortal breach of Charity against his Neighbour exposing the Child's Salvation Am not I damnably Injurious to my self to follow a probable Opinion in matter of Faith without which I cannot be sav'd when I have my choice of taking a sure way am not I bound to be as Charitable to my self in a matter of that consequence as to my Neighbour Again can my understanding tell my Will that she may prudently command him to give a certain and infallible assent super omnia above all that may be said such as the assent of Faith is to an object to command which she is only mov'd by a probable motive what it an Angel come after this assent is made from Heaven and tell me the thing I assented to is false as I fear'd or might have reasonably fear'd 't was having only a probable motive to beleive the contrary Might not he accuse me not only of Imprudence but also of boldness to make my self believe that God said it and so Father upon him as other articles of my Faith this which is found to be false which I might have justly fear'd having only so slender a ground as a probable Opinion is to believe it A Subsect 'T is not a probable Opinion that a Protestant may be sav'd MOreover I deny that it is a probable Opinion that Protestants may be Sav'd First Because the Church has defin'd the contrary which definition excludes all probability from that Opinion Secondly I deny that Learned and Pious Men hold that
Opinion Our Adversary foreseeing this our negative adds dare we say that Protestants are neither Learn'd nor Pious and then with a triumphing Jock he quots that Verse of Horace Auditum admissi risum teneatis amici To our Imagin'd confusion But fair and softly Would you think that a publick Professor of Philosophy should from a copulative deny'd inferr the negative of both the members as it from this deny'd copulative Our Adversary is a Souldier and a Physitian He should presently say then according to you I am neither a Souldier nor a Phisitian Who would not laugh at this Illation And consequently if I desire you not to laugh Reader or Hearer it is not at us but at him for his simplicity il ne faut pas chanter devant la Victoire saies the French-Man He should not have aplauded himself afore a clearer Eye then his had seen his Victory When I say Protestants are not Learn'd and Pious I don't say they are neither Learn'd nor Pious there 's a great difference between these two propositions I say that Protestants are not Learn'd and Pious because they who are Learn'd viz. in matters of Faith see the Truth and they who are Pious embrace it when they see it Since Protestants then do not embrace the R. Catholick Faith which has appear'd as the only true to all Antiquity as I may easily show and clearly shines to Men who have not their understanding vailed 2 Cor. 3.15 out of the Holy Scripture as I shall make appear anon either they do not see it and those are not Learn'd or they see it and do not embrace it according to that video meliora proboque deteriora sequor that is to say I see what is Good and approve of it but in the mean time I practice what is Evil and those are not Pious But while I say they are not Learn'd and Pious in order to Salvation I don't deny that many of them are very knowing Men in matter of Philosophy Astrology Mathematicks and such like Sciences and also Men of moral Lives But Quid mihi proderat saies St. Augustin Ingenium per omnes Doctrinas liberales agile cum in Doctrina pietatis errarem What did it avail me to have had a Wit fitted for all Liberal Arts whilst I was Ignorant of the Art of saving my Soul erring in the Doctrine of Piety Out of the True Church there is no Sanctity and without True Sanctity there is no True or solid Piety Let me give our Adversary one Light more by which he may see the weakness of his Argument I give and not grant that it is a probable Opinion that a Protestant may be Sav'd and suppose that Sempronius relying on it becomes a Protestant Now I say either Sempronius certainly believes that all the Articles of his Faith are clearly set down in Scripture for they are no where else or not If the former then he does not rely upon a probable Opinion only for his being a Protestant but upon a certainty if the latter then he is not a true Protestant who has the Articles of his Faith not from Church or Apostolical Tradition but from Scripture only So a Man can never become a Protestant who must believe that all the Articles of his Faith are clearly set down in Scripture relying only on this Principle 't is a probable Opinion that a Protestant may be Sav'd I ask again our Adversary