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
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
the Calendary of the Greek Church and Cyprian in the Diptychs both of the Eastern and Western Church And therefore these errours notwithstanding of the Church of Romes Declaration were not Fundamental It 's a disingenuous evasion of Bell. lib. 4. de Pont. cap. 7. to say that Pope Stephen though he witnessed his dislike with Cyprians Opinion of Rebaptization yet never declared it an errour contrary to Faith How then did Stephen not only threaten them who persisted in it with Excommunication as Bell. does confess but also actually seclude from his Communion on the same account Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia and many other Asiatick Bishops as testifies Denys of Alexandria in Euseb lib. 7. cap. 4 or how did he call Cyprian himself Pseudo Christum Pseudo Apostolum dolosum operarium a false Christ false Apostle and deceitful worker as Firmilian records in Epist ad Cyp. which is the 75 among Cyprians Epistles or how did Cyprian Epist 74. ad Pompâ—iam accuse Stephen as taking the defence of Hereticks against the Church of God had not the matter in controversie betwixt them been looked on as an Article of Faith Ought not Romanists at least give the world sure Characteristicks by which to know when the Bishops of Rome define a point to be an Article of Faith unless they design to hold all in suspence that they may improve their Delphick Oracles as definitions of Faith or otherwise as they find their interest reqâ—â—re But as to Cyprian however he did err in the matter of Rebaptization yet he well perceived the point not to be Fundamental but such as good men may differ in salvo pacis câ—ncordiae vinculo as he expresses himself Epist 72. ad Stephanum And therefore adds qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damus And for this his moderation he is commended by S. Augustine Ep. 48. and by S. Hierome in Dial. adversus Lucifer though they were of a contrary perswasion in the thing Excellently said Austin lib. 1. câ—nt Julian cap. 6. Alia sunt in quibus inter se etiam doctissimi atque optimi regulae Catholicae defensâ—res salvâ fidei compage non consonant alius alio de una re melius aliquid dicit verius hoc autem unde nunc agimus ad ipsa pertinet fidei fundamenta Perhaps a Romanist may run to that subterfuge of the Valenburgii in examin princip fidei exam 3. Sect. 8. That therefore they who held these errours were of the same Religion with them who now believe the contrary because though they differ in the material objects of their Faith yet the same ratio formalis fidei or Rule of Faith was acknowledged by both namely that whatever God proposes by his Church is to be believed and by the same reason these Authors would be reconciling the Faith of Romanists before and after the Council of Trent They cannot deny but there be things now held as Articles of Faith which were not so held before the Council of Trent yet they would have us to believe that the Religion of both is the same because the ratio formalis credendi or the Rule of Faith is the same in both namely what God proposes clearly by his Church But here many falshoods are sophistically insinuated For first though it be true that whatever God proposes whether by the Church or by a private Pastor ought to be believed yet the Valenburgians sophistically insinuate that whatever the Church proposes God also proposes and that as necessary to Salvation though it were not so before but that this is a notorious falshood shall be cleared Sect. 3. neither can all the Clergy of Rome prove that this was the Faith of the Ancient Church The Pamphleter made some Essays to this purpose by some broken shreds of Antiquity in his Sect. 3. which we have examined cap. 2. and shewed that they make nothing for his purpose Nay the Ancient Fathers as we have evicted cap. 3. hold that the Scriptures were the Rule of Faith and the ratio formalis credendi for in this matter they seem to be taken for one consequently they differing from Romanists in the Rule of Faith were not of the same Religion with them Secondly it is as notorious a falshood that Romanists before and after the Council of Trent are agreed upon the same ratio formalis credendi or the same Rule of Faith Did I not shew the diversities of Opinions among themselves touching this thing in the stating of the question concerning the Rule of Faith If this be the prevalent Doctrine of the Romish Church which this Pamphleter holds out that the definition of an Infallible Judge is the principal Rule of Faith assuredly there were eminent persons in the Romish Church of another perswasion before the Council of Trent namely those who maintained that Pope and Council were fallible such as Occam Panormitan Petrus de Alliaco Antoninus Cardinal Cusan Nicâ—laus lemanges of whom I gave an account cap. 2. Sect. 2. Yea nor can Romanists to this day agree among themselves concerning the Rule of Faith some holding Oral Tradition some the definition of a General Council and others the definition of a Pope to be it though to hide their differences from simple ones they endeavour to wrap up all in some general terms such as the Proposition of the Church yet in expounding these terms they go by the ears among themselves Thirdly there is more requisite to the Unity of Religion than a meer agreement in the formalis ratio credendi or the Rule of Faith there be some material objects of Faith the explicite belief whereof is of absolute necessity to Salvation Can any be saved who do not believe an Heaven and an Hell Doth not Scripture hold forth Jesus Christ to be a Foundation in Religion 1 Cor. 3. 11. Hence D. Vane in his lost Sheep cap. 8. pag. 87. though he cavil against the distinction of Fundamentals and Non-Fundamentals yet he is constrained to confess that in regard of the material object or thing to be believed some points are Fundamentals others not that is some points are to be believed explicitly and distinctly others not Consequently it s not a sufficient reason to say such held one ratio formalis credendi therefore were of the same Religion especially when it s confessed there be material objects which are of necessity to salvation to be believed by the one which were not by the other Fourthly the true reason therefore why the Fathers notwithstanding their errours were not heretical but of the same Religion with us because their errours were only against integrals of Religion but not against Fundamentals neither did they pertinaciously maintain them but were willing to have renounced them had they been convinced that they were contrary to the Scripture which to them was the Rule of Faith as well as to us So that to them might have been said as Austin to Vincentius Victor lib.
