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
say the Bible doth not contain all things necessary to Salvation we do not say that the Word of God does not contain all things necessary to Salvation because the Word of God is partly written partly unwritten Put these two together and you have all things necessary to Salvation Nay the Scripture alone has partly Explicitly partly Implicitly in as much as it sends us to the Church all things necessary to Salvation When we say that the Scripture is not absolutely But in some places obscure in others clear what do we say more then Protestants who teach that the Scripture is an Interpreter of it self if you compare the less clear passage with another or others more clear is not this to say that the less clear is obscure which obscurity is taken away by the clearness of the other Neither do we say that the Scripture is Imperfect when we say it is only a part of our Rule of Faith no more then we say the Almighty Power of God is Imperfect when we say 't is only a part of his Infinite Perfection As we do not say that God is Finit because he is a part of this Couple contained in Christ-God and Man or by which we say God and Man are two viz. natures SECT VI. The Scripture is not known to us to be the Word of God without the Tradition of the Church and therefore is not our sole Rule of Faith WE acknowledge the Holy Scriptures to be our Rule of Faith but not alone we believe them to be profitable to teach us in Justice that the Man of God may be perfect 2 Tim. 3. v. 16. But not sole sufficient to make him perfect We seem sayes our Adversary to doubt of the Originals of Scripture since we ask a Protestant how he knows it is the Word of God As if the Air Simplicity Majesty and way of Expression proper to God alone did not show this sufficiently as the King's Letters are known by their style and Royal Seal Answer We are so far from doubting of the Scriptures being the Word of God that we believe it with an Act of Divine Faith But we have asked and ask without any Answer that has so much as a jot of Reason by what Principle they will prove to us that the Scripture is the Word of God If besides the Scripture there is no Rule of Faith Not by the Scripture it self because self Testimony is none were it Written in any place of it that this Bible containing so many and such Books is the Word of GOD for the Question returns how know you that this Testimony is the Word of GOD Now to say that she Scripture shows it self is frivolous For I ask what 's that to say the Scripture shows it self Is it that by Reading it rises in the mind of a Man who has a well disposed understanding this apprehension The Scripture is the Word of God By which apprehension he sees it is so before he Judges or believes If so then he does not believe the Word of God to be the Word of God mov'd by the Word of God but by this apprehension which if you say is the Word of God then you admit a Word of God which is not Written and yet to you a Rule of Faith and so you have another Immediate Rule of Faith than the Written Word of God Again that apprehension and inward Testimony of the mind for which it s believed that the Scripture is the Word of GOD and that it shows it self does it rise from this that the Simplicity Majesty and way of Expression move Men to Judge that the Scripture is the Word of God But seeing all these particulars come from such Words Instituted by Men to signifie and that the more or less Majesty of the Style in a Speech or Sentence rises from a certain material placing and disposing of Words among themselves the whole thing is natural and so not the Word of God Next that Simplicity and Majesty of Style and what you please more is not so in every part of Scripture that I am bound for them to believe that that part is the Word of God For I pray what Air Simplicity or Majesty of Style is in the begining of the Gospel of St. Matthew when it s said there Abraham begot Isaac and Isaac begot Iacob what do you find more there then you would find in those same Words written in an Author not Sacred as in Ioseph the Iew Now if you ask us why we believe the Scripture to be the Word of God We Answer because an Infallible Tradition passing through all Ages and always believing it to be the Word of God has conveyed it to our Hands and that General approv'd Councils have confirm'd it by their Sacred Decrees and uncontrolable Authority as often as any Controversie arose among the Faithful either concerning certain Books or the certainty of the Tradition it self If you say you make use of this same Tradition of all Christians hitherto believing it to be the Word of God as a motive of Credibility to you that it is the Word of God I Answer You may but first by claiming to this you leave your own Principle of denying Tradition Next tho' this Universal Tradition be to you a motif of Credibility that the Bible is the Word of God as to the Letter yet you have none for the sense in which you take it Subsect This passage search the Scriptures John chap. 5. makes nothing for Protestants TO prove that the Scripture is the sole Rule of Faith at last our Adversary brings these Words of CHRIST to the Iews Search the Scriptures John cap. 5. v. 39. Answer You must know that there our Saviour was proving to the Iews his God-head or Divinity And he proves it First by the Testimony of St. Iohn Baptist v. 32. and lets them understand how worthy a Person Iohn was of Credit with them Secondly he proves it by his Works v. 36. Thirdly by the Testimony of his Eternal Father viz. This is my Son in whom I am well pleas'd Matth. 3. v. 17. Take notice that CHRIST for their Rule in believing his God-head did not fend them first to the Scripture but to the Testimony of Iohn his Miraculous Works and the Testimony of his Father and last of all he saies Search the Scriptures as if he should have said if you will not acknowledge me to be God for these great Arguments and Motives I have brought Take yet one more which is that since you think you have Eternal Life in the Scriptures Search them and there you will find that I am God because the Prophets in them give Testimony of me And this was said to their Doctors not to every private Person Secondly The Word Scrutamini in Lati◠〈◊〉 Ereunate in Greek is of the presenttence of 〈◊〉 dicative mood Cyrillus takes it in the Indicative as well as of the Imperative and so signisies you do Search the Scriptures as