whither this Principle a Man may follow a probable Opinion in matter of Religion Be a true or false Principle If false then a Man may prove a true Religion by a false Principle If true then a Man may prove the Religion which is false in the Opinion of our Adversary to be a true Religion by a true Principle which is absurd viz. the R. Catholick Religion is proven to be true because Catholicks of whom many are Learned and Pious nay some Protestants whose Authority makes with him a probable Opinion hold it to be a saving and consequently a true Religion SECT IV. The formal Protestant cannot be sav'd ALtho he thinks he has won the cause by his last Argument yet he brings another to prove that a Protestant nay a formal Protestant may be sav'd And to prevent our answer he sayes that R. Catholicks as he was taught distinguish the formal Protestant from the material in this that the material is in an invincible Ignorance the formal in a vincible Ignorance But before he goes further I must tell him that he is either short of Memory or that he took ill up his Lesson of the formal Hereticks For R. Catholick Divines teach not that he is a formal Heretick who lives in a vincible Ignorance altho' grosly culpable and affected too if he be not pertinacious but he only is a formal Heretick who with obstinacy defends an Errour Hence St. Aug. Epist 162. speaks thus Qui sententiam suam quamvis falsam atque perversam nulla pertinaci animositate defendunt c. parati corrigi cum invenerint veritatem nequaquam sunt inter Hereticos reputandi id est Who defends their Opinion tho false and perverse but without any obstinacy ready to submit when the Truth shall be shown them are not at all to be counted Hereticks So when our Adversary tells me that a formal Protestant may have stronger Arguments viz. as they appear to him against Transubstantiation then for it he is in an invincible Ignorance and so may be Sav'd I infer from that antecedent not and so may be Sav'd But and so is only a material Protestant according to the notion of a material Protestant given and agreed upon by our Adversary and so indeed the material Protestant may in this case be Sav'd not the formal But then he will tell you there is no formal Protestant for who knowing his Error defends it is an Hypocrite c. not a True Protestant Answer There are likely many such among those who pass in the esteem of their Brethren for true Protestants Men I say carried away either by Passion or Interest to speak against their knowledge As among R. Catholicks there are but too many who are led by Interest or Passion to do that which they know to be Damnable and against their Conscience And now not to speak of those who have been and are known to be of this Category I bring you a Reason for the proof of what I have said which is this It 's certain all the Arguments R. Catholicks bring for the proof of their Religion are not clearly and with full satisfaction solv'd by Protestants or else why would so many of their Learn'd Men as I could Name some come to us for Truth 's sake not only without any Humane inticement but on the contrary with great Worldly prejudice and renouncing of natural satisfaction which is not remark'd in our Learn'd People going to them when their Lives after they have left us are considered without passion Now if this be true that our
are That every one may see clearly whither or no what I hold as a Tenet of Religion is not found among them but is a meer superstruction Will you refuse to a considerable Person who thinks certainly he has seen in the Law Book a Law which justifies the Action for which he is condemn'd to Die Will you I say refuse him a publick sight of that Book to justifie your Sentence against him but notwithstanding the murmur of the People upon your refusal of his demand suspecting him Innocent savagely cast him If not do not condemn us who hold for certainty Transubstantiation to be so Fundamental that no Christian of the first three Ages would have deny'd it A Subsect Other Proofs that we agree in Faith with those of the first three Ages I Ask our Adversary did those Christians living then believe as a Fundamental point that they were the true Church planted by CHRIST and continued from the Apostles or not If not then they could not say in their Creed I believe in the Holy Catholick Church If they did believe it I ask again upon what ground was truth warranted to them for three hundred Years and not to the Church till the end of the World Was not Gods promise of Infallibility to his Church made to it as well to the end of the World as for the