that one Article of the Creed I believe the Catholick Church Why then should they not likewise be all contained in that great and uncontroverted Fundamental I believe the truth of all that God reveals and consequently a Mahumetan shall be as good a Catholick as any Jesuit But sixthly let me argue a little from these two Scriptures Hear the Church and hold fast Traditions either these are clear in themselves or not if not how can they clear all the rest if they be why is the like perspicuity denied to other Scriptures containing as necessary truths Seventhly What is that square of Ecclesiastick sense whereto the Pamphleter would level all Scriptural interpretations Is it Tradition Though Protestants with Vincent Lirinensis do grant to Tradition its due place among the means of interpretation of Scripture yet now I must enquire what if a question arise about Tradition it self Has not this Pamphleter told pag. 75. that then all must be referred to the definition of the present Catholick Church that is to their infallible visible Judge and so the result of all these Cob web distinctions is this They can grant that Scripture is clear in Fundamentals provided nothing be taken as the sense of Scripture but what their Pope or Infallible Judge pleases And consequently when Chrysost Austin c. say that Scripture contains clearly all that is necessary the meaning is that Scripture contains not the Articles of Religion clearly but points to one who can unfold them Are not these goodly glosses which Jesuits put upon Fathers Must the World be cheated with such ludicrous non sense as if the end of Scripture were to point out their infallible Judge and yet it cannot be known what is Scripture or the true sense thereof but by the sentences of that pretended infallible Judge Are all things in Scripture clear and yet nothing at all clear but to receive its clearness from the Romish Judge who is alledged to be pointed out in Scripture and yet there is not one word of him in all Scripture I pray in what Text of Scripture is the Pope of Rome his Triple Crown and Infallible Chair together with the enthusiastick square of Ecclesiastick sense treasured up in his breast I ingenuously profess I cannot find the place unless it be 2 Thes 2. 3 4. or Revel 17. 4 5. It 's objected by the Pamphleter pag. 99. that the Fathers who writ Catalogues of Heresies Irenaeus Tertull. Philastrius Epiphanius Austin c. did not distinguish betwixt Fundamentals and integrals among Divine Truths for they condemned many lesser things as Heresies and consequently as damnable errours The Aerians are condemned as Hereticks by Epiphanius Haeres 75. And Austin Haeres 33. he should have said 53. for denying the Fasts commanded by the Church The Eunomians by Austin Haeres 54. for teaching that no sin could hurt a man if so be he had Faith The deniers of Free-will by Epiphanius Haeres 64. Vigilantius by Hierom for affirming that Relicks of Saints ought not to be reverenced Jovinian by Austin Haeres 82. for holding Wedlock equal in dignity to Virginity Pelagians by Austin lib. cont Julian cap. 2. for teaching that the children of faithful Parents need not Baptism as being born holy and the Arrians by Austin lib. 1. cont Maxim cap. 2. for not receiving Tradition All which says the Pamphleter is the Doctrine of Protestants Whatever shew this Objection may have with ignorant persons yet I must advertise them it 's but a crambe recocta These Heresies have been often objected by calumniating Romanists Bellar. Breerly c. and as often confuted by Learned Protestants D. Field D. Morton Gerard Whittaker Rivet c. yea and many more Heresies have been retorted cum faenore out of the same Catalogues upon the Church of Rome Briefly therefore I answer two things and first that neither Papist nor Protestant can admit that all the Errours mentioned in the Catalogues of Epiphanius Philastrius Austin c. are Fundamental Are there not many condemned in them for Opinions in matters disputable undetermined and of small consequence and which respectively are acquitted in both sides Hence Alphonsus à Castro lib. 2. de Haeres tit Adam Eva Haeres 2. denies all the Errours charged upon Origen in these Catalogues to be Heresies And Bellar himself descript Eccles pag. 133. Edit Paris 1630. confesses that many things are numbered by Philastriâ—s as Heresies which are not Heresies D Taylor in his Liberty of Prophecying Sect. 2. § 20. to acquit the Fathers for sâ—gmatizing persons so liberally with Heresie conceives that they used the word Heresie in a more gentle notion than now it is with us and in divers Paragraphs he endeavours to prove that all Errours mentioned in the Fathers Catalogues were not Fundamental yea he questions also whether the Fathers had sufficient Evidence in the matter of Fact to fix every one of these errours upon these persons It will not be amiss here to