his empty talk of Roses and Lillies c. saying I can never acertain you of any thing my Eyes sees for if I see all the Accidents of a Rose and have no Revelation from the Author of Nature that the Substance of a Rose is not there I can asure you that it is a Rose The same Answer serves when he saies that as my Eye may be deceived so may also my Ear which gives a Mortal blow to Tradition it coming by hearing For we have said already that neither Eye nor Ear are deceiv'd in their Object because as the Eye ever represents the same Colour so the Ear conveys ever to the understanding the same sound and as the Substance which is under that Colour is the Object of the understanding and not of the Eye so likewaies the Truth or Falsehood of the Word is the Object of the understanding and not of the Ear. You 'l say if Accidents only are the Object of our senses how do you understand these propositions I see Bread I Taste Wine Which are common Expressions Answer We speak so because the denomination which fals upon the Instrument often is given to the thing of which it is an Instrument and so as when my Hand is hurt I am said to be hurt because my Hand is an Instrument of my Body by which it Acts so when the savour of the Wine is tasted the Wine is said to be tasted because it is an Instrument or Vertue that flowes from the Wine and by which the Wine affects your Taste Out of all I have said gather this Truth that neither Sense nor Reason is deceiv'd in the Eucharist not our senses because they find all the Accident in the same condition after Consecration in which they were before Not Reason because Reason tells me that I ought to believe that the Substance of Bread is there where all its Accidents are unless God reveal to me the contrary and in that case not to believe it to be there But God has reveal'd it not to be there so when I now believe it not to be there my Reason is not deceiv'd Now to oppose this revelation or Infallible word of Christ we claim to This is my Body he saies Litera occidit the letter kills Answer The letter kills indeed when it taken in the literal sense involves a contradiction or any thing against Faith or good manners otherwayes not So this proposition Christ is a Vine taken literally kills because the verb is in it taken literally Imports an Identification or samety of two natures specifically different contrary to that we know by Faith to wit that the Son of God hath assum'd no nature but that of man And in this proposition This is my Body taken literally the verb is imports onely an Indentification of the same thing with it self onely otherwayes exprest less destinctly in the subject This and more destinctly in the predicate my Body Subsect II. Shows that Transubstantiation neither inclines us to Idolatry nor Hypocrisie with some questions about the Protestants Communion OUr Adversary's second way of opposing Transubstantiation is to say that it Inclines mean Capacities to Idolatrie and the sharper wits to Hypocrisie The Common People no doubt saies he do frequently adore the Accidents according to his concession pag. 90. They are taught as he saies there to adore Christ under the Accidents they see which they call God saying when the Wafer is lifted by the Priest on leve Dieu God is lifted Answer The Doctrine of Transubstantiation expresly commands to adore what they do not see quod non vides and forbids to Adore what is seen If nevertheless some do the contrary the Doctrine is not therefore blameable no more then the Law is to be blam'd because some do quite contrary to its Rule and Instruction For that saying on leve Dieu God is lifted if it can be said without Blasphemy that God was lifted upon the Cross because Christ's Body was lifted upon the Cross it may likewise be said without Blasphemy that God is lifted up in the Sacrifice of the Mass because Christs Body is there lifted up By a Communication of properties what is atributed to Christ's Body is atributed to Christ and what is atributed to Christ is atributed to God For the sharp wits they see that according to the probable Opinion of Protestants Christ's Body in the Eucharist is not there as in a place because to be in a place is to be with the full extention of its parts corresponding to the parts of the place but this Christ's Body in the Eucharist has not and therefore it is not there in a place And therefore tho' it be there and in Heaven both at once it is not in two places both at once yet largely and improperly speaking the Body of Christ may be said to be in the Eucharist as in a place in as much as it is united to the Accidents which are in a place The Body then of Christ is there after the existing way of a Spirit If you say the Body of Christ can't be united to Accidents in different places I ask how is our Soul united to different parts of the Body which are in different places Just then as the Soul is not in a place yet is said to be above and below before and behind because the parts to which it is united are above and below before and behind so when the Accidents to which Christ's Body is united in the Eucharist are mov'd or lifted up it is said to be mov'd or lifted up So it s a silly thing for Protestants to object to Catholicks the obsurdities which seem to follow from a Body's being in two places since they may say that the Body of Christ by its being in the Eucharist is not in two places Thus you see our witty People have not occasion to be Hypocrites but sincere believers If our Adversary saies a Body can be no more without Extention then Water without humidity Fire without Heat a Stone without Hardness I grant it is so naturally but he must mutually grant to me that it may be as well without extention supernaturally as a Fire without burning having within the splear of its activity a thing combustible which was seen in the Furnice of Babylon Dan. 3. cap. And a Stone by the stroke of a Rod to yield a Fountain of Water Exod 17. cap. v. 6. is as surprising as Water it self without Humidity Let Catholicks then mark well this that Transubstantiation does not at all force them to avow that CHRIST's Body is in two parts extensivly or with the extension of its parts Our Adversary objects that all Miracles must be visible but in the Eucharist the Substance into which the Bread is changed is not visible then there is no such Miraculous change in the Eucharist Answer I deny the Major proposition for to whom was visible the Conception and Birth of CHRIST of a Virgin-Mother To whom was visible the Creation