first three hundred Years Isaiah 59. v. 21. This is my Covenant with them saith the Lord my Spirit which is upon thee to wit the Church and my Words which I have put in thy Mouth shall not depart out of thy Mouth nor out of the Mouth of thy Seed nor out of the Mouth of thy Seeds Seed saith the Lord from henceforth and forever And to the Ephes 4. cap. v. 11 12 13 14. And he gave some Apostles some Prophets and some Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints c. till we all come in the unity of the Faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God c. That we henceforth be no more Children tost too and fro and carried about with every Wind of Doctrine by the slight of Men. If he avow the Church fail'd not in Fundamental Truths I wonder how he can allow Luther and Calvin's Reforming the Church with so much Fire Sword and Confusion for a matter that did not impede Salvation If they Reform'd Her in Fundamentals then She perish'd which is against the Infallible promise of CHRIST If you say they did not Reform it as it lay pure in the Souls of some chosen tho' unknown to others but in the publick Pastors and Teachers who were reprehensible for their grievous Deviations then say I where was the visible Church to which Men should have recourse for the hearing of the Word and receiving of the Sacraments Isaiah cap. 2. v. 3. A second Proof and Reason is drawn from that it seems morally impossible that in the begining of the fourth Age if he will have the fall of Religion then the Pastors should propose a number of new Tenets to be believ'd and perswade the People that they had heard them from their Fathers of the third Age not one individual Person in the mean time remembring that he heard them from his Is it credible that not only one Parish or Nation but all Countries who liv'd afore in the Union of the Catholick Church should of a sudden have permitted themselves to be cheated into this perswasion or rather bewitch'd since not one was found for many Ages to have gainsaid it or reclaimed against it Since this then is Morally impossible conclude that these Tenets of R. Catholicks which our adversary calls novelties were the old tenets of the three first Centuries A third reason 't is remark'd that God never permitted any notable Error to rise up in his Church but alwayes stirred up at the same time some man or men to speak and write against it and mov'd the whole Church to joyn with them to destroy it So Athanasius rose up against Arius Cyrillus Alexandrinus against Nestorius Augustin against Pelagius All back'd by the whole Church for the total overthrowing of those Errors Now if the Mass be an Error it is a most damnable one an Idolatry insupportable to give Divine Worship to the Host if it be only a piece of Bread Yet after this Error was broach'd in Gregory the Great 's time in the sixth or seventh Age as Protestants imagin what University or private Man spoke against it then or three hundred Years after It s true about four hundred Years after Berengarius inveighed against it but being better inform'd and by a torrent of Arguments for its Truth overwhelm'd he Recanted and Dyed Penitent Consult then Reason and not Passion and you will see that R. Catholicks have made no superstructurs on the Faith of the first three Ages SECT II. Formal Protestants are Hereticks I Advance to his assertion in which he affirms that we cannot say without Ignorance Calumny and Injustice that a Protestant is an Heretick First I agree with him that an Heretick is he who denyes viz. pertinaciously an Article of Faith or a revealed Verity Next I ask him by what principle he proves that a Protestant does not deny an Article of Faith or a reveal'd Truth I suppose he will Answer because a Protestant believes the CREED and the Holy Scripture I ask him further if a Preacher now of their Congregation should vent a Doctrine not Orthodox and should pertinaciously maintain it against his Brethren as a Truth according to his best Judgment reveal'd in Scripture By what principle will he convince him to be an Heretick He 'l tell you he believes the three Creeds and the whole Scripture and therefore he believes this his dogme because the thinks he finds it in Scripture Is he an Heretick because he will not submit his Judgement to his particular Brethren He is known to be as Learn'd as they and of as good a Life as they If you say this Man can't be proven to be an Heretick that is against the Scripture Tit. 3. v. 10. bidding us to shun an Heretick and consequently he may be proven to be one If you say he is an Heretick because