remember that D. Hackwell in his Apology lib. 3. cap. 8 § 1. records out of Aventinus his Historia Boiorum Anno 745. that Pope Zacharias and Boniface Bishop of Mentz condemned one Virgilius Bishop of Salsburg as an Heretick for holding that there were Antipodes and perhaps were induced hereto by the Authority of Austin lib. 16. de civit Dei cap. 9. and of Lactantius instit lib. 3. cap. 24. If he say that Learned Bishop was guilty of a Fundamental Errour and damned eternally for holding there were Antipodes he will expose himself to the ludibry of any ordinary Mathematician Besides if all be Fundamental Errours which are recorded in the Catalogues of Heresies I am sure Romanists do err Fundamentally Were not the Collyridians condemned as Hereticks by Epiphan Haeres 79. for worshipping the Virgin Mary The Carpocratians by Epiphanius Haeres 27. and by S. Austin Haeres 7. for adoring the Images of Christ and Paul the Angelici by Austin Haeres 39. by Theod. in Epist ad Coloss cap. 2. and by the Council of Laodicea Can. 35. for worshipping of Angels Manichees by Austin Epist 74. for granting Marriage to their Plebeians and persons of less perfection and prohibiting it to those that were more perfect and yet like Romish Monks and Priests they could dally with Concubines Hence Austin lib. 2. de morib Eccles Manich cap. 3. said of them Quod non Concubitum sed nuptias prohiberent Were not the same Manichees condemned by Leo the first Serm. 4. Quadrages for abstracting the Cup in the Sacrament the Basilidians by Eusebius Hist Eccles cap. 7. and the Helcefaitae for teaching the lawfulness of equivocation and dissembling Religion in time of persecution Is not the Doctrine of Implicite Faith noted as a pernicious Heresie by the Author of the Sermon contra diversas Haeres tom 2. operum Athanasii and by Euseâ—ius lib. 5. Hist cap. 13. as one of the errours of Appelles the Heretick What should I reckon out Pelagians Donatists Eustathians Marcits the
Field his way to the Church lib. 3. Cap. 1. and for clearing them at least from fundamental errors to D. Stillingfleet his vindication of the Arch-bishop against T. C. Part. 1. Cap. 1. who will seriously consider the servitude of the Greek Church under the Ottoman empire and their want of means of Instruction which other Christians enjoy together with the sedulity and subtilty of Romish Emissaries still traficking among them may desist their admiration concerning the corruptions crept into that Church and rather wonder that they have preserved so much of the doctrine of Faith entire Learned Voetius in desper Causa Pap. lib. 3. Sect. 2. Cap. 8. observes that the more knowledge the Oriental Churches and those in the Western part of Europe have of the estate of one another the more the alienation of the Greek Church from the Roman and their affection to Protestants doth appear and particularly in that they do yearly excommunicate the Roman Church but not the Protestant Churches D. Hornbeck in summa contrev lib. 11. de Graecis pag. 977. regates passionately that there is no more correspondence betwixt Protestant Churches and the Greek Church by which these afflicted Christians might be strengthened under their tentations and we better understand the state of the Oriental Churches But this I hope at the time shall suffice for the agreement of our Church with the Grecian in substantials of Religion SECT VIII Whether the doctrine of Protestants in all points of Controversie be openly against God and his written word as the Pamphleter affirms and so contrary to the Fundamentals of Religion THis the Pamphleter boldly asserts and undertakes to prove pag. 106. but his bold undertaking is seconded with weak and Childish performances If Scripture be so clear to determine all points of controversie betwixt us to what purpose were all his Cavills Concerning an infallible visible Judge the corruption of originals the unfaithfulness of translations the obscurity and ambignity of the sense of Scripture the insufficiency of means of interpretation c. Is a Jesuit so nimble that he can transform himself into all shapes that he can fight against Scripture at his pleasure Is not this an usual fate that attends error to be inconsistent with it own self Sorex suo Judicio In the general I say as to all the Scriptures he perverts there is not one of them but Protestants have a thousand times vindicated from the detorsion of Romanists Many of them are most foolishly applyed and questions betwixt Papists and us are either perversly or ignorantly misrepresented I Nauseat to examine such childish stuff yet lest I should only confute him with contempt I overly touch particulars 1. Then he sayes pag 106. we protest against the goodness of God in saying God created some for Hell independently from their works contrary to 1 Tim. 2. 2 Pet. 3. If he mean that Protestants do say that God appointed to Damn any to Hell though they should never be guilty of sin he calumniates us egregiously Never Protestant taught that any should be damned to Hell but for sin Did not the Council of Dort art 1. can 7. make the object of predestination hominem lapsum i. e. Man in his fallen estate How then could he say that Protestants affirm that God creats men for Hell independently from sin Did ever Protestants say more then that Scripture Prov. 16. 4. God has Created the Wicked for the day of evil As for that text 1 Tim. 2. knew he not that Austin in Enchirid Cap. 103. expounded it de generibus singulorum of men of all ranks not of all individuals of mankind And the other place 2 Pet. 3. 9. not willing that any should perish is restricted in the very Text to the Elect the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having a reference to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus he is long suffering towards us not willing that any namely of us the Elect should perish But do not Jesuits Pelagianize while they make the decree of Election to be founded on the prescience of our good works which Scripture makes a fruit of Electing love Ephes 1. 4. Do they not overthrow the omnipotency of God by attributing to him inefficacious wills How is it that all are not saved if he willed all to be saved Does he not in Heaven and Earth whatever pleases him Psal 135. 3. 2. He sayes ibid we protest against the mercy of God saying Christ dyed not for all contrary to 1 Cor. 13. He should have said 15. The Pamphleter might have known that Protestants do not exclude from the Reformed Churches the learned Camero Amyrald Capellus Dallaeus who with many others especially in the French Church affert universal redemption But if it were fair to load an adversary with all the confequents which follow from his principles though he do not see the connexion betwixt them It might perhaps with more reason be said that Jesuited Romanists do impeach both the Justice and mercy of God affirming the most of them to be damned Eternally for whom Christ dyed contrary to luculent Scripture Rom 8.34 who is he that condemneth It is Christ that dyed Is it not the work of Jansenius lib. 3. de gr Chr. serv cap. 20. to evict the opinion of universal Redemption to be repugnant to the doctrine of the Ancient Church particularly of St. Augustin will it not be hard to reconcile the opinion of Universalists with that saying of S. Austin epist 102 ad Evod. Non perit unus ex illis pro quibus Christus est mortuus i. e. Not one doth perish for whom Christ dyed The Scripture cited by the Pamphleter is most impertinently alledged 1 Cor. 15.22 As in Adam all dyed so in Christ shall all be made alive If the all there were universally to be understood for every one of mankind it would follow that all mankind should have eternal Life and be saved eternally which none but an Origenist can affirm Therefore that all is to be understood only of all them whom Christ the second Adam did represent viz. the elect not of all mankind 3. pag. 107. he sayes we protest against the Justice of God saying that God punishes us for what we cannot do contrary to Heb. 6. 10. God is not unrighteous to forget their work A pertinent disputant indeed That Scripture speaks of Gods rewarding good works which Protestants deny not but of Gods punishing the want of good works which we could not do it speakes not at all A Sophister ought at least to have a shew of pertinency As to the thing it self never Protestant affirmed that God damned any for meer inability but such is the pravity of our Nature that with our inability to do good oftentimes we joyn a voluntary neglect of good works Joh. 5. 40. ye will not come to me that ye may have Life and for this it is that the sinner is damned ought he not to know what his adversary maintaines who undertakes so confidently to
Purgatory It would be remembred that among ancient Christians there were divers Errors concerning the state of the departed now justly disowned both by Protestants and Papists which might have given occasion to these Prayers as first many of them were of opinion that though all the Souls of the Faithful were in requie in a blessed rest yet they were not admitted to the Beatifick Vision before the day of Judgment Hence Sixtus Senensis lib. 6. Bibl. Annot. 345. to prove that many in the ancient Church were smitten with this Error he not only adduces testimonies from several particular Authors such as Irenaeus Justin Tertul Origen Lactantius Prudentius Ambrose c. but also the form of Prayer for the dead in James Liturgy 2. Many were of opinion that all were to pass through a fire of Purgatory at the great day Yea 3dly some were of opinion that by the Prayers of the living the pains of the Damned were eased among whom were Chrysostom and Prudentius c. of which see Sixtus Senensis lib. 6. Annot. 