he will not submit his Judgement not only to particulars but neither to the whole Congregation or the Church of which he was a Member and therefore is justly condemn'd by Her according to Isai 54. v. 17. Every Tongue that rises up against thee in Iudgment thou shall condemn this is the Inheritance of the Lords Servants I conclude without Ignorance Calumny or Injustice that the Protestant Luther the Protestant Calvin c. were Hereticks because they would not submit their Judgment to the whole Church of which they were Members afore they were Excommunicated for their self Opinions Again this proposition a Protestant is not an Heretick either is an Act of Faith or Science or Opinion If you say it is an Act of Faith 〈◊〉 then say I 't is false
AN ANSWER To a little Book call'd PROTESTANCY To be Embrac'd OR A New and infallible Method to reduce ROMANISTS FROM POPERY to PROTESTANCY Printed in the Year 1686. TO THE READER AT this time in which all that comes from Pen or Pulpit against Popery is of so good Coyn with PROTESTANTS that they have Re-printed a late in Scotland to amuse more the Ignorant People a little Book bearing for the Title A New Method c. I have resolved to put an Answer of it to the Press Altho' it pleases the Author to call it New I scarce find any New thing in it it containing hardly any thing which has not been Objected and Answered His turn indeed from the R. Catholick Religion to the Protestant was then New but it and all its Circumstances being of small or no importance to the publick I take no notice of it For the Dogmatical part of his Book since he runs through allmost all our Articles endeavouring so to blemish every one with his Pen that his Book seems more to be a Slanderous Libel then a Confutation of our Religion I have thought it was not amiss to give it such an Answer as might be both a Solution to what is Objected and an Explanation of our Tenets in that manner that it may appear how much they wrong us when the R. Catholick Religion is represented to the Common People as groundless and full of Superstition And for this latter Reason Courteous Reader you will excuse me if I am a little longer then seem'd to require the Answer of so small a matter To make my Work less tedious to those who will do me the Honour to Read it I have divided the whole into several Chapters Sections and Subsections with Titles relating to their different Subjects Fare-well Unto the Right Honourable JAMES EARL OF PERTH c. Lord High Chancellour of SCOTLAND Sir GEORGE LOCKHART Lord President of the Session GEORGE Viscount of Tarbet Lord Clerk-Register Sir James Foulis of Collingtoun Lord Justice-Clerk Sir John Lockhart of Cassle-Hill Sir David Balfour of Forret Sir James Foulis of Reidfoord Sir Roger Hogg of Hearease Sir Andrew Birnie of Saline Sir Patrick Ogilvie of Boyn Sir John Murray of Drumcairn Sir George Nicolson of Kemnay John Wauchop of Edmistoun Sir Thomas Stewart of Balcasky Sir Patrick Lyon of Carse Senators of the Colledge of Justice and Ordinar Lords of Council and Session JOHN Marquess of ATHOL c. Lord Privy Seal WILLIAM Duke of Hamiltoun c. ALEXANDER Earl of Murray c. Secretary of State for the Kingdom of Scotland PATRICK Earl of Strathmore c. Extraordinar Lords of the Council and Session MY LORDS YOu are the Great Reasoners of this Nation our Wise Kings have judiciously set you on your Seats with Power to bring other Men to Reason Wherefore I hope you will not take it ill I beg your Patronage and favourable Look upon a Book which defends it self not so much by Authority as by Reason Passages from the Holy Fathers it backs by Reason to Passages of the Holy Scripture it submits with Reason for Faith is Superior to Reason and Reason it self tells us that to Faith we must submit our Reason Would we think that Man reasonable who would doubt to submit his Reason to God the Principle of Reason God will and ought to be Worshiped our Nature and Reason tells us but how we know not unless he himself reveal it Some thought the Deity they acknowledged was to be Worshiped with the Sacrifice of themselves or the Burning of their Children as some Pagans In the Old Law they thought God was to be Ador'd by the Sacrifice of Beasts But in the New we abhor such Sacrifices Roman Catholicks among Christians offer him daily the Sacrifice of his Son Incarnate Protestants condemn this Sacrifice and content themselves to Honour him with the improper Sacrifice of their Prayers and of sorrow for their Sins From this Variety of Judgement in Men as to the Worship of God Let us Reason My Lords certainly God is not