47. I should not willingly mention these mistakes and errors of Fathers did not the importunity of Romanists constrain me to discover the misapplications which are made of their Prayers to Purgatory But generally they believed that the Souls of the faithful at the present were in requie and therefore Tertul. lib. de Patientia accounteth it an injury to Christ to judge that the Souls of departed Saints are in a state to be pitied these mistakes of Ancients being now through the mercy of God cleared there is no reason to admit the superstructure built thereupon I cannot but add what learned Dallee hath observed lib. 6. de paenis satisfact cap. 2. that among all the Testimonies which Bell. hath mustered up for Prayers for the Dead there is none brought from the real writings of any Fathers who died before the beginning of the 3d Century and therefore judiciously concludes that seeing there is no mention of them either by Moses or the Prophets or by Christ and the Apostles or by the Fathers who immediately succeeded to them as Ignatius Irenaeus or Justin Marlyr that upon the forementioned accounts they have been introduced into the Church towards the end of the 2d Century but without any intuition to Purgatory Had they been then designed for Purgatory how came it that the Fathers never once gave this as the reason of these Prayers When Epiphanius was demanded by Aerius for what end Prayers were put up for the Dead it had been easie to have answered that it was for the deliverance of Souls out of Purgatory But he brings other reasons and has nothing to that purpose which is a clear demonstration that he was not of the present Romish Faith concerning Purgatory And surely its built upon most absurd Principles such as 1. the distinction of sins Venial and Mortal as if some sins of their own nature did not deserve everlasting punishment 2dly That when God forgives sin he forgives not all the punishment thereof 3dly That Christ has not satisfied Justice fully for our sins seeing we must in part satisfy our selves for them The testimonies cited by the Pamphleter having been often cleared by Protestant Authors I shall speedily dispatch them and first many of them as from Denys de Hierarch cap. 7. Clements Constit and Epistles and James Liturgie are spurious and yet make nothing for the purpose Learned Dallaeus de Pseudepigraphis Apostolicis hath not only proved against Jesuite Turrian and Bovius by Armies of arguments Clements constitutions to be spurious but also lib. 1. cap. 1. shews them to be held as such by most learned Romanists Bell. Barron Perron Margarinus de la Bigne Albaspinaeus Petavius c. to whom afterwards he adds Pope Gelasius and lib. 2. cap. 17. he makes it probable that these constitutions were compiled by some Impostor towards the end of the Fifth Century However these writings attributed to Clemens Denys and James speak of Prayers for them who undoubtedly are in a blessed Estate and therefore not for those who labour in the flames of Purgatory Hence Clemens lib. 8. constitut cap. 41. pro quiscentibus in Christo fratribus oremus and in the Liturgy ascribed to James animas beatas requiescere faciat Doninus and again Prayers are put up for all the faithful from Abel the just unto this day Consequently either none were in a blessed state or their prayers are put up for such In the citation of Origen he discovers little either of wit or honesty For who knows not that Origen was condemned not only by Epiphanius Epist ad Joan. Hieros Hierom ad Pammach Austin Haeres 43. Austin de Civ Dei lib. 21. cap. 17. but also by the 5th Oecumenick Council yea and by Bell. himself lib. 1. de purg cap. 2. as maintaining there were no pains after this life but only Purgatory pains and asserting that there shall be an end of the pains both of Devils and wicked men and our Pamphleter had not so much judgment as to observe that Origen asserted this his Heresie in the testimony cited by him Vt efficiantur omnes aurum purum that all may become pure gold shall Judas shall Cain shall devils at length become pure gold as for Tertull. in his book de coron militis he speaks only of prayer for the dead which how it was used by the Ancient Church I have already told and in his book de anima cap. 58. he makes mention indeed of a carcer inferni but truly means no Purgatory but only the common receptacle of saints untill the day of judgment for a litle before cap. 55. he clears himself saying constituimus omnem animam apud inferos sequestrari in diem domini and there upon Bell. concluds him to be one of those who mantained the elect were not admitted to the beatifick vision untill the day judgment and the rather he calls it a Carcer for according to his Chiliast fancy he thought not that all should rise alike but some sooner some latter according to their degrees of sins or graces From Cyprian he cites that commonly objected Place ex Epist ad Anton. it s one thing to be amended for sins by long grief and to by purged with fire a long while another to have purged away all sins bâ— suffering Martirdome but this nothing concerns Purgatory As not only our divines but some of there own also as Rigaltius and Albaspinaeus have showed that Cyprian is there only speaking of the severities of discipline which the lapsi under went in order to pardon and comparing them with the felicity where of Martyrs after death are possessed That purging fire is the severity of Church disciplin which in primitive times was very long drawn out neither needs it seeme strange to any that it s compared to a fire seeing Hierom discribing the penitentiall exercises of Fabiola Epitaph fab ad Oceanum saies Sedit super Carbones ignis hi fuerunt in adjutorium and
of secret confessions as homil 31. in heb eum qui agit paenitentiam nunquam oportet prodere peccatum sed Deum rogare ne ejus meminerit And homil de paenit confess solus te Deus confitentem videat In so much that F. Barnes spares not to say Chrysostomus apertus est pro hac sententiâ Who desire a large confutation of the pretended necessity Antiquity or jus divinum of these secret confessions together with the inextricable perplexities in which they involue the consciences of poor people and the most impious consequences of them as they are managed by Romanists I remit them among others to Dr. Taylours diswasive part 2. lib. 1. cap. 11. and to the foresaid anonymous tractat cap. 6. and 7. For my purpose at present It will be enough to advertise the Reader that Platina the Popes secretary in vita Zepherini could find no higher rise for the imposed necessity of this confession then from Innocent the third about 1200. Yeares after Christ Yea Barnes loc cit thinks the imposing of it as a jus divinum no older then the Council of Trent and for it has this argument because in the Florentin Council the Roman Church was willing to make peace with the Greeks albeit notorie persistentes in hac sententia they notoriously persisted in that opinion that there is no necessity of such confession Instance seventh the present Roman Church maintaines indulgences for the ease of Souls in Purgatory Yea if we may credit Bell. lib. 1. de indulg cap. 14. This is apud Catholicos res certissima indubitata a most sure and undoubted point yet surely it was not known to antiquity as I proved in my paper eight against Mr. Demster Pag. 172. 173. and yet remaines unanswered and is acknowledged by Famous Romanists Roffensis cont Luth. art 18. Alphonsus a Castro lib. 8 de heres tit indulg Antoninus part 1. Sum. tit 10. cap. 3. Durand in 4. sent disp 20. To whom now I add Suarez tom 4. in 3. part disp 49. Sect. 2. Num. 14. nec movere debet quemquem saith he quod apud antiquos Doctores Ecclesiae Graecos Latinos nulla inveniatur expressa mentio indulgentiarum Learned Cassander in Consult art 12. Sect de indulg asserts that the Ancient Church knew no indulgences but relaxations from Canonical censurs imposed by the Church on delinquents in this Life So also Barnes in Cathol Rom. pacif Sect. 9. where also he cites for it Vicelius Cajetan and Cassander loc cit breaths after the Reformation of the Church of Rome in this matter but the mercats of Indulgences are so lucrative that such proposals cannot be heard It s long since the Germans in their Centum gravamina grav 3. complained that their Countrey was spoyled of Money and that incest adulteries murthers perjuries and all manner of sins were nourished by the Popes Pardons I shall not take up time to reckon out the Religious works which they require for obtaining these pardons as pilgrimages visiting such a Chappel standing on Easter day at Peters Church door when the Pope does solemnly pass by and bless the people c. Is it not strange that the world should be cheated with such toyes I will not trifle time with their Ave Maries and Pater Nosters and being of such a Society which they reward with ample indulgences Bloody I am sure was the Bull of Jul. 2. who as Dr. Taylour has the relation diss p. 2. lib. 2. Sect. 1. gave indulgences to him who meeting a French-man or Venetian should kill him How contrary is this to the real Piety as well as to the discipline of the Ancient Church Instance eight The Popedome it self is a bundle of innovations For first is not the election of Popes by a conclave of Cardinals a meer Novelty Were these creatures who go under the name of Cardinals invested with such dignities priviledges power and functions within the first three Centuries Azor. the Jesuit anxiously inquiring after their original part 2. Instit Moral lib. 4. cap. 1. quest 4. can bring their pedegree no higher then to Pope Sylvester in the fourth Century But they were nothing then like what they are now For till Boniface the third obtained from Phocas the title of universal Bishop they