at present content to be Worshiped by any of these waies I please for one disallows the other Judging it abominable If the Spirit of God moves me to one of these in particular the same Spirit cannot move another to abhor my way of Worship and condemn it and if it be the true Spirit that moves him who condemns me 't is not the true Spirit by which I am moved so that its impossible for Man to know by which way he ought to turn himself to God without a Revelation You see then 't is but Natural to expect it from him and that we would be all at a stand without it We find in our selves a violent inclination to Lust Intemperance and other Evils lay aside the Revelation of Original Sin the cause of these Disorders to whom shall we ascribe it Shall we say that God who made our Nature and all that is in it implanted in us these vitious inclinations No. They are Motions contrary to the Motions of his Spirit a Law contrary to the Law of God they formally oppose his Sanctity and contradict him speaking to us by Reason Rom. 7.23 They cannot be then from God but from whom else we had not known had we not had a Divine Revelation When we following our Appetites have worked against Reason Reason tells us we have offended the Author or Giver of our Reason but again in what manner we ought to make amends we know not without a Revelation We Christians then unanimously conceive that God has revealed both what he would have us Believe of him and what he would have us do to serve him And hold that all those Divine Truths are shut up in a Book we call the Bible We all run to this Book earnest to know what is our Duty to God which is indeed as the wise Man saies omnis Homo and without which in Truth nihil est omnis Homo But who shall Interpret this Book to us We see our greatest Divines cannot agree among themselves in the sense of it how shall meaner Capacities hope to understand it When we are at variance in our understanding of a Passage and which misunderstood is our Destruction 2 Petr. 3.16 Who shall be our Judge to set him who is wrong right and so compose our difference The Scripture it self by a conference of Passages My LORDS I appeal to your Wisdom and your Knowledge of the Duty of a Judge or a Man in your Station Is it not the part of a Judge so to give Sentence that all present may know who of the two Dissenting Parties is in the right or who is in the wrong according to the Judges Sentence But after the Scripture has said all it can to our learndest Men after they have conferred Passage with Passage in the Vulgar and Original Tongues Prayed used what other means you please excepting their submission to an Infallible Church Neither of them will avow
that he is condemned by Scripture then Scripture alone cannot be our Judge nor does God himself by Scripture alone decide our differences In the mean time without a Judge we are all loose in our Opinions Hence Confusion Fire Sword Church against Church and Dissention among the People to the Destruction of the Nation And what is the business What is the Quarrel They won't submit their Judgment to mine To yours And why should they submit their Judgment more to yours than you to theirs Who thinks himself to be void of wit or not to abound in Judgment quisquis in suo sensu abundat and if it be true that there is no Infallible Visible Judge why may not I hope that God gives me as much of his Divine assistance as to you since I use as much diligence as you to obtain it My LORDS do you see where we are What would the Law Book do in Scotland if your Lordships Wisdoms were not impowered and authorized by his Majesty to determine Causes What Cause does not find an Advocate to make the Law look favourably upon his Clyant Will we make God less wise to keep an Vnion in his Church than Kings to keep an Vnion in their Kingdom A Holy King most earnest to have Justice administred to his People if it were in his Power and he could with his ease enlighten his Judges with Truth in giving their Sentence would he not do it Does not God as earnestly desire as that Holy King that all Men come to the Knowledge of the Truth in matters of Faith if we may believe St. Paul 1 Tim. 2. v. 4. And cannot he if he please without any difficulty enlighten his Church and influence Her with an Infallible assistance in Her Decisions Why then shall we not think he has done so Since he has established Her to Govern us Act 20.28 and subjected us to Her Obedience Matth. 18.17 What do I say shall we not think he has done so Can a Christian rationally doubt yet of it after Christ's saying to Her Who hears you hears me Luc. 10 and after St. Paul's assuring us Eph. 4. that Christ made some Teachers in his Church that we might not waver And who can but waver and be ready to hearken to others who speak with more applause if he Judge his Fore Teachers Fallible in the great and last concern of his Eternity Grant this My LORDS which is evident enough that the Teaching Church of Christ wheresomever She be is Infallible in Her Decisions of Religion and the main Work is done for we will as easily find Her out by Her Marks set down in the Holy Scriptures as the Sun among the Planets in Sole posuit Tabernaculum suum Psal 18. he has made Her as Visible as the Sun What is unreasonable in all this Discourse But if the great Reason of looking strange on us be the imagined difformity of our Religion from the Word of GOD be pleas'd to cast your Wiser Eyes upon this little Book and with your Reason examine impartially the Reasons we bring for the R. Catholick Religion If here and there our Reasons seem to contradict your senses 't is to obey Faith to Her according to St. Paul Rom. 1. v. 5. We owe Obedience and such that we must sometimes captivate our understanding for this performance 2 Corin. 10. v. 5. 'T is true Reason is the Light of Man but Faith is the Light of a Christian To be a Man I must be Rational but moreover I must Believe to have the Title of a Christian God has given us both our Will and our Vnderstanding He will and with all Reason be Honoured by the one aswell as by the other I Honour him with my Will when I Obey his Law I Honour him with my Vnderstanding when I submit to Faith and seek no other evidence than his Word for all I Believe in order to my Salvation As my doing what otherwaies pleases not my Nature because God commands it is a perfect submission of my Will to his command so my Believing what God reveals to me by his Church which otherwaies I don't understand is a perfect submission of my Vnderstanding to his Word A Word worthy of our Adoration God by the force of his Word Created us by the bounty of his Word Redeemed us and by the Submission of our Judgment to his Word revealed to us by his Church expects to Save us Otherwaies not He that Believes not viz. all that he has revealed shall be Damned undoubtedly Mark 16.16 I know My Lords that if a Man find himself convinced to become a Catholick at this time the very fear of being thought to turn upon the account of Gaining or continuing in Favour is no small Stumbling-Block to Persons of Honour But if you have strong Reason on your side what Reasonable Man can wonder Should not they rather wonder to see you Men before in their Opinion so Reasonable now fail and fall from Reason or of so little resolution as to leave an infinite Good for a Good that is so finite so small I mean a conservation of esteem among the Vulgar Of this last I thought good to mind your Lordships in my great Zeal for your Souls and high respect for your Persons coveting to be in Christ MY LORDS Your Lordships most Humble Servant A TABLE Of the CONTENTS Of this BOOK A Preamble Pag. 1 Answer to what is Objected against the R. Catholicks Speculative Divinity p. 2 Answer to what is Objected against R. Catholicks Practical or Moral Divinity p. 4 Protestants cannot be Sav'd even in the Opinion of our Adversary because they don't fulfill what is requir'd by him to Salvation p. 6 Protestants are in a worse condition than those who never heard of Christ p. 9 It is not Lawfull to follow a probable Opinion in matter of Belief p. 11 'T is not a probable Opinion that a Protestant may be Sav'd p. 13 The formal Protestant cannot be Sav'd p. 16 Formal Protestants are Schismaticks p. 22 Other Proofs that we agree in Faith with those of the first three Ages p. 26 Formal Protestants are Hereticks p. 29 St. Augustin 's saying of the mending of a former Council by a posterior sully answered p. 31 Another Objection solv'd p. 35 'T is an Article of Faith that General approved Councils are Infallible p. 36 The Infallibility of a General approv'd Council proven by some other passages of Scripture and our Adversary's explication of them exploded p. 39 'T is not necessary the Infallibility of the Church be defin'd in a General Council yet it is in General Councils defin'd by a practical Definition p. 42 We are sure that the Major Part of an approv'd General Council is Baptiz'd p. 46 The Infallibility of the Church deny'd underminds Christianity p. 47 A Word by way of entry into this matter p. 50 The Intention of the Minister required by the Church in Baptism explained makes appear the nullity of our Adversaries