were inferior to Bishops says Pol. Virgil. de invent lib. 4. cap. 9. and Bell. confesses as much lib. 1. de Cler. cap. 16. the restraining of the election of Popes to Cardinals was only done by Pope Alexander the third in 12. cent says Azor. loc cit cap. 2. q. 2. and the same Jesuit ibid. cap. 1. q. 3. confesses the name office dignity number and priviledges of Cardinals to be only papal Institutions and not juris Divini Yea Bell. grants lib. 1. de cler cap. 16. that its within these six or seven hundred years that necessity by little and little forced the Pope to leave of Episcopal Councils and to rule all things by a Council of Cardinals Secondly is not the impropriating the power of convocating Synods to the Pope a manifest Novelty Were not the first four Oecumenick Councils convocated by the Emperors the Nicen by Constantin as is witnessed by Euseb lib. 3. de vita Constan. c. 6. Socrates Hist. lib. 1. cap. 5. Theod. lib. 1. cap. 7. The second at Constantinople by Theodos the elder see Sozomen lib. 7. cap. 7. Socrates lib. 5. cap. 8. The third at Ephesus by Theodosius the younger See Evag. lib. 1. cap. 3. and frequently the Council attests this in her Acts. The fourth at Chalcedon by Marcianus So Liberat in Breviar cap. 13. and the Council it self confesses the convocation to be ex decreto pientissimorum imperatorum Valentiniani Marciani It s therefore untollerable impudency in Bell. Barron Azor. and other Romanists to say that Emperors did only Petition the Bishops of Rome to convocate Councils nay on the contrary the Bishops of Rome did Petition the Emperors Did not Pope Leo make many instant and humble supplications to Theodosius and Marcianus before the fourth general Council at Chalcedon was convocated yea it could not be obtained at all during the Life of Theodosius So clear is it that anciently Oecumenick Councils were convocated by Emperors that Hierom in Apol. 2. adversus Ruffin says Quis imperator jussit Synodum hanc congregari Thirdly did the presidency in Oecumenick Councils belong to Bishops of Rome alone Can any Ancient Canon of Council Oecumenick or provincial to this purpose be alleadged In the Nicen the Pope of Rome was not present Neither did his Legats preside else how came it that Hosius Bishop of Corduba did subscribe before them It s a bold allegation contrary to all antiquity that Hosius was the Bishop of Romes Legat. Euseb Sozom. Theodoret mention only two of his Legats Vitus or Victor and Vincentius Presbiters Neither doth Hosius subscribe as Legat but only as Bishop of Corduba That Hosius presided in the Council of Sardica which Romanists hold as
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
Christendom an Infallible Judge defining contradictions and make the Divine Law a Nose of Wax a Church with many Heads Altars and Sacrifices without Divine Institution a Propitiatory Sacrifice without shedding of blood yea without a sacrificing act Image-worship Bread-worship Cross-worship Relick-worship Saint-worship if they may be believed without Idolatry Sacraments without visible Elements Sacraments so far from sanctifying that their most Religious persons are obliged to vow abstinence from them Specters of accidents without a subject they eat and devour their God they have devotion without understanding performing holy things in an unknown Language they have Pastors without Preaching Communion without Communicants they maintain a sinless perfection yet teach manifest violations of the Law of God they cannot only merit Heaven by their works but also supererrogate yet in many things they offend all the Satisfaction of Christ according to them needs a supply of penal satisfactions either in this life or in Purgatory the Efficacy of Grace depends on the beck of Free-will and Eternal Election must be founded on the prescience of mens good works Popes have Apostolical Function but no immediate Mission nor speak they with Tongues c. they obtrude lying signs and wonders yea ridiculous Fables for real Miracles the Enthusiasms of their Popes for Divine Oracles and bundles of Novelties under the Vizour of Antiquity many Books they hold for Canonical Scripture which neither the Jewish nor Primitive Christian Church did ever own In a word they set up a Religion built upon no Divine Authority but upon Humane Traditions and definitions of their Church repugnant to Scripture to Antiquity to Reason and to the senses of all the world teaching impious Idolatry against God and perfidiousness to men receiving addition or alteration as the Grandees of the Romish Faction find most to conduce for the Grandeur of the Pope and Interest of the Court of Rome But lest I should seem to say nothing to his Knacks I answer first we have both Faith and Vnity Faith grounded on holy Scripture and not only Unity in Fundamentals which is necessary to the being of the Church Militant but also in most of the Integrals of Religion as may appear by the harmony of Confessions whereas they have neither true Faith nor Unity for hardly do they disagree from us in any thing wherein they are not subdivided among themselves Secondly we have both a Law and a Judge a Law better nor the Canon Law the Divine Law of holy Scriptures a Judge both Celestial the Lord Jesus Christ and Terrestrial the Synods of the Church But Romanists to shoulder up their pretended infallible Judge whom yet they cannot agree upon throw intollerable indignities upon the Law of God as hath been demonstrated cap. 3. Thirdly we have an Altar and Sacrifices an Altar not like their Altars of Damascus but an Altar which sanctifies our Oblations the Lord Jesus Christ And thus Aquinas himself expounds that of the Apostle Heb. 13. 10. we have an Altar We have also a Sacrifice not only Eucharistick of prayers and praises but also certainly Propitiatory viz. of Christ on the Cross Fourthly our Sacraments are not bare signs as Romanists slander us but exhibitive of Grace which cannot be truly said of all theirs Fifthly Though the Worship of God with us be not clogged as in the Romish Church with a heap of Ceremonies partly Heathenish partly Judaical yet we have Religious Ceremonies viz. Sacramental Rites and these also of Divine Institution Sixthly the Mission of our Preachers hath been sustained against the cavils of Romanists but a Divine Warrant cannot be shewed for their Popes Universal Vicarship or the Princely Dignity of their Cardinals Seventhly Our Doctrine is infallible and the ground of our Faith sure unless Romanists like Infidels will question the Infallibility of the Scripture Eighthly Though we pretend not to a Pharisaical perfection with Romanists yet we acknowledge the Commandments of God so far as is absolutely necessary to Salvation through Grace may be kept Ninthly Eternal Life being a reward of Grace not of Debt does not presuppose any proper Merit of ours but Romanists by their Doctrine of Merit make Heaven Venial and derogate from the sufficiency of the sole Merits of Christ Tenthly Reprobation being an eternal and immanent Act of God and consequently God himself cannot properly be demerited but there is no damnation without the previous demerit of sin yea also the Eternal Decree of Reprobation in the judgment of the Council of Dort presupposes the Prescience of Mans Fall Eleventhly though lapsed man without Regenerating Grace cannot do that which is spiritually good yet be may freely sin none of us do question but the Jesuits Garnet Oldcorn c. acted freely in their accession to the Powder-Plot Twelfthly we pretend not to any new Apostles nor is there necessity of new Miracles our Doctrine having been fully confirmed by the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles Thirteenthly It 's more than Romanists can prove that particular Churches have not Authority to reform themselves when General Councils cannot be had to undertake the work Fourteenthly we leave private Spirits and new Lights against old revealed Verities to Quakers and Papists Fifteenthly Single mens Opinions against the common consent of Fathers have more affinity with Jesuits Probables than Protestants To justifie their boldness in broaching new Opinions Poza the Jesuit as cited in the Jesuits Morals Part. 1. Cap. 1. Art 1. pag. 167. brings a Testimony from a Council of Constantinople Beatus qui profert verbum inauditum as if the Council had said blessed is he that produces a word unheard of or some new thing whereas like a Jesuit he mutilates and perverts the words of the Council which are Beatus qui profert verbum in auditum obedientium blessed is he who utters a word to obedient ears Sixteenthly We are not ashamed to maintain that the Apocryphal Books are no part of the Old Testament because the Jewish Church did never receive them being told Rom. 3. 2. that to them were committed the Oracles of God Seventeenthly there have been stedfast Pastors and Martyrs in the Protestant Churches who have sealed the Truth we profess with their blood Our Doctrine and the Substantials of Government being founded on Scriptural Authority must consequently be unalterable whereas Rome's changes as to dogmaticals Worship and Government from Ancient Rome are so many that we may take up that regrate of her Hei mihi qualis eras quantum mutaris ab illâ Româ The Author designed a peculiar Cap. in the close of this Treatise for his own vindication from the Criminations of the Pamphleter together with a plain Reparty to the Jesuit Tribe But finding that these Papers had swelled beyond his expectation he hath at this time superseded much of that labour and the rather seeing these things touch not the Cause and Jesuits are known to be persons of such malignity that their Invectives find little credit with
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